The lucky ambiguity of certain words: (non-violent) dialogue between State and outlaws presumes the non-acceptance of blackmail and violence. It is the highest expression of confidence in mankind, and in the power of words. Dialogue cannot lead to a violation of law, but only leads to the depthening of the reasons of the two parts.

When negotiating with outlaws, on the other hand, the State accepts a priori to infringe the law, mabye to save human lives. The conclusion of dialogue and negotiation may also lead to an apparently identical result, but the political consequences of the two procedures are in fact very different.

Let's take a real example: terrorists ask, in exchange for releasing a hostage, that a special jail be shut down. During the negotiation a possible acceptance of this condition will be viewed as a yielding of the State, as an encouragement of violent blackmail.

By means of dialogue you can obtain the same result, but you start from the fact of admitting that the special jail is in itself a patent violation of the laws, the constitutional principles, that ask for the respect of the person's dignity, even in the case of the worst possible criminal.

Now as to Xavier's example: negotiating means in actual fact granting colombian traffickers that they will not not be punished, and they know that they can, by using violence, influence colombian judges. Dialogue instead can lead on the one hand to realize that the U.S's arrogant request of extradition for drug traffickers must be firmly rejected, on the other hand can lead to obtain that no judge be threatened or, even worse, be killed. But how can dialogue be possible if the Drug-war wants to precisely prevent words from prevailing over violence, and common sense from preavailing against ideological hysteria?