McVeigh made the mistake of sinking to the same level of brutality.
Violence only begets violence. -hedges-
(AP) -- The June 1998 issue of Media Bypass Magazine includes this
essay it says was written by Timothy McVeigh:
The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile
chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") --
mainly because they have used them in the past.
Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided,
then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has
stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The
U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during its
"Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then, is it invalid for Iraq
to claim the same reason (deterrence) -- with respect to Iraq's
(real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?
The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the
past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and
child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have
you ever seen these photos juxtaposed next to pictures from
Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II
and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in
to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass
destruction."
Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the
big ones -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the
U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants -- mostly women and
children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours,
days, weeks, or months to die.)
If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes
charges against him and his nation, whey do we not hear the same
cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater
amounts of "mass destruction" -- like those responsible and
involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?
The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the
stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.
Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children? In Oklahoma City,
it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care
center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies
which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when
discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government
building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about that.
(Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has
admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi
government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to
bomb -- saying that they cannot be held responsible if children
die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the
presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City
bombing.)
When considering morality and "mens rea" (criminal intent) in light
of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?
Yet another example of this nation's blatant hypocrisy is revealed
by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of
bombing Iraq.
In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing
government employees because they are "guilty by association" --
they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in
Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned.
What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people
think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those
in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who
will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this
context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners
is somehow different than the killing of Americans?
I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a
mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass
destruction." If a two-pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass
destruction," then what do people think that a 2,000-pound
steel-encased bomb is?
I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that
could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of
Oklahoma."
This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding
the use of weapons of mass destruction.
When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to
a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and
praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any
responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.
Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The
truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the
delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature
of the act itself.
These are weapons of mass destruction -- and the method of delivery
matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of
the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are
approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma
City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see
any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.
It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act as viciously condemned
in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a
foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over
the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify
hypocrisy.
When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against
Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words
of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words
are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand
alone:
"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or
ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."
Sincerely,
Timothy J. McVeigh
-----
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Timothy McVeigh, in a 1,200-word essay written on
death row, says the Oklahoma City bombing was ``morally equivalent''
to U.S. military actions against foreign governments.
In a copyright essay in the June issue of the alternative magazine
Media Bypass, McVeigh condemns U.S. foreign policy as hypocritical,
especially toward Iraq, and says the United States has ``set the
standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass
destruction.''
``Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of
the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving
of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City,'' McVeigh
wrote. ``The only difference is that this nation is not going to see
any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.''
McVeigh criticized the U.S. government for referring to any day care
center in an Iraqi government building as ``a shield'' while saying a
day care center was in the Murrah Federal Building for ``family
convenience.''
``Think about it,'' McVeigh wrote.
``Actually, there is a difference here,'' he said in a parenthetical
aside. ``The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence
of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still
proceed with their plans to bomb -- saying they cannot be held
responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that
knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the
Oklahoma City bombing.''
He then asks: ``Who are the true barbarians?''
McVeigh has been sentenced to death for building and setting off the
April 19, 1995, bomb that killed 168 people, including 19 children who
were in the federal building's day care center.
Rob Nigh, McVeigh's attorney in Tulsa, Okla., said he could not
confirm that McVeigh wrote the essay, citing attorney-client
privilege.
But Luis Winn, executive assistant to the warden, said McVeigh was
shown a faxed copy of the article Thursday and told him he wrote it.
Rich Azar of Media Bypass said the handwritten essay, dated March
1998, arrived unsolicited with markings from the maximum security
federal prison in Florence, Colo., where McVeigh is on death row.
``It came as a jolt out of the blue,'' Azar said Thursday.
Azar said the magazine confirmed the essay's authenticity by mail with
McVeigh, and by comparing it with a known sample of McVeigh's
handwriting from U.S. military records the magazine obtained during a
1996 interview with McVeigh.
In a preface, McVeigh explains why he chose the magazine: ``...
Frankly, I realize that it is quite provocative -- and I doubt that
any mainstream media would touch it.''
He adds that it was not written with ``malevolent intent.''
Media Bypass, a magazine with ties to right-wing militias, gained
national attention when it published an interview with a grand juror
in the bombing case.
The juror, Hoppy Heidelberg, criticized prosecutors for failing to
present evidence of a larger conspiracy. He was later dismissed. His
interview led defense attorneys to file for a mistrial, which was
denied.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:09:24 PDT