Tim McVeigh participated in a terrorist act that resulted in the death of 168 people. He was apprehended, tried and convicted. As a result of his conviction, McVeigh was executed this morning. The political motives surrounding McVeigh's terrorist act do not exempt him from the rule of law. He killed innocent people and deserved to die for his crime.

The McVeigh case is disheartening on many levels. The act of violence was horrific. Far less significant, but worthy of note is how McVeigh's action further marginalized legitimate concerns about the U.S. government. The Oklahoma City bombing has made it easier for the left to treat concerned citizens as potential terrorists. McVeight and the militia movement have given legitimate conservatism a bad name.

It is possible to oppose government without violence. In fact, it's necessary.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 11, 2001

Answers

I'm sort of surprised that you think this needed to be posted. We've discussed this subject at length, both here and on TB2KU, and with a few notable exceptions, everyone is quite aware that McVeigh's bombing of the federal building was a cowardly, tragic, act of terrorism, NOT patriotism and not political protest.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 11, 2001.

I would not have, except it seems J didn't get the memo that you all had hashed this out. I will grant you this, after this morning this has become a dead issue.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 11, 2001.

McVeigh was not a Conservative. His conspiratorial views had much in common with the feveroid Left, including what is often heard on this forum. Although Gore Vidal was revolted by the bombing, he thought McVeigh to an honest man. They corresponded.

Was the execution "just"? That is a subjective judgement. IMO it was the epitome of justice. Nothing less would have sufficed. Nothing more (the rack, death by 10000 cuts, life incarceration in "the hole") would have been justice either. Veangence is not justice.

He is yesterday's news now, soon to be forgotten except by a few thousand people in OK City whose lives are changed forever. And probably not forgotten either by the carrion-eaters like Oliver Stone, who will (after a decent time) make his inevitable sympathetic, innaccurate movie and Gore Vidal who will write a sympathetic, innaccuraste book and who would have loved to get into McVeigh's pants.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 11, 2001.

McVeigh was not a Conservative. His conspiratorial views had much in common with the feveroid Left, including what is often heard on this forum.

Good night, Lars, I can't believe you would use this situation as a political soap box. Disgusting.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 11, 2001.

Good night John-Boy

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 11, 2001.

So, Tarzan, how about the death penalty. Did McVeigh deserve to die? And what's wrong with Lars discussing the political aspects of the McVeigh execution. McVeigh claimed his actions were politically motivated. He wanted to become a martyr for his cause. Do you think the execution of a convicted killer and terrorist warrants silence?

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 11, 2001.

So, Tarzan, how about the death penalty. Did McVeigh deserve to die?

Sure.

And what's wrong with Lars discussing the political aspects of the McVeigh execution.

Politics is fine. However, Lars is attempting to use the worst act of terrorism on American soil to vilify those he disagrees with. What a shame.

Do you think the execution of a convicted killer and terrorist warrants silence?

No.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 11, 2001.

Tarzan--

You overreact, as usual. The words of mine that you hichlighted were in response to "Remember's" words " McVeigh and the militia movement have given legitimate conservatism a bad name. McVeigh is no more Conservative than the Symbianese Liberation Army is Liberal. Of course, partisans on each side will endeavor to portray otherwise. All is fair in love and politics.

I was on no political soapbox. How disgusting of you to suggest that! And what are you and "Remember" doing posting to this tecky forum at 11:00 EDT from your corner offices. I hope that Cathy Carrow nails you both.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 11, 2001.

Man, look at all the fallacies here!

-- (common@phall.uses), June 11, 2001.

I think this is a run of imitations. I don't think Tarzan uses bold font or gives such direct answers. I don't think Lars wrote that last post and who the hell is Cathy Carrow? This is some weird stuff.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 11, 2001.

You don't sound like the real Remember (the@ld.forum.com) either. The real one sounds a lot taller.

-- (im@not.manny), June 11, 2001.

At 4:12 a.m. C.D.T., about 200 people who oppose the death penalty sat down in a circle, holding candles and reading silently the names of the 168 victims of the Oklahoma City blast. Across the way, about 35 protesters who support the death penalty paused for 168 seconds of silence. They then recited the Lord's Prayer, ending with one woman shouting out "Die McVeigh."

It is possible to impose justice without violence. In fact, it's necessary.

-- Moratorium on Death Penalty (not@if.when), June 11, 2001.

Although McVeigh never made a formal confession, from his statements it is apparent that he accepts the crime as his own. For that he deserves punishment. I could accept several kinds of punishment as being sufficient for his crimes, including death. You won't find me arguing that McVeigh "deserves" to live - or to die.

For me, the bigger question isn't whether this or that criminal personally "deserves" death for their particular crimes, but whether having the death penalty serves our interests as a people as well as having no death penalty would.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 11, 2001.

I don't think Lars wrote that last post and who the hell is Cathy Carrow?.

Hoot.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 11, 2001.

The spectacle aspect of this execution is a throwback to an unpleasant past of public hangings. It's a reminder of the coarsening effect on public values of state-sanctioned killings, which usually take place far out of public view.

The wide interest - almost enthusiasm - in this execution is due to the magnitude and malevolence of Mr. McVeigh's crime, his lack of contrition, and his hatred of federal power. With so many Americans supporting this final resolution, those who oppose the death penalty may feel defensive. They needn't.

Since 1976, when the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty as constitutional (under strict standards), 707 individuals have been put to death by states. McVeigh's will be the first federal execution since 1963.

But some states are now considering a temporary halt to executions after many death-row inmates were found to be innocent or inadequately defended. One state, Illinois, has a death-penalty moratorium.

Such doubts are a valid starting point for rethinking capital punishment. But they're just a start. Society has more at stake in this issue than the risk of wrongful executions.

A civilization's core reason for existence lies in its ability to uphold the sanctity of life and perpetuate it. How much is that purpose diminished when the state executes criminals for reasons of justice? It's worth looking at those reasons in this case:

Avenging the wrong done to victims and the harm done to their families. Ending the life of someone who takes life so coldly is seen as the ultimate act of retribution. Some family members of the Oklahoma City bombing victims understandably seek closure to their hatred of McVeigh by having him die. Some doubt the execution will settle anything for them.

But one father whose daughter died in the blast, Bud Welch, has become a fervent campaigner against the death penalty. He has said he realized his initial desire to see the bomber dead sprang from the same sources as the bombing itself - hatred and vengeance. He decided he didn't want to perpetuate those motives, which rely on the archaic eye-for-an-eye sense of justice.

Trying to find finality in the death of another human being is to treat criminals the same way they treat their victims: as unworthy objects. Where's the healing in that?

A deterrent to crime. The death penalty may give some would-be murderers second thoughts. Most experts doubt it does; death-penalty states have higher murder rates. If anything, the threat may make a murderer desperate to kill if trapped. And it's unlikely to keep fanatics like McVeigh from terrorist acts. He saw himself as an avenger against government actions like the federal attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. Now he seems to welcome being a martyr in hopes his cause will rise again and inspire future martyrs. So much for deterrence.

A penalty befitting the crime. Meting out a punishment that somehow matches the severity of the crime is the basis for most sentencing of criminals. For McVeigh, whose act was the most heinous in US history in terms of loss of life, just taking his life will hardly measure up. For most murderers, a life behind bars would be a daunting punishment. That's almost certainly the case for McVeigh.

He should remain in a cell for life, compelled to discover a conscience, and perhaps compelled to recognize that he, too, can stand for the sanctity of life within the very society he so perversely thought he was correcting by killing federal workers and others. His execution means that both he and the government will have one thing in common: They both kill to prevent a society from killing its own.

Finally, beyond these reasons for capital punishment in the name of justice lies a simple dictum that has stood the test of nearly 3,000 years.

It's a four-word commandment, brought down from Horeb by Moses, that continues to challenge mankind:

"Thou shalt not kill."

-- Christian (science@monitor.com), June 11, 2001.

That doesn't sound like the Christian Science Monitor to me.

-- tinky winky (gary@falwell.north), June 11, 2001.

If McVeigh deserved to die, what about our government officials, who order the deaths of thousands during wars in other countries? What about corporations who pollute and poison the people of America to death? They pay a fine, but they do not even go to jail, and are not executed. McVeigh is nothing but a product of our world, which created him and taught him how to kill. The hypocrisy of this whole affair is disgusting.

-- (people are @ blind. hypocrites), June 11, 2001.

"It is possible to oppose government without violence. In fact, it's necessary."

Hmmmm, the government always uses violence when it's opposing its own citizens. Is it really necessary?

-- otherwayaround (otherwayaround@around.boo), June 12, 2001.