FC: More on Timothy McVeigh and essay distributed online

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Politech members have raised questions about the authenticity of the 
McVeigh essay, which appears to have been translated into Britishisms. It 
is, however, apparently legitimate. FOX News reports it was sent to one of 
their correspondents: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,17500,00.html

Washington Post coverage of Gore Vidal, who says he condemns the bombing 
but is sympathetic to McVeigh's views on Waco and the Bill of Rights. 
McVeigh has allowed Vidal to attend the execution:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52073-2001May6.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49149-2001May5.html

-Declan

***********

From: "Meeks, Brock (MSNBCi)" <Brock.Meeks () MSNBC COM>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>, politech () politechbot com
Cc: emc () artifact psychedelic net
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh, muzzled by U.S. government, speaks via the N
        et
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:41:14 -0700

Are you just a total fucking idiot, Eric, or do you just play one on the
Net?

Regardless of horrendous events at the hands of our own government law
enforcement agencies, McVeigh's actions go beyond the pale.

This pathetic bag of shit didn't have the balls or intelligence to carry out
a strategic attack so he had to result to throwing gasoline on a crowd and
lighting a match.  Some "statement."

If he struck a military installation or blew away a group of agents there
might be some slight room for debating that he was "retaliating" but he
killed children.

Kids, you fucking moron, he killed KIDS.

McVeigh isn't an "Army of One" he's common, scum of the earth dirtbag
criminal material.  No more, possibly less.

***********

From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavitt () hotmail com>
To: declan () well com
Cc: emc () artifact psychedelic net
Subject: Re: FC: Timothy McVeigh, muzzled by U.S. government, speaks via 
the Net
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 13:19:29 -0700

Declan,

His method of action was inexecusable, but the points made here by McVeigh 
are razor sharp:

our government's actions abroad are often as or more inexecusable that the 
Murrah bombing

the "militarization" of civilian law enforcement officers is quite 
disturbing... this tendency can be observed in both federal and local 
agencies; we, the citizens, are not "the enemy", but our law enforcement 
officers are being trained to think that way.

from what I heard in an NPR interview with the author of "Killing Pablo", 
our government engaged in promoting and assisting mass extra-judicial 
executions in Columbia, and U.S. personell, both civilian and military, 
co-ordinated quite closely with the locals who pulled the trigger (and 
likely did more than that, we will probably never know) - that this 
happened, and moreover, that it will probably go unremarked upon and 
undebated, is terribly threatening to the vitality of American democracy. 
It sets a precedent, and a base level for what is considered acceptable 
behavior by law enforcement, that endangers every right granted us in the 
U.S. Constitution.

i have heard, directly from someone involved, that the U.S. sent special 
forces personell into El Salvador in the 1980s to assassinate local elected 
officials viewed a sympathetic to the FMLN (press members I contacted after 
hearing this said, "yes, we know about it, but we can't get anyone to say 
anything on the record, so we are not running the story").

we hypocritically demand that the world conform to rules that we ourselves 
do not choose to follow, this undermines the credibility any statements 
made by Americans, both as members of the government, and private citizens, 
regarding human rights abuses abroad - and moreover, at home: hypocrisy is 
terribly corrosive to credibility.

***

in my view, war and random violence is not an acceptable means of executing 
policy, either by individuals or groups (be they governments, or not)

i oppose capital punishment - McVeigh should be imprisoned for the rest of 
his life, for violating the social contract and metaphorically speaking, 
putting his fist in the face of many people who had little or nothing to do 
with this dispute - your right to your freedom extends right up to the 
point of my nose

if he has something to say, we should hear it, because a dialogue on the 
issue he raises would be more than worthwhile... if the establishment fears 
that he will somehow become a spokesman and a rallying point for those 
opposed to the policies outlined in his statement below, that is even more 
of a reason to have him speak and have his views countered and dissected in 
a public forum.

I believe, ultimately, that the result will be an accounting that properly 
stigmatizes him for mass murder, repudiates the methods he choose to 
address these issues, and separates the man from the message: I feel 
perfectly comfortable stating that I agree with many of the concerns he 
outlines, without feeling that by doing so, I endorse or validate his 
methods and/or his overall belief system.

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

***********

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 14:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Charles <quester () eskimo com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
cc: politech () politechbot com, emc () artifact psychedelic net
Subject: Re: FC: Timothy McVeigh, muzzled by U.S. government, speaks via 
the Net

> ----- Forwarded message from Eric Cordian <emc () artifact psychedelic net> 
-----
>
> As Gore Vidal said, "This guy's got a case."  Too bad he's being spun by
> the Federal propaganda machine as some sort of rabid terrorist.

He _is_ a rabid terrorist.  As are those who perpetrated the atrocities he
rebels against.  The answer to terrorism is not more terrorism --
fortunately, because governments and corporations can do it far more
effectively than isolated individuals like McVeigh.

  -   Charles   -

***********

From: "Duplantis, Ron" <Ron.Duplantis () wonderware com>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh, muzzled by U.S. government, speaks via the N
        et
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:52:51 -0700

RE: Mr. McVeigh's "own" words and Mr. Cordian's take on them ...

First an item of skepticism. Apparently, the UK media anglicized McVeigh's
"own" words by spelling terms like "behaviour, "centre" and "organisation"
in the British fashion. I don't think those are actually McVeigh's
spellings, and since those quotations were supposed to have been gleaned
from a written document, there really is no excuse for failure to maintain
McVeigh's "own" words. Wonder what else was changed? Just a thought...

Second, Cordian blesses the "clinical detachment" that McVeigh applied to
the bombing. That's sad in that Cordian, therefore, blesses the "collateral
damage" concept attributed to McVeigh. I was never a soldier and don't claim
to be a student of military strategy. But I doubt seriously whether the U.S.
military would exercise the same kind of "clinical detachment" when deciding
to bomb an installation in which 1) it knew there were numerous agencies
that had nothing to do with the primary target(s) (in McVeigh's case, the
ATF), and 2) such a huge "crop" of obviously innocent lives (especially
children) were positioned dead center of the targeted location (in McVeigh's
case, a daycare center).

Third, Cordian agrees with two constructs which fail (miserably) any test of
logic. 1. Whatever the perceived grievances might be, the comparison of the
OK bombing with targeting foreign sites is absurd on its face. McVeigh
writes: "Bombing the Murrah federal building was morally and strategically
equivalent to the US hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other
nations." Whatever the rationale for targeting a foreign site, one potential
"weapon" that is **not** available to the military is the use of the working
functions of the foreign government (if there are any) to produce the
desired result. In other words, the U.S. military has no standing to
formally petition a foreign government like the citizens of that country
can. McVeigh was fortunate to have been born in a country whose government
constitutionally contains arguably the most available tools for peacefully
changing public policy -- elections, activism, office-seeking, free speech.
The military does not have that option when dealing with aggravating foreign
entities. 2. The argument that McVeigh makes concerning "federal actions
[that] grew increasingly militaristic and violent," places that trend in a
vacuum. It ignores the fact that the Feds (and one can see the same trend
even on the state and local police level) have been reacting to
"increasingly militaristic and violent" and marginalized extremist groups.
For instance, the Los Angeles police department had no on-the-street
capability of handling military-type criminals when those two suicidal bank
robbers took over a neighborhood several years ago. The police were clearly
out-gunned, and had to borrow assault type weapons from a local gun store to
combat the pair. Now LAPD cruisers are equipped for such an eventuality. The
same reaction has occurred on all levels of law enforcement.

Fourth, Cordian buys into the silly concept that McVeigh's actions actually
have had an effect on government function. McVeigh writes: "It was in this
climate then, that I reached the decision to go on the offensive - to put a
check on government abuse of power where others has failed in stopping the
federal juggernaut run amok." "Put a check on government"! If this wasn't
such a serious subject, it would be the best of jokes. Last time I looked at
my copy of the U.S. Constitution, there were three branches that checked
each other, and elections and trial juries and free speech that provided
average citizens avenues into affecting how each branch checked the others.
McVeigh putting "a check on government"? His actions ironically achieved
just the opposite. Now government has even more reason to stand
militaristically vigilant, and now with tacit public approval.

And last, Cordian's attempt to resurrect McVeigh as a POW again escapes even
an ethereal connection with logic. First, he calls McVeigh's impending
execution a "murder." And then he writes: "Too bad he's being spun by the
Federal propaganda machine as some sort of rabid terrorist. Isn't killing a
disarmed POW a human rights violation?  This principle should apply to an
Army of One, just as it applies to an Army of Many." I guess one can imagine
oneself as an army. McVeigh clearly does. None of that changes the true
meaning of words. A terrorist is one who applies violent means when he
perceives no other avenue. A cursory examination of the government of this
country demonstrates that other avenues exist. Do things sometimes change
slowly? Perhaps, but that goes to patience not whether or not grievance
methodologies exist.

McVeigh is a warped common criminal who clinically detached himself from the
human race. He deserves the most extreme punishment for his actions. And
those who would use such an extreme example of wayward Libertarianism to
attack the sensibilities of peaceful average citizens, not to mention the
science of logic, are either oddball opportunists or just plain dangerous.

My two cents,

Thanks,
Ron Duplantis
Huntington Beach, CA
cajuninca () yahoo com

***********

Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:02:21 -0400
From: Julieryan () julieryan com (Julie Ryan)
Reply-To: julieryan () julieryan com
Organization: http://www.julieryan.com/
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Timothy McVeigh, muzzled by U.S. government, speaks via 
the Net

Any authentication that this was actually written by McVeigh and not a
different person trying to use McVeigh's name and plight as a platform?
Let's review the bidding here: a Brit journalist claims to have been
directed by McVeigh to contact an anonymous friend of McVeigh in order
to get the real deal, previously unpublished explanations.  The friend,
who had carefully kept the secret for quite a long time now, then gives
up the treasure to the Brit journalist, who then goes on to fame and
glory after scooping the entire rest of the journalism world.  Hmmm.....
 Funny how McVeigh uses the Brit spelling conventions (e.g., "rumours").

***********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------