 sj |
||
|
||
Timothy McVeigh
|
|
|
Subject: Timothy McVeigh From: Fiolar Date: 17 Apr 01 - 09:27 AM I understand from a news item that a company has applied for permission to show the forthcoming execution of the Oklahoma bommber on the net on a pay basis. Thoughts. The last public execution in England was I believe in 1868. If granted will this set a new trend in what I regard as rather sick voyeurism. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Midchuck Date: 17 Apr 01 - 09:32 AM I can't see frying the bastard anyhow. Keep him alive as long as possible. Remove parts from time to time, when people need them for transplants. You don't have to bother posting the shrieks of outrage. I'll take them for granted. But the above course of action would be the closest we could really come to achieving Balance. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: LR Mole Date: 17 Apr 01 - 09:37 AM ABC-TV says it's broadcasting the story from Oklahoma City and not the execution site, to emphasize the importance of the victims and survivors, not the evil. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Gervase Date: 17 Apr 01 - 09:45 AM Yes, of course he's a bastard; an appalling, grinning moral pygmy with no sense of remorse. But two wrongs don't make a right, and the idea of broadcasting the second wrong to the world is obscene. Obscene, but not surprising. For, as the great Henry Louis Mencken said, "No-one ever went broke under-estimating the taste of the public" And that applies as much to ISPs trying to flog footage of McVeigh's death around the net as to the yellow press in Mencken's day. I fear there will always be a market for such stuff. I'm sure if the rights were available, Rupe would have Sky TV broadcasting public hangings at Tyburn - and they'd top the ratings. Sadly humanity never seems to show much humanity en masse, preferring Old Testament to New Testament concepts of vengeance and "justice" - witness the opinion polls in the UK for capital punishment. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Gervase Date: 17 Apr 01 - 09:52 AM ...and of course what he said was: "No one in this world, so far as I know ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: JedMarum Date: 17 Apr 01 - 09:53 AM As far as I know the Justice Department ruling does not allow any public broadcast of this execution. It has allowed a closed circuit transmission of the event to a specific location for the express purpose of allowing the very large number of individuals directly involoved to see th execution. Allowing direct relatives of a capital murder victim to view the execution of the murderer is common practice in the USA. In this case, that meant too large an audience for normal viewing. If one of the major points of capital punishment is retribution then viewing of the execution, at least by a representitive body of the public at large is almost a requirment. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Mrrzy Date: 17 Apr 01 - 10:08 AM If capital punishment is meant as a deterrent, then executions OUGHT to be public, else how would they deter? Note that I a) would not watch this one any more than any other, b) don't believe in (well, desire) vengeance, and c)lost my father to terrorism back in the 80's when Islamic fanatics were killing Americans right and left. I had no desire to have the people caught for that killed either. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 01 - 10:15 AM Public executions are still very common in any number of places including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian controlled territories. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Peg Date: 17 Apr 01 - 10:24 AM I agree this sets a horrifying precedent. One wonders why the most popular movie of last year (even though it was crap) was something called "Gladiator." We like to speak of ancient civilizations as barbaric because they practiced human sacrifice; but we do it today, in modern, civilized society, in multitudes, except it isn't ritualized behavior meant to propitiate the gods; it's random and thoughtless. And most people believe Roman-style and medieval style public executions were also horrific. What is happening to us? The man is evil and deserves punishment; but the state should not have the right to murder anyone...not even a murderer. Is anyone who watches this man's death honestly going to feel vindicated and triumphant and BETTER about what happened to their loved ones?
|
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: JedMarum Date: 17 Apr 01 - 10:34 AM What precedent is this setting? The viewing an execution by the victim's family is common practice in America. There is no new precedent being set here. What is random about the execution of Timothy McVeigh? Waht is public about the execution? As far as I've seen, no one but the victim's family and prison officals are viewing the event. And of course the state has a 'right' to execute people, in fact they have a responsibility to execute people for capital offenses. 70% of Americans believe this - it is written into the legal code of state and federal governments alike. And I will feel better knowing that my society has taken the ritual step of executing this man for his most heinous of crimes. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: sledge Date: 17 Apr 01 - 10:50 AM Peg, "but we do it today, in modern, civilized society, in multitudes," interesting statement but please clarify it please, the last execution in the UK was in the sixties. "And most people believe Roman-style and medieval style public executions were also horrific", they were horrific, read any contempory account and it is not at all nice, eviseration, dismemberment and burning. I have also read items on pro death penalty websites where the killing of murderers has given a sense of justice, closure or revenge to the famalies, not an attractive thought to some but we are all different and our response to such an emotive issue will vary equally. Stuart |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: SINSULL Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:03 AM I almost agree with Midchuck. McVeigh wants to be seen as a martyr. He had hoped to die in a "glorious" shootout. He deserves to grow old and unknown in a cell tucked away from reporters, book deals, and TV opportunities. Sorry but I can't condone the body part thing unless of course they were used to replace the missing eyes, ears, and limbs of his victims. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Burke Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:06 AM Well, it's the victims' families, not victim's family. Which means many of them viewing, not in person, but by some kind of video feed from the execution chamber to an auditorium where they are all gathered. Depending on how it's handled, it can become a spectacle. Anyone know how far apart they are? If there's any kind of wireless transmission, there's the possibility of others figuring out how to tune in themselves & by extension feeding it on to others. It's supposed to help bring the family closure. An interview I heard on the radio with a minister who spent many years dealing with the families in Texas indicated that it's not the salve people expect it to be. Especially if there is no death chamber apology. It's also not the panacea that 70% of Americans seem to think it is. What most of us, including the families, really want is to hear him say, 'I'm sorry,' in some form that we find believable. Killing McVeigh gives us nothing & takes away the opportunity of his ever possibly coming to a state of remorse. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:35 AM I am opposed to the death penalty so I am the wrong person to ask. Killing T. McV. is wrong, so I suppose televising it is wrong also. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: SINSULL Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:58 AM Actually, I believe the families want to know why he did it. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: gnu Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:12 PM I think the only thing sicker that that SOB is someone wanting to make his execution a public event, for money or not. While it is obvious that he is/was sick, mentally, I agree with Bill Mahar's ( of the TV program Politically Incorrect ) recent statement that the plea "Not Guilty by Reason Of Insanity" should be changed, in many cases to "Guilty by Reason of Insanity". This is certainly such a case. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: RichM Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:12 PM
I am horrified by the idea of executions. My country (Canada) did away with capital punishment many years ago. But--I think all executions SHOULD be televised.
Rich McCarthy |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:20 PM Interesting point, Rich. You may be right. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: gnu Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:24 PM UH-UH. He was not civil. He gave up his right to be part of the civilized world. The only thing that he could have done as a step to redeeming himself would have been to write a detailed explanation of his actions before he did us all a favour and had the guts to save the people who have to carry out his sentence and the families who have to relive the terror and sorrow the trouble by taking his own life. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Ebbie Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:25 PM I read that the reality of execution by injection is sanitized and muted; that the idea that there is satisfaction in seeing someone silently take their last breath is far off the mark. It's ironic that we have been able to clean up the retributive act of killing of the killer so that the horror of what is being done is at a remove. I think that requiring the killer to live is a greater punishment - and cheaper too. Ebbie
|
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: gnu Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:32 PM Cheaper ? Not unless you are going to force labour from him. Besides, can you really ask the families to swallow that ? We have recently learned here in New Brunswick that a fellow who made two cops dig their own graves and then shot them in the back of the head over twenty years ago has a wife and child and is free. Don't add up to some people. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: kendall Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:37 PM 70% eh? interesting. Does that mean that only 30% of Americans are Christians? How can a Christian believe in the death penalty? He took the lives of 168 people. Now, 70% of us want to take his life. I believe it was Gahndi who said "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth only makes the whole world blind and toothless." Witness the ongoing madness in the middle east. I cant see freeing him. He should spend the rest of his life in prison. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 12:45 PM "Let us kill men to show all men that killing men is wrong." Where's the logic there? IT'S CHEAPER?!?!?! We're talking about a human being here. PEOPLE ARE NOT DISPOSABLE. The argument "killing him is cheaper than keeping him in prison for life" merely adds to the cultural idea that people are disposable, which IMHO makes it more likely that more murders will be committed in the future. It doesn't matter what's cheaper. It matters what is the RIGHT THING TO DO. But what do I know? I worship this bizarre God who said, "You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Midchuck Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:20 PM PEOPLE ARE NOT DISPOSABLE. Does putting in in huge red letters make it true if it's not? People are as disposable as any commodity there is. Everybody dies. If they didn't, we'd overcrowd the planet even faster than we're doing now. A civilized person does not initiate the use of force or violence. Once someone else initiates it (including using the threat of violence to control someone else's actions or obtain value from them), the initiator has opted out of civilized society, so others have no ethical restrictions on what they do to him. Legal restrictions, perhaps, but no ethical ones. I am aware that this is not in accordance with the teachings of Jesu ben Joseph. I don't consider that important, since I suspect that more violence has been done to more innocent people - in Europe and the Americas, anyway - in the name of, and under the purported authority of, that one individual, than for all other reasons combined. Witness the various religious wars, Inquisitions, witch burnings, attempts to convert the heathen by force of arms, et cetera ad infinitum. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Clinton Hammond Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:20 PM Hang the bastard... and Pay-per-view it! Don King needs a few more millions... Hell... put my name in the lottery for who get's to stick the needle in his arm! Strength and Honour |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Amergin Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:29 PM I think watching him getting injected would be rather boring....I'd rather see him fry.... |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Clinton Hammond Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:32 PM Good point Amergin... or fed to sharks!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:35 PM So let me see if I understand your logic, Midchuck. People have done evil things in Jesus' name, so nothing he says has any import? Oh yeah, now THAT would get you an A+ in your logic class. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Amergin Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:37 PM Or better yet, Clinton, throw him in with the ganger bangers....and televise it... |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: GUEST,DJH Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:38 PM |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:43 PM If people are disposable, why do you care if Timothy McVeigh blows up a federal building or two? Just getting rid of some disposable commodity, so why kill him as well? We don't execute people who throw away pencils or burn paper cups. Your logic don't hold water, Midchuck. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: GUEST,djh Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:46 PM What He deserves and where society should draw the line interms of Brutality are 2 diffrent issues. Maybe if society held Virtue up high enough to not stoop to his level, children would grow up with more reverance for TRUE DEEP VALUES. They gave Christ the death penalty. "forgive them Father , they know not what they do." were his choice of words while he hung on the cross. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: The Walrus at work Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:49 PM I'm sorry, but I'm in the "Break the Ba*d for Spares" camp: 1) It at least makes him useful to society 2) It's easier (and cheaper, if you're economically inclined) to keep one multiple murderer on a kidney machine and/or respirator etc than several "innocent" people. Regards Walrus |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:50 PM Hey Clinton, keep on smoking your cigarettes. When you die your horrible death from long cancer, it'll be a lot slower and much more painful than the needle in McVeigh's arm. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Midchuck Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:51 PM So let me see if I understand your logic, Midchuck. People have done evil things in Jesus' name, so nothing he says has any import? I don't think I said that. It would have been more convenient if I had, since it would be so obviously in error. A lot of what Jesus said makes a great deal of sense. I especially like the one about him who is without sin casting the first stone. Some of what he said makes no sense at all - i. e. the bit about any man who looks at a woman and lusts having already comitted adultery with her in his heart - I guess that makes all married, healthy, males adulterers; so why should marriage vows mean anything - but I digress. What I was trying to say was that a workable ethical code for the entire society must not be based on the teachings of any one religion. It should be deriveable by logic from the initial premise that people can have better lives as part of a society than if everyone lives on his own fortified mountaintop. (Which is a premise I accept most of the time.) The point about the violence done in Jesus' name was only that the fact that an ethical code derives from some excellent religious teaching doesn't guarantee that it'll work in practice, even for the bulk of the people who profess to believe in that religion. The good thing about the violence done by Christians, historically, is that so much of it was done to other Christians - heretics, you know - over points of doctrine that most of us can't even understand. So if you aren't a Christian, you're relatively safe. Peter.
|
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:52 PM Wasn't there a thread recently about chickenshit anonymous posters flaming regular members? Thanks for providing evidence for the prosecution, gonad-free GUEST. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:56 PM I never claimed to base our society's legal code on Christianity or any other religion. You appear to have taken my throwaway line at the end of my post for the heart of my argument. It wasn't. It was a "but what do I know?" throwaway. The heart of my argument is that killing killers is (1) illogical, and (2) doesn't deter murderers, and (3) contributes to the societal attitude that people are disposable, and thus that killing isn't really all that bad. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: GUEST,Midchuck upstairs Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:10 PM The heart of my argument is that killing killers is (1) illogical, If they're trying to kill you at the time, it's very logical indeed. If the damage has been done, and society's doing the killing, you may be right - but to have standing to complain about killing murderers being illogical, you should point out what treatment of them is logical. Giving them 40 years free room and board doesn't really cut it either. and (2) doesn't deter murderers, It deters that murderer very effectively indeed. You appear to be right that it doesn't deter the others very well. and (3) contributes to the societal attitude that people are disposable, and thus that killing isn't really all that bad. A society that fights wars already has that attitude so ground in that it doesn't really matter. A society that doesn't fight wars becomes extinct in a generation or so. It's sad, but I see no other choices. Peter.
|
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:18 PM One can believe war is a necessary evil, for self-preservation, without believing people are disposable. Locking somebody away in solitary for the rest of their life deters their committing any future murders, too, and doesn't send the message that taking a human life is okay. Killing somebody who is threatening your life, or the lives of your family, does not imply that you think people are disposable. If it's between him or my daughter, it's going to be him. He is the one that set up the dichotomy; I am merely doing what is necessary to protect my child, as is my responsibility as a parent. Coming back later, after the damage is already done, and taking yet another life is quite a different matter. Apples and oranges, my good man. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Clinton Hammond Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:20 PM MT... all valid points, ya... but what do you do with the John Wayne Gacies (sp?), Charlie Mansons, or the Paul Bernardos of the world... the ones for whom there is no cure, no hope of EVER getting them to curb, and fit into society... If yer dog was rabid and a danger to itself and others, you'd take it out behind the barn and drop it like a bad habbit... and people are no better or worse than dogs... Hell, a lot of people are a hell of a lot worse than the worst dogs! |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:24 PM I have to disagree, Clint. People are people. Dogs are dogs. We have laws against killing people but not dogs (except as a matter of property rights). Why? Because we as a society recognize that human life is more dear than canine life. I'm only arguing that we be consistent about it. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: GUEST,djh Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:46 PM Very Weak when you have to go over to seperation of church and state to side step a perfect example of what Humanity should aspire to. So leave Christ out of it and use Martin Luther King Jr or Ghandi where would they stand on the issue. Mercy and respect for life should cross all religious and societal boundaries. Children never take the lesson "Do as I say , not as I do" to heart , actions speak louder than words. The cycle of voilence won't break as long as society embraces the idea of vengeance. As long as the argument comes down to $$$ which is cheaper incarceration or death? We are getting nowhere. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Clinton Hammond Date: 17 Apr 01 - 03:08 PM See, MT... -I- don't agree that human life -IS- more dear than any other kind of life... That's why for instance, I don't by into the "New Age, Gonna save the planet and all the cute fuzzy animal babies" crap... they don't wanna savethe planet ofr the plantes sake... they wanna save it for thier own sake... and they only wanna save the stuff that they like... Humans are just another animal on this rock, as much a the whim of nature as most other species... sure we have air conditioning, and paper plates and plastic trees, but that doesn't give us any special standing... Sure all life is important, but even pods of whales drive out thier own when they are anti-social... some chimps will on occasion, kill and eat each other.. it's the way of the planet... some stuff dies so that other stuff can live... Just my 0.02 eh... I'm not trying to convince you at all... just sharing different opinions eh... |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: jeepman (inactive) Date: 17 Apr 01 - 03:15 PM Killing him is playing into his plans. When he dies he is no longer suffering and will be forgotten in a few months. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Tedham Porterhouse Date: 17 Apr 01 - 03:22 PM Executing McVeigh creates yet another martyr for the neo-Nazi and white supremicist militias. Just as McVeigh chose the anniversary of Waco to commit his mass murders in Oklahoma City, you can be sure that the anniversary of his execution will become a touchstone for the scary creeps (and there are lots of them in America) to whom he is a hero. |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Clinton Hammond Date: 17 Apr 01 - 03:33 PM "neo-Nazi and white supremist militias" *shudder* To quote Indiana Jones "Nazis... I hate these guys." Or The Blues Borthers "Illinois Nazis... I HATE Illinois Nazis!" |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Apr 01 - 07:38 PM McVeigh has said that he would rather be executed than spend his life in prison. He'll get a big finish, with the world watching him, and on the front of all the crap papers. A sort of reward, and easy way out. And you can guarantee that the execuition, especfially if it ends up as a public public execution, will make it far more likely that some other McVeigh will be motivated into doing something similar.
Executions do not deter this kind of terrorism. They encourage it. They turn coldblooded killers into heroes. Hell, we're still singing about them hundreds of years later, aren't we?
No doubt there'll be a Ballad of Timothy McVeigh just like there was a Ballad of Lieutenant Calley (and he wasn't even held in prison for more than a few weeks - McVeigh killed the wrong sort of children I suppose...)
|
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Peg Date: 17 Apr 01 - 07:53 PM well said McGrath. I agree completely. McVeigh wanted notoriety when he built that bomb and set it off and killed those people; now his execution will be a big melodramatic finish. Punishment should be about suffering, not mercy and glorification. Be that as it may, I still think it is wrong for the state to sanction murder, even by way of punishment. It makes us no better than the killers we claim to be "punishing" and in fact makes us worse because we do so under the sanctimonious label of "deterrence."
|
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: Ebbie Date: 17 Apr 01 - 10:44 PM McGrath, I agree totally. Mousethief misunderstood my position- I too favor putting these people away, I do not believe in the state (us) killing in cold blood. If someone, for instance, is killed by a homeowner, even unnecessarily and tragically, it is my belief that that was the chance the intruder took. That is far different from a government deciding to take the life of someone in retaliation for an act that was already committed. In law we make a distinction between first degree murder and other types of killing- if it's planned and prepared for, it is MURDER, in my eyes, no less so than if it were done by an individual. I believe having such a policy in a society coarsens and hurts the people of that society. And it's counter productive, a terrible reflection on us. It takes very little imagination to kill- surely we can do better than give a knee-jerk reaction. Timothy McVeigh planned and prepared for his act- he is a murderer who committed a heinous crime. We should not further his grandiose aims by killing him, a result he wants. Far better to lock him away and let him be reminded every day that he will never be free again. My crack about prison being cheaper than execution referred to the prevalent myth that killing a criminal and getting it over with is cheaper than board and room for the rest of his/her life. It's not so. (Although I must say that I don't know if that's true if the person doesn't go through repeated appeals and stays.) Mousethief, I think, though, that you kind of weaken your anti-execution message when you "quote" God. In the Old Testament, which many people think of as the Bible, God was not nearly so persnickety. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: Timothy McVeigh From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 11:14 PM Ebbie, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I'm glad to see we're closer than I had thought. Perhaps I do weaken my argument by admitting my faith in the Christian god. Then again anybody who would hold my faith against me in an argument (a classic ad hominem) isn't really worth arguing with, so it's no great loss. Alex |
| Share Thread: |
