Wahoo said:
�In looking at the statistics, chasing cockroaches into the shadows as they scurry away to hide themselves from the light of responsibility, I find that the truths you will discover there are only those of an accountant. Truths that are transient, listed neatly in the ledger they reveal little except maybe, hopefully, a place to temporarily point the finger. We may out some of our demons, make them stand before a nation in the harsh light of their actions, but who stands behind them? Ready to step up and take their place...is there always another, then another, and then another? I'm off in this direction because Mr. Baerwald seemed to assert that we should be looking for some sort of government conspiracy to explain the bombing in Oklahoma City and that by putting Tim McVeigh to death we have lost valuable evidence in chasing it down.�
Wll, yes and no. Yes, in that, ultimately what difference does any of it make, really? Everybody dies. Who really remembers the dead, really? I try to remember my own dead, and its a fitful picture, at best. Moments spring to mind, faces, feelings... Feelings, over all. But my memory fades, and before too long, even that will be gone, because so will I. So what difference does it make? But No, in that there are other kinds of truths, that are both larger and smaller than the truth of an individual�s life. And these are found only through time. Generations of historians digging through such mundanities as bank statements, wiretaps, telephone records, personal letters, grocery lists, lists of acquaintances, military records, income tax reports, travel records, medical reports, ballistics analysis, DNA tests, the testimony of witnesses, suspects and, yes, the undeniably guilty, etc etc... just because they want to know. I�m really not interested in pointing the finger at anyone. As you say, there�s A) always another guy standing behind to take the job, and B) it�s temporary.anyway. When George HW Bush moves out of the White House some other (hopefully less obvious) stooge will take his place. But the machinery that put him in place will remain, and I think anything that helps us to understand that machinery, the better off we all are .
Basically, I think that if a major event occurs, that has an immediate and obvious effect on lasting policy, that the destruction of evidence, however seemingly trivial or odious, should be frowned upon. McVeigh alive is a potential piece of evidence. McVeigh dead is a symbol, or more particu;arly, a lot of different kinds of symbols to a lot of different kinds of people. McVeigh�s execution closes the book, at least officially, on the story. Justice has been served, the case is closed, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. But I think it is worth at least noting that the extremely draconian and paranoid Anti-Terrorism Act was rammed into approval through both Houses fresh on the heels of the bombing.
As far as the media�s concerned, I refer you to Mr Rushdie above. I don�t think there�s an aware human being on this planet that wasn�t disgusted by the spectacle.
All the more reason to keep him quietly and humiliatingly alive. He obviously wanted his delusions of martyrdom. Why give him, and the bread and circuses crowd that profited from bringing us the whole melodramatic debacle, the satisfaction of executing him?
I appreciate your passionate feelings. It�s awful to think of the amount of pain that bombing caused. Children... The survivors are going to carry this burden of grief until they themselves die, and the grief will be felt in one way or another
for generations. But I oppose this execution for three main reasons:
1) I think it�s folly to destroy potential evidence in a major crime such as this, particularly one that�s politically inspired.
2) I think killing him cemented his celebrity, and provided a martyr for others like him, and gave the false impression that justice has been served in some visceral way.
3) It resolves nothing.
Yrs, and thanks for the eloquence,
David
Mr Lubbe, 1933
B
Baerwald
(view)
Wahoo said:
�In looking at the statistics, chasing cockroaches into the shadows as they scurry away to hide themselves from the light of responsibility, I find that the truths you will discover there are only those of an accountant. Truths that are transient, listed neatly in the ledger they reveal little except maybe, hopefully, a place to temporarily point the finger. We may out some of our demons, make them stand before a nation in the harsh light of their actions, but who stands behind them? Ready to step up and take their place...is there always another, then another, and then another? I'm off in this direction because Mr. Baerwald seemed to assert that we should be looking for some sort of government conspiracy to explain the bombing in Oklahoma City and that by putting Tim McVeigh to death we have lost valuable evidence in chasing it down.�
Wll, yes and no. Yes, in that, ultimately what difference does any of it make, really? Everybody dies. Who really remembers the dead, really? I try to remember my own dead, and its a fitful picture, at best. Moments spring to mind, faces, feelings... Feelings, over all. But my memory fades, and before too long, even that will be gone, because so will I. So what difference does it make? But No, in that there are other kinds of truths, that are both larger and smaller than the truth of an individual�s life. And these are found only through time. Generations of historians digging through such mundanities as bank statements, wiretaps, telephone records, personal letters, grocery lists, lists of acquaintances, military records, income tax reports, travel records, medical reports, ballistics analysis, DNA tests, the testimony of witnesses, suspects and, yes, the undeniably guilty, etc etc... just because they want to know. I�m really not interested in pointing the finger at anyone. As you say, there�s A) always another guy standing behind to take the job, and B) it�s temporary.anyway. When George HW Bush moves out of the White House some other (hopefully less obvious) stooge will take his place. But the machinery that put him in place will remain, and I think anything that helps us to understand that machinery, the better off we all are .
Basically, I think that if a major event occurs, that has an immediate and obvious effect on lasting policy, that the destruction of evidence, however seemingly trivial or odious, should be frowned upon. McVeigh alive is a potential piece of evidence. McVeigh dead is a symbol, or more particu;arly, a lot of different kinds of symbols to a lot of different kinds of people. McVeigh�s execution closes the book, at least officially, on the story. Justice has been served, the case is closed, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. But I think it is worth at least noting that the extremely draconian and paranoid Anti-Terrorism Act was rammed into approval through both Houses fresh on the heels of the bombing.
As far as the media�s concerned, I refer you to Mr Rushdie above. I don�t think there�s an aware human being on this planet that wasn�t disgusted by the spectacle.
All the more reason to keep him quietly and humiliatingly alive. He obviously wanted his delusions of martyrdom. Why give him, and the bread and circuses crowd that profited from bringing us the whole melodramatic debacle, the satisfaction of executing him?
I appreciate your passionate feelings. It�s awful to think of the amount of pain that bombing caused. Children... The survivors are going to carry this burden of grief until they themselves die, and the grief will be felt in one way or another
for generations. But I oppose this execution for three main reasons:
1) I think it�s folly to destroy potential evidence in a major crime such as this, particularly one that�s politically inspired.
2) I think killing him cemented his celebrity, and provided a martyr for others like him, and gave the false impression that justice has been served in some visceral way.
3) It resolves nothing.
Yrs, and thanks for the eloquence,
David
�In looking at the statistics, chasing cockroaches into the shadows as they scurry away to hide themselves from the light of responsibility, I find that the truths you will discover there are only those of an accountant. Truths that are transient, listed neatly in the ledger they reveal little except maybe, hopefully, a place to temporarily point the finger. We may out some of our demons, make them stand before a nation in the harsh light of their actions, but who stands behind them? Ready to step up and take their place...is there always another, then another, and then another? I'm off in this direction because Mr. Baerwald seemed to assert that we should be looking for some sort of government conspiracy to explain the bombing in Oklahoma City and that by putting Tim McVeigh to death we have lost valuable evidence in chasing it down.�
Wll, yes and no. Yes, in that, ultimately what difference does any of it make, really? Everybody dies. Who really remembers the dead, really? I try to remember my own dead, and its a fitful picture, at best. Moments spring to mind, faces, feelings... Feelings, over all. But my memory fades, and before too long, even that will be gone, because so will I. So what difference does it make? But No, in that there are other kinds of truths, that are both larger and smaller than the truth of an individual�s life. And these are found only through time. Generations of historians digging through such mundanities as bank statements, wiretaps, telephone records, personal letters, grocery lists, lists of acquaintances, military records, income tax reports, travel records, medical reports, ballistics analysis, DNA tests, the testimony of witnesses, suspects and, yes, the undeniably guilty, etc etc... just because they want to know. I�m really not interested in pointing the finger at anyone. As you say, there�s A) always another guy standing behind to take the job, and B) it�s temporary.anyway. When George HW Bush moves out of the White House some other (hopefully less obvious) stooge will take his place. But the machinery that put him in place will remain, and I think anything that helps us to understand that machinery, the better off we all are .
Basically, I think that if a major event occurs, that has an immediate and obvious effect on lasting policy, that the destruction of evidence, however seemingly trivial or odious, should be frowned upon. McVeigh alive is a potential piece of evidence. McVeigh dead is a symbol, or more particu;arly, a lot of different kinds of symbols to a lot of different kinds of people. McVeigh�s execution closes the book, at least officially, on the story. Justice has been served, the case is closed, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. But I think it is worth at least noting that the extremely draconian and paranoid Anti-Terrorism Act was rammed into approval through both Houses fresh on the heels of the bombing.
As far as the media�s concerned, I refer you to Mr Rushdie above. I don�t think there�s an aware human being on this planet that wasn�t disgusted by the spectacle.
All the more reason to keep him quietly and humiliatingly alive. He obviously wanted his delusions of martyrdom. Why give him, and the bread and circuses crowd that profited from bringing us the whole melodramatic debacle, the satisfaction of executing him?
I appreciate your passionate feelings. It�s awful to think of the amount of pain that bombing caused. Children... The survivors are going to carry this burden of grief until they themselves die, and the grief will be felt in one way or another
for generations. But I oppose this execution for three main reasons:
1) I think it�s folly to destroy potential evidence in a major crime such as this, particularly one that�s politically inspired.
2) I think killing him cemented his celebrity, and provided a martyr for others like him, and gave the false impression that justice has been served in some visceral way.
3) It resolves nothing.
Yrs, and thanks for the eloquence,
David
