Ok, so it's being reported that he regarded the whole thing as a form of state assisted suicide (which doesn't surprise me) - that's about the most compelling reason I've had to date for banning executions.

I got so I was wincing everytime I saw another news report or news article or essay focusing on trying to get into his mindset, waiting for signs of remorse as if anyone thought there would be. It was attention hounding at its worst.

Appropriate punishment for him would to have lived a long long life in jail ****NEVER**** hearing his name in the news again. No one giving a shit about why he did it. It's pretty easy to see why he did it... he's a sociopath who realized the world didn't rotate according to his desires. End of story. Everyone who fed his plan to be validated (oh lookie! They're all hanging breathlessly on everything I say! they want to know me! I'm so strong! I'm so steady! I'm a good soldier! I win!) these last few weeks ought to be ashamed. Remember his victims instead.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Answers

I agree, Lynda. I confess I'm not even reading the news reports this morning.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Agreed. The thing about Death Row is that you get your own private cell and private outdoor leisure time (albeit one hour daily.) He deserved to have his lanky, white ass in general population with a roomate named "Big Daddy" that refered to young Master Timmah as "Mah Bitch" for the next 100 years.

And who wants to bet that some "ingenious" t-shirt maker, probably the same one that had the great idea of all the Manson t-shirts, is going to print that bastard's quote of "Invictus" so that all our friendly militia members can wear their sense of good judgement on their backs (instead of the usual Old Milwaukee's Best -t-, sans sleeves)?

While I have objections to the death penalty (not this forum, I know), I feel that if his death gives one ounce of resolution to a single victim's family, so be it. Yo Terry, you're next.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

In a perfect world, the media would put more value in the life stories of the 168 innocent victims than in the one twisted individual who was responsible. Somehow giving McVeigh so much air time seemed to validate his ideas, at least to him.

Sadly, the world is not perfect and the evening news cares more about ratings and "exclusive interviews" than anything else.

He's dead. I do not mourn the loss of his one life any more than he mourned the loss of his victims' lives. I only hope the media will choose to shut up and let the families try to put this behind them.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

I wish that being in prison would've kept him quiet and off the scene. But apparently it wasn't enough, or that book with all of his insane rantings wouldn't be on the shelves today.

If only we could lock people like him into very small boxes, I might stop supporting the death penalty in cases like this.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

It seems to me, Lynda, that you are telling the media to do as you say, not do as you do.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Could be, although as far as I know he can't hear or see it anymore, and that is what I was objecting to - they gave him one hell of a lot of satisfaction these past few weeks, when they could have saved their endless analysis until after he was executed.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Ah, I see. I have to wonder, though, does he really see the execution, overall, as a good thing? Was he thinking, "man, all this attention is great!" Or was he thinking, "holy shit, I'm going to die next week!"

I suppose either one is possible. In the end though, there is no point in dwelling on such issues. We decide the punishment and we carry it out. That's all we can do. Somebody above facetiously advocated throwing McVeigh in with "Big Daddy." And what if he enjoys that? It is certainly also possible.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Timothy McVeigh was a martyr who died for his cause. He had the courage to fight for what he believed in and paid the ultimate price. Timothy, we won't forget you. You died to make our world a better place. Timothy himself said, "To these people in Oklahoma who have lost a loved one, I'm sorry but it happens every day. You're not the first mother to lose a kid, or the first grandparent to lose a grandson or a granddaughter. It happens every day, somewhere in the world." McVeigh was fighting on behalf of the citizens of the world, against the oppressive US government, the goverment that attempts to instill its New World Order through its military might. Somehow the US fascists must be stopped. Who now, will step in to take Timothy's place?

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Sigh. Adding another to the list of anonymizers I have to ban ...

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Amnesty International press release:

USA: first federal execution since 1963 -- a retrograde step AI Index: AMR 51/081/2001 Publish date: 11/06/2001

By executing the first federal death row prisoner in nearly four decades, the USA has allowed vengeance to triumph over justice and distanced itself yet further from the aspirations of the international community, Amnesty International said today in the aftermath of Timothy McVeigh's execution.

The organization deeply regrets this failure of human rights leadership at the highest levels of government in the USA. "President George W. Bush's record on the death penalty is well-known across the world," Amnesty International said, recalling the 152 state executions that took place during his five-year governorship of Texas -- many of them in violation of international standards.

"By refusing to step in and impose a moratorium on federal executions, he has further damaged his and his country's reputation," Amnesty International said.

The case of Timothy McVeigh presented the government with the opportunity to announce to the widest possible audience that it would no longer support a policy that allows the murderer to set society's moral tone by imitating what it seeks to condemn.

"Instead, the US government has put its official stamp of approval on this policy; killing, it says, is an appropriate response to killing -- the very reasoning said to lie behind the appalling carnage in Oklahoma City on 19 April 1995."

"The level of public scrutiny in the McVeigh case has merely served to highlight the relative silence accompanying the 716 other non-federal executions carried out in the USA since 1977," Amnesty International said, drawing attention to the planned execution of another federal prisoner, Juan Raul Garza, scheduled for next Tuesday.

"With the Garza case, the US government's attitude to its international obligations will be once again in the spotlight," Amnesty International said. The organization stressed how the US government has so far failed to explain satisfactorily the widespread geographic and racial disparities in federal capital sentencing -- issues of direct relevance to the Garza case -- and how the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has called for the execution to be halted, saying it will violate international law because of unfair trial issues.

"The international community must redouble its efforts to persuade the US Government to impose a moratorium on federal executions as a first step towards leading its country to abolition," Amnesty International said.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

Thank you Frazier for sharing with us some clear headed sanity from Amnesty International. I am astonished by the reactions to the execution from people on this board. I am astonished to read that so many of you are in favor of death penalty. I don't feel capable of argumenting, because this is not a point of view but a feeling from my guts. I don't get the impression that your posts on this thread are argumenting much either. Criticizing what the media do or say is so besides the point. How should we care what focus the media chose, when a developped country decided to kill someone.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

I'm really curious as to where everyone's "sympathy" and "moral outrage" were when Timothy McVeigh was killing people in Iraq, or when other U.S. servicepeople were killing in Kosovo?

Did you demand then that McVeigh be killed, that Powell, Bush, and Schwarzkopf be put to death for their crimes? Did you complain about Madeleine Albright saying that half a million dead children is a price that is "worth it" to try to get Saddam Hussein?

Or did you cheer all that on because CNN told you to, and then boo McVeigh because CNN told you to, and then cheer on his execution because CNN told you to?

Or are children born in other countries with brown skin just not as human or deserving of life as children born in America?

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

Dave: Big Daddy... Baaaad....Timmah no likey.

David: Not that I'm some "Buchanian" isolationist, but Amnesty International (an overall -very- useful entity) does not dictate U.S. policy. The standards of law are dictated "...by the people..." which is to say -not- international bodies or other non-residents. While we do have an obligation to the global community in many, many aspects, domestic security should be an internal priority, not decided on by external sources.

By the way, I'm very much against the death penalty.

Last point (I swear)... yesterday on NPR I heard a moderator, of some show, underhandedly suggest to the mayor of Oklahoma City that the memorial, and in some ways the overall perspective of the city, was morbid and unhealthy. I agree with many of you that the press coverage was undesirably obtrusive, but that's usually the case and not specific to this event. However, to suggest, in any small manner, that we need to "move on", or not discuss him (so as not to give him credit?) is to deny the victims and their families a very important aspect of the healing process. While feeling satisfaction from Timothy's death is more a sign of some mental stress, it is my belief that his death will, inevitably, bring a form of closure to many of the families. He will no longer grant interviews, have discussions with authors, or have his attorney's twitching about in the public eye (twitching, yes, public eye, no). So -that- form of repetitive injury will no longer exsist for these families, but the need for actual, viable conversation about their loved ones, in order to remember the deceased's lives, not deaths, is crucial to recovery, and should not be denied.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

Can they actually prevent prisoners from contacting the outside world? This would be one of my justifications for a death penalty. You can't continually aggravate (or revictimize) the survivors, families and friends on the outside every time you open your mouth, write a letter, etc., for however many years.

Yes, they can and have. Luis Felipe, the organizer of the NY gang the Latin Kings - he's in prison in Supermax next to the Unabomber and the Trade Center Bomber, has been sentenced to life with no contact to the outside world besides phone calls to his lawyer. He started the gang while in prison and the judge was concerned with him still running the damn thing while locked up (AFAIK).

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

I don't think Xeney's board was open during the Gulf war, was it?

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

It seems to me that the death penalty is not about justice, punishment or deterence. I believe that those who favor the death penalty want to believe that we have some measure of control over really bad things happening.

If we punish the bad ones and kill the evil ones then the bad and the evil don't exist anymore. The fact of the matter is that we simply don't have any control over fate or circumstance. Killing Tim McVeigh has simply made him a martyr and a hero to other anti government zealots.

I agree with Lynda, the real punishment would have been a life of solitary confinement and no public acknowledgement of his cause.

The thing that makes me the most angry is that unlike his victims Tim McVeigh died a gentle death. He had time to reflect on his life and was given an escape from the punishment that should have been his. The fact that he showed absolutley no remorse should prove the point that death is not a deterent to crime.

Another thing that strikes me is that everyone is talking about how death is the punishment he got for killing 168 people. That is factually incorrect. He was sentenced to death for killing 8 federal employees. Why is that federal employees are important enough to warrant the death penalty, but the other 160 men women and children who died were not?

I would also be curious to see, say five years from now, if the victims families still feel that Tim McVeighs' death helped them to get over the loss of their loved ones, or caused them even more pain and soul searching.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

"Another thing that strikes me is that everyone is talking about how death is the punishment he got for killing 168 people. That is factually incorrect. He was sentenced to death for killing 8 federal employees. Why is that federal employees are important enough to warrant the death penalty, but the other 160 men women and children who died were not?"

It's not about importance, just jurisdiction. The federal government had jurisdiction regarding the murder of the federal employees. Oklahoma has jurisdiction regarding the others. He was sentenced to death by the federal government.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

Is that really the best amnesty internation could come up with? What a load of crap. When someone takes some money, and they get caught, and we impose a fine, are we as bad as they are for doing the very thing we are seeking to punish? Duh. Of course not. So why is it that for the death penalty so many people lose sight of this fact?

And I don't see how anybody can argue that Timothy didn't deserve to die.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

Damn, I forgot to pimp my forum.

Dave, if you want to continue to pick fights with Rob, you're free to do so, but I don't want it linked from this forum. It's boring.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

Tim Mcveigh did deserve to die. We just didn't have the right to kill him.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

Well, through his actions he gave us the right. The legal right and the moral right.

I really think the death penalty opponents should leave the McVeigh thing alone. He confessed. He killed 168 people. He's white. There's just nothing there to work with.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

I know I'm in the minority here, but I thought it was just. I am not a death-penalty proponent per se, and neither am I an opponent ... I think that in theory, it is a legitimate instrument of justice, but in practice, it is used far too often and with too much potential for error and bias.

But not in McVeigh's case. He arbitrarily killed 168 people, and could have killed many more. He left people without spouses, lovers, children, parents and friends. People who had done him no harm, who were simply trying to make a living and live their lives. And he did it for no better reason than to make what he thought was a political statement.

He got due process of law. He was convicted fairly, sentenced according to the law, allowed his right to a series of appeals, treated humanely and given far more regard than he gave any of his victims. He knew when he was to die, and had ample time to square his accounts, say his goodbyes and seek whatever comfort he wanted. Much more than his victims had.

I'd like for the United States to execute far fewer people than it does. But in McVeigh's case, I can't find any reasons to object.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

Killing Tim McVeigh has simply made him a martyr and a hero to other anti government zealots.

I agree with Lynda, the real punishment would have been a life of solitary confinement and no public acknowledgement of his cause.

I don't think you'll stand steadfast behind the point you made once you think about some of the people who have gathered the widespread support of outsiders because of their 'wrongful imprisonment'. Kevin Mitnick comes to mind and though not a US prisoner, so does Nelson Mandella.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2001

Yeah, Nelson Mandella came to mind as I read that as well.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2001

Vengence got the best of us...should of left him in jail forever....

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001