McVeigh Asks For Time


Defense Team Says Gov't. Committed 'Fraud Against The Court'
Wants Death Delayed To Investigate Possible Additional Evidence
Justice Dept. Has Vowed To Fight Any Postponement


May 31, 2001
(CBS) Attorneys for Timothy McVeigh Thursday asked a federal judge to stay the convicted Oklahoma City bomber's execution, claiming the federal government committed fraud on the court by withholding evidence in the case.

McVeigh, 33, convicted of killing 168 people in the 1995 bombing, was scheduled to be executed on May 16. The discovery of thousands of pages of evidence that were not turned over to McVeigh's defense team forced Attorney General John Ashcroft to postpone the execution to June 11.

The government has turned over more than 4,000 documents to the defense since that delay was issued. But the defense team said Thursday they suspect the federal government is still holding back some evidence, reports CBS News Correspondent Byron Pitts.

Defense lawyer Nathan Chambers said, "We have developed information…that leads us to believe quite strongly" that there is additional evidence in the FBI's possession.

Around midday, McVeigh gave his lawyers permission to seek the stay at a meeting in Terre Haute, Ind., where he is imprisoned and scheduled to die. The defense team later filed its 40-page request for a stay, accompanied by 300 pages of background material, in Denver, reports CBS News Correspondent Maureen Maher.

U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch, who presided over McVeigh's 1997 trial, scheduled a hearing for next Wednesday and ordered prosecutors to respond by Monday evening.

The defense asked for a stay so that they could appeal to the court under a mechanism that allows a judge to grant relief in cases where there has been fraud against the court. No specific amount of time was requested.

"There are still critical documents about this investigation being withheld by the FBI," lawyer Richard Burr said. "We must get to the bottom of this."

Chambers said the defense team received new documents from the FBI only Wednesday. Asked what degree of confidence he had that all the documents had been handed over, Chambers said, "None."

CBS News legal consultant Andrew Cohen said a stay was likely to be granted. Matsch is known to have little tolerance for prosecutorial mistakes.

"I think the reason why the defense was alleging there was fraud here on the court is because this judge remembers that he asked specific questions of prosecutors about this kind of evidence to ensure that government gave it to the defense before and during the trial," Cohen said, adding that the matter could take months to resolve.

The evidence consists of photographs, audiotapes and documents, some concerning John Doe No. 2, a man the FBI sought early in the bombing probe as a possible accomplice to McVeigh, but later said was not connected to the case.

Ashcroft and the FBI have said repeatedly that none of the 4,000 pages of evidence bear on McVeigh's guilt or his death sentence.

But in addition to the evidence that was withheld, Ricardo Ojeda, a former FBI agent who worked on the bombing case, claims evidence he gathered in the case — some of it helpful to the defense — was not documented. The FBI denies that.

In a written statement Thursday, Ashcroft reiterated that he will push to carry out McVeigh's June 11 execution date, claiming that, "no documents in this case create any doubt about McVeigh's guilt or establish his innocence."

McVeigh told a federal judge in December that he would not appeal his death sentence. He has claimed sole responsibility for the bombing and has repeatedly denied there was any John Doe No. 2.

But Nigh said Thursday there was nothing in the court record that reflected those beliefs.

The reason McVeigh changed his mind about dying, Nigh said, is that "he is convinced the Department of Justice and FBI will not otherwise be held to account unless he takes this action."

"Mr. McVeigh feels this decision is necessary to promote integrity in the criminal justice system," Nigh said.

"For many years, McVeigh has been deeply concerned about the overreaching of federal law enforcement authorities. When that overreach became apparent to him in his own case, it overrode other considerations," said Burr.

Nigh said the decision was not easy, that McVeigh had been prepared to die and recognized the effects a delay would have on his family, the bombing victims and others.

In Oklahoma City, victims' relatives reacted with anger and disbelief.
"My grandsons didn't get justice. My grandsons weren't given a stay of execution. They were babies and they were slaughtered," said Jeanne Coverdale, who lost two in the blast.

Kathleen Treanor, whose 4-year-old daughter died in the bombing, said she wasn't surprised by McVeigh's decision.

"To be perfectly honest, I can't really say he got a fair trial at this point," she said. "It's back in the judge's hands now."

-from www.cbsnews.com (http://www.cbsnews.com)

------------------
-Will

Sad eh? The great Federal Bumbling Idiots, at it again.

------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

This whole thing bothers me...
a) It's being handled terribly, as far as the case itself goes.
b) Am I the only person who thinks it's sick that they're broadcasting his execution to the victims' families (I'm assuming this is still the plan...last I heard, that's what was going to happen)? Great, whatever, I'm anti-death penalty to start with, but I just think that it's way over the top to allow this to be made public. It makes me feel like we're back in history when, if someone killed your brother, you could legally go after him and kill him too. Now we're just doing it through the law. It's sick.
(I guess that was a bit off-topic for this thread, but it's related.)

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

Yea serious, people are pissed cause they have to wait a few more weeks to watch him die, thats ill. The reason he blew up the building was cause he was pissed the feds contributed to the Waco debacle. And now these people wanna kill him cause he killed their relatives. I have difficulty seeing how that doesnt make them as bloodthirsty as he is.

------------------
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." -Nietzsche

Well, I think it has more to do with closure for a lot of the families than blood thirsty revenge.
Its just a sad state of affairs.

------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

I'd say there's a mighty fine line here between 'closure' and 'blood thirsty revenge'...And I'm really not sure what side of the line most of these families are on. If it was just 'I want him to die for what he did,' it would be one thing...I don't agree with it, but it's valid for them to think that way, I guess. But 'I want him to die for what he did...and I wanna watch it. Popcorn, anyone?' - well, that I think is a bit over the top (even without the popcorn).

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

Well i used to view it totally as vengance killing but I heard somewhere that often times victims benefit psychologically from the closure of having the perpetrators publicly executed, so now im not so sure on my stance. If this were true than theyd simply be succumbing to their psychology and something innate (be it conditioned or natural) within the human psyche for which I can't suppose Id be any better able to resist though id like to think i could.

------------------
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." -Nietzsche

Well the thing is though, regarding teh documents, year 3000 were not delviered, but that is out of over ONE BILLION documents involved in the case. I mean, it is the beuracracy at work for ya. But honestly, think out of ONE BILLION pages how easy it is to misplace 3000.

------------------
Manu Narayan

"Am I the only person who thinks it's sick that they're broadcasting his execution to the victims' families (I'm assuming this is still the plan...last I heard, that's what was going to happen)? Great, whatever, I'm anti-death penalty to start with, but I just think that it's way over the top to allow this to be made public. It makes me feel like we're back in history when, if someone killed your brother, you could legally go after him and kill him too. Now we're just doing it through the law. It's sick."

Aphasia:

If the families want to witness his execution, they should be allowed to do this. There are some that have voiced the opinion that they don't want to, but aren't going to block other relatives from viewing the execution. There will be no “public” broadcast of the execution. The courts have already shot this down.

The government (prosecutors) is acting as a surrogate of justice for the deceased. They are finishing the initiation of force McVeigh began. He wasn't at Waco or Ruby Ridge and wasn't acting in self-defense. He was acting as a vigilante hell-bent on promoting his agenda.

Do you believe in self-defense? If so, if you lost your battle for life, don’t you want a surrogate to step in via the legal system to seek justice? Do you want the person that ended your life to do it to others? I’m sorry it is very clear for me. You end a life in cold blood, you do not deserve to breathe longer than it takes to run through the legal system. Think about the consequences before you initiate force and be prepared to reap the consequences if you do.

Originally posted by eanax:

Do you believe in self-defense? If so, if you lost your battle for life, don’t you want a surrogate to step in via the legal system to seek justice? Do you want the person that ended your life to do it to others? I’m sorry it is very clear for me. You end a life in cold blood, you do not deserve to breathe longer than it takes to run through the legal system. Think about the consequences before you initiate force and be prepared to reap the consequences if you do.



I totally agree.
You take life, you lose yours.
The victems familys have every right to view the death, nobody else though.
Like I said earlier, it has to do with closure and probably a little vengence.



------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

A) I am anti-death penalty. I have a number of reasons for that, but I don't feel like getting into all of them right now (I did a big speech on it back in high school, and I feel very strongly on the subject).
B) My issue here is not with the victims' families wanting him killed, my issue is with them wanting to watch. I understand that some people believe the death penalty is a good thing, but I fail to see how being able to witness the death is good in any way. Personally, I think it's sick. It crosses the line from whatever 'justice' they think can be brought about through the death penalty, over into the realm of cold-hearted bloodlust. It honestly frightens me that there are that many people out there who would want to see someone murdered.
In my opinion, when you commit murder you lose the rights to live your life normally, but I do not believe that the archaic 'eye for an eye' system of capital punishment has anything to offer our modern society.
I can honestly say that, if I were to be murdered, I do not want my murderer to be killed. I would want him or her to spend the rest of their natural life in jail, but I don't think that killing them would do anything.

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

[This message has been edited by Aphasia (edited 06-03-2001).]

Well, I totally disagree with your position but hey, you are absolutely free to speak it.

I think it has been well documented that people indeed do need closure on major traumas, and that, as sick as it may be to you, is closure for them.

It is hard to put yourself in their shoes and see the myriad of emotions going through their veins, but I think until it happens to one of us, we really cant speak from any real point of knowledge about how they feel or how can they possibly benefit from witnessing the execution or even wanting him executed.
Sure, its mostly all emotion and emotion can be illogical.

------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

I think the fact that emotion is illogical is the whole point...as much as someone might want vengeance, there is no room in the justice system for emotion. Emotion blinds judgement and you end up with things like lynch mobs and innocent people being killed just because the public is crying for blood (aka 'justice').
And I just don't think that watching someone be murdered is a valid method of closure. He's going to be killed anyway...if that makes them feel better, I think it should be enough. Watching him die is twisted.

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

Timothy McVeigh chose to reject the claims the United States government made on him as a citizen. He broke the invisible social contract. According to Hobbes, Rouseau, and numerous other political philosophers when he withdrew his consent to live by the rules perscribed by society and the sovereign government he entered into a state of war against society. He killed people who he believed to be his enemies and now his enemies are killing him. Thats the bare bones of the situation, McVeigh didnt offer any quarter and hasnt asked for any in return. I dont support what he did. I dont support what the government is doing to him. The US government has killed countless innocent people for political reasons. Mcveigh's not even innocent, so theres no reason you should expect the same barbarians to spare him. He and them, they are all sick. Murder is never justified, its an affront to the human mind.

------------------
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." -Nietzsche

[This message has been edited by CodyChaos (edited 06-03-2001).]

"My issue here is not with the victims' families wanting him killed, my issue is with them wanting to watch."

You know, quite honestly, if you understand why the families want McVeigh put to death, why do you care if they witness the execution. No one is forcing you to watch it.

"I think it's sick. It crosses the line from whatever 'justice' they think can be brought about through the death penalty, over into the realm of cold-hearted bloodlust."

Hmm, so you don't believe in justice. What defines justice then to you? Sorry. McVeigh, who admitted he did the deed, is receiving his comeuppance. He wasn't a victim of Waco or Ruby Ridge, which is why he said he did this. He's a vigilante. He initiated force. He wasn't acting in self-defense. This is clear.

"It honestly frightens me that there are that many people out there who would want to see someone murdered."

This has been the way of the world throughout man's history, and I don't see it changing. That's the, albeit, unfortunate reality. I think plenty of people would've cheered the day if they had an opportunity to put Hitler or Stalin (among many other monsters) to death.

"I can honestly say that, if I were to be murdered, I do not want my murderer to be killed. I would want him or her to spend the rest of their natural life in jail, but I don't think that killing them would do anything."

Maybe the rest of society doesn't want to pay for this scumbag to breathe the rest of his natural life. I don't care if the death penalty is a deterrent - I don't think it is anyway. Letting a murderer stew about what he did changes nothing and accomplishes nothing. Having them dead is whole lot cheaper than life in prison. They didn't give a crap that they took a life, so why be so concerned that their life is ended as well?



[This message has been edited by eanax (edited 06-03-2001).]

Thats not McVeighs rationalization thats Rousseau's and Hobbes's. And no he wasnt functioning under a legal pretext he was functioning outside of and in opposition to society. He rejected the United States of America and he withdrew his consent from it, he left the USA. The Confederacy did not agree with the basic rules of the system and tried to leave, they were attacked with physical force in return for their rejection of the United States Government. Eanax, you seem to be an advocating the use of force to redress grievances, something that I can not tolerate. Im venturing that you accept the state of government as a given and only think of yourself in relation to it, something I have trouble doing. It is also worthwhile to point out that the USA was esthablished by political terrorists who routinely tortured and beat government officials (especially tax collectors)and eventually resorted to open and bloody warfare with their government and neighbors.

Originally posted by eanax:


Yeah, well, McVeigh can rationalize anything. Tim can call it war, but he isn't a sovereign nation. Therefore, he's acting as a vigilante, a traitor, and an initiator of force. He's not law even if he believes he is. That's the definition of vigilante. He had a specific agenda that he wanted everyone to know about it. He thought he was being a 20th century John Brown - righteous in his "cause".

The confederate states also withdrew their consent to be governed under the Republic. And we all know what happened there... If you can't agree with the basic ground rules of our nation and work within its system, just leave. Otherwise, get some backbone and get involved. It takes hard work to get things done in our political system. There's a reason why there is only 27 amendments to the constitution out of thousands that have been submitted.



------------------
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." -Nietzsche

[This message has been edited by CodyChaos (edited 06-03-2001).]

Originally posted by CodyChaos:
Eanax, you seem to be an advocating the use of force to redress grievances, something that I can not tolerate.

I think he clearly stated his position earlier. I see no basis for the above statement.

Originally posted by eanax:
"We are a Republic; a nation of laws. We redress grievences through the legal system. Didn't you learn this is civics class?



Originally posted by Aphasia:
And I just don't think that watching someone be murdered is a valid method of closure.

What position are you in to speak for them here? They obviously do believe it is a valid method of closure. Again, you are not in thier shoes.

Originally posted by CodyChaos:
The US government has killed countless innocent people for political reasons.


That "political reasons" part of the statement.
Do you think this McVeigh execution or any other execution of convicted fellons who have been proven in a court of law, beyond ANY reasonable doubt, is political?


Originally posted by eanax:

Maybe the rest of society doesn't want to pay for this scumbag to breathe the rest of his natural life. I don't care if the death penalty is a deterrent - I don't think it is anyway. Letting a murderer stew about what he did changes nothing and accomplishes nothing. Having them dead is whole lot cheaper than life in prison. They didn't give a crap that they took a life, so why be so concerned that their life is ended as well?


This whole deterrent thing. Some say it is, some say it isnt.
How can it not be a detterent for any rational, normal thinking human being?
I agree with the rest of the paragraph though.



------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

Originally posted by eanax:
You know, quite honestly, if you understand why the families want McVeigh put to death, why do you care if they witness the execution. No one is forcing you to watch it.

I *don't* understand why him being put to death is a good thing. I think that it's an archaic means of punishment that has no place in today's society. However, I was taking as a given that he will be executed - it's been decided, and it's happened in countless other cases. What I was disputing was the new voyeuristic approach to capital punishment.

Originally posted by eanax:

Hmm, so you don't believe in justice. What defines justice then to you? Sorry. McVeigh, who admitted he did the deed, is receiving his comeuppance. He wasn't a victim of Waco or Ruby Ridge, which is why he said he did this. He's a vigilante. He initiated force. He wasn't acting in self-defense. This is clear.

I do believe in justice. I don't think killing him is justice, though. I think it's stupid, to be honest. He's a political vigilante, acting in retaliation to something he saw wrong with the government. I don't think what he did was right, but it's what people have been doing for thousands of years to enact social change (the creation of the U.S. was the first successful social movement in this country, and many people died because of it...but it's considered a good thing, because they won).


Originally posted by eanax:

This has been the way of the world throughout man's history, and I don't see it changing. That's the, albeit, unfortunate reality. I think plenty of people would've cheered the day if they had an opportunity to put Hitler or Stalin (among many other monsters) to death.

Like I said - they're monsters because they didn't win. How many great historical figures are famous for 'defeating the (insert name of conquered people here)'? Granted, I don't support the views put across by Hitler or Stalin, but murder and war have been used as powerful methods of social change all through history. I don't think McVeigh's ideas were wrong - I think the government dropped the ball, and he called them on it - but I do think his methods were extreme. I don't agree with him killing people to get his point across, but you must admit that his way of bringing about change is nothing new.

Originally posted by eanax:

Maybe the rest of society doesn't want to pay for this scumbag to breathe the rest of his natural life. I don't care if the death penalty is a deterrent - I don't think it is anyway. Letting a murderer stew about what he did changes nothing and accomplishes nothing. Having them dead is whole lot cheaper than life in prison. They didn't give a crap that they took a life, so why be so concerned that their life is ended as well?

It costs the government more to execute someone than it does to encarcerate them for life. (If you don't believe me, I'll find it written somewhere, but I remember that from the anti-death penalty speech I gave back in high school.) So, to be quite honest, I don't care if the general public screams for blood - I think there are other options. I'd rather have a murderer in jail for the rest of his or her natural life, making license plates or repaving roads, than have that life wasted by the death penalty. If you don't think the death penalty is a deterrant, and it costs more than a life in jail...why is it a good idea? I'm afraid I can't see any reason.

Originally posted by eanax:

Sorry. Lynch mobs exist in democracies or in anarchic societies. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. We are a Republic; a nation of laws. We redress grievences through the legal system. Didn't you learn this is civics class?


Of course I learned this. I also learned that the laws we use are rarely carried out in the manner which they were intended, that the system is corrupt, and that, more often than not, we end up with 'two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner', where the government and powerful corporations are the wolves and the common man, especially those who hold views that counter those of the current power structure, is the sheep. You're kidding yourself if you believe that the legal system works for people like that.

Originally posted by eanax:

Innocent people being killed. LOL. Please. What about the one's who are murdered initially? You have to be kidding. The percentage of those who are killed innocently (under the death penalty) compared to those who truly did the deed is very small. Don't demagogue.

You'd be amazed (and sickened, I hope) at the number of innocent people who are killed in the name of 'justice' (again, I had the statistics for my speech...if I really need to find them again, I will). Now, even if one person is unjustly killed by the system, I'd say that's unacceptable. The benefits of the death penalty are not so much greater than life in prison that killing innocent people is justifiable. If the death penalty isn't deterring criminals, as you yourself admit, what is it doing? Have you ever seen the movie 'Brazil'? Granted, it is an extreme satire, but because of one small glitch in the system, the wrong man is accused and punished for a crime he didn't commit. You're being terribly naive if you think this sort of thing doesn't happen. In this bureaucracy, things like that happen all the time (especially if the 'guilty' party holds extreme political views - they're much more likely to be 'accidentally' accused of crimes they didn't commit).

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

Originally posted by CodyChaos:
Thats not McVeighs rationalization thats Rousseau's and Hobbes's. And no he wasnt functioning under a legal pretext he was functioning outside of and in opposition to society. He rejected the United States of America and he withdrew his consent from it, he left the USA. The Confederacy did not agree with the basic rules of the system and tried to leave, they were attacked with physical force in return for their rejection of the United States Government. Eanax, you seem to be an advocating the use of force to redress grievances, something that I can not tolerate. Im venturing that you accept the state of government as a given and only think of yourself in relation to it, something I have trouble doing. It is also worthwhile to point out that the USA was esthablished by political terrorists who routinely tortured and beat government officials (especially tax collectors)and eventually resorted to open and bloody warfare with their government and neighbors.

"Timothy McVeigh chose to reject the claims the United States government made on him as a citizen. He broke the invisible social contract. According to Hobbes, Rouseau, and numerous other political philosophers when he withdrew his consent to live by the rules perscribed by society and the sovereign government he entered into a state of war against society."

Exactly. And McVeigh, I'm sure, rationalized it in a similar manner. It doesn't give him a justification though. I'm fully aware of Rousseau's Social Contract. He was also the mouthpiece of Robespierre and his Commitee of Public Safety after the French Revolution. Napoleon even sang his praises years later. It's interesting that you cite him.

I never said McVeigh was operating under a legal pretext. He was a self-appointed prosecutor outside of the law. I only advocate force in response to force. It's called the non-coercion principle. I'm a Libertarian, btw. And Libs ALL agree about this.

Btw, the colonies were left realtively alone by Britain for many decades until they needed to fund their various battles in Europe. So, why not collect revenue from the colonies where they are doing well with trade. Britain changed the rules with the Colonists. Tough tornadoes if the kids grew up and decided not to take the incessant paternalism and intrusiveness any longer. Thank God they did.

And you can end the condescending tone, Cody.

Aphasia:

"I *don't* understand why him being put to death is a good thing."

Fine. It's not a good or a bad thing, it's the appropriate thing. He initiated force, was convicted, and admitted he did it. The self-defense for the victims has been delayed only for awhile.

"He's a political vigilante, acting in retaliation to something he saw wrong with the government..."

It doesn't give him the justification for murder in cold blood. McVeigh wasn't acting in self-defense. He appointed (annointed) himself the judge and executioner. This is clear. Like I said earlier, we are a Republic; a nation of laws. We redress grievences through the legal system.

Note to Powerboss: Thanks for setting quotes straight above.

"but it's what people have been doing for thousands of years to enact social change (the creation of the U.S. was the first successful social movement in this country, and many people died because of it...but it's considered a good thing, because they won)."

Spare me the cursory history lesson. I'm fully aware of man's historical record. Of course many people died because of it (the US Revolution). Many men sacrificed their lives, livelihood, mercantile ties, etc. to end living under the tyrannical theocracy of King George III. It was a huge gamble and it paid off handsomely. Thank God they won. It has become fashionable to bash the Founding Fathers. That's easy to do after you've reaped the benefits of their foresight and bravery to go forward with it.

"How many great historical figures are famous for 'defeating the (insert name of conquered people here)"

Great as in "good" or as in "infamous"? Here's some infamous ones: Ghengis Khan, Atilla the Hun, Alexander the Great, William the Conquerer - his exploits introduced French into the English language (approx. 15% of today's words English terms). Funny, he was the grandson of Viking overlords.

"...but murder and war have been used as powerful methods of social change all through history...but you must admit that his way of bringing about change is nothing new."

Of course there is nothing novel about violence. And, no, it's been used for a POWER change. That's not the same as social change. Social change is made through the legal system, and questioning and debating positions via political discourse.

"It costs the government more to execute someone than it does to encarcerate them for life. (If you don't believe me, I'll find it written somewhere, but I remember that from the anti-death penalty speech I gave back in high school.) So, to be quite honest, I don't care if the general public screams for blood - I think there are other options. I'd rather have a murderer in jail for the rest of his or her natural life, making license plates or repaving roads, than have that life wasted by the death penalty. If you don't think the death penalty is a deterrant, and it costs more than a life in jail...why is it a good idea? I'm afraid I can't see any reason."

It cost so much because of the endless appeals and the method used to execute. $30,000 a year per inmate for life is not cheap. You pay for it. Bullets are cheap. Use a firing squad just like Nevada does. It's cheap and effective.

If you are referencing something from high school this really tells me your age and lack of experience in the world.

You said earlier that you didn't like the people screaming for blood-lust but now you don't care. Which is it?

What I said is I don't care if the DP is a deterrant or not, and I don't think it is. But the point is moot because the DP is the appropriate remedy for those who take a life in cold blood. Period. The reason is these bastards shouldn't breathe any air because they took a life, so they should pay with theirs. I don't want to pay for their butts. If you want to be benevolent, you pay for them, not me.

"Of course I learned this. I also learned that the laws we use are rarely carried out in the manner which they were intended, that the system is corrupt, and that, more often than not, we end up with 'two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner', where the government and powerful corporations are the wolves and the common man, especially those who hold views that counter those of the current power structure, is the sheep. You're kidding yourself if you believe that the legal system works for people like that."

Enough of the radical-left rhetoric of Nader and the Greens. The wolves want to destroy INDIVIDUALS. You cop to the GROUP mentality along with rest of the leftists and the socialist powermongers. I believe in the freedom of and for INDIVIDUALS not GROUPS.

There are plenty of laws that are corrupted in their meaning. There are also gun laws which are not enforced as well. Why do you talk about the "current power structure" like you want it to be in YOUR GROUP's control.

"If the death penalty isn't deterring criminals, as you yourself admit, what is it doing?"

Clearing them off of this planet. I've made this clear in my earlier stances.

I'll bet you're pro-choice too, right? But you are anti-death penalty. At least be philosophically consistant, like Catholic church is: anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

"You're being terribly naive if you think this sort of thing doesn't happen. In this bureaucracy, things like that happen all the time (especially if the 'guilty' party holds extreme political views - they're much more likely to be 'accidentally' accused of crimes they didn't commit)."

I don't need a self-righteous lecture from someone who is definitely younger than I am. What's your "extreme" view that you're being persecuted for? Libertarians have some pretty extreme views in many people's minds. Yet I don't see the party being shut down. The Greens haven't been shut down. The Constitution party, etc...

Just like your other buddy (Cody) on the "left" coast, cut the condescending tone. You don't hold some great insight to "the truth".

[This message has been edited by eanax (edited 06-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by eanax (edited 06-03-2001).]

"Emotion blinds judgement and you end up with things like lynch mobs and innocent people being killed just because the public is crying for blood (aka 'justice')."

Sorry. Lynch mobs exist in democracies or in anarchic societies. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. We are a Republic; a nation of laws. We redress grievences through the legal system. Didn't you learn this is civics class?

Innocent people being killed. LOL. Please. What about the one's who are murdered initially? You have to be kidding. The percentage of those who are killed innocently (under the death penalty) compared to those who truly did the deed is very small. Don't demagogue.

"According to Hobbes, Rouseau, and numerous other political philosophers when he withdrew his consent to live by the rules perscribed by society and the sovereign government he entered into a state of war against society. He killed people who he believed to be his enemies and now his enemies are killing him."

Yeah, well, McVeigh can rationalize anything. Tim can call it war, but he isn't a sovereign nation. Therefore, he's acting as a vigilante, a traitor, and an initiator of force. He's not law even if he believes he is. That's the definition of vigilante. He had a specific agenda that he wanted everyone to know about it. He thought he was being a 20th century John Brown - righteous in his "cause".

The confederate states also withdrew their consent to be governed under the Republic. And we all know what happened there... If you can't agree with the basic ground rules of our nation and work within its system, just leave. Otherwise, get some backbone and get involved. It takes hard work to get things done in our political system. There's a reason why there is only 27 amendments to the constitution out of thousands that have been submitted.

Originally posted by eanax:

He initiated force, was convicted, and admitted he did it. The self-defense for the victims has been delayed only for awhile.


If someone were to kill you, and then, say, your brother were to go and kill them, is that really self defense? It doesn't protect you, it doesn't keep you from being killed. I don't see how you can equate the death penalty with self-defense.

Originally posted by eanax:

It doesn't give him the justification for murder in cold blood. McVeigh wasn't acting in self-defense. He appointed (annointed) himself the judge and executioner. This is clear. Like I said earlier, we are a Republic; a nation of laws. We redress grievences through the legal system.


So, if we redress grievences through the legal system, who deals with it when the government screws up? McVeigh (if he is truly guilty - check that other thread out and tell me if it doesn't cast some shadow of a doubt on the whole thing) saw that the government was guilty of something, and took it upon himself to act. There is no way that the government would be held accountable for their actions by their own legal system. There would be no 'Oh, we screwed up, excuse us while we punish ourselves.'


Originally posted by eanax:

Spare me the cursory history lesson. I'm fully aware of man's historical record. Of course many people died because of it (the US Revolution). Many men sacrificed their lives, livelihood, mercantile ties, etc. to end living under the tyrannical theocracy of King George III. It was a huge gamble and it paid off handsomely. Thank God they won. It has become fashionable to bash the Founding Fathers. That's easy to do after you've reaped the benefits of their foresight and bravery to go forward with it.


Who's the one with the condescending attitude? I'm not 'bashing the Founding Fathers', I'm merely saying that they did exactly what many, many other groups have done throughout history. I'm glad they did, too, but, at the same time, you can't put them into a separate class just because they're our Founding Fathers and are therefore infallible, so any force they used is totally justifiable, while no one else's is.

Originally posted by eanax:

Great as in "good" or as in "infamous"? Here's some infamous ones: Ghengis Khan, Atilla the Hun, Alexander the Great, William the Conquerer - his exploits introduced French into the English language (approx. 15% of today's words English terms). Funny, he was the grandson of Viking overlords.


Great as in famous for changing the world in some way. It's the way things work - the people who enact great change in society tend to come from radical groups and tend to be forced into using radical methods for enacting this change.

Originally posted by eanax:

Of course there is nothing novel about violence. And, no, it's been used for a POWER change. That's not the same as social change. Social change is made through the legal system, and questioning and debating positions via political discourse.


It has been used as both social and power changes. Look at the WTO today - there's a social movement that's being met with violence. There are countless social movements that have tried to go through the legal system but have failed, and have had to employ more radical methods. If you want, I can start citing...I took two courses last semester on social movements.

Originally posted by eanax:

It cost so much because of the endless appeals and the method used to execute. $30,000 a year per inmate for life is not cheap. You pay for it. Bullets are cheap. Use a firing squad just like Nevada does. It's cheap and effective.

Well, obviously it's because of appeals and all that - would you really expect these people to just go quietly to their death? I certainly wouldn't. And some of them are condemned to death and then proven innocent through the appeals process - I'd much rather pay for that to happen than merely let these people slip through the cracks and be killed for a crime they may not have committed. As for the cost of the methods they're using, I definitely have issues with the firing squad. It may save them a couple dollars, but it really isn't a significant difference (if you can find otherwise, do tell me - I highly doubt the cost is that much of a difference that we should be taking all our inmates out and shooting them). That's not even getting into the issues of it being inhumane (yeah, I know what you think, they gave up that right...but I really don't think that *anyone* deserves to die that way, no matter how bad of a person they are.)

Originally posted by eanax:

If you are referencing something from high school this really tells me your age and lack of experience in the world.


I'm about to enter my junior year at one of the most prestigious liberal arts colleges in the country. I wish you'd stop with the personal attacks - I'd say that I've had a good deal of experience with the world. Just because I happen to remember something from several years ago doesn't mean that I'm inexperienced. It just means that I've retained knowledge over the years and built on that foundation.

Originally posted by eanax:

You said earlier that you didn't like the people screaming for blood-lust but now you don't care. Which is it?

When did I say I don't care? I most certainly do care about people screaming for blood - it's things like that that bring about the mob mentality and end up causing irrational and unjust chains of events.

Originally posted by eanax:

What I said is I don't care if the DP is a deterrant or not, and I don't think it is. But the point is moot because the DP is the appropriate remedy for those who take a life in cold blood. Period. The reason is these bastards shouldn't breathe any air because they took a life, so they should pay with theirs. I don't want to pay for their butts. If you want to be benevolent, you pay for them, not me.

An eye for an eye does not work. I'd rather pay for them to live out their natural lives, working in prison, and doing something productive (even if it is forced) than to pay for that waste of another human life. Killing them solves nothing, and it merely wastes what they have to offer (even in the simplest ways - I don't care if they spend their lives making license plates and jeans and working on cleaning up trash and repaving roads, it's still something).

Originally posted by eanax:

Enough of the radical-left rhetoric of Nader and the Greens. The wolves want to destroy INDIVIDUALS. You cop to the GROUP mentality along with rest of the leftists and the socialist powermongers. I believe in the freedom of and for INDIVIDUALS not GROUPS.


I hardly consider myself a radical leftist. Even if I was, though, I think that viewpoint has as much validity as yours. I think that both groups and individuals have rights (after all, a group is made up of individuals, isn't it?) There are people in this country who are in jail because they hold different beliefs. There are people who have been torn apart by the government because their ideas didn't fit with whatever they were being fed by the people in power. I don't think that the government always has the best interests of the individual in mind, and therefore, I don't feel that you can always trust the government to protect and serve and make the right decisions.

Originally posted by eanax:

There are plenty of laws that are corrupted in their meaning. There are also gun laws which are not enforced as well. Why do you talk about the "current power structure" like you want it to be in YOUR GROUP's control.

I talk about the 'current power structure' because that's all it is - the group of people who hold power right now. I'm not passing any judgement here on whether they're right or wrong, I'm merely saying that things change, and you can't expect the way that one group deals with issues to be the same as another group's methods. The current administration has power, and the current administration does with this power what it sees fit. I've been taught through my courses that these things change, and that the government today is nothing but the current power structure, the way that things work *for now*.

Originally posted by eanax:

Clearing them off of this planet. I've made this clear in my earlier stances.

I argue that they are more use here than they are dead. I also argue that merely killing them solves nothing. It's an easy way out.

Originally posted by eanax:

I'll bet you're pro-choice too, right? But you are anti-death penalty. At least be philosophically consistant, like Catholic church is: anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

Yes, I am pro-choice. However, that has nothing to do with this - being pro-choice is based on when you believe life begins, and I do not believe that life begins during the period in which abortions occur. Therefore, I do not see this as killing anyone. However, the death penalty is very obviously murdering a living creature, and I can not agree with that, in any circumstance.

Originally posted by eanax:

I don't need a self-righteous lecture from someone who is definitely younger than I am. What's your "extreme" view that you're being persecuted for? Libertarians have some pretty extreme views in many people's minds. Yet I don't see the party being shut down. The Greens haven't been shut down. The Constitution party, etc...


I hardly feel that I'm being self-righteous, and I don't think that my age has anything to do with anything here. I've known 15 year old children who were brighter and more open-minded than 40 or 50 year olds that I know. The groups that I'm talking about are working for social movements. These groups try to directly change things, because they have learned that trying to go through the government's channels rarely works. Because of this, they are shut down, and their members are labeled as troublemakers and unfaithful to, I'll say it again, the current power structure.

Originally posted by eanax:

Just like your other buddy (Cody) on the "left" coast, cut the condescending tone. You don't hold some great insight to "the truth".

And you do? Sir, I'd have to say that your method of debating is no different than my own, or Cody's. All of us have stated the facts in a clear manner, and any trace of a 'condescending tone' must come from trying to be as clear and simple in our arguements as possible. However, you have been the only person to respond to this negatively. This is my writing style - it has nothing to do with being condescending. And I know for a fact that Cody is the same way. It's the way that intelligent people tend to present facts. You yourself use a similar style. There's no need to be paranoid about us patronizing you - we're merely stating what we feel is the truth.

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

Eanax, as I sit here reading this string of post, I cannot help but be appalled at the arrogance and condescending nature of your comments, which are also lacking in knowledge and logic as well.

Alright, from the bottom up:
First off, Cody isn't a liberal, he's actually an independent with libertarian, extremely anal conservative tendencies, like you (I wuv you Cody).

Next in a long list of comments, your position on the death penalty, besides being callous, also suggest that you deny a person's ability to change. Almost from its conception, the United States of America (whose "justice" you put so much faith in) has entertained, and oftentimes promoted the idea that people, even crimals, are capable of reforming. The McVeigh execution, and indeed the death penalty in general, is in direct conflict with this principle. To execute a "criminal" (and to many people McVeigh is no more a criminal than the generals and politicians who conduct wars and bombing raids on civilian cities, such as the carpet bombing of Dresden in WW2, which killed 130,000 civilians. And last time i checked, there was a monument to FDR in DC, not a post from which he was lynched publicly...) denies that this person will ever recognize the immorality of his/her actions and can attempt to atone for them.

Furthermore, even if McVeigh's premeditated, first-degree murder would help relatives to recover, I bet that there are other ways that they could relieve their mental angst as well. Perhaps a big fuzzy stuffed animal, or a puppy...

"Spare me the cursory history lesson. I'm fully aware of man's historical record. Of course many people died because of it (the US Revolution). Many men sacrificed their lives, livelihood, mercantile ties, etc. to end living under the tyrannical theocracy of King George III. It was a huge gamble and it paid off handsomely. Thank God they won. It has become fashionable to bash the Founding Fathers. That's easy to do after you've reaped the benefits of their foresight and bravery to go forward with it."

Many Nazi soldiers would brave too. And hey, being a blond haired, blue eyed Aryan poster boy, I would've "reaped the benefits of their forsight and bravery", but you don't see me touting a swastika. But your jingonism is the topic of another string...

Alright, it is now 11 o'clock, and I've been working all day. Since my post probably didn't make much sense, lemme just give a brief conclusion. More than your support of the death penalty, what really irks me is your arrogant, intolerant tone. For someone who claims to be an individualist, you sure are critical of the views of other individuals. Also, I don't see how you being older than Aphasia (who, being a lady, prolly doesn't want me to give you, a potential stalker, her age)has any bearing on her intellectual capacity. Hell, I've got plenty of older relatives who gladly concede that I am way smarter than them. Finally, if you wanna accuse Aph of being a hypocrite for being pro-choice? The debate over abortion stems from the question as to when an organism is first considered a person, not whether or not it is alright to kill a person. And also, being Aph's boyfriend, I happen to be more intimate with this subject than you are. With the risk of her getting POed at me, I would like to point out that we have talked about this, and we're pretty sure that if we either had to *shudder* make a quick trip to Vegas or get an abortion, we'd hop in a car and drive to the state border. So next time you wanna start a game of name-calling, you can stick your foot in your mouth, you poopstick.

Hugs and Kisses,
Patrick

P.S. All flames, insults, etc. in this post were written with my patented, tongue in cheek, legendarily sarcastic humor in mind. No offense meant...

[This message has been edited by PatTheAnarChrist (edited 06-04-2001).]

Indeed... please people, keep the discussion civil. Thanks.

------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

First off I didnt say I agree with Rousseau and Hobbes, i thoroughly detest them both however they provide very concrete viewpoints on the functions and composition of government. Secondly im not "bashing" the founding fathers im just pointing out they were violent revolutionaries who overthrew their government. The fact that you support their cause doesnt make it any more legitimate than any other violent struggle, they showed thorough disregard for the laws of their society. Many of them were British citizens who broke British laws. The fact that they won means they became revolutrionaries and founding fathers, had they lost (like McVeigh or the Confederates) they would be despised as terrorists and rebels. Third I apologize if you interperetted my posts as being condescending, I didnt mean to be. However, you're the one telling me to have a backbone and get involved. FYI I did campaign work for the Santa Clarita Valley Libertarians in the past election and co-founded a 5 college libertarian (with a lower case l) consortium two years ago. Ive also been involved with the less than savory Harvey-Mudd Objectivist Club and was also an essay finalist for the Ayn Rand Institute in 99: URL=http://www.aynrand.org/contests/winners1999.html

------------------
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." -Nietzsche

[

[This message has been edited by CodyChaos (edited 06-04-2001).]

Eanax, I agree with most all your statements. Its late, Im tired and I dont feel like repeating a lot of what you said.
Most of it is right on target.

I would also like to see the Stats of innocent people wrongly killed and the costs tto put people to death. I dont buy it.

This though jumped out at me and I have to respond.

Posted by Aphasia:
Yes, I am pro-choice. However, that has nothing to do with this - being pro-choice is based on when you believe life begins, and I do not believe that life begins during the period in which abortions occur. Therefore, I do not see this as killing anyone.



Abortions are being performed up until birth.
Are you saying until it is out of the woman it is not life?
We know how you feel about it but what does science conclude?
Shouldnt science, and not our own personal feelings determine when life actually begins?
After all it is LIFE that you say you cherish so much.
And what is the definition of life beginning?
Cell division.

Not trying to flame or anything like that! Please dont take it like that.

While I know there is a separate thread for this and it is off topic for the most part, it just jumed out and I had to repond.
I am Pro Life, in most circumstances.
I am pro death penalty, for the guilty murderers.
The difference is innocence.


------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

Originally posted by Powerboss:
I would also like to see the Stats of innocent people wrongly killed and the costs tto put people to death. I dont buy it.

I'll look them up - I'm not sure if I can find the one about exactly how many innocent people are killed, but I'll check. As for the cost issue, I know this is absolutely true - I'll find this too, as soon as I get a free moment.


Originally posted by Powerboss:

Abortions are being performed up until birth.
Are you saying until it is out of the woman it is not life?
We know how you feel about it but what does science conclude?
Shouldnt science, and not our own personal feelings determine when life actually begins?
After all it is LIFE that you say you cherish so much.
And what is the definition of life beginning?
Cell division.

I don't think that you can say that life begins at cell division. In that case, a good deal of birth control would be considered abortion, as it prevents the embryo from implanting in the uterus. I'd say that life begins when it's possible for the baby to live outside the mother's body. And of course I don't support abortion 'up until birth' (which, incidentally, aren't performed, unless there are *extreme* circumstances, such as danger of the mother being killed by delivering the baby. In those cases, it's a matter of medical safety, not personal choice. Last I checked, late-term abortions were not legal, and rightly so, as the baby could, at this point, conceivably survive outside the mother's body.)


Originally posted by Powerboss:

I am Pro Life, in most circumstances.
I am pro death penalty, for the guilty murderers.
The difference is innocence.


What about innocent people being charged as guilty and killed? It does happen...and even one time is too much, in my opinion. I am pro choice and anti-death penalty...the difference is one is killing, one is exercising personal choice on a group of cells that can't survive without the mother's support. If a woman is not willing or able to give this support, there is no reason why she should have to, assuming that she hasn't waited to the point where the cells have become a viable baby.

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

APHASIA:
“If someone were to kill you, and then, say, your brother were to go and kill them, is that really self defense? It doesn't protect you; it doesn't keep you from being killed. I don't see how you can equate the death penalty with self-defense.”

Prosecutors are the surrogate advocates acting on the deceased’s behalf. They are the third party ensuring MY rights aren’t neglected. They are speaking for me after I’m gone. I don’t think this is a hard concept to grasp. I can equate it because if I had been successful in defending myself, the discussion above would be moot. God forbid anyone can use self-defense, and anyone is prosecuted for crimes they commit.

“So, if we redress grievences through the legal system, who deals with it when the government screws up? McVeigh (if he is truly guilty - check that other thread out and tell me if it doesn't cast some shadow of a doubt on the whole thing) saw that the government was guilty of something, and took it upon himself to act. There is no way that the government would be held accountable for their actions by their own legal system. There would be no 'Oh, we screwed up, excuse us while we punish ourselves.”

McVeigh admitted he did it. What is NOT clear about that? Just because that are interesting questions raised about this case, and many others, doesn’t negate McVeigh’s involvement in this action. The government can be sued and has been, not always successful, but there is a redress of grievances. Support and elect those who share your views, like Ron Paul in Texas. (I wish he were my representative in congress.)

“Who's the one with the condescending attitude? I'm not 'bashing the Founding Fathers', I'm merely saying that they did exactly what many, many other groups have done throughout history. I'm glad they did, too, but, at the same time, you can't put them into a separate class just because they're our Founding Fathers and are therefore infallible, so any force they used is totally justifiable, while no one else's is.”

I never claimed they were infallible. They were human, and all humans are fallible, right? However, they were our brightest generation. You live under a dictatorial Theocracy and see how much you enjoy it – a continent away. Some were loyal to the crown, but many were not. They were taking care of themselves without Britain’s help, then endured plundering of the wealth they had created.

“Great as in famous for changing the world in some way. It's the way things work - the people who enact great change in society tend to come from radical groups and tend to be forced into using radical methods for enacting this change.”

You are telling me nothing new. I’ve read much history and this is a recurring theme throughout. What’s your point?

“It has been used as both social and power changes. Look at the WTO today - there's a social movement that's being met with violence. There are countless social movements that have tried to go through the legal system but have failed, and have had to employ more radical methods. If you want, I can start citing...I took two courses last semester on social movements.”

It’s ALL about power – on any side. Power to impose your ideas, beliefs, rules, etc. on all others in society. Social movements are about groups and their agendas. Many of those protestors were INCITING violence. Fight fire with fire. I’m not concerned with social movements when their goal is to strangle the individual and his or her choices. What about the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision on desegregation? This is one example of a social movement that succeeded in the legal system.

“Well, obviously it's because of appeals and all that - would you really expect these people to just go quietly to their death? I certainly wouldn't. And some of them are condemned to death and then proven innocent through the appeals process - I'd much rather pay for that to happen than merely let these people slip through the cracks and be killed for a crime they may not have committed. As for the cost of the methods they're using, I definitely have issues with the firing squad. It may save them a couple dollars, but it really isn't a significant difference (if you can find otherwise, do tell me - I highly doubt the cost is that much of a difference that we should be taking all our inmates out and shooting them). That's not even getting into the issues of it being inhumane (yeah, I know what you think, they gave up that right...but I really don't think that *anyone* deserves to die that way, no matter how bad of a person they are.)”

Here’s the problem. You think ALL of them are innocent. LOL. It just isn’t so. Don’t be intellectually dishonest about that. Of course a few innocent people have died and may die under the death penalty. Let’s start using DNA testing to exonerate the accused or confirm a conviction if there is evidence to test. I’m a libertarian, but I’m not a conspiracy theorist about everything in the world. Don't be so paranoid...

Trust me, it’s much cheaper to shoot someone than to light up old sparky or use lethal injection. I’m sorry, we are polar-opposite on this issue. Next time someone’s holding a knife to your throat, I’ll make sure to tickle him or her to death to handle the situation.

“I'm about to enter my junior year at one of the most prestigious liberal arts colleges in the country. I wish you'd stop with the personal attacks - I'd say that I've had a good deal of experience with the world. Just because I happen to remember something from several years ago doesn't mean that I'm inexperienced. It just means that I've retained knowledge over the years and built on that foundation.”

Good for you, but it’s not relevant to our discussion. You attending a “great” institution does not add credence to any of your arguments or points. You haven’t had that much experience in the world just based on your age alone. I’m sorry, these are just the facts. A college junior doesn’t have the same amount of life experience as a thirty-five, a forty, or a forty-five year old. Experience counts…

“An eye for an eye does not work. I'd rather pay for them to live out their natural lives, working in prison, and doing something productive (even if it is forced) than to pay for that waste of another human life. Killing them solves nothing, and it merely wastes what they have to offer (even in the simplest ways - I don't care if they spend their lives making license plates and jeans and working on cleaning up trash and repaving roads, it's still something).”

Eye for eye does work with the act of cold-blooded murder. You pay for them to be incarcerated while their victims lie cold in the ground. Anyone who takes a life in cold-blooded murder doesn’t deserve to breathe. I don’t care if you believe it does nothing. That’s not the point. These people have nothing to offer by the choices they made. The problem here is you don’t believe they are responsible for their actions. Tough. They are. We have plenty of people on the planet to offer us something without convicted murderers (who didn’t value the life they took) still breathing.

“I think that both groups and individuals have rights (after all, a group is made up of individuals, isn't it?) There are people in this country who are in jail because they hold different beliefs. There are people who have been torn apart by the government because their ideas didn't fit with whatever they were being fed by the people in power. I don't think that the government always has the best interests of the individual in mind, and therefore, I don't feel that you can always trust the government to protect and serve and make the right decisions.”

Groups shouldn’t have rights. That’s not the intent under our constitution. We are equal as individuals under the law and NO ONE or entity is deserving of special rights, especially groups. This is the real debate today: the GROUP mentality against those who want to remain INDIVIDUALS. Of course the government doesn’t have the best interest of individuals in mind. Look at Hillary and her cronies. They are hell-bent on destroying individual liberty and pushing socialist group agendas. This is clear. She is drunk with POWER because that is what it is all about, as I said earlier. I choose to accept power over my own life, not the paternalistic nature of politicians and government.

“Yes, I am pro-choice. However, that has nothing to do with this - being pro-choice is based on when you believe life begins, and I do not believe that life begins during the period in which abortions occur. Therefore, I do not see this as killing anyone. However, the death penalty is very obviously murdering a living creature, and I can not agree with that, in any circumstance.”

Well, there are those who totally disagree with you, like the Catholic Church. I find it to be philosophically contradicting, and if you don’t see that, oh well… I support your stance on choice because you own your body and no one has the right to tell you when and with whom to reproduce. A murderer can’t tell you what to do with your body because he doesn’t own it or have the right to initiate force to take it in cold blood.

Cody:

I’m glad you get involved. It’s an important part of our civic duty as citizens. I commend you for doing so. I’m a lower-case libertarian as well. I vote with the party because it’s my protest and my principles for which I’m standing up. I apologize as well for my tone. I tend to start firing when on my heels. It’s the Irish in me I suppose. I think we probably agree on most things, and what we don’t, that’s fine. Ayn Rand was such a great thinker and writer. Congrats on being a finalist in the essay contest. That's quite an honor.

"It’s ALL about power – on any side. Power to impose your ideas, beliefs, rules, etc. on all others in society. Social movements are about groups and their agendas. Many of those protestors were INCITING violence. Fight fire with fire. I’m not concerned with social movements when their goal is to strangle the individual and his or her choices. What about the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision on desegregation? This is one example of a social movement that succeeded in the legal system. "

Oh please, do you believe everything you hear on the mainstream news? The only groups that were inciting/commiting violence were the Seattle police. As a Libertarian I didn't expect you to be a supporter of a police state?

The WTO and the facists who protect them use violence and unconstitutional tactics everytime they meet. I thought it was quite easy to see that..

This is a picture of one of the storm troopers shooting people who are on the ground offering no resistance.
Wasn't this country founded on civil disobedience anyway? You talk about the founding fathers yet people protesting the WTO get what they deserve according to you?

http://www.geocities.com/omniocracy/pic/bullets.gif


I am even curious if you know about the WTO, violent opposition to it should be welcomed, too bad we live in an age of apathy..



------------------
Red 86 GT

Pat:

“I cannot help but be appalled at the arrogance and condescending nature of your comments, which are also lacking in knowledge and logic as well.”

Pat, I don’t care. Prove that I’m lacking in knowledge and logic; don’t just spew the comment.

“…your position on the death penalty, besides being callous, also suggest that you deny a person's ability to change”

They should have thought about that beforehand. It’s called responsibility and accepting the consequences of your actions.

“Almost from its conception, the United States of America (whose "justice" you put so much faith in) has entertained, and oftentimes promoted the idea that people, even crimals, are capable of reforming.”

Wrong. Not for traitors or those who took part in sedition. C’mon, you know that.

“The McVeigh execution, and indeed the death penalty in general, is in direct conflict with this principle. To execute a "criminal" (and to many people McVeigh is no more a criminal than the generals and politicians who conduct wars and bombing raids on civilian cities, such as the carpet bombing of Dresden in WW2, which killed 130,000 civilians.”

Uh, wrong again. McVeigh was acting as a vigilante, an individual hell-bent on retaliation for something that didn’t effect him personally. Let me be clear: I do not support or condone how the Feds handled Waco and Ruby Ridge, which is the reason he gives for his action. Redress the grievances in civil court or in the form of criminal charges against individuals involved in the matter.

A nation at war is a different scenario than one person acting as a vigilante. McVeigh may have believed he was “at war” with the Feds, but this is contorting the language regardless of his beliefs. I’m fully aware of what happened during WWII. Germany also bombed the hell out of London and the Netherlands in 1940. The Japanese bombed the crap out of China too. What’s your point? In war, a way of life is at stake for entire nations. I think this is clear.

“Many Nazi soldiers would brave too. And hey, being a blond haired, blue eyed Aryan poster boy, I would've "reaped the benefits of their forsight and bravery", but you don't see me touting a swastika.”

You wouldn’t even be able to speak you mind unless it was the party line. Please. Just cause you had the “look” means nothing if you don’t parrot the rhetoric.

“But your jingonism is the topic of another string...”

Johnny Jingo I’m not. That’s been Europe’s problem for the past hundred-some years.


“More than your support of the death penalty, what really irks me is your arrogant, intolerant tone. For someone who claims to be an individualist, you sure are critical of the views of other individuals.”

Pat, you don’t know me. I’m a pretty tolerant person. There’s no contradiction here. Just because I challenge Aphasia’s viewpoints doesn’t make me intolerant. She can hold any belief she likes. I’m assessing where and why she holds these beliefs. That’s all part of political discourse and debate. I highly recommend being an independent thinker – try it sometime. Just because an individual holds a certain view doesn’t exclude me from criticizing or challenging his or her stances. That’s incongruent logic.

“Also, I don't see how you being older than Aphasia (who, being a lady, prolly doesn't want me to give you, a potential stalker, her age)has any bearing on her intellectual capacity.”

Sure it does. Experience counts. I’ll ignore you casting aspersions on my character with regards to you referring to me as a “stalker”, because you are speaking from emotion and not reason or logic.

“Hell, I've got plenty of older relatives who gladly concede that I am way smarter than them.”
And your point is? BTW, it’s “I have plenty…” not “I have got plenty…”.

Settle down, CA. Don’t give me lectures about “corporate greed” and “fascists” when you’re proud that you drive a FORD MUSTANG - “Red 86 GT” – from one of the largest companies in the world. LOL!!! Now, that’s rich.

Of course I don’t support a police state. Don’t be asinine. There were clear video shots of the “protestors” doing typical riot mode antics – throwing molotov cocktails and everything else. Shots of them destroying storefronts (private property). Please. I saw all of the live feeds at work. There are no angels when these actions take place. It comes from both sides. I don’t endorse jackboot tactics and I also don’t endorse protestors destroying property. The nation wasn’t founded on civil disobedience; it was founded on new principles of how government should work. Civil disobedience is merely one method. Real fascists would have just murdered them in the street.

I know who the World Trade Organization is, and I’m familiar with their agenda. I used to read rad-left politics in college many years ago. You should be more concerned with our country losing its sovereignty, and any remaining rights you have as an individual.

BTW, I like the things you contribute. So, don’t come attacking me personally. I haven’t done it to you even though we disagree on some issues.

Eanax:
"Pat, I don’t care. Prove that I’m lacking in knowledge and logic; don’t just spew the comment."

Well, for starters, you contradict yourself. In a previous post, you claim that you support "individuals" and are incredibly angry about the supposedly liberal "group" mentality. How, then, can you support the McVeigh trial? McVeigh, and INDIVIDUAL, was tried and convicted by a GROUP of twelve jurors. Now, even if your response to this would be that an individual's rights does not include killing other individuals, you have said yourself that you would kill McVeigh.

"They should have thought about that beforehand. It’s called responsibility and accepting the consequences of your actions."

This does not adequately respond to my comment. You still have not addressed the fact that a person CAN change. It would be more to society's benefit to have a "criminal" atone for his actions - serving his time, making license plates, etc. - and be potentially reformed rather than spending egregious amouts of money to keep them locked up for live or murdered; money which could be better spent on education and devoloping a genetic strain of flying hippopotami.

"Wrong. Not for traitors or those who took part in sedition. C’mon, you know that."

If this is the case, then why wasn't every soldier who supported the Confederacy during the Civil War also put to death after the war was over? Thomas Jefferson himself, one of the Founding Fathers whom you admire, said something along the lines of every democracy needs an insurrection to keep the blood pumping.

"Uh, wrong again. McVeigh was acting as a vigilante, an individual hell-bent on retaliation for something that didn’t effect him personally. Let me be clear: I do not support or condone how the Feds handled Waco and Ruby Ridge, which is the reason he gives for his action. Redress the grievances in civil court or in the form of criminal charges against individuals involved in the matter."

Hmm, that's interesting, so it's alright for the Founding Fathers to use violence when legal petitions don't work, but not so for us ignorant 20th/21st century folk...

"A nation at war is a different scenario than one person acting as a vigilante. McVeigh may have believed he was “at war” with the Feds, but this is contorting the language regardless of his beliefs. I’m fully aware of what happened during WWII. Germany also bombed the hell out of London and the Netherlands in 1940. The Japanese bombed the crap out of China too. What’s your point? In war, a way of life is at stake for entire nations. I think this is clear."

Nice job completely avoiding what I said (appartently you've taken a logic class and know what a red herring is). Once again, in clearer terms hopefully, the point is that our government has callously ignored the rights of civilians time and time again, which is illegal under the generally accepted rules of war. Being that the US violated these rules, why were they not punished. On a scale as to the number of military personnel responsible for the bombing of Dresden, compared to McVeigh's bombing of the federal building, FDR and Eisenhower are responsible for many more innocent deaths than McVeigh. By the time Dresden was bombed, it was generally accepted that the Allies would win. Furthermore, Dresden manufactured cigarrettes, not military hardware. In other words, the bombing of city known as the "Florence on the Elbe" in no way promoted the American "way of life" that you claim we were fighting for, nor did it serve to end the war sooner.

"Pat, you don’t know me. I’m a pretty tolerant person. There’s no contradiction here. Just because I challenge Aphasia’s viewpoints doesn’t make me intolerant. She can hold any belief she likes. I’m assessing where and why she holds these beliefs. That’s all part of political discourse and debate. I highly recommend being an independent thinker – try it sometime. Just because an individual holds a certain view doesn’t exclude me from criticizing or challenging his or her stances. That’s incongruent logic."

I am an individual thinker. In fact I commonly find myself holding an opinion in stark contrast to that of my friends, family, professors, etc. When this happens, I am more than willing to speak my mind in a calm manner, and I am oftentimes able to persuade others as to the validity of my beliefs. Also, you just provided further proof as to your arrogance: "try it sometime". Discussing your own viewpoints in a rational, logical manner does not include tossing aside the validity of other's opinions due to their age or "lack of experience". An older person, who lives his/her life in isolation and ignorance can have much less experience than a younger person who seeks to immerse himself/herself in the world. Aphasia, Cody, and I happen to be of the latter group, which one do you belong to?

"Sure it does. Experience counts. I’ll ignore you casting aspersions on my character with regards to you referring to me as a “stalker”, because you are speaking from emotion and not reason or logic."

Actually, this was an inside joke pertaining to Manu's old message board, EnterMyVortex.com, in which there was a long string regarding the number of internet and real-life stalkers Aphasia has had.

"And your point is? BTW, it’s “I have plenty…” not “I have got plenty…”."

Oh, gosh, I'm sorry, I was not aware that on this message board I was not allowed to use a conversational tone infused with slang.

You ARE the weakest link, goodbye!
-Patrick

Before I say anything, I'd just like to say *calm down*. You've been what I'd consider extremely rude to people who haven't agreed with you on this topic. Just general internet etiquette - it's considered very rude to 'LOL!!!' at what other people have to say, when they're speaking their opinions and not making a joke. With that out of the way...

Originally posted by eanax:
Prosecutors are the surrogate advocates acting on the deceased’s behalf. They are the third party ensuring MY rights aren’t neglected. They are speaking for me after I’m gone. I don’t think this is a hard concept to grasp. I can equate it because if I had been successful in defending myself, the discussion above would be moot. God forbid anyone can use self-defense, and anyone is prosecuted for crimes they commit.


self-de·fense (slfd-fns)
n.
1. Defense of oneself when physically attacked: took a course in self-defense.
2. Defense of what belongs to oneself, as one's works or reputation.
3. Law. The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.

*When physically attacked* suggests, to me, at the time of physical attack. If someone tries to kill me, fails, and gets away, 'self-defense' doesn't give me the right to hunt him down later and kill him. If the murder has already occured, you are no longer 'protecting yourself' (definition 3). So, in the same way, it is no longer self defense.

Originally posted by eanax:
McVeigh admitted he did it. What is NOT clear about that? Just because that are interesting questions raised about this case, and many others, doesn’t negate McVeigh’s involvement in this action. The government can be sued and has been, not always successful, but there is a redress of grievances. Support and elect those who share your views, like Ron Paul in Texas. (I wish he were my representative in congress.)

How many people claimed responsibility for the World Trade Center bombing? How many groups claim responsibility anytime any 'terrorist act' takes place? If you read through the list of questions, doesn't it make you wonder if maybe McVeigh is taking the fall for something bigger than him? I'm not passing judgement on whether or not he really did it - I'm just raising the question of whether or not he may have been put up to it, or whether he may have falsely plead guilty. I don't say that he was, or that he did, I just say that it is entirely possible.

As far as suing the government...please. Do you honestly think that would have worked in this case? 'I'm a concerned outsider, and I think you, the government, really screwed this up.' They'd laugh him out of the courtroom, if he even got that far.

Originally posted by eanax:
I never claimed [the Founding Fathers] were infallible. They were human, and all humans are fallible, right? However, they were our brightest generation. You live under a dictatorial Theocracy and see how much you enjoy it – a continent away. Some were loyal to the crown, but many were not. They were taking care of themselves without Britain’s help, then endured plundering of the wealth they had created.

My point is that they used force to get things done. Violence created this nation. How can you say that McVeigh was wrong in using violence to fix something that he saw as a major problem, but the Founding Fathers were right in doing the same thing? Both sought to right a corrupt government. One succeeded, so they're heros. One failed, and now he's being killed. This goes back to what I said before about the 'current power structure'. Had McVeigh succeeded, he would be a hero, because the power structure would be changed, and he would be seen as a crusader to end corruption. However, he lost, the power structure remained the same, and now he is being killed for it.


Originally posted by eanax:

You are telling me nothing new. I’ve read much history and this is a recurring theme throughout. What’s your point?

My point is - McVeigh did nothing new. He wanted to change the world. He failed; he's being killed. Many people throughout history have wanted to change the world. When they win, they're heros, and the murders they committed are forgotten. When they lose, they're deemed monsters and condemned for the murders they've committed. By agreeing with this system of thinking, you're just continuing the double standard.

Originally posted by eanax:

It’s ALL about power – on any side. Power to impose your ideas, beliefs, rules, etc. on all others in society. Social movements are about groups and their agendas. Many of those protestors were INCITING violence. Fight fire with fire. I’m not concerned with social movements when their goal is to strangle the individual and his or her choices. What about the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision on desegregation? This is one example of a social movement that succeeded in the legal system.

First off, the individuals inciting violence were a separate group of anarchists, not the main body of the protesters. I know several people who attended the WTO protest, and I have heard their first-hand accounts, how they were told that they needed to leave, given instructions for where to go, and shot with rubber bullets and tear gas when they followed those instructions. I'm sorry, but I'd say that's unacceptable. Fire with fire? Hardly. What you see on the news is highly selective. You do know that the media is run by large corporations, right? (Again, I'm not making things up to fit my 'radical leftist' ideas, I'm getting that directly from a sociology class I took...I can cite numbers if I need to.) If you were a major corporation, do you think you'd want to show people peacefully protesting the WTO, which is looking out for your best interests, being attacked by the police? No, you'd make sure they focused on the *small* group of anarchists who were destroying the city. I've heard first-hand accounts, I've seen what the media has to say, and I've gotta say...they just don't match up.


Originally posted by eanax:

Here’s the problem. You think ALL of them are innocent. LOL. It just isn’t so. Don’t be intellectually dishonest about that. Of course a few innocent people have died and may die under the death penalty. Let’s start using DNA testing to exonerate the accused or confirm a conviction if there is evidence to test. I’m a libertarian, but I’m not a conspiracy theorist about everything in the world. Don't be so paranoid...

When did I ever say that I thought they were all innocent? Murders do occur, and that means that there are guilty murderers. (I'd appreciate a *little* respect, too...like I said, openly laughing at people is generally considered fairly rude.) I obviously realize that some people who are killed through the death penalty are guilty. However, I don't think that it's excusable to have *any* innocent people die through the death penalty. It's just not a risk that I feel is acceptable to take.
There is not always evidence to test for DNA. What about those cases? Should we just say 'Oh well, the hell with them...if they can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're innocent, fry 'em. There's no DNA evidence either way, but hey, what's the worst that can happen? One guy dies who may or may not be innocent, and the victim's family gets closure.'? I'm sorry, but I can't accept that.
Oh, and by the way, I really don't care if you're a Libertarian. Tell me what *you* think, as an *individual*, not what your *group* says (you're the one that's so big on that).

Originally posted by eanax:

Trust me, it’s much cheaper to shoot someone than to light up old sparky or use lethal injection. I’m sorry, we are polar-opposite on this issue. Next time someone’s holding a knife to your throat, I’ll make sure to tickle him or her to death to handle the situation.


If someone's holding a knife to my throat, I'm within the parameters of self-defense to take care of myself. If I die at this person's hands, it's neither your nor anyone else's place to kill him or her for me. I'm dead, that's done, let's all move on, and hopefully, through his life in prison, he'll be able to change his ways. If not, oh well - he had a chance, and that's all I'd ask.

Originally posted by eanax:

Good for you, but it’s not relevant to our discussion. You attending a “great” institution does not add credence to any of your arguments or points. You haven’t had that much experience in the world just based on your age alone. I’m sorry, these are just the facts. A college junior doesn’t have the same amount of life experience as a thirty-five, a forty, or a forty-five year old. Experience counts…

Actually...you're the one who brought it up. I was just saying that you can't just dismiss my ideas because I'm younger. I can guarantee that I've had more 'life experience' than a fourty year old man who went to a state college (or no college) down the road from his house and has worked the same job for the past 20 years. I've travelled all over the U.S., attend a college 3000 miles away from home, have lived in both the inner-city and a big house in the suburbs, was raised by a very straight-laced domineering stepfather and a very liberal art school graduate mother, have been to England, have read tons of books, have taught Sunday School, have held a government job in which I organized and wrote up the contract for a huge conference...do you want me to continue? I think that I've had a fairly decent amount of life experience. Yes, experience does count, but I have had enough, I think, to back up my ideas.

Originally posted by eanax:

Eye for eye does work with the act of cold-blooded murder. You pay for them to be incarcerated while their victims lie cold in the ground. Anyone who takes a life in cold-blooded murder doesn’t deserve to breathe. I don’t care if you believe it does nothing. That’s not the point. These people have nothing to offer by the choices they made. The problem here is you don’t believe they are responsible for their actions. Tough. They are. We have plenty of people on the planet to offer us something without convicted murderers (who didn’t value the life they took) still breathing.

I do believe they're responsible for their actions. If they killed someone, they deserve to spend their life in jail. But I also believe that they can change, and that they do have something to offer society. If they don't reform, they spend their life making license plates and paving roads. That's something. If they do reform, they can bring something more to the world, and that's definitely something. I'd rather that my tax dollars paid to keep them in jail, giving back to society in whatever way they can, and possibly rehabilitating them, than paying for them to appeal their case time and again and finally paying for their execution. I have major issues with my money being used to kill people, rather than allowing them to give something back.

Originally posted by eanax:

Groups shouldn’t have rights. That’s not the intent under our constitution. We are equal as individuals under the law and NO ONE or entity is deserving of special rights, especially groups. This is the real debate today: the GROUP mentality against those who want to remain INDIVIDUALS. Of course the government doesn’t have the best interest of individuals in mind. Look at Hillary and her cronies. They are hell-bent on destroying individual liberty and pushing socialist group agendas. This is clear. She is drunk with POWER because that is what it is all about, as I said earlier. I choose to accept power over my own life, not the paternalistic nature of politicians and government.


Do you go to church? If so, you're a member of a religious *group*. Do you have a political affiliation? Then you are a member of a political *group*. What if the government said 'All Roman Catholic Democrats - you no longer have the right to practice your religion or have your political beliefs.'? That's taking away the rights of groups, which in turn takes away the rights of individuals. Groups do have rights. Last I checked, those sort of rights were protected by the constitution.
As far as Hillary Clinton goes...who's the one being paranoid here? If you agree that the government doesn't have the individual's best interests in mind, then how can you trust them to make the best decisions? That's where the people come in...you see something wrong, you try to change it. If you don't, you're going to be trampled on by the government - it's that simple.

Originally posted by eanax:

Well, there are those who totally disagree with you, like the Catholic Church. I find it to be philosophically contradicting, and if you don’t see that, oh well… I support your stance on choice because you own your body and no one has the right to tell you when and with whom to reproduce. A murderer can’t tell you what to do with your body because he doesn’t own it or have the right to initiate force to take it in cold blood.

I'm not Catholic. I used to be, but I agree with barely anything the Catholic Church supports, as far as politics go (I won't get into my religious issues with the Church here - this isn't the place for that discussion). A woman can do with her body as she sees fit, as long as she isn't killing a viable child. A murderer obviously doesn't have the right to kill a person, but, on the same token, I don't think the state has the right to kill them, in turn. Two wrongs don't make a right.

In regards to your comment to Pat:
Originally posted by eanax:

Sure it does. Experience counts. I’ll ignore you casting aspersions on my character with regards to you referring to me as a “stalker”, because you are speaking from emotion and not reason or logic.

Age does not equal experience. I've already talked about this, so I'll let it rest for now. As far as referring to you as a 'stalker', it's not a comment on your character. You're a male over the age of 13 and under the age of 60. Therefore, you fall into the prime group of my stalkers, of which I've had quite a few. There was even a death pool going for a while, to bet money on which of my stalkers would kill or seriously wound me first...That's all he meant - my friends tend to be a bit careful who they give my personal information out to, due to my less than ideal history with that sort of thing.

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

This thread really needs to be separated into two portions.

Death Penalty Debate, and is Tim guilty?

I am starting a Death Penalty debate in 'Great Debates' but tim guilty or not is all over here.

------------------
Manu Narayan

Originally posted by Manu:
This thread really needs to be separated into two portions.

Death Penalty Debate, and is Tim guilty?

I am starting a Death Penalty debate in 'Great Debates' but tim guilty or not is all over here.



Hmmm, look at this strict governmental control on our discussion. Bureaucracy and departmental divisions on our posts limit our free speech. Do people agree with this incursion of "governmental" power on this thread?

Maybe this post should go in a different section itself :-)

(This post was a joke, I actually do not wish to get on a discussion about any of these issues, nor do I disagree with Manu's action)

Do you go to church? If so, you're a member of a religious *group*. Do you have a political affiliation? Then you are a member of a political *group*. What if the government said 'All Roman Catholic Democrats - you no longer have the right to practice your religion or have your political beliefs.'? That's taking away the rights of groups, which in turn takes away the rights of individuals. Groups do have rights. Last I checked, those sort of rights were protected by the constitution.


I disagree. If Roman Catholic Democrats are not allowed to worship, this is not a violation of a group right but a violation of collective individual rights. If you differentiate, then the rights of the group would have to be in addition to the rights each member enjoys individually. No single individual possesses any additional rights than any other, regardless of group status. In theory, anyway.

[This message has been edited by Dest98 (edited 06-05-2001).]

My point is that they used force to get things done. Violence created this nation. How can you say that McVeigh was wrong in using violence to fix something that he saw as a major problem, but the Founding Fathers were right in doing the same thing? Both sought to right a corrupt government. One succeeded, so they're heros. One failed, and now he's being killed. This goes back to what I said before about the 'current power structure'. Had McVeigh succeeded, he would be a hero, because the power structure would be changed, and he would be seen as a crusader to end corruption. However, he lost, the power structure remained the same, and now he is being killed for it.


Personally, I have a difficult time equating the use of force against a standing army with the use of force against innocent civilians, women, & children during peacetime. McVeigh considered this "collateral damage", I suppose.

Force can only be morally justified if it is in defense of force. A standing army is an example, and an agent, of force.



[This message has been edited by Dest98 (edited 06-05-2001).]

Personally, I have a difficult time equating the use of force against a standing army with the use of force against innocent civilians, women, & children during peacetime. McVeigh considered this "collateral damage", I suppose.

Force can only be morally justified if it is in defense of force. A standing army is an example, and an agent, of force.

Dest98, you just opened a massive can of worms! http://discussanything.com/Ubb/smile.gif

First off, you are going under the ASSUMPTION that McVeigh was working against the government, and not as an agent for.

However, lets work with the idea that he was in effect acting against the government. What would be the difference betwen what McVeigh did, and the bombing of civillian structures in Bosnia for example?


------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Turbostang:
What would be the difference betwen what McVeigh did, and the bombing of civillian structures in Bosnia for example?


[/QUOTE

No fundamental difference. Both are instances of political violence. Just because a few hundred congresspersons vote to drop bombs or the president decides to initiate a "police action" doesnt make it any more legit than McVeigh or Ossama Bin-Ladin deciding to blow up some Federal agents.



------------------
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." -Nietzsche

I agree, no fundamental difference. The only differences are in public perception. Any act, no matter how criminal, is generally given some legitimacy by the people if committed by their own government.

As for the assumptions about McVeigh, I wasn't really making any of my own, but more working off someone else's. I take it for granted that I'll never really know what happened in Ok. City, and that's exactly the way the government wants it. They're wetting their britches to do away with him and eliminate the possibility of him ever talking.

Patrick:

“Well, for starters, you contradict yourself. In a previous post, you claim that you support "individuals" and are incredibly angry about the supposedly liberal "group" mentality. How, then, can you support the McVeigh trial? McVeigh, and INDIVIDUAL, was tried and convicted by a GROUP of twelve jurors.”

Straw man. Just because I believe in the rights of individuals doesn’t mean I discard the basic framework of our adversarial system, which is trial by jury. Blatant misrepresentation of my views and fallacious thinking. You are confusing an individualist political stance (libertarian) and a group-oriented political stance (like that advocated by Democrats, Socialists, Greens, etc.). I’m pointing out a trend that’s been taking shape in the United States since before you were born. There’s no contradiction here, just your flawed interpretation. BTW, there is no “supposedly” about the Liberals’ “group” mindset. As an independent thinker you should be able to see this.

“Now, even if your response to this would be that an individual's rights does not include killing other individuals, you have said yourself that you would kill McVeigh.”

Where did I say that? Quote me. I NEVER wrote that I would literally pull the trigger. That’s a flat-out lie. Show me the declarative statement you claim I made.

“This does not adequately respond to my comment. You still have not addressed the fact that a person CAN change. It would be more to society's benefit to have a "criminal" atone for his actions - serving his time, making license plates, etc. - and be potentially reformed rather than spending egregious amouts of money to keep them locked up for live or murdered; money which could be better spent on education and devoloping a genetic strain of flying hippopotami.”

The debate is on murderers, not ALL criminals in the system. I can see that you’re familiar with Red Herrings as well. I don’t care if a murderer can change. You take someone’s life in cold-blood you have forfeited your right to breathe. How does society benefit from their atonement while in prison for life? Sounds more like someone getting straight with their God before they pass on. Above is your OPINION, which is fine, but it’s not FACT.

“If this is the case, then why wasn't every soldier who supported the Confederacy during the Civil War also put to death after the war was over?

President Andrew Johnson issued amnesty to Confederate soldiers and supplied a few thousand pardons for the politicians shortly after the war. Congress concluded that there had been enough killing (between 600,000 and 700,000 dead), so they decided not to pursue mass treason trials and executions. Lincoln made it clear all he wanted was the Republic back together before his assassination. “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.” – March 4, 1865.

“Thomas Jefferson himself, one of the Founding Fathers whom you admire, said something along the lines of every democracy needs an insurrection to keep the blood pumping.”

You’re paraphrasing, and he spoke to this in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson didn’t believe in democracy. The term democracy in the 18th century and the 19th century meant, “mob rule”. He abhorred it. As an aside, the term “democracy” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It is true that Jefferson wrote about many things – he was the American Enlightenment’s Voltaire. Jefferson also said, “Arms are the American yeoman farmer’s eye-teeth.”

“Hmm, that's interesting, so it's alright for the Founding Fathers to use violence when legal petitions don't work, but not so for us ignorant 20th/21st century folk...”

It was after the ‘Lobster Backs’ who continually used the same forceful and violent means on the Colonists. The Brits took what they wanted repeatedly, quartered their soldiers in Colonists’ homes, rummaged through personal effects without consent, etc. These offences are all laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. King George cared nothing about legal petitions. There was no true legal recourse or remedy.

“Once again, in clearer terms hopefully, the point is that our government has callously ignored the rights of civilians time and time again, which is illegal under the generally accepted rules of war.”

War IS callous, and civilians have been killed and will get killed in the future. There is no ‘clean’ war. Yeah, rules of war are followed only as long as each side is ‘gentlemanly’. Once one side balks, the other jettisons the rule as well. History is littered with it, but we aren’t the sole violators – which is what you keep implying. Who said war was pleasant anyway?

“Being that the US violated these rules, why were they not punished?”

This is obvious. The Allies won. War’s a ***** and we helped end it. You ought to be flipping glad that we did too, but I don’t think this is the case. That’s fine, even though you are enjoying the life you have today because of their sacrifices. You’re tone is rather ungrateful. BTW, there’s more to WWII history than reading Howard Zinn and Kurt Vonnegut. (And I know they were WWII vets.)

“By the time Dresden was bombed, it was generally accepted that the Allies would win. Furthermore, Dresden manufactured cigarrettes, not military hardware. In other words, the bombing of city known as the "Florence on the Elbe" in no way promoted the American "way of life" that you claim we were fighting for, nor did it serve to end the war sooner.”

Whether the Allies were expected to win at that point of the war (February 1945) wasn’t an absolute certainty. That’s the benefit of analysis in hindsight. Yeah, Dresden manufactured cigarettes – the life’s blood of any soldier. It also had a large rail yard where troops were still being transferred back and forth between the eastern and western fronts. We weren’t promoting a way of life – we were ending a tyrant’s reign. We were ensuring ours would still exist after Europe’s primary belligerent was at the heart of two gigantic, multi-year conflicts within the short span of 30 years. Cruel? No doubt. Overboard? Yeah. Effective? Absolutely.

“Discussing your own viewpoints in a rational, logical manner does not include tossing aside the validity of other's opinions due to their age or "lack of experience"… An older person, who lives his/her life in isolation and ignorance can have much less experience than a younger person who seeks to immerse himself/herself in the world.”

Having an opinion in and of itself doesn’t make it valid. It’s merely an opinion. Regarding less experience: this is true of anyone regardless of whether they are old or young (isolation and ignorance). In general, especially among professionals, experience IS the difference. Do want a surgeon straight out of Med school to operate on you or do you want someone who’s done more than ten critical operations and practiced several years? Or do you want a lawyer fresh out of school or someone who’s been practicing for 10 to 15 years with a successful track record?

“Aphasia, Cody, and I happen to be of the latter group, which one do you belong to?”

I’ve done plenty of living and had many experiences, young buck. I’m glad you explore the wonders of the world. That’s nice…

“You ARE the weakest link, goodbye!”

Patrick, you’re just weak…


“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin



[This message has been edited by eanax (edited 06-07-2001).]

Aphasia:

“*When physically attacked* suggests, to me, at the time of physical attack. If someone tries to kill me, fails, and gets away, 'self-defense' doesn't give me the right to hunt him down later and kill him.”

This is not what I argued. I said if they (the initiator of force) are successful, or even if they have failed like you stated, that the local prosecutor takes over as your advocate. The latter part of your statement is someone who’s acting as a vigilante.

“If the murder has already occured, you are no longer 'protecting yourself' (definition 3). So, in the same way, it is no longer self defense.”

Having the murderer prosecuted is self-defense for the victim in a court of law.

“As far as suing the government...please. Do you honestly think that would have worked in this case? I'm a concerned outsider, and I think you, the government, really screwed this up.' They'd laugh him out of the courtroom, if he even got that far.”

Again, that’s not what I argued. There was a civil matter concerning Waco against the government filed by relatives of those who died in the incident. The plaintiffs lost the case, but point is they could and did seek legal remedy via the court system. Yesterday it was announced that the FBI marksman who shot and killed Randy Weaver’s wife at Ruby Ridge can be prosecuted under Idaho statutes for manslaughter.

“My point is that they used force to get things done. Violence created this nation.”

Violence creates every nation. Someone eventually seizes power.

How can you say that McVeigh was wrong in using violence to fix something that he saw as a major problem, but the Founding Fathers were right in doing the same thing? Both sought to right a corrupt government. One succeeded, so they're heros. One failed, and now he's being killed. This goes back to what I said before about the 'current power structure'.

McVeigh and a few of his associates didn’t speak for the conscience of a budding nation. The Colonists didn’t have real legal recourse with the King and his henchmen. McVeigh could’ve put his support and energy behind political candidates and movements and legal remedies that supported his beliefs – but he didn’t. McVeigh knew the consequences of his actions…

“Had McVeigh succeeded, he would be a hero, because the power structure would be changed, and he would be seen as a crusader to end corruption. However, he lost, the power structure remained the same, and now he is being killed for it.”

Your comparison is flawed. McVeigh’s limited actions weren’t going to change the power structure of this nation. He and a few of his associates hardly make a sweeping movement across the land compared to the Colonists who rallied to slice the tentacles of King George III.

“He wanted to change the world. He failed; he's being killed. Many people throughout history have wanted to change the world. When they win, they're heros, and the murders they committed are forgotten. When they lose, they're deemed monsters and condemned for the murders they've committed. By agreeing with this system of thinking, you're just continuing the double standard.”

McVeigh’s singular action hardly changed the world or the political structure of our country. So why did he give up if he was on a mission, a cause to change the world? He believes he’s a martyr like John Brown. Whether I agree with win = heroes and lose = monsters or not is irrelevant because it will exist regardless of my stance or yours.

“First off, the individuals inciting violence were a separate group of anarchists, not the main body of the protesters. I know several people who attended the WTO protest, and I have heard their first-hand accounts, how they were told that they needed to leave, given instructions for where to go, and shot with rubber bullets and tear gas when they followed those instructions. I'm sorry, but I'd say that's unacceptable.”

That’s how potential rioters are handled. The anarchists wanted to start a fight with police. That’s just asinine. They deserve it. Again, if the police really wanted to “handle” them and be “Fascists”, they would have used real bullets – not uncommon in other nations.

“What you see on the news is highly selective. (Again, I'm not making things up to fit my 'radical leftist' ideas, I'm getting that directly from a sociology class I took...I can cite numbers if I need to.) If you were a major corporation, do you think you'd want to show people peacefully protesting the WTO, which is looking out for your best interests, being attacked by the police? No, you'd make sure they focused on the *small* group of anarchists who were destroying the city. I've heard first-hand accounts, I've seen what the media has to say, and I've gotta say...they just don't match up.”

I watched the live unedited feeds coming in at a communications company when they were happening. I saw the bandanna-wearing anarchists throwing bricks at cops and making physical assaults on cops after they were told to clear out. Others in the protest group were not terribly responsive to the authorities’ requests either. Again, what you learned in your sociology class doesn’t add merit to what happened or your argument. And if you are a major corporation, it makes sense to allow people to protest ‘peacefully’ because it shows that you acknowledge others their right to voice their beliefs and opinions about your company. However, your collective group couldn’t keep it together. It started to get ugly and the ratings in TV-land skyrocketed, and this is what producers’ love – have an unfolding live event and the audience will stay tuned.

“You do know that the media is run by large corporations, right?”

Really? Wow… Of course I do. Do you have any other “new” revelations you’d like to share?

“I obviously realize that some people who are killed through the death penalty are guilty. However, I don't think that it's excusable to have *any* innocent people die through the death penalty. It's just not a risk that I feel is acceptable to take.”

Good. Fine. I disagree.

“There is not always evidence to test for DNA. What about those cases? Should we just say 'Oh well, the hell with them...if they can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're innocent, fry 'em. There's no DNA evidence either way, but hey, what's the worst that can happen? One guy dies who may or may not be innocent, and the victim's family gets closure.'? I'm sorry, but I can't accept that.”

The standard is a “rea