An Essay on Hypocrisy -- by Timothy McVeigh

[Locutus]

Timothy McVeigh created this handwritten essay from his cell in ADX - Florence, CO in March of 1998.  Since his name has come up on another thread, I thought some might be interested in reading this, and it might provoke some interesting conversation.  Although I think the usual suspects will dismiss it out of hand, I do think he makes some interesting points. 

As a preface to the essay, he writes:

"I have chosen Media Bypass as a possible forum for this piece because, frankly, I realize that it is quite provocative -- and I rather doubt that any mainstream media would touch it. [Note that although the enclosed is very provocative, it was written to provoke thought -- and was not written with malevolent intent.]"

If we take him at his word, that the essay was written to provoke thought and sans malevolent intent, let's discuss.  The complete essay is in the next post.

[Locutus]

An Essay on Hypocrisy
By Timothy McVeigh

The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") -- mainly because they have used them in the past.

Well, if that"s the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) -- with respect to Iraq"s (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We"ve all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction."

Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants -- mostly women and children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)

If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?

The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

Hypocrisy when it comes to death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about that.

(Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb -- saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)

When considering morality and mens rea [criminal intent] in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?

Yet another example of this nation"s blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq.

In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are "guilty by association" -- they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned.

What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don"t have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?

I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction." If a two pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction," then what do people think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is?

I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma."

When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.

Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.

These are weapons of mass destruction -- and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine.

It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.

When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."

Sincerely

Timothy J. McVeigh


http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/mcveigh/okcaug98.htm

[Palehorse]

While I understand his analogies I cannot help but initially believe that he was in large part, attempting to justify his actions in an attempt to somehow absolve himself of what he knew in his heart was wrong.

On some small level I agree with his intentions in a way, but overall he fails to recognize the stark difference between governmental responsibility and duty, and individual responsibility and duty. There are vast differences between the two.

His actions were the result of unexpressed frustrations and illogical/irresponsible thinking; whether due to life experiences or a breakdown of mental thought processes will probably never be known. Perhaps both?

What is known is that as times increasingly become harder for an ever increasing number of Americans, the likelihood of others resorting to, or succumbing to, similar thought patterns and actions increases exponentially. And this becomes a national problem because it threatens the welfare and liberty of every single citizen in the country on a daily basis.

As our attention is diverted by terrorist threats from foreign entities and emotional straw men erected by propagandists, the domestic enemy grows stronger and "his' rhetoric finds an increasingly sympathetic ear in those who are cast out from society, by society itself.

[Exterminator]

On some small level I agree with his intentions in a way, but overall he fails to recognize the stark difference between governmental responsibility and duty, and individual responsibility and duty. There are vast differences between the two.

An interesting statement but why does the government get such license especially when they have proven willing to abuse it so often?

[Palehorse]

An interesting statement but why does the government get such license especially when they have proven willing to abuse it so often?

The government exists at the will of the people, who have charged them in part to oversee their safety, security, and liberty. In situations wherein the government deems it necessary to declare war, it has the authority to do so; the individual does not retain such a right. The people do via the government.

[Exterminator]

The government exists at the will of the people, who have charged them in part to oversee their safety, security, and liberty. In situations wherein the government deems it necessary to declare war, it has the authority to do so; the individual does not retain such a right. The people do via the government.

That's a nice sentiment and, yes, that was the original intent but does it reflect reality?

[Locutus]

An interesting statement but why does the government get such license especially when they have proven willing to abuse it so often?

It's amazing how much we think alike, as that's exactly where I was going to go.  I think Americans, and by extension our government, consider ourselves more sane than the rest of the world, and somehow incapable of mistakes, misuse, or abuse of anything or anyone.  Clearly that isn't the case, so why do so many people think that it is?

The Iraq war is a perfect example of this country being a bully for no justifiable reason.  And despite all of the ballyhooing about "weapons of mass destruction" falling into the hands of the wrong people, we remain the only country ever to have employed the ultimate weapons of mass destruction. 

[Palehorse]

That's a nice sentiment and, yes, that was the original intent but does it reflect reality?

You and I both know it does not. It is the way it is supposed to be, but not the reality.

[Palehorse]

It's amazing how much we think alike, as that's exactly where I was going to go.  I think Americans, and by extension our government, consider ourselves more sane than the rest of the world, and somehow incapable of mistakes, misuse, or abuse of anything or anyone.  Clearly that isn't the case, so why do so many people think that it is?

The Iraq war is a perfect example of this country being a bully for no justifiable reason.  And despite all of the ballyhooing about "weapons of mass destruction" falling into the hands of the wrong people, we remain the only country ever to have employed the ultimate weapons of mass destruction.

No disagreement here. To this I would add "so far" to the last sentence. N Korea may change that, or Iran.

[Exterminator]

As an example, I present this article.  Did the people charge the government (CIA) with running covert operations that provided logistical and material support that allowed foreign interests to stage bloody coups that have claimed more lives than Hitler?  It is interesting to note that in many of these cases, we helped to overthrow democratically elected governments, replacing them with dictatorships more favorable to American business interests.

[Palehorse]

As an example, I present this article.  Did the people charge the government (CIA) with running covert operations that provided logistical and material support that allowed foreign interests to stage bloody coups that have claimed more lives than Hitler?  It is interesting to note that in many of these cases, we helped to overthrow democratically elected governments, replacing them with dictatorships more favorable to American business interests.

Wow Ex! I am going to have to wait until this evening to read the entire thing straight through. . . Lot of stuff in that article!

[Locutus]

A cursory read of that just goes to show that governments hate secrets, unless of course they're their own. 

I'm going to read that more fully myself later. 

[Locutus]

BTW, not too many people willing to test the waters on this thread.   

[followsthewolf]

"Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive."

We have been living a morality play for years.

That's why we need such conservative 'murrican patriots to tell us when to drink the kool-aid an' be a patriot when they needs us to.

[LOsborne]

The government exists at the will of the people, who have charged them in part to oversee their safety, security, and liberty.

PH, is even that statement true today? What are the current figures on percentage of the population eligible to vote, who actually do? It's fashionable to claim this disinterest on the part of voters is due to laziness, but I have a suspicion it is also due to a feeling the exercise is pointless. No matter who wins, it's going to be the same bunch of privileged career pols, who pursue agendas designed to enrich their own pockets, while dazzling the populace with meaningless calls to arms. For instance, what ever happened to that constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning? That was a real meaty issue, with far reaching ramifications, wasn't it.

It makes no difference why the blessed U S of A says it does anything. The stated reason will have no connection with truth, and the truth won't be known by anyone outside the beltway. This land may still be your land, but it doesn't bear much resemblance to my land.