|
It's NOT About McVeigh |
In a recent poll, it was
found that of people who say they are against the death
penalty, 25% say they oppose the death penalty in most
cases, but not for terrorists who kill Americans. CUADP sees
this as a reversion to the gut reaction we all feel when a
brutal crime touches us personally. For most Americans, the
Oklahoma City bombing is as close as we have come to the
reality of terrorism.
CUADP recently received the following letter from such a person. We wanted to share our response with others as a way of explaining our position in this case. Your response to <cuadp@cuadp.org> is invited and welcome, but due to the overwhelming number of messages we receive, please do not expect an immediate response. DEAR CUADP, FOR THE MOST PART, I BELIEVE THE DEATH PENALTY TO BE WRONG. HOWEVER, HOW DO WE COMPARE WHAT MCVEIGH DID WITH ANY OTHER MURDER CASE ON THE BOOKS? THE MURDER OF NINETEEN CHILDREN BY McVEIGH, REFERRED TO AS "COLLATERAL DAMAGE," STANDS THE VIEW OF NO DEATH PENALTY ON ITS EAR. HOW DO WE DEAL WITH A PERSON SO CALLOUS? PERSUADE ME THAT THE DEATH PENALTY ISN'T THE RIGHT REMEDY? THEN, LOOK THE PARENTS, RELATIVES, FRIENDS, AND THE COMMON JOE IN THE EYES, AND TELL THEM WHY McVEIGH SHOULDN'T FORFEIT HIS LIFE? MY MIND IS OPEN FOR NOW. I HOPE SOMEONE AT YOUR ORGANIZATION WILL TAKE THE TIME TO PERSUADE ME ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THANK YOU,
Dear Mr. X, Thanks for writing: At 03:25 PM 3/30/2001 -0500, X@aol.com
wrote: In McVeigh's mind, he was engaging in an act of revenge when he bombed a United States installation. In his mind he was "at war," and much the same as when we bomb Iraq or send more than a billion dollars in weapons to Colombia, innocent civilians die and countless lives are changed forever. The "collateral damage" from McVeigh's "war" or any other is the same: Innocent people die. Of course McVeigh's thinking was horrifically wrong. I am simply saying that we must attempt to understand his mindset, and recognize that WE must choose to stop the cycle of violence! Killing Tim McVeigh only continues the violence. And, killing McVeigh makes him a martyr in the eyes of those who supported him and share his beliefs. We should not be surprised if one or more of his supporters tries to avenge for our killing McVeigh. Will May 16 become the next April 19? We should ask ourselves: How much killing and how much revenge are we prepared to live through? It's not about McVeigh. It's about us. You challenge us to look into the eyes of the victims and their families. You should know that not all of the victim's families want the death penalty, although most won't talk publicly about their opposition. Bud Welch, whose daughter was one of the 168 killed, does speak out. Read his statement at http://www.abolition.org/budwelch.html Then, take this challenge: Will you look
into the eyes of Bill McVeigh, Or is it enough to let him rot in jail, thinking every day about why he can't walk more than three paces, will NEVER touch a woman, and will eat "food loaf" for the rest of his life? For me, I'll choose the latter, and not reduce myself to his level - the level of a person who would kill a defenseless human being. I wish you peace. --abe Mr. X responds: >In a message dated 3/30/01 12:39:14 PM
Pacific Standard Time, abe@cuadp.org writes: SO LONG AS THE MEDIA DOESN'T CONTINUALLY MAKE HIM A SUBJECT (MEDIA DARLING OF THE WORST KIND), I FIND THIS OPTION FAR MORE PREFERABLE. THE MERE FACT THAT HE (McVEIGH) HAS OPTED (REQUESTED) FOR THE DEATH PENALTY RATHER THAN ROT IN JAIL, IS ALL THE MORE REASON TO KEEPHIM ALIVE FOR THE REST OF HIS NATURAL LIFE. >For me, I'll choose the latter, and
not reduce myself to his level - the WHILE I DISAGREE WITH YOUR CATEGORIZING McVEIGH AS A "DEFENSELESS HUMAN BEING," I DO AGREE WITH YOUR STAND ON NOT REDUCING YOURSELF TO HIS LEVEL. IN SUMMATION SIR, YOU'VE ALTERED MY THINKING, AND I NOW FIND MYSELF IN YOUR CORNER. THANK YOU. SINCERELY, X Dear Mr. X, Not too long ago, my fellow activists Bill Pelke & George White (see <http://www.journeyofhope.org> were on a radio call-in program when a caller challenged them as "bleeding heart liberals," saying that anyone who opposes the death penalty surely is a pacifist who would not defend the country. The caller suggested that the death penalty is an important weapon in the war on crime, and therefore anyone opposed to the death penalty was "not defending the country." Big mistake! Bill and George explained that they had both served in the U.S. Army: Bill carried a radio in the infantry in Viet Nam and George served as a drill sergeant during the Viet Nam era. Bill explained that when he was in Viet Nam, if there was a battle, it was a soldiers' duty to try to kill the enemy. But if they captured enemy soldiers, according to the Geneva Convention it was illegal to do any harm to them. In fact, Bill was once ordered to guard prisoners of war - not from escaping, but from fellow U.S. Soldiers!
You wrote: >From: "Mr. Y" <"Y" @broadband.att.com> Dear Mr. Y, First, thanks for writing. We have never suggested that what Timothy McVeigh did is defensible. We do not defend his actions, nor do we condone them. We are as shocked and outraged as anyone else, not only in this case but whenever we hear of violent deaths. But it's not about McVeigh. It's about us, and what killing him says about us and does to us. When I say "us," I mean us as a people, a nation, and us as you, me, and every other tax payer. I am no killer. I abhor killing, and I will not contradict myself by saying "killing is wrong" and then turning around and killing! Tim McVeigh may deserve to die, but I do not deserve to kill him. Silence is complicity. Therefore, I must vocally and visibly say "NO!" Sincerely, --abe
|