March 29, 2001

'No Sympathy' for Dead Children, McVeigh Says

By JO THOMAS

The babies and young children who died in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building were "collateral damage," Timothy J. McVeigh told two reporters from Buffalo in his first public admission of his role in the 1995 bombing.

"I understand what they felt in Oklahoma City," Mr. McVeigh told the authors of "American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing." "I have no sympathy for them." The book is to be published on April 3 by Regan Books, an imprint of Harper Collins.

Mr. McVeigh, who is to be executed on May 16, told his story to Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, reporters for The Buffalo News.

Among the 168 people who died in the bombing on April 19, 1995, were 19 children in the day care center on the first floor of the building.

"I recognized beforehand that someone might be bringing their kid to work," Mr. McVeigh says in the book. "However, if I had known there was an entire day care center, it might have given me pause to switch targets. That's a large amount of collateral damage." The authors will appear on "PrimeTime Thursday" on ABC. Also to be interviewed is Dr. John Smith, a psychiatrist who evaluated Mr. McVeigh.

Dr. Smith said on the program, that Mr. McVeigh knew children were in the building. "I asked him, `Tim, why did you go ahead with the bombing?' And he said, `One, the date was too important to put off.' " April 19 was the anniversary of the assault by federal agents on the Branch Davidian complex near Waco, Tex., Dr. Smith said, "and he went into a tirade about all the children killed at Waco."

The authors say on the program that Mr. McVeigh told them that he alone planned the bombing, although he got his army buddy Terry Nichols to help him build the bomb by threatening his family. Both men pleaded not guilty; Mr. Nichols was convicted of conspiracy and sentenced to life in prison.

Mr. Michel said Mr. McVeigh denied that anyone else played a role in the bombing, using a line from the movie, "A Few Good Men": "You can't handle the truth."

"Tim added his own line, `Because the truth is, I blew up the Murrah Building, and isn't it kind of scary that one man could wreak this kind of hell?' "

Kathy Wilburn, whose grandsons Chase and Colton Smith died in the bombing, called Mr. McVeigh's attitude "sick," adding that he "got to pick the time he was executed, virtually the way he was executed, and he's getting his last word."

-- (they're coll@teral. damage), March 29, 2001

Answers

Insert stick of dynamite in ass and detonate.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), March 29, 2001.

I just read this in the a.m. newspaper. I'll be checking out Primetime, I do agree with one thing he said. It IS scarey to think one man could do this.

Although it does make you wonder. Perhaps he did have more help?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), March 29, 2001.

Collateral damage? Anyone seen Y2J recently?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 29, 2001.

I will ask it again. Does anyone care to argue that this "man" should not be executed?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 29, 2001.

I think it's wrong to give his extremist supporters a martyr. Let him hang around and show what a scuzz ball he is. Better a live object of derision than a dead hero.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 29, 2001.

Lars,

No, I won't argue for that.

If they need me to pull the switch, I'm game. They'll have to buy my lunch, though. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 29, 2001.

sumer you have to be the stupidest person on the planet. He didn't do it all by hisself! God, you're dumb

-- (give us @ br.eak), March 29, 2001.

"Does anyone care to argue that this "man" should not be executed?"

More as a devil's advocate than out of deep personal conviction (I accept that the death penalty is not "cruel or unusual"), I'll advance the ball for the opponent's of the death penalty.

To my mind the best argument against the death penalty is the simplest: killing people is a barbaric act (no matter who engages in it) and it is not justified by necessity.

Once you've caught the culprits and put them in prison, where is the necesssity for killing them? The death of the culprit does not add any measurable amount of "justice" to the overall picture. All it adds is another premeditated, cold-blooded killing. It is nothing but state-sanctioned revenge and revenge is essentially barbaric.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 29, 2001.

Millions of Children will die on Dubya's shift, so what's the difference.

-- (execute@dubya.now), March 29, 2001.

LN

How much money does it take to house trash like him for a year??

Fry his ass.........it's cheaper.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), March 29, 2001.

Are they using an electric chair for the execution?...or leathal injection?

Anyone know?

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), March 29, 2001.

They're using the Dubya chair - death by carbon dioxide.

-- (cut@off.oxygen), March 29, 2001.

I don't know about OK, but in GA, the state supremes just decided electrocution is cruel and unusual, and we're switching to lethal injection.

As a side note, have you seen The Green Mile?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 29, 2001.

"Fry his ass.........it's cheaper."

That's a common mistake, Deano.

It is not cheaper to fry him. The cost of killing someone is higher because of the cost of litigation. The reason to fry him (imho) is because it sends the right message -- premeditated murder of more than one person deserves the death penalty,,,no matter how much it costs.

-- (I @m a.troll (but not in this post)), March 29, 2001.

i'matroll

In most cases that's probably true because of all the lawyers and crap. This guy has made it clear though, he prefers death to any other alternative (case closed ;). I can't imagine it would be less expensive to care for this human sludge until he was 80 years old than it would be to execute him using whatever method.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), March 29, 2001.

As a side note, have you seen The Green Mile?

Yes, and read the book.

One of King's best...IMHO!

Don't forget to wet them sponges! :o

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), March 29, 2001.

I don't have the time to read many novels anymore, but I do love short stories, and King's stories (before he devoted himself totally to novels) are great. I've seen the movie and it was the second King movie I've liked (Shawshank Redemption was the best, IMHO).

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 29, 2001.

I liked Shawshank also except in today's world, HBO's Oz is probably a more realistic portrayal of prison life.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 29, 2001.

sheesh

-- (-@-.-), March 29, 2001.

Killing him is an easy out and makes him a martyr.

This is the cover of the book "American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oaklahoma City Bombing," by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, released Thursday, March 29, 2001. McVeigh calls the children killed in the Oklahoma City bombing ``collateral damage,'' regretting only that their deaths detracted from his bid to avenge Waco and Ruby Ridge, according to the new book.

*************

Haven't seen Shawshank Redemption yet, it's on my list.

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), March 29, 2001.

Tim McVeigh is being housed in Indiana, where he will be put to death. Indiana doesn't use the electric chair, but uses injection. Damn, I wish that they would make an exception just this once. He gets to take the easy way out by just going to sleep.

-- (oh@no.no), March 29, 2001.

I think he should be burned, just like some of his victims. Not enough to die though. Next he should have one of his legs cut off without any anesthesia, just like one of his victims. Next, he should have to lay in a hospital bed with IV's to keep him alive to watch the same thing done to the one's he loves (with virtual reality). Then, he should be able to lay in that bed until he dies a natural death.

Sounds fair to me!

-- (Cut@his pecker.off), March 29, 2001.

I, too, think McVeigh is a callous, heartless bastard and deserves his fate. We had a similar guy (similar in being a psychopath) up here in Canada a few years ago: Paul Bernardo. He kidnapped and tortured two 15 year school girls in his basement. At his trial it emerged that he had videotaped most of the torture (but not the actual killings). Canada abolished the death penalty in the early 70s, so Bernardo is serving a life sentence and will likely die of old age in prison as he has been designated a "dangerous offender" and is never likely to be declared fit for parole.

Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty - tempting as it might be for me to push the button on the 2 bastards described above. A nation either has the death penalty or it doesn't. And if it does, for every 10 or 50 or 100 bastards like McVeigh that are executed an innocent man will be executed in error. The names Guy Paul Morin and david Milgaard won't mean anything to you Americans but if they had been convicted in Texas they most likely would be worm food by now. At least in Canada when DNA evidence cleared them they could be released from prison (in the case of Milgaard this was 20+ years inot a "life" sentence after his convictions).

Just my C$0.02

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), March 29, 2001.

I don't get this. The Allies toasted tens of thousands of babies during planned immolations of several cities, cities in some cases not even strategic military targets. Deliberately designed firestorms in Aachen and Dusseldorf for example. Designed to incinerate innocent civilians in the interest of pressuring the population for peace.

This horror was justified because of the military goals. In McVeigh's mind, the act was one of war, and his justification the same.

McVeigh's act of terrorism is still repugnant, while we think of the acts of merciless terrorism of a Menachem Begin or a Nelson Mandela as somehow benevolent.

But what I really don't get is... why is the media making a fuss over this? Isn't the guy already convicted and facing death? What are we supposed to do now, kill him deader?

-- Nutty (Curious@George.com), March 30, 2001.

Peg, Shawshank Redemption is an incredible movie. Be prepared emotionally, for some difficult issues are depicted. I've seen it several times and always come away exhausted.

I'm firmly against murder carried out by governmental decree. Popular term is execution. It's murder and somebody is paid to murder on behalf of the state. This is not a question of self-defense. It is punishment which is final. I deem this to be wrong. Horribly wrong.

To identify budgetary savings as a reason to murder a person is cold and insensitive, IMO. How can we exclaim in horror that children who kill have lost all sense of the value of life if we turn around and exhibit the same cold-heartedness?

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 30, 2001.

Well.....

I reckon that makes me a little cold and a little insensitive towards the likes of Timothy McVeigh of all 'people'!!!

Oh, the horror......

The world will be a much better place without him.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), March 30, 2001.

Hey Deano, I can certainly understand your feelings towards the guy and what he did in OKC. I value life differently than you. I see government's role as protector of the citizenry when necessary, not Murder Incorporated.

One man's injustice is another's justice.

The world continues to spin despite our differences of opinion. Good thing, that.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 30, 2001.

We agree to disagree.

I guess I have different definitions for 'murder' and 'execution'.

The first is a horrible tragedy and the second is earned.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), March 30, 2001.

You're right, Deano. My definition for murder is not the accepted one. I define it as premeditated killing - lawful or unlawful. Merriam-Webster disagrees with me in that respect.

I value life regardless of that life's actions. The value is inherent, IMO.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 30, 2001.

Deano, I'm guessing that if the large portion of the adult population who endorse the death penalty were to view an execution in person, public opinion would reverse itself from the current 70% in favor to 70% against. Executions really are cold-blooded murder, and most people would not have the stomach to do it themselves under any circumstances.

It is the difference between philosophizing and attitudinizing from a distance and having the stink of it forced up your nostrils. Read a sober account of any execution by any journalist who was invitied to be an eyewitness and you'll get a flavor of how numbingly horrible the action really is.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 30, 2001.

sumer you have to be the stupidest person on the planet. He didn't do it all by hisself! God, you're dumb

-- (give us @ br.eak), March 29, 2001.

Well, yeah, thank you. But I wont tell how stupid you are either. Why you may ask? Well your above speaks for itself.

Furthermore, oh give us a break one, tell me something, since we Know he had one helper, care to tell me and provide a link for the others?

Just trying to decrease my stupidity here.

Thanks.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), March 30, 2001.

OK

Let me put it this way since I never said executions were reason to party or a gala affair.

One is a horrible tragedy - the murder.

The other is a horrible necessity (IMO) - the execution.

I don't cherrish the idea that an individual can literally 'get away with murder'. I believe that if you purposely take an individual's life (via murder), then you should lose the right to yours (via execution).

The moral of the story - don't 'murder' anyone and you won't have to worry about being 'executed'.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), March 30, 2001.

Executing McVeigh is too easy - it takes him off the hook. He should suffer in jail, contemplating his own evil, for the rest of his life. He *wants* to die and we're giving in to his whims. I'm not a proponent of the death penalty but for those we seek retribution and retaliation, a life of misery should satisfy your desires.

-- 1 (2@3.com), March 30, 2001.