Rather than reprinting my thoughts on this subject, please click the link below to my website commentary on Timothy McVeigh. (A perspective you certainly will not hear from the media)

http://www.geocities.com/shawnsworld_2000/News65.html

I agree with your commentary. He was branded a terrorist because he attacked government buildings. What about government terrorist action at Waco and Ruby Ridge, no justice there. McVeigh did deserve the death penalty but so do the agents who commited murder in government terrorist attacks against citizens.

If Timothy McVeigh wanted to strike out at government he could have chosen a less public access building as a target. A lot of innocent people died needlessly in his wanton act of violence. If he had come up to Canada to do his thing, he would be living in luxury accommodations at club Fed. with a choice of 5 breakfast menu list to select from and a entourage of media hypes crowding around him to kiss his ass every time he got a review of his sentence.

I agree re: the media coverage on McVeigh. If this was his way at getting back at the government it left 168 victims dead and it is good he was apprehened before he could recruit more twisted soldiers to strike again and kill more people. His was the act of a coward.

Subject: When did it change?


As I reflect on events of history (my lifetime) I think about the
trials that I have observed. When the Rosenburgs were tried, it was a
lengthy process and at the time the outcome seemed uncertain. Looking
back now, it seems that the "operation" was done according to "plan".

Some of the events of notoriety that I recall include the case
against the mob kingpin that evaded all attempts at prosecution for
crimes committed, but the IRS gave him a prison term for tax evasion
from his ill gotten un-reported gains.

The Lindburgh case was about the time of my birth, but the offense of
kidnapping carried the death penalty for many years after, and the
law was known as the Lindburgh Law. Kidnapping was extremely rare for
most of my life until somehow that law became ignored.
It seems to be a common event to have kidnappings these days, with
little effort to catch the perps.

The thing that bothers me about trials is the fact that we often hear
of "inadmissible" evidence during trials. Now I believe that the
term "evidence" speaks for itself and has little if any restriction
that the constitution would place on its presentation in trials.
It seems that in recent years, possibly about the time of Dr. Sam
Sheppard's first trial, that evidence cataloged by the investigating
officers could be withheld from the scrutiny of the defense lawyers.

The granddaddy of all "evidence coverups" has to be the McVeigh case.
The stage had of course been set in numerous cases where evidence was
not allowed, but the OKC event was unique inasmuch as the site of the
deed was demolished and carted away and COVERED in a land fill which
was then guarded to prevent anyone from searching for any signs of
evidence.

An in depth study of events and eyewitness accounts along with
testimony (not allowed in court) of ex-FBI men and military explosive
experts is more than enough to provide ample evidence that there was
an effort to "cause" a conclusion in the minds of the subjects of the
nation.

A change of "venue" to avoid the preconceived notions of the "peers"
who might serve on a jury, was another of the recent judical
entanglements which aided the govt to proceed as planned.

Timothy McVeigh was a man with beliefs in a cause which we were not
allowed to hear about in depth. Possibly any of us might have voted
to condemn him to death if we had served on an honest jury with
honest representation of the facts, but we will never know as we were
not permitted the chance to see and hear all that could be presented.

It seems that justice is not important enough to endure the trials of
an honest attmept at learning the truth from all sides. This trial
was only sleightly more public than the one that "convicted" Manuel
Noriega of aledged crimes, which it appears he was hired and trained
by a branch of our govt to commit.

I don't expect to see an honest judicial system again in my lifetime.
I am most certain I will never be picked to serve on a jury.

Like a recurring cancer mass murderers come and go. Some claim to have a cause like McVeigh others do not. Remember Son of Sam (the devil made him do it)and closer to home The home grown monsters Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo. It is an affront to society and a great injustice that Olsen and Bernardo are still breathing. The last execution in Canada was 1962 when two convicted murderers Ronald Turpin and Arthur Lucas were justly hanged back to back. The Canadian Alliance party has used the McVeigh case to make renewed calls for a referendum on the death penalty, - binding referendums on capital punishment. The majority of Canadians support such a move. The commie dictatorship in Ottawa does not and refuses a referendum on this issue.

McVeigh Was guilty of nothing more than blowing up a parking deck, if even that. I guess someone had to take the fall.

I guess the 168 people (children included) were just collateral damage then and of no consequence after all how could he know that a building open to the public would have people inside during regular office hours.

No sir, I didn't mean to say I agree with the action he took. what wanted to say is that he was a pawn, and you must look past him to find out who actually was guilty of blowing up the building. McVeigh was a good soldier, and he would have did a recon on that building. I don't know how they forced him to take the fall for the OK city bombing, but I do know he didn't do it. Because I was schooled by our Government in explosives, and what he described, would not have caused such a disaster Anyone who has any knowledge of chemistry, knows that what he described could not have worked

All is not as it appears on the surface and I do not buy that he acted alone; however, I am not privy to all the information either and did not follow the case through court. The damage was horrific more than one person could deliver it would seem. Who else was involved besides the fall guy. Also, who really killed JFK, the mob or the CIA?

You be the Judge, each time someone mentions removing power from the Fed, people die. We will see if this holds true with this new administration.

In 1963, President John Kennedy wanted an end to the Federal Reserve System, which had a strangle-hold on the United States and virtually the world. By a simple stroke of the pen, President Kennedy dismissed the Federal Reserve System and ordered the U.S. government to restore its Constitutional-mandate of controlling the money. President Kennedy was dead three weeks later. When President Lyndon Johnson took office, he immediately rescinded Kennedy's order and the Federal Reserve won another round.


And President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, speaking at Columbia University on Nov. 12, 1963, ten days before his assassination said the following.

"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."

You have hit the nail on the head. The Federal Reserve. We just do not know for certain who specifically looks after their interests, but a president is not safe from crossing them. Bush will do nothing to upset the apple cart.