What should happen???(McVeigh again)greenspun.com : LUSENET : Freedom! self reliance : One Thread
I was wondering what you all think should happen in the McVeigh case now? They have found in excess of 3,000 documents that were not given to the defense for perusal prior to trial. Ashcroft has stayed the execution until June 11th, but he doesn't want to give a new trial to McVeigh. Terry Nichols is appealing for a new trial in lieu of all of these documents. What do you think should be done?
(ps. civility needs to be observed if we violently disagree..thanks!)
-- Doreen (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 15, 2001
It may help Terry Nichols escape the death penalty in his upcoming trial. (I can't recall the details of his upcoming trial, but I do know the prosecution was going to seek the death penalty). I don't think he will be granted a retrial. The focus will have to be on McVeigh.
McVeigh will now HAVE to die. Let me explain. And I want to make this PERFECTLY clear up front: I DO NOT believe what this man did was right AT ALL. I think he is a pawn. A very stupid pawn. He is about to be used as a pawn a final time.
I believe the bulk of the documents contain evidence of either a MUCH larger conspiracy, or definative proof of J.D. #2. Since they(the FBI) had their scapegoat (McVeigh) they didn't want to introduce ANYTHING into record that could have hurt their case. So they couldn't produce these papers when they should have. If the documents came to light after his execution, it would have looked glaringly obvious what they had done, and with the man dead, public backlash could have been extreme, and McVeigh could become a martyr. Can't hide them all, If any were ever found, then it would create an even LARGER P.R. problem explaining the coverup, lending support to the contents about a larger conspiracy AND creating a martyr in McVeigh. So, they 'disclose' the existence of these documents just BEFORE McVeigh is to be executed, when public sentiment is going to be strongest AGAINST McVeigh, too late for it to do any good. (Who's going to want to let him off the hook this close to his execution now that all the 'memories' of the tragedy are fresh again? Haven't you seen the survivors and relatives weeping anew, calling for his death? Their feelings are genuine, absolutely, and unfortunately being used to manipulate OUR emotions.)They don't have to pursue the 'conspiracy' or 'John Doe #2' issues because they've already finished the trial on that matter and we have a sacrificial lamb to show for it. Oh, they grant him a one month stay to show their 'concern' for these matters and to make it look like they've done something about the issue. Remember, they keep insisting nothing released is germaine to McVeigh's guilt or innocence, nothing about whether or not there were any others involved or even abot Nichols. It's slight-of-hand magician tricks. They will have to continue to shift the focus to McVeigh to keep the focus off of the contents of the documents, so in a month when McVeigh is executed, everyone will have forgotten the issue of the documents, and the victims and the country can now all feel a sense of closure about the whole sordid mess. Freeh is already scheduled to step down in June, (gee,when was that new execution date again??) and any potential backlash will be put on him, after he's already stepped down. FBI laundered clean as a whistle by Freeh with the blood of McVeigh.
The congressional probe will not find anything significant. If it did, then the FBI would be exposed as unconstitutional.
Just my opinion.
-- StevenB (email@example.com), May 15, 2001.
What Steven said, and said it so eloquently.
Tim McVeigh's trial was based on circumstantial evidence and emotion and I cannot support the death penalty under that conviction.
So how come Janet Reno hasn't been tried, convicted and executed for the children in Waco, she claimed full responsibility for that, didn't she?
-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@hotmail.com), May 16, 2001.
I agree that the above is what WILL happen.
I am constantly surprised at people's lack of cohesive memory of fairly recent history. The same thing happened at Waco, JFK assasination, Ruby Ridge, now it looks like MLK's assasination had much of the same activity. The FBI admitted to helping the "terrorists" do the bombing of the World Trade Center, and no one seems to remember these things.
Then the FBI gets called to go help out England in possible agriterrorism of FMD??? I thought they were a domestic aberration? Now I don't think that every person in the FBI is evil incarnate, or anything like that, but for cryin' out loud, they are conducting serious business here where peoples lives and freedom are on the line and I think they should be more organized than I am about paperwork.
I know most won't agree with me, but I think McVeigh should get a new trial and some attempt to actually find the other people involved should be made. There are more than a few groups who have researched this independently and their evidence should be reviewed as well. Same deal for Nichols. If I were Ashcroft that is what I would push for because courts are not supposed to be about revenge and closure for victims but about getting to the truth.
I know...dream on....
-- Doreen (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 16, 2001.
Steven said it very nicely. All my adult life I have believed that the death penalty ws an appropiate measure in the administration of justice for those who earned it. I'm having some serious misgivings now. Even if Steven is wrong (I don't think he is) and Nichols and McVeigh did it all themselves - HOW THE HELL COULD THE FBI SCREW UP LIKE THIS IN THE BIGGIST CASE IT EVER HAD????? And if they could screw up so big on this case - what happens to US if we're charged w/ something that falls under their jurisdiction? And, they are supposedly "The Best". Well then, if all the state justice systems that send guys to death row every year are 2nd level - how can we trust that?
This may not be following your thread to well, but I've really been thinking about this whole issue and it pisses me off.
-- John in S. IN (email@example.com), May 16, 2001.
It all depends on how dearly you hold the Constitution. Everyone knows that McVeigh is guilty, however, he would be entitled to a new trial if he wanted one. The documents aren't going to change any facts, no matter who looks, what they look for, or whatever. If motions of discovery were not filed by the defense (they were) then there would be no problem. But, since they were, there is a major legal issue here - even though the defendant is still guilty. They don't have a choice but to proceed as they are.
Unfortunately, even though he's guilty - they can't execute him until all the legal stuff is done and over with. Those people who are whining because they had to go to work on the 16th instead of his execution forget that our Constitution protects everyone the same - I don't feel sorry for a one of them.
-- Sue Diederich (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 16, 2001.
This exact debate was going on this morning, in my senior in highschools homeroom. The kids also agreed that a new trial was in order, no matter what this person had done. They also speculated that it was information in these documents that the government didn't want the people to know. Now how smart are these kids!!? Vicki
-- Vicki McGaugh (email@example.com), May 16, 2001.
All evidence MUST be reviewed. Thats the unique feature of our system. Innocent until proven guilty and all evidence used to prove guilt or exonerate the innocent. The evidence may affect the outcome, the stay won't. The system must work as the framers of the Constitution intended.
-- Jay Blair in N. AL. (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 16, 2001.
I am afraid that Steven is right about what will happen. McVeigh deserves a new trial. It doesn't matter what the crime was, the right is guaranteed Constitutionally. We cannot pick and choose when and where to abide by the Constitution or the whole Constitution is useless. I was home that day of the bombing. I watched the news coverage as it was unfolding. There were many things reported and later ignored. I vividly remember Katie Couric announcing that rescue efforts had to be stopped because there was another bomb located in the basement. The television even showed something large being removed from the wreckage and then Katie announced the rescue efforts were being resumed. I'm not convinced McVeigh did it. He didn't confess until after he had been in solitary confinement for years. Given our government's past history of coverups and brain washing such as the MK Ultra program, I think it is quite possible that McVeigh has been brain washed into confessing. I think he is a pawn, and was always intended to be a pawn.
As for the death penalty, I've always been a supporter of it until the last few years. I've decided that so much evidence is either misrepresented, ruled inadmissible, or just plain fabricated that I can no longer believe in the justice system or in it's ability to find and convict the person who committed the crime.
-- Green (email@example.com), May 16, 2001.
I still strongly support the death penalty, but not until the crime has been solved. I also don't trust the authorities to do a proper job of investigating, so only when things are clearly beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are more than enough of those types of murders to keep the death penalty in effect.IMO.
I was in the midst of moving when this event occurred so I didn't see much footage, but what I saw was one way in the morning and another way in the evening, which left me scratching my head.
If McVeigh actually received a new trial, could he be charged with the same offenses and the prosecution use the same evidence? Would that be double jeopardy? What if all of his recent confessing is his manner of plea bargaining for life in prison instead of the death penalty for this horrific crime??? This bargaining being him taking the whole rap instead of offering up all these other people who HAD to be involved?
Joe Hurley, who says he knows John Doe #2's identity was arrested and tossed into a mental hospital for 21 days for protesting in MO. He burned an FBI agent in effigy. He didn't get a trial just tossed into the huscow until this is all settled out. Interesting, isn't it?
The whole thing makes me wonder if the FBI will just be allowed to continue to act as though they have the right to disregard the law and trample all over the rights of everyone just to make a quick closure in a case. Heck, they are already investigating crimes that haven't even been planned or committed, so I guess innocent until proven guilty means nothing.
-- Dreen (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 17, 2001.
It took how many years for this "new" evidence to surface? What new evidence will surface three years from now? Can we, in good conscience, allow Timothy McVeigh die next month?
I support the death penalty in theory, but not our present day application of it. I've known for a long time that courts have nothing to do with truth or justice and judges and prosecutors make deals to withhold evidence from juries. Juries are manipulated, and none worse than the jurists at the McVeigh trial. I truly don't believe in the death penalty for a guilty verdict based on circumstantial evidence and emotion.
Of course McVeigh is a pawn. He couldn't have done that all by himself and carrying the dead weight of Terry Nichols wouldn've made it impossible without help from others. The thing is, if he talks, he'll end up dead a lot quicker than by state execution.
-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@hotmail.com), May 17, 2001.
Guilty yes but,
of what? I dont think that anyone who has honestly looked into this event believes that he was "the bomber". This was orchestrated by a group that has made great efforts to cover its tracks back to Clinton. Knowing then that the first trial was not held honestly, do we not have a moral obligation to insist that the first be thrown out? In our role as responsible citizens, isnt it more important that we demand due process and ethical proceedure in all of our jurisprudance than quibble about a specific punishment type and date for a single case regardless of the charges? If the case were tried fairly with all the evidence available, and Im not naive enough to believe that that will happen, then I think we would find that McVeigh is guilty of various crimes like conspiracy to commit murder but not the actual deaths of these victims. The death penalty then would not be appropriate for him in this case as it must be reserved for only the most heinous acts against society like the agent involved in placing the internal charges.
So we are left with 2 compelling reasons to retry this case:
1. To insure the integrity of our
2. To determine the innocence/guilt of the parties involved
Its important to note that if the prosecution insisted on trying McVeigh for intentionally murdering these people and then the defense could prove that McVeigh was just an idiot with a martyr complex who blew up a truck in the street but didnt harm anyone then he should be found innocent. Our justice system was intentionally set up that way to insure that people were only charged with the appropriate crimes for what they were believed to have done. It was a curb against tyranny built into the system. The alternative would be, as often happens now, that a person is charged with an entirely inappropriate crime and therefor punishment thereby controlling the populace through fear of the slightest infraction. Because we do not insist on horable behavior by our legal professionals, inappropriately instructed and poorly educated juries are stacked with the modern version of voir dire to insure a jury that will convict. This has caused one of the most dangerous hallmarks of a tyrrany to become evident in America, where those innocent of the charges they were accused of being given entirely inappropriate punishments. Allowed to proceed unchecked in the direction we are going, we will have situations where police arrest someone for jaywalking, the prosecutors accuse them of first degree murder, the prosecution proves that the "criminal" was in fact a jaywalker, the jury finds the accused guilty and therefor is given the death penalty.
-- William in Wi (email@example.com), May 18, 2001.
I'm afraid you're right, William. Jaywalking = murder, and litering = crimes against humanity. uggghh.
Does anyone else find themselves consistently remembering Roark from Atlas Shrugged and his stand in court? "I don't recognize your right to try me." or something like that. It is really scary how much things are beginning to resemble that book in so many ways.
-- Doreen (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 19, 2001.