|
The essay below was sent to the Associated Press 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 its "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 photos 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 against him
and his nation, whey 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 the 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."
This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons
of mass destruction. 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 as 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 used of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to
and 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 ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."
Sincerely, Timothy J. McVeigh
|
