Re: Property [was Re: The Education Function]

Michael Lorrey (
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:15:39 -0500 wrote:

> Steven writes:
> >Understood. What I really want to avoid is the sort of stereotyping of
> "the
> >other guys" that makes people like Timmy McViegh feel justified in killing
> >government employees.
> McVeigh has little in common with libertarians. Obviously he doesn't stand
> for nonaggression! But let's face it, the number of people killed by sickos
> like McVeigh is utterly insignificant compared to the death toll boasted by
> the "governments" of the world, including "ours".

Additionally, as he saw it, he was acting against a government which had exceeded its Constitutional limits. As a veteran, I can tell you that those in the military service which are very patriotic take very seriously their oath to "serve and protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC." The same Constitution also states that the US Gov't can't own any property outside of the District of Columbia. They excape this clause by 'holding in trust' property in the states, for the 'people'. They build buildings and other facilities but pay no rent to the states, nor property taxes where these facilities are based.

As McVeigh and others like him, they see the federal government as being illegal since it ignores the limits of the Constitution, so it must be removed and replaced with one that does. Since the two parties which have a stranglehold on the election process, and since there is not means of holding national referendums, nor any way for most states to secede from the union, they see the only option left being military.

Since they feel there is only a military option left, then they are bound by the laws of War, which state that any employee or facility employed, owned or occupied by an enemy target is a legitimate military target. So by this logic, the federal building in OK city was a ligitimate target. The children in the day care center could be thought of as merely voluntary hostages of the government to protect the building, but they were considered non-combatants, and McVeigh is responsible for bombing the building while he knew they were there as a War Crime. A legitimate attack would have happened at night when there was the lowest possiblity of innocent civilians being in the building.

I was rather surprised that he did not include this argument in his defense as a political statement, but apparently his defense lawyers wanted to try to avoid the death penalty, which they could not have in the above scenario.

> >>I'm not the tax man or a DEA agent. I build computer
> >>systems for an agency that produces information used primarily by
> >>businesses. I understand that you're not happy with way the funds for my
> >>paycheck are coerced from you, and I'm unhappy that you're unhappy.
> That's okay, you'll get over it. ;-)

The problem, Mr. Webb, is that ethically, you are a collaborator. Whether you do the dirty work or not, you are still part of the same organization, and under the precendents set in the legal system, the right hand does not need to know or approve of what the left hand is doing to be found guilty of being an acessory and co-conspirator. This precendent was set by your organization in a case meant to go after an illegal organization which also likes to consider itself a government, known as the mafia.

Mike Lorrey