Where was redneck terrorist Tim McVeigh tried? How are the 9/11 murderers different from him, legally?
May 24, 2010 by
Filed under Redneck Videos
Was the US ‘at war’ on the morning of 9/11?
Steele : Do crimes committed by foreigners on US soil automatically go to military courts?
Shovel : Which ‘enemy army’ was Al Qaeda with? Wasn’t Militiaman McVeigh ‘waging war’ against the US government?
He was a US natural born citizen and we were NOT in a war at the time so he wasn’t an enemy combatant. The comparison is all wrong.
Federal court, in Denver, CO.
McVeigh was not part of an enemy army, so he was not an illegal combatant. He was a murderer with a political motivation, similar to Obama’s buddy, Bill Ayers.
McVeigh was an American rogue, who committed his crime in America and was arrested in America.
The 9/11 terrorists are foreigners captured on foreign territory and detained in American military custody.
2 different animals – pun intended.
Oh, only citizens get court trails. You guys are killing me. DO SOME RESEARCH OR GO PLAY FARMVILE.
The 9/11 murderers all died in the plane crashes. McVeigh didn’t die in his attack in Oklahoma City.
McVeigh was transferred from the Oklahoma district circuit courts to the circuit in Denver, Colorado where he was finally tried and convicted. His execution occurred by lethal injection administered in the penal system at Terre Haute, Indiana.
By emphasizing “legally” here, you mean what? In the USA, murder is a capital offense. Of international law, it is also the equivalent of a capital offense, resulting with at least a life sentence for the equivalent of first-degree charges as exist in the USA if not the death penalty itself. Except for the commonality that both McVeigh and the terrorists bore a loathing for the American federal government’s histories and policies, the ‘peculiar’ differences require one to partake of further examination of McVeigh given that he was born in America, bred in the state of New York.
Like the terrorists, he was an angry man, angered by the cards he felt life had dealt him, having undergone certain rejections in childhood and later in early adulthood, but which should be found downsides no more or less ill-experienced than those found occurrent in many Americans’ lives and upbringings. In the case of terrorist sentiment, of course, the disdain for America lay with its history of decades of disproportionate administering and of broken promises and lies. Essentially, theirs held that Americans’ ways were so many incessant intrusions into the affairs of their sovereign states in addition to what they saw first hand and felt were outright disrespectful treatments and arrogant nonchalance shown time and again by corporate America.
There is somewhat of a parallel between the terrorist faction and that of McVeigh’s mindset: McVeigh felt the disproportions evidenced time and again by what was to him an American consensus, in particular in white America, and a despicable pattern. His beef was with what increasingly appeared as a disfavor for the sensibilities of white people inside the USA; that the American government had little business doing outside what it should have been doing at home. He yet could not reconcile his patriotism for the American flag — he was a decorated veteran of the Persian Gulf War — with that of America’s penchant for abiding the wants of many non-white people and foreign interests over that of the likes of his personal beliefs and those, he felt, of [white] America generally.
In short, both McVeigh and the terrorists can be said were nothing if not so many jingos, whose whole take on the world was and is a perverted one. And sadly so, we can suppose that the only stark difference is that McVeigh was born inside the USA; and the terrorists, outside.
No, even if the events are as we are told, which is becoming less and less likely, it was not an act of war.
The FBI do not want Bin Laden for 9/11 as they “have no hard evidence” to connect him.
We are told it was Al Qaeda, and we are told he is their leader, but a bit of research uncovers that is a fabrication,
See this short clip from a BBC documentary, for further explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA
Of course people don’t want to believe this sort of thing, it conflicts with their sense of the world, and at that point people refuse to listen.
This subject is littered with hysterical reaction, entrenched views, and wonky logic.
But still there is no essential difference between Oklahoma and 9/11, in a legal sense.
Especially if you stick to the tenet that someone is innocent until proved guilty.
Interesting question, to which you will get some interesting answers, even if all they do is demonstrate mob mentality.
-which as Roger Bacon observed, nearly a millenium ago, is one of the 4 main causes of ignorance in the people, he suggested.
1 Respect for authority.
2 The sense of the ignorant mob.
3 Tradition and custom.
4 The vain and proud unteachable of disposition-(people who think they know it all already).
That hasn’t changed over centuries.