Sam Aurelius Milam III, May 1995
As I watched the response to the bombing in Oklahoma City, I was appalled by its contrast with the mellow disregard for the atrocities at Waco and Ruby Ridge. People who twiddled while the U.S. government murdered women and children in Texas and Idaho recoiled in horror when women and children were killed in a federal office building in Oklahoma. Apparently people think that women and children in federal buildings are more precious than those in religious compounds or mountain cabins. It's difficult to judge whether this attitude is mere brainwashing or actual stupidity.
In fact, this atrocity was unusual mostly because it wasn't committed by the U.S. government. In Panama, for example, the U.S. government killed hundreds of women and children during its violent pursuit of Noriega. Around the world, the U.S. government has murdered women and children who happened to be in its way. When officials call the Oklahoma City bombing an act of terrorism, the definition of terrorism being used is clear: terrorism is any atrocity committed by some group or person other than the United States government.
Everybody was hurt by this bombing, with one exception: the U.S. government will benefit from it. Before the dust had even settled, people were obediently bleating for stronger preventive measures. The main result will be a vast increase in the power of the U.S. government. Officials will now be able to justify more intrusive systems of surveillance and control than anybody ever expected.
Today, the U.S. government enslaves the people it was intended to protect. It murders those who refuse to submit. The consequences of its escalating terrorist behavior can no longer be avoided. One of these consequences is that events like Waco and Ruby Ridge call for a response in kind. People are learning to resist and, increasingly, that response will be forthcoming. The likely course of events is obvious. Clearly, women and children should avoid the vicinity of federal buildings in the future.
The terror in America has only just begun.
Different Echo, Different Drum
Even if this analysis were correct, someone somewhere would dispute it. In fact, it's pure Clintonista propaganda.
In general, terrorism is an attack against non-combatants and is often associated with demands by somebody who claims responsibility. Was the Oklahoma City bombing such an act? I think not. Consider: Americans have lately suffered atrocities and acts of war committed by armed civilians who work for the U.S. government. The bombing was an attack against some of those very civilians. As such, it was a legitimate action against combatants. The other victims were collateral casualties, just like when the government attacks a target. The collateral casualties were unfortunate but unavoidable. After all, it wasn't a smart bomb. Also, there were no demands and nobody claimed responsibility. Only in the government press would an attack be automatically called terrorism just because it is anti-government.
I suppose the confusion shouldn't surprise me. For a long time now, U.S. citizens have failed to understand the deteriorating behavior of the U.S. government. They have believed that they could compromise with increasingly coercive authority. They have thought that comfort or the illusion of security justified the loss of liberty. They have done everything possible to pretend that there is no problem, even though the nature of government has never been much of a secret. Although some of the blame for the present state of things lies with the government, you can't really blame wolves for being wolves. A wise shepherd will guard his flock. A foolish one will lose it. Much of the blame therefore lies with the weak, lazy, cowardly, or ignorant U.S. citizens who have allowed things to get this bad. It's just that I hope for better than that from libertarians ....
Sam Aurelius Milam III, July 1995
Here's how I understand the present system: when someone is killed and someone else is suspected of having done it, then the suspect is indicted and given a trial. There are some things wrong with that system, but that's the way it's presently supposed to work. In that system, extenuating circumstances don't prevent the trial. They're presented at the trial, where they're considered. Based on these and other circumstances, a judge or a jury rules on the case.
I watched the news coverage of the recent Congressional Waco Hearings. I heard with my own ears and saw with my own eyes when Attorney General Janet Reno accepted responsibility for the conclusion of the Branch Davidian siege. People were killed during that confrontation. Janet Reno accepted responsibility.
Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman is currently being tried in connection with the World Trade Center bombing. He didn't take part in the action, but merely (allegedly) directed it. This is much like Janet Reno's position with regard to the Branch Davidian siege. If Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman must be tried for the World Trade Center bombing, then Janet Reno should be tried for the Branch Davidian siege. Her position as Attorney General, just like any other extenuating circumstance, can be considered by a jury. The sad fact is that, unlike the rest of us, People In Government Service can do whatever they want, regardless of the law. The worst punishment they're likely to receive is suspension from duty and a letter of censure in a personnel file.
I believe it's now appropriate for a militia unit to arrest Janet Reno and hold her in custody until she can be tried before a court of appropriate jurisdiction. If the militia units are not yet capable of this, then we need to strengthen them. Decimus Junius Juvenalis (50 - 130 A.D.) wondered who will guard the guards. The answer is: we will.
Expendable Children — Over There
The nitwit position seems to be that it's OK for people (including children) to die for the benefit of US policy but not OK for them to die for the sake of opposition to it. Maybe it's just OK for children to die in Iraq but not OK for them to die in the USA. In either case, hypocrisy reigns.
Remember Waco, Remember Reno
|and shot Vicki Weaver in the face. However
adamantly the federal government may decry so-called terrorism, it is the
federal agents who are the terrorists. If they continue to place
children in federal buildings, then it will be clear that their intention
is to use the children as shields, a tactic the federal government hypocritically
attributes to Saddam Hussein. Such cowardly behavior by federal terrorists
wouldn't surprise me a bit.
Danforth's Folly Revisited
My Defense of Timothy McVeigh
Sam Aurelius Milam III
My defense of Timothy McVeigh has attracted a little criticism. I was reminded, for example, that "two wrongs don't make a right". Now that's a lame criticism if I ever heard one. Who's talking about two wrongs? What we have here is an unending string of atrocities and outrageous behavior committed by the U.S. government, for as far back into its history as anyone cares to look. Timothy McVeigh's attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building wasn't a "second wrong". It was a response in kind to one or two of the most recent examples of the sort of outrageous behavior for which the U.S. government has long been known.
The criticism is also beside the point. Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that there were “two wrongs”. The real point then is that the “second wrong” is always a response to the “first wrong”. Rather than whine that “two wrongs don't make a right”, it's the responsibility of the people in power to make sure that they don't commit the “first wrong” or, if they do, that they provide a remedy before the “second wrong” happens. The U.S. government is the party with the power. It committed the “first wrong” and it didn't provide a remedy. The imprisonment of Janet Reno, Louis Freeh, Lon Horiuchi, et al. for life at hard labor without parole might have been a nice beginning but, as I said, there wasn't any remedy. Indeed, historically there never has been. Hypocrisy, not remedy, is the response of the U.S. government to its own atrocities. Two wrongs may not make a right, but if the second wrong is the only remedy available, then I'm for it.
The U.S. government and its media stooges call the attack on the Murrah federal building an act of terrorism. However, the U.S. government is routinely guilty of far worse atrocities. There are so many examples that it was difficult to decide which one to cite. I chose the Massacre at Wounded Knee, December 29, 1890. I took the following brief account from Reference 1.
A heart-breaking video account of the massacre is presented by Reference 3. That account, however, fails to mention the twenty Congressional Medals of Honor that were bestowed upon U.S. Army personnel as a reward for their participation in the slaughter of defenseless Lakota men, women, and children. (See Reference 2.) For the U.S. government to condemn Timothy McVeigh as a "terrorist" is such an outrageous act of incredible hypocrisy that it sickens me. It also motivates me.
I've been accused of making a hero of Timothy McVeigh. I didn't make a hero of him. He did it himself. He recognized the dark and evil nature of the U.S. government and then he dared to attack it. His action might have been politically and strategically counterproductive, but it was tactically successful and it was done in a worthy cause. I admire him for his recognition of the truth and for his determination to confront it. His only failure, so far as I can determine, was his failure to avoid capture. Even in captivity, it seems that he behaved with honor and dignity. Yes, he was a hero and, hopefully, a role model for the future.
Revolutions are not caused by people, but by intolerable governments. Timothy McVeigh's motivation appears to have been the outrageous behavior of the U.S. government. He would probably have minded his own business, had the U.S. government not motivated him to do otherwise. I'd probably be writing Science Fiction, instead of this, if the U.S. government didn't similarly motivate me. Hopefully, a growing number of others are being similarly motivated as the U.S. government continues its intolerable practices of arrogance, brutality, and hypocrisy. That government must bear the responsibility for what has happened in the past, and for what is likely to come.
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
What's your opinion of the Intifada?
— Visiting Palestinian
Dear Visiting Palestinian
Well, I've never eaten one, but I do like enchiladas, tostadas, tocos, and burritos.
Actual Writings on Hospital Charts
Timothy McVeigh Memorial Issue
Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.
Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.
Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.
Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.
Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and U.S. postage stamps. I will accept checks or money orders only by prior arrangement. I don't accept anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor
|The poem Invictus was, so far as I know,
the last communication from Timothy McVeigh before he was executed.
I included that poem as an insert in this special issue of the Frontiersman.
William Ernest Henley
Out of the night that covers me,
In the fell clutch of circumstance
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
It matters not how strait the gate,