Editor, Times-Union: I am writing to express my opinion of the execution of Timothy McVeigh. I was very disturbed by some of the comments made by the family members of the victims. Although their loss is great, I believe that they have no right to refer to this fellow human being as a monster. The act he committed was without a doubt monstrous and heinous, but McVeigh himself is not. I know most do not share my opinion, but please hear me out. Like all of his victims, McVeigh also belongs to people. He is someone's son, someone's friend, someone's brother, and most importantly, he's someone who was made in the image of his creator (Gen. 5:1-2). When Jesus died on the cross for all of our inequities, he died not only for yours and mine, but also for McVeigh's. I am in no way justifying what he did, but I'm simply offering a different perspective to the whole situation. His death will in no way bring closure to the victims' families. It will not bring back their loved ones and, until they come to that realization, they will continue to live in bondage. Every single one of us has fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23-25) and none of us have any right to say that, in McVeigh's case, justice was served. We are just as guilty as him sinning against the one who gave us life. Only God knows the conditions of Timothy McVeigh's heart at the time of his death and we have no right to even assume where his eternity will be spent. The only product of Monday morning's execution is one more person added to the death toll in one of America's greatest tragedies.
Romans 2:1, "You therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point, you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things," Luke 19:10, "And I, the son of man, have come to seek and save those like him who are lost," and John 8:7,
Let those who have never sinned throw the first stone."
Susan Bartels Syracuse
Jeffords Response
Editor, Times-Union: I'd like to respond to a few comments made by Alberta Wamsley in her editorial concerning Jim Jeffords. While I can excuse her "Republicans rule the world" philosophy (she is from Warsaw) her editorial contains some basic fallacies.
Wamsley states, "In the recent election, voters sent to Washington a Senate equally divided. That was the peoples' choice!"
Not true; voters sent their respective representatives to Washington; an equal Senate just happened to be the result. Only in an election in which everyone votes for all senators, not just the two from their home state, could this be true. Jeffords' constituents in Vermont (the only people he is responsible to) support his decision. What party he is from is not of concern to anyone outside of Vermont.
"It is dubious enough... to suppose that when people vote for a particular Senate candidate they are making a conscious decision about which party they wish to see in control." ("Trent Lott's Stages of Grief," www.slate.com). "Add in the tie-breaker role of the vice president, especially one elected under the circumstances of this one, and the theory becomes ridiculous."
Wamsley later writes, "In a Third World country that would be seen as a government coup. He has overturned not just the Vermont voters, but changed the entire country's choice."
Nonsense. Cut back on the Rush Limbaugh and you'll see there's a whole world out there that can think for itself. This was not a violent revolt but rather a simple case of a man realizing, after trying to work with the Republicans, that he just wasn't one of "them" anymore. It's not wrong for a man to be true to his conscience. And again, the "entire country" did not vote for Jeffords as a Republican, nor a 50-50 Senate. If one wanted to get specific, we could go as far as to say the country voted for Al Gore instead of Bush; Gore had more popular votes, did he not?
Later, Wamsley says, "Regardless of the vote, once elected, are politicians free to switch parties? Doesn't that violate the Constitution whereby the power of the vote is given to the people?"
Our power lies in election, and we elect a person, not a party. Parties are not part of the Constitution; elections are. There are independents in all branches of government; Jeffords is simply the newest one.
Wamsley adds that, "The real issue here is not what party controls Congress, rather the validity of the vote ..."
There is no question of the "validity" here. Vermont voters elected Jeffords; Jeffords is still their senator. If they want to remove him (and they don't) they could. I find it ironic that when a person switches to the Republican party, it's fine (Colorado's Ben Campbell, Strom Thurmond, etc.), but let one leave the Republicans, then there's a problem. It's hypocritical at best. As an Independent myself (and a former Republican) Jeffords is a welcome change to the sad state of politics.
Democratic senators received more popular votes than Republican senators in the 2000 election (www.slate.com). The Democratic presidential candidate received more popular votes than the Republican one. The bottom line, put best by slate.com, is "Until two weeks ago, the Republicans dominated both elected branches of government without a popular majority in either one."
