Friends on “Bombers Row”

At Colorado’s ADX, Kaczynski befriended two other high-profile inmates: Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. For a time, the three were exercise buddies who occupied neighboring prison cells.

A. Correspondence with Rick Sallinger

A1. Extract of a letter from Ted to Rick — March 7, 1999

Thanks for your letter of February 17.

In answer to your question, yes, I do share exercise time with Timothy McVeigh and Ramzi Yousef. [...]

A2. Extract of a letter from Rick to Ted — March 17, 1999

Dear Ted,

Thanks very much for your letter of March 7, 1999. As you requested I am enclosing copies of your letters and am signing them for you.

I appreciate your confirmation that you share exercise time with McVeigh and Ramzi Yousef. Is there anything else you can tell me about your relationship with them or anyone else I may have heard of in the prison? The prison officials make it sound like any shared exercise time with them would be random chance, the news story makes it appear like it’s regular. Did I send you the story about the New York gang leader Luis Felipe? His attorney received permission from a judge for him to share exercise time with you, McVeigh and Yousef, but Felipe says he doesn’t want to. [...]

A3. Extract of a letter from Ted to Rick — Unknown Date

As to the questions you asked in your letter of March 17: For a while Timothy McVeigh, Ramzi Yousef, and I shared exercise time fairly regularly. As you probably know, McVeigh has now been moved to Terre Haute, Indiana [...]

B.

B1. From Ted to [REDACTED] — 6/27/01

... DNA evidence. I think there’s good reason to believe that innocent prisoners have been executed, but I don’t see that that is worse than an innocent prisoner’s having to serve a life sentence. Of course, the argument is ... Oh, hell with it. I don’t want to say anything serious. Not in the mood for it.

I agree with you about the death penalty being “official revenge.” I mean, it was natural for the relatives of people killed in the Oklahoma City bombing to want McVeigh to die. That’s the law of nature. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. But if they haven’t got the guts to take their own revenge, then they shouldn’t whine for the government to do it for them. I’m a great believer in self-reliance. If people want the government to do things for them, then they have no right to complain when the govt. charges them taxes or subjects them to regulations. They can’t have it both ways

Seriously, now, you don’t need to apologize for the birthday-card thing. And I do hope that things are going well for you.

C.

C1. From Ted to Dr. Sheptoski

Dear Dr. Sheptoski:

I have read your dissertation, “Ideology or Insanity? Media Presentation of Ted Kaczynski and Tim. McVeigh.” I think you are quite right in concluding that the media tended to portray me as mentally ill to a much greater extent than they did McVeigh, and that they were more apt to attribute political motivations to McVeigh than to me. Your conclusion confirms the subjective impression I had already formed from what I had read in the print media. It is obvious moreover that our society for a long time has been using the concept of mental illness to disguise certain negative value-judgments as statements of medical fact, and that the media. have played an important role in this “medicalization” process.

However, for several reasons I think your dissertation provides very little if any support for the hypothesis that “violent political protest from the right has been accepted as politically and ideologically motivated, while violent political protest from the left has been marginalized” (page 94 of the dissertation).

First, your assumption that Kaczynski was a left-wing anarchist is incorrect. The following paragraph appears in the covering letter that FC sent to The New York Times with the manuscript of “Industrial Society and Its Future” (the “Manifesto”):

“We decided to call ourselves anarchists not in order to associate ourselves with any particular anarchist group or movement but only because we felt we needed some label to apply to ourselves and ‘anarchist’ was the only one that seemed to fit. The term ‘anarchist’ has been applied to a wide variety of attitudes and about the only thing these attitudes have in common is apposition to the power of governments and other large: organizations. That certainly fits us.”

Thus, although the existing American anarchist movement is considered left-wing, there was no reason to connect Kaczynski with that movement or with any other left-wing movement.. The term “anarchist “, when used in the broad sense indicated above, certainly need not imply “left-wing”, In fact it is my recollection that during the mid-1990’s the media quoted some conservative figure as having called the militias “anarchist.”

Any notion that FC was left-wing should have been dispelled by the content of the Manifesto. On page 35 of your dissertation you say that the Manifesto “specifically criticized ‘leftists’”, which is a considerable understatement. It was obvious that author of the Manifesto despised leftists.

Of course, you could argue that the foregoing would not necessarily prevent the media from identifying Kaczynski as a leftist, since journalists are so careless about facts that they could easily have overlooked the ones I’ve just mentioned. So let’s assume that the media did indeed see Kaczynski as left-wing. Even so your data provide very little support for the hypothesis that the media treat violent political protest on the right differently from violent political protest un the left.

It is very hazardous To draw general conclusions from comparison of only two individual cases, because differences found between the two cases may be attributable to circumstances peculiar to the specific cases in question. A valid test of the general hypothesis would require, at a minimum, examination of many individual cases.

There were in fact circumstances peculiar to Kaczynski’s and McVeigh’s cases that could have explained their differential treatment by the media without recourse to the hypothesis that the media are biased against the left. For example beginning shortly after his arrest, Kaczynski’s mother and brother began giving media interviews in which. they portrayed him as mentally ill. (They lied. See the manuscript Truth versus Lies that I mentioned in my previous letter.) To my knowledge, no similar factor was present in McVeigh’s case: Hence all difference in the extent to which the media medicalized Kaczynski and McVeigh respectively, after the time when Kaczynski’s mother and brother began giving their interviews, could easily be attributed to. this factor and therefore has little if any value in demonstrating a media bias against the left.

Rather than comparing media treatment of Kaczynski and McVeigh, it would have been more to the point to compare media treatment of the American anarchist movement and of the militia movement. I would be willing to bet that if such a study were carefully and objectively carried out, it would show That, say, from 1995 to 1998, the media treated the militia movement much more harshly than they treated the anarchist movement. This would shoot down the hypothesis that the media “medicalized” Kaczynski more then they did McVeigh because the, were biased against the “left-wing” anarchists as contrasted with the “right-wing” militias.

Furthermore, even a study comparing the media’s Treatment. of anarchists with their treatment of the militias would yield no general conclusions as to the media’s treatment of the left versus their treatment of the right. It is a dubious procedure to necessarily treated them all in the same way; and it is dead wrong to lump Together all “rightists” as if the media treated all of them in the same way.

One could make a good argument That there is sufficient psychological and ideological cohesion among the various factions of the American left so that it is possible to speak of the left as a unit, though it does not necessarily follow that. The media treat all left-wing factions similarly.

But it Is nonsense to speak of “the right” as a unit, and it is certain that the media do not treat all factions called “right-wing” in the same way. The word “right”, as it is used in America today, is a catch-all term That is applied to groups that have radically different and mutually conflicting ideologies. Compare, for example, the current G.W. Bush administration with the Montana Freemen. The latter were radically individualistic and refused to obey the law or recognize the authority of the government; and I think some militias had similar ideologies. Both they and the Bush administration have been called “right-wing”, but it is safe to assume that the two groups would have no use for one another; and it is clear that they have not been Treated similarly by the media.

Thus, supposing that a difference had been demonstrated between the media’s treatment of anarchists and their treatment of the militias, one could not infer from this that there would be a similar difference between the media’s treatment of the left in general and their treatment of the right in general.

Independently of all of the foregoing, your data have little value

in showing a media bias against the left because the media’s differential treatment of Kaczynski and McVeigh could easily be accounted for by an alternative hypothesis, namely, that the media were much more interested in discrediting the militias than they were in discrediting the anarchists. Under this hypothesis, the media would have attributed McVeigh’s action to his militia-like ideology rather. than to mental illness because the overwhelming majority of Americans were horrified by the Oklahoma City bombing, and media presentation of that bombing as an expression of a militia-associated ideology would have tended strongly to discredit the militias.

It is worth noting that, in a precisely analogous tactic. Kaczynski was used to discredit the radical environmentalist movement. In his book Ecoterror: The World of the Unabomber, Ron Arnold, an extractive-industry shill and co-founder of the “wise use” movement, portrayed Kaczynski as politically- motivated rather than mentally ill, and argued that Kaczynski had derived his ideology from the radical environmentalists.

It is quite clear from Arnold’s book that he did this in order to discredit the radical-environmentalist movement. The fact that the

mainstream media did not try to use Kaczynski discredit radical environmentalism can be accounted For by the existence of significant sympathy for environmentalism in the media.

Frankly, I think the claim that the media ave biased against the left and in favor of the right is a lot of crap. The media are biased against whatever appears to be a threat to the security of the existing system, and there are at least as many threats to the system from the right as from the left. I don’t doubt that the Kind of biasing process described by Herman and Chomsky does exist, but I would argue that it is directed as much against the right as against the left.

D. Correspondence with Lou Michel

D1. From Lou Michel to Ted-1/21/00

Dear Ted

My name is Lou Michel and I’m writing Tim McVeigh’s authorial biography and I was hoping you would provide me with some insight into Tim’s character a few having lived with him over the past couple years. Tim, in fact, suggested you might be able to share some prison stories of life at Supermax for the book. I met with Tim for four days last may out at the prison and just last week I met with him for 2 days at Terre Haule. His keen sense of humor remains. In fact ,despite a long period of adjustment at federal death row. I wish you well with your book and your appeal efforts. When Tim’s biography is published I’ll be sure and sending you a copy. Though the hardboard covers will be removed. The book is still a long ways from completion. But progress is steady!

I am writing the book with my colleague Dan Herbeck. Who like me, works full time as a buffalo news reporter.

Though you and Tim are very different in many ways, I can certainly see a common thread. You both love the rustic outdoors and share similar political beliefs and disdain for certain elements of low enforcement, as evidenced by some of your comments in the time magazine interview you recently granted. I’ll close now hoping that you will grant my request for the start of a correspondence that will help in boosting the literary portrait I am crafting on Tim.

D2. From Lou Michel to Ted-2/26/00

Dear Ted,

I have spoken with Blake Davis, warden Michael with Blake Davis, Warden Michael V. Pugh’s executive assistant, regarding your concerns with addressing my question regarding your thought on Timothy McVeigh. Blake Davis and the warden have informed me that I may establish a mail correspondence with you. The intent is not to pass any information along to Mr. McVeigh. There’s a good chance he will have been executed under his court-imposed death penalty before the book, his biography, is published. I am told that under media privilege you may address my previous questions and that those responses will be sealed and sent to me. In addition to your general observations of your post relationship with Mr. McVeigh, I would also be interested in having your general thought on the Oklahoma City bombing and behavior of federal law enforcement, and, finally, any other thoughts you would come to share with me. Also, would you please address the prospect of spending life in prison. I know your thoughts on it already from public comments you have previously made but would deeply appreciate them coming directly from you to me. Incising I would like to note, the administration staff at ADX has gone out of its way to cooperate in my endeavors. Which I appreciate.

D3. From Lou Michel to Ted-5/9/00

Dear Ted,

I am receipt of you 11-page letter. I truly appreciate your correspondence. I also know that Timothy McVeigh appreciates the effort you have made to [illegible] in , puffing together a complete picture of him for his life story. Ted, I realize you want out on a limb, considering that media so often misinterpret and sometimes intentionally twists what is said in order to streamline stories and make them fit preconceived notions. I realize a major twist has been placed in me and Dan Herbeck, who are working on this project together. We are remaining as neutral as humanly possibly to put together an honest, straightforward accounting.

Yes, we will respect your request that your letter be used in its entirety . Even without your condition, we would have worked to use the whole letter in our “prison chapter”. It is obviously well thought out and I can see a good deal of thought went into its crafting. McVeigh is one of the most open and honest individual I have ever written about. Ted, you strike me the same way. That transcript you received of Tim’s appearance on the coming show will undoubtedly make for interesting reading. When you’re finished with it if you plan to discard it, I would be grateful to receive it since I plan on *(his observation regarding his thoughts on you and him. I do have a VCR recording of the show, however.

Finally, when the book on Timothy McVeigh comes out hopefully next year, Dan and I will be sending you a copy, minus the hard cover. Ted I wish you well in your appeal and if I can be of service, please let me know.

P.S. I too am a jogger, and used to jog in place while washing dishes to make double use of my time. Hove since stopped, since my wife bought a dishwasher. Also jogging in place began hurting my knee joints as I got older. Again take careful and thank you for your thoughtfulness!

P.S. P.S Ted, we will be working on this book for several more months and if you have any additional thoughts on Tim or related matters, we would welcome them.

E. Correspondence with Ms. Abbott

E1. From Ted to Ms. Abbott—May 7,2001

Dear Ms. Abbott:

Today I received your letter of May 2.

Many months ago I wrote journalist Lou Michel a long letter about Timothy McVeigh. If I remember correctly, Mr. Michel told me that the entire letter would be printed in a book he was writing about McVeigh. Apparently that book, American Terrorist, by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, has now been published. See Newsweek, April 9, 2001, page 23.

If the entire letter was not published in American Terrorist, maybe you can get a copy of it from Mr. Michel, whose address is 3461 Wilson-Cambria Road, Wilson NY 14172.

I have very little to add to what I wrote in that letter. I’ll mention, though, that McVeigh seemed to be very interested in the book Into the Wild, by Jon Krakauer.

F.

F1. From Ted to [REDACTED]— October 19,2002

Dear [REDACTED],

I received your letter of 10/5/02, postmarked 10/7/02, just a couple of days ago which means that it took about ten days to reach me.

Anyway, I’m glad you liked Kabloona. It is a very fine book. I wonder if you’ve read the following books: Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, The Harmless People (about the bushmen of Southern Africa); Colin Turnbull, The Forest People, and Wayward Servants: The Two worlds of the African Pygmies; John D. hunter, Manners and Customs of Several Indian Tribes … (etc.—long title); Edwin James, A Narrative of the Captivity and Adventures of John Tanner (these last two are accounts of whites who were captured in childhood by the Indians and lived as Indians for many years). I’m sure you would greatly appreciate any of these books. But maybe you’ve read some of them already.

You mention Into the Wild, by John Krakauer. I’ve read it. it was recommended to me by a very high-profile inmate, now deceased, who was formerly on this range of cells with me. He had a journalist named Lou Michel send me a copy of it from the outside. Interesting book, and significant. But the book I would really like to get my hands on is one that you’ve mentioned in earlier letters: Earth First!: Environmental Apocalypse, by Martha Lee.

Beautiful photos that you sent me. But I’m not sure I enjoy them— they make me so hungry to be out in the mountains again. However, you can send me as many more such photos as you like.

I have to cut this letter short here, because I have to compose three long, complicated letters connected with the problem of finding a home for the documents that my former lawyers are holding for me. Pain in the rear. But it has to be done soon.

G.

G1.From Ted to [REDACTED]— September 18,2002

Dear Ms. [REDACTED]

Yesterday I received the photocopy of the article about “Critter” that you sent me, and also the photocopied page from a dictionary with the definition of “byline”. I thank you very much for obtaining this material for me. I do appreciate it.

You ask me about Timothy McVeigh. There is a Bureau of Prisons rule that prohibits inmates from sending out letters that give information about other inmates. I’m not sure whether this applies to McVeigh, since he’s now dead, but, rather than risk having this letter turned back by the censors, I’ll omit all information about McVeigh. However, a book about McVeigh has been published under the title “American Terrorist.” One of the two authors is Lou Michel; I forget the other author’s name, but I expect that as a librarian you will be able to find that out and get the book on an interlibrary loan if your own library doesn’t have it. In that book is reprinted a long letter from me to Lou Michel in which I give my impressions of McVeigh. (I was allowed to send that letter because inmates have special privileges in communicating with journalists, and moreover I had the prison authorities’ approval for that letter.)