In the midst of the coverage, though, I was troubled by those who said that they were glad to see McVeigh's sentence carried out. One woman went so far as to say that she cheered. That is just not right. 

Regardless of your position on capital punishment, there is one thing that we should be able to agree on: it is NEVER a time to celebrate. Those who support capital punishment might find quiet satisfaction in seeing justice done. However, even these supporters of capital punishment should realize that, no matter how cold-blooded the killer or how brutal his deeds, an execution is not the time for cheers. 

It is a time for somber reflection on a life that could have been used for good. It is a time to ask what we could have done to reach this person before his deeds condemned him. It is a time to remember the victims and to pray for their survivors. And it is a time to remember that we all have within us the capacity for great good and for great evil. It is a time to look in the mirror and say, "There but for the grace of God go I." 

Brad Pardee
Editor

We are told that nothing like the Holocaust could ever happen again. We are told that there are any number of reasons why we need not be concerned, not the least of which is the presence of the United Nations, which will be a voice for human rights and, if necessary, a strong arm to protect those who would be victims. 

Perhaps. However, the recent elections to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights makes me wonder just who they think they are kidding. There were four nations contending for three seats on the Commission from the Western nations, and for the first time since the Commission's inception, the United States did not receive the votes to retain its seat. Instead, France, Austria, and Sweden were elected to serve three year terms. 

Now I'm not going to suggest that the United States is the only nation capable of speaking out on behalf of human rights. However, one would hope that the nations that were elected would be nations known for their advocacy in this area. Sadly, this was not the case. 

Consider France, for instance. In 1996, this country, who prides itself on freedom and liberty, compiled a list of supposed "sects", which were considered dangerous. This list, however, included a number of evangelical organizations, and just last month, the National Assembly went further by passing a law which whose stated purpose was "to enforce the prevention and repression of groups of a sectarian nature". Yet, we expect the French to be a voice for religious freedom? 

Worse yet is the record of Sudan, also elected this year to a three year term. Christian schools and hospitals in the South have been bombed. Christians have been captured and sold as slaves. Christian children have been taken from their parents and forcibly indoctrinated into Islam. Christian women and girls have been captured and sexually abused. The first vice-president said just this last April that "the world now knows and should know that Sudan is an Islamic country and we will not allow any prayers except Islamic prayers in our country." Yet the government of Sudan, perhaps one of the most genocidal currently in power in the world, was elected to a seat on the Human Rights Commission. 

Combine this with the fact that well-known human rights abusers such as Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and China are already serving terms on this Commission and you have to wonder just what passes for human rights at the United Nations. 

One thing is quite clear, though, and that is that, if the voting for the Commission on Human Rights is any indication, the United Nations is not going to be a source of protection against human rights violations. Instead, it's the foxes who are guarding the henhouse, and it should come as no surprise, therefore, if the hens aren't feeling particularly secure.