Chapter Objectives

Chapter Overview

In this chapter, students will learn about the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. Oklahomans responded with support and resilience, or what became known as the Oklahoma Standard. This period also saw a major movement for urban revitalization and renewal efforts in both Oklahoma City and Tulsa, made possible by the MAPS and Vision 2025 voter initiatives. Indigenous nations expanded businesses, health care facilities, and tribal governments.

On April 19, 1995, Andrew Eppler was far from his rural Oklahoma home. He was in Mysore, India, studying advanced Ashtanga yoga. When he arrived at practice, his eighty-five-year-old Indian teacher did not give Andrew his usual greeting. Instead his teacher said, “Oklahoma is finished. Big bomb!” It would be several hours before Andrew was able to reach his parents to learn what had happened. Oklahoma was not finished, but it had suffered a devastating attack. At 9:02 a.m., a two-ton fertilizer bomb in a rented Ryder truck exploded in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. The Murrah Building housed most of the federal offices in Oklahoma City.

The bombing killed 168 people including 19 children who were in the America’s Kids Day Care Center in the Murrah Federal Building. The explosion destroyed the building, collapsing most of the north side. The explosion also damaged nearby buildings including the Water Resources Board, the Athenian, the YMCA, the Journal Record Building, the Regency Tower Apartments, and multiple churches. Windows were shattered along a ten-block radius. Beyond those who were killed, approximately 850 people were injured. Around 7,000 lost their workplace.

FIG. 15.1

The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Prior to the Bombing

The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City prior to the bombing in 1995. Approximately 550 people worked in the building. In addition to offices, it also housed a daycare center on the second floor.

Courtesy of the Oklahoma Historical Society.

FIG. 15.2

The Bombed Murrah Federal Building

As this photo shows, the bomb blew up the entire north side of the Murrah Federal Building and destroyed the rest of it. It also caused great damage to the surrounding buildings and area. It caused car and home alarms to go off in nearby areas as well. The force from the blast was so strong that some people reported feeling an earthquake-like sensation almost one hundred miles away.

Courtesy of the Oklahoma Historical Society.

In the hours and days following the bombing, Oklahomans participated in and witnessed both great horror and great acts of kindness and bravery. For several days following the bombing, local TV and radio stations covered nothing but the rescue efforts, which eventually became recovery efforts. As faces of victims flashed across television screens, Oklahomans watched with dread to see if the images would include people they knew and cared about. Most drivers kept their headlights on as a show of support for first responders and as a sign of hope and solidarity.

As Oklahomans were reeling from the events of April 19, someone made a bomb threat against the children’s hospital in Oklahoma City. Doctors and nurses stayed with their patients, knowing that if the threat were real, they would not have time to evacuate all of the children. Fortunately, the threat was a hoax. But it only strengthened the resolve of Oklahomans to come together and help their community through what at the time was the worst terrorist attack on American soil in the nation’s history. The way that Oklahomans responded with resilience in the face of adversity would later be known as the Oklahoma Standard.

Firefighters and other first responders were on the scene of the bombing within minutes of the explosion. Nurse Rebecca Anderson was one of the responders. She rushed into the building to help and was struck by falling concrete. She died four days later. She was an organ donor, and her heart, liver, kidneys, and eyes were transplanted to other individuals. Meantime, members of the Oklahoma Restaurant Association mobilized to prepare meals for rescue workers. They served somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 meals 24 hours per day for ten days.

The fence surrounding the space where the Murrah Building had stood quickly became a memorial site. When people visited, they left notes, American flags, and teddy bears. People around the world reached out to Oklahomans to show their support.

FIG. 15.3

Items Left at the Memorial Fence

This photograph shows a collection of items left outside the Murrah Building after the bombing. These included notes, art projects, stuffed animals, crosses, rosaries, and other sacred items. At the time, this was the worst terrorist attack on American soil in the history of the country. People from around the world expressed shock and sorrow over the attack.

Courtesy of the Oklahoma Historical Society.

Nationally, as a direct result of the Oklahoma City bombing, improved security and safety standards were required in all federal buildings. Childcare centers were no longer permitted in federal buildings. In addition, President Bill Clinton signed an antiterrorism bill one year after the Oklahoma City bombing.

FIG. 15.4

President Clinton Visits Oklahoma City

The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing shocked the nation. People across the country shared in the grief of Oklahomans. President Bill Clinton visited Oklahoma City four days after the bombing where he spoke at a prayer service for the victims and met with families. He is shown here (seated right) speaking with Governor Frank Keating while surrounded by first responders.

Courtesy of the Oklahoma Historical Society.

Antiterrorism Bill in Response to the Oklahoma City Bombing

One year after the Alfred P. Murrah federal building bombing in Oklahoma City, President Bill Clinton signed a new antiterrorism bill. Called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the act was part of a broader national response to the bombing. Its main purpose was to prevent future acts of terrorism. Though well-intentioned, the act received mixed reactions. It had some shortcomings. It also brought some positive changes.

One major criticism of the bill related to the limits it placed on the appeals process for capital punishment cases. AEDPA made it harder for those sentenced to death to appeal their convictions or receive a stay (or a pause) of execution. Opponents of the bill warned that such restrictions would undermine the due process of law. They said it would do this by raising the chance that a wrongly convicted or innocent person would be sentenced to death. The bill also sought to address terrorism. It did this by increasing immigration restrictions for people from certain regions of the world. These were places, mainly in the Middle East, that US government officials saw as having ties to terrorism. The terrorist provisions in AEDPA drew criticism because they seemed to discriminate against immigrants of certain backgrounds.

Despite these more controversial elements, several parts of the act helped combat domestic and international terrorism. Perhaps the most important aspect of AEDPA was that it defined terrorism as an offense designed “to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” AEDPA also made it harder for terrorist organizations to raise funds. It did this by banning donations to groups that the US government deemed as “terrorist” in nature. Finally, the act required chemicals known as “detection taggants” to receive classification as explosives. Classifying them in this way allowed easier tracing and identification of explosives during post-blast investigations by law enforcement. Yet in spite of these tough measures, many saw the act as too weak. Even President Clinton stated that the AEDPA “should have been stronger.”