Authoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.

The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.

There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.

Quote from: Azumarill on April 21, 2015, 07:21:54 PM

I've given you an overwhelming amount of information supporting my argument, and you have very very very little to stand on. Your only source is from 2013, and it's locked behind a paywall. Please, either take this seriously or leave. I don't appreciate you acting like a victim when I have been endlessly patient with you.

You've been far from patient, accusing me of trolling and not taking this seriously (despite my posts previously in this thread), and repeatedly posting the same links without making an actual argument from them (posting a link and expecting me to extrapolate your argument is bullshit I called out earlier in this thread, as well).

What you're claiming is evidence is the prosecution's argument. What I'm claiming is directly from an unbiased federal investigation. The entirety of the article:

Spoiler

Counterterrorism officials increasingly believe Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was never truly radicalized, exposing a possible blind spot in U.S. strategies built to detect certain characteristics among would-be American jihadis.

After a month of intensive investigation, authorities, according to people involved in the case, have yet to find any actions by Mr. Tsarnaev before last month's attack that would have stood out as alarming—no frequent visits to jihadi websites, no violent rhetoric, no suspicious purchases.

Investigators are still piecing together the lives of the Tsarnaev brothers accused of the bombings, but what they have found so far about Dzhokhar, 19, and his 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan, suggest two different psychological profiles, according to the people involved.

Tamerlan's path to violence fits in the general framework of "homegrown" or "lone wolf" terrorists—a person largely isolated from society, with a fractured family structure, who gravitates to an ill-defined cause, counterterrorism officials said.

Any radicalization of Dzhokhar, by contrast, would have happened at the last minute, if at all, officials said. They described a suspect who looks more like an agreeable follower of his elder brother's instructions. Counterterrorism officials said they believe that without Tamerlan's involvement, no attack would have taken place. Without Dzhokhar's alleged involvement, they believe there still would have been some kind of violence committed by Tamerlan, who was killed a few days after the bombing in a confrontation with police.

The implications are significant for investigators trying to prevent future plots and for prosecutors preparing for the possibility of a death-penalty trial in which Dzhokhar's motives could help determine whether he lives or dies.

An attorney for Dzhokhar didn't return messages seeking comment. Dzhokhar has yet to offer a plea in court to the government's criminal charges.


If Dzhokhar's actions better fit the psychological profile of an ordinary criminal than a committed terrorist—as several officials said they now believe—the question remains why he allegedly was ready to kill so many without mercy. Video and photo images show him depositing a bomb-laden backpack near a crowd of onlookers near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on April 15, according to authorities. The blasts killed three and injured more than 260.

The brothers embarked on an alleged crime spree three nights later, and Dzhokhar is suspected of detonating at least one homemade bomb in the midst of the confrontation with police that left Tamerlan dead. Dzhokhar was captured the following evening, suffering from gunshot wounds. He is now recovering in a prison hospital, facing charges that could carry the death penalty.

In initial interrogations the weekend after his capture, Dzhokhar told investigators the brothers, who are from an ethnic Chechen and Muslim family, acted from jihadist motives and were angered by U.S. actions against Muslims, U.S. officials said. But while Dzhokhar discussed jihadi themes with his elder brother, his own life indicates little interest in them, they said.

Dzhokhar stopped answering questions after getting a lawyer and being told of his right to remain silent a week after the attack, officials said.

Investigators found the brothers downloaded videos from radical Muslim clerics, including the now-dead Anwar al-Awlaki, but even that activity was mostly done by the elder brother, according to officials.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and subsequent plots, U.S. officials have spread a wide net to thwart potential terrorist plans, monitoring radical websites and keeping in touch with community leaders who might pick up signs of trouble.

Some of those signs were present in the case of Tamerlan, but apparently nonexistent for his younger brother. As a result of the Tsarnaev case, "we will have to pick up on indicators more quickly," one official said.

Mary Ellen O'Toole, a former criminal profiler at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who isn't involved in the case, said there are several indications the younger brother was psychologically dependent on his elder brother. In their shootout with police, it was Tamerlan, not Dzhokhar, who fired their only gun, according to law-enforcement officials. Dr. O'Toole described that as an important detail suggesting the pecking order.

"In this case the older brother really does seem to be the ringleader, and it appears that what they did were his ideas, his fantasies, his desires, and the younger brother was probably more the follower," she said.

She said Tamerlan exhibited several traits associated with psychopaths, including assembling bombs in the same small apartment where his toddler daughter lived.

Friends described Dzhokhar as a jokey teenager who seemed to genuinely enjoy his life in America. At his college, the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, the worst that fellow students would say about him was that he was a lackluster student.

Nabil Siddiqi, a recent UMass Dartmouth graduate who remains involved in the Muslim Student Association, recalled a time in January when Dzhokhar and several friends from Kazakhstan showed up at a weekly study circle, giggling and disturbing the discussion.

His freshman-year roommate, Jason Rowe, said Dzhokhar wore jeans and hoodies, liked hip-hop music and late-night Taco Bell. He didn't talk much about his family and was excited when he became a U.S. citizen.

Mr. Rowe saw no signs Dzhokhar held any extremist views. Mr. Rowe walked into the room once to find his roommate praying, but "other than that he didn't talk about religion." Added Mr. Rowe, 19: "He seemed very Americanized."

He was a homegrown terrorist under the leadership of his brother, and any radicalization would have occured in the immediate buildup to the attack, likely galvanized by his brother's death and what Dzhokhar likely interprets as persecution in an 'us vs. them' mentality of the U.S. government.

This discussion stemmed from your question if I would prefer his execution, which you claim is exactly what he wants (despite the plea of innocence, the denial of responsibility, the half-hearted radicalization, and the refusal to force arresting officers to kill him after the bombing). Frankly, he could be the most zealous Muslim on the face of the Earth and I would still say a personal belief has no grounds to impact a sentencing, and it doesn't matter what he wants. Terrorists that are engaged by coalition forces in the Middle East certainly want to be martyred, but we don't use that as an excuse to not kill them. That's no reason not to issue a death sentence, and so far nobody has made an argument from morality against his execution.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

I really think they're dragging the story out too much. We already know about John's kidnapping at age 6 and the death of his flash clone. We already know ONI are some shady motherfuckers that are probably going to be more overtly villainous in the upcoming releases. They should be using this to explore facets of the lore that we don't already know, and instead they're giving us a (seemingly incompetent) reporter digging up established information at a painfully slow pace.

Quote from: Azumarill on April 21, 2015, 04:53:38 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 19, 2015, 08:03:21 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on April 19, 2015, 07:57:43 PM

There is no evidence to suggest that the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent though.

Not to mention the astronomical costs the taxpayer has to bear the brunt of to try and get someone convicted for the death penalty. Bureaucracy isn't cheap funnily enough.

It's about punishment, not deterrent. I think Tsarnaev deserves to be executed for his participation in the bombing.

As for cost, while the trial for the death penalty is more expensive than a trial for life in prison, when you factor in the actual cost of incarcerating someone for life, it far exceeds that of the trial.

Regardless, justice shouldn't be meted out based on cost.

So you'd rather martyr him than lock him up in supermax for the rest of his natural life? That's exactly what he wants.

He clearly isn't in the mindset of martyrdom. He denies being responsible, denies his guilt, and has shifted blame to his brother. The general conclusion is that he was not acting upon radical Islamic beliefs, though his brother was.

Ew, HaloFollower.

Fuck the DEA.

Quote from: Azumarill on April 21, 2015, 05:09:14 PM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on April 20, 2015, 05:17:49 PM

Quote from: Lemön | Queen of Anal on April 19, 2015, 05:18:52 PM

Quote from: Gama I The American Pleb on April 19, 2015, 04:55:50 PM

*Cringes*

Besides, God knows everything, we don't.

There wasn't anything cringey about it.

Besides, God isn't real, we are.

This might be shocking news to you, but humans have these things called opinions.

and, shockingly enough, opinions can be wrong.

the idea that people worship a levantine war god as the singular, all-powerful deity is laughable. its almost as funny as someone who still sacrifices goats to apollo.

So you're saying that...no one sacrifices goats to Apollo anymore? Shit.

i didn't think it was sudden at all

he was showing shades of vaderism as far back as the middle of episode ii

a lot of people like to interpret it as just teen angst, and use it as a reason to dislike his character
buuut i don't

Quote from: Lemön | Queen of Anal on April 19, 2015, 05:18:52 PM

Quote from: Gama I The American Pleb on April 19, 2015, 04:55:50 PM

*Cringes*

Besides, God knows everything, we don't.

There wasn't anything cringey about it.

Besides, God isn't real, we are.

This might be shocking news to you, but humans have these things called opinions.

if it were up to me I'd have him put in an electric chair but there's a twist, the electricity is controlled by a random time switch. the limit would be to 30 years so any time between that it could go off. loooooooool if the electricity doesn't kill him the suspense will