On the Verdict: Revenge is a very poor substitute for justice. Discuss...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

[TeeYiYi]

1. Tell that...

...to the family members of those killed or maimed by Joker and his brother.

TYY

[morningfog]

3. You mean the ones who opposed him being sentenced to death?

[TeeYiYi]

21. No...

...I mean the ones who didn't oppose it.

TYY

[morningfog]

29. Well, you can't get death for maiming.

And he was sentenced to death for killing Martin Richard and Lingzi Lu. Richard's family opposes it.

Do you know whether Lu's opposes it or not? Otherwise, you are just thumping your chest in ignorance.

[TeeYiYi]

38. The families who spoke out ...

...about the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev didn't do so because of some moral platitude against capital punishment. Rather, they did so because they didn't want to suffer the long and drawn out appeals process.

They opposed the death penalty because of the long and drawn out appeals process that accompanies death penalty cases. Now, they won't be allowed to heal and put the carnage behind them until the sentence has been carried out. That eventuality is a good ten to twelve years down the road...

TYY

[morningfog]

50. Whatever their reason, you are spitting in their face.

And you are suggesting that your moral chest thumping and blood thirst trumps their emotions. Shame on you.

Remember, you entered this thread ignorantly advocating that the families wishes should be honored. You were just projecting you vengeful emotions.

[TeeYiYi]

59. You seem incredibly invested...

...in finding someone to vilify. Or, maybe you just like to randomly yell at unknown personas on the internet.

...Whatever their reason, you are spitting in their face. ...moral chest thumping and blood thirst trumps their emotions. Shame on you.

Remember, you entered this thread ignorantly advocating that the families wishes should be honored. You were just projecting you vengeful emotions.

The families just want to put the past behind them:

...As long as the defendant is in the spotlight, we have no choice but to live a story told on his terms, not ours. The minute the defendant fades from our newspapers and TV screens is the minute we begin the process of rebuilding our lives and our family.

Robert Curley whose 10-year-old son, Jeffrey, was murdered in 1997, appeared on necn news to discuss his views on capital punishment and the Tsarnaev case. Curley said he came to oppose the death penalty after the trials of the men who murdered his son convinced him that "the system is just not fair" and could not be trusted to reach the right result in capital cases. Curley said he believes Tsarnaev should receive life without parole because a death sentence would mean endless appeals, but a life sentence would mean he would, "go away never to be heard from again."
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/6106

I'm not for or against the death penalty in this case. When DU ran a recent poll regarding Tsarnaev's penalty, I voted for life in prison without possibility of parole, in general population.

The only 'chest thumping' that I'm seeing is coming from you.

TYY

[morningfog]

70. I accept your apology for your posting in ignorance.

[TeeYiYi]

71. Oh my...

TYY

[mountain grammy]

86. Well, we could do away with the appeals process, because, you know,

the justice system always gets it right... and you and I both know that's

Better, we should just do away with the death penalty. Life in prison is sufficient. Killing is wrong, no matter who does it, and it's terrifying when the state does it.

[TeeYiYi]

110. I agree that...

... life in prison should be sufficient and that Supermax and the death penalty are antiquated and barbaric methods of torture. That said, until the day that the death penalty is once again outlawed as it was for a brief period in the 70s, killers should weigh the possible consequences of their actions before deciding to commit heinous acts of mayhem and murder.

Regardless of how I may or may not feel about the morality or constitutionality of the death penalty and the prison industrial complex, I'll confess that I'm not likely to lose any sleep over Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's sentence; punishment prescribed for the cold blooded, calculated and heartless murder and maiming of so many innocents at a previously lighthearted annual event called the Boston Marathon.

People deserve to live lives of bliss; unencumbered by the fear of random acts of violence being perpetrated onto their persons or those of their loved ones.

Despite any possible explanation for his crime, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev made his own bed.

TYY

[mountain grammy]

126. I won't shed a tear for Tsarnaev

as I didn't for Tim McVeigh. They were both on suicide missions. That said, I think we would have learned much from McVeigh and we could from Tsarnaev. A lifetime in prison loosens tongues, and I think there's much more behind the actions of these men that we'll never know, including other guilty parties.

[TeeYiYi]

130. Oddly, I felt a bit that way...

...when they executed Ted Bundy. I wondered if the potential for learning from him might not be more valuable than his death. I think he believed the same thing and used it to prolong his execution.

re:"...I think we would have learned much from McVeigh and we could from Tsarnaev."

In the end, the state said, "No more." They put an end to using 'what he knew' as a bargaining chip and provided closure for the families of his victims and lifted the fears of a generation of young women living in the towns where he had struck. He had managed to prolong his execution for over 20 years before he was finally put to death.

And, in the end, there was some justice to be had in the fact that he feared death as much as, or even moreso than the victims of his cunning savagery. He spent the night crying and praying before his execution. His is another death penalty case that I will never lose sleep over.

TYY

[mountain grammy]

132. Bundy was another matter. A complete psychopath who worked alone..

but McVeigh and Tsarnaev had connections and who knows where they could lead.

[TeeYiYi]

140. Tsarnaev won't be dead...

...for at least another ten to twelve years. I'm sure they'll have a chance to 'pick his brain' before the appeals process wears itself out.

TYY

[NuclearDem]

6. ...which is why we don't put family members on the jury.

[TeeYiYi]

17. In this case...

...where guilt or innocence was not in question, I have a hard time getting too exercised over the death penalty.

...with shrapnel flying, bodies dismembered and blood saturating the sidewalks; three people were killed outright, while 17 people lost at least one leg. More than 240 others sustained serious injuries, some of them life-altering. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/us/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-death-sentence.html

TYY

[NuclearDem]

22. Good for you.

Now politely recuse yourself from any possible real world jury service until you understand how the criminal justice system works.

[F4lconF16]

25. From a thread of mine...

Advocating torture through the fallacy of relative privation:

“The "torture" that murderer has to endure for the rest of his miserable life doesn't even come close to the real torture those poor parents have to face the rest of their lives.”

Yes, his pain is not the same type of pain or anywhere near the level of pain that those parents had and have to endure. I truly feel for the people he harmed, but their pain does not justify his pain. It is not acceptable as a society to torture someone. And here I thought that we figured that out during the Bush years. Sad how the people that called him out find this acceptable.

This was in response to justifications for solitary confinement. I believe it applies here as well.

[Major Nikon]

138. You make very good emotional arguments

For whatever that's worth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

[TeeYiYi]

141. Thank you, Major.

My point is that I don't really care either way in this particular case. Tsarnaev decided to be a heartless, murdering savage in a country that clearly has the death penalty on the table as punishment. He rolled the dice...

TYY

[rhett o rick]

66. I don't blame those directly affected to want revenge but it won't bring peace.

“Vengeance, retaliation, retribution, revenge are deceitful brothers; vile, beguiling demons promising justifiable compensation to a pained soul for his losses. Yet in truth they craftily fester away all else of worth remaining.”
― Richelle E. Goodrich, The Tarishe Curse

And those that were not directly affected have no excuse for calling for revenge.

[TeeYiYi]

74. I'm not calling for revenge...

...I just don't really care either way. If his guilt or innocence were in question, I might have a different opinion.

The fact that he was found hiding in a boat tells me that he's afraid of dying, so maybe the death penalty is the correct sentence after all.

TYY

[rhett o rick]

87. What is accomplished by putting him to death? nm

[Enthusiast]

95. Without the death panalty how will we maintain the United Barbaric States of America?

[TeeYiYi]

97. Nothing, really...

...In fact, it might be a more humane punishment than life in Supermax.

I think that life without the possibility of parole in general population would be sufficient, considering the influence his brother may have had on his decision to kill. Regardless, as his guilt or innocence is not in question, I can't seem to bring myself to care one way or the other as to what punishment he receives.

TYY

[samsingh]

69. he's worse than joker. he's a barbaric monster that is getting a small dose of

what he deserves

[840high]

91. Yep - especially that little boy's family.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Except his father did not want the death penalty imposed

[Yo_Mama]

104. In our justice system, the wishes of the injured or their relatives do not control the outcome.

Nor should they.

So I think the wishes of the parents, much as I feel for them, are irrelevant either way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. I understand that

But when people use the parents of the young kid who died as a cudgel, when they did not want that, well.

And by the way, what the court should have considered is that they are about (5-10 years) to make a martyr. And for that, well. And that should have been a clear consideration. They gave Tsarnaev his wish.

[Yo_Mama]

114. Well, he'll only be a martyr to those who think what he did was justified.

And historically, a lot of terrorist acts have been committed to try to win the freedom of those incarcerated for acts of terrorism, or being tried for such. So I don't find that a convincing argument at all.

I do oppose the death penalty in all but a very small subsegment of cases, and while this case meets some of my personal requirements (lack of remorse, guilt beyond the shadow of any doubt), it may or may not meet others.

But I am withholding judgment in this instance, because I think Tsarnaev dead is less dangerous to innocents than Tsarnaev alive. I think so far at least 58 people have been killed in attacks which purportedly were intended to free the Blind Sheikh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. I oppose it in all circumstances

and this small sub segment is quite ahem... violent and interesting.

[Yo_Mama]

117. I see the argument against the DP in all cases.

It's not one I can quite endorse, although it might be considerably better on the whole than the current situation.

But I can't grant a lot of the arguments I am seeing here. If that makes me a bad person, at least I'm trying to be an honest person.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. I think the country will have to grapple with it

and it will go away ultimately, perhaps even before Tsarnaev is executed. His case is unique, in the sense that none contested the acts. But we have an increasing number of cases where evidence was suppressed, or even the wrong person was found guilty of a crime they did not commit. People who have spent decades waiting to be executed. And then there is a strong structural bias and structural racism in the system. This kid does not have the bad defense argument though.


In his case, I am opposed to it, since quite frankly making martyrs is not my idea of fun. We did the same thing with Timothy McVeigh. There are people who adore McVeigh and think that he tried hard to start the revolution. Those people, quite frankly scare me, but they exist.

It has not one whit with religion either. But we have been covering courts, and the way that they work, I am not altogether convinced the justice system works at all, to actually find the guilty for a simple robbery, let alone a capital case. (There are many aspects of this case that are unique)

And of course then you have places like California, where the appeals are so long, (the supreme court did find this by the way, state supreme court) that the death penalty is a form of torture and works as life in prison anyway. Yes, your chances of dying by the state are really, really, really low.

If you are not somewhat conflicted then you are not truly thinking about it fully.

On a far larger view of the world, we need a full discussion on our criminal system, and how it works, or does not work... and how it has become a house of horrors. We as a nation have ignored this for so long that sooner or later we will have to face it. Trust me, most people do not want to. That mirror is a monster staring back at us.

[Agschmid]

113. The ones who announced that they opposed the death penalty...

Oh wait you already heard that.

[NYC_SKP]

2. I am 100% opposed to the death penalty. We are a warlike and violent culture.

Making homicide a deliberate feature of our "justice" system is absurd.

[avebury]

11. I totally agree with you.

It is also hypocritical when you see so many people whine about what a Christian Pro-life country the US is supposed to be.

The death penalty has no place in a civilized society.

[daleanime]

30. Amen.....

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

32. Kind of a default position or should be for anyone claiming to be a liberal

[snooper2]

40. I think it should be reserved for certain cases

If somebody rapes a 4 year old-

That rabid person needs to go-

[Gore1FL]

64. Wrong in all cases

The guilty get off easy. The innocent lose their chance at clearing their name.

[Lancero]

112. And what of the innocent who die in prison?

7000 people die in prison each year - Are we say for certian that those made to die behind bars are guilty?

By execution or age, innocents will be convicted no matter what. Condemning a innocent person do die behind bars is as morally wrong, perhaps even more, as executing a innocent.

[immoderate]

43. Right you are!

Making executions the most solemn ritual we perform is really barbaric. As a civilization, we should avoid killing people.

--imm

[steve2470]

58. agreed! nt

[rhett o rick]

67. I absolutely agree and am disappointed to see posters here claiming to be "politically liberal"

calling for revenge.

[haikugal]

82. I, for one, am not calling for revenge...

I said I'd accept it. I don't like the death penalty but at the same time I'm not certain we have what could be called, realistically, a justice system

[rhett o rick]

84. The question is, why put someone to death? nm

[etherealtruth]

79. let me give you another AMEN

[Lil Missy]

4. On the verdict: Death penalty is just. Discuss ...

Death penalty is not necessarily revenge.

[F4lconF16]

28. What is it, then? nt

[Lil Missy]

37. Justice n/t

[F4lconF16]

39. Why?

At least one of the victim's families did not want the deah penalty. This is a huge slap in their faces.

Tell me again how this is justice.

[uppityperson]

41. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

Probably not what they meant though.

[Telcontar]

53. Because we dont allow family to determine punishment

Would you say it was a slap in the face for family asking for the death of their relative's killer when the sentence comes back prison instead?

[F4lconF16]

54. A good point.

And no, I suppose I would not. But there is a difference between not killing someone and killing someone, no?

Still, point taken.

[Telcontar]

135. I am opposed to the death penalty as well

But I also believe judicial punishment shouldn't be determined by victims or their relatives.

[Logical]

42. Lol, yes it is revenge, what other reason is there? nt

[840high]

93. No remorse from him. In this case it's justice.

[catnhatnh]

5. What a lot of people don't get is this:

It doesn't make a bit of difference what he deserves-it is more important that we get what we deserve-a more enlightened government for instance.

[F4lconF16]

33. Well said. nt

[Maedhros]

55. Opposing the death penalty has nothing to do with those sentenced to it.

It has everything to do with building a better society.

[TDale313]

85. Yes. It's not about the person sentenced.

It's about who we as a society want to be, what we allow to be done "in our names", and whether we trust our justice system with the power of life and death.

[hrmjustin]

7. I agree with you it is wrong.

I think he made his choices and deserves what he gets but I still ghink we shoukd not do it.

[bluestateguy]

8. As long as there is due process and a fair trial, what is wrong with revenge?

I am against capital punishiment, more so out of practical reasons, but you can still have revenge outside of execution.

[NuclearDem]

15. Because revenge is what the justice system exists to prevent.

It's a system where fair and impartial mediators determine whether someone needs to be removed from society until they can be properly habilitated, if possible.

Unless you prefer to go back to the era of blood feuds and vigilantism.

[avebury]

23. Not related to this case but had you heard the Scalia's opinion

on what would happen if a person was tried, convicted and put on death row and then later found to be totally innocent? Scalia's opinion was that as long as the guy got his day in court, proof of innocence is not enough to overturn a death penalty conviction.

I don't assume that all defendants get the benefit of due process and a fair trial. Look at the guy who was executed in Texas for the death of children in a fire. The prosecutor intentionally withheld evidence that raised doubt as to the guy's guilt from the guy's attorneys. As the guy's date of execution came closer there was a lot of doubt about his conviction and Rick Perry allowed the execution to take place. Guess what the guy was innocent and the prosecutor is in deep trouble. The guy should end up in prison.

[zappaman]

9. This can't be a surprise for him.

He knew he was probably going to die when he was planning this thing.
The victims , however, had no idea they were about to be murdered.

[NuclearDem]

10. The death penalty is backwards, too expensive, and doesn't work as a deterrent.

[Rhiannon12866]

12. Oh no.

As soon as I saw this, I knew what it meant and went straight to LBN. I completely agree. Off to turn on the TV.

[FLPanhandle]

13. Isn't Life without Parole a revenge too

It certainly isn't rehabilitation.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

26. I agree that life without parole is not rehabilitation.

The aim of life w/out parole is to remove him from society, as he is too dangerous to walk among us.

[FLPanhandle]

99. Technically the death penalty does the same thing

Removes him from society.

You premise that the death penalty is revenge but not justice can easily be be applied to Life without Parole sentancing too.

Both are pure punishments/revenge.

[F4lconF16]

31. Yes.

There is a reason the most advanced imprisonment system in the world, Sweden's, does not allow life sentencing for people under 21. In practice, they don't even have life sentences.

Our system is beyond cruel--it is bloodthirsty and barbaric. It is purely based on revenge, not containment and rehabilitation

[phil89]

51. Here's hoping he moves

into your neighborhood and not mine if he is somehow released after being "rehabilitated".

[Egnever]

68. Problems with that

It is fine to say it is cruel and barbaric to sentence people to life but then you must take into account the other parts of the equation.

What do you call it when someone is raped or murdered by someone who was released from prison? According to stats from Sweden

Forty percent of all persons with an initial event¹ in 2007 relapsed into crime within three years. The percentage that relapsed among women was 28 percent and 43 percent among men. The statistics show very small changes over time.

https://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/crime-statistics/recidivism.html

40% is very high even in this supposed enlightened place. It is fine to say that criminals should be treated better but even in countries where they are, the rate they repeat their criminal activity is very high. I think it becomes very difficult to make the decision on what is cruel and what is protecting society.

[F4lconF16]

80. It's not easy.

However, given the choice, I would much rather have their system.

[haikugal]

89. I agree wholeheartedly. I would add cruel.

I don't see us, as a society, doing much more than Christian evangelizing and hard line Calvinistic sentencing. The thought that a Supreme Court justice wouldn't do anything to help an innocent man is horrific. The thinking seems to be there are no innocent men/women.

We have become the Ugly Americans.

[FLPanhandle]

100. and this attitude is why I support the death penalty

He should never walk the streets again. If there is a chance he can one day be paroled, then I will support the death penalty.

I'll agree to stop supporting the DP when it's assured "Life without Parole" really means life without parole.

[morningfog]

14. Shame on the United States, shame on the DOJ, shame on the US government, shame on the jury.

Disgusting.

[Coventina]

16. I'm against the DP in all cases, this one is no exception.

In this case, it has the added disadvantage of giving him martyrdom status.

[Throd]

18. It is justice.

[F4lconF16]

34. Why? nt

[F4lconF16]

19. It's not just this case.

Though I 100% agree that this is wrong. It's our entire justice system.

A beautiful post by one of my favorites here, markpkessinger:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026482977

The Fiction of Deterrence and the Immorality of 'Retributive Justice'

Our criminal justice system is broken. We all (or almost all) know it, and we all say it. Prisoners, both violent and non-violent, and among whom are found those that have been rightfully as well as wrongfully convicted, are warehoused under brutal and inhumane conditions that are virtually guaranteed to make violent criminals more violent, to make non-violent criminals violent, and, in some cases, to force people who never before had been criminals to turn to crime, upon their release, merely to survive. We keep people in solitary confinement for weeks or months or even years on end, creating permanent psychological damage. A criminal justice system that is subject to the same human mistakes, failings and corruptions as all other systems devised by humans nevertheless presumes, in some cases, to impose ultimate, irrevocable punishment -- death -- that eliminates any and all possibility of redress in light of any mistakes or failings that may later come to light. Yet, when it comes to the criminal penalties imposed on specific, notorious criminals who have committed crimes we find to be particularly abhorrent or heinous, and about whose guilt we firmly believe we are certain, many of us are all too willing to set aside our commitment to moral and, in some cases, even legal, principle in order to satisfy a very human, but very base, desire for vengeance.

There are two prevailing concepts that are used to rationalize our broken criminal justice system. First is the notion of deterrence. If we impose harsh, brutal sentences upon people who commit crimes, then would-be criminals will think twice before committing such crimes -- or so goes the myth we tell ourselves, despite a dearth of evidence that such deterrent effect actually exists. I have come to believe the entire premise is a faulty one. First, it fails to consider that the majority of violent crimes occur in the heat of passion, in which the emotions overtake rational thought processes. Second, even in the cases involving violent crimes that are premeditated and carefully planned, a theory of deterrence rests, in the first place, on the idea that a would-be criminal undertakes a rational cost-benefit analysis of a crime he or she may be contemplating, much as a careful investor might weigh potential upside gain against potential downside loss. This is, I believe, very rarely what actually happens in the commission of criminal acts. I believe that in most cases, those who commit crimes do so having already convinced themselves, often quite irrationally, they won't get caught, and not because the potential consequences of getting caught are light enough to make the crime worth the risk of committing it. At the point they commit the crime, all thought of getting caught, and of potential consequences that would flow from that, have been put out of their minds entirely. So much for any deterrent effect!

The second concept, an idea very popular with some criminologists, is the idea of "retributive justice" -- i.e., the idea that punishing people for misdeeds is a morally justifiable, and even desirable, end in itself, that need not take account of any rehabilitative imperative or even any consideration for the well-being of the convicted criminal. The idea is that punishment somehow "balances" some cosmic (but never identified) scale of 'justice.' This, it seems to me, amounts to little more than a bunch of highfalutin, meaningless mumbo-jumbo aimed at rationalizing s system that is otherwise indefensible under any cogent system of ethics or morality. It is a way of justifying ourselves in our collective willingness to subordinate ethics and morality to the satisfaction of one of our most base human emotions. In short, the term "retributive justice" is but a gussied up term for plain old (but less acceptable in polite company) vengeance.

Some, of course, will protest that they reserve this kind of rationalization for the "worst of the worst," that what {insert name of notorious criminal of choice here} did was so uniquely heinous that he or she "deserves" whatever might be coming to him or her. But, as I pointed out yesterday in another thread, the problem with this rationale is that:

. . .invariably, we are talking about more than one case or one individual. And regardless of how heinous that one individual's actions may have been, invariably, some not-so-heinous criminals get caught up in it, too. The article mentions one Jack Powers, imprisoned for burglary as a kid, released in 1982. then married and started two businesses, both of which were bankrupt by the end of the decade. He began robbing banks -- BUT WAS NEVER ARMED, he merely passed notes to the teller demanding money. IN prison, a friend of his was murdered by the Aryan Brotherhood. Powers cooperated with prosecutors, believing he could cut a deal to get out of prison earlier, but then had to be placed in protective custody. When he got wind that prison officials were planning on transferring him to the general population, which would have put him at risk for being killed for his role in the convictions of four members of the Aryan Brotherhood, he escaped. So he wound up getting sent to ADX because he was deemed a flight risk, never mind that he was fleeing for his life.

When we talk about the criminal justice and penal systems, the conditions in prisons or the death penalty, it is important to remember that we are NEVER talking about just a single, individual case, and that invariably, people who do not remotely deserve to be kept under such brutal conditions inevitably will be. Any moral or ethical approach to these issues MUST factor in not only the 'easy' cases involving notorious, brutal criminals, but also the harder cases, which often involve less violent, or even non-violent such as Powers, prisoners who will inevitably get swept up into the system.

Society certainly has a right to protect itself by separating from the population those deemed to be a threat to others. But if a society is to call itself 'moral' or 'just,' or even 'civilized' for that matter, that right of protecting the wider society from harm carries no implicit right to abuse, harm or torture convicted criminals under some ethically tortured notion of 'retributive justice' or on the basis of an utterly fictitious narrative of 'deterrence.' And no system of ethics or morals can be called cogent if it provides 'carve outs' for cases that particularly enrage us, no matter how heinous the crime and no matter how understandable, and even justifiable, our collective rage.

This is a denial of our collective humanity.

From one of my posts:

"To begin the real focus of this post, I would like to explain why I think that compassion towards all living beings is not only important, but necessary for a continuation of a humanitarian society and further development of our morality and understanding of each other. Compassion means that we hold a respect for other beings. It means that we empathize with them. It means that we behave with a minimum of decency towards others around us. It means that even under the most dire of circumstances and in the hardest of times, despite personal challenges or feelings, we will do our best to continue to hold that respect in our actions and words.

Respect in this case does not imply that we respect another’s actions; instead, it means that we view them as something more than an inanimate object. I treat a dog differently than I would a rock. I do so because I firmly believe that the dog, unlike the rock, experiences the world. It is a fellow traveler in this temporary world of life; something that lives, breathes, understands.

Those living beings are deserving of my respect because they have just as much inherent value in the universe as I do. I am but a different type of being. As an atheist, I also see no evidence for a life other than the one I am lucky enough to have. Life is the most incredibly precious thing that exists, for me. We are here, and we are gone, and we have but a quick moment to experience the beauty of the world around us. If I deny the respect I hold for life to another living being, I diminish my own.

The Buddhist perspective is that everyone exists with some amount of basic goodness. That is not an easy view to reconcile with the horrifying things that happen in this world. But I take that perspective anyways, because I think to do otherwise denies my own humanity. If I cannot see the inherent good in psychopaths and murderers, I cannot respect them. If I do not respect them, I do not respect the value of my own life. I see those people as sick; there is no way a sane, healthy mind exists within them. With luck, future medical advances may help us to help them. But for now, I must see their humanity in order to avoid denying my own.

This is why I am so hurt by the denials of humanity that were posted here and continue to be posted here. I see people denying my own humanity when they advocate for what amounts to the torture of a living being. I see denials of my own humanity in our society’s actions. I am pained that that is being taken from me."

When that man dies, a bit of every one of us dies with him. It is morally indefensible, barbaric, and cruel.

[phil89]

52. Ridiculous assertions.

no part of me will die when he does. Stop with the emotional nonsense.

[Maedhros]

56. You have little claim to the moral high ground,

and belong on my ignore list.

[stonecutter357]

88. add me to...

[jtuck004]

131. I agree. Maybe we could get a gang and break him out, drag him with a rope behind a car until his

screaming corpse is knocked off by a curb somewhere, right?

No point in being emotional about it, eh? And, fuck, we missile innocent little kids to a screaming violent death nearly every month, so it's not like we don't have some expertise in this. Right, soldier?

I am with you 100% on this, brothe... oh, sorry. No connections.

No connection at all, none at all...We are SOOO much better than he is.

[MineralMan]

20. I'm completely opposed to the death penalty in

all cases. I recognize that is not a majority viewpoint, but it is one I have always held. In my opinion, the state should not execute people for crimes. My only exception is in wartime, on the battlefield when killing enemies is tantamount to self defense.

[aikoaiko]

24. Most sentences have an element of revenge

I'm good with that. What's important is that he was afforded due process and had a chance to present a defense or mitigating factors.

[MindPilot]

27. I couldn't agree more.

It sickens me that so many Americans, even among those who call themselves liberal, willingly allow the state to be their agent of revenge.

[Maedhros]

57. There are those who get a vicarious thrill when the State employs deadly force,

either via death penalty or drone strike, against those they've been trained to hate.

[olddots]

35. 2 wrongs don't make a right .

absurdly simple and even logical while revenge is an abstracr ..

[csziggy]

36. The death penalty is not a deterrent and it will take decades before it is applied

So periodically the entire case will be dragged up and reviewed in the courts while the murderer tries to get the verdict commuted, renewing the pain of the family members and victims.

I cannot say it any better than Martin Richards' parents:

To end the anguish, drop the death penalty

In Bill and Denise Richard’s own words

<SNIP>

But now that the tireless and committed prosecution team has ensured that justice will be served, we urge the Department of Justice to bring the case to a close. We are in favor of and would support the Department of Justice in taking the death penalty off the table in exchange for the defendant spending the rest of his life in prison without any possibility of release and waiving all of his rights to appeal.

<SNIP>

For us, the story of Marathon Monday 2013 should not be defined by the actions or beliefs of the defendant, but by the resiliency of the human spirit and the rallying cries of this great city. We can never replace what was taken from us, but we can continue to get up every morning and fight another day. As long as the defendant is in the spotlight, we have no choice but to live a story told on his terms, not ours. The minute the defendant fades from our newspapers and TV screens is the minute we begin the process of rebuilding our lives and our family.

More: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/16/end-anguish-drop-death-penalty/ocQLejp8H2vesDavItHIEN/story.html#

(Emphasis added)

Aside from moral objections to the death penalty, it does not do anything to prevent crime or to give closure to the victims. In our system all it does is prolong the agony.

[Rhiannon12866]

44. Very well expressed and I couldn't have said anything better

I knew that the families opposed the death penalty, but I hadn't read the words before. Thank you for posting this. I'm surprised at how sad I feel - for everyone.

[hamsterjill]

72. That's my sentiment, as well.

Simply overall sadness. Sad for the victims that were completely innocent. Sad for the family members left with missing chairs at their dinner table. Sad for the witnesses and first responders who had to see the carnage.

Even sad for the two young men who perpetuated the crime. To think of someone that young being so filled with hate is horrifying. Wasted potential.

I honestly do not know how I feel about the death penalty. Generally, I'm completely against it. But I think there are times when some people are not redeemable because they do not seek redemption.

In any event, a jury has reached a unanimous verdict. I refuse to question them because I can only imagine the agony that it would take for someone like me to reach that conclusion.

[sarisataka]

45. In such a case

There can never truly be justice. The dead cannot be brought back. Putting a person to death won't undo anything.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. Friedrich Nietzsche

[CaliforniaPeggy]

47. That quote is one of my favorites and so perfect. Thank you! n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. You're welcome.

[malaise]

63. +1,000 n/t

[malaise]

49. No discussion

just a +1,000.
We're against the death penalty and make no exceptions

[yallerdawg]

62. Punishment and revenge...

or justice and mercy.

Execution by the State makes me complicit in murder.

The right Supreme Court justices could change this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. I'm opposed to the state killing its citizens. However --

Life in prison could be seen as just another form of vengeance. It certainly has no potential to rehabilitate.

But Tsarnaev will never -- should never -- be free again. This is the fate he chose for himself.

[Cleita]

61. Considering that there are certain middle aged and elderly "statesmen"

wandering around unpunished for the deaths of millions because what they did has the appearance of legality, I can't see why an unstable young man would get the death penalty for an act he committed when he was a teenager before those aforementioned war criminals get their justice handed to them. On the top of my list is Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney. Once those two are strapped into a gurney for war crimes and treason and sent to their maker, then talk to me about executing anyone else.

[steve2470]

65. excellent points! nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

73. Revenge is not justice. Revenge is never fair. Justice, in its highest sense, is total fairness.

Justice creates an outcome which is fair for everyone. Revenge only pacifies the victims. Revenge is merely a pacifier. Justice is an equalizer.

[Yo_Mama]

105. There is nothing that can possibly equalize in many cases -

and this is one of them.

Nothing we can do to Tsarnaev will balance the scales for what he did.

I think of revenge as a possible equalizer. Justice, I think, is a method of limiting further harm. If you make society pick between yourself and the innocent others, you should not be surprised if society comes down on their side.

[Dont call me Shirley]

108. Revenge could never be an equalizer, that's like saying a gun is an equalizer. The only thing that

truly equalizes is fairness, justice (balance). Equalizing is balance. Revenge merely causes more imbalance.

Justice, the condition of being morally correct or fair

Revenge, the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands

The balancing of the scales would come from the healing of all involved in this tragedy.

[Yo_Mama]

116. We cannot heal those dead, maimed, their families, or even the surviving Tsarnaev

There's no possible way to do it.

In this case, the death penalty for Tsarnaev could be considered as just - it depends on what the individual perceives as morally correct.

I view LWOP sentences as only an extended death sentence, with the exception that we have the ability to partially correct miscarriages of justice in such sentences, which obviously cannot be done after some one is wrongfully executed.

I think if Tsarnaev ever could, he would continue his jihad in prison. Therefore it would be LWOP in one of the very high security facilities, which is brutal. I would not accept that Tsarnaev could ever have another human life in his power, so I would support the Supermax treatment in his case, but I don't regard it as somehow more humane than the DP.

I would never accept that Tsarnaev could go free. I don't see the difference between the death penalty and LWOP in this case, except that the death penalty is at least shorter, and therefore more merciful.

[Dont call me Shirley]

118. Healing is always possible. To give up on healing is to give up on life itself, for healing is

life-affirming.

HEALING IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE!

To revenge kill is to destroy, which is the opposite of life-affirming. This is greater truth.

[Yo_Mama]

119. Healing is only possible for those still living with the capacity to be whole.

When you've lost a leg, you are never going to be whole again. When you've lost a family member, you will always feel the loss. The dead are not going to be healed.

There are human limits; I think we have to accept them.

But in a broader sense, I do think I understand your position. You are asserting that only minimizing harm can allow us to concentrate on healing.

The question is how to minimize the harm. In Tsarnaev's case, that is not clear to me. I am personally sorry that he has not been able to change his mind about his deeds, but it means that either way, his punishment will be brutal.

I see no way that we cannot inflict harm on Tsarnaev in order to prevent more casualties.

[Dont call me Shirley]

121. "I see no way that we cannot inflict harm on Tsarnaev in order to prevent more casualties."

Sad.

[phil89]

128. It's not truth. It's just an emotion based assertion.

I somehow doubt you'd want this guy living next door to you if he were ever considered rehabilitated and released. Don't assume to put others in that position.

[Dont call me Shirley]

139. "To revenge kill is to destroy, which is the opposite of life-affirming. This is greater truth."

Revenge is not an emotion. Revenge is an action. Revenge is destructive. Revenge is not life-affirming. Neither destruction nor life-affirmation are emotions, they are states of action.

Our present system of punishment has very little, if any, rehabilitation, let alone Healing. Healing and rehabilitation are not the same thing. Rehabilitation is a first step toward whole healing, generally having to do with becoming useful to society. Healing includes rehabilitation plus the overcoming of hatred, vengeance (revenge) and all self-defeating memes within one's self.

“Healing is a spontaneous event that comes about through a kind of grace. It can happen anytime, and in any place. It may or may not happen in the context of a healing session. It may come about simply with a smile from a stranger, the breeze blowing through the trees, the song of a bird — some reminder of our connectedness and wholeness — the beauty of Life just as it is at this moment for us.

Healing can happen on many different levels. Sometimes our healing is not what we expect. We need to be open to the gifts which life is always ready to give us. It may be that a physical problem heals, but it may also stay awhile to teach us something. Sometimes a health challenge is a doorway to a deeper healing, a cry from deep within for attention to some part of us that has been unloved and feels separated from the Whole."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. I think the discussion boils down to "no, that statement is false".

In many situations, revenge is perfectly just.

[dem in texas]

76. If I were on the Jury, I would be torn in deciding the verdict.

I am a Texan and do not in all cases condone the death penalty. But when you have someone who prays on innocent people by killing them I am not opposed to the criminal being put to death provided they have been given chances to improve themselves earlier. But not for a first time offender or someone young as we know young people do stupid things that they later regret.

Based on this case, I would probably be inclined to the life sentence - EXCEPT - I saw a video where he put down the pressure cooker bomb and looked at the little children standing there, well knowing that they might be killed or maimed. I am not sure if I could forgive this. Thank God I wasn't on that jury!

[Rex]

77. Then what is justice?

And where does the line get drawn when it becomes revenge? An Eye for an Eye, is that justice? Is that revenge?

[MADem]

78. The people on that jury were able/prepared to issue a death sentence.

I wouldn't pass the voir/dire so I can't really comment on the mindset.

I'm kind of with Mike Dukakis on the issue of the death penalty.

[MerryBlooms]

81. Life in isolation in a super-max or death...

which is more humane?

[MADem]

92. Well, he'll be doing a good long stretch in a federal pen in Indiana, on death row.

He's not going to that Colorado Supermax, now. He'll be able to yell down the hall and converse with his fellow death row buddies.
And even at that, he's probably not going there until formal sentencing happens, which won't be for several months. He will probably be kept in the same facility where he's been stashed during the trial.

With appeals and clever maneuvering, it could be a decade, maybe more, before he sees the needle. He'll have to get a new appeals team, and they will start out arguing incompetent defense, lousy venue, biased jury, etc. They'll delay, stall, deny, plod, demand a continuance due to the massive amount of material they have to cover. They'll do this at every step, all the way to the supreme court.

And by then, it may be an antiquated punishment, and get converted to life without parole. Who knows?

[MerryBlooms]

111. I'm personally anti death penalty.

Thanks for pointing out he won't be going into the super max, but do you honestly think he will spend any time not in solitary? He'll be in solitary(for his protection) until he's put to death.

Personally, I struggle with what's humane, what's justice, and my hatred of humans who commit such heinous crimes. We have to find within ourselves to forgive on some level, whether we're religious or not. That's where my personal struggle lies.

[MADem]

134. He's been in solitary since he's been arrested. He's at an old military base now, I think.

It'll be SSDD at Terre Haute except he will have other prisoners with whom to converse (he won't be lounging around in a break room while so doing, but he will have others nearby). That's also a "super max" but it's where they keep all the 'terminal' prisoners. It is a DP facility. He would have been more isolated at the Colorado facility, with no access to others.

The only real difference is the ability to talk with companions, and that he's on a countdown schedule. He'll have books and a TV and lawyer visits and monthly phone calls.

The Communication Management Units in the prison severely restrict communications between inmates and the outside world. Inmates are limited to two two-hour nonphysical visits per month, plus one 15-minute phone call per week.

Mail must be screened, copied, and evaluated before being delivered to inmates. All conversations must be in English.

Sister Rita Clare Gerardot, who has been a spiritual adviser to death-row inmates at Terre Haute, once described the experience of death row inmates at the facility:

“They are in a small cell by themselves. All their meals are pushed through a slot. There is no recreation, but they can go out of their cells three times a week into cages,” Gerardot told The Tribune-Star, a newspaper in Terre Haute.

Inmates can speak to one another from the front of their cells, according to Gerardot, and have limited time to use a phone, e-mail, or a library.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-super-max-prison-where-the-boston-bomber-will-be-executed-is-known-as-guantanamo-north-2015-5#ixzz3aGXxfTzd

I imagine the good raconteurs are the most popular sorts in that place.

I'm not really surprised at the verdict, even though MA is not a DP state. Part of the voir/dire process when they chose the jury was the willingness to impose a death penalty punishment if warranted. No one who is unilaterally opposed to the DP made it through that process. The jury just didn't find the family testimony to be convincing, they didn't think the mitigating factors of youth and elder brother influence to be compelling, and I think the icing on the cake was the video where he looked at that eight year kid before he put down that pack with the explosive pressure cooker bomb.

[MerryBlooms]

136. Yep.

I think the icing on the cake was the video where he looked at that eight year kid before he put down that pack with the explosive pressure cooker bomb.

[rock]

83. Justice is best for society. Vengeance is best for the individual. n/t

[Jefferson23]

90. It is called the death penalty, yet it is calculated murder and wrong for any country to

participate in. Civilized people do not want murder by state as law.

[mountain grammy]

96. I was raised by a Jewish mother who used to say:

"if the state can do one premeditated killing, it can do six million."

So, I grew up with a negative view of the death penalty, but thought, some guys deserve it, right? What changed my mind for good, early in my twenties, was The Defense Never Rests, by F. Lee Bailey, followed a few years later by The 16th Round, by Rubin Carter.

You were right Mom, as usual.

[Octafish]

98. Agree 100-percent.

Considering how much of the "terror" over the past 14 years has been due to FBI encouragement, and the fact that one of this guy's friends was shot seven times while handcuffed in his own home for an FBI interview, and the fact that other nefarious characters were photographed near the explosion site, I'd say there's a lot more to the story.


Dead men tell no tales, though. And they -- as in whoever is in charge -- want their story to stick. And they want this scapegoat delivered before someone gets his version of what happened on tape.

[bigtree]

101. it's mostly revenge

...and it makes the state a murderer.

It's not self-defense or a proven effective deterrent. It's cold-blooded, vengeful murder and it taints us all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. There could be a Great Philosophical debate here ...

I am of the vein that ethically, revenge is unrelated to justice ... and this is way I do not support the death penalty and many other parts of the criminal "justice" system.

[steve2470]

124. I agree, and way too many people have been convicted on false and flimsy evidence

That alone is a strong argument against the death penalty. Not to mention its disproportionate usage against people of color and the poor.

[Yo_Mama]

103. I strongly disagree with the description of this as revenge.

Revenge is usually considered killing or injuring as a response to a personal injury. Our justice system entirely forecloses those having a personal relationship to a case as the deciders of guilt or penalty. This is carried quite far - for example, a person having police relatives generally would be precluded from serving as a juror on a case involving an allegation of crime against a police officer.

Whatever this is, it is not an act of vengeance. You are free to believe that the death penalty is wrong, but that doesn't make the death penalty into an act of vengeance any more than a life penalty or a shorter prison term is revenge.

And if you want to say that every criminal sentence is vengeance, than what's the point? I guess you could claim that it is, because the jurors are saying "guilty" out of a feeling of being personally harmed by these types of acts, but I don't think anyone would agree that rapists, murders, child abusers, armed robbers, etc should walk because we can't seek vengeance.

If you want to argue against the death penalty, I think you have to do a better job than misusing language.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

125. And I strongly feel that I used the correct language for me.

I also wanted to start a dialogue.

It's working.

[TeeYiYi]

127. Yes you did...

...(start a dialog) and it is! (Working.) Your OP has triggered one of the more thoughtful discussions I've seen in GD for awhile. Thank you, Peggy.

re: "I also wanted to start a dialogue. It's working. "

TYY

[CaliforniaPeggy]

129. Thank you, my dear TeeYiYi...

I am very gratified at the tone of the responses.

And I appreciate your support too...

[workinclasszero]

107. The child killer

probably wants to die and be a martyr for his religion.

If I was on the jury I would have voted for life in a super max till dead. No parole possible.

I've heard it's cheaper than carrying out the death sentence

[xfundy]

109. The needle goes in

and it's a painless death, supposedly. The little bastard should sit in prison being screamed at for the rest of his life, 60 or 70 years. That's a just punishment. DP represents the easy way out.

[workinclasszero]

122. I agree. /nt

[steve2470]

123. justice = life in prison until he dies

He would get to consider his horrible actions every minute until the Grim Reaper took him somewhere. Who knows, maybe he could write a book in prison that might help someone ?

[spanone]

133. 2 wrongs don't make a right

.

[JonLP24]

137. Yes it is

Eventually, it becomes revenge for revenge.

Salafi-Wahabbism cult influences others with targeted propaganda capitalizing on reasons for revenge. I don't know why the press or most people act as if it is for no reason or for some other reason behind the motivating. He has ties with Chechyna -- I can give what I know there (which isn't much) for why Russia is getting rocked by terrorism.

Red terror
Main article: Red Terror

The policy of Red terror in Soviet Russia served to frighten the civilian population and exterminate certain social groups considered as "ruling classes" or enemies of the people. Karl Kautsky said about Red Terror: "Among the phenomena for which Bolshevism has been responsible, Terrorism, which begins with the abolition of every form of freedom of the Press, and ends in a system of wholesale execution, is certainly the most striking and the most repellent of all.. Kautsky recognized that Red Terror represented a variety of terrorism because it was indiscriminate, intended to frighten the civilian population, and included taking and executing hostages "[1]. Martin Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka emphasized that Red terror was an extrajudicial punishment:

"Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror."[7]

One of the most common terrorist practices was hostage-taking. A typical report from a Cheka department stated: "Yaroslavl Province, 23 June 1919. The uprising of deserters in the Petropavlovskaya volost has been put down. The families of the deserters have been taken as hostages. When we started to shoot one person from each family, the Greens began to come out of the woods and surrender. Thirty-four deserters were shot as an example".[8]
Contemporary Russia
Threat of Islamic terrorism
Further information: Islamic terrorism § Russia and Islamism

Islamic terrorism is considered a major threat to the security of the nation[9] with most terrorist activity taking place in Chechnya and Dagestan. Since October 2007, the Caucasus Emirate has withdrawn its nationalist goals of creating a sovereign state in Chechnya. It has since fully adopted the Islamic fundamentalist ideology of Salafist-takfiri jihadism [10] whose enemies not only include Russia and its citizens, but all non-Muslims, including the local Sufi population, and foreign countries such as the United States, France, United Kingdom, and Israel.[citation needed] They have made numerous references in their speeches that they have declared war on "anyone who wages war against Muslims." The Russian government has banned seventeen terrorist organizations; the Highest Military Majlisul Shura of the United Forces of the Mujahedeen of the Caucasus, the Congress of the Peoples of Ichkeria and Daghestan, Al Qaeda, Asbat an-Ansar, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Al-Jamaa al-Islami, Jamaat-e-Islami, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Taliban, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Society of Social Reforms (Jamiat al-Islah al-Ijtimai), Society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage (Jamiat Ihya at-Turaz al-Islami), al-Haramain Foundation, Junj ash-Sham (Army of the Great Syria), and the Islamic Jihad - jamaat of the mujahedeen.[11]

Many Muslims and human rights activists have criticized the government's counter-terrorism operations, saying they unfairly target Muslims.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Russia

Could have something to do with Russia - Saudi Arabia, no way in hell do I condone these type of acts because of the ideology is like any authoritarian right wing movement but with the ideology -- the propaganda networks specifically targeted those people. I remember on VICE "Terrorist University" there was a school that teaches the doctrine, on camera there was a student who was basically kidnapped into the back of a SUV disappearing without a trace leaving his family as you'd expect. It was on HBO so full episodes are hard to find but there were some contacts with the Boston bomber but doesn't seem to be something where he was directly involved with the "white widows", if he was, Russia would have probably killed him or whoever kidnapped that student.

#t=28

Understanding Terrorism
<snip>
The lure of terror

For years, psychologists examined terrorists' individual characteristics, mining for clues that could explain their willingness to engage in violence. While researchers now agree that most terrorists are not "pathological" in any traditional sense, several important insights have been gleaned though interviews with some 60 former terrorists conducted by psychologist John Horgan, PhD, who directs the Pennsylvania State University's International Center for the Study of Terrorism.

Horgan found that people who are more open to terrorist recruitment and radicalization tend to:

Feel angry, alienated or disenfranchised.

Believe that their current political involvement does not give them the power to effect real change.

Identify with perceived victims of the social injustice they are fighting.

Feel the need to take action rather than just talking about the problem.

Believe that engaging in violence against the state is not immoral.

Have friends or family sympathetic to the cause.

Believe that joining a movement offers social and psychological rewards such as adventure, camaraderie and a heightened sense of identity.

Beyond the individual characteristics of terrorists, Horgan has learned that it's more fruitful to investigate how people change as a result of terrorist involvement than to simply ask why they enter in the first place. That's because asking why tends to yield pat, ideological responses, while asking how reveals important information about the processes of entry, involvement and leaving organizations, he has found. Potential areas to tap include examining the myriad ways people join organizations, whether via recruitment or personal decision; how leaders influence people's decision to adopt certain roles, for example by glorifying the role of suicide bomber; and factors that motivate people to leave.

In turn, such data could help to create plausible interventions, he says. For instance, based on what he's gleaned about why people leave organizations, a particularly promising strategy may be highlighting how the promised glamorous lifestyle never comes to pass—an experience poignantly recounted by a former terrorist now in hiding. The man told Horgan he was lured into a movement as a teen when recruiters romanticized the cause. But he soon discovered his comrades held sectarian values, not the idealistic ones he had, and he was horrified when he killed his first victim at point-blank range.

"The reality of involvement is not what these kids are led to believe," says Horgan. "Speaking with repentant former terrorists, many with blood on their hands, offers an extraordinary opportunity to use the terrorists' own words and deeds against them."

Some psychologists believe terrorism is most accurately viewed through a political lens. Psychologist Clark McCauley, PhD, a co-investigator at START and director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at Bryn Mawr College, has come to see terrorism as "the warfare of the weak"—the means by which groups that lack material or political power fight what they see as oppressive forces. As such, he believes that terrorist actions and government reactions to them represent a dynamic interplay, with the moves of one group influencing those of the other. As one example, if terrorists commit an attack and a state uses extreme force to send a punishing message back, the terrorists may use that action to drum up greater anti-state sentiment among citizens, lending justification to their next actions. Yet research focuses almost solely on terrorist actions and neglects the important other side of the equation, he contends. "If you can't keep track of what we're doing in response, how can you ever hope to figure out what works better or worse?" McCauley says.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism.aspx

Here is an act motivated out of revenge, Bin Laden said he was waging a "psychological war" with the US -- obviously I think he was full of shit but the message he sent. He was like a Jim Jones preaching for everyone else to drink the kool-aid but himself -- really selling the Janah stuff in a desire to convince to perform unethical attacks on civilians by turning themselves in a bomb but when the other side isn't ethical themselves (Bush) it becomes about revenge primarily. Don't think Bin Laden was motivated for those kind of reasons, just the followers cult leaders like that dupe -- When the US, Mujahideen, Saudi Arabia joint effort sent the Soviets retreating following their occupation it gave him the confidence that he can defeat a Super Power and the tactics in the Al-Qaeda playbook were the sort of things that were successful against the Soviets.

Soviet-Afghan War

ujahideen mobilization in non-Pashtun regions faced very different obstacles. Prior to the intervention, few non-Pashtuns possessed firearms. Early in the war they were most readily available from army troops or gendarmerie who defected or were ambushed. The international arms market and foreign military support tended to reach the minority areas last. In the northern regions, little military tradition had survived upon which to build an armed resistance. Mobilization mostly came from political leadership closely tied to Islam. Roy convincingly contrasts the social leadership of religious figures in the Persian- and Turkic-speaking regions of Afghanistan with that of the Pashtuns. Lacking a strong political representation in a state dominated by Pashtuns, minority communities commonly looked to pious learned or charismatically revered pirs (saints) for leadership. Extensive Sufi and maraboutic networks were spread through the minority communities, readily available as foundations for leadership, organization, communication and indoctrination. These networks also provided for political mobilization, which led to some of the most effective of the resistance operations during the war.[93]

The mujahideen favoured sabotage operations. The more common types of sabotage included damaging power lines, knocking out pipelines and radio stations, blowing up government office buildings, air terminals, hotels, cinemas, and so on. In the border region with Pakistan, the mujahideen would often launch 800 rockets per day. Between April 1985 and January 1987, they carried out over 23,500 shelling attacks on government targets. The mujahideen surveyed firing positions that they normally located near villages within the range of Soviet artillery posts, putting the villagers in danger of death from Soviet retaliation. The mujahideen used land mines heavily. Often, they would enlist the services of the local inhabitants, even children.
Mujahideen praying in Shultan Valley, 1987

They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members, and laid siege to small rural outposts. In March 1982, a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings. In the same month, a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up. In June 1982 a column of about 1,000 young communist party members sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 30 km of Kabul, with heavy loss of life. On September 4, 1985, insurgents shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, killing all 52 people aboard.

Mujahideen groups used for assassination had three to five men in each. After they received their mission to kill certain government officials, they busied themselves with studying his pattern of life and its details and then selecting the method of fulfilling their established mission. They practiced shooting at automobiles, shooting out of automobiles, laying mines in government accommodation or houses, using poison, and rigging explosive charges in transport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

In short, 9/11 was motivated from inspiration from leaders such as Bin Laden on desires for revenge (and a belief they'll be rewarded for their efforts as if Bin Laden or others has this direct pipeline to god) which turns 9/11 into revenge from the US so here we got wars (I think for-profit reasons more than anything but capitalized on the population's desires for revenge), indefinite detention, torture, "black sites", etc creating more individuals who want revenge (notice these groups spring up in oppressive countries -- some dark shadows higher up pushing this, really as a war against its people because civilian attacks are counterproductive if you want US troops out but it all seems to be by-design by everyone involved) but eventually revenge for revenge.

I would have preferred something else, a chance to grow & most of the ones doing the dirty work are doing it based on the words of cult leaders who often become disillusioned (like young gang members & the "pyramid scheme" type of structure) creating an opportunity to learn & combat this at the root cause but it just seemed like it would either be Supermax or the Death Penalty, not to mention a terrorist trial guarantees an impartial trial & I've seen some very shoddy trials in this era. There was this guy from the UK who the US so obviously used several paid (or otherwise) informants saying he was involved in a kidnapping in Yemen from the UK. I think maybe there was evidence in a way but they go so far beyond facts & use anything that sticks. A politician can't even vote to give them Habaes Corpus rights without being branded a "terrorist lover". I can't imagine the pressures for federal or local judges. On edit -- I'd feel the DP is more humane than lifetime isolation, that's what I'd rather have anyway.

[liberal_at_heart]

142. All revenge does is continue the cycle of hate and violence.