The terrorist trial in Norway
Number24
NorwayPosts: 22,334MI6 Agent
The trial against the terrorist Anders Behring Breivik has been on for a week now. I know many people around the world follow it, and here in Norway the media coverage is wall-to-wall. I thought it would be good to have a thread where people can post about this, I certainly feel the need.
I have to admit I feel proud of how the trial is run. Many Norwegians feel this is a chance to show the world what we are. It makes me proud that survivors of Utøya island and the families of those who were killed behave with such quiet restraint and dignity while attending the court case. They sit just a few metres from the terrorist and listen to him coldly speak of how he murdered their friends and children. The families and survivors sit quietly, sometimes crying. No-one screams at him or try to attack him. In interviews they are calm and thoughtfull, often expressing support that the trial is solid and well run. "It is important that Breivik is given a fair and solid trial", is a statement I have heared several times. Given that many of the survivors are still teenagers I must say it's humbling.
Some foreign media has critisized the judge for letting ABB talk about his ideology from a self-penned script. There is a danger the case becomes a rostrum for him and his fanatism, but I feel it is neccesery. The motives of a criminal is central in a criminal case, and without studying those the trail is not complete and solid. If we alowed ourselves to cut corners when it comes to the law would be horrible. If we thought "His crimes are so horrible the laws of Norway does not apply to him", we would in a sense let him win. When the use of torture against terrorists was debated in the US after 9/11, some politicians said it was OK because they were terrorists. John McCain (who suffered under torture himself in Vietnam) answered:"It's not about who they are, it's about who WE are." I agree. It is also worth noticing that the far right in Norway has not been strengthened by ABB, his acts of terrorism or the trial - quite the opposite. I think that's the case in other countries too. Tragically, the police botched the response to the terrorist attacks on 22/7. They were far to late to Utøya and let ABB kill kids for over an hour, his victims trapped defenseless on that island for over an hour. It is heart-breaking. The late response was mostly due to lack of funding (i.e. police helicoptres) and bad planning, not the acts of the police officers involved.
I know the short and mild prison sentences in this country has baffled many abroad. The maximum sentence is 21 years, with years off for good behavior. This is too mild, I agree. Parliament is changing this to 30 years, but that won't apply to Breivik since it is not turned into law yet. But this does not mean he will be released after 17-18 years! Prisons can keep prisoners locked up as long as they are deemed dangerous by a board. It is pretty much a given that ABB will die in prison, as he should.
That was some of my thoughts. If anyone else feel like writing their opinions, questions or just thoughts, feel free. That's what the topic is for.
I have to admit I feel proud of how the trial is run. Many Norwegians feel this is a chance to show the world what we are. It makes me proud that survivors of Utøya island and the families of those who were killed behave with such quiet restraint and dignity while attending the court case. They sit just a few metres from the terrorist and listen to him coldly speak of how he murdered their friends and children. The families and survivors sit quietly, sometimes crying. No-one screams at him or try to attack him. In interviews they are calm and thoughtfull, often expressing support that the trial is solid and well run. "It is important that Breivik is given a fair and solid trial", is a statement I have heared several times. Given that many of the survivors are still teenagers I must say it's humbling.
Some foreign media has critisized the judge for letting ABB talk about his ideology from a self-penned script. There is a danger the case becomes a rostrum for him and his fanatism, but I feel it is neccesery. The motives of a criminal is central in a criminal case, and without studying those the trail is not complete and solid. If we alowed ourselves to cut corners when it comes to the law would be horrible. If we thought "His crimes are so horrible the laws of Norway does not apply to him", we would in a sense let him win. When the use of torture against terrorists was debated in the US after 9/11, some politicians said it was OK because they were terrorists. John McCain (who suffered under torture himself in Vietnam) answered:"It's not about who they are, it's about who WE are." I agree. It is also worth noticing that the far right in Norway has not been strengthened by ABB, his acts of terrorism or the trial - quite the opposite. I think that's the case in other countries too. Tragically, the police botched the response to the terrorist attacks on 22/7. They were far to late to Utøya and let ABB kill kids for over an hour, his victims trapped defenseless on that island for over an hour. It is heart-breaking. The late response was mostly due to lack of funding (i.e. police helicoptres) and bad planning, not the acts of the police officers involved.
I know the short and mild prison sentences in this country has baffled many abroad. The maximum sentence is 21 years, with years off for good behavior. This is too mild, I agree. Parliament is changing this to 30 years, but that won't apply to Breivik since it is not turned into law yet. But this does not mean he will be released after 17-18 years! Prisons can keep prisoners locked up as long as they are deemed dangerous by a board. It is pretty much a given that ABB will die in prison, as he should.
That was some of my thoughts. If anyone else feel like writing their opinions, questions or just thoughts, feel free. That's what the topic is for.
Comments
Only yesterday the Sunday Times, not a red top tabloid by any means, had the headline 'Loser who Lived With Him Mother'. Like, yeah, that's the reason we hate him, not that he killed 69 teenagers. 8-)
It's like they're trying to goad him, hurt his feelings, like he gives a damn or reads the Sunday Times anyway. And like we, the readers, are in some kind of relationship with him. It's like playground taunts.
The i newspaper, again quite respectable, referred to his 'bovine' looks. I feel sorry for any guy who inadvertently happens to look like him, bet it works against their chances at interview stage. Poor blokes of a certain age living at home with their mums, to be lumped in wth him.
Only the Telegraph had done it good, with few photos of the bloke and those that do show him not gloating or smirking or anything. Others seem to want to show those to wind us up.
Controversial columnist Frankie Boyle for The Sun.... bet there are complaints. He picks holes in the logic of a white racist campaigning against multiculturalism and immigration by gunning down white guys... Okay, I see his point, but no one else is making that because it implies it would have made more sense to shoot blacks, etc. Like that would be okay, logical. He then made a joke unrepeatable here, not merely bad taste but really odd.
Otherwise I think it's wrong to get in some sort of bind about what to sentence the guy to, which seems to be, anything, so long as it's what he doesn't want.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Didn't know your country had sentence limits, I guess the legislators believe criminals can be rehabilitated, in my opinion some can and some can’t. I believe some individuals are just “bad seeds” and should remain locked up.
My condolences to your country, it was a terrible tragedy.
http://apbateman.com
I don't think they plan to rehabilitate Breivik. The big question in the this trial is really if Breivik will spend the rest of his days in jail or in a high security mental institution. There are two official expert reports on Breivik's mental health. The first one concluded that he was too psycotic at the time of the crime to be sentenced to jail. Breivik was horrified by this conclution, but he wasn't alone in questioning the accuracy of the report. Some of the things they wrote were rather ... odd.
Breivik checked his house for bugging devices while he was making the bomb ment to flatten the national government high rise building. The psychologists felt this is proof that Breivik lacked contact with reality
A second report was requested from two other psychologists by the court. This concluded Breivik was mentally healthy enough for prison. Some pointed out that Breivik had read the first report before the second pair of psychologists observed him, and could have modified his behavior accordingly. But here is the catch 22: If he is as mentally ill as the first report claims he would have been unable to modify his behavior! The issue will be decided by the judge based on the reports and Breivik's behavior in the court.
Now the Commision for Court/Legal Medicine has gone public and said the first report is "stronger" than the second.
Don`t ask me why - I don` get it. Breivik can still end up in prison, but it`s less likely now.
" A wolf is still a wolf, even if he isn't eating your sheep "
And as for the courts, A life sentence is now 15 years with 50% remission and time taken
off for being on remand they can end up out again in 7 years.
once murder meant you would also die now it's down to seven years, What kind of message
is that sending out. Except that as far as the Courts are concerned, Human life is cheap.
Rant over.
all he had to defend himself was the pole for opening the shops shuttering. He poked the robber with it to try and
get him out of his shop. When asked by a reporter why he hadn't hit the robber over the head with the pole the shopkeeper answered that HE didn't want to end up charger with Assaulting the robber.
That's how screwed the law now is, even home owners are affraid of defending themselves as THEY could be charged
with assault.
I honestly don't care about prisoner rehabilitation, we are all given a set of rules to live by those who choose to break them should be punished, Crime is a choice.
Personaly I blame all these Attorneys :007) ( little joke for BL )
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Criminals can reform, but then the question is, does that mean they have to be let out anyway?
I mean, if the crime is that bad, do they really deserve to enjoy freedom and the good life when they've put paid to others' enjoyment of it. I would say no, but if it's a crime of a lesser type, like persistant robbery, etc, then okay. Serial killer crimes or torture stuff, then nope, not in my book.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
If Breivik collapsed in tears in court tomorrow and asked everyone for forgiveness and promised to never hurt a fly again, I doubt it would influence the verdict. It might result in him being released from custody as an old man, but after the verdict of 21 years. As I mentioned before he can be held in prison beyond 21 years, something that might be translated into "safe keeping" or "secure holding", as long as he is considered a danger to society. A show of remose would probably ensure a prison sentence instead of a mental institution for him, I think, since it would be read as a sign of sanity.
In short, I agree. If you murder 77 inocent people in a day, remorse and good behavior should not really change things.
The US prison system is probably the worst in the world. It is well documented that it actually makes things worse.
http://youtu.be/EFw9stIeWjQ
This is pretty widely believed, indeed.
And in excluding them, they force them into crime again.
http://apbateman.com
- Norwegians reacted with calm and tolerance after the attacks. But how would we have reacted if the terrorists were foreign, even supported by another government? Not to mention if the terrorist had been from the muslim imigrant population here in Norway?
-Will this make it more difficult to publicly question the sizable imigration we experience today?
-It took the police more than an hour to get to Utoya. What would have happened if the attack wasn`t at Utoya, being fairly close to Oslo, but far away from our helicopter-less SWAT police?
-What would have happened if there had been more than one terrorist and several more targets, as Breivik claimed when he was arrested?
I worry, and I`m not alone.
http://apbateman.com
The rules for shotguns and rifles are pretty simular. Shotguns can only be loaded with two shells. Semiautomatic rifles (Breivik used one with illegal high capasity magazine) can be obtained for small game hunters. Hunting is very common in Norway, and not just a upper class activity. During the cold war nearly all men did their military service and officers, NCO`s and members of the National Guard kept their weapons at home. My neighbour kept a G3 battle rifle in the attic.
The police are not normally armed. Some keep weapons in a strong box in the car, most have to go back to the polics station to get their weapons when they need them. They normally need an OK from the police station before they can arm themselves. Standard weapons are HK p30 pistols and MP5 SMG`s. SWAT train half the time and serve as standard police the rest of the time. They find that patrol duty is usefull and they claim there is no danger of not training enough.
i do not see anything wrong with punishment, yes, in some cases effort needs to be made for education etc to help them when coming out. As to them losing rights, our attitude is simple in this state. A group of criminals will always vote for a lenient judge, prosecutor or sheriff. So let's take them out of the equation. If you commit a felony in our state you lose your 2nd amendment right to own firearms I have no problem with that either.
Although i don't personally care for the death penalty, I'm not going to be joining any marches against it.
The Norwegians would have been better served if the police had killed him like a dog. He's no better than the Nazis.
I need to add that we are 50 separate states and our laws vary from state to state. California may seem "progressive" to you, but the most dangerous square mile in the USA is the Watts neighborhood in Los Angeles County. Memphis, TN, my home town, statistically sounds terrible, but if you stay out of the bad areas it is unlikely you will ever be a victim.
'Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect.'- Benny Hill (1924-1992)
What should have happened is this: Norwegian police actually has ONE helicopter, based in Oslo. It is buildt for surveilance and not transport, and has state of-the-art surveilance equipement. Allas, this helicoptre was grounded last summer for financial reasons. When the bomb in Oslo exploded, the pilots showed up at the heliport volentarily and on their own accord. Sadly the organizers of the response to the attack were never informed. If they had known, they could have sent a SWAT sniper with the helicoptre. There is room for one passenger and SWAT and the helicoptre crew has trained for this in the past. The helicoptre would have discovered Breivik in good time before reaching the island and the sniper would have killed Breivik. Many young lives would have been spared.
Since this didn't happen, I think it was for the best that Breivik is alive, able to be questioned and sentenced in a court of law.
Actually there was one policeman on Utøya. He was off duty and had volountered to be responsible for security on the island during the Labour party youth camp. Crime was pretty much unheared of and no-one thought there would be an outside treath, so he was unarmed and brought his nine year old son. The police officer saw that something was "off" with Breivik, who was dressed as a policeman, so he was the first one to be shot. Breivik tried to spare the youngest-looking kids on the island, judging them not yet brainwashed. So the boy survived, but without a father and with memories for a lifetime of bad dreams.
Definitely not. This is why Americans have a bad reputation and a broken country. Due Process is important for what is says about you.
toutbrun always working in an American slam.
If the police saw a chance to stop Breivik earlier by killing him, they would and should have. But when that didn`t happen it`s a good thing they got him alive.
Every incident similar to this always has a should've/could've response. In reality, you can only do that with hindsight. Nothing is that simple. I've taken part in operations and it all goes to pieces once the first shots are fired, and then it's plan B and plan C.
The chopper probably wouldn't have found him, and they probably wouldn't have known his next intentions. Let's face it, it was a fairly remote island, even SWAT need intel and eyes on before heading into gunfire, regardless of bravado in the films no unit simply throws themselves into trouble. They need someone to give the the "go" and they need to know most of the threat. This would have given him time to kill many people even if the police had been on the shore when he started shooting. Also, automatic assault weapons are devastating. Most people will be familiar with them in films, but in reality when you are hit be a 5.56mm round, usually one is enough and they will also cut through almost anything you care to hide behind. They have a long range and are pretty easy to be fairly proficient with. Even the rate of fire on semi-auto is two or three rounds per second. To be up against one unarmed would be as terrifing as anything I can imagine.
http://apbateman.com
You asked about the gun laws in Norway. The laws were actually revised in December. The revision was not a response to the events on 22/7, but planned in advance. A ban on semiautomatic rifles was considered, but rejected because a fast follow-up shot can be usefull if a hunter maims an animal. Doctors and other medical professionals are now obliged to alert the police if they find a known gun owner to be unfit to own a weapon, but that was the only change in the law. I`m glad the authorities didn`t overreact
after the massacre like they did after gun massacres in Finland and the UK. I actually find the Norwegian gun laws to be good and sensible.