Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

The last Norwegian peacetime execution was carried out in 1876, and execution was stopped in Norway in 1905, so no.

Also his actions don't fit the definition of crimes against humanity at all.

[Hiiri]

Back onto the Oslo shooter: Executed for crimes against humanity: Y / N?

Oops. Drifted off, did we?

No. Body count is too high as it is.

Edit: Besides, killing someone to show killing is bad is silly.

[Lysabild]

The last Norwegian peacetime execution was carried out in 1876, and execution was stopped in Norway in 1905, so no.

Also his actions don't fit the definition of crimes against humanity at all.

Sorry to derail again, but you should check your facts, just do a simple search for Quisling and you'll see an execution 40 years after 1905.

[Leafsnail]

Peacetime (there might have been some kind of war going on prior to 1945).  I thought it was pretty obvious that the word carried on to the next part of the sentence.

In any case, wartime execution was banned in Norway in 1979 and it's not even wartime at the moment, so...

[Phmcw]

That would be an insult to the memory of the victims anyway.
Progressives in Norway are usually strictly opposed to death penalty.

I admire a country were the response to such attack is "we need more democracy".

[scriver]

As final words on the "media response" tangent, I want to add that more articles/editorials going into and at least examining the man's political views and their relationship to what he did has begun appearing today. Perhaps the "it's just a madman!" response as it turned out it wasn't jihadists was just a form of shock denial. I still feel a bit bitter that this wasn't the first reaction, though. Professional thinkers, writers and opinionists should have more distance and professionalism than that.

[alway]

Ah fuck...

Anders Behring Breivik told a Norwegian judge on Monday his bombing and shooting rampage that killed scores aimed to save Europe from a Muslim takeover, and said that "two more cells" existed in his organization.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43873009/ns/world_news-europe/

[olemars]

Good news in a way. The original number of dead from the Utøya shooting has been revised down to 68 from 86. The original number was released when there was still chaos at the site and some bodies got counted twice or something. Doesn't mean anyone thought to be dead turned out to be alive, but at least the count is lower.

I'm a bit sad at the moment though. There is a massive memorial happening downtown in my city which I wanted to participate in, most of the city is gathered there (100k out of 150k), but I woke up with a bad cold today and can't really leave the house because of it.

edit:

Ah fuck...

Anders Behring Breivik told a Norwegian judge on Monday his bombing and shooting rampage that killed scores aimed to save Europe from a Muslim takeover, and said that "two more cells" existed in his organization.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43873009/ns/world_news-europe/

Chances are it's either a figment of his imagination, or just something he wants people to believe. These terrorist actions were to gain attention to his views and perhaps inspire such a movement, and it looks better if he can pretend it already exists.

Police around Europe are turning what stones they can find though, to see if they can confirm his claims.

[Servant Corps]

I admire a country were the response to such attack is "we need more democracy".

That would be nice, except that's not what mainstream political science literature says about terrorism. Read Quan Li's paper for more information (this appears to be an earlier version though, you could find a more recent one on JSTOR, but I don't want to rely on people having that), but to summarize, democracy is correlated with terrorism. Why? Though democracy can co-opt extremist elements by granting them a say in their society, it also ensures that the country cannot use coercive measures to stop terrorists in their tracks. Executive constraints is also correlated with higher terrorism: according to Quan Li, this is because executives can more effectively deal with terrorists if they aren't constrained by politics, either through appeasement or through suppression.

Press freedoms are also correlated with higher terrorism, and Norway has very high Press Freedoms out there, though there is debate whether press freedoms are caused by an "underreporting bias" (dictators can suppress instances of terrorism occuring) or through the presses hyping up terrorist attacks and making them more successful, thereby encouraging other terrorist attacks int he future.

More democracy is good, but at some point, I'd admire a country that cares about political science research. 

(I'm sorry, I am writing my Masters' Thesis on the relationship between democracy and terrorism, so I didn't really like people praising democracy, especially at a time like this.)

EDIT: (To be fair, Quan Li attempted to show that certain elements of democracy causes terrorism, and not democracy in of itself. For example, proportional representation and high voter turnout is correlated with less terrorism. If you control for these factors, then democracy does reduce terrorism. However, I'm using an updated dataset and is trying to replicate Quan Li's findings. So far, um, no real success. And it's pretty hard to think of a Democracy with no Press Freedoms and low Executive Constraints, as these two elements do correlate with higher terrorism.)

EDIT2: If you have access to a school library or JSTOR or anything that allows you access to full peer-reviewed articles, search for "Does Democracy Promote or Reduce Transnational Terrorist Incidents?" The main difference I'm seeing is that in the peer-reviewed article, he did not bother looking at civil liberties, saying that it's tangential to something more important: executive constraints.

[Hiiri]

Ah fuck...

Anders Behring Breivik told a Norwegian judge on Monday his bombing and shooting rampage that killed scores aimed to save Europe from a Muslim takeover, and said that "two more cells" existed in his organization.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43873009/ns/world_news-europe/

I'm pretty sure he's just talking shit. Just like al-Qaeda trying to take responsibility for every elderly person tripping down the stairs.

[nenjin]

McVeigh was a man whose case raised all the points that I have raised about Breivik's case in this thread (and which scriver's articles raised), so it is interesting that you would compare the two. McVeigh is also considered a terrorist. I'm somewhat confused. Are you trying to deny that either Breivik or McVeigh are terrorists? This is the message I have been receiving.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if you were to ask an American what McVeigh is, their first response wouldn't be terrorist. It would "crazy person who blew up the Federal building." McVeigh has a documented history of mental abuse and trauma, despite going to Harvard. His own family described him as disturbed. That's why I brought him up. You rail against the media "white washing white terrorists as just crazy" and he's one instance where he both committed an act of terror and was mentally unstable.

So which do we pay attention to? For the 1,000,000th time, I say we pay attention to the crazy because he doesn't have people following up on his attacks with more attacks. You hand wave Extremist Muslim attacks inside and outside of their countries, but the reality is they have an agenda and have a level of coordination and commitment that so far, Brevik didn't show. He wasn't read to die for his cause. I want to save the label of terrorism for something more than one individual.

And anyone remember the shoe bomber? The guy so inept that virtually everyone thought he was crazy, despite his skin being brown. Only later did they upgrade him to "feckless terrorist" when they found out that, indeed, he had ties to Al Qaeda.

[Nikov]

Wow, twenty-one years maximum for killing that many people? That's a lot of time to work out a book and movie deal. Maybe he wasn't so irrational after all.

P.S. Draw and quarter the fucker you have a King what's the damned point if he can't order an execution of a convicted mass murderer!

[Aqizzar]

One would think a fucking King could do something like that, but unfortunately no.  Luckily, Norwegian does law allow for Breivik to be held in prison longer than that.  21 years is the maximum mandatory sentence, but at the end of 21 years, he'll face a panel like a parole board, and they can decide that he's dangerous enough to be imprisoned longer (either three or five years, I've seen different sources say different things), which can be repeated indefinitely.  There's every likelihood that he'll spend the rest of his life in prison, with a Manson-like deal where every few years the law says "yep, he's still crazy".

And miracle of miracles, the original death count was actually high.

[olemars]

For these kinds of crimes the maximum penalty is actually 30 years, the only ones beyond the nominal max of 21. He'll likely instead get what's called "forvaring" which is a max of 21 years + an indefinite number of 5 year extensions. Forvaring has some additional requirements that regular imprisonment doesn't though, like psychiatric evaluations and treatment, and the convicted should have the opportunity to reform himself. Chances are he'll never get out, but this is largely new ground in norwegian court cases. The terrorism laws have never been used before.

[scriver]

Hehe.. "Storage".. Yeah, that's how to do it, Norway. Store his conservative ass like a jar of pickles. Store it good.