Norwegian Terrorism

[nerdanel]

There may be no moral difference between a mass murderer and the dropper of bombs on cities, but I believe there is an ethical difference. The innocents being bombed know they are at war. They know they are, to one extent or another, targets. It may not be right--I would never argue it is--but it is understood by all parties involved.

The victims of a self-proclaimed warrior such as Breivik do not have that understanding. No one other than Breivik gave their consent for them to be targets.

I don't think that the innocents' knowledge of their status as targets is the distinguishing factor. I think the distinguishing factors, with respect to war, are that:

1. Some societal consensus has been reached (more likely to occur in a democracy) that the society's peaceful existence is threatened such that force is necessary to defend it. While we can have a reasonable debate on whether that determination justifies the use of force, it at least means (again, within a democracy ... or in a war where at least one party is a democracy) that many minds will have deemed lethal force necessary, rather than one person acting unilaterally. This will usually constitute some level of safeguard, even if imperfectly.

2. Given that society's peaceful existence has been threatened in war, there is a utilitarian argument for the killing of innocents to avert a still-greater number of deaths. This does not exist in the Breivik case: he may have believed that his preferred iteration of Norwegian society was under threat (and which person who has political views doesn't believe this to SOME extent about their country?), but he was not acting to avert the threat of more pronounced, deadly harm to his fellow citizens.

[axordil]

Oh and for what it's worth, Breivik was by definition not sane at the time of the shootings. Normal, sane people are reluctant to kill people they can see outright.

Ax,

I'm interested in this argument - can you spell it out further? Are you contending that no person who deliberately kills another that they can see outright in front of them is sane at the time of the killing? In other words, the only plea ever should be NGI: no murderer was sane at the time of their crimes (however competent they may present as being after the fact)? If this is not your argument - and I know people who would make that argument - what is your limiting principle?

I would not claim he was legally insane--because it's entirely possible he wasn't. Legal insanity and medical insanity overlap but are quite distinct.

I'm saying for someone who has not been professionally conditioned to kill to pick up a weapon and kill repeatedly at relatively close range is a definition of an extreme anti-social disorder, aka psychopathy. He wasn't in a rage or under the influence: he had willed himself to kill helpless human beings by dehumanizing them before, during and after the process.

[axordil]

There may be no moral difference between a mass murderer and the dropper of bombs on cities, but I believe there is an ethical difference. The innocents being bombed know they are at war. They know they are, to one extent or another, targets. It may not be right--I would never argue it is--but it is understood by all parties involved.

The victims of a self-proclaimed warrior such as Breivik do not have that understanding. No one other than Breivik gave their consent for them to be targets.

I don't think that the innocents' knowledge of their status as targets is the distinguishing factor. I think the distinguishing factors, with respect to war, are that:

1. Some societal consensus has been reached (more likely to occur in a democracy) that the society's peaceful existence is threatened such that force is necessary to defend it. While we can have a reasonable debate on whether that determination justifies the use of force, it at least means (again, within a democracy ... or in a war where at least one party is a democracy) that many minds will have deemed lethal force necessary, rather than one person acting unilaterally. This will usually constitute some level of safeguard, even if imperfectly.

2. Given that society's peaceful existence has been threatened in war, there is a utilitarian argument for the killing of innocents to avert a still-greater number of deaths. This does not exist in the Breivik case: he may have believed that his preferred iteration of Norwegian society was under threat (and which person who has political views doesn't believe this to SOME extent about their country?), but he was not acting to avert the threat of more pronounced, deadly harm to his fellow citizens.

I wouldn't disagree with either point, but I think 1 is another framing of the same issue: society gets to decide when a war is going on, and the people in the society get to, at the very least, be aware they're part of it.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Oh and for what it's worth, Breivik was by definition not sane at the time of the shootings. Normal, sane people are reluctant to kill people they can see outright.

Ax,

I'm interested in this argument - can you spell it out further? Are you contending that no person who deliberately kills another that they can see outright in front of them is sane at the time of the killing? In other words, the only plea ever should be NGI: no murderer was sane at the time of their crimes (however competent they may present as being after the fact)? If this is not your argument - and I know people who would make that argument - what is your limiting principle?

I would not claim he was legally insane--because it's entirely possible he wasn't. Legal insanity and medical insanity overlap but are quite distinct.

I'm saying for someone who has not been professionally conditioned to kill to pick up a weapon and kill repeatedly at relatively close range is a definition of an extreme anti-social disorder, aka psychopathy. He wasn't in a rage or under the influence: he had willed himself to kill helpless human beings by dehumanizing them before, during and after the process.

Not being a military man, but isn't this "standard operating procedure", to demonise/dehumnanize the enemy? Is this not why we have Abu Ghraib, the urinating on dead Taliban, the collecting of digits as souvenirs?
This is my point; murder is relativised by sanction; it is "allowed" if a uniform with the requisite epaulettes is worn... :|
nerdanel, I am unsure whether this idea of democratic societal consensus is tenable. Does it not require informed consent? When does this happen? Iraq is a prime example; where were the WMD? A bloodlust was whipped up via propaganda...
Breivik was not insane, I believe. He has a mainstream ideology (sadly) of Islamophobia; what sets him aside is that he has the "courage" of his convictions, which makes him truly frightening, and so he is demonised. Innocents die in war. His innocents are no different to the Timorese killede by Indonesia (a random example).

[axordil]

Not being a military man, but isn't this "standard operating procedure", to demonise/dehumnanize the enemy?

It's necessary but generally not sufficient to turn soldiers into killers. But yes, it does have war crimes as a nasty side effect.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Paul Tibbets?

You're kidding, right? Why would you drag that name into this thread?

Whatever observations you might have otherwise made about Brevik have been rendered meaningless after that.

vison's consternation was in response to my statement regarding Anders Breivik

It does make me wonder... when is multiple killing crazy? Was Paul Tibbets crazy...?

The trial of Anders Breivik has begun. Today, Breivik was given the opportunity to make a statement to the court, explaining the rationale behind his actions. From the csmonitor

Breivik defended killing 77 people last July as a preventive attempt to protect indigenous Norwegians from the civil war that would ensue from multiculturalists’ promotion of Muslim immigration to Europe.

In his hour-long opening speech, Breivik compared his actions to the World War II commanders’ bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save millions of lives and Sitting Bull’s fight for Native Americans.

“Were they [Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse] terrorists for fighting for their indigenous culture … or were they heroes?” he said. “My acts are based on goodness, not evil,” he added. “If anyone is vicious it is the Socialists.”

Perhaps vison may understand a little more my choice of example now.

As for Breivik's argument justifying his actions, again, it has a certain "legitimacy", if solely because it seems to accord with the views of such a large constituency. Islamophobia is disturbingly prevalent, and this notion that "they" are swamping "our" societies with "their" alien culture is expressed with depressing regularity. As such, I feel, Breivik is an extreme that is born from an attitude that should have been challenged vociferously, but has been entertained by too many "good" people.

The vilification of Islam is, I believe, a political act. Having a "barbarian at the gates" provides ruling elites with the excuse to implement the curtailment of freedoms to furnish "security". Having an "enemy within" is even more effective. Such rhetoric leads to actions such as Breivik's.

[Holbytla]

I am of the belief that, excepting being immersed in a battle zone where you are fighting for a nationwide or global "cause" (however misguided), that it is impossible to kill 77 people without being insane.

Having said, if this act had taken place in Texas or Florida, the dude would have been justifiably been put to death.

There isn't just insanity. There is also criminal insanity, that should be punishable.

I am against the death penalty, so I believe he should rot in a jail for forever. Not a chance of parole ever. Not a chance of redemption ever. Just jail and serve time to pay back a fraction of the ills that were caused.

[vison]

There is no punishment adequate for Brevik.

I read today that he is claiming "self-defense" against a multicultural government colluding to destroy Norway. He is - supposedly - going to be allowed to call extremist Muslims and others to support his case.

It's beyond me. He should be tried only on the facts of the case - and nothing else. There is no justification for his deeds and he should not be allowed to try to "prove" that there is.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I am of the belief that, excepting being immersed in a battle zone where you are fighting for a nationwide or global "cause" (however misguided), that it is impossible to kill 77 people without being insane.

I am interested in discovering what constitutes "being immersed in a battle zone". Would that include the remote piloting of a predator drone, firing off hellfire missiles? Or the piloting of a B-29 high over Hiroshima, dropping a "Little Boy" that immediately killed 60,000 people; men women and children?

There is always an argument put forward to support the taking of life. It would seem, at least to me, that the definitions of what constitute "insane" killing, and "sane" killing are predicated on dubious equivocation. As such, Breivik's argument that his act was a preventative measure is as rationale as claiming the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were preventative, purportedly saving much greater casualties resulting from a ground invasion. I find both arguments false, but that does not entail I find both actions "insane". On the contrary; I think the actors in these events are sane. Sane people do bad things.

It's beyond me. He should be tried only on the facts of the case - and nothing else. There is no justification for his deeds and he should not be allowed to try to "prove" that there is.

It is up to the court to decide what is, and what is not, justifiable, and the only means to ascertain this is by examining all the evidence, including motive. Summary justice, in which the accused is denied a platform, is the preserve of the despot.

[Túrin Turambar]

There is no punishment adequate for Brevik.

I read today that he is claiming "self-defense" against a multicultural government colluding to destroy Norway. He is - supposedly - going to be allowed to call extremist Muslims and others to support his case.

It's beyond me. He should be tried only on the facts of the case - and nothing else. There is no justification for his deeds and he should not be allowed to try to "prove" that there is.

I agree. I can't see any possible point to this ten-week circus that they're apparently planning. It's bad enough that every bizarre statement he has made has over the front pages all week. Let him advance his argument for self-defence simply and briefly and let the court decide if it has any merit (spoiler: it doesn't).

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

There is no punishment adequate for Brevik.

I read today that he is claiming "self-defense" against a multicultural government colluding to destroy Norway. He is - supposedly - going to be allowed to call extremist Muslims and others to support his case.

It's beyond me. He should be tried only on the facts of the case - and nothing else. There is no justification for his deeds and he should not be allowed to try to "prove" that there is.

I agree. I can't see any possible point to this ten-week circus that they're apparently planning. It's bad enough that every bizarre statement he has made has over the front pages all week. Let him advance his argument for self-defence simply and briefly and let the court decide if it has any merit (spoiler: it doesn't).

There is an aphorism, first coined by Viscount Hewart, that "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." It is for the furtherance of this principle that I believe this "ten-week circus" is warranted, and there is a further benefit in not indulging a "kangaroo court"; each pronouncement made by Breivik that is shown to be fallacious erodes any credibility in his argument, and each moment longer the trial lasts removes any accusations that could be levelled by his sympathisers that he did not receive justice.

Summary justice leads to martyrdom; there will be no recourse to such an accusation for Breivik. And no martyrdom.

[axordil]

I am interested in discovering what constitutes "being immersed in a battle zone". Would that include the remote piloting of a predator drone, firing off hellfire missiles? Or the piloting of a B-29 high over Hiroshima, dropping a "Little Boy" that immediately killed 60,000 people; men women and children?

Studies demonstrate that the farther one is physically removed from the person one is supposed to kill, and the more machinery required, the easier it becomes to do while maintaining sanity. It may not be morally comforting, but it's true. Killing at the visual range with a hand-held firearm is much, much harder for people who are wired correctly, and that's what Breivik did. Over and over.

Sane people do bad things.

Absolutely. But killing close-up repeatedly and without remorse isn't one of the bad things sane people do. It's one of the bad things insane people do.

[vison]

I'm not talking about "summary justice", I'm with Lord_M on this, it's going to be a circus.

"Self-defense" is a pretty clear term and I can see no reason at all for it to be changed to "the government is trying to destroy Norway so I had to murder all those kids".

The only time a person can claim "self-defense", is it not, is when your OWN life or the lives of those in your immediate presence are in danger?

He cannot justify what he did and why should he get a world-wide audience for his views - and to make him feel (as he no doubt will) that he is some sort of important historical figure?

It will not "clear the air", it will not make Muslim-haters any less likely to be Muslim-haters, it will not make Muslim extremists or any other extremist suddenly see how stupid they are, it will only be a mass picking at scabs and will not aid any "healing process". It will serve to solidify prejudices, not erase them.

There can't be any real reason under Norwegian law to allow him to turn this trial into a platform for his lunacy. His "witnesses" aren't going to be witnesses, they are going to be tools for him to make a mockery of the process of justice.

Let him hang himself, so to speak. Let him rave for an hour or so, then shut him down and put him away.

The circus will attract the media from all over the world. Every
poisonous word he utters will be spread from pole to pole - but edited, manipulated, to enflame anger and hatred of every sort. This is "exciting" and "newsworthy", just the sort of thing that brings out the worst in people.

I am not arguing for a blanket ban, only for common sense. I am surprised that the Norwegians - a calmly sensible people for the most part (IMHO) have fallen into this trap.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I'm not talking about "summary justice", I'm with Lord_M on this, it's going to be a circus.

"Self-defense" is a pretty clear term and I can see no reason at all for it to be changed to "the government is trying to destroy Norway so I had to murder all those kids".

The only time a person can claim "self-defense", is it not, is when your OWN life or the lives of those in your immediate presence are in danger?

He cannot justify what he did and why should he get a world-wide audience for his views - and to make him feel (as he no doubt will) that he is some sort of important historical figure?

It will not "clear the air", it will not make Muslim-haters any less likely to be Muslim-haters, it will not make Muslim extremists or any other extremist suddenly see how stupid they are, it will only be a mass picking at scabs and will not aid any "healing process". It will serve to solidify prejudices, not erase them.

There can't be any real reason under Norwegian law to allow him to turn this trial into a platform for his lunacy. His "witnesses" aren't going to be witnesses, they are going to be tools for him to make a mockery of the process of justice.

Let him hang himself, so to speak. Let him rave for an hour or so, then shut him down and put him away.

The circus will attract the media from all over the world. Every
poisonous word he utters will be spread from pole to pole - but edited, manipulated, to enflame anger and hatred of every sort. This is "exciting" and "newsworthy", just the sort of thing that brings out the worst in people.

I am not arguing for a blanket ban, only for common sense. I am surprised that the Norwegians - a calmly sensible people for the most part (IMHO) have fallen into this trap.

To take the last point first; I believe it is to the credit of Norway that they are ensuring all due process is followed. For me that is "common sense" (although I find that a dubious term...). As for Breivik having a forum... his evidence will not be televised.

ETA I believe "self defence" has been used as justification for pre-emptive strikes, has it not?

ETAA I think continuing in this vein will succumb to the law of diminshing returns, vison. I see we disagree, and will remain politely so doing. That is one of the joys of discussion, but the horse does not need flogging forever.

[vison]

ETA I believe "self defence" has been used as justification for pre-emptive strikes, has it not?

Yes, it has, and yes, it was wrong then and the strikers should have been brought to justice. By whom? And where and when?

But that's got nothing to do with this case.

He's a poisonous creep, and I personally hope he dies in agony of some sort of slow-acting disease that makes him shriek with pain 24 hours a day, 365 days a year until he has gone to hell.

I really wish there was a hell, just for guys like him.

I have no compassion for him, no empathy, no wish to "understand" what makes him tick. He's a murderous offshoot on the human tree and among other things I'm glad to think he will die without issue.

[Inanna]

I agree with Ghân-buri-Ghân - due process needs to be followed, and that includes giving Breivik his day in court. Once you start placing rules in place - this person can get his day, but this other guy, we hate him so much he can't - the process, its sanctity is compromised.

That we don't agree with him is not a good enough reason to not give him the opportunity to present his defense.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I can't speak for Norway, but in America "due process" does not require allowing a defendant to assert a defense that does not exist. I agree that even the worst of the worst alleged criminals need to be given every opportunity to avail themselves of the judicial process, including competent counsel, but that does not require allowing a mockery to be made of the judicial process.

[vison]

I can't speak for Norway, but in America "due process" does not require allowing a defendant to assert a defense that does not exist. I agree that even the worst of the worst alleged criminals need to be given every opportunity to avail themselves of the judicial process, including competent counsel, but that does not require allowing a mockery to be made of the judicial process.

Thank you, Voronwë. That is exactly what I meant: " "due process" does not require allowing a defendant to assert a defense that does not exist. "

This murdering madman sees his "day in court" as a platform to spread his poisonous and nonsensical ideas. No doubt he is glorying in the moment: this validates him as "important", in his own eyes. Unfortunately, it will also serve to make him a martyr in the eyes of the fools who agree with him.

Of course he is entitled to a fair trial. But "fairness" ought to work both ways: he wants to abuse and distort the system and should not be allowed to. There is nothing inherently "fair" in allowing him to drag in every nutbar in Europe and that's about what he wants to do: he wants the testimony of "extremist Muslims" to PROVE that he was "right" in what he did. How can anyone think that's "fair" in any sense?

So the next murderer comes up and says, "Gee, I thought my wife was getting alien messages and the Earth was about to be destroyed! I need to get those facts out before the public and so I demand that the alien agents be brought to court! My neighbour's daughter is one!!"

[Frelga]

I would think the only question a fair trial needs to answer is, did he or did he not murder those kids, can he use insanity as defense, and if found guilty, what punishment is appropriate. I don't care what his ideology is.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I can't speak for Norway, but in America "due process" does not require allowing a defendant to assert a defense that does not exist. I agree that even the worst of the worst alleged criminals need to be given every opportunity to avail themselves of the judicial process, including competent counsel, but that does not require allowing a mockery to be made of the judicial process.

But this is Norway, not the USA, and so what passes for "due process" in the USA is irrelevant.
There are many examples of criminal trials in all nations that other nations would find unacceptable. Some nations, such as Jordan, accept evidence extracted under torturous duress. I believe evidence so gained is tainted and unreliable. However, that may not be the case in the USA, although it is in Norway, where such evidence is (I believe) inadmissable in any court.

"Due process" would seem, therefore, to depend on a particular national jurisdiction. It is not "one size fits all".