Posted on 04/02/2012 8:34:51 AM PDT by marthemaria
Geir Lippestad will definitely cause some controversy with the approach he plans to take in the upcoming trial of Anders Breivik, Norway’s infamous extreme-right terrorist. For starters, Lippestad, Breivik’s defense attorney, intends to place Mullah Krekar -- an Islamist extremist from Kurdish Iraq who has been living in Norway since 1991-- on the witness stand.
In an interview with Le Monde, Lippestad outlined his strategy for this exceptional trial, which is scheduled to begin April 16, less than eight months after the double attack on July 22, 2011, in which 77 people died. The majority of the victims were attending a summer camp hosted by the youth wing of the governing Social Democratic party. This trial has seriously challenged Lippestad’s beliefs as both a support of the Social Democrats and a father of eight children. “I feel I have lost my soul in this case,” he said. “I hope to get it back once all this is over, and that it will be in the same state as before.” Unlike all of Lippestad’s previous clients, Anders Breivik is not afraid of being found guilty. The possibility of receiving Norway’s maximum penalty (21 years in prison) doesn’t scare him – on the contrary, he wants it.
“This trial is unique, just like the dreadful acts that will be judged,” said Lippestad. “We have to think differently. In the majority of trials, you have a defendant who denies the facts or who says he didn’t intend to do what he did. Here you have someone who recognizes the facts, who takes responsibility for them, and who says he would do the same thing again if the opportunity arose.”
“He doesn’t intend to run away from his responsibilities,” the attorney added. “Quite the opposite, he wants to be found sane and accountable [for his actions].”
Not so paranoid after all
Lippestad initially based his defense on his client’s poor mental health. The first two psychiatrists who examined Breivik declared him insane. But in the end, the lawyer decided to follow his client’s wishes. The idea that Breivik could be declared not criminally responsible and therefore escape a prison sentence had distressed a large part of the Norwegian population. A second team of psychiatrists has been appointed to evaluate him. They are expected to present their conclusions on April 10. Even if these psychiatrists confirm the first team’s findings, Breivik’s lawyer won’t change anything about his client’s defense. “It is about showing that his beliefs and way of thinking are common,” said Lippestad. “He is not as unique, as paranoid or schizophrenic as the experts say.” Lippestad is counting on exposing discrepancies in the expert opinions. “What we see is that there is a gap between what the human sciences say on extremism, and what doctors and psychiatrists know.” In Lippestad’s opinion, many of those who share Breivik’s ideas are classified as extremists, not psychotic. Why, therefore, should he be considered insane?
“We will place people from extremist backgrounds on the witness stand to explain their thought process in order to establish that there are others who, without going as far as to commit the crime, share the same ideology and way of thinking,” said Lippestad. “What we want to show is that we are dealing with an ideology and that he is not the only person to stand behind [those beliefs]; that he is not a psychotic living in a separate world.” A controversial star witness By summoning Mullah Krekar to testify --potentially alongside other Islamists-- Lippestad wants to show that “Islamists also believe that Europe is the setting for a war of religion and that it is not just a delusion that Breivik has imagined.”
Krekar, real name Faraj Ahmad Najmuddin and often called the “most controversial refugee in Norway,” used to be the leader of Ansar Al-Islam, a small Islamist group from Iraqi Kurdistan that carried out several attacks there. In a book published in Norway in 2004, Krekar admitted to having met Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in about 1990 in the hope of receiving some financial help for his guerrilla group. He left the meeting empty handed. The lawyer intends to place the Norwegian blogger “Fjordman,” believed to be Breivik’s main inspiration, on the witness stand as well. Breivik cites Fjordman in his 1,500-page manifesto, which he distributed on the Internet just before the attacks. It is Breivik himself who is orchestrating the strategy defended by Lippestad. While waiting for his trial, he is doing lots of exercise. He also has access to a work cell equipped with a computer. “He doesn’t have Internet access, but he can write, and he is preparing a speech that he intends to read during the trial,” said Lippestad. The defendant receives letters, watches television and reads the newspapers. “He writes letters to five or six people whom he considers to be his ideological brothers and sisters, in Norway and abroad,” the attorney explained. “His motivation for carrying out these monstrosities was to distribute his manifesto,” Lippestad added. “Breivik believes that the revolution will start in France or England because, according to him, multiculturalism is very conflicting there.”
That won't be allowed to happen.
What else should be on trial, is a society that allows camps for political indoctrination of thier youth.
I'll bet.
If Breivik doesn't lie, is direct and doesn't rage, the lefties have a real problem.
If the Muslims that testify also tell the truth (not likely) it will be a disaster. If they aren't allowed to testify it will also be a disaster.
I believe that Breivik is not just sane, but that his actions were carefully and expertly planned, well executed, and importantly, achieved Breiviks goals. And in doing so, he has altered the future course of his nation.
Here is some background not widely covered by the media.
1) The Workers’ Youth League (Norway) was founded in 1927 with the merger of the Communist Youth League and Socialist Youth League of Norway. While it officially considers its founding based on the 1903 Norwegian Social-Democratic Youth League, its real impulse came in response to the formation of the Hitler Jugend in Germany, in 1922.
In all of these cases, whether communist or socialist, the purpose of these leagues was to create an ideologically pure generation to replace the current communist or socialist, socialist-fascist political leadership.
Importantly, over the course of almost 100 years, these youth leagues maintained the idealistic, ideological focus of their political movements. This is a winning strategy against conservatism in any form, because conservatives have no inflexible doctrines, and tend to use a static defense of retaining the status quo, whatever it is. Which invariably loses.
2) In modern internationalist-socialism, a primary goal is to eliminate national borders and national, cultural, and ethnic identities, as well as philosophies other than their own. To do this it encourages unrestricted immigration, on condition the immigrants give political loyalty to the left.
That the immigrants are also deeply ideological and in strong opposition to leftism is of small consequence to the left, because it sees them as inherently weak and corruptible, their ideologies far weaker than conservative nationalism.
Norway has a relatively tiny population of only 4.7m, so they are remarkably easy to infiltrate with immigrants until Norwegians are in the minority.
3) So the end result with be an absolute majority of political power for the left, the destruction of Norway as a unique nation, and the Norwegians as a unique people and culture, what remains being a “generic” administrative socialist district of Europe, lead by an ideologically pure elite of internationalists with no loyalty whatsoever to what had been Norway.
4) However, the left made a major mistake by “putting all its eggs in one basket”, with virtually its entire future generation of socialist leaders on an island with no ready means of escape.
Breivik first used a bomb to distract the socialist government, the arrived at the island to systematically kill everyone on it. Once he had achieved that goal, his mission was over and he surrendered peacefully.
5) What he achieved was to completely handicap not just that political party but their anti-Norway agenda. Almost by default, they will soon lose political power, and the more conservative opposition will derail the most destructive of their schemes, hopefully expelling a large number of these immigrants, requiring integration of the rest, restoring Norway’s national pride and culture, and to dismantle much of the socialist government’s bureaucracy.
As such, after many years, Breivik may be regarded as a national hero, though he will be bitterly vilified and cursed by the left even longer, as a “counterrevolutionary.”
Consider the fact, that had he not gone to trial for the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler would have never achieved power, he used it as the springboard to ultimately achieve power.
So the end justifies the means?
Of course not, in fact, I pointed out the Hitler analogy because I fear that Breivik will turn this trial into his own personal forum, and they’ll be plenty of nuts who will buy it.
Interestingly, although the left presents Breivik as an extreme rightist, in fact he is a nationalist, and is more socialist than not.
As in Germany, this is a fight among socialists.
So, that would make him a "National Socialist."
And they are said to be rather nice facilities. What's to fear?
“extreme right”
Nothing “right” about the guy
More or less.
The media and "intellectuals" have pushed the phony meme for a half Century that Fascism is from the right. In fact, it is a leftist philosophy as it's proper name, National Socialism implies. The pre war fight for control of Germany was between Communist groups having nothing to do with the right.
There is nothing conservative about either side in this incident in Norway.
It is easier to understand that a national communist lite (Breivik), delivered the strike you describe so well, on the International Communist establishment in power.
Not at all, but the ends should never be ignored when examining the means.
I read an analysis of what Breivik did, but rewritten to put it in terms that make more sense to Americans, supposedly taking place in America.
It begins with a non-violent Muslim youth league, that over many years becomes increasingly powerful as a political movement in the US, to the point that now and then the Muslim political party has a majority in congress and even the presidency.
Their ends are to get rid of the US constitution, and replace it with Sharia law. All the while assuring non-Muslim Americans that they mean them no harm. But soon, all government largess goes to those who support Islam, and there is unrestricted immigration encouraged from every Muslim nation in the world. Hundreds of millions of Muslims coming to America.
Eventually they wish to even discard the name “America” and replace it with a Sultanate. And they train all their children in a giant, public funded madrassa, with the idea that eventually they will become the future leaders of the Sultanate. No one can become a leader in their political party unless they have graduated from this madrassa and follow precisely the agenda of the Muslim party.
Yet one non-Muslim American sees where this is going, and does not like it. He likes living in a constitutional nation. He likes his fellow Americans, but does not like endless immigration of Muslims to America.
And he knows that if he wipes out this giant madrassa, the cause of the Islamization of America will be set back perhaps a hundred years or more. It will be highly likely that the spigot of immigration will be turned off, and many of the immigrants already here will be made to leave.
He is an American version of Breivik. Is he a villain or a hero for wanting to save his nation the way it is?
This is a fair approximation of the situation in Norway. So again the question is, do the ends justify the means?
“Ansar Al-Islam, a small Islamist group from Iraqi Kurdistan”
Like hell they’re small. They are the MAIN GROUP killing Americans in Iraq. Typical media distortion.
Also, his idea of being deemed sane is ingenious, as there is probably no way he can serve more than 21 years, whereas if he were deemed insane, they could find excuse after excuse to keep him locked up.
Conservatism is much more than that. Leftists have in some instances learned that they are utterly dependent on conservatives to pay the bills and hold society together as they, the leftists try their repetitive and foolish idealistic experiments. Without conservatives, the socialists rapidly turn into Zimbabwe.
No socialist system can exist, even for a short while, unless there is somebody outside of the system paying for it. An excellent example of this was Sweden, whose socialist economic system was totally supported by their huge, capitalist armaments manufacturers-exporters, that were outside the system, yet paid huge taxes.
Yet despite all, socialism was a huge drain on this industry, always demanding more and more resources, yet providing less and less to the people in the system.
Finally the socialist PM, Olof Palme, decided to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, by nationalizing the arms industry, so that all its profits could be used to feed the socialist monster. So there is a strong suggestion that the arms industry recruited an insane man to assassinate him.
Once he was out of the way, cooler heads prevailed, and began a systematic deconstruction of the most expensive and irrational parts of the socialist programme. Thus Sweden slowly began to recover.
So for all the contempt and hatred the left, communists, anarchists, neo-Nazis, socialists, liberals, eco-nuts, etc. have for conservatism, they are utterly dependent on it, and its efficiency, productivity, solidity, and literal militancy, or progressivism would die out entirely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.