You can't spell "moron" without NRO.

qorkfiend: clovis69: Read the article, don't usually agree with O'Sullivan, but he is right, what is the point of this multi-week trial where the defendant gets to say, over and over and over he did it, he is glad he did it, this is why he did it.

The defendants at the Hague don't get to grandstand like this, for all of the circus that is a US court, people here don't get to grandstand like this, what is the point of this long-ass trial where the defendant has been judged sane and admits to everything?

You'd rather have the state declare him guilty and incarcerate him without a trial?

Read TFA:

Why could the court not simply hear his plea, take very brief factual evidence identifying Breivik as the perpetrator, pronounce him guilty, and then dispatch him off to anonymous obscurity for the rest of his life?

Trials with that brisk format used to take place in Britain following guilty pleas. Something like that could surely have been justified here. Indeed, it might be a moral improvement on what otherwise cannot help being a show trial.

Instead of misrepresenting the article, read what it's actually arguing rather than attacking a strawman.

Gotta love the left - in the face of a senseless slaughter of innocent lives, their first instinct is to attack political dissent. (After Oklahoma City, after Giffords, and now Brievik the left has used tragedy as a cudgel against their political enemies.) Prick a "liberal" and it seems like a totalitarian bleeds.

WombatControl: qorkfiend: clovis69: Read the article, don't usually agree with O'Sullivan, but he is right, what is the point of this multi-week trial where the defendant gets to say, over and over and over he did it, he is glad he did it, this is why he did it.

The defendants at the Hague don't get to grandstand like this, for all of the circus that is a US court, people here don't get to grandstand like this, what is the point of this long-ass trial where the defendant has been judged sane and admits to everything?

You'd rather have the state declare him guilty and incarcerate him without a trial?

Read TFA:

Why could the court not simply hear his plea, take very brief factual evidence identifying Breivik as the perpetrator, pronounce him guilty, and then dispatch him off to anonymous obscurity for the rest of his life?

Trials with that brisk format used to take place in Britain following guilty pleas. Something like that could surely have been justified here. Indeed, it might be a moral improvement on what otherwise cannot help being a show trial.

Instead of misrepresenting the article, read what it's actually arguing rather than attacking a strawman.

Gotta love the left - in the face of a senseless slaughter of innocent lives, their first instinct is to attack political dissent. (After Oklahoma City, after Giffords, and now Brievik the left has used tragedy as a cudgel against their political enemies.) Prick a "liberal" and it seems like a totalitarian bleeds.

You also would rather have the state "pronounce him guilty, and then dispatch him off to anonymous obscurity for the rest of his life"?

WombatControl: and now Brievik the left has used tragedy as a cudgel against their political enemies

He has been defended in print by several prominent American right wingers. Take it up with them.

WombatControl: qorkfiend: clovis69: Read the article, don't usually agree with O'Sullivan, but he is right, what is the point of this multi-week trial where the defendant gets to say, over and over and over he did it, he is glad he did it, this is why he did it.

The defendants at the Hague don't get to grandstand like this, for all of the circus that is a US court, people here don't get to grandstand like this, what is the point of this long-ass trial where the defendant has been judged sane and admits to everything?

You'd rather have the state declare him guilty and incarcerate him without a trial?

Read TFA:

Why could the court not simply hear his plea, take very brief factual evidence identifying Breivik as the perpetrator, pronounce him guilty, and then dispatch him off to anonymous obscurity for the rest of his life?

Trials with that brisk format used to take place in Britain following guilty pleas. Something like that could surely have been justified here. Indeed, it might be a moral improvement on what otherwise cannot help being a show trial.

Instead of misrepresenting the article, read what it's actually arguing rather than attacking a strawman.

Gotta love the left - in the face of a senseless slaughter of innocent lives, their first instinct is to attack political dissent. (After Oklahoma City, after Giffords, and now Brievik the left has used tragedy as a cudgel against their political enemies.) Prick a "liberal" and it seems like a totalitarian bleeds.

So letting the guy make an arse of himself trying to argue it was a necessity for him to set off a bomb in Oslo and kill 77 people, mostly kids, and pointing out the similarity of some of his rhetoric to that espoused by nationalist reactionaries abroad is totalitarian?

Is this like claiming that anyone who quotes you is lying?

WombatControl: Gotta love the left - in the face of a senseless slaughter of innocent lives, their first instinct is to attack political dissent. (After Oklahoma City, after Giffords, and now Brievik the left has used tragedy as a cudgel against their political enemies.) Prick a "liberal" and it seems like a totalitarian bleeds.

Yeah stupid libs. Getting all outraged about Breivik repeatedly citing right wing nutjobs in his manifesto. Just ignore it!!!

WombatControl: Gotta love the left - in the face of a senseless slaughter of innocent lives, their first instinct is to attack political dissent. (After Oklahoma City, after Giffords, and now Brievik the left has used tragedy as a cudgel against their political enemies.) Prick a "liberal" and it seems like a totalitarian bleeds.

[whatthefarkamireading.jpg]

Nice smokescreen. You're now carrying water for Anders Breivik are you? Interesting to know.

chimp_ninja: Aarontology: Why is Fark still giving green lights to a website that promotes white supremacy and terrorism?

Because Fark really, really loves the myth that if there are two viewpoints on an issue, you have to give them each 50% of your attention, because all viewpoints are precisely equal in validity.

Because Fark administrators and mods love volatile, inflammatory threads with lots of comments/pageviews. The more comments and pageviews the more ad revenue.

Manfred J. Hattan: GAT_00: Cythraul: Not really what I gathered from the article, subby. But then again, I only read the first four paragraphs. Sounds like some are just advocating side-stepping most of the process of law and just pronounce him guilty to reduce the impact he'll have in the Media.

He was a fan of NRO though, and they're going to ask him where he got his ideas from.

Cite?

Thanks to the Guardian here we can see that in his manifesto he directly linked to NRO here: Link

Among other American Republican blog sources, about 1/10th of his overall sources.

Also, they ran a brief Twitter campaign saying he wasn't one of them, probably because he cited all of them.

qorkfiend: You also would rather have the state "pronounce him guilty, and then dispatch him off to anonymous obscurity for the rest of his life"?

That's what a successful conviction means - he's already admitted to the killings. All that remains is the question of his supposed defense, which has no legal merit. There are no disputed facts to be determined at a trial - a summary proceeding would seem to make a hell of a lot more sense than what amounts to a show trial in which he gets to spout his rhetoric in a public forum.

HotWingConspiracy: He has been defended in print by several prominent American right wingers. Take it up with them.

If that's true, then it should be trivial for you to post a link to these so-called defenses. Let's see them...

WombatControl: That's what a successful conviction means - he's already admitted to the killings. All that remains is the question of his supposed defense, which has no legal merit. There are no disputed facts to be determined at a trial - a summary proceeding would seem to make a hell of a lot more sense than what amounts to a show trial in which he gets to spout his rhetoric in a public forum.

Do you have a GED in Norwegian law?

WombatControl: qorkfiend: You also would rather have the state "pronounce him guilty, and then dispatch him off to anonymous obscurity for the rest of his life"?

That's what a successful conviction means - he's already admitted to the killings. All that remains is the question of his supposed defense, which has no legal merit. There are no disputed facts to be determined at a trial - a summary proceeding would seem to make a hell of a lot more sense than what amounts to a show trial in which he gets to spout his rhetoric in a public forum.

You don't like him, so he doesn't get to avail himself of the legal protections and proceedings that everyone else does?

WombatControl: qorkfiend: You also would rather have the state "pronounce him guilty, and then dispatch him off to anonymous obscurity for the rest of his life"?

That's what a successful conviction means - he's already admitted to the killings. All that remains is the question of his supposed defense, which has no legal merit. There are no disputed facts to be determined at a trial - a summary proceeding would seem to make a hell of a lot more sense than what amounts to a show trial in which he gets to spout his rhetoric in a public forum.

HotWingConspiracy: He has been defended in print by several prominent American right wingers. Take it up with them.

If that's true, then it should be trivial for you to post a link to these so-called defenses. Let's see them...

Link

Here is one. This was pretty common defense. Even Tatsuma tried it on fark numerous times.

WombatControl: That's what a successful conviction means - he's already admitted to the killings. All that remains is the question of his supposed defense, which has no legal merit. There are no disputed facts to be determined at a trial - a summary proceeding would seem to make a hell of a lot more sense than what amounts to a show trial in which he gets to spout his rhetoric in a public forum.

Link

He plead not guilty moran.

Halli: Here is one. This was pretty common defense. Even Tatsuma tried it on fark numerous times.

Don't forget Pat Buchanan.

WombatControl: qorkfiend: You also would rather have the state "pronounce him guilty, and then dispatch him off to anonymous obscurity for the rest of his life"?

That's what a successful conviction means - he's already admitted to the killings. All that remains is the question of his supposed defense, which has no legal merit. There are no disputed facts to be determined at a trial - a summary proceeding would seem to make a hell of a lot more sense than what amounts to a show trial in which he gets to spout his rhetoric in a public forum.

HotWingConspiracy: He has been defended in print by several prominent American right wingers. Take it up with them.

If that's true, then it should be trivial for you to post a link to these so-called defenses. Let's see them...

You do realize that the point of a trial is to determine whether or not his defense has any legal merit, yeah?

NRO probably wants to keep this on the down low because there's a lot of folks on the right who probably sympathize with the guy.

I stalk Free Republic where they consider the guy a hero.

Halli: WombatControl: That's what a successful conviction means - he's already admitted to the killings. All that remains is the question of his supposed defense, which has no legal merit. There are no disputed facts to be determined at a trial - a summary proceeding would seem to make a hell of a lot more sense than what amounts to a show trial in which he gets to spout his rhetoric in a public forum.

Link

He plead not guilty moran.

Stop oppressing him with your totalitarian facts! Just like a libby lib lib to dare engage in oppression by arguing a point!

Halli: He plead not guilty moran.

He pleaded self defence. He was just standing his ground. This whole trial is a lib-sponsored mob-justice witch hunt.

Bad_Seed: Halli: He plead not guilty moran.

He pleaded self defence. He was just standing his ground. This whole trial is a lib-sponsored mob-justice witch hunt.

Which is why we should convict him without a trial. Duh.

Zodiac boats!!!

vernonFL: It sounds like the guy was inspired by Al Qaeda as much as NRO.

Six of one...

WombatControl: That's what a successful conviction means - he's already admitted to the killings. All that remains is the question of his supposed defense, which has no legal merit


Do you also feel the same way about Zimmerman, who admitted to shooting and killing Martin, and who's Stand Your Ground defense is considered without merit by those who wrote the bill?

Somehow I doubt it.

hay guize whycome Norway doesn't just do what I want? I'm smart

Bad_Seed: He was just standing his ground.

Damn you, 2 minutes!

Halli: Link

Here is one. This was pretty common defense. Even Tatsuma tried it on fark numerous times.

What say you, WombatControl? Was Breivik justified in his actions because of those numerous "non-Norwegian" faces?

theorellior: Halli: Link

Here is one. This was pretty common defense. Even Tatsuma tried it on fark numerous times.

What say you, WombatControl? Was Breivik justified in his actions because of those numerous "non-Norwegian" faces?

He's gotten roughed up in the last 15 minutes or so. He might have to head to the bench for a few.

qorkfiend: theorellior: Halli: Link

Here is one. This was pretty common defense. Even Tatsuma tried it on fark numerous times.

What say you, WombatControl? Was Breivik justified in his actions because of those numerous "non-Norwegian" faces?

He's gotten roughed up in the last 15 minutes or so. He might have to head to the bench for a few.

Next troll alt in 5... 4... 3...

beta_plus: Funny how...

...it's a bunch of Conservative Freedom-Loving Americans calling for removal of due process.

Cinaed: beta_plus: Funny how...

...it's a bunch of Conservative Freedom-Loving Americans calling for removal of due process.

Citing the Nanny State with approval.

PlatinumDragon: Next troll alt in 5... 4... 3...

My money's on eWreckedSean. Who's with me?

WombatControl: qorkfiend: clovis69: Read the article, don't usually agree with O'Sullivan, but he is right, what is the point of this multi-week trial where the defendant gets to say, over and over and over he did it, he is glad he did it, this is why he did it.

The defendants at the Hague don't get to grandstand like this, for all of the circus that is a US court, people here don't get to grandstand like this, what is the point of this long-ass trial where the defendant has been judged sane and admits to everything?

You'd rather have the state declare him guilty and incarcerate him without a trial?

Read TFA:

Why could the court not simply hear his plea, take very brief factual evidence identifying Breivik as the perpetrator, pronounce him guilty, and then dispatch him off to anonymous obscurity for the rest of his life?

Trials with that brisk format used to take place in Britain following guilty pleas. Something like that could surely have been justified here. Indeed, it might be a moral improvement on what otherwise cannot help being a show trial.

Instead of misrepresenting the article, read what it's actually arguing rather than attacking a strawman.

Gotta love the left - in the face of a senseless slaughter of innocent lives, their first instinct is to attack political dissent. (After Oklahoma City, after Giffords, and now Brievik the left has used tragedy as a cudgel against their political enemies.) Prick a "liberal" and it seems like a totalitarian bleeds.

1) Who the fark cares what Britain does. This is Norway. What matters is what Norwegian law says. The article also says it doesn't happen any more.
2) The guy is claiming a justifiable homicide, he has a right to argue his case.
3) Him up there spouting off will probably get the right wing extremeists ridiculed as much as any support, there is no reason to ignore the law to stop him.

WombatControl: Trials with that brisk format used to take place in Britain following guilty pleas. Something like that could surely have been justified here. Indeed, it might be a moral improvement on what otherwise cannot help being a show trial.

What a great argument if the trial took place in farking Britain.

Fair trials are for commies. True justice comes from the gut.

I haven't seen rape like this since Jodie Foster in the Accused.

In Breivik's defense, many of those kids were carrying Skittles. So don't be so quick to judge, stupid libs.

theorellior: ]Nice smokescreen. You're now carrying water for Anders Breivik are you? Interesting to know.

Don't be stupid - I'm advocating locking him up for the rest of his life and throwing away the key. Hell, if I had my way he'd have a very short trial outside of the public view, with only the finders of fact present, to be followed by his execution for mass murder.

That's not "carrying water" for him in any way, shape, form or fashion.

Bad_Seed: Halli: He plead not guilty moran.

He pleaded self defence. He was just standing his ground. This whole trial is a lib-sponsored mob-justice witch hunt.

It's not self defense unless one of them was wearing a hoodie.

theorellior: Halli: Link

Here is one. This was pretty common defense. Even Tatsuma tried it on fark numerous times.

What say you, WombatControl? Was Breivik justified in his actions because of those numerous "non-Norwegian" faces?

Absolutely not. Nothing justified what he did.

WombatControl: Gotta love the left - in the face of a senseless slaughter of innocent lives, their first instinct is to attack political dissent. (After Oklahoma City, after Giffords, and now Brievik the left has used tragedy as a cudgel against their political enemies.) Prick a "liberal" and it seems like a totalitarian bleeds.

Yeah, remember when the liberals were calling for the editors of New York Times to be hanged as traitors, issuing death threats against the Dixie Chicks and claiming it was treason to criticize a wartime President? Oh, wait. That was conservatives.

WombatControl: Gotta love the left - in the face of a senseless slaughter of innocent lives, their first instinct is to attack political dissent. (After Oklahoma City, after Giffords, and now Brievik the left has used tragedy as a cudgel against their political enemies.) Prick a "liberal" and it seems like a totalitarian bleeds.



No, you retarded asshole, we're the ones saying due process, the legal process in Norway, should be followed correctly. Your team is saying, no need for all that, just chuck him in a hole and look something shiny over there! i.e. let the state go all totalitarian on him.