Norway Prosecutor: Breivik is insane

[Bakustra]

I don't get how Buck Ustra's "hey guise maybe the professional criminal psychiatrists who interviewed the guy may know more about XYZ than some shmucks on the internet" becomes "the disease at the core of our great society eating the apple from within and stifling our intellectual growth with the mind-killer that is fear (and/or contrarian assholery) rargh".

However, as Fin's article also mentions, I personally dunno how the whole "the guy was just insane" thing is going to affect the whole societal introspection and self-analysis of extremist (right wing) ideology. Like what some said in that Black Friday pepper spray thread, it will make it easier for people to just say the perpetrator was just some nutter and shrug it off, make it easier on their minds, rather than confront the fact that non-insane people can do these kinds of things, and that in certain kinds of conditions, non-insane people can turn into murdering monsters.

Well, that is problematic, but on the other hand, when people treated Timothy McVeigh as a sane representative of the militia movement in the US, militia members dismissed him as a "crazy". There's not really a good solution, because even if Breivik is insane, the form his insanity took and the path he walked on were influenced by the environment he surrounded himself with, the European far-right (most of his manifesto consists of copy-pasted sections from other manifesto's including a series of find-and-replaced segments from the Unabomber). There's not really a good way for nonviolent members of such fringe groups to consider how their words influence people in ways they didn't intend. This happened with Jared Loughner as well, and with the guy who crashed an airplane into an IRS building.

Bakustra's very first post here was a dismissive personal attack, just as in the Iran thread where he accused me of being a racist. Zablorg's me-tooing Bakustra in this thread was even less substantive than even that, but I don't see anyone having a problem with it.

You are literally, honest-to-god, mad that I gave an honest characterization of you as thinking that diplomatic intercourse with Iran is useless, when you wrote a massive post about just that? Are you five?

You also want to force me to be respectful of your opinion that you are the equal of psychiatric professionals because you have a copy of the DSM-IV. I'm afraid you're going to have to get the mods and admins to do that for you.

[Zablorg]

TBH I'm pretty astonished that my contribution was seen as anything more than "silly old Zab".

[MarshalPurnell]

"Waaaa, Bakustra and Zablorg disagree with me but I can't attack their argument so I'll whine about them personally instead!" That's how you guys are coming off. Congratulations you glorious ad hominem spewing bastards. I look forward to the HoS thread.

Irony obviously flies right over the head of some posters. There were no "arguments." Bakustra's post is, essentially, "you have no right to an opinion." When I noted how the DSM-IV diagnosis is weak and how the assignment of paranoid schizophrenia to Breivik could, absent some really important information that has not been hinted of in the press, be assigned to any number of other terrorists, Bakustra again reiterated "you don't have the right to an opinion on this." Zablorg's one line of snark is an "argument" in the same way "you're a doodoo-head" is an argument and should be treated in the same way.

Of course, the very fact that I need to point this out is why I didn't bother to report it, or even acknowledge Bakustra in any way. He spent multiple pages in the death penalty debate we had systematically misrepresenting, no, outright lying about my position, and was not sanctioned in any way despite heavy moderator interest. I saw no reason to complain as I knew it would be ineffective.

[Flagg]

"Waaaa, Bakustra and Zablorg disagree with me but I can't attack their argument so I'll whine about them personally instead!" That's how you guys are coming off. Congratulations you glorious ad hominem spewing bastards. I look forward to the HoS thread.

Irony obviously flies right over the head of some posters. There were no "arguments." Bakustra's post is, essentially, "you have no right to an opinion." When I noted how the DSM-IV diagnosis is weak and how the assignment of paranoid schizophrenia to Breivik could, absent some really important information that has not been hinted of in the press, be assigned to any number of other terrorists, Bakustra again reiterated "you don't have the right to an opinion on this." Zablorg's one line of snark is an "argument" in the same way "you're a doodoo-head" is an argument and should be treated in the same way.

Of course, the very fact that I need to point this out is why I didn't bother to report it, or even acknowledge Bakustra in any way. He spent multiple pages in the death penalty debate we had systematically misrepresenting, no, outright lying about my position, and was not sanctioned in any way despite heavy moderator interest. I saw no reason to complain as I knew it would be ineffective.

What are you 3? If you don't like the board you're free to leave, dude.

And Bakustra's argument was that your opinion isn't as valid as those of actual psychiatrists treating the patient, which is true. I'll even wager one fresh testicle that he'd concede that his opinion isn't as valid as the same.

[MarshalPurnell]

You are literally, honest-to-god, mad that I gave an honest characterization of you as thinking that diplomatic intercourse with Iran is useless, when you wrote a massive post about just that? Are you five?

You also want to force me to be respectful of your opinion that you are the equal of psychiatric professionals because you have a copy of the DSM-IV. I'm afraid you're going to have to get the mods and admins to do that for you.

Until the internal political dynamics of Iran change there simply is no window of opportunity to try to settle issues with Iran so that they will behave like a responsible status-quo power, and we literally cannot afford to allow Iran to realize its present regional ambitions.

You are either stupid, lazy, or dishonest to be able to claim that means I think "diplomatic intercourse with Iran is useless" and you did not post that. No, you claimed I wanted to bomb brown people because they wouldn't do what America wanted. Now this is completely irrelevant to this thread, but since I expect moderation will be in here to clean up sooner or later I thought I'd get that out of the way so people viewing the argument realize how you've distorted my position, using hyperbole to set up your thoughtless, substanceless, drive-by snark response.

As for this particular thread, the article by Fingolfin has shown the diagnosis is a matter of professional debate in Norway and Sweden among psychiatric commentators. Anyone even remotely familiar with the situation would have realized that. You chose to treat the report as absolutely definitive, despite the reported prior opinions of many Norwegian psychiatrists that Breivik was sane and the controversy over the report. You, rather than bothering to even address the important part of my post, about how Breivik's actions and reported character were consistent with those of many other terrorists who are not considered insane, or the questions around just how he was fit into the DSM-IV characterization, just dismissed me out of hand in a way that is certainly a personal attack when viewed in context. You did not even bother addressing substance at all.

But I do look forward to the next Gitmo thread, where I can dismiss whatever you have to say on the grounds that you aren't a lawyer and thus don't have credentials to question the Administration's legal briefs and case.

[Simon_Jester]

Bakustra's very first post here was a dismissive personal attack, just as in the Iran thread where he accused me of being a racist. Zablorg's me-tooing Bakustra in this thread was even less substantive than even that, but I don't see anyone having a problem with it.

"Waaaa, Bakustra and Zablorg disagree with me but I can't attack their argument so I'll whine about them personally instead!" That's how you guys are coming off. Congratulations you glorious ad hominem spewing bastards. I look forward to the HoS thread.

Flagg, I think Purnell is attacking Bakustra's argument.

Coincidentally, he's also taking extra space to vent his exasperation with Bakustra's personal habits.

That is not an ad hominem. Purnell does not seem to be saying "you are X, therefore your argument is wrong." He's just insulting Bakustra, which is quite different.

[Bakustra]

Why are you ashamed of your posts, Purnell? It seems like you have sort of complex, or else you've regressed into the terrible twos and are just being contrarian.

"Sanctions can buy time, and attempting to contain the Iranian regime can strengthen other regional powers to better resist Iranian advances. Naively reaching out to them in the assumption that they must want to be on good terms with a world order they are determined to overthrow, on the other hand, would only lead to embarrassment and discomfort from regional allies who may rightly be concerned that their interests will be sacrificed. Until the internal political dynamics of Iran change there simply is no window of opportunity to try to settle issues with Iran so that they will behave like a responsible status-quo power, and we literally cannot afford to allow Iran to realize its present regional ambitions."

Recognize your own words, Purnell, given greater context? You seem to have a problem with honesty.

My goal was not to dismiss your claims but to point out that you're making judgments with no experience and very limited data and, like I predicted, you're hiding behind the shield of a post that was not there when you were presenting yourself as the equal of any given psychiatrist with your copy of the DSM-IV, which Dooey Jo pointed out you were misrepresenting, and which you ignored, presumably because he's also part of the Legion of Doom or whatever organization you believe I belong to/run.

Zeon specifically argued that this made you the equal of any given psychiatrist, so don't try to weasel out, either.

So my post was intended to point out that you have limited data and limited experience and therefore there is less reason to listen to you rather than to professionals. I don't know why I'm trying anymore, because you'll just lie about what I'm saying again.

But as to your "greater point":

Just as Hamas or Hezbollah or so on justify suicide bombing as a necessity to avert Crusader-Zionist destruction of the Arab people.

Hahahahaha. That is really all I can say to that, and it essentially destroys any chance of you saying anything intelligent about political violence.

-Apparently I am the Lex Luthor of stardestroyer.net.

Bakustra's very first post here was a dismissive personal attack, just as in the Iran thread where he accused me of being a racist. Zablorg's me-tooing Bakustra in this thread was even less substantive than even that, but I don't see anyone having a problem with it.

"Waaaa, Bakustra and Zablorg disagree with me but I can't attack their argument so I'll whine about them personally instead!" That's how you guys are coming off. Congratulations you glorious ad hominem spewing bastards. I look forward to the HoS thread.

Flagg, I think Purnell is attacking Bakustra's argument.

Coincidentally, he's also taking extra space to vent his exasperation with Bakustra's personal habits.

That is not an ad hominem. Purnell does not seem to be saying "you are X, therefore your argument is wrong." He's just insulting Bakustra, which is quite different.

Simon, look at who and what you're defending and ask yourself, "Do I really want to be doing this?" The answer may surprise you!

[Flagg]

Bakustra's very first post here was a dismissive personal attack, just as in the Iran thread where he accused me of being a racist. Zablorg's me-tooing Bakustra in this thread was even less substantive than even that, but I don't see anyone having a problem with it.

"Waaaa, Bakustra and Zablorg disagree with me but I can't attack their argument so I'll whine about them personally instead!" That's how you guys are coming off. Congratulations you glorious ad hominem spewing bastards. I look forward to the HoS thread.

Flagg, I think Purnell is attacking Bakustra's argument.

Coincidentally, he's also taking extra space to vent his exasperation with Bakustra's personal habits.

That is not an ad hominem. Purnell does not seem to be saying "you are X, therefore your argument is wrong." He's just insulting Bakustra, which is quite different.

I don't agree. If he were arguing that his standing as a layman with a textbook made him the equal of a psychiatrist (absurdity) and said the same shit he's been saying about Bakustra then I'd agree with you, but he's not. His whole "argument" is that Bakustra is a bad bad man.

[Norseman]

So. Do we take the psychologists' word at face value? It would help if we knew why Breivik is being declared insane. Does he have persistent delusions of personal grandeur? Is his personality and behavior when dealing with his captors making them think he's insane?

A lot of that is information we can't access, but without it I can understand a natural reluctance to take the psychologists' word on blind trust. Not when there are political and cultural reasons for a verdict of insanity that don't have anything to do with Breivik's mental state.

Being Norwegian I do have access to Norwegian media, so let me translate a few relevant passages from Aftenposten (a very reputable Norwegian newspaper).

Behring Breivik to the appointed experts: I am the most perfect knight since the Second World War. The Knights Templar will take power in Europe. He also suggested that he would be the future regent of Norway.

Behring Breivik according to the experts: He has delusions of grandeur and totally lacks self-criticism.

...

In his own universe of delusion which is paranoid (he feels that he is noticed more often than normal), persecutory (he thinks he will soon be killed), grandiose (that he could be the new regent and decide who will live and die in Norway), governs the thoughts of Anders Behring Breivik according to the experts.

...

Behring Breivik to the appointed experts: Chosen to decide who should live and who should die. Chosen to be the saviour of his people.

Behring Breivik according to the experts: Life-long mental afflictions with a need for psychotropic drugs. The mental disorder is very hard to treat.

The experts feel that he has made long term murder plans and that there is a considerable risk for future violence and killings. There is a considerable risk that Behring Breivik can try to end his own life through an act aimed at himself or the ones he has threatened to kill. They feel that he is both suicidal and a danger to others.

There is also a questions and answers section which explains a bit more about how this fits into the Norwegian legal system:

1. What does the psychiatric verdict mean? Anders Behring Breivik is according to the experts not competent to stand trial because he is psychotic with the diagnosis paranoid schizophrenia.

2. How long has he been psychotic? The psychiatrists don't answer this question, except to say that "It has been the case for a long time."

3. Why do the experts think he is psychotic? Among other things he suffers from several delusions and a total lack of empathy. He feels he is chosen to decide who should live and die, that he should be the new leader of Norway, and that he can be killed at any moment.

4. What happens next? The expert verdict will be examined by the judicial medical commission. Normally this takes about a month, but in this case it is likely to take longer.

5. What sort of decision can the judicial medical commission make? They can make comments, ask for certain points to be elaborated upon, or overrule the report. Of 500 psychiatric cases last year the commission has only overruled one report.

6. Can the court overrule the psychiatrists? The court is entirely free to consider the evidence, or to ask for a new expert panel. In practise this almost never happens.

7. What does compulsory psychiatric care mean? Pasients with a "serious mental illness", normally psychotics, can be kept in a psychiatric institution for treatment. This can last their entire lives if the pasient does not recover or is considered a danger for his surroundings.

8. When will he be transferred to a psychiatric institution? That will be decided once the commission has reviewed the psychiatric report.

9. What institution will he be sent to? Compulsory psychiatric care can only be offered by an institution that has received a special permit from the Health Directorate. In the case of Anders Behring Breivik this will probably be the closed ward at Dikemark.

10. Will there be a trial? Yes. If he is sentenced to compulsory psychiatric care he will be transferred to the secure ward of a hospital.

11. Is there any difference between such a trial and a regular trial? Not in principle.

12. Will Behring Breivik have a chance to explain himself to the court? Yes. He will have an opportunity to make statements about his actions.

13. How often will his case be reviewed? Such a verdict must be reviewed by the courts every third year. During such reviews the original verdict will be held as the cause for his compulsory treatment. There is therefore no new trial.

14. What does the court do when the case is reviewed? At this time the court will only judge whether or not the conditions for compulsory psychiatric treatment are still there. The most important point is whether or not he is still a threat to society.

15. Who will decide what his condition is? The primary doctor will decide Behring Breivik's treatment within the boundaries of a given level of secure confinement. The psychiatrist cannot move the patient without the permission of the prosecution.

16. What happens if the doctor and the prosecutors disagree? Then the hospital control commission under the guidance of a judge will decide whether or not there are sufficient security measures.

17. What happens if the doctors decide he is cured? He can still be confined if the courts decide he is a threat to his surroundings.

18. Will there be a new trial if he is declared to be cured and no longer a threat to his surroundings? No.

So I hope this clears things up.