Sorry, I took that as a cynical response. I did post a Daily Telegraph link a few posts above. They actually bothered to contact a criminal law professor in Oslo. He can effectively be held indefinitely, similar to how other European countries' systems work.

 

So then it really isn't a 21 year maximum, and Norway is essentially lying when it calls it that.

Where did you find that info?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitge...,744851,00.html

So then it really isn't a 21 year maximum, and Norway is essentially lying when it calls it that.

 

It's a 21 year maximum with the ability to make exceptions for extreme cases or people who haven't been rehabilited.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitge...,744851,00.html

 

Similar story here

 

But again, their system is modeled on reformation, not punishment. It's not meant to be a "hard life" because they don't believe that changes the person into a better member of society in the long run, which is their ultimate goal.

Edited July 25, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

You have to remember that Norway isn't used to this. They have very low murder rates.

It's a 21 year maximum with the ability to make exceptions for extreme cases or people who haven't been rehabilited.

 

So it really isn't a 21 year maximum.

So it really isn't a 21 year maximum.

 

Ok?

Norwegian reactions via Sullivan

 

Greenwald has a meltdown over the media's use of the word "terrorism" and how Al Qaeda is still at fault, even when the act was carried out by an anti-Islam extremist.

 

Also doesn't appear that this guy was "crazy" in the same way that Loughner was. His writings are coherent and make sense if you accept his premises. That's very different from the schizophrenic writings of Loughner.

Edited July 25, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

Norwegian reactions via Sullivan

 

Greenwald has a meltdown over the media's use of the word "terrorism" and how Al Qaeda is still at fault, even when the act was carried out by an anti-Islam extremist.

 

Also doesn't appear that this guy was "crazy" in the same way that Loughner was. His writings are coherent and make sense if you accept his premises. That's very different from the schizophrenic writings of Loughner.

 

That sounds just like Arizona. But never waste an opportunity... Ugh. Sometimes I hate people.

That sounds just like Arizona. But never waste an opportunity... Ugh. Sometimes I hate people.

This act is the definition of terrorism which was his point.

This act is the definition of terrorism which was his point.

 

It is terrorism, without a doubt. Plus a little bit of exploitation mixed in.

It is terrorism, without a doubt. Plus a little bit of exploitation mixed in.

Exploitation? How so?

Exploitation? How so?

He said he wants the trial as his place for marketing.

 

Exploitation? How so?

 

The spinning of this for political gain.

The spinning of this for political gain.

By whom and what's the spin?

The spinning of this for political gain.

Wait, what? By whom?

 

I see no US politicians trying to gain anything from this. Show me one.

 

Wait, what? By whom?

 

I see no US politicians trying to gain anything from this. Show me one.

Another example of manufactured outrage by the Soxtalk Extremist Brigade™

By whom and what's the spin?

 

The article writer.

The article writer.

That just proves that you didn't even read the article.

That just proves that you didn't even read the article.

 

Really? Ok.

I think you'll need to explain what's exploitative about that article.

I dont think they were calling the article exploitative, I believe they were referring to the act.

 

The article is a waste of time, what else is new in the world, political parties are trying to use tragic events to their advantage.

 

You could write an article about the use of "revolutionary" "freedom fighter" "terrorist" "rebels" and how they in theory can be used interchangeably. But that is media, the irony is that all sides do it, they just use different words, different connotations, but the outcome is the same, framing stories, framing tragedy in a way that helps your cause.

 

Its a terrible tragedy, it doesnt matter what you call it.

Edited July 25, 201114 yr by Soxbadger

I think you'll need to explain what's exploitative about that article.

 

Really? I swear some days I live on another planet. That read is just dripping with agenda. Obviously so. Who cares if it is right or not.

Really? I swear some days I live on another planet. That read is just dripping with agenda. Obviously so. Who cares if it is right or not.

 

Well, sure, it's an editorial, his agenda is to point out the media's inconsistent usage of phrases like terrorism. Still not sure how analysis of media reporting is exploitation, though. I guess I don't get what you're objecting to.

Edited July 25, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

Really? I swear some days I live on another planet. That read is just dripping with agenda. Obviously so. Who cares if it is right or not.

I honestly can't even tell who you are saying is being exploitative here, or why.