CNN cancels plans for Breivik interview

NRK reports that CNN has cancelled plans to interview Anders Behring Breivik. “I can now confirm that CNN is no longer working on getting an interview with Anders Behring Breivik,” CNN press spokesman, Jonathan Hawkins, reportedly wrote in an email to NRK.

NRK writes that Breivik said yes to an interview request from CNN and that it is unclear why the interview plans are now cancelled. The last time Breivik agreed to an interview with the British broadcaster, BBC, the Justice Department blocked the interview.

[Note: NRK has edited the title of one of the below articles, and the text of the other. The Google translations are from the original versions.]

_____

Google translation:

CNN will not be interviewed Breivik
04/05/2012

Thursday was NRK.no an email in which television channel denied that they will interview the terrorist.

“I can confirm that CNN is no longer working to get an interview with Anders Breivik Behring,” writes spokesman Jonathan Hawkins of CNN International to NRK in an e-mail.

It is still unclear why the TV channel has pulled out of a possible interview….

Original article: CNN vil ikke intervjue Breivik
_____

Google translation:

CNN negotiates about interview with Breivik
04/05/2012

It is not yet given the final green light if and when the interview can take place. TV channel awaiting for the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation has learned that the police will do a background check of a photographer.

“At this point, I can not confirm that we will interview Anders Breivik Behring. We do not comment on speculation about how we will cover the trial, but I can confirm that we, like many other news organizations, has requested an interview with him,” said Jonathan Hawkins, a spokesman at CNN International to NRK….

Original article: CNN forhandler om intervju med Breivik
_____

Related post: Norwegian Justice Department blocks Breivik interview with BBC

Norwegian police still uncertain if Breivik met Milorad Ulemek in Liberia

Aftenposten and Dagbladet have both published a story provided by the Norwegian press agency, NTB, which reports that the Norwegian police have still not received a response to their request for information from Serbian police regarding several Serbian citizens that they believe Anders Behring Breivik may have met on his trip to Liberia in 2002.

According to previous statements from the police and Breivik’s lawyers, Breivik has, throughout police questioning, refused to name his contacts. The police have, however, stated that Milorad Ulemek is one of the persons they suspect Breivik refers to when he says he met a Serbian war hero in Liberia in 2002.

The recent NTB article claims that, in February, Aftenposten reported that Breivik had communicated to police that he had met Ulemek. As far as AttackOnTheLaborParty is aware, such an article was never published by Aftenposten. If it had been, this would have been in contradiciton to all other news reports and statements by the police and Breivik’s lawyers. Also, none of the other newspapers ever reported on this alleged revelation by Breivik which is surprising given how significant such a fact would be.

On February 18th, Aftenposten wrote: “The terror accused 33 year old has claimed that he met a ‘Serbian war hero’ during his visit to Liberia. They shall have become aquainted through the internet. He has never been willing to say who this [person] was.” It thus seems that NTB’s claim that Breivik has given the name of a contact to the police is incorrect as it is based on a non existing source.

Ulemek was a commander in the Serbian forces during the Kosovan War, fighting against Muslims and NATO forces in the Balkans. At the end of the war, special forces from the Norwegian military were the first NATO ground forces entering Kosovo, and among the first to enter Pristina.

Norwegian police have sent 41 requests to 26 countries in an attempt to find out about Brevik’s contacts, reportedly with limited success. The Police Security Service (the PST) recently wrote in their evaluation report that Breivik had been planning the attacks for several years and been extremely security conscious.

Google translation [edited for clarity]:

No Breivik-response from Serbia
March 25, 2012

Six months after the Norwegian police sent a formal legal request to Serbia with questions about the Serbs who may have met Breivik, a reply has not yet been received.

The request was sent 27 september last year, but a reply is lacking.

“We have not received [it],” says Kraby.

The police have sent a total of 41 such requests to 26 different countries to clear up eventual contacts and connections of Breivik abroad. In addition, the police is working on sending an additional two court requests, whereof one to China, according to Hjort Kraby.

Met Serbian?

The investigation abroad is important considering possible helpers. Breivik himself in his massive compendium “2083″ claimed that he took part in the founding of an international “Templar order” in London in the spring of 2002. The group was allegedly to lead the war against Muslims in Europe.

Breivik claims in the compendium that before the London meeting he met a Serbian “war hero” and “crusader” who was in hiding in the Liberian capital of Monrovia.

Aftenposten wrote in February that Breivik has informed [the police] that the person in question is Milorad “Legija” Ulemek. Ulemek is imprisoned in Serbia and is serving a sentence of 40 years in prison for the murder of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic in March 2003.

The prosecutor for war crimes in Serbia, said already in January to the NTB that they had no indications that Milorad “Legija” Ulemek was in Liberia at any time in the late 1990s or early 2000s….

Original article: Ingen Breivik-svar fra Serbia

Google translation [edited for clarity]:

Serbian delay in terrorist hunt
February 18, 2012

The terror accused 33 year old has claimed that he met a ‘Serbian war hero’ during his visit to Liberia. They shall have become aquainted though the internet. He has never been willing to say who this [person] was….

Original article: Serbisk sommel i terrorjakten
_____

Related article: Ingen Breivik-svar fra Serbia

Related post: Norwegian police investigating possible contact between Breivik and Milorad Ulemek

Related post: Breivik travelled to Liberia in 2002

Breivik has made new interview agreement, journalist waiting for clearance

Anders Behring Breivik has again agreed to be interviewed by a foreign journalist, reports NRK. This time Ila Prison has sent a request to police in the home country of the journalist to conduct a background check of the journalist in question. When Breivik accepted to be interviewd by the BBC, the Justice Department blocked the interview by not granting the journalist access to the prison.

The identity of the journalist who is awaiting approval has not been made public.

Google translation:

Checking foreign journalist for Breivik interview
03.20.2012

Anders Breivik Behring has again agreed to be interviewed by a foreign journalist. Ila Prison is now in the process of a background check of the relevant journalist.

Terrorist Anders Behring Breivik (33) has previously stated that he wants to give an exclusive interview to a foreign media before the court case starts on 16 April.

Several media players have taken an interest, after the BBC recently pulled its request. Now Breivik has picked out one of the applicants that he is willing to talk to within the walls of Ila prison and detention institution.

“We have built an application for approval. After that, I know there is talk of a foreign person who wants to enter to interview Breivik,” says prison director Knut Bjarkeid to NRK.

The prison has now requested foreign police to conduct a background check on that particular journalist….

Original article: Sjekkar utanlandsk journalist for Breivik-intervju
____

Related post: Norwegian Justice Department blocks Breivik interview with BBC

Court decision to deny public broadcast of Breivik’s testimony appealed

The Norwegian Editors Association and the Norwegian Press Association have appealed the decision by the Oslo District Court (Tingrett) to deny permission for the public broadcast of Anders Behrik Beivik’s testimony, Dagens Næringsliv reports. “The degree of public interest is without comparison in recent Norwegian court history,” the associations write in the appeal.

Breivik’s lawyer, Geir Lippestad, has also appealed the decision according to Rogalands Blad. “The accused believes that his views and explanations at times are taken completely out of context and are used to assign him attitudes and opinions he does not have. Only by the court permitting the broadcast of the accused’s testimony can he get an opportunity to give a conherent explanation of his actions and the background for these,” Lippestad writes in the appeal.

“A broadcast testimony will also give people a possibility to get a more nuanced view on Breivik’s accountability,” Lippestad writes.

Due to the decision by the court to reserve almost all seats in the courtroom for the press and victims and their relatives, the Oslo District Court has broken with the tradition common in democracies in which regular citizens have the right to follow court cases in person in their entirety in order to ensure that judges follow the law and that trials are fair.

Google translation:

The press want to film Breivik explanation
03/15/2012

Press Association and Editors Association has appealed that Behring Anders Breivik’s testimony should not be filmed at the trial. They point out that the case is extraordinary.

“The degree of public interest is unprecedented in recent Norwegian legal history,” said the appeal, which is passed on Court of Appeal.

Oslo District Court ruled last week that it would be a severely limited access to the broadcast of the case. Among other things, decided that it should not be allowed to broadcast the defendant’s explanation.

Norwegian Press Association and the Association of Norwegian Editors believes the court has made a number of miscalculations. They believe the decision is based on an incorrect legal interpretation and application of law, errors of fact and that it constitutes a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression.

Press Association and Editors Association appeals the decision that the press can not shoot Behring Anders Breivik’s testimony during his trial. They point out that the case is extraordinary….

Original article: Pressen vil filme Breiviks forklaring
_____

Google translation:

Want TV coverage
3/20/2012

Anders Breivik Behring believes the trial against him is unbalanced if he can not explain himself in open cameras and anchor refusal by Oslo City Court.

Monday sent a lawyer Geir Lippestad appeal against the refusal of direct transfer of Breivik’s statement to the Court of Appeal. Lippestad refers to the application from the Norwegian Press Association and the Association of Norwegian Editors who also has appealed the decision that the expected five-day explanation from Breivik not be broadcast.

Lippestad mentions that the decision to deny the transfer based on incorrect interpretation of the law, improper application of law and errors of fact and that it will lead to an oversimplified public reproduction of the contents in the main proceedings.

“The decision not to allow the broadcast of the defendant appealed to this explanation of the accused’s request,” says the appeal paper.

He writes that a direct transfer from the court will ensure Breivik a possibility that the public can access the explanation, “as it actually performed….”

Original article: Vil ha TV-dekning
_____

Related post: Oslo District Court denies broadcast of Breivik’s testimony to the public

Infiltration of the Norwegian Defence League

(For a timeline of the events reported in this post, see bottom of post.)

On Sunday, the Norwegian newspaper, Dagbladet, reported claims that the Norwegian Defence League (NDL) was infiltrated for an extended period of time by members of the leftist organization, SOS Racism (SOS Rasisme).

The NDL became widely known to the Norwegian public after Janne Kristiansen, former head of the Police Security Service (PST), warned about the establishment of the group at the annual PST press conference on February 28, 2011. The day before the press conference, police sources had told VG that operative units of the police had, for a couple of weeks, been focusing on a new threat, and that it could be just a matter of time before the situation exploded.

The current leader of the NDL, Ronny Alte, has told Nettavisen that Breivik had some online contact with the NDL in February 2011, before the PST press conference, using the moniker “Sigurd Jorsalfar,” the name of the twelfth-century crusader, King Sigurd I of Norway. The left-wing magazine, Searchlight, has reported that around the same time Breivik also posted on a forum operated by the English Defence League (EDL) using the same moniker. According to Searchlight, on March 9, 2011, Breivik wrote the following:

“Do some of you know the truth about what happened to the ndl [Norwegian Defence League], there was some claims that neo-nazis had hijacked the organisation, but on the ndl site i cant really say i noticed anything like that. So my guess is that there were some kind of police pressure to stop the movement. Anyone here heard anything?”

A new version of NDL

On February 26, 2011, two days before the abovementioned PST press conference, a new NDL website was set up and the organization changed name to the Norwegian Defence Alliance (Norsk Forsvars Allianse). The Norwegian Defence League had announced plans for a demonstration in front of the Oslo Cathedral (Domkirke) on February 26, 2011, but these plans appear to have been interrupted and the demonstration never took place. Klassekampen reported on February 19, 2011, that the leftist Anti-Racist Center (Antirasistisk Senter) and several other organizations had planned a counter demonstration. In the same Klassekampen article, Remi Huseby, the then leader of the NDL, stated that after being interviewed by the Norwegian press for the first time (TV2 filming in Luton, published February 5, 2011), he had received several death threats and had, therefore, purchased a bulletproof vest.

On March 1, 2011, the day after the PST press conference, Remi Huseby announced his withdrawal as leader of the NDL. Håvar Krane took over the leadership. On March 13, 2011, VG wrote that the original (WordPress) website of the NDL was closed down after the PST press conference on February 28th, however the first post on the new (Blogspot) website is cleary dated February 26th.

The EDL appears to have accepted Håvar Krane as an interim leader:

“For the time being and up untill the planned election of new leadership on the 9th of April, Haavar Krane will function as the officially recognised spokesman and leader of the Norwegian Defence League endorsed by the EDL.

We wish Haavar Krane all the best in the work ahead, in building up a genuine Nowegian Defence League.

The following has been agreed with Haavar

1) He will do this until a new leader is elected.
2) That NDL get approval from EDL to continue on this, EDL has now approved this
3) He chooses for the time being his/NDLs own security and liason division
4) When all the new leaders are elected he is out and into the background…”

Three weeks later on March 19, 2011, Lena Andreassen replaced him as leader of NDL.

On April 9, 2011, one month after the February 28th PST press conference, and while reportedly heavily infiltrated by members of SOS Racism, the new version of the Norwegian Defence League held a demonstration in Oslo that was a complete failure. According to the recent Dagbladet article, infiltrators from SOS Racism were directly involved with the planning of this unsuccesssful (NDL) demonstration to which only a handful of NDL supporters turned up.

The Norwegian press has a strong left-wing bias and so does not typically give much press coverage to right-wing organizations and events. For example, not a single Norwegian newspaper has written about the upcoming gathering of European Defence Leagues in Aarhus, Denmark, on March 31, 2012. The staged NDL demonstration on April 9th, however, received massive coverage by all Norwegian television stations and newspapers. It is possible that some in the media may have known beforehand that the demonstration was going to be a failure, and may have been collaborating with those working to sabotage the NDL.

The entire press also gave extensive coverage to the large counter demonstration attended by various leftist groups including the Anti-Racist Center, the Oslo Labor Youth Organization (AUF), Blitz, Oslo Socialist Youth (Oslo SU), The Red Pary (Rødt), Red Youth (Rød ungdom), UFFA (anarchist group), Motmakt (anti-capitalistic organization), Young Communists (UngKom) and SOS Racism. It is unclear who orchestrated the counter demonstration, but a Facebook group and blog appear to have been created for the purpose.

On April 9th, Dagbladet wrote that Lena Andreassen attended the demonstraton virtually alone and said: “Darn, there are more journalists here than us.” Dagbladet estimated that between 700 and 1000 people attended the counter demonstration, and printed a photo showing a large crowd of leftists. In this week’s article however, Dagbladet only mentions that 30 SOS Racism members held a counter demonstration against the NDL, painting a very different picture of what happened that day.

After the failed demonstration on April 9th, the English Defence League withdrew support from the NDL, and the leaders of the organization, including Lena Andreassen and Håvar Krane, had to quit.

Darren Lee from the EDL had come to Oslo to see what was going on and had a meeting with several Norwegians after the demonstration. “We were informed that a change of leadership was desired and our leader said that we will support them [the new leadership] with everything necessary going foreward,” Lee told Dagbladet. “We seem to have supported the wrong leadership previously,” Lee also said to the newspaper.

In a message on Facebook, Tommy Robinson, head of the English Defence League, wrote the following:

“This is a message from Tommy Robinson of the English Defence League. After careful consideration and a lengthy investigation by our support group we have decided that we have no alternative but to declare a show of no-confidence in the current leadership and administration of the Norwegian Defence League.

We will no longer affiliate with, or support this version of the NDL….”

Left-wing and possible police infiltration

In this week’s article, Dagbladet, relying only on anonymous sources, claims that members of SOS Racism had infiltrated the Norwegian Defence League and secured leadership positions in the organization. The newspaper does not discuss whether these people acted as informants for the PST.

According to Dagbladet, the infiltrators used false identities and profiles on social media to get into leadership circles of the small organization. “It is tough for the psyche to work like this. One is sitting up to the neck in racism and sewer. I have really developed sympathy for police staff who work over time to reveal for example child porn,” one of the anonymous sources who followed the work being done to steer the NDL said to Dagbladet. A former board member of the NDL to which Dagbladet has spoken said that SOS Racism infiltrators made up the majority of NDL leadership at the time of the failed April 9th demonstration.

Remi Huseby, the first leader of the NDL inteviewed by the Norwegian press, is from a small coastal city called Haugesund. Haugesund is where SOS Racism has its main office and the PST also has an office in the city. In the first ever news coverage of the NDL which was published by TV2 on February 5, 2011, three weeks before the PST press conference, TV2 reporters travelled to Luton in England to film Norwegian NDL members partaking in an English Defence League demonstration. According to TV2, several other Norwegians that had planned to travel to Luton for the event cancelled their plans.

Håvar Krane, who became leader of the NDL shortly after the February 28th PST press conference, is known to have made provocative statements a week earlier, at the meeting of another right-wing organisation, SIAN (Stopp Islamisering Av Norge – Stop the Islamization of Norway), on February 21, 2011. In a voice recording published by TV2, Krane can be heard saying that he would have liked to shoot one of the members of the government in the back of the head with a Glock pistol, and he presents a scenario for attacking the Labor coalition government: “I envision the Chistmas party of the government, perfect moment to block all exits with Molotov cocktails, except the door I shall enter.”

According to this week’s article in Dagbladet, Lena Andreassen, who began “weeding out” unwanted persons from the NDL after the PST press conference, and who took over as leader after Krane, had no idea about the infiltration of the NDL by SOS Racism members. However, on March 13, 2011, two weeks after the PST press conference, Lena Andreassen told VG that, for several weeks, she had worked around the clock to get rid of undesirable people from the NDL. Andreassen also said that she had collaborated with the Oslo Police about this and that she had close contact with the PST. In the interview, she also explained that she had previously had a partner who was helped by the PST to get out of a right-wing group called Boot Boys.

After the 7/22 attacks, in the end of September 2011, Lena Andreassen was reportedly kidnapped for a month by former members of the English Defence League (EDL). She has said that she is afraid of what will happen if what she has told the police becomes publically known. The Norwegian press reportedly has copies of her statements to the police, but this information has not been published.

AUF fraud scheme and Serve the People (Tjen Folket)

In 2011, leaders of SOS Racism were found guilty of massive fraud and the organization had most of its funds confiscated. It has been revealed that, throughout the last decade, the organization had been using the identical fraud scheme that was utilized by the Oslo branch of the Labor Youth Organisation (AUF) during the 1990s to steal taxpayers’ money. In both cases, false memberships were created and paid for in order to increase subsidies. The national leader of the AUF at the time was Trond Giske (Labor), now Minister of Business.

It has also been revealed that SOS Racism, during the period in which the fraud took place, was steered by a shadow leadership group from a secretive communist organization called Serve the People (Tjen Folket) that had infiltrated and hijacked the anti-racist organization. According to the National Register of Legal Entities (Enhetsregisteret), Serve the People was established on May 1, 1998, a few days after Oslo AUF leaders were found guilty by the Oslo District Court (Tingrett) of serious fraud on April 21, 1998.

The SOS fraud resulted in official membership numbers skyrocketing from around 5000 in 1999 to more than 40,000 in 2006, releasing millions of Norwegian crowns (kroner) in subsidies for anti-racism and pro-immigration activism which would have provided support for the immigration policies of the Labor Party.

It is possible that the infiltrators of NDL, in addition to being members of SOS Racism, were members of Serve the People (Tjen Folket). Some individuals facing prosecution and prison sentences for their involvement in the SOS fraud case may have been motivated to work as police informants.

Breivik kept a low profile

The PST developed a sudden interest in the NDL in February 2011. It appears that the first version of the Norwegian Defence League (NDL) was closed down a few days before the February 28th PST press conference and, if what Dagbladet writes this week is correct, was replaced by one led by left-wing infiltrators positive to the immigration policies of the Labor Party.

In Europe, state infiltration of right-wing organizations is not uncommon. Der Spiegel has reported that in Germany, the domestic intelligence agency (Office for the Protection of the Constitution) has more than 130 informants inside the far-right National Democratic Party (NPD), many in leadership positions.

The PST may have had credible intelligence information that made it an urgent matter to infiltrate the political right in Norway in the spring of 2011. Statements by police sources to VG on February 27, 2011, indicate this could have been the case. It is conceivable that what led to the sudden concern was the reported phone threat to the Justice Department, and that this call took place in January or February and not in March as has been supposed.

If the Norwegian Defence League was created by or hijacked by the political left, it would seem that this either happened in collaboration with the Police Security Service (PST) or, alternatively, was outside the control of the PST and, therefore, might have interfered with police investigations.

Perhaps the NDL was initially established as a police effort to infiltrate Norwegian EDL sympathisers, but that the PST lost control over the situation when someone else, maybe politicians or journalists, not fully realizing the seriousness of the operation, got word about it and thought the situation provided a good opportunity for staging a media campaign against people opposing the Labor Party’s immigration policies.

As mentioned above, the Norwegian press has a strong left-wing bias and more than 70% of journalists vote for either the Labor Party or the Socialist Left Party. The chief editor of the once conservative newspaper, Aftenposten, Hilde Haugsgjerd, was once the leader of the Red Electoral Alliance, a far-left political party promoting revolutionary ideas and Marxism. It is, therefore, quite conceivable that some in the Norwegian media may have been involved in some sort of political propaganda campaign intended to delegitimize right-wingers.

The fact that the leader of the PST at the time, Janne Kristiansen, was hand-picked for the job by a Labor Party minister, and her appointment was widely regarded as political, could lead one to speculate as to whether the Labor Party was the architect behind the the fake version of NDL and the accompanying massive media coverage. Currently, however, there is no evidence to support such speculation.

During police questioning, Breivik has explained that if he had been a member of the Norwegian Defence League, the PST would have detected him before he could carry out the attacks. In the compendium that he published, 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, Breivik discussed the importance of keeping a low profile to avoid being “flagged” by the secret police.

PST evaluation report

In a detailed evaluation report published on Friday, the PST concludes that it was not possible for the police to detect Breivik:

“Based on what we have seen through the evaluation work, Anders Behring Breivik’s activities on the internet appear in such a way that it does not stand out in relation to the activities of other participants on these pages. There is a large number of participants that voice more provoking or more extreme viewpoints than what Breivik did. This evaluation is supported by those statements that have been referred to from different research environments about this. In addition, Anders Behring Breivik had in the planning phase been thoroughly very security conscious and been careful not to write anything that would attract negative attention….”

Presenting the report at a press conference, Roger Berg, interim head of PST, said that Breivik had planned the attacks for years and been utmost security conscious. “If the PST should have detected Breivik and thereby have prevented the terror operation, we would have needed a specific tip. We did not get that…”, Berg said according to VG.

Berg also said that the 7/22 attacks require the PST to think anew, but that the PST does not believe increased surveillance is the way to go forward, stressing instead the importance of society as a whole in preventing escalation of violence.

The PST’s views are good news for Norway and civil liberties. While it is important to prevent violence, in a free democratic society citizens must have the right to be active in politics without state interference.

_____

Timeline of events – Spring 2011

Feb 05 – NDL leader Remi Huseby interviewed by TV2 in Luton at EDL demonstration
Feb 19 – Klassekampen reports about planned NDL demonstration and counter-demonstration
Feb 21 – Håvar Krane makes provocative statements at SIAN meeting
Feb 26 – Cancelled NDL demonstration in front of Oslo Cathedral
Feb 26 – New NDL website established, NDL renamed “Norsk Forsvars Allianse”
Feb 27 – Police sources tell VG that the police are concerned about a new threat
Feb 28 – PST annual press conference – focus on NDL

Mar 01 – Remi Huseby steps down as leader of NDL
Mar 01 – Håvar Krane becomes interim leader of NDL
Mar 09 – Breivik asks on EDL forum if anybody knows if the police were trying to stop the NDL movement
Mar 13 – Lena Andreassen tells VG that she collaborates with Oslo Police and has close contact with PST
Mar 19 – Lena Andreassen becomes new NDL leader

Apr 09 – Failed NDL demonstration at Akershus Fortress, large counter-demonstration
Apr 13 – EDL withdraws support from NDL
Apr 13 – Lena Andreassen, Håvar Krane and other leaders leave NDL

Jul 22 – Anders Behring Breivik carries out attacks

Sep 29 – Lena Andreassen kidnapped for a month by former EDL members

_____

Google translation [edited for clarity]:

“Anti-rasists in right-wing organization”
03/11/12

“Several people with ties to SOS Racism built up the right-wing Norwegian Defence League, says former board member….

Last 9 April, on the anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of Norway, demonstrated the Islam hostile and extreme-right group, Norwegian Defence league (NDL), against the “Islamic occupation” in Oslo. NDL had then about a thousand people with strong anti-Islamic attitudes and a number of well-known right-wingers as members.

Activists from the violent and extremist sister organization, the English Defence League (EDL) in the UK, to Norway to participate.

Led by anti-racists

Dagbladet can now reveal that the demonstration was organized by several anti-racists. According to several independent sources, the NDL’s management as well as other positions in the organization was infiltrated by people with close ties to SOS Racism.

“When we decided to organize the demonstration, had people who worked with SOS Racism a clear majority in the management of the NDL,” says a former member of the NDL-management to Dagbladet.

The person says that he worked to infiltrate the leadership of NDL for several years under a false name. In practice, built and operated the NDL, as they reported to SOS Racism, according to several sources.

“SOS Racism had full control of the NDL. In 2010 and until the Spring of 2011 we were working in collaboration with SOS Racism, a clear majority of the board and management of the NDL,” said the person.

In the interests of the involved persons’ safety, Dagbladet chose not to disclose their names.

Confirmed

The information confirmed by several independent sources, including people who followed the cooperation within the SOS Racism.

“It included the SOS Racism which suggested that the NDL’s demonstration of April 9th would be at Kontraskjæret at Akershus Fortress. There it was easy to make a counter-demonstrations against them.”

Only a handful of NDL sympathizers showed up. The demonstration was branded as a failure and management of the organization were replaced.

SOS Racism fielded several dozen counter-demonstrators and received much attention.

Several of those present knew of efforts to control the NDL by infiltrators, according to the Dagbladet know. Dagbladet has asked SOS Racism for an opinion on this matter. The organization confirmed that they read Dagbladet’s request, but gave no answer.

A key representative of SOS Racism, who has been pointed out by several sources as a director of NDL in 2010 and 2011, denied knowledge of the infiltration.

“What you ask about has no basis in reality,” he answers questions from Dagbladet.

False identities

Infiltrators used the fake profiles and identities on websites to get into the NDL-management. How wondered the initiators of the NDL to give them key positions, according to sources. NDL-management often met through video conferencing on the Internet, but rarely face to face.

“It’s tough for the psyche to work like that. Sitting up to their necks in racism and sewers. I’ve really got sympathy for police officers working over time to reveal, for example, child pornography,” says a source who followed the work to manage the NDL closely.

NDLs leader at this time was Lena Andreassen. She must have been unaware that she was surrounded by infiltrators. Andreassen do not want to comment on the matter.

“Would have enemy”

During the period when the NDL should have had a board majority consisting of anti-racists, the group went from being an unknown Facebook group to become nationally known.

The then leader PST Janne Kristiansen NDL mentioned as a possible threat, at a press conference in February 2011. Both PST and Oslo Police have spent considerable resources on the NDL.

“SOS Racism would have an enemy and an adversary in the debate on immigration,” says a source involved in the work.

New management

Today, the NDL under new management.

“We have become aware that last year was more infiltrators in the NDL,” said spokesman Ron Alte to Dagbladet….

Original article: “Antirasister bygde høyreekstrem organisasjon”
_____

Related article: - Bare et spørsmål om tid før det eksploderer (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/terrorisme/artikkel.php?artid=10030043)

Related article: Breivik was a member of the Norwegian Defense Alliance [Norwegian Defence League] (Breivik var medlem i Norsk forsvarsallianse)

Related article: Anders Behring Breivik was in contact with the EDL

Related article: Mayoral candidate in secret recordings: Would executing government minister (Ordførerkandidat i hemmelig lydopptak: Ville henrette regjeringsmedlem)

Related Wikipedia article: SOS Racism (SOS Rasisme)

Related Wikipedia article: AUF fraud case (AUF-saken)

Related Wikipedia article: Serve the People [Norwegian political group] (Tjen folket [norsk politisk gruppe])

Related: Information from the National Register of Legal Entities for Serve the People (Tjen folket) (Nøkkelopplysninger fra Enhetsregisteret)

Related article: She will fight extreme Muslims (Hun vil bekjempe ekstrem-muslimer)

Related article: “Darn, it’s more journalists here than us” (“Søren, det er jo flere pressefolk her enn oss”

Related article: Anti-Islamic groups across Europe to attend far-Right rally

Related article: German Intelligence Has 130 Informants in Extremist Party

Related article: English anti-Islamists break with Norwegian sister organization (Engelske antiislamister bryter med norsk søsterorganisasjon

Related article: NDL leadership thrown out after fiasco demonstration (NDL-ledelsen kastet etter fiasko-demonstrasjonen

Related article: Norwegian Remi in England on anti-muslim demonstration (Norske Remi i England på anti-muslimsk markering

Related article: Fear of new racist murder (Frykter nytt rasistdrap)

Related article: NDL leadership dumped for failure demo (NDL-ledelsen kastet etter fiasko-demonstrasjonen)

Related article: PST Evaluation Report

Related article: PST: – Could not have detected Breivik (PST: – Kunne ikke fanget opp Breivik)

Related website: English Defence League

Related website: Norwegian Defence League

Oslo District Court denies broadcast of Breivik’s testimony to the public

The Oslo District Court (Tingrett) announced on Friday that the press should not be allowed to film Anders Behring Breivik’s testimony in court, reports Aftenposten.

Aftenposten writes that the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) will record the entire trial and broadcast it live from the Oslo District Court to several regional district courts. The court, however, has decided that only the opening and closing remarks of the prosecutors and defence lawyers, as well as the reading of the verdict by the judge, shall be broadcast to the general public.

Verdens Gang (VG) writes that the Oslo District Court has postponed making a decision on whether testimonies of expert witnesses or police investigators should be allowed to be broadcast to the public.

“A testimony in front of open camera could contribute to shift focus from the actions he is accused of towards his ideological and political message,” Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen wrote in the decision, reports NRK. The statement is surprising as citizens have the right to defend themselves in court against charges brought against them by the state by explaining the reasons for their actions.

Breivik has previously told the court that he is a cell commander of an organization called the Knights Templar, and that he represents the Norwegian resistance movement. In police questioning, Breivik has explained that he belives the attacks were gruesome but necessary, and that the widespread censorship in Norwegian society of ideas critical of multiculturalism makes armed struggle necessary.

Leader of the Norwegian Editors Association (Norsk Redaktørforening), Nils Øy, said in an interview with Agderposten that the court announces its own failure when it uses as its main argument that it does not wish Breivik to have an opportunity to speak about his ideology. It is the task of the judges to make sure that Breivik stays on topic in court, and to interrupt him if he attempts anything else, Øy explained to the newspaper. “Here we stand ahead of the trial of the possibly worst crimnal act in historic times in Norway,” he says.

In their application for broadcasting from the trial, the Norwegian Editors Association and the Norwegian Press Association emphasized that the broadcasting of the court would provide an important opportunity for the public to check the conduct of the court. However, as the recent publication of the indictment and reporting from the last court proceeding show, the Norwegian press frequently censors or omits factual details. Despite a large number of journalists being present at the February court hearing, only two publications appear to have published the brief statement Breivik made in its entirety. Because of incidences such as these, many informed readers in Norway have a deep distrust of the media, and are not confident that media reporting from the trial will be accurate. It is against this background that the importance placed by the Norwegian Editors Association and the Norwegian Press Association on a live broadcast must be understood. A live broadcast would help reduce speculation by the general public as to whether the trial was fair.

Usually regular citizens have the opportunity to attend trials so that they can see for themselves whether the judge follows the law. Apparently, however, this will not be the case in the trial against Breivik. A large number of seats in the courtroom have been reserved for news organisations, whose lack of thoroughness in reporting is ironically reflected by the fact that the list of news organizations that have requested accreditation has not been published anywhere else than on this blog. In addition, the Oslo District Court has announced that it will give preferential treatment to victims of the attacks and their relatives when deciding who shall be given access to the limited number of seats available to the public in the court room. According to newspaper reports, it seems that, in reality, this policy will make it impossible for members of the general public to follow the trial.

Thus it appears that the court places little emphasis on the importance of maintaining the tradition common in democracies in which regular citizens can follow trials in order to control whether the judges in question follow the law, and to check if the press accurately reports what is being said during the trial.

Breivik’s appearance in court is expected to be important for the court in deciding whether Breivik is legally accountable or not. Denying the broadcast of Breivik’s testimony will, therefore, make it very difficult for the general public to evalute whether the judgement of the court in this matter seemed reasonable, and to what extent the Oslo District Court had upheld justice in this case.

The decision to allow the broadcast of several participants in a trial, but not the person accused, also indicates that the court is not concerned about being perceived as partial. This is noteworthy, as both the Justice Department and Supreme Court were victims of the bomb attack in Oslo, and Breivik has stated in court that he does not recognize the Oslo District Court as legitimate because he believes the court receives its authority from the Labor Party.

Google translation:

The press cannot film Behring Breivik explanation
09.mar.2012

But the press will film portions of the trial, including the reading of the indictment.

The Oslo District Court said in a statement Friday afternoon.

The court on application from the Association of Norwegian Editors and the Norwegian Press Association issued the press permission to broadcast the opening of main proceedings in which the indictment read out, and introductions from the prosecutor and defense counsel in the case.

In addition, the press allowed to film during the closing procedures in the July 22-trial.

Under the procedures summarizes the prosecutor and defense counsel that has emerged during the presentation of evidence and draw conclusions about guilt, questions about mental incapacity and a penalty. Also verdict will be open for filming.

The media will not broadcast the parts of the trial in which Behring Anders Breivik explains itself. The same applies when the victim from Utøya and government quarter explanatory.

This is in line with what the practice has been in previous trials….

Original article: Pressen får ikke filme Behring Breiviks forklaring
_____

Google translation:

Breivik’s explanation could not be filmed
09/03/12

Oslo City Court does not allow media to film Behring Anders Breivik’s testimony in the trial against him starting in April.

The district court decided on Friday the scope of what can be transferred directly from the terror case. Permission is granted to the opening of the trial and the parties’ opening speeches broadcast. Also the final procedures will be transferred.

Neither Breivik’s own testimony or the victim’s testimony, however, can be transferred directly. When the Oslo District Court has received evidence of the prosecution task, it will be decided whether the explanation from the professionals, like police investigators, or others may be transferred….

Original article: Breiviks forklaring kan ikke filmes
_____

Google translation:

Cannot film Breivik in court
03/09/12

The court feared in part that openly would affect Breivik to talk more about politics than about the acts he has committed….

Because of very great public interest, has a total Norwegian press corps asked Oslo District Court if you send the greater part of the July 22 trial, than is normal in major criminal cases.

Also defending Geir Lippestad have requested the most transparency on behalf of his client.

The terrorist suspect 33-year-old has even asked for minimal restrictions on filming during the trial because he wants to reach out to as many people as possible.

In her statement writes Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen, among other things:

“The court believes there is a real danger that the defendant’s testimony would be affected if the broadcast, directly or edited broadcasts. One explanation for the open camera will be able to contribute to turning the focus away from the actions he is accused of, and against his ideological and political message….”

General secretary, Nils E. Øy, in the Norwegian Editors’ Association is disappointed with the decision of the court, and alerts rematch. Friday it was investigated whether the decision from the Oslo District Court could be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

It was unclear whether there was such a possibility, but likely to appeal court to make a decision on this issue within a few days, said.

Original article: Får ikke filme Breivik i retten
_____

Google translation:

Rematch on televised Breivik
09/03/2012

The judges in the case of terrorism fears that Anders Breivik Behring will testify differently in court if what he says will be broadcast in the media….

Chairman Nils Øy in the Norwegian Editors’ Association is disappointed with the decision of the court. The main argument of the judges for denying the transfer is that they will not give Breivik a soapbox for his ideology, experience Øy as an admission of failure from the judges. He says it is their job to keep Breivik to issue and cancel his explanation if he tries to talk about something else.

“Here we are facing the trials for perhaps the worst crime in historical time in Norway, said Øy to emphasize the importance of the case….”

Original article: Omkamp om TV-overført Breivik
_____

Related article: Breivik demands to be tried by military court (Breivik krever å bli stilt for militærdomstol)

Related post: AUF and prosecutors do not wish broadcast of Breivik’s testimony

Incomplete Breivik indictment presented to the public

State’s Attorneys, Inga Bejer Engh and Svein Holden, presented the indictment of Anders Behring Breivik at a press conference in Oslo on Wednesday. Initially, the State’s Attorneys had decided to censor the document, a very unusual decision. They said they wished to keep confidential the names of the victims and details about what happened on Utøya. According to Aftenposten, after the newspaper wrote about it, the State’s Attorneys changed their view.

The Norwegian press, however, have apparently decided to censor the indictment themselves.

According to Norwegian law, prosecutors can withold indictments from the press or prohibit some of their contents from being published if the contents would pose a threat to national security, but this does not appear to be the case in this instance. According to AttackOnTheLaborParty’s sources, Norwegian journalists have been given complete copies of the indictment.

It appears that all Norwegian newspapers have removed detailed descriptions of injuries and the causes of death for those listed as killed in the indictment, and have censored the names of those individuals who were injured by the explosion or the shooting at Utøya. The degree of censoring is not uniform and it is possible to parse information from several news sources. However, since none of the newspapers have published the indictment in its entirety, some uncertainty remains as to what the original eighteen page indictment looks like.

From what has been reported by the Norwegian media, the following can be established: Breivik is charged with having comitted an act of terrorism and premeditated murder, with the intent of causing serious disruption to the functioning of the executive branch of the government. The prosecutors request that Breivik be sentenced to psychiatric care but they do say, however, that if evidence is brought forward during the trial which suggests that he is legally accountable for his actions, they may request a prison sentence.

The indictment is reportedly divided in two sections: one related to the bombing outside the Prime Minister’s office, and one for the attack on Utøya. On Utøya, all but two of the victims, who died from drowning or falling, died from being shot. The majority of the victims were shot in the head, and it appears that most victims were shot more than once.

Some individuals were shot very many times, but because of the withholding of information, the indentities of these victims remain uncertain. The Norwegian media has previously reported that several participants at the Utøya summer camp were relatives of well known Labor politicians.

Over 200 individuals who received smaller injuries from the explosion in front of the Prime Minister’s office and several governmental departments, including the Department of Justice, have been omitted from the indictment. Also, people who were directly shot at by Breivik on Utøya, but not hit, have been left out of the indictment.

It is unusual for the State’s Attorneys not to prosecute for all crimes committed when evidence is readily available, and the judgement of the State’s Attorneys in this matter has been criticized. Some victims from Utøya have stated that they feel overlooked by the court system. The State’s Attorneys have justified their decision by saying that prosecuting in a regular fashion would have required a very thorough court case in which evidence had to be presented as to whether Breivik intended to harm each person in question.

A more thorough court case could possibly have revealed more information about which governmental departments suffered the most staff injuries, and whether any politicians were injured in the Oslo explosion. Similarly, it could have made the full course of events at Utøya better known.

Google translation:

Attorney censor names and details of the terror charges
01.mar.2012

The district attorney has decided to scramble all the names of those killed and those who were tried were killed, both in its ministries and Utøya in the indictment against Anders Behring Breivik….

Original article: Statsadvokaten sladder navn og detaljer i terrortiltalen
_____

Google translation:

Turns – disclose all charges
02.mar.2012

Yesterday, prosecutors decided that the names and details of the terror charges against Anders Behring Breivik would censor. Today they turned completely….

Original article: Snur – offentliggjør hele tiltalen
_____

Google translation:

Here is the indictment against Anders Breivik Behring
07/03/12

VG publish here all the indictment against Anders Breivik Behring. We have omitted the names of the injured from the ministries and Utøya, and also excluded damage to the descriptions in the indictment:

Hereby sets Anders Breivik Behring, b 2/13/1979 currently in custody pursuant to Penal Code § 39 indicted by the Oslo District Court for the acquisition of a judgment on the transfer to compulsory mental health care, see Mental Health Act, Chapter 5, in a psychotic state to have made an otherwise criminal act, namely the violation of:

I
In Penal Code § 147a, first paragraph, a and b, see § § 148 first paragraph, first sentence option and 233 subsections of having committed a terrorist act, by violating Penal Code § 148 first paragraph, first sentence alternative (to cause cracking whereby loss of life or widespread destruction of foreign property can be easily caused) and Penal Code § 233 subsections (premeditated murder and there are particularly aggravating circumstances), with the intent to interfere seriously a function of fundamental importance in society, as the executive authority, or cause serious fear in a population.

Basis:
Friday 22 July 2011 approx. at. 15.17 Grubbegaten in Oslo, after prior consideration and planning, he parked a VW Crafter van with registration number 99834 BR outside the entrance to the high-rise ministries, the offices including the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice.

Together, stayed there at least 250 people in high-rise building and the surrounding ministerial offices, and approx. 75 people in the streets in the immediate vicinity. In the car he had placed a bomb made of approx. 950 kg, consisting among others of fertilizer, diesel and aluminum.

He ignited a fuse with approx. seven minutes burn time, and then left the site on foot and on a previously deployed getaway car, a Fiat Duplo with registration VH 24605.

The bomb exploded at. 15.25.22 with tremendous firepower and shock wave in line with his intentions, and brought a large number of people who lived in the buildings of the Government buildings or on street level, in immediate danger, and caused massive property damage of the same buildings and surrounding buildings.

The explosion killed him following eight persons, all of which were caused extensive blast damage, thus:

The explosion killed him following eight persons, all of which were caused extensive blast damage, thus:

1. Jon Vegard Lervåg (32)
He found himself at the entrance to the high-rise.

2. Ida Marie Hill (34)
She was located at the entrance to the high-rise building and near the van.

3. Hanne Ekroll Løvlie (30)
She was off the entrance to the high-rise.

4. Annelise Holter (51)
She was in the reception area on the first floor of the high-rise.

5. Hanne Marie Orvik Endresen (61)
She was in the lobby on the first floor of the high-rise.

6. Kjersti Berg Sand (26)
She was in the reception area on the first floor of the high-rise.

7. Kai Hauge (32)
He was in Grubbegaten high-rise building at the entrance to the main entrance.

8. Tove Knutsen Åshill (56)
She was located near the fountain of Einar Gerhardsen place.

At the explosion, he tried also to kill a large number of people, including the others who were in high-rise building and the street level around it. He failed in his enterprise, but nine people were seriously injured physically, thus:

9. Male (61)
He was near the fountain of Einar Gerhardsen place.

10. Female (47)
She was located near the fountain of Einar Gerhardsen place.

11. Male (25)
He was in Grubbegaten by Einar Gerhardsen place.

12. Male (67)
He was on the fifth floor of the tower block, in an office at Grubbegaten.

13. Female (23)
She was in the lobby on the first floor of the high-rise.

14. Female (61)
She was in the seventh floor of the tower block.

15. Female (50)
She was in the eleventh floor of the high-rise.

16. Male (30)
He was the second floor of R4, in an office at Grubbegaten.

17. Male (55)
He was on Johan Nygaardsvold space between high-rise building and Akersgata.

Furthermore, at least another 200 people injured by the explosion, with varying damage assessment, including lacerations, fractures and hearing loss, a number of which were treated in hospital / emergency room or subjected to other medical treatment.

In addition, many of the above and other injured persons who were near the explosion, as well as survivors / relatives, had psychological after-effects of varying severity caused by what is described above.

Bomb explosion led to a number of government offices, including the Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of Justice and Police, Trade and Industry, Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Health and Care Services, Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Education could not be used, and the ministries were not able to attend and perform its duties as the executive authority until it was gone for some time.

The explosion and its effects also created serious fear in parts of the population.

II
Penal Code § 147a, first paragraph b, see § 233, first and second paragraphs of having committed a terrorist act, by violating Penal Code § 233 subsections (premeditated murder and there are particularly aggravating circumstances), with the intent to cause serious fear in a population.

Basis:
Friday 22 July 2011, after having dealt with as described in item I, he drove the getaway car for Hole municipality, where he knew that the organization Labour Youth (AUF) held its traditional summer camp at Utøya. There, there were 564 people. By pretending to be a police officer and wearing a uniform-like outfit, he was – among other things, brought a semiautomatic rifle, branded Ruger Mini 14 cal. 233 and a semiautomatic pistol branded Glock 9 mm – transported to Utøya on board the ferry M / S Thorbjorn, where he arrived about. at. 17.15.

Until he was arrested the same day approx. at. 18.35, he shot, after prior consideration and planning, with a rifle and / or gun at a number of people who found themselves on the island, in the water or aboard ships, including civilians who came to the rescue, and exposed them for instant death.

There was panic and fear of death in children, adolescents and adults during the shooting, reinforced by the fact that there were limited opportunities to flee or hide. While he was moving around all over the island he shot at people fleeing and / or hiding and / or which he brought out with information that the police had arrived.

He killed 69 people, of which 67 were struck by the fatal shot, fired with the described weapon. Two people died of injuries from falling and / or drowning while trying to get away without being hit by shots. The people were killed, thus:

1. Trond Berntsen (51)
He was the Information House and the pier.

2. Monica Elizabeth Bosei (45)
She was located between the Information House and the pier.

3. Rune Havdal (43)
He found himself between the information the House and Café building.

4. Hanne Anette Fjalestad Balch (43)
She was located outside the main entrance to the café building.

5. Snorre Haller (30)
He found himself outside the main entrance to the café building.

6. Rolf Christopher Johansen Perreau (25)
He found himself outside the main entrance to the café building.

7. Lejla Selaci (17)
She found herself in front of the Café building.

8. Steinar Jessen (16)
He was located near the outdoor stage at the Café building.

9. Birgitte Smetbak (15)
She was on the campsite at the Café building or inside the building.

10. Gunnar LINAK (23)
He was on the campsite southwest of Café building.

11. Margaret Boyum Clubs (16)
She was in the doorway between the hall and Lille Grand Hall of Café building.

12. Silje Merete Fjellbu (17)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.

13. Guro Vartdal Håvoll (18)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.

14. Ronja Sweet Johansen (17)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.

15. Mona Abdinur, (18)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.

16. Sondre Driving (17)
He was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.

17. Bendik Rosnæs Ellingsen (18)
He was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.

18. Eivind Hovden (15)
He was in the Great Hall of Café building.

19. Bergum Lene Maria (19)
She was in the Great Hall of Café building.

20. Elisabeth Trønnes Lie (16)
She was in the Great Hall of Café building.

21. Henrik André Pedersen (27)
He was in the Great Hall of Café building.

22. Ida Beathe Rogne (17)
She was in the Great Hall of Café building.

23. Aleksander Aas Eriksen (16)
He was in the corridor in the Little Hall of the Café building.

24. Eva Kathinka Lütken (17)
She was on the Love Trail.

25. Tore Eikeland (21)
He was on the Love Trail.

26. Tarald Kuven Mjelde (18)
He was on the Love Trail.

27. Norwegian Life and Mary Johannesen (17)
She was on the Love Trail.

28. Monica Iselin Didriksen (18)
She was on the Love Trail.

29. Asta Sofie Dahl Helland (16)
She was on the Love Trail.

30. Anders Kristiansen (18)
He was on the Love Trail.

31. Bano Abobakar Rashid (18)
She was on the Love Trail.

32. Andreas Edvardsen (18)
He was on the Love Trail.

33. Silje Hagen Stamnes (18)
She was on the Love Trail.

34. Sondre Furseth Dale (17)
He was in the water between the slope below the trail and Love Naked ruins.

35. Simon Sæbø (18)
He was in the area at the slope below Kjærlighetsstien.

36. Modupe Ellen Awoyemi (15)
She was in the top of the slope below Kjærlighetsstien.

37. Sharidyn Meegan Ngahiwi Svebakk-Bohn (14)
She was in the area at the slope below Kjærlighetsstien.

38. Marianne Sandvik (16)
She was in the area at the slope below Kjærlighetsstien.

39. Gizem Dogan (17)
She was in the woods east of School House.

40. John MUO (15)
He was in the woods east of School House.

41. Even Flugstad Malmedal (18)
He was in the water at the Proud Mountain.

42. Syvert Knudsen (17)
He found himself at Pride Mountain.

43. Synne Røyneland (18)
She was at the Pride Mountain, probably in the water / water edge.

44. Torjus Jakobsen Blatt Mann (17)
He was the Bolshevik.

45. Ingrid Berg Heggelund (18)
She was located by the Bolshevik.

46. Isabel Victoria Sogn Green (17)
She was located by the Bolshevik.

47. Guys Mustafa Qasim (19)
He was the Bolshevik.

48. Carina Borgund (18)
She was located by the Bolshevik.

49. Tina Sukuvara (18)
She was in the area at the Pump House.

50. Ruth Benedichte Vatndal Nilsen (15)
She was in the area at the Pump House.

51. Henrik Rasmussen (18)
He was in the area at the Pump House.

52. Espen Jørgensen (17)
He was in the area at the Pump House.

53. Porntip Ardam (21)
She was at the Pump House.

54. Thomas Margido Antonsen (16)
He found himself at the Pump House.

55. Ismail Haji Ahmed (19)
He found himself at the Pump House.

56. Fredrik Lund Schjetne (18)
He found himself at the Pump House.

57. Hanne Kristine Fridtun (19)
She was at the Pump House.

58. Emil Okkenhaug (15)
He found himself at the Pump House.

59. Havard-lived house (21)
He found himself at the Pump House.

60. Victoria Stenberg (17)
She was at the Pump House.

61. Sverre Fleet Bjørkavåg (28)
He was in the area at the Pump House.

62. Diderik Aamodt Olsen (19)
He was in the area at the Pump House.

63. Tame Liparteliani (23)
She was located on the waterfront at Sydspissen.

64. Kevin Berland Daae (15)
He was on the water’s edge on Sydspissen.

65. Karin Elena Holst (15)
She was located on the waterfront at Sydspissen.

66. Rafal Mohamad Jamil Jamil (20)
She was located on the waterfront at Sydspissen.

67. Andrine hills Espeland (16)
She was located on the waterfront at Sydspissen.

68. Earl Odegaard (17)
He fled the island by a swim, but died of drowning out Sydspissen.

69. Andrew Dalby Grønnesby (17)
He fled and fell off a cliff at the western tip of the island and into the water.

In addition to the above murder, he tried to kill a lot of people, but without success in his enterprise. During murder trials he shot and injured 33 people, thus:

70. Female (20)
She was on the tent.

71. Male (19)
He was on the tent.

72. Female (19)
She was on the tent.

73. Girl (16)
She was on the tent.

74. Girl (15)
She was on the tent.

75. Girl (16)
She was on the tent.

76. Girl (15)
She was on the tent.

77. Female (21)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.

78. Girl (16)
She was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.

79. Boy (17)
He was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.

80. Male (19)
He was in the Minor Hall of the Café building.

81. Female (21)
She was in the doorway between the hall and the corridor Lille in the Café building.

82. Male (19)
He was first in the Great Hall of Café building.

83. Female (19)
She was in the Great Hall of Café building.

84. Girl (17)
She was on the Love Trail.

85. Girl (17)
She was on a rock ledge on the cliffs below Kjærlighetsstien.

86. Boy (17)
He was in the water below Kjærlighetsstien.

87. Female (19)
She was located between the waterfront and the Love Trail.

88. Boy (17)
He was in the water under the Love Trail.

89. Girl (17)
She was located on the cliffs below Kjærlighetsstien.

90. Girl (14)
She was located on the cliffs below Kjærlighetsstien.

91. Girl (17)
She was on a rock ledge on the cliffs below Kjærlighetsstien.

92. Male (19)
He found himself on a rock ledge on the cliffs below Kjærlighetsstien.

93. Girl (16)
She was at the Pump House.

94. Male (20)
He found himself at the Pump House.

95. Male (20)
He found himself at the Pump House.

96. Boy (16)
He was near the western tip.

97. Boy (15)
He was near the western tip.

98. Male (21)
He was on Sydspissen.

99. Girl (16)
She was on Sydspissen.

100. Girl (17)
She was on Sydspissen.

101. Girl (17)
She was on Sydspissen.

102. Female (18)
She was on Sydspissen.

A number of the other people who stayed on Utøya received physical injuries fractures, cuts, etc.. in their attempts to save himself and others.

In addition, a significant number of people who were on the island, survivors / relatives and people who came to the aid of boats and otherwise, had psychological after-effects of varying severity caused by what is described above.

The actions of Utøya created serious fear in parts of the population.

***

The defendant has committed very serious crimes to an extent not previously experienced in our country in modern times.

In his own view is legitimate actions, and an obvious and apparent danger of a new serious crimes of the same nature is undoubtedly present.

Needs of public protection requires judgment on the transfer to compulsory mental health care, and the terms of Penal Code § 39 paragraph 1 is met.

Penal Code § 49 shall apply on appealing lens mail In Section 9-17 and post II, item 70 to 102

It will be closed claim forfeiture of three weapons (a semi-automatic rifle of the mark Ruger Mini 14 cal. 233, a semi-automatic pistol of the mark Glock 9 mm and a shotgun from Benelli brand) and associated ammunition.

Furthermore, it will be closed claim confiscation of objects used in the manufacture of the bomb as provided under the attractive post’s I, and clothing / equipment, etc.. used in the exercise of those in the mail I and II described actions.

Any claim for compensation / damages from the survivors and the victim will be made by counsel, see Criminal Procedure Law § 428 and § the same law 264 b, second paragraph.

How the case is presented in the indictment date there is no basis for claiming extraordinary punishment, Penal Code § 44 first paragraph.

Prosecutors take an express reservation that it is still at trial can be closed claims imprisonment or custody with the time frame of 21 years, based on the overall presentation of evidence in court, the defendant and the defense must prepare for. In that case, the Penal Code § 62 to apply.

The indictment is taken out after attorney general’s orders.

Oslo District Attorney’s Office, 5 March 2012

Svein Holden – Inga Bejer Engh…

Original article: Her er tiltalebeslutningen mot Anders Behring Breivik
_____

Google translation:

52 of the victims of Utøya died of gunshot to head
07.mar.2012

The deaths of 69 AUF-ers on Utøya in Hole municipality is part two of the comprehensive indictment against Behring Breivik.

For these conditions are Behring Breivik indicted for premeditated murder under particularly aggravating circumstances, with the intent to cause serious fear in a population.

The charges are detailed throughout all the killings that took place on Utøya, and explains the cause of death for the killing. In the indictment it emerges that 56 of the 69 victims were shot in the head, and 52 of these reported gunshot wounds to the head to be the direct cause of death.

67 were killed by the deadly shots, while two people died of injuries from falling and drowning.

564 people were on Utøya that day. He arrived Utøya approx. at 17.15 and had with him a Ruger Mini

14 cal. 233/2 automatic rifle and a Glock 9 mm semiautomatic pistol.

- It has been difficult

Prosecutors Inga duly Engh and Svein Holden thinks they have reached the best solution when it comes to charges against Breivik. See excerpts from the press conference.

“Until he was arrested the same day approx. at. 18.35, he shot, after prior consideration and planning, with a rifle and / or gun at a number of people who found themselves on the island, in the water or aboard ships, including civilians who came to the rescue, and exposed them to the immediate danger. ” , according to the indictment.

Several were killed after Behring Breivik said police had arrived and therefore cover more young people out of the caches.

“There was panic and fear of death in children, adolescents and adults during the shooting, reinforced by the fact that there were limited opportunities to flee or hide. While he was moving around all over the island he shot at people fleeing and / or hiding and / or which he brought out with information that the police had arrived. “

Aftenposten in this context chosen to anonymize the slain police officer except Trond Berntsen and general manager of Utøya, Monica Elizabeth Bosei. The information is based on the charges, and details of work description, injuries and cause of death, we have omitted.

The House Information

The officer Trond Berntsen, born 1960. Were between Information House and the pier when he was shot several times with the gun.

Monica Elizabeth Bosei, born 1966. General manager of Utøya, was located between the Information House and the pier when she was shot several times.

By and at the Café building

Male, born 1967. Was located between the information the House and Café building, was shot five times.

Female, born 1967. Was located outside the main entrance to the café building and was shot three times.

Male, born 1981. Was located outside the main entrance to the café building and was shot three times.

Male, born 1986. Was located outside the main entrance to the café building when he was shot three times.

Girl, born 1994. Found himself in front of the Café building when she was shot twice.

Boy, born 1995. Was located near the outdoor stage at the Café building when he was shot at least twice.

Girl, born 1996. Was on the campsite at the Café building or inside the building when she was shot twice.

Male, born 1988. Was on the campsite southwest of Café building, and was shot twice.

Girl, born 1995. Was in the doorway between Minor Hall and Great Hall of Café building, and was shot three times.

Girl, born 1993. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot six times.

Female, born 1993. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot at least three times.

Girl, born 1994. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot at least three times.

Girl, born 1993. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot three times.

Boy, born 1993. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot five times.

Boy, born 1993. Was in Little Hall building in the Mediterranean, and was shot eight times.

Boy, born 1996. Was in the Great Hall of Café building, and was shot three times.

Female, born 1992. Was in the Great Hall of Café building, and was shot at least three times.

Girl, born 1995. Was in the Great Hall of Café building, and was shot three times.

Male, born 1984. Was in the Great Hall of Café building, and was shot three times.

Girl, born 1993. Was in the Great Hall of Café building, and was shot at least twice.

Boy, born 1994. Were in the corridor within the Little Hall in Café building, and was shot six times.

The Love Trail

Girl, born 1994. Was on Love trail, and was shot twice.

Male, born 1990. Was on Love trail, and was shot once.

Male, born 1993. Was on Love trail, and was shot five times.

Female, born 1994. Was on Love trail, and was shot three times.

Female, born 1993. Was on Love trail, and was shot at least twice.

Female, born 1994. Was on Love trail, and was shot three times.

Male, born 1993. Was on Love trail and was shot twice.

Female, born 1992. Was on Love trail, and was shot twice.

Male, born 1992. Was on Love trail, and was shot three times.

Female, born 1993). Love was on the trail, and was shot twice.

Boy, born 1994. Was in the water between the slope below the trail and Love Naked headland, and was shot four times.

Male, born 1992. Were in the area of the slope below Kjærlighetsstien, and was shot twice.

Girl, born 1995. Was located in the upper slope below Kjærlighetsstien, and was shot four times.

Girl, born 1997. Were in the area of the slope below Kjærlighetsstien, and was shot twice.

Girl, born 1995. Were in the area of the slope below Kjærlighetsstien, and was shot at least once.

By Skolestua

Girl, born 1994. Was in the woods east of School House, and was shot twice.

Boy, born 1995. Was shot three times with the gun.

Proud Mountain

Male, born 1992. Was in the water and was shot once.

Boy, born 1993. Was shot three times.

Female, born 1993. Were probably in the water / water edge, and was shot three times.

Bolshevik

Boy, born 1993. Was shot once with the pistol or rifle.

Female, born 1992. Was shot three times-

Girl, born 1994. Was shot three times.

Male, born 1992. Was shot four times.

Female, born 1993. Was shot three times.

The Pump House

Female, born 1992. Was shot once.

Girl, born 1995. Was shot once with the pistol or rifle.

Male, born 1993. Was shot three times with the gun and / or rifle.

Male, born in 1994. Was shot at least three times with the gun and / or rifle.

Male, born 1990. Was shot three times with the gun and / or rifle.

Boy, born 1995. Shot twice with the gun and / or rifle.

Male, born 1991. Shot once.

Male, born 1992. Shot once.

Female, born 1991. Shot three times with the gun and / or rifle.

Boy, born 1995. Shot three times.

Male, born 1989. Shot four times.

Girl, born 1993. Shot three times with the pistol and rifle.

Male, born 1983. Shot twice.

Male, born 1992. Was in the area at the Pump House, the seashore or in the water. Was shot once with a pistol or rifle.

Sydspissen

Female, born 1988. Was located on the waterfront, and was shot twice with the gun and / or rifle.

Boy, born 1996. Was located on the waterfront. Was shot at least three times with the gun and / or rifle.

Girl, born 1995. Was located on the waterfront, and was shot once.

Girl, born 1991. Was located on the waterfront, and was shot at least once with the pistol or rifle.

Girl, born 1994. Was located on the waterfront, and was shot three times with the gun.

Boy, born 1994. Fled from the island by a swim, but died of drowning.

Western tip of

Boy, born 1994. Fell off a cliff into the water. Died of injuries from falling and / or drowning….

Original article: 52 av ofrene fra Utøya døde av skudd i hodet
_____

Google translation:

Breivik shot 56 of 69 victims in the head
07.mar.2012

Of the 69 who were killed on Utøya 22 July, 56 were shot in the head. The indictment against Anders Behring Breivik describes terror in all its cruelty…

Original article: Breivik skjøt 56 av 69 ofre i hodet
_____

Google translation:

Not mentioned in the indictment: “He tried to kill me”
07/03/12

More AUF higher disappointed by the omission

After swimming for their lives from Anders Behring Breivik’s bullets, it’s hard not to be part of the charges, says Bjorn Ihler (20) in Oslo AUF….

“All involved feel that part of the case, so it is important and appropriate to be part of the indictment. He tried to kill me too,” says Ihler to VG Nett….

A total of 119 persons mentioned by name in the indictment. These are all the 77 who lost their lives, and others who were hit by bullets or shrapnel from the bomb in the government building….

There were 889 people in danger during the attacks, 325 people near the bomb in Oslo and 564 people on Utøya when shooting began.

“Those who are not mentioned by name in the charge will still appear in person group descriptions in the trial,” says Holden….

Original article: Ikke nevnt i tiltalen: “Han prøvde å drepe meg også”

AUF and prosecutors do not wish broadcast of Breivik’s testimony

The Norwegian press filed a request last Decemeber with the Oslo District Court (Tingrett) asking the court to permit photography, video recording and broadcasting of the upcoming trial against Anders Behring Breivik, in order to ensure that the Norwegian public obtains the best possible insight into and control of the court’s handling of this important trial.

Since 1985, the freedom of the Norwegian press to report directly from the courtroom has been restricted, and photography and video recording is only allowed during the main court proceedings if, in the judge’s opinion, particular circumstances warrant it.

Before reaching a decision, the Oslo District Court has asked the parties involved for their views on the matter. On Tuesday, the court made the letters available to the public.

One of Brevik’s lawyers, Tord Jordet, had written that his client supports the request from the Norwegian press and wishes the trial against him to be as open as possible.

The State’s Attorneys and the Labor Youth Organization (AUF), however, disagree with the request of the press; in particular, they wish that Breivik’s testimony not be publically broadcast. Both the State’s Attorneys and the AUF also suggest that the recording of witness testimonies should be limited.

The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) writes that the Oslo District Court has previously indicated that the court will place emphasis on openness in this trial. “The starting point of the court is openess, but in most cases the media pressure is not as large as now. We have to consider using completely new ways of fulfilling the demand of openness,” magistrate Geir Engebretsen previously said to NRK.

Request from Norsk presseforbund (the Norwegian Press Association) and Norsk Redaktørforening (the Norwegian Editor Association) – in Norwegian [opens pdf].

Statement from lawyer Tord Jordet representing Breivik – in Norwegian [opens pdf].

Statement from State’s Attorneys, Inga Bejer Engh and Svein Holden – in Norwegian [opens pdf].

Statement from lawyer Frode Elgesem on behalf of AUF – in Norwegian [opens pdf].

Related article: Do not want Breivik-testimony on TV (Ønsker ikke Breivik-forklaring på TV)

Related article: Survivors want silence in Breivik case (Etterlatte vil ha taushet i Breivik-saken)

Breivik considered attacking the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK), Aftenposten and VG

The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) writes that, during the planning phase of the 7/22 attacks, Breivik reconnoitered around the NRK offices at Marienlyst in Oslo. In police questioning, Breivik explained that the media company and its journalists were highly prioritized targets.

According to NRK, before Breivik decided to attack the governmental offices and the Labor Youth Organization (AUF) camp at Utøya, he considered attacking the state owned media company, NRK. In addition he considered the Norwegian newpapers, Aftenposten and Verdens Gang (VG), as possible targets.

Breivik says he thought of the NRK offices at Marienlyst as a “bonus” operation. Through his reconnoitering, he established the location of the entrance for the political and foreign sections. Breivik thought about the possibility of delivering two bombs weighing between 50 to 60 kilograms (110-130 pounds) while disguised as a Federal Express worker, but concluded that since he had little knowledge of the layout of the NRK buildings, it was unlikely that he would succeed in killing more than fifteen people. He decided that Utøya was a more suitable target since the water surrounding the island would make it a death trap.

NRK also writes that, according to police questioning, Breivik has said that he considered also attacking Aftenposten and VG after setting off the bomb, but he rejected the idea as he thought it would prevent him from reaching Utøya afterwards.

NRK is Norway’s state-owned media house and had an exclusive monopoly on nation-wide television broadcasting until 1992 when TV2 was established. Several NRK leaders have been former Labor Party politicians, for example Bjartmar Gjerde and Einar Førde who held the leadership position consecutively from 1981 to 2001. Many Norwegians are of the opinion that NRK has a socialist-leftist bias in its news reporting and program selection.

Google translation:

“Breivik surveilled NRK employees”
04/02/2012

Anders Behring Breivik (32) surveilled NRK’s ​​offices in Oslo. The terror suspect considered media house and the journalists as “high priority”.

In questioning the Breivik explained in detail about the other goals he considered during the planning of terrorist attacks.

Before he decided to attack the government quarter and Utøya, assessed the 32-year-old long to attack the largest media houses in Oslo.

According to NRK understand, Breivik should have wanted to frame both Aftenposten, VG and NRK….

Original article: “Breivik spanet på NRK-ansatte”
_____

When chief editor of Aftenposten, Hilde Haugsgjerd, answered questions from readers on September 4, 2009, a person with the signature “Anders B” asked her the following two questions:

“What do you think about Norway joining the ranks of countries that no longer have any major cultural conservative newspapers (newspapers critical of multiculturalism)?”

“What is the reason that Aftenposten, after 1972, gradually began to support multiculturalism (Cultural Marxism) and, therefore, in effect no longer continued to be a culture conservative media alternative? Was is because of pressure from the Labor-movement?”

Aftenposten used to be a conservative newspaper. Today’s chief-editor, Hilde Haugsgjerd, was politically active in her youth in the very left-wing Red Electoral Alliance.

Google translation:

Chief editor replied [in Norwegian]
04.sep.2009

What do you think that Norway joins the ranks of countries that no longer has any great cultural conservative newspapers (newspapers that are critical of multiculturalism)? Anders B

I also think it is a problem that the Norwegian media are too similar in their analysis and views. I think it is because conflicts in Norwegian politics is not really that big. Greeting Hilde

What is the rationale for the newspaper Aftenposten, after 1972, gradually began to support multiculturalism (kulturmarxisme) and thus in practice no longer continued to be a cultural conservative media alternative? Was it because of pressure from the labor movement? Anders B

Aftenposten is an independent newspaper, with a liberal-conservative worldviews. Hilde….

Original article: Sjefredaktøren svarte
_____

TV2 writes that, according to police investigation documents, Breivik called Norwegian media companies several times complaining that certain news stories were not reported. For example, during the 2009 riots in Gothenburg, Sweden, in which many cars were set on fire by immigrant youths, Breivik called both NRK and TV2 asking why there was no coverage of this news. Breivik has explained to the police that he was told that the riots were not newsworthy.

According to TV2, Breivik was also of the opinion that similar riots by immigrant youths in France received too little coverage by the Norwegian media. Further from TV2, Breivik thought the Gothenburg riots were not mentioned on Norwegian news because of the upcoming election since the riots in Sweden might result in increased support for the Progress Party (FRP) which has a more restrictive view on immigration.

Google translation:

Breivik called TV 2 to complain about the news
04.02.2012

Did the media silent about the riots in Sweden and France to prevent the FRP would make a good election.

TV 2 has access to investigation material shows that the terrorist accused Anders Breivik Behring on several occasions to have approached the media to complain about coverage of news stories.

One of the cases was during the riots in Gothenburg in 2009, where it was set fire to several cars. The rebellion started after police threw two immigrant youths from an occupied premises in the city.

Then Breivik have called both TV2 and NRK and asked why they did not cover what happened. According to Breivik, the editors then have replied that it was not “news worthy”.

Breivik even think that this incident was under cover in the Norwegian press as it was approaching parliamentary elections, and that one did not want to increase support for the Progress Party to describe the noise in the immigrant communities….

Original article: Breivik ringte TV 2 for å klage på nyhetene

Leader of 7/22 support group negative to Breivik interview

Trond Henry Blattmann, current leader of the 7/22 support group and previous leader of the Vest-Agder Labor Party and political advisor for the Labor coalition government from 2009 to 2011, opposes Anders Behring Breivik being interviewed by a television station.

The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) writes that Blattman hopes that the Norwegian media will not refer to the interview when it is made public. Several Norwegian media companies that NRK has spoken to say they will wait on making a decision on how to cover a possible Breivik interview until it is published and they can evaluate it for themselves.

Google translate:

Do not see Breivik interview in the Norwegian media
02/01/12

Blattmann fears that the planned interview will lead to the survivors and their families will have to see and hear Behring Breivik in multiple media.

“I think that if a media release for it is like opening a stream. I am completely against giving the man a microphone,” says Blattmann….

Original article: Vil ikke se Breivik-intervju i norske medier

Related post: Ila Prison preparing for Breivik TV interview, three 7/22 documentaries in the making

Lena Andreassen is afraid contents of police interview will become known

Lena Andreassen, who was reported missing by Interpol on September 29, 2011, and kept captive for almost a month by former members of the English Defence League, says in an interview with Dagbladet that she is afraid of the consequences if what she has said in police interviews becomes publicly known. Dagbladet writes that Andreassen knows that a Norwegian news organisation is sitting on the information and intends to publicize it.

Andreassen, who says she kicked Behring Breivik out of the Norwegian Defence League (NDL), took control of the newly formed NDL in March of last year, a couple of weeks after the head of the Norwegian PST (Police Security Service), Janne Kristiansen, first informed the public of the NDL in the PST’s annual press briefing. The original founder of the Norwegian Defense League was forced to step down at this time. Lena Andreassen is no longer the leader of the NDL.

Today, the Oslo Police called in Norwegian newspaper editors for a special meeting asking the press to show restraint in publishing leaked reports from the police.

Google translation:

Scared for her life for detailed Breivik-questioning astray
12.01.2012

Lena Andreassen, former head of the Norwegian Defence League, has questioned admitted contact with Anders Behring Breivik.

Andreassen fear for her and the family’s security after the interview she gave police in terror case has been leaked to the press. She says she has been informed that the information from the interview will be published in a Norwegian media.

“I have explained to me including the Norwegian and British extremists, and fear what they can do if this leaks out,” said Lena Andreassen told Dagbladet….

Breivik connection

In questioning the former head of the Norwegian Defense League admitted contact with Anders Behring Breivik.

“We had some contact, but only on the net,” says Andreassen told Dagbladet….

Breivik was the spring of 2011 threw out the organization Norwegian Defense League because he was too extreme. Andreassen led the organization, but she has now withdrawn….

Original article: Livredd for detaljert Breivik-avhør på avveie

Related post: Police call for meeting with news editors after publication of Utøya ferry story

Police call for meeting with news editors after publication of Utøya ferry story

Editors of the major Norwegian news organisations have been called in for a meeting with the Oslo police to discuss the many leaks from the investigation of the 7/22 attacks, reports Journalisten.no.

The meeting, held by the Oslo police, comes a few days after Aftenposten revealed what happened on board the Utøya ferry where, according to witness accounts, leader of the Labor Youth Organisation (AUF), Eskil Pedersen, and a small group of Labor Youth members, including Johannes Dalen Giske, the nephew of the Minister of Business, Trond Giske, took the Utøya ferry and sailed far away from the island rather than to help their comrades escape from the island.

The police claim that several witnesses have been increasingly reluctant to be interviewed due to the many leaks. Some have even expressed doubts regarding whether they will sign and approve existing interviews according to Roar Hanssen, Communication Adviser of the Oslo Police.

News editors are not very positive about the meeting. News director, Jan Ove Årsæther, from TV2 says to Journalisten that they usually do not accept invitations to such meetings, but will do so this time and listen to what the police have to say. Editor-in-chief, John Arne Markussen, of the newspaper Dagbladet says that, in his view, it is the police who are responsible for the leaks, but that Dagbladet will attempt to have someone attending the meeting.

Google translation:

The police will meet the editors Friday
12/01/2012

Do the leaks about 22 July makes witnesses reluctant to ask for questioning.

On Friday morning, Norwegian editors invited to dialogue with the Oslo police about the numerous leaks from documents and interviews in the investigation of Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist attacks….

Original article: Politiet vil møte redaktørene fredag

Related post: Newspaper reveals what happened on board the Utøya ferry

Labor minister Trond Giske: “We are losing control over TV2″

A-pressen has sold its 50% share in Norway’s second largest TV station, TV2, to Danish Egmont Group for 2.1 billion Norwegian kroner (US$350 million). A-pressen is Norway’s second biggest media house, established in 1948 as Norsk Arbeiderpresse (Norwegian Labor Press).

The sale has upset Labor Party Minister of Business, Trond Giske. Previous head of TV2, Bjørn Atle Holter-Hovind, however, says to E24 that he believes it is good to increase the distance between politicians and TV2.

Google translation:

“Well that sales increases the distance between Giske and TV 2″
01/10/2012

Former CEO of TV 2 says the sale of the media house to the Danish Egmont is a good solution….

“I have to admit that I jumped in the chair when I read that Minister of Business, Trond Giske, went out and said, and I quote, ‘We are losing control over TV2.’ Then I ask myself, who are ‘we’ and what is he thinking of when he believes that ‘We are losing control?’ Then it is not such a bad idea that this agreement [the sale] increases the distance between him [Trond Giske] and TV2,” says Holter-Hovind til E24….

Original article: “Godt at salget øker avstanden mellom Giske og TV 2″

More on A-pressen at Wikipedia (in Norwegian).
More on TV2 at Wikipedia (in Norwegian).

List of international news organizations that have requested accreditation for the 7/22 trial

In addition to most major Scandinavian news organizations, a total of fifty-four (54) international news organizations have so far applied for accreditation for the upcoming 7/22 trial. These are:

AFP
Agencia Efe (Spain)
Aljazeera English
Aljazeera TV
ARD German Radio Norddeutscher Rundfunk NDR Stockholm
ARD German TV
BBC
Berliner Zeitung
Bloomberg News
China Central Television
Christian Science Monitor
Cihan News Agency
CNN International
de Volkskrant
Der Spiegel
Der Tagesspiegel et al
Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa)
Dow Jones Newswires/Wall Street Journal
Exandas Documentaries – Greek Public Television
Fairfax Media, Australia
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
GPD – Geassocieerde Persdiensten (Netherlands Associated Press)
Handelsblatt
Iraqi National News Agency
Kyodo News
La Vanguardia
Le Monde
Liberation/ Nouvel Observateur
Middle East News Agency (MENA)
N24 GmbH, Germany
Newsweek
NewTalk (Taiwan)
NOS journaal
Polska The Times
Radio France International (Engelsktalende del)
Radio France, RFI, RSR
RNE (Radio Nacional de España)
RTL Television
Sky News
Stern/stern.de
Swiss Broadcasting Company
Süddeutsche Zeitung
The Asahi Shimbun
The Associated Press
The Financial Times
The Independent
The Irish Times
The New York Times
Thomson Reuters
Vesti Frankfurt, Radio Beograd
Weltreporter / Focus
Wostok Press
Xinhua News Agency
Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen ZDF

Source: Information Adviser Markus Iestra of Oslo Tingrett

Fjordman to VG and Aftenposten: “Do the Right Thing and Publish Breivik’s Comments”

From a recent commentary by Fjordman posted at Gates of Vienna:

To VG and Aftenposten: Do the Right Thing and Publish Breivik’s Comments
January 08, 2012

[T]he police investigation has revealed that ABB [Anders Behring Breivik] used many different email accounts and nicknames and left comments on dozens of very different websites, in addition to being extremely active in online games such as World of Warcraft, where he lived in a virtual reality of heroic warfare. Interestingly enough, that apparently includes the online discussion forums of VG and Aftenposten, by far Norway’s two largest newspapers. For some reason, though, they have been suspiciously quiet about what he actually wrote there.

Aftenposten didn’t just temporarily shut down their online debates following the terror attacks, as many Norwegian papers did at that time, but after the identity of the terrorist became known took the drastic step of deleting their entire discussion forum and removing it from the Internet on a permanent basis. This is such a radical move that it resembles panic. It leaves an outside observer wondering: What exactly are they hiding?

VG didn’t remove their own debate forum, but they haven’t said a word about what Breivik wrote there, either. Perhaps they might as well have written that “While he was working on his gruesome terror plan, Anders Behring Breivik repeatedly posted angry comments on VGDebatt….”

[T]hese newspapers and the press in general are always the first to call for “full openness” from everybody else. What happened to practicing what you preach?

I hereby call on editor-in-chief Hilde Haugsgjerd of Aftenposten as well as editor-in-chief Torry Pedersen of VG to follow the example set by the website Document.no and publish all comments Anders Behring Breivik made in the online discussion forums of their own newspapers.

The public has a right to know. If these newspapers refuse to do this, they and the Schibsted media conglomerate, which owns both of them, should tell the public exactly why they refuse to demand from themselves what they demand from everybody else.

Newspaper reveals what happened on board the Utøya ferry

Norwegian newspaper, Aftenposten, has gained access to the police report about the Utøya ferry and published what happened on board as the shootings on the island were occurring.

Shortly after the shooting began, the leader of the Labor Youth Organisation (AUF), Eskil Pedersen, and a small group of Labor Youth members, including Johannes Dalen Giske, the nephew of the Minster of Business, Trond Giske, took the Utøya ferry and sailed far away from the island.

AUF leader, Eskil Pedersen, has said that at the time they feared the attack was a coup and that attackers could be waiting for them on the shoreline opposite; therefore, they thought it best to use the ferry to flee rather than to evacuate their comrades from the island.

The captain of the ferry wanted to deposit his passengers (Pedersen, Giske, etc.) on the mainland right across from the island and then return to the island to assist those remaining there. The captain had seen his domestic partner being shot and his daughter was also on the island. According to the police report, however, the Labor Youth members on board the ferry persuaded him to change course and sail away from the island instead.

A colleague of the captain, who was still on the island, saw the ferry sail by and called the captain and asked to be picked up. According to the police report, someone on board the ferry told the captain they could not do this, that they had spoken with police who advised them to sail away from the island.

After having transported the Labor Youth leader and others to a location thirty minutes away, the captain returned alone with the ferry to Utøya to assist in the rescue work. He was one of the last people to leave the island at about 4:30 in the morning.

Following 7/22, media editors were under pressure from the Labor party not to report on the Utøya ferry incident. When stories about what happened began to circulate widely on social media sites, newspapers eventually began to write about it.

Google translation:

This happened on the MS “Thorbjørn”
07.jan.2012

This is the story of how nine saved his life 22 July 2011 when they fled with MS “Thorbjorn….”

Original article: Dette skjedde 
på MS «Thorbjørn»
_____

The Labor Youth Organisation (AUF) says that there should be an investigation into the many leaks of police reports related to 7/22. The police claim that the leaks are making many witnesses hesitant to be interviewed.

Google translation:

The police have lost many witnesses after the terrorist leaks

AUF will have an investigation of leaks from Utøya-questioning that Aftenposten published Saturday. Police said several witnesses in the case have resigned after the media began to render the victim’s interrogation….

Original article: Politiet har mistet mange vitner etter terrorlekkasjer