Press Information

We will only do interviews if journalists first present their main arguments against defensive political violence. To better understand this doctrine it is recommended to read the article "Is defensive political violence a crime?" which is published in our discussion forum. If the arguments presented by journalists are valid, the LAW project will be terminated immediately. Making it unnecessary to continue an interview.

The most important of the basic theoretical positions of LAW can be summarised as follows:

It is not ethically or legally justified to punish militant activists in a court of law if they, as a last resort, after all legal and nonviolent methods have been tried unsuccessfully, actually manages to save the lives of for example ten to fifty thousand people by capturing a billionaire and forcing him to transfer several million dollars to a region where people are in immediate danger of dying of starvation. In a similar way it would not have been a punishable crime if a person, Oskar Schindler for instance, had captured a close but innocent relative of a Nazi officer in order to force him to cover up the gradual release of 10 000 - 50 000 Jews from Auschwitz and other camps. In both cases, the ethical and legal rules of necessity (Norwegian: nødrett) will in theory allow this if operations are successful. However, if an operation is not successful, one can argue that a court has the right to sentence activists to jail, because it will deter other incompetent activists from conducting operations that are irresponsible and insufficiently planned. This secures that the legal system has the final say when we discuss the limits of self-defence and necessity.

The need to protect innocent people demands that LAW will only support the capture of the richest billionaires who are passive when a hunger catastrophe, for example, threatens the lives of countless human beings in a developing country. Morally speaking, such passivity is not innocent, not when these billionaires earn money with the help of multinational companies in a globalised world where ethics and human rights also need worldwide application.

LAW is built on the above ethical and legal theory, and the main purpose of LAW is to discuss the validity of this theory in public. Consequently, critics not only have to refute the theory but also prove, within the framework of scientific standards, that it is illegal to discuss it in public, if they want to claim that LAW is an illegal organisation.

Secondarily, LAW will discuss which militant methods and tactics can be ethically and legally justified on the basis of the above theory. This is a more difficult task, and therefore we are willing to change methods if critics can present arguments which show that these tactics are not justified.

Thirdly, if the methods and general theory mentioned above are correct, LAW will recruit and train militant activists. However, if critics present arguments which show that the way we do this is not legal or ethically responsible, we will adapt and change our organisational rules and operational procedures.

Finally, even if a doctrine is correct in theory, it may not be justifiable to act on it if one lacks necessary resources and competence. LAW will not allow extremists to be members of our organisation. And those members who want to participate in a militant operation must have the same competence and personal qualities as police officers, ambulance workers or UN peacekeeping soldiers. Our method of operation allows the police to screen all members and be present during training. Our recruitment demands, however, are so strict that very few have what it takes to become a militant activist, and we are therefore satisfied with restricting all activities to academic research until the right personnel are in place.

Even if we one lacks resources and personnel, and the fight seems hopeless because an opponent has too much power, it is important to establish in theory that an opponent violates universal ethics in a way which in principle triggers the right to use physical force based on the judicial rules of self-defence and necessity. It damages the image and reputation of a multinational company, for example, if an academic debate reveals that the corporation is involved in human rights violations which actually justify militant operations as a proportional response.

It is essential to point out that LAW only supports the use of physical force if non-violent means don't work. In particular we will discuss whether hacking is a better and more realistic alternative to violent operations. For more about this see articles about hacking in that part of our discussion forum which covers tactics.

LAW is built purely on the ethical and legal principles of self-defence and necessity, and is therefore entirely independent of politics, religion, and ideologies. We will do what is necessary to stay within the limits of the legal system, and will not go beyond that which freedom of speech allows.

If a journalist is not able, within the framework of commonly accepted academic standards, to provide counterarguments which refute the basic doctrine of defensive political violence, we will only participate in interviews if the following sentence is always mentioned first: The doctrine of defensive political violence has not yet been (conclusively) refuted by other academics.

And Norwegian media should mention that LAW will never conduct militant operations directed toward anyone in Norway. Norway is a very peaceful country, even the police don't carry guns, and we don't want to change that. For more on this see the article "Peace in exchange for fair trials" published in the discussion forum.

We are worried that individuals who read the news superficially will get the impression that LAW supports terrorism, and journalists should therefore stress that this is not the case, as mentioned on the main page of this website.

All questions and arguments should be sent to us in written form via email, so that what is said can be documented. We discuss ethical and legal principles, which can take time to reflect upon, and written correspondence is therefore better than traditional interviews.

Meetings with journalists who work for radio and television will only occur after the above mentioned written correspondence is completed. Our written answers will then be used as a response to the questions already discussed. Defensive political violence is a relatively complicated topic, and therefore it is meaningless to discuss it in short newscasts on television or radio. Journalists who work for such news programs should let the audience know this, and that we recommend people to visit our website defence.nu for information about LAW. We will only appear on programs which respect academic standards. Tabloid debate programs are not interesting.

Before appearing on radio or television debate programs other participants, our critics, are asked to please send us all their arguments in advance, by email. If these arguments are valid, we will shut down the LAW project. For all parties it is reasonable to have this written correspondence before appearing on a debate program, because the later is often dominated by rhetoric and soundbites, since participants get limited time to discuss complicated issues. We will only discuss this topic with academics who have studied the LAW project carefully and are well prepared.

Before an interview is published in a newspaper, we will check that all photos, headlines, text under pictures, and introductions to articles or programs are neutral and unbiased. We claim the right to deny publication if a presentation is so misleading that it is below a scientific standard.

LAW is not interested in being in the media. Our only aim is to have a dialogue with academics and other competent individuals in order to find out whether defensive political violence is justified or not. If it is, we will act on it. The consequence of that, however, is so severe that it will be a relief if the LAW project is proven wrong. Journalists should report that we hope that critics are able to show that defensive political violence is not justified.

For over ten years, academics - including professors of law - have been asked to refute the doctrine of defensive political violence, and since they have not done this, it is time to go public with the LAW project.

Mass media is known for presenting news in a way which can be misleading, but if a scientific debate in the academic arena proves that defensive political violence is a valid doctrine, we have enough faith in science to endure hostile attacks in the media until common people eventually, or hopefully, respect the results of this debate. This can take time, but scientists and philosophers in particular are very patient. Science usually wins in the end. Socrates was put on trial, and so was Galileo Galilei, but it is their contributions to science, and not the viewpoints of the prosecutors, which are with us today. If media coverage can get academics interested in discussing the validity of defensive political violence, the scientific community can then take it from there, and the whole process will be worth it no matter end result.

The public debate in Norway developed into a tragic circus, almost a farce, after 22/7. It was so intense that one mainstream politician actually had to stop working because of psychological problems. Seeing all this made it tempting not to start a public discussion about the LAW project. But one can view it as a "Buddhist" exercise in enduring ad hominem arguments and emotional outbursts from people who are not able or willing to respect the standards of science. One of the ideals of science is neutral observation. It can be argued that neutrality is not possible, but one can always do one's best to seek it, by presenting all perspectives and all arguments for and against a given position. It demands a willingness to present the perspective of one's own "opponents" in the best light possible. Present their best arguments, and try to refute them, instead of attacking their weakest arguments. And please don't create straw men. If you are against defensive political violence, refute the best arguments of that position. Don't start out with a prejudical claim that this theory is terrorism before arguing that terrorism is always a crime. If you do that, you have created a straw man. This violates the standard of science. Partly because one of the main questions our critics want to discuss here is whether defensive political violence is terrorism or not. One can not start such a discussion by concluding in advance that LAW is a terrorist organisation. A conclusion like that would be clearly prejudicial. Ideally, science is free of moral indignation. Science restricts itself to pointing out wrong facts, logical fallacies and other similar mistakes. But if one gets upset because of misinformation, or what one believe is deliberately misleading arguments, it only reveals one's own lack of neutrality. This reduces the quality of a scientific discussion. Even if arguments are presented with an evil intention, a scientist stays emotionally neutral, like a physician. Pedagogically, one of the main purposes of LAW is to teach people the value of neutral observation (also called mindful awareness). Just hope that the topic is not so sensitive that it blows up in our face, but if that happens, it can also be observed with neutrality.

Critics can argue that we should have presented our arguments in a scientific journal first, before creating a debate in newspapers. But subscription makes it difficult for the public in general to access these journals, and if they are in Norwegian, academics in other countries can not follow the debate. If scientists want to take openness and democracy seriously, they should not hesitate to participate in a discussion forum where even the police is welcome to be moderators. Other independent scientists are also invited to become moderators, and when one knows that intelligence services are monitoring the discussions, one can rest assure that we will not delete or manipulate articles posted by critics. One could say that if critics have arguments which refute militant activism, it is their duty to present them publicly, in order to prevent unjustified use of physical force. Especially when our website has been online for several years, easily available for other militant activists. Secondly, the doctrine of defensive political violence involves several scientific fields, for example moral philosophy, jurisprudence, economy, political science, and psychology, and therefore one can not expect that a few articles in only one or two peer-reviewed journals will get necessary attention from scientists who may have important information relevant to our case. Consequently, we have personally contacted around 100 academics, from different fields, hoping that they will refute our arguments, but this has not happened yet.

Intelligence services have also been contacted without getting any reply. The Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) has had sufficient time to refute our arguments in support of defensive political violence, but they haven't done it. We will fully cooperate with the police, but only after they have presented their judicial arguments against the LAW project, and independent legal professionals have assessed whether these arguments are valid or not.

Science often develops slowly, and mistakes occur relatively often, as documented by John P. A. Ioannidis and Ben Goldacre for example. It is not often that one academic, or a team of scientists, is able to present a research paper, a thesis or book which is not met with criticism from other academics. Science is often a process, not a finished product. This is why LAW has created a discussion forum where critics can present their arguments. The ideal here is Socratic dialogue and the discourse ethics of Habermas. Defensive political violence is a doctrine which covers many academic subjects - such as economics, political science, and sociology - and therefore one can not expect that we alone are able to present absolutely all arguments which may possible be relevant in this case. We depend on feedback from experts in these respective fields. Respecting this process we prefer to use print-on-demand technology which makes it possible to quickly update scientific works and correct mistakes if necessary. But such corrections are not easy if critics refuse to participate in the debate. As of January 2012, many have refused to do this. For instance, one professor at a business school in Norway, Alexander Cappelen, said that "... you will not get any academics to participate in a dialogue about such proposals." This attitude is unfortunate. Usually, academics have no problem with discussing moral aspects connected to use of physical force, and if they have valid counterarguments against defensive political violence it is their duty to present them, in order to prevent unnecessary use of violence.

The summary above is read not only by journalists but also by opponents who may want to close down our website, either through hacking or by legal means. They should know that this will not be very effective. Not only will they interfere with a scientific debate, and make it possible to argue in court that evidence has been tampered with. They will also violate free speech. If our discussion forum is shut down, critics can no longer present arguments against defensive political violence. And we have already made a PDF copy of all the articles on this website, which will be published if a denial-of-service attack occurs. Mirror sites will also secure that information is available. And since emails can be opened by hackers, no secrets are stored in any of our accounts.

The scientific neutrality of the LAW project may be doubted, despite our claim that the project is independent of politics, religion, and ideologies. Critics may argue that attacks on capitalism and liberalism prove that we are not neutral. But we always follow the better arguments in a debate, and Andreas Winsnes is therefore working on a book, called "Happy Entertainment" which will try to present the best arguments available in defence of global capitalism, libertine hedonism, and the entertainment industry. This will show that LAW is not against capitalism or liberalism as such. It is only when aspects of capitalism are in conflict with the ethical and legal rules of self-defence and necessity that criticism of capitalists is justified from this perspective. In all other cases, LAW as an organisation is neutral. Anti-capitalists, however, may not take this seriously, so to counteract a biased view of market liberalism a subsection in our discussion forum is dedicated to presenting a positive picture of the current capitalistic culture in the West.

As long as Winsnes is in charge of LAW it is relevant to mention here that his main philosophical position is perspectivism. In his writings he sometimes uses irony and meta-irony, and is inspired by Kierkegaard's use of pseudonyms, because readers then have to think for themselves instead of relying on the viewpoints and opinions of an author. People who study this website are encouraged to have an open mind toward all theories and worldviews, but also use science to criticise them, and this includes the LAW project.

Defensive political violence is a controversial topic, and opponents of this doctrine may be tempted to play unfair in an attempt to stop the LAW project. But before considering this please remember the serious consequences of ignoring scientific standards and the rule of law (the Rechtsstaat) in this case. LAW respects these standards and rules, but if courts, the police or politicians are willing to manipulate this state of justice in order to protect the financial elite, in a degree which reveals that the rule of justice is actually a facade or cover for the law of the jungle, then militant activists are no longer obliged to follow the restrictions of self-defence and necessity. LAW will always respect these restrictions, but other activists may choose to follow the doctrine of just war instead. This doctrine allows collateral damage. And the consequence is that it becomes much easier to conduct operations against the economic elite if one decides to treat innocent civilians in the same manner done by soldiers at war. The doctrine of defensive political violence is very demanding, in terms of safety and competence, and this makes it difficult to conduct operations. In other words, if one is against militant activism it is better to reluctantly tolerate this doctrine instead of creating a situation, beyond scientific standards and the rule of justice, where opponents are free to cause collateral damage. When this is the case, is it not better to play fair and follow academic standards?

The police may be tempted to let the courts decide whether freedom of speech allows a public debate about the validity of defensive political violence, and LAW is not against this, but when the Establishment has access to the best scientists in the world, including Nobel laureates and professors at Harvard and Oxford, is it not reasonable to first see if the academic community is able to refute the doctrine of defensive political violence before taking LAW to court?

Or are the leaders of liberal democracies in the West really willing to sacrifice scientific standards and the rule of law in order to protect the economic elite? If so, Western civilization has lost its moral authority; an authority already severely reduced by the use of torture in the U.S. the last decade. If one ignores universal human rights and the principles of the Rechtsstaat, the law of the jungle will rule, and the consequence of that is either tyranny or chaos and anarchy. In both cases, terrorism will occur relatively frequently, especially car bombs. This is not in the interest of the Establishment nor anyone else. So let's keep a cool head and discuss these things peacefully, in a civilised manner, within the boundary of science.

Finally, if someone still believes that LAW is a cover for terrorism, don't forget that if terrorism was the goal, it would have occurred already, a long time ago, without anyone knowing who was responsible. Because if one is able to create LAW, it is also possible to conduct pretty airtight terrorist operations which are much easier to plan and execute, if this was the real purpose. Terrorists, however, will never let the police know where they live or what they are up to. They hide and send out communiques after an atrocity. Therefore one must be rather unintelligent to confuse terrorism and defensive political violence. Anyone who studies the differences will realise that.

It has taken over a decade to create the doctrine of defensive political violence, so sacrificing all this work just to commit a terrorist act is irrational, especially since many theories which can apparently justify terrorism, in the eyes of extremists, have existed for a long time. If terrorism was the goal, it would be more consistent to use some version of just war theory to defend attacks on innocent people, since the theory of just war allows collateral damage, something which the doctrine of defensive political violence forbids.The LAW project is valuable because it presents arguments which substantially limit the brutality of terrorism, by showing that collateral damage is not justified.

If critics are worried that the militant methods discussed here can influence terrorists, remember that several similar and much more brutal methods are already published in novels, television programs, and on the Internet, for example episode 3 of the BBC series Spooks, season 8, or the Norwegian novel Mengele Zoo, claimed to be the best Norwegian book of all times, according to a national poll in 2007. If one wants to criminalise all literature which can inspire militant activism, one might as well ban books like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

We try to avoid soundbites like "taking from the rich and giving to the poor". But we live in a world dominated by soundbites. Somewhere between 300 000 and one million people in Norway lack sufficient reading skills to function in a modern society, according to OECD in 2011. In other words, up to 20 per cent of the population are not able to sufficiently understand how society works. They risk falling prey to populists who sell simple messages about dangerous "terrorists". But they are aware of popular myths, like the tale of Robin Hood, and therefore one can use this tale to distinguish defensive political violence from terrorism.

Our critics will of course try to spin this in a negative way, by for example saying that: "Do these guys believe they are Robin Hood or something?" No we don't. LAW doesn't support romanticism of any kind. So-called "heroes" from the past were often violent in a manner which the judicial rules of self-defence and necessity don't allow. And the tale of Robin Hood is probably just a myth. If you want to understand this tale, study medieval history, at http://medievalsourcesbibliography.org/sources/1088192397 for example, instead of accusing us of indulging in myths. Many journalists and politicians will probably spin negative stories about LAW no matter what we do, but what's important is that impartial judges and academics understand the concept of defensive political violence. Science and rationality will hopefully prevail in the end.