Hamburg attacker was known to security forces

[rooster59]

Hamburg attacker was known to security forces

By Frank Witte

 

Police investigators work at the crime scene after a knife attack in a supermarket in Hamburg, Germany, July 28, 2017. REUTERS/Morris Mac Matzen

 

HAMBURG (Reuters) - The migrant who killed one person and injured six others in a knife attack in a Hamburg supermarket was a radicalised Islamist known to German security agencies, but also believed to have psychological problems.

 

Officials said on Saturday the agencies had believed he posed no immediate threat.

 

A security lapse in a second deadly militant attack in less than a year, and two months before the general election, would be highly embarrassing for German intelligence, especially since security is a main theme in the Sept. 24 vote.

 

A Tunisian failed asylum seeker killed 12 people by driving a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin in December, slipping through the net after intelligence officers who had monitored him reached the conclusion he was no threat.

 

Hamburg Interior Minister Andy Grote told a news conference that Friday's 26-year-old attacker was registered in intelligence systems as an Islamist but not a violent one as there was no evidence to link him to an imminent attack.

 

He also said the attacker, a Palestinian asylum seeker who could not be deported as he lacked identification documents, was psychologically unstable. Police said on Friday the man was born in United Arab Emirates.

 

The Palestinian mission in Berlin had agreed to issue him with documents and he had agreed to leave Germany once these were ready, a process that takes a few months.

 

"What we can say of the motive of the attacker at the moment is that on the one side there are indications that he acted based on religious Islamist motives, and on the other hand there are indications of psychological instability," Grote said.

 

"The attacker was known to security forces. There was information that he had been radicalised," he said.

 

"As far as we know ... there were no grounds to assess him as an immediate danger. He was a suspected Islamist and was recorded as such in the appropriate systems, not as a jihadist but as an Islamist."

 

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is on a summer vacation and is seeking a fourth term in office in September, praised the civil courage of Hamburg residents who threw chairs and other objects at the attack, helping police to detain him.

 

"This violent crime must and will be investigated," she said in a statement. "I thank the police for their effort and all those who stood up against the attacker with civil courage and bravery."

 

Merkel's decision in 2015 to open Germany's doors to more than one million of mainly Muslim migrants has sparked a debate about the need to spend more on policing and security and contributed to the rise of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) populist party.

 

Yet her conservatives have recovered from losses in regional elections last year and are in a leading position to win the general election. Opinion polls put them 13-17 percentage points ahead of the centre-left Social Democrats.

 

The Hamburg attack did not feature on the front pages of most major broadsheets, which dedicated their coverage to the emissions scandal engulfing the German car industry.

 

Prosecutors said the attacker pulled a 20 cm (7.9 inch) knife from a shelf at the supermarket and stabbed three people inside and four outside. A 50-year-old man died of his injuries.

 

Prosecutors said the attacker, who had not been named, appeared on police records in April after he was caught stealing in a shop but he was convicted of no crime given the petty nature of his offense.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-30

 

[trogers]

Migrants to the EU from UAE are fleeing from a terrible war...

[boomerangutang]

I've mentioned this before.  I'm sure German authorities (and those from Sweden and other countries) know this:

 

Even when an asylum seeker is officially turned down / barred from staying in the country he seeks refuge in, .....that doesn't mean the guy leaves.   Germany, Sweden and others, need to tangibly take those people and take them back to their countries of origin.  If that means taking them on a plane or a boat or a bus, ...so be it.

 

It's not good enough for an official in a Frankfurt office to say to the guy, "I'm sorry, your application has not been approved.  Goodbye. "   The guy can simply walk around the block, find a sympathetic local person to take pity on him, and....... he stays clandestinely in the country.

[NanLaew]

As in Paris and London, once again the overwhelmingly comforting words from the talking heads that, "the suspect was already known to authorities."

[Scott]

29 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I've mentioned this before.  I'm sure German authorities (and those from Sweden and other countries) know this:

 

Even when an asylum seeker is officially turned down / barred from staying in the country he seeks refuge in, .....that doesn't mean the guy leaves.   Germany, Sweden and others, need to tangibly take those people and take them back to their countries of origin.  If that means taking them on a plane or a boat or a bus, ...so be it.

 

It's not good enough for an official in a Frankfurt office to say to the guy, "I'm sorry, your application has not been approved.  Goodbye. "   The guy can simply walk around the block, find a sympathetic local person to take pity on him, and....... he stays clandestinely in the country.

That is easier said that done.   You cannot deport someone unless the receiving country agrees to take them.   For some of these people it is not easy to establish exactly where they are from and it is not always possible to get the other country to agree to the persons return.  

[sweatalot]

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

That is easier said that done.   You cannot deport someone unless the receiving country agrees to take them.   For some of these people it is not easy to establish exactly where they are from and it is not always possible to get the other country to agree to the persons return.  

At least detain them

[bert bloggs]

18 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

At least detain them

yes on an island far from anywhere and in really bad conditions ,

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

At least detain them

European Commission is looking at this matter for enactment; if actually interested in this matter a policy discussion paper provided below. Some EU countries have already done so e.g. Hungary

 

http://www.institutdelors.eu/media/asylumdetentionineurope-walter-jdib-may2017.pdf?pdf=ok

 

 

[Scott]

There are UN Conventions which prohibit the detention of asylum seekers, but once people are screened out, it's a lot easier to detain them.   The problem with many is that they will likely not be able to be repatriated to their home country, at least for many years and indefinite detention violates a whole host of conventions.  

 

That said, there really isn't much that can be done to countries who decide to detain people.  

 

Years ago, there was a lot of criticism of Hong Kong for its detention of asylum seekers and those screened out.   HK is small and they had thousands of people to care for.   I can only imagine the mess they would have had without detention.   At one point, they did have an open camp on one of the small outlying islands.

[baboon]

29 minutes ago, Scott said:

That is easier said that done.   You cannot deport someone unless the receiving country agrees to take them.   For some of these people it is not easy to establish exactly where they are from and it is not always possible to get the other country to agree to the persons return.  

It's a tough one, isn't it? However countries really shouldn't have to put up with 'Here I am, deal with me. I'm your problem now'.

Let's say a Libyan turns up and his asylum claim is rejected. Why can't the host country simply put him on the next flight to Tripoli - You won't take him? Whatever. That's between you and him.

What if the migrant refuses to disclose where he is from? Fine, no asylum application and no money from the state. The Salvation Army are that way.

It pains me to think and say things like the above, but you can't just keep giving in to blackmail and I really can't think of a better solution. 

 

[Scott]

Just now, baboon said:

It's a tough one, isn't it? However countries really shouldn't have to put up with 'Here I am, deal with me. I'm your problem now'.

Let's say a Libyan turns up and his asylum claim is rejected. Why can't the host country simply put him on the next flight to Tripoli - You won't take him? Whatever. That's between you and him.

What if the migrant refuses to disclose where he is from? Fine, no asylum application and no money from the state. The Salvation Army are that way.

It pains me to think and say things like the above, but you can't just keep giving in to blackmail and I really can't think of a better solution. 

 

That would result in a real breakdown of diplomatic protocols.   First, no airline is going to take them.   Second, we do need the cooperation of the home countries -- imagine what havoc they could wreak if they decided to retaliate.  

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

European Commission is looking at this matter for enactment; if actually interested in this matter a policy discussion paper provided below. Some EU countries have already done so e.g. Hungary

 

http://www.institutdelors.eu/media/asylumdetentionineurope-walter-jdib-may2017.pdf?pdf=ok

 

 

 

Heading to section 2.6 of the linked document ("Findings at a Glance", which pertains to how things are in practice) - the picture painted is less then reassuring when it comes to some of the standing concerns raised on these topics. Granted, these concerns originate more from what you often define as right of center. IMO, the whole things reads less as a review aimed at addressing these concerns, and more with finding ways to make unsavory (at least for some) means compatible with held views.

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

That would result in a real breakdown of diplomatic protocols.   First, no airline is going to take them.   Second, we do need the cooperation of the home countries -- imagine what havoc they could wreak if they decided to retaliate.  

I hear you, but it begs the question: 'So we simply have to cave in each and every time?' I mean, what is a real breakdown of diplomatic protocols if not a country refusing to take back one of its citizens? 

Mind you, if anyone has better solutions than mine - and I am sure there are plenty - then I am all ears...

[simple1]

8 minutes ago, baboon said:

I hear you, but it begs the question: 'So we simply have to cave in each and every time?' I mean, what is a real breakdown of diplomatic protocols if not a country refusing to take back one of its citizens? 

Mind you, if anyone has better solutions than mine - and I am sure there are plenty - then I am all ears...

Some EU countries have already negotiated some government to government agreements for return of rejected asylum seekers; it's an evolving process. Iran, for example, will accept rejected asylum seekers who return voluntarily, but not those under duress.

Edited July 30, 2017 by simple1

[Scott]

7 minutes ago, baboon said:

I hear you, but it begs the question: 'So we simply have to cave in each and every time?' I mean, what is a real breakdown of diplomatic protocols if not a country refusing to take back one of its citizens? 

Mind you, if anyone has better solutions than mine - and I am sure there are plenty - then I am all ears...

 

The problem is that we can't always prove this person is a citizen of a certain country and that country can question it as well.   Some of the poorer countries don't keep good records.   Some countries simply refuse to take back people who have left illegally (I believe Iran is one).   A third point of contention is that some may not be refugees, but if they were returned they would face persecution simply for having left.  

 

You are fairly familiar with N. Korea, what happens when people flee and are returned? 

 

I once was involved with the screening of an older Vietnamese refugee who was screened out.   He was ethnic Chinese and the Vietnamese gov't said that he was not Vietnamese; the Chinese said he wasn't Chinese.   There was some question of whether he had been purged during the short war with China when many ethnic Chinese were exiled to China.   The point is no one would take him.   He was not a citizen of either country.  

 

 

[bert bloggs]

18 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Some EU countries have already negotiated government to government agreements for return of rejected asylum seekers; it's an evolving process. Iran, for example, will accept rejected asylum seekers who return voluntarily, but not those under duress.

Oh well thats it ,problem solved ,if your an asylum seeker from Iran and you are rejected , and you agree to go back there after running away ,they will take you back , wonder how many have agreed already , bet its in the thousands .

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

The problem is that we can't always prove this person is a citizen of a certain country and that country can question it as well.   Some of the poorer countries don't keep good records.   Some countries simply refuse to take back people who have left illegally (I believe Iran is one).   A third point of contention is that some may not be refugees, but if they were returned they would face persecution simply for having left.  

 

You are fairly familiar with N. Korea, what happens when people flee and are returned? 

 

I once was involved with the screening of an older Vietnamese refugee who was screened out.   He was ethnic Chinese and the Vietnamese gov't said that he was not Vietnamese; the Chinese said he wasn't Chinese.   There was some question of whether he had been purged during the short war with China when many ethnic Chinese were exiled to China.   The point is no one would take him.   He was not a citizen of either country.  

 

 

What a bloody mess we get ourselves into...

 

You mention the DPRK, but I'm not sure that it is quite the best of examples in this instance as any deserting citizen is atomatically a South Korean citizen once they reach an Embassy, so they would not be left stateless. Of course if they are caught by the Chinese authorities in the meantime...

Also the DPRK will take its citizens back.

 

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

That is easier said that done.   You cannot deport someone unless the receiving country agrees to take them.   For some of these people it is not easy to establish exactly where they are from and it is not always possible to get the other country to agree to the persons return.  

                              I know that's the law, but the law can be tweaked.

                          I agree, some people will assert they don't know where they're from, but that's BS coming from anyone older than a 6 year old.  

 

                           The law should be adjusted to; not having to get the receiving country to formally agree to accept the people being returned.  It's akin to a community refusing to accept a convict, after that convict has served his time in prison.  I'm not saying migrants are convicts, but instead am saying it shouldn't be up to the country-of-origin.

 

                       If the country of origin won't take their citizens back, then drop them off nearby, on a beach or wherever, with a bottle of water, a backpack, and 50 euros.    It's not western European peoples' requirement to take care of the teeming masses from failed countries.  Same as it's not Thailand's responsibility to accept tens of thousands of refugees from Rohinga or Bangladesh or wherever.  

 

                   The conditions in half the world are infinitely sad, but just because western Europeans and N. Americans have gotten their shit together, doesn't mean they should be babysitters for badly-run, devoid-of-resources countries.

 

                  If Madonna or Angelie Jolie want to go to those places and adopt babies, ok, that's their choice, but it should be known, that each baby adopted by a westerner will probably require about 1 million $$'s upkeep for the next 16 years.   Whether it's adoption or enabling migrants to enter, the costs per person are very high, for the people who are waiting with open arms.

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

What a bloody mess we get ourselves into...

You mention the DPRK, but I'm not sure that it is quite the best of examples in this instance as any deserting citizen is atomatically a South Korean citizen once they reach an Embassy, so they would not be left stateless. Of course if they are caught by the Chinese authorities in the meantime...

Also the DPRK will take its citizens back.

Yea, N.Korea will take 'em back, but it's a toss-up of whether that's before or while the fleeing member's family has been jailed and/or tortured.  For sure, the returning NK person will be severely punished.  The reason has as much to do with NK and Kim losing face, as anything else.  

 

I've always advocated that Chinese should allow N.Koreans (found in China) free passage to a S.Korean consulate.  Instead, Chinese treat any N.Koreans trying to flee NK as criminals, and either toss them in jail or force them back to NK to be harshly punished.   

 

If it were up to me, I'd have large clean air conditioned buses waiting on the Chinese side, with packed lunches available - to bus the N.Korean defectors on down to S.Korea - where they want to go to seek sanctuary. 

 

The difference with the Korea situation and the Mediterranean, is S.Koreans welcome N.Korean migrants.  In Europe it's a mixed bag, with half of Europeans welcoming/tolerating, while the other half resenting the influx.

[baboon]

4 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Yea, N.Korea will take 'em back, but it's a toss-up of whether that's before or while the fleeing member's family has been jailed and/or tortured.  For sure, the returning NK person will be severely punished.  The reason has as much to do with NK and Kim losing face, as anything else.  

 

I've always advocated that Chinese should allow N.Koreans (found in China) free passage to a S.Korean consulate.  Instead, Chinese treat any N.Koreans trying to flee NK as criminals, and either toss them in jail or force them back to NK to be harshly punished.   

 

If it were up to me, I'd have large clean air conditioned buses waiting on the Chinese side, with packed lunches available - to bus the N.Korean defectors on down to S.Korea - where they want to go to seek sanctuary. 

 

The difference with the Korea situation and the Mediterranean, is S.Koreans welcome N.Korean migrants.  In Europe it's a mixed bag, with half of Europeans welcoming/tolerating, while the other half resenting the influx.

I don't know how far Scott will allow us to take this one - the thread is about the Hamburg attacker after all - but here goes...

To the best of my knowledge, the DPRK do not target the families of returnees. I am under the impression that up till recently, punishment for crossing the border was lessened to a kicking and a few months in clink, not that I am saying that is OK.

 

Your air conditioned busses might not get very far as they would have to pass through DPRK territory in order to reach the South...

[metisdead]

Quote

I don't know how far Scott will allow us to take this one - the thread is about the Hamburg attacker after all - but here goes...

 

 

This mod is going to suggest the discussion of DPRK stops here and let's get back to the Hamburg attacker topic, please. 

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, metisdead said:

 

 

This mod is going to suggest the discussion of DPRK stops here and let's get back to the Hamburg attacker topic, please. 

Fair enough. Thanks for letting my post stand, however. 

[klauskunkel]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

"What we can say of the motive of the attacker at the moment is that on the one side there are indications that he acted based on religious Islamist motives, and on the other hand there are indications of psychological instability," Grote said.

For the sake of argument you could also join the one hand with the other in a handshake and say, religious Islamist motives (for this act) are an indication of psychological instability. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 

[phantomfiddler]

Why can,t they call a spade a spade ! This a*s*h*l* was a muslim doing what they are told to do !

[Stargeezr]

I think the people who say they cannot go back to their home country should then be

forwarded, to a country like northern Siberia, or North of Churchill Manitoba in the Canadian

Arctic. Show them where these places are on the globe, and going back to their home

countries may seem a better choice.

Geezer

[maewang99]

very funny! really? the underlying implication is that "security forces" are not just there to protect the political leadership and keep the government functioning... come on, it's supposed to be funny????

protecting the public??? never a priority for security forces.... anyone who has worked or has even just read stuff that touches on the inner workings of these kind of agencies ****knows**** this is an absurdly asserted naïve assumption... or a total joke.

if they clearly know of a threat to the public only.... and.... could be caught having known and not acted somehow on it... yeah... but otherwise it's not even a high priority.... come on, and why would it be?


 

Edited August 1, 2017 by maewang99