ISIS Inspired Terror Attack in Auckland, New Zealand

[PhantomWolf]

A man of Sri Lankan descent whose extremist beliefs were inspired by ISIS has attacked and wounded six people in an Auckland supermarket before being shot and killed by NZ Police Officers who had been surveilling him.

He apparently left his home and travelled to a nearby supermarket where he was a regular shopper. Police have been keeping a 24/7 watch on him as his extremist ideas were considered a threat to the country. On this occasion after entering the store he took a knife from one of the shelves and began to attack other shoppers, injuring six of them before the Police Officers were able to confront him. He then approached the Officers and was shot and killed.

It is currently being treated as a lone wolf attack and no one else is wanted in connection to the attacks.

 

[arthwollipot]

Prime Minister Ardern was asked in the press conference why this person wasn't already in jail, and her response was "because he hadn't done anything illegal yet, duh!"

But the surveillance team was on the spot within 60sec.

 

[arthwollipot]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ter-injuring-people-in-supermarket-police-say

 

[PhantomWolf]

Prime Minister Ardern was asked in the press conference why this person wasn't already in jail, and her response was "because he hadn't done anything illegal yet, duh!"

But the surveillance team was on the spot within 60sec.

Sadly it seems to have been a case of he hadn't done anything that they could arrest him for prior to that moment, but they were pretty darn sure he was planning to.

 

[smartcooky]

Prime Minister Ardern was asked in the press conference why this person wasn't already in jail, and her response was "because he hadn't done anything illegal yet, duh!"

But the surveillance team was on the spot within 60sec.

Yep, just like the US and Australia, we have stupid reporters that ask really dumb questions. They tend to be the ones that work for the same types of media outlets too.

 

[smartcooky]

Sadly it seems to have been a case of he hadn't done anything that they could arrest him for prior to that moment, but they were pretty darn sure he was planning to.

One of the things that the really annoys me about these stupid reporters is they keep asking the same question in a different way. Ardern told them, what, maybe 15 times that there was information she would like to share but couldn't because it was under a suppression order from the court. I mean, Jesus H Christ, what will it take for these idiots to accept the answer they are given after the third time they ask the question?

Also they kept asking the Commissioner why the Police didn't get there sooner. FFS they were there and shot him dead in less than 60 seconds. This was a very surveillance-conscious individual - if they had been any closer he would have twigged to their presence.

 

[theprestige]

Yep, just like the US and Australia, we have stupid reporters that ask really dumb questions. They tend to be the ones that work for the same types of media outlets too.

I think it's a good question, though. The PM gave a facile answer, but it's still a good question. I'm sure that in coming days we'll get a more complete explanation of what the government knew, when they knew it, and why they ultimately decided to leave this man alone long enough for him to carry out his attack.

 

[smartcooky]

I think it's a good question, though. The PM gave a facile answer, but it's still a good question. I'm sure that in coming days we'll get a more complete explanation of what the government knew, when they knew it, and why they ultimately decided to leave this man alone long enough for him to carry out his attack.

Its a dumb question because ALL of those reporters know perfectly well that you can't just chuck people in jail on suspicion that they might commit a crime sometime in the future.. we are not a Philip K. Dick "Minority Report" society.

They have had him under close, 24/7/365 surveillance since 2016. New Zealand doesn't have a Gitmo where we can just chuck people who might be terrorists behind bars without trial indefinitely.

 

[theprestige]

Its a dumb question because ALL of those reporters know perfectly well that you can't just chuck people in jail on suspicion that they might commit a crime sometime in the future.. we are not a Philip K. Dick "Minority Report" society.

They have had him under close, 24/7/365 surveillance since 2016. New Zealand doesn't have a Gitmo where we can just chuck people who might be terrorists behind bars without trial indefinitely.

Now I have even more questions. You're not a minority report society, but you're a society that will watch a guy around the clock for five **** ing years, even though he hasn't committed a single arrestable offense in that time? What kind of creepy-ass over the top surveillance state is that?

Do you surveil all of your law-abiding residents all the time, in case they suddenly flip out and start stabbing people? Or is that "privilege" reserved only for certain categories of second-class citizens?

Seriously, you've had cops on his ass day and night for five years. That's well past the point of "poop or leave the toilet", in my book. You think maybe it was the stress of being under constant surveillance, waking and sleeping, for five years, even though he'd done nothing wrong, that put him over the edge?

---

ETA:

"This guy is a suspicious foreigner. We can let him in the country, but we'll have to assign police resources to follow him around at all times, for as long as he's here."

Why not just deport him, then? Doesn't seem like the kind of person NZ would want to have around in the first place.

 

[theprestige]

Also, I question the premise of an "ISIS-inspired" attack. Last time I checked, the notable thing about ISIS is that they were serious about carving out a sovereign state for themselves in a destabilized and somewhat ungoverned corner of the world.

To me, an "ISIS-inspired attack" would be a guerrilla action aimed at driving off local authorities. Honestly, Cliven Bundy type stuff has more in common with ISIS' playbook than just randomly stabbing people in a grocery store. That seems more like an Al Qaeda strat, to me.

 

[xjx388]

Damn…5 years of constant surveillance.

Is this a common thing in NZ? I can see a few months, maybe a year, if the police have information of a credible threat. NZ police must have vast resources. It’s not like he was a part of some organized network like the Mafia or something. Seems to be just this one dude.

What it came down to was something that seems pretty random and not well thought out. Nothing that all that surveillance predicted.

In all that time under the eye of the police, he had to have caught on to the situation. I’d bet it got pretty maddening. I’d bet it was a factor in him snapping.

 

[plague311]

Constant surveillance doesn't always require a physical presence, and it should be well-known at this time that a lot of surveillance is done on communications. I highly, highly doubt he had a tail every day for 5 years. Maybe they did, and I'm wrong, but the impression I'm getting is they were tracking who he was speaking with and that's where they made the ISIS connection.

 

[sackett]

This joker would have been a useful source of information on other uglies, and was probably left out in the wild for that purpose.

Damn shame it went wrong. How badly hurt are the people he attacked?

ETA: 3 in critical condition, I see from FB. Oh christ.

 

[theprestige]

Constant surveillance doesn't always require a physical presence, and it should be well-known at this time that a lot of surveillance is done on communications. I highly, highly doubt he had a tail every day for 5 years. Maybe they did, and I'm wrong, but the impression I'm getting is they were tracking who he was speaking with and that's where they made the ISIS connection.

An ongoing 24/7 tap on a citizen's communications, for five years, still seems excessive and very police-statey. And the PM herself affirms that physical cops were in fact physically on his ass prior to the attack.

How many times in the past five years have they drawn a police cordon closely around him, just in case? Are we supposed to believe that it was just a lucky coincidence? The one time they decided to put armed police less than a minute away from this guy happens to be the time he flips out?

Also five years seems like a long time to stay in that sweet spot of "we need constant surveillance because this could pop off at any moment, but so far he hasn't done anything actionable". Either this guy was very circumspect, or very lucky, or the NZ authorities have entirely too much time on their hands.

How many man-hours do you think police surveillance techs spent over the past five years, listening to his phone calls, reading the transcripts, deciding day to day (hour to hour?) whether now was the time to bring in the armed police?

 

[plague311]

An ongoing 24/7 tap on a citizen's communications, for five years, still seems excessive and very police-statey. And the PM herself affirms that physical cops were in fact physically on his ass prior to the attack.

I have no arguments with any of this unless they were just gathering evidence of other crimes. I'm fairly sure other people have been under communications surveillance that haven't officially broke any law, but are stepping on the line, and the cops want to collect the names of others.

I agree though, it's a long time. Depends on how the surveillance started, how much at first vs. as it grew over time, etc.

How many times in the past five years have they drawn a police cordon closely around him, just in case? Are we supposed to believe that it was just a lucky coincidence? The one time they decided to put armed police less than a minute away from this guy happens to be the time he flips out?

Perhaps not a coincidence at all. If he had said something, or told someone prior to this that he was planning an attack but wouldn't say where or when. They could have stepped it up. Saying that you're going to "lose it soon" or something equivalent wouldn't be illegal, but enough to up the surveillance. I don't know though, we'll find out soon I hope.

Also five years seems like a long time to stay in that sweet spot of "we need constant surveillance because this could pop off at any moment, but so far he hasn't done anything actionable". Either this guy was very circumspect, or very lucky, or the NZ authorities have entirely too much time on their hands.

Or the person who said it could have been hyperbolic too. It's not like our own authorities or leadership aren't prone to hyperbole in pressers.

How many man-hours do you think police surveillance techs spent over the past five years, listening to his phone calls, reading the transcripts, deciding day to day (hour to hour?) whether now was the time to bring in the armed police?

Enough to where they thought it was worth it I guess. I'll wait until more detail comes out, but like I said, it could have been an overstatement.

 

[theprestige]

I have no arguments with any of this unless they were just gathering evidence of other crimes. I'm fairly sure other people have been under communications surveillance that haven't officially broke any law, but are stepping on the line, and the cops want to collect the names of others.

I agree though, it's a long time. Depends on how the surveillance started, how much at first vs. as it grew over time, etc.



Perhaps not a coincidence at all. If he had said something, or told someone prior to this that he was planning an attack but wouldn't say where or when. They could have stepped it up. Saying that you're going to "lose it soon" or something equivalent wouldn't be illegal, but enough to up the surveillance. I don't know though, we'll find out soon I hope.



Or the person who said it could have been hyperbolic too. It's not like our own authorities or leadership aren't prone to hyperbole in pressers.



Enough to where they thought it was worth it I guess. I'll wait until more detail comes out, but like I said, it could have been an overstatement.

Fair enough. For me, then, it comes full circle: smartcooky is wrong, and the reporter's question was actually a fair question. If the authorities are making overblown claims about their diligence and its benefits, then it's totally reasonable to ask them to explain the lack of similarly impressive results.

 

[plague311]

Fair enough. For me, then, it comes full circle: smartcooky is wrong, and the reporter's question was actually a fair question. If the authorities are making overblown claims about their diligence and its benefits, then it's totally reasonable to ask them to explain the lack of similarly impressive results.

No arguments here.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Damn…5 years of constant surveillance.

Is this a common thing in NZ?

Just because this seems to be a common question.

It's not common, and the PM answered this question by noting that there are a few people in this situation, but it's very rare. Note that this guy was "known" to both law enforcement and security forces and was considered an extreme threat. However until they break a law, nothing you can do about it other than watch. The Police had a court order to allow them to conduct the surveillance.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Fair enough. For me, then, it comes full circle: smartcooky is wrong, and the reporter's question was actually a fair question. If the authorities are making overblown claims about their diligence and its benefits, then it's totally reasonable to ask them to explain the lack of similarly impressive results.

Here's the thing. How long do you watch a person you are pretty sure is going to commit a terror act eventually? What happens if the day after you stop the surveillance is the day they go and do it?

 

[theprestige]

Here's the thing. How long do you watch a person you are pretty sure is going to commit a terror act eventually?

You don't. I don't think "pretty sure... eventually" is a valid basis for around the clock surveillance.

What happens if the day after you stop the surveillance is the day they go and do it?

The same thing that happens any time someone commits a crime because you had no good reason to be spying on them 24/7. What do you want me to say? We should just spy on every suspicious character nonstop all the time just in case today is the day our suspicions are vindicated?

How long, exactly was this guy supposed to live at the focus of the Panopticon, without having done anything actionable? Ten years? Twenty? Indefinitely?

---

I'm talking in terms of criminal justice here, of course. Crime and punishment under the rule of law. If this is a warfare situation, my rules are different. In war, it's totally justified to keep enemy agents under surveillance for the duration. But in that case it's also totally justified to arrest enemy agents and detain them as prisoners of war for the duration.

In war, you'd balance the value of leaving him free and monitoring his communications against the value of taking him off the battlefield before he gets someone killed. You wouldn't put him under surveillance as an enemy agent, and then not arrest him because he hasn't done anything yet. He's already done something. He's joined the conflict as an enemy combatant. The same circumstances that justify indefinite surveillance justify preemptive detention as a POW.

The NZ government seems to be wanting to have it both ways. Spy on him like he's an enemy combatant and they're at war with the guy. But let him walk around free because he's a law-abiding citizen who's committed no crime.