Subscription 790/year or 190/quarter

How to prevent terror





(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)

Oslo Document Arkino arranged 1. September debate Terrorism vs. legal security in connection with the viewing of the documentary (T) error (2015). It is again interesting to note how little PST in Norway – and our Minister of Justice – reflects on the possibility that some of their measures may actually be counterproductive, that is, that armaments and terror warnings, rather than disarmament, can create polarization and a harsher climate.
I ask Jon Fitje Hoffmann – Director of Strategic Analysis at PST – whether visible police weapons based on PST's threat assessment, as well as PST's terror warnings can actually provoke terrorist acts. Exactly what I previously asked the actual PST chief and the chief of the Police Directorate about at a meeting with Norwegian editors earlier this year – where the answer was almost a mumble that "security is important". But for Hoffmann – who is "the court's man" – self-criticism may have been far-fetched. However, he mentioned, to the House of Literature's more than 120 attendees, that the terrorist alert last summer could possibly provoke the announced terror, or that potential terrorists went underground for a while.
Professor Liv Hausken, co-editor of the book From terror to surveillance (2014), was at the meeting quite clear that preventing terrorism, there is some research shows that one can not. But one can hope for preventive measures. Ny Tid can vote in favor of this, as we do not want totalitarian conditions with surveillance or a police state with armed policemen on every street corner.
People who commit terrorist acts, and who want the attention such actions bring, are just looking for the paralysis of society and anxiety. This is how they are heard – even after their death. Although negative, and despite the fact that terrorism mainly creates disgust. But what do not people who feel lost or in utter despair after seeing their loved ones slaughtered or seeing them die of oppression? Who experiences total rejection or neglect on the part of those in power? For example, Palestinians (see case pages 1 and 3), Chechens and ISIS fighters.
When the efforts of the West towards troubled areas are almost 95 percent military and five percent humanitarian, the result speaks for itself. (Norway has about 50/50 percent distribution here.) Do you really think that preventing terrorism with more and more use of weapons, more walls and barbed wire fences, and the confinement of any dissident, provides a long-term solution?
In the aforementioned debate, Vidar Strømme from the law firm Schjødt points out that the legislation here in Norway has established four extended "terrorist packages" since 9.11.2001: One can now almost imprison anyone who whispers that a terrorist act might have made someone notice what one thinks is fundamentally wrong in society.
By this we do not mean that PST is wrong in everything they do. We are rather in line with the philosopher Joakim Hammerlin, who believed that in certain specific situations, PST must take action to ensure security: It is rather the broad mandate, the exaggeration in relation to other dangers. It is such as the US NSA / Snowden affair – that you arrest sensible whistleblowers – which causes a state apparatus to lose its legitimacy among many in the population.
Lars Gule followed up precisely these issues in Aftenposten on 5 September, where he went into PST and the police's use of extensive eavesdropping and breaches of source protection (Ulrik Imtiaz Rolfsen) – also without good reason to suspect. At the same time, one must ask oneself what it means to infiltrate certain environments. We believe there must be civil protection and respect for privacy and free thought, as Churchill once warned of potential abuse of power by the authorities – and he must have known what he was talking about.
Interestingly enough, Hoffmann shows in his response to Gule (see his blog on PST's website) that criticism is good, but then rejects most of what was objected to: that PST contributes to stigma and polarization; that they have too much focus on Muslims versus right-wing extremist circles; that the bet is excessive. Hoffmann almost accuses Gule of being conspiratorial because he suggests that PST's strategies may be a threat to the freedom of us all.
Well, he asks Gule to come up with an "alternative proposal for how the terrorist threat can be handled". Yes, we are happy to meet you if you would like to listen – some of us who are more concerned with preventing terrorism than implementing harsh strategies that are not known to prevent terrorism. It is probable that the mental climate of fear that the authorities and the media create gives terrorists the uproar they want.
The fear mentality that has established itself is clearly shown in the mentioned documentary (T) error – where the FBI in the US has infiltrated environments with paid informants. An American convert is caught because he has read jihad-friendly literature. We finally see how the bearded and traditionally dressed Muslim is imprisoned for eight years (!) For his thoughts. The film reveals that he is almost pushed forward as a terrorist, so that the illiberal public gets the scapegoat and the scare image the media and authorities benefit from portraying. "Justice murder," anyone with common sense would say. As Strømme said in the debate, this was a bit reminiscent of how Treholt was allowed to travel in his time.
Sometimes you simply "create" unwanted actions so that the authorities can show that they are doing their job. A number of state apparatuses have long had their deployed "moles" and stay-behind groups. It was not just some pensioners in Drammensveien who were doing this, as Strømme mentioned in the debate.
No, I say, to PST, to Hoffman, and to a number of others whose work requires full and firm belief in this speculation: Of course things are happening, but perhaps it is time for better analyzes of instruments, intentions and consequences, before a totalitarianism creeps in everywhere in this "war on terror"? Hoffmann commented at least with a smile that, after all, it was Goebbels who had said that he who has done nothing wrong has nothing to fear. And as Hammerlin said, fewer excited voices are needed, and more coolness.
So my call is: Cool down.


? truls lie

Truls Lie
Truls Liehttp: /www.moderntimes.review/truls-lie
Editor-in-chief in MODERN TIMES. See previous articles by Lie i Le Monde diplomatique (2003–2013) and Morgenbladet (1993-2003) See also part video work by Lie here.

You may also like