Displaying posts published in

December 2016

The Saudis at the UN Human Rights Council by Giulio Meotti

While the medieval Saudi system of justice was flogging the gentle blogger Raif Badawi 50 out of the stipulated 1000 lashes, a delegation of UN bureaucrats landed in Jeddah to promote an international conference on religious freedom.

The Saudis use these international seats to advance their oppressive agenda, and to press the Western democracies to punish criticism of Islam.

Through the shameful trial of Geert Wilders, Dutch authorities sent a message of surrender to the Saudis and other rogue Islamic regimes that punish dissent.

Did the Dutch prosecute Wilders on behalf of the Saudis, who threatened to impose sanctions on the Netherlands?

The UN and the Western democracies are putting the defense of human rights and freedom in the hands of one the world’s worst violators of religious and intellectual freedom.

Sharia courts are already fully operating in the Netherlands. They know something about “human rights”: stoning, flogging and chopping off heads.

Who will rescue our right to speak?

“My husband has been languishing in a Saudi prison since June 17th, 2012. Our children live with me in the city of Sherbrooke, Québec in Canada. They have not seen their father for five years now… On January 9, 2015, Raif received the first 50 lashes… Will members of the United Nations Human Rights Council join the European Parliament and ask for Raif’s release?”

Unfortunately, the UN members did not respond to this appeal by Ensaf Haidar, the fearless wife of the most famous blogger of the Arab world, the gentle Raif Badawi, imprisoned and flogged by the Saudis for his secular ideas. A few days after Ensaf’s appeal, the United Nations welcomed Badawi’s executioners, the Saudis, at the UN Human Rights Council. The Saudi representative, Abdulaziz Alwasil, will be decisive on three major issues at the UN Palace of Nations in Geneva: women, religious freedom and the system of justice.

What a great achievement for Saudi Arabia: The country flogs poets and bloggers, and its sheikhs have no other concern than filling their sumptuous palaces with wives and concubines, and then stoning them to death if they become “adulterous”. Saudi Arabia is where a Shiite cleric was publicly beheaded and where a Christian cannot wear a tunic or a cross.

The British government supported the Saudi bid to be re-elected at the Human Rights Council (British Prime Minister Theresa May was urged in vain to oppose the Saudi election to the Geneva body). The Obama Administration did the same: Samantha Powers, the U.S. ambassador at the UN, called the Saudi bid at the UN a “procedural position”.

Europe’s Compassionate Hatred of Israel by Bat Ye’or

The Jerusalem Declaration of UNESCO seeks to Islamize, with the help of many governments in Europe and other Christian countries, the ancient history of the people of Israel.

But what does this declaration mean for Europe and Christianity? Wasn’t Christianity born out of Israel? Wasn’t Jesus a Judean Jew, as were the apostles and evangelists? Or was it Islam that Jesus was preaching, in Arabic and in the mosques?

Where are the great Catholic or Protestant voices to protest against this Islamization of Christianity? This passivity, this indifference makes you think that Europe will soon look more like Lebanon.

European countries recognize terrorism everywhere except in Israel, where they themselves are allies of these terrorists whom they call “freedom fighters” or “militants”, against “occupation”.

This alliance has ruined Europe — because the enemies of Israel are also enemies of Christianity and of Europe. How can you ally yourself with those who want to destroy you, without in fact dying yourself?

The same obsessive hatred Hitler had for Israel, which led to the ruin of Europe, has persisted today in the European Union against the Jewish State. The great irony is that in trying to destroy Israel, Europe has destroyed itself.

Today we are witnessing the coming of the worldwide caliphate. This expression means that the Muslim view of history is currently prevailing in international institutions. We see it with the Jerusalem Declaration of UNESCO, this palace of revisionism. The Jerusalem Declaration seeks to Islamize, with the help of many governments in Europe and other Christian countries, the ancient history of the people of Israel.

The Venice Declaration of 1980, issued by the European Community, which tried to force Israel to survive in an indefensible territory, already prescribed its disappearance and replacement with a people that had never even manifested itself before 1969 — and all with the assistance of the Soviet Union and especially France. The Islamization of Jerusalem and the delegitimization of the State of Israel were already set out in the Venice Declaration, which to this date the European Union has continued to view as valid.

The Venice Declaration of 1980 was a gift from the European Community to the Arab League, aimed at reestablishing good economic relations with Arab countries, which had been angered by the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979, a peace Europe had not been able to prevent. Jewish holy sites and the survival of the Jewish State were sacrificed by the European Community in exchange for petrodollars.

Since that time, the European Union has expressed remorse for the Holocaust and love and compassion for Israel, but has continued to support, fund and encourage a population whose mission is the destruction of Israel, as proclaimed in its doctrine, and with which Europe is quite familiar. European countries zealously spend billions to promote a worldwide Palestinian campaign of hatred against the State of Israel. They recognize terrorism everywhere except in Israel, where they themselves are allies of these terrorists, whom they call “freedom fighters” or “militants”, against “occupation”. The so-called “Jewish occupation” of Judea and Samaria refers to land that was conquered by war and occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967, and from where Palestinian Jews were killed, or dispossessed and expelled.

Peter Smith A Fog of Generalised Imbecility

Many of what pass these days for mature adults believe the views of sixteen-year-olds are worth taking into account, and why wouldn’t they? Their own views are baseless invocations of ideas blowing in the wind, therefore no more valid than those of callow youths.
Ever have annoying experiences? Well, of course we all do. I have more these days because I get annoyed by MSM commentators, even by the dwindling number of conservatives. No-one can tell me that the quality of commentary has improved in the past thirty to forty years. I don’t know why precisely. Perhaps it is the fault of post-modern education which, so I understand, encourages barely-formed minds to have views instead of concentrating on absorbing building blocks for rational thinking.

I am glad to say that when I was sixteen I had no views at all. My recollection is that having views was not encouraged. Every mature adult knew that the views of a sixteen-year-old were worthless. Now views have supplanted building blocks. They are, if you like, anchorless views. Accordingly, the new breed of mature adults thinks that the views of sixteen-year-olds are worth taking into account. Why wouldn’t they? Their own views are baseless invocations of ideas blowing in the wind and therefore no more valid than those of callow youths.

The manifestation of this trend towards generalised imbecility is what I call foggy thinking. I was in quite a few ‘pea-soupers’ when growing up in England. You simply couldn’t see a metre in front or behind you. I can only assume that pea soup has crept into commentators’ cranial cavities.

The number of deaths from guns dwarfs deaths from terrorist attacks in the US we are regularly told by left-wing commentators. Juan Williams on Fox News is the latest I have heard spouting this guff during a discussion of the Islamic massacre in Berlin. Quite honestly, what are we supposed to take from this kind of comment?

Anthony Daniels (aka Theodore Dalrymple) spoofed it brilliantly in Quadrant a little time ago. I recall he suggested that Britain in WWII might have been better served concentrating on reducing heart attacks than on countering the blitz, which took far fewer lives.

A related topic that generally has me weeping in frustration is the thought, often propagated by conservative commentators, that it is extremely difficult to identify the few among Muslim migrants who might do us physical harm. The implication is that if ‘extreme vetting’ worked it would be fine to allow Western societies to be inundated by ‘peace-loving’ Muslims. No, it wouldn’t, dummies!

The Devil is a novice. His biggest trick is to convince us that he doesn’t exist. In the face of survey after survey showing religious and social intolerance among Muslim communities most everywhere and in the face of supposedly democratic Muslim countries like Indonesia and Pakistan wanting to punish and execute their citizens for insulting Islam, apparently the vast majority of Muslims are fine and dandy. And this narrative gains strength after each horrific Islamic terrorist massacre. What a trick!

Here we have subscribers to a supremacist, intolerant and violent creed being given a pass because only a relative few (tens of thousands, or is it more?) of their number out of 1.6 billion are monstrous literalists. Well, these monsters could not and do not emerge from a vacuum. They are a product of their creed; a vile excretion from the mass of subscribers.

Black Klansmen, fascist follicles By Roger Franklin

In the Age and Sydney Morning Herald today, remaining readers of those publications will have preconceptions further confirmed that Donald Trump is a Hitlerian svengali whose election has invited the brown-shirted “far right” to goose-step through the corridors of power. The report, picked up from the Washington Post, begins by noting that “a small but determined” band of neo-Nazis in Michigan has stopped flaunting swastikas in an effort to go “more mainstream”. This in turn prompts a journalistic round-up of the Left’s handy and standard boogeymen — the Klan, David Duke, backwoods militias and, if you can believe it, people who wear their hair “in an undercut style once popular among the Hitler Youth”.

Nazi haircuts! What more proof could anyone demand?

Need it be said that the story is piffle, that it is part of an emerging narrative intent on framing the next four years as a period that will see the politically correct tirelessly encouraged to denounce tax cuts and any easing of the regulatory straitjacket as the moral equivalents of invading Poland? You would need to be supremely dim to give such a slur any credence, which explains why Fairfax editors published it.

Trouble is, the jackbooted legions whose hatred is said be soiling America’s fruited plain are an uncooperative lot, as Fairfax US correspondent Paul McGeough will have to admit if he ever gets around to correcting a pre-election report that appeared beneath his byline on November 3. The multi-Walkley winner informed his readers:

“Vote Trump” was spray-painted on the ruins of Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church in Greenville, 160 kilometres north-west of Jackson, overnight on Tuesday. Local fire chief Ruben Brown said the church was badly damaged but no injuries have been reported.

Coinciding with the Ku Klux Klan’s endorsement of Donald Trump in a campaign that has become overtly racist, the attack kindles fears of a return to the 1960s civil rights unrest, when southern black churches were often torched or bombed by white supremacists.

It’s a minor quibble that McGeough preferred to generalise about “white supremacists”, rather than identify the church-burners of long ago for the segregationist Southern Democrats they really were. So let that omission pass and focus instead on the real problem with his bid to tie Trump to the Klan: it wasn’t white men in pointy hoods who burnt that Mississippi church. According to the state police, it was a black congregant — that’s his mugshot atop this post — who set the fire, presumably in hope of prompting some pro-Clinton votes and publicity.

Mississippi Department of Public Safety spokesman Warren Strain says Andrew McClinton of Leland, Mississippi, who is African-American, is charged with first-degree arson of a place of worship.

It would be nice to think McGeough’s editors will publish a retraction, that they are keen to set the record straight. And while they’re at it, they might take a close look at another of his dispatches which alleged a wave of attacks by racists celebrating Trump’s victory. Yes, there have been many reports of Trump-inspired racist assaults — and it seems, as even the Washington Post concedes, more than a few were false-flag hoaxes.

Israel Lobbied Trump to Help Derail U.N. Resolution Development pits an incoming administration directly against the sitting president; resolution’s sponsor, Egypt, postpones vote after Sisi and Trump spoke By Jay Solomon, Rory Jones and Farnaz Fassihi

Israeli government officials requested that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump intervene in deliberations at the United Nations focused on passing a new resolution on the Arab-Israel conflict, thrusting him into the center of one of the world’s most intractable conflicts even before taking office, according to Israeli officials briefed on the discussions.

Top Israeli officials had come to believe that the Obama administration wasn’t going to block a U.N. resolution that seeks to define Israeli construction in disputed territories as “illegal” when the measure came up for a scheduled vote by the Security Council on Thursday, according to the officials.

Instead, they turned to the incoming president, who has staked out positions more favorable to conservative Israelis and at odds with Palestinians.

Mr. Trump responded Thursday morning by issuing a Twitter message calling for U.S. opposition to the U.N. resolution. He also held a phone conversation with Egypt’s President Abel Fatah al-Sisi, whose government had drafted the U.N. resolution. Cairo proceeded on Thursday to call for a delay on the vote.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump’s transition team said Mr. Sisi initiated the call. Transition officials didn’t respond to questions about Israeli government contacts.

Obama administration officials declined to comment on how it would have voted on the U.N. resolution. State Department spokesman John Kirby confirmed that Secretary of State John Kerry talked with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday morning.

Palestinians and their allies favor a resolution such as the one that was under consideration, and may yet push for another vote on the measure. But the unusual developments Thursday, pitting an incoming administration directly against the sitting president, accentuates the uneasiness in the U.S. political transition, particularly on such a key foreign-policy issue.

In Mr. Obama’s final year in office, the White House has considered ways to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and in recent months has considered supporting a U.N. resolution, according to White House officials.

Mr. Trump is expected to significantly shift U.S. policy on Israel, condoning the construction of settlements in disputed areas and proposing the move of the American embassy to Jerusalem.

Egyptian officials said that the phone call between Messrs. Sisi and Trump was the start of a new, U.S.-led approach in the Middle East.

“They have agreed to lay the groundwork for the new administration to drive the establishment of a true peace between the Arabs and the Israelis,” an Egyptian official said. “Moreover, President-elect Trump strongly supports the Egyptian leaders efforts to seek a satisfactory resolution to the issues across the Middle East.”

In his Twitter message about the U.N. resolution, Mr. Trump held to one longstanding tenet of U.S. policy—that any agreement must be decided by Israelis and Palestinians. CONTINUE AT SITE

Patriot’s Day – A Review By Marilyn Penn

A well-deserved tribute to Patriot’s Day, the docudrama about the terrorism at the Boston Marathon, is that despite its Hallmark message of love triumphing over hate, it remains a riveting, compelling movie on many levels. It’s a tense whodunit, and an even more excrutiating “how-and-when-to-do -it” as the decision of whether to release the surveillance photos of the two suspects will help or hinder attempts to find them It illustrates the power plays between various levels of local government and federal investigators and enforcers It doesn’t shy away from explicitly showing the horrific injuries sustained by survivors nor the depths of grief at the loss of life It focuses on the dedication of medical workers and the willingness of ordinary, untrained people to rush towards helping victims as opposed to running away in fear. Perhaps, even more bravely, it restores the role of heroes to the men in blue and other first responders – a role too quickly forgotten after 9/11 This is a movie that should be seen by all Americans who too hastily jumped onto the bandwagon of Black Lives Matter and various politicians to condemn our policemen en masse for the actions of a tiny fraction of their colleagues

Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg have successfully collaborated on other disaster films but this one strikes most closely to home, dealing with an activity in which people of all ages could participate – as athletes, as recreational runners, as spirited observers of a thrilling contest or just patriotic fans of their own city. This last category figures prominently in the final uplifting slogan of Boston Strong as we see the Red Sox trade their team jerseys in their post-marathon game for ones featuring the single word BOSTON. Sadly, this movie is all too timely as various other attacks by Muslim jihadists continue to recur throughout our country and the world – most recently in Berlin The ideology behind jihad is skimmed over lightly in this film with more emphasis given to the notion that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older more charismatic brother, dominated both his wife and younger brother Dzhokar into complying with his personal agenda – one which the younger brother might not have pursued independently. In a climactic scene in which the two brothers are fleeing Boston and driving to New York with two more bombs in the car, Dzhokar is seen resisting one aspect of his brother’s plan – an action that provokes Tamerlan, an amateur boxer, into a physical confrontation in which he beats and threatens to kill his brother if he doesn’t do exactly as instructed This scene (which had no witnesses) dramatizes as fact the subsequent legal strategy of Dzhokar’s defense team in trying to avoid the death penalty for their client. It stands out as one of the few instances in which there is no hard evidence for the audience to gauge whether the events we are watching ever took place In the courtroom, jurors would hear the prosecution’s rejection of that theory, which they ultimately preferred when they sentenced Dzhokar to death But, since most of the film uses surveillance film from many sources, we tend to accept the “truth” of what we are shown, forgetting that this is a feature film and not even a documentary It was an odd choice on the part of the filmmakers to not hedge the presentation of this slant as something suggested by a friend or family member (hearsay) instead of showing it as a re-enactment which appears to be true.

Is Communism Cool? Ask a Millennial The U.S.S.R. broke up 25 years ago—ancient history for some. By Andrew Clark see note please

These statistics are appalling but correct….The expensive Chardonnay crowd is now flocking to a Potemkin Cuba and gushing about it….They really need to spend a week in jail in Venezuela…..but of course they are idiots and ignorant and I would venture a bet that they never read Robert Conquest….or even heard of him. rsk

Millennials are one of history’s luckiest generations. We were fortunate to be born around the end of the Cold War a quarter century ago, when the tyrannical Communism embodied in the Soviet Union came tumbling down, also knocking socialism down a few pegs along the way. We have grown up in a world where, for the most part, economic and personal freedom are the rule rather than exception.

And apparently we hate it. How else does one explain why so many millennials seem to long to live in government-run economies, or worse?

A Gallup poll in June 2015 found that almost 70% of U.S. millennials would be willing to vote for a socialist presidential candidate. Even more shocking, a poll conducted before this year’s presidential election by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that barely half of millennials believe “Communism was or is a problem.”

The same poll found that a quarter of millennials hold favorable opinions of Vladimir Lenin, while 18% think favorably of Mao Zedong. More than 10% even have positive feelings about Joseph Stalin. Never mind that these men were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions and the impoverishment of hundreds of millions.

These polling numbers are frightening—especially when the Communist-ruled and socialist nations in the world today, from North Korea and Cuba to Venezuela, show so clearly how such systems invariably lead to repression and declining standards of living for their populations.

Part of the problem is that many millennials see these ideologies as represented by Scandinavian countries, an ignorant view fed them by candidate Bernie Sanders, among others. As Harvard and Stanford visiting professor Daniel Schatz (a Swede) wrote in Forbes in February, “Sweden began to reverse its economic model during the 1990s” through privatization and deregulation. Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen was even more unequivocal in a speech earlier this year: “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Scandinavian economies are in some ways freer than those in the U.S. The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom gives these countries high marks for limited regulatory burdens and for corporate tax rates lower than in the U.S. In many ways it’s easier to start a successful business and take part in economic life in a Scandinavian country than it is in America.

Obama’s Midnight Regulation Express The goal is to issue more rules than the new administration could ever repeal. By Kimberley A. Strassel

Barack Obama isn’t known for humility, though rarely has his lack of grace been more on display than in his final hours in office. The nation rejected his agenda. The president’s response? To shove more of that agenda down the nation’s gullet.

Notice the growing and many ugly ways the Obama administration is actively working to undermine a Donald Trump presidency. Unnamed administration sources whisper stories about Russian hackers to delegitimize Mr. Trump’s election. These whispers began at about the same time Hillary Clinton officials began pressuring electors to defy election results and deny Mr. Trump the presidency. How helpful.

Trump transition-team members report how Obama officials are providing them with skewed or incomplete information, as well as lectures about their duties on climate change. (No wonder Mr. Trump is bypassing those “official” intelligence briefings.) The Energy Department is refusing to provide the transition team with the names of career officials who led key programs, like those who attended U.N. climate talks. Sen. Ron Johnson recently sent a letter to President Obama voicing alarm over “burrowing,” in which political appointees, late in an administration, convert to career bureaucrats and become obstacles to the new political appointees.

But perhaps nothing has more underlined the Obama arrogance than his final flurry of midnight regulations. With each new proposed rule or executive order, Mr. Obama is spitefully mocking the nation that just told him “enough.”

The technical definition of a midnight regulation is one issued between Election Day and the inauguration of a new president. The practice is bipartisan. George W. Bush, despite having promised not to do so, pushed through a fair number of rules in his final months. But Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were more aggressive, and Mr. Obama is making them look like pikers.

Mr. Obama has devoted his last year to ramming through controversial and far-reaching rules. Whether it was born of a desire to lay groundwork for a Clinton presidency, or as a guard against a Trump White House, the motive makes no difference. According to a Politico story of nearly a year ago, the administration had some 4,000 regulations in the works for Mr. Obama’s last year. They included smaller rules on workplace hazards, gun sellers, nutrition labels and energy efficiency, as well as giant regulations (costing billions) on retirement advice and overtime pay.

Since the election Mr. Obama has broken with all precedent by issuing rules that would be astonishing at any moment and are downright obnoxious at this point. This past week we learned of several sweeping new rules from the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, including regs on methane on public lands (cost: $2.4 billion); a new anti-coal rule related to streams ($1.2 billion) and renewable fuel standards ($1.5 billion).

This follows Mr. Obama’s extraordinary announcement that he will invoke a dusty old law to place nearly all of the Arctic Ocean, and much of the Atlantic Ocean, off limits to oil or gas drilling. This follows his highly politicized move to shut down the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota. And it comes amid reports the administration is rushing to implement last-minute rules on commodities speculation, immigrant workers and for-profit colleges—among others. CONTINUE AT SITE

Australia Disrupts ‘Terrorist Plot’ Timed for Christmas, Prime Minister Says Seven people arrested; explosive devices were planned for Melbourne By Rhiannon Hoyle and Rob Taylor

CANBERRA, Australia—Authorities said they disrupted a terrorist plot inspired by Islamic State to explode improvised bombs in central Melbourne on or around Christmas Day, with a railway station and a cathedral among the suspected targets.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said seven people were arrested, of whom five were expected to be charged over the plot. The plan allegedly involved the use of several improvised explosive devices, and a senior police chief said the accused plotters may have planned to use other weapons as well, including knives and a firearm.

Authorities alleged the suspects had scouted popular sites in Melbourne, Australia’s second-largest city and home to some 4 million people, as possible targets. The locations included the centrally located Flinders Street train station, St. Paul’s Cathedral and Federation Square, a popular riverside gathering place.

Mr. Turnbull called it “one of the most substantial terrorist plots” of recent years.

After a truck earlier this week plowed into a Berlin Christmas market, killing 12 people and injuring about 50 others, the Australian government ordered intensified security arrangements ahead of the Christmas and New Year celebrations, with state and national police on guard against a similar attack. Sydney holds large New Year fireworks celebrations each year, usually attracting more than a million people.

In the predawn hours of Friday, counterterrorism police raided several Melbourne buildings and arrested six men and one woman. Five of the men, all in their 20s, were expected to face charges including “acts in preparation of a terrorist event.”

Three appeared in a Melbourne court Friday, aged between 21 and 26, while two others were expected to face a judge on Saturday.

Australia’s five-tier terrorism threat alert system has been set at “probable,” the third-highest level, since September 2014. In December of that year, a lone gunman, later identified as Iranian immigrant Man Haron Monis, took over a central Sydney cafe and held numerous people hostage for 16 hours before police killed the gunman to end the siege. Two hostages—the cafe’s manager and a female customer—also died.

Since then there have been four attacks and 12 others disrupted. In September this year, police charged a 22-year-old man with committing a terrorist act and attempted murder after he allegedly stabbed another man multiple times in Sydney. In total, 57 people have been charged with terrorism-related offenses, Mr. Turnbull said. CONTINUE AT SITE

World Europe Berlin Attack Exposes Gaps in European Security Network Suspect’s path to continent reflects broader issues of coordination, data-gathering and porous borders By Matthew Dalton

PARIS—The prime suspect in the Berlin truck attack arrived in Europe five years ago, at the leading edge of a wave of nearly uncontrolled immigration. That influx, culminating in the 2015 mass arrival of refugees, has exposed the region to security threats that will linger far into the future.

The path of the suspect—a 24-year-old Tunisian named Anis Amri who served jail time in Italy, then was detained briefly and released in Germany—has laid bare multiple failings in Europe’s security apparatus, including poor cooperation between national governments, porous borders and lack of biometric data to identify people who use false identities.

Compounding those problems, the rise of Islamic State and Germany’s decision to throw open the door to refugees last year has left security services overwhelmed as they try to track jihadist The attacks in Paris in 2015 and Brussels in March confirmed fears that Islamist groups had exploited refugee flows to smuggle operatives into the heart of Europe. Investigators have determined most of the assailants in those cases traveled from Syria through the Balkans and then Central Europe along with a river of refugees in the summer and fall of 2015.

Around the same time, Mr. Amri was released after four years in an Italian prison for starting a fire at a refugee shelter. The authorities ordered him to return to Tunisia. Instead, he headed to Germany, where he roamed freely using a series of false identities and sought asylum.

His path to Berlin is prompting calls for Europe to fix the longstanding security flaws of the Schengen Zone, which allows border-free travel throughout much of the region.

“We are very late, and we’re in the process of catching up,” said Georges Fenech, chairman of the French parliamentary committee that investigated the Paris attacks. “Because today, these terrorists move freely in the Schengen area. From the moment they enter with the migrants, they pass borders without much difficulty.”

Overtaxed security agencies dropped 24-hour surveillance of Mr. Amri this year when they failed to find enough evidence to make him a high-priority target. Mr. Amri had been under scrutiny after authorities discovered links between him and a radical cleric.

Police detained him in July when they discovered his request for asylum was denied and he was to be deported. But they released him a day later, because of Germany’s strict legal limits on the detention of migrants and Tunisia’s unwillingness at the time to take him back. CONTINUE AT SITE