PODCAST: Could the Sept 3 Terrifying Attacks Have Been Prevented – Buchanan + Manning

5
274

A View from Afar – In this week’s podcast, Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss: three areas that have been relied on to protect New Zealanders from terror-styled attacks; legal measures designed to protect communities from danger and even protect individuals from themselves and why they failed.

The background to this episode is the tragic, terrifying, attacks that were committed against unarmed innocent people at West Auckland’s LynnMall Countdown supermarket, by Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen.

The attacks occurred last Friday, September 3, 2021. It ended with the hospitalisation of seven people, and, the death of Mr Samsudeen who was fatally shot by special tactics Police officers during his attempt to kill and injure as many people as he could.

Immediately after, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told the nation that the dead man was a terrorist and that she herself, the Police, and the courts were all aware of how dangerous he was and had been seeking to protect New Zealand from this man.

Within days of the attacks, we learned, that Mr Samsudeen was a troubled man with psychologists describing him as angry, capable of carrying out his threats, and displaying varying degrees of mental illness and disorder.

Mr Samsudeen was a refugee who sought asylum here in New Zealand after experiencing, through his formative years, civil war and ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka, who, at around 20 years of age, arrived in New Zealand on a student visa and then sought asylum.

He was eventually granted refugee status, and since then spent years in prison on various charges and convictions – largely involving the possession of terrorist propaganda seeded on the internet by ISIS, and, threats showing intent to commit terrorist acts against New Zealanders.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

In this week’s episode, Paul Buchanan and I examine questions as to whether this tragedy could have been prevented and consider New Zealand’s:

  • Security and terror laws
  • Deportation laws involving those with refugee status
  • Mental Health Act and whether this was available to the authorities.

We will also analyse whether it is necessary for the New Zealand Government to move to tighten New Zealand’s terrorism security laws. And, if it does, how the intended new laws compare to other Five Eyes member countries.

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Podchaser - Evening Report
Listen on Apple Podcasts
***

5 COMMENTS

  1. Very sad how little political compassion and grief showed for the victims by the political parties.

    Practically nothing on their websites about this terror attack and very brief messages of sympathy or nothing at all about this event in the political party news. Any statements seem more concerned about protecting minority groups and ruling out immediately that he was involved in an organised religion or group in spite of all the evidence, that in his eyes, he was doing it for Islam and staying at a mosque. His parents apparently are claiming that he was radicalised in NZ by his neighbours.

    The political response seems very unlike Tarrants terror attack, in which government immediately blamed the white supremacy movement, arrested all those who had material and distributed it and closely afterwards, as well as pointing the finger at gun owners (who were the ones who reported Tarrant). I can’t recall the government trying to protect white supremacists and Australians from vigilante attacks, last time in their sole press releases.

    The mixed messages are treating people poorly, the majority can work out that this man does not represent the majority of Islam, Sri Lankians or refugees and it dilutes the messages of sympathy and concern for the victims as well as the double standards. It feels political not genuine, concern.

    There is not enough (or any) recognition for the community of New Lynn that helped the victims first, the bravery of victims themselves, before the terrorist was shot. The medical staff treating the victims in hospitals.

    Last time there was national out pouring of grief, people fundraising for the victims (which sadly sounds like didn’t get to some of them). Crickets this time.

    Seems like a completely different level of concern and sympathy than for the first attack victims. The reason that Mr Samsudeen did not kill and more victims is that this Mr Samsudeen was not given a gun license by police, had hunting knives removed and had to improvised with countdown knives, had private security of two armed police following him to shoot him within minutes, which is pretty troubling in itself.

    Some people on social media have commented, there does not seem any worry about suicide attackers which have become a method of terror around the world.

    Doesn’t make the community feel very safe, or that people are treated equally under law in NZ or that our government have their eyes wide open on this one.

    The other point it is not clear he was a refugee, he claimed refugee status but it was appealed by NZ immigration and the police who apparently found out that he had fabricated medical reports and family reports. He was having his hearing the next month, to decide. Therefore he was never proved to be a refugee at all and now in his death I’m not sure he ever will be.

    • Hi, Mr Samsudeen was initially denied refugee status, but on appeal was granted this. Later the authorities believed documents that supported Mr Samsudeen’s appeal appeared to be fraudulent. That was alleged but had not concluded in a withdrawal of refugee status. The advice authorities received was that irrespective of the validity of supporting documents, Mr Samsudeen would very likely, should he be deported back to Sri Lanka, be tortured. In that case, New Zealand was not able to deport him, irrespective of whether he had his refugee status withdrawn.

      To quote Andrew Geddis: “The prohibition on sending people to places where they are at real danger of being tortured isn’t something we thought up for ourselves. It’s an obligation under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which we’ve recognised independently in our domestic law. Indeed, irrespective of this treaty, the prohibition on torture is regarded as “jus cogens” – a basic norm that applies to all states at all times. As such, it’s very hard to see how we can change our Immigration Act to allow for deporting people in the Auckland terrorist’s situation without breaching one of the most fundamental rules of international law. And New Zealand, remember, is a big fan of making sure international law is followed.” ref. https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/why-not-just-send-the-auckland-terrorist-back

      • I’d say that’s a significant loophole. Again it’s getting beyond the bounds of practicality and fairness for other refugees in particular those in camps waiting to be resettled or have got real death sentence in their country through the courts, when they have not harmed anyone, aka Ahmed Zaoui. NZ is at present helping extradition to the US for Dotcom whose plight started with a civil matter, that was later to be proven not even a crime in NZ, aka copywriter infringement, the law is becoming less and less about justice and helping society. US not only has the death penalty, it is pretty much known that it seldom delivers any justice if the government is the one pursuing the charges.

        Mr Samsudeen was very vocal that he wanted to harm people in particular ‘Kiwi scums” and did harm people like he said. This makes a mockery of human rights and the refugee process which is clearly now able to be manipulated in NZ. The irony is that Mr Samsudeen’s family are alive and sound completely fine and not victims of any government toture, while Mr Samsudeen is now shot dead and 7 people in hospital…

        Not the first refugee that is victimising people in NZ, that our government seems unable to do anything about. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/111480343/judges-difficult-sentencing-of-a-refugee-who-wont-stop-offending

        Seems pretty convenient for the government and lefties to largely ignore the tortured Lake Alice kids, who finally got the torture ruling at the UN, and still don’t seem to have found any real justice by the sounds of it in NZ.

        The problem with the woke obsession with these technicalities is that they become a farce. Mr Samsudeen trying to kill 7 people while having a two person security detail shows what a farce NZ has become. A father commented on social media in New Lynn that they threatened to make someone pay for their daughters treatment by someone, and were whipped into the police station to face charges! Double Standards.

        • With respect, your comment is all over the place. So let’s cut to the chase. You mentioned the case of Ahmed Zaoui. He was found to be a legitimate refugee, but that didn’t stop the NZ SIS first issuing a security risk certificate against him then sustaining that decision – pending investigation by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security. Finally, years later, Mr Zaoui was found to be a risk to no one.

          The thing is… we are told that in attempting to stop Mr Samsudeen from being a danger to the New Zealand community and himself, the authorities exhausted all legal powers available to them. Really? If when the Police decided to take the security route to court rather than the mental illness/disorder route, why did they rely on the Terrorism Suppression Act when it is clear the TSA wasn’t able to achieve their goal? Why didn’t the NZ SIS issue a security risk certificate against Mr Samsudeen and hold him in custody pending an investigative hearing by the IGIS?
          That… I argue, is the one element of New Zealand law that the security apparatus could have used. They chose not to. Why? That remains unanswered.
          PS: Paul Buchanan and I dig in to that element in our video/audio above…

Comments are closed.