Bericht der Behörden hat Lücken – Anis Amri: neue Fragen trotz Transparenz-Versprechen

Offenheit und lückenlose Aufklärung, das versprechen die zuständigen Sicherheitsbehörden, um den Fall Amri aufzuarbeiten. Nun haben sie einen ersten Bericht vorgelegt – aber der beantwortet die Fragen nur auf den ersten Blick.

Das Versprechen ist groß und bislang einmalig: Öffentlich und lückenlos soll die Arbeit der Sicherheitsbehörden im Fall Amri aufgearbeitet, sollen Unterlagen transparent gemacht werden. Das Bundesjustizministerium (BMJV) und das Bundesinnenministerium (BMI) haben in der vergangenen Woche dazu eine Chronologie vorgelegt.

Auf den ersten Blick scheint sie alle Fragen zum Attentäter vom Berliner Breitscheidplatz zu beantworten. Um den Willen zur Transparenz zu bekräftigen, fügten die Ministerien im Laufe der Woche noch mehrere Updates hinzu.

Doch wer sich den Details zuwendet, entdeckt viele offene Fragen, auf die es noch immer keine Antworten gibt. Nach rbb-Recherchen betrifft dies vor allem die Arbeit der Bundesbehörden.

“Wir müssen Konsequenzen ziehen”

Norbert Lammert hat bei der Gedenkminute des Bundestags die besonnene Reaktion der Bürger nach dem Anschlag auf den Berliner Weihnachtsmarkt gelobt – und zugleich Konsequenzen gefordert.
Von keiner Gefahr zum “Foreign Fighter”

Zur Erinnerung: Für die Berliner Behörden stellte Anis Amri im September 2016 keine Gefahr mehr dar. Alle Überwachungsmaßnahmen endeten am 21.09.2016. Doch nur wenige Tage später wird Amri plötzlich von den Sicherheitsbehörden als “Foreign Fighter” eingestuft.

Wörtlich heißt es in der von BMI und BMJV erstellten neuen Chronologie für den 13.10. 2016: “Erfassung des Amri als ‘Foreign Fighter’ im Inpol-System bis zum 06.10.2017 und Mitteilung an das BKA hinsichtlich der Übermittlung an alle Schengenstaaten und Übermittlung der Zusatzinformation ‘Foreign Fighter’.”

Hier beginnen die Fragen: Wer hat diese Einstufung veranlasst? Das beantwortet die Chronologie nicht. Nach Informationen des rbb kann dies nur durch eine Bundesbehörde veranlasst werden. Um welche Behörde es sich dabei handelt, ist bislang unklar.

MEHR ZUM THEMA

Stationen der Flucht des Attentäters Anis Amri nach dem Anschlag auf dem Breitscheidtplatz in Berlin (Quelle: dpa)
Staatsanwaltschaft unzureichend informiert

Berliner Behörden hätten Terroranschlag verhindern können

Die Berliner Staatsanwaltschaft hätte Anis Amri in Haft nehmen und damit den Terroranschlag am Breitscheidplatz verhindern können – wenn sie besser informiert worden wäre. Das wurde am Mittwoch auf einer Sitzung des Innenauschusses des Bundestages deutlich.

Verfassungsschutz weist Beteiligung zurück

Ebenso offen ist ein Vermerk in einem sogenannten “Personagramm” zu Anis Amri, das dem rbb exklusiv vorliegt. Ein Personagramm wird von den Sicherheitsbehörden über so genannte Gefährder erstellt und bündelt alle Erkenntnisse und Maßnahmen zur jeweiligen Person.

Das Personagramm zu Anis Amri wurde von den Sicherheitsbehörden in Nordrhein-Westfalen erarbeitet, es spiegelt den Erkenntnisstand vom 14. Dezember 2016 wider. Die Behörden vermerken darin nicht nur, dass sich Amri wieder in Berlin befinden soll, sondern auch, dass schon am 13. Oktober folgende Maßnahmen gegen ihn eingeleitet wurden: “PB07 / Nachrichtendienstliche Beobachtung durch BfV”. Ein Vermerk, der weitere Fragen aufwirft.

Was sich hinter “PB07” verbirgt ist noch einfach zu beantworten: “Polizeiliche Beobachtung” im Zusammenhang mit Terrorismus / Exterrorismus. Schwieriger zu beantworten ist jedoch die Frage, was “Nachrichtendienstliche Beobachtung durch BfV” bedeutet. Nach Informationen des rbb kann diese Maßnahme nur durch eine Bundesbehörde veranlasst werden. Naheliegend ist da das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV). Doch das BfV weist auf Anfrage des rbb jede Beteiligung zurück.

Schriftlich heißt es: “Ihre Fragen nach dem Eintrag in den von Ihnen zitierten Unterlagen sind für uns nicht nachvollziehbar. Das genannte Datum 13.10.2016 kann hier nicht in Zusammenhang mit einem Tätigwerden des BfV gesetzt werden.”

Nachfragen bei den Sicherheitsbehörden in Nordrhein-Westfalen blieben ebenso erfolglos, es gibt keine Erklärung für den Eintrag in einem der zentralen Dokumente für Gefährder. Die versprochene Transparenz, sie lässt zu wünschen übrig – solange zentrale Dokumente wie Amris Personagramm nicht lückenlos erklärt werden.

Beitrag von Susanne Opalka, Jo Goll, René Althammer
21.01.17 | 15:47 Uhr

Find this story at 21 January 2017
© rbb

Anschlag in Berlin Sollte Anis Amri als V-Mann angeworben werden?

War Anis Amri ein V-Mann der Sicherheitsbehörden? Eine Aussage der nordrheinwest-fälischen Ministerpräsidentin Hannelore Kraft machte stutzig. Sie hatte gesagt, beim Umgang mit Amri gehe es auch darum, „mehr Erkenntnisse über mutmaßliche (Terror)-Zellen zu erlangen“. Da müssten die Behörden abwägen.

Entsprechende Berichte dementierten sowohl das Bundesinnenministerium als auch das NRW-Innenministerium. Amri sei kein V-Mann der Sicherheitsbehörden.

Doch viele Episoden in dem mehrstufigen Behördenversagen im Fall Amri werfen Fragen auf:

Nach einer Festnahme Amris in Ravensburg im Juli 2016 wegen falscher Pässe und Betäubungsmitteln wird er kurz darauf wieder freigelassen auf Verfügung des NRW-Innenministeriums, weil eine Abschiebung nicht möglich sei.

Amri nahm laut „Welt am Sonntag“ selbst regelmäßig Ecstasy und Kokain und finanzierte sein Leben weitgehend als Dealer. Schon in seiner Heimat war der 24-Jährige demnach wegen Drogendelikten aufgefallen. Ermittler fragten sich, ob er bei dem Anschlag unter Drogeneinfluss gestanden habe.

Offenbar führte der Drogenkonsum das LKA in Berlin zu einer fatalen Fehleinschätzung: Wie die „Bild“ berichtet, sei er für die Polizei nicht mehr als Islamist infrage gekommen, weil er Drogen nahm.

Im November nahm die Polizei mehrere Islamisten aus seinem Umfeld fest – ihn selbst aber nicht.

Außerdem hat nach Medieninformationen ein V-Mann Amri im März nach Berlin gefahren.

Dazu kommt: Amri reiste mit mindestens 14 verschiedenen Identitäten durch Deutschland und kassierte mehrfach Unterstützungsleistungen vom Staat. Nach Informationen der „Rheinischen Post“ wurde das Verfahren gegen Amri wegen Sozialbetrugs aber nicht in der normal zuständigen Abteilung, sondern in der „politischen Abteilung“ durchgeführt.

Wenn Amri also kein V-Mann war – sollte er dann angeworben werden?
Frank Tempel, der Vizefraktionschef der Linken, sagte der „Bild am Sonntag“: „Es gibt eine Menge Indizien, dass da etwas faul ist.“
Die Grünen-Fraktionschefin Kathrin Göring-Eckardt sagte der „Bild“: „Ich will keine Verdächtigungen äußern, bevor ich alle Fakten auf dem Tisch habe. Ich kann aber nicht verstehen, warum Herr Amri trotz der Faktenlage frei rumlaufen durfte.“

In der kommenden Woche könnten weitere Details ans Licht kommen. Der Innenausschuss und das parlamentarische Kontrollgremium des Bundestags versuchen, einen ersten Überblick zu erlangen. Die Union will einen Untersuchungsausschuss gründen, die SPD fordert sogar einen Sonderermittler. Ziel ist herauszufinden, was genau in der Absprache und Zusammenarbeit der Landes- und Bundesbehörden schief lief.
In einem sind sich die führenden Politiker einig: Etwaige Sicherheitslücken bei den Behörden müssen so schnell wie möglich geschlossen werden.

15.01.2017, 12:24

Find this story at 15 January 2017

Copyright http://www.focus.de/

Acht wertvolle Stunden vergingen, bis nach Amri gefahndet wurde

Laut Informationen der Welt am Sonntag hätte Italien Anis Amri schon 2011 abschieben können. Die Behörden sollen damals eine beglaubigte Abschrift der Geburtsurkunde erhalten haben.

Bei der Jagd nach dem Attentäter vom Berliner Breitscheidplatz kam es nach Recherchen der „Welt“ zu einer Verzögerung.

Obwohl die Identität am Tag nach dem Attentat ermittelt war, dauerte es, bis bundes- und europaweit gefahndet wurde.
Anis Amri reiste drei Tage lang ungehindert von Deutschland in die Niederlande, anschließend weiter nach Italien.
61 Kommentare

Anzeige
Die Geldbörse lag unter dem Fahrersitz des Lastwagens. Darüber befand sich eine Decke. Bei einer ersten groben Sichtung war sie den Ermittlern wohl deshalb nicht aufgefallen. Erst bei einer genaueren Untersuchung des Führerhauses wurde das Portemonnaie schließlich gefunden – und damit ein entscheidender Hinweis auf den Attentäter vom Berliner Breitscheidplatz. Darin befand sich Bargeld und ein Stück Papier. Es war eine Duldung, ausgestellt vom Landratsamt im nordrhein-westfälischen Kleve auf einen „Ahmed Elmasri, geboren am 01.01.1995 in Skendiria/Tunesien“.

Der Name war falsch. Bei der Person, so stellten die Ermittler schnell fest, handelte es sich um den 24-jährigen Tunesier Anis Amri. Der im Duldungsbescheid angegebene Name war eine seiner 14 Identitäten, die den Behörden bekannt waren. Amri galt schon länger als radikaler Islamist, war sogar als „Gefährder“ eingestuft. Monatelang hatten gleich mehrere Sicherheitsbehörden gegen ihn ermittelt, ohne handfeste Beweise zu finden.

Amri erschoss Lkw-Fahrer offenbar Stunden vor Anschlag
Der polnische Lkw-Fahrer, der nach dem Lastwagenanschlag in Berlin tot auf dem Beifahrersitz gefunden wurde, hatte laut Informationen der „Bild“ schon Stunden vor der Tat einen Kopfschuss erlitten.

Quelle: Die Welt
Mit den gefundenen Papieren rückte er plötzlich wieder ins Visier der Fahnder. Die Geldbörse im Lkw machte Anis Amri schlagartig zum neuen Hauptverdächtigen des Anschlags auf den Weihnachtsmarkt in Berlin mit zwölf Toten und Dutzenden Verletzten. Doch obwohl die Identität des Terrorverdächtigen nun bekannt war, vergingen wichtige Stunden, bis eine bundesweite und auch europaweite Fahndung nach ihm ausgelöst wurde. Das zeigen Recherchen der „Welt“, und das bestätigten Sicherheitsbehörden auf Nachfrage.

Anzeige
Das Bundesinnen- und das Bundesjustizministerium haben in der vergangenen Woche eine 19 Seiten lange Chronologie veröffentlicht. Sie trägt den Titel „Behördenhandeln um die Person des Attentäters vom Breitscheidplatz Anis Amri“. Aufgelistet sind darin die Erkenntnisse der Behörden zur Gefährlichkeit des Islamisten und auch die erfolglosen Versuche, ihn abzuschieben. Was auffällt: Es fehlen die Aktionen der Ermittler in den Stunden und Tagen unmittelbar nach dem Anschlag. Genau in diesem Zeitraum kam es jedoch womöglich zu einer folgenschweren Fahndungspanne – oder zumindest zu einer fragwürdigen Entscheidung der Terrorfahnder.

Was geschah in den Stunden nach dem Anschlag?

Am Montag, 19. Dezember 2016, um kurz nach 20 Uhr, war Anis Amri mit dem zuvor gestohlenen polnischen Lastwagen in den Weihnachtsmarkt am Breitscheidplatz gerast. Der Attentäter überlebte und konnte in dem Wirrwarr unerkannt fliehen. Kurze Zeit später nahm die Polizei nach einem Zeugenhinweis unweit des Berliner Tiergartens einen Verdächtigen fest: den pakistanischen Asylbewerber Naved B.

Doch es ließen sich keinerlei Belege dafür finden, dass der Mann tatsächlich der Attentäter ist – weder Fingerabdrücke im Lkw noch DNA. Und so wuchsen innerhalb der Berliner Polizei in den folgenden Stunden die Zweifel daran, ob man wirklich den richtigen Täter gefasst hatte.

Anis Amri soll regelmäßig Drogen genommen haben
Der Attentäter von Berlin, Anis Amri, war Drogendealer und hat auch selbst regelmäßig Drogen konsumiert. Das geht aus einem Sachstandsbericht hervor. Auch in Berlin verkaufte der Tunesier demnach Drogen.

Quelle: Die Welt
Am Tag nach dem Attentat, am Morgen des 20. Dezember, begann die Berliner Polizei damit, den Lastwagen vom Breitscheidplatz abzuschleppen. Die Bremsen saßen fest, die Zugmaschine des Lasters war schwer beschädigt. Der Abtransport verzögerte sich daher. Es ging nur um Schrittempo voran. Erst am frühen Vormittag erreichte tonnenschwere Gefährt schließlich die Julius-Leber-Kaserne in Berlin-Reinickendorf. Dort, in einer Halle, fand die eigentliche Untersuchung durch die Tatortgruppe des LKA Berlin statt.

Spürhunde, sogenannte Mantrailer, wurden in die Fahrerkabine geschickt. Sie sollten den Geruch des Attentäters aufnehmen. Dann durchsuchten die Ermittler das Fahrerhaus. Überall lagen Glassplitter, Kleidungsstücke und Holzteile herum. Beim Aufprall und bei der Vollbremsung des Lastwagens waren Dutzende Einzelteile durch das Führerhaus geflogen. Zwischen 15 und 16 Uhr entdeckten die LKA-Ermittler im Fußraum unter dem Fahrersitz die Geldbörse mit dem Duldungsschreiben von „Ahmed Elmasri“ aus Kleve.

Es wurden Datenbanken abgefragt und Behördenanfragen verschickt. Schnell war „Ahmed Elmasri“ als Anis Amri identifiziert. Es war ein weiterer Hinweis darauf, dass der tags zuvor festgenommene Pakistaner Naved B. wohl unschuldig ist. Der neue Hauptverdächtige hieß jetzt Anis Amri. Und der war noch nicht gefasst.

Warum wurde mit der Fahndung so lange gewartet?

Was dann geschah, wirft einige Fragen auf: Denn obwohl die Identität des Attentäters den Ermittlern wohl spätestens am Dienstagnachmittag bekannt war, gab es nach Informationen der „Welt“ zunächst keine bundesweite Fahndung nach Anis Amri. In Berlin hatte man einen islamistischen „Gefährder“ als den mutmaßlichen Todesfahrer vom Breitscheidplatz ermittelt, jedoch die Polizeibehörden in 14 Bundesländern nicht über den neuen Verdächtigen in Kenntnis gesetzt.

Dabei hatte es am frühen Abend des 20. Dezember 2016, gegen 18.30 Uhr, bereits eine wichtige Telefonschaltkonferenz gegeben. Teilgenommen hatten die LKA-Präsidenten und ein Vertreter des Bundeskriminalamtes (BKA). Man habe, so informierte ein Ermittler aus Berlin, einen „sehr wertigen Hinweis“ auf einen neuen Verdächtigen. Ein LKA-Vertreter hakte nach, wollte wissen, um wen es sich handelt. Doch in Berlin, wo man seit Stunden bereits die Duldungspapiere von Anis Amri aus Kleve vorliegen hatte, herrschte Zurückhaltung. Man wollte keine weiteren Details nennen und lediglich ein betroffenes Bundesland informieren – in diesem Fall Nordrhein-Westfalen.

So vergingen Stunden, bis schließlich eine bundesweite und sogar europaweiten Fahndung nach dem Terrorverdächtigen ausgelöst wurde. Das LKA Berlin, das zu diesem Zeitpunkt mit der Besonderen Aufbauorganisatio (BAO) „Weihnachtsmarkt“ noch die Federführung bei den Ermittlungen innehatte, verschickte erst am 21. Dezember, um 0.06 Uhr, ein elektronisches Schreiben („VS-Nur für den Dienstgebrauch – Vorrangstufe: SOFORT“) an die Polizeibehörden der Länder, an die Bundespolizei, den Verfassungsschutz, den Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) und das Zollkriminalamt.

Das Dokument liegt der „Welt“ vor. Es enthält neben Fotos von Anis Amri auch diverse Alias-Namen des Islamisten und den Hinweis: „Es besteht der dringende Verdacht, dass er mit dem Anschlagsgeschehen in direkter Verbindung steht.“ Und bei „Antreffen ist nicht eigenständig heranzutreten“. Stattdessen solle das LKA informiert werden, um „Spezialkräfte“ einzusetzen.

Anis Amri ist tot – Ein Italiener ist Held des Terrordramas
Anis Amri ist tot. In Italien endet das Drama vom Terroranschlag auf den Weihnachtsmarkt am Breitscheidplatz, bei dem Amri einen Lastwagen in eine Menschenmenge gelenkt haben soll.

Quelle: Die Welt
Die eindringliche Warnung war durchaus berechtigt. Immerhin ging es um einen gefährlichen Terroristen, der bereits zwölf Menschen kaltblütig ermordet hatte. Elf wurden überrollt und zerquetscht, ein polnischer Lkw-Fahrer zuvor mit einer Pistole erschossen. Warum aber wurde die Warnung vor Amri den Polizeidienststellen bundesweit erst so spät mitgeteilt?

Und noch etwas fällt auf: Im Schreiben des Berliner LKA gibt es eine Zeitangabe, die im Widerspruch steht zu den offiziellen Angaben. Es heißt, die Geldbörse von Amri sei im Fußraum des Lkw am „20.12., 20:39 (…) festgestellt“ worden. Auf Nachfrage teilte die Berliner Polizei allerdings mit, die Geldbörse sei schon zwischen „15.00 und 16.00 Uhr“ aufgefunden worden.

Acht Stunden, vielleicht neun, vergingen

Vom Fund der Geldbörse bis zum Auslösen der bundes- und europaweiten Personenfahndung vergingen demnach mindestens acht, vielleicht sogar neun Stunden. In diesem Zeitraum waren lediglich die Polizeibehörden in Berlin, Nordrhein-Westfalen und das BKA über den Verdacht gegen Anis Amri informiert. Es seien verdeckte Maßnahmen gelaufen, heißt es aus Sicherheitskreisen. Man habe das bekannte Umfeld des „Gefährders“ im Blick gehabt.

Außerdem habe man nicht das Risiko eingehen wollen, dass Amri von der Suche nach ihm Wind bekommt. Etwa durch Presseveröffentlichungen. So zumindest ein Erklärungsversuch. Fraglich aber ist, ob neben den verdeckten Maßnahmen nicht auch eine umfassendere Fahndung angebracht gewesen wäre. Immerhin handelte es sich um einen Verdächtigen, der bereits auf brutale Weise gemordet hat – und der vermutlich bewaffnet war. Kann man da das Risiko eingehen nur den Freundeskreis, bekannte Wohnanschriften oder die frequentierten Moscheen zu observieren?

Das BKA bestätigte auf Nachfrage der „Welt“, dass auch erst am 21. Dezember 2016 ein Fahndungseintrag nach Anis Amri ins Schengener Informationssystem (SIS) erfolgte. Sprich, eine europaweite Jagd nach dem Islamisten gestartet wurde.

In dieser Zeit reiste Anis Amri, ein bewaffneter Zwölffach-Mörder, nicht nur durch die Bundesrepublik, sondern durch vier weitere EU-Staaten. Sein Weg führte über das niederländische Nijmegen und Amsterdam, weiter nach Brüssel, dann über Lyon, Chambery nach Turin und schließlich in einen Vorort von Mailand, wo er am frühen Morgen des 23. Dezember 2016 von italienischen Polizisten bei einem Schusswechsel getötet wurde.

Es ist reine Spekulation, ob Anis Amri in Deutschland weiter gemordet hätte, falls er auf seiner Flucht auf Polizisten gestoßen wäre. Klar ist aber: Bundesweit hätten Polizeibeamte stundenlang nicht gewusst, dass sie den Attentäter vom Breitscheidplatz vor sich haben.

Von Florian Flade | Stand: 25.01.2017 | Lesedauer: 7 Minuten
Find this story at 25 January 2017

© WeltN24 GmbH

Berlin Anschlag – Anis Amri: Viele Widersprüche

Bei der Jagd nach dem Attentäter vom Berliner Breitscheidplatz, Anis Amri, kam es offenbar zu einer Verzögerung von mehreren Stunden. Obwohl die Identität des Islamisten bereits am Tag nach dem Attentat ermittelt war, wurde lange Zeit nicht bundesweit oder europaweit nach Amri gefahndet, schreibt die “Welt”.
Demnach stießen die Ermittler des Berliner Landeskriminalamtes (LKA) am 20. Dezember 2016 bereits zwischen 15:00 und 16:00 Uhr bei der Untersuchung des Lastwagens auf eine Geldbörse mit einem Duldungsschreiben des Landratsamtes Kleve (NRW).

Ausgestellt war das Papier dem Bericht zufolge auf “Ahmed Elmasri”. Dabei handele es sich um einen Alias-Namen, der von Anis Amri bei einem Asylverfahren verwendet worden war. Obwohl das Duldungsschreiben schon kurze Zeit später dem als “Gefährder” eingestuften Anis Amri zugeordnet werden konnte, habe es stundenlang keine bundesweite Fahndung nach dem flüchtigen Islamisten gegeben.
Erst am 21. Dezember 2016, um 00:06 Uhr, verschickte das LKA Berlin laut “Welt” eine interne Personenfahndung nach Anis Amri an Polizeidienststellen bundesweit, das Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), den Verfassungsschutz, den Bundesnachrichtendienst (BKA) und das Zollkriminalamt. Außerdem sei dann auch eine europaweite Fahndung durch einen Eintrag im Schengener Informationssystem (SIS) ausgelöst worden.
Das Fahndungsschreiben aus Berlin enthalte zudem eine widersprüchliche Angabe zum Auffinden der Geldbörse und des Duldungsschreibens aus Kleve, schreibt die Zeitung weiter. Das Beweisstück sei am “20.12., 20:39 Uhr” festgestellt worden, heißt es demnach. Schon am 20. Dezember 2016 gegen 18:30 Uhr habe es eine Telefonkonferenz gegeben, an der LKA-Präsidenten und ein Vertreter des BKA teilgenommen hätten.
Laut “Welt” teilte dabei ein Ermittler aus Berlin mit, dass man einen “sehr wertigen Hinweis” auf einen Tatverdächtigen vorliegen habe. Weitere Details seien den Bundesländern jedoch mit Verweis auf laufende “verdeckte Maßnahmen” nicht mitgeteilt worden.
Anis Amri gelang nach dem Terroranschlag am Breitscheidplatz mit zwölf Toten die Flucht. Er reiste drei Tage lang ungehindert von Deutschland in die Niederlande, anschließend weiter über Belgien und Frankreich bis nach Italien. In Mailand wurde der Islamist schließlich am 23. Dezember 2016 bei einem Schusswechsel mit Polizisten getötet.

25.01.2017

Find this story at 25 Januari 2017

© MMnews 2012

Attentäter von Berlin Wie die Behörden Amri beobachteten – und doch die falschen Schlüsse zogen

Spätestens Ende 2015 geriet der Attentäter von Berlin ins Visier der Ermittler. Seitdem gab es viele Warnungen vor dem radikalisierten Tunesier – und viele Runden, in denen Polizei und Geheimdienste über den Gefährder diskutierten. Eine Rekonstruktion.

Mehr als ein Jahr beschäftigten sich die Sicherheitsbehörden mit dem Attentäter von Berlin. Sie wussten, dass Anis Amri in Kontakt mit dem IS stand und Bomben bauen wollte. Dennoch hielt man einen Anschlag für eher unwahrscheinlich. Eine Rekonstruktion der schwierigen Arbeit der Terrorfahnder.

Mai 2015: Amri kommt in Italien nach einer knapp vierjährigen Haftstrafe auf freien Fuß und reist weiter Richtung Norden – nach Deutschland. Angeblich im Juli trifft er in Deutschland ein.

November 2015: Spätestens im November fällt Amri den Behörden zum ersten Mal auf: Der Tunesier bietet sich einem V-Mann des Landeskriminalamtes Nordrhein-Westfalen an, der in der islamistischen Szene tätig ist. Amri sagt ihm, er wolle “etwas in Deutschland unternehmen” und könne sich eine Kalaschnikow für einen Anschlag besorgen.

Anschlag auf Berliner Weihnachtsmarkt Die Fehler der Terror-Fahnder im Fall Amri
Die Fehler der Terror-Fahnder im Fall Amri
Mehr als ein Jahr lang beschäftigte sich die Polizei mit dem Attentäter von Berlin. Sie wusste, dass er in Kontakt mit dem IS stand und Bomben bauen wollte. Dennoch hielt man einen Anschlag für eher unwahrscheinlich. Von Hans Leyendecker und Georg Mascolo mehr …
Januar 2016: Das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz notiert: Amri reist unter verschiedenen Identitäten im ganzen Land herum. In Berlin, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Niedersachsen und Baden-Württemberg werbe er “offensiv” darum, mit ihm Anschläge zu begehen.

ANZEIGE

17. Februar 2016: Amri wird offiziell als “Gefährder” eingestuft (“Funktionstyp: Akteur”): “Aktuell sind bei Amri Verhaltensmuster feststellbar, die auf eine Intensivierung von Anschlags-Planungen hindeuten könnten und die Tiefe seiner radikal-islamistischen Gesinnung untermauern.”

18. Februar 2016: Amri reist mit dem Bus nach Berlin, wird dort von der Polizei abgepasst. Das Bundeskriminalamt übernimmt die Auswertung seines Handys. Berlin, NRW und das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz erhalten eine Kopie der Daten: Diese zeigen, wie radikalisiert er bereits ist. Am 2. Februar, so wird ersichtlich, hat Amri über das Chat-Programm “Telegram” Kontakt zu mutmaßlichen IS-Kämpfern aufgenommen.

Ende Februar 2016: Amri ist Thema bei einer Runde von Polizei und Nachrichtendienstlern aus Bund und Ländern: Die Kommission Staatsschutz hat ein achtstufiges Prognose-Modell erarbeitet. Die Gefahr durch Amri wird mit einer 5 bewertet, “eher unwahrscheinlich”: keine konkreten Hinweise auf einen Anschlag, aber das BKA notiert auch, dass Amri “für radikale Ansichten und Ansinnen empfänglich sein dürfte”. Die Karlsruher Staatsschützer lassen vom LKA NRW alles zusammenschreiben, was über Amri bekannt ist – und leiten den Fall an den Berliner Generalstaatsanwalt weiter.

14. März 2016: Berlin leitet Ermittlungen ein: Amri wird observiert, seine Kommunikation überwacht – doch bis auf kleinere Delikte passiert nichts. Im Juni zweifelt die Justiz daran, ob man überhaupt weiter überwachen soll. Im September enden die Ermittlungen.

30. Mai 2016: Amris Asylantrag wird nach kurzer Prüfung abgelehnt. Amri soll so schnell wie möglich abgeschoben werden, allerdings hat die tunesische Regierung die notwendigen Papiere noch nicht zur Verfügung gestellt. Diese treffen erst zwei Tage nach dem Anschlag im Dezember ein.

19. und 20. Juli 2016: Im Gemeinsamen Terrorismusabwehrzentrum (GTAZ) tritt die “Arbeitsgruppe Statusrechtliche Begleitmaßnahmen”, kurz AG Status zusammen. Vertreter des Innenministeriums, des BKA und des Verfassungsschutzes sitzen am Tisch, aber auch das Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. Der Fall Anis Amri steht auf der Tagesordnung, doch nach Prüfung aller Erkenntnisse notiert die AG Status als Fazit: “Eine akute Gefährdungslage liegt derzeit nicht vor.”

19. September 2016: Auch andere halten Amri für gefährlich. Der marokkanische Geheimdienst etwa übermittelt dem BND-Büro in Rabat eine Warnung, auch der dortige BKA-Verbindungsbeamte wird informiert. Die Marokkaner wiederholen wenig später ihre Warnung sogar.

2. November 2016: Der Fall Amri wird ein letztes Mal besprochen. Die Arbeitsgruppe “Operativer Informationsaustausch” im GTAZ urteilt wieder, es sei “kein konkreter Gefährdungssachverhalt erkennbar”.

8. November 2016: Der Generalbundesanwalt lässt Abu Walaa und drei seiner engsten Gefolgsleute verhaften – der “Prediger ohne Gesicht”, den ein Zeuge später als den wichtigsten Mann des IS in Deutschland bezeichnet. Anis Amri war öfter im Rahmen der Ermittlungen gegen den Iraker aufgetaucht. Er übernachtete immer wieder bei Mitgliedern des salafistisch-dschihadistischen Netzwerks. Nach der Festnahme Abu Walaas muss Amri geahnt haben, dass es nun auch für ihn eng werden könnte.

14. Dezember 2016: In einem amtlichen Papier des nordrhein-westfälischen Staatsschutzes wird behauptet, dass sich Amri in verschiedenen Moscheen und Unterkünften in Berlin aufhalte. Er wechsle dabei die Schlaforte.

19. Dezember 2016: Anis Amri verübt am Berliner Breitscheidplatz den schwersten islamistischen Anschlag auf deutschem Boden. Zwölf Menschen sterben.

4. Januar 2017, 06:07 Uhr
Von Georg Mascolo

Find this story at 4 January 2017

Copyright http://www.sueddeutsche.de

Was the Berlin Christmas market attacker an undercover agent?

A report published just over a week ago by the Federal Criminal Office (BKA) raises the question of whether Anis Amri was an intelligence agent.
Amri allegedly drove into a Christmas market with a lorry on December 19 and killed 12 people. He is also accused of shooting and killing the lorry’s Polish driver.
Just days after the attack, it was already clear that Amri had prepared the attack under the noses of the police and intelligence agencies. He had been under constant surveillance over the previous two years and was in contact with an agent with the North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) state intelligence agency.
On the basis of the BKA’s confidential report, it is possible to reconstruct Amri’s activities in Germany quite precisely. The police and intelligence agencies concentrated on Amri almost weekly and followed all of his actions.
Amri came from Italy to Germany in the summer of 2015. He had already received a four-year custodial sentence. He was initially sent to a refugee accommodation centre in Emmerich (Kreis Kleve), NRW.
Already at that time, the 22-year-old was noticed because he had pictures of ISIS fighters on his mobile phone. In December 2015, other refugees reported to the immigration authorities in Kreis Kleve that he “supposedly maintained contact with Islamic State.” Eventually, the authorities were aware of 14 identities used by Amri.
Amri became involved with the Salafist movement, into which the NRW state intelligence agency had embedded at least one agent. He reported repeatedly to the police about Amri. “The source spilled over,” wrote the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which saw the BKA report. These reports filled entire files.
On the basis of these reports, the state prosecutor ordered Amri’s phone to be tapped in November 2015. Somewhat later, Italian intelligence agencies sent photos and detailed personal information to Germany.
In February 2016, the intelligence agent reported that Amri was becoming more withdrawn and reading the Koran, as if he wanted to be purified as some suicide attackers do prior to an attack. He was designated as a “threat” by the NRW state intelligence agency.
At the same time, the state BKA in NRW sent their intelligence about the Islamist network in which Amri was involved to the state prosecutor in Karlsruhe. The top German prosecutor took up an investigation against the group for supporting terrorism and recruitment for a terrorist organisation and in November ordered the arrest of its leader, Abu Walaa, as well as the hardcore members of the group. However, Anis Amri was left at large.
A variety of intelligence agencies were now watching him as he travelled regularly between Dortmund and Berlin. He was driven at least once by the intelligence agent. Between March and September, the Berlin state prosecutor conducted an investigation into Amri. He was intercepted and observed, but allegedly not for terrorist planning but for petty drug trafficking. According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the BKA report alleges that “religious questions” supposedly fell into the background during Ramadan.
On July 30, police arrested Amri on a bus at the border with Switzerland because drugs and false identities were found on him. After two days, he was released from the justice detention centre in Ravensburg after consultations with the immigration authorities in Kreis Kleve and the NRW Interior Ministry.
The head of the justice detention centre in Ravensburg told Westdeutsche Rundfunk that if everything had been known at the time that was known by the authorities in NRW, they could have held Amri longer. But the authorities kept the information to themselves.
Then on September 19, Morocco’s intelligence agency warned the BKA and the foreign intelligence service (BND) that the Tunisian could carry out an attack. Two days later, on September 21, 2016, the Berlin police ended their observations, allegedly because there was no evidence of an impending criminal act.
A new warning was sent from Morocco to the German intelligence agencies in October. The NRW state intelligence agency was warned on several occasions by the Moroccan and Tunisian intelligence agencies about Amri, the last time on October 26. The NRW state intelligence agents merely checked the location of his phone and found he was residing in the Berlin-Brandenburg area.
The Joint Terrorism Defence Centre (GTAZ), in which 40 security agencies at the state and federal levels are represented, held a total of seven meetings about Amri. But nobody allegedly saw any risk.
Nonetheless, the authorities entered Amri’s name into a nationwide police Inpol database as a “foreign fighter”—i.e., as a terrorist—last October. This information was sent to all 26 countries party to the Schengen agreement.
Amri was not arrested due to a lack of legal means, even though this is how it is portrayed. The authorities could have filed an application for deportation or security detention with a court and held Amri for up to 18 months as a “threat.” They could have then arrested him under a charge of terrorism. But none of this occurred. Amri remained concealed and on December 19 was able to carry out his attack.
The BKA in particular played down the threat posed by the young Tunisian. In December 2015, the BKA deemed it “very unlikely” that Amri would carry out an attack. At one of the GTAZ meetings, an official of the BKA stated that the agent reporting about Amri had been part of a previous case in which he had provided “exclusive intelligence.” (“Exclusive means in general: there was nothing to it,” the Süddeutsche Zeitung explained.)
The BKA designated Amri as a standard petty criminal to whom religious rituals meant nothing. “In the course of the measures, indications of planning for religiously motivated acts of violence did not arise.” The BKA report stated further, “The impression emerged of a young man on the move, erratic and appearing quite unstable.”
As is now known, Amri prayed at a mosque in Berlin-Moabit shortly before the attack.
Who was responsible for playing down the threat of Amri is one of the open questions in the case. Was he even perhaps an agent for one of the authorities? This suspicion was even held by some police authorities, because all pending investigations against Amri were halted, even an investigation for social welfare fraud in Duisburg. Additionally, there was no inquiry against him for grievous bodily harm and drug trafficking. Based on historical experience, this is a clear sign that someone is under the protection of a senior police or intelligence authority.
Amri cannot comment on these latest details. The 24-year-old was shot and killed by Italian police on December 23 in Milan.
The insistence by all state intelligence agencies that they were unaware that Amri was preparing an attack is worthless. This is well known from numerous previous attacks—the terrorist attacks of November 13, 2015, in Paris; April 15, 2013, in Boston; and September 11, 2001, in New York City. In every case, the security services had the attackers under surveillance for a long time and did not intervene to stop them from carrying out their plots.
Each attack provided the justification for a huge build-up of the state apparatus, and the latest attack on the Berlin Christmas market is no different.
Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière (Christian Democrats—CDU) responded at the beginning of January with the demand for the restructuring and centralisation of the security apparatus. The BKA had to be strengthened and the state intelligence agencies dismantled in favour of a federal administration and the construction of a “genuine federal police.” He published these demands under the headline “Guidelines for a strong state in difficult times” in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
CDU chair Thomas Strobl, interior minister in Baden-Württemberg, subsequently called for unlimited detention pending deportation for threats and criminals.
On Tuesday, the federal government decided to appoint a special investigator or initiate a parliamentary investigatory committee into the December 19 attack. Merely an internal investigatory group of the Parliamentary Control Commission (PKGr) will shortly present a report. The question must be asked: Who has an interest in this cover-up?

By Dietmar Henning
25 January 2017

Find this story at 25 January 2017

Copyright © 1998-2017

Amri war laut Bundesregierung kein V-Mann

Die Bundesregierung hat Spekulationen dementiert, wonach der Berliner Attentäter ein V-Mann gewesen sein soll. Im Bundestag befasst sich ein Kontrollgremium mit dem Fall.

Wurde der Berliner Attentäter Anis Amri von den Sicherheitsbehörden nicht rechtzeitig gestoppt, weil er mit dem Verfassungsschutz zusammenarbeitete? Diese Fragen hatten Medien aufgeworfen. Das Innenministerium weist diese Spekulationen nun zurück: “Amri war weder als Vertrauensperson noch als V-Mann der Sicherheitsbehörden des Bundes tätig”, sagte ein Sprecher von Innenminister Thomas de Maizière (CDU). “Es wurde auch nicht versucht, ihn anzuwerben.”

Der Spiegel hatte berichtet, dass es offenbar engere Kontakte zwischen Amri und einem islamistischen V-Mann des Landesverfassungsschutzes in Nordrhein-Westfalen gegeben hatte. Der V-Mann soll den späteren Attentäter mindestens einmal nach Berlin gefahren haben. Bekannt wurde auch, dass Amri bei dem V-Mann mit Anschlagsideen geprahlt habe – und sich offenbar auch nach Waffen erkundigt hatte. Die nordrhein-westfälische Landesregierung hatte daraufhin erklärt, der 24 Jahre alte Tunesier Amri sei kein V-Mann des Landesverfassungsschutzes gewesen. Die CDU-Landtagsfraktion hatte eine entsprechende Anfrage an die Landesregierung gestellt.
Amri war von mehreren Behörden als islamistischer Gefährder eingestuft worden. Dennoch war es ihm möglich, am 19. Dezember einen Lastwagen in einen Berliner Weihnachtsmarkt zu steuern und zwölf Menschen zu töten. Amri war wenige Tage nach dem Anschlag bei einer Polizeikontrolle in Italien erschossen worden, nachdem er das Feuer auf die Beamten eröffnet hatte.
SPD bevorzugt Sonderermittler

Die Geheimdienstkontrolleure des Bundestages befassen sich am heutigen Montag mit möglichen Fehlern der Sicherheitsbehörden. In einer geheimen Sondersitzung soll dem Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremium nach Informationen der Nachrichtenagentur dpa ein vom Bundeskriminalamt erstellter Bericht vorgelegt werden. Darin seien alle Erkenntnisse, die den deutschen Sicherheitsbehörden über den Tunesier in den vergangenen Jahren vorlagen, chronologisch aufgelistet.
Anschließend soll sich der Bundestag in seiner ersten Sitzungswoche nach der parlamentarischen Weihnachtspause intensiv mit den Hintergründen des Anschlags beschäftigen. Am Dienstag wollen Unionsfraktionschef Volker Kauder (CDU) und CSU-Landesgruppenchefin Gerda Hasselfeldt mit SPD-Fraktionschef Thomas Oppermann über die weiteren Schritte zur notwendigen Aufarbeitung des Falles durch den Bundestag sprechen.

Der Innenminister unterstützt den Vorstoß. Er sei “sehr offen” für einen Untersuchungsausschuss, sagte Thomas de Maizière. “Unsere chronologische Aufarbeitung der Vorgänge, die wir in Kürze vorlegen werden, wird eine gute Grundlage für die Arbeit des Ausschusses sein.” Oppermann äußerte sich in der Bild am Sonntag offen für einen Untersuchungsausschuss, machte aber klar, dass er einen Sonderermittler für das wirksamere Instrument hält. Kauder hatte zuvor erklärt, es müsse insbesondere um die Frage gehen, ob es bei der Zusammenarbeit der Sicherheitsbehörden von Bund und Ländern oder in einzelnen Bereichen Versäumnisse gegeben habe.

16. Januar 2017, 7:30 Uhr Quelle: ZEIT ONLINE, dpa, mp 26 Kommentare
Find this story at 16 January 2017

Copyright http://www.zeit.de/

Anfrage der CDU-Landtagsfraktion War Anis Amri ein V-Mann des Verfassungsschutzes?

Der Berliner Attentäter Anis Amri war nach Angaben der nordrhein-westfälischen Landesregierung kein V-Mann des Landesverfassungsschutzes.

Ein Sprecher des Innenministeriums in Düsseldorf stellte am Samstag klar: „Er war kein V-Mann“.

Die CDU-Landtagsfraktion hatte zuvor eine entsprechende Anfrage an die Landesregierung gestellt.

Anfrage der CDU-Landesfraktion

„Es ist ein Punkt unseres Fragenkatalogs an das Innenministerium“, bestätigte ein CDU-Fraktionssprecher. Medien hatten zuvor die Frage aufgeworfen, ob eine Zusammenarbeit mit dem Verfassungsschutz vielleicht die Erklärung dafür sein könnte, dass Anis Amri von den Sicherheitsbehörden nicht rechtzeitig gestoppt wurde.

Der 24 Jahre alte Tunesier war von mehreren Behörden als islamistischer Gefährder eingestuft worden. Dennoch war es ihm möglich, am 19. Dezember einen Lastwagen in einen Berliner Weihnachtsmarkt zu steuern und zwölf Menschen zu töten.

Über die CDU-Anfrage an die Landesregierung hatte am Samstag “Bild” berichtet.

Schwere Vorwürfe gegen rot-grüne Koalition

Der nordrhein-westfälische CDU-Vorsitzende Armin Laschet erhob im Fall Amri erneut schwere Vorwürfe gegen die rot-grüne Koalition in Düsseldorf, die sich im Mai zur Wiederwahl stellt.

„Die Landesregierung in NRW hat es sträflich versäumt, hier die ausländerrechtlichen Möglichkeiten zu nutzen, um diesen Attentäter zu stoppen“, sagte Laschet den Dortmunder „Ruhr Nachrichten“ (Samstag).

Die Hauptverantwortung dafür trage Innenminister Ralf Jäger (SPD). „Der NRW-Innenminister als oberste Landesbehörde hätte effektive Maßnahmen gegen Amri ergreifen müssen.“

Indirekt forderte Laschet die Abberufung Jägers durch Ministerpräsidentin Hannelore Kraft: „Wenn Frau Kraft keinen besseren für die Innere Sicherheit findet als Herrn Jäger, ist das ein Armutszeugnis für die SPD und ihr persönliches Problem.“

(dpa)

14.01.17, 14:07 Uhr
Find this story at 14 January 2017

Copyright 2017 DuMont Mediengruppe

Abschiebeverfahren im Fall Anis Amri war keineswegs Eilsache

Bislang hieß es, dass der Tunesier Anis Amri via Eilverfahren in seine Heimat abgeschoben werden sollte. Doch nach stern-Informationen wurde er auf Anweisung des NRW-Innenministeriums wie ein normaler abgelehnter Asylbewerber behandelt.

Die Stadt Köln hat dem stern gegenüber bestätigt, dass die Passersatzpapiere für den Weihnachtsmarktattentäter von Berlin, Anis Amri, entgegen bisherigen Aussagen nicht via Eilverfahren oder priorisiert beantragt wurden. “Die Anfrage war keine Eilsache”, hieß es von der Pressestelle in Köln. Wie der stern am Wochenende von der Stadt Köln und aus dem Innenministerium zudem erfuhr, gibt es bei der Bearbeitung von Passersatzpapieren generell kein Eilverfahren. Warum nicht, konnten die Behörden nicht erklären.

Anis Amri war im Abschiebeverfahren ein normaler abgelehnter Asylbewerber, für den Passersatzpapiere benötigt werden – wie für hunderte andere auch.
Antrag ohne Hinweis auf Gefärderstatus

Es dauerte mehr als zwei Monate, bis die Anfrage der Zentralen Ausländerbehörde (ZAB) den tunesischen Behörden überhaupt übermittelt wurde. Auch auf die Gefährlichkeit des seit Monaten von insgesamt 40 Sicherheitsbehörden beobachteten “Gefährders” hatte die ZAB nicht hingewiesen. Zudem wurden die Papiere unter der Personalie Ahmed Almasri beantragt, von der man wusste, dass sie nicht stimmt. Anis Amri wurde nur als einer von zwölf Alias-Namen genannt.
Zur Begründung hieß es, dass “seitens des Ministeriums entschieden wurde, dass die Passersatzpapier-Beschaffung auf normalem Wege ohne Hinweis auf den Gefährderstatus beantragt werden soll”.
In einer Sitzung im gemeinsamen Terrorabwehrzentrum GTAZ im Juli hatten mehr als einen Monat zuvor alle beteiligten Behörden, unter anderem das LKA Nordrhein-Westfalen, das Bundeskriminalamt und auch das nordrhein-westfälische Innenministerium allerdings noch gemeinsam beschlossen, dass das NRW-Innenministerium “die Passbeschaffungsmaßnahmen zusammen mit der Ausländerbehörde Kleve prioritär durchführt”. Warum es sich an diese Vereinbarung nicht hielt, und warum man die Passersatzpapiere nicht wenigstens unter den lange bekannten richtigen Personalien beantragen ließ, um die Ausstellung der Papiere zu beschleunigen, ist unklar.
Keine Kenntnis, welche Identität Amris die echte war

Es habe zu diesem Zeitpunkt zwar festgestanden, dass Amri unter weiteren Identitäten registriert worden war, es sei ihnen jedoch nicht bekannt gewesen, welche davon die echte ist, sagte der Sprecher des Innenministeriums in Nordrhein-Westfalen dem stern.
Erst durch die Mitteilung von Interpol Tunis im Oktober habe man zweifelsfrei erfahren, dass die wahre Identität Anis Amri lautet. Nachvollziehbar ist das nicht, schließlich saß das Innenministerium bei den “Gefährder-Sitzungen” im Terrorabwehrzentrum mit am Tisch

Find this story at 21 January 2017

© stern.de GmbH

Terrorverdächtiger aus Neuss Ermittler finden keine Spur zu Anis Amri

Ein Spezialeinsatzkommando nimmt im nordrhein-westfälischen Neuss einen 21-Jährigen fest, der unter Terrorverdacht steht. Doch Waffen oder Sprengstoff finden die Ermittler bei ihm nicht. Auch Beweise für die Anschlagsplanung fehlen bisher.

FDP will Rücktritt von Innenminister Jäger: Amri hatte offenbar Kontakt zu V-Mann aus NRW

Das Bundesinnenministerium hat zurzeit keine Hinweise, dass der Terrorverdächtige aus dem nordrhein-westfälischen Neuss in Kontakt mit dem Berliner Attentäter Anis Amri stand. Ein Sprecher von Innenminister Thomas de Maizière sagte, zwar liege ihm kein minütlich aktualisierter Erkenntnisstand vor, zudem gehe es um zwei laufende Ermittlungsverfahren. Basierend auf den damit verbundenen Einschränkungen könne er aber von möglichen Zusammenhängen nicht berichten.

Amri hatte kurz vor Weihnachten auf einem Berliner Weihnachtsmarkt zwölf Menschen getötet. Gelebt hatte er zuvor hauptsächlich in Nordrhein-Westfalen und galt vor allem in der dortigen Islamistenszene als gut vernetzt.

Ein Spezialeinsatzkommando hatte den 21-Jährigen aus Neuss am Samstagabend in seiner Wohnung festgenommen. Beweise für den Terrorverdacht des jungen Mannes haben die Ermittler bisher allerdings nicht gefunden. Ein Sprecher der Staatsanwaltschaft Düsseldorf sagte, bei der Polizeiaktion seien am Samstagabend weder Waffen noch Sprengstoff entdeckt worden. Derzeit würden die bei ihm beschlagnahmten Datenträger ausgewertet.

Die Sicherheitsbehörden gehen davon aus, dass der 21-Jährige einem 17-Jährigen aus Wien bei der Vorbereitung eines Terroranschlags in Österreich geholfen hat. Der 17-Jährige war am Freitag in Wien festgenommen worden. Nach bisherigem Ermittlungsstand haben sich die beiden in islamistischen Foren sozialer Netzwerke kennengelernt. Im Dezember soll der Wiener Verdächtige zwei Wochen bei einem Bekannten in Neuss verbracht haben.

Bei seiner Vernehmung habe der 21-Jährige nicht bestritten, eine islamistische Auffassung zu vertreten, sagte der Sprecher der Düsseldorfer Staatsanwaltschaft. “Er bestreitet aber, sich mit dem IS beschäftigt zu haben.” Im Rahmen der Ermittlungen soll sein Hintergrund ausgeleuchtet werden.

Quelle: n-tv.de , chr/dpa/AFP

Montag, 23. Januar 2017
16.01.17 – 01:36 min

Find this story at 23 January 2017

© n-tv.de

‘Jihadi John’ case raises questions about UK counter-terrorism strategy (2015)

Emails released by CAGE revealed how MI5 repeatedly tried to recruit Mohammed Emwazi as an informant and put him on a terror watchlist to stop him leaving Britain

The identifying of “Jihadi John”, a masked militant who has beheaded and tortured hostages held by the Islamic State in Syria, as 26-year-old British national, Mohammed Emwazi, has ignited a debate about the young recruit’s life, identity and path to Islamist militancy.

Observers have pointed to Emwazi’s privileged upbringing – Emwazi came from a “well-to-do family,” growing up in West London and graduating from college with a degree in computer programming, according to the Washington Post – as proof that poverty did not fuel his radicalism.

Jihadi John is middle class & educated, demonstrates again that radicalisation is not necessarily driven by poverty or social deprivation.

— Shiraz Maher (@ShirazMaher) February 26, 2015
Less attention has been paid to the alleged interactions between Emwazi and the British security services and how, if at all, these may have impacted on the young militant.

Emails exchanged between Emwazi and Asim Qureshi, director of CAGE, a group which primarily lobbies on behalf of detainees held on terrorism charges, suggest that, before he travelled to Syria in 2012, Emwazi had several encounters with British authorities.

In Amsterdam in 2009 an officer from MI5, Britain’s domestic security agency, tried to recruit Emwazi after accusing him and two others of trying to reach Somalia, where the militant group al-Shabab is based, according to emails he sent to Qureshi.

“Listen Mohammed: You’ve got the whole world in front of you; you’re 21 years old; you just finished Uni – why don’t you work for us?” Emwazi recalled an MI5 officer asking him in Amsterdam’s airport in a June 2010 email he sent to Qureshi.

CAGE has been accused of sympathising with some of the foreign fighters it is regularly in contact with.

Qureshi, a graduate of the London School of Economics, has taken part in rallies by Islamist groups in the UK who call for “jihad” in Chechyna and Iraq.

He told Middle East Eye he had met with Emwazi in the fall of 2009 shortly after he returned to the UK to discuss what had happened.

“Mohammed was angry about the way he had been treated, he felt they (MI5) had bullied and disrespected him,” Qureshi said.

In 2010 counterterrorism officials in Britain detained Emwazi again – fingerprinting him and searching his belongings – and later preventing him from travelling to Kuwait, his birthplace, where he had landed a job working for a computer company.

“I had a job waiting for me and marriage to get started,” Emwazi wrote in a June 2010 e-mail to Qureshi. But now “I feel like a prisoner, only not in a cage, in London. A person imprisoned & controlled by security service men, stopping me from living my new life in my birthplace & country, Kuwait.”

Qureshi said he last heard from Emwazi in January 2012.

“Mohammed was harassed repeatedly by MI5 from the summer of 2010 until 2013. He told me he was once strangled by an officer at Heathrow airport during interrogation,” said Qureshi.

Qureshi said that Emwazi, who has been described by those who knew him as “polite with a penchant for wearing stylish clothes while adhering to the tenets of his Islamic faith,” had used “every means possible” to try and change his personal situation.

“Suffocating domestic policies aimed at turning a person into an informant but which prevent a person from fulfilling their basic life needs would have left a lasting impression on Emwazi,” said Qureshi.

“When are we going to finally learn that when we treat people as if they’re outsiders they will look for belonging elsewhere?”

We have an entire system of injustice that allows peoples lives to be ruined. Security services create suspect communities #MohammedEmwazi

— CAGE (@UK_CAGE) February 26, 2015
Analysts have dismissed CAGE’s assertion that the security services had a role in Emwazi’s radicalisation.

“I think it’s a bit rich that Jihadi John has decided to go to Syria and participate in this conflict because of some interaction with the security services,” Shiraz Maher, a senior fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, told the Telegraph. “As if he (Jihadi John) is resolved of all responsibility, as if he is not a salient individual capable of making his own decisions.”

Haras Rafiq, managing director of the anti-radicalisation think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, called the claim that Britain was in anyway to blame “rubbish.”

“It’s not the British or Kuwaitis fault. It is his fault and the people who radicalised him. Jihadi John is a cold-hearted killer,” he said.

Moazzam Begg, a British-Pakistani citizen and former Guantanamo Bay detainee, said that British security forces were not to blame but that their increasingly intrusive strategies had contributed to a “climate of fear and alienation” amongst Muslims in Britain.

“It’s not an excuse, it’s part of an explanation why this man must have felt greatly alienated,” said Begg.

“Scores and scores have been harassed, stopped whenever they travel, approached by security services … There are people who feel they are stuck, they have nowhere to turn to, it’s crucial we get this point across, some of us have had our lives completely destroyed.”

Begg said the British government was still refusing to engage with the idea that British policies, foreign and domestic, might be influencing potential jihadists.

“When people get alienated, they feel unwelcome and afraid … I feel that way all the time, I’ve been arrested, I’ve had my house turned upside down, I’ve been prosecuted and made to feel like I don’t belong here. If I was to leave tomorrow for Syria would it be right to say that the security services drove me away?”

Thursday 26 February 2015 22:48 UTC
Last update: Tuesday 3 March 2015 22:30 UTC

Find this story at 26 February 2015

© Middle East Eye 2014

David Headley: ISI Paid Me for Recon of 26/11 Targets

A U.S. citizen convicted for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks told an Indian court on Thursday that the Pakistani intelligence service ISI paid him directly for reconnaissance of target for the 26/11 attacks (CNN-IBN). In his testimony given through video link from the United States, Headley claimed that he was given one hundred thousand Pakistani rupees to scout National Defence College, Chabad House, and other places in Mumbai. Last month, Headley also told the court that he had visited India seven times prior to the attack, on behalf of the banned Pakistani militant organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), to gather information scouting potential target locations in Mumbai ahead of the attacks. Headley, 52, was captured in 2013 in the United States and plead guilty to charges of working with LeT and his involvement in the attacks, to avoid the death penalty and extradition to India. The November 2008 attacks in Mumbai were a coordinated set of strikes on the railway station, luxury hotels and a Jewish cultural center, and claimed 166 lives along with nine attackers.

PDP and BJP alliance government to be set up in Jammu and Kashmir

The ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) announced on Friday that it will continue its support to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the state legislature of Jammu and Kashmir, and nominated Nirmal Singh to be the deputy chief minister in the state (Hindu, IBT). The PDP-BJP coalition came to power in 2014, but earlier this year PDP Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed died at the age of 79. The state has been under governor rule since Jan. 8 and talks between PDP and BJP regarding the coalition have broken down a number of times over the past few weeks. But after a meeting last week between Sayeed’s daughter Mehbooba Mufti and Prime Minister Modi, the PDP on Thursday announced Mehbooba Mufti as the chief ministerial candidate.
— Shuja Malik

Pakistan

Pakistan arrests purported Indian intelligence officer

On Friday, Pakistani officials announced that they arrested an Indian intelligence officer in Balochistan (AP, ET, Dawn). Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry alleged that the man was involved in violence and lodged a complaint with India. A spokesperson for the ministry commented, “Kul Yadav Bhoshan, a commander-ranked officer in Indian Navy was working for RAW and was in contact with Baloch separatists and terrorists fueling sectarian violence in Pakistan and Balochistan.”

Pakistan debuts Chinese helicopter

On Wednesday, during a military parade for Pakistan Day, Pakistan debuted its acquisition of the Chinese made CAIC Z-10 helicopter gunship as well as its Shaheen III ballistic missile (DefenseNews). The Z-10 gunship had been under evaluation in Pakistan for the past year and reportedly received impressed reviews from the Pakistani military. On Wednesday, Pakistan also announced that the Z-10 was in service.

BY SHUJA MALIK
Find this story at 25 March 2016

Copyright http://foreignpolicy.com/

Headley denies part of his statement given to NIA about Ishrat Jahan

Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley on Saturday claimed that LeT commander Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi had told him about Ishrat Jahan ‘operation’ though he had also learnt about the case through the media.

Deposing via video conferencing from the U.S. before Judge G.A. Sanap in the 26/11 trial against Abu Jundal, one of the alleged plotters of the Mumbai attacks David Coleman Headley told the court that he didn’t have any first hand knowledge about Ishrat Jahan who was killed in a police encounter.

Headley denied part of his statement given to NIA about LeT operative Ishrat Jahan, who was killed in an alleged fake encounter. He clarified that LeT does not have women’s cell but has women’s wing for women’s social welfare and not for combat or fighting in India and Kashmir.

Headley said he told NIA that before Sajid Mir, Muzammil was the head of the group (LeT).

Talking further about the social cell, he added that the cell looks into women’s education and health and also looks after widows and provides religious education including Quranic classes.

Headley said that he believed that U.S., Israel and India were enemies of Islam. He also added that it is not true that he wanted Islamic rule for India.

Headley’s four days of cross examination concludes today.

MUMBAI, March 26, 2016
Updated: March 26, 2016 16:58 IST
Find this story at 26 March 2016

Copyright© 2016, The Hindu

Ishrat Jahan was a LeT member, Headley tells court

Nineteen-year-old college girl Ishrat Jahan was killed in 2004 in an encounter by the Gujarat police.

The Pakistani-American terrorist David Headley, deposing for the third day on Thursday, told the special court here that Ishrat Jahan, who was killed in an encounter in 2004 by Gujarat police, was working for LeT. The 19-year-old college girl and three others were killed in 2004 in an encounter by police in Gujarat.The four were accused of being involved in a plot to assassinate the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

Headley, in the deposition, also said Lakhvi told him about the botched up operation in India by Lashkar operative Muzzabil Butt. He was told that a woman named Ishrat Jahan was killed in the shootout. He also stated that LeT has a women’s wing.

Headley, currently lodged in a U.S. prison, has been deposing as an approver through a video link in the November 2008 terror attacks case.

The police had claimed that Ishrat, a resident of Mumbra near Mumbai; Javed Sheikh, son of Gopinath Pillai of Kerala; and Pakistani citizens Amzad Ali Rana and Jishan Jauhar were connected with the LeT and were coming to Gujarat to assassinate Mr. Modi to avenge the 2002 communal riots.

However, a probe by Ahmedabad metropolitan magistrate, S.P. Tamang, has ruled that the June 2004 killing was case of “fake encounter,” by Gujarat policemen including ‘encounter specialist’ D.G. Vanzara.

Mr. Tamang’s report said the Crime Branch police “kidnapped” Ishrat and the others from Mumbai on June 12, 2004 and brought them to Ahmedabad. The four were killed on the night of June 14 in police custody, but the police claimed that an “encounter” took place the next morning on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. That rigor mortis set in between 11 p.m. and midnight the previous night clearly pointed to the fact that the police pumped bullets into Ishrat’s lifeless body to substantiate the encounter theory.

Mr. Tamang said there was no evidence to link Ishrat Jahan and another victim, Javed Sheikh, with the Pakistan-based terror group, Lashkar-e-Taiba. Neither was there anything to establish that they had “come” to Gujarat to kill Mr. Modi.

Read: First day of deposition

Read: Second day of deposition

Here are some important highlights from today’s deposition:

>> Headley tells court that Ishrat Jehan was a member of LeT.19-year-old college girl Ishrat Jahan and three others were killed in 2004 in an encounter by cops in Gujarat.

>>Headley said Lakhvi told him about the botched up operation in India by Muzzamil Butt. He was told that a woman named Ishrat Jahan was killed in the shootout. “I don’t know any suicide bomber and I can’t name any,” he said. “Ishrat was an indian national and not a Pakistani and an LeT operative.”

>>He also said that LeT has a women’s wing.

>> LeT handler Sajid Mir gave Headley Rs 40,000 Pakistani Rupees.

>> He said that he knew Muzzamil had planned the attack at Akshardam temple at Gujarat. Muzzamil told him that after Babri Masjid was demolished it was allowed for them to attack Indian temples.

>> LeT handler Abu Khaffa’s nephew was one of the 10 terrorists involved in the 26/11 attacks.

>> Hazi Ashraf is in charge of finance wing of LeT at Lahore and his nephew was killed in Akshardam temple attack.

>> Then Major Iqbal gave Rs 3500 and also gave Headley counterfeit Indian currency once or twice.

>> Major Pasha also gave him Rs 80,000.

>> The RBI rejected Headley’s application to open an office in A/C market.

>> Headley paid Rs 13,500 per month as rent in 2006.

>> Dr. Tahuvurr Rana (was dr in military) who came to receive Headley and helped opened the office knew of his involvement with LeT.

>> Headley advised Dr Rana to leave Mumbai and return back to USA before the attacks.

>> Major Iqbal told Headley to vacate the office in January 2009.

Ishrat Jahan case: timeline


June 15, 2004:
Ishrat Jahan and three others killed in an encounter on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. Police claim they were Lashkar members planning to kill Narendra Modi.


September 2009:
Ahmedabad judge S.P. Tamang terms encounter ‘fake’. Mr. Tamang’s report said the Crime Branch police “kidnapped” Ishrat and the others from Mumbai on June 12, 2004 and brought them to Ahmedabad. The four were killed on the night of June 14 in police custody, but the police claimed that an “encounter” took place the next morning on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. That rigor mortis set in between 11 p.m. and midnight the previous night clearly pointed to the fact that the police pumped bullets into Ishrat’s lifeless body to substantiate the encounter theory.Read more


September 2010:
The Gujarat High Court constituted a new three-member Special Investigation Team for a fresh probe into the alleged fake encounter killing of Ishrat Jahan in 2004. Read more


January 28, 2011:
SIT member Satish Varma files affidavit stating it was a ‘fake’ encounter. Read more



November 2011:
SIT tells court the encounter was staged


December 2011:
High Court orders CBI probe.Read more


July 2013:
The CBI’s first charge sheet in the encounter case stated that the unlawful killing was a joint operation of the Gujarat police and the Intelligence Bureau and named seven Gujarat police officials as the accused. Read more


July 2013:
CBI court grants P.P.Pandey (an accused in the case) anticipatory bail for 48 hours after a hearing that lasted for over four hours. Read more


August 2013:
SC denies senior bail to Pandey. Read more


October 2013:
CBI quizzes BJP leader Amit Shah in connection with ‘fake’ encounters. Jailed IPS officer D.G. Vanzara who was later held in the Ishrat Jahan case, had alleged in his resignation letter that the government closely monitored every police action involving ‘terrorists’ during his tenure. Read more


March 2014:
A special Central Bureau of Investigation court here issued notices to Amit Shah in the 2004 Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case. Read more


May 2014:
A Gujarat CBI court dismissed a plea seeking arraignment of Amit Shah and ex-police commissioner of Ahmedabad K.R. Kaushik as accused in the case. The plea was filed by Gopinath Pillai, father of Pranesh Pillai alias Javed Sheikh who was among the four victims.Read more


May 2014:
CBI gives a clean chit to Amit Shah. “There is no sufficient evidence against him. Hence CBI has not chargesheeted him,” CBI PI Vishwas Kumar Meena said in an affidavit filed before the special CBI court in Ahmedabad.Read more

February 2015:
Gujarat revokes suspension of P.P.Pandey.

February 2015:
DG Vanzara walks out of the Sabarmati jail in Ahmedabad eight years after he was jailed in connection with a series of encounter cases in Gujarat.Read more

David Headley arrest: Chronology of events

October 18, 2009: Pakistani-Canadian Tahawwur Hussain Rana, 48, a resident of Chicago and an accomplice of Headley, arrested by the FBI.
October 27, 2009: FBI files affidavit in a Chicago court alleging that Pakistan—based terror group Lashkar—e—Taiba was planning to use Headley to carry out a major terror attack in India and Danish newspaper ‘Jyllands—Posten’
November 30, 2009: Tahawwur Rana categorically denies any involvement in the Mumbai attacks. The detention hearing of Headley scheduled for December 4 at a Chicago court indefinitely deferred.
December 7, 2009: Headley charged in a Chicago court with criminal conspiracy in Mumbai terror attacks and having links with a retired Pakistani army Major who liaised between him and terror groups including LeT and HuJI.
December 8, 2009: US President Barack Obama says indictment of Headley, is an “important day” in his effort to protect the people from terrorists.
December 9, 2009: Headley pleads not guilty before a Chicago court where he was produced. Next hearing postponed till January 12.
December 14, 2009: Headley turns into FBI informant to avoid death penalty. FBI says the Somnath temple in Gujarat, Bollywood stars and Shiv Sena leaders in Mumbai were also the targets of LeT, which was planning to carry out strikes with the help of Headley and Rana.
December 29, 2009: FBI classifies arrest of Headley as its second biggest case for the year 2009.
January 11, 2010: The status hearing of Headley postponed till Feb 23.
January 15, 2010: Ilyas Kashmiri, the dreaded Pakistani terrorist, belonging to the Harakat—ul Jihad Islami, indicted in a U.S. court for the first time in connection with the plot to target the Danish newspaper.
January 26, 2010: Tahawwur Rana pleads not guilty to the charges of helping arrange the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks and making plans for an attack on the Danish newspaper.
January 27, 2010: Headley pleads not guilty to all the charges of helping arrange the attack on targets in Mumbai and on the Danish paper.
February 23, 2010: A U.S. court adjourns till March 23 the status hearing of Headley.
March 10, 2010: Headley, who pleads guilty to 12-count of terror charges, including plotting the 26/11 Mumbai attacks at the behest of Pakistan-based LeT and conspiring to target a Danish newspaper, escapes death penalty.
January 24, 2013: U.S. federal court sentenced Headley to 35 years in prison for his role in the Mumbai attacks.
July, 2015: Mumbai police seeks to take a deposition of Headley by video-conference to provide evidence against Zabiuddin Ansari (Abu Jundal).
December 10, 2015: Mumbai court pardons David Headley, makes him an approver in 26/11 case.

Updated: February 12, 2016 13:06 IST

Find this story at 12 February 2016

Copyright© 2016, The Hindu

David Headley deposition: Diclosures and revelations

Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley deposed before a special court in Mumbai regarding his role in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. Headley, appearing from an undisclosed location via video conferencing, spilled the beans on LeT’s involvement with the 26/11 terror attacks.

Headley, who is serving 35-year prison sentence in the US for his role in the Mumbai attacks, spoke about the role of Saeed, another LeT commander Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi as well as his handler in the outfit Sajid Mir.

In his depositions till now, Headley has revealed important information about the planning behind the terror attacks and his role in the same.

Who is Headley? He was born Daood Gilani. His parents — the Philadelphia socialite Serill Headley and Pakistani poet and diplomat Syed Salim Gilani — divorced soon after they moved to Islamabad in 1960. Mrs. Headley returned to Philadelphia. Headley was admitted to a boarding school, where he first met Rana, but then moved to the United States in 1977. He rebelled against his mother’s heavy drinking and multiple sexual relationships by expressing a loathing for all non-Muslims.

Marital life Apart from Shazia Gilani, records show that he was married to Faiza Outhalla, a Lahore-based medical student. Headley divorced her to evade pressure from his family and then married her again after she filed a complaint with police in Lahore that led to his incarceration for several days.He also had another bigamous marriage with a New York-based make-up artist, Portia Gilani, ich ended in divorce in 2005.

His other life Headley married Shazia Gilani, daughter of a retired Pakistan soldier, in 1999. Ms. Gilani moved to the United States in 2008, along with their four children — Haider, Osama, Sumya and Hafsa.

Psychological problems Evidence also emerged that Headley was diagnosed in 1992 with multiple personality disorder — a condition which includes the possession of multiple mannerisms, attitudes and beliefs. His personal life could provide an explanation for why he sought psychological counselling..

26/11 Mumbai attacks Viewing the terror strikes unfold in Mumbai on television, David Headley’s first wife Shazia used code words like “I am watching cartoons” to convey to him that he had “graduated”, a term she used for success of the 26/11 strikes.“I’ve been watching these cartoons (attacks) all day and I am proud of you,” Ms. Shazia wrote in an email to 50-year-old Mumbai accused during the strikes.

Important revelations

“Ishrat was an Indian national and not a Pakistani and an LeT operative,” declares Headley

“The LeT made a mock of the Taj Hotel. However, the meeting of Indian Defence Scientists was cancelled ”

“Sajid Mir was a high-ranking officer in the Pakistani Army and apparently also was in the ISI”

Ishrat Jahan case: timeline


June 15, 2004:
Ishrat Jahan and three others killed in an encounter on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. Police claim they were Lashkar members planning to kill Narendra Modi.


September 2009:
Ahmedabad judge S.P. Tamang terms encounter ‘fake’. Mr. Tamang’s report said the Crime Branch police “kidnapped” Ishrat and the others from Mumbai on June 12, 2004 and brought them to Ahmedabad. The four were killed on the night of June 14 in police custody, but the police claimed that an “encounter” took place the next morning on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. That rigor mortis set in between 11 p.m. and midnight the previous night clearly pointed to the fact that the police pumped bullets into Ishrat’s lifeless body to substantiate the encounter theory.Read more


September 2010:
The Gujarat High Court constituted a new three-member Special Investigation Team for a fresh probe into the alleged fake encounter killing of Ishrat Jahan in 2004. Read more


January 28, 2011:
SIT member Satish Varma files affidavit stating it was a ‘fake’ encounter. Read more


November 2011:
SIT tells court the encounter was staged


December 2011:
High Court orders CBI probe.Read more


July 2013:
The CBI’s first charge sheet in the encounter case stated that the unlawful killing was a joint operation of the Gujarat police and the Intelligence Bureau and named seven Gujarat police officials as the accused. Read more


July 2013:
CBI court grants P.P.Pandey (an accused in the case) anticipatory bail for 48 hours after a hearing that lasted for over four hours. Read more


August 2013:
SC denies senior bail to Pandey. Read more


October 2013:
CBI quizzes BJP leader Amit Shah in connection with ‘fake’ encounters. Jailed IPS officer D.G. Vanzara who was later held in the Ishrat Jahan case, had alleged in his resignation letter that the government closely monitored every police action involving ‘terrorists’ during his tenure. Read more


March 2014:
A special Central Bureau of Investigation court here issued notices to Amit Shah in the 2004 Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case. Read more


May 2014:
A Gujarat CBI court dismissed a plea seeking arraignment of Amit Shah and ex-police commissioner of Ahmedabad K.R. Kaushik as accused in the case. The plea was filed by Gopinath Pillai, father of Pranesh Pillai alias Javed Sheikh who was among the four victims.Read more


May 2014:
CBI gives a clean chit to Amit Shah. “There is no sufficient evidence against him. Hence CBI has not chargesheeted him,” CBI PI Vishwas Kumar Meena said in an affidavit filed before the special CBI court in Ahmedabad.Read more

February 2015:
Gujarat revokes suspension of P.P.Pandey.

February 2015:
DG Vanzara walks out of the Sabarmati jail in Ahmedabad eight years after he was jailed in connection with a series of encounter cases in Gujarat.Read more

David Headley arrest: Chronology of events

October 18, 2009: Pakistani-Canadian Tahawwur Hussain Rana, 48, a resident of Chicago and an accomplice of Headley, arrested by the FBI.
October 27, 2009: FBI files affidavit in a Chicago court alleging that Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba was planning to use Headley to carry out a major terror attack in India and Danish newspaper ‘Jyllands-Posten’
November 30, 2009: Tahawwur Rana categorically denies any involvement in the Mumbai attacks. The detention hearing of Headley scheduled for December 4 at a Chicago court indefinitely deferred.
December 7, 2009: Headley charged in a Chicago court with criminal conspiracy in Mumbai terror attacks and having links with a retired Pakistani army Major who liaised between him and terror groups including LeT and HuJI.
December 8, 2009: US President Barack Obama says indictment of Headley, is an “important day” in his effort to protect the people from terrorists.
December 9, 2009: Headley pleads not guilty before a Chicago court where he was produced. Next hearing postponed till January 12.
December 14, 2009: Headley turns into FBI informant to avoid death penalty. FBI says the Somnath temple in Gujarat, Bollywood stars and Shiv Sena leaders in Mumbai were also the targets of LeT, which was planning to carry out strikes with the help of Headley and Rana.
December 29, 2009: FBI classifies arrest of Headley as its second biggest case for the year 2009.
January 11, 2010: The status hearing of Headley postponed till Feb 23.
January 15, 2010: Ilyas Kashmiri, the dreaded Pakistani terrorist, belonging to the Harakat—ul Jihad Islami, indicted in a U.S. court for the first time in connection with the plot to target the Danish newspaper.
January 26, 2010: Tahawwur Rana pleads not guilty to the charges of helping arrange the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks and making plans for an attack on the Danish newspaper.
January 27, 2010: Headley pleads not guilty to all the charges of helping arrange the attack on targets in Mumbai and on the Danish paper.
February 23, 2010: A U.S. court adjourns till March 23 the status hearing of Headley.
March 18, 2010: Headley, who pleads guilty to 12-count of terror charges, including plotting the 26/11 Mumbai attacks at the behest of Pakistan-based LeT and conspiring to target a Danish newspaper, escapes death penalty.
January 24, 2013: U.S. federal court sentenced Headley to 35 years in prison for his role in the Mumbai attacks.
July, 2015: Mumbai police seeks to take a deposition of Headley by video-conference to provide evidence against Zabiuddin Ansari (Abu Jundal).
December 10, 2015: Mumbai court pardons David Headley, makes him an approver in 26/11 case.

Sajid Mir
Lashkar-e-Taiba commander

“Sajid Mir was a high-ranking officer in the Pakistani Army and apparently also was in the ISI.”

Who is Sajid Mir?: Born in 1976, according to documents filed to obtain his Indian visa, Mir grew up in a middle-class ethnic Punjabi home.

Mir’s father, according to Indian intelligence officials, earned enough working in Saudi Arabia to build a comfortable family home near Lahore airport, set up a small textile business, and put his sons through college.

He married the daughter of a retired Pakistan army chaplain; the couple are thought to have two sons.

Role in LeT: Mir was made responsible for training the growing number of western jihadists knocking on the Lashkar’s doors.

Fluent in English, Urdu and Arabic, he was known to the foreign jihadists as “Uncle Bill” — a reference to Mir’s affable manner.

Mir and Headley: Intense pressure by the United States led the Lashkar to shut down its camps to foreigners. Headley had arrived at Mir’s camp just after the foreigners were evicted under ISI pressure — and was used to target India alone.

In an intercepted September 17, 2009 phone conversation with a former Pakistani military officer and military trainer called Abdur Rehman Hashim, Headley railed against Mir who, he asserted, had “rotten guts.” “I am just telling you,” he lectured Hashim “that the companies in your competition have started handling themselves in a far better way.”

Updated: February 15, 2016 09:06 IST

Find this story at 15 February 2016

Copyright© 2016, The Hindu

Why David Headley’s coming clean puts the Modi government in a serious dilemma

The disclosures force New Delhi to rethink its strategy in dealing with Pakistan.
Why David Headley’s coming clean puts the Modi government in a serious dilemma

The deposition by David Headley, the Lashkar-e-Taiba operative, has not been earth-shaking in its content. We already knew almost everything he said.

Nonetheless, it was important to hear things from the horse’s mouth.

Having said that, Headley also puts the Narendra Modi government in a serious dilemma.

What do we do now with what Headley has told us? That is the core issue. How exactly are we to follow up on his deposition?

The bureaucratic option is always there – share the contents of Headley’s deposition with the Pakistani authorities through diplomatic channels and seek follow-up action in good faith.

But it will be a cynical thing to do to rest oars thereafter, since we can be 100% certain that Pakistan will do nothing in the matter and will continue to parry.

Pakistan cannot and will not cooperate with India. It cannot cooperate with us because its culpability is crystal clear and those responsible for the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai included senior Pakistani military officers.

The Pakistani top brass’s involvement in terrorism implies that any action on the Indian demarche by their government will bring the roof crashing down on the Inter-Services Intelligence, better known as ISI, and irreparably damage the reputation of their army as an institution.

It is too much to expect any Pakistani government – or any country for that matter – to indulge in such brutal soul-searching. Those who advocate atonement by Pakistan are either ignorant of statecraft or are simply dissimulating.

What else can India do? Indeed, a blistering international campaign can be launched with India’s able diplomats firing on all six cylinders to expose the grotesque face of Pakistan to the world community.

The Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar promised recently to put Pakistan to “shame”.

Fine. But, where does that take us? For one thing, Pakistan’s reputation is already in the mud but it has been chugging along, nonetheless. Some more mud isn’t going to make any difference.

Besides, it is sheer naivety to believe we can put Pakistan to “shame”. The international community is not willing to join hands with us on such a track.

Second, to every fistful of mud we throw at Pakistan, one can be certain that Islamabad will return with an equal fist. And if past experience is anything to go by, Pakistan has a way of getting the better of us in a slugfest.

Two options

The real dilemma lies on two other counts. One, how do we handle the relations with Pakistan in the aftermath of Headley’s disclosures?

True, he didn’t add much to what we already knew. But he did bring the 26/11 attack back into focus.

The memory was getting jaded in our collective consciousness, which is overcrowded since 2008 with scams, beef-eating, air pollution, gang rapes, et cetera. But the jaded memory got burnished in the past 48 hours. The pain has returned.

For the government, which also happens to be rooted in nationalist sentiments, it becomes difficult to be seen constructively engaging Pakistan when that country’s enemy image is such a widely-shared public perception.

Simply put, it is even difficult to defend Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s overtures to Pakistan as “statesmanlike”.

Equally, the Foreign Secretary’s expected trip to Islamabad for talks will not make sense to the Indian public – in a near future, at least. The government might as well roll down the shutter and close shop as if Pakistan never existed. This is one option.

The other option will be to punish Pakistan in the same coin. The present government unabashedly admires Israel. Ask Israel how best we can punish Pakistan.

Political assassination is a favourite weapon in the Israeli armoury. Commando raid is another. Outright invasion is yet another.

Choose the method best suited to our needs and circumstances. And hit Pakistan hard; hit so hard they cry for mercy. This is a second option.

Both these options are widely recommended by our pundits as mutually reinforcing options, too. But then, there is a catch in all this gung-ho attitude.

Ignoring Pakistan is actually a non-option, if only because we simply cannot choose our neighbour. And in this case, there isn’t any certainty that Pakistan is in any mood to “ignore” us. It will probably keep reminding us every now and then that it does remember us.

Again, even assuming we share the Israeli DNA, Pakistan is not Palestine. While Israel can use Gaza and West Bank as punch bags, if we punch Pakistan, make no mistake, it will punch back.

There is a moral in the story, after all, why Israel ceased to attack Lebanon once it transpired that Hezbollah has a stockpile of 40000 rockets to retaliate. That is the story of all “asymmetric” wars.

Besides, do we really want to get entangled in a futile war of attrition with Pakistan and make it our way of life?

India has so much going for it by way of manifest destiny as an emerging power if only it could sustain a high momentum of growth – for which, of course, a peaceful immediate external environment is a crucial pre-requisite. War and conflicts will be a drain on the resources.

Diplomatic embarrassment

All in all, therefore, Headley’s disposition poses a diplomatic embarrassment. He is an American citizen. What he divulged would already have been known to the US authorities.

On the other hand, the US has lately intensified its collaboration with Pakistan by forming an exclusive Quadrilateral Consultative Group to try to negotiate a settlement with the Taliban.

What emerges is that the US has specific interests to pursue in the region, which demands that Pakistan be cultivated as a key non-NATO regional ally.

The Obama administration continues to do business with the Pakistani military and the ISI despite their dalliance with Osama bin Laden who was responsible for the death of 2996 people in America.

Suffice it to say, the only option open to India too will be to remain engaged with Pakistan, to lower the tensions in the relationship and work toward eliminating the root causes behind this “asymmetric” war.

by MK Bhadrakumar
Published Feb 10, 2016 · 11:30 am. Updated Feb 11, 2016 · 04:35 pm.

Find this story at 10 February 2016

Copyright http://scroll.in/

2008 Mumbai Attacks Plotter Says Pakistan’s Spy Agency Played a Role

The Taj Mahal Palace hotel in Mumbai was ravaged by fire, gunshots and grenade explosions during the 2008 terrorist attacks. Credit Arko Datta/Reuters
NEW DELHI — A Pakistani-American man who helped plot the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai told an Indian court on Monday that he had met throughout the process with two handlers from Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, an Indian prosecutor said.

India has long sought to depose the man, David C. Headley, in hopes of establishing a direct link between the Pakistani government and the assaults in Mumbai, which left more than 163 people dead.

Mr. Headley gave the deposition via teleconference from an undisclosed location in the United States, where he is serving a 35-year sentence for his role in the attacks. The questioning, by Ujjwal Nikam, the Indian public prosecutor, will continue in the coming days.

India hopes to present evidence of official involvement in the attacks, in part to generate pressure on the Pakistani government to take action against the conspirators. Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, a commander with the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba who is believed to have overseen the Mumbai attacks, has been free on bail in Pakistan since 2014.

The group’s founder, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, lives openly in Lahore, in northern Pakistan, and moves freely throughout the country, impervious to the $10 million reward offered by the United States for information leading to his arrest.

Mr. Headley, who identified his contacts at the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate of Pakistan, or ISI, as “Major Ali” and “Major Iqbal,” has linked the terrorist plots to that agency before. He previously told American prosecutors that Lashkar “operated under the umbrella of the ISI” and that an agency official had offered in 2006 to pay him to carry out reconnaissance trips to India before the attacks. He has made similar statements to Indian investigators who have interviewed him in the United States.

A few revelations emerged from Mr. Headley’s questioning on Monday, part of a case against a Lashkar operative, Zabiuddin Ansari. One is that the 10 gunmen who paralyzed Mumbai starting on Nov. 26, 2008, had botched two previous attempts on the city, one in September and one in October, in one case swimming back to shore after their boat hit a rock and their arms and ammunition sank.

Mr. Headley also said that on the advice of his contact in Lashkar, he had changed his birth name, Daood Gilani, to a more American-sounding one so that he could more easily enter India. He visited India seven times before the attacks, recording hours of video of the city for his handlers in Pakistan.

Mr. Headley, 55, the son of a Pakistani poet and diplomat, Syed Saleem Gilani, and a Philadelphia socialite, A. Serrill Headley, carved out a byzantine double game for himself during the years after the Sept. 11 , 2001, attacks in the United States. Convicted of distributing heroin in the United States, he made a deal with officials from the Drug Enforcement Administration to travel to Pakistan in 2002 to gather information on heroin trafficking.

He was swiftly picked up by the Pakistani authorities and decided to work with him.

In 2002, while he was still working as a D.E.A. informant, he began training with Lashkar. Three women — a girlfriend and two former wives of his — approached American officials over the course of several years, saying they suspected him of sympathizing with terrorist groups, but no action was taken.

Mr. Headley was arrested in 2009, when he was caught carrying plans for a terrorist attack on a Danish newspaper. On the basis of his cooperation with investigators, United States officials shielded him from the death penalty at his trial in 2011 and reduced his life sentence to 35 years. Counterterrorism officials have described him as “dangerously engaging,” and they warned about the need to guard against “being sucked into his mind games.”

The United States’ failure to act on warnings about Mr. Headley has been, at times, a source of tension between Washington and New Delhi. Mr. Headley’s appearance as a witness “gives the United States an opportunity to play the observer role in what is a South Asian conversation about terrorism and security,” said Shamila N. Chaudhary, a South Asia fellow at the New America Foundation.

Correction: February 8, 2016
An earlier version of this article misspelled the middle name of David C. Headley’s mother. She was A. Serrill Headley, not Serill.

By ELLEN BARRY and HARI KUMARFEB. 8, 2016

Find this story at 8 Februari 2016

© 2016 The New York Times Company

26/11 attackers made two failed attempts, lost guns at sea: David Headley

Headley told the court that he had changed his name from the original Dawood Gilani after instructions from the LeT commanders, including Lakhvi, and ISI officials.

AMERICAN national and 26/11 scout David Coleman Headley, who deposed before an Indian court on Monday, said that the 10 terrorists who attacked Mumbai on November 26, 2008 had attempted to carry out the strike earlier on two occasions, but failed to execute it.
He said the first attempt was made in September 2008 but it failed as the boat hit some rocks and the terrorists lost all the arms and ammunition at sea.
“The boat disintegrated. The men had life jackets on and came to shore. The weapons and explosives were lost in the ocean,” Headley told the court. He said he does not remember what happened during the second attempt, but it was made “a month or so later”.
“I don’t know exactly where the boat started from, but probably outside Karachi,” he told the court.

Headley told the court that Lashkar-e-Taiba member Sajid Mir had told him to change his name in 2005, and to set up an office in Mumbai and make a “general video” of the city. Headley also said one Major Iqbal, an agent of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), had told him that he could be “useful” for “intelligence work” in India.

Headley’s diary names Pak Army officers,26/11 attack handlers
In New Delhi, Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju said, “The difference between the state and non-state actors will come to an end after this statement. It is known who all were involved. Headley’s statement will lead to a logical conclusion. It will help us.”
Government sources said India will give Pakistan details of Headley’s testimony regarding Hafiz Saeed’s role as the LeT’s ideologue, and the involvement of ISI officers in training and directing the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai attack.
“While Pakistan has claimed that Saeed is associated with Jamaat ud Dawa, Headley’s testimony is evidence on record of Saeed’s role as an ideologue and indoctrinator for LeT,” said a government official.
Headley said Mir was his “main contact” in the LeT. Headley, originally named Dawood Geelani by his parents, had applied to have his name changed in Chicago in 2005. In 2006, his name was officially changed and he obtained a new passport so he could enter India under an American identity, he said.
Headley deposed via video-link from an undisclosed location in the US in the presence of lawyers Robert Seeder and John Theis and Assistant US Attorney Sarah Streicker.
Asked by special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam about the purpose of the office Mir wanted him to open, Headley said, “He did not specify at that time. He specified later what his intention was. Before my first visit, he gave me general instructions to make a general video of Mumbai.”
Headley’s questioning began at the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court at 7.30 am, three-and-a-half hours before it officially opens, to accommodate the Americans. This comes nearly two months after the court framed charges against him in the ongoing trial of Zabiuddin Ansari, an accused in the 26/11 attack.
Headley, who was handed a 35-year jail term by a court in the US in 2013 for his role in the 26/11 attacks, had signed a plea agreement with the government there, under which he is bound to testify in a foreign court or face the death penalty.
Also Read | David Headley wanted to fight against Indian Army in Kashmir
Dressed in a grey sweater, Headley leaned back in his chair, looking into the court from a large television screen, facing another TV screen on which Ansari was visible, seated in Mumbai Central Prison.
Nikam addressed the 26/11 scout as Mr Headley throughout. When he referred to the LeT as a “military organisation”, Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Atulchandra Kulkarni corrected him, “Nikam saheb, military nahi militant, militant.”
Headley, born in Washington DC, deposed that he had come into contact with an ISI agent named Major Ali after he was arrested in Landi Kotal in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Region (FATA), near the border with Afghanistan, on suspicion of being a foreigner.
While entry of foreigners is prohibited there, Headley was discharged after he produced a Pakistani identity card. “I was carrying in my possession literature about India which I was studying,” he said.
Accompanied by a former Pakistan Army Major named Abdur Rehman Pasha, Headley said he had ventured to FATA to meet a drug smuggler named Zaid Shah. “It had been suggested that Shah could smuggle weapons into India,” Headley said.
Headley said he was interrogated there by Ali, who works for the ISI in Landi Kotal. Headley said that when he disclosed to him that he planned to visit India, Ali introduced him to another ISI agent named Major Iqbal because “he thought I could be useful to him in some intelligence work there”.
Prior to the 26/11 attacks, Headley travelled to India on eight occasions — seven times to Mumbai and once to Delhi. “Most of those visits had been made from Pakistan. Only once or twice I arrived from the UAE or Dubai,” he said. He told the court that he visited India only once after the attacks, on March 7, 2009.
The applications he had submitted to the Consul General of India in Chicago to twice obtain visas contained personal information that was falsified “for the purpose of protecting my cover”, he said.
Dr Tahawwur Rana, a childhood friend of Headley, who was sentenced to 14-year imprisonment by a US court in 2013, had helped him obtain a five-year business visa to India in 2007. They had studied together for five years at a college in Pakistan’s Punjab Province.
In Mumbai, Headley set up a safe house “to live in an enemy country” and posed as an immigration consultant to “maintain my cover”.
In the two years that Headley trained with the LeT, he undertook five to six courses in paramilitary training, handling weapons, ammunition and explosives, and intelligence, at Muridke near Lahore and Muzaffarabad in “Azaad Kashmir”, he said. Training also included a leadership course in which Saeed and senior commander Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi delivered “religious speeches”, he said.
Towards the end of the day’s questioning, Headley told Nikam that he wanted to fight the Indian Army in Kashmir but was denied by Lakhvi, who said he was “too old” for it.
Soon afterwards, he was informed by Ali that a suitable task would be found for him, he said.
Nikam, who had started the day with the announcement that his examination of Headley would take at least two days, ended by asking him to identify seven LeT trainers. Headley admitted to knowing Abu Furkhan, Sanaullah, Abu Hanjala Pathan, Abu Usman, Abu Saeed and Abu Fahadullah.
He rejected Nikam’s suggestion that all trainers had served in the Pakistan Army in the past. “No, not at all, some of them could barely read and write,” Headley said to laughter in the courtroom.
Nikam went on, asking Headley if the men could handle sophisticated weapons. He replied: “If you can call an AK-47 a sophisticated weapon, then yes.”

Written by Srinath Rao | Mumbai | Updated: February 9, 2016 5:17 am

Find this story at 9 February 2016

Copyright © 2016 The Indian Express [P] Ltd.

American says he visited Mumbai 7 times before 2008 attack

NEW DELHI (AP) — A Pakistani-American who helped plan a 2008 attack on India’s financial hub told a court Monday that he traveled to India seven times to scout potential targets for a Pakistan-based militant group.

David Coleman Headley gave the Indian court in Mumbai details of his role in planning the attack, in which more than 160 people were killed over three days when a group of 10 men rampaged across the city.

Headley repeated statements that he has made earlier that Pakistan’s main spy agency was deeply involved in planning the attack’s preparations and execution.

FILE- In this Nov. 29, 2008, file photo, an Indian soldier takes cover as the Taj Mahal hotel burns during gun battle between Indian military and militants i…
FILE- In this Nov. 29, 2008, file photo, an Indian soldier takes cover as the Taj Mahal hotel burns during gun battle between Indian military and militants inside the hotel in Mumbai, India. A Pakistani-American who helped plan a 2008 attack on India’s financial hub has told a court in India that he traveled to India seven times to scout potential targets for a Pakistan-based group. (AP Photo/David Guttenfelder, File)

Headley said he supplied his handlers in the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba with videos and maps of luxury hotels, a Jewish center and the city’s main railway station that were attacked, Prosecutor Ujwal Nikam told reporters after Monday’s five hours of testimony.

Headley testified that Lashkar-e-Taiba had tried to launch attacks in India twice earlier without success, said Nikam, who questioned him. The third attempt was the November 2008 attack, Headley said.

Nikam said Headley told the court that in one attempt, a boat in which the men were traveling overturned after hitting rocks and their weapons were lost at sea.

Headley said he joined Lashkar-e-Taiba in 2002 and he and other recruits underwent many years of training in Pakistan, where they were taught the use of weapons and bomb making.

Headley, born of a Pakistani father and an American mother, told the court that his name was Dawood Gilani, but he changed it to David Coleman Headley in 2006 to facilitate his travel to India.

Nikam said Headley used his U.S. passport to travel frequently to India without raising suspicion and was able to give Lashkar-e-Taiba information that was used to plan and carry out the attack.

He said Headley told the court that officials from Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence were involved. Pakistan insists that ISI has no links to Lashkar-e-Taiba and denies any connection to the Mumbai violence.

Nikam told reporters that “Headley has given us valuable information,” but declined to comment on the testimony about ISI, saying it was up to the government of India to take it up with the government of Pakistan.

Headley testified by video conference from an undisclosed location in the United States, where he is serving a 35-year prison term for his role in the Mumbai attack.

The Mumbai court investigating the attack gave Headley a conditional pardon in December, which allowed him to become a witness.

___

This story has been corrected to fix the spelling of Lashkar-e-Taiba.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED: 10:33 GMT, 8 February 2016 | UPDATED: 10:33 GMT, 8 February 2016

Find this story at 8 Februari 2016

© Associated Newspapers Ltd

David Headley: Mumbai plotter ‘visited India’ before attacks

A US man convicted for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks has told an Indian court that he visited Mumbai seven times in advance to gather information.
David Headley gave details of the planning to a court in Mumbai on Monday through a video link from a prison in the US.
Headley, 52, pleaded guilty and co-operated with the US to avoid the death penalty and extradition to India.
More than 160 people were killed by gunmen in the November 2008 attack.
Headley is serving a 35-year jail term in the US for his role in the attacks.
Indian prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam said that “this was for the first time that a foreign terrorist” had appeared through a video link in an Indian court to testify.
“This is a very crucial case… I am absolutely satisfied as to what David Headley has revealed in today’s deposition. I may quiz Headley on certain aspects, which were never asked by the FBI,” he added.
Mumbai’s Taj Mahal hotel under attack in November 2008Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
The Mumbai attack targeted a railway station, luxury hotels and a Jewish cultural centre
Mr Nikam added that Headley’s questioning would continue on Tuesday.
The Mumbai court gave him a conditional pardon in December and allowed him to turn witness.
Headley was sentenced in the US in 2013 on 12 counts, including conspiracy to aid militants from the Pakistani group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) which India blames for carrying out the attacks.
After initially denying the charges, he eventually pleaded guilty and co-operated with the US to avoid the death penalty and extradition to India.
He admitted to scouting potential target locations in Mumbai ahead of the attacks.
Headley was born Daood Gilani to a Pakistani father and American mother but changed his name to David Coleman Headley in 2006 “to present himself in India as an American who was neither Muslim nor Pakistani”, US prosecutors had said.
Headley is alleged to have told US prosecutors that he had been working with LeT since 2002.
He was arrested by FBI agents in Chicago in October 2009 while trying to board a plane for Philadelphia.
The 60-hour assault on Mumbai began on 26 November 2008. Attacks on the railway station, luxury hotels and a Jewish cultural centre claimed 166 lives. Nine gunmen were also killed.
The only attacker captured alive, Pakistani Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab, was executed in India in 2012.

8 February 2016

Find this story at 8 February 2016

Copyright © 2016 BBC