Knife attack in Dresden: threats and threats – politics

The knife attack by a perpetrator near ISIS in Dresden on October 4, in which a tourist was killed and his companion seriously injured, appears to be barely reasonable in terms of the consequences for the sense of justice and the security of the population.

What exactly does that mean? Abdullah AHH was granted asylum in Saxony as a war refugee in 2016. He lost this status when it was discovered that he was an outspoken supporter of the terrorist organization Islamic State and was recruiting members for it. Three years in prison followed. The Saxon Judiciary, the LKA and the Constitutional Guard were aware of the high risk of danger following his release, but were unable to monitor him closely.

But that was absolutely necessary because the court-confirmed deportation could not be carried out. A blanket ban on deportation to Syria stood in the way of resolution of the ministers of the interior. So the perpetrator was free to travel across the country after serving his sentence, and the disaster continued. After a few days of freedom, Abdullah AHH killed a person in the street.

Long-term overcoming of legal obstacles

What is being neglected in the debate about the lifting of the German deportation ban is that there will also be an international ban on return. These include the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Geneva Convention on Refugees and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice with the generous promise not to return admitted people to countries where they are in danger of life and limb, even if there is no more reason for protection as a refugee. Prolonged legal battles are often required to overcome these barriers.

[Wenn Sie alle aktuellen Nachrichten live auf Ihr Handy haben wollen, empfehlen wir Ihnen unsere runderneuerte App, die Sie hier für Apple- und Android-Geräte herunterladen können.]

The fundamental question at stake becomes clear after the Dresden case: is it to be expected that people who have offered refugees protection against war and persecution themselves become (potentially) defenseless, so that criminals are protected against danger by not being deported ? Germany answered the question with no. Those at risk are usually deported. This also benefits the peaceful refugees who need the acceptance, protection and support of the host society.

Report Rating