– There is no evidence that the E-service’s reporting of sources meant that the attack became more serious or extensive than it would otherwise have been, the EOS committee concludes in a separate report. – The investigation has not revealed that there is a breach of the prohibition in the E-service’s operations against provoking actions that would not otherwise have been committed, writes the committee. The EOS committee controls the secret services in Norway for the Storting. The committee has investigated the role of the Intelligence Service in the 25 June case and answered these two questions: Did the E-Service, by its source information, provoke the shooting on 25 June? Has the E-service complied with the duty to share all relevant information with PST in a timely manner in advance of the attack? Astri Aas-Hansen heads the EOS committee. Photo: Truls Alnes Antonsen / news Committee leader Astri Aas-Hansen will be interviewed in Vandrehallen at the Storting after she has informed the control and constitution committee about the special report. – After its investigation, the committee has found no basis for criticizing the E-service, they write in a press release. Secret agent On Sunday 19 June, an agent who worked for the Norwegian Intelligence Service received information about a possible terrorist attack from an IS woman with whom the agent had written messages. The woman thought she was communicating with an IS fighter and tried to mediate contact between the people who planned to carry out the attack and the leadership of the terrorist group IS. This was so that the terrorist group IS would take responsibility for the terrorist attack after it had been carried out. To try to buy time, the agent introduced requirements for proof that the alleged attacker had taken the oath of allegiance (bayah) to the right Caliph before the attack – in the hope of being able to identify the perpetrator of the planned attack. Furthermore, the agent emphasized that “ISIL” would not approve and assume responsibility for the planned attack until the agent was confident that the implementation was successful and was of a certain scale. Wanted to uncover and avert The purpose of making such demands was to give the agent and the E-service more time to uncover and avert the attack plans. In certain places in the dialogue, the agent writes in positive terms about terrorist attacks, and emphasizes “the importance of the planned attack being successful”. In the committee’s opinion, these statements have a completely general character. The committee also points out that the source’s statement falls so close to the execution of the attack that it is “probable that there was sufficient time to make significant changes to the attack plans”. The notification to the PST E-service took the information very seriously and notified the Police Security Service (PST) the following day, which was a Monday. The e-service did not say that the information came from their own operation, but both the IS woman’s name and the supposed mastermind, Arfan Bhatti, were mentioned in the alert. Five days later, on the night of 25 June, terrorist defendant Zaniar Matapour shot and killed two men outside two nightclubs in central Oslo and injured nine others. Hedvig Moe was assistant chief in PST when the terrorist attack occurred. Photo: Jorunn Hatling / news PST has previously said that the notice they received was hollow and did not contain enough information. – We did not receive any information about time, place, person or what was going to happen. If we are to give any information to the police about a possible terrorist attack, then they must be able to do something to stop the attack, said then assistant chief of PST Hedvig Moe. Critical defender Lawyer Marius Dietrichson is the defender for terrorist defendant Zaniar Matapour. Photo: Gunnar Bratthammer When the notification to PST became known, Matapour’s defender Marius Dietrichson said that the role of the E-service had to be investigated by the police. – There is perhaps reason to believe that this would not have happened, and in any case not on such a large scale, if it had not been for the involvement of the Norwegian Intelligence Service’s agent, Dietrichson said then. Among other things, the defender has questioned whether information has been withheld from the contact with the E-service’s agent that could reveal provocation. The EOS committee writes in its separate report that they believe there is no reason to suspect that there is a lack of content from the conversations that is relevant to the issue of provocation. news has not succeeded in getting a comment from the defender today. The trial against the perpetrator starts in Oslo District Court in March. The committee’s conclusion The EOS committee believes that the agent did not provoke the attack on 25 June: “When assessing the issue of provocation, the committee emphasized that it was the source who initiated the dialogue about support for the planned attack. In certain places in the dialogue, the agent writes in positive terms about terrorist attacks, and emphasizes the importance of the planned attack being successful. In the committee’s opinion, these statements have a completely general character.” The committee also believes that the E-service notified PST and gave its assessments in a timely manner in accordance with the law. The EOS committee writes that it is outside their Monday to “assess the efficiency and quality of the services’ work”. The committee has also not considered whether it was appropriate for the E-service not to share information about the source and collection method. – We are taking note of the special report, says senior adviser Martin Bernsen in the Police’s security service to news. The support group after 25 June The support group after the attack would have liked more answers. Leader Espen Evjenth (seen here in the middle) is nevertheless happy that the EOS committee went into questions about handling. Photo: Rolf Petter Olaisen / news – We have still not received good enough answers as to why the attack was not averted. Many of our members are still living with the heavy consequences of the terror, says Espen Evjenth, leader of the Support Group on 25 June. The support group writes that they are happy that the EOS committee has taken this seriously and investigated the matter. – There has been speculation that the E-service almost provoked the terror with its handling. For those of us who are directly affected, it has been an additional burden. We are happy that the EOS committee is now putting that ball to rest, says Evjenth.
ttn-69
– No grounds for criticizing the E-service – news Norway – Overview of news from different parts of the country
