When, after a deadly attack such as the attack on a gay and lesbian bar in Oslo, it is said that a check is being carried out to determine whether the suspected Islamist radicalized perpetrator is mentally ill, it always comes across as somewhat cynical: if it isn't mentally ill out of the box, then to go to a place where strangers are partying happily in order to shoot as many of them as possible?
Of course, the culpability of the perpetrator must be checked.
This is part of an open, constitutional society like the Gay Pride Parade in Oslo, which was initially canceled after the bloody crime on Saturday due to security concerns.
The limits of threat surveillance
The Norwegian security authorities now have to ask themselves questions of guilt of a completely different kind.
They have known the naturalized Iranian for a long time, knew about his networking with Islamists as well as about a certain propensity for violence - and yet they did not see any acute danger in him when they interviewed him just a few weeks ago.
Initially, nothing has become known in detail about their consideration.
However, secret service agents, police officers and politicians in other Western countries will already feel confirmed in a bitter realization: it is often difficult to identify radicalization, but it is never enough.
However, monitoring potential threats quickly reaches the limits of feasibility – and of the rule of law in an open society.