Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday January 04 2017, @09:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the dilemma dept.

Germany finds itself in a dilemma. After WW2, laws were put in place to ensure that the Federal Government could never again subvert the security apparatus to create something similar to that which enabled the Nazis to seize power. A quite laudable aim, at least at the time. As a result the German States, of which there are currently 16, are each responsible for their own security and intelligence organizations. The Federal Security organization has only limited responsibility for the security at such places as borders and railway station etc.

In a speech reported here the Federal Minister of the Interior Thomas de Maiziere has suggested that this split of responsibilities needs to be rethought to enable acts of terrorism which are targeting at the country rather than the individual states to be effectively combated:

De Maiziere examines national as well as European security structures in the article, and concludes: reforms are "required." The core of his analysis calls for expanded federal responsibilities, which will demand that states relinquish some of theirs. Formulations such as "centrally operative crisis management" or "control competence over all security agencies" appear throughout the article.

However, the recent terror attack, the most serious in Germany in over 35 years, did not prompt de Maiziere's considerations, it simply gave him a reason to group them together into a kind of list of demands. The interior minister writes that he himself had proposed most of the changes "prior to the attack." The demands affect all authorities and areas of government concerned with defense against the threat of terror: Namely, the police and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Germany's domestic intelligence agency - but also, as the minister sees it, the army. The international scope of the problem, he says, touches on the need to secure Europe's external borders, as well as the global dimensions of the right to asylum.

This suggestion has not gone down well, particularly with those who were living in fear of a state controlled secret intelligence organisation (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, MfS), commonly known as the Stasi) until relatively recently.

[Continues...]

For example, this report contains the following:

Anis Amri, believed to have carried out the [recent Berlin] attack, was allowed to remain in the country because he did not have a valid travel document and his home country, Tunisia, initially refused to produce one.

To handle such cases, Mr. de Maizière suggested setting up federally controlled "departure centers," which could be placed "close to German airports" to aid the process.

He argued that such measures were already possible within existing German law and suggested extending the period for which a person can be detained pending deportation beyond the current maximum of four days.

Opposition lawmakers sharply rejected that suggestion, insisting that the government had a responsibility to respect the human rights of each individual, even those who are to be deported.

"In a country governed by the rule of law, the end does not justify every means," said Ulla Jelpke, an interior affairs expert with the left-wing Left Party.

She further criticized the plans as a "frontal assault" on the decentralization of powers that were set up to prevent another takeover like that of the Nazis.

What initially appeared as a problem with a relatively simple solution has become a lot more complex.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday January 05 2017, @06:16AM

    by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Thursday January 05 2017, @06:16AM (#449674)

    Then by all means, lead the charge of not accepting them by refusing to partake in the causes of them migrating away from their once-great, now-shitty country.

    Stop buying cheap oil based products. Stop buying electronic devices filled with rare earth minerals dug up from those countries.

    Your government and corporations helped creat the clusterfuck they are fleeing from. Your government then send over troops to fight the "evil Mr Nasty", and whilst they're over there, the troops are actively promoting how superior their culture is, coz Freedom!(tm).
    After all that, you then complain that a country made great by immigrants, then has to put up with yet more immigrants.

    The immigrants aren't the problem. You are.

    --
    Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 05 2017, @08:50PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday January 05 2017, @08:50PM (#449926) Journal

    Yes, but cognitive dissonance is their game. They want a world without consequences, such that they can have cheap oil and never have to worry, think, or change.

    You can try to point out that doing what you suggest would be about the single best thing they could do for themselves economically, because all those hundreds of billions of dollars now spent on oil could be spent on other things in this country that would create well-paying jobs for them and theirs, but connecting those two dots is too much mental effort for them. They have chosen the Derp Side of the Force, and forever will it dominate their destiny.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.