The emasculated floppy hat

The BND ruling of the Constitutional Court is a testimony of extreme absurdity, such as can only be conjured from the red beret over the red Robe by the Supreme Court of a still state-like “entity” that is about to be finally dissolved. But in turn:

Basically, democracy and intelligence are incompatible. Services must serve the government. The more obscure the ideologies of the parties sitting in Parliament as Opposition, the more dangerous it is not only for the government, but also, in case of doubt, for the state order, to let them share intelligence. Assuming that the intentions of the ruling party(s) correspond to the intentions of the majority of voters, which should be so in textbook terms, and assuming further that the opposition parties do not sit in Parliament for the sake of diet, but because they want to change the Republic in their spirit, without having found a majority for it, it would be downright negligent to make available to these marginalized groups the information that would allow them to recognize the world political events more clearly and if necessary. to instrumentalize for their goals and purposes.

But because democracy is, it has been agreed in this country to create the so-called” parliamentary supervisory body " (PKGr), whose task it is to monitor the federal intelligence services (BND, MAD, Verfassungsschutz) in such a way that the federal government informs the PKGr about the general activities of the intelligence services and about events of particular importance. The PKGr also has the right to request reports on further events from the federal government. The PKGr, for its part, writes about its activities reports, the most recent four of these reports date from 19.12.2013, 21.3.2016, 16.1.2018 and 2.12.2019. in addition, the PKGr has issued a total of six “public assessments” of relevant events since November 2015 and Six reports each on “implementation according to G10” and “counter-terrorism measures"since December 2013. The nine members of the PMB, currently 3xUnion, 2xSPD, 1xLINKE, 1xGrüne, 1xFDP, 1xAfD, hear so, what are the government you have voluntarily made, and on request-told about the work of the services and then write their reports. Of course, there is always a lot of demand, as on the other hand is also consistently bricked, but that the parliamentary supervisory body could seriously control the services through the “barrier layer” government, I think is a bold assumption.

Of course, the tasks of the services, that is also that of the BND, are legally fixed, including the means and methods that are allowed for news gathering, with which the ultimately counterproductive confinement of the BND for information gathering Should long ago be done. Here we meet the unofficial, but very powerful state goal of making the Federal Republic of Germany appear in every respect as a shining example for the world. If you close your eyes for a moment and listen deeply, you can hear it: “I am small, my heart is pure …”.

The Dilemma into which the BND plunges the federal government is not easy to describe. On the one hand, one wants to know what the allies and opponents out there in the world think about us and what they intend to do with us, but on the other hand, one fears that if one, like any other intelligence service in the world, would simply perceive everything that is possible to spy on foreigners in secret service abroad, the reputation of the integrity of the Model Boys of the rule of law could be damaged, which in turn could take the Opposition as an opportunity to stage a scandal.

Thus, since Reinhard Gehlen’s denazification and the takeover of the organization Gehlen into the service of the Federal Republic of Germany, the path of least resistance was chosen, the BND was hidden behind high walls in Pullach and took great care that it was always perceived much more as an appendage of the US services than as an autonomous Federal German institution. Of course, the close connection to the Western allies did indeed exist, of course, knowledge was exchanged, also provided, depending on available resources, administrative assistance, but the further Germany emancipated itself, especially after the accession of the new federal states and, had it not been for the transfer of a large part of the sovereignty rights to the EU, could actually have been sovereign again, the more it became clear that the BND was more – or at least could have been more – than an advanced post of the services of the USA.

How it has now come about that the Federal Constitutional Court was prompted to castrate the BND, which is still late pubertal and fluctuates back and forth between Will and not-dare, as a precaution, is a story with a high speculative potential as far as the aspirations and influence in the background are concerned.

However, the process itself is as simple and natural as flying in a dream.

So some foreigners, convinced that the work of the BND could endanger their work and their physical integrity, looked for a court where they could sue, and came across the Federal Constitutional Court. Presumably, the complainants, who come from countries such as Croatia and Azerbaijan, had never heard of how difficult it is to set the Federal Constitutional Court in motion at all, presumably they had also never heard of the fact that the scope of the basic law should exclude them as plaintiffs, because on the one hand it says in the preamble that the Germans gave themselves this basic law (for themselves), and then the phrase is constantly used in the basic rights: “all Germans have the right …”, or, “all Germans enjoy …”, but here once again the old wisdom proved true: “fresh daring is half won”. The Federal Constitutional Court accepted the Klaga and came to the conclusion:

“The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany applies to the whole world.”

Or, in other words, the organs of the Federal Republic of Germany must treat all people on earth as if they were Germans. By the way, and without having anything to do with the BND, this is the extension of the practice, which has been practised since 2015, of granting the basic rights of the basic law to every migrant who reaches German soil, to 7.8 billion people of all nationalities. It is no coincidence to me that Stephan Harbarth, of all people, announced the verdict, the man who came to the lectern as a member of the German Bundestag and pointed out with golden words that the UN migration pact would reduce the pressure on Germany to immigrate, because the refugees would find the same, good conditions everywhere in the world. The former record holder on secondary income in the German Bundestag pursues a globalist, ideological Agenda, the forms of expression of which can sometimes hardly be distinguished from pure cynicism.

Despite the fact that among the hundreds of intelligence services operating worldwide, hardly anyone can be found who could come to the conclusion that his agents had to comply with the German Basic Law in their reconnaissance work, the last Open Eye of the Federal Republic is now also to be hidden behind a deep dark colored welding glasses. However, not immediately, but only from January 2022, because by the end of 2021 the parliament has been given time to revise the BND law. However, it is not the parliament that has taken the floor, but the government, which wants to submit a bill to Parliament. Clear. The government may. However, the German Bundestag is likely to do the same, and I would expect that a draft will be presented, discussed and adopted from the centre of the house, which was not originally written in the Chancellery by the intelligence coordinator slim and smooth.

Whether they still have it, the ladies and gentlemen deputies? Whatever.

This is about half measures.

There are voices who are convinced that the verdict of the Federal Constitutional Court is a late victory for Edward Snowden. To come to this conviction, however, one must assume that the saying from Karlsruhe is addressed not only to the federal government and the Bundestag, but also to the USA, Great Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Venezuela, Brazil …

The merit of Edward Snowden was certainly to get some of the interested public to become aware of the ubiquitous and widespread spying by the services for a few months. This could have led to a movement against total surveillance. The mere fact that Snowden continues to live in exile in Moscow and Julian Assange slowly dies in prison in England proves that neither such a movement has arisen nor that governments around the world have even begun to question their methods. The fact that Snowden himself spoke up and praised the Karlsruhe judgment as a step forward in the enforcement of human rights, because human rights, even if they affect the digital space, apply to everyone – regardless of where they live, honors him – as he should have interpreted it differently – does not change what has been done so far.

Either one comes to the conviction that an intelligence service is necessary, then one must not interfere with the fact that he does things in secret that would lead to public outrage. However, if one comes to the conviction that one can do without intelligence services, like parts of the left, then one must close down the intelligence services and must not install any new ones.

What is to happen with us now, namely to acquire a young bull for expensive money from a fighting bull breed, only to castrate him before he has seen the Arena, out of concern that he might injure a Torero, and then fatten him until he finds an inglorious end to the amusement of our foreign Oktoberfest guests in the Ochsenbraterei as an ox on a spit, is not yet sufficiently described with “muddling through”.

Especially since it is not really about the question: “Secret Service-yes or no?“but rather the question of what damage an intelligence scandal could cause to the Reputation of political leaders and how such damage could best be avoided. Instead of more secrecy, they rely on less intelligence. So risk minimization by sticking your head in the Sand. It should be borne in mind that intelligence services certainly have opportunities to bring down those who oppose them. Sometimes a Secret Service is just as slippery and slippery as a wet bar of soap on the floor tiles in the bathroom.

But it’s not just about half-measures, not to say “weak decision-making”, “fickleness” or “shortage of skilled workers”.

It’s also about overconfidence.

The Federal Constitutional Court is not the International Court of Justice of the United Nations in The Hague, and even this one unfolds its little effectiveness only where it suits the big players in the stuff. Perceiving the world as it is can be very helpful, as a correct and complete perception of intelligence allows us to adapt optimally to circumstances and circumstances. Perceiving the world as you wish makes intelligence the Popcorn machine in head cinema. However, every Film comes to the end credits once, then the light in the hall will turn on again and reality will gain the upper hand over the Illusion.

It would be quite sufficient for me if the Federal Constitutional Court took a little more intensive care to enforce the fundamental rights within the scope of the basic law, e.g. by rejecting only the Network Enforcement Act as completely unconstitutional. A lawsuit from the ranks of the FDP has been pending for decision since the summer of 2018.