NationStates Jolt Archive

Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4715878.stm

There were two main reasons for the ruling. The first was that Germany's constitution forbids the military from being used for domestic security (understandably, given what happened last time, although I'm not sure what they'd do in a national crisis).

The second was more interesting: The protection of the right to human dignity is strict and an infringement is not permissible - in particular, the government can't shoot down a plane to save the lives of people on the ground. What do people here think of the argument - given that they couldn't be certain if a suspected hijacked plane would be used for terrorism, was the judge right, or should the government not take any risks in such serious matters?

We sure did!
I even got up earlier this morning to hear the decision rigth when it was made.

The first was that Germany's constitution forbids the military from being used for domestic security (understandably, given what happened last time, although I'm not sure what they'd do in a national crisis).
Yep. Special importance seeing as Germany's hosting the Football/Soccer World Cup this year, and there has been talk about whether the military should be used to take over some of the security things. Now that is definitely off the table, thank the Elk.


What we do in a national crisis? Use the police forces. That's what they are for. Police for the interior, army for the exterior, so to speak. We do/did have the military for peaceful domestic crisis, e.g. the one flood we had, soldiers helped to construct/repair levees.


The second was more interesting: The protection of the right to human dignity is strict and an infringement is not permissible - in particular, the government can't shoot down a plane to save the lives of people on the ground. What do people here think of the argument - given that they couldn't be certain if a suspected hijacked plane would be used for terrorism, was the judge right, or should the government not take any risks in such serious matters?

I'm still of two minds on this, but in the end, I think I'm glad the ruling went this way.
While I do see how shooting such a plane down could and probably would save lives, I'm with the court in ultimately placing the dignity of the people (in the plane), and the demand that the government is not to directly decide about the life or any person, above that desire to save those lives.
Quite apart from the fear of abuse, were the government to be given that power.

What we do in a national crisis? Use the police forces. That's what they are for. Police for the interior, army for the exterior, so to speak. We do/did have the military for peaceful domestic crisis, e.g. the one flood we had, soldiers helped to construct/repair levees.
What would happen, though, if there was mass rioting, and the police couldn't keep the situation under control? Many countries would enact martial law in such circumstances.

What would happen, though, if there was mass rioting, and the police couldn't keep the situation under control? Many countries would enact martial law in such circumstances.

I'm guessing they'd ask for help from neighbouring countries?

That's part of why we're allied.

What would happen, though, if there was mass rioting, and the police couldn't keep the situation under control? Many countries would enact martial law in such circumstances.

Last time there was general unrest the government couldn't control, the people turned to the workers party.

They restored civil order.

What would happen, though, if there was mass rioting, and the police couldn't keep the situation under control? Many countries would enact martial law in such circumstances.
Allow me to start out saying that if there were such mass rioting that the police couldn't handle it anymore, there'd be a lot more things wrong than people rioting, and soldiers holding down their own people mightn't make it better at all.

But anyway, the military has a mission, and that is to protect their citizens from harm coming from the outside. It is not a tool of the government to control domestic issues, and we're very proud we aren't that kind of a country.

So, what would we do? Well, for starters, in the current situation, I find it hard to imagine any situation where our police wouldn't suffice.
I think we have about 300,000 members of the active police force (Though I'm really not sure about that, please correct me if you know better).

But yes, I guess we'd ask neighboring countries for help as well, just as Seathorn (were are you from, incidentally?) suggested. There is a lot of cooperation in other police departments today already, especially in international crimes, why not?

Last time there was general unrest the government couldn't control, the people turned to the workers party.

They restored civil order.

Would you mind to state what exactly you are referring to?

that is a bad ruling. if they say it violates the protection of the right to human dignity, then germans are fucked, because they have no way of ever getting this to work, not even with a 100% majority, as this part of the constitution protecting human dignity cannot be changed. if the court had said: "this law is permissable, but it requires a change of the constitution", then at least it could have been done with 2/3rds majority in both chambers of parliament, but now it is impossible.
the legislators from the bench have once more said fu to the will of the people.

that is a bad ruling. if they say it violates the protection of the right to human dignity, then germans are fucked, because they have no way of ever getting this to work, not even with a 100% majority, as this part of the constitution protecting human dignity cannot be changed. if the court had said: "this law is permissable, but it requires a change of the constitution", then at least it could have been done with 2/3rds majority in both chambers of parliament, but now it is impossible.
the legislators from the bench have once more said fu to the will of the people.

huh? Sorry but do you know the "will of the people"?

I for one are quite happy with the result!
At least the court does a good job once in a while... ^^

huh? Sorry but do you know the "will of the people"?the will of the people is expressed through the representatives they elect and there was a majority in both houses of parliament pro that law, else it would not have been enacted in the first place.

the will of the people is expressed through the representatives they elect and there was a majority in both houses of parliament pro that law, else it would not have been enacted in the first place.

But the court is bound(sorry if that is the wrong word?) to check/verify the parliament and, if necessary change/repeal law's that have been enacted.

On a sidenote: the people who passed that law where elected for 4 years. They changed and so I did not vote for them(many did the same....). Moreover: I doubt there really is a majority for the law. But meh with this whole representatives thingy.........

But I do get your point, they should'nt have repealed the law but instead said how/what to change.... (does this sentence make any sense at all???)

What would happen, though, if there was mass rioting, and the police couldn't keep the situation under control? Many countries would enact martial law in such circumstances.Martial law means that existing laws are pretty much replaced. If there was such intense mass rioting, then it probably could happen. We haven't seen anything like that since Nov. 9th, 1918 though.

Just so I understand this correctly. Germany's laws dictate that if someone highjacks an airliner and decides to head for a football stadium crowded with 100,000 people. They cannot shoot down the plane because they have to protect the dignity of the highjackers and a couple of hundred unfortunate souls on the plane?
If I were a terrorist, I'd sure be taking notes. Five hundred to one kill ratio and all they got to do is pull off half the operation and they are guarenteed success by law. Somehow I can't help but think that this solution to past injustices creates a whole new set of it's own.

But yes, I guess we'd ask neighboring countries for help as well, just as Seathorn (were are you from, incidentally?) suggested. There is a lot of cooperation in other police departments today already, especially in international crimes, why not?

Denmark, just not very sure how much of a help we'd be in case of mass rioting :p but at least most of us would be able to speak German (not me unfortunately).

But yes, I guess we'd ask neighboring countries for help as well, just as Seathorn (were are you from, incidentally?) suggested. There is a lot of cooperation in other police departments today already, especially in international crimes, why not?

I guess you'd ask the US Military Forces already in Germany.
Now why are they there again?
That's right. To prevent the massive abuse of power that Hitler used.
Which means no one really has to worry about the ability to shoot down airplanes being abused. At all.

I guess you'd ask the US Military Forces already in Germany.
Now why are they there again?
That's right. To prevent the massive abuse of power that Hitler used.
Which means no one really has to worry about the ability to shoot down airplanes being abused. At all.

I do not believe that the US soldiers were ever given any right to break German law while in Germany.

I guess you'd ask the US Military Forces already in Germany.
Now why are they there again?
That's right. To prevent the massive abuse of power that Hitler used.
Which means no one really has to worry about the ability to shoot down airplanes being abused. At all.

You think that in 2006, there are US military forces in Germany in order to /with the power to interfere with German laws?

Dear, the time that they were there to "prevent the massive abuse of power" by Hitler is, umm, long gone. You may have noticed that Germany is not under US-American occupation any more. By quite some time, too. Does "national sovereignity" ring a bell?

and all of this only because the imperialistic usa had a puppet government force this constitution with the dignity crap on the germans. the germans didnt even get to vote on it, it was a dictate by the us government.
and now they are trying to do the exact same thing to iraq and afghanistan that they did to the germans and japanese. somebody stop them or the iraqis and afghans will suffer the same terrible fate as the japanese and germans and have no future!

I'm a bit confused about something here, hope someone has an answer:

Is the judge saying that
a) it's unconstitutional to have this law that gives the government the power to kill people, and the government have no right to kill those on the plane to try to save the lives of others.

or

b) it's unconstitutional to have a law that gives the government the power to kill people - but he is not saying that the government couldn't do it to prevent a larger disaster? If it was warranted from an emergency law-viewpoint? (Notstandsrecht?)

or c) Something else entirely?

I'm a bit confused about something here, hope someone has an answer:

Is the judge saying that
a) it's unconstitutional to have this law that gives the government the power to kill people, and the government have no right to kill those on the plane to try to save the lives of others.

or

b) it's unconstitutional to have a law that gives the government the power to kill people - but he is not saying that the government couldn't do it to prevent a larger disaster? If it was warranted from an emergency law-viewpoint? (Notstandsrecht?)

or c) Something else entirely?


As far as I can tell, it's reason a.

Also, there is such a thing as evacuating.

As far as I can tell, it's reason a.

Also, there is such a thing as evacuating.
Sure, but in a 9/11-like scenario it would be difficult. Say you were tracking the first plane towards New York - what would you evacuate?

Sure, but in a 9/11-like scenario it would be difficult. Say you were tracking the first plane towards New York - what would you evacuate?

There is no city like New York in Germany.

Any other situations?

Sure, but in a 9/11-like scenario it would be difficult. Say you were tracking the first plane towards New York - what would you evacuate?better evacuate the whole east coast in half an hour in case they fly into a nuclear power plant.

as for your previous question: the court decided the law allowing the government to have the airforce shoot down a hijacked passenger plane was violating the constitution in two points: 1st the constitution forbids the use of the armed forces for policing tasks. that could be mended by changing the constitution or having it shot down by the police, which then would have to be equipped with interceptors.
2nd the constitution protects the human dignity and life, shooting down a hijacked passenger plane violates this for the innocent passengers onboard, that are still alive. this cannot be mended by changign the constitution as the part of the constitution protecting human life and dignity could not be changed, not even with a 100% majority and direct orders from god.

There is no city like New York in Germany.

Any other situations?
The question is still relevant - If a hijacked plane is flying towards Berlin (pop. 3,4 mill) or Hamburg (pop. 1,7 mill), what buildings/areas would you evacuate (how do you choose), and would you have the time to get it done?

The question is still relevant - If a hijacked plane is flying towards Berlin (pop. 3,4 mill) or Hamburg (pop. 1,7 mill), what buildings/areas would you evacuate (how do you choose), and would you have the time to get it done?

I'm not sure...

...to be honest, I don't think people really think that much about it.

Life is easier without such problems. So far, diplomacy has always worked in similar cases in Germany, so no reason to get any military involved.

Personally, I believe in shooting every hostage taken in the vulcan way :p okay, so I would probably not agree to it in practice, but in theory, hostages should become valueless and would no longer be taken (a problem, as they might then immediately be killed). See why I don't like to think? Much easier to ignore this issue and let whoever is trained to deal with it, deal with it. The military isn't trained to deal with hijackings, don't let them deal with it.

better evacuate the whole east coast in half an hour in case they fly into a nuclear power plant.

as for your previous question: the court decided the law allowing the government to have the airforce shoot down a hijacked passenger plane was violating the constitution in two points: 1st the constitution forbids the use of the armed forces for policing tasks. that could be mended by changing the constitution or having it shot down by the police, which then would have to be equipped with interceptors.
2nd the constitution protects the human dignity and life, shooting down a hijacked passenger plane violates this for the innocent passengers onboard, that are still alive. this cannot be mended by changign the constitution as the part of the constitution protecting human life and dignity could not be changed, not even with a 100% majority and direct orders from god.
So you are saying alternative a) of my alternatives? (Just making sure I understand you correctly)
So the german government cannot legally take any action to bring down a hijacked aircraft that the hijackers explicitly intends to crash into a city, except to try to evacuate the targeted area. Should they (the government) bring the plane down by force, they would be punished afterwards.

I'm not sure...

...to be honest, I don't think people really think that much about it.

Life is easier without such problems. So far, diplomacy has always worked in similar cases in Germany, so no reason to get any military involved.

Personally, I believe in shooting every hostage taken in the vulcan way :p okay, so I would probably not agree to it in practice, but in theory, hostages should become valueless and would no longer be taken (a problem, as they might then immediately be killed). See why I don't like to think? Much easier to ignore this issue and let whoever is trained to deal with it, deal with it. The military isn't trained to deal with hijackings, don't let them deal with it.
Fair enough :p

So you are saying alternative a) of my alternatives?yes, the law is unconstitutional, but more than that, the constitution could not even be amended to make it constitutional.Should they (the government) bring the plane down by force, they would be punished afterwards.not sure about that, if the government ordered the plane to be shot down, then they probably could only prosecute the pilot, who fired since that order would have been illegal and the pilot should have refused to execute an illegal order. the pilot also cannot use the defense that he "was just following orders" as this defense has been worthless ever since the nuremberg trials.

Not that it matters, because planes these days have air marshals on them (IMHO the best idea this whole anti-terror thing has come up with).

As for the constitution...well, I think it's a good constitution, that particularly incorporates experiences made by Germany in the past and tries to prevent it.

It's true that there was never a real vote on it, but it was not entirely imposed either.
The Basic Law was adopted in the aftermath of World War II while West Germany was still under allied occupation. The first state of the creation of a democracy in the western areas of Germany was that the individual West German states, or Länder, were given constitutions. The new constitution for West Germany was originally to be drafted by a constituent assembly and submitted to a plebiscite for ratification. However, for the same reasons that the document was ultimately called a 'basic law' and not a 'constitution', the leaders of the Länder insisted that the drafting body be called the 'Parliamentary Council' and that plans for a referendum be abandoned.

When it met the Parliamentary Council consisted of delegates elected by the parliaments of each Land. After being passed by the council and approved by the occupying powers the Basic Law was submitted to the governments of the Länder for ratification, it having been provided that the document would not come into effect until it had been ratified by at least two-thirds of the states. After meeting these requirements the enactment of the Basic Law was proclaimed on May 23, 1949.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_constitution

Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4715878.stm

There were two main reasons for the ruling. The first was that Germany's constitution forbids the military from being used for domestic security (understandably, given what happened last time, although I'm not sure what they'd do in a national crisis).

The second was more interesting: The protection of the right to human dignity is strict and an infringement is not permissible - in particular, the government can't shoot down a plane to save the lives of people on the ground. What do people here think of the argument - given that they couldn't be certain if a suspected hijacked plane would be used for terrorism, was the judge right, or should the government not take any risks in such serious matters?This ruling is stupid. What if it's a suicide attack? The people on board will die anyway-why can't they save others in the proccess?

This ruling is stupid. What if it's a suicide attack? The people on board will die anyway-why can't they save others in the proccess?
Because of the constitution. It's very first sentence (ie the part that doesn't change) says:

Human dignity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_dignity) shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

That's a response I believe to the animal-like treatment people had to endure during the Nazi era. And it covers things like the state making a decision based on numbers to kill people.

rofl lol
gla can just run right in ur base lol if china inf did that it would get leik uber pwnd adn us air would be all liek lol fag lol and then it would get pwnd 2 lol
must be y germany isnt in 0hour lol
:D

Because of the constitution. It's very first sentence (ie the part that doesn't change) says:

Human dignity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_dignity) shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.and that constitution was dictated to the germans by an unelected council of US puppets, who forced it unto a helpless, occupied people, the same crime that the US is now trying to do to the iraqis!

and that constitution was dictated to the germans by an unelected council of US puppets, who forced it unto a helpless, occupied people, the same crime that the US is now trying to do to the iraqis!
Similar, yes. But the constitution was worked out by Iraqis there, and by Germans here.
The Allies had a hand in it, understandably, but ultimately, it is a German constitution, and one that is pretty popular in the country.

But remember that it was Germans who didn't want it to go to a referendum, as had originally been planned by the Allies.