Is the (legal) basis for Allied spying in Germany a remnant of the Second World War?
--> The discussion about US /and or/ Allied spying in Germany reminded me of a very interesting topic that I once encountered while pursuing a research project about the "little cold war" between West and East Germany. Fortunately, I was able to locate a recent interview with a German historian who is quite the expert on the question. He puts his findings in context of recent revelations. I couldn't find an english translation of the interview, so I am making use of the evil people at google and their translation services.
Original Article: http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Das-System-des-Kalten-Kriegs-besteht-weiter-article10923526.html
Translated excerpts:
"Espionage in the Federal Republic GermanyThe system of the Cold War persists
[...]
What a legal basis for this monitoring had initially?
Until 1955 there was occupation law, which was more in the so-called allied rights reserved. Some of these special rights were in fact transferred to the Federal Republic in the course of time, but others were in 1963 and further confirmed in a supplementary agreement to the NATO SOFA and 1968 in additional secret agreement.
What was that?
In 1963, the Federal Republic undertook a supplementary agreement applicable only for them to NATO Status of Forces for close cooperation and exchange of all relevant information with the secret of the Western powers. This was again confirmed in the adoption of the G 10 Act, which regulated the supervision of the postal and telecommunications by German authorities in 1968.
Now it was the first time a legal basis for the spying Bundesdeutschen.Bereits in the 1950s, the Western powers had signaled that they would waive their rights monitoring, if the Federal Republic would have a law that gave the German authorities surveillance powers. The law, however, would seamlessly connect to the monitoring practice of the Allied authorities. So it should all remain the same. Exactly what has been done in 1968 with the G 10 Act. Ironically, in 1968! Raged outside the bear, and in the Bundestag as a restrictive law was pushed across the stage.
What followed from the law?
From now on, had the Federal Intelligence Service and constitutional protection for the secret services of the western powers, associated monitoring perform when applied for that. In a secret German-allied supplementary agreement specifies that the reserved rights were replaced in terms of monitoring though, the core, however, remained valid. So were the three powers continue to carry out their own monitoring. In a secret memorandum dated 28 May 1968, the Foreign Office confirmed the Allies that "any military commander is authorized to take in the event of an imminent threat to its armed forces, the appropriate protection measures are necessary to eliminate the threat."
What does that mean?
Behind the formula of "force protection" hid the right of the Allies to unlimited intelligence activities, including for monitoring the Post and Telecommunications belonged. After the Grand Coalition had adopted the G 10 Act, said Foreign Minister Willy Brandt, who now speak of the partial persistence of reserved rights, "who has not made either knowledgeable with sufficient care or asserts something, although he knows that it's not true" . The latter more likely to hit on Brandt himself.
They have published these additional agreements for the first time.
I have very struggle to beko access to files
strains. When I realized that the secret supplementary agreement of 1968 is still in force, I was very surprised.
[...]
Until 1990, the Federal Republic was sovereign limited. That changed with the reunification and the entry into force of the Two Plus Four Treaty. Were there no public debate about the spying practices of the Allies in Germany?
Hardly. In August 1990, The TV magazine "Panorama" that the Soviet Union and the Western powers would still have the opportunity to listen to the telephone traffic in the Federal Republic. The SPD deputy Willfried Penner then wrote to the Foreign Office, the "interference with a fundamental right and its umpteen-thousand-fold chance of injury" can not be tolerated. The theme, however, was not addressed in the Two Plus Four negotiations.
[...]
The free democratic basic order exists at all, which purports to protect the Constitution? [DiK translation: How does this all jive with the idea of the rule of law?]
The free democratic basic order is not a state but a process that can be disrupted, delayed and steered in the wrong direction. There is great damage. If you compare the original text of the Constitution of 1949 with today's version, you realize that the Constitution have been missed during the wedding accessories and restrictions. When in doubt, fundamental rights had there in the cold. This also applies to Article 10 Originally this article was simple: "The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable restrictions shall be placed only on the basis of a law.." Until 1968 there was no such law. In the same year, Article 10 has been supplemented since it states that any restrictions must not be communicated to the person concerned, if they are "to protect the free democratic basic order". Can not even complain Affected contrast, the article closes the courts from explicitly. Thus, the separation of powers was lifted, and therefore the principle of the rule of law seriously damaged.
You really think that Germany should terminate the Supplementary Agreement?
If we want to learn something from the current affair, then there can only be one conclusion: to make the Federal Republic to a truly liberal and sovereign rule of law. The federal government must explain that everything is deleted from the laws, which was written into under Allied pressure to allow extensive control measures. These are relics from the time of occupation, which have damaged our constitutional term. In fact, there is currently no fundamental right under Article 10 more. These blemishes must be removed."
---
It's best to take the whole of the german article and run it through google translate. I find it very illuminating and interesting. If I am correct, I can't post the whole article, though. Someone advise me if the posted excerpts are too long. I rarely post threads and am therefore quite ignorant of the rules.
I think the question of to what extent these laws still apply to be very interesting. It might provide a new take on the heated debate on the question of whether Germany is a fully sovereign state.
= new reply since forum marked as read
