Text 23514, 52 rader
Skriven 2008-11-08 07:23:24 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 23429 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
Ärende: Money, Money, Money.
============================
Peter Knapper wrote to Robert Bashe on Saturday November 08 2008 at 09:42:

RB>> There's also a constitutional prohibition against using the German
RB>> military except for aid missions (flood relief and the like) inside
RB>> the country. Our beloved interior minister tried to get that softened
RB>> recently (to "fight terrorism"), and fell flat on his face.

PK> I am demonstrating my almost complete lack of understanding regarding
PK> the German constitutional situtation here... could you please sumarise
PK> what "controls" are in place that prevented this happening? I
PK> understand it all originated from the outcome of WW2 but I am not
PK> aware of the mechanisms that are involved.

The German constitution (actually "Grundgesetz" or "basic law"), Article 35,
only allows the use of the armed forces inside the country for "humanitarian
aid" purposes. Otherwise, the armed forces are only authorized to defend the
country against external aggression. In that case, the Federal Chancellor
becomes the supreme commander of the armed forces.

The last major activity of the military inside Germany was aid when there was
severe flooding in southeast Germany a few years back due to rivers overflowing
as far back as Poland. The soldiers helped evacuate people, reinforce dikes and
as far as possible prevent further flooding of cities, and were quite highly
praised for their aid.

The reason for the above prohibition is indeed the experience during the
so-called "Third Reich", when the army and the other organizations (SA, SS)
were used inside the country to repress dissidents and otherwise intimidate the
population.

In serious cases of domestic unrest, the local police can draw on other police
forces throughout the state, if necessary from other states, and in an extreme
case also on the so-called "Grenzschutz" (border protection force), which
otherwise is in charge of controlling (not defending - that would indeed be the
military) the borders.

As for controls, the parliament would have to break its oath to defend the
constitution and authorize an illegal use of the military inside the country,
the decision - if made -  would immediately be challenged in the constitutional
court and be overturned, and aside from that, the military has the
constitutional right to refuse illegal orders - and the use of military force
inside the country is clearly illegal.

Naturally, the constitution can be changed, but that requires a 2/3 majority of
all parliament members and is a rare occurrence. Not even the "grand coalition"
of the two major parties we presently have as a government can muster a 2/3
majority without the smaller parties.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)