Can a police case be reopened?
Everything, just not a police case
The witnesses from the police - the room filled with BND personnel. There is no clearer way of expressing the fact that the impression of a pure police case propagated by the former President of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Hans-Georg Maaßen, was a farce.
At the meeting of the Breitscheidplatz investigation committee in the Bundestag, the agenda for the public meeting on January 30th promised three police witnesses.
Desolate LKA Berlin
With the contradictions to the statements of her colleagues, but also to her own passivity, the witness Jutta Porzucek, director of the Berlin police chief, confirms the bad image that emerged in previous meetings about the state security department in the Berlin State Criminal Police Office. Porzucek presented herself as a manager. She was told that her employees were trustworthy and had done a good job.
Porzucek seemed almost aloof from any concrete content that the state security had dealt with under her leadership. She did not remember any specific cases or names from any of the three phenomenon areas right-wing extremism, left-wing extremism and Islamism. Porzucek seemed at a loss when it came to the allegations that approved surveillance orders had been insufficiently used in the Anis Amri case. No, there were no personnel problems with the observation teams at the time. Minutes from the meetings of the joint anti-terrorism center GTAZ contradict this representation.
Porzucek could not conclusively explain why observations took place between April 2016 and October 2016 on only 23 days and only until 11 p.m. During this period, she was involved in managerial tasks, which she does not want to talk about because it would reveal her way of working. She also did not seem aware of the overloading of the staff, as described by other witnesses.
Fritz Felgentreu (SPD) confronted her with secondary activities that one of her department heads had been allowed to do during this phase. Porzucek said she was not interested in what her subordinate employees did on vacation. Fritz Felgentreu wanted overworked employees to relax on vacation instead of doing a sideline. Like her LKA colleagues, Porzucek appeared before the committee of inquiry without any documents or notes that would indicate that work processes had been documented in a legally secure manner.
“It wasn't about any mishap, but rather serious wrong decisions that were made there. Clarifying who is responsible for this in the LKA Berlin is a central point for this investigative committee, but certainly also in the AGH, "said Martina Renner (LINKE), summarizing Porzucek's statement.
"You knew more than many other authorities!"
Julia Buchen from the police department in Stuttgart provided a little surprise. She was on standby when Anis Amri was arrested on July 30, 2016 with forged papers at the Friedrichshafen bus station while attempting to leave the country. With information from the Federal Police in Potsdam, but also from the police in Berlin and North Rhine-Westphalia, she had to decide whether Anis Amri was allowed to leave the country. In the statement, Buchen describes what was presented to her and documents what was known about Anis Amri in July 2016: the large number of alias identities, criminal offenses, drug trafficking, contacts with the Islamic State. "You knew more than many other authorities would have known at the time," said Volker Ullrich (CDU), surprised.
Buchen concluded at the time that an exit should not take place. Neither to Switzerland, nor to other countries in the Schengen area or even as a foreign fighter to Syria. Buchen was not aware of any deportation that was already planned at the time. Buchen did not have an explanation as to why there was a phone call between the Constance Police Department, in whose area of responsibility the attempt to leave the country was taking place, and the Potsdam Federal Police.
BND, BfV and BMI
The specialist supervision of the Federal Police had taken their place on the government bench, the usual occupation of which had already been expanded a few weeks ago. Department 7 of the Chancellor's Office, which is responsible for intelligence control, was accompanied on that day by two representatives of the Federal Intelligence Service, who listened to the statements of the police officers.
Only around 8 p.m. should the non-public BND witness of the day - a government director M.S. - statement. Seat meat was in demand for the secret service agents, who were visibly pleased when a group of four guests from the authorities took their seats in the visitors' gallery directly behind the press. Friendly looks and smiles were exchanged - you know each other.
As friendly as the looks in the direction of the nameless BND member were, the answer to the question of which authority the visitors were from was just as jagged and rude: "We just want to take a look at this!" The visit was short-lived Duration - the testimony of the third witness Jana Seeber was not followed by the squad and after a few minutes disappeared from the visitors' gallery.
Police chief inspector Jana Seeber was also questioned about the night of the attempt to leave Friedrichshafen, but provided little new information.
In a secret session
In the absence of the public, the focus was on the videos that had been discussed for months and that the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) and the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) had received from a foreign intelligence service after the attack. While the creation date of the threatening video can be located on November 2016 - i.e. several weeks before the attack - it is currently unclear when and how the unspecified foreign intelligence service came into possession of the video.
When looking at the authorities who are currently following the processing in the Bundestag, experts such as Michael Vogel, who follows the Breitscheidplatz Committee for the Federal Ministry of the Interior, also stand out. Vogel was involved in the expansion of Internet surveillance when it came to networking the constitution protection agencies more closely with US authorities, such as the National Security Agency NSA. Together with Hans-Georg Maaßen, Vogel also took part in a meeting with a US delegation. Vogel had also taken over the seat of the Interior Ministry in the Breitscheidplatz investigation committee for the former constitutional protection officer Eva Maria H., who should not have been allowed to sit there as a possible witness. Far too many constitutional protection covers for the alleged police case.
nd journalism from the left thrives on the commitment of its readers
In view of the experience of the corona pandemic, we have decided to make our journalism permanently freely accessible on our website and thus make it available to everyone who is interested.
As with our print and epaper editions, every published article contains our work as an author, editor, technician or publisher. It is what makes this journalism possible.
Volunteer now with just a few clicks!
- How many islands are countries
- Why is code quality important
- What big problems will our children have?
- How does Chinese food taste without MSG
- Why do Japanese like Filipina
- Can semen ruin a pregnancy test
- How can I thicken the thinning skin of my face
- What is euphoria
- Between geometry and trigonometry, which is more difficult
- Which is the best customer feedback app
- Who ruined Yusuf Pathan's career
- What should I bring to Medellin Colombia
- What currency does Guernsey use
- Which state pays the most federal taxes?
- Why are you interested in the automotive industry
- Why do people avoid difficult conversations
- How does a Chinese work in Germany
- Xinjiang becomes predominantly Han Chinese
- A fascist technocracy could work
- How much did 9 11 survivors get
- Are PewDiePie and Jacksepticeye brothers
- How do you describe a smell?
- Do you have sex in the morning
- What's so good about Penn State University