I think this might concern some people here as well.
Just watched it in the news and immediately checked out on the German FAZ newspaper homepage (
http://www.faz.net/s/Rub28FC768942F3...~Scontent.html ):
Edit: Apart from the rough article translation and my comment below it I added an original press release from the court's website, which I found hours later. It's English and might be far better understandable than this first post here.
"Permission of shot down invalid
Bundesverfassungsgericht (edit. remark: our German Supreme Court)
stops German Air Safety Law
15th Feb 2006: The Bundesverfassungsgericht critized the Air Safety Law in its central point. It declared on Wednesday in Karlsruhe the included possibility of a shot down of a hijacked airliner as being against the German constitution and therefore invalid.
FDP-politician Burkhard Hirsch, a professional pilot and several regular fliers had charged against this law. Federal President Horst Köhler had only signed this law with second thoughts and suggested a check by the Bundesverfassungsgericht.
Protection of human dignity may not be limited
The permission of shot down violated according to the judgement of the First Senate under Chief Justice Hans-Jürger Papier the limitation of a Bundeswehr action within German borders, as it is given by the German constitution. The constitution limits the use of German forces within the country to help after natural desasters or large-scale accidents and does also not allow the use of heavy weapons.
The Air Safety Law, as it had been introcuded by the former German government and its Inner Affairs minister Otto Schily, offered as last possibility, to prevent a terrorist attack from happening, in the extreme case also to shoot a civil airliner with many passengers down if it would prevent other people from losing their life. The people charging against this law declared this counterweighting of human lives against each other as being a violation of the fundamental human rights of life and of human dignity. The justices followed this argumentation insofar as that they declared the prevention of human dignity as strict and not being restrictable.
Decision a defeat for people willing to allow use of forces within Germany
Of political importance is also the court's venture against a limitation of Bundeswehr tasks within Germany. " The use of the German Bundeswehr for other purposes than defence is according to constitutional law bound to strict prerequisites." said Papier in the opinion of the decision. The consitution only permits it "for help" or "for support" of the states' police forces after a natural desaster or a large scale accident. This prerequisite is not fulfilled in the central point of the Air Safety Law.
Especially the minister of Inner Affairs Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) and his Bavarian colleague Günter Beckstein (CSU) suggest since quite some time to make it possible to use the German Bundeswehr to assure safety during the Soccer World Championship, while SPD, Die Grünen and FDP strictly oppose this. In their coalition contract CDU/CSU and SPD had agreed on checking the necessity of a change of the German constitution after the Karlsruher judgement of the Air Safety Law."
As usual at first my apologies for my invalid English as it is not my native language. Secondly perhaps a few explanations if necessary, because this concerns me in two ways. Although I am quite out of aviation interest these days (gave up on it because it was too painful for me), I still could not stop listening to the news. I also study political science so I might be able to give a few explanations as I will do right below and add a few bits from the ARD TV report I watched. They questioned a law expert on this and had a few points the article does not mention.
First of all the point of human dignity and its value is article one in the German constitution. The debate about this particular law has been going for over a year or perhaps even more now. The central question has always been whether it is right to weight up few lives against perhaps more lives on the ground (Sept. 11th).
After the 2nd World War it has indeed been fixed in the German Constitution that our military forces may only be used within the country in those special cases the article mentioned. Even the question whether soldiers may guard our soccer stadiums during the World Championship has been a large point of arguement in the parliament and the media during the past weeks.
So the Air Safety Law broke indeed the human dignity paragraph and it broke the other about use of forces within the German borders, too. I should be able to list the exact number of it, I know, but I can look it up and translate if anyone is interested. Got like 4 books with the constitution standing in the shelf two steps away.
The most interesting point in the TV report was the rosen question, what could happen now after the defeat by the court responsible for checking law conformity with the constitution. In fact as the article mentioned, the government parties seem to have counted on losing in a way. The past elections in September have been difficult and SPD and CDU/CSU have written the coalition contract as a large-scale compromise. Their points of view have been somewhat difficult in many matters (probably also this one hence SPD is now majorly against the use of our forces within the country) that this paper has to be regarded as a compromise. I guess the CDU raised this point, because in general changes of our constitution are a large issue. Still a change with a 2/3 majority in our parliament and a vote in the state chamber (which is unfortunately CDU dominated - also a 2/3 majority needed here) could make it possible that our constitution gets indeed changed allowing the use of forces within the country.
Remains only the point to be explained that this law has been made by an SPD/ Die Grünen coalition during the last legislation period. This can be explained by the former very ambitious Inner Affair Minister Otto Schily, who has been calling for similar things like his dear colleague in the US or also in Britain. In general he was calling for larger scale surveillance and sharper anti-terror laws. In some of these points Otto Schily gravely failed though. If you ask me, it's lucky that he did.
The law expert on TV stated though that even a constitutional change might most likely not change anything and will most likely not bring the Air Safety Law back. The argumentation with human dignity might prevent that from happening since this point cannot be overruled by a constitutional change. Most likely the government will not raise the question of this law in its old form again.
I personally think that it was a good decision and also a signal that human life is valued no matter how. That anti terror laws are not everything that counts. The order of argumentation setting the safety of human dignity and human life prior to the other argument about the latter article about use of forces within our borders is also right. Otherwise it would remind me too much of a killer being caught because he illegally parked on the pavement (if you understand the analogy). This way it will be harder if not impossible to introduce this law. Mostly the Bundesverfassungsgericht's decisions are being followed practially and morally. It's the highest instance after all.
Perhaps I am just so happy about the failure of this law, because I wanted to be pilot myself not too long ago and it thereforce concerns me a bit as well. I dunno.
So much about it. I hope you got at least a bit of it and that it was not too confusing. If there are questions I will be glad to answer them if I can. I do not know everything either, but perhaps a few things.