DOCSLIB.ORG

Gemeinsames Sondervotum Der Fraktionen DIE LINKE. Und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gemeinsames Sondervotum Der Fraktionen DIE LINKE. Und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN Entwurf Abschlussbericht 1. Untersuchungsausschuss Seite 1 Vierter Teil: Gemeinsames Sondervotum der Fraktionen DIE LINKE. und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN 1 Inhalt 2 Vierter Teil Sondervoten der Fraktionen DIE LINKE. und BÜNDNIS 3 90/DIE GRÜNEN ............................................................................................................................ 8 4 A. Gemeinsames Sondervotum der Fraktionen DIE LINKE. und 5 BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN .................................................................................................... 8 6 I. Zusammenfassung .......................................................................................................... 8 7 1. Blockadehaltung der Bundesregierung mit Unterstützung der 8 Mehrheit ..................................................................................................................... 8 9 2. Keine Zeugenaussage von Edward Snowden ............................................................. 9 10 3. Massenüberwachung in Deutschland und international.............................................. 9 11 4. Die Kooperation des BND mit der NSA in Bad Aibling .......................................... 10 12 5. Datenabgriffe in Frankfurt ohne G 10-Anordnung ................................................... 10 13 6. Der Mythos der funktionierenden Filter ................................................................... 11 14 7. Problematische Selektoren der NSA in den Daten des BND .................................... 11 15 8. Datenübermittlung des BND an die NSA aus Bad Aibling ...................................... 11 16 9. Die Operationen GLO und M S ....................................... 12 17 10. Die Selektoren des BND ........................................................................................... 12 18 11. No-Spy-Abkommen, die Wahlkampflüge des Herrn Pofalla ................................... 12 19 12. Der blinde Fleck der Wirtschaftsspionage ................................................................ 13 20 13. Die Hauptstelle für Befragungswesen: Freiwillige Informationen 21 für den Drohnenkrieg? .............................................................................................. 13 22 14. Der Geheime Krieg und die Rolle der US-Basis in Ramstein: Die 23 Bundesregierung trägt Verantwortung für die Drohnentoten ................................... 14 24 II. Einleitung ...................................................................................................................... 15 25 1. Die Folgen der Snowden-Enthüllungen .................................................................... 15 26 2. Einsetzung des Untersuchungsausschusses .............................................................. 15 27 3. Proteste gegen Massenüberwachung ........................................................................ 16 28 4. Die Arbeit des Ausschusses war wichtig .................................................................. 17 29 5. Der Schutz der Privatsphäre ist ein universelles Recht ............................................ 17 30 III. Bewertungen und Anmerkungen zum Verfahren ..................................................... 19 31 1. Erschwerung der Aufklärung durch die Mehrheit .................................................... 20 32 a) Berliner Stunde ................................................................................................... 20 33 b) Verzögerung der Erweiterung des Untersuchungsauftrags ................................. 21 34 2. Behinderung des Ausschusses durch die Bundesregierung ...................................... 22 35 a) Aktenvorlage ....................................................................................................... 22 36 aa) Unsystematische und unvollständige Schriftgutverwaltung 37 im BND ......................................................................................................... 23 38 b) Interpretation des Untersuchungsgegenstands .................................................... 24 39 aa) WHARPDRIVE ............................................................................................ 25 40 bb) Gefangenenbefragung im US-Militärgefängnis in Bagram ........................... 28 41 cc) Abschlussbericht SAW TAD ........................................................................ 30 42 dd) Vorlage „ohne Anerkennung einer Rechtspflicht“ ........................................ 32 43 c) Zeugen haben Akten, bevor sie dem Ausschuss übergeben 44 werden ................................................................................................................. 33 45 d) Bundesregierung „findet“ Akten ......................................................................... 33 46 e) Zurückgehaltene Akten: Der Beweisbeschluss BND-26 .................................... 34 Entwurf Abschlussbericht 1. Untersuchungsausschuss Seite 2 Vierter Teil: Gemeinsames Sondervotum der Fraktionen DIE LINKE. und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN 1 f) Einstufungen ....................................................................................................... 35 2 aa) Einstufungen von Akten ................................................................................ 35 3 aaa) Die Einstufung des Berichts über den 4 Kontrollbesuch des/der BfDI in Bad Aibling ..................................... 36 5 bb) Einstufungen von Ausschuss-Sitzungen ........................................................ 38 6 cc) Aussagegenehmigungen ................................................................................ 38 7 dd) Schwärzungen von Akten und Protokollen ................................................... 40 8 ee) Die „Clearingstelle“ ...................................................................................... 42 9 g) Konsultationsverfahren und Third-Party-Rule.................................................... 43 10 h) Die Bedeutung der Entscheidung des BVerfG zu NSA- 11 Selektoren für die parlamentarische Kontrolle von 12 Nachrichtendiensten ............................................................................................ 45 13 i) Die Einsetzung der „Vertrauensperson der Bundesregierung“ 14 Graulich .............................................................................................................. 46 15 3. Drohungen gegenüber dem Ausschuss..................................................................... 48 16 4. Verhinderung der Aussage von Edward Snowden ................................................... 50 17 a) Die Feigheit der SPD .......................................................................................... 52 18 b) Verschleppung durch vage Antworten der BReg an UA und 19 Untätigkeit bei der Prüfung der Strafvorwürfe gegen Snowden 20 insb. im BMJV .................................................................................................... 54 21 IV. Massenüberwachung.................................................................................................... 56 22 1. Massenüberwachung Deutscher in Deutschland ...................................................... 56 23 2. Massenüberwachung durch die Operation EIKONAL auch von 24 Deutschen ................................................................................................................. 58 25 3. Massenüberwachung mittels der NSA-Selektoren ................................................... 59 26 4. Massendatenüberwachung mittels BND-Selektoren ................................................ 60 27 5. Inhalt und Auswirkungen anlassloser massenhafter Überwachung.......................... 60 28 a) Die Überwachung ist massenhaft ........................................................................ 62 29 b) Die Überwachung ist anlasslos ........................................................................... 63 30 c) Die allgemeine Möglichkeit, von Überwachung betroffen zu 31 sein ...................................................................................................................... 64 32 d) Anlasslose Massenüberwachung ist verfassungswidrig ...................................... 67 33 6. Massenüberwachung aus US-amerikanischer Sicht ................................................. 68 34 7. Menschenrecht auf Privatheit ................................................................................... 72 35 V. Kooperation des BND mit der NSA: EIKONAL und Bad Aibling .......................... 77 36 1. Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) vom April 2002 .............................................. 77 37 a) Inhalt des MoA ................................................................................................... 77 38 b) Ziel der NSA bei Abschluss und Durchführung des MoA .................................. 80 39 c) MoA als Rechts-/Arbeitsgrundlage bei Umsetzung im BND 40 ignoriert ............................................................................................................... 82 41 d) Parlamentarisches Kontrollgremium über MoA nicht, zu spät 42 und zu wenig informiert ...................................................................................... 82 43 aa) Bundesregierung verschwieg Umfang der Kooperation bei 44 Satelliten-Überwachung v. a. bezüglich Afghanistan.................................... 84 45 bb)Bundesregierung täuschte Bundestag über Erfassungen am 46 Frankfurter Kabelknoten der Deutschen Telekom sowie 47 über Weitergabe dort gewonnener Daten an die NSA................................... 85 48 e) Rechtliche und politische Bewertung des MoA .................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Debunking Media Hype
    feb. 27, 2015 LYST THE CATATHE INDEPENDENT STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF COLORADO COLLEGE NEWS 2 Opinion 7 SPORTS 9 LIFE 13 FRIDAY WEEK 2 BLOCK 6 EDWARD WOMEN’S DENVER COMEDIAN LACROSSE TO PERFORM AT VOL. 45 SNOWDEN NO. 16 AND AMERICA GETS TOUGH IVYWILD AND GRITTY IN CATALYSTNEWSPAPER.COM MORE: Page 7 SEASON OPENERS MORE: Illustration by Kyle Kallman. Photo courtesy of CC Athletics. Page 9 Photo courtesy of Adam Cayton-Holland. MORE: Page 13 Famed CC student band, Funkdozer, sits down with Jack Burger to discuss BDSM: their best memories as a band, favorite music, and DEBUNKING upcoming shows. MEDIA HYPE MORE: Page 5 FIFTY SHADES: Page 6 INSIDE: The race for Student Trustee ended 280-289 in favor of James Lonergan. Lonergan will step up to the position of Student Trustee with plans for involvement and open communication in hopes of Photo by Richard Forbes. bettering student relations with the Board of Trustees. Student Divestment Committee appeals to Board of Trustees for endowment ANNA KELLY Staff Writer collects donations from alumni that other tactics. MORE: Page 13 are contingent on the Board’s divest- “We have tried to come at this This morning, the Student Divest- ment by 2016. problem from all angles,” said Ben ment Committee (SDC) will ask the Criswell, a junior student leader for Board of Trustees to reconsider di- subject has been brought to the the SDC. “So now we’re trying to talk vesting from fossil fuels. The group board,This butis not this the time �irst the time SDC isthat bring- the in dollars and cents with this initia- INSIDE: will present their most recent stra- ing a carrot instead of a stick.
    [Show full text]
  • Uma Análise Da Espionagem Americana E Do Conflito Privacidade-Segurança
    / UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DA PARAÍBA CAMPUS I – CAMPINA GRANDE CENTRO DE CIÊNCIAS JURÍDICAS CURSO DE BACHARELADO EM DIREITO CHARMÊNIA GOMES DE MELO SOBERANIA E DIREITOS HUMANOS NA ERA DIGITAL: uma análise da espionagem americana e do conflito privacidade-segurança CAMPINA GRANDE – PB 2014 CHARMÊNIA GOMES DE MELO SOBERANIA E DIREITOS HUMANOS NA ERA DIGITAL: uma análise da espionagem americana e o conflito privacidade-segurança Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso apresentado ao Curso de Bacharelado em Direito da Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, em cumprimento à exigência para obtenção do grau de Bacharel em Direito. Orientadora: Ms. Milena Barbosa de Melo CAMPINA GRANDE – PB 2014 SOBERANIA E DIREITOS HUMANOS NA ERA DIGITAL: uma análise da espionagem americana e o conflito privacidade-segurança DE MELO, Charmênia Gomes1 RESUMO Percebendo a era digital em que vivemos, este artigo científico tem como escopo, a partir da análise do programa de espionagem americano, refletir sobre o conflito privacidade-segurança, a fim de que se verifiquem as consequências de tal conflito no que concerne à soberania dos países e aos direitos humanos. Inicialmente traça a compreensão do escândalo de espionagem americana, descrevendo-o e elencando fatos importantes para discussão, além disso, apresenta a legislação norte-americana que serve de sustentáculo à espionagem e mostra um breve comparativo tanto de delatores de espionagem governamental estadunidense, como de presidentes que se destacaram por tal prática. Em seguida, discorre sobre o que seja soberania, caracterizando-a como um elemento do Estado, bem como uma característica de governo e direito dos países. Compreendeu-se o conflito do direito a soberania e liberdade frente ao direito de conservação e defesa, tendo como norte o atual programa de espionagem americano, caracterizado a partir da compreensão de como se desenvolve a ciberespionagem e a espionagem econômica.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Baffler No. 23, 2013]
    Facebook Feminism, Like It or Not SUSAN FALUDI [from The Baffler No. 23, 2013] The congregation swooned as she bounded on stage, the prophet sealskin sleek in her black skinny ankle pants and black ballet flats, a lavalier microphone clipped to the V-neck of her black button-down sweater. ―All right!! Let‘s go!!‖ she exclaimed, throwing out her arms and pacing the platform before inspirational graphics of glossy young businesswomen in managerial action poses. ―Super excited to have all of you here!!‖ ―Whoo!!‖ the young women in the audience replied. The camera, which was livestreaming the event in the Menlo Park, California, auditorium to college campuses worldwide, panned the rows of well-heeled Stanford University econ majors and MBA candidates. Some clutched copies of the day‘s hymnal: the speaker‘s new book, which promised to dismantle ―internal obstacles‖ preventing them from ―acquiring power.‖ The atmosphere was TED-Talk-cum-tent-revival-cum- Mary-Kay-cosmetics-convention. The salvation these adherents sought on this April day in 2013 was admittance to the pearly gates of the corporate corner office. ―Stand up,‖ the prophet instructed, ―if you‘ve ever said out loud, to another human being—and you have to have said it out loud—‗I am going to be the number one person in my field. I will be the CEO of a major company. I will be governor. I will be the number one person in my field.‘‖ A small, although not inconsiderable, percentage of the young women rose to their feet. The speaker consoled those still seated; she, too, had once been one of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Stakes Are High: Essays on Brazil and the Future of the Global Internet
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Center for Global Communication Studies Internet Policy Observatory (CGCS) 4-2014 Stakes are High: Essays on Brazil and the Future of the Global Internet Monroe Price University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Ronaldo Lemos Wolfgang Schulz Markus Beckedahl Juliana Nolasco Ferreira See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/internetpolicyobservatory Part of the Communication Commons Recommended Citation Price, Monroe; Lemos, Ronaldo; Schulz, Wolfgang; Beckedahl, Markus; Nolasco Ferreira, Juliana; Hill, Richard; and Biddle, Ellery. (2014). Stakes are High: Essays on Brazil and the Future of the Global Internet. Internet Policy Observatory. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/internetpolicyobservatory/3 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/internetpolicyobservatory/3 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Stakes are High: Essays on Brazil and the Future of the Global Internet Abstract This workbook seeks to provide some background to the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) scheduled for April 23rd and 24th 2014 in São Paulo, Brazil. It is designed to help outline the internet policy issues that are at stake and will be discussed at NETmundial, as well as background on internet policy in Brazil. The workbook includes essays on the history of the NETmundial meeting and the Marco Civil process in Brazil; some background on the environment in Germany—with particular attention to the link between the meeting and the Snowden case; questions of legitimacy surrounding open processes for lawmaking; and comments on the material presented to the organizing committee by official and unofficial commenters.
    [Show full text]
  • “Why Protest? I've Got Nothing to Hide” Collective Action Against And
    “Why protest? I’ve got nothing to hide” Collective Action against and Chilling Effects of Internet Mass Surveillance A Master’s Dissertation presented to the Faculty of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent and the Faculty of Social Science and Philosophy, Philipps-Universität Marburg in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Peace and Conflict Studies (International Double Award) by Dipl.-Psych. Johannes Nau Marburg August 2014 ! “Why protest? I’ve got nothing to hide” - Collective Action against and Chilling Effects of Internet Mass Surveillance A Master’s Dissertation presented to the Faculty of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent and the Faculty of Social Science and Philosophy, Philipps-Universität Marburg in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Peace and Conflict Studies (International Double Award) Word Count: 14790 Copyright © 2014 Johannes Nau This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non-commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) The content of this master’s dissertation may be used, shared and copied on the condition that appropriate credit is given to the author, indication of changes are made and the material is used for non-commercial purposes only. The full-length legal code / license can be accessed under: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode ! Acknowledgments In preparation for this thesis, I have received support from various people whom I would like to thank. First of all I want to give credit to my supervisors from Marburg and Canterbury Prof Dr Wagner and Dr Morgan-Jones for the friendly, competent and reliable supervision and support.
    [Show full text]
  • National Security Agency
    Coordinates: 39°6′32″N 76°46′17″W National Security Agency The National Security Agency (NSA) is a national-level intelligence agency of the United National Security Agency States Department of Defense, under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. The NSA is responsible for global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign and domestic intelligence and counterintelligence purposes, specializing in a discipline known as signals intelligence (SIGINT). The NSA is also tasked with the protection of U.S. communications networks and information systems.[8][9] The NSA relies on a variety of measures to accomplish its Seal of the National Security Agency mission, the majority of which are clandestine.[10] Originating as a unit to decipher coded communications in World War II, it was officially formed as the NSA by President Harry S. Truman in 1952. Since then, it has become the largest of the U.S. intelligence organizations in terms of Flag of the National Security Agency personnel and budget.[6][11] The NSA currently conducts worldwide mass data collection and has been known to physically bug electronic systems as one method to this end.[12] The NSA is also alleged to have been behind such attack software as Stuxnet, which severely damaged Iran's nuclear program.[13][14] The NSA, alongside the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), maintains a physical presence in many countries across the globe; the CIA/NSA joint Special Collection Service (a NSA Headquarters, Fort Meade, Maryland highly classified intelligence team) inserts eavesdropping devices in high value targets (such Agency overview as presidential palaces or embassies).
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters
    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 47 Intellectual Property: From Biodiversity to Technical Standards 2015 Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters Brett Weinstein Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Brett Weinstein, Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters, 47 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 217 (2015), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol47/iss1/15 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters Brett Weinstein INTRODUCTION In early June of 2013, governmental surveillance suddenly and dramatically entered the public consciousness, prompting a torrent of debate and backlash. The Guardian published a top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all telephone call records to the National Security Agency (NSA); the Washington Post disclosed a secret but widespread Internet surveillance program, and months of similar revelations followed, all stemming from leaks by former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden.1 As a result, the public and the press began to question the tools that the government uses for surveillance, including National Security Letters (NSLs), and the relationship between the government and the technology and telecommunications companies that seemingly possess all personal and private information generated in the modern, digital world.2 J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Stop Watching Us' Rally Challenges NSA Spying — RT USA
    10/26/13 'Time to reform surveillance state': Massive 'Stop Watching Us' rally challenges NSA spying — RT USA Arabic Spanish Russian Freevideo ИНОТВ RTД RUPTLY Mobile apps RSS LIVE 05:28 GMT, Oct 27, 2013 News USA Russian politics Business Op­Edge In vision In motion Shows Bulletin board More Home / USA / Where to watch 'Time to reform surveillance state': Schedule Massive 'Stop Watching Us' rally challenges NSA spying Follow us Published time: October 26, 2013 23:49 Edited time: October 27, 2013 04:03 Get short URL Recommended Germany, Brazil enlist 19 more countries for anti­ NSA UN resolution 21 A demonstarator holds up a sign at the "Stop Watching Us: A Rally German Chancellor Against Mass Surveillance" march near the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Merkel on NSA spy list October 26, 2013. (Reuters / Jonathan Ernst) since 2002 – reports 45 submit Twelve years after Americans were stripped Trends #StopWatchingUs rally of their rights in the name of fighting NSA leaks against mass surveillance: terrorism, thousands have gathered in Live Updates 98 Tags Washington DC to protest unconstitutional Hacking, Information NSA spying programs revealed by Edward Technology, Intelligence, Internet, Politics, Protest, Snowden, and call for repeal of the Patriot Snowden Act. Stop Watching Us campaign demands reform of “Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments rt.com/usa/stop-watching-us-rally-791/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome 1/7 10/26/13 'Time to reform surveillance
    [Show full text]
  • Universität Duisburg-Essen Institut Für Kommunikationswissenschaft
    Universität Duisburg-Essen Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft “FRAMING OPPOSITION TO SURVEILLANCE - POLITICAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES OF PRIVACY ACTIVISTS IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE SNOWDEN LEAKS” Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) der Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften der Universität Duisburg-Essen vorgelegt von Till Wäscher aus Berlin Essen, im Juli 2017 Datum der mündlichen Prüfung: 25. Januar, 2018 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Jens Loenhoff, Universität Duisburg-Essen Zweitgutachter: Dr. Lutz Hachmeister, Institut für Medien- und Kommunikationspolitik (IfM) Abstract When in the summer of 2013 whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the scope of the mass surveillance programs conducted by the National Security Agency and its international partners, privacy activists launched several global online and offline campaigns to protect privacy and resist surveillance. Applying methods of social movement frame and discourse analysis, the dissertation seeks to analyze the various ways activists have tried to shape the privacy discourse in a post 9/11 ‘Surveillance Society.’ A close reading of activist materials and texts over the course of four campaigns – “Restore the Fourth,” “Stop Watching Us,” “The Day We Fight Back,” and “Reset the Net” – reveals a set of frame packages, which are juxtaposed with the media coverage the campaigns have generated. In subsequent semi- structured interviews with 21 activists from 14 countries, participants involved in the protest events were asked to critically reflect on framing choices, media dynamics and the degree of transnational cooperation among various privacy advocacy groups. The dissertation contributes to the field of grass roots political communication research by discussing the potentials and limits of anti-surveillance frames as well as providing a cultural and oral history of organized resistance against surveillance in the post-Snowden world.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Awareness Office
    Article Talk Read Edit View history Search Wikipedia Wiki Loves Monuments: Photograph a monument, help Wikipedia and win! Learn more Main page Contents Featured content Information Awareness Office Current events From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Random article Donate to Wikipedia The Information Awareness Wikipedia store Office (IAO) was established by the Interaction United States Defense Advanced Help Research Projects Agency About Wikipedia (DARPA) in January 2002 to bring Community portal together several DARPA projects Recent changes focused on applying surveillance Contact page and information technology to track Tools and monitor terrorists and other What links here asymmetric threats to U.S. national Related changes security by achieving "Total Upload file Information Awareness" Special pages (TIA).[4][5][6] Permanent link [1][2] Page information This was achieved by creating Information Awareness Office seal (motto: lat. scientia est potentia – knowledge is Wikidata item enormous computer databases to power[3]) Cite this page gather and store the personal information of everyone in the Print/export Part of a series on United States, including personal e- Create a book Global surveillance Download as PDF mails, social networks, credit card Printable version records, phone calls, medical records, and numerous other sources, without Languages any requirement for a search Català warrant.[7] This information was then Disclosures Deutsch Origins · Pre-2013 · 2013–present · Reactions analyzed to look for suspicious Français Systems activities, connections between Italiano XKeyscore · PRISM · ECHELON · Carnivore · [8] Suomi individuals, and "threats". Dishfire · Stone Ghost · Tempora · Frenchelon Svenska Additionally, the program included · Fairview · MYSTIC · DCSN · Edit links funding for biometric surveillance Boundless Informant · Bullrun · Pinwale · Stingray · SORM · RAMPART-A technologies that could identify and Agencies track individuals using surveillance NSA · BND · CNI · ASIO · DGSE · Five Eyes · [8] cameras, and other methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Mein Nachbar
    Das deutsche Nachrichten-Magazin Leitartikel Partner und Gegner zugleich Warum der SPIEGEL weitere geheime Dokumente über die NSA-Affäre enthüllt as Verhältnis Deutschlands zu den USA in Zeiten der Die Bundesregierung hat die Selbstherrlichkeit der Welt- NSA-Affäre gleicht dem Ritt auf einer Schiffschaukel: macht lange hingenommen. Sie hat manches geahnt, vieles DAus luftigen Höhen geht es atemberaubend in die verdrängt und einiges über die Allgegenwart der NSA gewusst, Tiefe. Im Sommer vergangenen Jahres, als die ersten Snowden- weil der Bundesnachrichtendienst bei den Operationen mit- Enthüllungen bekannt wurden, erklärte die Regierung Merkel mischt. Dass der BND mit der NSA intensiv kooperiert, nicht die Affäre schon für beendet, bevor sie ihre Wucht entfaltete. nur bei der Terrorbekämpfung, sondern auch bei der unter- Im Herbst aber, als bekannt wurde, das private Handy der schiedslosen Massenüberwachung globaler Kommunikations- Bundeskanzlerin sei überwacht worden, erreichte das Ver- ströme, belegen die neuen Snowden-Dokumente. Die Deut- hältnis einen Tiefpunkt. Nun war von Konsequenzen die Rede, schen sind Partner und Gegner zugleich. von einem anderen Umgang unter Verbündeten. Die Bundeskanzlerin hat einen Amtseid auf das Grund- Dann reiste die Kanzlerin nach Washington, und wieder gesetz geschworen. Spionage gegen Deutschland ist nach kehrte Friede ein. Seither würden Transatlantiker wie Sicher- dem Strafgesetz verboten. Die Grundrechte der Bürger sind heitsbehörden am liebsten zum normalen Geschäft übergehen, also keine flexible Größe, abhängig davon, wie es um das Ver- bei dem die Aufgaben verteilt hältnis Deutschlands zu den sind: Die NSA ist der omnipo- USA gerade bestellt sein mag. tente Weltgeheimdienst, die Entweder haben die ameri- Deutschen sind der verständ- kanische und die deutsche nisvolle, hilfreiche Bündnis- Regierung miteinander ab - partner.
    [Show full text]
  • National Intelligence Authorities and Surveillance in the EU: Fundamental Rights Safeguards and Remedies
    Short Thematic Report National intelligence authorities and surveillance in the EU: Fundamental rights safeguards and remedies Legal update Country: GERMANY Version of 28 June 2016 FRANET contractor: Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte Author name: Eric Töpfer DISCLAIMER: This document was commissioned under a specific contract as background material for the project on National intelligence authorities and surveillance in the EU: Fundamental rights safe- guards and remedies. The information and views contained in the document do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. The document is made pub- licly available for transparency and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. 1 1 Description of tasks – Phase 3 legal update 1.1 Summary Most of the key developments in the area covered by this report unfolded in the wider context of the NSA Inquiry Committee of the German Bundestag (1. Untersuchungsausschuss des 18. Deutschen Bundestages – “NSA-Untersuchungsausschuss”). The inquiry committee was established by an all-party proposal of the Bundestag on 20 March 2014 and started working on 3 April 2014.1 The committee is mandated to investigate “Five Eyes” surveillance in Germany and the complicity of German intelligence services but also other issues related to the “secret war” against terrorism such as the interrogation of asylum-seekers by the Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND) in cooperation with US security ser- vices,
    [Show full text]