HeadsUp

Rolf Gossner on the Reformability of Interception Protection

What are the consequences of the NPD prohibition proceedings?? 15 percent of the NPD’s executive board members worked for years as undercover agents for the Verfangsschutzbehorden. Their cover was only blown during the ban proceedings, and the trial collapsed. Christiane Schulzki-Haddouti spoke with intelligence expert and author Rolf Gossner about the consequences of the so far largest V-man affair in the Federal Republic of Germany.

How influential was and is the Verfangsschutz (VS) in the NPD??

Rolf Gossner: Hard to say. About 30 of the 200 NPD executive board members had been in the pay of the secret service as undercover agents for years – that is, almost one in seven, and there may have been over a hundred at all party levels. The large number of state-paid enemies of interception alone may have had a considerable influence on the extreme right-wing NPD. For example, the undercover agents Wolfgang Frenz and Udo Holtmann helped to build up the NPD for decades, directed it in leading positions and gave it a racist imprint. As informers, they themselves helped to shape the field of observation that they were supposed to observe from the inside for the VS; they strengthened the NPD instead of weakening it. A number of other undercover agents have also risen to leading party positions, in which they have inevitably had a decisive influence on the party’s goals and activities. These include Carsten Szczepanski, Michael Grube, Mathias Meyer and Tino Brandt. At the same time, the VS has not prevented them from continuing to spy for it – even though undercover agents do not make any decisions or "Object of observation" nor were they allowed to influence their objectives or activities "determine decisively", "have a controlling influence" or "demand in the long term". This is similar to what is stated in most of the VS service regulations. In a landmark decision, the Federal Administrative Court ruled on the observation of the "Republicans" require that when using undercover agents in a party, special consideration must be given to the party’s right to self-determination, so that the exchange of opinions within the party is not unsettled and the formation of opinion is not adversely affected.

Update: the EU now wants to investigate the suspicion after all

Yesterday, the Washington Post carried a report on the CIA’s secret camp system, in which alleged terror suspects are secretly held abroad, outside any legal system. The existence of such camps in Jordan, Afghanistan, Morocco or Egypt has been known for a long time (secret US camp in Jordan), as well as the practice of transferring some prisoners to friendly intelligence services for embarrassing interrogation (outsourcing of embarrassing interrogation). New, however, was the allegation that such secret camps also existed in two Eastern European countries.

Who is being held in these secret prisons is not known. The Washington Post spoke of about 100 detainees, of which 30 were high-ranking al-Qaida members. Among those held by the CIA in a secret location was Ramsi Binalshib, who was arrested in September 2002 and has since disappeared (like a bad detective story). The fact that he is being held by the U.S. is also proven by the fact that in the Hamburg trials against Motassadeq and Mzoudi (Mzoudi trial: acquittal confirmed by BGH), for example, reference was made to trial transcripts. Among others to guard the open secret, but Binalshib was not allowed to be questioned before the German court.