[ad_1]
In the commission of inquiry into the attack on Breitscheidplatz, the highest constitutional protector of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania caused a scandal: he did not want to answer any questions in public.
By Michael Stempfle, ARD capital studio
At the end of the interrogation, the investigation committee’s patience with the witness finally ran out. Reinhard Müller, head of the constitutional protection department of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, had repeatedly refused to make a statement at the public meeting, and had repeatedly given the same reason: He did not want to comment publicly on internal affairs. In other words: not in front of the victims’ families and not in front of journalists.
The representatives of the political groups withdrew again shortly before midnight for a consultative meeting. Then, at midnight, the SPD politician Mahmut Özdemir, who chaired the meeting that night, read the riot act to Müller: The witness had not illegally answered the admissible questions. The commission of inquiry is preparing an administrative fine.
“Frontal attack on parliamentary control”
That the investigative committee’s witnesses are concerned about the attack on Breitscheidplatz, especially representatives of the security authorities, who sometimes refuse to testify, is part of the game, to put it casually. But the appearance of the head of the constitutional protection of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania went much further. The appearance was memorable, strange and embarrassing even for the observers in the stands.
After presenting his short statement, Müller preferred not to say anything in a public meeting, even if committee members pointed out his opening statement to him. Once, Müller even insisted on rereading his opening statement. As I said, he had presented it himself beforehand.
For the committee members who came out of the interrogation after the meeting shaking their heads, a “hammer”, an “affront”, a “frontal attack on parliamentary control”.
Controversial questions remain open
Müller’s appearance was also so astonishing because he did not take the opportunity to clarify many open questions that have been publicly discussed in relation to his authority for weeks. In short, the commission of inquiry deals with two tips from an undercover agent from the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania constitutional protection agency. They are said to be related to the Breitscheidplatz killer Anis Amri.
This advice is particularly explosive: in February 2017, a few weeks after the terror attack, the undercover agent allegedly said that an Arab family from Berlin-Neukölln had given Amri money for the crime and that the Amri family after the attack late from 2016 he even drove a car out of town. It is not entirely clear whether the undercover agent’s statements can be trusted. There seem to be serious doubts. Authority manager Müller also presented it in his opening statement as if the information provided by the source was not conclusive.
However, the crucial question for the committee is: how did Müller’s authority behave after receiving the information from the undercover agent, who at least paid with tax money? How did you verify the statement, to what extent did you consult what other authorities?
Refusal to testify at the public meeting
The basic statement so far: Supposedly, the Constitutional Protection of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania did not pass this self-generated notification to federal authorities such as the Federal Criminal Police Office or the Federal Attorney General. Why not?
During last night’s poll it was clear: Müller knows the facts very well. The explosive information of the undercover agent had been shared with other authorities, said when asked by the green politician Irene Mihalic. With which? Refusal to testify at the public meeting.
The public also has the right to receive this information. The refusal must be justified, emphasized the members of the Volker Ullrich Union committee, the liberals Benjamin Strasser and Martina Renner of the Left Party, and in an increasingly clear and sharp tone.
Committee disapproves of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania’s position
Anger was not only directed against the witness himself, but also against the representative of the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, who intervened repeatedly and declared that the questions were inadmissible, but then could not convincingly explain why the questions should not be permissible from their point of view. . This behavior too, explosive enough for the final protocol: the committee officially disapproved of the attitude of the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. The image damage to the state is likely to be great.
After the scandals about right-wing extremism, Nordkreuz and after the resignation of former Interior Minister Volker Caffier, now an embarrassing appearance from the head of constitutional protection and the unanswered question: Did Müller’s authority function in a sloppy way? Or did you pass the undercover agent’s information to federal authorities and refuse to admit it? In February 2017, shortly after the attack in Berlin, was it not to shake the general thesis of the federal authority: Anis Amri is a lonely author?
In the end, by the way, the witness asked to reconsider whether the committee really wanted to impose a fine on him. One almost gets the impression: Müller was not aware of the extraordinary nature of his appearance.
