MSome things only become really interesting when they are inaccessible. A paper about the alleged failure of an agency for the protection of the constitution, which is only classified as “secret” for 120 years, later for 30 – that invites the creation of myths. The report, which has become known as the “NSU Files”, was written by employees of the Hessian State Office for the Protection of the Constitution (LfV) from 2012 and assesses the role of the authority in connection with the series of murders by the “National Socialist Underground” (NSU) between 2000 and 2007.
On Friday evening, the comedy show “ZDF Magazin Royale” by moderator Jan Böhmermann, together with the “Ask the State” platform, published a 173-page PDF on the Internet, which is referred to as “NSU files”. Politicians familiar with the original files told the FAZ that the papers appear to be genuine.
An unflattering picture of the protection of the constitution
In the ZDF program, the impression could arise that it was not the content of the report that was decisive, but the stunt, the publication of classified information: moderator Böhmermann described a lot of well-known things about the role of the security authorities in solving the NSU murder series. Described, for example, that Andreas Temme, a former intelligence officer at the time, was in Yozgat’s internet café when Halit Yozgat was murdered by the NSU on April 6, 2006, but stated in later interviews that he had not heard anything about the shots.
However, after an initial review of the files, there are only a few indications of Temme’s role or the Wiesbaden authority’s connections to the Kassel environment of the NSU. Only 30 documents show a reference.
However, the paper that has now been published states: “At the time the data was collected, interesting information or clues were not always followed up consistently, both in the evaluation and in the procurement.” received partial knowledge in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Even if the report says that the processes should be prioritized and “processed in stages”, there remains an unflattering picture of the protection of the constitution from a time when right-wing extremism was also considered by politicians to be a minor threat.
The LfV is now apparently examining the published documents. In a statement on Saturday it said that “with regard to the personal data contained and the state welfare concerns” one is “in exchange with the police and constitutional protection authorities”. There was sharp criticism of the publication from the ranks of the CDU parliamentary group. “Freedom of the press also has its limits, and in my opinion Jan Böhmermann has exceeded them,” said the parliamentary manager of the parliamentary group, Holger Bellino.
The reasons for the step would not be revealed to him. For the relatives of the victims there is no new information, at the same time it cannot be ruled out that extremists could draw conclusions about the working methods and informants of the security authorities by linking this information from other documents, Bellino said. “Human lives could be endangered and the work of the security authorities made more difficult in the long term.”
SPD accuses the Greens of a “double game”.
The Greens, who have governed Hesse with the CDU for eight and a half years, sound much more reserved. The parliamentary group leader Mathias Wagner announced that his assessment coincided with that of the ZDF broadcast. The documents drew “a desolate picture” of the state of the protection of the constitution at that time. He points to the balance between public interest and secret service work, which “cannot be conducted publicly”. It is cumbersome: “Therefore, it is not in the free behavior of individuals whether such information is published or not.”
Clear criticism sounds different. Wagner had warned in 2021 that “life and limb” of informants would be at stake if the files were published. The Greens are now being criticized on Twitter for this statement. The SPD accuses them of a “double game”. “In Berlin they demand transparency, in Hesse they hinder clarification,” said Günter Rudolph, the leader of the SPD parliamentary group in the state parliament, of the FAZ. He criticized the statements from the ranks of the CDU. “The Office for the Protection of the Constitution in Hesse has turned a blind eye to right-wing extremism under CDU ministers.” Clarification is necessary, not threats against journalists.
Media lawyers assessed the publication as permissible. “The reporting would be inadmissible if it was information that questioned the functionality of the authority,” said Axel Beater, professor of media law at the University of Greifswald, of the FAZ. But since a lot had been blacked out in this case, he thought it more likely for permissible to publish the papers. Even if this does not result in any new insights, it is a form of criticism of power that is the job of journalists.
Matthias Cornils, professor of media law at the University of Mainz, referred to the reform ten years ago, which, as a result of a constitutional court decision, strengthened the role of journalists in allegations of betrayal of secrets. For Cornils, it is primarily a moral question whether the relatively small amount of knowledge gained justifies the breach of secrecy, and less a legal one.
