Opinion - News Analysis   

Guantanamo in Germany

“Terrorism” has two faces. There are real threats and real terrorists, and then again there is a realm of nameless fears, vague forebodings and irrational responses. The German federal police seem to have succumbed to the latter: on July 31 they raided the flats and workplaces of Andrej Holm and Matthias B, as well as those of two other persons, all of them engaged in that most suspicious pursuit — committing sociology.

Dr. Holm was arrested and flown to the German federal court in Karlsruhe; he has since been put in (pre-trial) solitary confinement in a Berlin jail. Of course the police may have solid, rational knowledge they are withholding, but their public statements belong to the realm of farce. Dr. B is alleged to have used, in his academic publications, “phrases and key words” also used by a militant group, among them “inequality” and “gentrification.”

The police found it suspicious that meetings occurred with German activists in which the sociologists did not bring their mobile phones; the police deemed this a sign of “conspiratorial behaviour.”

Thirty years ago Germany had a terrible time with indisputably violent militant groups, and that leaden memory hangs over the police. And it may well be that “gentrification” is a truly terrifying word. But this police action in a liberal democracy seems to fall more into Guantanamo mode than genuine counter-espionage.

Consider the hapless Dr. B a little further. He’s not actually accused of writing anything inflammatory, but seen rather to be intellectually capable of “authoring the sophisticated texts” a militant group might require; further, our scholar, “as employee in a research institute has access to libraries which he can use inconspicuously in order to do the research necessary to the drafting of texts” of militant groups, though he hasn’t written any. The one solid fact the cops have on Dr. Holm is that he was at the scene of the “resistance mounted by the extreme left-wing scene against the World Economic Summit of 2007 in Heiligendamm,” perhaps mistakenly believing he was studying this scene rather than stage-managing it.

The liberal state is changing. In the 1960s, Germany had the most enlightened rules for refugees and asylum-seekers in Europe; the United States passed the most sensible laws on immigration in its history; France granted automatic citizenship to all those born on its territory, including all Muslims. Today all these countries have, in the name of the war on terror, revised their rules — the state of emergency prevails. The laws meant for real threats are invoked to counter shapeless fear; in place of real police work, the authorities want to put a name — any name — to what they should dread. States of emergency are dangerous to the legitimacy of states. In cases conducted like this one, a government stands to lose its authority and so its ability to root out actual terrorists.

If our colleagues are indeed dangerous sociologists, they should be prosecuted rationally. But, as in Guantanamo, persecution seems to have taken the place of prosecution.

(Richard Sennett is a sociologist at the London School of Economics; Saskia Sassen is a sociologist at Columbia University.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Restoration of justice
Producing a synthetic bacterium
Looking beyond ballot-box democracy
The nuclear deal: key issues and political circumstances
Security at what cost?
Guantanamo in Germany
Corrections and clarifications
The nuclear debate
“Ignorance of software piracy can no longer be excused”

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu