During the G 8-summit at Heiligendamm the german police's measures had been critisized more than once for their disproportion.
Now, the incidents were topic of a Berlin panel discussion: Which arrests and which deployment of water canons had been really necessary?
A review of confrontations of G8-critics and police is most necessary. German post-war history has shown, that the german constitutional state`s value can only be prooved thoroughly by such occurences.
Therefor it is crucial, that the media stick to the topic as well an keep up the discussion in society. They owe it themselves at least since the Spiegel-affair.
Doing so it is inconclusive to charge up each hit by a police club against each thrown stone, which will lead rather to a rigidification of fronts.
Questions we have to ask now are rather: Why did't police helicopters fly over the camp of the summit's critics but warplanes on a reconaissance mission? Where did the federal government derive the right to deploy it's army for highway surveillance from?
Why did they play after other rules at protests against the decisions of the economically most powerful nations than they usually do at big rock festivals or soccer games?

According to german constitutions 35th paragraph a deployment of the federal army is only possible in assistance to the police at natural disasters or other large disasters.
Both had not been the case at Heiligendamm. This means that the german federal government had just overridden the constitution.
It had already been known before they did so. So, why hadn't there been an outcry by the media and politicians?
If freedom is the price to keep up security, then what is our security worth, at all?

Watch a video showing a unit of the german federal army surveilling a highway (English subtitle)

Watch a video report on the review of the clashes during the G8-Summit

Technorati: heiligendamm g8 summit police clashes violence federal army germany constitution