Germany Reaches Agreement on Anti-Terrorism Measure

Amid a heightened sense of vulnerability after the discovery of failed bomb attacks on German trains, interior ministers from Germany's 16 federal states meeting in Berlin on Monday agreed on a central anti-terrorism database, primarily meant to simplify cooperation and improve networking between Germany's myriad security agencies and thus help investigators hunt terror suspects.

The measure -- long a sticking-point between Germany's main ruling parties -- foresees a two-part database that brings together information collected by Germany's police and intelligence agencies, separated since the end of World War II because of Nazi-era security abuses.

"The ant-terror database will be a central component in effectively fighting terrorism," police union head Konrad Freiberg said on Monday.

Deep reservations about database

Though the current grand coalition made up of Social Democrats and the conservatives agreed on setting up a central anti-terrorism database last year, the two parties have differed on its exact shape and reach.

The idea is that all police and intelligence agencies, both at the federal and national level, would gather information about terror suspects and terrorist organizations in a central database that would be accessible to all crime-fighting agencies. At present, Germany's 37 agencies do that separately. The central anti-terrorism database would also contain information about banking, telecommunication and Internet information regarding the suspects.

In addition to problems stemming from Germany's federal structure, critics had feared the database would create more bureacracy as well as erode people's privacy.

Germany's Social Democrats and the opposition Greens and the Left Party also expressed concerns that easily accessible information on terrorism suspects could be misused as well as create legal problems given the differing information-gathering methods of the police and intelligence agencies.

"A complete central anti-terrorism database would mean that we'd get a gigantic flood of data that you'd no longer be able to get a grip on," said Claudia Roth, Green party chairwoman. "Besides, we'd have the problem that intelligence information would no longer be protected."

Should religion be included?

Monday's compromise foresees a two-part database. One will contain the identity of the terror suspect while the other will hold details about his religion, travel abroad, possession of weapons etc.

Sharp differences earlier also centered on whether a suspect's religion should be included in the database.

German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble of the conservative Christian Democratic Party (CDU) pleaded in favor of the move.

"Naturally we should only collect and network data that is really relevant to fighting danger and is really necessary," Schäuble told the magazine Super Illu. "And I believe that religion and profession do belong there."

However, politicians from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party were against the measure, arguing that it would violate the constitution.

Experts warn of hysteria

Politicians have also warned that the threat of terrorism in Germany would increase through a possible deployment of the German army to southern Lebanon.

"The German army might be controlling weapons smuggling to Hezbollah by sea," said Bavarian Interior Minister Günther Beckstein. "The terror threat in Germany will rise due to that."

On the eve of the conference, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stressed that the state had to play a more active role in beefing up Germany's defenses.

"We need more security, we need more state," Merkel said a party conference, adding it was apparent that video surveillance needed to be expanded in Germany after the failed bomb attacks on passenger trains in Dortmund and Koblenz in July.

However, Germany's Federal Data Protection Commissioner Peter Schaar has warned of security paranoia and hysteria, saying he is concerned that Germany was "increasingly developing into a surveillance-obsessed society.

"I consider the aimless gathering and processing of data not only inefficient, but also a legally, highly problematic path," Schaar said.