Rainer Wendt is the head of the German police union. His outspoken views have been featured here numerous times since this time last year, most notably after the New Year’s Eve “groping jihad” in Cologne.

In the interview below, Mr. Wendt discusses the absurdities imposed on German law enforcement, as evidence by the legal restrictions that allowed Anis Amri to remain on the loose to wage his murderous jihad-by-truck in Berlin last Monday.

Many thanks to Nash Montana for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Transcript:

0:00 You’ll recognize the gentleman next to me, Rainer Wendt, thank you for your time

0:04 I will recap briefly, earlier I said to you, “public authority fail”.

0:08 What happened here, Herr Wendt? Did the authorities fail, or what?

0:12 Not an authority fail. If one could accuse the authorities of anything,

0:15 then it is that they follow the letter of legislation and law.

0:18 This isn’t something that we, the police, appreciate very much either,

0:21 that for example with criminal offenders

0:24 who really should be deported,

0:27 we can’t even keep them in detention until that time.

0:30 Our legislation says: only for four days. More is not possible.

0:33 Let’s start from the beginning. He already had been in jail in Italy;

0:36 there are fingerprints that now apparently can’t be found anymore anywhere,

0:40 Europe-wide or maybe they haven’t even been searched for.

0:43 And we previously experienced something similar, for instance with Greece,

0:46 with the Freiburg case, where local data was collected and saved.

0:49 We do have in Europe all the files, but they are neither filled

0:52 with data from neighboring countries nor are they interconnected

0:55 or cross-linked. And actually this guy should have already been

0:58 noticed the second he arrived the country, if only the Italian

1:01 authorities had fed his info into the files that were already available.

1:05 At some point he was noticed here in our country, was classified as a threat.

1:08 What does one have to do in order to be classified as a threat?

1:11 One would have certain contacts with the Islamist scene.

1:14 He obviously had those, with over 100 people

1:17 of the 500 people of top threats that we have, there are

1:20 more than 500 of these people that permanently communicate

1:23 with the Islamist scene and also very concretely talk about

1:26 their intentions to at some point, on any one of these days,

1:29 commit an attack without actually arranging any concrete

1:32 reproachable, punishable preparations.

1:35 In the case of this offender, he was also observed in Berlin

1:38 during the months of May to September, and at some point

1:41 it was determined, OK, what he is doing, how he acts,

1:44 it is not enough to observe him further, but

1:47 isn’t it a logical tactic of a potential terrorist to lay low in order

1:50 to deflect attention, and shouldn’t authorities do the exact opposite?

1:53 Yes, of course, but the police are not authorized to,

1:56 as long the legislation says and the justice system says that

1:59 it is a grave legal offense to surveil someone.

2:02 Therefore certain conditions have to be present, and when

2:05 they’re not there anymore the surveillance has to be terminated.

2:08 By the way — it’s the same way with video cameras, oddly enough,

2:11 which sometimes are put up in areas of heavy criminality.

2:14 When they’re successful, and crime has gone down in that place,

2:17 we have to take them down again, that’s how idiotic all of this is sometimes.

2:20 Let’s have a look at our deportation standards.

2:23 In your opinion — from your experience — what would

2:26 make sense so that we wouldn’t have a repeat of such cases?

2:29 We have to focus on those that are a threat and break the law.

2:32 If someone applies for asylum and his request is denied

2:35 and he is being tolerated because for various reasons he can’t be deported,

2:38 and he does not commit any crimes, nothing happens;

2:41 he will be tolerated as long as he conducts himself decently.

2:44 But there are those who do not have a right of permanent residence,

2:47 whose application for asylum has been denied,

2:50 about whom we have to ask the question why his status was checked.

2:53 He had been in Italy at one point, but when asylum has been rejected

2:56 and he’s being tolerated and he then commits severe criminal offenses,

2:59 which was the case here, then he has to be arrested and detained.

3:02 The CDU had said at their party’s congress that these four days

3:05 of deportation detention should be changed to at least four weeks.

3:08 I am of the opinion that if someone commits severe crimes,

3:11 and is classified as a terrorist threat,

3:14 he should be held in deportation detention for as long as it takes

3:17 until we have all deportation papers, and if it lasts four years,

3:20 well then, it will take four years. He himself has caused this to happen,

3:23 and he has to stay in detention until such time as the paperwork is in order.

3:26 One thing I am not completely clear about:

3:29 the man was recorded and registered in a different federal state and

3:32 had residency there, so why was he surveilled here in Berlin?

3:35 didn’t they have a duty to send him back and tell him to get lost?

3:38 Well, the man traveled across Europe, also through Germany;

3:41 he showed up in Lower Saxony, in Baden Württemberg;

3:44 he was arrested in between; he then sat in

3:47 deportation detention for a couple of days…

3:50 all that is not decided by the police, but ultimately the courts,

3:53 and they should see to it that he is taken into detention,

3:56 but they, too, only decide based on legislation and law.

3:59 It is not an administrative failure. And, yes, people are right,

4:02 this just can’t be true, but I am here to tell you it is,