State Prosecutor So it’s your belief then that by buying a ticket, the passengers are consenting to be killed?
Defendant Potentially killed.
State Prosecutor You don’t think that’s lost all touch with reality? That it’s entirely unrealistic?
Defendant It’s the way we live now.
State Prosecutor What about the children on the plane?
Defendant Children?
State Prosecutor There were children on the aeroplane. Did they consent to being killed too?
Defendant I…
Yes, their parents did on their behalf.
State Prosecutor Interesting. But – if I were to follow your reasoning – weren’t the people in the stadium also taking such a risk?
Defendant I don’t understand.
State Prosecutor In the world as you see it everyone is aware of the dangers of being in a place where crowds congregate. On an underground train, for example, or at a rock concert, a fan zone, or in a football stadium. You could go even further and say that anybody who goes to a cinema or a nightclub or a department store is placing themselves in danger and thereby consenting to being killed.
Defendant That’s not what I meant.
State Prosecutor So what did you mean?
Defendant Passengers on aeroplanes are in particular danger.
State Prosecutor Well…
Defendant You know, you spend the whole time talking about emotions.
State Prosecutor What do you mean by that?
Defendant You need to look at the whole thing differently.
State Prosecutor Do I?
Defendant Those civilians had become part of a weapon. A terrorist weapon. The terrorist had turned that entire plane into his weapon. And that weapon is what I have to fight against.
State Prosecutor Mr Koch, you’re an intelligent man. But aren’t you getting carried away just now?
Defendant How?
State Prosecutor By doing that is it not the case that you are denying that the passengers are still human?
Defendant I beg your pardon?
State Prosecutor You are turning the passengers into things, into objects, if you claim that they had become part of a weapon.
Defendant But that’s what they were.
State Prosecutor Is there anything human left of them as far as you’re concerned? Are they still people if we can only see them as part of a weapon? Doesn’t being human have to mean a lot more than that?
Defendant Maybe you can afford these nice ideas. But I’m up there, I am responsible. I can’t allow myself to reflect on the nature of human existence. I’ve got to make a decision.
Takes a drink of water.
Presiding Judge Do you need to take a break, Mr Koch?
Defendant No thank you. Prosecutor, if you’re going to go this far, let me explain how a soldier has to think. I swore an oath.
State Prosecutor Yes?
Defendant ‘To faithfully serve the Federal Republic of Germany and to bravely defend the rights and freedoms of the German people.’ I know it off by heart.
State Prosecutor I don’t understand the connection.
Defendant That oath means that a soldier must sacrifice his life if it will protect his country.
State Prosecutor That is correct.
Defendant But that means nothing other than the state will weigh the life of a soldier against the dangers threatening the collective. That’s how I have always understood the oath at any rate.
State Prosecutor So what are you trying to say then?
Defendant What I am trying to say is that the state does not exclude people being deliberately sacrificed. A sacrifice for the collective, or, if you prefer, for the values of the collective.
And that is how it has been throughout the ages. A soldier has the duty to protect the community as a whole from harm. Even at the risk of his life. So there, too, one life is weighed against another. The life of a soldier against the life of a civilian.
State Prosecutor That’s an interesting argument, Mr Koch. But there are two key differences between your duty as a soldier and the state killing innocent passengers.
Defendant Which are?
State Prosecutor Firstly, as a soldier of this country you’re not killed by our state but by soldiers of a foreign state. And secondly, Major Koch: you didn’t sacrifice yourself – you killed others.
Defendant But I’m not free to choose, either, whether I’m put in deadly danger. I’m forced to do so by obeying orders.
State Prosecutor You volunteered for the service. Nobody forced you. And you knew the risks when you did so.
Defendant Maybe we’re being too theoretical here.
State Prosecutor Are we?
Defendant The key thing is something else.
State Prosecutor Well we’d like to hear what that is.
Defendant As a soldier I’m forced to think about threats. How do I protect the population? How do I safeguard our country? That’s my job.
State Prosecutor Go on.
Defendant Have you ever thought about what the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling really means?
State Prosecutor Where are you going with this, Mr Koch?
Defendant I mean what it means in practice. For all of us.
State Prosecutor Yes?
Defendant When you’re flying up there, training for a combat mission, the only way you can win is if you put yourself in your opponent’s position. You have to anticipate what he’s going to do.
State Prosecutor I can see that.
Defendant So if you think about the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling, then it’ll be obvious to you what terrorists would do.
State Prosecutor Which is?
Defendant It’s quite simple: they’ll always use innocent people. The moment they do that the state can’t defend itself. Don’t you understand? The court has made us helpless. We have been left at the mercy of terrorists. The state is capitulating, we’ve given up.
You have accused me here of killing the 164 people on board. You reproach me for not following this absurd ruling, as it was my duty to do. Well, Prosecutor, you’re right. I didn’t do that, because that ruling undermines us all. It is the opposite of what I have been trained for.
State Prosecutor Mr Koch, are you still convinced that you acted correctly?
Defendant Yes.
State Prosecutor You believe that the people on that plane had to sacrifice themselves because reasons of state demanded it?
Defendant Yes.
State Prosecutor And you would do it again?
Defendant Yes.
State Prosecutor Is there no other possible course of action?
Defendant None.