Terror

by Ferdinand von Schirach

  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.

  State Prosecutor Then, Mr Koch, I have only one more question for you: would you have fired if your wife had been on that plane?

  Defendant What?

  State Prosecutor Your wife and your son. What if they had been on the plane? Would you have killed them too?

  Defendant I … I …

  Defence Counsel What is the point of this question? This is outrageous.

  State Prosecutor No, what’s outrageous isn’t the question, it’s your interruptions.

  Presiding Judge Please, please.

  Defence Counsel I cannot …

  Presiding Judge Let’s calm down, shall we? Counsel, you are aware that it is our task to investigate whether the defendant’s statement stands up. Or whether it is simply an assertion. The Prosecutor’s question is specifically aimed to do that.

  Defence Counsel Possibly. But it is certainly not our job …

  Defendant Wait. I am not going to ask myself that question. I can’t.

  State Prosecutor What can’t you do?

  Defendant Every answer is wrong.

  State Prosecutor You’re right. Because it’s a matter of life.

  I have no further questions for the defendant.

  Presiding Judge Counsel, do you have any more questions for your client?

  Defence Counsel No.

  Presiding Judge Fine, then you may return to your seat next to your Counsel, Mr Koch.

  The Defendant sits down next to the Defence Counsel.

  So, if I hear no objections I would now propose to hear the joint plaintiff as a witness.

  Defence Counsel and Prosecutor nod.

  Mrs Meiser, you are the joint plaintiff in this case and at the same time you are also a witness. We would like to hear you. Please take a seat in the witness’s chair.

  Mrs Meiser walks to the witness’s chair and sits down.

  Presiding Judge Mrs Meiser, I’d like to have your personal details for the record. What is your first name?

  Meiser Franziska.

  Presiding Judge And your age at your last birthday?

  Meiser Thirty-four.

  Presiding Judge Where do you live?

  Meiser In Munich, it’s Truderinger …

  Presiding Judge (interrupts) It’s alright, thank you, we don’t need the address. Munich is sufficient. What is your profession?

  Meiser I’m a nurse.

  Presiding Judge And are you working at the moment?

  Meiser Yes, at the University Hospital.

  Presiding Judge Are you related to the defendant by birth or by marriage?

  Meiser No.

  Presiding Judge Mrs Meiser, as with every witness here, I am obliged to instruct you. You are obliged to tell the truth here, you are not allowed to omit anything or add anything. False testimony in court is punished severely. Do you understand that?

  Meiser Yes.

  Presiding Judge (to Stenographer) Instruction completed.

  The Stenographer stamps the record accordingly.

  Presiding Judge Mrs Meiser, your husband was one of the passengers who died on board Lufthansa flight LH 2047 …

  Meiser No.

  Presiding Judge No?

  Meiser He didn’t die. They killed him.

  Nods in the direction of the Defendant.

  Presiding Judge Please tell us about the day it happened. We can pause in the proceedings at any time if you so wish.

  Meiser Well, it was like this. That morning my husband rang up and told me when he was coming back. From Berlin. He worked for Siemens. He’d flown to Berlin that morning for a meeting.

  Presiding Judge I see.

  Meiser I’d just done two night shifts at the hospital. So I had the day off. I was going to pick him up in the car. I used to do that sometimes – you know the airport is such a long way out, a taxi’s very expensive. And he doesn’t like getting the train. When I got to the airport the arrivals board just said ‘delayed’.

  Presiding Judge Were you alone at the airport?

  Meiser No. What do you mean, alone?

  Presiding Judge Had you taken anyone with you?

  Meiser Oh, right. No, our daughter was at home. My mother was looking after her.

  Presiding Judge So you were alone.

  Meiser Yes.

  Presiding Judge What happened after you had read on the arrivals board that the flight was delayed?

  Meiser Then I got the text.

  Presiding Judge The text?

  Meiser Yes.

  Presiding Judge Mrs Meiser, please. Wha
t did the text say?

  Meiser Sorry. I’ll read it to you. The police confiscated my phone, I still haven’t got it back. But I wrote the message down.

  She takes a piece of paper out of her handbag and reads it aloud.

  ‘We have been hijacked by terrorists. We’re trying to get into the cockpit. Don’t be afraid, we will make it. I love you.’ That’s all, there’s no more. Of course I wrote straight back, but there was no answer.

  Presiding Judge What did you write?

  Meiser I can’t remember exactly. I think it was ‘Oh God, what’s happened?’ or something like that.

  Presiding Judge Can you tell us the time of the text message?

  Meiser Which one?

  Presiding Judge From your husband.

  Meiser Yes, wait a minute. 19:48 and 12 seconds. I copied it out from my phone.

  Presiding Judge When did you copy it?

  Meiser Right at the end. When the policeman told me he needed my phone.

  Presiding Judge Yes, thank you. In the police notes on page 86, Volume 7 it says your mobile phone was synchronised to a European time-server.

  Meiser Excuse me?

  Presiding Judge It means that the time on your phone was correct.

  Meiser It does that automatically, I think.

  Presiding Judge That’s what I was saying. What happened after you received the text?

  Meiser I immediately showed my phone to a policeman. I told him my husband would never joke about that sort of thing. The policeman was very young, he still had spots, and he turned bright red. I remember that very clearly. He alerted somebody straight away. I was taken to a room somewhere behind the security desks. Everyone was suddenly very agitated, I could tell. And now I stared getting really scared. People were coming in and going out again all the time. In, out. The whole time.

  Presiding Judge When did they confirm that the aeroplane had been hijacked?

  Meiser They didn’t, not to begin with. An older policeman came in and tried to calm me down. But I’m a nurse, you see, I know all about how to talk to patients. And that’s exactly what he sounded like. I didn’t believe him.

  Presiding Judge And then?

  Meiser Eventually another policeman came in, together with a woman. The woman wasn’t in uniform. The policeman, who was called Haller or Höller or something like that, sat down next to me. He spoke in a very calm voice. But that only made it worse, you know, someone talking calmly like that. He said that the plane had been hijacked and then shot down. And that now they were looking for survivors.

  Presiding Judge Who was the woman?

  Meiser A psychologist. She asked if I needed help. But I didn’t want any help, I had no idea what could possibly help me. My little daughter was at home lying in her bed not knowing about any of it. She was the one I kept thinking about the whole time. Not my husband, but my daughter.

  Presiding Judge What did you do?

  Meiser What did I do? Nothing.

  Presiding Judge What happened next?

  Meiser I can’t really remember any more. The policeman with the spots took me back to the arrivals hall. He asked me whether I wanted him to take me to my car or if someone would come and collect me. I just wanted to be left alone. I sat down on a bench in the arrivals hall and watched the sliding doors. It was really strange, I couldn’t cry. There were loads of police all over the airport, it was complete chaos. I didn’t listen to the announcements. I just sat there on the bench. I didn’t even call home. I don’t know if you can imagine this. I was waiting for him, watching the sliding doors, still believing he was going to come walking through them.

  It’s so cruel to lose someone suddenly and not be able to say goodbye.

  Presiding Judge I think we should take a break now.

  Meiser No, please don’t. Can I ask something?

  Presiding Judge Yes?

  Meiser The police never told me: did the passengers get into the cockpit?

  Presiding Judge I beg your pardon?

  Meiser Did they manage to get into the cockpit?

  Presiding Judge We don’t know. That was when the plane was shot down.

  Meiser But that’s important. If they had, they could have stopped the terrorist, couldn’t they? Then there would have been no need to shoot the plane down. Would there?

  Presiding Judge You went to the police again later?

  Meiser No.

  Presiding Judge For the court: page 96, Volume 14 in the files. According to the files you were there once more on 4th September?

  Meiser Oh, that’s what you mean.

  Presiding Judge Do you remember now?

  Meiser Yes, I got a letter from the police. All the relatives went to Garching. We were taken to a big hall that belonged to the Air Force.

  Presiding Judge Indeed. And what was there?

  Meiser That’s where all their things were, the personal effects from the wreckage. They’d laid them all out on tables, these long metal tables.

  Presiding Judge Was anything returned to you there?

  Meiser Just his left shoe. It’s not that important.

  Presiding Judge Perhaps it is. Please, tell us about the shoe.

  Meiser I looked at everything in the hall carefully, along with the other people. There were so many things there, suitcases, watches, briefcases and so forth. But nothing of my husband’s. Then, right at the end, at the very back in the last row, I found it, his left shoe. It was in good condition, no scratches, no blood, nothing.

  You see, my husband had always really looked after his shoes. He always bought expensive shoes, his favourites were horse leather. He said they might be more expensive but they’d last longer. I took his left shoe off the table. I had to sign a form for it. Then they wanted to wrap it up in a bag but I took it just as it was. It sat next to me on the passenger seat all the way home, that shoe.

  My daughter’s seven, Your Honour. At the funeral she asked me what was in the coffin if Daddy wasn’t there.

  I didn’t know what to say. She’s right, we buried an empty coffin. My daughter thought that was really stupid, praying beside an empty coffin. I couldn’t pray at all. Later I went and buried the shoe in the woods, on my own. I don’t know if that was right, burying the shoe.

  I’m sorry, that probably doesn’t make much sense to you. I just don’t understand.

  Presiding Judge Yes, Mrs Meiser.

  Meiser It’s hard for my daughter. You know, you just can’t explain it. She told me she’s already forgotten what Daddy used to smell like. His smell.

  Presiding Judge Thank you, Mrs Meiser.

  Meiser Can I have my phone back? I’d like to have that text, can you understand that?

  Presiding Judge Yes, I do understand. Your telephone will be returned to you as soon as the trial has been concluded. We still require it as evidence. I’m very sorry.

  Meiser That’s what everyone said.

  Presiding Judge What?

  Meiser ‘I’m sorry.’ It doesn’t mean anything, when people say that.

  Presiding Judge I can’t give it to you.

  Meiser Yes.

  Presiding Judge Are there any further questions for the joint plaintiff and witness?

  The Prosecutor and Defence Counsel shake their heads.

  Mrs Meiser, thank you, you are now discharged as a witness. If you wish, you are welcome to follow the remainder of the trial.

  Meiser leaves the room.

  Presiding Judge I will now inform you of the defendant’s criminal record: there are no entries, Mr Koch has no previous convictions.

  If there are no further questions, motions or proposals –

  The State Prosecutor and Defence Counsel shake their heads.

  – then that completes the evidence. Prosecutor, do you require any time to prepare your closing statement?

  State Prosecutor Yes, I will need a short break.

  Presiding Judge Fine. Then let’s adjourn for twenty minutes. (Turns to the Guard once again.) Call everyone again
in twenty minutes.

  The Presiding Judge stands and leaves the courtroom. At the same time all other members of the court stand.

  Interval.

  Act Two

  The entire court except the Presiding Judge is seated or standing in their places. The Guard walks to the front of the stage.

  Guard All those attending the trial please return to the courtroom, the proceedings are about to continue. All those attending the trial please return to the courtroom, the proceedings are about to continue.

  The Presiding Judge enters the courtroom, everyone stands up.

  Presiding Judge Please be seated.

  All sit.

  Prosecutor, we will now hear your closing statement.

  State Prosecutor (stands) Your Honour, ladies and gentlemen judges – I will say right away: the defendant is not a criminal. His actions are far removed from those we usually investigate in this courtroom. He has killed neither his wife nor her lover, he has not robbed, not committed fraud, and not stolen. On the contrary: by the standards of our society Lars Koch has up until now led an impeccable life, he has done absolutely nothing wrong. One cannot find the slightest fault with him. And I can say that I have been impressed by the integrity and seriousness of his thinking. Lars Koch is not a defendant who attempts to explain away what he has done with tales of childhood trauma, psychic disturbance or some other excuse. He is highly intelligent, level-headed, a man who is in a position to distinguish between right and wrong. Indeed he can probably do so better than most people. Everything that Lars Koch did, he did with full awareness, in absolute clarity. He was convinced that it was the right thing to do and he remains so.

  Ladies and gentlemen, yes, the Defence Counsel is right. This case does indeed revolve around one single question: are we allowed to kill innocent people in order to save other innocent people? And is it a question of numbers? Can lives be weighed against each other at a point when for the death of one person four hundred others can be saved?

  On the spur of the moment we would all probably do just that. It seems the right thing to do. Perhaps we might not be quite sure and it would take some effort to overcome these doubts. But we would weigh things up, just like we do in other areas of our lives. We would consult our consciences. And we would believe we were acting reasonably and fairly, according to the best of our know ledge and our consciences. We would agree with Lars Koch. And so we could end this trial and find him not guilty.