I think the idea that politicians primarily need to be experienced is a great mistake. It's not like they really run the government, which is really done by a huge number of government employees and experts a layer below.

What _does_ matter is integrity, a willingness to balance interests, listening to experts and aligning with the political position of those who elected you (e.g. a social democrat should probably focus more on the interests of workers - it puzzles me how the fact that there really are different interests that do not always align and that much of politics is therefore really about power is always ignored in favour of "experience").

And, by the way, some current German top politicians often _already_ seem quite incompetent. It seems unfair to just claim that members of smaller parties are more incompetent.

I can back that up by recent history: Look at what Syriza does to Greece. The prior governments were undeniably corrupt and did so much wrong it's way beyond funny. Still, Syriza, with its completely inexperienced politicians running a first-world country in a deep crisis, are arguably doing even worse.

In Germany there are only two parties who even have enough distinguished members to run a working government. The rest simply don't have enough leadership staff for the job. If these were to form a government, nobody would have heard of many of the ministers ever before, even people who take an interest in politics.

And on top of that, these smaller parties tend to experience a lot more problems than the big ones. I don't want to see something like the Chaos of the AFD and recently the FDP with a party who should be busy running the country.

So you would vote for Nixon, essentially.

> I can back that up by recent history: Look at what Syriza does to Greece. The prior governments were undeniably corrupt and did so much wrong it's way beyond funny. Still, Syriza, with its completely inexperienced politicians running a first-world country in a deep crisis, are arguably doing even worse.

I don't see how they could do worse than the prior governments, considering that they are by and large responsible for Greece' current situation. Besides, even this was the case, this is just one example.

> And on top of that, these smaller parties tend to experience a lot more problems than the big ones.

You should look at the French UMP for a counter-example, it's the best performance of slow political suicide I know of.

Can you back up your claims that Syriza hurts Greece? From what I know, they actually defend the peoples interests and stand up to the criminals (e.g. Germany) that try to shake down their country using shady finance schemes set in to place by German politicians with the help of Greece's previous corrupt governments.

> In Germany there are only two parties who even have enough distinguished members to run a working government. The rest simply don't have enough leadership staff for the job. If these were to form a government, nobody would have heard of many of the ministers ever before, even people who take an interest in politics.

I'd prefer randomized decisions over these crooks any time. CDU isn't worthy to even talk about. Really. Its a criminal joke party. SPD was born a backstabber and still is a backstabber. Wer hat uns verraten?

What we need is a government with ethics. As one of the richest nations around we owe it to the world to set a precedent. Put the peoples rights and the environment first. Treat surrounding countries with dignity.

Personally I'd give Die Linke a chance, see what happens. They do most of the critical political work already, which is mainly exposing the crimes of the ruling government.

> And on top of that, these smaller parties tend to experience a lot more problems than the big ones. I don't want to see something like the Chaos of the AFD and recently the FDP with a party who should be busy running the country.

We don't want to see the AfD at all. They're Neo-Nazis.

And Russia is arguably having quite a bit of trouble, economically, not even just because of the sanctions but because the general corruption in the country just doesn't allow for a sufficient retooling of the Russian economy. And the sanctions are a direct consequence of Putin not wanting to play by the rules and now being excluded from the game.

Mugabe, yes, initially wanted to redistribute the land wonderfully... didn't totally think that one through.

I just mean to say that integrity and competence are not analogues.

Putin never achieved anything without cutting down his opposition.

What Putin certainly did was to turn Russia into an authoritarian state, run mostly by ex-KGB officers. What he didn't do was to make the society more open and retool and revitalize the economy. He also did hardly anything against corruption which didn't directly affect is ability to rule.

I am German as well and would like the same. But then you see that there are no real options for the replacement of CDU (Center-right) and SPD (Center-left). The only other voteable (is this a word?) parties regardless of opinion are Die Grünen (Greens), Die Linke (Left), FDP (Liberals).

Anything else and we are moving into extreme territory. Here's a list: [1]

Do you really believe AfD could form a sensible government that can act on an international scale? And what's left then? Fringe parties and extremists (and ou may very well count AfD as such to begin with).

So then we are left with a choice of new people from the same parties. Those are well established groups and collectives of human beings. People who make it to the top are well filtered and chosen. There are also there because their actions tend to be predictable and as a result reliable. But this means that you will rarely get a real change going on if you just change people and not the parties.

Another far scarier scenario is that it doesn't matter who is in power. The scandal might only scratch the surface of the nature of the US-GER relationship. It is possible the German Federal Republic's foreign policy and actions are far more controlled and dictated by the US than is publicly known today. In this case, voting won't help to change that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_G...

In a democracy, experience shouldn't be the standard by which to measure fitness for office. Experience in the law-making process, knowing the ropes of the political system and maintaining diplomatic standards: That's what members of lower ranks of political administration should be for (which for this very reason usually are appointed instead of elected). Politicians in leadership positions should be measured by their vision (or plan, to use a less high-flying term) for the country and integrity alone. Instead, most politicians in modern democracies have learned to navigate the political system and the media circus exceptionally well while integrity and ethics have been left behind.

Talking about political experience: Before Merkel became chancellor she was very inexperienced in international politics herself. As was Helmut Kohl, who was often underestimated by fellow state leaders (notably Margaret Thatcher) for his uncouth appearance and his perceived intellectual shortcomings. Both grew while in office with Kohl even managing the diplomatic masterpiece of the German reunion against all odds.

What's happening right now is just outrageous. German intelligence spying on German citizens and companies and selling that data to a supposed ally who in turn uses this data against Germany. Everybody responsible for this (including the chancellor) should step down and make way for a government that's willing to represent the interests of the people again instead of furthering their own agenda or catering for the interests of another country.

I am old enough to have seen a huge number of scandals coming out of the German intelligence services. I've seen Maihofer resign over the Traube affair and I've seen German intelligence snoop on privileged client-attorney communications and a lot of other bad stuff. The list of BND scandals is legion.

I would be happy to see resignations of any current and former Chief of the Chancellery involved in these schemes, pour décourager les autres. Let's be clear: the BND has pretty much intentionally broken several of the safeguards contained in the G10 Act, often with internal legal justifications that don't pass the giggle test (and would make only John Yoo proud). And the most recent revelations may mean they even committed crimes (conduction espionage for a foreign power, per §99 of the penal code, and economic espionage, per §17 of the law against unfair competition). This is plenty of reason for heads to roll. And sometimes, the tree of liberty has to be watered with the careers of intelligence service bureaucrats.

At the same time, even as an anti-fan of Angela Merkel's policies, I don't see what kicking her out of office would help (unless she had her fingers deeply in this particular pie). Intelligence services regular seem to aim at becoming a state within a state, and dismantling the power structures above them won't help; structuring safeguards so that they aren't as easily circumvented does. For example, in theory, the G10 commission (the watchdog appointed by the Bundestag) has broad control over what the intelligence services can do in terms of surveillance and can stop any and all surveillance measures at any time. In practice, however, that seems to have been circumvented by them not being told in the first place (or being deceived).

I can't understand your sentiment at all, especially when posting as "bayesianhorse". Don't you have any desire to change "your" country for the better? Do you really think Merkel is responsible for Germany's economic situation and the politicians of CDU/SPD are doing a better job than everyone else could?

Preserving everything as is like our government and Merkel does (just like Adenauer said: "Bewahrt das Bewährte") might work in the short term thanks to the strong economy and Schröder's reforms, but the complete lack of any idea or strong opinion about future challenges - always coupled with the way of least resistance - will come back and bite us.

Also, intelligence services, due to the secrecy in which they operate, have a tendency (to put it mildly) of developing an agenda of their own which may not always be aligned with the government's agenda.

The scary thing is, this headline does not even surprise me any more, it does not shock me, and it does not even make me angry. It is just another piece in a vast puzzle that adds to the overall picture but does not change it substantially.

How so?

True, armed conflict would utterly devastate my homeland, but your statement is only partially true. And some form of devastation happened anyway, in mind of people living there. Results will be felt for generations.

So the government may have had two bad choices: Either risk to have a major terrorist attack happen on their watch, or cooperate with the US more closely than the public would want.

The government may not even have had that choice since a lot of the actual fault may lie in relatively low levels of the BND, and only the oversight was inadequate. (Like it is in the US even more so)

I'm not sure what a "pertinent" risk is, but it's the most media-friendly. But compared to the consequences of climate change, or even the current economic crisis, it should really be downgraded. I don't have hard stats regarding the increase in suicides due to the crisis, but there is no way the number of terrorism-related deaths in Europe is even in the same ballpark.

> Without the help of the US intelligence sources, we couldn't stop remotely as many terrorist cells.

Really? How many is that exactly? The only country which seems to be regularly try new terrorists cells is the US, and the scenario seems to be the same every time: an FBI informer helped radicalize and provided weapons to some youths with lots of personal issues, which turns into another success of law enforcement.

If you're clever enough, you can realize this and actively fight it, but you'll end up feeling alone and surrounded with bunch of idiots. No-win scenario.

The article suggests the agreement excluded German and US organisations, the "suspicious" 2k were relating to other European institutions. It sounds like a case of it being within the written agreement but that the agreement was too broad, or at least should have been changed with the shift in political rhetoric.