The BKA's identification of 410 Islamist threats is a sobering but essential tool for protecting the public in a free society. Security agencies cannot afford to wait until a plot is fully formed; they must act on early-warning signs. The Gefährder list allows police to concentrate limited resources on the most dangerous individuals, increasing the chances of preventing an attack.
Supporters argue that the list has proven its worth. Several planned attacks in Germany have been foiled because authorities were monitoring individuals on the list. For example, in 2020, a 20-year-old Syrian on the list was arrested for plotting an attack with explosives. Without the classification, such plots might have gone undetected until too late.
The alternative – not maintaining a threat list – would leave security services blind. Critics often fail to offer a viable substitute that balances freedom and safety. The BKA uses a multi-layered review process, with a threat assessment panel that includes psychologists and intelligence analysts. The list is not a sentence; it triggers monitoring, not imprisonment. Many on the list are not arrested unless they cross a legal threshold.
The public expects the state to take reasonable steps to prevent terrorism. The 410 figure shows that the BKA is doing its job, not that Germany is in crisis. Deradicalization programs exist alongside the list, offering a path off it for those who renounce violence. The trade-off of some privacy intrusion for mass protection is one that most Germans accept.
Rather than questioning the list's existence, energy should go into refining it – ensuring that vulnerable individuals are offered exit strategies while hardened threats remain under watch. The BKA's transparent reporting of the number, without hiding it, demonstrates accountability. A democracy can handle this truth.