Supporting Stronger Security Measures to Deter Potential Threats

Proponents of tougher measures argue that the state has a duty to protect its citizens from foreseeable danger. After the CSD attack, they say passive approaches are no longer enough. Revoking passports can prevent suspected extremists from traveling abroad for training or to join conflicts. Preventive detention, though controversial, could stop a planned attack before it happens. Electronic ankle monitors offer a middle ground, allowing surveillance of high-risk individuals without full incarceration. These tools are already used in other European countries with some success. Supporters point out that the measures would not apply broadly but only to a small number of verified Gefährder, whose threat level is assessed by police and intelligence agencies. They believe the public expects the government to act decisively, and that delaying action could lead to further attacks. The legal system can include safeguards such as regular judicial review and strict time limits to prevent abuse. In the view of many security experts, the current legal framework leaves dangerous individuals too much freedom, and these proposals close critical gaps.