From my point of view, the film just sends an inconsistent pledge for keeping the military within the legal framework. As the latter is a human construction, the message's strength is unconvincing.
The outcome of a terrorist attack not only violates the current law, but all involved in its contention (including the Minister), who turned frozen and dumb - even the pilots intercepting the civilian plane -, as nobody thinks about the obvious basic measures to reduce damages. Only the prosecutor is smart enough to point it out, wants to punish the shooter, whilst doing nothing to press charges against the high ranks (mild message indeed).
Now, every homo/femina really sapiens knows that the law is a compromise to keep society within some limits its own culture considers as mutually desired to live within an agreed social and justice framework. This compromise is set by a majority of people in Congress, judges and lower and upper courts. Unanimity is rare, norms are fallible, not always strictly fair, changes as time goes by, and sometimes (in dictatorships) even turn out unbearable. It just maintains the community fabric within desired premises. Albeit we must recognize and honor its advances as one of the major achievements of humanity.
But also, every really sapiens knows that it is possible he or she may face an undesirable situation where their dignity, honor, beliefs or moral precepts collide with the rule of law. Then, they must prior decide if breaking it and, if so, they must acknowledge and accept the potential consequences. You trespass a red light and pay the fine, it is childish to argue that missed an important meeting or so.
From the very beginning the defendant is guilty before the law; you cannot change this fact, and there is no news putting him on trial. He broke the law and, that is the only issue of interest because apparently there is neither any valid common law precedent nor a minor damage excuse in Germany's law. Therefore, the trial is irrelevant as all is regulated in advance.
So, a not guilty judgement would be against the rule of law (not against a moral or any other philosophical principle). And, if you decide the defendant should be acquitted, maybe you should admit you were reasoning out of the legal box. That is the movie's best value offer, which basically justify my rating.
Nevertheless -and somewhat weird-, the plot has flaws. There is only one civilian witness (a passenger's griefing widow), and a disrespectful defense attorney who did not prepare his defendant properly, provoking an untenable and flimsy claim to involve all passengers in the airplane as co-responsible (extensible to buses, taxis, stadiums, theaters... and your own home). He is doomed but, no matter how smart he looks, did not realize that he would bear the costs.
A bit deeper and more credible plot is expected from von Schirach, while Klaussner and Gedeck have much more memorable performances. Kurz gesagt, anspruchslos.
The outcome of a terrorist attack not only violates the current law, but all involved in its contention (including the Minister), who turned frozen and dumb - even the pilots intercepting the civilian plane -, as nobody thinks about the obvious basic measures to reduce damages. Only the prosecutor is smart enough to point it out, wants to punish the shooter, whilst doing nothing to press charges against the high ranks (mild message indeed).
Now, every homo/femina really sapiens knows that the law is a compromise to keep society within some limits its own culture considers as mutually desired to live within an agreed social and justice framework. This compromise is set by a majority of people in Congress, judges and lower and upper courts. Unanimity is rare, norms are fallible, not always strictly fair, changes as time goes by, and sometimes (in dictatorships) even turn out unbearable. It just maintains the community fabric within desired premises. Albeit we must recognize and honor its advances as one of the major achievements of humanity.
But also, every really sapiens knows that it is possible he or she may face an undesirable situation where their dignity, honor, beliefs or moral precepts collide with the rule of law. Then, they must prior decide if breaking it and, if so, they must acknowledge and accept the potential consequences. You trespass a red light and pay the fine, it is childish to argue that missed an important meeting or so.
From the very beginning the defendant is guilty before the law; you cannot change this fact, and there is no news putting him on trial. He broke the law and, that is the only issue of interest because apparently there is neither any valid common law precedent nor a minor damage excuse in Germany's law. Therefore, the trial is irrelevant as all is regulated in advance.
So, a not guilty judgement would be against the rule of law (not against a moral or any other philosophical principle). And, if you decide the defendant should be acquitted, maybe you should admit you were reasoning out of the legal box. That is the movie's best value offer, which basically justify my rating.
Nevertheless -and somewhat weird-, the plot has flaws. There is only one civilian witness (a passenger's griefing widow), and a disrespectful defense attorney who did not prepare his defendant properly, provoking an untenable and flimsy claim to involve all passengers in the airplane as co-responsible (extensible to buses, taxis, stadiums, theaters... and your own home). He is doomed but, no matter how smart he looks, did not realize that he would bear the costs.
A bit deeper and more credible plot is expected from von Schirach, while Klaussner and Gedeck have much more memorable performances. Kurz gesagt, anspruchslos.