Support NeoGAF

[Orthogonal]

The idea is to arrest them before they attack.

That's also a really sticky situation, you can't just arrest people for thought crimes, there needs to be deliberate and criminal actions.


I don't know how Europe fixes their predicament, the only real solution was prevention and measured immigration and that's not possible now that the flood gates were open. You can't turn into Switzerland after the fact. Integration can work with the true refugees and economic migrants, but we are dealing with radicals with religious and political motives beyond what Integration is intended to achieve. People need to realize it's not an integration problem, it's a radicalization problem but no politician will even talk about it.

 

[Alx]

That's also a really sticky situation, you can't just arrest people for thought crimes, there needs to be deliberate and criminal actions.


I don't know how Europe fixes their predicament, the only real solution was prevention and measured immigration and that's not possible now that the flood gates were open. You can't turn into Switzerland after the fact. Integration can work with the true refugees and economic migrants, but we are dealing with radicals with religious and political motives beyond what Integration is intended to achieve. People need to realize it's not an integration problem, it's a radicalization problem but no politician will even talk about it.

It's another case where it's not an immigration problem, the guy is French born. And his family doesn't seem to be supportive of his intentions, since they were the ones who called the police when he first tried to go to Syria.

 

[Mael]

That's still a "if", I don't remember seeing something clear about this...

I'm no lawyer or anything but I feel like that should be checkable.
Sarkozy made the parliament vote to accept the Lisbon treaty (making the 2004 referendum less legitmate, after all it was a campaign promise and heavily advertised at the time, people could have voted against him OR against congressmen who followed him, he was voted in AND his majority got the parliament meaning that they were ok with this).
If it's part of Lisbon it's in I'd say, no one read that for obvious reason so...

Indeed.

Yes, we definitively agree. I think that "we shouldn't" is a stronger answer than "we can't".

Especially from a politic point of view: if the political people say they wanted to do this but were prevented to do so by Europe or International treaties, that's stirring even more nationalism. If we say "we can't do this because that's both against our principles, useless inefficient", I think it's better.

I kinda agree although my argument is really "we shouldn't", "we can't" and "we absolutely mustn't".
Whatever the right tells, Nationalism is really incompatible with the Republic. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the XXth century should know that
Patriotism is something else but a vastly outdated concept in today's France though.

I also think that a signature *should* be confirmed by the parliament to be binding. Let's say a french representative sign a trade agreement. I wouldn't want it to be binding (and I don't think it would be) till the parliament confirmed it. Too much risks involved.

I would have agreed with you before 2001, now that the parliament is nothing but the reflection of the presidential election I'd say it's pointless and a waste of time to ask the national representation.
Heck the elected officials in the National Assemblee now are mostly elected on party lines meaning that they're less legitimate than the president who is the reason they're elected nowadays.
We're veering off topic though.

Well, it's BS to begin with.

I'd like an official enquiry on its efficiency on the matter. It has probably been more useful for the police to fight against drugs, in fact ^_^.

Like Echelon and the like probably work far better for industrial spying than to fight any threats against countries.

I'm really reluctant to leave some important liberties and allowing uncontrolled power to some police forces for a long/unlimited time because the times are difficult. Each governments/institutions will want to increase its power, and they'll use each opportunities to do so.

It's fortunate that most governments are wildly incompetent or times would be scary.
I mean something like the Patriot Act could have been abused so much more! It's French equivalent is the darkest stain on Hollande's shitty presidency.
Luckily we have the Cours des Comptes so we should know if it's useful or a gigantic waste of money. It's after the fact but it's the best we have I guess.

The problem with prisons at the moment seems to be that they are actually contributing to radicalization. Now that is a separate problem from this discussion a bit, but it's not as easy as sending people to prison and they come out having learned their lesson.

That's because prison is sometimes not the answer to a citizen veering off course.
Justice is not mere vengeance or the Talion law.
Justice is making sure the impact on society is the lowest it can while making sure the individual who harmed society "pay his debt" and can be reintegrated into society having learned their lesson.
It can be military engagement, prison, fine I really don't care as long as it's not pointless imprisonment where people go from petty thug to highway robbery.
The prison system in France is a disgrace and France rightfully slamed for the situation.

I agree that it is a big decision to take someones citizenship away, but I wouldn't put it on the level of the death penalty. Of course the French people are the ones to decide that, not me.

It is worse than death penalty, at least the executed person is still part of the community instead of being branded a traitor for society to make him pay even more.
A criminal citizen who do the worst crime ever is STILL a citizen and it's important to not sweep under the rug that he IS part of the community he is harming.

 

[BrassDragon]

I see people disregarding the role of the security services in this discussion - there's a whole world between 'letting potential terrorists roam free' and 'lock them all up just in case'.

There are currently thousands of potential terrorists in Europe, people with worrying signs of radicalisation that they have acted on (e.g. by attempting travel to join IS.) Because they usually fall outside of the judicial system, they're monitored covertly. Now obviously, you can't have a spook follow these guys around all the time - so there's a complicated network of checks (physical, technological and through third parties) with the greater risks receiving more direct attention. As soon as a threat is detected, an intervention is attempted (which could be an arrest but also something smaller scale that's never picked up by the public.)

Setting up these procedures has been an epic struggle for the services because, at least in Western Europe, most of them have seen their budget and manpower erode rapidly for more than a decade because politicians deemed the world safe enough for such cuts. This is being corrected as we speak but you can't just fast-track people to operational status, it takes time.

Even so, the incredible number of radicalised youths combined with the chaotic influx of refugees has outpaced the ability of the services to keep track of them all - it's a problem of scale. So most of the focus is on the worst cases, the most dangerous nutjobs and the leadership/inspirators/facilitators.

This has been relatively successful because it's been hard for the enemy to strike in a coordinated fashion at a time and place of their choosing since Bataclan (e.g. the Zaventem attack was rushed on a different target because they feared their cell being mopped up.)

Of course they're not taking this lying down and have really stepped up the lone wolf-style small scale attacks. This scores points with their followers and distracts the security services from the high priority targets. My guess is that they're looking for a big enough lapse to get another spectacular strike in.

This senseless attack in Rouen will factor into the threat assessment as, once again, analysts go over their ever-growing roster of potentials to determine who warrants the most attention at any given time.

And despite their best efforts, some other lunatic will slip through the net and you will be rightly angry that the authorities didn't see the 'obvious' coming, unaware of all the interventions that preceded it.

TLDR; we have to be lucky all the time, they only have to get lucky once.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Can't really judge intelligence services' performance accurately, because it's likely that they stop many more plots but they obviously don't just tell you, for fear that it'll tip everyone else off.

 

[Mael]

ahah Police forces gutted because politicians thought that the world was safe enough?
Is that some kind of sick joke?
Since 2001 the message of the Right has been "you're not safe from the people in the suburbs, we're going to clean this!"
And then when elected they gutted the services because they did too much preventions.
Sarkozy removed more policemen than anyone else for a given timeframe!
If policitians were telling we were safe enough they sure have fooled me into hearing the polar opposite!
We even had a Chirac-Lepen confrontation because Insecurity was the theme of the election!

 

[Koren]

I kinda agree although my argument is really "we shouldn't", "we can't" and "we absolutely mustn't".

I can live with "we absolutely mustn't". I don't think we differ on this.

I would have agreed with you before 2001, now that the parliament is nothing but the reflection of the presidential election I'd say it's pointless and a waste of time to ask the national representation.

Quite true (in fact, I really dislike the 2001 change). Still:
- those are older than 2001
- all changes that involve constitution require more than majority of parliament, so it's not an immediate 'win' for the president (does he still have the majority in Congress, also?)
- more people involved, more chances to avoid a mistake on something that's really important. The government could still be disavowed on a really important matter. The chances are increadibly slim, but they exists.

We're veering off topic though.

True (although it's interesting). Case closed...

I see people disregarding the role of the security services in this discussion - there's a whole world between 'letting potential terrorists roam free' and 'lock them all up just in case'.

Indeed. But one individual require several persons in the security services. As you said, I doubt we have enough people for this. I wouldn't blame them that much, some made errors, but I'm sure they're doing their best.

And despite their best efforts, some other lunatic will slip through the net and you will be rightly angry that the authorities didn't see the 'obvious' coming, unaware of all the interventions that preceded it.

TLDR; we have to be lucky all the time, they only have to get lucky once.

I agree. I think we should do our best, see how we can do better, but also try to live with it, because there's no perfect solution.

 

[Mael]

I can live with "we absolutely mustn't". I don't think we differ on this.

We agree.

Quite true (in fact, I really dislike the 2001 change). Still:
- those are older than 2001
- all changes that involve constitution require more than majority of parliament, so it's not an immediate 'win' for the president (does he still have the majority in Congress, also?)
- more people involved, more chances to avoid a mistake on something that's really important. The government could still be disavowed on a really important matter. The chances are increadibly slim, but they exists.

If it's before 2001, i can hear the argument about the assemblee confirming with a vote.
As for today, if the parliament was unable to push a censure motion for the 49.3 on the controversial Labor law, it's not going to happen on anything short of selling nukes to ISIS for the Left.
the Right is equally as lame in that regard so you can bet it's similar.
Don't forget until someone decide to dismiss the Assemblee ALL the deputes are elected mere weeks after the Presidential election.
the dynamic is such that there's no way a President does not have a majority.
The senate is impotent compared to the National Assemblee so they won't stop the will of the deputes.

 

[Koren]

As for today, if the parliament was unable to push a censure motion for the 49.3 on the controversial Labor law, it's not going to happen on anything short of selling nukes to ISIS for the Left.

I agree, but I still think a parliament confirmation worth more than just a signature on a treaty. Even on principle, even if the parliament will approve everything the president signed.

Don't forget until someone decide to dismiss the Assemblee ALL the deputes are elected mere weeks after the Presidential election.

I don't forget it, I hate it.

the dynamic is such that there's no way a President does not have a majority.

Actually, he had a majority against him, if I'm not mistaken, the only thing that save him is that right and part of left want to vote against him, but not together ^_^ Should the *left* manage to launch the empeachment, I'm not sure the government is safe (as long as the right launch it, the left won't vote it). And last time, they were two persons short of being able to do it.

The senate is impotent compared to the National Assemblee so they won't stop the will of the deputes.

I actually think the senate manage to do good job to tamper some of the parliament wacky ideas from time to time... They won't totally stop the deputees, they don't have that power, but they can still discuss some matters.

 

[Lime]

What's the alternative? The entire population is held hostage right now.

You have thousands of people dying from car crashes, from alcohol abuse, from poverty and homelessness, from cancer, and on and on, but no society is held hostage by these challenges. A society that succumbs to fear and hatred and loss of values and principles was never a worthy society to maintain anyway.

You have a bigger chance of dying from your couch than a terrorist attack. This fear mongering and panic need to stop and calm down. It is exactly this dialectic frenzy that is driving people towards irrational actions (Brexit, far right neo-nazi parties).

We are fine. Everyone is fine. We can handle terrorism from alienated radical men and try to come up with solutions. No need to start succumbing to racism, loss of liberal principles and justice, and so forth. We are some of the wealthiest countries in the world with strong government institutions and peace, of course we can handle this.

Integration is possible (many have done it) but what some people dont understand is that its a lot harder than it seems. Like you said, you cant easily do as the romans do when theres so much stacked against you.

I would be interested in hearing from Muslims that thrive in French and other European societies. It would be productive to learn what worked for them and what didnt and how those lessons can be applied for others.

It would also be good if those that feel discriminated came forward and explained their grievances as well. Cant do anything about that unless the issues are addressed. They might already be doing that but I dont really follow French or European day to day stuff.

The "Muslims" (read: brown Muslims from the Middle East) have exclaimed their grievances with how they're treated in the media and in the public discourse. There's also been studies on job opportunities based on your name, as well as housing segregation of immigrants into big concrete blocks throughout the 20th century and upwards.

When "Muslims" come out to speak, they are met with vitriol, hate and diet racism. "Why don't you apologize for what terrorists have done?", "your religion is a religion of hate", "you beat up your women", "muslim women should never be allowed to wear what they want", "get out of my country", etc.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

I think it's time to stop reporting these events. These lunatics will continue to feel more empowered the more they are given the spotlight.

 

[Mael]

I agree, but I still think a parliament confirmation worth more than just a signature on a treaty. Even on principle, even if the parliament will approve everything the president signed.

I would prefer it the other way, I don't like president signing stuffs to then never being confirmed by the parliament.
Still confirmation is better than unilateral decision.

I don't forget it, I hate it.

The one thing that made me glad Jospin got nailed soon after.

Actually, he had a majority against him, if I'm not mistaken, the only thing that save him is that right and part of left want to vote against him, but not together ^_^ Should the *left* manage to launch the empeachment, I'm not sure the government is safe (as long as the right launch it, the left won't vote it). And last time, they were two persons short of being able to do it.

Bahahahahaha,
didn't follow it that closely
the Left is toast for next year.
We only need to be sure Sarkozy is not the choice on the Right and we may not be in a too shitty shape after all!

I actually think the senate manage to do good job to tamper some of the parliament wacky ideas from time to time... They won't totally stop the deputees, they don't have that power, but they can still discuss some matters.

I agree, I was just saying that the Assemblee is the one with the power most of the time (and sometimes we were saved by the Senate, man was Sarkozy tenure shite).

You have thousands of people dying from car crashes, from alcohol abuse, from poverty and homelessness, from cancer, and on and on, but no society is held hostage by these challenges. A society that succumbs to fear and hatred and loss of values and principles was never a worthy society to maintain anyway.

You have a bigger chance of dying from your couch than a terrorist attack. This fear mongering and panic need to stop and calm down. It is exactly this dialectic frenzy that is driving people towards irrational actions (Brexit, far right neo-nazi parties).

We are fine. Everyone is fine. We can handle terrorism from alienated radical men and try to come up with solutions. No need to start succumbing to racism, loss of liberal principles and justice, and so forth. We are some of the wealthiest countries in the world with strong government institutions and peace, of course we can handle this.

Seriously US beds are death traps!
the things are 1 meters off the ground at least!

The "Muslims" (read: brown Muslims from the Middle East) have exclaimed their grievances with how they're treated in the media and in the public discourse. There's also been studies on job opportunities based on your name, as well as housing segregation of immigrants into big concrete blocks throughout the 20th century and upwards.

When "Muslims" come out to speak, they are met with vitriol, hate and diet racism. "Why don't you apologize for what terrorists have done?", "your religion is a religion of hate", "you beat up your women", "muslim women should never be allowed to wear what they want", "get out of my country", etc.

There was a French article about a relative of the 1rst victim of Nice, her mother was the 1rst victim and a shithead had the gall to say "good! one less muslim".
Anti-muslim sentiment is not any better than antisemitsm or good ole racism.
It's shite and need to condemned at all turns.
No "but I hate your religion" or shit like that.
People are happy to be proud of their christian heritage that basically put Europe in bondage for a millenia and was more or less responsible for countless death but shit on muslims for things that kill their families.
If we can send antisemits people in jail or fine, we should do the same for shitheads that want to send muslims into ovens.

 

[Kenshin001]

I think it's time to stop reporting these events. These lunatics will continue to feel more empowered the more they are given the spotlight.

Ah, when someone gets their throat slit by a maniac shouting Allah Akubar you can't just hide it from the public. Let alone when 70+ people are mowed down in NIce.

 

[Dicktatorship]

Father Hamel is the latest martyr in a sad history of them that traces back over 2000 years when his Lord and savior's blood first wet the ground. The earth is stained with the blood of martyrs. RIP

 

[Mael]

I feel like I have just been stopped by a preacher trying to tell me of the Bonne Nouvelle or something.