6 ms·

So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. This complaint has never quite sat right with me. This was, fundamentally, a political action

So I guess the time to politicize these attacks has come already. This complaint has never quite sat right with me. This was, fundamentally, a political action -- a foreign "nation" (entity?) attacking another nation's civilians. It seems a pertinent time to have the debate on what should be done in response, as well as what preventative measures should be taken in the future -- even if you are vehemently against certain preventative measures.

koof 11y ago
Here's an article that echoes this sentiment: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/paris-attacks-bataclan-hollande-beirut/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/paris-attacks-bataclan-ho...
jacquesm 11y ago
This statement is about a career government official cynically using the murder of a large number of people for his own ends, just as the murderers cynically used those people for their ends. Yes, it's both political. But it doesn't do any good, what would do good rather than using this to hasten the big brother state to the next level would be to attack these problems at the root. But that would require an entirely different viewpoint, one which I'm not sure America is ready for because it would ask too many questions about deeds in the recent past. If anything a good case could be made for a link between the Iraq invasion and the murders in Paris, my guess is that if the one had not happened the other wouldn't have happened either, but that's just my opinion and not something that I can prove.
- michael_fine 11y ago
  what would do good rather than using this to hasten the big brother state to the next level would be to attack these problems at the root This certainly is a valid point, but here you're complaining that he took the wrong political action, not that he took a political action.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Yes, it is the urgency to advocate a certain agenda without taking the time to analyze the problem of his own failure carefully. If with all the resources at their disposal the needle can still not be moved there is a problem, and that problem will not be solved by doubling down on an apparently already failing strategy. So cool heads and long term planning is what's needed, not hotheads and (predictable) reactions to further run us off the rails. The most dumb thing one can do is repeating the same operation over and over again expecting a different outcome.
    - tertius 11y ago
      Then politicization is not the bad reaction here. "Correct" political debate/action is warranted when things like this happen. He just disagrees with you. (And me probably.)
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        He disagrees with me, but also, he's not actually saying anything new. That's my problem with what he's saying it is just 'more of the same' rather than a new course in reaction to what happened because there appears to be a bug in his system after some reflection. His response is not one that has anything to do with what happened in Paris and why, this was his position last week and it is still his position this week, hence my use of the word 'cynical'. He's even trying to blame Snowden for the Paris attacks. More of the same will definitely not get us out of this mess, it will likely only make it worse. Let's see him argue for more up close and personal contact with would-be terrorists, infiltration, covert operations and so on. But more dragnet surveillance seems to be a broken strategy, given the evidence available.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > This statement is about a career government official cynically using the murder of a large number of people for his own ends Which sort of takes for granted the idea that the government official's position -- which no one doubts precedes the attacks -- is not honestly held for the reasons presented, and that the official does not honestly believe that the attacks represent the kind of problem that adopting the policies he advocates would help prevent. It doesn't seem to me that this style of argument serves much except to win kudos from people who already agree with the ideas behind it and oppose the policies being advocated.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    It could very well be that he in fact holds these reasons for honest reasons and truly believes them. But at the same time the opposition (IS) also believe all kinds of stuff for reasons held dear to them and the populace are caught - literally - in the crossfire. I'd rather see some more introspection and a bit less clamoring for more budget and fewer restrictions from the intelligence community after this attack. And it is not as if this is the first spectacular failure of the intelligence services when it comes to actually preventing this sort of thing either (Which does not surprise me because I strongly believe that it is fundamentally impossible to protect an open society against these kinds of attacks without a substantial change of that society, after which we could probably no longer call it 'open').
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    > It doesn't seem to me that this style of argument serves much except to win kudos from people who already agree with the ideas behind it and oppose the policies being advocated. Given France already possessed the desired legal capability and was warned by a friendly government about one of the suspects in 2014 and again in 2015... I'm not sure how asking for the same measures that failed is a strategy of someone with genuine concerns. Why do you think that?
    - astronautjones 11y ago
      Very well put.
- hotgoldminer 11y ago
  Seems evident at least that strategy is failing. Why not accept that they exist and open a dialogue? Best case, they're ambitious sociopaths using violence as an aesthetic. Worst case they're zealots. At any rate, they've clearly bought equity in the geopolitical conversation. If they cannot be bought out, we will need to weigh our need for safety against our values. Because eradicating them will mean murdering many, many, many non-combatants.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  First off, let me state my belief. The unrest in the middle east is not a direct reaction to the invasion if Iraq. It is but the final end product of European colonialism coming to a rock end. You cannot setup dictatorships then later decide they are bad and end them leaving a void. Even the current President is contributing to this power void by his actions in Libya and now Syria. Yeah invading Iraq had many bad results but we also do not fix things but turning tail and ignoring it. ISIS and many in that area of world do not like Western nations because they see as us both immoral and a threat to their beliefs. We then feel guilt and don't take action because of "fears" it will further the problem while totally ignoring the fact that sitting back and watching is merely allowing them to establish their foothold and carry out wholesale slaughter which in turn makes the victims of ISIS hate us for not helping. As per a government official being cynical, look at it from the stand point of his job. He thinks he knows what he needs to do but finds most avenues blocked because the government tends to take an authority given to it and abuse it to no end. As an American I know there is a price to freedom and I want my encryption and such because I don't trust all elements of my government. I want that illusion of freedom preserved. When terror once again comes to our shores how many won't?
  - astronautjones 11y ago
    Why is there a difference between "terror coming to our shores" and the rampant gun violence we already have? Because it's framed that way by politicians and those espousing their agendas (sorry, i know this is a dog whistle for alex jones morons, but I can't think of a better word) Treating IS as a virulent unstoppable philosophy is giving it far too much credit, and throwing our rights out the window in their name is and will be one of our nation's great shames. It's absolutely fair to treat people who would do either of those things with the contempt and judgment they deserve
    - iofj 11y ago
      Not really, actually. This violence was perpetrated by a nation, by something attempting to be a state. That means this is not individuals deciding to do something, this is a network organising these attacks. Yes currently that network is pathetic, but there is an army behind it attempting to learn how to do this better. In history, one can find examples where an enemy shut down an economy by killing civilians, and that doing so is not very hard. Essentially a western economy cannot operate with a weekly terror attack, it would simply freeze (well, in practice that situation lead to a civil war, because a LOT of people get screwed because of the distrust these attacks generate, and to a lesser extent by the security measures). So nation states are extremely wary of these sorts of things. In a way states respond strongly because people respond strongly. Because too few people are willing to carry out their jobs as normal when they get openly confronted with a 1/1 million chance they'll be gunned down. In Western Europe, this is a lost fight. The problem, at one point, decades ago, was that islamic ideology does indeed push these sorts of attacks. Raids is what they called it 1500 years ago, but they're not all that different. Send out a small force whose sole intention is to kill everyone they find, who have at best a small chance of returning alive. So you can make a very hard to refute argument that this is indeed "islamic", and muslims are very sensitive to criticism that they're not religious enough. Criticism of muslim attacks was silenced in the muslim community itself. Then they replaced pretty much all teachers in a lot of schools. That's how it started. That's how violence preachers got into schools and mosques, into city hall and ... And yes, it is really organized from islamic religious infrastructure. Even that is not new. Did you know that a "prayer house" is "masjid" in arabic ? What does "mosque" mean ? It translates roughly to "fort". Mosques are not for prayer (though, like forts, they often have prayer spaces). Right now these people in the "banlieues" in Paris, Bordeaux, Brussels, Rotterdam, ... are embedded into those locations and can only be dislodged by a war. They're also looking to start a war, to dislodge everyone else. They are pushing their own people into poverty, by constantly pushing notions of muslim superiority into the kids, then throwing them into the street. Society, not even their own limited society, doesn't agree with muslim superiority : they have no skills, they're aggressive because of this superiority shit (the hate preachers weekly "scandal" doesn't help either), and they have no respect for the law or local customs. So very few people hire them, and never into positions that would require them to be trusted. So in the real world, they are an underclass (exceptions exist of course). That muslims who are taught constantly about their superiority are an underclass is according to them, of course not the result of not having any skills, and generally being aggressive morons that everybody moves away from. You see this is a vast conspiracy. Not one of the traditional western conspiracies, not a right wing conspiracy (although they're involved), not a left wing conspiracy (although they're involved), it's not the Jews (although they're REALLY involved), it's not whites (although ...), it's not the illuminati (although they're involved). You see, it's a conspiracy of EVERYONE against their own little group directly. The problem is that these are groups of a few hundred 15-35 year old muslims, and all they do is complain about it, maybe have a few kids, and generally hang out jobless in the street. They are useless, they have no prospects, they can't be trained and there's about to be millions more of them in half a decade or so. A civil war in Western Europe is coming, it is a done deal. It is like a comet hitting the top of the atmosphere : not much damage yet, maybe it's even pretty. But the explosion is coming soon no matter what anybody does, and it'll be like nothing you've ever seen before. It is a matter of time, and nobody knows how much.
- oh_sigh 11y ago
  But this persons believes that if we do what he thinks is right, he can prevent attacks like this from happening in America. So it seems like the perfect time to talk about it. It's not like he's trying to push some completely different policy about say wall street regulations with terrorist attacks as the context. Also, I'm sure if it was brought up randomly, with no linkage to a current terrorist attack, you and others would be saying "There haven't been any terrorist attacks on (countrys) soil in X years, so whatever system we have now is working just fine"
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    That's the whole problem, he's pushing the same policy that he was pushing last week, the week before that one and two years ago. More surveillance. Because that will work, this time. Only it very much appears that it does not work and more people will likely die if we go down that road and lots of people will have their rights further trampled. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on cancer... If anything is declared a 'war' then you have to be very careful that your emotional state isn't used to make you decide things that are not in your own or even societies best interest. This is one of those occasions.
    - oh_sigh 11y ago
      But he hasn't been able to implement his "more surveillance" policies, because he's been consistently blocked. Also, how will more people die under a state with more surveillance?
fweespeech 11y ago
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/05/france-passes-new-surveillance-law-in-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-attack http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/05/france-passes-n... > The new bill, which allows intelligence agencies to tap phones and emails without seeking permission from a judge, sparked protests from rights groups who claimed it would legalise highly intrusive surveillance methods without guarantees for individual freedom and privacy. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/france-new-surveillance-law-a-major-blow-to-human-rights/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/france-new-su... > The surveillance measures authorized by this law are wildly out of proportion. Large swathes of France’s population could soon find themselves under surveillance on obscure grounds and without prior judicial approval. http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/turkey-warned-french-twice-about-attacker-official-says/ http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/turke... > The Turkish authorities warned their French counterparts twice in the past year about one of the attackers, Ismaël Omar Mostefaï, a 29-year-old French citizen who was known by the authorities as someone who had radical Islamist beliefs, an official said on Monday. > The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, in line with government protocol, said the government never heard back from France and only received an “information request” about Mr. Mostefaï after the Paris attacks. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/16/paris-attacks-france-airstrikes-isis-raqqa-syria-live#block-5649aeb0e4b0ced428cb2be8 http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/16/paris-atta... > During an investigation, the Turkish authorities identified Mostefai and notified their French counterparts twice – in December 2014 and June 2015 – the official said. > “We have, however, not heard back from France on the matter,” the official said. “It was only after the Paris attacks that the Turkish authorities received an information request about Omar Ismail Mostefai from France.” I'm just going to leave this here since I suspect most people aren't aware that France passed legislation enabling what is effectively total population surveillance as well as was warned about one of the attackers, repeatedly, while they had this capability. Similarly, while I understand it doesn't "sit right with you" there is really no debate to be had. The facts are pretty clear the problem is operational, not the scope of the powers available. France had the surveillance authority, was warned twice about at least one of the terrorists, yet failed to act. This isn't a problem solved by providing them with more power but rather with operational and management changes. If they can't do it with total authority to spy on anyone they can as well as with warning from a friendly government...yeah. Similarly, such changes are not political acts but simply the acts of responsible managers that do not require publicity.
will_brown 11y ago
>a foreign "nation" (entity?) attacking another nation's IS would be properly categorized as a non-state actor. >It seems a pertinent time to have the debate on what should be done in response, as well as what preventative measures should be taken in the future This is basically one of the main functions of the UN. While people are free to discuss these things all they like, it would probably be worthwhile to come to the table having an understanding of international law and the use of armed force (i.e. the laws of war). Though the UN has only existed a brief time, there is plenty of precedent regarding: when a state may respond to the use of force (from state or non-state actors); what type of response is permitted (i.e. proportional); and what if any preventative measures are permitted. Though there are dozens upon dozens of great case study style textbooks, start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_by_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_by_states
- wnoise 11y ago
  > IS would be properly categorized as a non-state actor. Given the exclusive control of territory, even with contested edges, it looks like a state to me... Obviously other states don't recognize it as one, which is generally considered the litmus test, but has always seemed to circular to me.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    IS controls the territory, but they don't actually control the citizens on that territory. This attack had as far as I can see it two immediate goals: to make it harder for people to flee from IS by provoking western countries to close their borders to refugees (which goal they appear to have achieved) and to serve as a recruiting poster for the future wave of terrorists by striking an opponent right in the heart of their country to serve as a show of capability.
    - michael_fine 11y ago
      IS controls the territory, but they don't actually control the citizens on that territory. However, the same could be said of the current, US recognized Iraqi government. In common parlance it essentially comes down to whether the Western powers that be recognize you as a state, and as Hollande has claimed France is at war with IS, there is certainly a case to be made.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>It seems a pertinent time to have the debate on what should be done in response, Some would say that it is especially poor practice to take drastic legislative action when emotions are high as they tend to be in the wake of a terrible event such as the one that took place in Paris Friday. >even if you are vehemently against certain preventative measures. Since not everyone agrees, some might say it's a good time to re-assess our positions on counter-terrorism. I haven't changed my mind on Orwellian surveillance. A single terror attack isn't likely to change my mind. I still feel okay calling Brennan's action shameless opportunism because this is a position that Brennan has held for a long time. Brennan is not adding anything new to the discussion, he's simply repeating old worn out rhetoric in hopes that people will accept it while they're in an agitated state. It remains unproven in my eyes that more surveillance means fewer terror attacks. It is also dubious to assume that more surveillance, even if it did imply fewer terror attacks, would be a preferable condition.
astronautjones 11y ago
If you think what the DCI is saying in response to this is anything other than disingenuous and opportunistic, I'm at a total loss

koof 11y ago

Here's an article that echoes this sentiment: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/paris-attacks-bataclan-hollande-beirut/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/paris-attacks-bataclan-ho...

jacquesm 11y ago

This statement is about a career government official cynically using the murder of a large number of people for his own ends, just as the murderers cynically used those people for their ends. Yes, it's both political. But it doesn't do any good, what would do good rather than using this to hasten the big brother state to the next level would be to attack these problems at the root. But that would require an entirely different viewpoint, one which I'm not sure America is ready for because it would ask too many questions about deeds in the recent past. If anything a good case could be made for a link between the Iraq invasion and the murders in Paris, my guess is that if the one had not happened the other wouldn't have happened either, but that's just my opinion and not something that I can prove.

michael_fine 11y ago
what would do good rather than using this to hasten the big brother state to the next level would be to attack these problems at the root This certainly is a valid point, but here you're complaining that he took the wrong political action, not that he took a political action.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Yes, it is the urgency to advocate a certain agenda without taking the time to analyze the problem of his own failure carefully. If with all the resources at their disposal the needle can still not be moved there is a problem, and that problem will not be solved by doubling down on an apparently already failing strategy. So cool heads and long term planning is what's needed, not hotheads and (predictable) reactions to further run us off the rails. The most dumb thing one can do is repeating the same operation over and over again expecting a different outcome.
  - tertius 11y ago
    Then politicization is not the bad reaction here. "Correct" political debate/action is warranted when things like this happen. He just disagrees with you. (And me probably.)
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      He disagrees with me, but also, he's not actually saying anything new. That's my problem with what he's saying it is just 'more of the same' rather than a new course in reaction to what happened because there appears to be a bug in his system after some reflection. His response is not one that has anything to do with what happened in Paris and why, this was his position last week and it is still his position this week, hence my use of the word 'cynical'. He's even trying to blame Snowden for the Paris attacks. More of the same will definitely not get us out of this mess, it will likely only make it worse. Let's see him argue for more up close and personal contact with would-be terrorists, infiltration, covert operations and so on. But more dragnet surveillance seems to be a broken strategy, given the evidence available.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 11y ago
> This statement is about a career government official cynically using the murder of a large number of people for his own ends Which sort of takes for granted the idea that the government official's position -- which no one doubts precedes the attacks -- is not honestly held for the reasons presented, and that the official does not honestly believe that the attacks represent the kind of problem that adopting the policies he advocates would help prevent. It doesn't seem to me that this style of argument serves much except to win kudos from people who already agree with the ideas behind it and oppose the policies being advocated.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  It could very well be that he in fact holds these reasons for honest reasons and truly believes them. But at the same time the opposition (IS) also believe all kinds of stuff for reasons held dear to them and the populace are caught - literally - in the crossfire. I'd rather see some more introspection and a bit less clamoring for more budget and fewer restrictions from the intelligence community after this attack. And it is not as if this is the first spectacular failure of the intelligence services when it comes to actually preventing this sort of thing either (Which does not surprise me because I strongly believe that it is fundamentally impossible to protect an open society against these kinds of attacks without a substantial change of that society, after which we could probably no longer call it 'open').
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > It doesn't seem to me that this style of argument serves much except to win kudos from people who already agree with the ideas behind it and oppose the policies being advocated. Given France already possessed the desired legal capability and was warned by a friendly government about one of the suspects in 2014 and again in 2015... I'm not sure how asking for the same measures that failed is a strategy of someone with genuine concerns. Why do you think that?
  - astronautjones 11y ago
    Very well put.
hotgoldminer 11y ago
Seems evident at least that strategy is failing. Why not accept that they exist and open a dialogue? Best case, they're ambitious sociopaths using violence as an aesthetic. Worst case they're zealots. At any rate, they've clearly bought equity in the geopolitical conversation. If they cannot be bought out, we will need to weigh our need for safety against our values. Because eradicating them will mean murdering many, many, many non-combatants.
Shivetya 11y ago
First off, let me state my belief. The unrest in the middle east is not a direct reaction to the invasion if Iraq. It is but the final end product of European colonialism coming to a rock end. You cannot setup dictatorships then later decide they are bad and end them leaving a void. Even the current President is contributing to this power void by his actions in Libya and now Syria. Yeah invading Iraq had many bad results but we also do not fix things but turning tail and ignoring it. ISIS and many in that area of world do not like Western nations because they see as us both immoral and a threat to their beliefs. We then feel guilt and don't take action because of "fears" it will further the problem while totally ignoring the fact that sitting back and watching is merely allowing them to establish their foothold and carry out wholesale slaughter which in turn makes the victims of ISIS hate us for not helping. As per a government official being cynical, look at it from the stand point of his job. He thinks he knows what he needs to do but finds most avenues blocked because the government tends to take an authority given to it and abuse it to no end. As an American I know there is a price to freedom and I want my encryption and such because I don't trust all elements of my government. I want that illusion of freedom preserved. When terror once again comes to our shores how many won't?
- astronautjones 11y ago
  Why is there a difference between "terror coming to our shores" and the rampant gun violence we already have? Because it's framed that way by politicians and those espousing their agendas (sorry, i know this is a dog whistle for alex jones morons, but I can't think of a better word) Treating IS as a virulent unstoppable philosophy is giving it far too much credit, and throwing our rights out the window in their name is and will be one of our nation's great shames. It's absolutely fair to treat people who would do either of those things with the contempt and judgment they deserve
  - iofj 11y ago
    Not really, actually. This violence was perpetrated by a nation, by something attempting to be a state. That means this is not individuals deciding to do something, this is a network organising these attacks. Yes currently that network is pathetic, but there is an army behind it attempting to learn how to do this better. In history, one can find examples where an enemy shut down an economy by killing civilians, and that doing so is not very hard. Essentially a western economy cannot operate with a weekly terror attack, it would simply freeze (well, in practice that situation lead to a civil war, because a LOT of people get screwed because of the distrust these attacks generate, and to a lesser extent by the security measures). So nation states are extremely wary of these sorts of things. In a way states respond strongly because people respond strongly. Because too few people are willing to carry out their jobs as normal when they get openly confronted with a 1/1 million chance they'll be gunned down. In Western Europe, this is a lost fight. The problem, at one point, decades ago, was that islamic ideology does indeed push these sorts of attacks. Raids is what they called it 1500 years ago, but they're not all that different. Send out a small force whose sole intention is to kill everyone they find, who have at best a small chance of returning alive. So you can make a very hard to refute argument that this is indeed "islamic", and muslims are very sensitive to criticism that they're not religious enough. Criticism of muslim attacks was silenced in the muslim community itself. Then they replaced pretty much all teachers in a lot of schools. That's how it started. That's how violence preachers got into schools and mosques, into city hall and ... And yes, it is really organized from islamic religious infrastructure. Even that is not new. Did you know that a "prayer house" is "masjid" in arabic ? What does "mosque" mean ? It translates roughly to "fort". Mosques are not for prayer (though, like forts, they often have prayer spaces). Right now these people in the "banlieues" in Paris, Bordeaux, Brussels, Rotterdam, ... are embedded into those locations and can only be dislodged by a war. They're also looking to start a war, to dislodge everyone else. They are pushing their own people into poverty, by constantly pushing notions of muslim superiority into the kids, then throwing them into the street. Society, not even their own limited society, doesn't agree with muslim superiority : they have no skills, they're aggressive because of this superiority shit (the hate preachers weekly "scandal" doesn't help either), and they have no respect for the law or local customs. So very few people hire them, and never into positions that would require them to be trusted. So in the real world, they are an underclass (exceptions exist of course). That muslims who are taught constantly about their superiority are an underclass is according to them, of course not the result of not having any skills, and generally being aggressive morons that everybody moves away from. You see this is a vast conspiracy. Not one of the traditional western conspiracies, not a right wing conspiracy (although they're involved), not a left wing conspiracy (although they're involved), it's not the Jews (although they're REALLY involved), it's not whites (although ...), it's not the illuminati (although they're involved). You see, it's a conspiracy of EVERYONE against their own little group directly. The problem is that these are groups of a few hundred 15-35 year old muslims, and all they do is complain about it, maybe have a few kids, and generally hang out jobless in the street. They are useless, they have no prospects, they can't be trained and there's about to be millions more of them in half a decade or so. A civil war in Western Europe is coming, it is a done deal. It is like a comet hitting the top of the atmosphere : not much damage yet, maybe it's even pretty. But the explosion is coming soon no matter what anybody does, and it'll be like nothing you've ever seen before. It is a matter of time, and nobody knows how much.
oh_sigh 11y ago
But this persons believes that if we do what he thinks is right, he can prevent attacks like this from happening in America. So it seems like the perfect time to talk about it. It's not like he's trying to push some completely different policy about say wall street regulations with terrorist attacks as the context. Also, I'm sure if it was brought up randomly, with no linkage to a current terrorist attack, you and others would be saying "There haven't been any terrorist attacks on (countrys) soil in X years, so whatever system we have now is working just fine"
- jacquesm 11y ago
  That's the whole problem, he's pushing the same policy that he was pushing last week, the week before that one and two years ago. More surveillance. Because that will work, this time. Only it very much appears that it does not work and more people will likely die if we go down that road and lots of people will have their rights further trampled. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on cancer... If anything is declared a 'war' then you have to be very careful that your emotional state isn't used to make you decide things that are not in your own or even societies best interest. This is one of those occasions.
  - oh_sigh 11y ago
    But he hasn't been able to implement his "more surveillance" policies, because he's been consistently blocked. Also, how will more people die under a state with more surveillance?

fweespeech 11y ago

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/05/france-passes-new-surveillance-law-in-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-attack http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/05/france-passes-n... > The new bill, which allows intelligence agencies to tap phones and emails without seeking permission from a judge, sparked protests from rights groups who claimed it would legalise highly intrusive surveillance methods without guarantees for individual freedom and privacy. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/france-new-surveillance-law-a-major-blow-to-human-rights/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/france-new-su... > The surveillance measures authorized by this law are wildly out of proportion. Large swathes of France’s population could soon find themselves under surveillance on obscure grounds and without prior judicial approval. http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/turkey-warned-french-twice-about-attacker-official-says/ http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/turke... > The Turkish authorities warned their French counterparts twice in the past year about one of the attackers, Ismaël Omar Mostefaï, a 29-year-old French citizen who was known by the authorities as someone who had radical Islamist beliefs, an official said on Monday. > The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, in line with government protocol, said the government never heard back from France and only received an “information request” about Mr. Mostefaï after the Paris attacks. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/16/paris-attacks-france-airstrikes-isis-raqqa-syria-live#block-5649aeb0e4b0ced428cb2be8 http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/16/paris-atta... > During an investigation, the Turkish authorities identified Mostefai and notified their French counterparts twice – in December 2014 and June 2015 – the official said. > “We have, however, not heard back from France on the matter,” the official said. “It was only after the Paris attacks that the Turkish authorities received an information request about Omar Ismail Mostefai from France.” I'm just going to leave this here since I suspect most people aren't aware that France passed legislation enabling what is effectively total population surveillance as well as was warned about one of the attackers, repeatedly, while they had this capability. Similarly, while I understand it doesn't "sit right with you" there is really no debate to be had. The facts are pretty clear the problem is operational, not the scope of the powers available. France had the surveillance authority, was warned twice about at least one of the terrorists, yet failed to act. This isn't a problem solved by providing them with more power but rather with operational and management changes. If they can't do it with total authority to spy on anyone they can as well as with warning from a friendly government...yeah. Similarly, such changes are not political acts but simply the acts of responsible managers that do not require publicity.

will_brown 11y ago

>a foreign "nation" (entity?) attacking another nation's IS would be properly categorized as a non-state actor. >It seems a pertinent time to have the debate on what should be done in response, as well as what preventative measures should be taken in the future This is basically one of the main functions of the UN. While people are free to discuss these things all they like, it would probably be worthwhile to come to the table having an understanding of international law and the use of armed force (i.e. the laws of war). Though the UN has only existed a brief time, there is plenty of precedent regarding: when a state may respond to the use of force (from state or non-state actors); what type of response is permitted (i.e. proportional); and what if any preventative measures are permitted. Though there are dozens upon dozens of great case study style textbooks, start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_by_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_by_states

wnoise 11y ago
> IS would be properly categorized as a non-state actor. Given the exclusive control of territory, even with contested edges, it looks like a state to me... Obviously other states don't recognize it as one, which is generally considered the litmus test, but has always seemed to circular to me.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  IS controls the territory, but they don't actually control the citizens on that territory. This attack had as far as I can see it two immediate goals: to make it harder for people to flee from IS by provoking western countries to close their borders to refugees (which goal they appear to have achieved) and to serve as a recruiting poster for the future wave of terrorists by striking an opponent right in the heart of their country to serve as a show of capability.
  - michael_fine 11y ago
    IS controls the territory, but they don't actually control the citizens on that territory. However, the same could be said of the current, US recognized Iraqi government. In common parlance it essentially comes down to whether the Western powers that be recognize you as a state, and as Hollande has claimed France is at war with IS, there is certainly a case to be made.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

>It seems a pertinent time to have the debate on what should be done in response, Some would say that it is especially poor practice to take drastic legislative action when emotions are high as they tend to be in the wake of a terrible event such as the one that took place in Paris Friday. >even if you are vehemently against certain preventative measures. Since not everyone agrees, some might say it's a good time to re-assess our positions on counter-terrorism. I haven't changed my mind on Orwellian surveillance. A single terror attack isn't likely to change my mind. I still feel okay calling Brennan's action shameless opportunism because this is a position that Brennan has held for a long time. Brennan is not adding anything new to the discussion, he's simply repeating old worn out rhetoric in hopes that people will accept it while they're in an agitated state. It remains unproven in my eyes that more surveillance means fewer terror attacks. It is also dubious to assume that more surveillance, even if it did imply fewer terror attacks, would be a preferable condition.

astronautjones 11y ago

If you think what the DCI is saying in response to this is anything other than disingenuous and opportunistic, I'm at a total loss