5 ms·

this article miss a whole part of the story. among other things, these person came back from a warzone. looks at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_du_8_déce

this article miss a whole part of the story. among other things, these person came back from a warzone. looks at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_du_8_décembre_2020 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_du_8_décembre_2020

midoridensha 3y ago
Very interesting; it looks like these people went to Syria to fight ISIS, and got this ill treatment when they returned. Why does it seem like the French government is always supporting the worst actors in any conflict? ISIS is (was) so evil and barbaric, they make Putin seem like a great guy. Why would volunteering to fight them ever be seen in a bad light?
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  The monopoly on violence is the central component of the power of the state. This case undermines that power as much as violence used in self defence does, and is being prosecuted as passionately as self defence killings often are.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    The monopoly is on the legitimate claim to force, and is based on Max Weber. David Runciman has an excellent explanation of this in the "Talking Politics" podcast which I recommend unreservedly: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> (Specific segment occurs ~15 minutes in.)
    - AmericanChopper 3y ago
      That podcast does have an interesting explanation of the idea, and Max Weber did provide interesting insights into it. But the governments exerting monopolistic control over violence (to differing levels at different times and places) goes back basically as far as organised society does. The legitimate claim to violence in self defence is just as ubiquitous and has always been at least philosophically at odds with the claim of the state. With that contention arise from the fact that a claim to violence in self defence must either arise from a failure of the state to perform its duties in upholding law and order, or a failure of the individual to follow the law. With the potential for controversy arising from the fact that it’s largely the state who gets to decide whether it was at fault, or if the individual in question was.
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        Again, you are excluding the critical phrase legitimate claim, which is at the heart of Weber's definition. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. Absent this, one of three conditions exist: 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State. You might want to consider what a "state" which lacks a monopoly on the legitimate claim to the monopoly on force would look like. To what other entity would it cede that legitimate claim, and/or how would it prevent other entities from enacting capricious violence, as has occurred from time to time in the world, and even now. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> The "monopoly on violence" or "monopoly on force" short-hands are a much more recent emergence, and seem to originate with Murray Rothbard (1960s) and Robert Nozick (1970s), though widespread usage of that phrase really only begins to take off after 1980, per Google's Ngram Viewer: <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=monopoly+on+violence%2C+monopoly+on+force&year_start=1819&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=monopoly+on+vi...> That shorthand has become quite popular, and is often cited by Libertarians as key to their adopting that particular ideology.[1] As expressed by them the formulation is both incorrect and misleading. ________________________________ Notes: 1. E.g., Penn Jillette, <https://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-how-became-libertarian-453565 https://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-how-became-libertaria...> and Charles Koch <https://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-how-became-libertarian-453565 https://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-how-became-libertaria...>.
        AmericanChopper 3y ago
        I think you’re really putting the kart before the horse here. It’s certainly not true that no legitimate governments existed prior to the 20th century, regardless of what particular phrases may be been invented to describe them during that time. Just like gravity existed long before Newton managed to come up with a sensible description of it. You also almost get to describing the actual reality of the situation, but not quite, which is that a monopoly on violence and a state are the same thing. All states emerged when some group attempted to assert a monopoly over violence, and whether they fail or succeed in becoming a state comes down to their ability to monopolise violence. The status of legitimacy here is entirely subjective, and if it’s called into question, the only way it’s ever falsified is if some other group successfully challenges that monopoly.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    Well this isn't the first time in recent history the French government was a supporter of genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_the_Rwandan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_the_Rwandan_genocid...
    - realusername 3y ago
      France did not support the genocide, they just didn't do much at all apart from accepting refugies, also confirmed by more recent declassified papers.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    > and is being prosecuted as passionately as self defence killings often are. Citation needed of self-defence killings im France being prosecuted passionately and unfairly.
    - ohgodplsno 3y ago
      https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/interview/vanessa-codaccioni-plus-de-90-des-affaires-de-legitime-defense-finissent-au-tribunal https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/interview/vanessa-codaccioni... 90% of self defense cases end in the tribunal, meaning that the judges saw it as not-self-defense. The biggest factor in all this is proportionality: if you killed someone in self defense but were not yourself having your life threatened, you will go to court.
      - zirgs 3y ago
        Any physical assault is potentially life threatening. One unlucky fall on the pavement and that's it - you can easily die or become permanently disabled. Yet another reason why it's better to deescalate and/or run away if possible.
        ohgodplsno 3y ago
        Yep, and this is the logic that is followed by judges: self defense is pretty much only valid if you had no other option. Run away. Always run away.
        AmericanChopper 3y ago
        > self defense is pretty much only valid if you had no other option. Running away is a good idea for many reasons, but very few US states or foreign jurisdictions have a duty to retreat as you’re describing here.
        ohgodplsno 3y ago
        Good thing this was in the context of France, then.
- sofixa 3y ago
  Or course the French government doesn't support ISIS, they also monitored everyone who fought for them. The problem is that these people are (supposedly) radicalised, and with active military experience (and probable related PTSD), not who they fought against.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - franciscop 3y ago
      In "pacific" Europe (specially in those countries where conscription is not mandatory) voluntarily taking weapons and going to a different country to kill people, no matter the reason, IS definitely considered radicalized, in the sense that it's very, very rare and "anti-social" behavior.
      - zirgs 3y ago
        In my country it's legal to go to Ukraine and fight on the Ukrainian side. But fighting on the Russian side is illegal and is punishable by long prison terms even if you didn't commit any war crimes there. That applies to all residents of the country - including Russian citizens.
        lucubratory 3y ago
        That's insane, what country is that?
        nottorp 3y ago
        Bet it's a country that was in or close to the USSR and would really like to not go back in there...
        zirgs 3y ago
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  >Why would volunteering to fight them ever be seen in a bad light? In part, because the YPG is seen by the french state as a terrorist group, for various political reasons, and also because having leftists trained in handling weapons is seemingly more terrifying to the government than having neonazis trained in handling weapons. Make of that what you will.
  - getrealal 3y ago
    The French government disbanded various far-right groups that were not "neonazis trained in handling weapons" (last in date was the Identitaires).
    - ElMocambo_x4 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - SettembreNero 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - ohgodplsno 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - diordiderot 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - diordiderot 3y ago
    > the YPG is seen by the french state as a terrorist group To appease the Turks I assume?
- csomar 3y ago
  Someone taking weapons somewhere (regardless of the cause) is always a dangerous person. Regular soldiers included and the government treat them as such. It's an unfortunate position (of course) if that person is fighting on "your" side.
  - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    Yes, but the problem here is not that, it's the arguments used to build the case. They have not been any evidence of criminal activities by those people. So far, all what they have against them is "they are protective about their privacy". That's a terrible reason to arrest and maintain people in jail.
    - martin8412 3y ago
      The act of going to Syria to fight on either side is a crime in itself.
      - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
        Not according to the French law. A crime is not something you evaluate morally. It has a very narrow definition that is codified by each society it is been judged in.
        martin8412 3y ago
        It's grounds for having your citizenship revoked unless it will render you stateless. People suspected of being on the way to Syria would get their passports confiscated. Nine EU countries made similar rules, though I don't know how many still have it in effect. Any citizen/resident of Denmark is still prohibited from going to the conflict zones of Syria and Iraq.
      - Draiken 3y ago
        Then why weren't they arrested for that instead? I am not familiar with French law. Is that literally a crime or are you saying it as an expression?
- justinclift 3y ago
  Because government's really don't like their citizenry knowing how to apply violence, unless it's done through government controlled activities (ie military, police). A cynical person would say it's because corrupt leaders are afraid of potential consequences for their actions. But there's likely other, more mundane reasons too. :)
- alkonaut 3y ago
  There are basically two sides to this conflict: ISIS on one hand, and the Syrian/Kurdish PYD/YPG side on the other. The latter has ties to the PKK, which is an internationally recognized terror org just like ISIS. Now, depending on who you ask, the PYD/YPG is "good, because they fight ISIS" (e.g. the official stance of the US) or "Terrorists, because they are basically just extensions of the PKK" (what Turkey says). This leads to a lot of inconsistency in foreign policy within NATO. For example Sweden is pressured to crack down on PYD/YPG to be admitted into NATO. The US, like many others, have supported the YPG/PYD in the fight against ISIS. So I imagine Turkey is also pressuring other NATO countries like France in this case, to go after PKK collaborators including the adjacent syrian orgs. So basically: why are the people volunteering to fight ISIS seen as terrorists within NATO? I'd guess these days to a large extent because Turkey says so.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    I see Turkey as little better than Russia. They really don't belong in the EU or NATO.
- lm28469 3y ago
  Do you really think France supports ISIS ? Did you live in a cave in 2015 ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_Île-de-France_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_Île-de-France_att... Fighting for a foreign nation or mercenaries is illegal, no matter if you're fighting the "bad guys"
  - gbear605 3y ago
    Hmm, let me check in again with France… Oh, what, they have a thing called the Foreign Legion, where they want foreigners to fight for them? It seems like actually France wants people to fight for nations that aren’t their own.
    - lm28469 3y ago
      I'm French, I know the foreign legion, we accept foreigners in our army, it doesn't mean we accept our own citizen to fight for foreign parties, especially non state armies, they're not mutually exclusive, there is no logical connection between your two statements
      - gbear605 3y ago
        From a moral viewpoint, letting someone of your country join another country’s foreign legion is identical to letting someone of another country join your foreign legion. If you say that joining a different group to fight ISIS is not okay while joining France to fight France’s enemies is okay, then you’re saying that ISIS is a better group in the world than France’s enemies.
        lm28469 3y ago
        > If you say that joining a different group to fight ISIS Like joining the Taliban ?
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  Viewing with suspicion someone who volunteers to fight in a foreign war does not imply support for any party in that war. We can criticize the French government but it’s an extreme exaggeration to suggest that they support ISIS.

midoridensha 3y ago

Very interesting; it looks like these people went to Syria to fight ISIS, and got this ill treatment when they returned. Why does it seem like the French government is always supporting the worst actors in any conflict? ISIS is (was) so evil and barbaric, they make Putin seem like a great guy. Why would volunteering to fight them ever be seen in a bad light?

AmericanChopper 3y ago
The monopoly on violence is the central component of the power of the state. This case undermines that power as much as violence used in self defence does, and is being prosecuted as passionately as self defence killings often are.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  The monopoly is on the legitimate claim to force, and is based on Max Weber. David Runciman has an excellent explanation of this in the "Talking Politics" podcast which I recommend unreservedly: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> (Specific segment occurs ~15 minutes in.)
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    That podcast does have an interesting explanation of the idea, and Max Weber did provide interesting insights into it. But the governments exerting monopolistic control over violence (to differing levels at different times and places) goes back basically as far as organised society does. The legitimate claim to violence in self defence is just as ubiquitous and has always been at least philosophically at odds with the claim of the state. With that contention arise from the fact that a claim to violence in self defence must either arise from a failure of the state to perform its duties in upholding law and order, or a failure of the individual to follow the law. With the potential for controversy arising from the fact that it’s largely the state who gets to decide whether it was at fault, or if the individual in question was.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Again, you are excluding the critical phrase legitimate claim, which is at the heart of Weber's definition. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. Absent this, one of three conditions exist: 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State. You might want to consider what a "state" which lacks a monopoly on the legitimate claim to the monopoly on force would look like. To what other entity would it cede that legitimate claim, and/or how would it prevent other entities from enacting capricious violence, as has occurred from time to time in the world, and even now. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> The "monopoly on violence" or "monopoly on force" short-hands are a much more recent emergence, and seem to originate with Murray Rothbard (1960s) and Robert Nozick (1970s), though widespread usage of that phrase really only begins to take off after 1980, per Google's Ngram Viewer: <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=monopoly+on+violence%2C+monopoly+on+force&year_start=1819&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=monopoly+on+vi...> That shorthand has become quite popular, and is often cited by Libertarians as key to their adopting that particular ideology.[1] As expressed by them the formulation is both incorrect and misleading. ________________________________ Notes: 1. E.g., Penn Jillette, <https://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-how-became-libertarian-453565 https://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-how-became-libertaria...> and Charles Koch <https://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-how-became-libertarian-453565 https://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-how-became-libertaria...>.
      - AmericanChopper 3y ago
        I think you’re really putting the kart before the horse here. It’s certainly not true that no legitimate governments existed prior to the 20th century, regardless of what particular phrases may be been invented to describe them during that time. Just like gravity existed long before Newton managed to come up with a sensible description of it. You also almost get to describing the actual reality of the situation, but not quite, which is that a monopoly on violence and a state are the same thing. All states emerged when some group attempted to assert a monopoly over violence, and whether they fail or succeed in becoming a state comes down to their ability to monopolise violence. The status of legitimacy here is entirely subjective, and if it’s called into question, the only way it’s ever falsified is if some other group successfully challenges that monopoly.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  Well this isn't the first time in recent history the French government was a supporter of genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_the_Rwandan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_the_Rwandan_genocid...
  - realusername 3y ago
    France did not support the genocide, they just didn't do much at all apart from accepting refugies, also confirmed by more recent declassified papers.
- sofixa 3y ago
  > and is being prosecuted as passionately as self defence killings often are. Citation needed of self-defence killings im France being prosecuted passionately and unfairly.
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/interview/vanessa-codaccioni-plus-de-90-des-affaires-de-legitime-defense-finissent-au-tribunal https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/interview/vanessa-codaccioni... 90% of self defense cases end in the tribunal, meaning that the judges saw it as not-self-defense. The biggest factor in all this is proportionality: if you killed someone in self defense but were not yourself having your life threatened, you will go to court.
    - zirgs 3y ago
      Any physical assault is potentially life threatening. One unlucky fall on the pavement and that's it - you can easily die or become permanently disabled. Yet another reason why it's better to deescalate and/or run away if possible.
      - ohgodplsno 3y ago
        Yep, and this is the logic that is followed by judges: self defense is pretty much only valid if you had no other option. Run away. Always run away.
        AmericanChopper 3y ago
        > self defense is pretty much only valid if you had no other option. Running away is a good idea for many reasons, but very few US states or foreign jurisdictions have a duty to retreat as you’re describing here.
        ohgodplsno 3y ago
        Good thing this was in the context of France, then.
sofixa 3y ago
Or course the French government doesn't support ISIS, they also monitored everyone who fought for them. The problem is that these people are (supposedly) radicalised, and with active military experience (and probable related PTSD), not who they fought against.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - franciscop 3y ago
    In "pacific" Europe (specially in those countries where conscription is not mandatory) voluntarily taking weapons and going to a different country to kill people, no matter the reason, IS definitely considered radicalized, in the sense that it's very, very rare and "anti-social" behavior.
    - zirgs 3y ago
      In my country it's legal to go to Ukraine and fight on the Ukrainian side. But fighting on the Russian side is illegal and is punishable by long prison terms even if you didn't commit any war crimes there. That applies to all residents of the country - including Russian citizens.
      - lucubratory 3y ago
        That's insane, what country is that?
        nottorp 3y ago
        Bet it's a country that was in or close to the USSR and would really like to not go back in there...
        zirgs 3y ago
ohgodplsno 3y ago
>Why would volunteering to fight them ever be seen in a bad light? In part, because the YPG is seen by the french state as a terrorist group, for various political reasons, and also because having leftists trained in handling weapons is seemingly more terrifying to the government than having neonazis trained in handling weapons. Make of that what you will.
- getrealal 3y ago
  The French government disbanded various far-right groups that were not "neonazis trained in handling weapons" (last in date was the Identitaires).
  - ElMocambo_x4 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - SettembreNero 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - ohgodplsno 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - diordiderot 3y ago
      [flagged]
- diordiderot 3y ago
  > the YPG is seen by the french state as a terrorist group To appease the Turks I assume?
csomar 3y ago
Someone taking weapons somewhere (regardless of the cause) is always a dangerous person. Regular soldiers included and the government treat them as such. It's an unfortunate position (of course) if that person is fighting on "your" side.
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  Yes, but the problem here is not that, it's the arguments used to build the case. They have not been any evidence of criminal activities by those people. So far, all what they have against them is "they are protective about their privacy". That's a terrible reason to arrest and maintain people in jail.
  - martin8412 3y ago
    The act of going to Syria to fight on either side is a crime in itself.
    - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
      Not according to the French law. A crime is not something you evaluate morally. It has a very narrow definition that is codified by each society it is been judged in.
      - martin8412 3y ago
        It's grounds for having your citizenship revoked unless it will render you stateless. People suspected of being on the way to Syria would get their passports confiscated. Nine EU countries made similar rules, though I don't know how many still have it in effect. Any citizen/resident of Denmark is still prohibited from going to the conflict zones of Syria and Iraq.
    - Draiken 3y ago
      Then why weren't they arrested for that instead? I am not familiar with French law. Is that literally a crime or are you saying it as an expression?
justinclift 3y ago
Because government's really don't like their citizenry knowing how to apply violence, unless it's done through government controlled activities (ie military, police). A cynical person would say it's because corrupt leaders are afraid of potential consequences for their actions. But there's likely other, more mundane reasons too. :)
alkonaut 3y ago
There are basically two sides to this conflict: ISIS on one hand, and the Syrian/Kurdish PYD/YPG side on the other. The latter has ties to the PKK, which is an internationally recognized terror org just like ISIS. Now, depending on who you ask, the PYD/YPG is "good, because they fight ISIS" (e.g. the official stance of the US) or "Terrorists, because they are basically just extensions of the PKK" (what Turkey says). This leads to a lot of inconsistency in foreign policy within NATO. For example Sweden is pressured to crack down on PYD/YPG to be admitted into NATO. The US, like many others, have supported the YPG/PYD in the fight against ISIS. So I imagine Turkey is also pressuring other NATO countries like France in this case, to go after PKK collaborators including the adjacent syrian orgs. So basically: why are the people volunteering to fight ISIS seen as terrorists within NATO? I'd guess these days to a large extent because Turkey says so.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  I see Turkey as little better than Russia. They really don't belong in the EU or NATO.
lm28469 3y ago
Do you really think France supports ISIS ? Did you live in a cave in 2015 ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_Île-de-France_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_Île-de-France_att... Fighting for a foreign nation or mercenaries is illegal, no matter if you're fighting the "bad guys"
- gbear605 3y ago
  Hmm, let me check in again with France… Oh, what, they have a thing called the Foreign Legion, where they want foreigners to fight for them? It seems like actually France wants people to fight for nations that aren’t their own.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    I'm French, I know the foreign legion, we accept foreigners in our army, it doesn't mean we accept our own citizen to fight for foreign parties, especially non state armies, they're not mutually exclusive, there is no logical connection between your two statements
    - gbear605 3y ago
      From a moral viewpoint, letting someone of your country join another country’s foreign legion is identical to letting someone of another country join your foreign legion. If you say that joining a different group to fight ISIS is not okay while joining France to fight France’s enemies is okay, then you’re saying that ISIS is a better group in the world than France’s enemies.
      - lm28469 3y ago
        > If you say that joining a different group to fight ISIS Like joining the Taliban ?
School-Cotton 3y ago
Viewing with suspicion someone who volunteers to fight in a foreign war does not imply support for any party in that war. We can criticize the French government but it’s an extreme exaggeration to suggest that they support ISIS.