One has to wonder if funding terrorists via ransom demands is going to be spotlighted in Europe. Their contradictory policies only confuse matters and apparently don't make a difference in appeasing those thugs who want to do harm to everyone.
We can't tell the French what they need to make their country safe. But it appears that it wasn't the lack of intelligence that allowed the terrorists to fly under the radar. It was the lack of persistence. By the time of the attack, the terrorists were no longer followed. Using this failure to justify more constraints against the freedom of expression and other civil liberties seems to run against the grain of the French way of life.
2
One can't regard the attack of the Paris terrorists as any kind of "failure" by the authorities. Criminals of that ilk have every advantage on civil society. They can gather arms, plot, scheme, use modern internet communications, and travel abroad to be trained. It is very difficult for standard police measures to detect, monitor and stop this.
These terrorists are the utmost cowards. They face defenceless people with their big guns and yet are noted quite wrongly in the press for a kind of professionalism: how ridiculous. If they attacked an army base during a declared war, not using base techniques such as wearing enemy uniforms (prohibited by Geneva conventions), there might be some warrant to acknowledge professionalism, but as it is they acted in the basest fashion, not worthy of the martial spirit in any true sense of the word.
Carrying the arms they did, unless these losers were exceptionally unlucky, they had to achieve something, and of course they did, but the fact they couldn't be stopped is no failure of decent civil society, and that society's adoption of measures to try to stop a repetition is no kind of reproach to it; au contraire.
The only way to truly stop this is to dissolve the EU and WTO, re-impose strict border and travel controls, and impose emergency laws. If this kind of atrocity repeats very often, it may come to this. If it does, it won't be the fault of the decent people who tried to stop it when one hand was tied behind their backs.
These terrorists are the utmost cowards. They face defenceless people with their big guns and yet are noted quite wrongly in the press for a kind of professionalism: how ridiculous. If they attacked an army base during a declared war, not using base techniques such as wearing enemy uniforms (prohibited by Geneva conventions), there might be some warrant to acknowledge professionalism, but as it is they acted in the basest fashion, not worthy of the martial spirit in any true sense of the word.
Carrying the arms they did, unless these losers were exceptionally unlucky, they had to achieve something, and of course they did, but the fact they couldn't be stopped is no failure of decent civil society, and that society's adoption of measures to try to stop a repetition is no kind of reproach to it; au contraire.
The only way to truly stop this is to dissolve the EU and WTO, re-impose strict border and travel controls, and impose emergency laws. If this kind of atrocity repeats very often, it may come to this. If it does, it won't be the fault of the decent people who tried to stop it when one hand was tied behind their backs.
There is a real danger to rushing to pass legislation or executive orders in the immediate aftermath of a crisis. Just as many innocent Muslims were jailed in the U.S. in the days following 9-11, there were thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans jailed in the aftermath of December 7th for the same reason: fear overtook reason. All an acute overreaction does, as ISIS wants it to do, is polarize the opposites and make its recruiting easier.
Plus, while terrorism is dangerous, is not "existential", Condi Rice's blather not withstanding. 20,000 nuclear warheads aimed at us during the depth of the Cold War was existential. The Axis powers were existential. Terrorist attacks, even grievous ones, are not existential. Only our own response, if it is irrational, is an existential threat to our way of life.
Plus, while terrorism is dangerous, is not "existential", Condi Rice's blather not withstanding. 20,000 nuclear warheads aimed at us during the depth of the Cold War was existential. The Axis powers were existential. Terrorist attacks, even grievous ones, are not existential. Only our own response, if it is irrational, is an existential threat to our way of life.
4
You are right to say -
''There is a real danger to rushing to pass legislation or executive orders in the immediate aftermath of a crisis.''
But the prime directive of the Obama administration has always been to use flashy events like this murder spree to sell things like more gun laws to go with the thousands already in place.
As Rahm Emanuel is supposed to have said, ''Never let a crisis go to waste.''
''There is a real danger to rushing to pass legislation or executive orders in the immediate aftermath of a crisis.''
But the prime directive of the Obama administration has always been to use flashy events like this murder spree to sell things like more gun laws to go with the thousands already in place.
As Rahm Emanuel is supposed to have said, ''Never let a crisis go to waste.''
Right after 9/11 fear was manipulated by political power in the US. The big rallies in Paris and elsewhere in France were of a totally different nature. First of all, it was the citizens addressing officials, not the other way round. In the US, citizens left everything in the hands of Congress. Secondly, it was very evident that one of the main reasons why people took to the streets in France was to show to the political power and the world that they were not afraid and would not be intimidated. One coud see that by the interviews that common people gave to the French international TV network during the rallies. People declared very clearly they took their kids to the march to teach them no to be afraid in situations like these.
9
What is the important things for our life? The atmosphere of liberty is one of the fundamental factor for a democratic country. Even if this liberty is attacked by violence, we should not restrict the liberty of citizens. Giving up liberty leads to the defeat of democracy.
France has already robust counter-terrorism laws after 9/11 attack in the U.S. So France can utilize them to get information or to prevent another attack.
France has already robust counter-terrorism laws after 9/11 attack in the U.S. So France can utilize them to get information or to prevent another attack.
2
I agree with -
''Giving up liberty leads to the defeat of democracy.''
Please remember this when the next promoter of an even bigger federal government comes up with the next ''wonderful'' offer to let you give up more choices so Uncle Sugar can do more for you.
''Giving up liberty leads to the defeat of democracy.''
Please remember this when the next promoter of an even bigger federal government comes up with the next ''wonderful'' offer to let you give up more choices so Uncle Sugar can do more for you.
As an American currently living in Europe, I can attest that most Europeans know precious little about civil rights in the US, and it doesn't surprise me that French and other European legislators would not understand the complexities of civil rights in the US, which, despite the deplorable Patriot Act, are in many ways much more robust than in Europe. European lawmakers should focus on how to protect against terrorism without restricting civil liberties rather than try to read a US law absent an understanding of constitutional doctrines.
France--and every country in Europe--has much more restrictive free speech laws than the US, where there is no juridical category of "hate speech."
Search and seizure practices are far more oppressive in Europe. French police "randomly" (read: they likely detained "Muslim-looking" people) on the metro after the massacre. In the US, the Fourth Amendment prevents random detention.
It appears from the analysis of experts in the field of Islamic extremism that the oppressive practices of French and other European police against Muslim minorities has contributed to young men's feeling ostracized and turning to radicalism. In Sweden, police "randomly" stop minorities on the subway, supposedly as part of a public transport ticket check but widely thought to be a pretext for an immigration status check. This is illegal under Swedish law, but there appears to be no mechanism by which people can challenge the lawfulness of their arrest.
France--and every country in Europe--has much more restrictive free speech laws than the US, where there is no juridical category of "hate speech."
Search and seizure practices are far more oppressive in Europe. French police "randomly" (read: they likely detained "Muslim-looking" people) on the metro after the massacre. In the US, the Fourth Amendment prevents random detention.
It appears from the analysis of experts in the field of Islamic extremism that the oppressive practices of French and other European police against Muslim minorities has contributed to young men's feeling ostracized and turning to radicalism. In Sweden, police "randomly" stop minorities on the subway, supposedly as part of a public transport ticket check but widely thought to be a pretext for an immigration status check. This is illegal under Swedish law, but there appears to be no mechanism by which people can challenge the lawfulness of their arrest.
4
Please check the facts: no rights of random detention in France, just random identity and bags controls in public areas and public transportation.
Also check the facts about the latest generation of french jihadists in Syria: most had a job and were integrated. About 50% were not "muslim looking": an important part of Europeans natives recently converted to Islam, Chechens, Balkans, even "français de souche" with engineering degree…).
Radicalism uses ostracization as a recruiting argument but not the opposite. They could use other arguments.
Reality is unfortunately far more complex.
Concerning free speech rights: almost all US medias censored the new Charlie Hebdo cover (totally peaceful and poignant cover "all is forgiven"). Self-censor is more insidious than free speech framed by a relatively permissive law.
Also check the facts about the latest generation of french jihadists in Syria: most had a job and were integrated. About 50% were not "muslim looking": an important part of Europeans natives recently converted to Islam, Chechens, Balkans, even "français de souche" with engineering degree…).
Radicalism uses ostracization as a recruiting argument but not the opposite. They could use other arguments.
Reality is unfortunately far more complex.
Concerning free speech rights: almost all US medias censored the new Charlie Hebdo cover (totally peaceful and poignant cover "all is forgiven"). Self-censor is more insidious than free speech framed by a relatively permissive law.
4
Philippe, I'm using the word "detention" in the US legal sense. Under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is a "detention" or a "seizure" when a police officer or other government agent stops a pedestrian to check a bag or ID. "Detention" does not necessarily mean to imprison, and I did not mean to suggest that. Perhaps I should have clarified my vocabulary for an international audience, but I used the word "detention" in a specific legal meaning. Under US law, even a brief RANDOM detention--such as, "Hey, you! Stop! That's an order!"--of a pedestrian for an ID check or to check a bag is unconstitutional as violative of the Fourth Amendment. All stops must be supported by probable cause, which is lacking where the stop is RANDOM.
I agree with you that self-censorship is pernicious, but that is categorically distinct from censorship by law. I wasn't trying to write a thesis on all aspects of freedom of expression. I was merely pointing out--in response to a rather incomplete article by the Times about proposed LEGISLATION--that the LAWS in the US are not as they are commonly represented or understood in Europe.
I agree with you that self-censorship is pernicious, but that is categorically distinct from censorship by law. I wasn't trying to write a thesis on all aspects of freedom of expression. I was merely pointing out--in response to a rather incomplete article by the Times about proposed LEGISLATION--that the LAWS in the US are not as they are commonly represented or understood in Europe.
The French police already have most or all of the powers of the Patriot Act. For instance, there is no right to have an attorney present during interrogation, for any suspect, not just terrorists. France has its own version of the NSA's surveillance. Strong encryption, which the US never limited domestically, only for export, is prohibited in France. The Patriot Act had nothing to do with torture, which is not unknown in France anyway.
5
Come on, your comment was balanced and convincing... What need to add this dramatic ending...
The way you write it: do you mean torture is still being used by the authorities in France? Like leaving prisoners naked for hours, sleep deprivation? Humiliations? Detaining them without limit?
No, please rest reassured this doesn't happen in France.
Don't suggest torture exists in France, especially embedded in a comment containing only acceptable assertions but this last one.
Thank you.
The way you write it: do you mean torture is still being used by the authorities in France? Like leaving prisoners naked for hours, sleep deprivation? Humiliations? Detaining them without limit?
No, please rest reassured this doesn't happen in France.
Don't suggest torture exists in France, especially embedded in a comment containing only acceptable assertions but this last one.
Thank you.
5
Please check your facts: "No right to have an attorney during interrogation" => false even for terrorists!
=> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garde_%C3%A0_vue_en_droit_fran%C3%A7ais#Int...
Attorney from the first hour of interrogation and delay of 2H before starting interrogation. Attorny assistance can be delayed only in some very rare cases (as terrorrism) but has to be motivated against a judge (juge de la liberté et de la détention). Such cases are really rare.
Same for strong encryption prohibition: false… check your facts or give real arguments.
Your last sentence about torture is pure bashing: France would be would be immediately pursued by the European Court.
=> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garde_%C3%A0_vue_en_droit_fran%C3%A7ais#Int...
Attorney from the first hour of interrogation and delay of 2H before starting interrogation. Attorny assistance can be delayed only in some very rare cases (as terrorrism) but has to be motivated against a judge (juge de la liberté et de la détention). Such cases are really rare.
Same for strong encryption prohibition: false… check your facts or give real arguments.
Your last sentence about torture is pure bashing: France would be would be immediately pursued by the European Court.
3
How quickly we forget. How many planes have flown into U.S. buildings since the Patriot Act was enacted? Perhaps if the U.S. had invoked such Act BEFORE 9/11 it would now be a meaningless date. I suspect that when a bomb or RPG levels La Tour Eiffel the French will rue having not learned our bitter lesson.
1
Or perhaps if the Bush administration had not turned the counter-terrorist program over the Dick Cheney, who did not arrange for a meeting of the principals on counter-terrorism before 9/11, despite the the outgoing administration and President Clinton specifically warning Bush that Osama bin Laden was the biggest threat to the US, and Bush's chief of counter-terrorism practically begging for such a meeting, and the daily briefing to Bush and Cheney,warning the OBL was intent on attacking the US with airplanes, maybe those planes wouldn't have flown into US Buildings. The warnings were there before the attack. Bush and Cheney were asleep at the switch. If they hadn't been, maybe the attack wouldn't have happened. The Patriot Act isn't what has prevented another attack so far, being vigilant has.
4
I feel, based on European/German experiences with it, it is very difficult to measure effectiveness of intelligence services (or implementation of a "patriotic act"/enforcing anti-terror laws).
As to (experiences with) terrorism in Germany I would like to recall Munich 1972 and the RAF (red army fraction) before 9-11 (2001).
More recently, there was the NSU (national socialist underground) affair, if not scandal. The scandal part of this affair was the question why the intelligence services were searching, for years, the murders everywhere else then in the violent extreme right sector. At the end of the scandal, single members of the intelligence services were even suspected to be (murders and) part of the ... extreme right sector.
Based on those experiences with "effectiveness" of intelligence services the political left here is even discussing to abolish them entirely. No joke!
As to (experiences with) terrorism in Germany I would like to recall Munich 1972 and the RAF (red army fraction) before 9-11 (2001).
More recently, there was the NSU (national socialist underground) affair, if not scandal. The scandal part of this affair was the question why the intelligence services were searching, for years, the murders everywhere else then in the violent extreme right sector. At the end of the scandal, single members of the intelligence services were even suspected to be (murders and) part of the ... extreme right sector.
Based on those experiences with "effectiveness" of intelligence services the political left here is even discussing to abolish them entirely. No joke!
''Asleep at the switch'' perfectly captures the Clinton administration's refusal to accept Osama bin Laden when an African government offered him up on a silver platter, even with the embassy bombings that killed many innocent Africans.
Even though I am a supporter of the Patriot act in the USA , I can not tell the French what they should do and I suggest we let them to determine that for themselves.
The Problem France is waking up to is not a France problem or a American problem.
The whole world(this includes Muslim) has to find a solution to this problem.
We have have to be pro active and take this fight to them.
The radical Muslims know no borders and therefore we can not stop them by
the actions any one country takes.
We need a coordinated approach amongst all the nations and the best way we can do that would be in the UN.
First we have to deny them a place where they are getting their training
We have to stop these groups from getting financial help.
Only the UN can get this done and by acting as if we can stop the radicals on our own we will not succeed
The Problem France is waking up to is not a France problem or a American problem.
The whole world(this includes Muslim) has to find a solution to this problem.
We have have to be pro active and take this fight to them.
The radical Muslims know no borders and therefore we can not stop them by
the actions any one country takes.
We need a coordinated approach amongst all the nations and the best way we can do that would be in the UN.
First we have to deny them a place where they are getting their training
We have to stop these groups from getting financial help.
Only the UN can get this done and by acting as if we can stop the radicals on our own we will not succeed
2
But not the U.N. That kleptocracy couldn't agree on what to even call this threat, much less assemble the men, money, and political will to overcome it.
The U.N. had thoroughly ''jumped the shark'' by the Clinton administration.
The U.N. had thoroughly ''jumped the shark'' by the Clinton administration.
Obama says while terrorism has gotten larger, he does not consider it an "existential" threat. What in the world does that mean? Surely he knows that Islamic radicalism linked to terroristic assaults have magnified, so what does he think is a existential threat other than Mitch McConnell?
5
Perhaps the statement of Obama means something like Attila and the Huns were terrorists and were an "existential threat" to the (Western) Roman Empire, "Islamic radicalism linked to terroristic assaults have magnified" but is not an "existential threat" of the dimension of Attila.
As history tells the Huns were an "existential threat" to the (Western) Roman Empire but the Western Roman Empire survived at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains - with the help of some germanic languages babbling barbarians - Attila and the Huns.
Some, rather few, centuries later, Western Roman Empire was replaced by the romance and germanic languages babbling "barbarian", or romanized, Frankish Empire. This was due to the fact that tax income of the Western Roman Empire decreased continously while having a large, often germanic languages babbling, military to feed.
Perhaps Obama was thinking in the Huns and the Western Roman Empire while saying that terrorism has gotten larger, but is no existential threat to the U.S.A.?
Any other example else than the Huns for terrorism being an ***existential*** threat to an Empire?
As history tells the Huns were an "existential threat" to the (Western) Roman Empire but the Western Roman Empire survived at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains - with the help of some germanic languages babbling barbarians - Attila and the Huns.
Some, rather few, centuries later, Western Roman Empire was replaced by the romance and germanic languages babbling "barbarian", or romanized, Frankish Empire. This was due to the fact that tax income of the Western Roman Empire decreased continously while having a large, often germanic languages babbling, military to feed.
Perhaps Obama was thinking in the Huns and the Western Roman Empire while saying that terrorism has gotten larger, but is no existential threat to the U.S.A.?
Any other example else than the Huns for terrorism being an ***existential*** threat to an Empire?
1
Believe it or not, "existential" does not, or at least did not, mean "existing." "Existential" speaks to the meaningless of human life. Educated but ignorant prople prefer big words to make an impression.
An “existential threat” is a thing that threatens one’s existence. In this context, it does not mean "existing" nor does it mean "the meaninglessness of human life." President Bush declared that international terrorism is an "existential threat" to the US. Bush was not ignorant of the meaning, as some people are, he was just wrong in his application of the meaning to the facts of the situation. President Obama is educated and correct in saying what he did. Since 9/11, only a few Americans have been killed each year by terrorists, an average of about than 20 per year. Hardly a number that threatens the existence of the United States of American.
3
Instead of 12, have 3000 killed in a day in Paris, and watch how 'measured' the response is....
9
This is more of a foreign policy issue than domestic problem. If the reports are accurate, the terrorists are controlled by organizations outside France. Those organization exist in countries with which France has diplomatic relations. Shouldn't French officials seek a diplomatic solution rather than enforcing patriotism?
If most in Congress don't know what's really in the Patriot Act by now they should just go home. So they have to renew it or not this year - anyone think they'll change it or let it expire?
I am afraid that 20 people being senselessly slaughtered in Paris does not equal the spectacular attack on iconic America symbols, and the resulting loss of 3000 lives on 9/11. I wonder how reasoned the French response to the Eiffel Tower or Notre Dame being leveled by extremists would be...
7
Any response to a terrorist outrage or any other violent outrage should be reasoned. You seem to be very much in favor of something less than a reasoned response - to do what exactly? It was completely unreasonable to invade Iraq over 9/11. If you think it was a good thing to do, then I invite you to do another unreasonable thing - go join the war against ISIS (which was created by our unreasoned response to 9/11). Go be a freedom fighter.
Hosni Mubarak told W that if he invaded Iraq he'd be creating 10,000 bin Ladens. He was correct of course. Now isn't that a beautiful outcome from throwing reason out the window. Or perhaps you're employed by a defense contractor - in which case you view supporting the unreasonable works for you, at least in the short run. Doesn't work for me. Sooner or later Americans will see that our irrational spending on the military so that we can act with impunity and without reason is something we should curtail. Or maybe, eventually, the rest of the world will simply recognize us as militarized irrational people that need to be dealt with.
Hosni Mubarak told W that if he invaded Iraq he'd be creating 10,000 bin Ladens. He was correct of course. Now isn't that a beautiful outcome from throwing reason out the window. Or perhaps you're employed by a defense contractor - in which case you view supporting the unreasonable works for you, at least in the short run. Doesn't work for me. Sooner or later Americans will see that our irrational spending on the military so that we can act with impunity and without reason is something we should curtail. Or maybe, eventually, the rest of the world will simply recognize us as militarized irrational people that need to be dealt with.
6
The attack in France regardless of the numbers of people had the same effect - that it occurred and could continue to occur and could occur anywhere in France. Fear is a powerful tool. Of course if iconic symbols of France were attacked, then it would throw the whole world into a spiral - it could come right back to NYC in an hour, year or never - that's the point - we are all vulnerable.
1
I don't like to measure the size of a crime by the number of victims - eventually I'm wrong?!
How many deaths the French revolution may have caused in Paris? How many deaths the Napoleonic wars had caused?
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité
A crime at all?
World Trade Centre in NY was victim of terrorists, the Statue of Liberty not. Once the latter was a gift of the French to the US people.
How many deaths the French revolution may have caused in Paris? How many deaths the Napoleonic wars had caused?
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité
A crime at all?
World Trade Centre in NY was victim of terrorists, the Statue of Liberty not. Once the latter was a gift of the French to the US people.
1
I believed at the time of 9-11 that it should be treated as a police action against the perpetrators, not an entire country that had no country-wide involvement. Instead, fear and anxiety and nationalism were pumped up and used as excuses to go into two countries that were not actually involved in the attack. The result has been a loss of thousands of lives and our own way of life. It seemed obvious at the time that nothing would ever be the same again. Then came the Patriot Act, which further changed our way of doing things. Now it's next to impossible to change it back to the way it was. But France doesn't need to go down that same road. It was attacked by fewer than 10 self-identified Islamists out of millions. The real danger is in increasing fear and suspicion and perceived enemies. As President Roosevelt once told us, our biggest enemy is fear. I hope the people are satisfied to have it handled as a police action.
6
The perpetrators died in the attack. They expected the US to lash out at somebody, anybody, and trigger WW III.
4
On and on this goes and the West flail around wondering what to do to counter "terrorism". These "terrorists" always tell us why they committed their act - in revenge for the most recent killings of Muslims. The world did not start on 9/11, and it would have been instructive if the US had asked then, Why did this happen? US foreign policy in the Middle East over the last 50 years could have provided some answers. Instead the US invaded Iraq, killing and displacing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children - who had done nothing to America - Abu Ghraib. Waging war in Afghanistan. Drone attacks now killing "suspected terrorists" and family members. On and on it goes. Could we stop now please.
14
France gets tough. About time.
2
There is basically something wrong with a belief system that says a person should be offended by any comment about their belief system. Then that they are justified by some higher power to take revenge on that offense. Some say that all three of the major religions have the same God. However God is defined by the characteristics attributed to Him. In the acts of Jesus as illustrated in the Christian New Testament we see the character of the Christian God. Jesus said that if you see me you have seen the Father (God). So what characteristics do we see. We see the adulterous woman forgiven, not beheaded. We the cheating tax collector forgiven, not his hands cut off. We see that all who turn to God accepting the sacrifice of Jesus forgiven. This God does not call his believers to avenge the many many offenses against his people. He says forgive and love. No He is not the same God that sends 13 year olds as suicide bombers.
2
People who claim an "Almighty" needs their help are not straight thinkers.
1
Do you really think a God sends 13-yr olds to be suicide bombers? Don't you think maybe it's misguided and misinformed followers who use 13-yr olds for their own ends?
The only way to stop these attacks is to have the media not report them. No media coverage, no publicity, no Islamic public recruitment. Just ignore these people. Make it seem like these attacks never happened. But, of course, this will never happen with a sensationalized media. And al Queda knows it. CNN and the other networks are al Queda's best recruiting vehicles and all this
advertising is free.
advertising is free.
7
Sounds like you want a cover-up?
@ Tom, that's realistic. Just ignore them and they'll go away, great! No one ever thought of that. Brilliant.
You can't have it both ways. The US has stomped on civilities and crapped on the Constitution. Cops for a decade have been given an open hand to steal with impunity (seizure laws - that Holder just now put the breaks on). Privacy is dead, the NSA chipperly claims it has a strangle hold on VPN's.
The founding fathers would be disgusted.
Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin - "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".
The founding fathers would be disgusted.
Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin - "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".
7
Who are the French kidding - they have been conducting massive unsupervised phone tapping on their citizens since WWII. They are also arresting people for hate speech - something we don't do in the USA unless there is an imminent danger of violence. A Patriot Act for France would probably tone down their security measures not increase them.
5
"François Fillon, the former prime minister under Mr. Sarkozy and now a rival for the center-right, said he opposed a Patriot Act for France. 'No freedom should be abandoned,' he said. 'I do not support fundamental legislative change.' Otherwise, he said, 'we give justification to those coming to fight on our land.' "
This is a good soundbite, but it is also nonsense.. Those "coming to fight in" France are not coming to fight for the rights and liberties of French citizens. They are coming to fight because they want to establish Islamic states and see France as standing in the way. Plot your legal course as you see fit as a nation, but those attacking France are not freedom fighters.
This is a good soundbite, but it is also nonsense.. Those "coming to fight in" France are not coming to fight for the rights and liberties of French citizens. They are coming to fight because they want to establish Islamic states and see France as standing in the way. Plot your legal course as you see fit as a nation, but those attacking France are not freedom fighters.
The best way for the French to fight terrorism in France is to do everything possible to fully integrate French Muslims into mainstream French society.
And while French Jews have no special responsibility or obligation to lead such an effort, they would do well by themselves not to lag behind in that effort.
If the French want all French Muslims to act the way Lassana Bathily and Ahmed Merabet acted, the way the French would themselves want to act under similar circumstances, then the French should treat French Muslims as if they're expected to act and capable of acting in that way.
I can hear the derisive snorts from here. But how well has not actively working to get along served us so far? Who is the realist?
All the people of France would benefit, would have a better country for themselves. And serve as a proud example, a model for others. Terrorism is a war of ideas, not guns. And France is a country of ideas. Defeat terrorism by proving the terrorists wrong.
And while French Jews have no special responsibility or obligation to lead such an effort, they would do well by themselves not to lag behind in that effort.
If the French want all French Muslims to act the way Lassana Bathily and Ahmed Merabet acted, the way the French would themselves want to act under similar circumstances, then the French should treat French Muslims as if they're expected to act and capable of acting in that way.
I can hear the derisive snorts from here. But how well has not actively working to get along served us so far? Who is the realist?
All the people of France would benefit, would have a better country for themselves. And serve as a proud example, a model for others. Terrorism is a war of ideas, not guns. And France is a country of ideas. Defeat terrorism by proving the terrorists wrong.
8
You say, "fully integrate"... This has not worked, in France or elsewhere: people want to retain their own identities. A view of "integration" is needed which permits diversity. The French view demands too much conformity, in all respects -- language, politics, fashions, behaviors -- that is a tall order for anyone. All societies nowadays need to accommodate diversity: that interesting shop down the street where the owner speaks only-Korean, the woman from Burkina Faso with the strange hairdos, the family whose daughters wear head-scarves, the different-looking people who eat their food using small sticks.
Sounds like a strong dose of French hypocrisy. They already have less freedom of speech and fewer means to challenge their government than we in the U.S., and while continuing to denounce the American Patriot Act, they are contemplating, to all appearance, pretty much the same measures of increased surveillance as the Patriot Act ushered in, directly and indirectly. And to top it all off, they are eager to censor Internet content, which the Patriot Act did not dare do. Fundamentally, they have been swept off their feet by a wave of irrational fear and anger against Muslims, just as the U.S. was after 911, but without America's tradition and long experience of inclusive diversity to right them in the long run. Resentment of non-native French citizens and residents was already running high prior to the Charlie Hebdo attack. None of this bodes well.
18
I think your point regarding "America's tradition and long experience of inclusive diversity to right them in the long run" is a powerful point. I wish somehow this comment could rise to the top. I also see the trajectory for the US and France as different.
3
America's long tradition of inclusive diversity does not seem to be working. There are a lot of marginalized minorities and ethnic groups and I suspect blacks do not feel the warm fuzzy "inclusiveness" either.
5
It works a lot better in the US than it does anywhere else. When it doesn't work it's awful, yes -- but that's a reason for trying harder.
It is ironic that 82% of the French believe that it is unacceptable for the US government to monitor its own citizens. As reported by Le Monde shortly after the Snowden revelations began, the French security service (Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure or DGSE) already had an electronic monitoring system at least as comprehensive as that of the NSA, with no legislative oversight at all! Le Monde thought this report so important that they provided their own English translation and put it on the net: http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/07/04/revelations-on-the-fren... . Would that the French government lived up to the expectations of its people for the US government. And how wonderful if US government lived up to the expectations of its own Constitution (in particular that pesky requirement for warrants in the Fourth Amendment).
13
Since 9/11, every time terrorists strike, we double down on intelligence, security and law enforcement measures, even though these measures alone have failed miserably. The things are getting worse, not better. We have to understand the underlying causes of violent behavior and prevent it taking root in the minds of young Muslims. Blaming religion for all problems is an easy way out. In France, the Muslim population, especially the Muslim youth, are openly discriminated at every level. They are economically deprived and jobs are scarce for them. It is just not the Muslim population who has not done enough to integrate, but French society also has done everything in its power to isolate the Muslim population. Many Muslims feel foreign in their own country. These conditions have turned Muslim communities into ghettos with many disillusioned, alienated and angry youths with no hope of future.
This situation is a fertile ground for any extreme ideology to take hold.
Any law and order measures has to address socioeconomic deprivation and involve Muslim leadership to chart a course together. Imposing everything top down is not going to work-I know this from inside as a Muslim.
This situation is a fertile ground for any extreme ideology to take hold.
Any law and order measures has to address socioeconomic deprivation and involve Muslim leadership to chart a course together. Imposing everything top down is not going to work-I know this from inside as a Muslim.
12
Sorry. Many, many cultures over the years have experienced discrimination and economic hardship, and this is the only that repeatedly seeks redress by murdering innocent civilians.
4
It has nothing to do with culture. In USA , African Americans has been discriminated socioeconomically and unfortunately has resorted to violence in our history-including recent killings of two police officers.
Americans voluntarily surrendering their civil rights after 9/11 is one of the saddest and certainly one of the most cowardly moments in the nation's history. If anything good at all comes out of the episode, it will be its use as a cautionary tale bye other nations faced with the same sort of threat. For America, though, it's too late. The land of the free has become the land of total surveillance and maximum incarceration.
16
"The land of the free has become the land of total surveillance and maximum incarceration."
Wow. Sad but true.
Revoke the phony 'Patriot act.'
Wow. Sad but true.
Revoke the phony 'Patriot act.'
5
hoping the French government and people show more courage and stand by their freedoms than we did in America.
8
What? France has already been monitoring it's citizens. What is this article talking about? Even publicly, they've arrested people for what many around the world consider simply as verbal or written dissent (does a certain French comedian thrown in jail come to mind?). They don't need a Patriot Act, they already have one.
12
He hasn't been "thrown" to jail, (yet)...
1
He's been arrested and "intimidated" -- the contrast between "Charlie" and Dieudonné is an interesting one -- see,
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-dieudonne-char...
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-dieudonne-char...
1
Je Suis Ahmed
Je Suis Charlie
Je Suis Juif
Je Suis
After the wars of Abraham
Je Suis
Before Abraham was
Je Suis
One Community, One Ummah
Nous Sommes
One Human Family
Nous Sommes
Je Suis Charlie
Je Suis Juif
Je Suis
After the wars of Abraham
Je Suis
Before Abraham was
Je Suis
One Community, One Ummah
Nous Sommes
One Human Family
Nous Sommes
3
The problem here is that we are not. We need concepts of Humanity which allow diversity, which allow us to be different. That is what "federalism" is, "balance of power", "civil rights" -- celebrate "differences" -- your poem points in the wrong direction...
The Nobel laureate for literature JMG Le Clézio is a rare exception, telling his daughter in an open letter in Le Monde that the real war in France is “against injustice, against the abandonment of certain youths, against deliberately forgetting a part of the population . . . by not sharing the benefits of culture and chances of success”. The Irish Times
He also wrote that "the three killers were not barbarians".
He also wrote that "the three killers were not barbarians".
4
An "Inconvenient Truth:" The West, including the US Air Force (USAF), killed quite a few journalists (though perhaps not cartoonists) throughout the course of the 2003-2011 Iraq War. Never heard much from Americans in the way of complaint for the USAF bombing of radio stations in Baghdad, etc.
"More journalists were killed during the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq than in any war in history."
http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/04/2013481202781452.html
"More journalists were killed during the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq than in any war in history."
http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/04/2013481202781452.html
10
NATO forces, led by the US, killed over 20 journalists in a bombing of Serbian TV headquarters, a warcrime.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/24/balkans3
3
"People were unwilling to speak out for civil liberties." Uh, no. That is not the way it happened. The Patriot Act (300/400 pages?), was rushed through, a clandestine operation. I would advise the French to hold off (lest they become like Americans, an idea that ought to bring them to a dead halt). France is critical to the history and voice of civil liberties; if they lose their compass like we did, who is left? (Iceland is a consideration, actually, but there are only 350k of them.)
One point: I do remember the French making in fun of Americans for displays of national pride after 9/11; perhaps they better understand that now.
One point: I do remember the French making in fun of Americans for displays of national pride after 9/11; perhaps they better understand that now.
4
The article made it seem like we have a democracy here in which the government discusses things with the public before taking action, LOL!
3
"Become like Americans" ??? France has more electronic surveillance of their citizens then we do. (And without a 9/11 scale attack) Never mind the silly stuff like non-French words ( email, Facebook, hashtag, etc) being banned from the media.
4
Alan - I was being sarcastic.
So I am confused by this article. On one hand it says that Europe and in particular France has some of the toughest anti-terrorism laws, and on the other it is giving kudos to the French for resisting the urge to pass even tougher laws.
If they already have the toughest laws compared to anywhere in the world then why are we patting their back (and didn't it just show that having the toughest laws doesn't prevent this kind of attack)!
If they already have the toughest laws compared to anywhere in the world then why are we patting their back (and didn't it just show that having the toughest laws doesn't prevent this kind of attack)!
8
Expecting rationality (or honesty, for that matter) in a US mainstream media discussion of terrorism and civil liberties isn't realistic. There is quite a bit of money to be made in "keeping us safe", so facts and logic are sacrificed - fear mongering is raised to an art form.
4
We (US) over reacted to 9/11 and are still doing it. If Osama bin Laden was still alive, he would not believe the havoc he caused us to make for ourselves. We killed 5,500 of our own citizens and many many more of their citizens when we attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. And who knows how much of today's issues in the Middle East can be traced to that war. Not sure France will learn from our mistakes; we certainly haven't.
19
" If Osama bin Laden was still alive, he would not believe the havoc he caused us to make for ourselves."
Perhaps he would not believe the havoc he created for his Muslim brothers and sisters.
Perhaps he would not believe the havoc he created for his Muslim brothers and sisters.
2
There is nothing even remotely patriotic about the Patriot Act.
19
Every news report I heard on the slaughter at the offices of Charlie Hebdo characterized the facility as a "soft target." A soft target is defined as any place where the inhabitants are restrained by their government's gun-coontrol laws from effectively defending themselves.
4
You'd prefer to live in an armed military camp?
3
K., let responsible adults who aren't crazy or criminals defend themselves, and the cowards who only attack the helpless stay home and kick the dog.
Except these guys probably hate dogs, too.
What stops EVERY mass murder? An armed guy willing to act shows up, whether he is a cop or citizen.
Your only decision boils down to how many need to die before the armed person shows up. If one or to of the cartoonists or editors had been armed, the crazy brothers would have died or run away a LOT sooner.
And had a shopper or two in that Jewish store been armed ....
Except these guys probably hate dogs, too.
What stops EVERY mass murder? An armed guy willing to act shows up, whether he is a cop or citizen.
Your only decision boils down to how many need to die before the armed person shows up. If one or to of the cartoonists or editors had been armed, the crazy brothers would have died or run away a LOT sooner.
And had a shopper or two in that Jewish store been armed ....
the specialized policeman protecting Charlie-Hebdo "director" didn't have the time to take his arm.
do you think other people at Charlie could be better ?
do you think other people at Charlie could be better ?
In every society we have criminals. There are crimes for financial profit, crimes of passion, crimes for ideology, etc. I am sure people know of folks going "postal". We do not put military and police on each corner because of this or legislate draconian laws.
The USA has become a de facto police state (in many regards) after this 9/11 event. It became a torturer of criminals, quite likely still is. It is no longer the country I lived in for 2 decades and absolutely loved.
These murders in France, 9/11 in USA and many others across the world, were crimes, committed by criminals and not entire sect of people who practice a particular faith or come from a particular region. France already has problems with its LARGE Muslim population...a problem we all know about. Enacting such laws will surely exacerbate its problems. I am certain if these two brothers had decent jobs with wives and children their thoughts would have been in other places. I am a Muslim and I find all these things crazy but I am also a guy who has oodles of education, a very good job and a little daughter who demands every second of my time: daddy what is this, what is that, what happens if I push this button and why? I must install this and that from the app-store. Etc. Etc. Etc. They say an empty mind is the devil's workshop, and we can see what the devil does: create chaos everywhere.
France need to look at the root cause of why this happened and solve it.
The USA has become a de facto police state (in many regards) after this 9/11 event. It became a torturer of criminals, quite likely still is. It is no longer the country I lived in for 2 decades and absolutely loved.
These murders in France, 9/11 in USA and many others across the world, were crimes, committed by criminals and not entire sect of people who practice a particular faith or come from a particular region. France already has problems with its LARGE Muslim population...a problem we all know about. Enacting such laws will surely exacerbate its problems. I am certain if these two brothers had decent jobs with wives and children their thoughts would have been in other places. I am a Muslim and I find all these things crazy but I am also a guy who has oodles of education, a very good job and a little daughter who demands every second of my time: daddy what is this, what is that, what happens if I push this button and why? I must install this and that from the app-store. Etc. Etc. Etc. They say an empty mind is the devil's workshop, and we can see what the devil does: create chaos everywhere.
France need to look at the root cause of why this happened and solve it.
8
Economic disenfranchisement doesn't explain Osama bin Laden's radicalization.
2
bin Laden was a rich kid -- these 3 were not -- it's a different mentality.
Who would have thought that radicals in the desert on the other side of the planet would be so smart that with one sucker punch trick America into the greatest ever weakening of its constitutional protections...the very things that make America so attractive and desirable? The attacks, as horrible as they were, did not do the greatest damage. Our own knee jerk response did far more. Is this a type of political autoimmune reaction, like a giant pusball that turns into a flesh-eating virus? At least France learned from our mistakes. If we put our fear of real, actual threats to work, instead of exaggerated ones, we might all live to be 120. Run the numbers and you see that being killed by terrorist is far less likely than being killed in a car accident or 100 other rare causes.
14
It's a sad day for us when we are the role model NOT to be followed. We set up the stage when we gave into fear, exactly what these fanatics wanted. The Patriot Act has brought us down from the pedestal where we were always on the right side of morality, righteousness, fighting for a just cause. Somewhere along the line we lost our moral superiority giving into fear and paranoia. We lost our credibility in the rest of the world. Now the French find themselves in the same dilemma. Just hope they have learned something from our mistakes.
28
France, don't do it! Do NOT pass sweeping civil liberty restrictions as a knee jerk reaction. "We" did it in the US (most if not all of those who voted for it in Congress didn't even read it!) and now we have a police state with more people incarcerated, and one might say more wrongly incarcerated, than any nation in history, ever.
France, be smart. Don't let the oligarch's take over any more than they already have! Our president now says it's OK for him to unilaterally assassinate anyone in the world he deems a threat. This is the kind of over reaching that results from repressive legislation.
Liberté! Égalité! Fraternité!
France, be smart. Don't let the oligarch's take over any more than they already have! Our president now says it's OK for him to unilaterally assassinate anyone in the world he deems a threat. This is the kind of over reaching that results from repressive legislation.
Liberté! Égalité! Fraternité!
16
The warning voiced by the former French prime minister Dominique de Villepin against the French adoption of "exceptional" measures was a most incisive concise statement of the grave dangers posed by the Patriot Act from the time of its adoption since which it has played out in more and more horrific domestic realities which admonition he reportedly wrote in Le Monde that “[t]he spiral of suspicion created in the United States by the Patriot Act and the enduring legitimization of torture or illegal detention has today caused that country to lose its moral compass.” The editorial board of the Ninth Amendment at www.waronnothing.blogspot.com consistently has warned that that "moral compass" is embodied in the United States Constitution from which our great Nation incrementally has stayed most dangerously further and further. The time for a renewal of a Constitutional faith and concomitant action consistent with that faith based on an honest interpretation of its text and the enduring principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution are our light and our hope for ourselves and our future generations as they have been for nearly two and a half centuries.
3
I agree that panic after the 9-11 attacks has caused many Americans to lose their way. The idea that this country would condone torture and indefinite incarcerations without trials is a national disgrace. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like these travesties will be corrected anytime soon.
8
"The sting of cartoonist’s pens", as another NYT writer says, is the point of the Charlie Hebdo events, one missed in most of the debate.
Free speech is a right but also a responsibility, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance": cartoonists respond to that call -- they enjoy a freedom, but they provide a necessity -- every society needs someone to point out, pungently-enough to be listened-to, when the Emperor wears no clothes.
Today that irascible Charlie Hebdo bunch who died would proclaim "terrorism": mock, advocate, in uncomfortably-obscene cartoons to make it ridiculous, make people laugh and force something effective. Only now, in post-"Charlie" Paris, they'd be arrested...
The Reaction does not "get" this: they've put soldiers in streets, "rounded up the usual suspects", & made "praising terrorism" illegal -- now comedians are detained, George Orwell reading from "Animal Farm" would be arrested -- the irony in Charlie-Hebdo-the-trauma is that the Reaction, to the deaths of those paragons of Free Speech, is Censorship.
The three goofs-criminels needed housing, education, jobs, counseling -- society sadly had to eliminate them. The aim now is off: the "9/11" Reaction invaded Iraq -- & now the "Charlie Hebdo" Reaction is not Liberty, which “Charlie” championed, but Censorship.
So try, "outreach to Muslim youth": that’s the proximate-cause here, a "Unity" task more effective than Censorship. Until then the Reaction misses the point.
Free speech is a right but also a responsibility, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance": cartoonists respond to that call -- they enjoy a freedom, but they provide a necessity -- every society needs someone to point out, pungently-enough to be listened-to, when the Emperor wears no clothes.
Today that irascible Charlie Hebdo bunch who died would proclaim "terrorism": mock, advocate, in uncomfortably-obscene cartoons to make it ridiculous, make people laugh and force something effective. Only now, in post-"Charlie" Paris, they'd be arrested...
The Reaction does not "get" this: they've put soldiers in streets, "rounded up the usual suspects", & made "praising terrorism" illegal -- now comedians are detained, George Orwell reading from "Animal Farm" would be arrested -- the irony in Charlie-Hebdo-the-trauma is that the Reaction, to the deaths of those paragons of Free Speech, is Censorship.
The three goofs-criminels needed housing, education, jobs, counseling -- society sadly had to eliminate them. The aim now is off: the "9/11" Reaction invaded Iraq -- & now the "Charlie Hebdo" Reaction is not Liberty, which “Charlie” championed, but Censorship.
So try, "outreach to Muslim youth": that’s the proximate-cause here, a "Unity" task more effective than Censorship. Until then the Reaction misses the point.
2
Salman Rushdie said something like -
When you say we require freedom of speech and then add a ''but,'' I quit listening.
I agree with Salman.
When you say we require freedom of speech and then add a ''but,'' I quit listening.
I agree with Salman.
Here we have to competing ideas. Let's see, take precautions, limit freedoms, be safer, OR do nothing. Hmmmm! It's a no brainer.
So many voices warning what not to do, but where are the ideas of what to do ?
4
It's called "venting".
1
This is what being a former country that along with England colonized most of Africa, the Middle, Center and Far East in their "Glory Days". My daughter went to Europe and travelled through London and Paris last summer. She stated that if she didn't know what country she was in at the time her first thought would have been Pakistan or a some Middle Eastern country. You reap what you sow Europe. It was nice knowing you. I'm still waiting for Cat Stevens to apoligze for his statement that Salmon Rushdie should be killed for writing "Satanic Verses".
1
She stated that if she didn't know what country she was in at the time her first thought would have been Pakistan or a some Middle Eastern country.
France, since Napoleon has always been a country of immigration.
They have all contributed to what has made France great.
Seems as though your daughter was never taught about the benefits of diversity.
Next time she goes to Paris, she should try to search out a good couscous, tagine, or Reunionaise curry. She would most likely find some nice French speaking people.
France, since Napoleon has always been a country of immigration.
They have all contributed to what has made France great.
Seems as though your daughter was never taught about the benefits of diversity.
Next time she goes to Paris, she should try to search out a good couscous, tagine, or Reunionaise curry. She would most likely find some nice French speaking people.
2
It's offensive to compare the Charlie Hebdo attacks to the 9/11 attacks.
Secondarily, can anyone commenting or reading this forum recount a time when their personal records were illegally obtained and used against them through the Patriot Act?
The Patriot Act is used to catch terrorists and was devised to prevent further terrorist attacks. Logically speaking, it's a brilliant way to effectively monitor terrorist activity domestically. If you believe the Patriot Act is a waste of resources, what do you imagine would be more effective? Mass aggregation of cell phone data, that uses algorithms to pick up on "terrorist" activity makes sense financially and from an effectiveness point of view.
People do have a right to be critical of the Patriot Act, it COULD easily morph into an abuse of powers without proper checks and balances. To say it is a stupid, immoral, or illogical approach to the terrorists who work day in and day out to destroy our culture is ignorant.
Secondarily, can anyone commenting or reading this forum recount a time when their personal records were illegally obtained and used against them through the Patriot Act?
The Patriot Act is used to catch terrorists and was devised to prevent further terrorist attacks. Logically speaking, it's a brilliant way to effectively monitor terrorist activity domestically. If you believe the Patriot Act is a waste of resources, what do you imagine would be more effective? Mass aggregation of cell phone data, that uses algorithms to pick up on "terrorist" activity makes sense financially and from an effectiveness point of view.
People do have a right to be critical of the Patriot Act, it COULD easily morph into an abuse of powers without proper checks and balances. To say it is a stupid, immoral, or illogical approach to the terrorists who work day in and day out to destroy our culture is ignorant.
5
All I hear from the received media is hand wringing and cowardice. Civil rights - even to "insult" Mohammed - are not negotiable. Citizens must struggle and risk their lives for them. We cannot compromise our rights with the Patriot Act in a move toward a garrison state and expect to keep these liberties. Likewise, the problem will only worsen if we do not act aggressively.
When a religion as practiced - regardless what its book says - incites mass murder and other forms of inhuman behavior, its adherents have to change, leave or - in some cases - die. Young men who go to train with al Qaeda cannot be allowed to come back to the West. People who join terrorist social media are supporting terror. Those who join the armies of the ISL and are not killed in battle should be tried and punished by an extraterritorial military tribunal. Existing federal statutes support these views. Governments like Saudi Arabia who pretend to be allies but whose wealthiest citizens finance ISL are enemies and should be treated in so. Nations like Turkey that stymie NATO attempts to prevent mass murder in Iraq and Syria because their populations sympathize with ISL as co-religionists need to leave NATO and face sanctions. Immigration from terrorist-ridden regions needs to stop categorically - again as our laws currently allow.
Right now we are too scared to act. I've had enough inward-looking nonsense - eg, PBS afraid to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo. The civil society is in peril. Fight.
When a religion as practiced - regardless what its book says - incites mass murder and other forms of inhuman behavior, its adherents have to change, leave or - in some cases - die. Young men who go to train with al Qaeda cannot be allowed to come back to the West. People who join terrorist social media are supporting terror. Those who join the armies of the ISL and are not killed in battle should be tried and punished by an extraterritorial military tribunal. Existing federal statutes support these views. Governments like Saudi Arabia who pretend to be allies but whose wealthiest citizens finance ISL are enemies and should be treated in so. Nations like Turkey that stymie NATO attempts to prevent mass murder in Iraq and Syria because their populations sympathize with ISL as co-religionists need to leave NATO and face sanctions. Immigration from terrorist-ridden regions needs to stop categorically - again as our laws currently allow.
Right now we are too scared to act. I've had enough inward-looking nonsense - eg, PBS afraid to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo. The civil society is in peril. Fight.
4
So the French think that they aren't being spied upon by their own government?
How quaint.
How quaint.
4
The French will never allow a laughably misnamed Patriot Act of their own - they rightly sneer at the disastrous effects it's had on the supposed Bastion of Democracy...
4
You might check this out: http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/07/04/revelations-on-the-fren...
“The spiral of suspicion created in the United States by the Patriot Act and the enduring legitimization of torture or illegal detention has today caused that country to lose its moral compass”. Dominique de Villepin's 'moral compass' is easily summed up by the fact that he makes his living as principal adviser to an important Qatari fund in Paris.
2
Not one comment, or any group of comments, in response to this report, or any other report on terrorism, and activities by governments that seek to give the impression of being designed to thwart terrorism, none will affect in any manner, shape or form, the intentions of these governments.
The reality is this; each anti-Patriot Act comment is, beyond any doubt, archived in an NSA electronic storage facility, tabulated, tagged, and added to the "file" that we all know exists on each and every American, who has shown any interest whatsoever in the activities of our government and its agencies.
In fact, the NSA is so secure in its perception of its government sanctioned right to continued all-encompassing surveillance of humanity, it now makes available some of the Snowden released documents, on its own website.
Note their humorous "allottabytes"...
Excerpt and link:
"In February 2012, Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert revealed that the Utah Data Center would be the "first facility in the world expected to gather and house a yottabyte". Since then, conflicting media reports have also estimated our storage capacity in terms of zettabytes and exabytes. While the actual capacity is classified for NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS, we can say this: The Utah Data Center was built with future expansion in mind and the ultimate capacity will definitely be "alottabytes"
https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/
The reality is this; each anti-Patriot Act comment is, beyond any doubt, archived in an NSA electronic storage facility, tabulated, tagged, and added to the "file" that we all know exists on each and every American, who has shown any interest whatsoever in the activities of our government and its agencies.
In fact, the NSA is so secure in its perception of its government sanctioned right to continued all-encompassing surveillance of humanity, it now makes available some of the Snowden released documents, on its own website.
Note their humorous "allottabytes"...
Excerpt and link:
"In February 2012, Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert revealed that the Utah Data Center would be the "first facility in the world expected to gather and house a yottabyte". Since then, conflicting media reports have also estimated our storage capacity in terms of zettabytes and exabytes. While the actual capacity is classified for NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS, we can say this: The Utah Data Center was built with future expansion in mind and the ultimate capacity will definitely be "alottabytes"
https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/
6
May the French act with prudence not out of hysterical fear as did our US Congress. There is nothing patriotic about the Patriot Act, may it be abolished.
34
Good for the French and French rationalism. In some ways they are clearly saner than Americans.
6
And that´s great for the French ... but, let´s not forget that they lost 17 people in their "9/11". We lost nearly 3,000. I think I´d be a bit calmer and more sane, too.
(
(
1
Wasn't the election of Mr. Obama supposed to be 'A New Beginning' for the relationship between Islam and the West?
Why does poverty and Islam go hand in hand in so many places around the world?
Don't Western societies have a reasonable expectation that immigrant groups will assimilate to their culture, not the other way around?
Is Radical Islamic Terror an existential threat? I honestly don't know. A fifty to a hundred year idealogical struggle? I would say yes. Especially as radicalized individuals have access to more and more devastating technology and weaponry.
The idea that Western governments won't make—or continue to make—mistakes as they confront a threat this complex is simply naive.
Why does poverty and Islam go hand in hand in so many places around the world?
Don't Western societies have a reasonable expectation that immigrant groups will assimilate to their culture, not the other way around?
Is Radical Islamic Terror an existential threat? I honestly don't know. A fifty to a hundred year idealogical struggle? I would say yes. Especially as radicalized individuals have access to more and more devastating technology and weaponry.
The idea that Western governments won't make—or continue to make—mistakes as they confront a threat this complex is simply naive.
1
"jihad" is in the mind.
Obama is at the mercy of the system. All presidents are. The warnings of Eisenhower and Kennedy have gone ignored, and now we pay the price.
Because Islam is the predominant religion in the poor places of the world, where government is weak and corrupt beyond our own. Because government is weak, there is no penalty to those who harm in the name of religion. MAKE NO MISTAKE, were the US government viewed as weak, Christians would be crucifying people left and right.
Yes, they do. They've tried "making nice-nice" for the last 10 years in the name of pluralism, and the bad elements took advantage of that. France is now bringing out the Assimilation Stick, as you'll see in the coming months.
That depends on your solution to poverty. Poor people with nothing to lose and everything to gain will worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if it will put food in their belly. This is true of ALL religions.
Beware, words of that stripe; the most deadly weapon in the universe is the pen. Just ask the authors of any religious text. But if people have at least a little food, and reason to hope for things in *THIS* life, then no promise of paradise after death can inspire much in the way of idiocy among the masses.
Because Islam is the predominant religion in the poor places of the world, where government is weak and corrupt beyond our own. Because government is weak, there is no penalty to those who harm in the name of religion. MAKE NO MISTAKE, were the US government viewed as weak, Christians would be crucifying people left and right.
Yes, they do. They've tried "making nice-nice" for the last 10 years in the name of pluralism, and the bad elements took advantage of that. France is now bringing out the Assimilation Stick, as you'll see in the coming months.
That depends on your solution to poverty. Poor people with nothing to lose and everything to gain will worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if it will put food in their belly. This is true of ALL religions.
Beware, words of that stripe; the most deadly weapon in the universe is the pen. Just ask the authors of any religious text. But if people have at least a little food, and reason to hope for things in *THIS* life, then no promise of paradise after death can inspire much in the way of idiocy among the masses.
The "Patriot Act" came about through an alliance of politicians terrified that they would be blamed for the next attack and a group of thugs who had been waiting many years for their chance to turn America into a police state.
Obviously, the French are better than that.
Obviously, the French are better than that.
4
The US security bureaucracy evidently transference-projected its own kind of organization onto Osama bin Laden's loose network of sympaticos to sell the Congress and the US public on militarizing the police.
4
We had all the information we needed to stop the 9/11 attack. That was before the Patriot Act. You have to love the names if they were not so misleading and stifling of debate. After the Patriot Act we had numerous acts of terror (I am using the term loosely) including the Boston Marathon bombings. The conclusion is too obvious for words.
7
If passengers had been alerted to the possibility of suicide hijackings, they might have stopped the hijackings of 9/11, or the public alert might have deterred the hijackers altogether.
4
@Steve Bolger: " If passengers had been alerted to the possibility of suicide hijackings,"
That "possibility" has always existed insofar as air travel is concerned. I am guessing the 9/11 attacks were not the first time our intelligence community though these types of attacks might occur. But now we are on what is essentially a permanent alert. You should be happy about that, right?
That "possibility" has always existed insofar as air travel is concerned. I am guessing the 9/11 attacks were not the first time our intelligence community though these types of attacks might occur. But now we are on what is essentially a permanent alert. You should be happy about that, right?
1
Jp,
I don't understand. The Texas White House briefing of Aug. 2001, spoke specifically about passenger jets being used as missiles.
I doubt,very much, that was a standard, monthly alert.
I don't understand. The Texas White House briefing of Aug. 2001, spoke specifically about passenger jets being used as missiles.
I doubt,very much, that was a standard, monthly alert.
1
Radical Islam is the scourge of the modern-day world. It's much worse than Nazism. I'm sorry to say, but people who decide to engage in faux-religious jihad deserve whatever comes their way, either in the back alleys of Paris or on the dusty battlefield of Syria. It's in the interest of all freedom-loving people to see this plague upon our society wiped out. While I wasn't a fan of the Patriot Act, I have to say, I would rather have that in place than a bunch of 20 year-old jihadists running around shooting, destroying and killing. I very much have an "us against them" view about radical Islamic terrorism.
2
The French intelligence services, like all of their European counterparts, have powers that would make the FBI, NSA, and CIA blush. There is nothing in the USA Patriot Act that is not already within the repertoire of the European security services.
7
Thank you for this reality check. Most comments here reflect a romantic fantasy about the USA being the only country with internal surveillance.
2
The question here, to me, is how many lives we are willing to lose to terrorism. If we believe that 5, 10, 100 lives can be dispensed with, we should do away with 'draconian' act. If we think that every citizen needs to be protected, the Patriot Act has a place in our society. Surveillance does not kill people, terrorists do. I will rather be watched than blown up in a plane or shot at a supermarket. I hope the crowd championing civil rights here do not have families or friends in the line of sight of Boko Haram, Shahab, ISIS, or Taliban.
1
I have a scary feeling this could get out of hand quickly if there was another attack in Paris. Hopefully things will slow down and get back to some type of new normal, and the French will be able too look at this tragedy from a distance, not while the wounds are fresh. America made shamefully reacted after Pearl Harbor by putting Japanese Americans in internment camps and after 9/11 with an Attack on Iraq, torture and Gitmo. France would be wise to study or mistakes, and the increased terror those mistakes brought the world.
3
Watch for Charlie Hebdo to draw cartoons critical of the crackdown on free speech and these proposed laws. This is the last thing they would want to be done in response the murders of their friends.
2
The arms industry in the US is part of the problem, but who's going to challenge the power of this industry and the NRA?
8
Right it is always our fault. Until France needs the help of the USA. Then everything is OK.
2
Billions spent. A whole new area of government spending with little oversight. Many freedoms abused. Many innocent people arrested. A loss of our reputation throughout the world. Little real evidence it has accomplished anything that we could not have done under existing laws. The Anti American act or the patriot act?
So why would any sane country do this? Remember we are the God ,Guns, Grits and Gravy group so we are excused from rational thought.
So why would any sane country do this? Remember we are the God ,Guns, Grits and Gravy group so we are excused from rational thought.
10
The French appear to already have strong anti=terrorism laws. However, I do believe the French government should have (1) the right to monitor communications of suspected terrorists through secret court approval; (2) the right to closely monitor any suspected terrorist sympathizers travel plans, and (3) the ability to strip away the citizenship of persons who are stopped while they attempt to join a terrorist group, have already joined a terrorist group and are currently out of the country fighting for a group like ISIS, and in addition those who are returning to France and whose travel documents show they have been to Turkey or the hot spots of ISIS or Al Gueda activity. Along with the deprivation of citizenship, such individuals should be imprisoned, then immediately deported to some Muslim country actively fighting terrorism so that country can impose whatever penalties it see fit, and the French terrorist never returns to France.
French Muslims are not going to join ISIS to participate in peaceful demonstrations overseas. Rather, they are going to commit mass murder and mass rape and enslavement of women. Any method to stop them from engaging in these activities in France is appropriate.
French Muslims are not going to join ISIS to participate in peaceful demonstrations overseas. Rather, they are going to commit mass murder and mass rape and enslavement of women. Any method to stop them from engaging in these activities in France is appropriate.
How many successful jihadist attacks in the US since the Patriot Act = 0
How many attacks in countries with no such surveillance systems = dozens
"You already have zero privacy. Get over it." - Scott G. McNealy CEO of Sun Microsystems (1999)
How many attacks in countries with no such surveillance systems = dozens
"You already have zero privacy. Get over it." - Scott G. McNealy CEO of Sun Microsystems (1999)
2
I really don't know the answer to this. But wasn't the Boston bomber a jihad attack?
5
The fraudulently named "Patriot Act" should not be replicated it should be repealed. It was a knee jerk reaction to fear that cost us hard earned freedoms. Don't do it France.
10
At least the so-called Patriot Act has allowed other countries to learn from our mistakes - now if only we would.
11
A suggestion to our European allies: Study the measures supported by Dick Cheney - and then do the opposite.
10
The PATRIOT ACT is the bane of our modern interpretation of what it is to be "PRE-protected" in this style of political socio-economic government--if Great Britain before the Revolution had effectively legislated and written all kinds of laws about terrorists and terrorism the revolution could *never* have happened; afterall, does anyone today have any notion how violent and intense the pamphlets and actions against the enforcers of British tax and social laws became? Judges were attacked in the streets. Local representatives executed their perfidious acts against pre-war "American interests" from aboard British Navy vessels offshore out of fear for themselves. The judiciary/military/enforcement branch here has a too sanctified status; we have a legislature and executive so completely removed from the nuts-and-bolts of actual human experience that we now have this kind of passive investigative, invasive, unconstitutional tyranny--passive but I am pretty sure it's not very passive to be honest. Whatever you think of Snowden Poitras Manning and Greenwald and whistleblowers like Bamford, we have been given a very disturbing peek at the self-serving duplicity as well as bald-faced lying perpetrated by gilded age type crooks in the face of the apathy of more than 50% of the electorate (afterall about 50% ever vote in this country and locally, far far less). It is my belief that the PATRIOT ACT is an act of cowardice by a very select and contemptible group of conceited actors
6
What the French should not do is make this a defining moment in their nation's history. After 9/11 we in the United States got all patriotic and cheered on while engaging in two land wars in Asia. Three trillion dollars later and an Iraq War which conservative columnist George Will called the worst blunder in American history we see the Middle East in shambles as a result.
8
If we had any guts, the Patriot act would've been ridiculed here, too.
8
Yet the Pentagon just announced sending 1,000 troops to Turkey, Qatar and Saudi to train "moderate" Syrian rebel beheaders. The moderate beheaders will of course take American military tactics and materiel to commit terror on the people of Syria and beyond.
There is a gaping hole in news coverage, and that is the cause-effect of American imperialism in the Middle East, wholesale destruction of entire states, and radicalism.
There is a gaping hole in news coverage, and that is the cause-effect of American imperialism in the Middle East, wholesale destruction of entire states, and radicalism.
11
Yes! Thank you!
3
I challenge the reader with this question:
Which country's policy has yielded safer domestic conditions?
Which country's policy has yielded safer domestic conditions?
3
@Jason
PRC China!
There has been no known major terrorist incidents there. Even Australia and Canada got hit.
Some of the worst are Russia, UK and USA.
PRC China!
There has been no known major terrorist incidents there. Even Australia and Canada got hit.
Some of the worst are Russia, UK and USA.
2
There have been some Islamist terror incidents there, but in general, you are right. Why? Because China is a dictatorship and doesn't worry about the niceties that tarry (most) NYT readers. Obviously, I am not saying we should go there, but unless we take minimal reasonable precautions to preserve our freedoms, we will end up part of an Islamist Caliphate or at least a neutered, impoverished polity. The way so many here speak, one would think we are as bad as China is though. There is light years' difference even under the Patriot Act, but if we abandon such simple, common sense precautions, the end is nigh...
1
Americans followed a similar trajectory after 9/11. Our instinctive response in the immediate aftermath was courage and determination, but we soon let the government manipulate us into surrendering to fear, willing to do anything to feel protected.
Take it from us: Giving up your rights, giving up a precious part of your national identity out of fear in exchange for a false sense of security is a lousy bargain. It's a disgrace we Americans have had to live with.
Be Charlie, France. Fight to defend your freedom. Say "Je ne suis pas Double Vé."
Take it from us: Giving up your rights, giving up a precious part of your national identity out of fear in exchange for a false sense of security is a lousy bargain. It's a disgrace we Americans have had to live with.
Be Charlie, France. Fight to defend your freedom. Say "Je ne suis pas Double Vé."
3
France should be like the USA and use this tragedy to chip away at personal freedom for political gain.
2
France is already more fascist than the U.S., so the idea that France could ridicule the Patriot Act is rather funny without any context. France is arresting and administratively imprisoning comedians for making the wrong comments. France doesn't have a 1 amendment and now they're farther from a 1st amendment than ever.
3
French officials used a new antiterrorism law to crack down on what previously would have been considered free speech.
The article reads: "[There have been] a string of arrests in which French officials used a new antiterrorism law to crack down on what previously would have been considered free speech. One man was sentenced to six months in prison for shouting support for the Charlie Hebdo attackers. Up to 100 others are under investigation for remarks that support or tried to justify terrorism, authorities said."
How long ago was it that there were a million "Je Suis Charlie" French citizen supporters, with numerous world political leaders at the front, marching in support of the French right of free speech to mock and ridicule the Islamic religion by the Charlie Hebdo newspaper?
Pope Francis subsequently addressed this subject: "You cannot provoke; you cannot insult other people's faiths; you cannot make fun of faith. Many people who speak badly about other religions, who make fun of them, and make other people's religions a joke . . ., well, that is a provocation."
Many news publications, including the NYTimes, refused to print the memorial issue cover cartoon of Charlie Hebdo for the very reason that it again mocked and ridiculed the Islamic religion. Maybe France should enact a new law banning the mocking and ridicule of non-Catholic religions in order to bring balance to its new antiterrorism law?
The article reads: "[There have been] a string of arrests in which French officials used a new antiterrorism law to crack down on what previously would have been considered free speech. One man was sentenced to six months in prison for shouting support for the Charlie Hebdo attackers. Up to 100 others are under investigation for remarks that support or tried to justify terrorism, authorities said."
How long ago was it that there were a million "Je Suis Charlie" French citizen supporters, with numerous world political leaders at the front, marching in support of the French right of free speech to mock and ridicule the Islamic religion by the Charlie Hebdo newspaper?
Pope Francis subsequently addressed this subject: "You cannot provoke; you cannot insult other people's faiths; you cannot make fun of faith. Many people who speak badly about other religions, who make fun of them, and make other people's religions a joke . . ., well, that is a provocation."
Many news publications, including the NYTimes, refused to print the memorial issue cover cartoon of Charlie Hebdo for the very reason that it again mocked and ridiculed the Islamic religion. Maybe France should enact a new law banning the mocking and ridicule of non-Catholic religions in order to bring balance to its new antiterrorism law?
2
Charlie printed a picture of a weeping Mohammad. It was their way of saying they knew the attack on them did not spring from deep in Islam thought but might have anguished the prophet himself.
Charlie Hebdo's martyrs took nobody's religious pretensions seriously. That is the only way forward for genuinely democratic government.
@Steve Bolger: It sounds like they ignored the warnings from previous attacks because of a perceived dis-respect. If they had taken those pretensions seriously this attack might have been avoided. Sound familiar?
First, 17 people in France died in the Charlie Hebdo attack. 3000 died in the United States on 9/11.
Second, European countries have already been living under their own forms of the Patriot Act for decades because of the terrorism that has threatened them for that long.
Second, European countries have already been living under their own forms of the Patriot Act for decades because of the terrorism that has threatened them for that long.
2
It's funny to read this article while I am sitting down watching a documentary on how the government had a program called "The Program". The Documentary is called Frontline: United States of Secrets. It also mention The New York Times on how they tried to exposed it.
1
One has to wait for the last two paragraphs to understand why the French "ridicule" our Patriot Act; they already have the necessary laws to restrict their citizen's liberties without it!
3
So now which is the greatest nation on earth? I forget. It sure isn't the US, not anymore.
2
The Patriot Act, the magnum opus of the neocon's bucket list, has undermined the essential freedoms and liberties for which this republic ostensibly stands...
3
The Patriot Act was a knee jerk reaction to the horrors of 9/11, just as the internment of Japanese citizens after Pearl Harbor, or, for that matter, the French building the Maginot Line after WW I.
All were political acts done to make us feel safer, but all were wrong headed, a waste of money and time, and didn't solve anything. I congratulate the French who ridicule a "Patriot Act" for their country in this moment.
All were political acts done to make us feel safer, but all were wrong headed, a waste of money and time, and didn't solve anything. I congratulate the French who ridicule a "Patriot Act" for their country in this moment.
5
The article quotes many people but does not give the dates of their comments. There was a massacre in Paris recently and the whole world knows it. There are wars in the Middle East, France is a participant with fighter jets and support troops and the whole world knows it and, in particular,France has an enemy which claims statehood and indeed controls half of what used to be Iraq and part of Syria. The whole world knows its name--ISIS. There is a war on terror and by terrorists and the whole world knows that too. The question for France is whether adopting stricter surveillance and anti-terrorist laws will be effective or counterproductive in this war. That is what the USA and France are grappling with. The whole world does not know the answer to that yet. The curtailment of civil liberties in wartime is a fact of life. Sometimes their abridgement has been egregious and unforgivable such as the internment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. Ask German-American and Italian-American citizens living in this country about surveillance during WW2. It happened. The article is replete with sanctimony.
3
Good for the French. But with all due respect. the attack on 9/11 was 100X the Charlie Hebdo attack. It was a huge hit on NYC and a long drawn out horror broadcast to the world in slow motion. I think we can be forgiven for over reacting. Let's see what happens if Paris endures a bigger hit.
3
One should keep in mind that different European countries have experienced terrorist attacks in their past: the spanish with the basque seperatists, the italians with the red brigade, the germans with the Badher band, english with the IRA and the french with various muslim teerorists attacks. So these recent attacks can in no way be compared to 9/11. The french have no illusions about being a haven from possible terrorrist attacks.
France has had for years a security plan called ''Vigipirate'', vigilance against pirates if you will, which shifts security forces between different security levels depending on how high the risk of terrorist attacts is judged to be. These changes are mentionned in the news media so the French are aware of the ever present risk of terrotist attacks. There have been numerous reports about the french people going to fight the Jihad and the risk they pose upon their return. Suppressing freedoms will not suppress these risks.
When you have 8% of your population of Arab Muslim descent, who are poorly integrated and poorly accepted in the country, you need only a very small fraction of this population to turn radical to have a threat. The threat of terrorist attack is here to stay. We just have to learn to live with it.
France has had for years a security plan called ''Vigipirate'', vigilance against pirates if you will, which shifts security forces between different security levels depending on how high the risk of terrorist attacts is judged to be. These changes are mentionned in the news media so the French are aware of the ever present risk of terrotist attacks. There have been numerous reports about the french people going to fight the Jihad and the risk they pose upon their return. Suppressing freedoms will not suppress these risks.
When you have 8% of your population of Arab Muslim descent, who are poorly integrated and poorly accepted in the country, you need only a very small fraction of this population to turn radical to have a threat. The threat of terrorist attack is here to stay. We just have to learn to live with it.
4
"The land of the free, and the home of the brave" ring hollow when we succumb to terror and behave as if we were nuked by a genuine threat instead of an international criminal conspiracy funded by our allies: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and trained in Wahhabi madrasas. The public, indeed the world has been deceived. Our actions, our wars have distracted us from the root cause of this terrorist industry. Instead of attacking Iraq and Afghanistan and fuelling terrorism we should be helping to end the ridiculous monarchies that fund and foment violence around the world. How can we continue to associate with monarchies that behave so ignorantly? Elitist collaboration is all that comes to mind. Our rich work with their rich to get richer. They keep us enslaved to oil addiction, crushed by inequality, and herded by the terror that they promote by aiding Al Qaeda, ISIS, or the military industrial complex.
The French ridicule of the Patriot Act is timely. Americans should cringe when we hear the name Patriot Act in the same way that the French cringe at The Committee for Public Safety. Policies described by slogans often justify extraordinary cruelty in contradiction to the slogan. Politicians who shout about "freedom" and evoke fear should be labelled as un-American.
The French ridicule of the Patriot Act is timely. Americans should cringe when we hear the name Patriot Act in the same way that the French cringe at The Committee for Public Safety. Policies described by slogans often justify extraordinary cruelty in contradiction to the slogan. Politicians who shout about "freedom" and evoke fear should be labelled as un-American.
12
yes, except you saw how well the Arab-spring went.
These people do not play nice and we'd be best to totally steer clear of the middle east.
These people do not play nice and we'd be best to totally steer clear of the middle east.
1
“The spiral of suspicion created in the United States by the Patriot Act and the enduring legitimization of torture or illegal detention has today caused that country to lose its moral compass."
Right on the money.
Right on the money.
17
Can't the French focus on truly important measures, such as we have done in the US? In the US Capitol cafeteria, they renamed french fries as "freedom fries" (when France would not support the Iraq War II) - why can't the French do something equally meaningful and impactful?
12
Excellent best suggestion yet, I couldn't stop laughing. Our lawmakers are truly pathetic.
1
The Patriot Act - fear turned into legislation.
Considering the last century, it's easily the lowest we've ever gone legally.
Just thinking of it, makes me sick to my stomach.
Considering the last century, it's easily the lowest we've ever gone legally.
Just thinking of it, makes me sick to my stomach.
13
It must be obvious to all that until the U. S. and its allies become a force for peace and cooperation in the world, not violence and death as in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gaza, Yemen, Pakistan, and countless other places of the world, we will be subject again and again to the brutal blowback of those we have enraged by our actions. We must consider the consequences of our drones and needless wars -- and the great mass of innocent civilians whose lives we have ended.
13
It's not obvious to me, sorry. For example, the "violence and death" in Gaza resulted squarely from thousands of rocket attacks launched by Hamas in Gaza across an international border on Israel - indiscriminate ones intended to terrorize. "The U.S. and its allies" had nothing to do with that aggression. The same applies for the other countries you mentioned with appropriate changes for their situation, e.g., in Afghanistan, a terrorist organization planned a ruthless, unprovoked, but in any case, terrorist attack on the United States causing a toll which exceeded the deaths of the Pearl Harbor attack.
Using the term blowback to refer, I assume, to events such as the Charlie Hebdo outrage is completely wrong and I doubt even most on liberal spectrum would buy into it, frankly.
Using the term blowback to refer, I assume, to events such as the Charlie Hebdo outrage is completely wrong and I doubt even most on liberal spectrum would buy into it, frankly.
1
After Pearl Harbor, this country's worst security failure, we put thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps without due process, believing they were a threat to our country. So it's not surprising that after 9/11, the second worst security failure in our nation's history, if our government erred it was on the side of caution.
I can understand and even excuse that up to a point. What is inexcusable in the case of the Bush administration was the lack of oversight and accountability for the excesses by these, our elected officials, leading to the Patriot Act, WMD and the Iraq war. Only now are we learning many of the dirty secrets the CIA and the NSA kept from the public.
Free societies have always struggled to come up with the right balance between license and liberty. Unfortunately for France their colonial past has come back to haunt them today.
I can understand and even excuse that up to a point. What is inexcusable in the case of the Bush administration was the lack of oversight and accountability for the excesses by these, our elected officials, leading to the Patriot Act, WMD and the Iraq war. Only now are we learning many of the dirty secrets the CIA and the NSA kept from the public.
Free societies have always struggled to come up with the right balance between license and liberty. Unfortunately for France their colonial past has come back to haunt them today.
9
easy to blame the government, what were the citizens doing when all of this was happening in the name of security. Why was Bush reelected after the WMD and the Iraq war.
Fact of the matter is, people are equally responsible!
Fact of the matter is, people are equally responsible!
1
How come citizens with German ancestry were not locked up in camps too?
Just asking...
Just asking...
France's "colonial past" had nothing to do with the Charlie Hebdo massacre and to link the two things is risible, in my opinion. The massacre was caused by the malign people who planned and executed this evil act, period, end of story. Millions of people in the position of the Koachi brothers, i.e., from a similar socio-economic background, would never dream of doing what they did and what they did may be more the result of their personalities and difficult upbringing (e.g. orphaned at a young age) than anything else.
Pearl Harbor, just like Charlie Hebdo, cannot have been predicted and stopped with any certainty. It is the nature of such acts that they are unfortunately all too easy to pull off in a peaceful world where people generally assume the good intentions of others and get on with other things of more concern to them.
The irony is, a maximum environment of individual liberty, as seemingly 90% of the commenters here want, can only increase the risk of attacks which won't be detected. No doubt many potential attacks were indeed thwarted by the Patriot Act, but we do not hear much about them. Think about it...
Pearl Harbor, just like Charlie Hebdo, cannot have been predicted and stopped with any certainty. It is the nature of such acts that they are unfortunately all too easy to pull off in a peaceful world where people generally assume the good intentions of others and get on with other things of more concern to them.
The irony is, a maximum environment of individual liberty, as seemingly 90% of the commenters here want, can only increase the risk of attacks which won't be detected. No doubt many potential attacks were indeed thwarted by the Patriot Act, but we do not hear much about them. Think about it...
That's why we're never going to "win" the war against terrorism. We restrict ourselves with complex rules while they have no rules at all. I have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act. Only suspected terrorists do. The line between privacy and protection is not immovable, and it benefits 99.99% of our people to adjust it as necessary.
6
I see hundreds of comments saying how bad the Patriot Act was. In hindsight everything is 20/20. How many of those commenting here thought the Patriot Act was good legislation back in 2001/2002? I recall many people actually saying that they would be willing to sacrifice liberties over security.
I find it hard to believe that 100% of those commenting here thought that the Patriot Act was a bad idea back in the day.
I find it hard to believe that 100% of those commenting here thought that the Patriot Act was a bad idea back in the day.
3
A fair point. I think I felt reassured by it but did not look at it carefully or extensively. I live in NYC (and was at the time of 9/11). At time passed, and I calmed down a bit, I was surprised to find out what a blank check it was in unleashing a security apparatus and special operations, even domestic ones. I simply did not believe at first how far it went and was horrified as we began to see the roiling domestic hatred, real blowback from shocked friends and a contrived war in Iraq.
3
I hated it then and hated the war then - my feelings ave not changed
and I still think that Bush, Cheney, and Rummy should be held accountable.
The big issue for me was how America reacted to an attack ON OUR SOIL -
Yes, we fought in ww1 and ww2 and everyone knows a family that lost a son or daughter - I was tragic, and America helped in many non military ways as well - But we have not had a war on our soil - We do not know what it's like to wonder where to sleep tonight because our house just got blown up - We should never forget that when we start a war .
and I still think that Bush, Cheney, and Rummy should be held accountable.
The big issue for me was how America reacted to an attack ON OUR SOIL -
Yes, we fought in ww1 and ww2 and everyone knows a family that lost a son or daughter - I was tragic, and America helped in many non military ways as well - But we have not had a war on our soil - We do not know what it's like to wonder where to sleep tonight because our house just got blown up - We should never forget that when we start a war .
2
The French actually know what liberty is. The Patriot Act, like the Sedition and Alienation Acts of the Federalists in the 18th century, does nothing but curtail our freedom and provide an excuse for lawmen to behave more like thugs. Who are these people who strip search and leave prisoners naked? I am fortunate not to know anyone capable of things like this. They must fester amid the uneducated.
9
Maybe you do know someone that not only is capable of strip searching and leaving prisoners naked, but have actually done it. They me be too embarrassed or ashamed or prohibited by secrecy to come forward. Don't underestimate the human mind.
Oh yes, the French know what liberty is, but they don't have any more than we do. Their media is only allowed to us French words. Surveillance? They have more than we have in the US http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/07/04/revelations-on-the-fren...
1
I've commented before about my having enjoyed friendly conversation over decades with many Muslim men and women. We should concentrate with American Muslims on ways to address a minority. yet lethal, element that is defiling their religion -- and killing many innocents. I'm open as well to suggestions for ending the chronic lethality of Netanyahu and his Likhud gang. (I'm every bit as Jewish as they.)
4
I'm glad the French are having this debate. We had none. All we had was a knee jerk reaction based on fear and anger - neither of which are ever likely to lead to a long-term workable solution. Hopefully the French will examine the situation more rationally and come up with a solution better than the one we got stuck with.
56
The levels of debate are correlative to the levels of the threat in each case. Charlie Hebdo, bad as it was, was not a 9/11. A more correct analogue to 9/11 would be the attack on Pearl Harbor. Not sure how much debate there was about what to do its aftermath, but in any case, there was debate following 9/11 and it has only continued and broadened through a ceaseless program of self-examination not to mention self-doubt and critique. To a fault, in my opinion.
2
We have much more to fear of the fear mongers than we do of any terrorist.
21
It would be pure folly for France to follow the path of the U.S. post 9/11. Our illegal invasion, occupation, and subjugation of Iraq and its people created the chaos that gave birth to the homicidal maniacs known as IS. The French should not take any advice from our government since our abhorrent (foreign and domestic) "antiterrorism" policies/actions have placed the entire planet in peril.
13
Rulers use paranoia to control the masses. We are a young country, and we have terrible historical memory. Europeans can look back and say "Been there, done that. Doesn't work." Older countries just sit back and chuckle at us. To them we're like a kid trying to pet a porcupine.
The cost of security has dropped the US standard of living significantly, making us a third world country. We're building a fortress around a dump. You're lucky if you survive birth and childhood in the U.S.
The cost of security has dropped the US standard of living significantly, making us a third world country. We're building a fortress around a dump. You're lucky if you survive birth and childhood in the U.S.
11
World and individual opinion of the Patriot Act and all of what it has or has not accomplished has little meaning or value if the Patriot Act is never examined in courts of law. For good or for bad the Patriot Act was deliberately crafted with a chief intent to evade law and criminal investigation. It is an extremely powerful tool and weapon which bestows upon the office of the president exactly the kind of royal authority authors of the US Constitution were most fearful of.
The White House under George W Bush used 9/11 to justify the necessity for the creation of the Patriot Act. And no single prosecution represents the true nature of the Patriot Act better than the proceedings against the man most responsible for planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Just as the Patriot Act was crafted the removal of proceedings against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from Federal Court and to military authority seeks to evade Federal law and constitutional authority and attacks the fundamental authority of the US Constitution.
To truly protect the US Constitution the President's duty calls upon him to restore criminal proceedings against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his codefendants to US Federal Court.
Only in Federal Court will the world learn of the value or threat the Patriot Act poses.
The White House under George W Bush used 9/11 to justify the necessity for the creation of the Patriot Act. And no single prosecution represents the true nature of the Patriot Act better than the proceedings against the man most responsible for planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Just as the Patriot Act was crafted the removal of proceedings against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from Federal Court and to military authority seeks to evade Federal law and constitutional authority and attacks the fundamental authority of the US Constitution.
To truly protect the US Constitution the President's duty calls upon him to restore criminal proceedings against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his codefendants to US Federal Court.
Only in Federal Court will the world learn of the value or threat the Patriot Act poses.
9
The Patriot Act was one of the worst mistakes in recent American history. It gave confidence to terrorists that they can change our way of life and the liberties we cherish the most.
Terrorists need an audience, much like serial killers and psychopaths. We shof treat them no different than Jeffrey Dahmer or Unabomber. The Patriot Act limited liberties and emboldened terrorists.
Terrorists need an audience, much like serial killers and psychopaths. We shof treat them no different than Jeffrey Dahmer or Unabomber. The Patriot Act limited liberties and emboldened terrorists.
8
One of the abuses enacted by the government after 9/11 is the seizure by police of cash and property without a warrant, without probable cause, and without any charges. AG Holder has finally addressed this issue on the federal level, but this abuse can still be perpetrated on the state level. An estimated $3 billion has been seized by the police since 2008.
5
It started long before 9/11. When RICO laws were passed in the 1970s, they allowed for asset seizures by feds, though it was not put into practice at that time. By the late 1970s, feds were engaging in some asset seizure/forfeiture (think: ABSCAM). It was during Reagan's first term in office (1984 or 1985) that the federal law subject to so much abuse by state and local law enforcement agencies was enacted by Congress. That is when "equitable sharing" via the case adoption process began. Fast forward to 9/11 (which served as a green light on steroids) and it became, in essence, policing for profit.
Way back in 2002, soon after 9/11, when I heard the terms "Homeland Security" and "Patriot Act," my heart sank, as I correctly saw the erosion of our liberties in the cause of safety. One can argue whether or not we are safer, but it is clear we have sacrificed many freedoms and perpetrated torture without bringing charges against those being held in Guatanamo.
26
Both phrases are like something out of a totalitarian state.
5
It seems to me that no one in this country really understands the nature of 'law' -- a law is what we collectively agree on as the standards for our behavior as individuals and as groups. (Remember the old phrase, "community standards"?)
The misprision of both the First and Second Amendments, i.e. taking them both to mean unfettered individualism is now epidemic.
It's why the NRA goes crazy over even one little legal limit put on untrammeled gun ownership; and why even the NYT goes crazy thinking that the French are hypocrites for arresting that comedian for hate speech, while proclaiming "We are Charlie" as a nation.
The difference is vast between the comic's wish to see all Jews dead and the French national community rising up against the Charlie Hebdo attack on freedom of the press.
The first incites to violence, and if it were not sanctioned people might begin to think that all members of the community were 'OK' with thinking such things and then acting on them.
The second pokes fun as those who make claims for the exclusive right to deprive others of their freedom of speech.
The misprision of both the First and Second Amendments, i.e. taking them both to mean unfettered individualism is now epidemic.
It's why the NRA goes crazy over even one little legal limit put on untrammeled gun ownership; and why even the NYT goes crazy thinking that the French are hypocrites for arresting that comedian for hate speech, while proclaiming "We are Charlie" as a nation.
The difference is vast between the comic's wish to see all Jews dead and the French national community rising up against the Charlie Hebdo attack on freedom of the press.
The first incites to violence, and if it were not sanctioned people might begin to think that all members of the community were 'OK' with thinking such things and then acting on them.
The second pokes fun as those who make claims for the exclusive right to deprive others of their freedom of speech.
2
I support our efforts to help eliminate the the prospect of another 9/11 but think the NSA and others need a lesson in privacy. Whatever France chooses to do is Frances problem and feel certain they will have a decision that will make some people happy and some outraged. Their problem seems to be a little more insidious due to the blend of populations- yes I know it is frowned upon to profile people but thats the way it is.
1
Easy to say if you happen to be of a demographic group that is not subject to profiling.
2
What the French political class is doing is basically nothing. They are effectively opening the way for the National Front to take power. The French voter will decide.
2
Patriot's Act--like calling nuclear missiles, warm&fuzzy light sticks--at its center is a means for our secret government to lock-down its control over data-flow between and among citizens, well, the suspects, anyway, i.e., all of us. And to suggest that the Patriot's Act somehow is directly responsible for the absence of another 9/11, a mystery still waiting to be solved, by the way, is like saying that going to bed every night brings up the sun, i.e., works every time.
If it has, let's see the data, not hear about the data. It seems, though, that all that bloody shirt waving the gov'ment has been doing since the "Pearl Harbor" attack sure has all the citizens convinced it's working.
One thing is for sure--billions and billions and billions spent and an ipso facto result. Got a bridge you might want to buy.
If it has, let's see the data, not hear about the data. It seems, though, that all that bloody shirt waving the gov'ment has been doing since the "Pearl Harbor" attack sure has all the citizens convinced it's working.
One thing is for sure--billions and billions and billions spent and an ipso facto result. Got a bridge you might want to buy.
4
The freedom of speech is not meant to be abused. The primary purpose of the freedom of speech is to give freedom to protest against government actions. It is not meant to be used as offensive against other individuals or groups in the form of speeches or cartoons. Therefore, laws should be passed to protect against such abuse. The best way to protect the country against the terrorists is to take the fight to the terrorists and not fight in your own country.
3
Most French will reject the idea of a Patriot Act. In 1789 the National Constituent Assembly passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. This fundamental document of the French Revolution and the history of human rights serves as the DNA of the nation, and there is little room for something Orwellian or Kafkaesque.
In many cases the French feel that their government poses a bigger threat than terrorism itself. They fear a Patriot Act would be abused by law enforcement officials to arrest and detain suspects arbitrarily.
In many cases the French feel that their government poses a bigger threat than terrorism itself. They fear a Patriot Act would be abused by law enforcement officials to arrest and detain suspects arbitrarily.
12
It is intellectually dishonest to compare the French concept of "free speech" with that which we American hold dear. The French do not have true freedom of speech. They are always in jeopardy of being jailed for statements or comments viewed as "Hate speech" by the state. They do allow cartoons that mock various religions and the like, but it is also very easy to be thrown into jail for offensive speech in France. I don't think we Americans need any lectures from the French on an intrusive state, their current free speech restrictions far exceed anything the US Patriot Act may do to protect US citizens from terrorists like the ones who have of recent attacked the French republic.
8
it's hard to imagine if Charlie Weekly were more intelligent and actually funny like say Mad mag or The Onion that they would have been as offensive as they were.
Nevertheless they had the right to be offensive for offenses sake and the murders were wrong.
Nevertheless they had the right to be offensive for offenses sake and the murders were wrong.
2
I'm going to have to disagree with your assertion that "...it is also very easy to be thrown in jail for offensive speech in France."
It's not about being lectured; it's about a nation with a much longer history having some lessons that we could certainly benefit from learning. That is, of course, if we could lessen our arrogance just a bit and for long enough to realize that we can learn much from other western nations.
It's not about being lectured; it's about a nation with a much longer history having some lessons that we could certainly benefit from learning. That is, of course, if we could lessen our arrogance just a bit and for long enough to realize that we can learn much from other western nations.
3
Interesting that when 9/11/01 happened, al Qaeda was just a fringe group, most likely unknown to most Muslims. Now, not only has al Qaeda spread but other extremist terror groups have mushroomed. So perhaps we should be rethinking our approach? Obviously something is not working.
16
Not necessarily, it is more that the full implications of the threat are becoming evident.
e.s. the Patriot Act was meant as a way of punishing people that went against the Bush Administration or the landed whoever needed it.
It is and was a way to legalize the intimidation and invasion of privacy by those in need to keep track of how much the public knew about their real reasons...
Crafted after the German WWII model of Goebbels who said that "Truth is the enemy of the state!" as the Germans did their best to hide what they were really on about.
It is and was a way to legalize the intimidation and invasion of privacy by those in need to keep track of how much the public knew about their real reasons...
Crafted after the German WWII model of Goebbels who said that "Truth is the enemy of the state!" as the Germans did their best to hide what they were really on about.
1
the threat?
you mean an indigenous population sitting on top of the 1/3 of the worlds oil?
the threat is from the stupidity of the bush admininistration of declaring war on a people that were basically being held incommunicado, destroying their country and then somehow being surprised that they didn't like it....
any simple moron could have traded them their freedom and a percentage of the oil and not destroyed the country and we would have had all of those people loving us....
we probably could have given them televisions and ice cream....
the best way to revive or inflame a religious fervor is to persecute a religion......read Sun Tzu
you mean an indigenous population sitting on top of the 1/3 of the worlds oil?
the threat is from the stupidity of the bush admininistration of declaring war on a people that were basically being held incommunicado, destroying their country and then somehow being surprised that they didn't like it....
any simple moron could have traded them their freedom and a percentage of the oil and not destroyed the country and we would have had all of those people loving us....
we probably could have given them televisions and ice cream....
the best way to revive or inflame a religious fervor is to persecute a religion......read Sun Tzu
1
to all the Patriot Act haters out there: just how many 9/11s have happened since 9/11? We could do it the French way and convict someone of helping terrorists, imprison him for a while and then release and lose track of him, that seems like a good idea doesnt it? Stop the whining.
10
Just how many 9/11s happened before 9/11?
It was a black swan event, to have two airliners bring down both of the twin towers plus other buildings.
That is has not been repeated is expected. That does not prove that whatever was done after it prevented another black swan from happening.
It was a black swan event, to have two airliners bring down both of the twin towers plus other buildings.
That is has not been repeated is expected. That does not prove that whatever was done after it prevented another black swan from happening.
5
Nor does it prove the contrary, and in the security business, you do what is necessary based on risk analysis to protect the people. The fact that it might work (as I believe it has) is enough, considering the consequences (defencelessness), that is.
There was not a 9/11 before 9/11 but there were plenty of Islamist terrorist acts against Americans or their interests which preceded and presaged it beginning in the 1970's. These are a matter of public record.
There was not a 9/11 before 9/11 but there were plenty of Islamist terrorist acts against Americans or their interests which preceded and presaged it beginning in the 1970's. These are a matter of public record.
1
I suppose you know that the main highway coming from Dulles Airport in Virginia, the Dulles Toll Road was owned by the United Arab Emirates during the time period that the 9/11 event occurred?
The Bin Laden family was the only family allowed to fly that day anywhere and they were in Washington DC having lunch with James Baker the III (the man who made George Bush President by lobbying Congress in 2000). And since the Saudi Royals have ambassadorial privilege no one may look in or stop their tinted windowed limousines and they could have brought the terrorists in-country on their private jets and delivered them to the port of entry Dulles airport and gone undetected because they owned the security cameras on the toll road.
So all the players are linked except Marvin Bush who had the security contract on the twin towers the day they went down......coincidence or just serendipity????
and is the sky blue? is grass green?
The Bin Laden family was the only family allowed to fly that day anywhere and they were in Washington DC having lunch with James Baker the III (the man who made George Bush President by lobbying Congress in 2000). And since the Saudi Royals have ambassadorial privilege no one may look in or stop their tinted windowed limousines and they could have brought the terrorists in-country on their private jets and delivered them to the port of entry Dulles airport and gone undetected because they owned the security cameras on the toll road.
So all the players are linked except Marvin Bush who had the security contract on the twin towers the day they went down......coincidence or just serendipity????
and is the sky blue? is grass green?
Really an eye opener; most, commenting, seem to see the Patriot Act, for what it really is, which of course is subversion of our true Democratic ideology, by the several decades old consortium of the .01%ters and their employment of the military / industrial complex to do their bidding.
America, and indeed the entire planet, is the playground of these .01%ters, an incredibly lucrative playground.
Will we ever object, really object, to being bullied ??
America, and indeed the entire planet, is the playground of these .01%ters, an incredibly lucrative playground.
Will we ever object, really object, to being bullied ??
17
I'd love to see a society so secularized believers didn't feel welcomed. What a breath of fresh air not having to constantly put up with deeply-held superstitious lies would be!
12
Nazism and Stalinism were also secularizations. I agree that "deeply-held superstitious lies" are largely at the heart of our problems. But I don't think 'secularists' are correctly putting their finger on exactly what it is about 'superstitious' thinking creates the problem...
Not that I have an answer. It's just that I don't see that anyone really has a good answer... yet.... Please keep thinking. ... without superstitious prejudice ... or any other prejudice... carefully, dispassionately, thoughtfully and as hard and as intelligently as you can.
Alas, alas, my faith in rationalism is ultimately a matter of faith--of 'belief,' perhaps of superstition.!!
Not that I have an answer. It's just that I don't see that anyone really has a good answer... yet.... Please keep thinking. ... without superstitious prejudice ... or any other prejudice... carefully, dispassionately, thoughtfully and as hard and as intelligently as you can.
Alas, alas, my faith in rationalism is ultimately a matter of faith--of 'belief,' perhaps of superstition.!!
1
The Patriot Act was an opportunity to create another ineffective, wasteful bureaucracy, just like the war in Iraq, with a primary purpose of benefiting political cronies, the Wall Street and the military-industrial complex at the expense of the American people, while at the same time abridging their personal freedom and constitutional liberties. It was and continue to be wholly unnecessary burden on the American taxpayer. We have sufficient laws on the books and well trained, experienced agencies to deal with terrorism. FBI, The CIA and NSC, were all created for that purpose.
When dealing with such enemies as Muslim terrorists, these agencies, admittedly must sometimes do certain disagreeable things and engage in brutal methods in repealing terrorists threats, which is part of their job. To be effective these agency must speak the "language" of the terrorists not that of civilized democracies, lest they will be misunderstood and fail in their mission defending the U.S. against the peril of international terrorism. FBI, CIS and the NSC are all well equipped for their antiterrorist mission. There is no need of the DHS, which is subject to the sunset provisions of the Act.
While most average Americans are technology savvy, somehow, they lack the desire and the common sense to analyze political moves for what they are.
When dealing with such enemies as Muslim terrorists, these agencies, admittedly must sometimes do certain disagreeable things and engage in brutal methods in repealing terrorists threats, which is part of their job. To be effective these agency must speak the "language" of the terrorists not that of civilized democracies, lest they will be misunderstood and fail in their mission defending the U.S. against the peril of international terrorism. FBI, CIS and the NSC are all well equipped for their antiterrorist mission. There is no need of the DHS, which is subject to the sunset provisions of the Act.
While most average Americans are technology savvy, somehow, they lack the desire and the common sense to analyze political moves for what they are.
11
Perhaps the Patriot Act may not be working as well as it was intended, but our resourceful government has found other uses for it such as domestic drug investigations. In fact, nowadays, most of it's usefulness is for drug investigations. In 2013, out of 11,129 Patriot Act reports, only 51, yes that's right 51 (0.5%) were used for terrorism. The majority were for drug busts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/surprise-cont...
1
I am sure it is quite comforting to the murdered victims that the rights of the terrorists were not infringed upon. For me, however, I would prefer that the government do what it can to protect me from losing my life for drawing cartoons or shopping on shabbat. Isn't it the place of our elected officials to protect and defend the homeland. And why were many more arrested in the last few days? Was the government waiting to see if the terrorists really meant to kill people as they stocked up on machine guns? I am sure that all the murdered Syrians wish that their governments had done more to protect them. We are all losing our rights right now because we have to be afraid to travel, go to work or the supermarket or write a comic strip. We have been fighting this war a long time before we entered Iraq so has everyone forgotten that? Perhaps certain people just don't like our values.
3
The United States has not grappled with the question. We rolled over and surrendered our rights like submissive dogs -- for nothing -- we are no safer because of the government intrusions into our privacy and liberty. We are unworthy of our great constitution. We are a people glad to be employees instead of owners of our own businesses, glad to be servants of corporations, glad to be subjects in an oligarchy --waiting for the patronage of the wealthy to trickle down. Our willingness of sell our liberty for "security" has become our way of life.
9
The French legal system is based on the Napoleonic Code and has distinct differences with the American and Canadian legal systems. Other European countries have differences with the three just mentioned. The French will accomplish their goals in their own time, internal debate, and within the constraints of their well-dveloped culture.
6
In the US, the people are afraid of the government. In France, the government is afraid of the people. That is why the French government is more responsive to the wishes of its people.
11
Interesting observation and this could be true as of now. It has not been true in France's past however and may not be the case in its future.
The French citizens actually show up; too many Americans sit it out.
It's not overreaction, but a purposely implemented policy which has been in place for quite some time now. Let's put aside the reasons why these militant attacks against civilian targets happen -- with some arguing that they happen because of religious zealots and others because of so-called false flag ops -- and let's all admit that all societies are susceptible to them.
If that's the case, then anybody paying attention can see that it is the policy of the so-called "Five Eye" alliance -- which already has in place a massive worldwide surveillance system -- to use any type of attacks (or threats of attacks, both real or imaginary) on civilian (or any national) targetd as an excuse to not only expand the worldwide total information awareness surveillance system, but to justify it.
Folks, the policy is in place. Civil society is being systematically encircled (corralled, kettled) inside a massive surveillance system (ultimately) controlled first and foremost by powerful global corporations, and much of the motivation is profit-driven.
Government officials are controlled by these supranational entities via the revolving door bribery system (and/or outright plain-old bribery in many instances), where they go through in an endless cycle, spinning faster and faster as in a maniacal frenzy, all of which is moving our societies towards a kind of corporate state fascism.
If that's the case, then anybody paying attention can see that it is the policy of the so-called "Five Eye" alliance -- which already has in place a massive worldwide surveillance system -- to use any type of attacks (or threats of attacks, both real or imaginary) on civilian (or any national) targetd as an excuse to not only expand the worldwide total information awareness surveillance system, but to justify it.
Folks, the policy is in place. Civil society is being systematically encircled (corralled, kettled) inside a massive surveillance system (ultimately) controlled first and foremost by powerful global corporations, and much of the motivation is profit-driven.
Government officials are controlled by these supranational entities via the revolving door bribery system (and/or outright plain-old bribery in many instances), where they go through in an endless cycle, spinning faster and faster as in a maniacal frenzy, all of which is moving our societies towards a kind of corporate state fascism.
13
One hundred percent correct.
3
In nations as in individuals, behavior is character. Reduce French character towards essence and (perhaps) there is nationalism tempered by fatalism. America is less burdened by history (and culture) and thus we are (perhaps) more of a pragmatic meritocracy. In a fight to the death with zealots, fatalism seems a self-fulfilling ethos.
1
The Patriot Act plucked a goodly number of feathers from our national symbol, and we are always in danger of more of that when Congress is in session. There very well may come a day when our eagle is plucked bare, and can't fly anymore, but our freedoms have flown away forever.
8
The GOP and reed-in-the-wind politicians have taught Americans, for the first time in our history, to fear. Perhaps Mr. Boehner would rally us with a speech re-casting President FDR on the liens of "The only thing we have to fear, is not fearing enough."
10
The sad part is that many of the inconveniences and intrusions we endure, such as at airports, are for show for the public and do nothing (nothing) to make us safer.
14
Shame on some French politicians who are using the blood of innocents for their own political agenda.
The French people should reject the patriot act and they should fight those politicians with the most noble weapon: a vote.
The French people should reject the patriot act and they should fight those politicians with the most noble weapon: a vote.
7
The idea that France is somehow taking a superior path to the United States overlooks the fact that France has already arrested people for violations of its interpretation of incitement. In addition, France outlaws wearing burkas, a restriction of religious freedom that could not be allowed in the US. I am not judging them for these restrictions-- each constitutional democracy can set its own balance of freedom and security, and obviously sometimes they go to far. But can the commentators, and the Times, abandon their snide condescension to the US, in light of these facts?
2
And, yet, in some states in the U.S., legislation has or is being proposed to ban certain types of clothing worn in public (see: saggy pants; see: hoodies)
3
None of which impinges on religious freedom.
The pure nativity of those who ridicule the act is what ultimately causes delays in cracking down on radicals and ultimately more acts of terror and loss of innocent life. Unless directly affected ta easy to take an intellectual approach but it's still naive and self important.
5
France already has over-reaching laws, such as the Gayssot Act (it's illegal to challenge accepted historical claims of crimes against humanity), and whatever ordinance supported the most recent arrest of the so-called comedian named Dieudonne.
Moreover, France's system of criminal prosecution would be considered unfairly tilted toward the accuser, giving the French government an advantage in pursuing those suspected of terrorism. Combine this with all nations' tendencies to let intelligence services go overboard during tense times, and the French have no need of the Patriot Act, and a rickety moral platform from which to all out US idiocies.
Moreover, France's system of criminal prosecution would be considered unfairly tilted toward the accuser, giving the French government an advantage in pursuing those suspected of terrorism. Combine this with all nations' tendencies to let intelligence services go overboard during tense times, and the French have no need of the Patriot Act, and a rickety moral platform from which to all out US idiocies.
5
It is important to remember that we don't need Patriot Acts to uncover terrorist plots. For example, before 9/11 Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested because of his suspicious behavior in a Minnesota flight school, namely wanting to learn how to fly a plane, but not how to land. The Moussaoui arrest was briefed to the DCI and the CIA under the heading "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly," but unfortunately this did not trigger closer scrutiny of those pilots. In fact, relying on massive and indiscriminate data collection may result in the neglect of traditional counterterrorism investigation and analysis that might be more useful in predicting attacks.
16
Actually, information was pretty clear in the months before 9/11 that should have resulted in action by the Bush administration. But it was ignored--or I should say, mostly... John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial planes in July of 2001, citing an FBI security concern. (Too bad it wasn't extended to the rest of the nation...). And that was through ordinary channels of intelligence and police work. The attack was foreseeable, and foreseen. The failure by no means called for the establishment of a police state, attacks on nations abroad, or the end of civil liberties here. It still doesn't.
8
The French also ridicule the U.S. concept of free speech. So I wouldn't hold them up as some icon of freedom from the state. French judges have authority to throw French citizens in jail for what is viewed as "hate speech," but that often is an in the eye of the beholder type of analysis. I much prefer the U.S. system which while it does allow the government to pursue criminals and terrorists, protects the right of citizens to voice their opinions freely. A comment board like this one would be a very dangerous proposition in today's France, with each keystroke putting the freedom of writers in jeopardy.
3
Our so-called "Patriot Act" was shear nonsense. Sure, we closed the air space over the U.S.; but, the Bush Administration had a couple of F-16 Tomcats escort a 747 airliner, with members of the bin Ladin Family--on their way back home. So there, Bush used the Security Issue for selective enforcement.
Al Quida in Yemen is probably enjoying all of the machinations that the French Government and People are going through--that it put them through--just like Osama bin Ladin surely did after the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks. Freedom Fries?
When a country attack itself from within, it is merely shooting itself in the foot. The Administration of George W. Bush really used the aftermath of the attacks for his personal political gain. The terrorist warning flags were constantly changing colors, Citicorp Center was locked-down, the Neo-Cons were merely distracting the American People from engaging in common sense--as another Presidential Election approached. Be careful, France!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Al Quida in Yemen is probably enjoying all of the machinations that the French Government and People are going through--that it put them through--just like Osama bin Ladin surely did after the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks. Freedom Fries?
When a country attack itself from within, it is merely shooting itself in the foot. The Administration of George W. Bush really used the aftermath of the attacks for his personal political gain. The terrorist warning flags were constantly changing colors, Citicorp Center was locked-down, the Neo-Cons were merely distracting the American People from engaging in common sense--as another Presidential Election approached. Be careful, France!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
21
They used the Patriot Act to win the 2004 election. That's what it was all about.
1
I remember how quickly the Patriot Act came into being. And how America began to be referred to as 'the Homeland' (which I have always despised because of it's fascist overtones). Who handed out the talking points for that? As all the Media took it right on.
As far as I'm concerned Bin Laden won. He wanted to punish our society, he attacked our liberties and our liberties were taken away by....us. By our Congress and our President. I fear the elite in this country more than I fear those who return violence with as much violence as they can. The elite began to control and reduce the American People with the passing of the Patriot Act.
The day America died. Don't let it happen to you, France. Fight back.
As far as I'm concerned Bin Laden won. He wanted to punish our society, he attacked our liberties and our liberties were taken away by....us. By our Congress and our President. I fear the elite in this country more than I fear those who return violence with as much violence as they can. The elite began to control and reduce the American People with the passing of the Patriot Act.
The day America died. Don't let it happen to you, France. Fight back.
73
We are the only 'democracy' with politicians stupid, greedy, and frightened enough to not only pass the heinous Patriot Act without even reading it, but then implement a second, even more invasive version of it, set up a secret court to justify everything, and THEN keep the bottomless funds going for it budget after budget.
The clear fact is that we now have a fourth branch of government that answers to no one. The spook community has an unlimited budget and do as they please.
I wonder when we'll come to our senses, stop wasting trillions on that madness, and rein these power mad agencies in.
The clear fact is that we now have a fourth branch of government that answers to no one. The spook community has an unlimited budget and do as they please.
I wonder when we'll come to our senses, stop wasting trillions on that madness, and rein these power mad agencies in.
60
Our societies may be founded with similar principles in mind, but both countries have developed very differently. France was a colonial power that 'welcomed' back it's citizens from the colonies - only they did not embrace them.
There are religious, racial and cultural differences that separate the people and a very well defined class system, with its protocols.
Just look at the reaction to the Kerry / Taylor / hug fiasco. Kerry and Taylor may have been thinking warm and fuzzy, but the French found the entire thing embarrassingly gauche.
There are religious, racial and cultural differences that separate the people and a very well defined class system, with its protocols.
Just look at the reaction to the Kerry / Taylor / hug fiasco. Kerry and Taylor may have been thinking warm and fuzzy, but the French found the entire thing embarrassingly gauche.
And after 235 years of human slavery, we freed our slaves at the end of a bloody civil war. But we did not embrace them, either. Still don't.
In spite of our constitutional protections, and in spite of our rampant materialism, I find the U.S. to be - culturally - as religious, as theological, as dogmatic as many theocratic states, the need for politicians to close speeches with "and may God bless America", for example.
Yet since 9/11, I am struck by the obsession of so many of our leaders with "security", many of them devout Christians, with this passage from Thessalonians coming to mind: "While they are saying, "Peace and safety! then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape." - New American Standard Version (1995)
Yet since 9/11, I am struck by the obsession of so many of our leaders with "security", many of them devout Christians, with this passage from Thessalonians coming to mind: "While they are saying, "Peace and safety! then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape." - New American Standard Version (1995)
11
I have faith that common sense and belief in personal liberty and privacy trump any fears the French may have.
Every American has experienced the extreme security measures that have been taken since 9/11--at the least, very inconvenient--at the worst, invasive and leading to false detention and/or arrest.
To not endure these invasive measures, and to have laws blocking NSA spying and selling of personal information are things one enjoys here in France. And how fast did our police catch the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher killers? Within 2, and 1 day, respectively.
And our army is fighting terrorists in African nations that the world by and large ignores, like Nigeria and Mali.
The show of solidarity this past Wednesday, when 3 million franciliens marched in support of freedom of expression and against terrorism shows how determined the French are to fight terrorism, while not sacrificing any consititutional rights.
Perhaps the U.S. should be taking a page from France's playbook?
Every American has experienced the extreme security measures that have been taken since 9/11--at the least, very inconvenient--at the worst, invasive and leading to false detention and/or arrest.
To not endure these invasive measures, and to have laws blocking NSA spying and selling of personal information are things one enjoys here in France. And how fast did our police catch the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher killers? Within 2, and 1 day, respectively.
And our army is fighting terrorists in African nations that the world by and large ignores, like Nigeria and Mali.
The show of solidarity this past Wednesday, when 3 million franciliens marched in support of freedom of expression and against terrorism shows how determined the French are to fight terrorism, while not sacrificing any consititutional rights.
Perhaps the U.S. should be taking a page from France's playbook?
9
You can bet your last euro that, behind the scenes, the United States government along with the government of England, and likely the other three members of the Five Eyes Surveillance Alliance, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, are currently discussing making it the "Six Eyes Alliance, your beloved French Republic, being the sixth member.
Understanding the origin of the French slogan, “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”, hopefully will cause the people of France to not so easily allow their "Liberty" to be stolen from them.
Excerpt and link -
"When the Constitution of 1848 was drafted, the slogan “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” was defined as a “principle” of the Republic."
http://www.france.fr/en/institutions-and-values/slogan-french-republic.html
Understanding the origin of the French slogan, “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”, hopefully will cause the people of France to not so easily allow their "Liberty" to be stolen from them.
Excerpt and link -
"When the Constitution of 1848 was drafted, the slogan “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” was defined as a “principle” of the Republic."
http://www.france.fr/en/institutions-and-values/slogan-french-republic.html
1
The Boston and Paris terrorists, to take the most recent examples, were well known by law enforcement and intelligence agencies to be high risk...and yet they were able to carry out attacks that killed and maimed dozens of innocent citizens. The response of "intelligence" agencies? Not acknowledging their failures and offering a plan to fix the problem, but rather calling for expanded spy powers to be weilded more easily against innocent citizens. They use their own failures as an excuse for yet another autocratic power grab. At what point will we see through this smoke screen and demand significant changes to the agencies that repeatedly fail to protect us, instead of meekly accepting more of the same?
19
You are naive. There are plenty of thwarted terrorist attacks that we never hear about. I am more than happy to give up a little privacy to keep us safe.
4
I don't believe you. I've been hearing this story of "phantom" attacks that were prevented for years. There are no secrets that well-kept for something of that magnitude. Pillow talk reveals all.
2
I'm glad the French are having this debate and the right (correct) side is being taken seriously. It should have happened in our country, and it's a measure of our cowardice and mere lip service to our supposed values that we didn't.
However, it's hard to compare the murder of 17 people, as horrific as it is, to the two tallest buildings in America being reduced to rubble, taking almost 3000 people with them, along with hundreds dying at the Pentagon and in that field outside Shanksville, PA. The city of New York lay shrouded in smoke and ash for days, an apocalyptic sight. People in lower Manhattan were trying to flee the island via ferry. Along with the loss of life and property, it was estimated in the days to come that the nation's GDP lost $100 billion dollars from the attack. The unemployment ripples reverberated throughout the national economy. A defense system focused on armies had been bested by 19 men and four passenger planes.
That, if anyone needs reminding, is what's summed up in the phrase "9/11". Condoleeza Rice could be forgiven for considering that type of attack an existential threat.
Even so, the worst damage the terrorists wrought wasn't physical or economic, but the WTC-sized hole they blasted through our Constitution and our values. It will take generations to repair. I'm glad the French are taking heed of our mistakes and speaking loud and clear so that their leaders will too.
However, it's hard to compare the murder of 17 people, as horrific as it is, to the two tallest buildings in America being reduced to rubble, taking almost 3000 people with them, along with hundreds dying at the Pentagon and in that field outside Shanksville, PA. The city of New York lay shrouded in smoke and ash for days, an apocalyptic sight. People in lower Manhattan were trying to flee the island via ferry. Along with the loss of life and property, it was estimated in the days to come that the nation's GDP lost $100 billion dollars from the attack. The unemployment ripples reverberated throughout the national economy. A defense system focused on armies had been bested by 19 men and four passenger planes.
That, if anyone needs reminding, is what's summed up in the phrase "9/11". Condoleeza Rice could be forgiven for considering that type of attack an existential threat.
Even so, the worst damage the terrorists wrought wasn't physical or economic, but the WTC-sized hole they blasted through our Constitution and our values. It will take generations to repair. I'm glad the French are taking heed of our mistakes and speaking loud and clear so that their leaders will too.
9
The Patriot Act was one of bin Laden's greatest achievements.
For those who went on their murderous rampage in Paris,
the primary goal was to get a reaction of repression against the minority of Muslim origin. See:
https://soundcloud.com/wbez-worldview/extremism-and-motivations-of-suspe...
For those who went on their murderous rampage in Paris,
the primary goal was to get a reaction of repression against the minority of Muslim origin. See:
https://soundcloud.com/wbez-worldview/extremism-and-motivations-of-suspe...
18
That lifts my spirits.
Cooler heads are prevailing.
Also, French police powers were very strong in the first place.
In the 1970's, France had far more police, per capita, than any other western nation.
BTW: Back in 2005, when presidential candidate Sarkozy called the young Beur "slime" and promised to "Karcheriser" the whole lot, Images of Birmingham & Bull Connor fire-hosing the Blacks came to my mind.
Could Sarko be guilty of using speech inciting hate and violence?
Marine Le Pen brought out the 'slime' comment, again, just yesterday.
Cooler heads are prevailing.
Also, French police powers were very strong in the first place.
In the 1970's, France had far more police, per capita, than any other western nation.
BTW: Back in 2005, when presidential candidate Sarkozy called the young Beur "slime" and promised to "Karcheriser" the whole lot, Images of Birmingham & Bull Connor fire-hosing the Blacks came to my mind.
Could Sarko be guilty of using speech inciting hate and violence?
Marine Le Pen brought out the 'slime' comment, again, just yesterday.
6
Rule #1: do not disarm your citizens. It only makes for more potential victims, more criminals acting with impunity, and Governments that have more power over their slaves. Every person has the right to self-protection, and carrying a firearm every day, everywhere, ensures that right. The gun isn't the problem. The good guy with a gun is not the problem. The bad guy with a gun IS the problem (pun intended), and every law in the world does not stop that bad guy. Wake up, world.
3
US policy on terror is and has been deranged since 2001, the day we lost our collective mind and threw our thinly held values to the ground. Europe would do well to distance themselves from us.
19
France has experienced fascism once during the German occupation, and again during its last colonial wars. One hopes they won't give in to US pressures and opt for fascism again.
5
I have no problem with France- but lets get real here. We are talking about about a country which legally bans words like Facebook, email, and hashtag in any official documents and they can only be used in the media if they are of "key importance". To own a gun a citizen must have a hunting or sport license with periodic renewal. Comedians with "wrong" political positions are arrested. Citizens of the US don't appreciate just how much freedom we have.
The land of the free incarcerates on a per capita basis 7 time more people then the country of CHARLIE.
1
The Patriot Act is a piece of legislation that should have never been written, let alone passed. In fact if the party in power wants to actually do something, start with repealing this atrocious law.
9
Will the civil rights of all people be protected? The great French philosophe Voltaire once remarked something to the effect: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it." I hope in the spirit of the Enlightenment, France follows the dictum of its greatest thinker.
3
We should be thrilled to have a President who does not hyper-ventilate at every heinous act of a deranged or blind fanatic whose crimes must be taken seriously but who pose no existential threat to our Country.
The only existential threat to our freedom came from fear and politically motivated overreaction which allowed for torture, kidnapping, black sites, indefinite imprisonment and illegal surveillance as well as the disastrous invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The only existential threat to our freedom came from fear and politically motivated overreaction which allowed for torture, kidnapping, black sites, indefinite imprisonment and illegal surveillance as well as the disastrous invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
11
"The only existential threat to our freedom came from fear and politically motivated overreaction which allowed for torture, kidnapping, black sites, indefinite imprisonment and illegal surveillance as well as the disastrous invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan."
As a 9/11 responder, I completely agree. Working at the WTC Site, I didn't see what was happening to this country I love, and it breaks my heart.
As a 9/11 responder, I completely agree. Working at the WTC Site, I didn't see what was happening to this country I love, and it breaks my heart.
Hope that, unlike the US, where the land of the free and the home of the brave surrendered liberties at the first shots, the French hold fast to civil liberties. In all states, authoritarian interests push for their erosion at the slightest excuse. Let the old phrase, 'la patrie en danger', keep its true meaning now.
12
Which liberties did we surrender? I can still speak as freely as anyone in France, can go anywhere (except Cuba, but even that is coming around), live anywhere, assemble with whomever I want, and own way more firearms and ammunition than I have use for. Between the internet and television I can disseminate all sorts of propaganda as fast as I can make it. I can even defame religions and politicians without fear of government interference. We still have as much, and frequently much more, freedom than any other nation. And this is not just a technicality, we demonstrate this freedom in ways that are often crude and embarrassing, but prove nonetheless that Americans have surrendered little freedom.
1
It would be a tragedy if the glorious French Republic were swept over by the same wave of cowardice that engulfed the United States and made a mockery of the line, "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
34
Part of the problem is that all countries that allow its citizens to march off to fight ISIS or other religious fanatics or turn into soldiers of fortune-also allow them to come back to home base.Not only is this an issue but individuals whos point of origin is in battle torn nations should be placed on watchlists,if already on a terrorist watchlist-denial of entry is essential as a security measure. Id of thought that the US Govt had learned this after those in charge of security under the Bush administration allowed the terrorists-all under a terrorist watch list entrance into the USA to watch them attack us on Sept 11,2001 had learned from our stupidity-but thats not the case.Its as if we want extremists to cause us harm so we can create tighter security measures-or a police state,I fear the same thing for Europe.The attacks that killed so many here-led to just that-the beginnings of a police/military state. All the govt has to do is reject those suspected of terrorism prior to leaving their country headed towards the usa and ship them back.We need to stop entry into the USA and Europe needs to do the same-to help prevent these attacks. Citizens who start making anti govt threats or associate with known terror groups or agents of terrorism need to be put on notice-keep it up and you are denouncing your rights to citizenship. Free speech advocates will now cry foul-but at what price is our true freedoms?
3
There is a fundamental, undeniable quandary here.
Imagine that all governments abandoned much of post 9/11 surveillance, honoring our desire for absolute privacy.
Now, imagine those governments, blind to risks and plots, have a series of these shooting incidents occur on their watch, or worse, a 9/11 style attack with a thousand dead.
An attack missed because of eased surveillance.
The predictable effects:
- the government and its leaders would face massive scorn for "not keeping us safe"
- other more strident voices would look to come to power on promises to do more to stop terror - more surveillance.
- if a series of these events took place, the common citizen in any country, now greatly frightened (terrorized), would willingly forfeit much liberty for everyday security. That's a fact. People would get used to this as a price for safety.
Airport security everywhere.
- the government, seeking to remain in power, fending off the inevitable power grab by opportunistic power seekers, would call for tighter control - merely responding to popular desire.
The upshot - maybe some reasonable, court-monitored surveillance avoids attacks that would lead to even less liberty.
The terrorists have a plan to limit our freedom.
We need one that threads the needle of security and privacy.
People won't tolerate unsafe living.
Imagine that all governments abandoned much of post 9/11 surveillance, honoring our desire for absolute privacy.
Now, imagine those governments, blind to risks and plots, have a series of these shooting incidents occur on their watch, or worse, a 9/11 style attack with a thousand dead.
An attack missed because of eased surveillance.
The predictable effects:
- the government and its leaders would face massive scorn for "not keeping us safe"
- other more strident voices would look to come to power on promises to do more to stop terror - more surveillance.
- if a series of these events took place, the common citizen in any country, now greatly frightened (terrorized), would willingly forfeit much liberty for everyday security. That's a fact. People would get used to this as a price for safety.
Airport security everywhere.
- the government, seeking to remain in power, fending off the inevitable power grab by opportunistic power seekers, would call for tighter control - merely responding to popular desire.
The upshot - maybe some reasonable, court-monitored surveillance avoids attacks that would lead to even less liberty.
The terrorists have a plan to limit our freedom.
We need one that threads the needle of security and privacy.
People won't tolerate unsafe living.
7
People tolerate unsafe living every single day. And are in more danger from the cars we drive, the food we gulp, the neighborhoods we live in daily, than from the terrorists of whom we are apparently supposed to live in trembling fear. Even now people are dying across our nation of the flu, and still going about our business and caring for our families, and the rest of life goes on.
The images of shrieking horrors due to superman terrorists laden with nuclear devices in their rafts pale next to the deaths simply due to gun accidents, and over the 14 years since 9/11, tens of thousands of people--hundreds of thousands, have died of quite mundane causes otherwise.
The demand for utter safety, even were we willing to live in a horrible strait-jacket of being watched (by whom? by what godly good fellows, really?), is a mad demand. Life is dangerous, and we all die, and if we cannot come to some decent and graceful terms with that, we really are in trouble, far beyond that on which you have glued your fearful gaze.
The images of shrieking horrors due to superman terrorists laden with nuclear devices in their rafts pale next to the deaths simply due to gun accidents, and over the 14 years since 9/11, tens of thousands of people--hundreds of thousands, have died of quite mundane causes otherwise.
The demand for utter safety, even were we willing to live in a horrible strait-jacket of being watched (by whom? by what godly good fellows, really?), is a mad demand. Life is dangerous, and we all die, and if we cannot come to some decent and graceful terms with that, we really are in trouble, far beyond that on which you have glued your fearful gaze.
17
Terrorism by individuals and groups will always be with us until state sponsored terror stops.
The terror caused by the murder of Charlie Hebdo and his colleagues, though horrific, pales in comparison to the state sponsored terror which has impacted millions of people.
State sponsored terror includes invasions, wars, occupations, drones attacks, torture, covert operations including coups, economic sanctions & placing state interests above human rights.
The US and most western powers support & use state sponsored terror.
At least 90% of the people impacted by these tactics are innocent civilians.
This impact drives a small percentage of people to become terrorists.
State sponsored terror also includes despotic regimes who oppress their people.
When these regimes are supported by western states with money , weapons & special status, the impact can be especially severe on these states citizens.
This ultimately lengthens the time despots are in power due to the support from the west.
The only way to stop individual and group terror, is to stop state sponsored terror.
The terror caused by the murder of Charlie Hebdo and his colleagues, though horrific, pales in comparison to the state sponsored terror which has impacted millions of people.
State sponsored terror includes invasions, wars, occupations, drones attacks, torture, covert operations including coups, economic sanctions & placing state interests above human rights.
The US and most western powers support & use state sponsored terror.
At least 90% of the people impacted by these tactics are innocent civilians.
This impact drives a small percentage of people to become terrorists.
State sponsored terror also includes despotic regimes who oppress their people.
When these regimes are supported by western states with money , weapons & special status, the impact can be especially severe on these states citizens.
This ultimately lengthens the time despots are in power due to the support from the west.
The only way to stop individual and group terror, is to stop state sponsored terror.
25
Stopping the weapons and drug trade that provides a good source of income for non-state actors is also necessary.
4
Patriot Act is an attempt to treat the symptoms. If we stopped military involvement in the Middle East and built schools we might affect the cause.
24
I used to agree with the "built schools" part. After Charlie Hebdo, beheadings and other recent horrors, I am not feeling so Pollyanna-like any more. Still mulling it all over.
1
Only one reason we ever had involvement with Middle East World War 1 fought over oil.
1
JenD, you and I are reeling from the violence. We have not put any solutions in place that help the illiterate, poor and desperate people. We have only stoked their hatred.
1
Ha, ha. The Patriot Act. You mean the Bush/Cheney Oppression Act. How many early American leaders like Jefferson warned us against this type of behavior, this type of law making? Well, you know, it's for your own good. Ha, ha.
70
Before you lay the entire Patriot Act mess at the feet of Bush/Cheney, who are undeniably the roots, we should question why Obama hasn't made any move to curb it.
2
You are absolutely right, but let's not forget all of the cowardly, unprincipled Democrats who joined the Republicans in voting for the Patriot Act. When it comes to protecting the wealthy, feeding the security-military-industrial complex, and oppressing ordinary Americans, the federal government is far more bipartisan than media portrayals would suggest.
3
That's exactly what French understand as Liberté, to be honest much of the Freedom we love grew in French soil. The French who decide to stand up for freedom, unity and liberty should inspire America to follow their steps, but we must always keep in mind, that using extremism to fight extremism will never work well. It only hurts innocent people.
13
makes perfect sense. It is just an issue of numbers. 3000 dead here, only 17 or so in France.
And, besides, our Patriot Act was just one of many things we have done to prevent other Islamic murders here. Some of them not appreciated by this newspaper but, fortunately, implemented by our presidents..
makes perfect sense. It is just an issue of numbers. 3000 dead here, only 17 or so in France.
And, besides, our Patriot Act was just one of many things we have done to prevent other Islamic murders here. Some of them not appreciated by this newspaper but, fortunately, implemented by our presidents..
And, besides, our Patriot Act was just one of many things we have done to prevent other Islamic murders here. Some of them not appreciated by this newspaper but, fortunately, implemented by our presidents..
makes perfect sense. It is just an issue of numbers. 3000 dead here, only 17 or so in France.
And, besides, our Patriot Act was just one of many things we have done to prevent other Islamic murders here. Some of them not appreciated by this newspaper but, fortunately, implemented by our presidents..
8
The French value education and rational thought, quite unlike here in tha home of the brave. Even their right wing shares those values. Such people are not easily frightened, and are clear headed enough not to give up freedom in the name of security. Franklin, Jefferson and many others among the founders rightfully admired the rational nature of the French. What we had on 9/11 were a gang of power mad overlords bent upon grabbing power by scaring us to death and/or demonizing the minority among us that are critical thinkers. They derided the French for not helping us destabilize the entire Middle East by invading the weakling Iraq and then botching the job to the tune of trillions of wasted dollars and many tens of thousands of lives. They would do well to continue doing things the rational way by ignoring our example.
12
It needs to be pointed out that Europe in general doesn't enjoy the same level of civil liberties as the United States. So any additional steps in that direction would really be bringing the place back to the dark ages.
The French are right to be wary of the Patriot Act, but Dominique de Villepin is in error. The United States never had a moral compass that pointed to anything but the collective, me, me, me, the European we of us. I am sure the indigenous Americans from centuries -millennia past, Americans of a different hue than European, would agree, their lands stolen, and society destroyed by our lust for 'freedom', and the diseases we brought with us. As for the Patriot Act; it was supported by the same sort of Americans who loved Ronald Regan, claimed to love liberty, and voted for the warmonger Bush while destroying the unions and their own economic base in the process. Americans who will yield some freedoms but who will give up nothing when it comes to the right to bear arms and shoot each other. When the French speak of America's Moral Compass it is the one they imagined for us when they gave us the Statue of Liberty. A French perception, an idea, perhaps never real, but a melting pot that steamed and boiled and evolved into an electorate that rejected freedom by electing George W Bush, and Cheney who then lead us into a war to kill an evil dictator that we created.
8
If the French are willing to detain citizens for exercising free speech there can be little doubt they will outsource to the US the international FISA-type activities they supposedly deplore and reject and use the information domestically to enhance their surveillance. The French government, if not the people, is a masterful, if not always convincing, rationalizer of its contradictions.
3
The idea that warrantless surveillance and misguided roundups are needed to protect a country from terrorism is, and always has been, ludicrous. Even during World War II, when there was a very serious danger from Nazi spies who could easily fade into the background, judges would quickly grant wiretap and search warrants with any suspicion at all. An anti-terror campaign is first and foremost a counterintelligence mission, of necessity covert. But it must remain focused on the likely perpetrators and not used as an excuse to merely go fishing for those who express a viewpoint that the powers that be find undesirable. That's the main reason for the Fourth Amendment requirement for warrants in the first place. Our Constitution provides the legal basis; it merely has to be adhered to.
7
A culture in which everyone can think freely is stronger than any culture in which all the thinking is done by one man. Cultures that restrict thought by violence or law only make themselves weaker.
4
January 17, 2015
The matrix demographics in Europe and specifically France requires it to find its own appropriate anti terror strategy - what works in America is of its own character for justice and prevention. Just to many moles and pretenders like bugs everywhere - that are as well venting aggression to a world of civilization that to many low class Muslims are prepared to advance. That by the by are delusional for the overthrown of decadence in modernity and lusting for slavery of consciousness to live with hating life and seeking only the maternal mother divinity - ( Oh the mother complex where of life is devoid for milk of divine infantile barbarism...)
The matrix demographics in Europe and specifically France requires it to find its own appropriate anti terror strategy - what works in America is of its own character for justice and prevention. Just to many moles and pretenders like bugs everywhere - that are as well venting aggression to a world of civilization that to many low class Muslims are prepared to advance. That by the by are delusional for the overthrown of decadence in modernity and lusting for slavery of consciousness to live with hating life and seeking only the maternal mother divinity - ( Oh the mother complex where of life is devoid for milk of divine infantile barbarism...)
1
Gun deaths in the US alone were well over 30,000 fatalities last year, exceeded slightly by motor vehicle deaths.
And we cannot make laws for gun control because it would "interfere with our freedom." It would "violate our Constitutional rights."
Without getting into that issue now, just by way of perspective, for us to be willing to be watched, to have habeas corpus destroyed, to allow massive violations of our rights, to accept torture as justifiable, to spend many trillions of dollars, to destroy nations abroad--all this, and to point to 9/11 as if there were no other threats to us--to act as though being at risk in a free nation were some unimaginable thing--
Insane. And wrong.
And we cannot make laws for gun control because it would "interfere with our freedom." It would "violate our Constitutional rights."
Without getting into that issue now, just by way of perspective, for us to be willing to be watched, to have habeas corpus destroyed, to allow massive violations of our rights, to accept torture as justifiable, to spend many trillions of dollars, to destroy nations abroad--all this, and to point to 9/11 as if there were no other threats to us--to act as though being at risk in a free nation were some unimaginable thing--
Insane. And wrong.
20
"Gun deaths in the US alone were well over 30,000 fatalities last year"
Two thirds of those were suicides.
Most of the rest were concentrated in a few areas which suffer from other problems driving crime and killing there, problems which can and do produce much killing without guns, and could kill many of the same people in other ways.
Talk of guns avoids talk of suicide problems, and of the problems creating high crime areas (drugs laws, poverty, no jobs, criminalization of males). We'd get more progress, and more justice, if we went to the source of the problem rather than this focus on one tool featured in the problem.
Two thirds of those were suicides.
Most of the rest were concentrated in a few areas which suffer from other problems driving crime and killing there, problems which can and do produce much killing without guns, and could kill many of the same people in other ways.
Talk of guns avoids talk of suicide problems, and of the problems creating high crime areas (drugs laws, poverty, no jobs, criminalization of males). We'd get more progress, and more justice, if we went to the source of the problem rather than this focus on one tool featured in the problem.
3
Thank you, JB, for your logical perspective and your post. So many of our fellow Americans just seems to have blinders on, just repeating what our media/government tells them to say and think.
1
There is a trickle down effect at work here as well in regards to the patriot act. Local police forces now act as though a housewife with a taillight out is a threat. In order to justify their hiring they are over-policing. They carry AR-15's in their patrol cars as though they are on the frontline, when the threat level is actually low. Getting on a ferry to the Vineyard and you are warned to report suspicious activity. Oh, please protect little ol me from the teenager walking the retriever with the pink dog leash. All the while in collusion with the Patriot Act the biggest threat to individual liberty is being perpetrated by U.S. Governmental agencies that admit to torturing suspects. Good for the French for recognizing this overreaching Act. Homeland Security should change its' name- how about to Das Fatherland Security. No, I would rather look out for the boogey man on my own.
16
100 percent agree no knowledge of history and sub standard public education helps the new aristocracy.
2
The struggle to thrive while the rate of over-population growth reaches its tipping-point, has already devastated much of the world. Only in the more protected countries can we still pretend that the "niceties (political philosophies, religions, etc.)" are of primary concern. This struggle can only intensify. The diminishing supply of wealth can never be distributed sufficiently even to stem starvation, let alone raise living standards in the already-benighted populations. Those of us focussing on who has the purest democracy are decorating the Titanic while it sinks.
3
This article states "a question the United States has confronted since 9/11" but the question has never really been confronted; Constitutional freedoms were summarily dismissed without democratic discussion of the question.
74
RC is correct but not complete. The question was confronted by the 1% whose internal discussions led to the same conclusions reached all the way back to the first two floundering presidents and their newly constituted takeover of the Revolutuon.
Washington called out the federal troops to destroy any expression of dissatisfaction of the Whisky Rebellion in Pennslyvania. Adam gained passage of the Sedition Act to quell any criticism of the new government, his administration and rising anger against the takeover of freedom.
In that wonderful Constitution enough safeguards were built into the fabric of American society, politics and economics to ensure that the 53 white men, mostly slaveowners, all rich and landed and the quiet Wall Street crowd for whom they spoke that freedom was a right to be fought for by immigrants, non-whites, non-slave holders and women and later gays, lesbians, socialists, communists, working wage slaves and the common people ever since.
Bush II, Guiliani, etc. took the lead in creating hatred and irrationality because the forces behind the 9/11 known attack were proxies of the 1% in America and in the mideast.
Friends in the sense the attack made it possible to steam roll over American rights and freedom and go to a senseless war while claiming it would free Americans from fear.
Fear is the 1%'s best friend because it creates situations where Americans are easily manipulated as the wealth and income rolls to the 1%.
Washington called out the federal troops to destroy any expression of dissatisfaction of the Whisky Rebellion in Pennslyvania. Adam gained passage of the Sedition Act to quell any criticism of the new government, his administration and rising anger against the takeover of freedom.
In that wonderful Constitution enough safeguards were built into the fabric of American society, politics and economics to ensure that the 53 white men, mostly slaveowners, all rich and landed and the quiet Wall Street crowd for whom they spoke that freedom was a right to be fought for by immigrants, non-whites, non-slave holders and women and later gays, lesbians, socialists, communists, working wage slaves and the common people ever since.
Bush II, Guiliani, etc. took the lead in creating hatred and irrationality because the forces behind the 9/11 known attack were proxies of the 1% in America and in the mideast.
Friends in the sense the attack made it possible to steam roll over American rights and freedom and go to a senseless war while claiming it would free Americans from fear.
Fear is the 1%'s best friend because it creates situations where Americans are easily manipulated as the wealth and income rolls to the 1%.
11
Increasing surveyllance is not an attack on liberty but a necessary tool in the battle against terror. The Belgians narrowly avoided a major series of attacks on the police due to wiretaps on terror cells. These groups use the internet and telephones to recruit, plan,arm and execute their murderous attacks and responsible governments must infiltrate these communications to safeguard innocent lives. I know of few innocent citizens who have been persecuted because of their e-mail. I myself have a number of militant Muslim groups who post their ridiculous diatribes on my Facebook page and have never been bothered by either the Tunisian or U.S; goververnments. If they want to survey my correspondance, they're welcome to it.
1
Funny how the obvious existential threats -- nuclear war, environmental destruction, emergent diseases -- garner almost no response whereas terror, which is a threat, for sure, gets trillions.
Displacement much?
Displacement much?
8
How truly special. That America would become a cautionary tale.
We grew up thinking we were exceptional and in our pride that we would export freedom and the respect of law to a barbarian world.
We can now return to our home shores in shame as all can see our love of freedom dies at the first sign of danger.
We grew up thinking we were exceptional and in our pride that we would export freedom and the respect of law to a barbarian world.
We can now return to our home shores in shame as all can see our love of freedom dies at the first sign of danger.
15
Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents suspended the rights of Habeus Corpus due to the Civil War. BTW Lincoln's real concern was saving the Union and his letter to Horace Greely clearly spells that out - google it and read it.
The constitution means what the current administration and Supreme Court says it means and 9/11 was enough of a shock to make virtually all give up some of our rights.
The idea of our soverign right to privacy and all the howls about how the NSA/CIA are monitoring our communications - gets some blood pressure up but that is about it.
It will be interesting to see how the combined EU acts to the huge muslim population population in the EU. I have traveled extensively in muslim countries years ago and the muslim peole were very friendly and the thought that an American was there to live and see their culture made them all smile.
I love to travel and would love to travel in N. Africa again - the cradle of our civilization.
The constitution means what the current administration and Supreme Court says it means and 9/11 was enough of a shock to make virtually all give up some of our rights.
The idea of our soverign right to privacy and all the howls about how the NSA/CIA are monitoring our communications - gets some blood pressure up but that is about it.
It will be interesting to see how the combined EU acts to the huge muslim population population in the EU. I have traveled extensively in muslim countries years ago and the muslim peole were very friendly and the thought that an American was there to live and see their culture made them all smile.
I love to travel and would love to travel in N. Africa again - the cradle of our civilization.
3
"9/11 was enough of a shock to make virtually all give up some of our rights."
No it wasn't. Some of us aren't cowards and believe in the principles of our founding.
Every legal necessity for investigating the hijackings existed on 9-10-01.
No it wasn't. Some of us aren't cowards and believe in the principles of our founding.
Every legal necessity for investigating the hijackings existed on 9-10-01.
2
In France the educational system teaches people to think for themselves. Philosophy, clasical literature, and history produce a populace which is able to control the actions of its government. In the US the education system produces "patriots" who support government decisions, no matter how foul they may be.
28
That's simply not true. The French have a tendency much more to fall in line with their government, often with disastrous consequences. Read up on the Vichy regime, the Dreyfus trial and the Algerian war, among many other things.
2
Weren't the Kouachi brothers products of your fabled French educational system? You must be so proud.
1
That an isolated act has engendered such radical, comprehensive state martial response--deployment of ten thousand armed military personnel, weapons, communications, attack helicopters, armored vehicles and tanks readied, tear gas and other chemical weapons, stun guns, EM weapons; a dragnet arrest regime of variously defined suspects immediately jailed and sentenced to years of incarceration without due process; speech restrictions, Internet surveillance intensification and a packaged menu of extra-constitutional legislation and utter foreign cooperation and subordination, all absent any investigation whatsoever--clearly reveals that the terror event itself and state objectives are not mutually exclusive or merely reactive. They are one and the same: unified, integral, synthesized, common. Noteworthy, a Paris police chief who attempted an investigation was found dead, an event largely unreported in the media.
As elsewhere, the crime has self-solved.
As elsewhere, the crime has self-solved.
4
Given its mind boggling scope, the Patriot Act was designed to stifle dissent and protest. The only beneficiaries of this horrible law are the corrupt ruling class and the police state used to protect them.
Conservatives have been trying to turn back the clock to the days before the civil rights movement. The Patriot Act and the derivative programs in NSA, CIA, FBI, etc are being used to preserve the wealth disparity and inequity of justice for generations to come, transforming America into a virtual police state where a corrupt minority rules over a defenseless, unrepresented majority.
Conservatives have been trying to turn back the clock to the days before the civil rights movement. The Patriot Act and the derivative programs in NSA, CIA, FBI, etc are being used to preserve the wealth disparity and inequity of justice for generations to come, transforming America into a virtual police state where a corrupt minority rules over a defenseless, unrepresented majority.
16
Most people surely agree with the necessity of governments to find a solution to prevent terrorism that respects civil liberties for U.S citizens
And I believe that Obama has the necessary traits and abilities to do the job, if we can keep his political enemies from sabotaging his efforts.
But the description of France here as "sharply critical of American counterterrorism policies , which many see as an overreaction to 9/11" reminds me of the adage "walking a mile in the Indian's moccasins" before making judgements.
I think we all have learned that the world must find a way to protect civilization from Stone Age behavior.
And I believe that Obama has the necessary traits and abilities to do the job, if we can keep his political enemies from sabotaging his efforts.
But the description of France here as "sharply critical of American counterterrorism policies , which many see as an overreaction to 9/11" reminds me of the adage "walking a mile in the Indian's moccasins" before making judgements.
I think we all have learned that the world must find a way to protect civilization from Stone Age behavior.
8
@June Conway Beeby: Are drone deaths of the innocent not Stone Age behavior, albeit with advanced technology? But the mind-set is still Stone Age. Our drone strikes have caused so much pain in the Middle East and Pakistan, I understand why they become our enemy.
4
Not any surprises here, The U.S. public has been for so long bombarded with hogwash xenophobic paranoia and hysterical Bulls--t of how the entire planet is jealous, envious and out to get us because of our supposed exceptionalist, indispensable nation on the hill, beacon of freedom self-deluded image of ourselves. Not thought out at all knee-jerk reactions by Government officials who one would believe would know better, for some small political gain have exploited every terrorist/criminal act have frightened the many unthinking to becoming easy to manipulate into giving up personal liberties in the name of some imaginary monster hiding under every bed or around every corner, asking and insisting they be vigilant, spy on, don't trust, how well do you really know your neighbor?, is he really a good American? report anything you think(?) or seems strange behavior. There certainly are many dangers in the World, but don't ask, why? who? or how'd they get here or that way, because that would make some think and even question how the U.S. and other Western European Government myopic Policies of meddling and manipulating nearly every nation on this planet for so long would have some consequence!
32
My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. Hate speech a la Charlie is offensive and should be treated as such. But killing someone for offensive speech is wrong. Societies can surely create laws that deal with th ese issues effectively. Free speech is not absolute in this country. Our Espionage Act limits free speech as do our hate speech laws.
11
Most Americans are unaware that there are 5 limitations on America's 1st Amendment, but they are very, very specifically applied.
What hate speech laws are you referring to? In the US, laws against hate speech are unconstitutional.
The so-called Patriot Act is the most pro-fascist piece of legislation ever passed in the history of America. It has zero effect on reducing terror and a morbid effect on reducing what we used to call democracy.
The legislators of this country should hang their heads in shame that they have allowed it to stand.
The legislators of this country should hang their heads in shame that they have allowed it to stand.
50
If fascism is corporate government I'm afraid we're well on our way to being a fascist country, even the "supreme court" seems to believe as much.
2
The French have plenty of repressive laws and practices. However, they have been smart enough to avoid labels such as 'Patriot'. This does not make the situation in America any better, but perhaps France is not quite a shining beacon.
The Patriot Act should be ridiculed. America's legislation was too reactionary, gave the NSA and other "secret agencies" too far a reach without adequate checks and balances.
Bravo France!
Nations need only to increase use of policing, detective work and international police efforts to best combat criminal (which terrorists simply are) behavior.
Terrorism has no nation-state home so classic warfare is inefficient. And a nation need not withdraw freedoms and rights to citizens to improve security. Absolute security is impossible so sacrificing freedoms/rights for safety is a failure.
Ben Franklin knew this - "Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither". There were "terrorists", or those who disagreed with the state, way back then like today.
Now Congress needs to reign in the NSA and others who took America's Patriot Act too far like some Orwellian Big Brother.
Bravo France!
Nations need only to increase use of policing, detective work and international police efforts to best combat criminal (which terrorists simply are) behavior.
Terrorism has no nation-state home so classic warfare is inefficient. And a nation need not withdraw freedoms and rights to citizens to improve security. Absolute security is impossible so sacrificing freedoms/rights for safety is a failure.
Ben Franklin knew this - "Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither". There were "terrorists", or those who disagreed with the state, way back then like today.
Now Congress needs to reign in the NSA and others who took America's Patriot Act too far like some Orwellian Big Brother.
30
What sort of policing and detective work did you have in mind? The PATRIOT Act provided additional capabilities for investigators that have reduced terror attacks. Pitch the act and you'll be left with serious gaps through which attacks could resume. Just realize that terror networks are more sophisticated than aggressive policing can or will control. Protecting privacy is a valid pursuit, but "Gentlemen don't read each other's mail" is a naive approach to national security.
The Patriot Act allowed increased surveillance and intelligence activity.
The French laws allow for incarceration based on speech.
Although no fan of the Patriot Act, I think the difference is pronounced. In the US, the government can spy on you but the bar is very, very for detaining someone based on speech.
In France, it's just the opposite.
The French laws allow for incarceration based on speech.
Although no fan of the Patriot Act, I think the difference is pronounced. In the US, the government can spy on you but the bar is very, very for detaining someone based on speech.
In France, it's just the opposite.
10
in the US the games played with technicalities hide the fact that there is much behind the scenes manipulation and abuse of the Citizenry. In France the person jailed for speech will get his day in court in the US the victims of the unPatriot Act often don't even know they have been suspected, found guilty and are being punished through manipulations of employers, banks, medical care, by the cretins "protecting" us whom I am sure are also benefitting economically from that abuse.
6
"In the US, the government can spy on you but the bar is very, very for detaining someone based on speech."
The thing is, the Patriot Act has made that bar removable—you know, to protect democracy. Under the Patriot Act, government action may be taken completely in private, including holding secret trials, and if someone privy to the investigation were to mention it to anyone, much less mention it to the subject of the investigation, they could be sent to prison too. Secret government enforcement undoes a multitude of civil rights.
The thing is, the Patriot Act has made that bar removable—you know, to protect democracy. Under the Patriot Act, government action may be taken completely in private, including holding secret trials, and if someone privy to the investigation were to mention it to anyone, much less mention it to the subject of the investigation, they could be sent to prison too. Secret government enforcement undoes a multitude of civil rights.
3
Not if an agent of one of the security services has infiltrated your 'terrorist' group. His/Her first-hand testimony of what you said while you were 'plotting' will get you some serious time in jail.
Or in the case of 'subversives' like 'peaceniks' and 'non-supporters' - some special attention from IRS, police and other patriotic organizations.
Or in the case of 'subversives' like 'peaceniks' and 'non-supporters' - some special attention from IRS, police and other patriotic organizations.
Just the title "Patriot Act" is an object of ridicule, isn't it?
22
France has plenty of repressive laws and practices but knows better than to label them with that word 'Patriot'.
In addition to the issues of privacy, there is also, at least in the US, the issue that the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws.
Therefore, in the US, any law passed now can only make future acts criminal acts, and the same acts committed before the law is passed are not criminal acts under the law.
I have no idea whether French or European law also bans ex post facto laws. I do know that the Europeans are much more vigorous about protecting privacy that we are. Many acts that are perfectly acceptable here, like photographing people in public places without their permission, are forbidden or are much more strictly limited in various European countries.
Therefore, in the US, any law passed now can only make future acts criminal acts, and the same acts committed before the law is passed are not criminal acts under the law.
I have no idea whether French or European law also bans ex post facto laws. I do know that the Europeans are much more vigorous about protecting privacy that we are. Many acts that are perfectly acceptable here, like photographing people in public places without their permission, are forbidden or are much more strictly limited in various European countries.
3
Watching this whole thing unfold in a monumental case of deja vu, I understand the dilemma France faces. Following years of critique of the US reaction to 9/11, it's happened there, unleashing the same forces of fear that led to our Patriot Act.
But in reading nonstop about what's unfolding in France, now Belgium, and Lord knows which country next, I can't help but wonder, over and over--why not stop those who travel to Syria from returning to Europe? We keep reading over and over how the biggest danger to Europe, including the UK, is the estimated 5000 or so young people attracted by ISIS recruitment.
Wouldn't it be simpler to change travel laws and ban flights to key countries in the first place than to grapple with the problem of returning national citizens returning with plans of terror in their heads?
The alternative is to curb liberties for all with the goal of catching a few needles in the haystack of worldwide terror organizations. At some point, countries need to decide how they are going to deal with the relatively close proximity of Middle Eastern nations to their borders and take a closer look at initial travel to these countries.
But in reading nonstop about what's unfolding in France, now Belgium, and Lord knows which country next, I can't help but wonder, over and over--why not stop those who travel to Syria from returning to Europe? We keep reading over and over how the biggest danger to Europe, including the UK, is the estimated 5000 or so young people attracted by ISIS recruitment.
Wouldn't it be simpler to change travel laws and ban flights to key countries in the first place than to grapple with the problem of returning national citizens returning with plans of terror in their heads?
The alternative is to curb liberties for all with the goal of catching a few needles in the haystack of worldwide terror organizations. At some point, countries need to decide how they are going to deal with the relatively close proximity of Middle Eastern nations to their borders and take a closer look at initial travel to these countries.
3
"Wouldn't it be simpler to change travel laws and ban flights to key countries in the first place"
That would inhibit the terrorist wars we are running in those places with the people, money, and weapons we send to those places. We WANT to send terrorists there and cause terrorism. We just don't want it to come back.
The problem is that it does not work that way. We are reaping what we are sowing here.
That would inhibit the terrorist wars we are running in those places with the people, money, and weapons we send to those places. We WANT to send terrorists there and cause terrorism. We just don't want it to come back.
The problem is that it does not work that way. We are reaping what we are sowing here.
6
Identifying those who have traveled to Syria is much more complicated than stopping commercial flights. The most informed radicals would be making overland crossings through porous borders, leaving them with passports without official stamps showing travel in and out of Syria. Besides, what about Europeans bringing medical aid to Syrian rebels fighting Assad? Or journalists covering the war? If you block travelers who've visited neighboring countries like Turkey and Iraq, you violate all sorts of bilateral and international treaties. It's complicated.
1
The the only idea more ludicrous than "the Patriot Act protects our "freedoms" is the suggestion that the terrorists attack us because they "hate" those freedoms. It seems that our reaction is to destroy those "freedoms" rather than deal with the root cause of the problem.
These days it seems that like every other podunk nation in the world, your freedoms are limited by the amount of money you have to hire a lawyer when The State has decided that you've crossed some sort of line. We need to look no further than the fate of a Staten Island black man, accused of selling non-taxed cigarettes, versus a silk-pants, rich boy republican governor who gets off with a slap on the wrist after being convicted of corruption in one the governor's office.
You can debate all day about what it's going to take to stop this terrorism. Maybe a change of policy in the way that we treat the rest of the world would be a good place to start? Ever hear of the Golden Rule?
These days it seems that like every other podunk nation in the world, your freedoms are limited by the amount of money you have to hire a lawyer when The State has decided that you've crossed some sort of line. We need to look no further than the fate of a Staten Island black man, accused of selling non-taxed cigarettes, versus a silk-pants, rich boy republican governor who gets off with a slap on the wrist after being convicted of corruption in one the governor's office.
You can debate all day about what it's going to take to stop this terrorism. Maybe a change of policy in the way that we treat the rest of the world would be a good place to start? Ever hear of the Golden Rule?
9
We should encourage the French to figure this out for themselves given their domestic predicament because if they can devise a remedy we should all benefit. The French certainly understand any solution will require police work but also measures to address the origins and promotion of radical Islam.
3
Funny how the French have showed so much more courage and strength in the face of a terrorist attack than we do in America. Meanwhile we still have uninformed and uneducated types in America who hypocritically call the French cowards (simply because the French didn't want to fight our wars for us). Here in America we freak out and panic at the whiff of terror. Especially in the most conservative areas where people just live in fear all day long and are ready to give up any liberties for more security. In France they've stood strong, fought back quick and hard, and still won't let themselves get shook. But here in America in random unimportant suburbs here in Ohio we have middle-aged men and women who are afraid of terrorist attacks at their local malls. These Paris attacks really did illuminate how much tougher the urban French are then suburban and rural Americans.
12
"Especially in the most conservative areas where people just live in fear all day long and are ready to give up any liberties for more security."
They think they are giving up other peoples' liberties, but not their own, because of course THEY are no "threat." That isn't how it works of course, but that is what they're thinking, and why they're so willing to do it.
They think they are giving up other peoples' liberties, but not their own, because of course THEY are no "threat." That isn't how it works of course, but that is what they're thinking, and why they're so willing to do it.
11
The French have a more mature nation at this point, having made many of their own mistakes in the past… Wisdom comes from humility, which only finally takes firm root after ego and hedonism has led to the edge of the abyss. The U.S. will stand at the edge, like all other empires before it, and regret its arrogance and negligence.
Ed Snowden was right!!
Ed Snowden was right!!
11
It's so interesting that the Patriot Act come to be shorthand in Europe as a reference to America's loss of moral compass.
We would love to think the rest of the world still views Americans as strong-willed, freedom-first brave hearts. In fact, it seems that many abroad realize what is politically incorrect to utter here: that the terrorists did win on 9/11 and American policy has been driven by fear and "security-first, freedom-second" ever since.
We would love to think the rest of the world still views Americans as strong-willed, freedom-first brave hearts. In fact, it seems that many abroad realize what is politically incorrect to utter here: that the terrorists did win on 9/11 and American policy has been driven by fear and "security-first, freedom-second" ever since.
9
A terrorist act is meant to terrorize and it seems to work. In the US, if every time there was a shooting at a market, school, or a movie theater, there was a proportional response, there would be no more guns in the hands of the public.
9
So what you are saying is that "terrorism" is in fact a creation of the media and not the existential threat justifying us giving up our right to privacy and freedom the editors and owners of that media want us to think it is.
1
No. The so called media did not create terrorism. They report and sensationalize anything that is or could be sensational. "If it bleeds, it leads." The response to terrorism vs mass shootings at schools are oddly different. I would suggest it has something to do with lawmakers being more fearful of the NRA than extremists.
1
Western Europe is already in its death throes from an immigration policy that is sheer madness. It found it could not integrate its large Muslim populations so it marginalized them, adding tinder to what was already an all-consuming fire of fierce Occidentalism. This article, more an editorial than news coverage, implicitly sets out a road map for the final ruination of France, Britain, Germany, Spain, etc. The only response now, if it's not too late already, is to re-establish the rule of law through taking back the secessionist Muslim enclaves and stop aiding and abetting the Muslim extremist agenda. Something like the "Patriot Act" has its flaws, and they can be addressed and a new law refined. But any other response seals Europe's doom. The laissez-faire I'm Alright Jack attitude is a death wish. Buy the ticket and take the ride.
6
I totally agree with your comment except Europe should have been stricter with their immigration laws .When you take a large group of poor people in that are not integrated you end up with this mess ,there will always be exceptions .
Over 600 persons, placed in detention centers after 9/11 died while imprisoned, mostly from lack a medical care.
The detention centers, created and managed by friends of the Bush family, mostly large political contributors, are a blight on our history, something similar to the Japanese internment camps of WWII, but worse.
Thank goodness the French see through the nonsense, and hopefully will not make a bad situation worse, will not be tricked into destorying themselves and their nation, as so many of our leaders have allowed in the US.
The detention centers, created and managed by friends of the Bush family, mostly large political contributors, are a blight on our history, something similar to the Japanese internment camps of WWII, but worse.
Thank goodness the French see through the nonsense, and hopefully will not make a bad situation worse, will not be tricked into destorying themselves and their nation, as so many of our leaders have allowed in the US.
16
The French also do these sorts of things which is why they have the Foreign Legion.
I read from comments we the french will be wiser about it and refuse to fall into the trap of a Patriot Act, and I also believe we will manage to do so.
However there are huge differences between your 9/11 and the recent events in paris: 9/11 was a complete and shocking surprise and it killed close to 3000 innocent US citizens while Paris events where foreseeable and targeted 12 people who knew they were at risk. The march was not a mourning one, it was against people trying to force us to change our way of life while 9/11 was about retaliation.
Also, we the french have been able to understand what a Patriot Act meant and were shocked that it led the USA to spy over our european leaders, keep detainees in Guantanamo indefinitely without serious charges and so on.
For these reasons I don't see it as us being wiser. You americans brought the answer you thought was good at that time. We are in a very different context.
Let's not forget about the jews in Paris also targeted and killed; I'm very sorry that jews don't find anymore in France the shelter they once found. It's deeply sad that we fail to provide jews of France the feeling of security we should.
Each additional jew leaving France is a loss for our country.
However there are huge differences between your 9/11 and the recent events in paris: 9/11 was a complete and shocking surprise and it killed close to 3000 innocent US citizens while Paris events where foreseeable and targeted 12 people who knew they were at risk. The march was not a mourning one, it was against people trying to force us to change our way of life while 9/11 was about retaliation.
Also, we the french have been able to understand what a Patriot Act meant and were shocked that it led the USA to spy over our european leaders, keep detainees in Guantanamo indefinitely without serious charges and so on.
For these reasons I don't see it as us being wiser. You americans brought the answer you thought was good at that time. We are in a very different context.
Let's not forget about the jews in Paris also targeted and killed; I'm very sorry that jews don't find anymore in France the shelter they once found. It's deeply sad that we fail to provide jews of France the feeling of security we should.
Each additional jew leaving France is a loss for our country.
17
911 was not a surprise at all to President Bush,and his top administration as they knew the terrorists were learning to fly jumbo jets, they knew who the terrorists were and where they were at all times.Only the public was shocked.I still think it was an inside job.Bush was far away from any danger as well as the Sect of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was at NORAD conducting a military drill which had us on stand down-telling our military it was all a training event.The odds that an actual attack would happen on the day the US Military was on stand down are very low like 1 in 100,000,000.
But the gullibility factor was also very high.Us citizens are not used to any form of attack from the outside-only nuts acting out inside. Our security plan is too little too late if any at all.Our govts main focus is oil profits-our congress is highly bribed to ignore any real threat.Unless a profit from military industrial complex can be forecast into a dream come true.The "attack" on Sept 11,2001 led to massive business profits for a few well placed govt officials.The Port Authority being one,Halliburton being another-and the list of defense and oil contractors too long to list. I doubt anyone had a clue these terrorist plan to attack Charlie Hebdo at all-as European agencies are on the ball all the time as they deal with this crap frequently.The USA is still the easy target to mass damages yet very infrequent attacks.
But the gullibility factor was also very high.Us citizens are not used to any form of attack from the outside-only nuts acting out inside. Our security plan is too little too late if any at all.Our govts main focus is oil profits-our congress is highly bribed to ignore any real threat.Unless a profit from military industrial complex can be forecast into a dream come true.The "attack" on Sept 11,2001 led to massive business profits for a few well placed govt officials.The Port Authority being one,Halliburton being another-and the list of defense and oil contractors too long to list. I doubt anyone had a clue these terrorist plan to attack Charlie Hebdo at all-as European agencies are on the ball all the time as they deal with this crap frequently.The USA is still the easy target to mass damages yet very infrequent attacks.
4
THIS THE BEST ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION THAT HAS BEEN POSTED!!!!
9/11 brought a completely unexpected, massive death toll to our cities and we had no idea of what to expect in following days and months. Please try to remember what it felt like in the first weeks after the attacks.
European countries have had 13 years of follow-up events and experiences from which to learn and temper their responses. And now we have the luxury of time in which to second-guess our 2001 responses.
We should be careful not to think that, in the absence of a follow-up attack, we didn't need such a strong response. Several attacks have been prevented. If one had been successful, our defensive measures would have seemed inadequate.
9/11 brought a completely unexpected, massive death toll to our cities and we had no idea of what to expect in following days and months. Please try to remember what it felt like in the first weeks after the attacks.
European countries have had 13 years of follow-up events and experiences from which to learn and temper their responses. And now we have the luxury of time in which to second-guess our 2001 responses.
We should be careful not to think that, in the absence of a follow-up attack, we didn't need such a strong response. Several attacks have been prevented. If one had been successful, our defensive measures would have seemed inadequate.
1
What happens when Muslim terrorists open fire in a large European Cathedral on a future Christmas eve?
Any community that hides or holds information about, gives shelter or does not report their where about, or actively or passively gives support to criminals or terrorists can not expect fair treatment, even when they publicly manifest and personally express that they oppose/abhor such practices. How often have we been able to stop criminal acts by radical Muslims thanks to a confidence by a member of his/her community? And I bet all that I have that at least one "good" Muslim knew about 9-11, about recent French attacks and all others. There is where the problem resides, and it is not until it happens that the supposition of "there is no such thing as a good Muslim" will persist. I suspect that many fear for their life's, but their communities will have to gather courage or the "good" will perish together with bad ones - of cowards nothing worthwhile has been written.
France has a lot to learn from the good, bad and ugly experience of the USA post 911. It has the luxury of adopting what worked and what did not and so it does not have to resort to a knee jerk reaction to keep France safe. The difficulty France will have is that Al Qaeda and ISIS supporters and sympathizers are not distant in Syria and in the lawless border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan but are entrenched within France and spread across its land and while it would be easy to tell the French army "Marchon Marchon", the important question is march where? The enemy is not on its borders not in the open and not in the jails. It is hidden out of sight. It will need creative well thought solutions and not the boasting and simple minded thoughts of "smoking the terrorists out of their hiding". The age old cliche "follow the money trail and cut the financial support to the terrorists" maybe prudent. I am sure the money trail will lead to the silent majority of those offended by the marginalization of their kind and those offended by the blasphemous depiction of their prophet. So not all solutions will have to be based on gaining intelligence and the use of force. A comprehensive resolution will require a better management of interfaith mistrust and convincing those heading to the ISIS training camps to stay put in France and make their future in France as nonviolent ideal French residents.
3
One difference between America on Sept. 11th and France today is that President George W. Bush and his Cabinet sought to manipulate and exploit citizens' fears for ill-advised power overreaches and military endeavors. I don't see European leaders today seeking such a cynical course.
9
Ah, the irony that the French, who the Republicans accused of being cowards during the Bush years, are not cowering to the terrorists. Let's not forget how the brave Republicans led by then Republican Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Bob Ney, renamed French fries Freedom Fries in Congressional cafeterias in response to France's opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq in 2003.
And the irony too of a terrorist act leading us to undermine our very rights and Constitution is too sad for words. Thanks to Bush and Cheney for torturing people to make the world a safer place.
And the irony too of a terrorist act leading us to undermine our very rights and Constitution is too sad for words. Thanks to Bush and Cheney for torturing people to make the world a safer place.
11
The French are wise to study and reject our Patriot Act which essentially robbed of us freedom to move about freely with the ruse it would make us safer. We, on the other hand, steadfastly refuse to study what other countries have successfully done in the areas single payer health care, gun safety laws, mass transit, big Pharma advertising... the list goes on and on. Will our government ever start caring for us over enriching corporations?
15
"Will our government ever start caring for us over enriching corporations?"
No, not so long as big corporate money is the speech that controls the careers of any would be politicians.
No, not so long as big corporate money is the speech that controls the careers of any would be politicians.
9
Had the Patriot Act had been used as it authors intended and had sunset, it may have been a very different thing. Instead of being a temporary measure focused specifically against foreign terrorism, it came to be used against American citizens for which there is no probably cause or a warrant.
Powers given to government, even with Sunset clauses, are rarely returned, or used in the scope they were intended. Programs rarely stay inside their claimed budgets.
John
Powers given to government, even with Sunset clauses, are rarely returned, or used in the scope they were intended. Programs rarely stay inside their claimed budgets.
John
83
Unfortunately, 13 years of 911, terrorists are no longer all foreign. The West, because of its openness and pluralism and probably corruption, has been "infiltrated" by the terrorists. Terrorists like the Kouachi brothers are like cancer within our body, that is very difficult to eliminate without at the same time also harming ourselves. They make us witch hunt among ourselves, put us on edge, test our principles and values. Just as we can't fight terrorists in the Middle East with just military alone, we can't fight them at home with just more police and more surveillance. The essential question is, WHY? Why are the jihadists cause appealing to them?
In the case of France, it's been said that the French Muslim communities are impoverished and marginalized, probably socially, but perhaps more so economically. The elephant in the room that is not being acknowledged here is the meaningless pervasive in the Western worlds, among the poor and the middle class. Why is this so? Free societies where all our material needs are met, why are our young disengaged and disenchanted?
Young people like Kouachi brothers, we cannot lock them up forever, we cannot follow them 24/7, once they had been turned, there is no longer good solutions. Prevention is key here.
So we shouldn't just focus on how barbaric or archaic the Muslims societies are. We should take a hard look at our own cultures and institutions that allow the jihadists to look attractive to some of us.
In the case of France, it's been said that the French Muslim communities are impoverished and marginalized, probably socially, but perhaps more so economically. The elephant in the room that is not being acknowledged here is the meaningless pervasive in the Western worlds, among the poor and the middle class. Why is this so? Free societies where all our material needs are met, why are our young disengaged and disenchanted?
Young people like Kouachi brothers, we cannot lock them up forever, we cannot follow them 24/7, once they had been turned, there is no longer good solutions. Prevention is key here.
So we shouldn't just focus on how barbaric or archaic the Muslims societies are. We should take a hard look at our own cultures and institutions that allow the jihadists to look attractive to some of us.
Spot on John.
Government's reach should always be limited…. and I thought that's what Republicans believed but they pushed hard for the Patriot Act and now refuse to sunset that temporary security measure.
Government's reach should always be limited…. and I thought that's what Republicans believed but they pushed hard for the Patriot Act and now refuse to sunset that temporary security measure.
Can you provide examples of widespread use of the Patriot Act being used against American citizens? I'm truly interested. I have only found loose accusations from far left and far right media outlets that lack substantial evidence.
I believe you would be hard pressed to find widespread abuse of the Patriot Act.
I believe you would be hard pressed to find widespread abuse of the Patriot Act.
1
Just say no to anything remotely similar to the "Patriot Act" - a misnomer if there ever was one.
19
Probably the greatest harm ever perpetrated on this country was the deception of the Bush 43 administration in getting the Patriot Act passed and the senate's willingness to pass it without vigorous debate. I still remember Administration officials (Rice, Cheney, et al) accusing anyone who opposed the Patriot Act as being un-American.
I believe that single act changed the course of history. The United States gave up any claim to being an open society, interested in preserving personal liberty for its citizens and, indeed, the entire world.
I believe that single act changed the course of history. The United States gave up any claim to being an open society, interested in preserving personal liberty for its citizens and, indeed, the entire world.
100
I find it remarkable how a sense of infringement that is mostly that, a sense, gives rise to such embarrassingly expressed outrage. Your claims speak directly to a weak knowledge of US history rather than any substantive claim of harm. You have not been harmed by that law, have you?
Certainly the Patriot Act is a problem, but in fact Americans have never been more free than they are in 2015 and I defy you to prove otherwise, I certainly can prove that they are, and when the SCOTUS backs gay marriage in short order my case will strengthen.
The easiest way to bring the current crop of what I like to refer to as "Outrage Hobbyists" to some sense of truthful perspective, and knock them off their self-pitying high horse, would be for Congress to propose a law that that millions of Americans have to live under until 1973 - a military draft.
The howling over that perfectly legal and sometimes very necessary prospect would wake the dead, and put petty complaints about the relatively benign Patriot Act in perspective.
Certainly the Patriot Act is a problem, but in fact Americans have never been more free than they are in 2015 and I defy you to prove otherwise, I certainly can prove that they are, and when the SCOTUS backs gay marriage in short order my case will strengthen.
The easiest way to bring the current crop of what I like to refer to as "Outrage Hobbyists" to some sense of truthful perspective, and knock them off their self-pitying high horse, would be for Congress to propose a law that that millions of Americans have to live under until 1973 - a military draft.
The howling over that perfectly legal and sometimes very necessary prospect would wake the dead, and put petty complaints about the relatively benign Patriot Act in perspective.
3
Any change in normal justice system as a response to any terrorist activity is acceptance of the fact the the normal justice system is faulty and is incapable of dealing such situations. Such legal changes produce results what terrorist wanted: convincing people that they were not unjustified. System also starts moving towards the direction terrorist wanted i.e. many people become part of terrorist ideology. Only resilience and transparent justice system can fight terrorism, otherwise it will start producing more and more enemies and terrorists due to its own terrorist like tactics and procedures.
2
While Europe cries hoarse over civil liberties, Muslim immigrants remain the least integrated into European societies. Yet, in the U.S., money is a sole determinant of rightful citizenship, Muslims are less ghettoized and feel "better" recognized than in Europe. The alienation of the Tsarnaev brothers was a different kind of alienation and had to do with the excess of individualism and hyper competitiveness in our country. In Europe there is this penalizing of folks who want to practice their beliefs and don't particularly want to be zestfully "secular". The punishment is ghettoization and denial of employment. Mere guarantee of civil rights in principle isn't enough. Europe has not much moral authority to heckle America of having lost its "moral compass".
The push for and the terror felt in America were all in Washington, DC. Never before had the pols and drones who work for them ever suffered such a fear for their lives and lifestyle. All of a sudden, the people of the capotol were worried that they had been targeted. Meaniwhile, in NYC, after the attack and fall of the Twin Towers, llife went on and those people for whom life in the city was too stressful, left to live in nameless anonymity in the 'burbs whee they could live out their lives with some hope no one would notice their existence.
In fact, life in NYC is and has been safer and more secure since the attack than in many other , more countrified and exurban states.
The passage of the Patriot act was a an act of moronic desperation by an administration and it's servitors. It has done immense harm to America and caused no greater feeling of security against foreign religious warriors who enjoy spitballing us daily on the net. These folk, for the most part, are ignored by our police agencies as US cops do not know how to speak or read any foreign languages, and cannot imagine any other nation being of any importance to maintaining their jobs.
In fact, life in NYC is and has been safer and more secure since the attack than in many other , more countrified and exurban states.
The passage of the Patriot act was a an act of moronic desperation by an administration and it's servitors. It has done immense harm to America and caused no greater feeling of security against foreign religious warriors who enjoy spitballing us daily on the net. These folk, for the most part, are ignored by our police agencies as US cops do not know how to speak or read any foreign languages, and cannot imagine any other nation being of any importance to maintaining their jobs.
7
There seems to be a misconception relating to civil liberties along with being watched at the same time. A good Patriot Act would require that every person working for the government security system be subject to new rules where they would never be allowed to share what was viewed or recorded. They could never use personal information to harm an innocent person regardless of what they might find relating to an individual. If and when any crime is committed then the appropriate info is released however at no time could any employee of this system use any information to harm any resident of this nation. It has been seen in the past that the personal prejudices and/or political affiliations have used private information for personal benefit. Again using the information correctly has a tremendous benefit when it comes to security however misuse of such must result in penalties which are far worse than those who commit the crimes.
1
It's always a question a question of balancing, of weighing the good that comes from restrictive measures with the bad and trying to reduce the latter to a minimum. But to pretend a completely open society can fight terrorism - the modern form of warfare - is folly. This is why censorship and emergency laws existed during WW II. This existed in all the Allied countries simply because it was a necessary evil if you will, one recognized to be worth the candle in the bigger picture. If the degree of openness that exists now (even after Patriot Act, etc.) had existed victory would have been impossible.
I don't agree with the socialist legislator that America's laws have not produced conclusive results. There is no way he can know that, firstly, and secondly, this is an area of risk minimization. No one can know in advance how to prevent terrorist acts but you have to try and I believe, like "Jack" argued below, it has helped keep the continent safe. The population must assist too, to tip off police more, to be more proactive. I am sure that France's population will do more of this in the future.
Government must protect its own people and if the current legislators won't, the people will elect new ones who will.
I don't agree with the socialist legislator that America's laws have not produced conclusive results. There is no way he can know that, firstly, and secondly, this is an area of risk minimization. No one can know in advance how to prevent terrorist acts but you have to try and I believe, like "Jack" argued below, it has helped keep the continent safe. The population must assist too, to tip off police more, to be more proactive. I am sure that France's population will do more of this in the future.
Government must protect its own people and if the current legislators won't, the people will elect new ones who will.
1
EU experience with terrorism runs way before US. France, Italy, Germany, Spain, UK have a long story of internal and external terrorist organization. Red Brigades, Neo-Fascist organizations in Italy, IRA in UK, the Basque terrorist organizations in Spain, just to name a few. In Italy in the 70's there were many terror attacks of different nature , including some from middle east, some financed by Eastern Europe services, other supported by Western services (including CIA). The experience of police, anti-terror , anti-mafia and secret services in Italy is way better than any corresponding organization in USA. The same applies to France, UK, etc. The problem is that unlikely USA that are isolated, EU shares borders with the middle east and immigration in not from Mexico but from all these countries with a majority of islamic population. That makes problems worse, but there is not need of special laws or "patriot acts".
3
You know, when I was a kid I used to walk a half mile to school and back. Today, my grandchildren are whisked by car or bus mainly out of concerns for their safety. Unfortunately the world has changed.
The natural reaction of any government in the wake of a surprise attack is to clamp down as much as possible on those perceived areas where threats are most likely to emanate from. Pearl Harbor, for example, resulted in the unfortunate internment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. Likewise, in the hysteria post 9/11, the government moved quickly to ferret out any known or perceived threats before another calamity could occur.
Yes, some mistakes were made. But in this day and age of home grown terrorists, enormous firepower, and dirty bombs what is a government to do? Sit back and wait for the next attack?
The question boils down to this: How much freedom are citizens willing to give up in exchange for enhanced safety?
We are living in a new and more dangerous world and our freedoms are being used against us by our enemies. Sadly, until this threat is eradicated we might have to adjust our expectations when it comes to personal freedom and privacy.
The natural reaction of any government in the wake of a surprise attack is to clamp down as much as possible on those perceived areas where threats are most likely to emanate from. Pearl Harbor, for example, resulted in the unfortunate internment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. Likewise, in the hysteria post 9/11, the government moved quickly to ferret out any known or perceived threats before another calamity could occur.
Yes, some mistakes were made. But in this day and age of home grown terrorists, enormous firepower, and dirty bombs what is a government to do? Sit back and wait for the next attack?
The question boils down to this: How much freedom are citizens willing to give up in exchange for enhanced safety?
We are living in a new and more dangerous world and our freedoms are being used against us by our enemies. Sadly, until this threat is eradicated we might have to adjust our expectations when it comes to personal freedom and privacy.
5
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” -- Benjamin Franklin 1755
4th Amendment - no unreasonable search and seizure
"you are presumed innocent until proven guilty."
Yes, growing up in NYC in the 50s and 60s, I took the subway and bus to get to school - no parents or adult supervision along the way. I seem to remember that the "Russian bear" was the big scary entity out there. How time do change.
The fact that the world is more dangerous does not change the basic idea that law-abiding Americans should have the right to go about their daily business without government intrusion or "supervision."
However, the 4th Amendment does not apply to individuals who report what they see. It only applies to the government.
It amazes me that after the fact, people come out of the woodwork and say "yes, I saw that guy doing strange things." The burden is on us to "say something" if we "see something" that looks out of place. How many of us even know who our neighbors are in the big city? What happened to being familiar with what people on your own street do for a living, or what they espouse as political positions? If more of us paid attention, the "bad guys" would have a harder time of it.
It takes time to pay that kind of attention. Nobody wants to "waste" the time. Instantaneous "everything" is the order of the day.
4th Amendment - no unreasonable search and seizure
"you are presumed innocent until proven guilty."
Yes, growing up in NYC in the 50s and 60s, I took the subway and bus to get to school - no parents or adult supervision along the way. I seem to remember that the "Russian bear" was the big scary entity out there. How time do change.
The fact that the world is more dangerous does not change the basic idea that law-abiding Americans should have the right to go about their daily business without government intrusion or "supervision."
However, the 4th Amendment does not apply to individuals who report what they see. It only applies to the government.
It amazes me that after the fact, people come out of the woodwork and say "yes, I saw that guy doing strange things." The burden is on us to "say something" if we "see something" that looks out of place. How many of us even know who our neighbors are in the big city? What happened to being familiar with what people on your own street do for a living, or what they espouse as political positions? If more of us paid attention, the "bad guys" would have a harder time of it.
It takes time to pay that kind of attention. Nobody wants to "waste" the time. Instantaneous "everything" is the order of the day.
2
Joe: All good points and I can't say that i disagree with you theoretically. But reality has a tendency to trump theory. Oh I guess we can accept a couple of hits here and there so long as it doesn't affect us directly. But if another 9/11 occurs, the specter of another Congressional hearing grilling the Administration officials on their dereliction of duty will do little to soothe the shattered lives of those impacted.
During the Civil War one of our greatest Presidents Abraham Lincoln took extraordinary steps in curtailing the Nation's freedoms in order to preserve the Union during its most challenging era to date.
If it was good enough for him it is good enough for me.
During the Civil War one of our greatest Presidents Abraham Lincoln took extraordinary steps in curtailing the Nation's freedoms in order to preserve the Union during its most challenging era to date.
If it was good enough for him it is good enough for me.
I keep hearing comments like this and yet, I live in the middle of Manhattan, and I see kids age 5, 7, 9, walking singly or even alone to and from school, to the store, etc., by themselves.
Intrusion into our private life is inevitable when faced with identifying and dealing with the social disease.
The question should not be whether it should be done but how. If it is done by stirring paranoia, mindless harassment, abuse of power then it done the wrong way.
People are social animals. All actions by individuals result in a feedback from those they affect. Traditionally, this had been the family, friends, and local community. In modern western life where people live independent and very private life, there is much less social interdependence and social feedback.
It's the government that is filling this void with the system of laws, courts, and police enforcement. It hasn't been doing a good job but it doesn't mean it hopeless to try to improve.
The problem is not in the idea of intrusion but in its implementation.
The question should not be whether it should be done but how. If it is done by stirring paranoia, mindless harassment, abuse of power then it done the wrong way.
People are social animals. All actions by individuals result in a feedback from those they affect. Traditionally, this had been the family, friends, and local community. In modern western life where people live independent and very private life, there is much less social interdependence and social feedback.
It's the government that is filling this void with the system of laws, courts, and police enforcement. It hasn't been doing a good job but it doesn't mean it hopeless to try to improve.
The problem is not in the idea of intrusion but in its implementation.
Capitalism is our national religion. People ask if protecting civil liberties is more valuable than protecting lives, but I would ask - Is making money worth thousands of innocent people's lives? Is it worth the life of planet Earth itself? Capitalists are true believers and they know it's well worth it, for them. They rule.
The fight, I mean right, to make money is our most cherished right, and faithful servants will fight and die to protect it. Just look around the world. 1000 military bases in over 100 countries is to protect the freedom and right of corporations to make money, but as long as everyone gets in on the action, it's just fine until they get blowback. The Military-Industrial-Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about has grown so powerful that it now owns our government and has bought our personal rights from Congress in exchange for campaign donations - the twenty pieces of silver. Such a deal! Jesus, who knew lives were so cheap?
We have endless wars for profit, and we now have the expected side effect - endless terrorism. Hey, more money to be made, as if Defense/War and it's spawn, Intelligence, aren't big and profitable enough. They've gone global. These exceptional corporate welfare queens have bought themselves an Empire with decades worth of our tax dollars.
Civil liberties and other personal rights are serious impediments to profit. They will be sacrificed to the God of Money. You can bank on that.
The fight, I mean right, to make money is our most cherished right, and faithful servants will fight and die to protect it. Just look around the world. 1000 military bases in over 100 countries is to protect the freedom and right of corporations to make money, but as long as everyone gets in on the action, it's just fine until they get blowback. The Military-Industrial-Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about has grown so powerful that it now owns our government and has bought our personal rights from Congress in exchange for campaign donations - the twenty pieces of silver. Such a deal! Jesus, who knew lives were so cheap?
We have endless wars for profit, and we now have the expected side effect - endless terrorism. Hey, more money to be made, as if Defense/War and it's spawn, Intelligence, aren't big and profitable enough. They've gone global. These exceptional corporate welfare queens have bought themselves an Empire with decades worth of our tax dollars.
Civil liberties and other personal rights are serious impediments to profit. They will be sacrificed to the God of Money. You can bank on that.
38
Living and thriving inside the borders of a country and it government is much like being married. There are rules, regulations, expectations, limitations but most importantly, sacrifices and compromises that must be made. To succeed in either situation one must keep an open mind to allow for change and flexibility. Until we are enjoying a perfectly civilized and peaceful world, change must occur. Rights must be questioned.
2
"Until we are enjoying a perfectly civilized and peaceful world, change must occur. Rights must be questioned."
And some risks must be accepted.
And some risks must be accepted.
3
I don;t even know how to begin to tell you how enormously wrong headed you are in that thinking. It is actually everything the US exists to stand against.
The rules and regulations are in the Constitution, there is no need to change them and certainly no evidence of anyone with the mental capacity to think through such a proposal in government today nor has there been anyone like that since the 1940's when folks who could think like that were already an endangered species.
The rules and regulations are in the Constitution, there is no need to change them and certainly no evidence of anyone with the mental capacity to think through such a proposal in government today nor has there been anyone like that since the 1940's when folks who could think like that were already an endangered species.
2
Great point, freedom, liberty, I would give that up in a minute to have the government protect me. They know best and would never make a mistake. Ask the Iraqi's. Torture, absolutely, as long as it is not me they are torturing, spying on people and locking them up on false charges, "can I have their car?" would be my only question. Jefferson and his pals made a huge mistake writing up what the world envies on that parchment. The French had experience with the Nazi's, maybe that is why they don't want our "liberties".
1
The US did overreact to 9.11, I hope that the French learn from our mistakes. Abroad we invaded and destabilized a nation that had nothing to do with the twin tower attacks, and had no WMDs. Under the banner of Iraqi Freedom we enabled the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We created a breeding ground for new terrorists and we are still there, 12 years later, now battling a barbaric fundamentalist movement that we enabled. We spent a $750B in direct costs on an unfunded war, enriched defense contractors, and lost ~5000 thousand of our own people. A number of the defense contractors who profited from the war had close ties to administration officials. Our leaders had no plan, other than to do something, and to starve the beast of government by running up the national debt. We squandered international good will and traded our moral authority as a nation for "intelligence" gathered by torture, and normalized the idea of torture as an instrument of government. We also have normalized the idea of war without end, a primary tenet of George Orwell's 1984, as was spying on the populace, as was torture.
This was all done in reaction to 9.11. I don't think the French have the capacity to create as big a tragedy as this, and hopefully have leaders with the wisdom and integrity to respond in a measured way to protect their republic rather than push their ideology.
This was all done in reaction to 9.11. I don't think the French have the capacity to create as big a tragedy as this, and hopefully have leaders with the wisdom and integrity to respond in a measured way to protect their republic rather than push their ideology.
38
I don't agree with any of this. 3000 people were killed in 9/11 and many injured, an attack which is comparable to, and in some ways more egregious than, the attack on Pearl Harbor since it occurred on American soil and was directed primarily to civilian targets. Had the White House been hit, America would have dealt an even more severe blow; the costs in any case have already been very heavy, some of which you detailed. 9/11 didn't require a "reaction", it required a military and civil defence in the only way it is possible today when fighting this form of warfare. Calling a free people's attempt to grapple with it a "tragedy" is offensive, in my opinion.
Finally, if there is a permanent war, remember who is responsible for it: terrorists funded and organized from certain centres abroad, not the United States. The U.S. doesn't have the choice to deal with this in any other way. Pointing to defence contractors profiting is bootless. Any war involves choices whom to hire to make weapons or security-related products and services. In WW II there were charges against some of war profiteering. No society is exempt from these challenges or difficulties. At least here with a free press and other media, egregious violations of law or policy can be brought to public attention and those who break the law sanctioned. But don't put the emphasis on the wrong syllable, as the saying goes.
Finally, if there is a permanent war, remember who is responsible for it: terrorists funded and organized from certain centres abroad, not the United States. The U.S. doesn't have the choice to deal with this in any other way. Pointing to defence contractors profiting is bootless. Any war involves choices whom to hire to make weapons or security-related products and services. In WW II there were charges against some of war profiteering. No society is exempt from these challenges or difficulties. At least here with a free press and other media, egregious violations of law or policy can be brought to public attention and those who break the law sanctioned. But don't put the emphasis on the wrong syllable, as the saying goes.
I am not sure they have those leaders, though I think their press mday have more intellectual backbone. Beyond that, it is a test of the people add much as the leaders.
Smedley Butler accused some in the US of war profiteering. Not some societies. Don't gloss over the facts
I haven't read all the comments, so perhaps someone has already written some version of the following:
There can be no justification for the Patriot Act's comprehensive nature or for all of the terrible curbs on human and civil rights that have occurred in its wake. No amount of fear or considerations for the "greater good" can ever excuse harassments, false arrests, or espexially torture. Period.
However, it is a grave mistake to equate the magnitudes of what happened on 9/11/2001 and what happened just now in Paris. Thirteen years ago, huge jets were hijacked and crashed into huge buildings, both private and military, killing thousands of people with the intention of causing significant damage to our financial, military and government institutions' ability to function. While also horrific and tragic, recent events simply don't compare on a historic basis. Therefore, it makes sense that the level if fear and anxiety in France is so much less than what the U.S. experienced in that aftermath.
There can be no justification for the Patriot Act's comprehensive nature or for all of the terrible curbs on human and civil rights that have occurred in its wake. No amount of fear or considerations for the "greater good" can ever excuse harassments, false arrests, or espexially torture. Period.
However, it is a grave mistake to equate the magnitudes of what happened on 9/11/2001 and what happened just now in Paris. Thirteen years ago, huge jets were hijacked and crashed into huge buildings, both private and military, killing thousands of people with the intention of causing significant damage to our financial, military and government institutions' ability to function. While also horrific and tragic, recent events simply don't compare on a historic basis. Therefore, it makes sense that the level if fear and anxiety in France is so much less than what the U.S. experienced in that aftermath.
15
You're right that the comparison is not apt. But to compare 9/11 with war is even less so.
Nineteen men armed with box-cutters perpetrated 9/11, and not armies, nor masses, nor any such thing. A whole religion didn't do it. Dark-skinned people of the world didn't do it. Nineteen men, and their accomplices, did it.
You might compare that with an actual war, such as WWII, in which 50 million people died, and during which the US did not legalize spying on its own people nor torture nor repeal habeas corpus. In that dreadful actual war, yes, atrocities did occur. But not institutionalized, not legalized, not made permanent. Nor was the war ever considered to be permanent, as this new "endless war" is.
The 9/11 attacks could have, and should have, been treated as terroristic crimes and the perpetrators and accomplices found and punished. Rather than being used as an excuse to drum up hysteria and over-reaction, to accomplish illegal and unworthy political and other aims of leaders who abrogated their oaths and responsibilities in stunning fashion. Launching preemptive attacks on other nations, destroying our Constitutional rights, making our nation a police-style state with torture interrogation--dreadful. Unjustified and unjustifiable.
Nineteen men armed with box-cutters perpetrated 9/11, and not armies, nor masses, nor any such thing. A whole religion didn't do it. Dark-skinned people of the world didn't do it. Nineteen men, and their accomplices, did it.
You might compare that with an actual war, such as WWII, in which 50 million people died, and during which the US did not legalize spying on its own people nor torture nor repeal habeas corpus. In that dreadful actual war, yes, atrocities did occur. But not institutionalized, not legalized, not made permanent. Nor was the war ever considered to be permanent, as this new "endless war" is.
The 9/11 attacks could have, and should have, been treated as terroristic crimes and the perpetrators and accomplices found and punished. Rather than being used as an excuse to drum up hysteria and over-reaction, to accomplish illegal and unworthy political and other aims of leaders who abrogated their oaths and responsibilities in stunning fashion. Launching preemptive attacks on other nations, destroying our Constitutional rights, making our nation a police-style state with torture interrogation--dreadful. Unjustified and unjustifiable.
4
I agree with you, but say an accelerated series of outrages occurred in France over the next year, some at the Bourse, some at airports, some at police stations, some at sports events a la the Boston Marathon bombings. This could quickly lead to severe demoralization and economic slump in France, with knock-on effects elsewhere, very similar to what 9/11 came close to doing (and possibly would have had the fourth plane destroyed the White House). This is how warfare is conducted today and the west needs to fight it robustly and not pretend it can be a completely open society to do so. Yet, many comments here claim terrorism has no existential dimension. I just don't believe that nor is it fair to ask people to assume the risk that it does without subjecting the country to reasonable security measures. Fighting any war by definition entails restraints on the collectivity of various kinds and without these, one is fated to lose.
1
You are positing a difference between "terroristic crime" and traditional warfare that is not sustainable today, a world where individuals can obtain powerful weapons and mobilize (literally) outside their country, or in some cases within it, to wreak the kind of damage that in the past only armies with Big Berthas, Liberator bombers or Gatling guns could do. Times have changed. It is still a war but in a different guise. It can't be successful fought with detectives and police forces and courts. These may well play a role, but to assume they can carry the ball alone is erroneous.
The bulk of the people understand this intuitively, I believe, and will see to the defence of their country.
The bulk of the people understand this intuitively, I believe, and will see to the defence of their country.
Only time will tell whether France's response is forceful enough. The situation there is still unfolding. However, with hindsight, they seem determined not to repeat American overreaction. Their problem, as I see it, is there are a lot more French citizens returning from abroad suspected of being trained in terrorist tactics and, if not under surveillance, may prove to be a danger. The free movement of radicals in Europe will come to a swift end as a result. We are already seeing arrests of those supporting the Paris attacks so free speech is also being suppressed. Even free societies will be guilty of overreaction; the alternative is leaving the public naked to extremist aggression.
14
I think you and many miss the fact that any person at any time can be a terrorist. There is no special knowledge or training necessary to commit any terrorist act we have seen before or since 9-11-01.
The point and problem with the unPatriot Act is that it depends on people being afraid and stepping into that fear and embracing it to never let it go. The "danger" we face today from terrorism is no different than the dangers we have faced every day prior to this current wave of whipping up fear about it.
Nothing would be different if none of these events were publicised except that The People would not be unusually fearful of living and they would treat these events as the crimes they are not artificially make them special and different which they aren't.
The point and problem with the unPatriot Act is that it depends on people being afraid and stepping into that fear and embracing it to never let it go. The "danger" we face today from terrorism is no different than the dangers we have faced every day prior to this current wave of whipping up fear about it.
Nothing would be different if none of these events were publicised except that The People would not be unusually fearful of living and they would treat these events as the crimes they are not artificially make them special and different which they aren't.
3
The so-called 'Patriot Act' is actually the anti-Patriot Act.
President Obama, Republicans and Democrat Patriots, it is time to revoke this terrible un-American 'law'.
President Obama, Republicans and Democrat Patriots, it is time to revoke this terrible un-American 'law'.
43
I posed the question in an earlier post, but I haven't seen a direct reply.
Again, what does the Constitution say about the "safety vs. rights" issue? Does it provide any guidance, subtle or otherwise? Can anyone cite any specifics, rather than just expressing opinions?
We are supposed to be nation of laws rather than a nation of men. Opinions matter, of course, but, without substance to back them up, they're largely just words.
So, once again, I'm asking "what does the law of the land say about this present conflict between the preservation of rights vs. the preservation of safety?".
Again, what does the Constitution say about the "safety vs. rights" issue? Does it provide any guidance, subtle or otherwise? Can anyone cite any specifics, rather than just expressing opinions?
We are supposed to be nation of laws rather than a nation of men. Opinions matter, of course, but, without substance to back them up, they're largely just words.
So, once again, I'm asking "what does the law of the land say about this present conflict between the preservation of rights vs. the preservation of safety?".
4
The Constitution itself does not mention it. It is short and to the point.
The Founding Fathers talked about it. The Supreme Court has addressed it in opinions on Constitutional law. Countless politicians and pundits have bloviated about it. It is like the Bible, you can find someone who says whatever you like to support an "argument from authority" -- which is a form of fallacy remember.
The Founding Fathers talked about it. The Supreme Court has addressed it in opinions on Constitutional law. Countless politicians and pundits have bloviated about it. It is like the Bible, you can find someone who says whatever you like to support an "argument from authority" -- which is a form of fallacy remember.
10
Thanks Mark. The only "authority" that I care about in this case is the Constitution and the Supreme Court. I realize that interpretations and biases of the Court change over time, but I 'd like to think that its interpretations (on this topic) are generally based upon the Constitution. Maybe I'm a bit naïve, but, to me, this issue is so fundamentally important that I'd like to believe that the justices are driven by their intellects and consciences.
The Constitution does mention it. You may want to look at the famous preamble, which we had to memorize in Jr. High School. Also in Articles I and II various powers are granted to the Legislative and Executive branches, respectively. These powers explicitly and implicitly grant the government the power to protect its citizens. Then, of course, the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments grant the countervailing individual rights.
But, if you have time, take a look at Richard Posner's Not A Death Warrant. He's a the greatest federal judge not on the SCOTUS.
But, if you have time, take a look at Richard Posner's Not A Death Warrant. He's a the greatest federal judge not on the SCOTUS.
At least the French are smart enough not to cede their freedoms the way they did in the US. The French Revolution made the American Revolution look civil in comparison. Blood flowed in the streets. And war and ware, on French soil, make the French more than willing to fight for their rights. Unlike, here in the US, the people are like sheep; they let the government do anything and then react with a "meh".
I hope the French push back on limitations of freedom of speech their government is about to implement. For, if the French are willing to bow to their government, what chance do other democracies have? By the way, the US ceded leader of the free world, when they passed the Patriot Act, conducted torture, spied on its citizens, spied on their allies and started using drones to take out any opposition.
I hope the French push back on limitations of freedom of speech their government is about to implement. For, if the French are willing to bow to their government, what chance do other democracies have? By the way, the US ceded leader of the free world, when they passed the Patriot Act, conducted torture, spied on its citizens, spied on their allies and started using drones to take out any opposition.
46
The French already have gone further than the US in restricting freedom of speech and the press. In France the law provides for imposition of a fine or imprisonment for up to a year for Holocaust denial. The article reports that one man has been sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for publicly supporting the Charlie Hebdo attackers, indicating either that there are additional legal constraints on freedom of speech or that the police and judiciary are creatively applying incitement laws. On the other hand, there is no counterpart in the US for French and other countries' Holocaust denial laws.
Not too long ago, during the previous administration on conservative media that the French were reduced to "FREEDOM FRIES".
Now who has their freedom fried?
Now who has their freedom fried?
35
When this witless freedom fries flap first surfaced, my close friend, colleague and French citizen told me. "No problem here. After all, French and freedom are the same thing."
Is was and always has be Us who had their freedom fried. That was the argument from which that trivial depraved perversion of a foodstuff name came.
Advice to French leaders - err on the side of protecting your people. Measure your options based on the risk to the common person's sons and daughters, not yours.
Remember - the Jihadists don't win when they force you to alter your lifestyle; they win when they kill you.
Remember - the Jihadists don't win when they force you to alter your lifestyle; they win when they kill you.
4
Quick, hide under your bed.
The risk is far less than most forms of accident. It is on the scale of lightning strikes or drowning in your bathtub. It is not worth abandoning fundamental national values, for which we fight and many (more) have died.
The risk is far less than most forms of accident. It is on the scale of lightning strikes or drowning in your bathtub. It is not worth abandoning fundamental national values, for which we fight and many (more) have died.
28
I respectfully disagree. The terriorist win when we give up that which defines us from them.
I would rather be dead than live in their world.
I would rather be dead than live in their world.
4
The risk to you in Michigan, maybe. But we are talking about France. And the choice is being made by leaders to protect the citizens they swore to protect. Not by you. Thankfully.
Hard core leftist ideology versus the patriot act.
Such a difficult choice for the French.
Such a difficult choice for the French.
3
If you consider how relatively quiet things have been in France over the last 14 years (and it is because I am Jewish that I use the word "relatively") despite a large and (at times legitimately upset) immigrant community with many from North Africa and with a Muslim heritage, you would understand that naive black-and-white statements or choices like those you set up as the only two outcomes are not exactly illuminating. Its called a "straw man" and is uninteresting.
All depends on your point of view, RS. The patriot act comes from hard-core right wing ideology, in my opinion.
Maybe non intervention would be the greatest Patriot act. The same patriots that brag about our supposed "freedoms" are the biggest supporters of government spying.
29
Ah the boggy man of the Patriot Act. President Obama has signed bills from Democrat controlled Congress re-authorizing it twice. Number of people shipped off to Guantanamo under the Patriot act, Zero. Number of people denied due process under the Patriot Act, Zero.
Airport security and national guard troops in Grand Central, nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
President Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress have maintained and supported the vast surveillance network born out of the Patriot Act. The only people nab with all this surveillance are terrorist or people who were committing a crime that existed outside of the Patriot Act. They all received due process.
The Patriot Act is 12 years old, this is not a theoretical conversation we have seen it and lived it.
That said, the Patriot is a dangerous tool we have given the government, its too far reaching but that does not make it unnecessary.
We the people have a roll to play here, make sure it does not get abused by the government and work for the day it becomes unnecessary.
Airport security and national guard troops in Grand Central, nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
President Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress have maintained and supported the vast surveillance network born out of the Patriot Act. The only people nab with all this surveillance are terrorist or people who were committing a crime that existed outside of the Patriot Act. They all received due process.
The Patriot Act is 12 years old, this is not a theoretical conversation we have seen it and lived it.
That said, the Patriot is a dangerous tool we have given the government, its too far reaching but that does not make it unnecessary.
We the people have a roll to play here, make sure it does not get abused by the government and work for the day it becomes unnecessary.
7
"Number of people denied due process under the Patriot Act, Zero."
Horsepucky.
Start with the 4th amendment,every citizen who has been spied on by .gov inc. without .gov inc. first obtaining a warrant has been denied due process.
Every person who has been placed on the "no fly" list has been denied due process-there is no meaningful appeals process.
Anyone who's had their home raided by a SWAT team of .gov inc. agents in the middle of the night because a "confidential informant" claimed they were involved in terrorism has been denied due process.
That's just a start-the P.A. is a horrendous violation of our right to privacy,our due process right,and our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Horsepucky.
Start with the 4th amendment,every citizen who has been spied on by .gov inc. without .gov inc. first obtaining a warrant has been denied due process.
Every person who has been placed on the "no fly" list has been denied due process-there is no meaningful appeals process.
Anyone who's had their home raided by a SWAT team of .gov inc. agents in the middle of the night because a "confidential informant" claimed they were involved in terrorism has been denied due process.
That's just a start-the P.A. is a horrendous violation of our right to privacy,our due process right,and our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
France has a Muslim population of approximately 5 million. Of that, there are about 5000 people that the French security forces believe need to be watched. Not an active threat but worthy of consideration.That means that 99.99% of the Muslim population in France is considered by the people in charge of maintaining the security of their country are no threat at all. I imagine similar statistics exist in this country. President Obama is correct. This is not an existential threat. I certainly hope that they are not pressured into the widespread overreaction that that was created by our fears after the 9-11-2001 attack.
64
Not created by "Our" fears, it was created years prior and held in waiting by the people who kept whipping up your fear of possible calamities and color coded and numbered them to make it more effective so they could get the pre-written unPatriot Act passed.
2
less than 5 000.
around 1 000 to 1 500.
around 1 000 to 1 500.
Not "my" fears. I have been opposed to every bit of retaliation instituted since 9-11-2001.
A significant part of the so-called Patriot Act has served to provide the government with the opportunity to spy on ordinary Americans (and they have). I think that this is exactly the opposite of what the writers at Charlie were all about. All power to cartoon, the pen, the cellphone, and the Internet! Good intelligence work is not spying on ordinary people and creating fear! Also, the function of good government is to not fight endless wars.
23
Maybe this'll remind Democrats of the good ol days when they at least tried a little to represent what the people wanted and stood against the Patriot Act. Those good ol days when money only mostly influenced politics, instead full-on controlling and corrupting it the way it does today. The fact that Democratic voters don't hold Obama more accountable for his two-faced stance on the Patriot Act shows that Obama's done to Democrats what Bush did to Republicans- trained them all to not care about their ideals and principles, and instead, just mindlessly support the party.
21
So, the French aren't as crazy as we are. That is very encouraging. Now if we could only get the "Patriot" Act itself repealed, perhaps we could get back to being a free country rather than an example of how to destroy one.
103
The French, as this article points out, imprison people for expressing an opinion. This is lawful in France. It is not lawful in the U.S.
One of the Charlie Hebdo murderers spent three years in pre-trial detention on a previous case. That doesn't happen in the U.S.
As distasteful as surveillance may be, it is the only way to pre-empt these murderous assaults. The recent arrests in Europe provide further proof. The heavily armed terrorists killed in Belgium were well armed, ready to kill, and selected on the basis of surveillance results.
Welcome to the real world.
One of the Charlie Hebdo murderers spent three years in pre-trial detention on a previous case. That doesn't happen in the U.S.
As distasteful as surveillance may be, it is the only way to pre-empt these murderous assaults. The recent arrests in Europe provide further proof. The heavily armed terrorists killed in Belgium were well armed, ready to kill, and selected on the basis of surveillance results.
Welcome to the real world.
1
From your lips to God's ears.
Likely will never occur; simply too much money to be lost from the pocketbooks of our masters.
It will continue to exist for generations, until one day, they make a mistake that so obviously exposes them, the people will finally remember what "Liberty", meant.
Or perhaps another Snowden will appear, another true patriot, and shock us out of our coma.
Likely will never occur; simply too much money to be lost from the pocketbooks of our masters.
It will continue to exist for generations, until one day, they make a mistake that so obviously exposes them, the people will finally remember what "Liberty", meant.
Or perhaps another Snowden will appear, another true patriot, and shock us out of our coma.
1
Whether you are Muslim or Jew the backlash could be worse than what is the reality of today. I would if I were either be wary of any actions curtailing freedom.
This not just a French problem but one that of the whole worlds problem brought on by right wing extremist in the Christian, Muslim, Jew and other religions communities,
This not just a French problem but one that of the whole worlds problem brought on by right wing extremist in the Christian, Muslim, Jew and other religions communities,
9
Good point. When fear takes over, and hate guides, everyone has something to lose. It may be Muslims today, but it could become Jews tomorrow, and someone else the next day. It has been before, so that is not just talk, it is history.
4
Words do not kill, but they can incite resentment, stoke anger and lead to violent acts.
With freedom of expression comes responsibility. It is not so simple as, "If you don't like what I publish, don't read it."
Bashing Islam and mocking Mohamed will bring more hatred and may provoke revenge in the West. Enough is enough
With freedom of expression comes responsibility. It is not so simple as, "If you don't like what I publish, don't read it."
Bashing Islam and mocking Mohamed will bring more hatred and may provoke revenge in the West. Enough is enough
My grandmother always said: If a sane person joins a lunatic dancing naked in the public square, people will rightly call both of them mad.
4
I'm impressed! The French finally did something smart, reject a Patriot Act wannabe. The US needs to repeal the PA, and NDAA.
14
The stated goals of Islamic terrorism is to promote the rise of reactionary and fear -driven policies in Western democracies and spur the trading of rights for security. Our nation's feverish reaction to the 2001 attacks is a case-in-point.
At least the French are having a spirited discussion of how to handle terrorism. This is going to be a long war that could last decades, even generations. The focus should be on convincing Muslim world to stop the being passive about the radicalization of Islam and put serious pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop underwriting it.
At least the French are having a spirited discussion of how to handle terrorism. This is going to be a long war that could last decades, even generations. The focus should be on convincing Muslim world to stop the being passive about the radicalization of Islam and put serious pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop underwriting it.
13
"This is going to be a long war that could last decades, even generations."
Some among us push that, but it does not have to be that way.
Peace is possible. We have to make it. Uncompromising "with us or against us" and lashing about in fear and hate go in the wrong direction.
99.9% and more of Muslims in France by French count are not a risk. Keep it that way. Work with them. Make peace with them. Going to war on all of them just makes everything that much worse.
The Long War is a neocon desire, but the rest of us ought not to listen.
Some among us push that, but it does not have to be that way.
Peace is possible. We have to make it. Uncompromising "with us or against us" and lashing about in fear and hate go in the wrong direction.
99.9% and more of Muslims in France by French count are not a risk. Keep it that way. Work with them. Make peace with them. Going to war on all of them just makes everything that much worse.
The Long War is a neocon desire, but the rest of us ought not to listen.
5
"Dominique de Villepin, the former French prime minister, warned against the urge for “exceptional” measures. “The spiral of suspicion created in the United States by the Patriot Act and the enduring legitimization of torture or illegal detention has today caused that country to lose its moral compass,” he wrote in Le Monde, the French newspaper."
Hopefully; France will not become a replica of US and sanity would prevail in keeping a balance between national security and civil liberties!!!!
Hopefully; France will not become a replica of US and sanity would prevail in keeping a balance between national security and civil liberties!!!!
12
I don't think that any European country needs a “Patriot Act” as the USA did in 2011.
In fact we have seen the consequences of that Patriot Act, translated in to a free torture license by the CIA agents now persecuted as criminals: they are criminals but they did joust what the Government said in the Patriot Act, therefore I think that the USA Government should incriminate the ones which where ruling in 2011 and which signed the Patriot Act, not the CIA agents.
So said, Europe don't need any additional anti-terrorism law , because they were already done in the 70s for our in-house terrorism and now they need joust to be applied.
On the other side some Nations, like Italy, should make an anti-torture law as disposed by the UNO, without which policeman or intelligence agents cannot be persecuted if they overdue their job.
In fact we have seen the consequences of that Patriot Act, translated in to a free torture license by the CIA agents now persecuted as criminals: they are criminals but they did joust what the Government said in the Patriot Act, therefore I think that the USA Government should incriminate the ones which where ruling in 2011 and which signed the Patriot Act, not the CIA agents.
So said, Europe don't need any additional anti-terrorism law , because they were already done in the 70s for our in-house terrorism and now they need joust to be applied.
On the other side some Nations, like Italy, should make an anti-torture law as disposed by the UNO, without which policeman or intelligence agents cannot be persecuted if they overdue their job.
5
Although this website covered it favorably(and did not allow comments), I'm appalled by the widespread raids and killing. The police said the two dead men were planning to kill others. I'd like some independent verification of that.
Yes, more details are always welcome in this era of anonymous source "he said, she said" based journalism. However, It has been widely reported that the police were fired on first--certainly justifying the shooting whatever the victims future plans were--and in general the European police forces seem to be very restrained in the use of guns to end dangerous confrontations.
Because it's not right to arrest those planning more acts of terrorism?
The Europeans have been the victims of far more attacks by Muslim extremists than the U.S. has-yet they conduct far fewer police/SWAT style raids-you ever stop to think that they acted on credible intelligence?
You ever stop to think that Muslims extremists are not going to stop killing innocent people?
Every other group of immigrants has assimilated into the culture of the country the immigrate to-except Muslims.
Islam is not a religion-it's a political movement-and they will succeed in establishing a caliphate in Europe-multiculturalism does not work,will not work,and is going to lead to civil unrest in every country that has a large Muslim population.
The Europeans have been the victims of far more attacks by Muslim extremists than the U.S. has-yet they conduct far fewer police/SWAT style raids-you ever stop to think that they acted on credible intelligence?
You ever stop to think that Muslims extremists are not going to stop killing innocent people?
Every other group of immigrants has assimilated into the culture of the country the immigrate to-except Muslims.
Islam is not a religion-it's a political movement-and they will succeed in establishing a caliphate in Europe-multiculturalism does not work,will not work,and is going to lead to civil unrest in every country that has a large Muslim population.
Like everyone else I was shocked to see the occurrence of 9/11/01. More s perhaps because I worked in the towers while they were being built. But I was more shocked to see it used as an excuse to deprive Americans of their privacy and liberty when the Patriot Act was passed. Its attacks on the civil liberties provided by the Constitution should scare any American. You can be arrested and detained without right to habeus corpus, unwarranted search and seizure. Thanks to Snowden we now know that every phone call is recorded, every email stored away forever and even the front of the envelope on snail mail to see who we write letters to. The claim that they are unread is meaningless when you consider that any minor incident can prompt a records search that can pull up everything I've listed above for who knows how many years? Every person who says, "well if you aren't doing anything wrong what's to worry about" should be sent back to Civics class to remind them of the liberties our Constitution protects. I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin's saying that those who would surrender their liberty for security deserve neither.
28
Patriot Act in France? It is understandable such proposal is received with skepticism by well educated and savvy French citizens, used to read work of their philosophers.
To begin with, Francois Hollande is not bible inspired W. and Manuel Valls is not Dick Cheney. More importantly, since WWII the French society has opt for social cohesion and welfare as paramount political goal. This explains the fundamental role played by the country, along with Germany, in the process of European integration.
European citizens are well versed in their continent's history, particularly 500 years plus of colonial conquest and bloody wars among today's EU member countries. Long term wars is now left to be fought by the US, white man's hope and last bastion of Western military and economic power.
To begin with, Francois Hollande is not bible inspired W. and Manuel Valls is not Dick Cheney. More importantly, since WWII the French society has opt for social cohesion and welfare as paramount political goal. This explains the fundamental role played by the country, along with Germany, in the process of European integration.
European citizens are well versed in their continent's history, particularly 500 years plus of colonial conquest and bloody wars among today's EU member countries. Long term wars is now left to be fought by the US, white man's hope and last bastion of Western military and economic power.
11
Whether it's The Patriot Act or Obamacare, aren't we all sick and tired of congress passing laws they haven't read?
6
Or starting wars based on intelligence they have not even read?
5
Actually, I'm sick and tired of people saying that Congress passed laws they hadn't read. They wrote them.
If there are members of Congress who didn't read the laws they were voting on, then perhaps they should not be members of Congress.
It's past time to grow up and stop with the cute slogans.
If there are members of Congress who didn't read the laws they were voting on, then perhaps they should not be members of Congress.
It's past time to grow up and stop with the cute slogans.
Perhaps 9/11 could have been prevented if American flight school instructors had realized that if a person only wants to know how to fly a plane, not land it safely, there is a BIG problem. Doesn't matter what color or nationality the students are. Each of us has a responsibility to pay attention, ask questions and either confront the individual or report such out-of-whack behaviors to the authorities.
34
niglea,
It was Ashcroft who refused a FISA warrant.
The flight instructor had done his duty reporting.
It was Ashcroft who refused a FISA warrant.
The flight instructor had done his duty reporting.
Hindsight is 20/20. Pretty sure flight school instructors at the time were not thinking anyone wants to crash a plane into a building anymore than the average person was i.e. not at all.
It's always easier saying it after than before.
Before 9/11 no one could imagine some guys would be crazy enough to crash a civil plane full of innocent passengers into an office building full of innocent workers.
I can't blame flight instructors to have neglected this option. It was way too crazy to even think about it, I believe.
Before 9/11 no one could imagine some guys would be crazy enough to crash a civil plane full of innocent passengers into an office building full of innocent workers.
I can't blame flight instructors to have neglected this option. It was way too crazy to even think about it, I believe.
The article fails to point out that the French already restrict civil liberties to a far greater extent than we do. The United States, for example, would not and could not prohibit children from wearing religious symbols in school, ban Muslim women from using the veil, or ban hate speech such as holocaust denial. It could not imprison people for vague support of terrorism as teh French have. As the article points out, prosecutors already have more freedom than the do here. And French intelligence reputedly does the same kind of soft surveillance of its citizens that we do -- without the oversight of the courts. That in any case has been grotesquely exaggerated in the popular mind.
36
The Patriot Act, taken in the context of France's legal system as compared to the US's is an important consideration. The US has freedom of speech for its citizens, French laws allow the arrest of anybody uttering an incitement to violence. If I were a French citizen, the thought of opening up my electronic communications would give a handle to authorities to read my personal utterances, I would most likely feel a visceral resistance.
8
It is good to see that Europe watched what happened in the U.S. and seem to be hesitant to take that same road. What a disaster.
27
What the French political class is doing is basically nothing. They are effectively opening the way for the National Front to take power. The French voter will decide.
At least French voters will have an option that is not Nazi.
Indeed according to Newton, objects continue on their trajectories until and unless an external force is applied. Currently I see no political forces being mustered to change the nature of the trajectory many young, disenfranchised men find themselves on.
France needs a new social compact, whereby these young men are held to a high standard of personal responsibility which respects them as mature and constructed adults rather than infantilizes them (as does the frequest sociological excusing of crime often heard here). That is a big step forward for a benighted community. It must be made, and it must be greeted with an equally big step forward from the ethnic French community: to cease the rampant racial and ethnic discrimination which opposes mind-crushing barriers to young people's dreams of housing, employment and family. What that means, in this country of ours, is jail time -- or hefty financial penalties, which are often better at changing behavior -- for people engaged in acts of racial discrimination.
France needs a new social compact, whereby these young men are held to a high standard of personal responsibility which respects them as mature and constructed adults rather than infantilizes them (as does the frequest sociological excusing of crime often heard here). That is a big step forward for a benighted community. It must be made, and it must be greeted with an equally big step forward from the ethnic French community: to cease the rampant racial and ethnic discrimination which opposes mind-crushing barriers to young people's dreams of housing, employment and family. What that means, in this country of ours, is jail time -- or hefty financial penalties, which are often better at changing behavior -- for people engaged in acts of racial discrimination.
Dominique de Villepin: Let France 'Resist the Spirit of War' (Le Monde, France) http://bit.ly/1y6gb10
"The only victory the fanatics could hope for is to convince us that we are carrying out a total war; to lead us into a cul-de-sac of force we believed to be a short cut. … There is a second enemy: fear. The feeling of unforeseeable, pervasive and sudden violence arouses a desire for security that will be impossible to fulfill. Experience teaches us that terrorist attacks encourage the renunciation of democratic values and amid concerns for our own security the sacrifice of the liberties of others at home or abroad. The spiral of suspicion created in the United States by the Patriot Act and the durable legitimization of torture or illegal detention has today plunged that country into the loss of its moral compass."
"The only victory the fanatics could hope for is to convince us that we are carrying out a total war; to lead us into a cul-de-sac of force we believed to be a short cut. … There is a second enemy: fear. The feeling of unforeseeable, pervasive and sudden violence arouses a desire for security that will be impossible to fulfill. Experience teaches us that terrorist attacks encourage the renunciation of democratic values and amid concerns for our own security the sacrifice of the liberties of others at home or abroad. The spiral of suspicion created in the United States by the Patriot Act and the durable legitimization of torture or illegal detention has today plunged that country into the loss of its moral compass."
18
Vlllepin is an arrogant, grandstanding nobody. It is obvious from the last six months that, in fact, torture has not been durably legitimized and the US maintains a moral compass.
1
"in fact, torture has not been durably legitimized and the US maintains a moral compass."
I wish that were true. It's not. Torture is still defended and supported here, Gitmo is still open, the US moral compass is spinning crazily.
I wish that were true. It's not. Torture is still defended and supported here, Gitmo is still open, the US moral compass is spinning crazily.
3
Precisely, entirely accurate.
Never a truer word spoken.
The sad and indisputable fact is that our once "Government of the People, by the People, and for the People", has been usurped, and entirely replaced with a "Government of the masses, by the Plutocrats, and for the Plutocrats".
As George Carlin once said, "The American Dream, the problem is, you have to be asleep to believe it".
See clip - get past the profanity, a part of his shtick. If he were alive today, it's possible that if he were to do a piece on terrorism or on our government reactions to it, he might very well be arrested; for sure as a French citizen, residing in France, he certainly would.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw
Never a truer word spoken.
The sad and indisputable fact is that our once "Government of the People, by the People, and for the People", has been usurped, and entirely replaced with a "Government of the masses, by the Plutocrats, and for the Plutocrats".
As George Carlin once said, "The American Dream, the problem is, you have to be asleep to believe it".
See clip - get past the profanity, a part of his shtick. If he were alive today, it's possible that if he were to do a piece on terrorism or on our government reactions to it, he might very well be arrested; for sure as a French citizen, residing in France, he certainly would.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw
1
Much that passes as idealism is diguised hatred or diguised love of power - Bertrand Russell
5
I cannot imagine feeling so desperate as to act in ways that terrorists do. And now it has mushroomed out of control. How does one address desperate on a wide scale?
2
It's not desperation. It's hatred.
How weak of French leadership to fail in exploiting a national tragedy to the benefit of their military/industrial complex. Consultation with Bush/Cheney is in order.
15
Fact check - Before voting on the Patriot Act, ongress was not permitted to read it, for national security reasons.
9
An issue the US has confronted with disastrous results - more fear than reason and profound hypocrisy around human rights and liberties. The Orwellian Patriot Act is a corrosive exercise in self-deception and manipulation by the right wing mindset that has taken over America since 9/11 .
60
It is worse than that: it is sheer money and corruption, the ultimate opportunity to further exploit their flock of ignorants. The right mindset doesn't believe in their spew of demography on terrorism any more than they believe in the Constitution or their God, and the proof is in their every act and word which so utterly contradicts the principles, ideals, and laws of both.
Bos: what then is your solution? What should one do to coax extremists into being reasonable human beings? And who hurts innocents more?
6
McCarthyism redux.
12
But McCarthy was right, there WERE Communists and sympathizers working in the executive branch - especially the Dept. of State, and they needed to be removed from positions where they could damage the national interest.
How? Under Truman many people were given polygraph tests, and a list was compiled of those not telling the truth.
These things have to be done with an eye to constitutional rights, but that never meant that they didn't need to be done.
How? Under Truman many people were given polygraph tests, and a list was compiled of those not telling the truth.
These things have to be done with an eye to constitutional rights, but that never meant that they didn't need to be done.
3
McCarthy wasn't right to conduct himself in such a despicable manner. The fact is the way our Constitution was created a few Communists and sympathizer within the government would have a hard time subverting the government more that McCarthy did with his conviction by accusation smear campaign against those who did nothing more than hold views with which he didn't agree.
Those who endeavor to muzzle views they don't agree with do so because they cannot intellectually refute the opposition. The most effective way to defeat an ideology is with a superior ideology, not by purging them from your midst, which is a sign of weakness.
Those who endeavor to muzzle views they don't agree with do so because they cannot intellectually refute the opposition. The most effective way to defeat an ideology is with a superior ideology, not by purging them from your midst, which is a sign of weakness.
5
Any argument that begins with "McCarthy was right" can be disregarded. We suffered enough of that.
3
Actually this is not a question the US has wrestled with since 9/11. It is one on which Americans have capitulated to fear and loathing. The mindless panic I have seen at right wing blogs since the Charlie Hebdo shootings shows what a simple matter it is to relieve many Americans of their rational faculties. A brain map of some of these people would show 40% of the brain devoted to fear, 40% to hatred and 20% to leaning on the caps key. Fanatical, faux-Islamic terrorists are predators who know a herd of lamelings when they see one. Watch out!...for your neighbors.
115
More like 43% don't care enough to vote (90 million in 2012 elections), only 37% now approve of the current president, and only 39% follow international affairs (Pew study.)
"A brain map of some of these people would show 40% of the brain devoted to fear, 40% to hatred and 20% to leaning on the caps key."
Excellent.
Excellent.
2
I'm afraid he mindless panic is evident not only on right-wing blogs but also in the commentary on this website. Many people buy into the clash of civilizations thinking that was on display at the "Je suis Charlie" demonstrations. Very few have pointed out that there is a connection between terrorist attacks on Western soil and the actions of Western countries in a number of countries with large Muslim populations. When one makes these points one is accused of being an apologist. No, it's just that we can't be in denial of our own (governments') actions if we want to understand the war on terror.
1
France had many years to observe the USA in the aftermath of 9/11. It comes as no surprise that the French always superior in their mindsets that it could defend against or contain any such terrorist attack. It also felt that is had close relationships with Arab states and has a very large population of Muslims through immigration from former colonies. France had a NIMBY attitude about itself and did virtually nothing to strengthen it's own internal defenses against recent terrorist offences. France must rise on it's own 2 feet and make difficult decisions on it's own as to the society it wishes to be and to stop comparing itself to the US as they are not nor will ever be great with small thinking and it's egotist attitudes as to where they stand in the world. France has it's head in the past and cannot move forward because it first needs to pull it's head out of the sand.
2
Like liberals everywhere, the French looked at what America had to do to try to protect itself and simply dismissed such concerns as pedestrian worries. Sort of like New York City under any mayors other than Giuliani and Bloomberg.
6
So many people expounding on what France is, or was, or should be, or should do. Most of you, in fact, do not really know what you are talking about. Native New Yorker, you seem to ignore the fact that France has had extensive experience with Islamic terrorism in the 90s; thus your contention that the French assumed they could always contain this is nonsensical. You may be right that France has a tendency to live in the past, but you are incorrect in regards to internal security efforts and so much, much more...
2
We're all grateful that we have the righteous right to ensure our domestic tranquility. So tell us now, in emulating our post 9-11 response, which unrelated, sovereign nation should the French now invade to retaliate for their terror attacks?
The PA and the insipid DHS was the biggest waste of taxpayers dollars. Then Dodd-Frank and Obamacare eclipsed DHS as the biggest wastes of taxpayer dollars.
In the wake of 9/11, all we needed to do was have Congress mandate that the NSA and CIA coordinate better with each, and carve out a special unit from the FBI to team up with the CIA. I stead, we created another wasteful, bloated bureacracy. The DHS complex alone is a big fat boondoggle.
In the wake of 9/11, all we needed to do was have Congress mandate that the NSA and CIA coordinate better with each, and carve out a special unit from the FBI to team up with the CIA. I stead, we created another wasteful, bloated bureacracy. The DHS complex alone is a big fat boondoggle.
11
My dad use to say every generation makes it's own mistakes. Freedom is not a right to ping and prick others. It leads to war which is Europe's bulk history. In that continent, which no lager than the USA by land mass, is a dictator who they proudly defend. The Charlie Hebdos should use the catholic pope as a target of satire and that table being turned will expose the real problem our planet faces.
2
Oh jeez, another catholic hater.
3
Patrick -- "Oh jeez, another catholic hater."
You missed his point, and it is a good point.
If the "tables were turned" then people would see things they just don't see now. Those who support the Pope would feel what the Muslims feel, and better understand the feelings of Muslims. They still wouldn't understand murder, but they'd understand why "just a cartoon" inspires ill feeling.
I don't actually want to see a cartoon showing the Pope as these showed Muhammed, on all fours with his anus in the air and pornographic suggestions, or a vastly oversized rampant male member with pornographic suggestions. However, if you imagine that for a moment, you'll get the Muslim feeling about that aimed at them and their religious sensibilities. Again, that does not justify murder, and he didn't say it does.
You missed his point, and it is a good point.
If the "tables were turned" then people would see things they just don't see now. Those who support the Pope would feel what the Muslims feel, and better understand the feelings of Muslims. They still wouldn't understand murder, but they'd understand why "just a cartoon" inspires ill feeling.
I don't actually want to see a cartoon showing the Pope as these showed Muhammed, on all fours with his anus in the air and pornographic suggestions, or a vastly oversized rampant male member with pornographic suggestions. However, if you imagine that for a moment, you'll get the Muslim feeling about that aimed at them and their religious sensibilities. Again, that does not justify murder, and he didn't say it does.
OK, maybe I did miss his point. I'm not Muslim, but, in a way, I'm offended by how these cartoons portray Mohammed. Mocking the beliefs of others seems a poor way of making an argument.
4
The French, tending to be more thoughtful (they chose not to follow the Shrub into Iraq, like the Poodle) than the morons who inhabit the U.S. Congress, should remember the words of John Conyers, the Representative from Michigan. When he was asked in an interview on 60 Minutes, how the Congress could have passed the Patriot Act, with all its obscene abrogations of the Bill of Rights, responded, "why, nobody read it."
16
Free Speech and Free Expression must be preserved, not just because they are fundamental Human Rights, but because that's how you can identify the instigators and agitators who are dangerous. Forcing them "underground" protects their anonymity, and provides an excuse to toss and even wider web of suspicion over the innocent and further infringe on the basic Freedoms and Liberties far too many Americans take for granted.
2
According to Interpol, only three percent of terrorist acts in Europe are committed by Muslims. The bulk of those attacks are by extreme leftwing and rightwing groups.
People seem deliberately to close their eyes to the big elephant in the room, namely the horrendous wars fought in the Middle East for the past few decades by the United States and Europe. If people were honest with themselves they would admit that most of those wars were for the sake of looting the resources of the Middle East, or proxy wars between America and former Soviet Union and later Russia as in Afghanistan and Syria.
During the past three decades at least 3 million Muslims have been killed as the result of Western wars. In Algeria where the Paris terrorists came from there was a democratic election that an Islamic party FIS won decisively, but there was a military coup fully supported by France. The subsequent crackdown killed nearly 150,000. That was on top of a million Algerians killed by France during the war of independence. The Algerians know France’s role in those events. In other words, they are here because we are there. It does not justify the terrorist attacks, but to ignore that background is deliberate deception.
People seem deliberately to close their eyes to the big elephant in the room, namely the horrendous wars fought in the Middle East for the past few decades by the United States and Europe. If people were honest with themselves they would admit that most of those wars were for the sake of looting the resources of the Middle East, or proxy wars between America and former Soviet Union and later Russia as in Afghanistan and Syria.
During the past three decades at least 3 million Muslims have been killed as the result of Western wars. In Algeria where the Paris terrorists came from there was a democratic election that an Islamic party FIS won decisively, but there was a military coup fully supported by France. The subsequent crackdown killed nearly 150,000. That was on top of a million Algerians killed by France during the war of independence. The Algerians know France’s role in those events. In other words, they are here because we are there. It does not justify the terrorist attacks, but to ignore that background is deliberate deception.
59
You mean the three wars where the Arab world fought to exterminate Israel?
Anwar Sadat concluded that the Arab world was willing to fight to the last Egyptian.
Don't forget the Iran-Iraq border war in the 80's = 750,000 casualties and Iraq used chemical weapons against the Iranians - which one was the Western country in that extermination campaign?
And the Islamic terrorist attack in 2002 in Bali, Indonesia that killed 202? Indonesia is not part of the Western world, but perhaps had a huge military presence in the Middle East?
Anwar Sadat concluded that the Arab world was willing to fight to the last Egyptian.
Don't forget the Iran-Iraq border war in the 80's = 750,000 casualties and Iraq used chemical weapons against the Iranians - which one was the Western country in that extermination campaign?
And the Islamic terrorist attack in 2002 in Bali, Indonesia that killed 202? Indonesia is not part of the Western world, but perhaps had a huge military presence in the Middle East?
Bos is right that it was a Muslim that hid the customers in the Paris Kosher Supermarket Freezer. Unfortunately, the voice of moderate Muslims are drowned out by the extremists in their midst. Until this stops, all Western Muslims will be a casualty of their extremist brothers and sisters. Perhaps the moderate majority should take back Islam from the extremists and then they will not be viewed with suspicion, and the West will not have to have surveillance programs? Only Muslims can extinguish the extremism in their midst - it is time for them to take real action.
19
"Unfortunately, the voice of moderate Muslims are drowned out by the extremists in their midst. Until this stops, all Western Muslims will be a casualty of their extremist brothers and sisters."
No, their voice was not drowned out. It has been loud and clear, and they are the vast majority.
If they become a casualty, they will be a casualty of foolish over reaction. That foolishness would cost everyone all the help that the vast majority could have given to control the tiny minority hiding within.
No, their voice was not drowned out. It has been loud and clear, and they are the vast majority.
If they become a casualty, they will be a casualty of foolish over reaction. That foolishness would cost everyone all the help that the vast majority could have given to control the tiny minority hiding within.
2
Perhaps we could just stop the wars and hypocrisy going on in ME matters. That could go a long way in diffusing some of the hatred and perceived injustice.
France already has quite a few restrictions on free speech - It's against the law to deny the Holocaust, for example, which you can find any number of people doing every day in this country. Disgusting, but not illegal. So I wouldn't hold France up as a beacon of free speech to begin with. Which is kind of puzzling since unfettered free speech is what the Hebdo thing is all about.
But I'm glad to see a robust argument breaking out on whether to emulate our reaction to 9/11.
Of course... Don't do it.
But I'm glad to see a robust argument breaking out on whether to emulate our reaction to 9/11.
Of course... Don't do it.
8
The difference between France and the United State in terms of rah-rah support of The Patriot Act can be found in Americans' deeply engrained sense of leader-of- the world entitlement. This includes self-righteously ignoring basic human rights in the name of (sometimes) weirdly entertaining " U.S. is Number One-ism." (The things we'll do flex our muscles.) We go door to door around the world selling copies of our Constitution while we torture grocery clerks at home. And dog gone it, we're going to make torture and rights trampling something to cheer about--despite, according to the article, its lack of effectiveness.
If the United States could ever exercise a grain of humility and realize it is just another Bozo on the bus, we may have a chance stop dirtying our hard won liberty.
If the United States could ever exercise a grain of humility and realize it is just another Bozo on the bus, we may have a chance stop dirtying our hard won liberty.
267
There's another difference too. For all their bluster modern Americans are pregnant with fear. Europeans still have a cultural memory of events far worse than the attacks on September 11, 2001. It gives them a different perspective.
2
This is very harsh, but unfortunately so right. Congratulations for your realism. You said it all.
It seems to me that the French - oweing to their being better educated in their superior public schools? - are far less inclined than Americans to abandon their hard fought and stubbornly preserved liberties for a false sense of instant gratification produced by a "throw out the baby with the bathwater", narcissistic approach to problem solving they have been conditioned to by so many years of reckless rule by so called "Conservatives".
11
Six people caused all the havoc in Paris. Six. A previous French Prime Minister said, “No legislation could ever overcome the madness of a single actor of this kind of barbarism.” Or six. However, it won't break my heart when anonymous takes down terrorist web sites.
7
The French have already gone too far. But they are wise not to follow us into sheer folly.
15
Bravo to the French. After September 11th we were told fear lurked around every corner. It was suggested we duct tape our homes to avoid anthrax poisoning. We Americans did not take to the streets to stand up to terrorism and shame on us. We did not show a united front against a terrorism instead we listened to idle gossip and fear mongering about Muslims. Hatred and suspicion reared it's ugly head reflecting our history at the Salem witch trials and McCarthy hearings. Laws were passed which made citizens feel things were even worse than that feared. People thrown in jail without just cause, phones and internet and mail monitored, torture, all because one group of crazies staged an unprovoked and hideous attack on my beloved NY. Because one person in the history of mankind had a shoe bomb, millions of us must now remove our shoes before boarding an airplane. Overreaction does not create security.
Why are we cowered when the French stand up for freedom, unity and liberty? That would be an interesting story.
Why are we cowered when the French stand up for freedom, unity and liberty? That would be an interesting story.
293
Name fear mongering as well as name calling was another cherished conservative tactic.
Remember "FREEDOM FRIES".
Remember "FREEDOM FRIES".
10
did you actually read the article? one man sentenced to 6 months for shouting support of the killers of Charlie Hebdo, another 100 arrested? we never had such insane laws. the french standing up for liberty and arresting a comedian for making a joke about his name so as to refuse support for CH?
"Why are we cowered..."
Because we are much more materialistic, therefore much more concerned with "security".
Because we are much more materialistic, therefore much more concerned with "security".
The Patriot Act and other anti-terrorist measures will remain ineffectual, as long as Saudi Arabia continues to be permitted to fund extremist schools around the world. Kids have been and are currently being taught the extremist wahabi form of Islam and many of them live in dire poverty with no hope for their futures. This coupled with perceived or real disrespect of (and fear/hatred of) Islam by the west is a recipe for disaster.
67
What we have been doing has gotten us here. It clearly doesn't work. Doing more of it is not a sane answer, it is the definition of insanity. Yet more of the same, on ever-wilder scale, is all we see proposed.
DebS is too kind. The Patriot is a freaking joke for everything's she's mentioned and that they commit daily acts of barbarism on their own soil and our government's are still best buds.
Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer, said “People were unwilling to speak out for civil liberties.”
He's wrong. Many people in fact did speak out for civil liberties, but their voices were drowned out by tens of millions of fearful Americans and a government bent on using the attacks as a means to gain power over us.
I urge all nations to use the US as an example of how not to respond to terrorism, and to ensure the strengthening of their citizens' civil liberties during such fear-inducing times, not the lessening of them.
Courage in the face of violent ignorance is the hallmark of the greatest of leaders and their followers throughout world history. We should all try to live by their examples.
He's wrong. Many people in fact did speak out for civil liberties, but their voices were drowned out by tens of millions of fearful Americans and a government bent on using the attacks as a means to gain power over us.
I urge all nations to use the US as an example of how not to respond to terrorism, and to ensure the strengthening of their citizens' civil liberties during such fear-inducing times, not the lessening of them.
Courage in the face of violent ignorance is the hallmark of the greatest of leaders and their followers throughout world history. We should all try to live by their examples.
207
Only now is France, and other European nations, starting to realize the magnitude of the threat from their many millions of Muslims.
After a few more attacks, they will get even more serious about deal with Islamic terror.
After a few more attacks, they will get even more serious about deal with Islamic terror.
5
I think that the Europeans understand the threat of terrorism far better than we Americans, for one thing they have lived with it much longer.
1
Looks like the cheese eating surrender monkeys are thinking a little more deeply than us about the important value of liberty before being stampeded into intrusive laws and policies in the face of threat. Too bad most Americans will dismiss them rather than spend a minute pondering whether the French might be selecting a wiser path.
20
When de Villepin can come out in opposition to US-type Patriot Act stifling of civil liberties, we see at once that France's Center-Right is more dedicated to free expression than American Democrats (Republicans, including libertarians, possibly worse). Our political spectrum is tilting rightward appoximating a bipartisan consensus on war, intervention, torture, drone assassination.
Not surprising. America has always had a poor record on civil liberties, from 18th century Alien and Sedition Acts to Palmer Raids to McCarthyism to, now, a president who through massive surveillance and use of the Espionage Act against whistleblowers manifest absolute contempt for free speech, free thought, free expression.
I fear Europe, including France, will go through a long period of persecution of the Muslim people, which, as everyone knows, or should, both is intrinsically wrong on its face and will only engender extremism in response. Counterterrorism in America is a RACKET, a means of social regimentation which can only move the country to the Right, aid demagogues, and bring the so-called political class further on the road to mediocrity and worse.
One knows a society by the freedoms it protects and cherishes. On any objective scorecard America presently ranks at or near the bottom. Keep up the patriotic clatter--to hide war crimes, defense spending at the expense of the social safety net, not least, a world posture of belligerence directed at confronting Russia and China.
Not surprising. America has always had a poor record on civil liberties, from 18th century Alien and Sedition Acts to Palmer Raids to McCarthyism to, now, a president who through massive surveillance and use of the Espionage Act against whistleblowers manifest absolute contempt for free speech, free thought, free expression.
I fear Europe, including France, will go through a long period of persecution of the Muslim people, which, as everyone knows, or should, both is intrinsically wrong on its face and will only engender extremism in response. Counterterrorism in America is a RACKET, a means of social regimentation which can only move the country to the Right, aid demagogues, and bring the so-called political class further on the road to mediocrity and worse.
One knows a society by the freedoms it protects and cherishes. On any objective scorecard America presently ranks at or near the bottom. Keep up the patriotic clatter--to hide war crimes, defense spending at the expense of the social safety net, not least, a world posture of belligerence directed at confronting Russia and China.
123
"Not surprising. America has always had a poor record on civil liberties"
America has never been so bad as the leading modern Europeans at their worst, nor so good as them at their best.
Our rights have protected us from swings to the bad.
Unfortunately they have been used as an upper bound too. We tend to have only what the Court says is the bare minimum of rights absolutely required by the Constitution. That was not what the Founders intended when the wrote it, but it is what we've gotten.
America has never been so bad as the leading modern Europeans at their worst, nor so good as them at their best.
Our rights have protected us from swings to the bad.
Unfortunately they have been used as an upper bound too. We tend to have only what the Court says is the bare minimum of rights absolutely required by the Constitution. That was not what the Founders intended when the wrote it, but it is what we've gotten.
2
The best way to counter terrorism is to counter the system of education that prepares the mind to the heinous act of killing the innocent. Billions of dollars haven spent in military manoeuvres, yet terrorists appear to be more active than 9/11.
212
Yes that would be a terrific response, one that must com from the countries that spawn terrorist activities themselves. They, whether in schools, family life, or religious institutions control the information and/or philosophies that get passed on to the children. Westerners ridiculing their religion in the name of free speech (which it is) won't create an atmosphere of working together on this. While we have the "right" to say what we want, we also have the responsibility to take the consequences.
2
We can start by stopping Saudi Arabia publishing books and exporting a militant form of Islam. Especially the part of Jihad against anyone who is not Sunni Muslim. Please refer us to Al Qu'ran where it is said to conduct Jihad against Christians and Jews?
This says Muslims should not to:
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=29&verse=46
But, the Mullahs in Saudi Arabia and Iran ignore this verse. As does ISIS, Al Queda and every other group who uses terrorism to justify their means.
The Prophet Muhammad was a man of peace, not a man of violence and death.
So, you are right, about the system of education, but that system is run by those who have been fighting fro 1400 years over what is the true Islam? Sh'a or Sunni. Controlled from Iran (Persia before) or Saudi Arabia. Caught in a middle are billions of people seen as free game between the two warring sects.
This says Muslims should not to:
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=29&verse=46
But, the Mullahs in Saudi Arabia and Iran ignore this verse. As does ISIS, Al Queda and every other group who uses terrorism to justify their means.
The Prophet Muhammad was a man of peace, not a man of violence and death.
So, you are right, about the system of education, but that system is run by those who have been fighting fro 1400 years over what is the true Islam? Sh'a or Sunni. Controlled from Iran (Persia before) or Saudi Arabia. Caught in a middle are billions of people seen as free game between the two warring sects.
Good idea so when will madrases start doing that?
That's because, unlike the freedom we declaim, the French actually cherish Liberté.
We have been and will remain a country full of compromise and utilitarian half measures; France, on the other hand has a deep tradition of Idealism--of principled action drawn from first principles.
So much of the Freedom we love grew in French soil only to be put to immediate use in industry once arrive on American shores.
We have been and will remain a country full of compromise and utilitarian half measures; France, on the other hand has a deep tradition of Idealism--of principled action drawn from first principles.
So much of the Freedom we love grew in French soil only to be put to immediate use in industry once arrive on American shores.
194
Liberté, unless you wish to wear religious garb in public, or deny the Holocaust.
That's not my idea of liberty.
That's not my idea of liberty.
3
One wonders why, with such an idealistic program of "liberte, egalite et fraternite," the French have done such a poor job of integrating their large Muslim minority into the social fabric of France. I wonder if the commentator can name one high-profile French Muslim individual in government, the media, business, etc. There are laughably few. The "compromise and utilitarian half measures" of the United States have resulted in the successful integration of many tens of thousands of minority Americans, placing them in positions of power and influence. The French do indeed "cherish" and tout their ideals; they just don't enact them in any meaningful way. And their minorities know it.
France, on the other hand has a deep tradition of Idealism--of principled action drawn from first principles.
But don't forget Vichy.
But don't forget Vichy.
1
I've had this question 9/11, and I can't find a simple answer...
What is the primary responsibility of a central government? Is it protecting its citizens' safety , or, is it protecting the citizens' rights? The answer can't be "both" since, sometimes, the two responsibilities are in conflict.
I'm not a lawyer, but in reading the Constitution fairly carefully, I can't find a clear-cut answer. Surely, the Founders must have thought about this.
What is the primary responsibility of a central government? Is it protecting its citizens' safety , or, is it protecting the citizens' rights? The answer can't be "both" since, sometimes, the two responsibilities are in conflict.
I'm not a lawyer, but in reading the Constitution fairly carefully, I can't find a clear-cut answer. Surely, the Founders must have thought about this.
9
Rights then safety.
5
The primary goal of a central government is to protect itself, if that involves taking rights and safety away, they'll do it. The people need to make the government accountable to them, not the other way around.
As usual, the Times is on the wrong side of the issue, trying to demagogue the Patriot Act and the actions taken immediately after 9/11 when authorities had no idea whether the unprecedented attack was part of a larger plot. The Patriot Act and those that enforce it have kept us safe for more than 14 years, whereas the situation in Europe is far more precarious. True, some of this is the result of the fundamental difference in our legal systems -- differences the Times editorial folks either ignore or do not understand. The US has an "inquisitorial" system, while European nations mostly have "accusatorial" forms of jurisprudence. These differences mean a lot in terms of how "freedom" and "liberty" are interpreted and maintained within these legal systems. Demagoguery gets us no where and is a cheap excuse for failing to know the topic.
10
Please elucidate on how the Patriot Act has kept us safe for 14 years. In your recitation, please do not include all the cases of entrapment by FBI of the unsophisticated.
Since 2001, 100 times as many people have been killed by guns than were killed on 9/11.
There have been approximately as many traffic deaths in the US since 2001.
How many have died due to lack of health insurance?
Do these deaths mean nothing to you? Is preventing some small act of violence more important to you than correcting the problems that allow so many to be killed by guns, traffic accidents and lack of health insurance?
No, the Patriot Act has done nothing to make this country safer.
Since 2001, 100 times as many people have been killed by guns than were killed on 9/11.
There have been approximately as many traffic deaths in the US since 2001.
How many have died due to lack of health insurance?
Do these deaths mean nothing to you? Is preventing some small act of violence more important to you than correcting the problems that allow so many to be killed by guns, traffic accidents and lack of health insurance?
No, the Patriot Act has done nothing to make this country safer.
The "US Inquisition". I'm not surprised.
I wonder how the French would react if they'd lost 3,000 citizens instead of a dozen or so.
7
how many citizens are killed every day in USA ?
how many citizens are killed every day in France ?
how many citizens are killed every day in France ?
34
Don,
First of all, of those 3,000 "citizens," many were not American. And let's be honest, the numbers shouldn't matter. Not that 3,000 dead is no matter of consequence, but in the grand scheme of things, what we're talking about here is not numbers. We're talking about an idea.
The problem with talking about numbers is that one can easily get involved in a numbers game in which one nation claims more righteousness over another simply because it has "suffered more" by the numbers. It also leads to the kind of thinking in which a nation can justify its reaction based upon those numbers, as your comment appears to be doing.
The loss of one life to terrorism is one life too many. The loss of liberty to terrorism however, cannot be enumerated, but it affects everyone, and changes the very nature of civil society.
All struggles have casualties. WWII cost civilization what, 60 to 80 million lives? Over what? Civilization itself? The casualties to terrorism are probably incalculable, as is the loss of liberty. The French will do what they do, regardless of the numbers. It is the knowledge of terrorism as a fact to be lived with, and whether the French will allow it to change them, that France has to deal with. I hope they do not make the same mistakes we have made here, regardless of the numbers.
First of all, of those 3,000 "citizens," many were not American. And let's be honest, the numbers shouldn't matter. Not that 3,000 dead is no matter of consequence, but in the grand scheme of things, what we're talking about here is not numbers. We're talking about an idea.
The problem with talking about numbers is that one can easily get involved in a numbers game in which one nation claims more righteousness over another simply because it has "suffered more" by the numbers. It also leads to the kind of thinking in which a nation can justify its reaction based upon those numbers, as your comment appears to be doing.
The loss of one life to terrorism is one life too many. The loss of liberty to terrorism however, cannot be enumerated, but it affects everyone, and changes the very nature of civil society.
All struggles have casualties. WWII cost civilization what, 60 to 80 million lives? Over what? Civilization itself? The casualties to terrorism are probably incalculable, as is the loss of liberty. The French will do what they do, regardless of the numbers. It is the knowledge of terrorism as a fact to be lived with, and whether the French will allow it to change them, that France has to deal with. I hope they do not make the same mistakes we have made here, regardless of the numbers.
44
We lose over 30,000 each year to gun deaths. Where's the outrage.
5
I wouldn't wish what happened in America in the years after 9/11 on any other country. The first Bush administration's unholy triumvirate of Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, unleashed some of the worst foreign policy decisions our country has ever made. They worked in cahoots with men such as John Woo, the Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General at the Justice Department, who wrote the Torture Memos, which the C.I.A. used to justify torture of suspected war-on-terror detainees and prisoners.
In those early years after 2001, we charged forward recklessly into two expensive foreign wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We engaged in egregious, unethical, and immoral conduct concerning our treatment of those we believed to be plotting terrorist acts against us, as well as those deemed 'enemy combatants' and prisoners of war, many of whom were incarcerated at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
We have not truly overcome any of these stupid, sometimes heinous foreign policy decisions to this day, with President Obama, out of weakness, deciding to recommit to both foreign conflicts in August of 2014, as well as adding Syria to our list war-as-foreign-policy duties. Our prison at Guantanamo Bay continues to this day, and will be open for years to come.
In planning to fight terrorism, France should choose to do the opposite of what we did after we suffered the worst attacks on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor.
168
They kept us safe. Most American's still think what was done had to be done. Oh, and it worked.
1
How has "it worked?"
6
Wait until France has a couple of more significant attacks, and you'see the ridicule melt. In the 1950s, any suggestion to require passengers to take off shoes and belts and go through X-ray machines before boarding a plane would have been ridiculed. Citizens are willing to give up any liberty and pay any price for security. The loss of life is the ultimate loss of freedom.
9
You may be right about the consequence of possible future attacks unfortunately, time will tell - but don't underestimate French people either. Liberty acquired through sacrifice and revolution against blatent injustice are deep in the French genes, like it or not. I think your cynicism may have blinded you to what just happened and why 4 million people marched throughout France last sunday, and to illustrate I will just quote a phrase Stéphane Charbonnier would use before being killed in the attack, in contradiction to your last sentence: "I'd rather die standing than live on my knees". These people knew they could have it coming but chose to live their freedom to the end nevertheless. If it weren't for this type of people throughout history we probably wouldn't enjoy our current freedoms at all. And this is what people were standing for in the march, not just the publication itself.
7
"...to require passengers to take off shoes and belts and go through X-ray machines before boarding a plane would have been ridiculed."
Those procedures are being ridiculed today by those who know anything about airport security as they are "theater" to make people feel safe, feel like something is being done to protect them. True airport security is NOT the TSA with its scans and its gropes, confiscating bottles of water and perfume in glass bottles that happen to look like grenades.
Those procedures are being ridiculed today by those who know anything about airport security as they are "theater" to make people feel safe, feel like something is being done to protect them. True airport security is NOT the TSA with its scans and its gropes, confiscating bottles of water and perfume in glass bottles that happen to look like grenades.
2
"Citizens are willing to give up any liberty and pay any price for security. The loss of life is the ultimate loss of freedom."
Thank god--or an equivalent--that these citizens did not exist in this country during the eras of the Revolution, the Civil War, and the World Wars, the Civil Rights Movement, the Woman's Rights Movements, the Anti-Vietnam Movement, the Gay Rights Movement, or any of the other movements that fought for the liberty that Phil is so willing to give up.
Actually it isn't citizens that are willing to liberty up for safety, just people who care about them selves first and foremost.
Thank god--or an equivalent--that these citizens did not exist in this country during the eras of the Revolution, the Civil War, and the World Wars, the Civil Rights Movement, the Woman's Rights Movements, the Anti-Vietnam Movement, the Gay Rights Movement, or any of the other movements that fought for the liberty that Phil is so willing to give up.
Actually it isn't citizens that are willing to liberty up for safety, just people who care about them selves first and foremost.
1
In the midst of the Great Depression, it was former Democratic presidential candidate Alfred E. Smith who said that "we wrapped the Constitution in a piece of paper, put it on the shelf and left it there until the war was over." It was hyperbole, of course, but nonetheless conveyed an irrefutable truth: In times of war or extreme national distress, extraordinary measures are required even if it means the temporary encroachment of our civil liberties. Paradoxically, the war against terrorism is about defending them. The ultimate question (shades of Viet Nam) is how to save the country without destroying it.
61
The problem is, the Military Industrial Complex needs war to keep the cash flowing. Civil liberties be damned.
12
The U.S. is perpetually at war.
9
"we wrapped the Constitution in a piece of paper, put it on the shelf and left it there until the war was over."
I am skeptical of those who claim a necessity to violate their oath to the constitution. Did we really need to intern the Japanese? Spy on law abiding American Citizens without probably cause? Permanently reinterpret the constitution to shift Social Welfare from the States to Federal Government.
Government always seems to throw away, often permanently, the constitutional limits of government due to a temporary crisis they claim warrants it.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin,
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Wasn't the patriot act about trading liberty for safety? The internment of the Japanese? The mass expansion of the Federal government's during the depression by reinterpreting constitutional limits?
I am skeptical of those who claim a necessity to violate their oath to the constitution. Did we really need to intern the Japanese? Spy on law abiding American Citizens without probably cause? Permanently reinterpret the constitution to shift Social Welfare from the States to Federal Government.
Government always seems to throw away, often permanently, the constitutional limits of government due to a temporary crisis they claim warrants it.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin,
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Wasn't the patriot act about trading liberty for safety? The internment of the Japanese? The mass expansion of the Federal government's during the depression by reinterpreting constitutional limits?
3
France arrested comedian Dieudonne and wants 7 years jail time for him. So much for French free speech. This will never happen in U.S. because we have the First Amendment, which France doesn't.
14
why US newspapers don't re-publish Charlie Hebdo drawings ?
First Amendment warrants free speech, isn't it ?
So, why not ?
First Amendment warrants free speech, isn't it ?
So, why not ?
5
Dieudonné was accused of writing on his facebook account "Je suis Charlie Koulibaly", thus expressing his solidarity with the man who shot to death 4 shoppers in the kosher supermarket on account of their being Jewish. Approval of terroristic acts is considered a delict in France.
6
S.C. - It *has* happened here, and *could* happen again.
We must always be on guard against those who would ignore our rights out of fear.
We must always be on guard against those who would ignore our rights out of fear.
2
Well of course it is ridiculed. It is ridicule that got them in to this spot already.
3
I would be more prudent when it comes to lessons in ridicule or freedom of speech for that matter, remember it took 10 years for the US to finally face the dismal consequences of the Patriot Act through the NSA and torture report scandals, and the whistleblower who revealed the former in the name of public interest is left with the choice between a lifetime jail sentence for treason or permanent exile.
4
The French can laugh all they want but there hasn't been an Al Qaeda or foreign terrorist backed attack in the US since the Patriot Act passed.
The first job of the state is to provide security. If France was to shirk that duty to remain in good standing with the intelligentsia well the last laugh maybe on them. Except they won't be laughing, Al Qaeda or ISIS will be doing the laughing.
The first job of the state is to provide security. If France was to shirk that duty to remain in good standing with the intelligentsia well the last laugh maybe on them. Except they won't be laughing, Al Qaeda or ISIS will be doing the laughing.
10
There is no proof that the Patriot Act has resulted in reduced domestic terrorism. As far as laughing is concerned, Al Qaida and ISIS have been doing plenty while bleeding plenty of US taxpayer money from their Iraqi/Syrian base (how does one say "thanks Dubya" in Arabic).
32
The law is ideal; geography, historic patterns of immigration, luck and good law enforcement probably had more impact on limiting attacks in America, whose Islamic radicals seem more drawn to the battlefronts in Syria and Iraq. As we count the categories of attacks, especially the standard "blow-them-up-shoot-them-all" incidents with terrorists grabbing the social media microphone, let's not discount the Boston bombing, horrific in its injuries, though with fewer dead.
But terrorism against the West is not the only example of the world becoming a free fire zone. Nigeria's 2,000 dead (this week!)--a genocide--barely made the headlines. And for some reason, we put the persistence of school and mall shootings into a different category, as though the reasons cited in the various manifestos and the locations are more important than the common features of the disturbances.
Terror comes in many forms; increasingly fewer and fewer acts are political but are tied to a severe alienation that latches onto a dysfunctional world view (about religion or dating--or fantasies with weapons and carnage, or social status).
An honest and meaningful appraisal would broaden the definition of terror. Its incidents are less about state politics than personal statements swashbuckling rogues infatuated by self-shouldered missions, assembled by their duty to their inner furies. Many of today's terrorists are self-invented. Beyond politics, their tragic acts are a way to shine on their own terms.
But terrorism against the West is not the only example of the world becoming a free fire zone. Nigeria's 2,000 dead (this week!)--a genocide--barely made the headlines. And for some reason, we put the persistence of school and mall shootings into a different category, as though the reasons cited in the various manifestos and the locations are more important than the common features of the disturbances.
Terror comes in many forms; increasingly fewer and fewer acts are political but are tied to a severe alienation that latches onto a dysfunctional world view (about religion or dating--or fantasies with weapons and carnage, or social status).
An honest and meaningful appraisal would broaden the definition of terror. Its incidents are less about state politics than personal statements swashbuckling rogues infatuated by self-shouldered missions, assembled by their duty to their inner furies. Many of today's terrorists are self-invented. Beyond politics, their tragic acts are a way to shine on their own terms.
17
Boston bombing?
5
"In that regard, the very existence of a debate in Europe is in contrast to the response across the United States in 2001, when Congress hurriedly passed the Patriot Act before many members had time to read it." And this country has nuclear weapons...
4
It was prepared, and ready to go (straight from PNAC). We just needed a "Pearl Harbor" type of false flag event. Their words, not mine.
France had once been asked to indirectly support The Patriot Act. "Either you're with us, or against us" they were told. After looking at the facts, they wisely avoided getting entangled in Iraq, therefore saving billions,...only to be spent on keeping a lid on Banlieu unrest.
4
The irony cannot be lost on these"leaders", surely. Passing laws to restrict freedom is like completeling the final steps in a terrorist mission. They want to restrict your freedoms why should we assist them in that.
13
When history knocks at our door,we must answer. A copycat of the US Patriot Act is not the answer to the problem confronting France or other free democratic governments in Europe and elsewhere.
The rise of terrorism or jihadism in France need be dealt with on two fronts. First, through the existing legal framework and the second, on the socio-economic context.The two are integral part of any solution-a long term solution to combat menace such as killing at the Charlie Hebdo or at the Cacher Supermarket.
There is no quick fix solution.Any law that will rob individual with the basic right of liberty and equality will be only onslaught on the fundamental value of individual freedom of expression,his right to life and property.
In France there are existing laws that , if implemented scrupulously,the terrorism can be circumvented.Lapses need be fixed with sincerety and due imagination.
On the socio-economic front the attackers were born and brought up in France. Why they resorted to jihadism and traveled to Syria or Yemen for aspiration?
Abstract principles of morality and values are undermined with the wide divide in opportunities of education,employment and access to privilèges.When this divide is based on one's affiliation to a faith or one's origin from a locality (Paris suburbs) ,it breeds contempt, violence.
In Margaret Fuller ( 1810-1850)words,"Man is not made for society,but society is made for man.No institution is good which does not tend to improve the individual".
The rise of terrorism or jihadism in France need be dealt with on two fronts. First, through the existing legal framework and the second, on the socio-economic context.The two are integral part of any solution-a long term solution to combat menace such as killing at the Charlie Hebdo or at the Cacher Supermarket.
There is no quick fix solution.Any law that will rob individual with the basic right of liberty and equality will be only onslaught on the fundamental value of individual freedom of expression,his right to life and property.
In France there are existing laws that , if implemented scrupulously,the terrorism can be circumvented.Lapses need be fixed with sincerety and due imagination.
On the socio-economic front the attackers were born and brought up in France. Why they resorted to jihadism and traveled to Syria or Yemen for aspiration?
Abstract principles of morality and values are undermined with the wide divide in opportunities of education,employment and access to privilèges.When this divide is based on one's affiliation to a faith or one's origin from a locality (Paris suburbs) ,it breeds contempt, violence.
In Margaret Fuller ( 1810-1850)words,"Man is not made for society,but society is made for man.No institution is good which does not tend to improve the individual".
14
What Dominique de Villepin wrote in LeMonde is how Europe views our excessive security apparatus, as causing loss of our moral compass. Our torture and rendition and Guantanamo detaining w/o charges all began out of fear but became an industry. Congress should really think about how that loss of moral compass has led to loss of moral standing, and rethink what they are being sold, and by whom, when time to reconsider Patriot Act.
It's time for a change up. To get smarter, not a bigger net. Bulk collection doesn't have enough analysts in real time to find lone wolves. Impossible task.
Smarter, not more CIA who's turf warring with FBI who's not sharing with Homeland Security or Secret Service & no one shares an updated no-fly list. Who can smack these depts heads together to get them to cooperate for their country's safety?? Not Congress with CIA, so who?
Smarter, quicker more responsive, not bigger or necessarily more invasive. The basics we've discussed since 2001 still aren't effectively in place. With all our surveillance, major gun-running went on between FL and NYC because cargo area of many airports is permeable. That could have been a disaster, instead a shock and embarrassment. That's fundamental security ignored, while hundreds of millions spent on spying on all Americans. Folly.
Collect data on those involved with terrorists or radical terror groups, Muslim, white supremacists, et al and monitor. The old way needs streamlining.
It's time for a change up. To get smarter, not a bigger net. Bulk collection doesn't have enough analysts in real time to find lone wolves. Impossible task.
Smarter, not more CIA who's turf warring with FBI who's not sharing with Homeland Security or Secret Service & no one shares an updated no-fly list. Who can smack these depts heads together to get them to cooperate for their country's safety?? Not Congress with CIA, so who?
Smarter, quicker more responsive, not bigger or necessarily more invasive. The basics we've discussed since 2001 still aren't effectively in place. With all our surveillance, major gun-running went on between FL and NYC because cargo area of many airports is permeable. That could have been a disaster, instead a shock and embarrassment. That's fundamental security ignored, while hundreds of millions spent on spying on all Americans. Folly.
Collect data on those involved with terrorists or radical terror groups, Muslim, white supremacists, et al and monitor. The old way needs streamlining.
13
Dominique de Villepin concerns about what the US has become are well taken. Would that our politicians face up to the tragic mistakes made in the wake of 9/11 and reverse those that can still be reversed.
8
Its a difficult issue to grapple with...I think the Patriot Act went to far. However, I do want protection. The police regularly guard the synagogue next door to my high rise. I still wonder why diplomacy isn't used in every instance. The US interfered with these countries to get oil. The religious difference has always been around. It's going to take a long time an the climate will be a big factor. The march in Paris was healthy to see. A good start.
2
Ah, another US export to the world!
2
Would be interesting to see the results of that Pew poll if it were conducted today. That we lost our moral compass, were/are in a spiral of suspicion is provocative, and I can understand Europe's suspicion. It also had trouble admitting that its leaders engaged in spying, an old game of intelligence agencies. Regardless, this debate evolves, is necessary.
1
Laws can not stop terrorism. Wars can not stop terrorism. They only incite it with more attention and the expectation of violence.
7
Profiling is the only thing that works.
1
What profile would you put Eric Rudolph into?
Timothy McVeigh?
Charles Whitman?
Ted Kaczynski?
Timothy McVeigh?
Charles Whitman?
Ted Kaczynski?
2
Clamping down on civil liberties -- using extremism to fight extremists -- succeeds in only one thing: handing victory to those extremists. Such sweeping new laws and restrictions will never be effective and will in fact perpetuate, even escalate, the problem. They will only compromise American integrity and increase resentment towards that new hypocrisy.
149
And what is the alternative you suggest France or US do?
It is easy to criticize surveillance activities and restrictions imposed by the West. Something else to come up with a creative alternative!
It is easy to criticize surveillance activities and restrictions imposed by the West. Something else to come up with a creative alternative!
1
Many supporters of the Patriot Act are the same people who would threaten my life with the open-carry of guns.
The cognitive dissonance in the US is shrieking, rending our sanity. It can't go on this way for long.
The cognitive dissonance in the US is shrieking, rending our sanity. It can't go on this way for long.
347
"The cognitive dissonance in the US is shrieking"
But at least it hasn't metastasized and become an existential threat.
But at least it hasn't metastasized and become an existential threat.
1
Read the history of the Spanish Civil war, it has a familiar ring to it. Except we have more guns.
It seems to me the most patriotic of acts would be to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all handguns.
1
Fighting terrorism is more importance than protecting civil liberties. it is the decision of saving lives and rather than stick with ideal idea . I choose to save lives. remember that we are dealing with people have no conscious. we are dealing with people are using any means to kill and destroy. President Bush we right and president Obama is wrong .
1
Good point act to protect lives first - circle the wagons then shore up civil liberties that others attacked. Know that under President Bush we grew stronger as a nation in the aftermath of 9/11. God forbid something happens now under President Obama - what would he do: Send Attorney Eric Holder with flowers to the terrorist camps, while Al Sharpton speaks for the terrorists?
Said those that took our civil liberties.
Typical Blame-America-First drivel.
The French are arresting people for what we regard as free and open speech yet we are the bad guys here.
I guess to you folks, pulling someone's library card is offensive but being arrested for exercising a fundamental right, no matter how vile that speech may be, is perfectly acceptable.
The French are arresting people for what we regard as free and open speech yet we are the bad guys here.
I guess to you folks, pulling someone's library card is offensive but being arrested for exercising a fundamental right, no matter how vile that speech may be, is perfectly acceptable.
2
I think you might overstate freedom of speech, Stateside. I can think of things you could shout out which would cause your arrest/shooting (not in that order) by the US government in broad daylight, if standing in the wrong place.
2
>
Not sure what civil liberties France or Europe will toss away, but I know the U.S. lost a lot of its civil liberties. Read the fine print of the Patriot Act for proof.
Not sure what civil liberties France or Europe will toss away, but I know the U.S. lost a lot of its civil liberties. Read the fine print of the Patriot Act for proof.
7
President Obama certainly is mining all that is gold in the Patriot act for political gains, that we know already as well as his using the IRS and Attny General office to go after the 47% in our nation - another form of internal terrorism.
Thank goodness. America is not the best role model.
1
I hope the French can continue to resist the temptation to dismantle the civil liberties they have painstakingly maintained and the rational response to danger they have devoutly espoused---so far. As did we in 2001, they battle against both the "do something, anything!" crowd who are afraid, and the closet fascists who see a grand opportunity to leverage that fear into greater social control. We in the USA lost that battle. though not yet the entire war. George Bush declared they "hate our freedom," and then proceeded systematically to demolish our freedoms one by one. No amount of plane crashing, bombing, shooting (or cartooning, for that matter) can reduce our civil rights and liberties one iota, no matter how many people die. Only our elected leaders can destroy democracy, and they have indeed been trying. I hope that the French will continue to resist. I pray that we will start.
12
Citizen freedoms become the first casualty when the state instead of meeting the threat of terrorism with confidence and reasonable legal devices comes to confront terrorism through its own version of terrorism based on tough draconian laws and undue surveillance of private citizen life.
84
I get this. So how should a entity with a government purportedly representing the people respond? I don't know.
1
Sounds like the French have more common sense than Americans.
285
Since France's PM was willing to announce "France is at war with radical Islam," while Obama won't admit it, I tend to agree. How can you win a war when you won't even acknowledge who the enemy is?
6
what are you going to do with thousands of radical muslims ??
Lets not forgot that the French fought two colonial wars in Algeria and Vietnam, and the have which prohibit speech which allegedly support terrorism. The three suspects in the recent killings were a product of the terrible economic conditions which many non white people face in France. The Muslim American population has much more wealth than French Muslim , and the following gives you an idea of the state of French prisons:" Not surprisingly, overcrowded prisons, in tandem with the extraordinary number of inmates in pre-trial detentions, is exerting psychological pressure on many inmates -- leading to a spate of suicides.
According to Humanity in Action, a New York-based human rights organization, the most vulnerable are inmates in pre-trial. As they are waiting to go before the judge, the pressure and anxiety can become overwhelming -- almost one-quarter (24 percent) of this sub-section of the prison population try to commit suicide within 48 hours of their incarceration." See http://www.ibtimes.com/les-miserables-french-prisons-bursting-seams-1306761
So, lets not put a halo around France. French prisons have a suicide rare which is amongst the highest in Europe.
According to Humanity in Action, a New York-based human rights organization, the most vulnerable are inmates in pre-trial. As they are waiting to go before the judge, the pressure and anxiety can become overwhelming -- almost one-quarter (24 percent) of this sub-section of the prison population try to commit suicide within 48 hours of their incarceration." See http://www.ibtimes.com/les-miserables-french-prisons-bursting-seams-1306761
So, lets not put a halo around France. French prisons have a suicide rare which is amongst the highest in Europe.
4
The French - and the Americans for that matter - should be reminded that Lassana Bathily, the person who helped to hide several people from the gunman in the Hyper Cacher market, is a Muslim.
If people don't see the significance in this, they are blinded by their own extremism and prejudices. Using extremism to fight extremism will never work. It only hurts the innocents
If people don't see the significance in this, they are blinded by their own extremism and prejudices. Using extremism to fight extremism will never work. It only hurts the innocents
354
Yes there are courageous individuals but the what is really at the core of the Jihad terrorism is the silent approval from the Muslim community overall.
What is really needed is a Muslim movement for peaceful co-existence that denounces Chapter 12 verse 8 in the Quran taking a clear anti-violence stance.
Sadly it looks as if it is going the other way especially when Muslim leaders like Erdogan comes out and instead of condemning the Paris attack tells the world that it was a plot against Muslims!
What is really needed is a Muslim movement for peaceful co-existence that denounces Chapter 12 verse 8 in the Quran taking a clear anti-violence stance.
Sadly it looks as if it is going the other way especially when Muslim leaders like Erdogan comes out and instead of condemning the Paris attack tells the world that it was a plot against Muslims!
10
Using the extreme methods of our "enemies" to fight them just turns us into what we purported fight against.
I'd strongly recommend a lesson to that effect from 1943--the Powell-Pressburger film "Life and Death of Colonel Blimp." It's entertaining, beautifully written, performed, and produced, and the first paragraph here is the central tenet of the plot.
If we don't learn from history, we get to relive it. The French realize it; Americans do not, even though this idea paraphrases a quote from Harvard professor George Santayana from 1905.
I'd strongly recommend a lesson to that effect from 1943--the Powell-Pressburger film "Life and Death of Colonel Blimp." It's entertaining, beautifully written, performed, and produced, and the first paragraph here is the central tenet of the plot.
If we don't learn from history, we get to relive it. The French realize it; Americans do not, even though this idea paraphrases a quote from Harvard professor George Santayana from 1905.
3
Simplistic. Why assume the actions of one or a few typifies many. The remark is stuck in Aristotelian logic. Practical questions are whether it's possible to isolate on the basis of a sound probabilistic basis about the sort of people who commit the acts of terrorism. Despite the unfairness to innocent, even admirable people in the group of Muslims in France, is it necessary and worth the effort to rid or limit the country of a population that there, in significant number, may be regarded as barbaric? C'est la question. Humans may have cut themselves off from cro magnon peoples for similar considerations. Naive and romantic to assume that all peoples are equal to one another--from the perspectives of the individual groups.
2