Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
A common rhetorical formula, but not an interesting argument with pertinent details or sound judgements. The basic question is the same as was asked in 2001 America regarding civil liberties vis-a-vis government emergency powers, whether the focus is on the efficacy, the legitimacy, the ethical stakes, or what-have-you. Your comment would be simplistic even by the standards of the 2001-contemporary discussion, but I'll break it down:



What does that have to do with the specific conditions, obligations, and policies involved with such decisions?



Do you? And whether or not there has been widespread complaint, or what even constitutes "widespread" is still tangential to the fundamental issue of specific powers and conditions involved, which is ultimately what we care about.



The kill count? Well, if there is violence at a sporting event, and 12 hours later there is no longer violence, is it that the immediate police or security response to the disturbance is to be pointed at - and so there should henceforth be a strong security presence at sporting events - or is it that 12 hours after the event, everyone had already gone home?



That's not the question at hand.
Do they not have the right to a fair trial? Have there been extra-judicial executions or imprisonments, of citizens and foreign nationals? Unless you count the bombing of ISIS there has not, and it is thus not comparable to the 2001 American situation.

If there had not been terror attacks, would the measures have been implemented? That is why it is relevant.

Other than an Amnesty report about police using words and handcuffs while investigating, I have not seen any widespread complaining. You are of course welcome to prove otherwise.

Are you saying the events in November are comparable to a soccer game?

Husar was crying about the Quran, hence the question of how many people died a single Quran on a floor is worth.

Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
Montmorency has already adressed this really well, especially to the point about "widespread complaint about abuse" I would like to add two things:
1. The raids targeted a community that has raised "widespread complaint about abuse" for a long time now, so maybe you were just not aware of it.
2. It was also known for a while that a lot of French citizens of all colors think of their police as comparatively brutal, you can also count that as "widespread complaint about abuse" as far as I'm concerned.



That's a nice personal attack that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Regardless, my point was not so much about concentration camps but a general critique of your point that "these are the rules", which is easy to say as long as you agree with them but does not make the rules just or fair or morally supportable. I could have also mentioned pretty much every dictator or the Russian law that makes being homosexual in public a crime. What about North Korea? Do you have no qualms with their rules? Yes, I know, we are talking about France and it's certainly not North Korea, but a country does not have to be that for its rules to be inadequate, wrong or morally reprehensible. Not to forget that some big changes come in baby steps and people only realize it when it is too late.
I may have asked this before, can you explain how having warrantless searches of thousands of people, their entire homes etc. is within the spirit of western democratic culture?
Things like everybody is equal before the law, due process etc. all these pillars of justice seem to be out the window during this state of emergency, so yes, we should ask whether thie is warranted, both the state of emergency itself and the powers it gives to the government and police.

Can you, for example, show any attacks or plans for attacks that lasted for five months and would warrant having a state of emergency for that long? And if there is ample evidence, why have a state of emergency if you could easily get warrants with your evidence even without the state of emergency?
Yes, insinuations of being a Nazi are way more classy than critiquing your "style of arguing".

There is always complaint about abuse among those who choose to clash with law enforcement agencies. I am unaware of protesters being shot at in the streets or the government planting bombs to kill civilians however.

Well, this might be news to you, but we live with what is known as "Rule of law", and have additionally signed a whole bunch of treaties that even ban the death penalty, let alone concentration camps. But sure, keep making the argument that locking up people who break the law, and conducting police actions within the constraints of the law is somehow akin to the Third Reich, it really makes you look cool.

It is perfectly simple, everyone is equal before the law and the French law allows, certain conditions being fulfilled for a state of emergency. That state of emergency suspends or alters certain rights. But I forget, all Muslims in France are now locked up in Vichy death camps or being worked to the bone in the factories as slaves.

Now do excuse me while I go and call my friend the head of the French intelligence services to provide you with the details of prevented attacks.