Display:
  1. I take security as seriously as it needs to be taken. Which by the numbers is much less seriously than automobile accidents. I do get moderately pissed off at the fact that Serious People will flippantly talk about installing more and more cameras in subways and on subway stations; monitoring commuters supposedly in order to prevent terrorist attacks, but they will never, ever seriously consider putting a GPS and black box in every car to protect pedestrians from death-by-car. Evidently, people who travel by train and foot are much lower in the grand scheme of things than people who travel by car.

  2. I don't advocate not doing policing or counter-espionage or counter-terrorism. I do advocate doing it by means that are not incompatible with maintaining a democratic state. That latter point actually strikes me as being rather important.

  3. The left can never take security "seriously." No matter how far we triangulate, there will always be some insane wingnut who is prepared to one-up us. All we accomplish is - perhaps - some temporary respite (and probably not even that), but at the cost of moving the Overton window in the wrong direction.

  4. When did human rights become a matter of political expediency?

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The right don't have  a monopoly on authoritarian security policy: there's plenty on the muscular, manly left who wouldn't mind the cops roughing up a few darkies to make them feel safer.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:53:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't appreciate the implication I am a racist at all.

Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
by redstar on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wasn't aimed at you.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Point 2 well taken though I'm not sure the relevance to the article being debated.

Point 4 assumes human rights were systematically not respected. I don't think HRW makes that case.

Point 3 is, imho, Anglo-American centered in terms of outlook and not necessarily appropriate to other countries, and certainly not, imho, France. Much of point 1, esp as regards security cameras and the like, is similarly Anglo-american centered, in europe this is not the same issue and in any event HRW doesn't talk about at all.

As for the traffic fatalities point you make in your first point, you'll note that in France this is taken quite seriously, and with great success (the old figure used to be 8,000/annum,, now it is moving towards 4,000). Unfortunately, in places like the US where the lily-livered civil libertarians object to camera radar (like the US), you'll not get far in driving towards better vehicle safety like in France.

Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant

by redstar on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Point 3 is, imho, Anglo-American centered in terms of outlook and not necessarily appropriate to other countries, and certainly not, imho, France.

I can't speak to the French political culture with any authority, but I can offer you the Danish example to consider. The basic trend was there before, but after 9/11 the Social Democrats embraced "security" with hitherto unseen gusto. In fact, they were instrumental in legitimising the terror laws passed in 2001/02 (which by the way have been used in one (1) case since they were introduced: Collective charges brought against Greenpeace for a completely non-violent protest carried out by a handful of activists who may or may not even have had a political mandate).

Surely they received credit for their seriousness? Surely no-one would accuse the Social Democrats of not taking their responsibility towards national security seriously? Wrong and wrong. I could dig out media reports from the past year or two to prove this point beyond reasonable doubt, but they would all be in Danish and besides, it's a pretty dull and depressing exercise.

Much of point 1, esp as regards security cameras and the like, is similarly Anglo-american centered, in europe this is not the same issue

You literally cannot take the train in Denmark without being captured on camera. You cannot buy food without being captured on camera. You cannot find a workplace where you will not be captured on camera. Tell me again how this is not a European issue?

Now you might make the case that Denmark (and many other minor countries on the fringe of Europe) are heavily anglicised. I'll happily grant you that. But you'll be left with a damn small definition of Europe if you exclude any country that has been significantly anglicised. In fact, right off the bat I think you'd be down to the Free City of Brussels.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series