Majorian posted:So in your mind, "Don't raid mosques unless you've got really compelling evidence that they're involved in terrorist activity" = "you can never raid mosques, ever." Got it. You said yourself you want them to be near 100% certain before they are allowed to raid a Mosque, that's a way higher standard than today or even before the most recent changes and would probably prohibit most raids.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:You said yourself you want them to be near 100% certain before they are allowed to raid a Mosque, that's a way higher standard than today or even before the most recent changes and would probably prohibit most raids. Okay, what was the standard before? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:You said yourself you want them to be near 100% certain before they are allowed to raid a Mosque, that's a way higher standard than today or even before the most recent changes and would probably prohibit most raids. It's a meaningless figure of speech, because the definition of being 100% sure has an arbitrary definition based on what the law considers a probable cause (since effectively being 100% sure means nothing more than being 100% sure you meet the bar for obtaining a warrant). This is just an argument over semantics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think they should only raid houses of worship if they're as close to absolutely, 100% certain they're involved in terrorist activities as possible. I don't think I'd agree with that, given that you're generally supposed to raid and search during the course of an investigation where you'll pretty much always be less than 100% certain about who is involved in what. Because if you already were at such a high level of confidence, you'd be able to just bring whatever it is you're investigating to trial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Is it reasonable to agree that we shouldn't refrain from using all the instruments of law during the investigation of Muslim property as we would in any other case, but that we also shouldn't be creating ad hoc instruments just to make it easier to raid mosques than other objects?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
And france has been made an example as a result by forum generals all over the world being critical because of everything from its raids to its policy on religious head-scarfs. Now we are using them as an example everyone else should follow? Did this set of explosions (as opposed to the others) knock some sense into people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It's a meaningless figure of speech, because the definition of being 100% sure has an arbitrary definition based on what the law considers a probable cause (since effectively being 100% sure means nothing more than being 100% sure you meet the bar for obtaining a warrant). This is just an argument over semantics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:This is a really strange post. Being 100% sure that someone is doing something which warrants a raid is not the same as being 100% sure what you know meets the bar for obtaining a warrant. Like, if getting a warrant has a really low bar, the two can be miles apart. Being 100% sure basically means you've seen them transport the weapons into the mosque, while 100% sure you can get a warrant could be an email and a judge really not wanting to be the one who let a bunch of terrorists escape the police. I just think that being 100% sure and reasonably sure is not distinguishable, be it in effect, or in a procedural sense. So ultimately being 100% sure has no meaning from the standpoint of the investigators, as well as of the observers. In other words, we can't help but be completely agnostic to the level of certainty the investigators genuinely believe to possess, and their ability to obtain a warrant based on a censured procedure is our only heuristic for determining it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Randler posted:I don't think I'd agree with that, given that you're generally supposed to raid and search during the course of an investigation where you'll pretty much always be less than 100% certain about who is involved in what. Because if you already were at such a high level of confidence, you'd be able to just bring whatever it is you're investigating to trial. Fair enough, but still, it should be a high bar, shouldn't it? Compelling evidence, probable cause, etc etc. We're talking about invasions of spaces that are sacred to ethnic and religious minorities that are vulnerable to radicalization and recruitment. I don't really buy claims that there's no way the authorities can get a warrant to raid mosques under normal circumstances. Otherwise counterproductive stuff like this happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Fair enough, but still, it should be a high bar, shouldn't it? Compelling evidence, probable cause, etc etc. We're talking about invasions of spaces that are sacred to ethnic and religious minorities that are vulnerable to radicalization and recruitment. When i was a kid (roman catholic, THE preeminent world religion for dumb rituals and superstitions) i knew you werent allowed to go into the area behind the altar unless you were a priest because it was super duper sacred, but if i heard he was suspected of storing tons of cocaine in there and they tossed the place (throwing aside some very sacred cloth and paper) i think i'd have understood. Despite the situation in europe i still assume that most muslims in europe (and i hope in the middle east) have that level of adult restraint and dont choose church over culture. quote:There shall be no impediment on anyone who wished to avenge a wound. He'd understand... MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:When i was a kid (catholic, THE preeminent world religion for dumb rituals and superstitions) i knew you werent allowed to go into the area behind the altar unless you were a priest, but if i heard he was suspected of storing tons of cocaine in there and they tossed the place (throwing aside some very sacred cloth and paper) i think i'd have understood. Despite the situation in europe i still assume that most muslims in europe (and i hope in the middle east) have that level of adult restraint and dont choose church over culture. Exactly, which is why it's so important for law enforcement to engage minority groups constructively, especially if there's a language or cultural barrier. That's the way you get actionable intelligence: "You know, there IS that back storage room that no one seems to go into during business hours. I didn't think anything about it, but now that you mention it..."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Fair enough, but still, it should be a high bar, shouldn't it? Compelling evidence, probable cause, etc etc. We're talking about invasions of spaces that are sacred to ethnic and religious minorities that are vulnerable to radicalization and recruitment. I don't really buy claims that there's no way the authorities can get a warrant to raid mosques under normal circumstances. Otherwise counterproductive stuff like this happens. Secular reasons trump the reverence of the sacred, and if you don't like that, get the hell out of here to some theocratic country. Also mosques are not consecrated, though I don't know if that is of any consequence in this topic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Exactly, which is why it's so important for law enforcement to engage minority groups constructively, especially if there's a language or cultural barrier. That's the way you get actionable intelligence: "You know, there IS that back storage room that no one seems to go into during business hours. I didn't think anything about it, but now that you mention it..." So we are in a cultural mexican standoff? West: You help us defeat the violent people, and we will treat you like normal civilians East: You treat us like normal civilians, and we will help you defeat the violent people. *A third person sets off another bomb* I'm certainly in favor of both majority and minority populations coming to their senses and acting rationally, just as any of you would have said about the dumb religious conflicts of irish catholics and protestants (and didnt really seem to mind those raids) which also had a history of colonial opression MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Secular reasons trump the reverence of the sacred, True, but secular reason also dictates that the law should apply equally to everyone, regardless of their faith, and if you don't have a warrant to raid private property, you can't raid that private property. quote:and if you don't like that, get the hell out of here to some theocratic country. Also mosques are not consecrated, though I don't know if that is of any consequence in this topic. You probably should care if you want Muslims to not feel like they're being targeted or attacked. That's something that Europe as a whole probably needs to start caring about, regardless of whether or not you believe religion is bunk. MattD1zzl3 posted:So we are in a cultural mexican standoff? I don't think so. It seems to me, quite frankly, that a lot of the Muslim community has been holding their hand out to European mainstream society for quite some time. Multiple articles posted in this thread talk about instances of Muslims trying to contact the authorities and say "Hey, my son/neighbor/friend may have been radicalized by ISIS, please help!", to no response. More importantly, though, the law isn't supposed to work as an exchange of services. The government is supposed to extend equal protection and treatment under the law to all citizens, regardless of their faith or ethnicity. If a citizen is interfering in an investigation or obstructing justice, they can and should be arrested, but until you cross that threshold, if you're an officer of the law or an official, you legally cannot withhold equal or humane treatment from somebody.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I just think that being 100% sure and reasonably sure is not distinguishable, be it in effect, or in a procedural sense. So ultimately being 100% sure has no meaning from the standpoint of the investigators, as well as of the observers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The difference is one of the level of evidence required to be deemed probable cause. If you define "Probable Cause: Mosque Edition" as being something like a recent visual confirmation that weapons have been delivered to it, or perhaps a phone conversation to the same effect (which is what I think of when I imagine nearly "100% sure"), then that is a meaningful difference in effect from the level of evidence that's likely to be required for most/all other warrants, where more circumstantial evidence can be used. Where, exactly, is the bar for obtaining a warrant under normal circumstances?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The difference is one of the level of evidence required to be deemed probable cause. If you define "Probable Cause: Mosque Edition" as being something like a recent visual confirmation that weapons have been delivered to it, or perhaps a phone conversation to the same effect (which is what I think of when I imagine nearly "100% sure"), then that is a meaningful difference in effect from the level of evidence that's likely to be required for most/all other warrants, where more circumstantial evidence can be used. I don't think a discriminatory law like that would even be constitutional anywhere in Europe. Also, yeah, you are basically saying what I said in the original post, i.e. that the debate of certainty is basically the debate on the definition of probable cause so it's just murking the water by introducing a new terminology? Majorian posted:True, but secular reason also dictates that the law should apply equally to everyone, regardless of their faith, and if you don't have a warrant to raid private property, you can't raid that private property. I've never claimed otherwise. I simply don't think we should take extra restraints searching religious objects than we would ordinary buildings. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:48
|
|
Majorian posted:You probably should care if you want Muslims to not feel like they're being targeted or attacked. That's something that Europe as a whole probably needs to start caring about, regardless of whether or not you believe religion is bunk. No. They are free to practice their religion (under the constraints of the law) but they don't have the right to demand privileged treatment just as the Catholic church doesn't have a right to get privileged treatment when they abuse their altair boys. Both religions should welcome a higher degree of scrutiny because of recent crimes committed in their name and, at least publicly the Catholic church is doing that, in contrast to Muslims who have a far more confrontational approach.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I don't think a discriminatory law like that would even be constitutional anywhere in Europe. Majorian posted:Where, exactly, is the bar for obtaining a warrant under normal circumstances?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Sure, but I don't see why that should warrant more severe punishment. Isn't jailing everyone responsible good enough? I mean that if an organisation actively supports criminal behaviour and/or knowingly provides tools and weapons specifically for that, its leadership should be strung up on charges at least as severe as the charges levelled against the grunts who did the actual legwork.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 22:53
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
steinrokkan posted:I've never claimed otherwise. I simply don't think we should take extra restraints searching religious objects than we would ordinary buildings. Fair enough, we're on the same page on that one then. All the same, though, the bar does seem to keep getting lower with each wave of emergency powers that's handed over to the government. GaussianCopula posted:No. They are free to practice their religion (under the constraints of the law) but they don't have the right to demand privileged treatment just as the Catholic church doesn't have a right to get privileged treatment when they abuse their altair boys. No one's saying they should be immune from anything, or not be subject to the law in any way, shape, or form.  What I am saying, is that even a little cultural sensitivity shown by the government as it tries to work with the Muslim community can go a long way. It's a tone vs. substance sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I mean that if an organisation actively supports criminal behaviour and/or knowingly provides tools and weapons specifically for that, its leadership should be strung up on charges at least as severe as the charges levelled against the grunts who did the actual legwork. Sure, that's fair, but it doesn't look to me like imams and other clerics at mosques are always the ones leading recruitment efforts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Sure, that's fair, but it doesn't look to me like imams and other clerics at mosques are always the ones leading recruitment efforts. Then throw the book at the actual recruiters, but the clerics should be supportive of those recruiters getting booted out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Then throw the book at the actual recruiters, but the clerics should be supportive of those recruiters getting booted out. They often are! Most of them don't like seeing their religion perverted or made more vulnerable to racism and xenophobia in the West. e: In the meantime, a French judge who used to oversee cases like this speaks out: quote:Marc Trévidic, a judge who oversaw terrorism cases for 10 years, emphasized the dangers for France if it failed to strike the proper balance. During his tenure, he said, he listened to many wiretapped phone conversations of young people considering whether to follow a more extreme form of Islam. Amazing to think that Muslims feel like they're not welcome! Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Wiki: Content: The police in Belgium has 2 levels: there's the federal police and the local police. Local police operate in one of the 189 zones that are composed of one or more towns and cities. What everyone calls Brussels (the Brussels-Capital Region to be exact) is in fact 19 municipalities. One of these is the city of Brussels. There is not one police zone in Brussels Capital Region, there are six. If this seems horribly inefficient, it is (according to me and a lot of (Flemish) politicians, at least). The 2 major french-speaking parties both have some mayors in Brussels, and they are not very enthusiastic to lose them. One of the tasks of a mayor is head of the (local) police. So with 19 mayors and 6 police zones that means you have 6 groups of mayors arguing about what the police should do, plus 6 groups of policeman who don't work together as much as they should. edit: Majorian posted:Are you somehow under the impression that the white majority of Belgium wasn't the target they intended to terrorize? willemw fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:21
|
|
can someone from Belgium explain how the hell that works out in practice
|
Majorian posted:Quite frankly, finding out how the one terrorist who was robbing currency exchanges was released from prison, and why Turkey's warning was dismissed so readily, would be good starts in that direction. I'm going to assume the guy who received the intelligence was Flemish and was told to gently caress off because his supervisor was Walloon
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
willemw posted:edit: Definitely, and that's the real strategy with international terrorism, anyway: commit an atrocity, provoke the government into overreacting and cracking down too hard, and convince your potential recruits that it's you and them versus the rest of the world. Terrorist operations like these can provoke a response from the government and the broader population of the country they're targeting, and they can also provoke a response from other countries, particularly right-wing crazies in those countries. Thus you get sort of a positive feedback loop between Islamist terrorists and right-wing authoritarians like Donald Trump: terrorist attack provokes stupid broad-brush response, stupid broad-brush response convinces more young, disaffected, alienated folks to radicalize and join ISIS, ISIS performs more terrorist attacks, rinse and repeat. DOOP posted:I'm going to assume the guy who received the intelligence was Flemish and was told to gently caress off because his supervisor was Walloon Given the bush-league job they've been doing so far, I wouldn't be surprised. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think so. It seems to me, quite frankly, that a lot of the Muslim community has been holding their hand out to European mainstream society for quite some time. Multiple articles posted in this thread talk about instances of Muslims trying to contact the authorities and say "Hey, my son/neighbor/friend may have been radicalized by ISIS, please help!", to no response. Maybe the police wasn't 100% certainly sure that the contact's suspicions were funded. Just like how Belgian police wasn't 100% certain a known criminal that Turkey said was a Jihadist was actually linked to terror networks, so they let him go. Majorian posted:What I am saying, is that even a little cultural sensitivity shown by the government as it tries to work with the Muslim community can go a long way. It's a tone vs. substance sort of thing. Sure, but there's a problem here: tone and sensitivity are all about feelings, you can't make something more subjective than that. What should the cops do, start a search by showing a video proving that they also break stuff during a search in a White Christian European's house? Distribute a form asking people to rate how the search was performed, and whether you found it A. very satisfying, B. satisfying, C. average, D. annoying, E. very annoying? Please circle one, and write in how we could make this search and seizure experience more comfortable for you. If you get your house, workplace, hobby shop, whatever searched, you're going to be upset about it, even if you aren't a Muslim. And since these things aren't an every day occurrence, people aren't going to have any sort of baseline on which they could objectively say that if the search had been done to someone else, the cops would have been nicer about it. I don't think this should surprise anyone, but if the cops are searching your house because they think you might be an armed and dangerous terrorist, the cops are thinking you might be an armed and dangerous terrorist. They're going to be a bit more on edge than if they were thinking you were a tax dodger. Another thing that shouldn't surprise anyone, but when you're looking for Islamic terrorists, you're going to be looking for them mostly among Muslims. I suppose in the name of equality they could also randomly search a Benedictine monastery or something. Oh, maybe a synagogue! They might even actually find a JDL weapon cache this way!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They often are! Most of them don't like seeing their religion perverted or made more vulnerable to racism and xenophobia in the West. quote:e: In the meantime, a French judge who used to oversee cases like this speaks out:
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Maybe the police wasn't 100% certainly sure that the contact's suspicions were funded. Just like how Belgian police wasn't 100% certain a known criminal that Turkey said was a Jihadist was actually linked to terror networks, so they let him go. I doubt that's where the breakdown occurred. Under normal circumstances, it seems really unlikely that a guy who had been sentenced to 9 years in prison for robbing a currency exchange and taking shots at the police with an assault rifle would have been released early and not flagged as a potential terrorist. Something was clearly mishandled; this wasn't an issue of policy. quote:Sure, but there's a problem here: tone and sensitivity are all about feelings, you can't make something more subjective than that. What should the cops do, start a search by showing a video proving that they also break stuff during a search in a White Christian European's house? No one's suggesting anything touchy-feely. Let's have a look at that that NYT story again: quote:In one widely reported case, police officers burst into a halal restaurant where families were eating dinner and ordered them to put their hands on the table, but did not check their identity papers. They searched mosques as well as a shelter for battered and homeless Muslim women. Kicking in the doors of a battered and homeless Muslim women's shelter is the sort of thing that I think the police should probably try to avoid in the course of their investigation. quote:I don't think this should surprise anyone, but if the cops are searching your house because they think you might be an armed and dangerous terrorist, the cops are thinking you might be an armed and dangerous terrorist. The Muslims in Europe already know that, believe me. They know they're being searched because they're perceived as likely terrorist sympathizers just because of their ethnic and religious background.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
The good thing about having such a slow political process is that what's probably going to happen now is that they'll agree on a faster implementation of the urgent measures the government agreed on after the Paris attacks. Until a policeman in Brussels panics and accidentally shoots a kid, of course  As for intelligence gathering, it seems to me the problem is never that there are too few database: just about every terrorist from Charlie Hebdo to Maelbeek was known and looking back there was a lot of information that should have been available. Hindsight 20/20 and it's very hard to stop these kind of attacks of course but still: it just keeps piling on at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I doubt that's where the breakdown occurred. Under normal circumstances, it seems really unlikely that a guy who had been sentenced to 9 years in prison for robbing a currency exchange and taking shots at the police with an assault rifle would have been released early and not flagged as a potential terrorist. Something was clearly mishandled; this wasn't an issue of policy. When hundreds, if not thousands of ordinary Muslim European citizens started celebrating and posting celebratory comments to social media after the massacre of unarmed cartoonists for violating a religious taboo, the rest of the Muslim community ought to have recognized that there is a justification, however slim, in this attitude. Are you really going to tell me that, speaking purely in terms of statistics and mathematics, a person of the Muslim religion living in Europe is not more likely to sympathize with terrorism* than persons who do not follow that religion? (Note: bombing ISIS is not terrorism in any way, shape or form and you are a titanic rear end in a top hat if you think it is) If you want to say there are legitimate socio-political reasons for that, and that the community and religion still has redeeming values, that's a perfectly reasonable argument to make. But denying the baseline fact of the matter just makes you a disingenuous fucker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:When hundreds, if not thousands of ordinary Muslim European citizens started celebrating and posting celebratory comments to social media after the massacre of unarmed cartoonists for violating a religious taboo Hold on a sec, you can't just say that without posting a source and expect me to believe it. quote:Are you really going to tell me that, speaking purely in terms of statistics and mathematics, a person of the Muslim religion living in Europe is not more likely to sympathize with terrorism* than persons who do not follow that religion? They're certainly more likely to be radicalized and recruited. No one's disputing that. What we're arguing about is whether that is a mechanism of Islam as a religion, or whether it is a result of the discrimination, alienation, and lack of opportunity that Muslims routinely face in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Hold on a sec, you can't just say that without posting a source and expect me to believe it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...r-too-many.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Hold on a sec, you can't just say that without posting a source and expect me to believe it. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...do-2955594.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NObYdFbK2KY
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:06
|
|
It's funny, but I just got these nifty glasses, and whenever I look at the posts in this thread through them, most of them turn into a Shakespeare quote.quote:IAGO: I hate the Moor.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It's funny, but I just got these nifty glasses, and whenever I look at the posts in this thread through them, most of them turn into a Shakespeare quote. Whenever I look at your post, they turn into "This was written by a royal rear end in a top hat".
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:12
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Whenever I look at your post, they turn into "This was written by a royal rear end in a top hat". But if it is indeed the case that Muslims are as you have outlined them, wouldn't hatred be completely reasonable? It seems like you don't want to be seen as hating Muslims, yet argue that they are inherently prone to violence and sloth because of culture/religion. There's a real inconsistency where you want to have liberal values but don't want to apply them universally.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Effectronica is to racism what The Insect Court is to antisemitism.Majorian posted:They're certainly more likely to be radicalized and recruited. No one's disputing that. What we're arguing about is whether that is a mechanism of Islam as a religion, or whether it is a result of the discrimination, alienation, and lack of opportunity that Muslims routinely face in Europe. If those are the only two options you are considering, then you can try to take a look at Islamic terrorists in Africa (including Sub-Saharan), Asia, and North America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:argue that they are inherently prone to violence and sloth because of culture/religion What the gently caress are you talking about, you deranged psychopath
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:20
|
|