|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 29, 2017 14:15:56 GMT
Megan is the administrator this week  With the holiday the schedule will be as follows: Original Post by Sunday, December 3 at 11:59 pm Peer responses by the start of class (10:50am) Tuesday, December 5. Again, the goal is to DISCUSS, therefore, I can not stress enough the importance of responding to peers prior to the last minute of the deadline. Remember, part of the grade is "timeliness of your responses." So, DISCUSS while the discussion board is active, don't simply add your two cents at the very end. AM |
|
|
|
Post by Megan Whitby on Nov 29, 2017 14:46:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nick newmAn on Dec 3, 2017 22:42:41 GMT
The events that took place in France over the past two years were very unfortunate. With 239 dead over that span, the measures that they took were appropriate. The French Government needed to call for a state of emergency to secure the safety of their people. This reminds me of the measures the Colombian Government took when trying to cut down on terror in Medellin. If the Search Bloc suspected a sicario was in the area, they would put up checkpoints and go door to door. They did this with the safety of the Colombian people in mind, they same as the FRench Government did. The news laws set in place appear to be the same as the ones put in place during the state of emergency, but there are some differences. One of the laws state that
“Authorities will be able to carry out searches of homes, but only to prevent acts of terrorism.”
The glaring difference between this law and the measure put in place by the state of emergency is that authorities now need approval by a judge before carrying out said searches. During the state of emergency, authorities could search whatever they felt like. This law could lead to an abuse of power, but most likely not. For the most part, judges are good people who uphold the law. The only way this law can be abuse is if there is a corrupt judge who permits these searches without just cause. This can lead to a persecution of Muslims, which is a great fear of Human Rights Watch. One of the laws that seems to be open for interpretation is the law stating “People with links to terrorist organizations can be forbidden from leaving their town or city of residence and required to report to police.” How strictly are the authorities enforcing this law. Do you have to have a direct link with a terrorist attack or group to fall under this? Under a loose construction of the law, it appears that anybody associated with terror of any kind can be subjected to this law. This law can definitely be abused, especially with growing paranoia in France.
If somebody has a family with deep ties to a terror group but this person has no ties whatsoever, will they be forced to stay in their town?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Shumaker on Dec 3, 2017 22:56:39 GMT
I think that the state of emergency was necessary in France to provide protection to the people. However, the severity of the rules put in place during that state were cruel and unfair. These new laws set in place after the state of emergency was lifted are essentially a new way of enforcing the emergency. As stated in the second background article, although it seems like this is just another way of putting the state of emergency into effect, a majority of the general public seems to be in favor of these new laws. “A poll conducted in early October showed more than 80 percent of support for the bill.” These laws allow for brutal forces and unfair circumstances such as house arrest, searches, and many other things. I think that these new laws give an unnecessary amount of power to the police and government officials and I cannot imagine living there myself. I actually traveled to France this summer, and while I was there, the state of emergency would have still been in effect. In one article it mentioned the heavily armed guards everywhere protecting monuments and heavily populated areas, I can agree that it's true. It is terrifying seeing these guards walking around with huge machine guns everywhere you look, and I cannot imagine how the people living in France feel. It is for protection, but it is still scary seeing how their country so quickly turned until one that was constantly watching their backs. How would you feel living in France during a time like this, with all of these extreme laws being put in place?
|
|
|
|
Post by Autumn Painter on Dec 4, 2017 4:15:51 GMT
A terrorist attack can be terrifying. Hearing about it is one thing, but experiencing one is another. In the article, it refers to Macron as a weak president. Although, I think Macron had good intentions for enforcing these laws. The article mentions, that people fear making emergency powers part of regular laws is risky. If they are necessary for protection, and if they have help prevent attacks, they should remain in place. The government claims they have prevented more than 30 attacks; mentioned by Christian Hartmann. Laws can always be changed, they are not written in stone. Protecting lives is crucial. After an event in which lives were taken, it was an eye opener which instilled fear in the lives of citizens. Think of driving a car at night listening to music, and not expecting anything to happen. Then all of the sudden a deer jumps out in front of the car. The experience is absolutely terrifying and reminds you how your life can be taken away in the blink of an eye. The next few times you drive, you will be more cautious. Although, after a while things will go back to how they were and you will forget it happened. The same thing happened, or is happening, to France. The new laws are their way of being cautious, even if it has been dragged out. I think these precautions have been going on for a while because of the amount of lives at risk. These laws may not be in place forever. It may take a while for them to be changed due to the severity and fear of the situation. Authority carrying weapons should not be feared, they are the ones protecting, not attacking. How long do you think these laws will be in place? Would you fear the police, or would you understand it is for your safety? Are these precautions too extreme?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolinski on Dec 4, 2017 4:18:26 GMT
When it’s people are experiencing a time of distress, a government will do almost anything to calm them. France’s response to the terror attacks against them was reasonable given the situation they were put into. The duration and power entailed within it is another thing. If the state of emergency just involved putting curfews into place and ramped up security in a few key places then it would be somewhat reasonable to keep in place for as long as France did. However, the various powers granted to the government with the state of emergency declaration were too intrusive for long term use. Now with the new legislation in place, France will be under what appears to be a watered down martial law. These new laws will most likely cause a greater division between refugees and French citizens. With the addition of being able to close mosques at whim, Muslims will be the victims of even further persecution.
Now, while this law may appear over the edge, France is simply trying to protect its people. They are looking at acts of terror around the world and just don’t want that to happen to them again. With terrorists using more guerrilla tactics, the threat of terror is increasing to a point where it is almost impossible to stop without such aggressive legislation. Whether they are using trucks, pipe bombs, or knives, terror is lurking around every corner. France is just trying to stop it at all costs.
Should France do even more to prevent terrorist attacks from happening in its country?
Do other countries need to adopt France’s approach to fighting terrorism?
|
|
|
|
Post by Autumn Painter on Dec 4, 2017 4:22:53 GMT
@sarah
Great response Sarah! Personally, all of the laws would be annoying, but I would respect the decision. I would probably feel a lot more safe as well. I think of it like how parents create rules, and sometimes we disagree, but it is just their way of protecting us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Autumn Painter on Dec 4, 2017 4:28:29 GMT
@chase
I agree, France is doing whatever it takes to protect their people. I do not thing they need to do even more though. Only so much can be done, their people are already antsy, more enforcement may push them over the edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erin Reimers on Dec 4, 2017 4:51:43 GMT
France has recently been in the light of controversy concerning the topic of terrorist attacks and preventative actions. France has been in a state of emergency since the terrorist attacks that had occured in 2015. This state of emergency allowed for such actions as unwarranted searches, placing house arrests, and many more. Not only wanting to prevent further attacks but also wanting to overcome the image of a weak president, President Macron has lifted the state of emergency that has gripped France for a few years but instead placed some laws. This laws include giving higher power to the police in order to "deal with terrorist threats while preserving citizens' rights.” The vague wording of the recently passed bill has incited disdain from certain officials and citizens alike. Some fear it will further incriminate Muslims and will provoke racist thinking and discrimination. The bill is set to expire around the year 2020. In the question of protecting a nation and preventing terrorist attacks one could see France is doing a well enough job in protecting its borders and civilians alike. The darker and more questionable part of the bill that is often criticized is the vague wording within. With the promise to preserve citizen’s rights in any means possible it also opens the pandora’s box of when “preserving” one’s rights it could also intrude on someone else’s. Interpretation is a key part in building off a viewpoint of the appointing of this bill. France is in their right to impose this bill with the threat of radical terrorism hanging over their heads. In the process of their mission to preserve their citizen’s safety there could be some injustice present. However with the main goal in mind, France is going on a reasonable path to ensure safety for the nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexander Aspinall on Dec 4, 2017 23:04:21 GMT
France's state of emergency law serves as a reminder of a darker time in French history. However it seems to be convenient given the circumstances, it seemed that in Paris that that night in 2015 was a war zone. The reaction of the French government was swift and one of zero tolerance. then with the influx of migrants that terrorists and the ideology that grew this specific breed of terrorist, it would seem only right and logical to close their borders and protect internally from insurrection. These new laws are obviously to make the state of emergency permanent. Personally I wouldn't want to live in a society where my private property and my privacy were violated. though I understand why the French government enacted these laws. There may certainly be an abuse of power, the very notion that one entity has the absolute authority to search another without consent is abusive. Well I can't speech for the French people, but I certainly don't think violence will escalate due to the increased police presence, as long as no one groups' civil liberties are violated. I could imagine that many Americans would support it at first, but quickly realize that it's just abuse of the government's power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex Aspinall on Dec 4, 2017 23:12:30 GMT
When it’s people are experiencing a time of distress, a government will do almost anything to calm them. France’s response to the terror attacks against them was reasonable given the situation they were put into. The duration and power entailed within it is another thing. If the state of emergency just involved putting curfews into place and ramped up security in a few key places then it would be somewhat reasonable to keep in place for as long as France did. However, the various powers granted to the government with the state of emergency declaration were too intrusive for long term use. Now with the new legislation in place, France will be under what appears to be a watered down martial law. These new laws will most likely cause a greater division between refugees and French citizens. With the addition of being able to close mosques at whim, Muslims will be the victims of even further persecution. Now, while this law may appear over the edge, France is simply trying to protect its people. They are looking at acts of terror around the world and just don’t want that to happen to them again. With terrorists using more guerrilla tactics, the threat of terror is increasing to a point where it is almost impossible to stop without such aggressive legislation. Whether they are using trucks, pipe bombs, or knives, terror is lurking around every corner. France is just trying to stop it at all costs. Should France do even more to prevent terrorist attacks from happening in its country? Do other countries need to adopt France’s approach to fighting terrorism? Come to think of it, installing these new laws waves away the state of emergency. |
|
|
|
Post by Dėrëk on Dec 5, 2017 2:56:29 GMT
This topic is a topic I fear might come to the United States soon. This is a reason Trump put a travel ban on certain countries. For me it was a love hate situation. The hate was it was not fair because some people are truly good people but others that are the same race or religion ruin it for everyone. President Donald Trump has been the opposite of what Macron has been perceived to be. In the DW article they described Macron "as a creeping perception that Macron is a week president." This seems to be changing quick with 239 dead in the last two years. This is one reason why I do not understand when people complain about Trump trying to keep the country terrorist free. I mean what if our country was this dangerous with teorrists? What if you do not support Trump keeping the country safe but then one of your family members died from a terrorists attack? There has been criticism of the law with citizens saying it was a restriction of basic freedoms which is understandable. But in a time like this anything to be safe seems necessary for the time being.
Would you like the new measures to keep the country safe?
Does this show weakness now that France seems to be panicking because of these terrorist attacks?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eithan Beckwith on Dec 5, 2017 3:10:40 GMT
This topic is a topic I fear might come to the United States soon. This is a reason Trump put a travel ban on certain countries. For me it was a love hate situation. The hate was it was not fair because some people are truly good people but others that are the same race or religion ruin it for everyone. President Donald Trump has been the opposite of what Macron has been perceived to be. In the DW article they described Macron "as a creeping perception that Macron is a week president." This seems to be changing quick with 239 dead in the last two years. This is one reason why I do not understand when people complain about Trump trying to keep the country terrorist free. I mean what if our country was this dangerous with teorrists? What if you do not support Trump keeping the country safe but then one of your family members died from a terrorists attack? There has been criticism of the law with citizens saying it was a restriction of basic freedoms which is understandable. But in a time like this anything to be safe seems necessary for the time being.
Would you like the new measures to keep the country safe?
Does this show weakness now that France seems to be panicking because of these terrorist attacks?
I do not think by all means this means France is a weak country because no matter what precautionary measures they take you can not help the fact that people who are in the country can still make terroristic attacks no matter how much you secure your countries i mean look at america as a prime example we can not do anything if a man just pulls a gun out and guns down fifty sixty even a hundred people because its a internal threat there are things we have a do to try and prevent it but when it comes down to it being a internal threat once they are in the country no matter what laws are in action there are still people who are going to get what means necessary to do what theywant whether its legal or not
|
|
|
|
Post by Derek on Dec 5, 2017 3:12:58 GMT
@sarah I agree the laws are coming in rapidly and the big guns can be scary to some but when it can mean life or death and a walk in the park could turn into a terrorist attack, the dude with the big machine gun is necessary! |
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Shumaker on Dec 5, 2017 3:13:13 GMT
@derek I don't think this shows weakness, i think it shows that the government actually cares about it's people, unlike other places we have studied recently such as Libya. I understand why they did it, for protection purposes. I think it shows strength that they are so focused on safety.
|
|
