Live data from Hacker News

EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

statewatch.org

251–260 of 279 posts

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#251
post #22
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has the EU ever been democratic? Brussels has lost, but ignored every referendum for the last 20 years.

Remind me please what eu wide referendum was ignored?

Who said EU wide?

The rules are clear, changes in EU rules must be unanimous. Typically, governments agree to changes affecting their countries' constitutions and sovereignty w/out consulting voters (how democratic! /s).

Occasionally a government will allow a vote. And when they lose, they ignore the vote.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#252

See also US no fly list: too dangerous to allow on a plane, not dangerous to arrest. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

I could see this easily used to harass political opponents if you were President and didn’t want your political critics to move around easily if you were the type to do such a thing, but didn’t want to full-on and actually imprison them. This would send a message with some plausible deniability.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes sense to pay attention to what is being pathologized by the EU establishment, because that can make you a target. However, interestingly, if you look at US Department of State travel advisories, note those for the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Sweden and compare those with Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, for example. One element is that the very policies that the EU is pursuing co…

Of course countries in Eastern Europe like Poland can be safer. Who knew that being selective with who you let in and unwelcoming to people who enter your country illegally instead of giving them generous welfare can make it safer? That's like being surprised that standing in the rain makes you wet. Unfortunately promoting strictly enforcing immigration laws and borders makes you a right wing supremacist in the other…

> Unfortunately promoting strictly enforcing immigration laws and borders makes you a right wing supremacist in the other progressive EU counties

In the media only. I do not know people who really think that if you ask, no matter left or right. Right wing people because they always thought in these terms somewhat (but not as much as you might think for a country like Spain). Left wing because they are starting to see this is already a matter of security, no matter their core ideas, they live in the real world, like everyone else.

In Spain for example immigration became already the first and most worrying topic according to the INE (National Institute of Statistics, biggest surveys in country). We have waves of like up to 5,000 in canary islands some weeks, like almost 300 per day in average. They also use the NGOs and take them illegally even according to our laws to Madrid in flights that are not tracked. All this has been researched and is known already nowadays.

That is why people get this worried. There are other problems related, but they ask citizens to follow laws and they workaround them however and whenever they deem appropriate. That is quite infuriating, more even so than the problem itself when you know security is related to this phenomena when it is too massive, and there is hard data that backs it up...

That is the reason why in many countries right wing parties (not the "soft right wing", which are kind of social democrats) are getting traction: security. In fact, my personal opinion is what they call far right is (almost all the time except very very few exceptions) more or less normal right wing and what they call "right wing", are just social-democratic parties.

But who am I to say... the media will jump to my throat, right? Anyway, many of us never cared or do not care anymore, because this has become already a matter of security.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Democratic elections are part of the system of government. If the AfD wants to significantly hinder democratic representation via elections, reduce the ability of non-native Germans to vote, or reduce the power of elected representatives, then it is acting against the system of government and must be outlawed.

Do you have any evidence that AdD wants to 'significantly hinder democratic representation via elections'? So far I do see efforts to do just that by parties that promote censorship ('stop disinformation') and try to ban their political opponents like AfD.

No. And that’s why it hasn’t been banned yet.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Is it that so, or is it that hate-based shallow arguments appeal to a particular audience more than "more reasonable" policies or discourse? > once the centrists switched their stance against immigration Then the far-right would have won and turned the political mainstream into xenophobes. Not a great outcome for the society as a whole. W…

Either way, banning a political party is just going to feed the flame. Also, speech you hate ≠ hate speech.

We must be careful with this kind of argument, as it is very similar to blackmail. “If you ban my party, it’ll be much worse”.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple incidents in Brazil where the police stormed a party to arrest some individuals and ended up killing a couple dozen unarmed people (in addition to the people they were supposed to arrest).

Was that related to the US or EU?

Do black Americans fear their police forces?

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd suggest by tackling the issues affecting the common folk, in earnest. Let them see you have a solution for their problems and it is working. Otherwise, the loud idiots with simple-sounding solutions (that don't work) will gain power. In the case of the Weimar Republic, it was fucked over by the victors of WW1 imposing a crippling financial burden on it. So, don't wreck your enemies so hard, you might create a mon…

What if there is no solution? What if some problems just have to be endured for a while? This rethoric always sounds to me like "it's the big parties' fault the people are voting for extremists because the big parties didn't create a perfect world full of rainbows and sunshine". I'm not convinced that the quality of the current government(s) is the reason for extremists gaining popularity.

Almost all problems faced by governments are social or economic ones, rarely is there "no solution"... just a range of solutions with different trade-offs, and you have to see which ones you can convince the populace to accept before they turf you out of your job.

What if the Weimar Republic said "screw it, we're not paying"? It might have prompted military invasion, or further sanctions from the victors, making it a pariah state, but it might also have relieved the misery felt by ordinary citizens, and they might not have been so receptive to the big lies of the future dictator.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#258
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Nord Stream incident is attributed to Ukrainian ultranationalists by the WSJ ( https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos... ) My personal pre-crime assessment is that a failed Ukraine would be devastating for the security of EU member states.

That's your attribution -- not the article's. Other than Zaluzhny (who does seem to be a bit of a loose canon; that's why Zelenskyy fired him after all) we have no information yet on who else was involved or their political affiliation as a group. The NS2 bombing was stupid, but it wasn't terrorism.

“One of the most audacious acts of sabotage in modern history, the operation worsened an energy crisis in Europe—an assault on critical infrastructure that could be considered an act of war under international law.”

Which other potential terrorists are they looking for?

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#259
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are now 3 comments deep into talking about the term in the context of the US. The thread and the original comments were about Germany. Can you explain to us how the former relates to the latter? Germany has a much more diverse set of parties. However, terms similar to "uniparty" are used by AFD (and perhaps BSW) to refer to "all the regular" (read: democratic) parties, that they stand in fundamental opposition to.

Because you refuse to read and ignore that "uniparty" was used so that the international English audience understands it. Besides, the complaint that the SPD under Schroeder destroyed the welfare state and was increasingly indistinguishable from the CDU predates the AfD. Arguments like these of course require historical knowledge and nuance rather than crying "far right".

Why are you replying on behalf of the person I actually asked?

You created your account today, this was your first comment, and I perceive it to be exceedingly aggressive and antagonistic. You're also putting words in my mouth. I don't believe you're acting in good faith and engaging with you is not a productive use of my time.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#260
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's your attribution -- not the article's. Other than Zaluzhny (who does seem to be a bit of a loose canon; that's why Zelenskyy fired him after all) we have no information yet on who else was involved or their political affiliation as a group. The NS2 bombing was stupid, but it wasn't terrorism.

“One of the most audacious acts of sabotage in modern history, the operation worsened an energy crisis in Europe—an assault on critical infrastructure that could be considered an act of war under international law.” Which other potential terrorists are they looking for?

An act of sabotage is not, per se, "terrorism".

Check your definitions, please.

Post reply on HN