Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

statewatch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 279 posts

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

#241

Post by AnimalMuppet »

rbanffy wrote: post #203
PeterisP wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radical parties gaining mass support is an indication that the centrist parties which should be 'more reasonable' are deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Anyone looking at the rise of AfD should also look at the example of Denmark, which some years earlier had also seen a strong rise of radical alt-right parties, but once the centrists switched their stance against immigratio…

> 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…

> There has to be a line that should never be crossed in any democratic society.

I agree, but...

Does it cross that line to say that too much immigration, too fast, causes some definite, specific negative effects on society?

Does it cross that line to say that therefore we should accept less immigration?

(It definitely crosses that line to say that immigrants are evil, or worse, subhuman.)

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

#242

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #218
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to offer you a moment to reconsider this comment. It adds nothing to this discussion. It does not refute my point. It does not undermine it. It does nothing really except maybe confuse the reader. Unless the latter is the point, consider an edit that addresses my point directly. I am only human. It is possible that there is a flaw in my reasoning. It is possible coffee did not hit me yet. As written, this is n…

Thank you for your generous offer but I will decline. What the comment does in its original form is draw attention to the nonsensical cowardice of refusing to take a stand on any issue. "There's no such thing as good violence" has you condemning slave revolutions for example. "There's no such thing as hate speech" refuses to acknowledge the forces and choices that led to historical atrocities and abdicates power to n…

My friend, word is word. Violence is violence. Adding moralistic value to either solves nothing, but adds problems for the society as a whole. If anything, it is cowardly to run from the lingua franca that is violence and try to excuse it by the current equivalent of 'gott mit uns'. Good luck out there.

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

#243

Post by tomrod »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #195
tomrod wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is malleable. All laws will be abused, and by corollary, all laws are societal negotiations, one court room at a time. Those in the legal field grok this. Those with less experience in the legal field typically fear the law for its seeming black-and-white attribute when it's really a lot of grey.

People take the worst case because statistically it will happen to someone. You can't average risk in your life like you can with insurance.

Knightian uncertainty I certainly can. True uncertainty, you typically do assume worst case but that's a risk posture choice.

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

#244

Post by fdfgyu »

generic92034 wrote: post #19
fdfgyu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Did we already forget the Polish blacksites? Have we already forgotten the Italian secret services aiding the abduction of a man in Italy?

In general you have a point, but still that did not happen in Cuba.

My point is that this is who the EU is, and always has been.

Whoever bemoans that the EU is becoming like the US is clutching pearls.

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

#245

Post by fdfgyu »

diggan wrote: post #166
ThalesX wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far I'm an EU citizen. I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen. I have a vote which I give to whatever party. After that, the vote for commissioner is secret; I have no idea who voted for what. After that, the negociations for the cabinet are secret; I have no idea what the criteria are and what the plans are. I…

This is generally called "representative democracy" and is mostly what people talk about when they talk about "democracy" in public conversations. The alternative is "direct democracy" and while it exists (like in Switzerland), it isn't nearly as common, sadly. But representative democracy still is democracy.

This is not representative democracy. This is, at best, buffered representative democracy.

Arcane electoral rules make for weak representatives who gather power by making back room deals.

The real (but not constitutional) power lies in the commission that is appointed, not elected, and has been vacuuming power to itself in increasing amounts.

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

#246

Post by [deleted] »

rbanffy wrote: post #203
PeterisP wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radical parties gaining mass support is an indication that the centrist parties which should be 'more reasonable' are deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Anyone looking at the rise of AfD should also look at the example of Denmark, which some years earlier had also seen a strong rise of radical alt-right parties, but once the centrists switched their stance against immigratio…

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#247

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

rbanffy wrote: post #230
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does replacing CSU/CDU via elections counts as upheaval of the current system of government?

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.

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

#248

Post by aduj »

OKRainbowKid wrote: post #238
throw100321 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky say exactly the same without using the term. What does Wikipedia say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniparty "Supporters of the 2000 Green Party presidential bid of Ralph Nader used the term extensively, and Nader himself called the prevailing political structure a 'corporate uniparty' in his 2002 book Crashing the Party." Pinning this term the right is the usual tactic to outlaw the term and remove it from t…

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".

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

#249

Post by fdfgyu »

generic92034 wrote: post #185
gillesjacobs wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far Unelected commissioners draft laws, while elected MEPs rubber-stamp with barely any changes. The Council's backroom deals make smoke-filled rooms look transparent. Try explaining the Ordinary Legislative Procedure to the average voter - you can't. And let's not forget the ritual of ignoring referendums that don't align with the "ever closer union" mantra. Whe…

The commissioners are not elected directly by the populace, just like ministers in any government I know of are not directly elected by the populace (and other powerful officials, too). The level of indirection is greater in a confederation of countries compared to a single country. The MEP usually do not "rubber-stamp with barely any changes". There often is considerable change applied to the original proposals, by…

In a parliamentary democracy every minister has been elected to his seat in Parliament. Voters can literally fire the PM while giving the ruling party a majority.

Take Canada.

The PM - Papineau

The defence minister - Scarborough South West

Finance Minister - University - Rosedale

Even the Speaker, who stands for the Majesty, is a member of the House - Hull Aylmer.

While Cabinet members are, typically, given safe seats to run, cabinet members can and do lose their seat effectively ending their ministry.

In a strong presidential system, like the US, the "ministers" (i.e.secretaries) are not in fact elected. But, not only are they approved by Congress, but they serve on behalf and on the whim of the President who is elected.

The fount of executive authority is solely in the hands of the President, who merely delegates his authority (who have no power of their own) to the cabinet members and (except for the VP) can fire them at any time.

The President holds all the executive power and the voters pick him.

The EU commissioners are not elected and the Commission president is not elected

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

#250

Post by aniviacat »

amiga386 wrote: post #239
aniviacat wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it was pretty bad when the Germans voted a totalitarian party into power. We should prevent that from happening again. Now... how would we go about that? By doing the same thing as last time; wait until the party takes over?

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.

Post reply on HN