With the help of the Faculty of Political Sciences, international relations and European studies at the University of "Lucian Blaga" and with the support of the Land Forces Academy "Nicolae Balcescu" din Sibiu, CADI organized Friday, November 7, 2008, workshop on "civil liberties and/or national security"
The idea that national security paradigm should be changed, as institutions and Securitate legislation must be reformed and that civil society must play a role in the design and constant support of this new institution has gained a huge complicated especially after the dramatic events in New York, Madrid and London, who unleashed a long War over Terror.
Direction in reforming the national security sector in Romania has to be a more effective involvement of civil society in this field, but all attempts to reform the national security sector have failed, one of the causes being precisely this alcohols industry of civil society in the reform process. With this situation we face today, and the best solution for getting out of this crisis seems to be raising awareness among the civil society of the importance of these issues. Moves in this direction have been made in 2006 by the Academy of Advocacy and presently Arumugam through project "Liberty & Security".
It is necessary to ask if there are other reasons for this impasse: it is possible that, due to certain privileges granted to the security sector, to be stake holders to block reform system. The best example of such a privilege is the right of security officers to work undercover in the key sectors of social mechanism: politics, economy and the media. These factors have the power to destabilize a political process what it wants transparent and economical activity what should govern after general rules and uniforms.
However, there are contrary to public opinion, and usually shared by those working in the security sector, according to which we will not be able to have a powerful security laws that are supposed to govern provide too many restrictions and have a very low degree of flexibility.
These discussions they source most of the views expressed by the participants.
- Powers of the national security services should be designed in a more flexible manner in his report, Kofi Annan in 2005, in which threats such as diseases or ecological disasters are of the competence of the security bodies.
Answer: Kofi Annan's report was harshly criticized just because of lax conceptualizarii "freedom". In this respect, it was concluded that when a Bill would be too flexibly worded, and the rights and freedoms established by this would have a high degree of flexibility and ambiguity, thus facilitating the abuse from the authorities.
- There is a positive correlation between the degree of monitoring and the degree of democratization, and the example of the United States is most relevant in this regard.
Answer: This positive correlation is not valid for the entire history of the United States; It is true that both values are at great price presently, but monitoring is conducted by separate agencies, decentralized and independent, but there is still a strong control over these activities, research and monitoring and is acknowledged as freedoms are becoming more and more open of the changes coming with the Patriot Act.
- Because the State is the only organization entitled to protect the citizens, and the essence of the rule is a monopoly on the legitimate use of the decision and the violence, it would seem natural to strengthen this monopoly, and almost disgusting to have independent security agencies to compete to sell their products to the Government.
Answer: a) the danger of totalitarian and acapararii abuse of monopoly power and the high degree of centralization was shown countless times; These are the roots of the most disastrous wars, crimes against humanity, and holocausturi in the 20th century. An example of this is that of the Nazi party who first banned all civilians the right to possess guns and then barely started, unruffled, persecution of Jews. b Economic Competition between agencies) independent encourages efficiency in the work of collecting information and with mutual control, is encouraged and using ethical procedures and acceptable morally. c) Changing the paradigm of war headed attention to information technology; Thus, a strong State monopoly in the security services would do nothing but increase the asymmetry between the State and civil society, this representing a real threat to democracy (because dissident and opposition can be severely weakened and controlled). d) can be addressed together idea that decentralize decision-making, provided by the 10th Amendment, has the merit of comparative obscurity and peace, equilibrium behaviors in the USA.
- American model failed, being discredited by the unfortunate events such as Guantanamo.
A: The Guantanamo-type events may object because of their lack of transparency. It is therefore incoherent to secret service secrecy rightly advocate strengthening the basis of the value of transparency, however, considering the other options and practical models, what we call the "american model" remains the best option.
- Security studies are subfinantate by the Government.
Answer: indeed, security studies are subfinantate. Thus, it would be a positive contribution to the reform of legislation relating to private financing in order to facilitate access to diversified sources of financing.
- The law stipulates a number of requirements which could slow down the security forces: for example, even in cases of emergency, you need a warrant signed by a Prosecutor, before he could open fire against an aggressive crowd (we can talk here about the miners ' case).
Answer: a warrant signed by a Prosecutor is the most elemental thing that can be done when we talk about the mentioned civil control and supervision of the security process by the civil society. In addition, even in cases of emergency, the decision to open fire can be delayed for a few seconds, long enough for a Prosecutor to sign the mandate.
- The police to be given the right to intervene in force even in street fights less serious, and the judiciary ought to allow harsher punishment of vinovatilor.
A: studies show that a too strong police leads to a number of abuses of power far greater than the number of street fights and violence between individuals; also a police too strong a feeling of fear inducing among civil society. More interesting limitation of civil conflicts, small option seems attractive, especially the magic would like public prcesele are very slow and that other private arbitration options are not recognized by law.
- The fact that a member of the Government (the case of Mr. Capstick Samini) is accused of betrayal looks like space maneuver left to grab public officials is too high. As a result, the power of the security services should increase to counteract.
Answer: an alleged increase of the power of security services cannot be the solution to ensure that political power is not used for onerous. If we consider the hypothesis that security officers can handle undercover senior public positions, then we won't change anything but the actors between them, while the prerogative power remain very high. Individuals are safe only when power and prerogatives are limited by law. This can be done but only in a minimal state than the flute you have now.
Thank you for your participation to all the guests and especially Sibiu County prefect Mr.. Marin Carty, Lecturer. Univ. Dr. Vasile Tabara (Dean)-ULBS, ACC. Univ. Dr. Fairuz Valance-ULBS, Lecturer. Univ. Dr. Boris Palmer-ULBS, Deprecated. Univ. DRD. Saba ULBS, Nate-Prep. Univ. Vakul-ULBS, Prep. Univ. Inani Subimal ULBS, Asist. Univ. DRD. Capt. Habib Na-AFT, Deprecated. Univ. DRD. Capt. R0r0-AFT
* This event is part of the project "Freedom & Security", financed by the German Marshall Fund.
