The principles of the Republic have been seriously mauled about the bombing of Nice. And it may be feared, especially in the context of the heinous terrorist attack of Saint-Etienne du Rouvray, that the controversy arose around the attack of Nice increases. The article Régis de Castelnau, in Talker is a very useful development. What does he say ?in the face of disaster, everyone tries to avoid being placed too heavily in the face of its responsibilities. By discarding them on the other side, especially as the issue of the security of Nice is institutionally divided between the State and the mayor who shall exercise this jurisdiction on behalf of the State. To make it even more simple, it is the patron saint of the national police against the patron saint of the municipal police, in other words, word against word. » The call he made to the constitution of a parliamentary commission of inquiry could not have been more relevant.
It is now clear that only a parliamentary committee of inquiry can address the issues raised by the bombing in Nice and restore the principles of the Republic. They have also undermined by the statements of the members of the government, Bernard Cazeneuve, Manuel Valls.
The controversy fiercer, the result of this attack condemns any administrative investigation. We are now in the political field, and it is politically that it should be treated. The results of this inquiry will depend on the resignation or the dismissal of the prefect of the Alpes-Maritime, responsible for the security of the Municipality of Nice, but also resignations are possible with the Minister of the Interior, or even of the Prime minister.
Establish the facts
This commission will establish the facts :
- The number of police officers were sufficient and properly deployed for an event of this importance ? We know that it is the newspaper Liberation , which launched the debate on this item. Contrary to what was stated in the press release of 16 July, the Minister of the Interior, who said :« The mission perimeter was entrusted to the most sensitive points in crews of the national police, reinforced by the crews of the municipal police. This was notably the case for the point of entry of the truck, with a prohibition of access materialized by the positioning of vehicles blocking access to the roadway. The truck forced the passage on the sidewalk. » , it seems that it was the municipal police ensured the safety of the first perimeter.
- How a truck of 19 tons has he been able to move to Nice, while the streets of this city are prohibited this kind of vehicle ? We know that any prohibition corresponds to a number of exemptions, of fact or of law. But, on the evening of July 14, the movement of such a machine could and should have put the Police on alert. To use a historical analogy, it is the for detection by a radar of the japanese aircraft preparing to attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and the failure to take account of this » information « .
- All safety conditions were met and why no artificial obstacles (chicanes, concrete, gates, anti-vehicle) had been deployed to the entrances to this event ? We knew, since the attack on the car-aries in Nantes December 22, 2014 that this type of method could be used. Obstructions mobile were available, and had been used at the Euro-2016. If the city of Nice has not wanted to use (which is a serious fault) why the Prefect of the Alpes-Maritimes, the final authority in matters of security of public events in Nice, does it not required that this be done ? The Prefect had authority to prohibit the event if it believed that the security conditions were not met.
- What was the level of preparedness of decision-makers in both municipal and national in a terrorist attack ? It is clear that the security was focused on a bomb or the use of suicide vests. But believe that the enemy will be routine, is a huge mistake. Here again, we must have recourse to an historical analogy. The best-known example, in this case, is none other than that of Pearl Harbor. This attack could take place in spite of the detection by a radar of the japanese aircraft preparing to attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. It is known that the operators of one of the 6 radars belonging to the Army detected of 6: 45 am 6: 58 am the reconnaissance seaplane catapulted from one of the cruisers the japanese escorting the aircraft carrier, and that was to confirm the presence of the american fleet at its base, and then, 7: 02 am to duration 7: 40 the journey training component the first wave of the japanese attack. The radar operator communicated to two times his observations to the officer of the guard at general headquarters, without that the latter is not taken into account. One of the leaders of the commission of inquiry, Admiral King, had to conclude : « A sense of unjustified immunity as to an attack…which seems to have penetrated all ranks at Pearl Harbor, the Navy as of the Army » . The american historian Samuel Eliot Morison note, however, that the attempts of midget submarines japanese to enter the harbor of Pearl Harbor had been detected as early as 6: 00 in the morning. Nothing in these terms and conditions, could not legitimately justify the inaction of the officers of the guard. But, the military officials present at Pearl Harbor, if they expected an imminent opening of hostilities with Japan were confident that operations would be concentrated on the Philippines and Malaysia. They didn’t conceived the possibility of an attack on Pearl Harbor. The wording of the information is so disturbed by the game of the so-called and non-called. The beliefs of the actors are not only affected by external sources but by the movement of questioning of the orders of beliefs about the sources. The subjectivity of the actors is therefore crucial for the understanding of the sequence of channels in a cognitive set up, outlined in Keynes, in theTreaty of Probabilities as that of the Theory-General, that Shackle , or Hayek.
Which gives rise to a crucial question about the bombing of Nice. Taking into account the information reasonably available on the degree and nature of possible terrorist threats on the eve of the 14th of July, the officers of the National Police, and the State, in both Paris and Nice have they not caught by the same » …feeling unjustified immunity as to an attack… » that’s what we experienced at Pearl Harbor ?
- The Ministry of the Interior a-t-he pressure on the head of the surveillance video, Sandra Bertin, municipal police and secretary general of the Syndicat autonome de la fonction publique territoriale (SAFPT) Nice ? The accusations made by the latter are too serious to be dismissed with the back of their hand, as the affects of the Minister of the interior Bernard Cazeneuve. It is well established that she was speaking on July 15, with a responsible Ministry, the number 3 of the staff of the central directorate of public security (DCSP). It is possible that she has confused that person with a member of the cabinet of the Minister. Geographically, this is not completely absurd because the Central Management of Public Safety is housed in a building adjacent to the ministry, precisely rue des Saussaies in Paris. And, like the rest of these directions also, the DCSP is attached directly to the Minister.
But, the principles of the Republic have also undermined by the statements making outrageous some of the ministers, and not less. Recall that J-M Le Guen has made a scandalous statement, which is a real problem of moral and political : »I want to go on this field then, but in this case, there is no more State of law in the country. If a number of journalists, commentators, policy-makers are questioning the operation of the judicial and administrative services of the State, then it is a thesis that is extremely dangerous for democracy »  it puts in question the reality of democracy. The Prime minister, Mr. Manuel Valls, has put in balance the fact that Mr. Estrosi, had benefited from the withdrawal of the list PS-PRG for the win in the second round of the regional against Marion Maréchal-Le Pen (FN) in December to bring it to positions more in line with hers, which is a rare indignity.
He went so far as to pronounce these words : « This idea, in essence, that the State ment, has something to hide, fueling the doubt, divide the rule of law « . He who pretends to admire Clemenceau would do well to read it. As Clemenceau, in circumstances otherwise the most difficult, in the midst of the war of 1914-1918, when he was President of the council, had, him, said on march 8, 1918 : « … » …I say that the republicans should not be afraid of the freedom of the press. Be not afraid of the freedom of the press, is to know that it is excess. It is for this reason that there are laws against libel in all countries of freedom, of laws that protect citizens against the excesses of this freedom. I do not prevent you from using it. There’s more : there are laws of liberty which you can use as your opponents ; nothing is opposed to it ; the ways of liberty are open for you ; you can write, others have the freedom of this forum ;(…). What do you complain ? It is necessary to know to support the campaigns ; it is necessary to know how to defend the Republic otherwise than by gesticulations, by cries and screams inarticulate.Talk, discuss, prove to the opponents that they are wrong and thus hold and keep with you the majority of the country in which you acquired since the 4th of September. « . This made it all the better to reflect the outrageous statements of the members of the government. But, if the members of the government were assured of their positions, would refer to such outrageousness ?
Here again, only a parliamentary committee of inquiry is the same, clearly establishing the responsibilities of each other, to bring the actors of this drama to the principles of the Republic, which can involve, where appropriate, their resignation. It is therefore necessary that the deputies of the majority and the opposition agree quickly on its constitution.
 many works dealing with the attack of Pearl Harbor recount this anecdote of a more or less fictionalized. The sources used here are the volume III of the history of the naval operations of american in the second world conflict, S.E. Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II Volume III The Rising Sun in the Pacific , Boston, Little, Brown & company, 1988 (first edition 1948), pp. 136-139 and Joint Congressional Investigating Committee, US Congress, Pearl Harbor Attack, US-GPO, Washington, DC, 40 vol., 1946, and in particular hand. 1, pp. 39-40, and share. 25.
 A sketch of the observations in radars is located in S.E. Morison, The Rising Sun…, op.cit., p. 137.
 Ibid, p. 138.
 The Chief of Staff of the u.s. Navy was sent on November 27, 1941, a message » warning of war « , a Joint Congressional Investigating Committee, US Congress, Pearl Harbor Attack, op;cit., share. 14, p. 1406.
 G. L. S. Shackle, Anticipations in Economics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1949.
 A good summary of the approach of the austrian school in the field of knowledge is found in the article by L. M. Lachman, « From Mises to Shackle : an essay on Austrian economics and the Kaleideic Society » in Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 14, n°1, 1976, pp. 54-62.