But all this being said, I've noted that tu quoque argumentation has come back recently in style hereabouts too, so perhaps there's a little of that as well.
I scanned the summary, and didn't see anything like that.
I think of robust as being pre-emptive in focus, employing primarily intelligence both overt and clandestine, as non-intrusive as possible. Obviously, if your internal security policy viz. terrorism is going to have a pre-emption bias, you are going to be looking at as many intelligence sources as you can. I've no indication France has a bad record on using intelligence sources, unlike a number of other EU member states and, of course, the US. Nil aon leigheas ar an ngra ach posadh
redstar:
Is there anything in the report which is torture? Beatings? I scanned the summary, and didn't see anything like that.
Human Rights Watch interviewed suspects who said that sleep deprivation, disorientation, constant, repetitive questioning, and psychological pressure are common in police custody. Human Rights Watch also documented credible allegations of physical abuse.
Prosecutions are often based on intelligence material, including from countries with poor records on torture, which defendants cannot effectively challenge.
Well, yes, they are common. I'd like to see numbers on what they mean by sleep deprivation, but as for the rest, that's hardly torture, that's standard police interrogation, even the physical abuse, which again is a matter of degrees and is sometimes in reaction. I think we make a mistake to automatically distrust the police at every turn here, and HRW's determination of what is credible is not particularly convincing to me, necessarily. Do they have medical documentation of physical abuse being used systematically? Are medical professionals routinely denied access to detainees? Routine reports of broken bones, haematomas or other evidence of brutality? I don't see this.
Interrogation is uncomfortable for both the innocent and the guilty, unfortunately. Nil aon leigheas ar an ngra ach posadh
