European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

HRW not impressed by French anti-terrorism system

by Colman
Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 07:37:26 AM EST

Via the BBC, Human Rights Watch are less than impressed by the French anti-terrorism system. A new report says that

In practice, French counterterrorism laws and procedures undermine the right of those facing charges of terrorism to a fair trial. The broad definition and expansive interpretation of association de malfaiteurs translate into a low standard of proof for decisions to arrest suspects or to place them under investigation by a judge. Indeed, casting a wide net to ensnare large numbers of people who might have some connection with an alleged terrorist network has been one of the characteristics of investigations into association de malfaiteurs.

Nice. And you get to sit in jail for up to six days with minimal access to lawyers:

Once arrested, terrorism suspects may be held in police custody for four days, and in certain circumstances up to six days, before being brought before a judge to be placed under judicial investigation or released without charge.
Suspects are allowed to see a lawyer for the first time only after three days in custody (four days in some cases), and then only for 30 minutes. The lawyer does not have access to the case file, or information about the exact charges against his or her client, leaving little scope for providing legal advice. Suspects may be subjected to oppressive questioning, at any time of the day or night, without a lawyer present. Police are under no obligation to inform suspects of their right to remain silent.

Abuse in police custody, relying on evidence from 3rd countries with bad human rights records: there are all sorts of good things in the report, which points out that this is all likely to lead to increased radicalism.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

HRW not impressed by French anti-terrorism system | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: HRW not impressed by French anti-terrorism sys (4.00 / 4)

A beacon of human rights in Europe and the World. <sigh>

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 07:39:17 AM EST

Re: HRW not impressed by French anti-terrorism sys (none / 1)

The UK's push to extend the time that suspects can be held in detention without charge is another example of the hypocritical pointing of the finger at atrocious human rights practice in other countries whilst actually legislating for the breach of human rights in our own.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 08:09:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRW not impressed by French anti-terrorism sys (4.00 / 4)

That's nothing new. Barely ten years after we proclaimed the Declaration of Human Rights, we installed Fouché as head of police...

by Dagonz on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 08:23:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRW not impressed by French anti-terrorism sys (4.00 / 3)

The very recent book Espejos.Una Historia casi universal [Mirrors. A History almost universal], by Eduardo Galeano, is great about things like this.

Some examples:

Los nombres suelen no coincidir con lo que nombran. En el British Museum, pongamos por caso, las esculturas del Partenón se llaman "mármoles de Elgin", pero son mármoles de Fidias. Elgin se llamaba el inglés que las vendió al museo.		Names often do not coincide with what they named. In the British Museum, for example, the Parthenon sculptures are called "Elgin marbles," but are Phidias marbles. Elgin was named the English who sold them to the museum.
En 1493, el Vaticano regaló América a España y obsequió el Africa negra a Portugal, "para que las naciones bárbaras sean reducidas a la fe católica". Por entonces, América tenía quince veces más habitantes que España y el Africa negra cien veces más que Portugal. Tal como había mandado el Papa, las naciones bárbaras fueron reducidas. Y muy.		In 1493, the Vatican gave Americas to Spain as a gift and he gave black Africa to Portugal as a present, "so that the barbaric nations are reduced to the Catholic faith." By then, Americas had fifteen times more inhabitants than Spain and black Africa hundred times more than Portugal. As the Pope had commanded, the barbarian nations were reduced. And "mutch."
John Locke, el filósofo de la libertad, era accionista de la Royal Africa Company, que compraba y vendía esclavos.		John Locke, the philosopher of freedom, was a shareholder of the Royal Africa Company, which bought and sold slaves.
En nombre de la libertad, la igualdad y la fraternidad, la Revolución Francesa proclamó en 1793 la Declaración de los Derechos del Hombre y del Ciudadano. Entonces, la militante revolucionaria Olympia de Gouges propuso la Declaración de los Derechos de la Mujer y de la Ciudadana. La guillotina le cortó la cabeza. Medio siglo después, otro gobierno revolucionario, durante la Primera Comuna de París, proclamó el sufragio universal. Al mismo tiempo, negó el derecho de voto a las mujeres, por unanimidad menos uno: 899 votos en contra, uno a favor.		In the name of freedom, equality and fraternity, the French Revolution in 1793 proclaimed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Then, the militant revolutionary Olympia de Gouges proposed the Declaration of the Rights of Women and the Civic woman. The guillotine will cut the head. Half a century later, another revolutionary government during the First Paris Commune, proclaimed universal suffrage. At the same time, denied voting rights to women, unanimously least one: 899 votes against one in favour.

When Procrustes looks after you, you're sure to fit in.

by PerCLupi on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 09:16:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRW not impressed by French anti-terrorism sys (4.00 / 3)

Welcome, Dagonz!

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:48:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRW not impressed by French anti-terrorism sys (4.00 / 3)

Oh. Thank you!

by Dagonz on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:44:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRW not impressed by French anti-terrorism sys (none / 1)

Yes. Welcome to ET world, Dagonz!

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. --Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 at 12:30:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRW not impressed by French anti-terrorism sys (none / 1)

Might as well be describing Spain's anti-terrorism laws.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 09:22:04 AM EST

Wonder what HRW says about (none / 1)

the anti-terrorism system employed by the US.

And I'm not just talking about Guantanamo or the military tribunals, but the whole "fight them there so they don't fightthem at home" mentality.

A little perspective is in order - you put a bull in a china shop, trying to keep the china in France from breaking becomes ever harder.

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 09:30:56 AM EST

Re: Wonder what HRW says about (none / 1)

I don't believe they have anything nice to say about the US system but that has precisely no relevance to how the French - or any of the other European countries, who are mostly pretty shitty on this front - run theirs. Or are you intending to use the at-least-it's-not-as-bad-as-the-US excuse?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 09:47:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonder what HRW says about (none / 0)

Well, there is that, but imho, and knowing again I will be in a minority here on this, a robust security policy is absolutely necessary for Europe as for any other sovereign nation. And, as mig aptly points out, the security policy they decry here can also be used to describe Spain's and any of a list of other EU member states. Again, at the risk of being unpopular here, that's not a bad thing imho. What, might I ask HRW, constitutes proper security measures to be taken against those who might be suspected in future involvement in hijacking a plane to crash into Paris or to bomb metro or rer stations or blowup a tgv rail as it passes from Lyon to Marseille? Maybe talk to them nicely and hope they start to feel guilty and open up to police with all their heart?

Thing with people like the good folks at HRW, is that they lose the forest for the trees. There is one overriding source of resentment which provokes the sorts of attitudes which lead to terrorism, and it is based in the same country where HRW is based. Its actions, its foreign policies, and not just in the past 8 years, but in most of the post-war period, are far and away the biggest driver of what now the rest of us need to defend against. And yet, and yet, HRW attacks symptoms, not the disease; it will take on torture by American authorities, it will take on Guantanamo, it will take on tribunals, but it won't call a duck a duck. Rogue regime, Washington DC, without whose actions we'd be far less likely to take more draconian security measures than we otherwise would like to. And so, I'd have an easier time taking more seriously HRW if they saw not just trees, but also the size of the forest they are describing and who is making that forest burn.

Further adding that, just because people resist the various us occupations accross the world, doesn't make those who resist our friends either.

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.

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:28:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonder what HRW says about (none / 1)

What do you mean by "robust", exactly? Detention without trial? Beatings? Sleep deprivation? Torture?

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.

Where's hereabouts refer to?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:34:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonder what HRW says about (none / 0)

Is there anything in the report which is torture? Beatings?

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.

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:48:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonder what HRW says about (4.00 / 2)

Use of evidence extracted by mistreatment and/or torture in foreign countries and evidence of mistreatment of suspects in custody. Not to mention procedures that seem designed to make it difficult for suspects to get fair process.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:51:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonder what HRW says about (none / 1)

The quotes in the diary are mostly about detention without charge, incommunicado detention and lack of habeas corpus or right to legal counsel.

redstar:

Is there anything in the report which is torture? Beatings?
I scanned the summary, and didn't see anything like that.

So read it instead of scanning it. France: Guilty-by-Association Prosecutions Violate Rights (Human Rights Watch, 2-7-2008)

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.

There's also

Prosecutions are often based on intelligence material, including from countries with poor records on torture, which defendants cannot effectively challenge.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:57:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Somebody get the wahhhhmbulance... (none / 0)

Well, that's what I linked to as well, above.

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.

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.

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:05:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonder what HRW says about (4.00 / 2)

redstar:

And, as mig aptly points out, the security policy they decry here can also be used to describe Spain's and any of a list of other EU member states.

Maybe aptly, but not as an endorsement.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:39:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Torture? Do Not Need, Do Not Want! (none / 1)

What [...] constitutes proper security measures to be taken against those who might be suspected in future involvement in hijacking a plane to crash into Paris or to bomb metro or rer stations or blowup a tgv rail as it passes from Lyon to Marseille? Maybe talk to them nicely and hope they start to feel guilty and open up to police with all their heart?

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I'll re-iterate a statistic I find rather important to this discussion: In Sweden, an extremely peaceful country with a population of about 9.5 million, there are 120 murders per year or thereabouts. Call it four murders for every 300 thousand citizens per year, or 1.3 murders pr. hundred thousand citizens per year.

Scaling this to the European Union as a whole (400 million people), and noting that this is a conservative estimate, since few countries are as generally peaceful and uninfested by violent crime as Sweden, we get somewhere around six and a half thousand murders per year.

In other words, we could have two 9/11s per year in the EU alone, and the risk for Death By Fedayeen would still be less than the risk for Death By Psychopath. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how many 9/11 equivalents we'd need pr. year to make Death By Fedayeen as probable as Death By Car Crash.

And that's even leaving aside all technical discussions about the efficiency of torture as well as the ethical questions about our right to violate human rights to protect ourselves.

Finally, I will note that any large-scale employment of torture and other assorted unpleasantness in counter-terrorism efforts is likely (no, virtually certain) to nurture a cadre of vicious thugs within our police force. Such a cadre can be used for many things, one of those things being suppressing legitimate political dissent.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:44:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torture? Do Not Need, Do Not Want! (4.00 / 2)

Most murders are not death by psychopath. How nicer would our societies be if people understood that the Hollywood psychopath serial murderer is as likely to kill you or your children as thunder and the like.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torture? Do Not Need, Do Not Want! (none / 0)

I know, but I needed a catchy phrasing :-P

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torture? Do Not Need, Do Not Want! (none / 1)

Noting further than the HRW report does not support the contention of large-scale torture.

As for low murder rates and their relative importance viz other ways to die, while I find this statistic quite heartening, it certainly doesn't provoke in me a sense that we best do without internal security or policing. And in any event, such a policy stance would be doomed to political failure in almost any environment. In fact, the left's too-casual refusal to take security seriously has been a perennial source of political weakness.

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:33:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torture? Do Not Need, Do Not Want! (4.00 / 4)

I take security as seriously as it needs to be taken. Which by the numbers is much less seriously than automobile accidents. I do get moderately pissed off at the fact that Serious People will flippantly talk about installing more and more cameras in subways and on subway stations; monitoring commuters supposedly in order to prevent terrorist attacks, but they will never, ever seriously consider putting a GPS and black box in every car to protect pedestrians from death-by-car. Evidently, people who travel by train and foot are much lower in the grand scheme of things than people who travel by car.
I don't advocate not doing policing or counter-espionage or counter-terrorism. I do advocate doing it by means that are not incompatible with maintaining a democratic state. That latter point actually strikes me as being rather important.
The left can never take security "seriously." No matter how far we triangulate, there will always be some insane wingnut who is prepared to one-up us. All we accomplish is - perhaps - some temporary respite (and probably not even that), but at the cost of moving the Overton window in the wrong direction.
When did human rights become a matter of political expediency?

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torture? Do Not Need, Do Not Want! (none / 1)

The right don't have a monopoly on authoritarian security policy: there's plenty on the muscular, manly left who wouldn't mind the cops roughing up a few darkies to make them feel safer.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:53:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torture? Do Not Need, Do Not Want! (none / 0)

Don't appreciate the implication I am a racist at all.

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torture? Do Not Need, Do Not Want! (4.00 / 2)

Wasn't aimed at you.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torture? Do Not Need, Do Not Want! (none / 1)

Point 2 well taken though I'm not sure the relevance to the article being debated.

Point 4 assumes human rights were systematically not respected. I don't think HRW makes that case.

Point 3 is, imho, Anglo-American centered in terms of outlook and not necessarily appropriate to other countries, and certainly not, imho, France. Much of point 1, esp as regards security cameras and the like, is similarly Anglo-american centered, in europe this is not the same issue and in any event HRW doesn't talk about at all.

As for the traffic fatalities point you make in your first point, you'll note that in France this is taken quite seriously, and with great success (the old figure used to be 8,000/annum,, now it is moving towards 4,000). Unfortunately, in places like the US where the lily-livered civil libertarians object to camera radar (like the US), you'll not get far in driving towards better vehicle safety like in France.

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torture? Do Not Need, Do Not Want! (none / 0)

Point 3 is, imho, Anglo-American centered in terms of outlook and not necessarily appropriate to other countries, and certainly not, imho, France.

I can't speak to the French political culture with any authority, but I can offer you the Danish example to consider. The basic trend was there before, but after 9/11 the Social Democrats embraced "security" with hitherto unseen gusto. In fact, they were instrumental in legitimising the terror laws passed in 2001/02 (which by the way have been used in one (1) case since they were introduced: Collective charges brought against Greenpeace for a completely non-violent protest carried out by a handful of activists who may or may not even have had a political mandate).

Surely they received credit for their seriousness? Surely no-one would accuse the Social Democrats of not taking their responsibility towards national security seriously? Wrong and wrong. I could dig out media reports from the past year or two to prove this point beyond reasonable doubt, but they would all be in Danish and besides, it's a pretty dull and depressing exercise.

Much of point 1, esp as regards security cameras and the like, is similarly Anglo-american centered, in europe this is not the same issue

You literally cannot take the train in Denmark without being captured on camera. You cannot buy food without being captured on camera. You cannot find a workplace where you will not be captured on camera. Tell me again how this is not a European issue?

Now you might make the case that Denmark (and many other minor countries on the fringe of Europe) are heavily anglicised. I'll happily grant you that. But you'll be left with a damn small definition of Europe if you exclude any country that has been significantly anglicised. In fact, right off the bat I think you'd be down to the Free City of Brussels.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonder what HRW says about (4.00 / 5)

France has a long record on this, and it's proper to France. There was no US pressure, influence, example to follow, during the Algerian War, for example. And that's not actually an example, it's germane to the matter. Lack of concern for human rights, the use of torture, became systematic there. This has not been fully purged from the national conscience, and the ongoing ethics of anti-terrorist activity have come down with a certain amount of reduction (moderation) but without a really significant break since then.

OK, Sarkozy's influence is on the hardline side, and it may be fairly imagined that there's a US influence on Sarkozy (but does he need it to be a hardliner?). I find it difficult to absolve the French state of responsibility on such a slight basis.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:44:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonder what HRW says about (none / 1)

Understood, you are absolutely correct. It will probably take the death of another generation of political hacks before we can make peace with that past.

But I also understand that most if not all of these anti-terror measures have been in place for some time. Sarkozy is not responsible for all of them, and when you are talking about groups like the GIA, which we were dealing with not too long ago and which were killing french citizens whenever they could, it's not like dealing with psg supporters, whose groups are incidentally, if I remember my reading correctly, also infiltrated.

In other words, the massacres in the 1990's weren't being perpetrated, as in 1961, by French authorities...

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 10:57:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonder what HRW says about (4.00 / 3)

I agree that terrorism calls for efficient police action. Whether the "only way" to be efficient is stretching the limits on inhuman treatment/torture (that was what they said in Algeria...), and whether it's necessary to create breaches in the rule of law or in dispositions of the law that guarantee a minimum of rights, is the question. My feeling is that there's too ready a tendency to want to do that without really making a case for it.

The usual fallacy in these cases (as in the US or UK)is to shift the moral question to the individual, as in "If you knew this guy could tell you who was going to blow up a hundred people, what would you do to make him talk?" - which neatly evades the responsibility of public authorities and the centuries-long evolution of laws and conventions restraining the power of the state. And anyway, how often is really efficient police work in this situation?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 11:12:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonder what HRW says about (4.00 / 2)

Whether the "only way" to be efficient is stretching the limits on inhuman treatment/torture (that was what they said in Algeria...)

We saw how well that turned out in Algeria...

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 at 01:32:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HRW not impressed by French anti-terrorism system | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]