To Do The French Way, Double the Play

[Darth Rotor]

Interesting article here on French anti terrorism efforts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37118405/ns/world_news-washington_post/page/2/
What I found to be of interest in the linked article was how the French approach to anti-terrorism was, for the most part, done without making a lot of noise about it. Contrast that to the inability to keep one's mouth shut on our side of the pond, one example of thousands linked here.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/decl...etermined-than-ever-to-attack-inside-u-s.aspx

See also today's news story on just how and why the FBI is raiding various dens related to the recent failed bomb attack in NYC. OPSEC violation!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37128015/ns/us_news-security/

Agents searched locations on Long Island in New York, near Boston in Massachusetts, and in Connecticut, NBC's Pete Williams said. Federal authorities are investigating whether alleged bomber Faisal Shahzad used money exchanges, or halawas, to get cash from Pakistan.

Unnecessary "look how clever we are" discussed in open media. Sort of like Rumsfeld and his imfamous lines about the phone calls he made to a few Iraqi generals just before the war: a "look how clever I am moment" that was a pure OPSEC violation.

While I am not impressed with the simplistic contrast attempted by the article's author, action versus defense, I am gratified by what look to be effective methods of operational security, humint cultivation and exploitation, and attacking the depth and breadth of associations to include even minor logistic or support relationships. <------- That sort of approach gets branded "racism" elsewhere. The French seem a bit more realistic than altruistic in this regard.

Bien.

Francois Heisbourg, a defense specialist who played a key role in drafting the white paper outlining France's antiterrorism policies, noted that French and other European police also have more latitude in dealing with terrorism suspects than their American counterparts.

The DCRI, for instance, has been exempted from oversight by France's National Committee on Computer Science and Liberties, allowing it to monitor computer messages and Islamic Web sites without outside restriction.

French police can demand a show of identity for no specific reason, Heisbourg recalled, and can hold suspects for questioning over two days — or more in terrorism cases — without intervention by defense lawyers. Police and prosecutors in other European countries have similar latitude.

"Even though we're similarly democratic, we have very different views of the practical application of those values," said Kenneth Wainstein, homeland security and counterterrorism adviser to President George W. Bush and a former assistant attorney general for national security. "I recall being surprised when our European counterparts discussed cracking down on jihadist rhetoric on the Internet. That would never fly here. For us, much of that rhetoric would be protected by the First Amendment."

Another point is that the scope and scale of the French effort is less than ours, though their longer relationships in the Magreb and Africa in general present a higher likelihood of home grown cells.

DR

 

[INRM]

So basically the French way is to be extremely secretive, circumventing constitutional and oversight protections to allow them the latitude to do what they want without having to face criticism for potentially engaging in conduct that may be considered unethical, against the rule of law, and dangerous even, with the ability to to allow the people to be detained longer without right to counsel?

The fact that Peter Neumann is the director of what appears to be a policy-institute, and their suggestions about there not being sufficient latitude in America to deal with the terrorist threat suggests to me that there is a desire to loosen the restrictions on what can and cannot be done in America as well as elsewhere. I think the War on Terror has given governments way too much power to deal with the threat, and civil liberties have steadily declined from 2001 to 2009.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So basically the French way is to be extremely secretive, circumventing constitutional and oversight protections to allow them the latitude to do what they want without having to face criticism for potentially engaging in conduct that may be considered unethical, against the rule of law, and dangerous even, with the ability to to allow the people to be detained longer without right to counsel?

Since the French Constitution, and the laws they have chosen to enact to handle this matter, are not identical to the American constitution, I have a hard time following your reasoning here. I am dead certain that the American methods in the information war continue to be crap, part of which is the inability to maintain effective OPSEC. You don't tell your enemy how you are countering him. Loose lips sink ships, see the Falklands and the BBC in re bombs, and fusing, for a modest example of what I am talking about.

The fact that Peter Neumann is the director of what appears to be a policy-institute, and their suggestions about there not being sufficient latitude in America to deal with the terrorist threat suggests to me that there is a desire to loosen the restrictions on what can and cannot be done in America as well as elsewhere. I think the War on Terror has given governments way too much power to deal with the threat, and civil liberties have steadily declined from 2001 to 2009.

The French may be willing to put up with more of that than Americans are, culturally and politically. If you look at their situation, in terms of proximity and the embedded Islamist threat within elements of their own population, perhaps their response meets a good balance, and perhaps our civil liberties concerns ought to be leaked across the pond.

I was hoping, by posting in this sub forum, to elicit comments/insights from some of our European friends.

DR

 

[INRM]

Darth Rotor,

The French may be willing to put up with more of that than Americans are, culturally and politically. If you look at their situation, in terms of proximity and the embedded Islamist threat within elements of their own population, perhaps their response meets a good balance, and perhaps our civil liberties concerns ought to be leaked across the pond.

I think our civil liberties concerns need to be leaked across the pond...

 

[Thunder]

oooh.........the way....au Francais?

 

[Dorian Gray]

So basically the French way is to be extremely secretive, circumventing constitutional and oversight protections to allow them the latitude to do what they want without having to face criticism for potentially engaging in conduct that may be considered unethical, against the rule of law, and dangerous even, with the ability to to allow the people to be detained longer without right to counsel?

The fact that Peter Neumann is the director of what appears to be a policy-institute, and their suggestions about there not being sufficient latitude in America to deal with the terrorist threat suggests to me that there is a desire to loosen the restrictions on what can and cannot be done in America as well as elsewhere. I think the War on Terror has given governments way too much power to deal with the threat, and civil liberties have steadily declined from 2001 to 2009.

It sounds like the American way is exactly like the French way, only minus the extreme secrecy, plus the criticism, and instead of two days, we get infinite days.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It sounds like the American way is exactly like the French way, only minus the extreme secrecy, plus the criticism, and instead of two days, we get infinite days.

Not to mention armpits and legs more often shaved ... but at least similar in most respects.

DR

 

[INRM]

Dorian Gray

It sounds like the American way is exactly like the French way, only minus the extreme secrecy, plus the criticism, and instead of two days, we get infinite days.

The ability to do what was done in the US under Bush without criticism and greater secrecy would be far more dangerous. People wouldn't know it was happening and thus few people could oppose it, hence the lack of criticism.

Could you imagine how much worse Bush would have behaved if he could have kept everything he was doing secret?

The ability to lock a person up forever without right to counsel is a very dangerous thing, and the Military Commissions Act, is still on the books in the United States.