| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Europe | |
| The French Experience of Counter-Terrorism (Brookings Institution Study) | |
| 2004-04-17 | |
| Excerpt... In short, in 1980, French authorities could not even identify a foreign terrorist attack in the middle of Paris after it had happened. In 1999, they possessed a detailed understanding of a terrorist cell in another country plotting attacks against yet a third country. This striking contrast reflects a more general increase in the French capacity to prevent and fight terrorism, both at home and abroad. Throughout the 1980s and much of the 1990s, France was considered a haven for international terrorists, both for those operating in France and those using France as a base for operations elsewhere. By the late 1990s, in contrast, France had scored notable successes in preventing planned terrorist attacks on the World Cup in 1998, against the Strasbourg Cathedral in 2000 and against the American Embassy in Paris 2001.
| |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #8 the French police have VERY aggressive passport control ops Except for the 10,000 that got away... |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-04-18 2:00:25 AM |
| #7 I think the point about the French Security forces is well taken--I was in Paris after the St Michel bombingl and on the metro--the French police have VERY aggressive passport control ops going on there everyday--anyone that looked Arab on the Metro had to produce identification. |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2004-04-18 1:56:29 AM |
| #6 Again I argue that Islamic terrorists have declared war on the US,so if captured,they should be treated as POWs,who can be held until war is over.Attempts to try them in the Criminal justice system will ultimately fail-or lead to degrading of rights of US citizens.Prosecution will not be able to enter evidence in open court due to security reasons;it is incredibly hard to get convictions for actions that haven't happened(meaning no preventive action-and hard to deny bail);intel/witnesses provided by other govt.s may not be made available to US courts.Frustration w/lack of criminal convictions could lead to new laws/rules for "anti-terror" trials that will inevitably be (mis)used on standard criminal trials. The argument favoring treating the I.T.s as criminals mainly rests on belief that since these people are various nationalities and don't call a particular country "home",that the I.T.s are not a Wilsonian Nation-State,and must therefore be thought of as part of criminal conspiracy,similar to Mafia and Drug Cartels. I believe this is a misreading of reality.The Islamic Terrorists seek to destroy Western Culture(with the US as primary target)-not to make money.A more appropriate analogy would be the various Ancient Germanic assualts upon Roman Empire.A coalition would arise of various tribes and individuals who had no homeland would attack the Romans.The Romans considered themselves at war with that coalition even tho there was no Nation-State that the coalition called home. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-04-17 2:43:52 PM |
| #5 But the problems are:- 1) Will GTMO last as a long-term measure? Suppose JFK becomes president - will he keep GTMO? The French counter-terrorism structure (according to the article) has become resistent to the whims of whoever is in power (like Chiraq and Villeneuve). 2) Isn't GTMO only be for terrorists picked up outside USA? Courts will assert their rights when terrorists are picked up inside USA in any case, won't they? So you'll need a good streamlined anti-terrorist judicial system anyway. |
| Posted by: A 2004-04-17 2:41:08 PM |
| #4 Curtis: not so. We could certainly develop a parallel court system to deal with non-Americans who attack Americans here at homre or around the world. Nothing in the Constitution forbids that -- in fact, it gives the Congress the right to establish whatever "inferior courts" (subject to the USSC) we might require (Congress has done so before, special maritime and bankruptcy courts, etc). We could establish anti-terrorism courts, stipulate that American citizens canNOT be tried in them, and work to establish proper rules of procedure, evidence, etc. As long as the USSC has final jurisdiction as the last court of appeal, it would be constitutional. With proper rules it would work and help us process the terrorists we catch. Why, it could even specify places of confinement, such as Gitmo. Bwahahahaha! |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-04-17 2:34:25 PM |
| #3 A really, REALLY good terrorist is a lawabiding, God worshipping, model citizen until the DAY he greases scores or hundreds or thousands of innocents. The Germans just let a couple of murderous terrorist bastards off due to the use of traditional legalism to deal with the pukes. Better to ship a suspected terrorist-to-be off to GTMO, than try to make a legal case against the suspected terrorshit in the absence of carnage. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-04-17 12:55:43 PM |
| #2 The American legal system is for American citizens, screw the enemy. |
| Posted by: curtis 2004-04-17 10:28:58 AM |
| #1 An extremely interesting article. Some of the highlights I would pick out:- 1) The way that France moved from a policy of sanctuary to accommodation, and then to suppression and finally to prevention of terrorism suggests that this is a route to be urged on countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. When the terrorists strike at a country that has been giving them sanctuary or accommodating them (as has happened in the aforementioned countries) this political shift can occur. 2) The incorporation of anti-terrorism into legal rather than extra-legal forms should be a long-term goal, and America has a long way to go to achieve this. In other words the Guantanamo Bay solution should only be considered makeshift and ways to prosecute terrorists within the normal American justice system should be found. 3) The depoliticisation of anti-terrorist activity is a key measure as it does not rely on the whims of the current government. |
| Posted by: A 2004-04-17 9:25:39 AM |