In Battling Terrorism, the French Excel

[M2]

They should, there are more fucking Muslims in France then there are French! But as much as I hate to say it, maybe we can learn something from the French...we can start by pulling our heads out our asses when it comes to putting civil liberties blindly ahead of domestic security. It is not that I am against the former, it is just that no one seems to realize that if you are truly innocent, you have nothing to worry about when it comes to domestic surveillance targeting potential terrorists. I would gladly sacrifice a few of my personal liberties for the greater good of this country...I've already done that my entire adult life!

Cheers! M2

In Battling Terrorism, the French Excel

March 25, 2008 — Jeremy Shapiro joins NPR's Alison Stewart to discuss how France has become the most effective counter-terrorism practitioner in Europe.

ALISON STEWART, host: The French excel at many things, red wine, perfumes, silk scarves, and fighting terrorism. Because of a unique system where intelligence and the judicial communities work in tandem, France is considered to have one of the best track records on keeping its citizenry safe after a few decades of considerable fear.

Now, considering a recording attributed to Osama bin Laden threatened attacks in Europe, reprisals for running cartoons depicting Allah in some European papers, and just yesterday al-Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a new audio tape calling for attacks in American targets, perhaps the U.S. should take a look at the French model, or maybe not. Here to help us consider this is Jeremy Shapiro, director of research at the Center of the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution. Jeremy, thank you for being with us.

JEREMY SHAPIRO: Thanks for having me.

STEWART: Now, at two points in the past two decades, mid-'90s, mid-'80s, France was dealing with a series of attacks internally, department stores, trains. Why, at the time, did it seem to be infested with terror cells?

SHAPIRO: Well, it seems as if, particularly in the 1970s, France essentially allowed itself to be a sanctuary for terrorists, as long as they wouldn't attack French interests, and as long as they wouldn't operate within France. And this, over time, proved to be a problem, because when the interest of the groups changes or when the international situation changed, they decided to lash out at France. And of course, they were well-placed to do so.

STEWART: So the French just basically did not poke the hornet's nest internally?

SHAPIRO: Yeah, precisely. This is a common strategy, actually. We saw it in London in the 1990s. We've seen it in the U.S., even, with regard to Irish terrorists in the 1970s.

STEWART: Now, the French moved to a manage-and-minimize strategy, from suppression to prevention. Can you describe the changes French intelligence services made that took care of the past problems and possible thwarted problems in the future?

SHAPIRO: Well, one of the things they noticed, particularly after the '80s and '90s, was that it wasn't enough to simply be able to respond to the attacks. You had to get into the networks. You had to get into the logistical networks and that meant sort of increasing surveillance on the society and their ability to bring into play judicial tools before what they had previously considered crimes even took place. And so they created both a crime of what we would call conspiracy, and also an organization which could act with judicial powers even before violent acts had taken place.

STEWART: Let's break down a couple of the things you talked about, because that's a bunch of different ideas. The French, they've chosen to live with this very different standard of surveillance than we have in the United States. Describe the kind of surveillance that's allowed.

SHAPIRO: The French have really extensive domestic surveillance. They have a domestic intelligence agency which - they have two domestic intelligence agencies, but one of them basically just does surveillance. They are placed in more or less every town. They go into mosques and churches. They take polls - secret polls of the countryside to figure out what people are thinking. And it's generally assumed in France that the government is looking at what you are doing.

(Source, and you can listen to the full interview here)

[usaf36031]

I partially agree. Is it necessary to compromise on certain things in order to ensure safety and security? Yes.

Should we be unconcerned about the government running unchecked all over our civil liberties? absolutely not.

We fight and die for freedom. When does freedom stop being worth it?

[brabus]

You're both definitely right. No we should not let the govt take a massive amount of our civil liberties...those are the whole point of our country. But, I think the article and M2 are talking about simple stuff that should not be a big deal to you if you're a "good" and "innocent" person. For example, I remember tons of uproars about putting video cameras in public high schools. Mine installed them back when I was a sophomore or something like that. People bitched their eyes out about freedom, etc. Well, cameras in a high school should not matter one bit as long as you're not trying to make drug deals in the hall or something. It's stupid to even complain about. Or how about even email/cellphone "tapping". Do I really give a shit if some computer software reads my emails or listens on my phone calls for key words/phrases? I don't give a fuck b/c I don't have anything to hide. It's not like some guy is sitting there reading my emails and then using them as gossip topics around the water cooler or using that info against me as blackmail. So as long as you're not a terrorist, you don't have one good reason to be against that. I don't care about you whining about "but my email is private!" Yeah, well mine and my family's lives are more important than your emails bitching about your shitty marriage to your sister. Point is, all the info gathered from sources/methods like those are simply used for security and will not be used against you in any other way.

[usaf36031]

I'm always wary of the whole "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument. Of course if anti-terror legislation is used just to catch terrorists, and never abused, then I will have no problem.

My only concern is that when restrictions on the ability of government to infringe on privacy are removed, it becomes much much easier for the people (corruptable) who are running it to abuse it. History has shown that when a government is given enough power, tyranny becomes inevitable. Any dictatorship, absolute monarchy or fascist regime that has ever existed eventually comes to demonstrate this. Our rights and freedoms are what make us different from any government which has existed before us.

That is why I get nervous when i'm presented with that justification. Of course I want to be safe, of course security is important. I just don't accept the "trust us and everything will be ok" mentality.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny".

— Thomas Jefferson

[M2]

Y'know, I get the same feeling when someone puts a 200+ year old quote from one of the founding fathers! The threat we face today would have been unfathomable to them, and too much has changed to apply their philosophy blindly. Heck, if you go on their word, we should've had numerous revolutions since 1776, but that hasn't happened either.

No one is advocating a surviellance free-for-all, but we have to be realistic about this. There have been some huge changes in the collection ROE since 9/11, and I was lucky enough to sit in on a brief given by the Director of NSA to the ACC staff at the time on what the new rules were. But I still think we need to come to the stark reality that if we allow these self-imposed restrictions to continue, the only people we are hindering is ourselves. It is an Archille's Heal and one terrorists are well aware of and will exploit.

In as much as I hate to say it, the French "get it" and we don't. What will it take for us to clue in, another 9/11???

Cheers! M2

[brabus]

What will it take for us to clue in, another 9/11???

Sadly, I will not be surprised when it does take another one to get some people to pull their heads out of their asses.

[usaf36031]

Y'know, I get the same feeling when someone puts a 200+ year old quote from one of the founding fathers!

Wow. Until today I'd never met an American who thinks that the founding father's views on government have become obsolete. Unbelievable. Maybe that constitution which was written around the same time period by the same people is obsolete too. I hear that Belarus has some great security measures in place.

Clearly a balance needs to be struck, but completely sacrificing our values out of fear is exactly what Osama sits in his little cave dreaming about.

[M2]

OK, genius, tell me where I said "obsolete?" Your words, not mine. Plus, you can't seriously believe that there have been no disagreements with the principles on which the founding fathers set this nation in motion? Do some research...start with the Second Amendment, that should be fun! I'll make it easy on you, just watch this; then get back to me on how every American you have ever met has agreed with each and every view the founding fathers had. I'll be waiting...

Cheers! M2

[usaf36031]

"The threat we face today would have been unfathomable to them, and too much has changed to apply their philosophy blindly. " - M2

Obsolete, adj. - a: no longer in use, b: of a kind or style no longer current - Webster

You implied the quote isn't valid because of both it's age and the fact that "too much has changed" for it to be relavent. I guess I just connected the dots. Also, when did I ever say "blindly"? your words, not mine.

As far as research, I think i'll let my History degree check that box.

I also never said that every american agrees with everything the founding fathers did. I said that you're the first one I've encountered to disregard the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson because the quote is "old" and you know better.

That's why there have been amendments to the constitution...b/c they were smart enough to know that there would be a need for changes. But there's a reason that they're rediculously hard to create, so that people don't knee jerk and do something stupid.

Here's something for you to read up on, Do you honestly think that this is the first time that the US has faced threats from within that tempted us to sacrifice freedom and rational thinking for perceived security?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

I'll be waiting...

[Guest Fogo]

Y'know, I get the same feeling when someone puts a 200+ year old quote from one of the founding fathers! The threat we face today would have been unfathomable to them

"Shack."

How often do people say "that doesn't work anymore' or "things aren't the way they used to be." How come that doesn't apply when people go back over 200 years to quote our founding fathers? Were they great men who founded our country? Damn right they were. But many of these men also believed in slavery... and we no longer have that. Most of them would have said women or non land owners shouldn't vote... everyone can now vote. And on, and on and on.

Big Brother surely doesn't need to be everywhere, but he needs to be a lot of places he wasn't 7 years ago. Yes the "if not doing wrong dont worry" argument is a canned one, and I use it all the time too, but where is the fault? If someone can show me where any American citizens have been detained for terrorist conspiracy because their email about the latest events in their life to their family was read... maybe I'll change my tune.

Ask it to yourself this way, and then try to formulate an argument. "If the US could significantly hinder the ability of terrorists to plan and execute and all you had to do was settle for your emails, or phone calls or library books be monitored do you really think its not worth it?"

... I bet the families of those inside the WTC on 9/11 would call you pretty selfish.

[usaf36031]

Yes the "if not doing wrong dont worry" argument is a canned one, and I use it all the time too, but where is the fault? If someone can show me where any American citizens have been detained for terrorist conspiracy because their email about the latest events in their life to their family was read

Is that what it would take? Listen, my concern isn't that it's happening now at crisis levels, but that we're laying the foundation FOR IT TO HAPPEN.

Don't think the "patriot" act is already being abused? Dig a little. Google works.

Did the founding fathers know anything about wiretaps, international terrorism or Al Qaeda? Of course not. Did they know a thing or two about balancing power in order to ensure lasting liberty for Americans? You bet your ass they did. That's why protecting the judicial process is VITAL.

And as for the 9/11 comment, YGBFSM!

Just like you I joined the military to fight for those families and the freedoms that they love, and to protect the constitution and the liberties that it guarantees. I just never thought that I'd have to be defending them from a fellow member of the military. Jesus, I can't believe I'm the only one arguing this point.

Al-Qaeda cannot defeat the United States. They know that. What can they do?

Change our way of life to the point that our country is no longer recognizable even to those who live in it.

[usaf36031]

But many of these men also believed in slavery... and we no longer have that. Most of them would have said women or non land owners shouldn't vote... everyone can now vote. And on, and on and on.

Also...read what I wrote above about "constitutional amendments". Then find a list of them and I bet you'll find those two examples somewhere in there.

[Guest Fogo]

I'm aware of constitutional amendments... just like you I went to college. Political science to boot. I'm not messing with that one.

As for the "having to defend against a fellow servicemember" comment... do you really think I am sitting here saying I am ok with the government being everywhere and knowing my every move?

Can Al Queda beat us? Of course not, you are correct. But they can strike disaster... and they have proven that.

Listen, if you want to sit here and think M2 and I are advocating a 1984-esque society, then whatever, we can't force you to see our point. I guess we choose to error on the side of protecting us from enemies (both foreign and domestic... I'm just as worried about people already over here half the time) even if its at the expense of a few civil liberties. I'm not buying your slippery slope argument, I don't think watching emails and websites visited and tapping phone lines will lead to any government mind control or complete lack of privacy or freedom. You'll say I am naive' and that it does... difference of opinion.

Just this week we've got people protesting like crazy everywhere the Olympic torch goes. What would China do if that happened? Probably whoop some ass. Instead, we hide the torch, take it underground, put hundreds of police that could be out doing other things around it.... I think we're a long way from our rights and privacy being stripped beyond an acceptable level... but we're sure a lot closer than a few years ago to a safer nation.

edited for formatting

Edited April 10, 2008 by Fogo

[usaf36031]

What would China do if that happened? Probably whoop some ass.

Is that better?

Look man, you seem pretty smart, and I really don't think that our opinions on the topic are that much at odds. I've conceded that some compromises are necessary, and we're making them, you've conceded that we ALSO need to keep our paranoia in check and keep an eye on exactly which freedoms we decide to give to "big brother". It's a thin line to walk.

I see both sides of the coin, I just chose to plant my heels on one side of the argument because M2 sounded to me to be so far toward the other.

[Container STS]

In as much as I hate to say it, the French "get it" and we don't. What will it take for us to clue in, another 9/11???

Cheers! M2

The French got it because they have capped-off their leaders and openly overthrown their political systems for centuries. They also rolled over to the Nazi's politically in WWII as a matter of convenience in individual self-survival rather than in the nation-state survival. American's will never accept a Russian tank rolling down Flat Bush Avenue but the French will if they can keep their Bistro's open. Therefore, I don't think French have a backbone - I don't think they get the integrity your allotting them on the basis of what they are doing is going to be productive. They are looking out for Pepe` Le`Pu.

And the US is not like France ATT ALL. Our per capita camel-jockey to all other demographics in the US does not compare to the French. I also don't see Muslims going apeshit in the streets burning cars and looting because they can't get a job or are racially profiled...and BTW they attacked us not France so you would figure we would have interned everybody in camps by now and be dealing with that kind of violence here.

Covert screening of US citizens with nothing to hide - do it all day man, hell, we have done it for decades. The open policy of it though is reprehensible and the founding fathers know it! I hold military opinions no closer than I can shake stick because they often are MILITARY solutions to a complex social problem. There will be another 9/11. There always will be one around the corner - history has GUARANTEED us that. I will take that and the relighting of Ol Liberty's torch so we can skull-F%*K the bad guys (TY CH) over burning her skirt up with street protests [as the Ghostbusters said, she is French underneath :) ]

I have rolled over more than a few times thinking about what your suggesting M2, and it is awfully easy to come to that because it makes sense to defend our country, but when I do accept that as a feasibility, a part of me says it goes against the principles of our constitution so I accept your solution as inappropriate.

Talk amongst yourselves....I'll pick a subject

[Guest Fogo]

Is that better?

Look man, you seem pretty smart, and I really don't think that our opinions on the topic are that much at odds. I've conceded that some compromises are necessary, and we're making them, you've conceded that we ALSO need to keep our paranoia in check and keep an eye on exactly which freedoms we decide to give to "big brother". It's a thin line to walk.

I see both sides of the coin, I just chose to plant my heels on one side of the argument because M2 sounded to me to be so far toward the other.

I'd rather be debating with someone that cares enough to know there are multiple sides than someone dead set one way or the other. If more people took the time to educate themselves enough, we'd have more thought provoking conversations and solutions and less whining.

As for the China quote, I think I just didn't elaborate. You are correct, the "whooping" ass option is not better, just making the comparison.

Thin line indeed.... lets hope we aren't walking that tight rope without a net.

Cheers

Fogo

[czecksikhs]

Young Hadjis in France tremble at the might of the French police machine.

Seems to me their uber-surveillance has missed the fact that a statistically significant portion of their population is Hadj, jobless, and hates their adopted nation. I could have saved them millions of bucks, or whatever it is they spend.

[Ill Destructor]

I'm all for surveillance in public areas... keyword being public. This includes the Internet, phone systems, mail systems, road systems, etc. Worried on the Internet? Encrypt your communications. You can encrypt your email to levels that simply can't be cracked. It's when they start demanding surveillance in my home that I'll have a problem. Until then, have at it fuckers.

As for the argument raging about the Founding Fathers and their views as applied today... I really think the FF left us the best framework possible for a government. I truly believe in smaller government and will always watch with a weary eye as the government gets bigger. As should all Americans.