Security Risk

"One reason is that--or, at least, so I suspect--our security apparatus is just not as professional and alert as are the French police and intelligence services."

Yup, and this is almost entirely the fault of the Democrats. They have for the last 40 years weakened our intelligence services. And anybody who normally votes for Democrats shares in the responsibility for this mess. Remember Senator Frank Church? This is simply another reason why the Democratic Party cannot be trusted with defending our country. There is little doubt but that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are waiting to get their opportunity to similarly harm the United States. After all, Reid once bragged about gutting the Patriot Act. We should also remember that Joseph Lieberman is not the Democratic Party candidate in Connecticut.

thomsondavid provides a useful insight on the true-believer mentality of the rabid right. Did he read teplukhin's post?:

"French anti-terrorism prosecutors and investigators are among the most powerful in Europe, backed by laws that allow them to interrogate suspects for days without interference from defense attorneys."

Would he rather have our justice system allow to resemble the French? Sadly, I think his answer would be "YES!"

Would he rather allow our justice system to resemble the French?

Marty, in listing possible protesters, didn't include the absense of the very protester that would otherwise impede decisive action against domestic terrorists: lawyers.

backed by laws that allow them to interrogate suspects for days without interference from defense attorneys.

Indeed. This is the key. You know, it's interesting, while the American Left are screaming about how the Patriot Act has turned America into a police state, their Francophone soulmates are giving themselves powers that Dick Cheney can only dream about.

Actually, Bruguiere's claim that his "leeway to lock up suspects while he carries out investigations" has "no equivalent elsewhere in Europe" is not quite right. Denmark, which has its own jihadi imams and idle suburban hooligans, for a long time has had varetaegts-arrest or "remand arrest," in which the suspect is jailed during an investigation. For example, a newspaper headline from this time last year: "Two men remand-jailed in "honor" killing case" (Berlingske Tidende) (Total of eight relatives involved in murder of husband and wife, who married without family permission.) Though this is not exactly an al Qaeda case, it would certainly qualify as domestic terror in a civilized country. I think that other European countries have this kind of measure.

Interestingly, France has always had a juge d'instruction, who can participate in the investigation while acting as magistrate and who could remand suspects, though I understand that the remand power was curtailed. I wonder if, in the post-9/11 era, it's been restored. In fact, Bruguiere sounds like a juge d'instruction with remand power.

Anyway, in Europe, concepts like due process and habeas corpus are interpreted differently and are not open to the same degree of litigation as they are here. I think American law enforcement would gladly trade their constraints for those of any Western European country, even pre-9/11. The European version of the familiar American platitude might be, "We are a nation of laws, not lawyers."

PS: thorprovolone blames everything, from global warming to Boy George, on the Zionists. thomsondavid blames the Democrats.

for a very long time. (Incidentally, they have protected luggage from pilferage by shrink-wrapping since at least 1995). And they are very good at anti-terrorist measures - how many terrorist ataacks have been successfully prosecuted on French soil in the last 20 years? This despite a huge Muslim population (it is 40% in some cities like Lille), with an unemployment rate of over 25% among the young.

Is it possible that they were right about invading Iraq, and that Bushco, rather than demonising the French in the most juvenile manner, should rather have listened to their advice?

I understand that the remand power was curtailed. I wonder if, in the post-9/11 era, it's been restored

IIUC it would seem that France had its own 9/11 experience in the mid-80s, with the wave of Algerian terror in Paris and elsewhere. Apparently that's when Brugiere was given much of the vast power he has.

Is it possible that they were right about invading Iraq, and that Bushco, rather than demonising the French in the most juvenile manner, should rather have listened to their advice?

Except that it wasn't Paris that was attacked. It wasn't so much that France didn't participate but that France was perceived, rightly I think, as actively impeding American action, to the point of sabotage. This is not the first time France has behaved this way -- we're talking a long history of perfidy.

That said, I think domestically France is institutionally better suited to dealing with domestic terrorists than USA. As for political will, I guess it depends. Seems there is more political will in dealing with cells and cadres than with street mobs, which are regarded by many French as just another part of the political process. I mean, they let dogs shit on the sidewalk, why not let mobs torch cars?

Except also that Paris, specifically ChIrak and his cronies inside that French political slushfund known as TotalFinaElf, were trashing the very sanctions/containment policy that was the alternative to war. Deal of the century, Nov 2002: Total signs sweetheart deal with Saddam for exclusive rights to develop one-third of Iraq's entire oil reserves.

Wow! Just like the shit on the sidewalk -- takes you breath away.

I have no idea why this was not more widely reported. This was to my mind the major reason for supporting the war: the sanctions by late 2002 were finished, and with them, containment was finished-- thanks to Total's minders in the Elysee (and LUKoil's masters in the Kremlin).

I knew France's (and Russia's) position wasn't principled -- well beyond the principle of money. I knew it was about the oil, which is rich, considering that the wing-nuts said that's all we were supposed to be thinking about. But I hadn't heard it put as succinctly as you just did.

Actually it had less to do with $ (although we know from Saddam's documents that under OFF a payment of $91m was made to the "Office of the Russian President"-- wonder if it went directly to Putin's numbered account in Geneva?) than with politics. Saddam was out of his "cage" because the French and Russians deliberately left the latch open. Through him they had a toehold and a bit of influence in the region. They viewed his overthrow as a disaster for their interests in the region.

The French view of our reaction to terrorism is motivated primarily by their refusal to be seen as part of an American led enterprise and their general anti-Americanism. Their entire legal and political structure is much less open than ours, and much less protective of civil liberties. That's old stuff, well known.

Except that about 20 years ago it became a lot less "open" and "protective of civil liberties". Care to guess why, bkinfo? (Hint: not every sparrow that falls on this planet is due to America's fell hand.)