Immigration Another Paris Terror Plot?

[Angela]

See:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...est-people-suspected-planning-imminent-attack

It doesn't seem as if they had much of an arsenal.

 

[bicicleur 2]

They didn't find explosives in Brussel either, only firearms and an ISIS flag. There was some serious shooting tough.
There must be another adress where they hide explosives.

Saleh Abdeslam is still on the run.

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

The fact that they couldn't catch him hints toward a still unknown network existing near Brussels that helped him hide.

 

[LeBrok]

Congratulation to Belgium and French police for disrupting terrorist plot, and killing a terrorist.

 

[bicicleur 2]

They suspect many more plots are going on.
Few days ago a car bomb exploded premature in Berlin. Only the driver was killed.

 

[bicicleur 2]

according to the experts there is something going on, ISIS plans coordinated attacks on multiple European cities this spring

this spring ISIS would start crumbling in Syria, and these attacks would be excellent publicity for ISIS drawing away attention from their problems in Syria

what happened now in Brussels and Paris is a setback for them, but it won't change their plans

http://www.knack.be/nieuws/wereld/a...cial&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1458233078

 

[Maciamo]

It doesn't seem as if they had much of an arsenal.

They didn't find explosives in Brussel either, only firearms and an ISIS flag. There was some serious shooting tough.

If Europe had the same rights to bear fire arms as in the USA it would be nearly impossible for the police to arrest any terror suspect considering that so far the only proofs they have to arrest them is the presence of fire arms. No wonder that the US government has no other choice but to actively spy on its citizens and pass laws like the Patriot Act to prevent terrorist attacks. It would be much easier if there was a general ban on fire arms like in Europe.

That being said, the French and Belgian police are nowhere as efficient as the American police. It's actual one of the main reasons why terrorist plots can take place so easily. It's not that these Maghreban terrorists are so clever or well-organised, it's just that the police here is so abysmally inefficient that they even manage to let them escape when they plan an attack to catch them! This does not make the population feel like they are protected.

 

[Angela]

As to the police forces of these countries, I'm not certain about the Belgian ones, and they have certainly seemed pretty flat footed, but the French security and police forces have a good reputation indeed as being very tough and capable. If there has been a political decision in both countries not to risk major conflicts and large scale rioting with restive Muslim enclaves by going in force into some of these places to cordon off certain estates and conduct massive searches and round-ups, that can't be laid at their door; that responsibility lies solely with politicians and bureaucrats.

As for civil liberties, one of the reasons for the "tough" reputation of French police and security personnel among American law enforcement officials is partly because of their "aggressive" interrogation techniques even of people for whom "reasonable cause" to detain, much less arrest, is very flimsy by our standards. They can be detained almost indefinitely on almost no grounds whatsoever by American standards, without counsel, and in circumstances, shall we say, with a lot of "stressers". It's impossible to get away with any of that here, Hollywood plot lines notwithstanding. There's also a very loose approach there to getting permission to tap lines and plant bugs compared to the hoops you have to jump here. The kinds of surveillance techniques that used to be used here in New York with regard to Muslim community centers and religious buildings, before they were suspended by the current Mayor, are very "mild" compared to what goes on in France.

I'm pretty familiar with both systems, and trust me, I would infinitely prefer to be under suspicion, much less arrested, in the U.S., whether guilty or innocent. Clearly, the European press doesn't do a very good job of reporting on the American system versus the European one.

I realize that discussing second amendment gun rights with Europeans is a lost cause so I'm not going to bother. All I'll say is that the presence of arms is not by any stretch of the imagination the only grounds upon which arrests can be made. Indeed in this very case, the arrest turned up only a single revolver.

 

[Maciamo]

As for civil liberties, one of the reasons for the "tough" reputation of French police and security personnel among American law enforcement officials is partly because of their "aggressive" interrogation techniques even of people for whom "reasonable cause" to detain, much less arrest, is very flimsy by our standards. They can be detained almost indefinitely on almost no grounds whatsoever by American standards, without counsel, and in circumstances, shall we say, with a lot of "stressers". It's impossible to get away with any of that here, Hollywood plot lines notwithstanding.

In France, a suspect can be held in custody for 24h to 72h depending on the type of crime suspected. But suspects have the right to contact a lawyer and wait for their lawyer's presence before they are interrogated (like in the US). In the UK and the US it is up to 96 hours. In Belgium, on the other hand, custody is always maximum 24 hours, even for suspected terrorists. There has been a certain amount of public debate recently as to whether it was necessary to extend it to 72 hours for suspected terrorists.

The rules are tougher in Japan, where the police can detain anyone for up to 48 hours without any evidence, without being charged of any crime, and start questioning without the presence of a lawyer. That, however, does not mean that Japanese police would be more efficient in fighting terrorism. Japan is such a peaceful country that the police would probably be at a loss to deal with heavily armed Muslim terrorists shooting at sight at the police, like in Brussels this week.

I'm pretty familiar with both systems, and trust me, I would infinitely prefer to be under suspicion, much less arrested, in the U.S., whether guilty or innocent. Clearly, the European press doesn't do a very good job of reporting on the American system versus the European one.

The press may hide how things really take place here, but from what we hear Americans are far harsher in their interrogation techniques, at least against (suspected) terrorists. I haven't heard of European equivalents to the interrogation techniques (often qualified as torture) used against terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay. If my sources are correct the US government even had to conduct those interrogations outside US soil to avoid legal repercussions.

 

[Maciamo]

The kinds of surveillance techniques that used to be used here in New York with regard to Muslim community centers and religious buildings, before they were suspended by the current Mayor, are very "mild" compared to what goes on in France.

I am surprised to hear that too. According to Privacy International's Surveillance Monitor 2007 - International country rankings (data map), the USA and the UK are the two developed countries that scored the worst for surveillance and privacy.

The survey takes into account 14 factors:

- Constitutional protection
- Statutory protection
- Privacy Enforcement
- Identity Cards and Biometrics
- Data-sharing
- Visual surveillance
- Communication interception
- Communication Data Retention
- Government Access to Data
- Workplace monitoring
- Surveillance of Medical, Financial, and Movement
- Border and trans-border issues
- Leadership
- Democratic safeguards

Countries get a score from 1 (extensive surveillance/leading in bad practice) to 5 (no invasive policy or widespread practice/leading in best practice) for each of those. The total is calculated by making the average of the 14 categories.

The lowest score was China with 1.3 points, but the UK and US are not far behind with 1.4 and 1.5 respectively. France is average with a score of 1.9, but Belgium is among the highest scoring countries with 2.7. Other top scorers were Germany (2.8) and Italy (2.8), Canada (2.9), and the highest score was for Greece (3.1).

No country got a score of 5 in any category. The US didn't score higher than 3 (for constitutional protection and communication data retention), but got a bottom score of 1 in 9 out of 14 categories.

The US and UK got a score of 1 for visual surveillance, and it's not surprising with all the CCTV cameras everywhere. I don't think it's a bad thing though. I wish there were more of them in Belgium to help catch criminals. I am a very private person but I know that once I step outside my house I enter the 'public domain' (I can't find the actual term) and should expect that all my movements and actions are recorded. That is what makes people respectful and law-abiding citizens. Before the age of CCTV, satellite surveillance and mobile phones recording people's conversations, people had to rely on religion for that purpose, believing that they should always be good because God was watching them all the time. Now we can be sure that we are being watched, but not by God. The only problem is that there is so many places without proper surveillance.

I am an Atheist but I believe that in order to be good citizens people should always behave as if they are being watched and judged all the time by the rest of society, and that their actions are constantly recorded as proof of their good behaviour. Ultimately, with the Internet of Everything recording everything everywhere all the time, and once data storage won't be an issue anymore, all our movements and actions will be recorded throughout our lives and kept for posterity. Children already have their behaviour rated by teachers at school (here they use colour dots from green to red to rate things like discipline, cooperation, motivation, etc and on a daily basis).

Now back to the topic, I don't have your background in law enforcement, Angela, and I have never lived in the USA, but if I am not mistaken laws can vary a lot between US states. For example it's ok to record what someone says on your smartphone without their consent in New York or Texas, but in California, Illinois or Massachusetts you'd need the approval of all parties involved (source). On a side note I personally believe that recording conversations should always be legal and even compulsory so that people cannot lie afterwards and claim they "never said that", and so that people can always be accountable for what they say anywhere, anytime. That's why I prefer written communication. You always have proof and you can look back at the record if someone's memory is failing.

Laws can vary so much between US states that the extremes are often more far apart than between any two Western European countries. Just look at cannabis laws: legal in some states and illegal to the point of landing you in prison in other states, while most Western European countries have decriminalised it or do not enforce laws against it (except oddly in France). I wish there that there was state by state data for the USA about surveillance laws to get a clearer picture. Maybe the surveillance techniques you were referring to in New York are especially mild by American standard and not representative of the US average. That is at least what the Privacy Internation report suggests.

Then there is the issue of how citizens of a country perceive the law. French speakers, like most Latins, tend to see the law as some kind of vague guidelines rather than as strict rules set in stone (as the Germans would). Just a look at the way French people drive confirms this. Road signs, speed limits and sometimes even traffic lights are seen as general recommendations if you have time to care for them. That's something that annoys me to no end, being more Germanic in my approach to the law (Germanic but not as inflexible as the Germans, as I value common sense over strict application of rules in any situation, more like the English actually). The problem is that when authorities take the same approach to the law, one's legal rights on paper end up being breached by the police, and that is often what happens in France (and other Latin countries). In many African countries, where people have a couldn't care less attitude at the extreme opposite of the Germans, laws don't have any meaning any more. They are just there to decorate or to make the international community happy.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Yesterday they caught the infamous terrorist Saleh Abdeslam who was still on the run after the Paris attack.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ed-in-brussels-anti-terror-raid-a6939216.html

But many people in Molenbeek were not pleased, there was a grimm atmosphere, with a lot of shouting and vandalism.

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/32616/Terr...ten-uitgejouwd-satellietwagens-bekogeld.dhtml

It is clear that there is a lot of sympathy for the terrorists and the Jihadi worriers in Molenbeek, much more than the people and the officials want to admit.
Sorry, I don't trust these people. Further actions are needed.


And another thing. They don't expect Saleh Abdeslam will speak.
Should he be isolated and should 'special interrogation techniques' be used?
I know it won't be allowed. But then they should realise that the chances to prevent succesful terror attacks diminish.

 

[Angela]

I am surprised to hear that too. According to Privacy International's Surveillance Monitor 2007 - International country rankings (data map), the USA and the UK are the two developed countries that scored the worst for surveillance and privacy.

The survey takes into account 14 factors:

- Constitutional protection
- Statutory protection
- Privacy Enforcement
- Identity Cards and Biometrics
- Data-sharing
- Visual surveillance
- Communication interception
- Communication Data Retention
- Government Access to Data
- Workplace monitoring
- Surveillance of Medical, Financial, and Movement
- Border and trans-border issues
- Leadership
- Democratic safeguards

Countries get a score from 1 (extensive surveillance/leading in bad practice) to 5 (no invasive policy or widespread practice/leading in best practice) for each of those. The total is calculated by making the average of the 14 categories.

The lowest score was China with 1.3 points, but the UK and US are not far behind with 1.4 and 1.5 respectively. France is average with a score of 1.9, but Belgium is among the highest scoring countries with 2.7. Other top scorers were Germany (2.8) and Italy (2.8), Canada (2.9), and the highest score was for Greece (3.1).

No country got a score of 5 in any category. The US didn't score higher than 3 (for constitutional protection and communication data retention), but got a bottom score of 1 in 9 out of 14 categories.

The US and UK got a score of 1 for visual surveillance, and it's not surprising with all the CCTV cameras everywhere. I don't think it's a bad thing though. I wish there were more of them in Belgium to help catch criminals. I am a very private person but I know that once I step outside my house I enter the 'public domain' (I can't find the actual term) and should expect that all my movements and actions are recorded. That is what makes people respectful and law-abiding citizens. Before the age of CCTV, satellite surveillance and mobile phones recording people's conversations, people had to rely on religion for that purpose, believing that they should always be good because God was watching them all the time. Now we can be sure that we are being watched, but not by God. The only problem is that there is so many places without proper surveillance.

I am an Atheist but I believe that in order to be good citizens people should always behave as if they are being watched and judged all the time by the rest of society, and that their actions are constantly recorded as proof of their good behaviour. Ultimately, with the Internet of Everything recording everything everywhere all the time, and once data storage won't be an issue anymore, all our movements and actions will be recorded throughout our lives and kept for posterity. Children already have their behaviour rated by teachers at school (here they use colour dots from green to red to rate things like discipline, cooperation, motivation, etc and on a daily basis).

Now back to the topic, I don't have your background in law enforcement, Angela, and I have never lived in the USA, but if I am not mistaken laws can vary a lot between US states. For example it's ok to record what someone says on your smartphone without their consent in New York or Texas, but in California, Illinois or Massachusetts you'd need the approval of all parties involved (source). On a side note I personally believe that recording conversations should always be legal and even compulsory so that people cannot lie afterwards and claim they "never said that", and so that people can always be accountable for what they say anywhere, anytime. That's why I prefer written communication. You always have proof and you can look back at the record if someone's memory is failing.

Laws can vary so much between US states that the extremes are often more far apart than between any two Western European countries. Just look at cannabis laws: legal in some states and illegal to the point of landing you in prison in other states, while most Western European countries have decriminalised it or do not enforce laws against it (except oddly in France). I wish there that there was state by state data for the USA about surveillance laws to get a clearer picture. Maybe the surveillance techniques you were referring to in New York are especially mild by American standard and not representative of the US average. That is at least what the Privacy Internation report suggests.

Then there is the issue of how citizens of a country perceive the law. French speakers, like most Latins, tend to see the law as some kind of vague guidelines rather than as strict rules set in stone (as the Germans would). Just a look at the way French people drive confirms this. Road signs, speed limits and sometimes even traffic lights are seen as general recommendations if you have time to care for them. That's something that annoys me to no end, being more Germanic in my approach to the law (Germanic but not as inflexible as the Germans, as I value common sense over strict application of rules in any situation, more like the English actually). The problem is that when authorities take the same approach to the law, one's legal rights on paper end up being breached by the police, and that is often what happens in France (and other Latin countries). In many African countries, where people have a couldn't care less attitude at the extreme opposite of the Germans, laws don't have any meaning any more. They are just there to decorate or to make the international community happy.

I have no doubt that the ACLU would agree with the assessment of Privacy International, as would the New York Times, and Bernie Sanders, and other members of the left, including Hillary Clinton now that she's being dragged left by Bernie. I'm personally not persuaded by any analysis which puts China and Britain and the U.S. in the same category, and that's even without considering that what's on the statute books is often a far cry from actual practice. I'm sure if the statutes of the Soviet Union were analyzed they'd find that they had a sterling civil rights record.

In New York, the practices that produced so much ire among liberals and the American Muslim community included the recruitment of informants in mosques and Muslim student organizations on campus who could listen in on conversations and report on sermons, the monitoring of college websites of those student organizations, and going on websites of other Muslim organizations. In some instances, photos and video of people entering certain mosques were taken, or license plate numbers were taken down.

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth because this was "stigmatizing" them. Since the general public was totally unaware that this was going on I'm not overly impressed by this argument. Nor do I care, frankly, if this was "polarizing" the Muslim community, and sowed "seeds of distrust" among them, or engendered fear among imans about how their sermons might be interpreted. There are indeed incendiary sermons preached in certain mosques. I find it almost amusing that one large source of outrage was that a map was used which highlighted certain areas of concern, all Muslim affiliated areas, but that Egyptian Copt and Iraqi Jewish areas were not so highlighted. I may have missed something, but I wasn't aware that radical Copts and Jews have been implicated in any plots to blow up Americans and American property.

As to the situation in France, I'm not up to date on current criminal procedure or anti-terrorism statutes there, but from everything I knew in the past this kind of activity by security forces definitely went on, and even more intrusive measures. Nor did the police wear kid gloves when investigating suspects. From commentary I have seen from U.S. law enforcement officials in recent days who liaison with the French, they still make note of the "tough" and "aggressive" interrogation techniques of French security forces, which makes it sound as if in actuality not much has changed, whatever changes there have been in the statutes, but I have no personal knowledge of it.

Belgium may indeed be very different from France in this respect, which may be why so many terrorists operate from there. I wouldn't know. I did see a report just this morning that at one point they missed this suspect because a Belgian statute prohibits a raid on a private dwelling between 9PM and 8AM. I sincerely hope that's just bad reporting, because otherwise Belgium has a real problem on its hands, a problem created by its legislators.

In terms of the rights of terrorist suspects arrested on American soil, to my knowledge they've been accorded the same rights as any other criminal defendant, as can be seen in the case of the Boston Bomber, for example, although I'm not sure how long he was in custody before he was provided with an attorney.* Enemy combatants are a different matter. In my personal opinion they should have been tried by military tribunals; if it's good enough for our own soldiers, it should have been good enough for them. However, those kinds of decisions are above my pay grade. As to "enhanced interrogation techniques", to my knowledge waterboarding was performed on three Al-Quada operatives. I'm well aware of the controversy that surrounds the use of such techniques. Opinions differ as to its morality and efficacy. I don't believe that the information you get is unreliable most of the time, and, to be totally honest, if I had been in a position in 2003 and 2004 to make the decision to use it or not use it, I don't know what I would have done.

Btw, I certainly think that an argument could be made that a terrorist getting support and funding and instruction from ISIS or any other Jihadi group is also an enemy combatant, no matter where he's arrested or what citizenship he carries.

I should clarify that although I see nothing wrong with the techniques that were used by the NYPD in the face of a known threat, I am absolutely not for any big brother type general and all pervasive surveillance by authorities. I would never grant such power to any group whatsoever.

Just a humorous note: one former ISIS member left because he couldn't smoke and had to go religious instruction eight hours a day. Poor dear. I saw a comment online to the effect that apparently the raping and murdering were fine with him.

*Edited for clarification
Sixteen hours passed before he was given Miranda warnings, under a public safety exception.

 

[bicicleur 2]

A Belgian statute prohibits a raid on a private dwelling between 9PM and 8AM.

That is correct. It has been discussed. I don't know whether that statute has been changed.

And there are people who think whatever operation undertaken to find out what is happening in Molenbeek is 'stigmatizing'.

 

[Angela]

A Belgian statute prohibits a raid on a private dwelling between 9PM and 8AM.

That is correct. It has been discussed. I don't know whether that statute has been changed.

And there are people who think whatever operation undertaken to find out what is happening in Molenbeek is 'stigmatizing'.

Imo that's utter lunacy.

 

[LeBrok]

Imo that's utter lunacy.

God forbid to wake up a terrorist in the middle of the night, or when he watches his favorite show at 9 pm. You know how angry they can get, lol.
I wonder what was the reasoning behind this law?

 

[bicicleur 2]

God forbid to wake up a terrorist in the middle of the night, or when he watches his favorite show at 9 pm. You know how angry they can get, lol.
I wonder what was the reasoning behind this law?

a lot of criminals in Belgium walk free because of procedure breaches
procedures in Belgium are very complicated
Belgium is a paradise for lawyers
but not for who wants justice

the lawyers and the judges don't want to reform the complicated system
it's in their interest

Belgium is the country where surrealism was invented

 

[Angela]

They walk free here too for breaches of procedure or police misconduct, but we don't have that particularly ridiculous law. Forget about terrorism; say it's a drug bust. Of course you go in at night...if nothing else that's when it's safest. What's next...they have to issue an invitation?

 

[bicicleur 2]

They walk free here too for breaches of procedure or police misconduct, but we don't have that particularly ridiculous law. Forget about terrorism; say it's a drug bust. Of course you go in at night...if nothing else that's when it's safest. What's next...they have to issue an invitation?

don't give them ideas

 

[bicicleur 2]

a lot of criminals in Belgium walk free because of procedure breaches
procedures in Belgium are very complicated
Belgium is a paradise for lawyers
but not for who wants justice

the lawyers and the judges don't want to reform the complicated system
it's in their interest

Belgium is the country where surrealism was invented

the game has started allready

the French authorities request Belgium extradition of Saleh Abdeslam
the Belgian lawyer of Saleh Abdeslam argues that the French authorney released details of the declarations of Saleh Abdeslam to the press
'the rights of the defendant have been breached and therefore an honest trial is not possible any more'

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/32616/Terr...cial&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1458469642

 

[Maciamo]

I have no doubt that the ACLU would agree with the assessment of Privacy International, as would the New York Times, and Bernie Sanders, and other members of the left, including Hillary Clinton now that she's being dragged left by Bernie. I'm personally not persuaded by any analysis which puts China and Britain and the U.S. in the same category, and that's even without considering that what's on the statute books is often a far cry from actual practice. I'm sure if the statutes of the Soviet Union were analyzed they'd find that they had a sterling civil rights record.

Don't get me wrong. I may be ideologically closer to the Democrats on many levels, but I am in favour of tough security measures. As I said above I am strongly in favour of CCTV cameras everything. I am also for the ubiquitous use of biometric ID cards, and I am surprised that countries like the US and the UK that put much more emphasis on homeland security than Belgium do not have compulsory electronic ID cards for everyone. In Belgium has had them for 11 years, even for children. Not everyone has a passport or even a driving licence. And e-ID cards also allow to identify yourself more securely at the town hall, in government agencies, at the bank, while submitting your taxes online, and so on.

Contrarily to most Democrats (and most Europeans) I have always been in favour of death penalty, but only for terrorists, serial killers and war criminals (not "regular" criminals). I am also not opposed to torturing terrorists. I find that most governments are sissies in this regard. Maybe that is because forms of mild tortures were commonly used in primary/elementary school when I was a child, by both teachers and children to other children. The ones practised by teachers (e.g. hitting fingernails with a ruler) were nothing compared to the flogging and caning of the generation before. The worse acts were routinely performed by bullies on the playgrounds, and including hitting a child stuck against a wall with a basketball repeatedly until his body is covered with bruises (I experienced that one personally), making them eat earth, worms or insects, and plunging their heads in the toilet (a form of water boarding). Sadistic teachers, probably influenced by their Catholic upbringings and aftertastes of the Inquisition, would turn a blind eye to this kind of violent bullying and some would even snigger while watching it. The Spanish Inquisition was very strong in Belgium to prevent the country to join the Protestant United Provinces of the Netherlands, and I sometimes feel like that mentality of opportunistic persecutions and sadistic tortures has survived in some places, especially Catholic schools (i.e. the majority of schools in Belgium).

So how laughable it is when statute in that same country prohibits raids on a private dwelling between 9PM and 8AM! On the one hand you have teachers condoning violence against (small) children, and on the other you have the government who refuses to disturb terrorists past 9 pm. That's one crazy country. Unfortunately it is not an exaggeration.

 

[Maciamo]

God forbid to wake up a terrorist in the middle of the night, or when he watches his favorite show at 9 pm. You know how angry they can get, lol.
I wonder what was the reasoning behind this law?

It stinks of socialist law. Americans consider the Democrats to be on the left, but in Belgium and many other European countries they are the equivalent of the right. Actually the Democrats are more on the right than any Belgian political party except the nationalist Vlaams Belang in Flanders and the extreme right.

Belgian socialists are the kind of left that seems to be motivated by irrational Christian ideals of universal love. They welcome poor Third World immigrants, provide them with generous unemployment benefits and social security, welcome them to their party and have them elected instead of native Belgians. In Brussels, the Socialist Party is the dominant party and nearly half of its elected members are of Muslim origins. This kind of situation is simply unthinkable in any English-speaking country.