European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

If Vietnam was Korea in slow motion, then Operation Iraqi Freedom is Vietnam on crack cocaine

See King Of Pain by Paul Krugman:

King of Pain, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: A lot has been written and said about President Bush's demand that Congress "clarify" the part of the Geneva Conventions that, in effect, outlaws the use of torture under any circumstances.
We know that the world would see this action as a U.S. repudiation of the rules that bind civilized nations. We also know that an extraordinary lineup of former military and intelligence leaders, including Colin Powell, have spoken out against the Bush plan, warning that it would further damage America's faltering moral standing, and end up endangering U.S. troops.
But I haven't seen much discussion of the underlying question: why is Mr. Bush so determined to engage in torture? ... And bear in mind that the "few bad apples" excuse doesn't apply; these were officially approved tactics -- and Mr. Bush wants at least some of these tactics to remain in use. ... [Also,] Remember that the Bush administration has imprisoned a number of innocent men at Guantánamo, and in some cases continues to imprison them even though it knows they are innocent. [...]

by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 06:31:08 AM EST

Re: Torturers and enablers (4.00 / 4)

You left out the really scary part:

So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people? To show that it can. The central drive of the Bush administration -- more fundamental than any particular policy -- has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president's power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it's a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they're asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary. ...

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 07:36:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torturers and enablers (4.00 / 5)

But I haven't seen much discussion of the underlying question: why is Mr. Bush so determined to engage in torture?

From a post by alabama, at moonofalabama:

A sadist generally gratifies his craving for pleasure by inflicting pain--physical pain--on the body of another person. He or she may sometimes be satisfied by inflicting "mental" pain on others, and indeed there's always a "mental" component required to gratify any sadistic craving. It's never enough simply to beat on someone's body; there has to be some feedback: one has to hear the person scream, or shed tears, or start to shake, or simply go out of his or her mind. Until and unless this happens, the sadist will have to try harder. And since the gratification is always a short-term thing, like any fix--or an orgasm--the craving will soon return. It's a form of sexuality.

When an Al-Qaida operative was captured some time ago, gravely wounded and in terrible pain, his interrogators gave him some painkillers--to bring him to his senses and start their interrogation. And when someone later mentioned this fact to Bush, our President exploded with rage on the spot: "Who told them to give him painkillers?," was his immediate, heartfelt and spontaneous query.

And of course Bush presided over the killing--all quite legal, I'm sure--of some three hundred convicted criminals on death row in the state of Texas. I doubt that any other governor in the history of the United States has executed three hundred prisoners. And we know he laughed at the death of Carla Faye Tucker.

Need I bore you any more on this subject? Bush has no other purpose in life--dry drunk that he is--than to get his kicks by inflicting pain, and sitting back and hearing the screams of the tortured. I'm absolutely certain that he stays in touch, and in person, with the folks who carry out his tortures, and demands a full and detailed accounting of what they've done. I'll bet my house on this possibility, and I'll pay off the mortgage myself if I'm proven wrong.

But what about the leaders in Europe? What are their various excuses? Bush is surely laughing at them and enjoying their "mental" pain.

I think, honestly, that the U.S. govt.--the specific officials are seen like the unpleasant bully at school. You may be his or her friend today, but then they change just like that, and you're now the enemy--old wounds will be opened. Things you've said and done will be remembered. That's what it feels like to live in other places on the planet--help! Get me some defence!

Doesn't Tony Blair claim that we have to keep up the special relationship in order to avoid...er...to curtail...to be the calming voice of reason?

Nah. Ach.

On the postive side of things, I'm hoping that the Iran "War that won't happen" will fit into my jigsaw called "Same rhetoric, fewer dead."

We know the numbers from Iraq are something like 200,000 dead or injured iraqi civilians and 20,000 "allied" dead or injured.

But let's push those numbers up. Let's say 500,000 (half a million!) dead or injured among iraqis and 50,000 dead or injured among (the coalition of the willing?) military personnel etc.

What about Korea and Vietnam?

Korean War Casualties

The three-year war was a bloody, unsatisfying affair for all sides, and the magnitude of the devastation in Korea is still not well understood, either in the U.S. or in Korea. Casualties among the Korean civilian population were horrifying - likely more than 2 million dead, with the majority of the population uprooted from their homes and villages, many of which had been completely destroyed.

...

Losses among North Korean and Chinese military forces were also astronomical. The use of "human wave" attacks contributed to high combat losses. In such attacks hundreds and even thousands of soldiers, sometimes armed only with grenades or even unarmed (the assumption being that they would pick up weapons dropped by soldiers killed in preceding waves) were sacrificed in often completely useless frontal assaults. Primitive logistic and medical support meant a very low survival rate for wounded soldiers; by 1952, for Chinese and North Korean troops a wound amounted to a death sentence. Many more simply froze to death. It is estimated that anywhere from 500,000 to 1,500,000 Chinese and North Korean soldiers died in the war.

U.S. Losses in the Korean War

The Department of Defense reports that 54,246 American service men and women lost their lives during the Korean War.

Vietnam War Casualites

The lowest casualty estimates, based on the now-renounced North Vietnamese statements, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged. 58,226 American soldiers also died in the war or are missing in action.

Perhaps (a tentative perhaps) this interweb thingie acts as a break on the more egregious acts of

--human cruelty
--power-hungry destruction (of lives and property)
--

Add more. To put this another way, I have already read that a message has gone out to U.S. minesweepers to be ready to move on 1st Oct.

Does this make me an informed onlooker, does it reduce the likelihood of events, does it speed them up?

I'd suggest that it's hard to kill a million people when everyone is looking...and very easy when the first we'll hear about it is six months down the line and from a censored news-sheet.

Please disgaree and prove me wrong. I don't want a load of nonsense to be my feather.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 07:44:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have already read that a message has gone out to U.S. minesweepers to be ready to move on 1st Oct.

where?

I'd suggest that it's hard to kill a million people when everyone is looking...and very easy when the first we'll hear about it is six months down the line and from a censored news-sheet.

I'd argue that it may be easier than you suppose. And it saddens me but it appears that too many people are willing to ignore things like this, people might have it happen in front of them, butdo they really see it happen?

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 03:32:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's the quote

The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf.

It's from Time magazine (Not such a recherche' source after all; I found out via moonofalabama, where the text above was posted by bernhard in the Open Thread. I don't have a Time subscription so I can't read the whole article. I'm not even sure now, on re-reading, that this is an actual message or a hypothetical message in a war scenario. The title of the Time article is What Would War Look Like?, so maybe it's a hypothetical. So thanks for pickin that up. Teach me to check my sources.

Re: Killing millions.

I wonder if the numbers being killed in the Congo going are down now that world attention (here goat ET thanks to Elco B) has focused more on the region? Same with Darfur. The rhetoric says it is Rwanda all over again, but will the same number of deaths be registered?

Are the trends down?

(I once tried to find total number of deaths per year by violence as a percentage of world population, but I couldn't find anything.)

(Is it possible to say that where modern communication systems are in place, violence levels go down? And how about births per woman? I have so many questions, and so few answers.)

(I think it was migeru who wrote about "trending the planet"--or somesuch. Gathering data across the globe as a starting point for working out effective global solutions. I'm way off topic now.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 06:42:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

(Is it possible to say that where modern communication systems are in place, violence levels go down? And how about births per woman? I have so many questions, and so few answers.)

that would be hard to say, it may be that due to improved communication, there would be more violence reported.

there is credible research that says that the best way to reduce child mortality and birth rates is to increase female education. if I remember right the major studies were conducted in Bangladesh and Ghana.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 07:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

(Sounds like a whole new diary topic.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 04:02:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

so that's

Birth rates and Female education
Logistics and Iran and Iraq
Socrates and modern political discourse.

off the top of my head that I will get round to writing when the current work rush is over.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 07:35:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torturers and enablers (4.00 / 5)

Why are people so afraid to stand up against this outrage? It boggles the mind...this is established law, with lots of precedence.

What the fuck is going on????

Half the population is under the age of 18. Tanzania's future is NOW...join the 50% campaign!

by whataboutbob on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 06:34:23 AM EST

I guess that I have grown rather used to the continued onslaught against human decency that the current US administration is willing to attempt to justify. And this coming from a Christian as well. Go read the New Testament again George. This is not what your father in heaven wants. (My apologies to the agnostics and atheists here.)

Anyway, because I almost expect this from the current White House, what bothers me even more is the European reaction...or should I say non-reaction. Where are the MEPs? National parliamentarians? Has there been any reaction to this anywhere? Is any government going to really raise a voice here and say something firmly...how about "Shame on you?"

The only one who seems to be concerned about this is our little Swiss representative to the Council of Europe who is investigating the secret prison system in Europe.

by gradinski chai on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 08:09:13 AM EST

Where are the MEPs?

You should take a look at this diary (linking to the EP committee on the secret prisons) and their interim report, which is accessible from the committee's website (see here for a sample). Problem: the EP has no power of compulsion to force any member state or even the Council of Ministers or the Commission to release classified documents. I determined this by looking at the rules governing EP investigative committees (dig up the consolidated version of the treaty on the European Union).

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 08:16:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The only power the EP has is to vote the commission out (and it's quite hard to do).

by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 08:25:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Going through this list of diaries it would be possible to make a list of many (failed) actions by national parliaments so far. Quentin mentions a recent Dutch Parliament resolution. I wonder if there have been other recent actions elsewhere.

But as long as "national security" can stall a parliamentary inquiry and verbal assurances by Condi Rice are enough for the governments to say "see? nothing happened?", nothing will happen.

Which means the level of noise needs to increase.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 08:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Torturers and enablers (4.00 / 6)

It's not just about compulsion though. It's about taking a public stand.

A blanket condemnation of torture from the MEPs would put media pressure on the US, and - by implication - on the collaborators on this side of the Atlantic.

Lord Goldsmith (the UK's AG) has been hinting that the UK cannot support attempts to overturn the Geneva Convention.

There have been seriously grumblings of dissent from Goldsmith, Straw and others in New Labour. Tony remains gung-ho, but if there's regime change at home it may not be totally unrealistic to wonder if token fig leaf support from the UK could disappear.

There are really two problems here. One is the practice of torture in the first place. And the tragic reality is that torture has been SOP for some elements in the UK and US intelligence services for decades now. So the existence of torture really isn't anything new. In fact the CIA is well known for doing much bloodier things.

What's new is this attempt to go public with it. I think the battle isn't really about whether torture happens - realistically, it will continue to happen in secret, no matter what's agreed in public - but whether the public can be corrupted enough to be made to support it explicitly.

If that happens, we're on a very slippery slope. Fortunately I don't think there's any evidence of serious support for the notion. If anything the opposite is true in the US.

Which makes the EU reaction even more disappointing. This is the time to take a very public stand. And so far it's not happening.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 11:29:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I dug up the relevant documents governing EP committees of enquiry here. My conclusion was "In other words, national security trumps all, and [they] are unlikely to find out what happened in any event." However, this was from the EP's own rules of procedure, and not in any treaty. I wonder whether the EP can amend those rules of procedure by itself.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 03:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh.

The European Parliament Rules of Procedure can be found here. The attached summary useful information states:

The European Parliament's Rules of Procedure are published periodically in booklet form and in the Official Journal of the European Union. These editions may be obtained from the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
The European Parliament may, however, amend its Rules of Procedure from time to time. The version in force is available on the European Parliament's website (http://www.europarl.eu.int).

And article 202 of the rules of procedure states...

Rule 202 : Amendment of the Rules of Procedure
1. Any Member may propose amendments to these Rules and to the annexes thereto accompanied, if appropriate, by short justifications.
Such proposed amendments shall be translated, printed, distributed and referred to the committee responsible, which shall examine them and decide whether to submit them to Parliament.
For the purpose of applying Rules 150, 151 and 155 to consideration of such proposed amendments in Parliament, references made in those Rules to the 'original text' or the 'Commission proposal' shall be considered as referring to the provision in force at the time.
2. Amendments to these Rules shall be adopted only if they secure the votes of a majority of the component Members of Parliament.
3. Unless otherwise specified when the vote is taken, amendments to these Rules and to the annexes thereto shall enter into force on the first day of the part-session following their adoption.

So the parliament can amend its own rules of procedure without Council or Commission interference...

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 03:51:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rule 24 : Duties of the Conference of Presidents

A detailed list of the European Parliament's rules regarding Committes of Inquiry:

6. The Conference of presidents shall be the authority responsible for the composition and competence of committees, committees of inquiry and joint parliamentary committees, standing delegations and ad hoc delegations.

Rule 176 : Committees of inquiry
Rule 177 : Composition of committees
Rule 179 : Duties of committees
ANNEX VIII : Detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry

Decision of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry
...
Article 2
...
2. The temporary committee of inquiry shall carry out its duties in compliance with the powers conferred by the Treaties on the institutions and bodies of the European Communities.
The members of the temporary committee of inquiry and any other persons who, by reason of their duties, have become acquainted with facts, information, knowledge, documents or objects in respect of which secrecy must be observed pursuant to provisions adopted by a Member State or by a Community institution shall be required, even after their duties have ceased, to keep them secret from any unauthorised person and from the public.
Hearings and testimony shall take place in public. Proceedings shall take place in camera if requested by one quarter of the members of the committee of inquiry, or by the Community or national authorities, or where the temporary committee of inquiry is considering secret information. Witnesses and experts shall have the right to make a statement or provide testimony in camera.
3. A temporary committee of inquiry may not investigate matters at issue before a national or Community court of law until such time as the legal proceedings have been completed.
Within a period of two months either of publication in accordance with paragraph 1 or of the Commission being informed of an allegation made before a temporary committee of inquiry of a contravention of Community law by a Member State, the Commission may notify the European Parliament that a matter to be examined by a temporary committee of inquiry is the subject of a Community prelitigation procedure; in such cases the temporary committee of inquiry shall take all necessary steps to enable the Commission fully to exercise the powers conferred on it by the Treaties.
4. The temporary committee of inquiry shall cease to exist on the submission of its report within the time limit laid down when it was set up, or at the latest upon expiry of a period not exceeding twelve months from the date when it was set up, and in any event at the close of the parliamentary term.
By means of a reasoned decision the European Parliament may twice extend the twelve-month period by three months. Such a decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
...
Article 3
...
3. On a reasoned request from the temporary committee of inquiry, the Member States concerned and the institutions or bodies of the European Communities shall designate the official or servant whom they authorise to appear before the temporary committee of inquiry, unless grounds of secrecy or public or national security dictate otherwise by virtue of national or Community legislation.
The officials or servants in question shall speak on behalf of and as instructed by their Governments or institutions. They shall continue to be bound by the obligations arising from the rules to which they are subject.

The authorities of the Member States and the institutions or bodies of the European Communities shall provide a temporary committee of inquiry, where it so requests or on their own initiative, with the documents necessary for the performance of its duties, save where prevented from doing so by reasons of secrecy or public or national security arising out of national or Community legislation or rules.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be without prejudice to any other provisions of the Member States which prohibit officials from appearing or documents from being forwarded.

An obstacle arising from reasons of secrecy, public or national security or the provisions referred to in the first subparagraph shall be notified to the European Parliament by a representative authorised to commit the Government of the Member State concerned or the institution.
6. Institutions or bodies of the European Communities shall not supply the temporary committee of inquiry with documents originating in a Member State without first informing the State concerned.
They shall not communicate to the temporary committee of inquiry any documents to which paragraph 5 applies without first obtaining the consent of the Member State concerned.
...
Article 4
1. The information obtained by the temporary committee of inquiry shall be used solely for the performance of its duties. It may not be made public if it contains material of a secret or confidential nature or names persons.
The European Parliament shall adopt the administrative measures and procedural rules required to protect the secrecy and confidentiality of the proceedings of temporary committees of inquiry.
...
Article 6
At the request of the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, the above rules may be revised as from the end of the current term of the European Parliament in the light of experience.

The meat of the rules making an EP committee effectively unable to investigate the CIA prison/flight scandal is a joint decision by the Commission, Council and Parliament, and so it cannot be changed without the participation of all three, though the Parliament could use the experience of this case to argue for the necessity of a change.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 06:31:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not just christian, but christian fundamentalist evangelical. Their fantasies are nothing if not sadistic. More than the joy of their own salvation the ensured suffering of the unsaved seem to preoccupy them. See for example the Left Behind books. A few tortured in the pursuit of righteousness? Small potatoes compared to eternal damnation in the inferno where those tortured will surely suffer unspeakable pains unfathomable to living humans!

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 09:10:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Can we call them Christianofascists?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 09:21:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I recall someone seriously defending the Inquisition in the same terms: if a bit of discomfort here on earth can save someone from eternal damnation, it's actually our duty to do it.

-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 05:25:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

For whatever it's worth, the Netherlands lower house did vote last week (?) to reject the black holes and everything that goes on in and around them and told the cabinet to ask the U.S. to end the program. Ms Rice has told the Netherlands foreign minister that no treaties or agreements with the Netherlands had been breached, evidently implying that none of the practices took place in the Netherlands. But are we Europe or aren't we? If it happens in one EU country it happens in all, I thought. Can for instance the Polish government be charged with breaking E.U. treaties if (!) it allowed prisoners to be held on its territory. The European governments don't give much reason for hope. At least it seems that for the time being Mr Chirac has pulled the plug on the referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council and called for further negotiations.

by Quentin on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 08:28:22 AM EST

I overlooked Migeru and Laurent GUERBY's comment. So there is no legal recourse against the governments involved. The pressure has to come from within each individual country. I can't see that happening anywhere.

by Quentin on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 08:32:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, and that is a shame.

The first thing we need to do is document what has actually been done in each country by the courts and the legislatures.

Then with all the facts under our belt we should start a letter-writing campaign.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 08:35:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course there is legal recourse, in the courts! And as far as I know the use of Spanish airports by the CIA flights is still under judicial investigation. I should research the status of the cases.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 08:51:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A cursory look at Google news (in English)

Associated Press (via International Herald Tribune): Minister says Spain played did not play role in secret transfers of terror suspects to CIA (September 14, 2006)

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos on Thursday told a European Parliament committee investigating alleged CIA secret flights and detention centers in Europe that his government has not participated in secret transfers of terror suspects to U.S. agents.
...
Moratinos said U.S. authorities had assured the Spanish government they were not aware of any secret passengers aboard CIA planes that stopped over in Spain on their way to destinations such as Kabul, Afghanistan, or the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
...
Moratinos was the first EU government minister to testify before the special committee, which has heard dozens of hours of testimony from individuals who said they were kidnapped and tortured by U.S. agents, as well as from EU officials and rights groups.

Spain is not first in alphabetical order...

Jurist: Spain says CIA rendition flights may have used Spanish airports (September 15, 2006)

The Spanish government is investigating 60 suspected flights that passed through the islands. Last fall, a similar investigation led to the conclusion that such flights were legal.
Investigation into CIA rendition flights and criticism of the CIA has been widespread in Europe since President Bush acknowledged the existence of secret prisons for the first time last week. Moratinos plans to urge other European leaders to speak out against the operation of such prisons at a foreign affairs meeting on Friday.

The CIA flights were legal? The EP seems to think they were in violation ofthe Chicago conventions...

EUObserver: Spain to raise CIA affair at foreign ministers meeting (15.09.2006)

Spanish foreign minister Miguel Angel Moratinos will ask his EU counterparts at a meeting today to speak out on alleged illegal CIA activities in the EU, stressing however that there is "no evidence" of US wrongdoing in Spain.
Mr Moratinos on Thursday (14 September) appeared before the European Parliament's temporary committee on the CIA affair, as the first government official to be quizzed by MEPs on allegations that EU governments may have been complicit in human rights violations by the CIA, the US intelligence agency.
The meeting took place one week after US president George W. Bush admitted that the CIA had run covert prisons for terror suspects, but did not say where.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 09:19:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This was tried in France, but the government more or less shut it down, see Paxatagore for an jurist analysis of what happened (and how the journalists reports are total crap as usual):

La justice française refuse d'ouvrir une enquête sur les vols de la CIA
mardi 12 septembre 2006 à 21:04 - Catégorie : Droit et procédure pénale
C'est ce que titre Le Monde. La FIDH et la LDH avaient déposé plainte, en décembre 2005, à propos de ces fameux vols de la CIA qui auraient convoyés des détenus clandestins pour les acheminer vers prisons où on les torturerait. Il résulte de l'article du monde que ce titre est parfaitement inexact : après avoir reçu la plainte, le procureur de Bobigny a ordonné des investigations, confiées à la gendarmerie de l'air. Ce service a procédé à des investigations. C'est à l'issue de ces investigations que le parquet a décidé de classer sans suite cette enquête.
Le monde confond en fait "enquête" et "information judiciaire" (on parle d'information judiciaire pour les dossiers suivis par un juge d'instruction).
Il faut le dire, le redire et le répéter : en France, 99% des enquêtes sont contrôlées par le parquet. Lorsque vous allez au commissariat ou à la gendarmerie déposer plainte, une enquête commence : elle est dirigée par le parquet. Lorsque la police arrête un délinquant en plein flagrant délit, une enquête commence : elle est dirigée par le parquet.
[...]

by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 10:54:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ce n'est que dans des cas finalement assez rares qu'un juge d'instruction intervient : soit une victime décide de se constituer partie civile devant le juge d'instruction, soit le parquet a décidé qu'il fallait que le juge d'instruction continue l'enquête à sa place.
Que l'enquête soit dirigée par un magistrat du parquet ou un juge d'instruction a certaines conséquences procédurales. Le juge d'instruction dispose de nombreux outils coercitifs. Il a le monopole de certains de ces outils (la détention provisoire, le contrôle judiciaire). Il peut utiliser bien plus facilement d'autres outils (les écoutes téléphoniques). Enfin, il peut déployer la coercition tout le long de son enquête, alors que le parquet est en règle générale limitée par des délais très courts : passés huit (ou parfois seize jours) après les faits, les enquêteurs perdent beaucoup de leurs moyens de coercition. Par ailleurs, un juge d'instruction est bien d'avantage soumis que le parquet aux principes du contradictoire : les avocats peuvent participer à l'enquête, en assistant aux interrogatoires de leurs clients par le juge d'instruction ou en demandant certaines investigations.

Which is to say, if I am not misunderstanding, given that there are no French victims that can become a party to the proceedings, it is up to the procureur to decide whether or not to pass the case on to an investigative judge, who has coercive powers of investigation. But since the procureur has much more limited coercive powers he was not able to ascertain that any law was broken, so that was the end of the investigation...

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 11:04:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Paxa is here smashing the misdescription of the procedure used by the journalists, but that's not what is relevant for ET.

The relevant point: the procureur (unlike instruction judge) has to follow direct (and sometimes secret) orders from the government.

So if the government doesn't want this to go further, it will just stop, it's probably what happened there. The procureur could well have decided to put an instruction judge on the case, but he has decided there was not enough evidence to get there. Cough

Back to the part you quoted: that is why the procureur has much less power than the instruction judge, otherwise we french citizens wouldn't be in a functionning democracy anymore.

by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 12:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please expand on your last sentence.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 02:06:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, I got it now. The procureur is part of the executive branch, so it must have less powers or investigation than the judicial branch.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 02:34:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes exactly, in particular only judges can order that you stay locked in a police station ("garde a vue") above a few hours, the procureur alone cannot decide that.

by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 03:35:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I noticed the Le Monde story when you posted it in the breakfast. France seems to have been spared by the CIA [I wonder why?], and so the case rested on "universal jurisdiction", a worthy concept which does not have a track record of success...

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 11:09:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Alliance Base (none / 0)

Wiki (in French)
initial WaPo article (July 2005)
recent confirmation by French spooks

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 11:36:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are these people stupid?

"Alliance Base"?

Didn't "Al Qaeda" mean "The Base"?

What is this? The "NATO Qaeda"?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 11:40:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually...

It seems there are some very ugly things under that particular rock.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 12:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First of all, the french wiki goes into considerably more detail than the English wiki.

Second of all, the WaPo article is by the same Dana Priest that broke the CIA Secret Prison story.

But there is no suggestion that this is related to the illegal flights and renditions other than

Factions within the intelligence services of several countries opposed a multinational approach, according to current and former U.S. and European government officials who described its inception. The CIA's Counterterrorist Center did not want to lose control over all counterterrorism operations; the British service did not want to dilute its unique ties to Washington; Germany was not keen to become involved in more operations.
And no country wanted to be perceived as taking direction from the CIA, whose practice of extraordinary renditions -- secretly apprehending suspected terrorists and transferring them to other countries without any judicial review -- has become highly controversial in Europe. In Italy, 13 alleged CIA operatives are accused of kidnapping a radical Egyptian cleric off the streets of Milan in 2003.
To play down the U.S. role, the center's working language is French, sources said. The base selects its cases carefully, chooses a lead country for each operation, and that country's service runs the operation.

Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, whom you have praised iin the past, seems to be slosely associated to this operation.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 02:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alliance Base (none / 1)

Is there anything bad in spooks agency cooperating?

The only thing bad to me is when people are deported or emprisoned without judicial overview.

Now, did french official knew about the USA jets?

My (totally uninformed) best guess is that they knew but asked the USA not to land any plane with prisonners on french soil (far too big if something gets out), and may be the USA did get away in a few case by hidding them, as the FIDH and LDH says:

Dans un contexte de lutte contre le terrorisme et de discours sur la protection des citoyens, on nous explique qu'il est impossible de connaître la provenance, la destination et l'identité des passagers d'un avion qui a transité cinq fois en France."

So it's embarassing for the government to admit that if terrorists put "business" on their own plane they can land anywhere in the world without any hassle from officials, whereas millions of simple citizens are harassed at airports with stupid "security" measures.

by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 04:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alliance Base (4.00 / 2)

My indirect point is that France is happy to cooperate with the USA on these things and is probably not worried about, nor adverse to "strongly interrogating" a few presumed terrorists.

France will not be the country that rocks the boat on renditions, because (i) it's not an issue and (ii) I'm pretty sure they're fully complicit.

In fact, French policemen/spooks are probably very happy to be able to "do" more than they'd be able to get away with usually under (already quite favorable) French procedures under the US umbrella.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 04:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is very sad to hear.

Thought they were doing some serious halfway "clean" police and security work.

It's pathetic even.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 10:56:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]