'We French don't understand your way of fighting terrorism'

Tomorrow the Government will face furious opposition from MPs as it attempts to push its emergency anti-terror laws through the Commons. As Toby Harnden, Melissa Kite and Kim Willsher in Paris report, our Continental allies will watch the row in astonishment

Last July, after more than two years of incarceration at Guantanamo Bay, four French Muslims stepped off a Hercules at the Evreux base in Normandy. Civil liberties campaign groups toasted their freedom, while the President, Jacques Chirac, hailed it as the "result of long efforts" to persuade the White House to hand them over.

The jubilation of supporters of the four, however, was short-lived. Officials from the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire, France's counter-terrorist service, collected Mourad Benchellali, Imad Kanouni, Nizar Sassi and Brahim Yadel from the tarmac and led them on to a bus, which was driven to an unknown high-security prison. Four days later, they appeared before two investigating magistrates and were ordered to be jailed on suspicion of having "criminal association with a terrorist enterprise". There they have remained without charge or public protest – and may stay so for up to four years – in a legal limbo not much different from that which they experienced in Camp Delta. Mr Chirac, it turns out, just preferred them to be in French rather than American custody.

By contrast, the Britons released from Guantanamo have been allowed to return to their communities. Moazzam Begg, of Pakistani origin, has been banned from travelling abroad, but has otherwise been feted as the victim of a miscarriage of justice on a par with the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six. Last week, he was interviewed extensively on television for an undisclosed payment. A book is understood to be in the offing.

Charles Clarke, the former Marxist student and now Home Secretary, has made no secret of which of the two approaches towards Islamic extremists he prefers. Mr Clarke has already declared himself "not an absolute fan of adversarial justice" and revealed that he is interested in looking "at some other systems". His new Prevention of Terrorism Bill, due to complete its initial stage in the House of Commons tomorrow, emulates the French system by introducing control orders for terror suspects, ranging from house arrest to tagging and curfews. Its most stringent measure allows terror suspects to be confined to "their premises", banned from using computers or telephones, with visitors strictly monitored by the Home Office.

With the Tories, Liberal Democrats and a substantial number of Labour backbenchers clamouring to denounce the new measures for, among many criticisms, being "un-British", ministers are desperately trying to stave off a serious backbench rebellion this weekend, while at the same time seeking enough Opposition support to ensure easy passage of the Bill tomorrow. The essence of the compromise being dangled before the Bill's opponents is to give judges, rather than just politicians, a central role in the imposition of control orders. Under one possible proposal, all detention orders made by the Home Secretary would be referred to a judge for swift review within three days. Another option rumoured to be under consideration yesterday would be for the judge to take part in the initial decision – a significant watering down of Mr Clarke's position, which may be necessary for him to avoid more humiliating rebellions.

However, the Conservatives and many Labour backbenchers remain unconvinced. "We have put our marker down," said one senior Tory. "The Government is trying to finesse this left, right and centre. But the line in the sand is, it has got to be a judge, not the Home Secretary, who makes the order."

Ministers know that there is a great deal at stake – far more than the Government's political fortunes. Hanging over them is what the intelligence services assess as a strong likelihood that Islamic terrorists will attempt to attack Britain before the forthcoming election. They fear that if men such as the nine terror suspects being held in Belmarsh – alleged to be among the most dangerous in the country but whose detention has been ruled by the Law Lords as improper – are freed, then such an attack will become inevitable.

French politicians, who overhauled their anti-terrorist apparatus after a series of Algerian terrorist bombs on the Paris Metro and on trains at Lyon and Lille that killed 10 in 1995, cannot see what all the fuss is about. They are particularly unimpressed about what many of their British counterparts have branded a shameful break with centuries of legal separation between the executive and judiciary. "It doesn't seem much of a great revolution to me," said Alain Marsaud, a member of the National Assembly, former prosecutor and anti-terrorism judge, told The Telegraph with a sniff.

Mr Marsaud, the founder of the Service Centrale de Lutte Anti-Terroriste, a service that brought together investigating magistrates, police, intelligence agents and government departments to fight terrorism, was withering about Britain's anti-terrorist record. Most egregious, he said, is the case of Rachid Ramda, who is believed to have been behind the Metro and train bombings that prompted the radical rethink in France. Ramda, who is being held in Belmarsh, edited the Al-Ansar (The Victorious) newspaper and was arrested in London, from where he allegedly plotted the attacks, shortly after they were carried out in 1995. The French maintain that he was the financier for the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, which claimed responsibility for the bombings.

The court of appeal overruled the British Government's decision to extradite Ramda, based on his claim that the French information implicating him had been obtained by torture from other Algerian suspects. "I have to say for us French, your way of fighting terrorism is difficult to understand and the failure of Britain to extradite Ramda is an example of this," said Mr Marsaud. "Today, the British Government and British institutions are without doubt the most difficult for us to work with. There is easy cooperation between us and the Spanish, Germans, Italians and even the Americans. But with Britain it remains very, very difficult."

Britain had a "completely different system and a different concept of the law", he said, arguing that a reactive "policing approach" was applied instead of a preventive strategy – a naive approach based on Britain's good fortune thus far not to have been attacked by Islamic terrorists. "We in France have," he said, in a reference to attacks by Algerian groups.

The French offence of "association with terrorists" – under which suspicions based on intelligence rather than hard evidence admissible in court are enough to imprison an individual – has been the centrepiece of the country's anti-terrorist strategy. "This is considered by some to be an attack on the liberty of individuals and I agree totally," Mr Marsaud said. "But it stops the bombs. There has to be a balance between individual liberty on one hand and the efficiency of the system to protect the public on the other. In an ideal world, I would choose the first, but this is not an ideal world, and when dealing with Islamic extremists we have to be brutal sometimes."

It is clearly Mr Clarke's instinct to be as tough as he can, too. But the parliamentary constraints upon him are real. The concessions are expected to be tabled by Mr Clarke when the Bill, which saw the Government's majority halved last Wednesday, is rushed through its remaining Commons stages this week, beginning with line-by-line scrutiny in committee. Labour backbenchers, including Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, have tabled separate amendments, insisting that any decision to apply the new powers of house arrest must be taken by the courts rather than by the Home Secretary. These are likely to be rejected. However, the Home Secretary is, according to aides, considering a number of possible concessions this weekend, the most important of which, a "double-lock" guarantee, would ensure that a judge reviews any detention order within three days. An official close to Mr Clarke said: "We are quite clear that the Home Secretary must make the order. If someone is going to blow something up, we have to be able to act fast, not wait for a judge."

If Mr Blair's position is an uncomfortable one, Mr Howard's is no less problematic. Some senior Tories believe that the Government is setting a trap for them by creating a situation in which the Opposition can be accused of ruining the Prevention of Terrorism Bill if it is picked to pieces in the Lords. A U-turn, however, would also be agonising. The party is split sharply between those who believe that Mr Howard's current stance reflects Tory values of small government and personal liberty and those who think that the only appropriate Conservative response should be a tough stance against terrorism. Another complication is that the libertarian wing of the party contains some powerful figures. The Tories' biggest donor, Stuart Wheeler, the spread-betting entrepreneur, reportedly said at a private dinner last week that he "would rather have a Madrid-type incident" than support proposals for house arrest without trial.

Denis MacShane, the Minister for Europe, told The Telegraph yesterday: "On the eve of the first anniversary of the Madrid bombings, the rest of Europe will be surprised by Conservative and Liberal Democrat resistance to measures to tackle terrorism that are accepted by most other European and Commonwealth countries."

The Bill is almost certain to pass this week, although a very narrow margin on what should be the bipartisan issue of national security would be an embarrassment both at home and abroad. With it, the balance between individual liberties and the protection of all citizens from terrorist attack will be tilted further towards what both the French and Mr Blair consider the good of the greater number.

The French jailed THEIR terrorists. Odd the American Left for once, is biting its collective tongue.

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")

The Tories' biggest donor, Stuart Wheeler, the spread-betting entrepreneur, reportedly said at a private dinner last week that he "would rather have a Madrid-type incident" than support proposals for house arrest without trial.
=======
This guy was probably a Kerry advisor....talk about the weak, wussies of the twisted left. OK, let's just wait for the first "MADRID-TYPE INCIDENT" in London or Paris -- then let's do a reality check...

Actually, the French are more of a bully type. They have no problem brutally smacking down the relatively insignificant (e.g., random terror group lackeys) but faced with a true danger they wilt like an aging burlesque queen..

"introducing control orders for terror suspects, ranging from house arrest to tagging and curfews. Its most stringent measure allows terror suspects to be confined to "their premises", banned from using computers or telephones, with visitors strictly monitored by the Home Office. "

And in extreme cases they send them to bed without supper.

France's counter-terrorist service, collected Mourad Benchellali, Imad Kanouni,
Nizar Sassi and Brahim Yadel from the tarmac and led them on to a bus, which was driven
to an unknown high-security prison. Four days later, they appeared before two
investigating magistrates and were ordered to be jailed on suspicion of having
"criminal association with a terrorist enterprise".
There they have remained without charge or public protest –
and may stay so for up to four years

HAAHAhahaaaaahahahaaaa /falls over /Gasp,
There will be no outrage against this because, well, of Hate America First Syndrome

WTF is wrong with the Tories? Good God almighty, they might as well replace Howard with Ted Kennedy! They've become Chirac style "conservatives," except that they're less tough on domestic terrorism. IDS promised to support the Iraq policy, and then set about undermining it, and Howard has been worse. And now their stance on domestic anti-terrorism measures is just as bad.

"The French understand very little except retreat and surrender."

But it is cheaper than waging wars.

Anyway, they are running Europe, the Russians are so keen to become their friends, and China wants their weapons and slowly their money taking over from the dollar.
Not to mention they give the US a hard time to control a bunch of few thousand half starved muslim terorists with access only some stone aged weapons....

Who needs glorious victories ?

Viva la surrender !!!

Problem with your headline:

'We French don't ~~understand your way of~~ fight~~ing terrorism~~'

Much tighter, says what they mean. Stupid cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys.

"There has to be a balance between individual liberty on one hand and the efficiency of the system to protect the public on the other. In an ideal world, I would choose the first, but this is not an ideal world, and when dealing with Islamic extremists we have to be brutal sometimes."

Why, when such sentiments are expressed by the likes of John Ashcroft, is such a stink raised, but when uttered by Alain Marsaud, you can practically hear crickets chirping?

Wonder if he'd be so cavalier if it was HIS family on the train in a Madrid type bombing. Or is it only the great unwashed he's to willing to sacrifice?

"The French understand very little except retreat and surrender."

"The French offence of "association with terrorists" – under which suspicions based on intelligence rather than hard evidence admissible in court are enough to imprison an individual – has been the centrepiece of the country's anti-terrorist strategy. "This is considered by some to be an attack on the liberty of individuals and I agree totally," Mr Marsaud said. "But it stops the bombs. There has to be a balance between individual liberty on one hand and the efficiency of the system to protect the public on the other. In an ideal world, I would choose the first, but this is not an ideal world, and when dealing with Islamic extremists we have to be brutal sometimes."

IMHO, you clearly missed the core thrust of the article

"I'll boycott France for life."

Of course.

What I object that portraying them idiots and weak.
That is very misleading...

One can spend long time and a lot of effort making silly jokes of France and laughing of them, but an intelligent observer can not deny that they are a force to consider.

Because that way the uncomfortable situation can arise when these surrender monkeys will have bigger influence on the world than the US with all its military and economic might.

"Why, when such sentiments are expressed by the likes of John Ashcroft, is such a stink raised, but when uttered by Alain Marsaud, you can practically hear crickets chirping?"

Why indeed, friend.

Excellent observation ... BTW.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.