French special forces officer killed in Afghanistan

afp ^ | 3/4/06 | na

[Alter Kaker]

Many many died valiantly because the French failed to slap that Austrian Corporal when he waltzed into the Sudetenland. France had a treaty with the Checkoslovakia that they should have honored.

The French government wanted to intervene to protect Czechoslovakia, and earlier it wanted to intervene to prevent the reoccupation of the Rhineland, but it needed British support (particularly Naval and logistical) -- and the British government of the time repeatedly refused to help. Blame the Brits, specifically Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain.

[When do we get liberated?]

The French Army was vastly superior to the German in all terms.
At the Nuremburg trial Colonel Edgar(Czech representative) asked Marshal Keitel would the Reich have attacked Czechoslovakia in 1938 if the Western powers stood by Prauge?
"Certainly not, We were not strong enough militarily. The object of Munich was to get Russia out of Europe, to gain time and to complete the German armaments"
The German war machine was a paper tiger, largely devoid of weapons, fuel and ammunition in 1938. They were at the time digging themselves out of a depression that made ours look like the roaring 20's.

[starfish923]

It's always part of every news outlet agenda. They call them news editors. Until you take humans out of the process, it will be that way. I don't get the fixation on "the MSM." In fact, I don't know what "the MSM" is. I've asked others to define "the MSM" with examples and that's when it seems to get tough. I won't attempt to put you on the spot.

The Main Stream Media, as you know, is comprised of the standard sources of news in this world. Their sources USED to be the Associated Press and the UPI (I forget what the letters stand for.) I think Limbaugh now calls them the old fashioned media, though I can't be sure of that.
CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC are the standard electronic "MSM," (I might have left out one or more.) and the syndicated newspapers, both national and international version of the Herald Tribune, Time, Newsweek and the US News & World Report (I might have left out one or more.) are the written media. You know that too. This is what most Americans read and hear for the news of their world.

BBC falls into the MSM category for Great Britain. They've even been taken to task publically for their bias. Each country in Europe (my own experience) has its own very biased MSM. Some countries support their MSM; some don't.

European countries even have “editors” for the Internet. They have Internet Nannies (personal experience in Amsterdam) to disallow access to Internet sites. Pro-Nazi sites have been blocked in Europe ever since the Internet existed. Not so here in the USA. Censorship is alive and thriving. I DO believe in some censorship, by the way. But, one does have to admit that there really IS censorship and stop waxing poetic about free speech. One should prose on about “mostly” free speech.
In Amsterdam the freerepublic.com is blocked--NO ACCESS to our beloved freeper site. That is censorship, of course, but there ya go; it's their country and they can do that.

MSM news editors have actually been put on the spot for their bias and agendas...Dan Rather! Imagine! That was UNHEARD of 10 years ago.....UNHEARD OF.
I remember Rather YELLING at then vice-president George Herbert Walker Bush, second in command to Ronald Reagan. Rather yelled at Bush, saying “You’re nobody!” Appalling arrogance. I hated Rather from that day on....and I was a Democrat at the time. Respect is due to our leaders whether we like them or not. Rather’s arrogance was just appalling. I was VERY glad that I was allowed to be around when “what goes around.....” Warm fuzzy.

Imvho, leadpenny, not putting YOU on the spot either, you OUGHT to be fixated on the MSM because they present our world reality to us via the boobtube and written media. Almost all of what you read is from them. They shape the reality that you know.

THEY determine what stories get aired, how much content to each story, how often it gets aired, for how many days, weeks or months it gets airtime. [Natalie Holloway won't be allowed to rest in peace, ever, but the 800,000 Africans who were slaughtered in ethnic warfare were almost ignored.] Photos, background, maps, interviews, side stories, etc., also determine coverage. It’s amazing HOW much CAN be involved (or not) in a story. A HUGE story (American allies in the war on terrorism) can be made tiny and a tiny story, like poor Natalie Holloway, can be made huge. It’s up to the media, isn’t it/

Having Greta van Sustrand (sp) or Geraldo "The SleazeBucket" Rivera on the story also indicates the news editor's value of the story. How many times did you see the police beating up on Rodney King? 5 million/per week? How many times did we get such in-depth when he was re-arrested 5 million times? Almost none. Blips.
The coverage on the 9/11 attacks was appropriately huge. The coverage on Katrina ended up focusing on Bush and his “failures.” That is yet another way how the MSM manipulates the news to fit their agenda. Also, New Orleans wasn’t the only place that experienced DISASTER. Mississippi did too but the coverage for THERE was minimal. More manipulation by the MSM. They DO it to sell advertising, of course, but their agenda comes through, at least, to me.

I could go on and on ad infinitum nauseum, but that’s more than enough.

[starfish923]

De rien!

[conservatrice]

I believe the word used by the troops is "le merdier" (the shithole).

The French Commandos d'Infanterie de Marine have a reputation of toughness that even the Legionaries envy. I once met a COI guy who was still an NCO after almost 20 years because every few years, he did something so dumb or so crazy he nixed his chances. For example, during a training mission, he was on the "saboteur" team trying to penetrate an air base guarded by the "defender" team. He was too bold, got spotted and was cornered by a defender, who shot his blank-loaded rifle at him and told him he was "dead". Pissed off, the COI guy put an unpinned training grenade in the pants of the defender. The panicked defender jiggled frantically but still only managed to get the grenade to explode in a leg, hurting him seriously (but at least he saved his jewels). That cost him his career.

And this is why even the legionaries think the COI are gung-ho.

[JRios1968]

Quick, what does that mean? My French dictionary is nowhere to be found!

[JasonC]

All the honor in France wouldn't fill an eyedropper. Ask a harki.

[Republican Party Reptile]

A lot more countries supported U.S. action in Afghanistan than in Iraq. French, German, Belgian, Dutch, Canadian, all have had troops in Afghanistan continuously since 9/11.

Actually, Starfish923, the US Media do tend to highlight foreign (esp. NATO) combat / support presence in Afghanistan - it is used to illustrate that going after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was multilateral with broader international support vs. going after Saddam was more unilateral.

[MadJack]

There's several of them at our camp in Kabul. And Brits, Mongols, Poles, Italians and Bulgarians. And since most everyone there seems focused on whacking bad guys, my guess is that's what they're up to.

[leadpenny]

I really didn't think you would try to define "the MSM" but you've given me some grins anyway.

as you know
You know that too.
Imvho, leadpenny, not putting YOU on the spot either, you OUGHT to be fixated on the MSM

BTW, you left out FOX. They use AP and other news services.

Also, I just picked up my Washington Times from the driveway. Yup, they are using AP and Reuters just like they always do.

I need to start collecting definitions of "the MSM." I saw one the other day that was almost as painful as yours.

[starfish923]

You're welcome.

[JRios1968]

Ah..oui oui...

[starfish923]

I really didn't think you would try to define "the MSM" but you've given me some grins anyway. as you know You know that too. Imvho, leadpenny, not putting YOU on the spot either, you OUGHT to be fixated on the MSM BTW, you left out FOX. They use AP and other news services. Also, I just picked up my Washington Times from the driveway. Yup, they are using AP and Reuters just like they always do. I need to start collecting definitions of "the MSM." I saw one the other day that was almost as painful as yours.

You collect definintions of MSM? Aww, isn't that cute?
Hahaha, now you've made ME laugh.
Wow, what ingenuousness thinking. You've earned a spot on my ignore list.

[leadpenny]

Ignore if you like but you may just see your rambling attempt again when I open the Gallery of MSM Definitions.

[starfish923]

1. A lot more countries supported U.S. action in Afghanistan than in Iraq. French, German, Belgian, Dutch, Canadian, all have had troops in Afghanistan continuously since 9/11.
2. Actually, Starfish923, the US Media do tend to highlight foreign (esp. NATO) combat / support presence in Afghanistan - it is used to illustrate that going after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was multilateral with broader international support vs. going after Saddam was more unilateral.

1. I think that's WONDERFUL news for us and our relationship with Europe. I'm very glad to see those country names up there. I DIDN'T know it because I don't recall seeing it on the news. Mind you, I don't watch the boobtube news very much. I scan the website news but they don't ever seem to have much on U.S. allies -- especially from countries like Germany, Canada, France and Holland. They are SO OFTEN posted here on the FR as the perennial "bad guys."
Lol. A positive post about Germany, France, Canada and Holland? Wow. That would be something to see here on the FR. I'd have to put on my flame-resistant suit to post one of those.
Thank you for posting it. It's just great news for me.

2. If they "tend" to highlight NATO support, I guess I just haven't seen that tendency. The usual report from Iraq focuses on bad stuff and the "personal" stuff seems to focus on women and minority soldiers.
I always seem to miss reports on Afghanistan, except for the big stuff like U.S. deaths and casualties. My bad, I guess.

I wish Bush would DRUM it into our heads that we aren't alone in Afghanistan. I wish...oh, well.
Thanks for this heads-up as well.

[starfish923]

There's several of them at our camp in Kabul. And Brits, Mongols, Poles, Italians and Bulgarians. And since most everyone there seems focused on whacking bad guys, my guess is that's what they're up to.

Pardon me for butting in, as this wasn't addressed to me.

Brits, I expected to see, even the Polish.
But Bulgarians? I hardly even know where that Balkan country is. Good for them.

Mongolians? I thought there were too poor to have much of a military, let alone lend some of it to us, especially for a place like Afghanistan. By that remark I mean it's such a hit-and-miss place with the Himalayas blocking most "traditional" warfare. It seems almost pure guerilla warfare. Afghanistan has been one of God's poorest nations for a long time. They have trouble even feeding themselves in that geography. I guess the poppy has been enough for a lot of enterprise.

Thanks for the information. Gladdens my heart to hear of the support -- especially from Europe.

[CheneyChick]

There are SF operators from countries that many would find surprising. We worked with folks from Germany, France, Canada among a few. All dedicated heroes - in spite of the leadership of their homeland.

[starfish923]

I believe the word used by the troops is "le merdier" (the shithole).
The French Commandos d'Infanterie de Marine have a reputation of toughness that even the Legionaries envy. I once met a COI guy who was still an NCO after almost 20 years because every few years, he did something so dumb or so crazy he nixed his chances. For example, during a training mission, he was on the "saboteur" team trying to penetrate an air base guarded by the "defender" team. He was too bold, got spotted and was cornered by a defender, who shot his blank-loaded rifle at him and told him he was "dead". Pissed off, the COI guy put an unpinned training grenade in the pants of the defender. The panicked defender jiggled frantically but still only managed to get the grenade to explode in a leg, hurting him seriously (but at least he saved his jewels). That cost him his career.
And this is why even the legionaries think the COI are gung-ho.

Thanks for telling me this. The French have always been tough. They have to be....they have to deal with each other. Lol.

Wow, this sure doesn't fit in with the standard French-bashing on this site. The France-haters are SURELY lurking ready to pounce. There are so many of them! I happen to like the French and visit France on occasion. Paris is one of the "eternal" cities of this planet and they do have wonderful food.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The French media don't cover it well, either.

There has been a French commando unit of approximately company size operating around Spin Boldak under OEF.

There is another unit of approximately battalion size operating around Kabul as part of ISAF. One of their missions is sweeping the mountain tops around KIA for Stinger gunners.

[KeyLargo]

"All dedicated heroes - in spite of the leadership of their homeland."

Excellent post CC.

Although, I made a provocitive post to get some FR reaction, I highly respect the warriors from other countries participating in the war on terror and their sacrifices.

One thing that the French do extremely well is anti-terrorism as this article explains. I wish that our government would follow the French example:

---

Marc Perelman: Parlez-vous Counterterrorism?

The French know national security, and America had better start taking notes

03:01 PM CST on Sunday, February 19, 2006

Could Paris teach Washington a thing or two about protecting civil liberties while tracking down terrorists at home?

In the United States, revelations that the Bush administration mandated domestic spying have caused a political uproar. France, however, has been spying on its citizens for years as part of its effective, albeit controversial, counterterrorist system.In 1988, the FBI invited Alain Marsaud, then France's top anti-terrorist magistrate, to speak about terrorism to the bureau's new recruits at its academy in Quantico, Va. Mr. Marsaud, now a conservative lawmaker, told the audience of would-be feds of the deadly threat that radical Islamist terrorist networks posed to Western societies. His talk was an unmitigated flop.

"They thought we were Martians," recalls Mr. Marsaud, who chairs the French Parliament's domestic security commission. "They were interested in neo-Nazis and green activists, and that was it."

Mr. Marsaud's experience goes to show just how far Washington has come. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has moved swiftly to overhaul its counterterrorism policy and has hit some bumps in the road.

Questions of spying, security, civil liberties and privacy are not new to France, which found itself in the crosshairs of Middle Eastern terrorists well before the United States did. France was the first to uncover a plot to crash a jetliner into a landmark building, the Eiffel Tower – a chilling preview of the 9/11 attacks. It was the first to face the reality that its own citizens could become assets of Islamist terrorist groups, long before British nationals bombed the London Underground last July. As a result, it has continuously adapted its judicial system and intelligence services to the terrorist threat that it faces.

Like most European countries, France favors a judicial approach over the U.S.-style "war on terror." But the French blend of aggressive prosecution, specialized investigators and intrusive law enforcement is unique in Europe. And though the policy has gone through trial and error, the early warning helped fashion what has proved to be a fairly successful – though controversial – counterterrorist response.

French domestic legion

France's early awareness of the terrorist threat grew out of experience rather than prescience. France was the first Western country struck on its soil by state-sponsored terrorism from the Middle East. France had been hit by terrorist attacks linked to the war in Algeria in the 1950s and to Palestinian groups in the 1970s. But, much like the United States on the morning of 9/11, France was caught largely unprepared when a series of deadly attacks shook Paris in the mid-1980s.

The new terror wave, allegedly ordered by Iran and Syria, involved a geopolitical dimension that the antiquated French police and justice systems were in no position to counter.

That prompted the adoption in 1986 of a comprehensive anti-terrorism law, which set up a centralized unit of investigating magistrates in Paris – led by Mr. Marsaud and later by Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière – with jurisdiction over all terrorism cases. Unlike normal French criminal proceedings, terrorist trials in France are judged only by panels of professional magistrates, without the participation of juries.

In the French system, an investigating judge is the equivalent of an empowered U.S. prosecutor. The judge is in charge of a secret probe, through which he or she can file charges, order wiretaps and issue warrants and subpoenas. The conclusions of the judge are then transmitted to the prosecutor's office, which decides whether to send the case to trial.

The anti-terrorist magistrates have even broader powers than their peers. For instance, they can request the assistance of the police and intelligence services, order the preventive detention of suspects for six days without charge and justify keeping someone behind bars for several years pending an investigation.

In addition, they have an international mandate when a French national is involved in a terrorist act, be it as a perpetrator or as a victim. As a result, France today has a pool of specialized judges and investigators adept at dismantling and prosecuting terrorist networks.

By contrast, in the U.S. judicial system, the evidence gathered by prosecutors is laid out during the trial, in what amounts to a make-or-break gamble. A single court, the "secret" panel of 11 judges, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) more than two decades ago, is charged with reviewing wiretap requests by U.S. authorities. If suspects are spied on without permission in the interest of urgency, the authorities have 72 hours to file for retroactive authorization.

The Bush administration's recourse to extrajudicial means – military trials, enemy combatants – partly stems from an assessment that the judicial system is unfit to prosecute the shadowy world of terrorism. The disclosures that the administration skirted the rules to eavesdrop on terrorism suspects at home is apparently the latest instance of the government deciding that rules protecting civil liberties are hampering the war on terror.

French police and intelligence services, in contrast, operate in a permissive wiretapping system. In addition to judicially ordered taps, there are also "administrative wiretaps" decided by security agencies under the control of the government. Although the French have had their own cases of abuse – evidence has exposed illegal spying by the François Mitterrand government in the 1980s – the intrusive police powers are, for the most part, well known by the public and largely accepted, especially when it comes to national security.

On the ground, these trans-Atlantic disparities amount to a big difference. Take the case of Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian man arrested in late 1999 at the U.S.-Canadian border with a car full of explosives. When U.S. authorities determined that he intended to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, they had no clues about his background.

But Mr. Bruguière already had a comprehensive dossier on Mr. Ressam and concluded that he was connected to a network of radical Islamists based in Montreal who were possibly plotting attacks in North America. U.S. prosecutors eagerly used stacks of French documents to build their case and even invited Mr. Bruguière to testify as an expert witness (defense attorneys objected to his being deemed an expert witness, and the judge did not allow him to testify before the jury).

During the past two decades, Mr. Bruguière has acquired a near-mythical aura because of his dogged efforts to prosecute terrorists around the globe. Critics, however, bemoan his tendency to stage spectacular raids, claiming that the headline-grabbing moves often fail to secure convictions. To them, Mr. Bruguière's taste for the limelight epitomizes the problem of vesting power in a small cadre of anti-terrorist judges with limited oversight of their work.

More broadly, human rights groups see the judicial regime as an arbitrary one in which many suspects are rounded up on terrorism-related charges, but few convictions follow. Although officials see that as necessary preventive action, the human rights community worries over potential abuse by police forces. In a 1999 report, the International Federation for Human Rights accused the French government of large-scale violations of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In addition to overzealous judges, human rights advocates blame the ever-expanding definition of terrorist crimes. The 1986 law defined terrorist crime narrowly. Today's expanded definition allows magistrates to detain pre-emptively suspects in any crime whose goal can ultimately assist terrorist activity.

Judging success

The smooth relationship between France's judiciary and its intelligence world is unique among Western nations. Even after 9/11, a proposal to create a separate domestic intelligence service failed to gather momentum in Washington. In Britain, the MI5 has no judicial competence. Yet, since the 1990s, the French domestic intelligence service has had the ability to ask magistrates to open investigations. Judges can in turn assist the agency by ordering warrants, wiretaps and subpoenas.

That is in part because French authorities see petty crimes as a window into a terrorist network, as its members mostly operate in compartmented cells, each contributing to a larger conspiracy known only to the masterminds. To unravel complex plots, France has used its extended police powers to monitor mosques and suspicious individuals and eventually expel those deemed too dangerous. It has relied both on human intelligence, notably police and intelligence agents of Muslim descent, and on technological means to break cases. A new bill adopted in December increases police surveillance methods – especially video and communications – and stiffens prison sentences for convicted members of a terrorist plot.

But, as Mr. Bruguière points out, even simple identity checks can provide precious intelligence, as was the case in the Ressam affair, where the discovery of forged passports eventually led to a terrorist cell. Although French police are entitled to check the identity of any passer-by in France without justification, requiring national identity cards for all Americans would almost certainly spark outrage and controversy.

Bush administration officials argue that the FISA law does not effectively counter the terrorist challenge. Yet, the administration has not made serious efforts to amend the law or push for broader reform of domestic counterterrorism. Doing so would no doubt be difficult politically and may require regular tweaking, as the French experience shows. But such an effort could pay dividends, for both law enforcement and the American people's trust in their government.

In recent years, French authorities claim they have thwarted a number of terrorist plots by using their forward-leaning arsenal, from a series of alleged chemical attacks planned by Chechen operatives against Russian interests in Paris to a recently reported ploy by French Muslims linked to a radical Islamist group in Algeria to target one of the capital's airports.

"The French have a very aggressive system, but one that fits into their traditions," says Jeremy Shapiro, the director of research at the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "They seem to be doing the best job in Europe."

Such praise makes French officials cringe. They point to Islamist attacks against French interests in Pakistan and in Yemen as evidence that France is not immune to terror. "We have our own approach, and it has worked fairly well," says Mr. Marsaud, "but we know that in this area, success can only be relative."

Marc Perelman is a staff writer at The Forward (www.forward.com). This essay is adapted, with permission, from Foreign Policy magazine (www.foreignpolicy.com).

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-french_19edi.ART.State.Edition1.3ebb91d.html