I stated France in the question, but this applies to all Western nations. In this most recent attack, and in previous attacks as well, I always hear one particular point in the news coverage that I wonder about. They always mention how either the attackers themselves or some of the supporting people arrested afterwards were on some kind of watch list, and the intelligence community just happened to miss this particular plot. Of course, no intelligence organization is going on o be 100% accurate in finding and preventing an attack. My question, however, is why are these folks not in jail? I’m assuming that the reason they are being watched is because they have gone to Syria or Iraq to fight in the jihad, then returned to their home country. Maybe instead of going to fight in person they sent money to ISIS. Either way, shouldn’t such a person be charged with aiding the enemy and sent to jail if found guilty, rather than just being watched by overstretched intelligence agencies? Do we perhaps need to reform our criminal laws as to what constitutes aiding the enemy? I just don’t understand the idea of these watch lists. If any of you are familiar with them, or who ends up on them, please help fight my ignorance.
At best, it’s because you can’t lock people up forever just because you think they’re suspicious enough to want to know what they’re up to. You need proof of wrongdoing.
At worst, it’s because “on a government watch list” doesn’t mean jack shit if the government spies on everybody. I don’t know anything about the French intelligence agencies, but in the US the court that is supposed to tell the NSA when they don’t have a good excuse to spy on someone is pretty much a rubber stamp.
France already has anti-terrorisme support laws, dating to indeed the 19e century developed against the anarchists.
The relevant laws I think would be Loi n° 2006-64 du 23 janvier 2006 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme and loi n° 2014-1353 du 13 novembre 2014 renforçant les dispositions relatives à la lutte contre le terrorisme, although I am not sure if the application textes were published. (voila, Vous avez une question ? Posez la sur notre forum juridique)
It is one thing to have such laws, it is another to apply them in an intelligent way in a democracy.
Perhaps this means the intelligence community needs to come up with a better way of determining who needs watching. If they really are spying on everyone, I’m sure that means they don’t have enough watchers to focus on those who actually do deserve closer scrutiny, because they would then be stretched to thin.
As for the first point, of course proof of wrongdoing is required. I think the bigger issue, though, is what constitutes wrongdoing.
-
I don’t have the time right now to look this up in detail, but IIRC, numerous people from the US and Europe have indeed been detained while trying to travel to Syria or other locations in the MENA region, on suspicion that they were joining up with, or otherwise aiding ISIS.
-
I wonder what people think being on a ‘watch list’ means; I suspect that a lot of folks imagine some sort of 24-7 physical surveillance; teams of agents on stakeout, tailing suspects on their travels, etc. If so, that has got to be incorrect; without western governments establishing some sort of massive East German-style security apparatus, there simply aren’t enough agents available to keep constant track of every suspect. Some triage has to be done to set priorities, and persons who don’t already have a history of contacts with terrorist organizations are inherently harder to evaluate for risk.
Otherwise, what Grumman said.
This is sort of what I was trying to get at in my OP. Unless someone has had contact with ISIS or Al Qaeda, what could a person on such a list have possibly done that would get them flagged as being someone that needs watching? And if someone does have these contacts, shouldn’t they be investigated further and not just being watched or placed on some list?
I found out I was on the US antiterrorism watch list a couple of years ago while trying to buy a handgun. The watchlist didn’t prevent me from buying it but an active warrant did. Once I got that cleared up I bough the .357 while still on the terrorism watch.
From what I was told I’m on the list due to some known accomplices and at least I’d never heard the three names the judge read me. I flew internationally shortly after I found out and have also purchased a rifle. I’m sure my date is being stored more then most people but I dontr think the watchlist could have prevented me from being a terrorist.
Well, one possibility that comes to mind is that a person may visit a social media site that is pro-ISIS or Al Queda, or communicates in some way with someone who is believed to be associated with such an organization and presumably is on a watch list themselves. The problem there is, how do you justify jailing someone based on nothing more than having visited a web site or talking to someone on the phone? Likewise, OK, investigate them if you have the resources and think it’s worth the effort, but if you’ve questioned them and (I guess) rummaged through their belongings and found no evidence of participation in a crime, what then?
People on the watch list have just done something suspicious that is in and of itself not illegal. If they had done something illegal, they wouldn’t need to be an a watch list. They would either be in jail, or heavily monitored in order to track down more people.
It’s like the police taking special note of that strange guy who parks in your street at 3:00 in the morning. That’s not illegal. But it’s suspicious, so they watch.
Have you ever noticed how the terrah alerts go up at particular times of the year. In the UK thwarted plots are made known to the public to coincide with annual intelligence funding decisions. It’s basically blackmail of politicians by the Intel services.
In terms of ‘watch lists’ two things, it’s a simple media narrative no one is going to look into so any two bit 'journo can claim it. Plus it suits Intel agencies to remind the public (a) they are both on the case but (b) really stretched.
You’re basically saying that we shouldn’t investigate whether people are guilty of crimes until we already have proof that they are.
Put that way, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The point about being on a watch list is that youre associations, history, etc have persuaded the authorities that they might learn interesting stuff by paying attention to what you do, where you go, who you meet and what you say to them. There is no implication that you yourself are necessarily guilty of any wrongdoing.
No. That would land them in jail upon their return I think for “involvement in a terrorist operation” (I was searching for the exact name of the crime they’re sentenced for, didn’t find it, but found an article about one of these guys who came back to france after 10 days of training in Syria because they ban smoking). Fighting for ISIS is definitely a crime in France.
People on a watch lists are there for much less obvious reasons, like their relationships with already suspect people, their online activity and so on…
In the US, aiding or fighting with a terror group will land you in jail, if you are caught. As noted, however, being on a “watch list” means they don’t have enough evidence to arrest you, but enough to keep you under some type of investigation, which could be major or minor.
Being on a watchlist does not necessarily mean anything sinister. If you have access to nuclear secrets and technical knowledge, then chances are you are on a watchlist, even if they have no reason to believe you are going to divulge this.
And watchlist can mean anything from “follow 24 hours a day” to “flag when leaving the country”.
In Denmark ISIS fighters can be convicted for treason or terrorism. Used to be death, but these days it’s only life in prison.
Denmark - being Denmark - has even arrested Kurdish women going to fight against ISIS.
Having a relative involved in that sort of thing, like a brother or sister, would probably make you a suspicious character simply by association. As one example.
The whole “guilt by association” thing comes up again and again - you may be opposed to ISIS yourself, even fight against them, but if your brother is working for them you will still be regarded as a potential risk simply because that guy is your brother. And no doubt ISIS will be suspicious of him because he’s related to you.
Then there’s the business where recently many people are conflating “Syrian refugee” with “terrorist”. Same thing on a larger scale.
We have a presidential candidate who apparently thinks just being a Muslim is reason for suspicion and wants to put all of them on a watch list. Doesn’t matter if you’ve won a Nobel Peace Prize or saved a thousand lives or served in the US military fighting against American enemies or whatever, according to Trump if you’re a Muslim you’re a potential terrorist and need to be scrutinized forever.