More Liberties Falling... and to Fall... in France ?
Guénady
June 04, 2008
Astute observers of French society will not have failed to note the vote of France's Deputies (regionally elected representatives in the Chamber of Deputies), last May 15, in favor of a draft law providing, ostensibly, additional protection for journalists in regard to their sources of information.
This draft law stems from the hullaballoo over the case of Guillaume Dasquié, a reporter for Le Monde, and the article he published in his paper on April 16, 2007. "9/11 - Les Français en savaient long..." (or: "9/11 - The French knew a lot..."), an article which had the effect, in spring of last year, of a mini-bombshell.
The crux of the eventual trouble was that Dasquié would not say how he had come to be in possession of a 328-page DGSE (secret services) document, all of it classified material (including maps, graphs, satellite photos, reports...) on al-Qaeda. In his article, he recounts putting the 328 pages on the desk of the then chief of staff of the DGSE in Paris, who deplored the leak, but would say nothing of the contents, "essentially all of the DGSE's work on the subject during the crucial period [July 2000 to October 2001]".
In his article, Dasquié emphasized his surprise at "the number of notes specifically devoted to the threats of al-Qaeda against the US, months before the suicide attacks..."
"There are nine reports on this subject between September 2000 and August 2001. This includes a summary note of five pages, entitled 'Hijacking of an airplane by radical Islamists', and dated January 5, 2001. Thus, eight months before 9/11, the DGSE reports tactical discussions since the start of 2000 between Osama bin Laden and his Taliban allies about such an operation against US airlines...
Dasquié's article details how the veracity of the information and the sources was checked at the time by the DGSE, and how, as was systematic, the information was passed on to the CIA in Paris. The CIA's man on the ground at the time declined to speak with Dasquié.
The intrepid journalist goes on, in his article, to point out that the 9/11 Commission, in its final report published in July 2004, "underscored the inability of the FBI, the CIA and the immigration services to piece together the sparse data pointing towards some of the 9/11 hijackers. At no point did the Commission bring up the possibility that the CIA would have sent up to political powers as early as January 2001 intelligence coming from French intelligence regarding the tactical choice of bin Laden to hijack American airliners."
"...the most astounding thing about the 328-page DGSE report," Dasquié went on, "lies in the juxtaposition of the report's warning of the threat, like that of January 2001, and those that give quite early on highly detailed information on the function of the organization. Beginning on July 24, 2000, with a 13 page report entitled "The Networks of Osama bin Laden," it's all there in black and white. The context, the anecdotal details, and all the strategic aspects relative to al-Qaeda are already there..."
Besides the intrinsic interest of this article to all those who think that something is wrong with the official story on 9/11, the follow up to Dasquié's article serves to underscore the importance with which those in authority regard this breech ...
On December 5, 2007, Michèle Alliot-Marie, French Minister of Defense, filed a complaint against Dasquié for compromising national defense secrets, and Dasquié's home was searched, by several agents who came to call at 8am, December 6. (Memories of storm-troopers kicking down the doors of sleeping Jews during WWII inspired a post-war law that home searches cannot take place in France before 8am.)
Dasquié described the agents, in a television interview, as being young, good-looking and polite, but firm. They wanted the source of the information that was revealed in his April 16 article. Having invoked the clause of French law which protects a journalist from divulging sources, Dasquié was taken into custody on the spot. Held in detention and interrogated for 36 hours, Dasquié says that he was told that the law did indeed protect him from divulging his sources, but that he would nonetheless be held in custody until court processes could vindicate him, which would take pehaps 4 to 6 months. In the meantime, he would not see his wife or children...
Terror tactics? Intimidation par excellence? Whatever, Dasquié, left with time to reflect on the prospect of detention for several months, decided that his family (particularly his small children) came first and, breaking down in tears in front of the television camera, he admits to having coughed up a name. 'I hope that person understands,' he said in front of the camera. Whatever he has done since, Guilaume Dasquié undoubtedly committed professional suicide by revealing his source, even if it turns out not to have been the real source of the classified document. Who would ever trust him again with sensitive information?
The European Federation of Journalists, writing about this case, reminds us that France has been found guilty several times by the Euopean Court of Human Rights for non-respect of journalistic sources. The Federation believes it is high time that journalists should be able to work within a legal framework which respects their right to privacy on sources. But if protection already exists in the laws, and if the government can choose to flaunt the law, so as to intimidate a journalist, is there any point in rewriting or reinforcing the law? The police are the strong arm of the government, they are there to enforce government policy. How frightening is it to realize that democratic safeguards can be swept aside in the unproven interests of 'national security'...
Citizens of so-called democratic countries have come to consider their civil liberties as rights, forgetting that rights can be ignored by fascist governments with no explanation, and no apology.
In this connection, regarding national security, we would all do well to reread the enlightening article 'Fake Terror - The Road to War and Dictatorship' ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/ ). At a time of declining civilization and rising fascism, is the flimsy pretense at a free society now coming to an end all around us?
Others can undoubtedly point to similar signs in the circles that interest them. I will point to the terror raids against animal activits in Austria (6:15 am, May 21st, doors kicked in, sleeping activists held at gun-point and arrested 'on suspicion', but no charges have been filed so far...and those arrested are still in custody). I will also point to my own 'surveillance', which has existed for seven years (you can be sure that the author is guilty of nothing, or arrest would have occurred long ago). This seems to be the response to exercising freedom of speech, when the things said don't fit in with mainstream sanctioned opinions. Must we all think as we are told to think, or else be weeded out? Are psychiatric hospitals next? Or just prisons? Because of 'suspicions'? Let us hope that France is not next to adopt morning storm-trooper raids against animal defenders... As we have already also seen in Los Angeles, some months ago...
In any case, the hullaballoo the Guillaume Dasquié event caused in the press last December has resulted in a call for reinforcement of the law on protection of journalistic sources. The article regarding the May 15 vote in the Chamber of Deputies was all of one paragraph, on page 15 of the Nice Matin,. In other words, the page has pretty much been turned, the incident forgotten, and life goes on...
For the moment...
(If the subject interests you and you read French, you can see this article : http://www.abledangerblog.com/2007/04/translated-article-from-le-monde.html )
This draft law stems from the hullaballoo over the case of Guillaume Dasquié, a reporter for Le Monde, and the article he published in his paper on April 16, 2007. "9/11 - Les Français en savaient long..." (or: "9/11 - The French knew a lot..."), an article which had the effect, in spring of last year, of a mini-bombshell.
The crux of the eventual trouble was that Dasquié would not say how he had come to be in possession of a 328-page DGSE (secret services) document, all of it classified material (including maps, graphs, satellite photos, reports...) on al-Qaeda. In his article, he recounts putting the 328 pages on the desk of the then chief of staff of the DGSE in Paris, who deplored the leak, but would say nothing of the contents, "essentially all of the DGSE's work on the subject during the crucial period [July 2000 to October 2001]".
In his article, Dasquié emphasized his surprise at "the number of notes specifically devoted to the threats of al-Qaeda against the US, months before the suicide attacks..."
"There are nine reports on this subject between September 2000 and August 2001. This includes a summary note of five pages, entitled 'Hijacking of an airplane by radical Islamists', and dated January 5, 2001. Thus, eight months before 9/11, the DGSE reports tactical discussions since the start of 2000 between Osama bin Laden and his Taliban allies about such an operation against US airlines...
Dasquié's article details how the veracity of the information and the sources was checked at the time by the DGSE, and how, as was systematic, the information was passed on to the CIA in Paris. The CIA's man on the ground at the time declined to speak with Dasquié.
The intrepid journalist goes on, in his article, to point out that the 9/11 Commission, in its final report published in July 2004, "underscored the inability of the FBI, the CIA and the immigration services to piece together the sparse data pointing towards some of the 9/11 hijackers. At no point did the Commission bring up the possibility that the CIA would have sent up to political powers as early as January 2001 intelligence coming from French intelligence regarding the tactical choice of bin Laden to hijack American airliners."
"...the most astounding thing about the 328-page DGSE report," Dasquié went on, "lies in the juxtaposition of the report's warning of the threat, like that of January 2001, and those that give quite early on highly detailed information on the function of the organization. Beginning on July 24, 2000, with a 13 page report entitled "The Networks of Osama bin Laden," it's all there in black and white. The context, the anecdotal details, and all the strategic aspects relative to al-Qaeda are already there..."
Besides the intrinsic interest of this article to all those who think that something is wrong with the official story on 9/11, the follow up to Dasquié's article serves to underscore the importance with which those in authority regard this breech ...
On December 5, 2007, Michèle Alliot-Marie, French Minister of Defense, filed a complaint against Dasquié for compromising national defense secrets, and Dasquié's home was searched, by several agents who came to call at 8am, December 6. (Memories of storm-troopers kicking down the doors of sleeping Jews during WWII inspired a post-war law that home searches cannot take place in France before 8am.)
Dasquié described the agents, in a television interview, as being young, good-looking and polite, but firm. They wanted the source of the information that was revealed in his April 16 article. Having invoked the clause of French law which protects a journalist from divulging sources, Dasquié was taken into custody on the spot. Held in detention and interrogated for 36 hours, Dasquié says that he was told that the law did indeed protect him from divulging his sources, but that he would nonetheless be held in custody until court processes could vindicate him, which would take pehaps 4 to 6 months. In the meantime, he would not see his wife or children...
Terror tactics? Intimidation par excellence? Whatever, Dasquié, left with time to reflect on the prospect of detention for several months, decided that his family (particularly his small children) came first and, breaking down in tears in front of the television camera, he admits to having coughed up a name. 'I hope that person understands,' he said in front of the camera. Whatever he has done since, Guilaume Dasquié undoubtedly committed professional suicide by revealing his source, even if it turns out not to have been the real source of the classified document. Who would ever trust him again with sensitive information?
The European Federation of Journalists, writing about this case, reminds us that France has been found guilty several times by the Euopean Court of Human Rights for non-respect of journalistic sources. The Federation believes it is high time that journalists should be able to work within a legal framework which respects their right to privacy on sources. But if protection already exists in the laws, and if the government can choose to flaunt the law, so as to intimidate a journalist, is there any point in rewriting or reinforcing the law? The police are the strong arm of the government, they are there to enforce government policy. How frightening is it to realize that democratic safeguards can be swept aside in the unproven interests of 'national security'...
Citizens of so-called democratic countries have come to consider their civil liberties as rights, forgetting that rights can be ignored by fascist governments with no explanation, and no apology.
In this connection, regarding national security, we would all do well to reread the enlightening article 'Fake Terror - The Road to War and Dictatorship' ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/ ). At a time of declining civilization and rising fascism, is the flimsy pretense at a free society now coming to an end all around us?
Others can undoubtedly point to similar signs in the circles that interest them. I will point to the terror raids against animal activits in Austria (6:15 am, May 21st, doors kicked in, sleeping activists held at gun-point and arrested 'on suspicion', but no charges have been filed so far...and those arrested are still in custody). I will also point to my own 'surveillance', which has existed for seven years (you can be sure that the author is guilty of nothing, or arrest would have occurred long ago). This seems to be the response to exercising freedom of speech, when the things said don't fit in with mainstream sanctioned opinions. Must we all think as we are told to think, or else be weeded out? Are psychiatric hospitals next? Or just prisons? Because of 'suspicions'? Let us hope that France is not next to adopt morning storm-trooper raids against animal defenders... As we have already also seen in Los Angeles, some months ago...
In any case, the hullaballoo the Guillaume Dasquié event caused in the press last December has resulted in a call for reinforcement of the law on protection of journalistic sources. The article regarding the May 15 vote in the Chamber of Deputies was all of one paragraph, on page 15 of the Nice Matin,. In other words, the page has pretty much been turned, the incident forgotten, and life goes on...
For the moment...
(If the subject interests you and you read French, you can see this article : http://www.abledangerblog.com/2007/04/translated-article-from-le-monde.html )
Print
Email
