More news from the war on terror front, this time from the AP:
The French government is offering Zacarias Moussaoui the consular protection he deserves as a French national, but so far the al-Qaida conspirator has not asked for it, the French Embassy said Wednesday.
In a press communique, the embassy said it had dispatched the consul general from Washington and an embassy official to every session of the trial in US District Court at Alexandria, Virginia, south of Washington.
After seven days’ deliberations, the jury brought in its verdict Wednesday that Moussaoui, a Frenchman of Moroccan extraction, should be jailed for life without parole for his part in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Not sure what all consular protection would offer him—aside from taking the death penalty off the table, which is now moot—but perhaps it could mean extradition to a French prison, where Zach can live out his days in more amenable circumstances.
I honestly don’t know. But what it suggests is that the French are still trying to assert some sort of moral authority over us with regard to our prosecution of the War on Terror, even if it is largely feckless and symbolic assertions.
And why not? People seem remarkably uninterested in their ties with Saddam or their ties to the Oil for Food Scandal.
Meaning only that it takes a whole lot of duplicity and perfidy to find yourself morally inferior to the Great Satan.
(h/t Tom Pechinski; see also, LGF)
Me? I don’t care where he ends up being imprisoned, as long as it is in the facility where he is most statistically likely to be buttfucked to death by his fellow inmates. I guess that’s harsh, but he definitely has it coming (no pun intended).
Huh? The consul general of the French Embassy has nothing better to do than sit through that entire trial?!
I know the French are big of government jobs, but I think this shows that they could afford a little bit of a staff cutback at the Embassy in D.C…
This guy has a description of the type of facility Moussaoui’s headed for. Unfortuantely, he ends with this fodder from our protectors of moral authority:
I’m told that Amnesty International has problems with the Supermax Facility, and the practice of isolating prisoners for up to 23 hours a day. On second thought, the Colorado prison just might be the right spot for Moussaoui.
Truly Zach Moosehead was the perfect scapegoat: I mean the guy is both French AND Mohammedan- too bad he wasn’t also black, gay and communist!
How an inoffensive (except maybe for himself!) unstable fool eager to get his proverbial 5 minutes of glory through the grandiloquent use of outlandish statements and other “jihadist verbiage†can attract the attention of so many “conservative†minds shows the extent to which conservatism, once the ideological home of our nation’s virile and rational minds, has become of sub-ideology of sensationalist pussies and other Neocon carpetbaggers…
I’ve always wondered how so many sane citizen were easily fooled into believing that a half-demented Moroccan prole from the eastern suburbs of Paris was indeed a “global terrorist mastermind†ready to play kamikaze with the WTC.
But then again, millions of our fellow Americans were brainwashed into believing that Saddam Hussein, the Arab world’s most secular and Westernized politician, was kind of a later days bloodthirsty Saracen on the verge of conquering the infidel pastures of Wyoming!
Its quite normal for embassies to do this sort of stuff for nationals. Its not really that assertive to follow protocol.
The Seattle Times published almost the same description here:
“it is in the facility where he is most statistically likely to be buttfucked to death by his fellow inmates”
Wish it were true, but in this prison the only contact he will have is probably a once a week visit from his Imam. Maybe a guard will inflict his own brand of justice. We hope…..
The words France and Moral Authority do not belong in the same sentence unless the words “has no” goes between them.
word: possible. “France has no possible claim to moral authority.”
APPEARANCE = REALITY, remember?
Oh yeah, embassies usually send the consul general and another employee to every trial one of their nationals is involved in. I must have had every single embassy in the Western Hemisphere crowding staffers into the felony courtroom where I prosecuted.
Cripes, we had box seats set aside for the Mexican Ambassador and the Canadian Ambassador.
I know, leave the Typing Telephone Pole alone…
Someday France will again require the help of the United States. I fully expect they will get the finger instead. It’s too bad they are too stupid to realize it.
It was tough dealing wiht all the press attention too.
I’m sure the French were heartbroken when Moussaoui didn’t get the needle. The probably had their own little international morality play planned for months, if not years now all for naught. All that finger wagging and tongue clucking practice done for nothingâ€â€merde!
And Krista Rear is wrong, wrong I tell you. The key to security is hogs, big, hungry hogs, with tusks and all, the kind you can’t turn your back on for even a second…
Just want to say that I’m so proud of this group for ignoring Dr. V’s hamfisted effort at provocation, above.
Bravo.
Yes, it is quite depressing to watch the left defend the most vile people in the world in order to achieve an imagined “dig” at their ideological opposites.
Press we had, diplomats we did not. I cannot believe you could have been so foolish as to say
and take offense at having such a strange generalization get snarked at.
Tell you what you can do to redeem your position:
Name another trial where the consul general of the embassy and another staffer were present for every session of an extended trial – without being requested.
Hmmm.
The whole point is to get him transferred to France and held there until the French need to trade him in exchange for a French prisoner.
If he goes to France, he’ll be walking free in under a month. And if that happens then I suggest we bomb the shit out of Paris.
Name another trial of a (in)famous foreigner.
Its out of whack because of the attention paid to the trial—its in proportion to that. But the issue of consular interest in the trials of nationals? not that surprising.
Okay, I’m pretty upset that Moussaoui didn’t get the maximum penalty. But as I recall, France has received some detainees from Gitmo… and they were promptly put into French prisons and have yet to see the light of day… haven’t even seen their lawyers. French law for terrorism puts American law to shame.
Secondly, French prison conditions are cited as nearly the worst in the First World. Regularly French prisons are criticized by human rights organizations as among the worst. Suicide rates among French prisoners was called an epidemic.
I doubt that Moussaoui would be treated kindly in French prisons. However, this is the French we are talking about. Even with French anti-terrorism laws being harsher than American laws, I can’t get past my own distrust of the French when it comes to trying to piss off America. I wouldn’t put it passed them to release Moussaoui some year down the road.
Don’t aswer my question with another one, actus – you said what the French did was not unusual – all I did was ask for ONE example of such conduct. Where is it?
Consular attention is VERY RARE in my experience and the experience of every single ASA/ADA I ever worked with, trained with or met (MA, NY, IL, CA, GA, USA JAG in EUCOM and CENTCOM – even our embassy cannot drag someone out for everytime some GI gets in trouble with the local cops).
You are making an assertion it is common – cite some numbers, cite some examples, back up your position – and not with a question.
*You are making an assertion it is common – cite some numbers, cite some examples, back up your position – and not with a question.*
Sorry M.J., he hasn’t made it to the classes on “supporting an argument” in law school yet.
TW “Member” – Sheesh, another one thats just too easy.
Perhaps that’s a feature, not a bug.
The Retarded Telephone Poleâ„¢ once again demonstrates why college students (other than an obvious genius) tend to get jobs at the student aide level when they hold temporary work in their profession of choice.
A college degree supplemented with experience and training beats a student almost any day.
Another RW fecal storm brought about by misinformation and “subtle” hints.
“Not sure what all consular protection would offer himâ€â€aside from taking the death penalty off the table…”
I don’t think consular protection means that.
“…consular protection is afforded in the context of the 1963 Vienna Convention on consular relations, article 36, permitting us to see the conditions of detention and the situation of compatriots held in prison and check that they have the benefit of the right to defense.”
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/briefing/us220702.asp
Try Googling “1963 Vienna Convention”.
But why spoil a party by introducing facts, when you can warm it up with
“I honestly don’t know. But what it suggests…”
That formulation is just pathetic. First you cop out, then you indulge in some French mind-reading.
BTW, I didn’t realize Halliburton was a French company!
Hmm. I thought I remembered there being French interest in his arrest because we have the death penalty here, Rob—thus, the interest in offering him consular protection.
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But I didn’t have time to look it up. Which is why when I wrote “I honestly don’t know,” I meant “I honestly don’t know.” And which is why I have comments and commenters whom I encourage to correct me if necessary.
Of course, not all of them feel free to do so by imputing bad faith—conspiracies everywhere, now my admission of not knowing for certain is a deviously clever (yet, simultaneously, incredibly stupid) way to dupe the rubes.
THANK GOD YOU ARE HERE TO SEE THROUGH ME AND SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER.
Meanwhile, I’ll be taking a break from my political machinations of the masses to change a diaper and take my kid to the park.
Agreement, Ed.
I wouldn’t say a month, but I’d say within a decade or so. Just like the Achille Lauro and Munich guys.
Europe, our moral betters.
Rob,
Some us know what consular protection is, we just wonder about the level of interest. We had a wave of requests from the “undocumented” Mexican defendants one year in my county – how many consul generals do you think made it to the western suburbs of Chicago to check on their “compatriots”. Zero.
The ability to do something, and actually acting on it in a high profile manner are different kettles of fish.
For some reason, France decided that a vast amount of time by a high diplomatic official should be invested in this matter. Why? I think Jeff is partly on to it – the death penalty implications of the case may have attracted some of it, but that doesn’t explain it fully.
France is, of course, welcome to have a representative at the trial. After all, our trials are public.
France is, of course, within its consular rights to request to see the prison conditions. Cool, maybe they’ll learn something, or at least get an example of an alternative to their own shabby system.
But if they want to take him home… they’ll have to wait until he’s served his sentence first. Then we can FedEx his ashes to them, no charge (we’re a generous people).
And I replied by saying that consular interest and protection is a well established principle, and here was normally excercised given the context of a highly publicized trial.
I can’t think of any other highly (in)famous foreign national trials, so I don’t know how this compares.
THAT is what you said. Back it up. You claim this is “quite normal”. Now you are squirming away trying to say only in a highly publicized infamous trial? Bu!!Sh&t.
Prove this is “quite normal” and that having the consul general of their embassy in Washington D.C. Spend weeks at one trial is not “assertive”.
Good God, I weep for your future clients.
*And I replied by saying that consular interest and protection is a well established principle,*
MJ was saying while that may be an established principle, in his experience, it is extremely unusual to see a consular representative at a criminal trial. The fact that it can be done doesn’t mean it generally is done. As others have mentioned and if I would have to guess, I would say the French had a protest of some sort ready for a death penalty verdict, one more way to stick it to the Americans.
I don’t trust the French one iota in light of the last 4-5 years. It appears to me that France has been attempting to beef its flagging international standing by GASP speaking truth to power. Any attempt to recover have Moussoui, imho, is simply another way in which the French attempt to stick their fingers in our eyes.
Ya. The Principle of consular protection is well established. Embassies help people out in navigating criminal issues. I’m sure they follow when their countries nationals are in trouble whether they like that trouble or not, specially in high profile cases. And what could be more high profile than this nutcase?
Sure. Nobody is treating this trial like normal. They’re applying normal practices in the context of a really famous trial. Its normal for US marshalls to protect courts. IN the context of this trial, a lot came in.
PJ O’Rourke from Peace Kills–
Dammit actus – the sending of the consul general for weeks at a time – IS THAT A NORMAL PRACTICE? You keep addressing general principles, I am talking about THIS MATTER.
France behaved in an unusual manner, and for some reason you simply will not either; admit that, or disprove that contention. You simply skitter between saying that it is a normal way of doing business, then saying it is unusual becuse this is a high profile case – and in niether instqance can you give examples, numbers of times that diplomatic personnel have attended trials (high or low profile).
The first time you pull that kind of crap in a courtroom, you are going to leave with a gavel handle protruding out your backside…and your client is going to racing to see what the available limits are on your malpractice insurance.
Since you won’t answer on point, I’ll assume you have nothing to back your position up other than mere assertion.
Of course, you could show us some numbers of French consular visits, numbers of French nationals tried, etc.
His days wouldn’t be more amenable in France. French prisons are among the worst in the developed world. They aren’t as bad as the one Papillon escaped from anymore, but still pretty bad.
Actus,
here’s a start for ya…The French Embassy page on Consulates General.
Or, just the one that would serve the area the trial (and your nearest one).
Or you can just look to their Foreign Ministry.
Let us know what you find.
In the context of this trial, its not extraordinary. But then what isn’t? I’ll admit that few things were normal practice here. But the idea of consular protection? Quite normal.
I’ll grant you that not much was normal about this trial. But I don’t think there’s that much meaning to how people are reacting by adapting normal practices to extraordinary circumstances.
OK – I guess you will simply refuse to show us that “consular protection”, in practice, is “quite normal”. This case aside, show us how often France (or any other government) sends their consul general of their national embassy to spend time at a trial.
I will not accept your premise that consuls general show up at trials of thier nationals as a matter of routine, without some proof.
Back your assertion or withdraw it.
Major John, with all due respect, it’s your fault.
You’re talking to actus. It’s a trap. Walk away, sir.
Actus, you’re in elite company with O-dub: like superglue to stupid.
TW: Actus can’t seem to find a basis for his claims. But that’s nothing new.
Hey, I tried. I guess I should have listened to verc, rls, et al.
OK, Pablo, I’ll walk away.
It’s a tar baby that exists only to gum up the works. Best not to get any of that on you.
tw: No matter how hard it’s trying.
and here’s what it said: “Consular officials are responsible for protecting the interests of French nationals abroad, be they permanent residents or temporary visitors”
No surprise that they do.
Not very often, because they don’t often see these kinds of trials.
I changed it: they extended normal principles to extraordinary circumstances. Nothing too surprising, given the circumstances and importance of this trial.
M’Lord, bid the witness answer the question, if he would be so kind.
TW “Hold” – No barrister should hold his breath waiting for a clear answer from the actus-one.
Major John:
I would pay good money to see that.
Retarded Telephone Pole™:
Practising that moral relativism again, eh? Wotta surprise.
TW: actus is between limbo and oblivion.
For those of you in the South, that sound you just heard was jelly beans and diet coke exploding out of my ears as I tried to save my keyboard and monitor.
Whats the moral relativism? he wanted a statement withdrawn. Instead, its changed.
An honest debater would concede the point and reoffer the amended argument.
actus is not honest. Ignore him.
Methinks you are being too kind and nuanced, Pablo. But I take your meaning, and your advice.
TW: The Retarded Telephone Pole™ is behind the power curve intellectually.
The_Real_JeffS:
So would a nail-studded 2-by-4. Damn hippies.
Just saying….
– At times it seems that “The Retarded Telephone Poleâ„¢” is striving to attain the lofty record of being the one and only law student in the history of America sued for mal-practice by his law professor…..
Actus,
Don’t you get it, man? It’s up to you to prove your reasonable assertion. The denizens of this proud site have no obligation to prove their wild speculations, or justify their prejudices. Sheesh.
That’s prime stuff, Leeds man. Because no one here, especially Major J, who has experience with these types of things, have made any concrete arguments.
But hey—ROOT, ROOT, ROOT for the home team!
Doesn’t that necessarily happen when I change it?
changing the argument = moving the goalposts. Or just too dumb to recognize a losing position. Not “argument”. “Position”.
TW: There are things about the Retarded Telephone Pole™ that best left unmentioned.
Leeds man sez:
No, dumbass. Actus has already changed his incorrect assertion.
You don’t read much, do you?
This is abso-posi-lutely fantastic. I am so saving it. Little effeminate Stalinista, you so prove my every gratutious slander and libel and insult and mockery; every day is like Christmas (or is it Winter Happy Day, these days?)
Within 24 hours, actus has posted the two most profoundly fucking stupidest word-salads* ever uttered in the course of Saxon history.
Still, this one is absolutely super-fantastic:
What are you going to do for an encore, actus? How do you top “using money = citizen/subject” and “I don’t have to recant, because I SO changed my statement”?
Actus, everyone, he does it AGAIN! Everyone give the World’s Most Fucking Stupidest Commenter some Big Ups. He’ll be here all night. Unfortunately.
*(I refuse to denigrate the English language by terming them ‘sentences’
Actus: Master, what is purpose of exercise?
Vercingetorix: Ahhhh, Actus…to make mouth… roundahhh. Fastaaaah, Actus….fastahhhh!!!!
Pablo,
If you don’t understand the difference between changing an assertion and qualifying one, I suggest you read more yourself.
Still, glad to give you the opportunity to vent.
Jeff,
Yep, that’s what we moonbats do. Root for the home team. Unlike you guys.
Lot of hostility on this site. You guys should chill. Really.