Hat tip to Bob for this one:
France jails 25 for attack plot
A French court has jailed 25 alleged Islamist militants for planning attacks in France in support of Chechen rebels.
Alleged? They have been convicted by a French court of law. That it was no kangaroo court was indicated by the fact that two of the defendants were acquitted. I thought it was us Amerikkka-luvvin neocon warmongers who were supposed to claim that France is a banana republic whose courts cannot be relied upon, not the BBC.
The featured quote in the grey box is, of course, from the defence lawyer: “These convictions profit the United States, Algeria and Russia.”
Update by Andrew: A screen grab to accompany Natalie’s post:
BBC speak: convicted terrorists are merely “alleged Islamist militants”.
[Not relevant to this thread – moved to most recent open thread – please read and respect the rules – next time I’ll just hit delete]
[Not relevant to this thread – moved to most recent open thread – please read and respect the rules – next time I’ll just hit delete]
I don’t believe that it’s ironic. It is a statement of fact that the BBC has got entirely correct: “The court convicted 24 defendants of the broad charge of criminal association in relation with a terrorist enterprise. The other was convicted of using false papers.”.
The prosecutors alleged that they were part of a Jihadi group, did not have to prove this to secure the convictions. Furthermore, note that one of the group was only convicted of using false papers. This is hardly proof this member of the group was part of a Jihadi group.
The BBC often gets things wrong, but this is not one of them. They are clearly “alleged Islamic militants”. On a balance of probabilities one could assume that some of them are militants. But you are wrong that the court determined this. It simply didn’t have to.
This is a clear case where the French legal system has got it right (it is able to convice people under lesser charges, which don’t require proof of conspiracy to commit terrorism) and it is a clear case where the BBC has reported this accurately, even if this reporting is not clear to people like yourselves.
[Not relevant to this thread – moved to most recent open thread – please read and respect the rules – next time I’ll just hit delete]
Ironically, it’s sort of correct. The actual convictions were for terrorism related activities; it is the BBC making the allegation of mere militancy.
[Not relevant to this thread – moved to most recent open thread – please read and respect the rules – next time I’ll just hit delete]
The BBC’s dhimmi wrote:
Benhamed’s lawyer Isabelle Coutant claimed the verdicts were political and “profit the United States, Algeria and Russia”.
“They have been convicted because they are Muslims,” she said.
In a sense, the BBC’s junior scribbler is correct: if the guilty parties had been hindu, it’s unlikely that they would have been intending terrorist acts.
From the placrds of the recent muslim demo:
“War on Terror = War on islam”
i.e. islam = terror
“…Ten year sentences were given to Merouane Benhamed, 33, who was described in court as the group’s chief, and to Menad Benchellali, 32…
Among those convicted Wednesday was Chelali Benchellali, the imam of a mosque in the southeastern city of Lyon and father of Menad.
Another of his sons, Mourad Benchellali, was one of seven French detainees held at the US base at Guantanamo Bay. Released in July 2004, Mourad now faces terrorist-related charges in France along with five others…”
Lots more including the strange fact that the BBC spell the lawyer’s name differently when it is Coutant-Peyre – perhaps to stop people making the link with this:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/1079939711526.html
She is anti American and married to Carlos the Jackal!
“Coutant-Peyre has always courted controversy. She has become a notorious champion of lost (or at least highly dubious) causes, claiming to take “great pleasure in defending political prisoners, freedom fighters or prisoners of conscience” — sometimes for no fee. She admits being vehemently anti-American, describing the US as “imperialist” and “tyrannical”.
Today, Coutant-Peyre is in the middle of a controversy, defending a group of Breton separatists who allegedly bombed a McDonald’s restaurant, killing a woman. ”
More news by deliberate ommission from the BBC….
hat tip to Robert the Expatyank
http://expatyank.blogspot.com/2006/06/and-presumably-this-wasnt-about-iraq.html
This is a simple point of law. It is not for the BBC to determine people’s guilt based on circumstantial evidence which was not determined in the trial. They must report the legal facts correctly. In this case they have. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand the law in this case. The BBC could have made the situation clearer in their report, but this is a news report and not a feature article, so it is not something one could really gripe about.
My comments keep appearing before the posts I am responding to. Just to be clear, I have responded to John Barker in my last comment. They were convicted because of the “dodgy materials” but the court did not find that they were “Islamic militants”. While there might be good grounds for arguing this, and the prosecutor put this arguement forward, the BBC is technically correct in this case.
If the BBC went around making determinations of fact that are alleged but not proven in courts of law then it would be disturbing indeed.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2003
June 14, 2006
Benhamed was handed a 10-year prison term, as was Menad Benchellali, who was accused of participating in paramilitary training camps in Georgia.
Benchellali’s father, an imam based in the suburbs of Lyons, his mother and brother were also defendants and were all found guilty of helping finance Menad.
Another brother, Mourad Benchellali, was held for months in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before being extradited to France in 2004.
“…Another brother, Mourad Benchellali, was held for months in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before being extradited to France in 2004…”
USS Neverdock is covering this too!
Police found dodgy equipment when they raided them. So the ‘alledged’ is pathetic, whatever certain posters here seem to believe!
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/06/france-jails-25-for-muslim-terror-plot.html
“The court convicted 24 defendants of the broad charge of criminal association in relation with a terrorist enterprise.”
So how does that make them mere “alleged” terrorists then? It is irrelevant whether the charge was being an “islamic militant (terrorist)”. They were convicted in a court of law of terrorism offences. That makes them terrorists, end of.
Members of the IRA were convicted of offences like conspiracy to cause explosions, murder etc. They were not convicted on a specific charge of being Irish terrorists, but Irish terrorists they were.
The BBC’s use of the word “alleged” is nothing to do with the legality of the case but just the usual run-of-the-mill liberal appeasement of Islamofascism. In fact, their continual use of the word “militant” in place of “terrorist” should have told you all you needed to know.
Interesting to compare the BBC effort with this one from Reuters:
Islamist militants convicted for France terror plot
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-06-14T164535Z_01_L14831968_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-FRANCE-TRIAL.xml&archived=False
I’m inclined to believe the Reuters coverage is more appropriate, because I suspect the status of those convicted (terrorist criminals) as being Islamist militants wasn’t the prime issue for the court. Of course, I suppose that it’s possible a French court (what with it being French and all) might find 25 individuals guilty of terrorist criminal association without having to establish the nature of that association, but somehow I doubt it.
Islamist militancy is not a crime in itself (nor should it be), anymore than animal welfare militancy or anti-abortion militancy are crimes in themselves. But they can all be motivation for actual crime.
I mentioned irony because I feel the BBC has fallen into a trap of its own making – by dint of believing its own bullshit. Misusing the word “militant” as a euphamism for “terrorist” has led it to see others’ use of “militant” as an accusation of criminality.
Of course, the double irony is that Natalie (and others) have fallen in the trap too.
I don’t remeber the BBC being scrupulous about reporting “just the legal facts” on the beach explosion in Gaza. The went into overdrive allocating blame to the Israelis. No scruples there.
The BBC shows precious few scruples about suggesting that claims of torture at Gitmo or of rendition flights to torture are mere allegations.
And the deaths at Haditha and Ushaqi were not treated as allegations by the BBC – US troops are presented by the BBC as guilty before trial.
Strange how the legalistic scruples and verbal contortions always seem to work in just one direction – to minimise the threat of Islamist terrorism while blackening the name of our allies.
This Times story:
Militant Muslim gang jailed for plot to destroy the Eiffel Tower
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2226738,00.html
doesn’t share the BBC’s alleged legal sensitivities.
It has different information regarding the convictions that, if true, makes the BBC story factually inaccurate (as well as just crass).
And a superb snippet about the defence lawyer whose losing view the BBC decided to promote in the only sidebar.
.