5 ms·

> I'm guessing he complied with the summons because he didnt know what it was about and therefor saw no reason not to. I'm not sure if this is a cultural diffe

by davidmr 14y ago

> I'm guessing he complied with the summons because he didnt know what it was about and therefor saw no reason not to. I'm not sure if this is a cultural difference between France and the states or if I'm overly paranoid, but if I were to receive a summons of any type by any government agency with more authority than the dept. of motor vehicles, there is precisely nothing that would get me to comply with that summons without talking to my lawyer first.

ErrantX 14y ago
Thinking about it tripzilch could well be right about what happened. Speaking for myself; if MI5 (to pick an example) contacted me as a public and relatively high profile UK editor/sysop and asked me to come in and, say, advise them I probably would. I keep forgetting we are reading a lot of translated text here; so "summons" might not be the right word in this context. I perhaps jumped to conclusions given the stuff that happened once he'd attended the meeting :)
- davidgerard 14y ago
  The translation is being improved by lots of people, and a revised version should be up shortly.
- blahedo 14y ago
  The word used in the French version is "convoquer", which is the same word used for "draft" in the military sense. I think it has a strong connotation of obligation, i.e. you can't refuse it.
  - emmfr 14y ago
    He was theoretically free during the questionning, and free to not comply with the demand — theoretically. The OP writes that he was threatened to be held in custody (French: "garde à vue"). This is a common trick of the French police: when people are held in custody, they have the right to an attorney and to keep silent, which the police don't like. So the police question "free" people and threaten them to hold them in custody if they don't cooperate obediently. Most people (especially good citizens) are scared of being held in custody, so the trick works quite well: people answer every single question and have no attorney, despite their right (and interest) to do otherwise. In the present case, the charges (had any been pressed — he was there as a free person) would have been akin to terrorism, which means that the custody would have been under anti-terrorism rules: a very unpleasant experience that can last up to 96 hours. So the pressure was very high, despite his being "free".
    - JohnLBevan 14y ago
      Given the French propensity to strike it would have been interesting to see the public's reaction had he been held on anti-terrorism laws when it's clear to all he's an innocent person and there seems little evidence of any imminent threat to justify excessive means.
      - astrobe_ 14y ago
        He did the right thing at minimal cost, considered how the story backfires on the "intelligence" agency. In a way I hope that the careers of the people involved in this incident are on the line now. The DCRI has a reputation to hold.
tripzilch 14y ago
I understand. I'm not American, but if I was (or even if I wasn't), if a similar US agency would "summon" me, I'd be scared as hell. And in that situation I'd think "let me talk to a lawyer first" a lot sooner than I would here (even though it might be smart here, too). ErrantX also brings up a good point about translation, "summon" could mean something as simple as a phonecall asking for a meeting, without any implication that one may be in trouble. Probably not something one would expect to find themselves being threatened with jailtime.
- bilbo0s 14y ago
  If you weren't an American, sometimes even if you are, and American Intelligence is interested in you... I doubt you'd need to worry about receiving a summons.
  - 3825 14y ago
    Was that a drone strike reference?
    - MacsHeadroom 14y ago
      Don't see why it would be, considering the US has already droned down one American citizen, and that the president says he will reserve the right to do it again (on purpose next time).
      - zwegner 14y ago
        Two, that we know about--Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son.
Evbn 14y ago
Not everyone can afford a lawyer.
- davidmr 14y ago
  That is, of course, true. Were I unable to afford a lawyer, I would politely decline the request. If I could't afford an attorney, I feel like I couldn't afford to get mixed up in something like this either.
  - OGinparadise 14y ago
    maybe, but then you haven't been subjected to a laundry list of treason charges and the 36 life sentences you could be facing. You are sitting at a comfortable desk, at home, and maybe sipping Pepsi or whatever :) Pressure works differently on different people and those in alphabet agencies know what buttons to press. ....maybe they'll leave me alone, if I just talk to them. No need for lawyers (OMG I don't even have the rent money this month!) and no uncertainties over life in prison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
philwelch 14y ago
Americans distrust their governments far more than Europeans. Sometimes it keeps us from having nice things (like a sensible health care system), but sometimes there are benefits to this mindset.
misnome 14y ago
How about if they sent you a National Security letter, in which case it would be illegal to talk to your lawyer first?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - carbocation 14y ago
    They may be unconstitutional (fed district court in SF so ruled in March 2013, appeal pending), so the question of whether it is lawful seems to be open. Edit: I see that you are asking about telling counsel about the NSL. The text of the NSL explicitly states that you may seek legal counsel.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I would still see a lawyer, though I would neglect to tell people that I did that if the letter turned out to be real. How could I possibly justify not contacting a lawyer? I'm not qualified to read such a letter in the first place!
jrochkind1 14y ago
What you say is the best, safest, right thing to do. It's not what very many at all in the U.S. do though -- even those who think in the abstract that they wouldn't talk to the authorities without taking to a lawyer first (or at all) -- end up doing so. In part because the authorities are pretty expert at getting you to talk to them (by intimidation or persuasion). But the more you think about it in advance and prepare, the more likely you can remember to exersize your rights. I can't say for France, but in the U.S., remember NOT, ever, to talk to the authorities without talking to a lawyer first. It's really hardly ever going to make things better for you or your friends and loved ones. Don't talk to the cops.

by davidmr 14y ago

ErrantX 14y ago

Thinking about it tripzilch could well be right about what happened. Speaking for myself; if MI5 (to pick an example) contacted me as a public and relatively high profile UK editor/sysop and asked me to come in and, say, advise them I probably would. I keep forgetting we are reading a lot of translated text here; so "summons" might not be the right word in this context. I perhaps jumped to conclusions given the stuff that happened once he'd attended the meeting :)

davidgerard 14y ago
The translation is being improved by lots of people, and a revised version should be up shortly.
blahedo 14y ago
The word used in the French version is "convoquer", which is the same word used for "draft" in the military sense. I think it has a strong connotation of obligation, i.e. you can't refuse it.
- emmfr 14y ago
  He was theoretically free during the questionning, and free to not comply with the demand — theoretically. The OP writes that he was threatened to be held in custody (French: "garde à vue"). This is a common trick of the French police: when people are held in custody, they have the right to an attorney and to keep silent, which the police don't like. So the police question "free" people and threaten them to hold them in custody if they don't cooperate obediently. Most people (especially good citizens) are scared of being held in custody, so the trick works quite well: people answer every single question and have no attorney, despite their right (and interest) to do otherwise. In the present case, the charges (had any been pressed — he was there as a free person) would have been akin to terrorism, which means that the custody would have been under anti-terrorism rules: a very unpleasant experience that can last up to 96 hours. So the pressure was very high, despite his being "free".
  - JohnLBevan 14y ago
    Given the French propensity to strike it would have been interesting to see the public's reaction had he been held on anti-terrorism laws when it's clear to all he's an innocent person and there seems little evidence of any imminent threat to justify excessive means.
    - astrobe_ 14y ago
      He did the right thing at minimal cost, considered how the story backfires on the "intelligence" agency. In a way I hope that the careers of the people involved in this incident are on the line now. The DCRI has a reputation to hold.

tripzilch 14y ago

I understand. I'm not American, but if I was (or even if I wasn't), if a similar US agency would "summon" me, I'd be scared as hell. And in that situation I'd think "let me talk to a lawyer first" a lot sooner than I would here (even though it might be smart here, too). ErrantX also brings up a good point about translation, "summon" could mean something as simple as a phonecall asking for a meeting, without any implication that one may be in trouble. Probably not something one would expect to find themselves being threatened with jailtime.

bilbo0s 14y ago
If you weren't an American, sometimes even if you are, and American Intelligence is interested in you... I doubt you'd need to worry about receiving a summons.
- 3825 14y ago
  Was that a drone strike reference?
  - MacsHeadroom 14y ago
    Don't see why it would be, considering the US has already droned down one American citizen, and that the president says he will reserve the right to do it again (on purpose next time).
    - zwegner 14y ago
      Two, that we know about--Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son.

Evbn 14y ago

Not everyone can afford a lawyer.

davidmr 14y ago
That is, of course, true. Were I unable to afford a lawyer, I would politely decline the request. If I could't afford an attorney, I feel like I couldn't afford to get mixed up in something like this either.
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  maybe, but then you haven't been subjected to a laundry list of treason charges and the 36 life sentences you could be facing. You are sitting at a comfortable desk, at home, and maybe sipping Pepsi or whatever :) Pressure works differently on different people and those in alphabet agencies know what buttons to press. ....maybe they'll leave me alone, if I just talk to them. No need for lawyers (OMG I don't even have the rent money this month!) and no uncertainties over life in prison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

philwelch 14y ago

Americans distrust their governments far more than Europeans. Sometimes it keeps us from having nice things (like a sensible health care system), but sometimes there are benefits to this mindset.

misnome 14y ago

How about if they sent you a National Security letter, in which case it would be illegal to talk to your lawyer first?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- carbocation 14y ago
  They may be unconstitutional (fed district court in SF so ruled in March 2013, appeal pending), so the question of whether it is lawful seems to be open. Edit: I see that you are asking about telling counsel about the NSL. The text of the NSL explicitly states that you may seek legal counsel.
jlgreco 14y ago
I would still see a lawyer, though I would neglect to tell people that I did that if the letter turned out to be real. How could I possibly justify not contacting a lawyer? I'm not qualified to read such a letter in the first place!

jrochkind1 14y ago

What you say is the best, safest, right thing to do. It's not what very many at all in the U.S. do though -- even those who think in the abstract that they wouldn't talk to the authorities without taking to a lawyer first (or at all) -- end up doing so. In part because the authorities are pretty expert at getting you to talk to them (by intimidation or persuasion). But the more you think about it in advance and prepare, the more likely you can remember to exersize your rights. I can't say for France, but in the U.S., remember NOT, ever, to talk to the authorities without talking to a lawyer first. It's really hardly ever going to make things better for you or your friends and loved ones. Don't talk to the cops.