Pre-emptive arrests? As a statutory matter? I suppose you could make a case that the U.S. does the equivalent with people who have been ruled “enemy combatants.” But at least the U.S. has the benefit of an actual shooting war for the enemies to be combatants in. The French do not.

Frankly, I didn’t see any oppression of the masses living in France and sort of got to trust that the system was working.

Well, I don’t see that in America, either.

I was also confused by your reference to “a non-fascist police force” in France. Do you consider American police to be “fascists”? That’s a mighty heavy brush, ya know.

Enjoy your stay in France as long as you can.

I’ll admit that I never understood the French investigating judges or how that really worked. Then again, I’m not a law student. What I did notice is that the French themselves, both droite and gauche, seemed to think the system worked fairly. I rarely heard about how unfair a judge was or how s/he was being manipulated by the government. I’m sure it does happen, but between their built-in review procedures, a press with real teeth, and what I would call a cultural slant towards respecting the spirit of the law, it just seems to work for them.

You obviously have some ax to grind, quoting the Washington Post (?) about how much more authoritarian French justice is than other European nations. Your second post implies that French justice is worse than in the US, but have offered no arguments, just a rhetorical jump from the first one. Actually, it seems to me that every single item you bolded in the article and hold against the French has always been US practice as well, or was recently allowed by the misnamed patriot act.

Frankly, I didn’t see any oppression of the masses living in France and sort of got to trust that the system was working. Knowing both French and American cultures, I as a citizen/resident trust the French government with those authoritarian powers much more than I trust the current US administration. Who knows, maybe the French government is just better at hiding their shennanigans than the US administration.

To evaluate French law and culture with American expectations seems pointless. Each country has its system for creating the laws that work for its people, or at least its people in power. Of course, you are allowed to criticize and to work within or without the system (as the rioters do) to change it. And it is always good to see if other are doing it better or worse so you can learn from them. But like many of the posters here you just seem to want to incite predjudice against the French (”backstabbing whores”), not “avancer le schlimblick” as they say.

Note that I haven’t made any assumptions as to whether you are French or American or something else.

Regarding the original thread about riots in Paris, I think that the Instapundit article linked in the original post is very close to the truth. Of course, since that blames the whole thing on jobs, you can now be prejudiced against the French economic system, too.

I’ll never forget the time I walked into a working-class pub in Strasbourg, and could not buy a beer. It takes a lot to intimidate me, but that was a long walk through that crowd back to the door.

I could be wrong, but I’m just guessing that my Air Force A-2 jacket with the 99th Bomb Wing insignia and SAC command shield had something to do with it. The weather vindicated me, though: it was very cold in that place.

The actual people are fairly decent, with about the usual proportion of jerks and a-holes one runs into pretty much anywhere.

That is no doubt true. It is also beside the point. The normal human hospitality that we experience on a personal level has nothing to do with the collective mindset of a group.

The Arabs are famous for their hospitality. Yet their countries are cesspools that produce little besides terrorists and oil. Likewise with Southerners who gave us Jim Crow, the KKK and lynchings. I also have no doubt that there were plenty of personable and hospitable Nazis too.

http://www.peres-fondateurs.com/forum

peres fondateurs:Founding Fathers

Not all French pols are back-stabbing whores. Some of them are pimps and a few are brothel keepers.

As to the French people – when I start reading about their concern for American anti-Gaulism perhaps I’ll stop thinking of France as a space that one flies over. Probably not though. Any people willing to be governed by the likes of Villepin and Chirac are unworthy of contemplation.

No, France is run by back-stabbing whores.

The actual people are fairly decent, with about the usual proportion of jerks and a-holes one runs into pretty much anywhere.

Paris might be different in the peak season, but in the spring it was pretty friendly. There was some generic big-city disdain for clueless newbies, much like you’d get in NYC, but it seemed directed at least equally at the rural French coming in from the country for the school holidays. My impression was that between the Parisians hating the country folk and the country folk hating the Parisians and everyone hating the English and the English bartenders insulting the French to us, hating individual Americans wasn’t a big priority for anyone.

Anyway, the punchline is that on the way back to the airport, the cabbie found out I’d voted for Bush, and he he got out and HUGGED me. (Your mileage may vary.)

The idea itself was present at least in inchoate form under Trajan, if not earlier. From this

http://web.archive.org/web/20030216230239/%68ttp://www.talkleft.com/archives/001907.html

…the Roman law was pervaded with the results of this maxim of criminal administration, as the following extracts show:

“Let all accusers understand that they are not to prefer charges unless they can be proven by proper witnesses or by conclusive documents, or by circumstantial evidence which amounts to indubitable proof and is clearer than day.” Code, L. IV, T. XX, 1, 1. 25.

[click on more to read additional quotes]

The noble (bivus) Trajan wrote to Julius Frontonus that no man should be condemned on a criminal charge in his absence, because it was better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” Dig. L. XLVIII, Tit. 19, 1. 5.

“In all cases of doubt, the most merciful construction of facts should be preferred.” Dig. L. L, Tit. XVII, 1. 56.

“In criminal cases the milder construction shall always be preserved.” Dig. L. L, Tit. XVII, 1. 155, s. 2.

“In cases of doubt it is no less just than it is safe to adopt the milder construction.” Dig. L. L, Tit. XVII, 1. 192, s. 1.