Terrorist Attack on London

[John Simkin]

Report just published on the BBC News website:

A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.

The man, who died at Stockwell Tube on Friday, has been named by police as Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27...

Brazilian diplomats in London said they had been told by police the man who was shot dead by police on Friday was a Brazilian.

An earlier Scotland Yard statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

The problem of having a system of execution without trial is that you sometimes you kill innocent people. Tony Blair said that we shall not let terrorists change our way of life. Clearly, it already has.

[Guest]

The problem of having a system of execution without trial is that you sometimes you kill innocent people. Tony Blair said that we shall not let terrorists change our way of life. Clearly, it already has.

Indeed, it now appears that being "foreign" wearing a big coat and being frightened by gangs of undisciplined armed police men warrants execution.

[Christopher T. George]

Hi John, Andy, Graham, et al.

John, I am coming round to your view that this was an "execution" -- I do think though that the circumstances have to be considered, that London had just suffered a series of explosions with 56 killed including suicide bombers, then two weeks later seemingly another attempt to do the same thing. So it is not simply a cold blooded execution but must be looked at in context.

Chris

[Graham Davies]

This looks more like a major blunder in which the situation was incorrectly assessed by the police - and were they "police" or were they the SAS? If the man had been a suicide bomber, about to set off a bomb that would have killed and maimed dozens of people in his immediate vicinity, then shooting him in the head ("cold-blooded execution") would have been the correct action - but the armed men who killed the suspect obviously made a grave mistake.

As I said before, the situation of heightened tension in which London finds itself right now makes the police and other armed forces nervous and/or trigger-happy. We've seen this situation before, at the height of IRA's terrorist campaign - Bloody Sunday being a prime example. The main victims of terrorism are always innocent people.

[Chris McKie]

Why was the man running, vaulting a turnstile, if he was not a "person of interest" in the case.  For all the police knew, he might have been about to detonate a bomb. I would say, the police have to use their own judgement in protecting the public.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It appears that we may now have the answer to your question. Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot in error, was in the UK on an out-of-date student visa.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713651.stm

This may indicate why he chose to run away from his pursuers. The officers in question have been trained to deal with such situations. It will now be up to the independent inquiry to determine whether they acted appropriately. I can only assume these officers fired five shots into the man's head because they thought Menezes was a potential danger to the public. Given the circumstances, it is very easy to see why such as dreadful mistake was made.

[Christopher T. George]

Why was the man running, vaulting a turnstile, if he was not a "person of interest" in the case.  For all the police knew, he might have been about to detonate a bomb. I would say, the police have to use their own judgement in protecting the public.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It appears that we may now have the answer to your question. Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot in error, was in the UK on an out-of-date student visa.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713651.stm

This may indicate why he chose to run away from his pursuers. The officers in question have been trained to deal with such situations. It will now be up to the independent inquiry to determine whether they acted appropriately. I can only assume these officers fired five shots into the man's head because they thought Menezes was a potential danger to the public. Given the circumstances, it is very easy to see why such as dreadful mistake was made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Chris

Thanks, Chris, I also saw that report, and it does show that the police have a major problem on their hands. I am sure many immigrants are in the country illegally and might choose to run as Mr Menezes did and not follow orders. The same tragic event thus could happen again.

All my best

Chris

[John Simkin]

I thought I would post some of the letters on this issue published in today's Guardian. I hope members will take particular interest in the views of people with Non-European background. It seems that these people have got good reason to be concerned about the "shoot to kill" policy.

The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes will quite rightly focus attention on police tactics, training and responses ('They held a pistol to him and unloaded five shots', July 23). However, at least the police held up their hands to this tragic error. They did not, unlike their political masters, try to lie to the country that a link existed between this individual and terrorism. They have not attempted to bluster their way out of this error by claiming he possessed some form of WMD. They have not sought to deny any link between the context of this event and events that preceded it.

But within hours of the shooting, the predictable voices started up. He looked "foreign". He was wearing inappropriate clothing. He was "behaving suspiciously". Much of this was from those in the media who a short time ago were acting as apologists for our politicians in denying any link between the acts of terror inflicted on us and the acts of terror of our government, in conjunction with others, have inflicted on others.

(Dave Hansell, Sheffield)

It's amazing to know that the man executed - that's the right word - executed by the police with five bullets in the head, was an innocent Brazilian not connected to terrorism. It seems the poor man was killed as a scapegoat to show how tough the authorities are on tackling terrorism. But instead they show how incompetent they are, killing an innocent, hard-working man.

Shame on you. Shame on the appalling intelligence service you have, whose heads include a man promoted to the top of MI6 as a payback for saving the PM in the Dr Kelly affair. We only wait to see that all the people involved in this manslaughter are brought to justice to face charges.

Marcos Falcão, London

The police and intelligence services have really mucked it up. They didn't have a clue about the bombs on July 7 or 21. They have raided several addresses and arrested people only to release them. And now they have shot an entirely innocent Brazilian man, who no doubt ran for his life when a some big guys in jeans and T-shirts ran after him in Brixton (wouldn't you? Or do muggers now only need to shout: "Stop police" to be able to empty our pockets?).

The evil the terrorists inflict by bombs is only half their plan to disrupt our society and destroy our democracy and human rights. Our security forces are now carrying out the other half by disrupting our lives with constant alerts and putting us all in fear of being shot by at random. The government must be careful not to be be made the terrorists' tools.

(Andrea Woelke, London)

The special force involved in the Stockwell killing received Israeli training. Israel's militarist response to Islamic insurgents has been a failure, as evident by the endless killings, with the value of human life falling to an appalling low. The British police have an excellent reputation for using measured force. Let us set an example to the world of how to tackle this nightmare, rather than adopting failed policies from elsewhere.

(Christopher Hack, London)

Why is Tony Blair hailed as a statesman for urging calm from the safety of his Downing Street green zone?

(Dr Piers Brendon, Cambridge)

It is possible, if not likely, other innocent people will be shot. It could be someone who simply misunderstood, or did not hear. These guidelines will only be changed by the voice of the British public.

(John Evans, Brechin)

I am appalled that one of your policemen kills an innocent public transit rider and all your police say is that they regret it. Monstrous.

(Michael Kennedy, Palm Springs, California)

Once the "suspect bomber" had been overpowered, there was no excuse for killing him. This has certainly tarnished the highly esteemed image of the London police.

(Col Riaz Jafri, Rawalpindi, Pakistan)

[Gary Younge]

In the Addams Family movie, Wednesday Addams heads off to a fancy dress Halloween party in her regular clothes. "I'm a homicidal maniac," she explains when questioned by Morticia about her attire. "They look like everybody else." Just over two weeks ago Jean Charles de Menezes "looked like everybody else" in London. But on Friday morning in the eyes of the travelling public and the police, he was transformed into a potential "homicidal maniac".

In a clear indication of how terrorism not only destroys bodies but contaminates perceptions, fellow travellers say they saw an "Asian man" with "a bomb belt and wires coming out". What they actually saw was a young Brazilian in a Puffa jacket. The police saw a threat. To them De Menezes looked like another "clean skin" (a perpetrator with no history of previous terrorist involvement or affiliation) on the run and possibly about to act. Having cornered him and pinned him to the ground they pumped five bullets into his head at close range.

In a world where every brown skin is little more than a "clean-skin" waiting to happen, stop and search will inevitably become stop and shoot. The dominant mood that we are better safe than sorry is understandable. But after Friday's incident we are left with one man dead, nobody safe and everybody sorry. If there's one thing we've learned over the past two years, it's that a pre-emptive strike with no evidence causes more problems than it solves.

De Menezes's killing came the day after the police presented Tony Blair with a shopping list of new measures they say they need to tackle terrorism. As though the plea not to allow terrorists to change our way of life does not apply to the authorities, they want to increase the amount of time they can detain a suspect without charge from 14 days to three months. Given that they already have the option of shooting unarmed, innocent people dead in the underground, the police clearly have more power than they can responsibly handle. But De Menezes's death does not make the case against giving police extra anti-terrorist powers - it simply illustrates it.

Anti-terrorist legislation has a proven record of catching just about anyone apart from those for whom it was originally designed. We knew this way before September 11. According to Home Office statistics, 97% of those arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act - a series of draconian measures supposed to thwart the IRA - between 1974 and 1988 were released without charge. Only 1% were convicted and imprisoned.

The strike rate since the declaration of the war on terror has not been particularly impressive either. More than 700 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act since September 11, but half have been released without charge and only 17 convicted. Only three of the convictions relate to allegations of extremism related to militant Islamic groups.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Colum...1535624,00.html

Edited July 25, 2005 by Gary Younge

[Graham Davies]

Writing as a regular traveller into London and on the London Underground – and indeed on the stretch of line from King’s Cross to Russell Square that I use to get to London University – I do not object to a “shoot to kill” policy if my life faces a potential untimely end due to the actions of suicide bombers. But, of course, I expect the police to have a very good reason for taking someone’s life.

In August 1969 I was in the Shankill Road in Belfast (where I was visiting my parents-in law) dodging bullets being fired from the Divis Street flats. The police fired back, killed the snipers who were firing at us and, unfortunately, killed innocent people too, including a nine-year old child, if my memory serves me right. I am grateful that the police killed the snipers before they killed me, my wife and three-month old daughter, but I find it hard to justify the unnecessary death of a child.

[Guest]

In August 1969 I was in the Shankill Road in Belfast (where I was visiting my parents-in law) dodging bullets being fired from the Divis Street flats. The police fired back, killed the snipers who were firing at us and, unfortunately, killed innocent people too, including a nine-year old child, if my memory serves me right. I am grateful that the police killed the snipers before they killed me, my wife and three-month old daughter, but I find it hard to justify the unnecessary death of a child.

But these are not similar incidents at all Graham.

By all accounts De Menezes was observed leaving his home, allowed to get on a bus (interesting to allow a suspected suicide bomber to go for a bus ride), then followed several hundred yards before being allowed to get on a tube. Surely the police had plenty of opportunity to challenge him and find out who is was without executing him.

All the officers involved in this disaster should face disciplinary action immediately and criminal charges in time.

[Graham Davies]

Andy writes:

But these are not similar incidents at all Graham.

I was merely pointing out that I agree with a shoot to kill policy if innocent people's lives are threatened. Presumably the police who shot the innocent Brazilan man thought that he was threatening people's lives and took a snap (now in retrospect wrong) decision to kill him. Similarly, in 1969 the police in the Shankhill road took the decision to use a powerful Browning machine gun to blast a block of flats - I saw it myself. This decision was also in retrospect wrong as the Browning is a pretty indiscrimate weapon whose shells can penetrate walls and kill innocent people as well as taking out snipers.

Right now, we don't know all the facts about the incident at Stockwell Tube Station, and it will probably take some time for the facts to emerge. There has to be a thorough enquiry and if the police officers can be shown to have reacted in haste and incompetently they need to be disciplined. On the other hand, do we want to create a situation where the police hesitate too long to take action and allow suicide bombers to succeed?

[John Simkin]

By all accounts De Menezes was observed leaving his home, allowed to get on a bus (interesting to allow a suspected suicide bomber to go for a bus ride), then followed several hundred yards before being allowed to get on a tube. Surely the police had plenty of opportunity to challenge him and find out who is was without executing him.

All the officers involved in this disaster should face disciplinary action immediately and criminal charges in time.

I agree. It is noticeable that Tony Blair and the spokesman for the police, Ian Blair, expressed regret, but did not actually apologise for the shooting. It is also disturbing that the head of the investigation into the shooting has announced that the police officers involved have not been suspended. He also added that it will be several months before his report is published.

I have been appalled by the way the media has responded to this execution. We have had a series of newspaper columnists saying that it is unfortunate but we have to accept that this new “shoot to kill” policy if the police have good reason to suspect that someone is a potential suicide bomber. It is fairly easy for someone who is white and is unlikely to be suspected of being a suicide bomber. Do they find it impossible to put themselves in the position of someone who does not look like an Anglo Saxon?

As Lord Berkeley pointed out in today’s Guardian: “The current advice to appears to be: don't wear thick coats; don't carry a rucksack; don't look foreign; don't live in the same block of flats as suspected suicide bombers. However, even if you fail all these tests, you are still safe on a bus in the company of armed police, but don't attempt to go on the underground.”

Several so-called experts on counter-terrorism have argued over the last few days that in time we will get used to living in a country being threatened by suicide bombers. They usually quote the example of Israel, a country that has suffered from suicide bombers since they illegally occupied areas of Palestine. Apparently, people in Israel are willing to accept the situation where they might be blown up as they go about their business. They are also willing to accept restrictions on their human rights, including the same “shoot to kill” policy that has been introduced into UK. Is that true? In Israel the majority of the population believe that their personal security has been improved since the occupation of Palestine and have constantly voted for politicians who favour this policy. The same is not true of the UK. The vast majority of the population in UK believe our security has been undermined by the invasion of Iraq.

Tony Blair has constantly told us we should go about our business as usual. That is easy to say for someone who travels around in a bullet-proof car. Does he use the underground to get to work? The truth is that most people have no option but to carry on using public transport in London. Those that do have choice, like tourists, will make decisions that will cripple the economy.

[Graham Davies]

John writes:

We have had a series of newspaper columnists saying that it is unfortunate but we have to accept that this new “shoot to kill” policy if the police have good reason to suspect that someone is a potential suicide bomber.

It’s a policy that I accept if I am likely to be the victim of a suicide bomber, especially as I travel regularly into London and use the Underground. And is the policy “new”?

It's highly regrettable that people of Asian appearance are regarded as suspicious both by police and by public. It was also regrettable that when IRA bombers threatened London anyone with an Irish accent was regarded as suspicious. My wife (from Belfast) and my sister-in-law (from Cork) recall several occasions on which they were subjected to abuse for no reason other than having an Irish accent.

John writes:

Apparently, people in Israel are willing to accept the situation where they might be blown up as they go about their business. They are also willing to accept restrictions on their human rights, including the same “shoot to kill” policy that has been introduced into UK.

Just as the people of Northern Ireland accepted that they might be blown up as they went about their business at the height of the troubles. They also accepted many counter-terrorism restrictions. At one time you could not enter Belfast City Centre without going through a steel gate and being submitted to a body search. Once you were inside the City Centre you might be subjected to further searches when you entered a shop. A shoot to kill policy was in operation – though perhaps not freely admitted. I recall stopping my car in front of the Crumlin Road jail in 1976 to ask a policeman for directions. He gave me directions once he had signalled to two soldiers to approach my car and point their rifles at my head. This was not very nice, but I accepted it was a matter of security.

[Guest]

There is perhaps a greater threat to our lives and liberties than the terrorists themselves. This is our apparent willingness to let the police force run out of control. There are worrying signs that increasing numbers of people think we can best protect ourselves in this way.

[Guest Toby Cope]

The latest report from the BBC website suggests new 'measures' of security will be in place so, but I don't understand how the phone-tap system works:

Earlier, after the talks in Downing Street, Conservative leader Michael Howard said the prime minister was seriously considering allowing the use of "phone tap" evidence in courts.

They also discussed extending the time suspects can be held without charge.

But despite his desire "to work together in the face of great danger", he said they saw extreme difficulties with calls from the police to extend the time a terrorist suspect can be held without charge from 14 days to three months.

Mr Kennedy said "reasonable progress" had been made in the talks and he hoped this would continue in a measured way so "we don't surrender basic civil liberties in the process".

Downing Street has said Mr Blair still intends to listen to "considered advice" before supporting the use of telephone call recordings at trials.

There is already agreement on proposals to create new offences of engaging in acts preparatory to terrorism and of indirect incitement to terrorism.