Gun Law in London
Jul 30th 2005, 4:30 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gun Law in London
Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
Blair's war policy
The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
head at point blank range.
At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Given suggestions that the shooting may not have been carried out by
police officers at all, but by members of the security forces or the
SAS, everyone has the right to ask just what type of Orwellian dystopia
has been created in Blair's Britain.
Menezes' death is not a blameless consequence of the July 7 bombings,
as is now being claimed. Over the past two weeks, an officially
sanctioned climate of hysteria and panic has been consciously whipped
up, in which the state has been given carte blanche.
The government itself has a vested interest in generating such an
atmosphere in order to avoid having to answer damaging questions.
Whilst police have demanded new powers to detain people without charge
for up to three months, the government has made clear its intention to
rush through new legislation, including making it a criminal offence to
"glorify" or "condone" terrorism, with major ramifications for
free speech.
It is under these conditions that it has emerged that the rules
governing police use of firearms have been officially revised and a de
facto shoot-to-kill policy secretly adopted.
Even as Prime Minister Tony Blair insists that emergency measures are
not directed against "any community" in particular, but solely
against those bent on terror, the media is filled with demands by
so-called "security analysts" for all young black and Asian males
to be treated with suspicion, in much the same way as Irish people in
previous decades.
There is, however, one crucial difference. In March 1988, when the SAS
shot dead three suspected IRA terrorists in Gibraltar, there were
repeated denials that the British state had an assassination policy.
Not so today. Writing in the Daily Mail, before the police admission
that they had killed an innocent man, Tom Bower opined: "In normal
times, yesterday's state execution of a suspect in a Tube train in
the middle of the capital would have evoked a tidal wave of revulsion
and protest."
The terror threat, however, had changed all that, he wrote. Britain's
Muslims, in particular, would have to accept that "many civil
liberties will have to be infringed." Security requirements would now
involve the suspension of Habeas Corpus, "unexplained arrests," and
even "the more common use of such police assassination."
Just where are the powers-that-be intending to take Britain next?
Already, the police have reaffirmed their policy of shoot-to-kill, with
Blair's backing. For good reason, many are querying in the wake of
Menezes' shooting whether anyone can be considered a legitimate
target, just so much "collateral damage" in the so-called "war
against terror."
All those who retain a commitment to democratic rights must reject the
argument, being hammered out by the political establishment and the
media, that to draw a connection between Iraq and the July 7 bombings
is to "excuse" terrorism.
This spurious charge has been the constant mantra not only of Blair and
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. In the US, New York Times columnist
Thomas Friedman claimed that those who pointed the finger of
responsibility at the US and British governments' actions in the
Middle East were "just one notch less despicable than the
terrorists."
Writing in the Observer July 10, Nick Cohen declared, under the
headline, "Face Up to the Truth," that "we all know what was to
blame for Thursday's [July 7] murders... and it wasn't Bush and
Blair."
Just days after stating that Britain's foreign policy in the Middle
East had played a role in creating the conditions for the July 7
attacks, London Mayor Ken Livingstone effectively absolved the
government and the police for Menezes' killing, stating, "This
tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the
terrorists bear responsibility."
Such cowardice and opportunism are what one has come to expect from
Livingstone. But it is a matter of fact that both the July 7 bombings
and Menezes' killing tragically vindicate the many millions of people
in the UK and internationally who marched in February 2003 to oppose
the war against Iraq.
Those who continue to claim otherwise are arguing an absurdity. In the
aftermath of the Second World War, the use of war as a means of
achieving strategic policy objectives was deemed Nazi Germany's
ultimate crime, from which all others-including fascist
genocide-inexorably flowed. On these grounds, and with British
backing, leaders of the Third Reich were hung by their necks until they
were dead.
Blair is no less guilty of war crimes and is morally and politically
culpable for the events in London.
The overwhelming majority of British people opposed the war against
Iraq precisely because its catastrophic implications could be foreseen.
There was no end of warnings that the resulting destabilisation of the
Middle East would increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks in major
metropolitan areas and the imposition of greater security measures,
with dangerous implications for civil liberties.
Blair dismissed such concerns, famously proclaiming that the essence of
democracy was the refusal of governments to do what the people
demanded. In his slavish subservience to US imperialism and the
financial interests of British capital, the prime minister was
determined that no obstacles be placed in the way of what he believed
would be a triumphant joyride to Iraq's oilfields on the coat-tails
of the Bush administration.
The reality is that the population of the UK is being made to reap the
whirlwind-both with their lives and the abrogation of their
democratic rights-of Blair's criminal negligence.
As Shakespeare knew only too well, from foul deeds endless tragedy
arises. As the Bard might have said of July 7 and the day the Brazilian
worker was killed: This day's black fate on more days doth depend.
(Romeo and Juliet, Act III). And what foul deeds this government is
responsible for.
It is a matter of record that the war against Iraq was prepared and
commissioned on the basis of lies. There was no link between Saddam
Hussein's regime and the 9/11 attacks on the US, nor did Iraq possess
weapons of mass destruction as was claimed.
Neither the truth nor international law, however, was allowed to stand
in the way. Documents were plagiarised and intelligence manipulated as
the government sought to concoct "facts" to justify its
predetermined war aims.
When these lies were exposed, Blair resorted to new lies: that the war
and subsequent occupation had made the world a safer place and had
created the basis for democratic renewal not only in Iraq but
throughout the Middle East.
Instead, Iraq is a bloody quagmire. Not only has the country's
infrastructure been devastated, but tens of thousands of civilians have
been killed-70 percent of them having died after the war was
officially deemed to be over. From Abu Ghraib to Guantánamo Bay, the
world has witnessed the sickening reality of Blair and Bush's
"democratic" vision.
At the same time, Britain and the US are being turned into virtual
police dictatorships, in which civilians can be snatched from the
streets and held without charge, and death squads can roam the streets
in broad daylight, killing with apparent impunity.
In the weeks to come, Blair and his apologists will continue to utilise
the threat of terrorism to avoid any accounting for his war policy and
justify its continuation, along with ever more massive attacks on
democratic rights.
We reject this entirely. The fight against imperialist war and the
defence of democratic rights are one and the same.
There is a means through which terror attacks can be brought to an
end-by ending the policies that have created the climate for them in
the first place. That requires a struggle against the capitalist ruling
elites which launched an imperialist war on Iraq in order to seize
control of the country's oil resources.
The mass opposition to militarism and war must be revived and carried
forward in the convening of protests, demonstrations and conferences
across the UK, Europe and internationally to demand an end to the
occupation of Iraq, the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops, and
that all those responsible for commissioning the war be held legally
and politically accountable for its consequences.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily re
Blair's war policy
The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
head at point blank range.
At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Given suggestions that the shooting may not have been carried out by
police officers at all, but by members of the security forces or the
SAS, everyone has the right to ask just what type of Orwellian dystopia
has been created in Blair's Britain.
Menezes' death is not a blameless consequence of the July 7 bombings,
as is now being claimed. Over the past two weeks, an officially
sanctioned climate of hysteria and panic has been consciously whipped
up, in which the state has been given carte blanche.
The government itself has a vested interest in generating such an
atmosphere in order to avoid having to answer damaging questions.
Whilst police have demanded new powers to detain people without charge
for up to three months, the government has made clear its intention to
rush through new legislation, including making it a criminal offence to
"glorify" or "condone" terrorism, with major ramifications for
free speech.
It is under these conditions that it has emerged that the rules
governing police use of firearms have been officially revised and a de
facto shoot-to-kill policy secretly adopted.
Even as Prime Minister Tony Blair insists that emergency measures are
not directed against "any community" in particular, but solely
against those bent on terror, the media is filled with demands by
so-called "security analysts" for all young black and Asian males
to be treated with suspicion, in much the same way as Irish people in
previous decades.
There is, however, one crucial difference. In March 1988, when the SAS
shot dead three suspected IRA terrorists in Gibraltar, there were
repeated denials that the British state had an assassination policy.
Not so today. Writing in the Daily Mail, before the police admission
that they had killed an innocent man, Tom Bower opined: "In normal
times, yesterday's state execution of a suspect in a Tube train in
the middle of the capital would have evoked a tidal wave of revulsion
and protest."
The terror threat, however, had changed all that, he wrote. Britain's
Muslims, in particular, would have to accept that "many civil
liberties will have to be infringed." Security requirements would now
involve the suspension of Habeas Corpus, "unexplained arrests," and
even "the more common use of such police assassination."
Just where are the powers-that-be intending to take Britain next?
Already, the police have reaffirmed their policy of shoot-to-kill, with
Blair's backing. For good reason, many are querying in the wake of
Menezes' shooting whether anyone can be considered a legitimate
target, just so much "collateral damage" in the so-called "war
against terror."
All those who retain a commitment to democratic rights must reject the
argument, being hammered out by the political establishment and the
media, that to draw a connection between Iraq and the July 7 bombings
is to "excuse" terrorism.
This spurious charge has been the constant mantra not only of Blair and
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. In the US, New York Times columnist
Thomas Friedman claimed that those who pointed the finger of
responsibility at the US and British governments' actions in the
Middle East were "just one notch less despicable than the
terrorists."
Writing in the Observer July 10, Nick Cohen declared, under the
headline, "Face Up to the Truth," that "we all know what was to
blame for Thursday's [July 7] murders... and it wasn't Bush and
Blair."
Just days after stating that Britain's foreign policy in the Middle
East had played a role in creating the conditions for the July 7
attacks, London Mayor Ken Livingstone effectively absolved the
government and the police for Menezes' killing, stating, "This
tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the
terrorists bear responsibility."
Such cowardice and opportunism are what one has come to expect from
Livingstone. But it is a matter of fact that both the July 7 bombings
and Menezes' killing tragically vindicate the many millions of people
in the UK and internationally who marched in February 2003 to oppose
the war against Iraq.
Those who continue to claim otherwise are arguing an absurdity. In the
aftermath of the Second World War, the use of war as a means of
achieving strategic policy objectives was deemed Nazi Germany's
ultimate crime, from which all others-including fascist
genocide-inexorably flowed. On these grounds, and with British
backing, leaders of the Third Reich were hung by their necks until they
were dead.
Blair is no less guilty of war crimes and is morally and politically
culpable for the events in London.
The overwhelming majority of British people opposed the war against
Iraq precisely because its catastrophic implications could be foreseen.
There was no end of warnings that the resulting destabilisation of the
Middle East would increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks in major
metropolitan areas and the imposition of greater security measures,
with dangerous implications for civil liberties.
Blair dismissed such concerns, famously proclaiming that the essence of
democracy was the refusal of governments to do what the people
demanded. In his slavish subservience to US imperialism and the
financial interests of British capital, the prime minister was
determined that no obstacles be placed in the way of what he believed
would be a triumphant joyride to Iraq's oilfields on the coat-tails
of the Bush administration.
The reality is that the population of the UK is being made to reap the
whirlwind-both with their lives and the abrogation of their
democratic rights-of Blair's criminal negligence.
As Shakespeare knew only too well, from foul deeds endless tragedy
arises. As the Bard might have said of July 7 and the day the Brazilian
worker was killed: This day's black fate on more days doth depend.
(Romeo and Juliet, Act III). And what foul deeds this government is
responsible for.
It is a matter of record that the war against Iraq was prepared and
commissioned on the basis of lies. There was no link between Saddam
Hussein's regime and the 9/11 attacks on the US, nor did Iraq possess
weapons of mass destruction as was claimed.
Neither the truth nor international law, however, was allowed to stand
in the way. Documents were plagiarised and intelligence manipulated as
the government sought to concoct "facts" to justify its
predetermined war aims.
When these lies were exposed, Blair resorted to new lies: that the war
and subsequent occupation had made the world a safer place and had
created the basis for democratic renewal not only in Iraq but
throughout the Middle East.
Instead, Iraq is a bloody quagmire. Not only has the country's
infrastructure been devastated, but tens of thousands of civilians have
been killed-70 percent of them having died after the war was
officially deemed to be over. From Abu Ghraib to Guantánamo Bay, the
world has witnessed the sickening reality of Blair and Bush's
"democratic" vision.
At the same time, Britain and the US are being turned into virtual
police dictatorships, in which civilians can be snatched from the
streets and held without charge, and death squads can roam the streets
in broad daylight, killing with apparent impunity.
In the weeks to come, Blair and his apologists will continue to utilise
the threat of terrorism to avoid any accounting for his war policy and
justify its continuation, along with ever more massive attacks on
democratic rights.
We reject this entirely. The fight against imperialist war and the
defence of democratic rights are one and the same.
There is a means through which terror attacks can be brought to an
end-by ending the policies that have created the climate for them in
the first place. That requires a struggle against the capitalist ruling
elites which launched an imperialist war on Iraq in order to seize
control of the country's oil resources.
The mass opposition to militarism and war must be revived and carried
forward in the convening of protests, demonstrations and conferences
across the UK, Europe and internationally to demand an end to the
occupation of Iraq, the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops, and
that all those responsible for commissioning the war be held legally
and politically accountable for its consequences.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily re
Jul 30th 2005, 4:59 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
six-toes wrote:
> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
> Blair's war policy
> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
> head at point blank range.
> At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
> Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
> ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
> bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
> and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
> Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
> had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
> any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
> been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
> was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
> Blair's war policy
> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
> head at point blank range.
> At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
> Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
> ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
> bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
> and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
> Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
> had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
> any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
> been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
> was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
Jul 30th 2005, 5:33 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:59:12 -0400, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:
>six-toes wrote:
>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>> Blair's war policy
>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
>> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
>> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
>> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
>> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
>> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
>> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
>> head at point blank range.
>> At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
>> Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
>> ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
>> bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
>> and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
>> Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
>> had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
>> any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
>> been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
>> was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
>Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
>measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
>and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
>act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
>stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
Over here in the UK we pay the police to PROTECT innocent people, not
to slaughter them.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>six-toes wrote:
>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>> Blair's war policy
>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
>> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
>> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
>> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
>> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
>> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
>> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
>> head at point blank range.
>> At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
>> Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
>> ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
>> bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
>> and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
>> Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
>> had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
>> any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
>> been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
>> was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
>Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
>measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
>and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
>act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
>stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
Over here in the UK we pay the police to PROTECT innocent people, not
to slaughter them.
Jul 30th 2005, 5:39 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
six-toes wrote:
> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
> Blair's war policy
>
>
>
> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>
> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>
> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
> head at point blank range.
>
Fleeing implies guilt. The police are there to protect the innocent. The
shooting was a tragic error, but the blame belongs to the one who did
not raise his hands and stop when ordered to do so by the police. Even
though the threat to civil peace was not real, it was perceived and
acted on at the moment of need. The police did their job. Seconds count
in bombings which is what this was all about. Outside the family of the
electrician there is probably nobody who feels worse about this than the
police who killed him.
>
> Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
> responsibility of the author and do not necessarily re
>
The unknown author *six-toes* takes full responsibility for his/her/its
tirade of accusation and nonsense. Bravo to you, brave heart!
John Bermont
--
------------------------------------------------------
* * * Mastering Independent Budget Travel * * *
http://www.enjoy-europe.com/
------------------------------------------------------
This email powered by Thunderbird. Learn more at:
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/
> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
> Blair's war policy
>
>
>
> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>
> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>
> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
> head at point blank range.
>
Fleeing implies guilt. The police are there to protect the innocent. The
shooting was a tragic error, but the blame belongs to the one who did
not raise his hands and stop when ordered to do so by the police. Even
though the threat to civil peace was not real, it was perceived and
acted on at the moment of need. The police did their job. Seconds count
in bombings which is what this was all about. Outside the family of the
electrician there is probably nobody who feels worse about this than the
police who killed him.
>
> Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
> responsibility of the author and do not necessarily re
>
The unknown author *six-toes* takes full responsibility for his/her/its
tirade of accusation and nonsense. Bravo to you, brave heart!
John Bermont
--
------------------------------------------------------
* * * Mastering Independent Budget Travel * * *
http://www.enjoy-europe.com/
------------------------------------------------------
This email powered by Thunderbird. Learn more at:
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/
Jul 30th 2005, 5:41 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:39:27 GMT, John Bermont
<[email protected]> wrote:
>six-toes wrote:
>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>> Blair's war policy
>>
>>
>>
>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>>
>> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
>> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
>> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
>> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>>
>> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
>> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
>> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
>> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
>> head at point blank range.
>>
>Fleeing implies guilt. The police are there to protect the innocent. The
>shooting was a tragic error, but the blame belongs to the one who did
>not raise his hands and stop when ordered to do so by the police. Even
>though the threat to civil peace was not real, it was perceived and
>acted on at the moment of need. The police did their job. Seconds count
>in bombings which is what this was all about. Outside the family of the
>electrician there is probably nobody who feels worse about this than the
>police who killed him.
>>
>> Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
>> responsibility of the author and do not necessarily re
>>
>The unknown author *six-toes* takes full responsibility for his/her/its
>tirade of accusation and nonsense. Bravo to you, brave heart!
It was obviously a cut and paste job with recognition of the source he
got it from.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>six-toes wrote:
>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>> Blair's war policy
>>
>>
>>
>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>>
>> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
>> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
>> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
>> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>>
>> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
>> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
>> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
>> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
>> head at point blank range.
>>
>Fleeing implies guilt. The police are there to protect the innocent. The
>shooting was a tragic error, but the blame belongs to the one who did
>not raise his hands and stop when ordered to do so by the police. Even
>though the threat to civil peace was not real, it was perceived and
>acted on at the moment of need. The police did their job. Seconds count
>in bombings which is what this was all about. Outside the family of the
>electrician there is probably nobody who feels worse about this than the
>police who killed him.
>>
>> Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
>> responsibility of the author and do not necessarily re
>>
>The unknown author *six-toes* takes full responsibility for his/her/its
>tirade of accusation and nonsense. Bravo to you, brave heart!
It was obviously a cut and paste job with recognition of the source he
got it from.
--
Martin
Jul 30th 2005, 5:43 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:41:24 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:39:27 GMT, John Bermont
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>six-toes wrote:
>>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>>> Blair's war policy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
>>> responsibility of the author and do not necessarily re
>>>
>>The unknown author *six-toes* takes full responsibility for his/her/its
>>tirade of accusation and nonsense. Bravo to you, brave heart!
>It was obviously a cut and paste job with recognition of the source he
>got it from.
World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/ju...-j25_prn.shtml
--
Martin
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:39:27 GMT, John Bermont
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>six-toes wrote:
>>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>>> Blair's war policy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
>>> responsibility of the author and do not necessarily re
>>>
>>The unknown author *six-toes* takes full responsibility for his/her/its
>>tirade of accusation and nonsense. Bravo to you, brave heart!
>It was obviously a cut and paste job with recognition of the source he
>got it from.
World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/ju...-j25_prn.shtml
--
Martin
Jul 30th 2005, 6:08 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
"John Bermont" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> six-toes wrote:
>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>> Blair's war policy
>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
>> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
>> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
>> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
>> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
>> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
>> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
>> head at point blank range.
> Fleeing implies guilt.
Absolute bollocks. Fleeing implies fear. Innocent
until proven guilty has been the "golden thread"
of British justice. Now, summary execution (in
as style known in America as a "gangland slaying")
is the punishment for being a suspect. The UK
has reinstated the death penalty, and conviction
in a courtroom is no longer necessary. The death
squads now have the authority to carry out summary
execution of suspects.
> The police are there to protect the innocent. The shooting was a tragic
> error, but the blame belongs to the one who did not raise his hands and
> stop when ordered to do so by the police. Even though the threat to civil
> peace was not real, it was perceived and acted on at the moment of need.
> The police did their job. Seconds count in bombings which is what this was
> all about. Outside the family of the electrician there is probably nobody
> who feels worse about this than the police who killed him.
On what do you base that fantasy?
/thunderbird/
news:[email protected]...
> six-toes wrote:
>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>> Blair's war policy
>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
>> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
>> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
>> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
>> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
>> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
>> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
>> head at point blank range.
> Fleeing implies guilt.
Absolute bollocks. Fleeing implies fear. Innocent
until proven guilty has been the "golden thread"
of British justice. Now, summary execution (in
as style known in America as a "gangland slaying")
is the punishment for being a suspect. The UK
has reinstated the death penalty, and conviction
in a courtroom is no longer necessary. The death
squads now have the authority to carry out summary
execution of suspects.
> The police are there to protect the innocent. The shooting was a tragic
> error, but the blame belongs to the one who did not raise his hands and
> stop when ordered to do so by the police. Even though the threat to civil
> peace was not real, it was perceived and acted on at the moment of need.
> The police did their job. Seconds count in bombings which is what this was
> all about. Outside the family of the electrician there is probably nobody
> who feels worse about this than the police who killed him.
On what do you base that fantasy?
/thunderbird/
Jul 30th 2005, 6:21 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
[email protected] wrote:
> Over here in the UK we pay the police to PROTECT innocent people, not
> to slaughter them.
And in the UK, contrary to other countries the police offcourse never make
mistakes...
--
/<rist
> Over here in the UK we pay the police to PROTECT innocent people, not
> to slaughter them.
And in the UK, contrary to other countries the police offcourse never make
mistakes...
--
/<rist
Jul 30th 2005, 9:45 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:59:12 -0400, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:
>six-toes wrote:
>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>> Blair's war policy
>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
>> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
>> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
>> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
>> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
>> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
>> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
>> head at point blank range.
>> At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
>> Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
>> ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
>> bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
>> and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
>> Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
>> had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
>> any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
>> been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
>> was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
>Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
>measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
>and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
>act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
>stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
You are a total tosspot.
If you think for a second that anyone if capable of identifying a
'terrorist' before the fact, you need a good slapping. This was a good
old fashionsed police ****up, and had very little to do with terrorism
even in the most abstract sense.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
<[email protected]> wrote:
>six-toes wrote:
>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>> Blair's war policy
>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
>> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
>> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
>> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
>> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
>> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
>> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
>> head at point blank range.
>> At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
>> Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
>> ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
>> bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
>> and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
>> Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
>> had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
>> any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
>> been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
>> was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
>Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
>measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
>and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
>act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
>stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
You are a total tosspot.
If you think for a second that anyone if capable of identifying a
'terrorist' before the fact, you need a good slapping. This was a good
old fashionsed police ****up, and had very little to do with terrorism
even in the most abstract sense.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Jul 30th 2005, 1:10 pm
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
No Spam wrote:
> "John Bermont" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > six-toes wrote:
> >> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
> >> Blair's war policy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
> >> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
> >>
> >> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
> >> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
> >> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
> >> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
> >>
> >> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
> >> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
> >> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
> >> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
> >> head at point blank range.
> >>
> >
> > Fleeing implies guilt.
> Absolute bollocks. Fleeing implies fear. Innocent
> until proven guilty has been the "golden thread"
> of British justice. Now, summary execution (in
> as style known in America as a "gangland slaying")
With the slight difference that it wasn't performed by organised-crime
gangs, hence nothing like what the term "gangland slaying" implies.
> is the punishment for being a suspect. The UK
> has reinstated the death penalty, and conviction
> in a courtroom is no longer necessary. The death
> squads now have the authority to carry out summary
> execution of suspects.
It has been legally justifiable for a LONG time for a person to kill
another person if the first honestly believes that the second is about
to kill them or a third party. (IANAL but that's the gist of it.) The
only thing new about this particular incident is that it was linked to
a much bigger story, which is why it has received much wider coverage
than previous incidents.
> "John Bermont" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > six-toes wrote:
> >> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
> >> Blair's war policy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
> >> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
> >>
> >> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
> >> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
> >> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
> >> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
> >>
> >> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
> >> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
> >> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
> >> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
> >> head at point blank range.
> >>
> >
> > Fleeing implies guilt.
> Absolute bollocks. Fleeing implies fear. Innocent
> until proven guilty has been the "golden thread"
> of British justice. Now, summary execution (in
> as style known in America as a "gangland slaying")
With the slight difference that it wasn't performed by organised-crime
gangs, hence nothing like what the term "gangland slaying" implies.
> is the punishment for being a suspect. The UK
> has reinstated the death penalty, and conviction
> in a courtroom is no longer necessary. The death
> squads now have the authority to carry out summary
> execution of suspects.
It has been legally justifiable for a LONG time for a person to kill
another person if the first honestly believes that the second is about
to kill them or a third party. (IANAL but that's the gist of it.) The
only thing new about this particular incident is that it was linked to
a much bigger story, which is why it has received much wider coverage
than previous incidents.
Jul 30th 2005, 2:27 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
DDT Filled Mormons wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:59:12 -0400, Dave Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
> >measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
> >and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
> >act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
> >stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
> You are a total tosspot.
> If you think for a second that anyone if capable of identifying a
> 'terrorist' before the fact, you need a good slapping.
Are you really arguing that it's impossible to identify a terrorist
before the fact?
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:59:12 -0400, Dave Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
> >measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
> >and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
> >act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
> >stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
> You are a total tosspot.
> If you think for a second that anyone if capable of identifying a
> 'terrorist' before the fact, you need a good slapping.
Are you really arguing that it's impossible to identify a terrorist
before the fact?
Jul 30th 2005, 3:17 pm
#12
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,102
Re: Gun Law in London
Originally Posted by Six-Toes
Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
Blair's war policy
The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
head at point blank range.
At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Given suggestions that the shooting may not have been carried out by
police officers at all, but by members of the security forces or the
SAS, everyone has the right to ask just what type of Orwellian dystopia
has been created in Blair's Britain.
Menezes' death is not a blameless consequence of the July 7 bombings,
as is now being claimed. Over the past two weeks, an officially
sanctioned climate of hysteria and panic has been consciously whipped
up, in which the state has been given carte blanche.
The government itself has a vested interest in generating such an
atmosphere in order to avoid having to answer damaging questions.
Whilst police have demanded new powers to detain people without charge
for up to three months, the government has made clear its intention to
rush through new legislation, including making it a criminal offence to
"glorify" or "condone" terrorism, with major ramifications for
free speech.
It is under these conditions that it has emerged that the rules
governing police use of firearms have been officially revised and a de
facto shoot-to-kill policy secretly adopted.
Even as Prime Minister Tony Blair insists that emergency measures are
not directed against "any community" in particular, but solely
against those bent on terror, the media is filled with demands by
so-called "security analysts" for all young black and Asian males
to be treated with suspicion, in much the same way as Irish people in
previous decades.
There is, however, one crucial difference. In March 1988, when the SAS
shot dead three suspected IRA terrorists in Gibraltar, there were
repeated denials that the British state had an assassination policy.
Not so today. Writing in the Daily Mail, before the police admission
that they had killed an innocent man, Tom Bower opined: "In normal
times, yesterday's state execution of a suspect in a Tube train in
the middle of the capital would have evoked a tidal wave of revulsion
and protest."
The terror threat, however, had changed all that, he wrote. Britain's
Muslims, in particular, would have to accept that "many civil
liberties will have to be infringed." Security requirements would now
involve the suspension of Habeas Corpus, "unexplained arrests," and
even "the more common use of such police assassination."
Just where are the powers-that-be intending to take Britain next?
Already, the police have reaffirmed their policy of shoot-to-kill, with
Blair's backing. For good reason, many are querying in the wake of
Menezes' shooting whether anyone can be considered a legitimate
target, just so much "collateral damage" in the so-called "war
against terror."
All those who retain a commitment to democratic rights must reject the
argument, being hammered out by the political establishment and the
media, that to draw a connection between Iraq and the July 7 bombings
is to "excuse" terrorism.
This spurious charge has been the constant mantra not only of Blair and
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. In the US, New York Times columnist
Thomas Friedman claimed that those who pointed the finger of
responsibility at the US and British governments' actions in the
Middle East were "just one notch less despicable than the
terrorists."
Writing in the Observer July 10, Nick Cohen declared, under the
headline, "Face Up to the Truth," that "we all know what was to
blame for Thursday's [July 7] murders... and it wasn't Bush and
Blair."
Just days after stating that Britain's foreign policy in the Middle
East had played a role in creating the conditions for the July 7
attacks, London Mayor Ken Livingstone effectively absolved the
government and the police for Menezes' killing, stating, "This
tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the
terrorists bear responsibility."
Such cowardice and opportunism are what one has come to expect from
Livingstone. But it is a matter of fact that both the July 7 bombings
and Menezes' killing tragically vindicate the many millions of people
in the UK and internationally who marched in February 2003 to oppose
the war against Iraq.
Those who continue to claim otherwise are arguing an absurdity. In the
aftermath of the Second World War, the use of war as a means of
achieving strategic policy objectives was deemed Nazi Germany's
ultimate crime, from which all others-including fascist
genocide-inexorably flowed. On these grounds, and with British
backing, leaders of the Third Reich were hung by their necks until they
were dead.
Blair is no less guilty of war crimes and is morally and politically
culpable for the events in London.
The overwhelming majority of British people opposed the war against
Iraq precisely because its catastrophic implications could be foreseen.
There was no end of warnings that the resulting destabilisation of the
Middle East would increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks in major
metropolitan areas and the imposition of greater security measures,
with dangerous implications for civil liberties.
Blair dismissed such concerns, famously proclaiming that the essence of
democracy was the refusal of governments to do what the people
demanded. In his slavish subservience to US imperialism and the
financial interests of British capital, the prime minister was
determined that no obstacles be placed in the way of what he believed
would be a triumphant joyride to Iraq's oilfields on the coat-tails
of the Bush administration.
The reality is that the population of the UK is being made to reap the
whirlwind-both with their lives and the abrogation of their
democratic rights-of Blair's criminal negligence.
As Shakespeare knew only too well, from foul deeds endless tragedy
arises. As the Bard might have said of July 7 and the day the Brazilian
worker was killed: This day's black fate on more days doth depend.
(Romeo and Juliet, Act III). And what foul deeds this government is
responsible for.
It is a matter of record that the war against Iraq was prepared and
commissioned on the basis of lies. There was no link between Saddam
Hussein's regime and the 9/11 attacks on the US, nor did Iraq possess
weapons of mass destruction as was claimed.
Neither the truth nor international law, however, was allowed to stand
in the way. Documents were plagiarised and intelligence manipulated as
the government sought to concoct "facts" to justify its
predetermined war aims.
When these lies were exposed, Blair resorted to new lies: that the war
and subsequent occupation had made the world a safer place and had
created the basis for democratic renewal not only in Iraq but
throughout the Middle East.
Instead, Iraq is a bloody quagmire. Not only has the country's
infrastructure been devastated, but tens of thousands of civilians have
been killed-70 percent of them having died after the war was
officially deemed to be over. From Abu Ghraib to Guantᮡmo Bay, the
world has witnessed the sickening reality of Blair and Bush's
"democratic" vision.
At the same time, Britain and the US are being turned into virtual
police dictatorships, in which civilians can be snatched from the
streets and held without charge, and death squads can roam the streets
in broad daylight, killing with apparent impunity.
In the weeks to come, Blair and his apologists will continue to utilise
the threat of terrorism to avoid any accounting for his war policy and
justify its continuation, along with ever more massive attacks on
democratic rights.
We reject this entirely. The fight against imperialist war and the
defence of democratic rights are one and the same.
There is a means through which terror attacks can be brought to an
end-by ending the policies that have created the climate for them in
the first place. That requires a struggle against the capitalist ruling
elites which launched an imperialist war on Iraq in order to seize
control of the country's oil resources.
The mass opposition to militarism and war must be revived and carried
forward in the convening of protests, demonstrations and conferences
across the UK, Europe and internationally to demand an end to the
occupation of Iraq, the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops, and
that all those responsible for commissioning the war be held legally
and politically accountable for its consequences.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily re
Blair's war policy
The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
head at point blank range.
At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Given suggestions that the shooting may not have been carried out by
police officers at all, but by members of the security forces or the
SAS, everyone has the right to ask just what type of Orwellian dystopia
has been created in Blair's Britain.
Menezes' death is not a blameless consequence of the July 7 bombings,
as is now being claimed. Over the past two weeks, an officially
sanctioned climate of hysteria and panic has been consciously whipped
up, in which the state has been given carte blanche.
The government itself has a vested interest in generating such an
atmosphere in order to avoid having to answer damaging questions.
Whilst police have demanded new powers to detain people without charge
for up to three months, the government has made clear its intention to
rush through new legislation, including making it a criminal offence to
"glorify" or "condone" terrorism, with major ramifications for
free speech.
It is under these conditions that it has emerged that the rules
governing police use of firearms have been officially revised and a de
facto shoot-to-kill policy secretly adopted.
Even as Prime Minister Tony Blair insists that emergency measures are
not directed against "any community" in particular, but solely
against those bent on terror, the media is filled with demands by
so-called "security analysts" for all young black and Asian males
to be treated with suspicion, in much the same way as Irish people in
previous decades.
There is, however, one crucial difference. In March 1988, when the SAS
shot dead three suspected IRA terrorists in Gibraltar, there were
repeated denials that the British state had an assassination policy.
Not so today. Writing in the Daily Mail, before the police admission
that they had killed an innocent man, Tom Bower opined: "In normal
times, yesterday's state execution of a suspect in a Tube train in
the middle of the capital would have evoked a tidal wave of revulsion
and protest."
The terror threat, however, had changed all that, he wrote. Britain's
Muslims, in particular, would have to accept that "many civil
liberties will have to be infringed." Security requirements would now
involve the suspension of Habeas Corpus, "unexplained arrests," and
even "the more common use of such police assassination."
Just where are the powers-that-be intending to take Britain next?
Already, the police have reaffirmed their policy of shoot-to-kill, with
Blair's backing. For good reason, many are querying in the wake of
Menezes' shooting whether anyone can be considered a legitimate
target, just so much "collateral damage" in the so-called "war
against terror."
All those who retain a commitment to democratic rights must reject the
argument, being hammered out by the political establishment and the
media, that to draw a connection between Iraq and the July 7 bombings
is to "excuse" terrorism.
This spurious charge has been the constant mantra not only of Blair and
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. In the US, New York Times columnist
Thomas Friedman claimed that those who pointed the finger of
responsibility at the US and British governments' actions in the
Middle East were "just one notch less despicable than the
terrorists."
Writing in the Observer July 10, Nick Cohen declared, under the
headline, "Face Up to the Truth," that "we all know what was to
blame for Thursday's [July 7] murders... and it wasn't Bush and
Blair."
Just days after stating that Britain's foreign policy in the Middle
East had played a role in creating the conditions for the July 7
attacks, London Mayor Ken Livingstone effectively absolved the
government and the police for Menezes' killing, stating, "This
tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the
terrorists bear responsibility."
Such cowardice and opportunism are what one has come to expect from
Livingstone. But it is a matter of fact that both the July 7 bombings
and Menezes' killing tragically vindicate the many millions of people
in the UK and internationally who marched in February 2003 to oppose
the war against Iraq.
Those who continue to claim otherwise are arguing an absurdity. In the
aftermath of the Second World War, the use of war as a means of
achieving strategic policy objectives was deemed Nazi Germany's
ultimate crime, from which all others-including fascist
genocide-inexorably flowed. On these grounds, and with British
backing, leaders of the Third Reich were hung by their necks until they
were dead.
Blair is no less guilty of war crimes and is morally and politically
culpable for the events in London.
The overwhelming majority of British people opposed the war against
Iraq precisely because its catastrophic implications could be foreseen.
There was no end of warnings that the resulting destabilisation of the
Middle East would increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks in major
metropolitan areas and the imposition of greater security measures,
with dangerous implications for civil liberties.
Blair dismissed such concerns, famously proclaiming that the essence of
democracy was the refusal of governments to do what the people
demanded. In his slavish subservience to US imperialism and the
financial interests of British capital, the prime minister was
determined that no obstacles be placed in the way of what he believed
would be a triumphant joyride to Iraq's oilfields on the coat-tails
of the Bush administration.
The reality is that the population of the UK is being made to reap the
whirlwind-both with their lives and the abrogation of their
democratic rights-of Blair's criminal negligence.
As Shakespeare knew only too well, from foul deeds endless tragedy
arises. As the Bard might have said of July 7 and the day the Brazilian
worker was killed: This day's black fate on more days doth depend.
(Romeo and Juliet, Act III). And what foul deeds this government is
responsible for.
It is a matter of record that the war against Iraq was prepared and
commissioned on the basis of lies. There was no link between Saddam
Hussein's regime and the 9/11 attacks on the US, nor did Iraq possess
weapons of mass destruction as was claimed.
Neither the truth nor international law, however, was allowed to stand
in the way. Documents were plagiarised and intelligence manipulated as
the government sought to concoct "facts" to justify its
predetermined war aims.
When these lies were exposed, Blair resorted to new lies: that the war
and subsequent occupation had made the world a safer place and had
created the basis for democratic renewal not only in Iraq but
throughout the Middle East.
Instead, Iraq is a bloody quagmire. Not only has the country's
infrastructure been devastated, but tens of thousands of civilians have
been killed-70 percent of them having died after the war was
officially deemed to be over. From Abu Ghraib to Guantᮡmo Bay, the
world has witnessed the sickening reality of Blair and Bush's
"democratic" vision.
At the same time, Britain and the US are being turned into virtual
police dictatorships, in which civilians can be snatched from the
streets and held without charge, and death squads can roam the streets
in broad daylight, killing with apparent impunity.
In the weeks to come, Blair and his apologists will continue to utilise
the threat of terrorism to avoid any accounting for his war policy and
justify its continuation, along with ever more massive attacks on
democratic rights.
We reject this entirely. The fight against imperialist war and the
defence of democratic rights are one and the same.
There is a means through which terror attacks can be brought to an
end-by ending the policies that have created the climate for them in
the first place. That requires a struggle against the capitalist ruling
elites which launched an imperialist war on Iraq in order to seize
control of the country's oil resources.
The mass opposition to militarism and war must be revived and carried
forward in the convening of protests, demonstrations and conferences
across the UK, Europe and internationally to demand an end to the
occupation of Iraq, the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops, and
that all those responsible for commissioning the war be held legally
and politically accountable for its consequences.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily re
Jul 30th 2005, 7:41 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
On 30 Jul 2005 19:27:41 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>DDT Filled Mormons wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:59:12 -0400, Dave Smith
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
>> >measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
>> >and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
>> >act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
>> >stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
>> You are a total tosspot.
>> If you think for a second that anyone if capable of identifying a
>> 'terrorist' before the fact, you need a good slapping.
>Are you really arguing that it's impossible to identify a terrorist
>before the fact?
Yes, certainly in a place like London.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
wrote:
>DDT Filled Mormons wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:59:12 -0400, Dave Smith
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
>> >measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
>> >and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
>> >act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
>> >stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
>> You are a total tosspot.
>> If you think for a second that anyone if capable of identifying a
>> 'terrorist' before the fact, you need a good slapping.
>Are you really arguing that it's impossible to identify a terrorist
>before the fact?
Yes, certainly in a place like London.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Jul 30th 2005, 9:19 pm
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:33:57 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:59:12 -0400, Dave Smith
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>six-toes wrote:
>>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>>> Blair's war policy
>>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>>> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
>>> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
>>> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
>>> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>>> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
>>> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
>>> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
>>> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
>>> head at point blank range.
>>> At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
>>> Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
>>> ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
>>> bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
>>> and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
>>> Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
>>> had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
>>> any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
>>> been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
>>> was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
>>Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
>>measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
>>and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
>>act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
>>stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
>Over here in the UK we pay the police to PROTECT innocent people, not
>to slaughter them.
That's exactly what the police were doing. They were protecting dozens
of people on that train from what they believed to be a suicide bomber
about to blow them all to pieces.
If De Menezes had any sense in his head and had not run from the
police he would still be alive today.
Chris
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:59:12 -0400, Dave Smith
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>six-toes wrote:
>>> Police gun down worker in London subway: another tragic consequence of
>>> Blair's war policy
>>> The public state execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in a London
>>> subway carriage on July 22 marks a watershed.
>>> England, the country of the Magna Carta, is now one in which innocent
>>> civilians can be shot dead on the capital's streets at the discretion
>>> of the police, without any explanation, much less justification, and
>>> with the only outcome being a brief statement of regret.
>>> Eyewitnesses have provided horrific accounts of how the petrified
>>> 27-year-old Brazilian electrician "looked like a cornered rabbit"
>>> as he was pursued by three plain-clothes officers into the train
>>> carriage, before being pinned to the ground and shot five times in the
>>> head at point blank range.
>>> At a press conference afterwards, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
>>> Ian Blair claimed that the killing was "directly linked to the
>>> ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation" following the July 7
>>> bombings of the capital's transport network which killed 56 people,
>>> and an apparent failed attempt to detonate devices on July 21.
>>> Not only did Menezes have no connection with the terror attacks, police
>>> had no grounds to suspect that he might be involved in such crimes, or
>>> any others, for that matter. That he was seen leaving a house that had
>>> been placed under police surveillance wearing "suspicious" clothes
>>> was enough for police to act as judge, jury and executioner.
>>Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
>>measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
>>and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
>>act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
>>stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
>Over here in the UK we pay the police to PROTECT innocent people, not
>to slaughter them.
That's exactly what the police were doing. They were protecting dozens
of people on that train from what they believed to be a suicide bomber
about to blow them all to pieces.
If De Menezes had any sense in his head and had not run from the
police he would still be alive today.
Chris
Jul 30th 2005, 9:20 pm
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gun Law in London
Dave Smith wrote:
> Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
> measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
> and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
> act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
> stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
how many more times do you have to be told that the hit squad were not
identifiable police with insignia on their clothes ,but casually
dressed ,plain clothes guys .witnesses say no warnings were given
allowing him to know they were police . No ID was shown either.
> Let's just hope that the next suicide bomber who manages to elude security
> measures and manages to blow himself up is in the same subway car as you
> and your like minded buddies. Personally, I would prefer that the police
> act resolutely to deal with terrorists, and that people who are ordered to
> stop by armed police elect to do so rather than try to run away from them.
how many more times do you have to be told that the hit squad were not
identifiable police with insignia on their clothes ,but casually
dressed ,plain clothes guys .witnesses say no warnings were given
allowing him to know they were police . No ID was shown either.
