UK: Recent news that British police almost killed another "terror suspect" under the shoot first, ask questions later policy suggests that any lessons drawn from the death of Charles De Menezes have been soon forgotten
The family at the centre of this latest counter terrorism operation are described as "respectable and "nice people" by neighbors. Police officers raided a London home in the early hours on Friday shooting a 23-year-old man in the process.
The identity of the suspects and the nature of their alleged crime is so far unclear but when we consider that only seventeen of the 700 plus individuals grabbed from their own homes have ever been charged with a terrorist offence under the 2000 Terrorism Act you could be forgiven for feeling skeptical over the substance if any of the evidence against them. Even though there has been no halt in the barrage of propaganda from the usual media and government sources telling us we are under constant threat .
In March, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Britain concluded in its inquiry that the shoot to kill policy which was carried out in the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes was acceptable and should not be altered. Since de Menezes' behavior gave no sign whatsoever that he was a potential suicide bomber, this latest incident raises further questions over their conclusion
UK author and journalist Paul Watson has been vocal in his criticism
of the UK police over this and previous incidents. In a recent article for prisonplanet.com he remained defiant in his rejection of their methods
"We are expected to place our trust in the reasoning of the same people who chased and gunned down Charles De Menezes, a completely innocent man who didn't even show signs of suspicious behavior, shortly after the London bombings last year.
Occasional 'terror raids' in which anonymous people are snatched in the middle of the night and disappeared create a chilling effect that Blair's government needs to stem the tide of dissent.
New glorification of terrorism legislation is so broadly and loosely defined that this writer could be vanished by the thought police for disagreeing with the government's version of events"


No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...