Summary
THE BLEAK reality that London faces today is that there are, in all probability, at least four would-be suicide bombers at large in the city.
And, in their efforts to secure them, the police have shot dead an innocent man. There can be no doubt that if the unfortunate Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes, had indeed been a suicide bomber, and if he had detonated a bomb on the Stockwell Tube, the inquisition the force would undergo today would be very different in character from the questions they are now facing. Any criticism of the conduct of the officers who killed Mr de Menezes must be considered in the light of the dreadful pressure under which the police operate in making split-second decisions and the fact that the shooting took place only a day after London escaped what could have been a repetition of the suicide bombings of 7 July because of technical failures in the terrorists' bombs. But, as the dead man's family with understandable bitterness accuse the police of "acting like amateurs", there are serious questions that the inquiries into the shooting must pose, which we outline elsewhere in this paper. They cover the entire range of the operation which led to Mr de Menezes's death. One is whether surveillance officers distinguished between the different tenants of the nine flats in the block they were watching. Another is whether a suspected suicide bomber should have been allowed to board a bus, which is no less a terrorist target than a Tube train. A third is whether the police clearly identified themselves as such in challenging Mr de Menezes. If, as some of his relatives have suggested, Mr de Menezes was frightened of muggers - a not unreasonable reaction at Stockwell - he may have thought that he was running from attackers who did not represent the police. Could he have been detained before boarding an Underground train? And, most pertinently, why was he shot in the back of the head if he was prostrate on the ground in a train and apparently in no position to detonate an explosive device if he had possessed one? These are all valid questions even given the officers' belief that they were dealing with a man who posed a mortal risk to the public. They do not undermine the basis of the police operation, which as Sir Ian Blair has reiterated, is that the only way of preventing a would-be suicide bomber from detonating his device is by shooting him in the head. That policy, which Sir Ian has described as "shoot-to-kill-to protect", is not one with which any reasonable person would take issue, even now. But such a policy has to be implemented on the basis of sound intelligence and common- sense rules of engagement. Indeed, it has obvious precedents in Northern Ireland and is rather more justifiable than it was there, given that the IRA and UDA never engaged in suicide bombings, which cannot be prevented except by incapacitating the bomber.See the full content of this document
Extract
Questions About Shoot-to-Kill Policy
Plainly, the lessons of Mr de Menezes's killing will be taken to heart in bringing down ...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
