Blair Defends Police After Death of Innocent Brazilian Man

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=a8tWopAA6LcU&refer=uk

Blair Defends Police After Death of Innocent Brazilian Man
July 25 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair defended London's Metropolitan Police after armed officers shot dead a Brazilian man they mistakenly identified as a terrorist suspect.

Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician, died at the Stockwell subway station in south London on July 21 after running from police investigating him in connection with the attacks on the city's transport system. The victim's family has said it may sue police over the shooting.

``We are desperately sorry for the death of an innocent person. I understand entirely the feelings of the young man's family. But we also have to understand that the police are doing their job in very, very difficult circumstances and it's important that we give them every support,'' Blair told a news conference at his Downing Street office.

``Had the circumstances been different and for example this had turned out to be a terrorist and the police had failed to take that action they would have been criticized the other way,'' he said.

<</SNIP>>

[chelsea0011]

1. Uhmmmmmmm. The police did fail and killed an innocent man

WTF is Blair selling. This was shittty police work and some how shot down an unarmed man.

[ConfuZed]

9. Geee Blair how do we know that you arent a terrorist....

Did they kill irish people at random during the IRA bombing?

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. "this had turned out to be a terrorist" What a pathetic line of

reasoning to proffer. Imagine the kind of crimes you could commit on the basis of logic like that.

[jsamuel]

3. Anyone could "turn out to be a terrorist", so why not just start shooting

anyone that comes into the subway at all. If they run, shoot them. If the trip, shoot them. If they are wearing baggy cloths, shoot them. If they may be dark colored, shoot them.

Where does it stop?

[Brotherjohn]

8. EXACTLY! That line could be in response to killing anyone, or everyone! nt

[xxqqqzme]

25. you could invade a country!

n/t

[saigon68]

4. The Poodle is a THUG and a BARBARIAN

A coward too. Like his Top Man "the Chimp"

[VegasWolf]

5. Blai is getting proficient at defending murder. nt

[fujiyama]

16. Blair IS a murderer

and is responsible for well over 25,000 at this point (I'm sure it's well over 50, 000 actually).

Of course he wouldn't feel any remorse. It's just another death.

What was it Stalin said about thousands of deaths just being a stastic?

[goforit]

6. For some one who may ahve orchestrated this chaos, step forward

ya little twirp.

[Brotherjohn]

7. What ARROGANCE, and STUPIDITY!!

"Had the circumstances been different and for example this had turned out to be a terrorist and the police had failed to take that action they would have been criticized the other way."

What an arrogant moron! That idiotic reasoning implies there were only two possible outcomes.

How about these other scenarios?

Had the cirumstances been different, and he HAD been a terrorist, they would not have been criticized for what they did.

Or if the circumstances had been different, and he was not killed, they would not have been criticized for what they did.

The way you put it, you might as well have said "Had the circumstances been different, and he had been Osama in disguise, and they had brought him to 10 Downing St. for tea, given him the security codes to all of our nuclear facilities, and then let him go with 10 billion pounds in gold and small bills... then they would have been criticized the other way."

[lumpy]

10. Blair would be better off if he didn't

open his lying trap about this. The young man would be alive and living if Bush and Blair had not been in a hurry to rush into a war that has caused thousands of deaths. And more to come.

[Brotherjohn]

11. Not to mention 50 or so Londoners... and many more British troops...

... and many more Americans... and Iraqis...

[mogster]

12. Here's the key sentence

'Had the circumstances been different and for example this had turned out to be a terrorist and the police had failed to take that action they would have been criticized the other way,' he said.

Blair is responsible for dragging Britain into an unjust and very controversial war. He has endangered us all. He has no right to speak about circumstances, in fact he has no right to speak at all. He should shut up and jump off a cliff or something.

Besides, his reaction is too late, too little, too not-sorry.
No man responsible for tens of thousand dead people can say he's sorry - it's not credible.

The truth about this goes to the very nature of the preemtive doctrine. He is now preparing us for more incidents like this by excusing this behaviour. No one has said 'We must make sure this won't happen again'. To the contrary, the Met. chief said we must be prepared for more of the same.
Which professional communication firm told them this would be the wise way to break down resistance? Which band of group phsychologists, behaviour analysts and other Pavlovian derivates told them how to break this to the public, and at the same time 'prepare' the public for more of the same?

Can you hear D. Rumsfeld in the background here?
When on 'trial' after the Abu Ghraib scandal, you could see how un-sorry he was, how little he cared and how in-a-hurry he was to get back at what REALLY matters; the WAR on TERROR.

[notadmblnd]

13. It bothers me because in the reports I've heard

they say they had the man apprehended and on the ground. Usually at this point the cuffs are slapped on and the perp taken away. Instead these Brit cops put 5 bullets in his head. Why?

[lumpy]

14. Because Scotland Yard was involved,

although not on the scene (by radio). Evidentely the police were instructed by their'commander'at Scotland Yard to go ahead and kill the 'suspect'. Major mistake by the authority in charge of the operation.

[coalition_unwilling]

24. The previous commander of Scotland Yard (?) had

authorized a "shoot to kill" policy. The Brazilian was the victim of an extra-judicial assassination for the crime of "running when told to stop." If there were any justice in the universe, Blair's government would fall for this.

[genieroze]

15. It's OK, it was just a brown man. /sarcasm

[bennywhale]

17. The police had no idea

about the cell that blew 60 people to bits. It had no idea about the cell that attempted the same a week later and could not prevent them doing so. Even with their photo's and two names they still haven't caught them. And now they shoot a Brasilian electrician.

And we are supposed to be praising them?

[Garbo 2004]

18. police did fail since if he was a terrorist they let him get to the train.

They could & should have taken him (and likely not have harmed him) before he had gotten that far. The plainsclothes police were going back and forth via radio with their superior who was directing them. The plainsclothes guys, according to published reports such as this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html , were concerned about letting him go on the bus and asked if they could stop him, but they were told to let him. Then the police on the ground had to get instructions when it was clear he was getting off at the train station stop. Then the police effectively managed to chase him into the station. Which means the surveillance team wasn't positioned to quickly take him before that if the orders came through to take him. And neither was the armed team.

If the police were so concerned that he might be a potential suicide bomber to the extent that orders to shoot to kill were eventually allowed, the plainclothes fellows trailing him should have previously been instructed to be positioned to take him quickly if necessary. (It was safe enough to let him on a bus and treat as a mere suveillance target, but not to go to the station? So how many casualties on a bus were considered acceptable risks if they were that concerned that he might be a bomber?)

Tony, Tony, Tony: if the poor fellow indeed had been a suicide bomber, it still would have been a bungled police operation, since they allowed the supposed bomber to reach his presumed objective. Think about that Tony. Lucky for the folks in the station and trains that the poor fellow was not a bomber. But it was indeed a failed operation, all the more so because all they suceeded in doing was tragcially killing a completely innocent man.

[Karenina]

19. They KNEW he wasn't the person they were looking for

BEFORE they started trailing him. They DECIDED that his skin colour, which to a PROPERLY trained eye would NOT match that of those they WERE seeking, was enough to MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HIM. Friends say his "uniform" jacket was Levi's denim. Of course, through some prisms that could be considered "thick" particularly in light of the skin colour...

[Garbo 2004]

23. You miss my point in response to Blair's "justification." From an

operational point, it was a failed op all round. Not something for Tony or anyone to defend from any standpoint especially security, although they don't want to admit it.

And yes, I read the article I linked to. They knew he wasn't one of the people they were seeking. And btw, according to an eyewitness in the car where he was shot, he was wearing a padded jacket, not a thin jacket: "He had a baseball cap on and quite a sort of thickish coat - it was a coat you'd wear in winter, sort of like a padded jacket." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4706913.stm

Given that evidently the police have managed to detain real "Asians" without publicly shooting them in order to make an "example" I rather doubt they intentionally set out simply to kill the Brazilian fellow just to "make an example of him." They likely have had opportunities to do so with someone at least more plausibly related to the case and other known suspects and yet they take them into custody. And without the blowback that this case has.

This was a complete bungle, not just because an innocent man was in effect horrifyingly publicly executed, but what Blair and apologists are ignoring while they make their justifications, is that the police actions in this case would have let a real terrorist reach his presumed target and explode his bomb in the station.

That's my point and where their justifications on security grounds simply don't stand up. Ironically, the police's "success" in being able to kill a completely innocent unarmed man is covering up the fact that they would have failed to prevent a real suicide bomber from entering and detonating a bomb inside the station. And that they let someone they were concerned might have a bomb ride on a bus (also a potential target) and in effect gave him a police escort to the station.

That's the answer to Blair's argument, when he pulls out "if he had been a real terrorist" as a justification. If he had been a real suicide bomber with a functioning bomb the people in the station would have been toast.

[Karenina]

26. Thanks so much

for your level-headed post, Garbo 2004. For personal reasons, this "incident" has me quite beside myself. Your post is much appreciated.

[whosinpower]

20. Blair "understands" nothing related to the feelings of the family

What an arrogent thing to say. What family member of his was chased down and shot 5 times in the back of the head in full daylight?

This is why the insurgency continues to go on strong in Iraq - Bush and Blair have no concept whatsoever of the feelings of the families of dead innocent victims.

[daleo]

21. The same argument they make about Iraq

Just change a few words:

""Had the circumstances been different and for example this had turned out to be a country with weapons of mass destruction and the U.S./U.K. had failed to take that action they would have been criticized the other way,'' he said."

[ignatius 2]

22. Tony, you and Bush are the worlds biggest terrorists, more people have

died under your war based on a pack of lies which the CIA has confirmed CREATES the very terrorists you are supposedly protecting people from.

What a bunch of horseshit..Blair and Bush, the Keystone cops of the new millenium..death,destruction and incompetence is their game.

[classysassy]

27. Cop shooting

Tony meet Rudy,both of you hateful bastards protect your racist cops.

[hopein08]

28. I have an idea to prevent this in the future...

in complete :sarcasm:, of course.

And it's kind of borrowed from something I saw Andre Heinz say last year during the campaign. (He said that it's hard to win a war on terror because it isn't like the terrorist have passports that something to the effect of "I'm a happy terrorist from Terror-land.") So anyway, I guess my idea is also borrowed from Rush Limbaugh's "Club Gitmo" wear.

Here it is...

Just have a free t-shirt day where anyone who wants to be identified as a terrorist can get a t-shirt that says something like "Watch me closely, I may be a TERRORIST carrying a bomb."

But seriously, is it any wonder that I saw a headline about edgy transit passengers in the US? If there's a bombing in a subway, the passengers of every subway are bound to be a little bit nervous and jumpy. And while I realize the need for security, I don't think it is necessarily the best idea to put armed cops (also bound to be a bit jumpy) into the situation. It really was bound to happen. My mom even said afterward that she's kind of surprised that no one was shot when they put the National Guard into airports right after 9/11.

There are bound to be mistakes but Blair's justification really is worthy of John Gibson and Fox News in terms of stupid and crass.

I'm usually an optimist but this is one area where I am very pessimistic that anything can truly be done. I'd still ride the subway, though.