Could this ‘police officer’ be a soldier? (de Menezes execution in london)

[Monkie]

This is from the reporter that broke the DSM story in the uk!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1715192,00.html

Could this ‘police officer’ be a soldier?
Michael Smith
BRITISH special forces soldiers took part in the operation that led to the shoot-to-kill death of an innocent Brazilian electrician with no connection to the London bombings, defence sources said last week.

Jean Charles de Menezes was tailed by a surveillance team on July 22 as he caught a bus to Stockwell Underground station in south London. He was shot eight times when he fled from his pursuers at the Tube station.

The Ministry of Defence admitted last week that the army provided “technical assistance” to the surveillance operation but insisted the soldiers concerned were “not directly involved” in the shooting.
~snip~
The soldiers who took part in the surveillance operation that led to de Menezes’s death included men from a secret undercover unit formed for operations in Northern Ireland, defence sources said."

Explosive 2 page article in the Sunday Times,i'm shocked now it seems pretty much confirmed he was executed by the SAS,a part of the british armed forces.England was already divided by the shooting and this news is not going to go down well...

[mamiesb2001]

1. Oh, God. Here we go.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. Do you think we shouldn't go in this direction, and why not?

[Dhalgren]

22. Where ya' goin'?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. I was saying that right after it happened.

SAS or Special Boat Squadron(Like SEALS). What they did had all the earmarks of SpecOps tradecraft.

[Monkie]

3. When the Sunday Times prints its no longer "just" a theory

I know many were thinking, but this is as close to proof as its likely we will get until we see Bliar in the docks..

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Except the article never says the person who killed him wasn't a policeman

It says the SAS etc. people were involved in the surveillance operation; but the MoD says the military were "not directly involved" in the shooting. So to say this was an execution by the SAS is wrong - the article doesn't claim that.

[Monkie]

5. The article is pretty clear,the title of the article is already asking

the question?
I included the MoD denial to maintain balance but the article was less about what the MoD said and all about discussing the SAS style killing. The MoD doesnt really have a history of truthful statements regarding the SAS.
A quote from the article:

"The use of multiple shots to the head is the modus operandi of the special forces, whether from the SAS, the SBS or the undercover intelligence operators used in the Stockwell operation."

now they dont say out loud "SAS executed innocent man" but whats the point of the whole article if thats not what they are telling us?

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. If the printed article was accompanied by a picture

of the man in the act of shooting the Brazilian, then I'd accept they are actually talking about the man who shot him (but even then, I'd remind you that British newspapers often pose attention-grabbing questions as headlines, that turn out to be answered 'no' by the article). But I can't believe they illustrated the article with a photo of someone being killed. I think it's clear that it is talking about some of the people photographed around the station in the aftermath of the shooting.

You ask "whats the point of the whole article" - to sell the Sunday Times, of course. It's not there to impart truth. You don't really think Rupert Murdoch runs the paper to educate the human race, do you? That you've got all excited and made your own inferences, which the paper won't ever have to deny, and yet you're still convinced that they told you, shows that the approach works. You think they've broken some big story, and are giving them credit, but if it turns out the person who did the shooting was a police officer, they can say "we never said he was".

[Igel]

26. Asking a question isn't the same as presupposing a positive answer.

Asking the question is provocative. But the answer can be either "yes" or "no": the usual quip is that questions don't have truth value, they don't make an assertion.

So it's a headline that makes you want to think yes, but retains deniability. It's trying to manipulate you into assuming the answer is a titillating "yes!"

The answer from the article is that, no, it wasn't *really* a soldier that pulled the trigger (if we take all the available evidence at face value), but that the policemen was likely trained to act like a soldier.

[Auntie Bush]

23. Looks like bush is biking again. Watch out! They are both going to fall.

Only this time the bruises may turn out to be fatal.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. I've basically given up discussing the execution of de Menezes here.

Every time I do I get into endless flame wars with Du'ers who for some reason are obsessed with defending the indefensible.

So instead I'm having a 'meta-discussion' on why folks here defend this crap. I don't get it. Somebody please explain.

The arguments in defense seem to be:

1) those of us who figured out what went down (after last Sunday when it became clear that the official story was complete bullshit) are 'rushing to judgment' and should stop making 'rash accusation';

2) there is no other way to deal with suicide bombers;

3) the US police are worse and they shoot people all the time;

4) de Menezes caused this to happen by acting like a suicide bomber (the tragic mistake argument);

5) why do you hate the UK?

Now of course I am presenting the arguments with a very broad brush. However I think these five arguments are the basic playbook being used. I find every one of these arguments dishonest. By dishonest I mean that I don't believe that the poster actually believes his own argument but is instead 'being argumentative', and attempting to persuade others of something he himself knows to be less than truthful.

Am I wrong here? Is DU littered with agents of the dark side? I mean seriously, how can anyone defend this shit? Have we learned nothing since 9/11?

Maybe I'm just out of line. But this whole 'de Menezes execution' episode here on DU has really bothered me.

[Henny Penny]

9. It is amazing what people will agree to when they

are scared. I think that is often the point of terror. However, once the fear subsides, people can start thinking again.

You can take some comfort from an article in the Observer.

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, faced calls yesterday for an urgent review of the 'shoot-to-kill' policy against suicide bombers as MPs demanded the public be consulted.

Sir Bill Morris, the former transport union leader who chaired a pioneering inquiry into disciplinary measures in the Metropolitan Police, led the calls for a public debate. He said citizens should be consulted about such a 'gigantic and fundamental' step taken in their name. His call was backed by opposition politicians.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1539835,00.html

[Sterling]

12. Yes fear is the killer.

Of freedom and common sense.

[Sterling]

11. 5) why do you hate the UK?

This one was a real shocker. I even got a reply to a post of mine explaining that "Americans talk about THE government in the UK we say OUR government." That really blew my mind. That people that still have a monarchy refer to government in the collective we sense.

This was thrown out with pride and intended to set their system and attitudes above those of the US. Strange. The poster was trying to make the point that criticizing "OUR" government was akin to a personal attack on the people of the UK.

[lockdown]

14. It's bollocks

Everyone I've known in the UK calls it THE government.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. I received the same sort of responses that completely exploded my....

...focus on the individuals who killed the Brazilian in cold blood, and the order that was given to these plainclothes operatives to "shoot to kill", into why did I hate the UK!! Say what??

For a country that invented the English language, those Brits had a real basic lack of comprehension.

[mbperrin]

13. Very succinct. Thank you.

The fact is, summary execution is always wrong, can never be right, for the one reason that cannot be argued - when a mistake is made, it cannot be corrected.

If we put you in jail wrongly, we can let you go.
If we fine you money wrongly, we can refund it.
If we kill you wrongly, refer to the Princess Bride scene in which the rich and powerful man promises him anything, and he replies that he wants his father back alive.

Thanks again for your really spot-on analysis.

[Henny Penny]

16. I think "shoot to kill" and "racial profiling" are a very dangerous

combination.

People from certain ethnic groups are more likely to be stopped and searched on London transport in the wake of the bombings, British Transport Police say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4732465.stm

The subtext is very much "We seem to be introducing some very draconian measures here, but you needn't worry because you're white."

So people being fearful and most having a "well it won't affect me attitude..." makes it easy to introduce these measures that no-one in their right mind would agree to normally.

edited for typo:

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Thanks for some support.

I suppose that there are in fact people posting here whose job it is to spread confusion. More likely, a lot of people are very confused. How could they not be?

The world is in a terrible state and our leaders appear to be blindly driving us off a cliff. I think that we are in a time of peril worse than the collapse of the 30's. Up is down. Truth is fiction. All I really know is that I post what I believe, and I read the posts of others here that also seem to come from the heart.

I believe that de Menezes was executed as an experiment, as training, and that it is us who are being trained. But for what?

LIHOP/MIHOP, or Just Taking Advantage of the Situation, they were ready for 9/11 and what has unfolded since then is beyond belief.

[Karenina]

29. Indeed it is...

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. You think that maybe your use of the phrase "overtly fascist regime"

might have brought on number 5?

Yes, I think you're wrong - the people you've been arguing with are arguing their genuinely held beliefs that a series of mistakes and bad judgements led to the tragic killing of de Menezes. The people aruging against you are not "agents of the dark side". But phrases like that, and "apologists for fascism", are a good way of pissing off everyone you tar with your broad brush.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. not unless time flows backwards.

And I apologized for that statement. It was over the top. I don't know what sort of government it is that orders its agents to conduct summary executions of 'suspects', it certainly isn't a liberal democracy, and I don't know how to describe people who support governments that behave as my government behaves and as the UK is behaving. We don't yet qualify as classic 20th century fascism, we have some new form of authoritarian nationalism here and in the UK.

I have yet to see a single retraction or apology or even the slightest hint of regret for the purposeful defense of the indefensible here on DU.

I think that there are in fact obviously people posting here who are doing so to confuse and divert people. Their intention is not to debate issues. Obviously unless the poster freeps and tombstones it is difficult to know. I could be one of 'them' as could you.

I think however that, as my subject line notes, you have falsely attributed my reaction to the actions of those defending the execution of de Menezes, in the five forms I mentioned, as the cause for their actions. My outrage at some posters here, I assure you, followed their outrageous posts, it did not precede them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. True, I can't piece together the timelines of all the posts involved

and I have, since seeing your earlier post, found your apology for it. As well as any posts from you yourself, there have been plenty of earlier posts from others with similar expressions (and I don't know if the "why do you hate the UK?" remark was aimed at you specifically).

My point of view is that others who believe, the same as you, in liberal democracy, do find what happened 'defensible' - not that it was desirable, but that it's quite possible that the policies and individual actions didn't involve malice, just bad decisions made by less than perfect humans, some in the heat of the moment. And that would mean that it wasn't a summary execution.

I have seen several DUers taking the opposing line to you that I recognise, and who I've never seen doing anything to confuse or divert DU. While such disrupters do exist, I feel pretty confident that the chances of all of these posters being one are very small. As an example of a liberal holding this view, there's Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London: "Consider the choice that faced police officers at Stockwell last Friday - and be glad you did not have to take it."

[jmc777]

33. Shills....

Am I wrong here? Is DU littered with agents of the dark side?


I wouldn't be surprised to find out that "the authorities" have paid shills floating about on various forums (this one included) seeking to promote the official line of events, spread disinformation, and to turn discussions into arguments so that threads get locked.

[emcguffie]

38. Take a deep breath,

--step back, and remember, most people who agree with you will just read your post and nod, and see what else they want to check out...

But those who disagree vehemently will take the time to post a rebuttal. Sort of like bad news/good news. The folks that are provoked are the ones with the energy to post.

Good news is never really news; only bad news is news. You know? :hi:

[Taxloss]

40. OK, I'll bite.

I probably shouldn't, but it seems those of us stupid enough to defend the Metropolitan Police in the hours immediately following the De Menezes killing are bing routinely "called out" by the other posters happy to assume the worst, so I'll bite.

It is clear that the police systematically lied to us after the shooting. I don't know why they did this as they were so swiftly exposed - it may have been the chaos of the incident, it may have been a cack-handed attempt at cover-up. Whatever, the story swiftly collapsed.

I make absolutely no apology for defending the Police until it was no longer possible to do so.

The debate became very heated. When few facts were known, I simply urged that we should reserve judgement. As more and more threads and posts used terms like "death squads", "public execution", "overt fascism", "brutal police state", "scruffy thugs" (referring to Met officers), I became heated as well because I didn't like the insulting of my city. Cards on the table - I have a friend in the police. If I insulted you during that latter period, I apologise.

At no time did I defend the killing of an innocent man. I attempted to understand that killing in a complicated context that did not involve it being some kind of assassination by a fictional police state. That does not make me a fascist apologist, and damn those who sa it does.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. So have you changed your opinion?

Or does:
"I attempted to understand that killing in a complicated context that did not involve it being some kind of assassination by a fictional police state."

Still express your current understanding? Explicitly do you still hold to your opinion that this was not deliberate, or that somehow it was excused by the complexity of the context?

[MasonJar]

8. Why was this Brazilian under surveillance?

[Monkie]

10. they claim he was in the wrong place at the wrong time

One of the apartments in his block was under surveillance, it had a communal exit.
So the reason why is because he was a darkskinned person in the wrong place at the wrong.
whats new?

[beam me up scottie]

15. How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient.

Coincidence?
I think not!

[NYC]

17. The "cops" on the ground were taking direction by

telephone, radio, or whatever the communication system was.

So, isn't it possible that a policeman shot the Brazilian electrician as a result of being ordered to by SAS on the other end of the communication line?

That allows the Ministry of Defense to deny direct involvement, while still being entirely responsible.

The Ministry of Defense admitted last week that the army provided "technical assistance" to the surveillance operation but insisted the soldiers concerned were "not directly involved" in the shooting.

[daleo]

21. It seems more and more obvious this was a "message to terrorists" hit.

They had the wrong man, but they did exactly what they intended to do - send a very public message to their opponents that they would be summarily executed if the government deemed it necessary or useful. That's how it looks to me.

[Matilda]

24. Seven bullets to the head

looks like shots fired in anger to me. Looks like somebody's
personal feelings got in the way of his common sense. It shouldn't
happen with people trained in the use of weapons, but it does.

And people who defend this shooting should remember that another
time they could be the ones in the firing line when someone isn't
thinking responsibly.

[daleo]

25. I agree it is indefensible, either way.

Those who think otherwise do forget that an out of control government might go after anyone, by accident or design.

[rman]

34. It's also a message to ordinary citizens:

"Killing innocent people is worth it in the war on terror."

So much for "no reason to worry if you don't have anything to hide".

[MisterP]

like in Fahrenheit 451

[MisterP]

42. duplicate

[rainbow4321]

27. UK's The Guardian: The day grief came home to Brazil

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1539773,00.html


Maria Otoni de Menezes, mother of Jean Charles, the Brazilian mistakenly killed by British police, is no stranger to suffering. Years ago she lost another son, in childbirth. In Córrego dos Ratos, the isolated rural community where her family lives without notion of time or date, nobody knows exactly how long ago that happened. But it was the first event in a sequence of relentless misfortunes that has plagued the Menezes family ever since. The cancer Maria thought she had beaten has returned and she is dying.

'Yes, it's a lot of tragedy for such a small number of people,' said a heavily sedated Matozinho Otoni de Menezes, Jean's father, slumped in the sofa of his house near Gonzaga.


Jean hoped for a different life. In 2002 he went to London to try his luck as an electrician, a passion he had since he was eight, scribbling diagrams of circuits in notepads and fiddling with broken transistors.

'I don't know if I'll ever find happiness again,' she said, before being interrupted by Monica, another member of the sprawling Menezes family.

[Pachamama]

28. Does the UK have any kind of law as we do in US that soldiers can not be

used on surveillance and action on its own citizens on its own soil? (Posse Comitatus (sp?)

Just wondering...because I think this is a scary revelation that the UK's own special forces are participating in "police" activities on UK soil....

Wake up Britain! Wake up America! It's happening!

[evermind]

30. Don't know for sure, but I doubt there is such a law. MI5 routinely

pose as Special Branch officers, I've read, and I don't think it's unknown for SAS, etc., to operate posing as police. As the article in the OP says:

The soldiers who took part in the surveillance operation that led to de Menezes’s death included men from a secret undercover unit formed for operations in Northern Ireland, defence sources said.

Known then as 14 Int or the Det, it is reported to have formed the basis of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, the newly created special forces unit stationed alongside the SAS at Hereford. The men include SAS soldiers serving on attachment and are part of a team of around 50 UK special forces that has operated in London since the July 7 bombings in which 56 people died.

Special forces counterterrorist experts have been regularly used to support police at Heathrow since the September 11 attacks. They moved into London a day after the July 7 bombings and have been supporting the police and gathering intelligence to help snare the suspects.

Even with MOD denials, it wouldn't be at all surprising if the shooting had been done by a special forces officer (ie. an army officer under police cover). It's not like the Ministry of Defence is a bastion of truth and honesty, especially where the activities of its special forces units are concerned.

[Briar]

31. Whether we do or not

when a nation decides it doesn't care about fundamental rights being abrogated, innocents slaughtered and whole communities singled out for repressive measures, then an authoritarian government can do what the devil it likes.

Bliar, his ministers and the Met can get away with anything when so few are prepared to oppose him lest they be labeled unpatriotic. Witness the Liberals' absolute failure to stand up for Liberalism.

[Mr Creosote]

35. I see

"Explosive 2 page article in the Sunday Times,i'm shocked now it seems pretty much confirmed he was executed by the SAS,"

1. Except that the article doesn't actually say that.
2. The Sunday Times is owned by Murdoch. Presumably your powers of discernment are such that you place similar weight on the speculative drivel promulgated by Fuck Snooze. In which case you no doubt believe that the dead man was a terrorist anyway yes?

[Monkie]

39. ok,the article didnt physically blow up but explosive seems a fair

reading of it?
The article describes the history of the SAS and its assassinations,anyone that has any knowledge of the northern-ireland situation will remember the MoD's denials.
They have photographic evidence that it wasnt just a police team there at the time.
And they present comments "from defense sources" i.e. more than one.
They also discuss that the shooting was in SAS-style (i.e. as trained to and by the SAS)

yep,explosive..
Now as to the source,it is a mainstream newspaper,writen by a journalist that has gained quite some respect recently,and while it is owned by Murdoch i dont think he rates much lower than Bliar on the trust scale in the UK at the moment.
and in a way it being in a newspaper like the Sunday Times makes it at least as interesting as if it was published in a more liberal newspaper.

I made sure to include the MoD denial to provide balance

[hedgehog]

41. The SAS shot IRA members in cold blood in Gibraltar

some years ago. I've thought this was an SAS operation since I first heard the news of the shooting. I'm not defending the IRA, but what is the difference between free-lance terrorists and government funded terrorists?