License to Kill
Police in England have the right to shoot and kill on suspicion. If in the head of an armed officer you are a terrorist you risk to get a bullet in yours. The case of Jean Charles de Menezes is deeply disturbing. Not least because of the calm and relative business-as-usual that seems to cloud the whole case. Citizens become collateral damage in the so call war on terror.
I don't know about you but I find it very hard to believe that 8 shots were necessary to stop a suspected terrorist. Especially when reports said the he was lying on the ground at the time [source].
Bliar said he was sorry [?] but defended the brutal action.
So now the official policy is that the deaths of innocent civilians is an ok way to further 'our' cause? How is that different from extremists who use indiscriminate violence to further their own cause?
'Our cause is justified' yells the kid at the back of the class.
I'm sure that fighting terrorism is a noble cause. But I am also sure that the extremists think the same of their cause.
This sad case goes to prove that the state has the monopoly on violence. It can carry it out without repercussions. It also has the means to convince the world that it's a different type of violence. It's a necessary violence. It convinces us that it's OK to kill if you've got a license.
Terror reigns in England. People are afraid. If I was there I'd be afraid too. I'd be constantly afraid that some maniac will come and blow me away with a home made bomb. I'd be constantly afraid that I might look like a terrorist in the imagination of one of them license holders.
I take comfort in the fact that at least I know that should the latter be the case, Mr. Bliar will be deeply sorry...
posted by Peklectrick at 2:00 AM
7 Comments:
it was indeed tragic, but i have mixed feelings about the whole thing. Why did he run off when the police stopped him? In the climate post July 7th it was the worst thing he could do. He leaped over the turnstiles after all. The killing was justified in my opinion. Anzi, from the photo BBC showed of the guy, he didn't look dark and southern. For a while I suspected that perhaps his dark skin made him an obvious suspect.
for the sake of the nation, this jesus must die...
There is indeed no doubt that running off was a mistake. But there could be a million reasons why he ran. They were plain clothes police officers. Maybe he had people wanting him dead.
Still this case goes to show that the state can kill without any repercussions (other than a half-hearted apology). This has set a very dangerous precedent. Is it really sane to let individual officer decide who is suspicious, therefore in need of a bullet, or not?
BBC reported that his visa had expired. He ran in order to stay in the country. That's very sad, speaking from a person who spent a whole year with an expired visa in a foreign land. I can understand why he ran. The whole thing was a terrible misunderstanding.
The fact that the police will get away with it is neither here nor there though. In my opinion the police are not to blame. I would probably have done the same thing if life had led me in the direction of becoming an officer of the LAW
Ok. Let's all go justifying innocent civilian's deaths for a greater goal (security) and then one day we'll wake up in the mornign and realise that we're just like our enemies.
Bliar would say that the deaths of civilians in Iraq were justified because of a greater goal.
Bliar is an idiot. How can I take him seriously when he says that the terrorists are evil when he's doing the same thing in Iraq?? Or is the passaport the measure of worthy lives?
The death of the innocent man was really tragic. The world is unfair. Discriminating. The more powerful nations believe and say their acts of "fighting terrorism" are right and justified. Yet in a way, their means of "fighting terrorism" are terrorism as well. Innocent people suffer. Poor people suffer. It's just a complicated mess. Brutal.
It's just a complicated mess.
Post a Comment
<< Home