Jean de Menezes Inquest soon - UK'05 summer of terror questions remain.

by justice 4 Jean Mon Jul 07, 2008 14:49

The Daily Mail a newspaper of England have presented these wonderful photos late this morning.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032794/Picture....html

with the title "The terrifying moment armed police held down an innocent man on train and put a gun to his head

It looks so mundane when it's photographed and done by the book. The was released without charge after it was realised the police had the wrong man entirely.

They were after an armed robber. If we consult the Jean De Menezes wikipedia page and campaign we see n a very substantial article by David Rose in the Observer ("Top police "clear" Met chief over Menezes" - 19 March 2006) a senior Scotland Yard officer, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Alan Given who had operational responsilities in relation to the officers who had actually killed Menezes reportedly expressed the following view: "... when it came to the Stockwell shooting, there was a sense that it was no different from an incident such as police shooting a bank robber".

just goes to show, doesn't it?

Bournemouth Railway station UK this morning 7/7

He was the wrong man. Innocent. Walked out of the station and is alive.

by Sceptic Mon Jul 07, 2008 15:25

The indications are that the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes was a tragic cock up – not a trigger happy episode or a grand conspiracy.

Dealing with a suspected suicide bomber on a mass transit system is about as difficult a policing task as one can imagine. Of course this operation was bungled and there are questions to answer. Nonetheless it is imaginable that a similar tragedy could happen with any police force under the pressure the met were under at that time. One has to realize that 7/7 was itself a colossal police failure and the situation was very, very volatile in its aftermath. The parallel with a bank robber is invalid unless he same was armed and clearly a danger to the police or the public. That is the only analogy with a potential suicide bomber. A suicide bomber operates by stealth and deception mingling with the crowds while an armed robber will clearly stand out.

Had de Menezes really been a suicide bomber and he managed to detonate a bomb the police would have been hauled over the coals for failing to intercept him, by lethal force if needs be.

The major responsibility for the fate of de Menezes lies with those who decided to introduce suicide bombing squads into the Tube in the first place.

by hmmm Mon Jul 07, 2008 18:06

His name has the requisite power to bring to the table of hackneyed opinion those who would cast dice for the right to kill a suspect.

Or if you prefer it in three words, "Shoot to Kill". Strangely many people don't like to admit what it was and what it is they have been prepared to accept ever since. It's three words sceptic. Shoot to kill. OR two words : Extra-judicial execution. It wasn't a "cock-up". It wasn't a "tragedy". It wasn't a "mistake". It wasn't a "difficult task which brought super plod to the limits of their capabilities". It was the case which to this day makes you think is it ok for British police to shoot someone in the head if they think that someone is a suicide bomber ?.

Is that not what it was all about?

Correct me if I understood it all wrongly these last three years because apparently the answer to that question was it's not a really good thing to shoot someone in the head unless you can really convince us that they might have been a suicide bomber but it is not a prison going offence or one that really need to be worried about being cleared up too quickly.

Imagine if the armed officers in the Bournemouth incident in the photos above had been at the de Menezes one. eh?

by Sceptic Mon Jul 07, 2008 22:21

You know very well in this instance it was not about apprehending a suspect but preventing a suicide bomber detaining his bomb in a public place. They misidentified the suspected bomber but the police who killed him really did believe he was a bomber.

Who is the most guilty party in this instance – the people who sent suicide bombers down the tube to commit mass carnage or the police who made a grievous error trying to stop the carnage? You are quick to traduce the police from your armchair. Do you have a bad word to say about the terrorists too? Or is your wrath confined to the police?

Part of terrorism is not just to terrorize the public – it is also to force the authorities to overreact and make errors in fighting terrorism thus gaining sympathy for their cause and dividing and confusing the society which is the object of the terror.

by eamo - self Mon Jul 07, 2008 23:09

... was not keeping up with current affairs.Hence did not know about heightened tensions etc

by Mark C Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:00

Re: Sceptic,

The real crime here is the killing of an innocent man. I don't see how we can dispute that. Whether we call it an accident, a tragedy, a cock-up, whatever. An innocent man was killed. No suicide bomber was prevented from detonating his/her bomb in a public place in this instance it would seem (since none went off - unless he/she got scared and went home).

Asking who is the most guilty party in this instance and only giving two options is a bit unfair. It's unfair because you force us to choose between "the people who sent suicide bombers down the tube to commit mass carnage or the police who made a grievous error". Well, in this instance it was the police since there was no suicide bomber on the train, simple. The week before it was the suicide bombers, simple. But this is all being very myopic. Why not broaden your question and ask why would someone want to let off a bomb on a train in London and then ask who is the most guilty party?

If you take up my question you will see that the most likely group of people that may want to let off a bomb on the tube are probably Middle Eastern, and if you ask yourself, again, WHY these people would want to let off a bomb on the tube words/names such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Abu Graib, Somalia, British Foreign Policy, Empire, etc. might come up. Under this scrutiny I think the really guilty party then is the British Government (which is protected in part by the British Police) and the American Government. Didn't the 7/7 bombers make video tapes saying that as long as "we" keep killing their brothers in Iraq and Palestine then "they" would keep killing us.

I read an interesting article on this yesterday in Robert Fisk's The Age of the Warrior called 'The Ministry of Fear'. It was originally published in The Independent as 'If you want the roots of terror, try here'.

You can read the text of it here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-if-y....html

by Sceptic Tue Jul 08, 2008 19:27

"The real crime here is the killing of an innocent man. I don't see how we can dispute that."
That can be disputed. The killing of an innocent man by the police is not automatically a crime in these circumstances. It is not a crime for the police to kill someone if they have reasonable grounds to think that person presents a very serious risk to public safety or to the police officers themselves. The issue in this case is if the police on the spot knew in advance that this man was not a suicide bomber and was in fact innocent? That is highly unlikely. Or is it the case that the errors in identifying him as a bomber were due to culpable negligence of some degree? Nothing has emerged so far in this case which would suggest anything other than confusion between the surveillance team and the armed response team in a realtime and difficult surveillance situation.
In any case you show your true colours by excorating the police while making excuses for the terrorists who deliberately murdered over fifty innocent members of the public – Muslim and non-Muslim alike. This is western self loathing leading to an inversion of normal values and morality. The guys who bombed the Tube lived in free society and there were numerous ways in which they could have made their opposition known to UK foreign policy had they wished. Even if there was a resort to direct violent action (and I don’t think there was an excuse for that) this was not an attack on a military or government facility but directly into the face of their fellow citizens in their most vulnerable position of the confines of the Tube with no object other than to kill as many innocents as possible. There can be no legitimacy or decent morality that can excuse that.
As for western forces being in Muslim lands the Kuwaitis and Bosnians were mighty glad to see them as these same forces delivered them from oppression and tyranny. Moreover there were good reasons for the many if not most Iraqis and Afghanis to welcome the end of the Ba’athist and Taliban tyrannies. I am not saying these actions were not controversial but don’t be tempted to callous attacks on ordinary people in London, Madrid or New York. Or southern Africa, Egypt, Bali, Morocco and many other places for that matter. False equivalence is a destroyer of morality and decency.

by Mark C Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:43

Sceptic,

You are, I believe, mistaken from the outset (and I say this with the best of intentions because I think your point is well made). On the day that Jean Menezes was killed there were no bombers on The Tube. The dichotomy that you set up is one of either the police were wrong or "the terrorists" were wrong, but on the day that you mention, there were no "terrorists" in the vicinity.

Even if the police were right to use the force they did, it seems a bit much for them to have taken 30 seconds to shoot a man 6 times (that's presuming that Robert Fisk's sources are more accurate than yours and/or mine). Look at how long they were firing at the man for:

SHOOT
one
two
three
four
SHOOT
six
seven
eight
nine
SHOOT
eleven
twelve
thirteen
fourteen
SHOOT
sixteen
seventeen
eighteen
nineteen
SHOOT
twenty-one
twenty-two
twenty-three
twenty-four
SHOOT
twenty-six
twenty-seven
twenty-eight
twenty-nine
SHOOT

Somewhere along the lines of communication of the police (or those employed to help the police) someone made the decision to 1) call Jean Menezes a terrorist, and 2) to kill him. Jean Menezez did not make that decision; "the terrorists" did not make that decision; it was made in the lines of communication of the police, and, so, the police are responsible for the death of an innocent man.

If you are going to take the side of the police, which you have done, what would you say to the parents of Jean Menezez if you met them? "I believe that it is right that your son was killed because the police thought he was a terrorist"? - That's the logic Tony Blair used when he refused to apologise for invading Iraq: "I thought I was doing the right thing".

__________________

I have made no excuses for what you call "the terrorists" (please don't use "the" before the word - it implies that those you are speaking about are the only terrorists in the world). You are free to simply call them "terrorists". All I asked for was that you might allow history to be more than simply what happened yesterday or last week, and no matter what the reason for bombings in southern Africa, Morocco, etc. the bombings in England were as a direct result of American and British policy and actions in the Middle East. I am not excusing these bombings, not in the least, but am brave enough to wonder if there are reasons for them that could be helped.

__________________

by justice 4 jean Wed Jul 09, 2008 07:47

Then we may learn more on whether or not the police officers who shot Jean dead had been told minutes before that he wasn't no their target. There is much in the public domain which might sustain such a belief that the police operatives on the ground and at the scene were poorly disciplined and at the last crucial moment took the decision on themselves.

That is extra-judicial killing in 2 words
that is shoot to kill in 3. It's delightful to see that sceptic can be as obdurate as ever and for once across the years provoke the poet in residence instead of me. Now can we discuss the facts as they are known or conjectured? The links are in the article above.

by Sceptic Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:27

It is just semantics to be going on about “extra judicial killing”. Of course if someone is shot by the police in these circumstances it is extra judicial killing. That does not mean it is wrong or a crime – it depends on the circumstances. Same with “shoot to kill” – how could it be otherwise in the circumstances as the would be suicide bomber must be totally disabled in an instant and there is no other way to do that in the circumstances than multiple head shots.

“the police are responsible for the death of an innocent man.” –that is beyond dispute. What is the issue is the grounds the police had to take the view he was a suicide bomber. What created the atmosphere in which this happened? It was a campaign of multiple suicide bomb attacks on the Tube – nobody knew when another might happen or when it might stop. Who was to know there were no terrorists in the vicinity at the time?

“If you are going to take the side of the police, which you have done, what would you say to the parents of Jean Menezez if you met them?”

I don’t see it in those terms. There are no sides in this. The man was a victim of terrorism more than the police though it was a police error that killed him. If I met his parents I would be sorry for them but stress this was a tragic error of judgement; it would not have happened under almost any other conceivable circumstances; the circumstances were extraordinary; he would not have been shot had they known he was from Brazil; that there are inquiries; that substantial compensation will be paid. That it is unfortunate that he came to the great city of London like millions from all over the world including from Muslim regions to work and enjoy life more but that there are others who are anti-life who go about the business of terror and that this has to be countered. But it is important not to take a reflexive position against the police forces on it unless something deeply criminal was evident or emerged.

by justice 4 jean Wed Jul 09, 2008 13:37

Although shoot to kill and extra-judicial killing are generally taken to discuss two actions which share much semantic and moral meaning, they are not exactly the same.

You have like most started from the wrong place when approaching the J. De Menezes case and legacy and wider social meaning. It is very interesting that (most probably unthinkingly) you have begun with the premise of the apologists for the Metropolitan police.

The police thought De Menezes was a suicide bomber .

But how and why did they have such a thought, Sceptic?

Your primary error is to accept that the police who followed de Menezes and those who guided the operation from control all thought he was the target Hussain Osman and thus to be shot till killed . They did not all think de Menezes was Osman. That primary error is completely caused by trusting the same plod who said he was wearing a puffa jacket and the same plod who allowed him be post-humously wrongly accused of rape.

Your secondary error is to ignore that shooting Jean de Menezes thinking he was Hussain Osman was not an extra-judicial killing which made a mockery of the Metropolitan police chiefs' statement that all responsible would be brought through the courts to justice.

Ethiopian born Hussain Osman (real name Hamdi Isaac Adus) left the UK for Italy where he was finally arrested July 29th and extradited to face charges.

______________________

Now Mark got something 100% correct when he more or less said that the British state are supposedly protected by their police. But in this case it was clear that they did not all agree on their suspects identity and thus that he was their target for either shoot to kill
or extra-judicial killing Those who ignore the facts constantly gurgle that in the heat of the moment the police were so stressed that they just had no time to react. They were therefore undoubtedly either relying no poor signals or badly disciplined - unless they were acting on express orders from operation control.

It is likely that military personal had they been on the ground would have been less acceptable to the public since as Mark pointed out - it's plod's job.

Even if none of you are Wittgenstein, (& none of ye have to be) can ye all at long last see how complicated the last overt chapter of the Terrorist events of 7/7 to 22/7 in London 2005 were and still are?

Hamdi Isaac Adus - the target of a shoot to kill operation

jean de menezes passport photo. victim of extra-judicial killing

by Sceptic Wed Jul 09, 2008 15:46

They mistakenly thought that presumably because in the real world errors are made. And in the real world faced by terrorism forced errors are made by the front line authorities in a climate of fear. You are judging, prejudging and condemning from your armchair, at a safe distance from the actual events, presumably without expertise in police matters and with 20-20 hindsight and a good deal of prejudice. You then reach for the well worn lexicon with phrases like heavy handed and shoot to kill. In a live and fraught situation it is not always possible to weigh up everything on a jewelers scale - action might need to be taken forthwith. Fair minded critics would make some allowances for the police in this situation - one they were never trained to face as suicide bombing was quite new to Britain.

I never suggested that extra judicial killing and shoot to kill were the same things. Obviously they are not.

by double O - (Justice 4 Jean) Wed Jul 09, 2008 16:58

When presenting this article, I hoped the ensuing thread would attract comments and engagement like that of Mark C. and Sceptic. I thought of it as one of a series which 3 years after the "Summer of Terror UK'05" could help us all with distance and clarity, return to properly appraise what really happened and how it affected us then and may affect us in the future.

Another mistake we always make when talking about the Jean de Menezes case is to dwell on what I would now like to term the wrong man and not to ponder what I have already termed the target .

You know which of yermen in the photos above are which. Ye also mostly say one of them was a suicide bomber. However, he wasn't a suicide bomber. I admit to writing the article which announced Jean de Menezes death in Irish media (alternative or commercial) on the 22nd of July 2005. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/71065 Without going to that lengthy thread allow me to quote what I wrote:

"After such "luck" or "angelic intervention" yesterday, it seems to "not quite be the way" of pursuing a proper criminal investigation. And we remember top Police Officer Blair's insistence yesterday after the COBRA meeting that "proper trials" would result, and thats why comments on the incidents of July 21 were so scant-. The dead man was described as wearing an out of season winter padded jacket and a baseball cap."

The day before, the target was believed to have carried a device which did not explode. If he had his hand on a detonation trigger and had been shot through the head with hollow tip ammunition his nervous system would have exploded his bomb.

But he wasn't shot in the head.

oooops. I just wrote it out again. I don't have to send you through the cryptic archives to show ye all some background whispers and suspicions. Just remember - if you're holding a trigger and you're shot - the bomb goes off as surely as headless chicken twitches.

So.............. the target wasnt' a very good target if stopping him setting off a bomb was the reason.


____________________________________

Before I go on, and this 3rd anniversary of the UK Summer of Terror 05 - is you might have noticed providing us all with evidence to be careful what eggies we put in one basket and say they are all feathered by the same fowl, I'd like to see what Sceptic, Mark C. or anyone else has to say about that last little bit. Considering we're not wondering now, why did Plod shoot the wrong man

but Why did Plod want to shoot the Target

by Hugh Briss Wed Jul 09, 2008 20:14

is that plod was outside that address (De Menezes) because a piece of paper miraculously survived one of the bomb blasts. On this paper was apparently the address of a person of interest to the police. How the paper survived the bomb blast is anyone's guess. Must have been made of the same durable material Mohammed Atta's passport was made of, you know, the passport found at the base of the twin Tower on Sept 11th 2001?

Also the 'spotter' (i.e. the person tasked with making a positive ID of people leaving that address in Sth London) was a member of a rather shadowdy unit of the British Army formerly known as the FRU, famous for the sort of False Flag ops that many people believe 9-11 was.

Apparently he had to go to the toilet and therefore missed De Menezes leaving and was subsequently not able to confirm or reject him as a potential suicide bomber.

Now ,it has since been mentioned that that sort of thing just doesn't happen. If one of the Brit Army spotters needed to go to the toilet he would have urinated or deficated where he was without having to leave the scene. Personally I'm inclined to the belief that Brit Army spotters are more likely to piss themselves rather than take the chance of missing a very important target. Others may disagree.

Given all that, I'm inclined to the belief that someone wanted a dead body to put on the news to reassure everybody that the Pigs are IN CHARGE (and don't you forget it) !

by Hugh Briss Wed Jul 09, 2008 20:25

Some have even speculated that given the style of execution and the number of shots fired, there may even be a ritual element to the Slaying of De Menezes.

POPPYCOCK!! I hear you say??

Why yes indeed, as long as one is able to ignore the prevalence of Freemasonry within the ranks of the Metropolitan Police and the Army, and also ignore the importance of ritual within Masonic tradition.

The inquiry into freemasonry was first suggested by a Labour member of the committee, Chris Mullin, who was disturbed at the number of freemasons who appeared to be involved in the Birmingham Six case.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_1997031...00265

. . .of the 160 professional people connected with the case (by this he meant Police, Lawyers, Doctors and Journalists) over one hundred of them were found to be members of the Freemasons.

by double O - (justice 4 jean) Thu Jul 10, 2008 09:24

I don't think I'm expecting too much three years after starting the first thread on the subject of wrong man to want a bit of discussion about why Plod wanted to shoot the target . I don't think Osman was a member of either of the British rites, so very much doubt his standing on the square got him spared and de Menezes put in his place.

But I see I might have to nudge ye all on a bit.

Now depending on what movies or books you read or watch, or which island's history your familiar with in this corner of Europe - you will probably know that Plod are a secretive lot, prone to manipulating evidence and putting cuffs on the wrong people when they feel under pressure and want to give the mob which is the great British tabloid reading public arrests. You might also have learnt that Plod works hand in glove with Mi5. I'm sure you know Mi5 are very good at killing people. They really excel themselves at it. But as many times as you wonder at how good at killing people they are, you might also wonder at the people they didn't kill and left about the place. I suppose the answer to who do you kill and who do you not kill has got to do with the victim's usefulness dead weighed against their continued usefulness alive.

Osman left the UK and instead of going to the other island travelled across the sea to foreign France and then Italy. He thus left the jurisdiction of both Plod and Mi5. He even (as I nod to the Mr Briss) left the dominion of the British or its allied and kindred rites of masonry.

Do you think, as you remember carefully back to that day, Osman would have got to Italy if the wrong man hadn't been a messed up puddle of hard to identify dentistry?

I'll leave it there for the moment. I repeat that there is a need for a complete public inquiry into all the terrorist events from 7/7/05 to 22/7/05 in London's "Summer of Terror". & that it its time to review the need for and reasons for the counter-terrorist provisions introduced or sustained since that time.

by double 0 Thu Jul 10, 2008 13:54

As we all know identifying dead Jean de Menezes was a matter of DNA and fingerprints. His dead DNA would latter clear him of false rape allegations which were an attempt to smear his reputation in the public domain & keep the public's attention on the wrong man Even if plod or whoever hadn't done that they could have just taken his mobile out of his pocket and phoned their own exchange and checked the VP (voice profile) on his answering machine.

piece of piss.

On the 28th of July just after a freak tornado had hit the city of Birmingham, West Midlands plod arrested there three of the people who didn't suicide bomb or even carry viable explosive devices on the previous 21st of July in London. Chief of cockney Plod, Sir Ian Blair criticised the detentions which saw the suspects Tasered rather than shot through the head quipping that if they had been carrying explosive devices (which they hever had done to our knowledge) they would have exploded. He didn't mention the thing about shooting people through the head also triggering explosions. The West Midland police perhaps mindful of their notorious history on false arrests, imprisonments, collusin with Mi5 and not doing things by the book - shopped themselves to the Police complaints Board who finally decided it was better to taser a potential suicide bomber without a bomb than shoot him (or her) through the head.

But that's boring.

Osman had somehow found his way out of South London to Rome. Over there Italian plod, who were exposed as useless translators in the Madrid Bombing trials and because of that their phone intercept evidence which would have imprisoned the presumed "mastermind of European emergent Al Q terror" was thrown out of court, had found him in his brother in law's flat thanks to telephone intercepts. They might not have known exactly what he was saying but at least they knew his voice and the people in his phone network.

Now that's interesting.

___________________________________
On 9 July 2007 (two years and two days after the UK '05 summer of terror began) there was the first court case relating to the same.
Hussain Osman (the target) denied links with either the Al-Qaeda or the July 7 bombers. He claimed there was no bomb in his rucksack, just ordinary flour and a detonator meant to make the loud popping sound that was heard. Hussain Osman was found guilty along with three other defendents and sentenced to jail for a minimum of 40 years at Woolwich Crown Court for conspiracy to murder.

_______________________

Thus I could leave this thread to the readers for now, without pondering too much how he got to Rome with those words of the only convictions to arise from that summer.

"conspiracy 2 murder "

by Hugh Briss - SMERSCH Thu Jul 10, 2008 21:08

Here is the Emblem of The British Secret Service Military Intelligence Department 6, and That looks like an 'EYE' at the top to me . . .

How mny triangles (2 Dimensional Pyramids?)

by double O Fri Jul 11, 2008 14:43

Without taking our eye off the subject in hand : "the target" Osman and why he was treated so differently and escaped so deftly and so far away on that day we all remember for the shooting of the wrong man . Let's look at the newspapers.

Today the 11th day of July we may read : "The fiancée of the ringleader of the failed July 21 bombings was today jailed for three years for helping him to escape London dressed in a burka".

"Fardosa Abdullahi gave Yassin Omar her mother's long black robe to help him flee from the capital to Birmingham the day after the 2005 attacks, which came two weeks after suicide bombers killed 52 innocent people on London's transport network."

Fardosa is now pregnant and is reported as having a long history of mental illness.

The presiding judger rejected those arguments for clemency and said "The message must go out that this court will not go soft of those who assist terrorists, even those who are young, vulnerable and under pressure, as you undoubtedly were."

Got that? no going soft. even if you're daft or a six year old. Old enough to use safety scissors you're old enough to assist terrorists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/11/uksecurity
________________________________________

oh yes, at that article you'll see a CCTV photo of Yassin Omar in his girlfriend's mammy's burka which positively identified the man for West Midlands plod who then tasered him as I've already mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasin_Hassan_Omar

by double O Fri Jul 18, 2008 07:35

An 87-page review by the Metropolitan Police Authority says the shooting was a "tragedy that should never have happened, whatever the circumstances were at the time".

".......It criticises inward-looking and top-heavy management at the Met and calls for a "cultural shift amongst the senior ranks". The report adds that "sustained leadership" is needed to move away from a "'silo' based culture to one that recognised the contributions that can be made from across the organisation". "......Scotland Yard still does not know the cause of catastrophic errors made three years ago by its officers which led to the killing of an innocent man who was mistaken for a terrorist, an official report reveals today......."

The Metropolitan Police Authority report on the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station, south London, brands parts of the force's reaction to the disaster "disturbing" and others "complacent", and accuses the Met of being overly defensive. The findings by the force's watchdog put added pressure on commissioner Sir Ian Blair because it says the Met has not learned or done enough since the death. The MPA report focuses on changes made since July 22 2005, when Menezes was held down and repeatedly shot in the head by officers. One recommendation will anger police - that the practice of officers writing up their notes together after a serious incident must end, and in the meantime all such meetings must be recorded......."

".........The MPA report notes in exasperated terms that the Met still cannot explain the failing: "The evidence given in the trial offered some explanation of this failure to deploy CO19 ... but there remains a disturbing lack of clarity about the causes of this failure. We are surprised that this has yet to be resolved. We expect the coroner's inquest to examine this issue in depth."..........

read more : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/18/menezes.uksecurity
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2306242/Sir-Ian-....html