|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Which brings me to Timmy's posts.
I accept that everyone has a right to an opinion, I simply object to opinions being stated as if they were facts. My own opinion - and I stress that it is merely an opinion - is that the 'hit squad' probably did over-react, though without more detail I don't feel able to apportion blame. My grandmother was fond of the phrase 'There, but for the grace of God, go I".
Had I been the police officer who fired the shots, how would I have reacted? I don't know, but I very definitely do know that I would have been subject to intolerable stress, and under stress mistakes - fatal mistakes - happen. Ask any soldier who has served in active combat. It's easy to demand higher standards from other than those to which we might aspire ourselves - but it isn't fair!
My main point of disagreement with you is the content of your last post on 26 July. It may have been an expression of opinion, but it read like a convinced statement of events. You MAY be right, but equally you may prove to be wrong, and presenting an opinion in that way is inflammatory. I have attempted in previous posts to demonstrate possible reasons why the 'hit squad' made no challenge until the victim entered Stockwell station and why he was shot once he boarded the train; I don't contend that my hypothesis is correct (you'll appreciate from my remarks above that I even doubt it myself!) but it is certainly possible and the possibility should be admitted.
Turning to your most recent post, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say. Unhappily, the popular press - and even the BBC - seek to present breaking news in the most sensational way possible. The press cannot identify in print the police officers concerned, but by now they will certainly have discovered who they are. Reporters and cameramen are quite possibly camped out on their front lawns. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, the police officers involved are likely to be deeply traumatised - how would anyone feel if they considered themselves responsible for the death of an innocent man? The trauma arose from the discharge of the duties imposed upon them, and it is entirely right that their employer should afford them appropriate protection at this time. But to call the arrangement a holiday is provocative in the extreme.
We claim to be a civilised nation, and by and large we succeed. There is of course plenty of room for improvement, and we need to remain vigilant and active in campaigning for change where change is needed. But I hate lynch law, and the piety behind which its advocates so often hide. If you are a Christian, remember the exhortation 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'.
Which reminds me that in my local paper today, in the report of the arrest at Grantham last night of two suspected terrorists from the Edinburgh-London train, an eye witness is quoted as saying that the police arrested two men 'of Muslim appearance'. What the hell does that mean? Am I of 'Christian appearance'? Surprising, that! I certainly don't 'look like' my Diocesan Bishop (of Durham); he's black, and rightly proud of it! But perhaps this serves to illustrate why I have reservations about eye-witnesses and even more profound misgivings about our popular press!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever happened to the concept of being innocent until proven guilty, let alone the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt?
Put that question to Senhor de Menezes.
Oh, sorry, you can't. He's dead.
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13801
|
|
|
You know there is nothing to say I should not present an opinion in a strongly argued manner 
I have opinions. I have the right to present them in a manner that is well presented and well argued, in the same manner that you present yours and have the right to do so.
I have strong opinions based upon the reported facts that I have seen and that surround me and surround you. We draw either different conclusions from those facts or we draw similar conclusions with different timings.
That does not make me wish I had not entered this discussion, nor should it make you do so. It means simply that we do not agree at present and may never agree. There is nothing at all wrong with that.
I hold the view currently that a massive error was made. I hold that it was made either in training and terms of engagement, or made on the ground. That error manifested itself in front of witnesses in what is very hard to describe other than an execution. "Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" is an adage popular with The Daily Mail.
Senor Menezes had "nothing to fear". An overstayed visa is an overstayed visa, it is not a capital offence. We will never know why he ran. But as a native of Brazil, as has been said by public correspondents on the BBC site, you run like hell when guns are waved at you. It is a brazilian custiom to run away from guns to attempt to stay alive. It is not a UK custom to have planclothes police wave guns. It is not a civilised custom to execute a restrained suspect.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
That is EXACTLY what I was thinking.....
Add to that the notion that for every addition to the body count thsre is a WELL DESERVED HOLIDAY awarded to the shooter and his family.....
I think that opens the posibility for a group tour in the making.....
Some justice.... Some freedom.... Some sense of security....
I don't think so.......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13801
|
|
|
In general the UK Police grant immediate leave to officers under stress. This is regardless of the cause of the stress. It is usually compulsory. In this case it seems justified to remove the officers concerned from press harassment until such time as the initial rush has died down.
The fact that the officers concerned caused their stress at present is not relevant to removing them from active duties. It is also not their role to make press statements. Whether right or wrong they woudl not at present be good police oficers.
We should separate the topics of the officers and their fate from the fate of the obvious victim.
Nonethless there is a natral sense of outrage that one who pulls the trigger gets what appears to be a vacation. I suspect it is not exactly a bundle of laughs. And yes, I know Senor Menezes cannot laugh either.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I was refering to the fact that the police still have "carte blanche" to gun down any passerby with slightly middle eastern features, a teen carrying a school bag, or a friend with a TENS unit......
I suspect at least a few are thinking... "I need a little time off too...."
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13801
|
|
|
Well I think all police forces have a fair proportion of jerks. I imagine it may have been mooted in "Canteen Humour" but I doubt it is a real thought. They don't usually let the jerks have dangerous toys.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... if still with some reluctance.
Timmy, I think that in reality there is little difference between us, especially now that the dust has settled a little. I have not attempted to deny anyone's right to an opinion; if I have created that impression it's my fault for failing to express myself sufficiently clearly. What brought me out of the shadows was the tendency in the early postings on this thread to present opinion as fact. We don't yet know the true facts; the alleged facts are still changing on a daily basis, although our press seems to be beginning to lose interest in the whole affair. That's worrying, as pressure upon the government is essential if the issues are to be examined in detail and in public, and not buried in a dusty report many months hence, which - though probably fair and accurate - will not receive the publicity it certainly merits.
In the meantime, we all form our own opinions as to the probable scenario, and your own opinion is certainly tenable on the facts; it differs from mine only insofar as I suspect that the larger portion of blame should attach to those responsible for the inaccurate intelligence. But I'm fine with what you say as long as it is clearly expressed as an opinion; if it's expressed as a fact with sufficient force and frequency that it becomes accepted as such in the absence of proof, we come dangerously close to the lynch-law situation that we all profess to abhor - and the danger is greatest in emotive circumstances such as these. I accept without reservation that this is not your intention, as is evident from your very sane response to the 'holiday' issue, but regardless of intention, the danger remains.
Marc, I don't think you are attempting to argue the case. Quite apart from being ridiculous, your recent remarks are deeply insulting. Statistically, even in these difficult times, the likelihood of being shot by the police as a suspected criminal is hugely less in the United Kingdom than in the United States - perhaps a little introversion would be in order? You seem to have a fondness for expressing negative opinions without troubling with the facts - witness your extremely rude intitial reply to Deacon's recent post. Even your apology was qualified by a negative remark, which I am sure most readers of the stories in question would regard as unfounded. You really do need to examine the difference between expressing opinions and acting objectionably - and if you find this paragraph objectionable you have missed the point entirely.
Nigel, I find your post perplexing; your past postings and your writings demonstrate your intellect, and I would have expected better from you. What does your post actually mean? Are you suggesting that because of one tragic error we should abandon civilised behaviour? I have never implied that Senhor de Menezes' death was other than tragic, but does that justify reaching for the lynch-rope? Of course he's dead, of course we need to know exactly what happened and of course anyone found guilty UNDER THE LAW should be punished UNDER THE LAW - is'nt that how civilised society works?
Finally, a plea for realism. If there IS to be a concerted campaign of suicide bombing of public transport, there may well be more tragic mistakes. Hopefully they will be less attributable to disorganisation that seems likely to be the case in this instance (and the reference to disorganisation is the expression of an opinion, not a fact!). But we cannot seriously expect police officers to tap a suspect on the shoulder and to enquire whether he proposes detonating a bomb. Their own lives are on the line, as well as the lives of the public they seek to protect, and a suicide bomber is particularly difficult to deal with, since he is prepared to lose his own life in order to kill those whom he has targeted. There are no easy answers; but I invite those who cannot accept the implications to say what they believe the police should do if confronting someone they reasonably believe to be a suicide bomber on a crowded tube train. This of course brings me back to matters of opinion, because my personal view is that the genesis of the tragedy was the fact that Senhor de Menezes should never have been regarded as a potential suicide bomber. He was Brazilian and (presumably) Catholic; an unlikely ally for an extremist Musim sect. It's hard to see how our intelligence gathering could be so inept.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
An interesting notion occured to me this evening. If the opinions and remarks voiced here are in any way caustic, what sort of opinion do you think the poor man Senior de Menezes' has on the whole affair?
Has there been any remarks from the family?
Cossie..... Yes shottings of "accidental" nature do occur here..... but not as a matter of policy. That is in where the difference lies. Also a great part of the problem is that you (as a gov't official) can not see that as being incremental in the nature of the objections places into this thread.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Hello,
I´ve been following this rather polemical thread with interest for a while, and since Marc asked about Jean Menezes´ family, as a brazilian I can say what the press in Brazil has published so far.
According to Folha de SP (one of the largest newspapers in Brazil), one of his cousins who lives in UK said (the translation from portuguese is mine, the original post is http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/mundo/ult94u86200.shtml but I´m afraid there´s no version in english) "My cousin was a honest and hard-working man. Although we are under circumstances similar to a war, we should not be killing people unjustly." Another cousin said "They (the police) have to pay for what they did, otherwise they´ll kill more people, they will kill thousands of people. They killed the first person they saw, that´s what they did. They killed my cousin, they can kill anyone."
Now just adding my two cents on the matter:
I think after the bombings, it is perfectly understandable (and expected) that the police will take measures to avoid new terrorist attacks. It is, however, unacceptable that a policy of "shoot-to-kill" takes place in a democratic country (after all, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, even suspects of terrorism).
As Cossie has said and I agree "we cannot seriously expect police officers to tap a suspect on the shoulder and to enquire whether he proposes detonating a bomb. Their own lives are on the line, as well as the lives of the public they seek to protect". Likewise, we should not seriously expect the police officers to shoot in the head everyone who should be regarded as a potential suicide bomber.
In my opinion, Jean Menezes´ death was not unacceptable because there were mistakes in intelligence gathering. If he was from Saudi Arabia and a muslim rather than a catholic brazilian would it make his death justifiable ? No, I think his death was unnacceptable because he was innocent and he was killed based solely on suspicions that were not properly investigated.
It´s being said that Jean Menezes has overstayed his visa and forged a fake stamp in his passport. It is undoubtely a crime if that´s true, but hardly punishable with death penalty. There are still too many questions unanswered and I´m afraid a lot of them will remain so.
Even if an investigation proves he was killed under the law, I don´t think it can be considered legitimate (i.e. morally correct).
I really hope the british police can find a better way to deal with the terrorist threat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13801
|
|
|
We have to note that there were many failings. The fuss about fake visas is not relevant, though possibly was a contributory factor in his running at first. But we wil never know what was in his mind. All we know is that he ran.
Better intelligence would have revealed that the building contained more people than suspected terrorists
Better policing would have stopped him properly where there was a smaller danger to the public if one assumes he might have been a terrorist
Islam is not confined to middle eastern or African peoples, nor is Islam a rerason to suspect someone of terrorism
Better self control (yes an opinion) would have ensured that Senor Menezes lived
I do not object at all to a shoot to kill policy if there is imminent and pressing danger. A man with arms pinioned is not imminent and pressing danger.
A live terrorist is far more use to the police than a dead one.
A dead innocent man has hampered the police substantially, especially since the manner of his death is open to serious conjecture and criticism
I could go on to list more, but it is pointless. I do not accept that we should shrug and say "He was a victim of the terrorists" because he was not. He was shot while going about his normal business.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
In response to the three preceding posts -
Marc, I cannot begin to understand the satisfaction you appear to derive from your emotive and provocative postings. You are not debating, you are simply fanning flames. However, for the benefit of others who are reading this thread I feel obliged to comment upon what you say.
It's blindingly obvious that Senhor de Menezes' family will be deeply distressed and probably extremely angry. How would you feel if someone dear to you had died in the same way? But if you were to seek comments on the police action from those who lost partners, parents or children in the London bombings earlier this month, I suspect their answers might be different, though no less understandable. The whole point about logical debate is that participants are NOT personally involved, and are trying to view the issues with detachment.
Your inference that 'accidental' shootings are are a matter of policy in the United Kingdom would be laughable if it were not so repulsive.
Again for the benefit of other reading this thread, the policy on 'shooting to kill' is summarised in the link provided in JFR's post dated 26 July. It applies ONLY to suspected suicide bombers, and only where there is reason to believe that the suspect may be about to detonate a bomb in circumstances which threaten the lives of the public. Two reasons for the policy have been reported in the press. Firstly, the normal policy (so far as the use of firearms by the UK police can be described as 'normal'; they are normally unarmed) of shooting in the torso to disable is impractical because it might detonate the bomb. Secondly, even if it were possible to fire a disabling shot, the suspect might still be able to activate the bomb. So the principle is clear; the police should shoot to kill only when doing so is likely to prevent greater carnage.
Br_lurker, I appreciate your measured and thoughtful contribution to the debate.
I have set out the 'shoot to kill' policy above, and as you will see it is of very limited application. I can fully understand the emotional response of Senhor de Menezes' family, but in reality there are no grounds for supposing that, even if the bombing campaign continues, there will be a significant number of occasions when the policy can be applied. I stress again that the 'shoot to kill' is authorised only when the suspect is believed to be about to detonate a bomb in a public place; it doesn't apply if a person believed to be involved in suicide bombing is being pursued in any other circumstances. Suicide bombers pose unique problems; they are, by definition, willing to kill themselves if in so doing they can kill others whom they regard as 'the enemy'. Normal civilised procedures simply cannot cope with this kind of threat; in the final analysis, the choice is between killing the suspect and risking the deaths of substantial numbers of the public and, in all probability, the police themselves. The option of arrest and trial simply doesn't exist; there would be no-one alive to be prosecuted, and probably very few to give evidence.
I am not of course arguing that the shooting of Senhor de Menezes was justified; as I have been repeating since I joined the thread, I simply do not know the facts, nor for that matter does any other contributor to this debate. There has been a lot of conjecture, but the details are far from certain. One thing I think we CAN say with certainty is that the police knew nothing about his expired visa; it took the government several days to establish that situation. The only relevance of the expired visa is that it MAY explain why Senhor de Menezes did not stop when challenged, but vaulted the barrier, ran to the platform and boarded a train. We can never know for certain. I say more about the actual shooting in my response to Timmy below.
I should apologise for not being clearer in my remark about Senhor de Menezes being a Catholic Brazilian and therefore an unlikely ally of Muslim extremists. I didn't intend any implication that the life of an innocent Muslim was any less sacred, merely that if the intelligence gatherers had done their job adequately they should surely have established that not everyone in the apartment building could legitimately be regarded as a potential suicide bomber. If they had done so, the police would not have been justified in taking any of their subsequent actions, since they fairly obviously did not identify Senhor de Menezes' as other than a person emerging from the building.
Finally, we must all remember that in a very real sense we are at war with the extremists. It is not a war of our choosing, but it is nonetheless a war. If the extemists act without regard for human life - more that that, if they actively seek to take innocent, non-combatant lives - we MUST devise an appropriate response, and inevitably it must be devised under the rules of war rather than civilised peace. It is deeply - very deeply - regrettable, but it IS inevitable.
Timmy, I still don't think we are far apart in principle.
I've already apologised for the ambiguous reference to Islam in my previous post. I never intended to suggest that any follower of Islam should be regarded as a potential suicide bomber, but rather that someone who was NOT a follower of Islam but (presumably) a Roman Catholic was an exceedingly unlikely suspect and that the intelligence should have revealed this. In other words, my remark was simply intended to emphasise how bad the intelligence (or at least the implementation of the intelligence) actually was.
The only other comment I feel the need to make is that despite your 'opinion' proviso on the issue of self-control - and I don't necessarily disagree with you as a matter of opinion - you state that the suspect had his arms pinioned when he was shot. The witness accounts last weekend were not consistent, and there is some doubt about the exact sequence of events in the crucial moments, so you are stating an opinion as a fact. Let me make my own position clear; if the suspect WAS pinioned in the way you describe, and was shot in cold blood, then I would agree with you entirely. I would argue that the officer concerned should face a charge of manslaughter at least, and that, even making allowances for the extremely stressful situation he was unfit for further service in the police force or any other comparable institution. But I don't believe that anyone is justified in making such demands until the facts are known.
To end on a happier note, all four of the suspected suicide bombers involved in the failed bombings of 21 July are now in custody - three arrested in the United Kingdon and one in Italy. So our intelligence gatherers CAN get it right, and, so far as I know, not a shot was fired in the process.
Finally, although I claim no expertise in race relations my job has brought me into contact with people of many races and religions. There is, at grass-roots level an unhappy and deteriorating relationship with the very significant Islamic population in the United Kingdom, and I've lived long enough to know that we - the 'white' population - are at least as much to blame as anyone else. We are far too keen to see differences rather than similarities. But there are so many similarities! Most of us 'natives' consider ourselves to be Christian, but whilst adhering to the broad principles of the faith we choose to disregard much of the detail. For readers of this Board, parts of Leviticus are among the bits we chose to ignore, and (in my opinion!) rightly so; they were written for a different age. I was enjoying a meal with an Iranian friend, whom I knew enjoyed drinking beer or spirits in moderation. I asked him how he reconciled this with the teachings of the Quran (I knew him well enough to do so without any possibility of offence!). "Well, it's like this," he replied. "In your Bible, there is the story about Jesus changing water into wine at the wedding feast. We Muslims have simply learned to do the same thing in reverse."
I hope this strikes a chord with you, as it did with me. Islam is NOT our enemy. Extremist fundamentalists are. And that applies to extremist fundamentalists of ANY religion.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The British Police are the best in the world
I don't believe one of those stories I've heard
About them raiding our clubs for no reason at all,
Lining the customers up by the wall
picking out people, knocking 'em down
- "resisting arest" as they're kicked on the ground,
searching their houses, calling them "queer" :
I don't believe that sort of thing happens here.
> Sing if you're glad to be gay,
> Sing if you're happy that way,
> Sing if you're glad to be gay,
> Sing if you're happy that way,
(Tom Robinson Band, 1978 )
OK, police attitudes to gay people may just have started to change since then - though they're still got a hell of a way to go. Police (institutional) attitudes to BME people is in many ways still in the state that TRB so graphically portrays.
I am not yet over the distrust of the police engendered in me as an out gay man by their homophobia in the late 70's and early 80's - especially on early 'Pride' marches. This is in spite of the fact that I work with the Met Police very regularly, and deal with assorted bomb disposal / anti-terrorist, diplomatic protection, and similar groups several times a year as part of my job as a Local Government Head of Service. (Which, for non-UK members, is about as respectable middle-class as you can get: directly equivalent to City Librarian, for example.)
I remain very unsure that the police or central government have ANY real understanding of the massive potential this incident has to cause a catastrophic collapse of belief in the police. For me, any suggestion that *any* "shoot to kill" policy is acceptable in *any* circumstances is plain wrong - both practically as being counterproductive (may occasionally prevent a bomb being detonated, but scares potential informants so badly that the number of bombers remaining undetected is very likely to rise), and morally.
But then, I've been a committed pacifist since before the age of 12, when I refused to join the CCF.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Thanks for your post, NW. Not much with which I'd disagree!
Just for the record, though, I am very far from being an apologist for the British Police - see the comments in my original post of 25 July! The thrust of all my posts has been the proposition that there were so many uncertainties surrounding the Stockwell shooting that emotive outbursts were premature, but I guess I've needed to repeat myself so often that the conclusion that I was pro-police was pretty well inevitable.
I share your view that whilst there may have been some improvement over the last thirty years, there's still a hell of a long way to go. One problem is that the perception of the job attracts bullies as recruits; it offers them the perfect opportunity to throw their weight about, and they do so at every opportunity. This isn't of course a blanket criticism; most policemen are dedicated and professional, but there is a substantial minority which fails abysmally to qualify for either of these adjectives. Policemen have a difficult job, but this does't excuse what appears to be a widespread policy among senior policemen to suppress or ignore legitimate criticism of the behaviour of some of their officers. It's not just about racism and homophobia - in many cases the problem is pure and unadulterated arrogance: "I'm a policeman, you're scum."
I agree also that the Stockwell shooting will almost inevitably result in catastrophic damage to public confidence in our police, and I think that official reaction to the affair has in many instances been less than sensitive. As a matter of opinion (and I stress that!) the balance of probability does suggest that the whole sorry business was a cock-up from beginning to end, and if the police seek to defend the indefensible the damage will be very much greater. We can only wait and see.
I have always tried to maintain a sense of balance - in my professional life it helps to win arguments - and I have therefore tended to avoid extreme political positions. I'm anti-war, but not a pacifist; I see a huge gulf between aggression and defence againt the aggression of others. But at heart I doubt whether there's much between us!
In the same vein, I can see a justification for the 'shoot to kill' policy if it's rigorously limited to occasions when there are VALID gounds for believing that a suspect is about to detonate a bomb with consequent multiple loss of life. Given that limitation, I can't see why it would materially affect the actions of informants; this is not simple criminality, and many of those who entertain suspicions about individuals will consider the actions of suicide bombers to be every bit as abhorrent as do you and I. I accept that even with tight control, mistakes cannot be completely ruled out, but please, God, no more apparent cock-ups. As regards the moral question, when between a rock and a hard place I see a moral obligation to act to protect the lives of the innocent majority - but the perception of morality is a very personal thing, and I wouldn't attempt to argue against a different considered moral viewpoint.
I'll continue to react to postings on this thread, but if there are no more I'll resume my comfortable lurking! Thanks to those who have entered the debate with reasoned contributions.
Ciao!
L' Ecossais Pensif.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the only thing I disagree with you on is
> In the same vein, I can see a justification for the 'shoot to kill' policy if it's rigorously limited to occasions when there are VALID gounds for believing that a suspect is about to detonate a bomb with consequent multiple loss of life. Given that limitation, I can't see why it would materially affect the actions of informants; this is not simple criminality, and many of those who entertain suspicions about individuals will consider the actions of suicide bombers to be every bit as abhorrent as do you and I.
I believe that there is now no way that many people will *believe* in any such rigorous limits that may be claimed. We're supposed always to have had them.
I agree that where a potential informant has definite proof of terrorist activity, they will continue to report it.
But for anyone who feels that neighbours (or friends or family members) are 'acting suspiciously', but in a way that may concievably have an innocent explanation, the thought that reporting the suspicions may cause premises to be watched, and possibly innocent people threatened, mistreated, or indeed killed, could be a major deterrent to reporting those suspicions. And more so if they have have the impression that 'accidental' killings are being passed off rather lightly by the government and police who acknowledge "there could be more". It doesn't matter if such perception is well-founded or not.
In present circumstances, if I myself were to have suspicions and report them, and anything happened to the person I'd voiced my suspicions about, I would feel that I had their blood on my hands. I could live with that if they were guilty of terrorist activity. But if they were innocent, I don't think there would be any way for me to achieve absolution.
Somehow, it would feel more personal than taking responsibility for failing to report suspicions and the person actually turning out to be a suicide bomber ... after all, many other people could have had the same grounds for suspicion as me ... so I would feel guilty about not reporting but not personally dirty. But I guess that sins of ommission tend to feel less serious than sins of commission, anyway.
The upshot is that I would now need any suspicions to be MUCH stronger before I reported them than would have been the case before Jean Charles de Menezes was shot.
The pragmatic question is, is this viewpoint typical of the section of the public most likely to have well-founded suspicions of the activities of intending terrorists?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
One of the most fundamental rights that comes with modern democracy is the RIGHT to "due process" in instances reguarding the breaking of the law.
This "RIGHT" must never be circumvented for the sake of expedition nor convenience.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13801
|
|
|
I think I would be concerned if I were a policeman facing a genuine and proven threat. At that point my due process would be "Stop or I shoot".
With that caveat I agree with you.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
> One of the most fundamental rights that comes with modern democracy is the RIGHT to "due process" in instances regarding the breaking of the law.
>
> This "RIGHT" must never be circumvented for the sake of expedition nor convenience.
Marc,
I agree with you 100% that "due process" SHOULD never be circumvented. It is the foundation of the society I support, and will do my non-violent best to protect. And my view is that ANY undermining of "due process" ipso facto undermines our liberal democracy.
BUT, actually, both UK and US governments have rushed to abandon "due process" and "natural justice" whenever it suits them, and especially abroad and at time of stress (or, as they would put it, "war on terror"). The list - on BOTH sides of the Atlantic - is long and depressing. Off the immediate top of my head, and in no order, I can think of the following examples:
Internment without trial in Northern Ireland, Internment of US citizens of Japenese ancestry in WW2, kidnapping and false imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay Camp, use of camps in Afghanistan for the purposes of torture, use of torture and "inhuman treatment" in Northern Ireland, atrocities committed in Vietnam (remember My Lai?) and currently Afghanistan and Iraq, detentions in UK Belmarsh prison, ... I could go on as the list is almost endless, but it would be too depressing.
My own view is that violence ALWAYS begets violence. That is why I have campaigned, and will continue to campaign, against having normal UK police armed in any circumstances. It is also why I have campaigned against British misdeeds in the list above, from Diplock Courts to participation in the Iraq fiasco.
For consistency, can I ask whether you support the carrying of guns by police in your hometown? If, that is, they are indeed armed on a routine basis as I believe is usual in the US.
I'm not attempting (or, I am attempting not) to form a premature judgement on the exact circumstances of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. But if he was shot by armed police, it seems incontravertible that he could not have been shot by unarmed police. And, per some of my previous posts, I regard unarmed police as essential to the proper implementation of "policing by consent" that makes the police servants of the public and society, rather than uniformed bullies.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Yupper.... Police here do carry weapons.
Do I agree with that policy..... No
But I do not make the decisions on this matter one way or the other.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I'm moving the thread to the left as a reflection of my political leanings!
NW, your comments about informers are persuasive. I think you have convinced me that the Stockwell shooting may well discourage some potential informers and, regrettable though that may be, I can now respect their reluctance. I just hope that the negative effects are not as wide-ranging as you anticipate.
Marc (and Timmy), I suspect that the 'due process' argument moves us away from the specific to the more general moral minefield, in which there exists every variety of legitimate, though often irreconcilable, viewpoint. However strongly we may feel, philosophical positions are almost inevitably expressions of opinion rather than demonstrable fact. After all, a substantial sector of the academic world has been addressing such issues for millennia without reaching any agreement!
I'll try to illustrate my own viewpoint with two examples, one practical and one theoretical, but both relevant to the 'due process' issue.
First, whether or not you adopt a pacifist position, there is, I think, a significant difference between criminal activity and war. The unpleasant truth of war is that each side must kill the enemy; unless they do, there will be a stalemate situation. In most conflicts, success or failure depend upon securing and holding territory, and advances are made by taking enemy positions. Whilst rules of engagement exist - though often loosely applied, if at all - the bottom line is that two groups are shooting at each other, and whichever group annihilates the other, or at least brings it to surrender, will emerge as the winner. The battle is not conducted with paintballs, and 'due process' cannot apply in such circumstances. Depressing though this may be, it is the reality of war. My point here is that the extremist groups see themselves as being at war with Western civilisation. Suicide bombers have on simple objective - to kill as many as possible. The higher the number of deaths, the greater the blow struck against us. There must therefore be a philosophical argument for confronting like with like; if it is indeed a war, the peacetime concept of 'due process' has no application. Before I'm verbally lynched, I acceot that this is a simplification - it's the principle rather than the detail which is important, and long and tedious though my posts may be, there ARE limits to my verbosity!
Secondly, let me postulate a moral dilemma of exactly the kind we have here, but apply it to a '9/11' type scenario. Two civil airliners have been hijacked and flown into two skyscraper office blocks in Chicago. These impacts were about 45 minutes apart, and there are many hundreds of casualties, almost all fatally injured. Both aircraft were on flights originating in Canada. Radio contact has been lost with a third airliner, on a flight from Edmonton to Ottawa; it is detected, off course, flying South along Lake Michigan. The aircraft carries a total of 50 passengers and crew, and it is known that it has experienced a previous radio failure, though that was several months ago and the system was thoroughly checked prior to this flight. So there is a strong possibility that this aircraft has also been hijacked, but a faint chance that it has again suffered radio failure and, being unable to send or receive communications, is attempting to land at Chicago by visual rather than electronic navigation. Fighters are scrambled and await orders. If the plane is shot down immediately, it will crash into Lake Michigan with the loss of fifty lives; if it IS hijacked and it remains airborne and reaches its target, it is likely to result in the loss of at least five hundred lives; even if shot down after crossing the shoreline (in less than two minutes) it will crash into a heavily populated urban landscape. In either of the last two situations, all those on board are virtually certain to die. What command should be given? Obviously, there is no easy answer, but that is precisely my point.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Not for the first time, I clicked the wrong button at the wrong time, and find myself not as far to the left as intended. Hmm, that may be significant?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
The snswer is simple...
An aircraft is not shot down based on supposition.
That would be murder.
The people on the aircraft have hust as much right to live as any of the others you indicated in your scenierio.
Thier fewness in quantity does not lessen their value.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Well, Marc, as this questions - or variations upon it - have occupied philosophers and tortured undergraduates for donkey's years, the answer can hardly be as simple as you suggest.
In fact I have to say that I see your response as simplistic rather than simple. It isn't a question of valuing the lives of some individuals more than others; the choice is whether to sacrifice the lives of a few to save the lives of many - or put another way, is it our moral duty to act in the way which offers the best outcome for the greatest number? I included the remote possibility of radio failure to insert a tiny element of doubt, but on the available information it is hugely probable that the passengers on the aircraft will die whatever happens, but unless the plane is shot down the number of deaths will be very much greater. Obviously, I realise that it might be possible for the fighter planes to attemps a visual check on the identity of the airline pilot, and other possible avoiding action may be possible, but I am using the theoretical situation purely as an illustration.
Consider a major accident and the triage arrangements which follow. If the location is remote and the medical facilities inadequate, it would be normal to focus attention on the potential fatalities with the greatest prospect of survival. That doesn't mean that the lives of the more severely injured remainder are in any way less valuable, but given the limited facilities available the objective will be to save as many lives as possible. Is it wrong to allow one victim to die if by doing so you can save the lives of two others? It's a hell of a question, but a lot of medics have been forced to address it over the years.
The only essential difference between the scenarios is the dramatic impact of the circumstances; in either case someone is forced to decide who lives and who dies. The question is NOT easy!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I just have to believe that all the choices have not been looked at and thusly taking the easy out and sacraficing a plane load of passengers is wrong.
I agree.... the question is NOT easy.... But the ANSWER is....
To opt for a result that leaves everyone alive is best.
To condemn innocent people is just plain wrong....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
>
> ((snip)) To condemn innocent people is just plain wrong....
In this instance I have to agree with Marc's statement, though my reasoning may well be different from his. And I admit that "innocent" is an opinion, not a fact ... although I would guess that almost everyone could agree that a suckling infant was "innocent", so let's assume there is at least one of these on the plane!
If I shoot down the possibly / probably / very likely "terrorist" plane, I take moral responsibility for MY actions, and the deaths of all passengers including any terrorists are on MY conscience.
If I do not shoot down the plane, many more people may die. However, it will not be my decision to terminate their lives, but the decision of the terrorists. In any event, I cannot take moral responsibility for the deaths that result from other people's (ie the terrorists) decisions, nor for any resulting deaths or inhuman treatment (up to and including international war) caused by possible or foreseeable reaction by further terrorists, the civil or military authorities etc (nor, of course, can I take credit for any positive result). I would certainly be filled with self-loathing, and a non-referenced sense of guilt, and I'm sure that I would find the situation very hard to handle, but I would NOT feel morally responsible for any deaths.
For me, the concept that I can only be responsible for my own moral decisions, and not for the decisions of other people, is at the heart of the pacifist position I espouse. I may attempt to share my views, or to persuade others, and I may express myself forcefully on occasion, but I have no right to forcibly impose my views on others. To seek to prevent *other* people killing or otherwise forcibly imposing their views on "the innocent" may be "the more perfect choice" ... but for me it is not required (although where the situation is clear-cut I may choose to do so in a non-violent manner).
But this is admittedly an extremely personal viewpoint - idiosyncratic, even.
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Marc and NW, thanks for your posts.
When it comes to a moral dilemma of this kind, it's essential to make two assumptions. Firstly, you know all the available facts, and no further information will become available. Secondly, you are sitting at a desk in front of a notice saying 'The buck stops here'. In the suggested scenario, there are ony two choices available to you - either you give orders for the aircraft to be shot down, or you don't. It is your job to decide, so in the circumstances you are presumably the President.
In purely moral terms, you are as responsible for the consequences of your inaction as you would be for the consequences of your action. So what do you do, given over 99% certainty that inaction will lead to the deaths of all those on the aircraft and ten times that number on the ground?
Obviously, the ideal solution is that which leaves everyone alive, but the chance of achieving that by inaction is less than 1%, whereas the chance that 400 or additional innocent lives will be lost if you don't give the order is greater than 99%.
This sort of decision DOES arise in real life, particularly in the aftermath of natural disasters. People are called upon to decide between options which will result in innocent deaths - the choice is simply between who lives and who dies.
I can't agree with Marc, who in essence wishes to stall in the hope that the problem will go away. It won't. I respect NW's position, but I can't accept that either. It does seem to me that given such appalling alternatives, my clear moral obligation would be to act upon the intelligence in the way that would, on a huge balance of probability, save most lives. I thank God I don't have to make such decisions, but if the burden fell upon me that's the way I'd feel obliged to go. And, to bring the debate back to the context of the thread, that's why I believe that a police officer is justified to shoot to kill if confronted by an individual whom he has compelling reason to believe is about to detonate a bomb in a crowded public place. And, of course, that's why I regard those responsible for the inadequate and inaccurate intelligence as bearing primary responsibility for the Stockwell shooting. The only other point I sought to make was that in the face of conflicting reports it was wrong to jump to emotive conclusions about the circumstances surrounding the shooting unless those opinions were clearly expressed to be founded upon assumptions rather than proven facts.
NW, I was interested by your statement of your position, though it seems to me that perhaps it is closer to conscientious objection than to out-and-out pacifism. I have no problems with that - I have enormous respect for the moral integrity of those who were conscientious objectors in World War II; many of them showed astonishing bravery and resolution under fire they were not prepared to return. I think I can appreciate how they felt, and had I been around at the time I might have been one of them - after all, I can't bring myself to kill spiders and I have skidded of the road more than once after avoiding rabbits or hedgehogs! I guess I would find moral decision making easier than pulling the trigger of a gun!
In any event, we've wandered away from the original thread of the topic, the debate is becoming a little heavy for this Board, and there are only three of us left in the arena. I've enjoyed the argument - if one can enjoy anything stemming from such a tragic event - and I think the position adopted by each of us is now pretty clear. I doubt very much whether further debate will bring us any closer, so can we agree to differ but part as friends?
L'Ecossais Pensif.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> I doubt very much whether further debate will bring us any closer, so can we agree to differ but part as friends?
>
Gladly. Thank you for deciding to "emerge from the shadows" on this: I've found your posts challenging and thought-provoking, always a pleasure to read.
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I resent your insinuation that I wish to just let things happen and thusly they will "just go away"......
They won't... Just as you say... Unfortunately I see the problem in the authorities that set out to "protect the public"..... if you can call it that.
Lets add one more factor to your scenerio...
Your family is on that plane......
Will you be so quick to condemn the flight now?
Ack any of the husbands, wives and children of the other passengers if it is OK to blow their transport out of the air because there "might" be a terrorist on board.
What then would you expect their answers to be?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Hmm!
In the post which postulated the '9/11' scenario, I specified that fighters were in the air and that the suspect aircraft would cross the shoreline into Chicago in less than two minutes. Making allowance for forward momentum, if the aircraft is to be shot down into the waters of Lake Michigan, the order must obviously be given immediately.
You replied: 'I just have to believe that all the choices have not been looked at and thus taking the easy way out and sacrificing a planeload of passengers is wrong.'
That looks remarkably like a cop-out to me - and, incidentally, it's a gross distortion to suggest that shooting down the aircraft is in ANY sense an easy way out.
In your latest post, you suggest asking the families of those on board what they feel about shooting down the aircraft because there 'might' be a terrorist on board. What would I expect their answer to be?
I would expect their answer to be irrelevant, because - however understandably - it will be illogically biased.
You ask how I would feel if a member of my family were aboard. I would feel exactly as anyone else would feel in those circumstances, but if I had any sort of integrity (and I think I have!) I would recognise that I was thereby disqualified from making the decision. Bring on the Vice-President!
You are, of course, using the politician's trick of telling less than the truth in support of your argument; you say there 'might' be a terrorist on board. The facts as presented make it clear that hundreds are already dead and there is an extremely high probability that there IS a terrorist on board. Your use of the word 'might' is an copybook example of political evasion.
And finally - am I right in recollecting that one of the hijacked planes on 9/11 crashed with relatively little damage on the ground because the passengers resisted the terrorists and sacrificed their own lives to save the lives of others?
Think about it, Marc! The question isn't easy, but neither is the answer if you face up to the issues it raises.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well....
I guess I can't argue with that logic....
Now I guess I know why I don't choose to fly....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13801
|
|
|
The answer is easier than you pose. There are accepted protocols for handling this matter, cockpit to cockpit. And those would be used. If the protocols are ignored tht the order to shoot down has to be given, even if incorrect.
While one could argue that this was likely to be the case in Stockwell, the apparent evidence shows this to be unlikey to have been the reality.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
