London Police Rules of Engagement (2) - the Israeli Connection

Continuing from London Police Rules of Engagement (1) - the Five Bullets.

An interesting item came to light when Massoud Shadjareh of the Islamic Human Rights Commission revealed that British police officers had been being sent to Israel to receive training on how to prevent suicide bombings. He stated that the impetuous killing was a direct consequence of Israeli practice, which was basically a shoot to kill attitude (when afterall the opposition were bloody Arabs and hardly Israelis).

A former London police chief John Stevens, who sent British police to Israel to be trained, defended the tactics (but of course he would, wouldn’t he?). He said that the terrible truth was that: "There is only one sure way to stop a suicide bomber determined to fulfil his mission - destroy his brain instantly, utterly. That means shooting him with devastating power in the head, killing him immediately."

Isn’t that feral approach typically Israeli towards a Palestinian? The Israeli connection in British police training may explain why I have been wrong in my faith in the British police rules of engagement. When one absorbs and adopts Israeli attitude to the perceived 'enemy', invariably one has to expect rather unmitigated excesses and brutalities.

But let's be clear about one point, Menedes, the bloke who had 'his brain destroyed instantly, utterly, with the devastating power of 5 bullets in the head, killing him immediately', as prescribed by John Stevens, the former London police chief who sent British police to Israel to be trained, was an innocent man, not a suicide bomber! So much for Steven's tactics, which imperilled innocent people like Menedes.

Considering that the wrongly identified person was already pinned down, couldn’t a bash on his head with the gun butt be sufficient to knock him senseless? And why the excessive force of pumping FIVE bullets into his head? Was there an element of unconscious hatred, either from the British officer’s own anger of the London bombings or inculcated by Israeli doctrine, which has always been hatred for the other side?

London's Mayor Ken Livingstone and British politicians have all supported the police, saying that the mistake was within the perceived need to protect the lives of the public. What could they say otherwise but to dig in deep and bunker down tight? Can anyone defend the killer of an innocent man? Of course they can't, but they have to hold the fort and support the police, for to do otherwise would be to undermine the security forces' morale in such troubling times.

As another example of this defensive behaviour, the Metropolitan police chief warned that Menezes might not be the last to die. He stated, rather stubbornly in the face of criticism, "Somebody else could be shot. But everything is done to make it right. This is a terrifying set of circumstances for individuals to make decisions." Everything is done to make it right? Balderdash, that's British double-speak if I ever heard one!

In fact last week, the police had denied a shoot-to-kill policy, but Sir Ian, the police chief performed what the newspapers termed as a complete U-turn in that policy. He now has changed his mind to a shoot-to-kill policy being in place across the country, not just in London.

There is no doubt that his reversal of his earlier stand has been to defend the terrible action the plainclothes policeman had perpetrated. In other words, pretend there has always been a shoot-to-kill rules of engagement, therefore tough sh*t for Menedes.

But sadly, most British newspapers also supported the action regardless of how tragic an innocent death such an impetuous action had resulted in. This reminds me of how the normally vociferous and independent-minded American press succumbed to utter subservience to the dictates of the Bush Administration in the immediate to medium period after the 9/11 incident.

Yes, it’s a bloody hard call though most people are willing to accord the policeman the benefit of the doubts, but I find the 5 bullets the most damning evidence of unmitigated police ferocity (and perhaps hatred). A professional needs only one, at most two bullets. Was it, as I mentioned earlier, a result of a policeman's expression of anger at what he thought to be a bomber, or has it been an adoption of Israeli doctrine of attacking the opposition with hatred.

If the former, let us pray it has been only an isolated incident, but if the latter, the British police need to remember that an Israeli doctrine is not suitable for Britain, but more for the clear cut black and white environment the Israelis see themselves in, of us against them, of Israelis against Arabs. Britain is not a wholly homogeneous society, but has a population of diverse ethnic groups and international visitors.

But the most stupid statement has been by the Mail on Sunday which stated: "And bear in mind that if the Stockwell suspect had been wearing a suicide belt, the officers who shot him would be lauded as heroes and loaded with medals, as well as the thanks of a grateful public."

What an moronic f***ing 'IF'.

FACT - Menedes was NOT wearing a suicide belt nor a suicide bomber, so why posited he could have been? The sly hypothesis is unjustified, underhanded, and unmitigated. It has been nothing more than a red herring that shamelessly seeks to be argumentative in the worst possible manner rather than offer any real mitigative reasoning. It's a shameless descent right into the gutter to pin a notional situation on a dead man who cannot answer back and who shouldn't need to.

It has not been only baseless but insensitive to the Menedes family. It’s akin to saying:

"And bear in mind that if the world has known what trouble the Israelis would cause in the Middle-East, Adolf Hitler and his SS Einsatzgruppen, by their actions at Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau, Chelmno, Sobibor, Belzek and Majdanek, would have been lauded as heroes and loaded with medals, as well as the thanks of a grateful world.”

How dreadful and horrendous such an unwarranted hypothesis would be! It's just plain revulsive. And that is exactly how the Menedes family would feel.

When an innocent man has been summarily executed without him even knowing why, there is no room to play with self-serving (to the British) and imbecilic IF’s. It’s a time to more appropriately reflect on whether the cop in question had acted excessively outside the rules of engagement, or whether the rules of engagement have been correct, or whether the criteria and conditions to meet the rules of engagement need to be examined.