Confederate Yankee addresses the second guessers (the majority of whom are non-British) of Operation Kratos, the London police policy of using head shots to kill suspected suicide bombers in an effort to save civilian lives—and he does so by detailing exactly how suicide bombings work, and why the London policy is more than simply appropriate, it is necessary: “Jihad for Dummies: A Non-technical primer”
Personally, provided I’m convinced the police were operating in good faith—and provided they’ve completed the kind of training necessary to undertake such tasks (and I’m willing to cut them some slack in the immediate aftermath of this recent series of bombings), I am inclined to support them and to support the policy, even though its implementation could end in the kind of pragmatic aggressiveness that left Jean Charles de Menezes dead.
****
related: Steve Green on the NYT reaction; Mark Steyn argues for the prosecution (h/t ultraloser).
For a contrary view, see Mark Steyn
Thanks. From what I understand, the London police are fairly restrained in when and why they’re able to take action, which could explain why they waited for de Menezes to approach mass transit. But I confess to not having any idea if this is correct.
Again, my support of the police in this regard is contingent upon whether or not they followed procedure and acted in good faith. So far, most in London seem to think they did.
One of Steyn’s ongoing issues is that the UK essentially prohibits people from defending themselves, and that the UK police seem much more interested in prosecuting people who violtate those laws than against the actual criminals. So, he starts with a bias against the police.
That said, from his version of the facts, he has a point.
Actually, I was kind of stunned to read that the Bobbies were: a)were plainclothesed, b)armed, and c)not more interested in nabbing fox-hunters.
Steyn overlooks the reports that Mr. Menezes was being followed because he was living at an address that was found in documents in rucksacks holding Thursday’s bombs. This makes his commentary on appropriate jacket wear in English weather almost entirely besides the point. That was undoubtably an important factor in the shooting. They weren’t just targeting the guy because of his jacket.
Exactly right—that, and the subsequent fleeing, are what made the coat a factor.
Well, taking up Steyn’s side for a moment: the issue is hardly whether the UK police were justified in their suspicion of the man. The issue is how they acted upon that suspicion. Apparently, the UK police could have prevented the suspect from entering the Tube in the first place; the UK police were undercover so the police could not assume that the suspect knew he was fleeing the police; and five shots to the head of a fleeing man certainly implies that the UK police don’t care much about margin of error.
Steyn’s disdain for the UK police obscures his broader point, which is that the terrorists have the advantage if terrorism is viewed solely as a criminal matter.
I’ve seen those points elsewhere and I don’t think they’re all that strong.
1) Although the cops could have stopped him from entering the Tube, there’s no reason to think they should have. They would have had to stop him on the bus. Or maybe just tackle everyone exiting that address. This was part of a stakeout of an address found in one of the bomber’s rucksacks, the cops would’ve tipped their hand if they had done that. And it wasn’t until it became apparent that he was entering the Tube that officers became concerned, and by then it was too late.
2) They identified themselves as police. For all the talk about how they could have just been some sort of “street gang”, how often do you think roving armed street gangs in London impersonate officers of the law? Seriously?
3) This is a bit tongue in cheek, and I’m not trying to mischaracterize your statement, but there’s also been a lot of talk about how 5 shots to the head are excessive. Well, what’s a reasonable number of shots to the head? 2? 3? Personally, I think the reasoning behind Operation Kratos is fairly sound.
So long as the British police only shoot people who are acting suspicious and refusing to obey the old “Halt” command, I say shoot away. Anyone who runs from the cops towards the very thing that was recently bombed deserves whatever s/he gets. Darwin at work.
Harsh? Yep. Necessary? Absolutely
Dorkafork:
1. The UK police suspect a man of being a suicide bomber, but you see no reason why the UK police should have stopped him before he gets to the place where he can cause the most damage and inflict the most injury and death?
2. Maybe you are right that this Brazilian understood that the men chasing him were undercover police. Maybe he didn’t. There’s enough uncertainty in the situation that the man’s running away, in and of itself, does not justify the public execution.
3. Since he could have been detained outside the Tube, it is difficult to understand why lethal force was necessary inside the Tube. If he was perceived to be so dangerous, he should have been detained before he entered the tube. If not, then lethal force was not warranted.
This is, of course, Monday morning quarterbacking. It is difficult, though, to reconcile the actions of the undercover police outside the Tube, with their action inside the Tube.
ultraloser,
Are you sure that the police managed to successfully tail him all the way to the tube station? Are you sure that the tail detail was in effective communication with the undercover cops in the tube station who eventually shot and killed him?
There are so many possibilities and no way for us to (at this point) distinguish between them that we have a choice. We can either give the British undercover police in question the benefit of the doubt or not. If we do, fine. The situation can still be investigated…but in the mean time security is not compromised by potentially false claims against the cops.
If we choose to not give the cops the benefit of the doubt, then not only do you compromise security (by making other police officers less likely to shoot an actual terrorist), but you also imply that the cops shot this guy out of some evil racially motivated hatred…or something along those lines.
I say, give them the benefit of the doubt, continue to protect British citizens and, of course, get to the bottom of what went wrong.
(note: By ‘you’ I do not mean ‘you in particular’ =)).
I guess ten years of ‘Cops’ has made the notion of ‘stop when the police say ‘halt’’ more acceptable to Americans than the British.
Perhaps the remaining members of Monty Python’s Flying Circus could help by putting on some amusing Public Service Announcement style skits. These skits could entertain and inform the citizenry on what to do in the event a policeman says ‘halt!’ For example:
John Cleese, upon hearing ‘Halt’ begins walking away in a silly manner. He’s shot dead.
John Cleese, different clothes, upon hearing ‘Halt’ begins walking away in a different silly manner. He’s shot dead.
John Cleese, in yet another set of clothes, hears ‘Halt!’ and walks away in yet another silly manner. He’s shot dead.
~ and now for something completely different ~
John Cleese hears ‘halt’. He stops. And is swarmed by a half dozen scantily clad female bobbies.
Closeup of John Cleese smiling.
Fade to black … loud explosion after it fades … iris open, John Cleese saying ‘Just Kidding’ … iris out.
Tom,
My remarks only assume that Steyn’s version of the facts are accurate. If he has the facts right, then as I said before, it is difficult to reconcile the actions of the undercover police outside the Tube, with their actions inside the Tube.
With respect to giving the police the benefit of the doubt in a public execution:
1. That is OK, but in so doing, we are effectively ceding civil liberties. Perhaps that is what we want to do, but it can be a slippery slope, and warrants some discussion.
2. I don’t see how raising the question about what happened here implies evil intent on the part of the UK police, or racial hatred. You lost me on that leap.
ultraloser,
I guess I was leaping a bit, from what you said…and I definitely wasn’t try to imply that you would conclude that the cops were acting out of some sort of racism.
I’m not sure that stopping when a police officer says “Halt!” is paramount to ceding civil liberties. So long as a police officer has reason to suspect that you are involved in, or guilty of, a crime s/he can arrest you…which starts with you stopping on command. Now, if the police (or any individual police officer) starting running around yelling “Halt!” just for fun, then we’ve got a problem…but one that can be dealt with.
I, for one, will strongly consider halting when ordered to by someone identifying himself as a police officer. Further, I will most likely not try to jump the turnstile and/or otherwise implicitly or explicitly threaten a recently attacked structure, area or concept and will not consider it an infringement on my civil liberties.
Tom,
Ceding to the police the power to summarily execute someone in the field that they suspect is a terrorist is the civil liberties impact with which I am concerned.
Perhaps that is the right course of action. I would be interested to hear the pros and cons on that issue.
So it’s the ‘shoot to kill’ policy that you’re concerned with? Understandable.
My view, in short, is that any shoot to kill policy is necessary, in some instances, to protect innocent people from being slaughtered when a real and specific threat exists against a potential target.
An analogy.
The President of the US is considered by our Secret Service to be a target 24/7, right? What happen if I approached the President with a large coat in the middle of summer and refused to stop after being told to “Halt!”? I would be shot multiple times in the head, that’s what.
The London police were instructed (rightly, I think) to consider the tube system to be a target 24/7 and, as such, the policy of shoot to kill was implemented to ‘ensure’ (as much as possible) that no more bombs were going to go off.
As the specific issue in your first paragraph, they did not “summarily execute” someone they suspected of being a terrorist. They “summarily executed” someone who acted exactly like (in my opinion) a reasonable person would expected a terrorist to act.
Just my $0.02
Tom,
Your analogy is imperfect. This would be a more accurate analogy: the secret service had reason to suspect that you intended an assassination, had followed you to the White House, had let you get close to the President, and then shot you five times in the head. Reasonable people could question the propriety of their actions.
With respect to this comment:
You are mincing words here. The Brazilian was only suspected of being a terrorist. The fact that he fit a profile of a terrorist should not necessarily have condemned him to execution.
I am all for profiling from a prophylatic standpoint – at airport checkpoints, for example. But I am concerned about ceding to the police, as the UK apparently has done, the right to be judge, jury and executioner based on profiling.
Ultraloser —
I’d say the important difference is that this particular suspect tried to flee into the Tube, wearing what he was wearing. I’m not sure he is summarily executed otherwise.
Seems to me it was like a perfect storm of unlikely coincidences—along with the decision to flee the police in the wake of terrorist attacks—that doomed this man.
From what I understand at this point.
Jeff,
Still, the root of the tragedy is the (apparent) UK police policy that permits lethal force based upon profiling.
Are you OK with that policy? As I said, it would be interesting to hear the arguments, pro and con.
ultraloser,
Ok, your analogy is fine except that you might want to add the possibility that the Secret Police were watching me but at some point lost track of me. The next time I turned up I was moving towards the President, etc.
As Jeff points out, the fact is they did not walk up to a Brazilian guy with a big coat on the street and shoot him in the head. They did so while he was running towards the tube.
The main ‘pro’ is that, had the Brazilian been a terrorist, innocent people would have been saved.
The main ‘con’ is that since the Brazilian was not a terrorist, an (apparently) innocent man died. I am not, however, prepared to label this guy innocent because he very well could have already succeeded in a mission. His mission could very well have been to be shot while unarmed (and unwired) to make it more difficult for the police to stop the next bad guy.
You’ll have to explain to me how Operation Kratos is based on profiling, unless the profiling you’re talking about is the profile of how terrorists act; this guy lived at an address found on in the rucksack of the bombers, then, from there, acted in a way the police anticipated a terrorist might act—from the clothes to the destination to the fleeing—and they shot him in such a way that he wouldn’t be able act.
One of the pros of this is, for time being, at least, it will be more difficult to blow up the Tube; similarly, terrorists now know the police aren’t fucking around. The major drawback is that such a policy leaves no room for error—and can result in the death of a non-terrorist. But as I say, I think the mistakes we can identify in retrospect were the result of a perfect storm of coincidences.
Jeff,
Well, yes, that is exactly the type of profiling I mean. Leaving aside the particulars of this case, it would facilitate the discussion if we could agree that the UK police apparently have a policy that permits the use of lethal force based on terrorist profiling. Is that policy a good idea?
Perhaps that policy will have a deterrent effect, as you suggest. Perhaps not, though, since by definition the threat of death would do little to deter a suicide bomber.
Perhaps that policy will prevent some actual attacks, which is inarguably a good result.
On the other side, the concept of innocent until proven guilty and other civil rights will have suffered major erosion. The policy is obviously subject to abuse. We have proof that apparently innocent people will be killed under that policy.
Civil rights are essentially a balancing between individual rights and collective security. I am not sure that I am prepared to sign on to the idea that police should be empowered to use lethal force based on profiling.
John Howard recently remarked that no self-respecting government would allow terrorists to set foreign policy. The case could be made that terrorism also should not set our policy with respect to civil rights.
Any police officer, at any time, can and will kill you based on what I would call criminal profiling. If you appear to threaten a police officer’s life, you will die. Hence, ‘suicide by cop’. The fact that you were just making a gun shape under your coat using your fingers does not mean that the cops were wrong to shoot you.
I would argue that this (dead) guy in London did an analogous thing. He appeared to have a bomb and directly threatened not only the lives of the police present, but also the lives of civilians in the station and on the train.
I wouldn’t consider what the police did as mere ‘profiling’, which (I think) suggests the lack of action on the part of the profiled.
This all open to interpretation and reasonable people can disagree. As an aside, I would like to mention that I am very glad this discussion has remained reasonable and friendly. Too often people fly off the handle. Here’s to at least keep the handle in sight!
Tom,
If a person appears to present an actual threat based upon his actions and the existing circumstances – your gun shape in the coat example – then certainly lethal force is authorized and warranted.
From what I understand in this case, though, the Brazilian only fit a profile of how a terrorist might act, not that he was actually threatening to blow up a bomb, etc.
For me, this is a distinction with a difference. It is one thing to use lethal force against an overt threat, even if that threat turns out to be just a finger in a coat. It is another matter altogether that would suggest that lethal force could be used solely on the basis that an individual’s actions fit a terrorist profile. Profiles are simply tools used to identify potential threats for further scrutiny, but in my opinion should not be a basis for lethal force in the absence of something more.
Perhaps there was something more here, but the reports suggest not, and the remarks of the police chief suggest that the terrorist profile itself is enough to warrant lethal force by the police in the UK.
I completely agree with you insofar as a profile (lacking a perceived overt threat) should not be used as justification for killing someone.
I disagree with what I think is your view of what actually went down. I think that the police were correct in seeing the now-dead-guy as overtly threatening them in the same sense as the finger-under-the-coat scenario. Even if he was not fumbling around under his coat (a la attempting to set off a bomb) I still think that jumping the turnstile and running for the train is enough simply because there is no absolute need for him to reach under his coat to set off the bomb (it could have been on a timer or even remotely detonated by a ‘buddy’
.
So, I think we’re actually in agreement regarding 1) the definition of profiling and 2) what constitutes a situation in which the police are justified in shooting to kill.
The disagreement seems to be based more on whether or not the specific actions of the now-dead-guy actually added up to something that would make a reasonable person perceive an immediate threat. Which is fine, considering that neither of us were there.
If I’m off as to your position, please straighten me out. Gently =)
Tom, that’s a good recap.
It’s instructive, I think, to pop out of the particulars of this case and consider the issue in the abstract, which is what I intend to do.
I appreciate the dialogue. You too, Jeff, and thanks for providing the forum.
1). I’m saying that his entering the Tube was one of the reasons the police thought he might be carrying out a suicide bombing, and that since it was only after it was apparent he was entering the Tube that the police thought that, I can understand why they were not able to try and subdue him before he entered the Tube.
It looks like the only clue the police had was an address. They put it under surveillance in an attempt to find terrorists. They could either stop everyone who comes out the door and tip off the terrorists, or they could simply watch them for suspicious activity, which in this case they found only after he headed for the Tube.
2) It depends on what you mean by “justify”. I don’t think he deserved to die, or that running away from police deserves capital punishment. I do think that from the POV of the police, it is exactly the same behavior you would expect from a terrorist. And so far I think they were justified, in this case, and with all the mitigating factors, in treating this as a possible terrorist attack. If they were to run into the same situation (some reports say they have 2 other addresses under surveillance), then I think they should behave in the same way.
3) see 1).
I’ve been going off of these reports of the incident, which admittedly may turn out to be inaccurate:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004600000-2005330912,00.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15770559&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=gun-cops-kill-man-on-tube---but-he-had-no-bomb-name_page.html
Sorry for screwing up the margins.