The Security State's precautionary principle
Another day, another innocent guy shot by cops in London, without warning. At least he's still alive, so compared to the Brazilian guy Jean Charles de Menezez who was executed at point-blank range on the Tube, he can count himself lucky. The cops and spooks, including chem and biowarfare spooks from Porton Down, the UK's own WMD factory (but like, hey, you can trust us), haven't found even a microscopic particle of incriminating material at the house they stormed. The cops are now spinning that their "intelligence" (such a posh term for the uncorroborated word of a nark) was wrong, although to save face they're still holding the two brothers they nicked in the raid under the Terrorism Act, in the hope that they'll find something to pin on them, perhaps an immigration infringement or an overdue library book.
There are two disturbing aspects of this, other than the pretty disturbing fact that some poor bastard was shot in his own home at four in the morning. The first is the spin that the cops and the State are putting on the raid, basically saying that they had to shoot first and ask questions later 'just in case':
This basically gives the cops and spooks carte blanche to do what they want, without fear of comeback. The killers of Jean Charles, and their commanders, will never be held to account for his execution, and neither will the cop who shot Mohammed Kahar. If there's any hint of a suggestion of the possibility of them being held to account, the armed cops will just down tools as they did when too many questions were asked about the Harry Stanley killing, and they'll get their way because the Security State needs them. After all, it's crucial for 'morale' that cops shouldn't have to 'look over their shoulders' before pulling the trigger in case they might be held to account for their actions, as that might induce 'hesitancy' and 'weakness' at the crucial moment. And we couldn't be doing with that, eh? Perish the thort.
The other disturbing, but unsurprising, aspect of the raid was the media reaction. The barking and sewer Press went over the top and judged the two brothers guilty from the start, but even the broadcast media accepted the Security State story at face value and ran lurid 'what if' stories about the devastation a chemical weapon would cause at a football match (allegedly the brothers were plotting to explode a chemical device at the Ingerlan-Jamaica game). Only after two days of fruitless searching of the raided house did a note of scepticism appear in media reports.
Of course, this is not unrelated to the brothers being non-white and Muslim. Much of the barking and sewer Press will take the view that, even if they hadn't been plotting any attack, by being Muslim they were "sympathetic" to fundie terrorism, and were thus guilty of complicity. This is the attitude so well demonstrated during the 70s and early 80s, the height of the IRA terror campaign on the mainland, when cops routinely raided Irish communities, and arrested and beat the crap out of Irish people on the vaguest suspicion of involvement in terrorism. Often, it was enough to be in favour of a united Ireland and thus be a "Republican sympathiser" for you to be picked up by the cops and given the treatment. The media was similarly silent in those days, tacitly (sometimes not so tacitly) approving the State tactic of surveilling and hassling Irish communities, on the grounds that the Micks were guilty of something, if only of being "sympathetic" to the IRA. Micks and Paddies didn't count as real humans in those days (not like today, when being Irish is way cool, everyone flies Ryanair, and Dublin is hip and happening) so anything went.
The same is happening to Muslims these days - if any bearded towelhead gets whacked by the cops then WTF, he was guilty of summat, as anyone who "sympathises" with terrorism is nearly as guilty as the actual terrorists, for "sympathisers" provide, to use the Mao metaphor, the sea in which the terrorist fish swim, so the Security State needs to drain the sea to leave the terrs high and dry. Of course, such repression is a self-fulfilling prophecy, generating the very sympathy for political violence that the repression is designed to eliminate, but the Security State won't give a fuck about that - the higher the level of paranoia and the greater the 'need' for surveillance, the more funding and power the 'security services' get. And by definition a strong 'security service' is needed to guard "our cherished freedoms" (TM), so the stronger it gets the more protected and free we are, and a few stiffs is a reasonable price to pay for "public safety" and "security".
[1] "Police had 'no choice' over terror raid", Guardian, 5/6/06
[2] "Blair defends police decision on terror raid", Guardian, 7/6/06
There are two disturbing aspects of this, other than the pretty disturbing fact that some poor bastard was shot in his own home at four in the morning. The first is the spin that the cops and the State are putting on the raid, basically saying that they had to shoot first and ask questions later 'just in case':
-----Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, the force's head of specialist operations, said police had been given "specific intelligence" about the address in Forest Gate, east London.
He would not disclose what the information related to, when it had been received or whether it had originated from the police or the security services.
"It is very important that I emphasise the police did receive specific intelligence," he said. "We were left with no choice but to act upon that intelligence. Public safety was our top priority." [1]
Tony Blair yesterday defended the police decision to raid an east London house after receiving intelligence that a chemical device might be stored there for use in a terrorist attack. [...]This line amounts to a precautionary principle for the Security State, and essentially means that any action is justified because of the possible terrible consequences of inaction. The State is taking the view, standard amongst other Security States in the world, that "public safety" trumps any considerations of individual rights. This is a very dangerous line, as it means that any action whatsoever is justified in the interests of "public safety". By holding up the 7th July 2005 terrorist massacre on the Tube as an example of what happens if terrorists aren't stopped beforehand, any considerations of individual liberty, or of any rights to not be, say, arbitrarily shot or locked up without charge, are completely overruled, for what value an individual over the tens or hundreds of people who would be killed or injured in a terrorist attack. The chances of the individual being guilty of plotting terrorism might be 1 in a 100, but are we prepared to take that 1% risk when the consequences would be so horrendous? All very regrettable that an innocent guy got shot, the barking Press will opine (though not as regrettable as it'd be were the shot person white and English), but that's war for you - innocent people get hurt.
Mr Blair said: "I support the police 101% - and the security services. I think if they have a reasonable piece of intelligence and they believe they have got to investigate - take action on - they should."You can only imagine if they fail to take action and something terrible happened what the outcry would be then, so they are in an impossible situation." [2]
This basically gives the cops and spooks carte blanche to do what they want, without fear of comeback. The killers of Jean Charles, and their commanders, will never be held to account for his execution, and neither will the cop who shot Mohammed Kahar. If there's any hint of a suggestion of the possibility of them being held to account, the armed cops will just down tools as they did when too many questions were asked about the Harry Stanley killing, and they'll get their way because the Security State needs them. After all, it's crucial for 'morale' that cops shouldn't have to 'look over their shoulders' before pulling the trigger in case they might be held to account for their actions, as that might induce 'hesitancy' and 'weakness' at the crucial moment. And we couldn't be doing with that, eh? Perish the thort.
The other disturbing, but unsurprising, aspect of the raid was the media reaction. The barking and sewer Press went over the top and judged the two brothers guilty from the start, but even the broadcast media accepted the Security State story at face value and ran lurid 'what if' stories about the devastation a chemical weapon would cause at a football match (allegedly the brothers were plotting to explode a chemical device at the Ingerlan-Jamaica game). Only after two days of fruitless searching of the raided house did a note of scepticism appear in media reports.
Of course, this is not unrelated to the brothers being non-white and Muslim. Much of the barking and sewer Press will take the view that, even if they hadn't been plotting any attack, by being Muslim they were "sympathetic" to fundie terrorism, and were thus guilty of complicity. This is the attitude so well demonstrated during the 70s and early 80s, the height of the IRA terror campaign on the mainland, when cops routinely raided Irish communities, and arrested and beat the crap out of Irish people on the vaguest suspicion of involvement in terrorism. Often, it was enough to be in favour of a united Ireland and thus be a "Republican sympathiser" for you to be picked up by the cops and given the treatment. The media was similarly silent in those days, tacitly (sometimes not so tacitly) approving the State tactic of surveilling and hassling Irish communities, on the grounds that the Micks were guilty of something, if only of being "sympathetic" to the IRA. Micks and Paddies didn't count as real humans in those days (not like today, when being Irish is way cool, everyone flies Ryanair, and Dublin is hip and happening) so anything went.
The same is happening to Muslims these days - if any bearded towelhead gets whacked by the cops then WTF, he was guilty of summat, as anyone who "sympathises" with terrorism is nearly as guilty as the actual terrorists, for "sympathisers" provide, to use the Mao metaphor, the sea in which the terrorist fish swim, so the Security State needs to drain the sea to leave the terrs high and dry. Of course, such repression is a self-fulfilling prophecy, generating the very sympathy for political violence that the repression is designed to eliminate, but the Security State won't give a fuck about that - the higher the level of paranoia and the greater the 'need' for surveillance, the more funding and power the 'security services' get. And by definition a strong 'security service' is needed to guard "our cherished freedoms" (TM), so the stronger it gets the more protected and free we are, and a few stiffs is a reasonable price to pay for "public safety" and "security".
[1] "Police had 'no choice' over terror raid", Guardian, 5/6/06
[2] "Blair defends police decision on terror raid", Guardian, 7/6/06
posted by Fred at 1:14 PM
0 comments
links to this post
