(no subject)
Jun. 12th, 2006 11:02 am
Vaguely alleged terrorist Abul Koyair, apparently underwater
Ah, the sounds of an English summer. The drone of excuses, the smack of truncheon on Muslim. “Nobody identified themselves as police as they stormed in wearing terrifying black hoods and started bashing them over the head,” says the lawyer for the men who were attacked by officers acting on “specific intelligence”. This last phrase is routinely used so reverently you’d think the speaker had just found the mummified remains of Christ, as if the police’s intelligence-gathering hadn’t been exposed as effectively fucking useless in last summer’s hilarious south London romp. (“Sir, we’ve shot a Brazilian in Stockwell.” “Oh my God, how many’s a Brazillion?”, etc.)
The question isn’t “Why did they shoot?” but “Who had convinced them they were about to face down swivel-eyed terrorists in the first place?” Where are they getting this duff intelligence from? I’d really like to think that there's good work going on that we don’t hear about, actual intelligence being acted on and dealt with quietly, but high-profile all-guns-blazing actions like this that produce no results don’t inspire confidence.
The ex-commander of the Met Flying Squad said he thought the raid was “very unprofessional... If you’re going to mount an operation like this, you want to have enough evidence to charge people with a criminal conspiracy... You don’t go in on the speculation that you might find the product.” If the Sweeney is telling you you’re being too eager and heavy-handed, you might be due a rethink.
Does the fact that Mohammed Kahar was shot in the shoulder indicate crap marksmanship or a deliberate shift in policy? And if he had died, would we now be facing another sorry round of “the dog ate my homework” from Special Branch?
( Leaked official report damns Met bosses for de Menezes shooting )
