No threat
What the fuck?The surveillance team following Jean de Menezes didnt' think he was a risk.
So the intelligence officers on the ground thought he was not carrying a bomb, was not acting suspiciously and was not dangerous.
So why was he murdered?
Did some gungho fucker just waste him? Was the shooting even authorised? If it was, why was it?
Why did a death squad murder a man who the intelligence officers on the scene judged not to be a threat? If the surveillance team says that de Menezes posed no threat, there must be murder charges. We cannot let terrorism turn our nations into police states.
Already, there is talk here about increased security: stop-searches, detentions, who knows what else? It's manna from heaven for the racists in the Australian government. They look with glee at UK legislation allowing the government to clamp down on free speech. How long before we're having trials for "UnAustralian activities". They would if they thought they could get away with it.
I have a question for Commissioner Blair. If you're so certain that your policy of shooting to kill is effective terrorism, how come you didn't manage to shoot any of the men involved in either bombing, but did manage to execute a man who committed no crime, had no links to terror, and, it now is revealed, was simply catching his morning train to work?
posted by Dr Zen @ 11:56 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home