home

A Casualty of the War on Terror

By TChris, Section War on Terror
Posted on Wed Aug 17, 2005 at 07:00:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

New details are emerging regarding the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian who British police misidentified as a terrorist.

Leaked documents, believed to be from the IPCC inquiry suggest Mr de Menezes was sitting calmly in the Tube carriage, surrounded by surveillance officers, moments before police stormed in and fired eight bullets into him.

The Police Commissioner reportedly tried to subvert an independent inquiry into the shooting, arguing that the law requiring the inquiry should give way to the interests of national security. The Brazilian's family wants answers that the inquiry could reveal, including "who issued the shoot-to-kill order and who incorrectly identified him as one of the suspected would-be bombers from the failed attacks on July 21."

< Ohio Governor Taft Charged With Four Misdemeanors | Post-Booker Sentencing Tips >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Casualty of the War on Terror | 26 comments (26 topical)
    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#1)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:27 PM EST
    At the risk of linkwhoring, I posted excerpts with my translations of articles in the Brazilian media about the latest here.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#2)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:27 PM EST
    Link is fixed here.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    What a surprise, the London cops lie just like the LAPD cops. This was an execution with no evidence, no 'bulky jacket', no 'hop the turnstile', no reason at all to murder a person. They grabbed him, held him immobile and pumped 7 rounds in his head. Exercise: If you are a cop, justify shooting an innocent person and then lying about it. For extra credit: Justify shooting a baby as long as her Dad is holding her while he shoots at you. (P.S. You must be Marksman qualified and a member of the LAPD SWAT gang.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Yes and here's to racial profiling:
    In all eleven shots were fired. Three missed. Police believed that De Menezes could have been Hussain Osman. Both are pictured below.
    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#5)
    by kipling on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Some intelligent questions raised on this issue by Xymphora, here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Of particular interest (I thought) is the suggestion that the assassination was planned on a patsy in order to create fear and terror in the hearts of Britain's minorities. Terrorism, in a word.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#6)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Problem is, all the inital reports said the guy ran. Problem is, he was in the country illegally, so he had a reason to fear the police. Sympathy for the family, but that's it. Let's have an investigation, but my money is on the police in this case.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    They killed him, and then they tried to lie to cover it up. Investigation over.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    He wasn't in the country illegally. He had at the very least, a student visa. His family claims he had renewed whatever necessary to continue to work. Besides - ya freak.
    As relatives and friends struggled to understand why Menezes would have run from the police, Straw and Amorim both said they understood the Brazilian electrician, who friends say had been in the country for three years, was living legally in the country....The Home Office has declined to comment on his immigration status.
    That's Jack Straw, the U.K. Foreign Secretary. And - even if he was, so what? He was on his way TO WORK. He wasn't doing what the police said he was doing nor who they defined him as being - a terrorist with an attached bomb. THE U.K. POLICE LIED. As outlined in the Scotsman:
    Key points • Leaked documents claim suspect was not running away when shot • Earlier claims on suspect's dress and vaulting of barrier also challenged • Revelations will add to embarrassment of Met Police over killing
    The issue is NOT whether he was in the country (UK) illegally. The issue is the poilce chased him down & killed him for absolutely no reason. Then lied to cover it up, to justify this man's murder.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#9)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Kitt - Read the link. It wasn't renewed. Plus, it couldn't have been renewed because he wasn't a student, he was an electrician. The root cause of this is that he was an illegal immigrant. He didn't belong in London. Sympathy, yes. Outrage, no. When you play in the traffic don't be surprised if a truck runs over you.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#10)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    It now appears that the guy was just gunned down like a dog, is that not insane?, "its england not L.A.," or mexico city, How sad the family need's a-lot of money from that system, see that is the only way you can stop people like the cops from just shooting down people like this poor fool. but when i saw this on the news i was like many people and said he had it coming, so i am also a fool along with millions of other's, let us all stop being fools and see it for what it see.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    "The root cause of this is that he was an illegal immigrant. He didn't belong in London." The root cause!? How is this man the root cause? Of what? Being in London? Being killed by the police? Being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    The root cause of this is that he was an illegal immigrant. He didn't belong in London. This started with the bombings in London on 7/7. It did not start with Jean Charles de Menezes. He is not the root cause. He does not matter whether he was there illegally or legally. If he was, he was. His student visa had expired and his family has stated they thought he had submitted for a worker's permit. He's not like he was HIDING. He was employed under his real name. As stated in the link and in the comment I provided [if you had read it]
    "As relatives and friends struggled to understand why Menezes would have run from the police, Straw and Amorim both said they understood the Brazilian electrician, who friends say had been in the country for three years, was living legally in the country....The Home Office has declined to comment on his immigration status.
    I reminded you Jack Straw is the UK Foreign Secretary. His status as a foreign national is irrelevant. You may think it is; it isn't. This is not about Jean Charles de Menezes' status. It's about the police killing someone (perhaps deliberately) then LYING in order to cover up & getting caught.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Thanks PPJ for leaking one of Bush's new reelection pledges; at least someone has their ear to the ground. Shoot on sight, all illegal immigrants. By then all citizens will have a scannable status chip implanted in their neck. All dissenters and illegals will be re... Oh that pesky 22 ammendment is over...overwhelming bipatisan vote.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#14)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Wow. Suspected illegal immigrant status is grounds for execution without trial by jury? Is that what you mean Jim?

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    An unjustifiable murder in my opinion. Fear of a terror attack is not justification for the murder of innocent people, unless your name is George Bush.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#16)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Kitt - Don't be obtuse. The root cause of his death was his illegal presence in London, which caused him to run. Johnny - Don't be even more obtuse, if possible, than Kitt. Squeaky - Don't be even more obtuse than Johnny and Kitt. Or do you not know that Bush isn't running for re-election? Oh wait... I didn't see how he was going to seize the country. Zounds! To the ramparts!

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#17)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Jim, Learn to read before you spew. HE DIDN'T RUN AWAY. But that was a report from the officers involved. What do they know? How much are they paying you to regurgitate this cud, bossie?

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    He WASN'T running. He was sitting in a seat and one cop grabbed him from behind while another executed him. He didn't run. He wasn't wearing a 'bulky jacket'. He didn't jump the turnstile. He wasn't connected to terrorism. He didn't act suspiciously. He bought a newspaper before sitting down on the train and then was executed by the cops. Since the cops lied about everything else, I wouldn't be too quick to believe that he was there illegally.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#19)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Kitt - Don't be obtuse. The root cause of his death was his illegal presence in London, which caused him to run.
    Jim: I'm not going back & forth on this; it's not a back & forth issue. This is what I mean about taking something meaningless and deliberately throwing it out & around. It's not to stimulate conversation; it's to inflame. Jean Charles de Menezes is not responsible for his death. Whether he was in country illegally or legally is irrelevant. He was not running when the police caught up to him; he was sitting down as one does as a passenger on public transport. He had nothing to hide from the police. He had a job in which he was employed under his name, Jean Charles de Menezes. What's to hide? Simply put: The police got caught!

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    (com)Posted by Jim: "Problem is, all the inital reports said the guy ran." Yeah, the guy ran...when his train came in. The overzealous and probably racist overreaction of that officer or group of officers is no longer covered up. They had trained on a maneuver, and then they carried it out, which is to be expected, and is something more to blame Blair for. The LAPD case is NOTHING LIKE THIS CASE. A hostage crisis with a gunman threatening his family for hours, followed by a shooting incident in which SWAT accidentally killed an infant in a shooter's arms is nothing like murdering a guy because 'they all look the same.'

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#21)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Obtuse? What part of my statement do you disagree with Jim? I simply put your thoughts into terms everyone can understand. let me rephrase it. "Electrician (rightfully), summarily executed for being brown." Better? Everyone feel safer? Jim, you put your foot in your mouth on this one, that guy was murdered for the crime of being brown. Period. The cops had no way of knowing he was an immigrant, much less an illegal, until after they murdered him. THAT is why it is irrelevent to this case. Get it?

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Apparently the 'Jim posting' is only designed to introduce unsupported doubts and derrail the discussion, if possible. If there is a reasoned response, time to move on. Unlatched tailgate swings, Radioactive waste spills. wheels spin, tail-lights fade.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    The story has moved on some what in the UK. The inquiry was not formally handed over to the IPCC until five days after the Brazilian was shot dead by police at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July. The argument between the Met and IPCC over the investigation and the missing CCTV evidence all points at this execution being the work of the SAS.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#24)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Hmmm..
    On the day of the shooting, a Scotland Yard spokesman had said that Mr Menezes' "clothing and his behaviour at the station added to [the officers'] suspicions".... But investigation papers, leaked to ITV News, suggest the Brazilian electrician was wearing a denim jacket and walked into the station, picked up a free newspaper, walked through ticket barriers and started to run only when he saw a train arriving....The documents contradict initial eyewitness reports suggesting Mr Menezes had hurdled a barrier at Stockwell Tube station and was wearing a padded jacket....Mr Menezes' "tragic" death had to be seen in the context of what was "the largest criminal inquiry in English history", Sir Ian told the programme. "It is one death out of 57."
    One death out of 57. 56 of whom were not hunted down & murdered by the police. That picture leaked as well, in which Mr Menezes is shown on the floor of the tube car, it certainly looks as though he's wearing either a shirt or very lightweight jacket.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#25)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Kitt writes:
    Jean Charles de Menezes is not responsible for his death. Whether he was in country illegally or legally is irrelevant.
    Sorry Kitt, but it is very relevant. He was there illegally. When he saw the police he panicked and ran.

    Re: A Casualty of the War on Terror (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    PPJ- haven't you heard. 22nd ammendment is history. Bush will run again with his mom against Bill and Hillary. Oh, and National ID Cards are an outdated concept from the 80's (like Roberts). Get that spot in your neck shaved and ready. The ID/Tracking Chip will tested on government workers and Vets before implantation is required by all US residents.

    A Casualty of the War on Terror | 26 comments (26 topical)