More on Terrorism Hysteria II
The story about the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes by London police just keeps getting worse. This from The Guardian [UK] ("New claims emerge over Menezes death "):
It has now emerged that Mr de Menezes:
- was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;
- was unaware he was being followed;
- was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;
- never ran from the police;
- and did not jump the ticket barrier.
But the revelation that will prove most uncomfortable for Scotland Yard was that the 27-year-old electrician had already been restrained by a surveillance officer before being shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.
Avedon Carol summarizes the situation like this:
So let's recap: A Caucasian man is minding his own business, leaves his home for work, catches a bus, uses his Oyster card to get to a train platform, gets on a train, and gets killed. Let's see what excuses the shoot-to-kill right-wingers have for that.
Back in the just-post-9/11 days, Isaac had occasion to talk with a stranger about recent anti-terrorism policies, extraordinary government powers, the Patriot Act, and the encroachment that the fear and hysteria lead to upon civil liberties — liberties that can take lifetimes to accomplish but only moments to see them taken away.
This man was a father of a small girl. His dismissive summary of any concerns over a reduction in his liberty was "if it helps make her safer, I'm all for it."
I have two objections. Even if it "makes her safer" I wouldn't want to rush to judgement that all these immediate, ill-considered responses in the name of fighting terrorism are going to help accomplish that.
The second objection, of course, is that very few of these reductions in civil liberties actually do make us any safer. For all those who would have Mr. Menezes not murdered in vain by hysterical London police, I'd like that to be the lesson we learn.