London Police Lie about Brazilian's Death

Why was it so easy to kill Jean Charles de Menezes in London? Why did London police so easily think he was a terrorist? Was is because he was not white? The department's lies make the death of Menezes even more horrific.


link to editorial on Menezes' death from the London Guardian

Menezes: Did the police lie?

By Mark Hughes, Crime correspondent
London Independent
Saturday, 13 December 2008

Jean Charles de Menezes was not lawfully killed as part of an anti-terrorist operation, a jury decided yesterday, rejecting the police account of how the Brazilian died as not to be trusted.

Returning an open verdict at the end of the 12-week inquest, the jurors contradicted evidence given by seven firearms and surveillance officers when they answered a series of 13 questions put to them by the coroner.

In particular, they said they refused to believe that the first officer to open fire, codenamed C12, had shouted a warning of "armed police" first. They also rejected the officer's claim that the Brazilian had walked towards him.

Mr de Menezes died on 22 July 2005 aged 27, after police mistook him for a terrorist and shot him seven times in the head. The coroner, Sir Michael Wright, had already stopped the jury from returning a verdict of unlawful killing, leaving open and lawful killing verdicts as the only possibilities...more

Fear is Contagious Too

How long will we stay afraid? The last eight years have put us in a mode of fear. We drive to the airport and there is a big sign that says "terror alert" - usually it has been yellow, but now we are being told it could go up. The Mumbai incident makes people more afraid. Just remember that fear is contagious


America, cowering to an imaginary enemy, is not the country I once knew

Like McCarthy, Bush relied on a synthesised climate of fear. Obama inherits a nation that sees al-Qaida fiends at all turns

by Simon Jenkins in New York
London Guardian
December 5, 2008

America seems much in need of Roosevelt's maxim to stop fearing fear itself. Virtually all comment on the Mumbai massacre has mentioned 9/11 and al-Qaida, and thus invited citizens to continue feeling afraid. No matter that Mumbai appears to have been primarily about Kashmir and the status of India's Muslims. No matter that Osama bin Laden has no dog in that fight. Any stick will do to elevate al-Qaida as America's enemy number one.

Last week, the CIA warned of a terrorist threat that "might be unleashed" during the presidential transition, a threat that George Bush described as "dangerously real". On Wednesday Barack Obama was formally told by a congressional inquiry that "it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction, either nuclear or biological, will be used in a terrorist attack" in his first year of office. The inquiry demanded that an official must be appointed "to oversee efforts to prevent such an attack", as if millions of Americans in and out of uniform were not doing that already...more

link to cartoon

Mumbai part I

A few days ago I had a long conversation with an old friend. She is someone I respect and care deeply about. Yet, in our conversation she told me that she was concerned about the growing Muslim influence in this country, and that she was sure Obama was Muslim - that he had stated so in an interview with Bill Riley.

I asked her what was wrong with the U.S. having more Muslims. She said the U.S. is a Christian country and that it needs to keep mosques out so it can stay Christian.

Now with the attacks in Mumbai, there will be more hatred unleashed against Muslims. A note of warning for media outlets...not all Muslims are terrorists.

---and not all violence is about religion or about South Asia. The attack on the most affluent center of Mumbai, that is mostly frequented by Westerners is a telling reminder that the attack is also on the West... as stated in one newspaper article, the gunmen were looking for American and U.K. passports... The timing is also interesting, being between the U.S. election and inauguration of our new President. Didn't someone say that it was a vulnerable time for the U.S.?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/28/nyt/index.html

Salon.com on Mumbai November 28, 2008 ...[A] heinous though typical pro-coup, government-mimicking NYT Editorial was written in April, 2002 -- just months after the 9/11 attacks, when the extremism and mindless submission to Government authority that would grip this country for the next several years was still rumbling towards it peak. The terrorist attacks in India this week serve as a critical reminder of how easily those forces are unleashed. Any decent, civilized person watching scenes in Mumbai of extremists shooting indiscriminate machine gun fire and launching grenades into civilians crowds -- deliberately slaughtering innocent people by the dozens -- is going to feel disgust, fury, and a desire for vengeance against the perpetrators, regardless of what precipitated it. The temptation is great even among the most rational to empower authority to do anything and everything -- without limits -- to punish those responsible and prevent repeat occurrences. That's a natural, even understandable, response. And it's the response that the attackers hope to provoke. It's that temptation to which most Americans -- and our leading media institutions -- succumbed in the wake of 9/11, and it's exactly the reaction that's most self-destructive. As documented by this superb Washington Post Op-Ed today from Dileep Padgaonkar, former editor of the Times of India, the Indian Government -- in response to prior terrorist attacks -- has been employing tactics all-too-familiar to Americans: "terrorism suspects have been picked up at random and denied legal rights"; "allegations of torture by police are routine"; "suspects have been held for years as their court cases have dragged on. Convictions have been few and far between"; Muslims and Hindus are subjected to vastly disparate treatment; and much of the most consequential actions take place in secrecy, shielded from public view, debate or accountability. As Padgaonkar details, many of these measures, particularly in the wake of new terrorist attacks, are emotionally satisfying, yet they do little other than exacerbate the problem, spawn further extremism and resentment, and massively increase the likelihood of further and more reckless attacks -- thereby fueling this cycle endlessly -- all while degrading the very institutions and values that are ostensibly being defended. The greater one's physical or emotional proximity to the attacks, the greater is the danger that one will seek excessively to empower and submit to government authority and cheer for destructive counter-measures which allow few, if any, limits. What happened in the U.S. over the last eight years is about much, much more than what "the Bush administration" did. It begins there, but responsibility in the post 9/11-era is much more diffuse and collective than that. Shoveling it all off on the administration that is leaving, while exonerating our culpable media and political institutions that remain, isn't merely historically inaccurate and unfair, though it is that. Allowing that revisionism also ensures that the critical lessons that ought to be learned will instead be easily and quickly forgotten when similar episodes occur here in the future. -- Glenn Greenwald

Mumbai part II

The New York Times says the death toll is now 143, expecting it to go up substantially because many bodies cannot be retrieved because gunmen still occupy the buildings.

Blood in Mumbai

By Dileep Padgaonkar
Washington Post
Friday, November 28, 2008; Page A29

NEW DELHI -- Terrorist attacks have shattered the peace in more than half a dozen Indian cities over the past year. Yet none threatened India's secular and democratic polity as much as the carnage that jolted Mumbai on Wednesday. Mumbai is India's financial and commercial capital and arguably the country's most cosmopolitan metropolis. By targeting, among other establishments, two of the city's most opulent hotels -- the Taj and the Trident -- where the rich, famous and influential congregate to advance their business and political agendas, the terrorists struck at the very symbol of a resurgent nation.

The timing of the assault is equally significant, coming on the eve of elections to five provincial assemblies. Campaign rhetoric has polarized opinion along sharply antagonistic lines, essentially pitting the ruling Congress party, which swears by secularism, against the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party.

After terrorist attacks in the past, the BJP has denounced the Congress party as being soft on terrorism in an effort to mobilize India's substantial Muslim vote in its favor. The Congress, in turn, attacks the BJP and its affiliates for bashing Muslims in order to consolidate its core Hindu vote. Indians have a peculiar word to describe this state of affairs -- communalism, meaning a determined bid to exploit religious sentiments for electoral gain.

The effect of this competitive demagoguery has been disastrous on many counts. Terrorism suspects have been picked up at random and denied legal rights. Allegations of torture by police are routine. Questions have been raised about the "encounters" between police and terrorism suspects. Suspects have been held for years as their court cases have dragged on. Convictions have been few and far between.

Commissions set up to investigate particularly gory incidents of religious violence have taken their time to produce reports. Few are opened for public debate. The recommendations in these reports have been routinely ignored or else implemented in a highly selective manner. Muslims convicted in some cases have been punished while Hindus have been let off lightly or not punished at all.

As a consequence, India's Muslims have begun to lose faith in the Indian state, its institutions and its instruments. This has led to the radicalization of Muslim youths. Religious extremism has pushed them onto the path of violence. Increasing evidence suggests that some have joined the ranks of the international jihadist movement with close links to terrorist groups in neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh. Here in India, these groups are widely believed to collude with those countries' intelligence agencies...more

An Urban Legend about the Mexican Border

...Terrorists are likely to cross into the United States from Mexico.--not true

-----
This is a favorite chestnut of some activists and politicians keen to tighten immigration and build a fence on the Mexican border. But the historical record doesn't bear it out. Of course, the past may not be a good predictor of the future, but terrorists have rarely crossed into the United States from Mexico. In a recent Nixon Center study of 373 Islamist terrorists, Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke concluded: "Despite widespread alarms raised over terrorist infiltration from Mexico, we found no terrorist presence in Mexico and no terrorists who entered the U.S. from Mexico." By contrast, the authors found "a sizeable terrorist presence in Canada and a number of Canadian-based terrorists who have entered the U.S." For example, Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian terrorist who tried to blow up Los Angeles International Airport in December 1999, was caught trying to cross the border from Canada into Washington state.

From:

5 Myths About Terrorism
By Alan B. Krueger
Washington Post
Tuesday, September 11, 2007; 12:00 AM