This Is Why ...

(Updated below)

A little more than two years ago, on July 22nd 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes - an electrician of Brazilian origin - was shot in the head (and eight times overall) at point blank by London police. You see - the day just before, on July 21st 2005, a terrorist London transit system bombing plot had been thwarted. It was quite a close call - consequently, fear, insecurity, paranoia and outright hysteria reigned supreme in the wake of this failed plot.

Thus Menezes was summarily shot at a London Underground train station, on July 22nd 2005, by hyper-vigilant and trigger-happy police officers who had been following him, because: A) his clothing and "behavior" were somehow deemed suspicious; B) he was mistaken to be of Middle Eastern origins; and therefore C) he was suspected to be a suicide bomber with an explosive belt around his waist.

So, here we are some two years later. The actual guilty parties of the failed plot have been tried and found guilty, whereas the eleven police officers involved in Mr. Menezes' shooting were cleared of any and all wrongdoings. Meanwhile, the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) today gave a detailed account of the aftermath of the killing, focusing on failures to properly pass on information about the identity of Mr. Menezes, thus leading to an initial flurry of misinformation about his involvement (or lack thereof) in the failed plot as well as to an absence of realization of the tragic mistake until the day after.

You see, because that is what truly matters here. Apparently, trivial errors and mistakes in disseminating factual information after the fact are of much greater importance than actually investigating fully the hows and whys of the shooting of Mr. Menezes, a crucial analytical and soul-searching exercise which would have assuredly contributed significantly in the prevention of any other similar tragic mistakes in the future by, for one, resulting in improvements in the training of police officers to this effect.

But no-o-o.

Rather, it would seem that such mistakes are accepted as de facto normalcy in this age of Global Terrorism(TM) that we all live in: "There is no doubt that the events of July 2005 brought significant challenges to the Met (London Metropolitan Police) and during this time many officers operated under difficult and dangerous conditions to protect London and Londoners", sayeth a Met spokesman.

Ergo: Hey - we're all scared, terrified and stressed whenever terrorism happens, but it's better to mistakenly shoot innocent people to prevent a possible suicide bomber from doing his thing, rather than err on the side of proper procedures which serve to minimize such mistakes and therefore allow a suicide bomber to detonate his bomb, eh?

Shoot first, ask questions later and let God sort them out afterwards: that is, therefore, the first and foremost lesson that we have learned from 9/11.

Hence, this is why we are quite willing to put aside our fundamental rights and our simple human decency, if not our humanity, in the name of security;

This is why we accept to be probed, surveyed and monitored any time and everywhere, day in and day out;

This is why we accept that the rule of Law be bent, twisted or ignored;

This is why we accept that our governments wage war indiscriminately in other countries, against a technique of fighting;

This is why we are slowly surrendering the very principles of our democracies to increasing authoritarianism;

This is why reason and competence have given way to fear and hate-driven incompetence;

This is why we are the real problem of terrorism;

And, consequently, this is why the terrorists have already won.

But hey - as long as you feel safe and that you, or a member of your family, are never the ones to become victims of mistaken identity by badly trained, paranoid, stressed, overzealous or hyper-vigilant agents of the authorities ... all will be well and fine, right?

Right.


Update: 08/03/2007 - Two recent examples which illustrate my claim "This is why we are the real problem of terrorism" - incidentally, these two examples come from my own country, Canada. First, a Québec municipality was told by Canadian police and the US Army that it cannot rent out its own buildings for a public meeting involving a panel of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, because it will lie within an established 25 km security perimeter centered where official meetings on the SPPNA will be occuring. Oh, and officials of said municipality have also been barred from discussing this anymore. Second, did you know that the Canadian military spies on Canadians who speak out against the war? Not suprisingly, they try to cover up such dubious activities - all in the name of security, I suppose. See? We Canadians are now no more different than our American and British friends - all of us are now united by fear-driven authoritarianism. But hey - as long as we feel safe and blahblahblahblah ...


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q and at Diatribune)