|
| INFOWARS.net Copyright © 2001-2005 Alex Jones All rights reserved. |
 |
|
|
There has to be a shoot-to-kill policy, concedes Ken
Livingstone
POLICE have to have a shoot-to-kill policy to counter the mounting terrorist threat in London, Ken Livingstone conceded yesterday.
With the capital on high alert after two sets of terrorist attacks in as many weeks, the city's mayor indicated that decisive action would be necessary.
Muslim leaders, however, said sections of the community were living in fear
of a shoot-to-kill policy after a man - not one of the four sought bombers
- was shot by officers at Stockwell tube station yesterday.
Following the first wave of London bombings on 7 July, it emerged that armed officers could be given shoot-to-kill orders to fire at the heads of suicide bombers.
Under a plan known as Operation Kratos, police could in extreme circumstances shoot suspected suicide bombers in the head. Normal firearms rules allow officers to pursue a shoot-to-stop policy and fire at the chests of targets, with the intention of stopping and disabling, but not killing.
But the Met has been advised by Israeli security officials that this is not adequate, as even after several shots they can still trigger an explosive device.
Scotland Yard yesterday insisted the policy of armed police was to "shoot to stop" when there was an imminent threat to life.
But Mr Livingstone said: "If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them, and therefore overwhelmingly in these circumstances it is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy."
Speaking of yesterday's operations, he said: "With each of these attacks, we have responded more rapidly and effectively and I'm glad it went as well as it did."
Police sources and security experts said it was clear that officers were operating under revised guidelines.
"Clarification has been issued in response to the threat from suicide bombers," said Charles Shoebridge, a security analyst and former counter terrorism officer. "In the past, shooting at the person's trunk was considered the most effective way of disabling a person. However, this approach could detonate a suicide bomb, so the only realistic alternative is a shot to the head."
Muslim community leaders said they were taking calls from fellow Muslims who are afraid they may be targeted simply because they are carrying the wrong bag or wearing the wrong clothes.
The Muslim Council of Britain urged Scotland Yard to explain why police shot dead the Asian man who has been described as a "suspected suicide bomber". According to an eyewitness report the man was shot with five bullets. Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: "There may well be reasons why police felt it was necessary to unload multiple bullets into this man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear.
"It is vital that police give a statement about exactly what occurred and explain why this man was shot dead rather than arrested and brought to trial."
Mr Bunglawala said Muslims were nervous and feared reprisal attacks.
He said: "I have just had one phone call saying, 'What if I was carrying a rucksack?' We are getting phone calls from quite a lot of Muslims who are distressed about what may be a shoot-to-kill policy."
Meanwhile, Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust and a serving officer with the British Transport Police, defended officers' right to kill.
"To protect society and themselves, the police have the right in law to use the force that they believe to be appropriate with the threat posed by anyone whose intention is to destroy the lives of others through acts of terrorism or any other reason," he said.
JUDGMENT CALL
ANALYSIS
THERE are three criteria when deciding whether to use authorised firearms officers (AFOs), writes Ian Gordon. First, where a person is in possession of a firearm; second, if a person has immediate access to a firearm; and, third, where a person is otherwise so dangerous that an officer's use of a firearm may be necessary.
There's a requirement that firearms are only used when at least one of those criteria are met.
It has to be an incident where there is deemed to be a genuine risk of loss of life, be it to a member of the public, a police officer or even the person themselves.
You have sometimes to make a judgment call on information and intelligence that's available. On a normal day it would be a chief constable, or the strategic commander, who would authorise the use of firearms. He or she would base the decision on all the intelligence and information available. The key factor is the team work between the strategic commander, who we call "gold", and the officer in command of the situation on the ground ("silver").
Firearms officers don't go on missions on their own; it's controlled, it's imperative everyone is fully briefed.
But when you have a spontaneous incident you need to respond very quickly, again based on available intelligence. That's where armed response units are used.
We have a very thorough selection process for AFOs. Nobody is forced into it, they volunteer. Those selected undergo an intensive initial training programme, then continue to train on a regular basis, not only in using weapons, but also on the tactics to be used.
When AFOs are confronted with an incident, the training will then kick in. They can open fire only when it is absolutely necessary, when there is nothing else they can do to incapacitate the threat. They are there to save lives.
It's a question of weighing up risk in a split second. "If I do nothing, what happens?". "If I do this, will it prevent anything more serious happening?" It's a difficult judgment call. All we can do is make sure they are trained as best they can be.
We have a very rigorous training process, but on many occasions we are dealing with the unknown.
The bottom line is, if they believe that a significant and immediate threat to life is there, AFOs have to act; they have to incapacitate and try to remove the risk.
