|
|
| Author |
Message |
scott
|
|
'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US
| 
Nov 16 14:25 UTC 2003 |
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1086397,00.html
'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US
Martin Bright, home affairs editor
Sunday November 16, 2003
The Observer
Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to
armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of
President Bush's entourage this week.
In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush's
protection squad will face justice in a British court as would any other
visitor, the Home Office has confirmed.
The issue of immunity is one of a series of extraordinary US demands turned
down by Ministers and Downing Street during preparations for the Bush visit.
These included the closure of the Tube network, the use of US air force planes
and helicopters and the shipping in of battlefield weaponry to use against
rioters.
In return, the British authorities agreed numerous concessions, including the
creation of a 'sterile zone' around the President with a series of road
closures in central London and a security cordon keeping the public away from
his cavalcade.
|
| 36 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 1 of 36:
|
Nov 16 21:35 UTC 2003 |
> The issue of immunity is one of a series of extraordinary US demands
^^^^^^^
You can sometimes tell a lot about the editorial agenda of a paper
from a single word choice and I think the use of "demands" rather
than "requests" says quite a bit about the Observer and what they
think will sell papers to their UK audience..
Of course if I were the British I wouldn't accede to the Secret Service's
overreaching security requirements, either, whether they're wants, requests,
or even "demands." Suppressing domestic protest against Bush and giving
American security blanket permission to shoot British subjects without
repercussions would play so badly among the British electorate that it
might well hasten the downfall of the Blair government.
Just keep in mind, while judging this, that Fox News isn't the only news
organization on the planet with an obvious axe to grind..
|
twenex
|
|
response 2 of 36:
|
Nov 16 21:35 UTC 2003 |
/overspock
|
other
|
|
response 3 of 36:
|
Nov 16 23:13 UTC 2003 |
The Bushies are getting exactly what they wanted. They requested/
demanded far more than anyone would reasonably provie solely in
order to make their negotiating position likely to result in an
agreement that met all their actual requirements.
Really! Who has to worry about immunity for snipers if there's a
clear zone with nobody in it anyway?
I think the British should 'accidentally' mislocate or breach the
exclusion zone and see just what Bush's creatures do about it.
|
twenex
|
|
response 4 of 36:
|
Nov 16 23:31 UTC 2003 |
#1 slipped in before #2.
Maybe someone could 'accidentally' shoot Bush, then 'accidentally'
'mislocate' the Veep's chopper in, oh, say, Mt Saint Helens...?
|
other
|
|
response 5 of 36:
|
Nov 17 01:21 UTC 2003 |
Sounds good to me. Except, why waste a perfectly good chopper?
|
eprom
|
|
response 6 of 36:
|
Nov 17 02:26 UTC 2003 |
I wonder if this would have been such a big deal if it was
Clinton visiting instead of Bush. I'm almost sure that
most of the arrangements are made by the secret service, so
it really shouldn't matter which presdient is visiting.
|
other
|
|
response 7 of 36:
|
Nov 17 02:28 UTC 2003 |
The reason this is an issue is that the security 'requirements' in
this case far exceed anything previously known, or reasonable.
|
scott
|
|
response 8 of 36:
|
Nov 17 02:30 UTC 2003 |
Re 6: Are you serious? If Clinton's administration had made such demands
we'd still be hearing about it from various Hillary conspiracy nutcases.
|
twenex
|
|
response 9 of 36:
|
Nov 17 05:08 UTC 2003 |
What Eric and Scott said, re: #6. Also, re: 6, there wouldn't have been such
a fuss over the protesters if this weere Clinton (possibly because there would
have been no war, or at least no war w/o UN approval. This stuff about "based
on the evidence that we have, the UN 'would have' approved war. If they had
the evidence, why didn't they give it to the UN? Why couldn't they wait? Maybe
"based on the evidence we have now, a lot more people wouldn't have voted for
Bush". That would leave you in a bit of a pickle, now, wouldn't it, Mister?
Maybe the EU should invade to effect "regime change" in Washington.)
|
bru
|
|
response 10 of 36:
|
Nov 17 05:36 UTC 2003 |
O don't know about teh aircraft and the tanks, but couldn't they just give
all the security specialists diplomatic immunity? I would think the State
Department would be able to work with the Secret Service on that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 36:
|
Nov 17 06:10 UTC 2003 |
You've caught the tsty disease, bru.
|
twenex
|
|
response 12 of 36:
|
Nov 17 06:20 UTC 2003 |
Re: 10: They're probably afraid they;d use strongarm tactics, and there'd be
no comeback.
|
sj2
|
|
response 13 of 36:
|
Nov 17 06:58 UTC 2003 |
Once all brits have biometric identification cards (as per Blunkett's
plan) then it shouldn't be much trouble smoking out terrorists to
prevent attacks on visiting dignitaries.
|
scott
|
|
response 14 of 36:
|
Nov 17 13:34 UTC 2003 |
Re 10: Why on Earth would the Secret Service need diplomatic, "licence to
kill" immunity? Are they expecting so much violence?
|
bhoward
|
|
response 15 of 36:
|
Nov 17 13:57 UTC 2003 |
expecting? maybe. assuming? certainly. that's their job.
|
twenex
|
|
response 16 of 36:
|
Nov 17 15:41 UTC 2003 |
There is no safer place outside America that is also a world power than Great
Britain. Indeed, unless the rumours about the UK having more gun crime per
head of population than the us (figures which are probably skewed by the South
and Northwest of England) it might even be safer than the US.
|
tod
|
|
response 17 of 36:
|
Nov 17 23:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sj2
|
|
response 18 of 36:
|
Nov 18 05:36 UTC 2003 |
GB is a world power?? IMHO, it was before WW-II.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 19 of 36:
|
Nov 18 07:35 UTC 2003 |
Still is in my view, though as Douglas Hurd pointed out a few years back,
it punches above it's weight.
This is due to a combination of several of factors but key among them
are its permanent seat on the UN security council, it's central role in
the commonwealth and in no small part due to its function as a mediator
between the EU and the US.
|
lk
|
|
response 20 of 36:
|
Nov 18 08:48 UTC 2003 |
Speaking of punching above its weight, when was the last time France
was truly a world power? Napoleon?
Last I heard they had to advertise that Champaigne was their province.
At least GB could take on Argentina on its own.
Where's the petition to make France give its permanent seat on the UN
Security Council to Micronesia? (Isn't that the country from the movie
"The Mouse That Roared"?)
|
clees
|
|
response 21 of 36:
|
Nov 18 09:37 UTC 2003 |
The point you are missing is that no state is inclined to give up its
sovereignty to a foreign state. To some it smells like occupation.
|
twenex
|
|
response 22 of 36:
|
Nov 18 10:38 UTC 2003 |
Re 21: Precisely. Re: 18: beside the factors that Bruce and Leeron mentioned,
the UK is also the 4th largest economy in the world (after the us, japan, and
germany), and has possibly, after the us, the largest number of armed forces
deployments outside its own borders. It's also one of the countries to have
the highest amounts of foreign trade (much of the us, germany and japan's
wealth, by contrast, comes from products produduced and sold in those
countries).
|
gelinas
|
|
response 23 of 36:
|
Nov 18 14:24 UTC 2003 |
(The Grand Duchy of Fenwick roared.)
|
sj2
|
|
response 24 of 36:
|
Nov 18 15:58 UTC 2003 |
While UK's GDP is the fourth largest, its armies are significantly
smaller than Germany, Russia, China and India.
Also interesting to note is that all nations, except Israel, with
significant number nuclear warheads are also permanent members of the
UN security council. So much for leading by example!!
Source: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/files/upld-research15pdf?.pdf
And it remains to be seen how much power does it have without US
support.
|