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.
> 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..
/overspock
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.
#1 slipped in before #2. Maybe someone could 'accidentally' shoot Bush, then 'accidentally' 'mislocate' the Veep's chopper in, oh, say, Mt Saint Helens...?
Sounds good to me. Except, why waste a perfectly good chopper?
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.
The reason this is an issue is that the security 'requirements' in this case far exceed anything previously known, or reasonable.
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.
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.)
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.
You've caught the tsty disease, bru.
Re: 10: They're probably afraid they;d use strongarm tactics, and there'd be no comeback.
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.
Re 10: Why on Earth would the Secret Service need diplomatic, "licence to kill" immunity? Are they expecting so much violence?
expecting? maybe. assuming? certainly. that's their job.
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.
This response has been erased.
GB is a world power?? IMHO, it was before WW-II.
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.
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"?)
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.
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).
(The Grand Duchy of Fenwick roared.)
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.
(They were made permanent members before they got nuclear weapons.)
On your last point, agreed. Russia has internal problems that mean it has not yet got it's act together on the superpower front, although of course if it could get its act together it would dwarf the uk about as much as the us does. China has its own problems which mean that for the foreseeable future it is not going to be able to project its military power much beyond Asia, although with the us interests in the region it will of course still be of importance to the us, and its possession of nuclear weapons will cause many nations to pussyfoot around it. germany is still hesitant about any large-scale deployment of its military. until the early 1990s most west germans considered it unconstitutional for west german troops to operate outside of german. even now a decision by the german constitutional court has limited german military activity to being within the bounds of nato actions. India is a regional superpower at best; while the numbers in each of these cases might be larger, the fact is that uk forces have a larger field of operations than most of them, which was my original point. The uk continues to be responsible for the defence of all of its remaining colonies (many of which have chosen to remain colonies by way of referndum inrecent years), and for its protectorates and those states which it represents in foreign and defence capabilites, such as Isle of Man, Oman, etc. I believe that Nepal also relies on Britain for its defence.
Joe slipped in at 25.
Having a large army doesn't make you a superpower unless you have the technology and funds to exercise its strength far outside your borders. The U.S.'s Air Force and Navy give it the ability to bring a lot of force to bear anywhere in the world.
Which we do, although successive Labour governments conspire to make sure we don't. Training of officers and men also goes a long way. This is perhaps one of the reasons why we were able to win the Falklands War (which may have actually been previously mentioned in another item).
as do the british Navy and Air Force.
re #23: Close, but no Pinot Grand Fenwick for you.. It was "the Duchy of Grand Fenwick", not "the Grand Duchy of Fenwick."
But for short, let's just call it Micronesia. Or perhaps I should say: "Federated States of Micronesia". Soon to replace France as a permanent member of the UN SC.... It's armed forces are surprisingly large for a country with 702 sq km and a population the size of Ann Arbor. Its defensive capability is exactly as powerful as the US....
Hmm ... Yes, I agree that a nation needs to have enough deep pockets to fund military operations. But the world more looks like US and UK vs Germany and France (and Russia??) with UK behaving more like US's you-know-what. That doesn't do any good to its status of a world- power. Maybe realpolitik requires that UK's best defence against German/French hegemony in Europe is to side with US. It was also interesting to watch the reactions of people at Harvard university to Bush's visit to UK (on BBC). While some thought US shared a special relationship with UK, others openly called UK as US's pooch and 51st state.
I think it's a bit unfair to refer to the UK that way. It depends entirely on the government that's in power there. It's true that Tony Blair is Bush's lap dog, but not every PM has acted that way.
Agreed mostly with #33, entirely w/ #34. I think apart from the fact that Blair seems to be Bush's pal, a lot of the way he has been acting has been trying to appease the anti-Euroean section of society, who see him as too pro-European. Unfortunately, it's now back-fired, as I don't think he has either appeased the anti-Europeans, or pleased the pro-Europeans, who see him as too pro-Bush.
prore, here.
You have several choices: