UK refuses to grant "shoot to kill" demand by US

[bigpoppanils]

'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.

The White House initially demanded the closure of all Tube lines under parts of London to be visited during the trip. But British officials dismissed the idea that a suicide bomber could kill the President by blowing up a Tube train. Ministers are also believed to have dismissed suggestions that a 'sterile zone' around the President should be policed entirely by American special agents and military.

Demands for the US air force to patrol above London with fighter aircraft and Black Hawk helicopters have also been turned down.

The President's protection force will be armed - as Tony Blair's is when he travels abroad - and around 250 secret service agents will fly in with Bush, but operational control will remain with the Metropolitan Police.

The Americans had also wanted to travel with a piece of military hardware called a 'mini-gun', which usually forms part of the mobile armoury in the presidential cavalcade. It is fired from a tank and can kill dozens of people. One manufacturer's description reads: 'Due to the small calibre of the round, the mini-gun can be used practically anywhere. This is especially helpful during peacekeeping deployments.'

Ministers have made clear to Washington that the firepower of the mini-gun will not be available during the state visit to Britain. In return, the Government has agreed to close off much of Whitehall during the visit - the usual practice in Britain is to use police outriders to close roads as the cavalcade passes to cause minimal disruption to traffic.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: 'Negotiations between here and the US have been perfectly amicable. If there have been requests, they have not posed any problems.'

An internal memo sent to Cabinet Office staff and leaked to the press this weekend urged staff to work from home if at possible during the presidential visit. Serious disruption would be caused by 'the President Bush vehicle entourage requesting cleared secured vehicle routes around London and the security cordons creating a sterile zone around him'.

Meanwhile, negotiations are continuing between police and demonstrators about the route of the march. Representatives of the Stop the War Coalition will meet police at Scotland Yard tomorrow to discuss whether protesters will be able to march through Parliament Square and Whitehall. Spokesman Andrew Burgin said he hoped for 'a good old-fashioned British compromise'.

martin.bright@observer.co.uk

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1086397,00.html

[jamiroguy1]

I find this obscene that our gov't would demand this from another gov't...even if this is one of our so called strongest allies if not our closest.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

I find this obscene that our gov't would demand this from another gov't...even if this is one of our so called strongest allies if not our closest.

Do you know what would happen to our country, economy if Bush were assasinated????

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

I find this obscene that our gov't would demand this from another gov't...even if this is one of our so called strongest allies if not our closest.

I guess there is no end to your mind boggling stupidity

[kramadas]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Do you know what would happen to our country, economy if Bush were assasinated????

Something good?

Blair does not require this sort of security when he visits the US (use of solely British SS agents, British firepower, etc) so its perfectly reasonable that the US has been turned down its more illogical demands.

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Something good?

Blair does not require this sort of security when he visits the US (use of solely British SS agents, British firepower, etc) so its perfectly reasonable that the US has been turned down its more illogical demands.

I think the situation is a little different...big time....not to mention that the challenge of security for this trip was compounded ten-fold due to the schmucks protesting....(not the honest ones, which are in the minority)....

The US govt, and those who have the responsibility of protecting the President, have every right to take every precaution, use every resource, and do whatever it takes to provide security.....

An attack on a U.S. President would have global ramifications beyond belief....not to mention that the hypocrites would then question why the President was not better protected...

These are not illogical demands by any stretch........poor choice of words.....The U.S. should ask for every resource available...it is their duty and responsibility....not illogical at all

[cintron]

guys in case you didn't know, we provide foreign secret service details with diplomatic immunity when they accompany their high ranking officials.

i went to school with hashim hussein - the son of the late King Hussein of Jordan. When hashim graduated, King Hussein came to our school to speak at graduation. The US Secret Service was there as well as the kings personal jordanian bodyguards.

hashim told me that his father's guards [as well as his own] were under orders to shoot to kill in the event that something untoward happened.

Secret Service agents have a duty and that's to protect their charge - in this case, the president. If some lunatic asshole waves a gun at the president, you're going to stand there and tell me that the secret service should do nothing under the threat of facing charges? Do you think any assassin gives a fuck about the restrictions imposed on the secret service? no. It just makes their task easier.

also consider that the protest, with 100,000 people, ends with them toppling a massive statue of president bush.

imagine you're a secret service agent and your JOB - your personal responsibility - is to protect and take a bullet for the president if necessary...

now there are 100,000 people in front of you, all angry at bush and you're praying that one of them isn't crazy enough to have a loaded weapon, yet if you draw your weapon to protect bush, YOU could be the one going to jail.

bullshit, isn't it?

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by igloo

I guess there is no end to your mind boggling stupidity

Why do you find it necessarry to make personal attacks against me every time you post. Are you that threatened by my "hippie" ideas? lol

The point I was trying to make, fucknut, was that if a protester was accidentally killed in some kind of misunderstanding (ie. US Sniper shoots protester in the head) no one in the country could hold the sniper liable and that's bullshit. That's why the brittish government said "hell no!" to that demand.

Why don't you go read the national review online or the weekly standard or whatever two facist publications you read daily and grow up you bootlicking pile of nationalist vermon.

Sorry, that was a seriouse personal attack but you sure bring it on yourself. lol

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Something good?

Blair does not require this sort of security when he visits the US (use of solely British SS agents, British firepower, etc) so its perfectly reasonable that the US has been turned down its more illogical demands.

lol... Nice, Krish.

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

Why do you find it necessarry to make personal attacks against me every time you post. Are you that threatened by my "hippie" ideas? lol

The point I was trying to make, fucknut, was that if a protester was accidentally killed in some kind of misunderstanding (ie. US Sniper shoots protester in the head) no one in the country could hold the sniper liable and that's bullshit. That's why the brittish government said "hell no!" to that demand.

Why don't you go read the national review online or the weekly standard or whatever two facist publications you read daily and grow up you bootlicking pile of nationalist vermon.

Sorry, that was a seriouse personal attack but you sure bring it on yourself. lol

Man you are lame......and a jerkoff

[xpyrate]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Do you know what would happen to our country, economy if Bush were assasinated????

:laugh: :laugh:

thnx mr mahs i needed a good laugh

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by xpyrate

:laugh: :laugh:

thnx mr mahs i needed a good laugh

WOW the special Kay and pills have really rotted your brain

Mr. "I don't care what GDP means". If the president were assasinated the stock market would TANK losing trillion's in stock value. This wouldn't have happened a couple of years ago but in todays day def. Listen whether you realise it or not EVERYTHING is connected so an assasination of a WAR time president in this country would send a ripple effect to businesses here and as well as foreign investors. That uncertainty is what would sink the market first and then the economy.....