Oh, suuuuuuuuuuuure

None of the cameras at the scene of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July were working, a police document revealed.

[...]

According to a report he would have passed eight cameras, two in the station entrance pointing at the barriers, another aimed at the Northern Line escalator and another on the way down.

When Mr de Menezes reached the bottom of the escalator, another camera would have captured him. And as he turned on to the platform one above the track and three more at each end of the platform would have caught him on film, the reports say.

   article

Actually, if they really weren't working, there's a whole lot more to this story than just that the police went ballistic on an innocent man.

One union official argued however that the on-board cameras may have been empty.

Employees' representatives said Met officers emptied the cameras the day before police killed Mr de Menezes as part of their investigation into the failed bombings on 21 July.

[...]

However in a statement to The Mail on Sunday, Tube Lines said: "We are not aware of any faults on CCTV cameras at that station on that day. Nothing of that nature has been reported to us." Yesterday the company refused to elaborate.

[...]

But confusion still surrounds the contents of surveillance tapes taken from Stockwell station. Sources have suggested that the tapes had been recovered from the station booking hall, which had shown images of Mr de Menezes and that there was limited footage from cameras inside the carriage where the shooting took place.

And by the way, he wasn't even running

Recall the story about the suspicious guy in the heavy jacket running from British police and getting seven bullets to the head for it? Well, look again...

A Brazilian shot to death a day after botched bombings in London had walked casually onto a train before being gunned down by undercover officers, according to leaked footage that appeared to contradict earlier police reports that said the man disobeyed police orders.

Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician, was shot eight times last month in front of terrified commuters on a subway train, after undercover police tailed him from a house under surveillance.

Police first said the shooting was related to the failed bombings on the London transit system July 21 - two weeks after four suspected suicide bombers blew themselves up in three Underground stations and aboard one double-decker bus.

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, called the death regrettable, but said it appeared "the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."

Citing security footage, a British television station reported Tuesday that Menezes entered the Stockwell subway station at a normal walking pace, stopping to pick up a newspaper before boarding a train and taking a seat.

  @ The Post article

But we can do it all by ourselves

THE foreign secretary Jack Straw sought to distance Britain yesterday from comments by President George W Bush that he would not rule out a military strike against Iran.

[...]

The Foreign Office reacted swiftly. “Our position is clear and has been made very, very clear by the foreign secretary,” a spokesman said. “We do not think there are any circumstances where military action would be justified against Iran. It does not form part of British foreign policy.”

[...]

But some rightwingers in Washington have criticised Straw’s position, saying that every time the foreign secretary rules out any remote chance of military action the Iranians know there is no need to compromise.

  UK Times Online article

Something tells me the threat of a U.S. invasion at this juncture doesn't exactly have the Iranians quaking in their boots.

Britain has made it clear that if Iran has not backed down by September 3, when Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA’s secretary-general, is to report on the country’s nuclear programme, it will push for Tehran to be taken to the United Nations security council. Officials in Vienna warned, however, that any attempt to impose sanctions on Iran would be likely to be vetoed by Russia and China.

Yeah. And then what?

And just because I love you so much, here's a comment from WIIIAI on Butthead's latest reptition of the non-existent plan for the war we're already in...

Evidently we have a strategy to succeed in Iraq. It consists of two parts. 1) “As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” 2) “The second part of our strategy is to help freedom prevail in Iraq.” A strategy is supposed to be a, you know, plan, not a bumper sticker.

[...]

[...]

He also says, “And I know it’s tough and I know it’s hard work,” and then goes back to his vacation. Asshole.

(Via LaBelle via Dependable Renegade)

"Blair snubs Cook funeral for his holiday"

Lord (Martin) O'Neill of Clackmannan, whose friendship with Mr Cook dates back to their student days, said it would be "unfortunate if the Prime Minister did not turn up" but said he imagined Mr Blair would not want to make a fuss.

"A lot of Robin's former constituents will want to attend. The problem with these almost state funerals is that they must involve ordinary people."

  Scotsman article

Quite.

Billmon discusses the pull-out timetable leak

The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

The paper, which is marked "Secret -- UK Eyes Only," said "emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The troop level is now at about 160,000, including 138,000 American troops, according to a military spokesman in Baghdad.

I'm thinking that the "leaked" timetable might have been the opening offer in a covert round of haggling with the Iraqi insurgents -- the goal being not a peace treaty (who would sign it?) but a "decent interval," or at least a breathing space, that would allow the Pentagon to draw down its forces in Iraq without triggering a complete descent into anarchy and civil war.

If you think about it, it makes a certain amount of sense. What other way could such an offer be communicated to the various factions and gangs in the Iraqi insurgency, in a way that would be accepted as genuine? How else could the administration (and their faithful sidekicks, the Brits) control the timing and content of the message, while leaving themselves room to walk away if the offer is spurned?

Most importantly: How else do you negotiate with the terrorists, without suffering the immense humiliation and demoralization of being seen to publicly negotiate with the terrorists?

OK, so I've been reading too many John LeCarre novels. Still, the timing of this leak is otherwise a bit puzzling -- after the British election, when it might have done some immediate good for Blair, and well in advance of the 2006 congressional campaign season, when it would do the most good for the Cheneyites.

Call me paranoid, but my hypothesis still sounds reasonable to me. However, if the leak really was an offer, the insurgents may have already mailed back their reply. And it looks like the two sides are still pretty far apart:

BAGHDAD—We woke today to the muted sounds of thumps and booms. One big one, followed by a smaller one. Then mortars flew over our home. It was another attack on the Green Zone . . .

More...

FBI won't take the tube?

"In November," reports Salon's War Room, [Michael] Isikoff and Mark Hosenball wrote a piece for Newsweek in which they said that U.S. law enforcement officials were extremely concerned about 'evidence regarding possible active Al Qaeda plots to attack targets in Britain'."

How worried were law enforcement types? This worried: "According to a U.S. government official," Isikoff and Hosenball wrote, "fears of terror attacks have prompted FBI agents based in the U.S. Embassy in London to avoid traveling on London's popular underground railway (or tube) system, which is used daily by millions of commuters. While embassy-based officers of the U.S. Secret Service, Immigration and Customs bureaus and the CIA still are believed to use the underground to go about their business, FBI agents have been known to turn up late to cross-town meetings because they insist on using taxis in London's traffic-choked business center."

  Booman Tribune article

And remember when Buttie went to England and destroyed the Queen's roses a couple years ago? They demanded (but were refused) to have the tube shut down while he was there.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Previous London attack posts.