Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has defended the so-called "shoot-to-kill" policy adopted by police for dealing with suspected suicide bombers.

Mr Straw said that he "deeply regretted" the killing in London of an innocent Brazilian man, Jean Charles de Menezes, by armed officers who feared he might be about to detonate a bomb.

However he said that it was essential that police were able to deal effectively with the threat of a suicide attack.

"It was essential that police were able to deal effectively with the threat of a suicide attack" ... how effective is killing an innocent individual?  Published eyewitness reports claim that

Passengers on a train waiting at Stockwell station ... were ordered to get down as armed plain-clothes officers pushed a man through the open doors of their carriage and on to the floor.

Eyewitness Mark Whitby described scenes of "absolute mayhem" inside the station as the officers held the man down before one of them "unloaded five shots into him".

So let me get this straight, a lone male was pushed to the floor by no less than 5 armed officers and before he was questioned or even patted down one of those indiviudals unloaded "five shots into him."  Right, sounds smart to me.  I mean hey, we think he came out of a house that maybe is linked to the attacks, he is wearing clothing that we view to be suspicious and well his behaviour looks unusual to me and he is headed to the subway: CLEARLY he is a threat to every individual on the train so let's take him out.  Of course he couldn't be an individual that was not raised in British culture therefore dresses differently than I, nor could he be having a bad day or maybe have mannerisms that are different than mine (again as a result of not being raised as I was).  No, these are not possible scenarios.  Logically if he is acting different and looks different than I then he is a threat to society and must be neutralized in a fashion that shows inhumanity and fear against that which I see as different. 

Now it all makes perfect sense; "effective" because we are neutralizing that which poses a threat due to the fact that it is different and as we all know that which is different is bad.  (Ah I am currently facing the danger of digression ... the topic of fear of that which is different has a pull that is so strong but I will attempt to refrain.)  If throwing an unarmed man to the ground and unloading five shots into him is an effective way of dealing with the threat of suicide bombing then sterilizing all individuals is just as effective a way of dealing with unwanted pregnancy. 

There is something else that bothers me about this whole situation: if an individual is suspected of being a suicide bomber and he is headed toward the subway it is not logical to assume that he would have a bomb on his person at the moment?  How smart is it, if this individual is CARRYING A BOMB ON HIS BODY AT THE MOMENT to shoot him in a public location?  Is it not logical to think that if you shoot someone with a bomb on their body that that bomb may detonate?  I would think that if you truly suspected an individual of having a bomb attacked to their body you would try and prevent bullets, backfire, excessive heat as may be caused by close range firing of a pistol away from that bomb.  Of course if you know an individual doesn't have a bomb on their person firing five shots into their body will have no consequence other than to kill them.  

The questions should not stop there.  Does anyone else see similarities between the shoot-to-kill policy and the Salem witch hunts of the late 1600s?  It seems almost like British authorities are looking for evidence on the person after they have been killed to link them to the attacks which seems much like drowning a witch with rocks tied to her feet to see if she floats.  Innocent lives are lost in both instances and really what are the chances of getting to the truth when your defence is based on fear and prevention of individual occurrences?  Wouldn't it be smarter to take into custody an individual that is suspected of being a part of a terrorist organization and questioning them, not shooting them?  And if you happen to find evidence on their person that links them to the attacks then you are better for it and if you don't well at least you will not be killing more individuals in the name of safety.  Why is it that we fear terrorism from outside but not internal terrorism?  Are we so afraid of that which is different that we will allow those like us to hunt us down in the name of safety?  What is the difference between a member of al-Qaeda killing innocent Britons in the name of freedom and Britsh police killing innocent Britons in the name of freedom?

For more articles check out the Scotsman.com

The eyewitness quote above came from http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1674992005