Scotland Yard Gives Secret Service "Shoot-To-Kill" Powers for Bush Visit

[Theophylact]

The US wanted to shut down central London; that was a bit much.

But the Met and the US Secret Service have reportedly agreed "rules of engagement" allowing Bush bodyguards to shoot anyone they believe is clearly threatening the life of the President.

[M_Six]

If it's that dangerous, he shouldn't be going.


Can you see the reaction if the Brits asked the D.C. authorities to shut down Washington for three days?

[Optimus Prime]

But the American Govt. don't see it that way, we are a lesser country than yours in their eyes.

Anyway, you should see the people in Manchester, every bloody day they are here, preaching about how Bush shouldn't come to England.

I don't want him to, but i think they just go OTT.

And also, your troops are too trigger happy, if Scotland Yard give them that authority, they'll shoot anyone that they see!

[M_Six]

Sounds like a good time for folks to go on holiday.

[Warthog]

And also, your troops are too trigger happy, if Scotland Yard give them that authority, they'll shoot anyone that they see!

lol Optimus Prime, first of all they are not soldiers but the Secret Service and second of all, what do you know about the Secret Service and how they operate???

I'm really not surprised - do you not think they would normally not use deadly force?! I mean, wtf people. I don't see how this is some sort of announcment.

[Epidemic]

Yeah the secret service has shot so many people in the past 100 years. As I recall this trigger happy bunch has had several assasination attempts and have not fired many shots.


Trigger happy indeed.

[shahani]

Don't look at me cross-eyed, Epidemic.

I didn't say nuthin'.

[Dputiger]

I guarantee you that "permission" is a polite rubberstamp, nothing more. As someone whose acquainted with several federal agents who've done Presidential guard detail (the Secret Service calls in more agents in certain situations) the rule of thumb is definitely that you act (not necessarily shoot) first and ask questions later. Just trying to get close to the Pres probably won't get you shot, but it may get your jaw broken. But if someone with a weapon attempted to gain a line-of-fire?

The USSS is most certainly going to use any and all means of force to stop the person, starting with deadly. Scotland Yard's opinion, meanwhile, is a nice touch. But I doubt this is any different--certainly members of Britain's intelligence services wouldn't hesitate to pull leather when protecting the Queen, even in America.

[shahani]

I thought Bush was a popular guy in England.

[Epidemic]

His status as popular or unpopular in england is immaterial

Actually, even popular presidents need protection in the USA. Protection including shoot to kill permission.

This is part of my problem with your analysis of the iraq crisis.

You say that the bombings are a clear indicator of iraqi hatred of the US soldiers and occupation (of course polls indicate different still). But it could be an indication of widespread hatred or a few hundred determined psychos.

Timmothy Mcveigh did not represent the US populations sentiment toward the FBI. Nor does the KKK represent US sentiment.

I will give you Baathists have a higher percentage of america haters though. Of course taking their power, and feeding them to the populace probably did not help their love of the US. They are motivated to stay organized because there is power in organization and numbers. Saddams grand torturer is not a match for an angry mob.