File this under ‘maybe shoot-to-kill wasn’t such a great idea after all’
When your very first mafia-style hit turns out to be a brazilian electrician, perhaps it's time to reconsider taking antiterrorism advice from the department of "G-d will know his own". Getting shot by the police is usually considered to be one of the hazards of visiting a banana republic, but it's not normally considered to be one of the hazards of visiting London (This is, after all, a city that's had to deal with terrorist bombings for quite a lot longer than the last three weeks, and which hasn't had to resort to having the police run people down and murder them in cold blood until now. Where did they get this new and improved! policy? Need I even ask?)
If there was anything to make the new (and unconstitutional [link to Cornell; the US government has "reorganized" their online resources now that the Bill Of Rights has been permanently superceded by the Patriot Act]) Evil Party policy of doing random searches in the New York subway seem reasonable, gunning innocent people down in the tube would certainly seem to be a good candidate for it.
Comments
Comments are closed
Yes. Well. And after the bombs start going off here in the US --which should be relatively soon-- how long will it take for the "security" crackdowns for "our own good" to open the sleepy eyes to the twilight of our glorious republic?
Not that it matters much to me! I've got no complaints, nothing to hide...