Democratic thinking

Articles on democracy in the independent online media

December 25, 2008

Common crime vs state crime

Greece has gone through some difficult times recently. Namely because of the cold blooded murder of an innocent 16 year old boy by a police officer in Athens. The death resulted in 5 days of riots, similar to the street riots in Paris and Los Angeles following similar acts of state violence.

The UK can be proud for its 'subjects' (this is how they call people there) because it is perhaps the single country that did not react to the murder of an innocent tax payer on his way to work.

Going back to the notion of crime I ask you this:
- When someone steals something from a shop he is a thief.
- When they kill someone they are a murderer.

When the state however performs similar acts they are given different names:
- Stealing people's money is called taxation
- When killing innocent (see Charles De Menezes) it is called 'lawful killing'.

The definition of terrorism is: The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear.

So let me ask another question:
Is killing an innocent guy on his way to work an act of terrorism?
Is the false claim that someone has the capability to push a button and launch an attack with weapons of mass destruction an act of terrorism?
Is the invasion of a country (against UN law) and systematic murder of it's people an act of terrorism?

If all this is terrorism and the culprits are the police, the government, the army and the dark forces aka Intelligence Agencies (a contradiction in terms) who is going to catch these terrorists?
Where are they going to take them for interrogation and torture?
Who is going to sent them to prison?

Well certainly not the jury in the trial of Charles De Menezes. Because they have been 'instructed' (another contradiction) that they have two choices:
Open verdict (aka pissing in the wind) or
Lawful killing

So in brief, an innocent man is executed. Instead of a trial, a useless 'inquest' (a trial where no one is convicted) is set-up. To complete the cover-up the judge turns the verdict into a multiple choice, excluding unlawful killing, which is the only fair outcome.

In similar fashion, the murder of a teenager in Eltham, racist capital of the UK and home of the BNP resulted in a failed trial (police decided to help the killers) and ended up as an inquest (suprise, suprise).

Justice prevails?
No, i think that Justice has gone for a walk down the pub and is having a pint or two.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home