Following the Panorama programme on March 8, it looks clear that MI5 killed De Menezes. The question is why.

The Met Police had nothing to do with his killing. Because Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has been taking the flak for MI5, nothing will happen to him. It is the Police commander, Cresida Dick who will take the blame.

The Panorama programme skated over:
- what order Cresida Dick gave to firearm officers and other officers;
- who incorrectly identified De Menezes.

The key clues to the MI5 killing are:
- the unbelievable claim that the so-called Special Reconnaissance Regiment could not identify De Menezes when he first left the block of flats;
- the involvement of Special Branch, who changed log records;
- allowing De Menezes to take two buses without the reconnaissance officers being able to identify him;
- the delay of the tube train in which De Menezes was sitting and eventually shot.

We can surmise that what actually happened was that:
- the apparently newly created Special Reconnaissance Regiment is really the SAS;
- there were two chains of command – the official one under Cresida Dick and the unofficial one under MI5
- Cresida Dick gave orders to apprehend De Menezes;
- MI5 had already given orders to the SAS to kill him;
- SAS used their own training (not Operation Kratos) to kill De Menezes – this is done through use of multiple shots;
- MI5 and SAS knew De Menezes would make his way to Stockwell tube, Cresida Dick did not
- the train was deliberately delayed, wittingly or unwittingly, in order to allow the SAS to move in for the kill;
- Ian Blair delayed the involvement of the Independent Police Complaints Commission because their powers only related to the police and he didn’t want the police to take all the blame;
- Ian Blair had no idea as to why MI5 wanted De Menezes dead (although, he may have his suspicions now);
- there is a secret row going on between the Anti-Terrorist officers and Sir Ian Blair and between the police and MI5/Ministry of Defence – the police officers on the ground have no intention of taking the blame.

Panorama did not explain why the Special Reconnaissance Regiment was involved. It did not attempt to explain why Special Branch was involved. Special Branch is under the control of MI5 and police chief constables have no power over them. It did not attempt to explain what orders Cresida Dick gave her officers, although it stated that the police positively identified De Menezes as one of the 21/7 bombers. Newspaper reports have stated that Cresida Dick ordered apprehension not assassination. It did not explain why the train hung around long enough for the ‘firearm officers’ to get to it. Was it by accident that the train hung around for what was at least two minutes? I don’t believe it. Panorama did not positively identify the gym card that supposedly led them to De Menezes’ flat as belonging to one of the 21/7 bombers. It did not say whether one of the bombers lived in the block of flats – this means he didn’t.

Operation Kratos is an irrelevant diversion. Radio communication between officers in the tube is an irrelevant diversion. Special Branch changed logs to put the blame on the police and away from the SAS. They were probably two Regiment/SAS officers and not one and they would not have switched off the video surveillance – as the programme stated which is totally ridiculous. It may be that some SO19 Anti-Terrorist officers were among SAS firearms officers. It is likely that the SO19 reconnaissance officers following De Menezes were told by the SAS that he was a 21/7 bomber but they did not believe him. This would explain why they allowed him to go all the way to Stockwell. SO19 probably identified him as someone not carrying weapons and this was communicated to Cresida Dick. Dick therefore thought apprehension was what should happen. It is likely that the disinformation campaign against De Menezes came from MI5 and Sir Ian Blair went along with it.

The fact that the Met has ratified Kratos, which is their terrorist and suicide bombing strategy for firearms officers, probably means that they have decided to do without the MoD/SAS in future.

There is nothing in the circumstances of the death that suggests it was a ‘tragic mistake’. Police witnesses and Panorama suggests there was no hesitation at all when the ‘firearms officers’ approached De Menezes – they just shot him. This suggests that had already been given orders to do so. But why kill De Menezes?

The SAS would not have decided this themselves. SAS are, though, used by MI5 and MI6 for its missions. It was MI5 who were really in charge of the SAS officers. Why would they want De Menezes killed?

Reports suggest longstanding MI5 involvement with the 7/7 bombers. The bombers were under their surveillance for months. There was a white Muslim, former special forces person working in a radical bookshop in Leeds that had been visited by some of the bombers. Special forces personnel were involved in the training of ‘Muslim radicals’ selected through the Finsbury Park mosque. MI6, CIA and Pakistan intelligence formed Omar Bakri Mohammed’s Al-Muhajiroun to recruit UK Pakistanis to fight in Bosnia – this is the same Al-Muhajiroun that praised the 911 hijackers.

All of this suggests that MI5 were behind 7/7, not Al Queda. De Menezes may have unwittingly played a role in the 7/7 set up and MI5 felt it necessary to silence him.


Written answers
Tuesday, 13 November 2001
Home Department
Al-Muhajiroun

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Lab) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate
(1) the links between (a) Medina Ltd, TransGlobal Security International, Mark Yates and Paul Field and (b) Sakina Security Services Ltd, Al-Muhajiroun, and Omar Bakri Mohammed; and if he will make a statement;
(2) the activities of TransGlobal Security International; and if he will make a statement;
(3) the links between Anil Shah and Sakina Security Services; and if he will make a statement.

John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office) Hansard source
I have been in close touch with the relevant enforcement units, following their work in monitoring and evaluating any information that might be used in connection with any prosecution. The investigation of any alleged criminal offences is of course entirely a matter for the police. Any information that my hon. Friend is aware of which might assist the police in their investigations should be supplied to my Department immediately.


 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15760968&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--bombers-and-the-special-forces-soldier-name_page.html
The Mirror
EXCLUSIVE: BOMBERS AND THE SPECIAL FORCES SOLDIER
They worked in same bookshop
By Lucy Thornton
A FORMER Royal Marine, who converted to Islam, last night denied preaching violence to the four London bombers.
Martin McDaid, who also served in the Special Boat Service, said he knew the four terrorists but had no negative involvement with them and was totally against violence.
Mr McDaid, who now calls himself Abdullah, said he worked several hours a week at the Iqra bookshop in Beeston, Leeds, where the four terrorists lurked.
It was raided by police after the London atrocities.


Wikipedia states:
“Several commentators suggested that special forces may have been involved in the shooting. Professor Michael Clarke, Professor of Defence Studies at King's College London, went as far as to say that unless there had been a major change in policy it was likely that it was not the police who had carried out the shooting, but special forces:

"To have bullets pumped into him like this suggests quite a lot about him and what the authorities, whoever they are, assumed about him. The fact that he was shot in this way strongly suggests that it was someone the authorities knew and suspected he was carrying explosives on him. […] You don't shoot somebody five times if you think you might have made a mistake and may be able to arrest him. […] Even Special Branch and SO19 are not trained to do this sort of thing. It's plausible that they were special forces or elements of special forces." [44]

 http://www.sundayherald.com/51372
Sunday Herald
A COVER-UP? AND IF SO … WHY?
By James Cusick
21 August 2005
“However, the day before the admission that there was no anti-terrorism link, Sir Ian wrote to John Gieve, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, arguing that an internal inquiry into the killing should take precedence over an independent investigation. But why was Ian Blair worried that an IPCC investigation could impact on security and intelligence? Was he concerned that it was not just his force’s officers, but also the personnel of the new special forces regiment, the SRR, who would be exposed? He told Gieve that he feared the IPCC would have to inform the family of everything that was found – and “this investigation involves secret intelligence”. It was also believed that any outside investigation could damage the morale of SO19.”

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Click on - 'Watch BBC News In Video', then click 'Programmes' and 'Panorama'.

I never got to see the documentary. Perhaps you could briefly explain these observations for us?

"- the unbelievable claim that the so-called Special Reconnaissance Regiment could not identify De Menezes when he first left the block of flats"

Some observations that you may be able to allay:

"Panorama did not explain why the Special Reconnaissance Regiment was involved. It did not attempt to explain why Special Branch was involved."

22 SAS, SRR & Special Branch (virtually MI5 these days) all have counterterrorism in their remits and have permanent standby response units. These is no great mystery in that dept. I'd be somewhat surprised if a Special Forces group did the shooting. From what I gather it was hardly textbook...

While I agree that there is much to be explained about this incident and that the mess would suggest that at the very least a dubious breakdown in communications occurred, I am yet to see anything that suggests an execution. Surely, if they wanted this particular guy dead they'd just suicide him and if they wanted him dead and send a message they'd Kelly him (brazenly make a bad job of a suicide and then brazenly railroad the coroner's verdict).

This was sloppy beyond belief. It begs questioning for sure, but where's the support for anything other than a total fuck up.

"All of this suggests that MI5 were behind 7/7, not Al Queda. De Menezes may have unwittingly played a role in the 7/7 set up and MI5 felt it necessary to silence him."

Now you have just lept into the realms wearing a tinfoil hat and shouting at cars.

Watched the programme. Not really an awful lot in it that wasn't already in the public domain. But I reckon it had to be made to make sure that as many people as possible got to know it.

It's worth watching at the very least for Asst. Commander Psycho Babble who refuses to acknowledge that aiming for the head is effectively shoot-to-kill. Perhaps he should go talk to some army surgeons.

There is nothing in there to suggest any conspiracy to assasinate. In fact, even the family and friends seem to endorse the notion that this was a monumental fuck up and seem only interested in truth & justice.

It'll be very interesting (and surprising) if the CPS decide to prosecute. If they pick a fallguy down the ranks we could very well see a critical mass response and leaks sprining up everywhere.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that a desperate attempt to cover this up had been effected somewhere. I reckon what is most important is nailing whoever that person or those people were.

If MI5 assassinated De Menezes, why did they do it out in the open? This is a good question. I’m not sure I have a strong answer. Unless, the public nature of the execution is the point. It does two things: i. it introduces into the public mind the need to use lethal force and so the public will interpret future MI5 assassinations in this light and legitimate the use of lethal force to enforce control of the public; ii. it warns others who were unwitting accomplices to the 7/7 set up and witting accomplices having second thoughts to keep in line. The warning to the public had an effect given the fear it has engendered among the Muslim community. There has already been a suicide among 7/7 survivors. But clearly, if 7/7 was an MI5 job, things, nonetheless do go wrong and this necessitates doing botched operations.

Unbelievable claim - Panorama reported that when De Menezes left his block of flats, the one SRR officer (in a van with videos) switched off the video surveillance and went for a pee. He still, though, managed to radio to colleagues that De Menezes could be a bomber and he should be followed. I think anyone who believes this ‘wears a tin hat and shouts at cars’. His statement suggests two posibilities:
i. the officer was grossly negligent, lied about it and got rid of the incriminating video tape;
ii. it was a cover up to the fact that he was setting up De Menezes. There is clearly a cover up going on because the IPCC has stated that Special Branch officers altered logs.

The cock-up theory is simply not credible. There is so much pressure on, that individual police and SRR officers would have been publicly castigated and disciplined by now. Certainly, we’d all know the name of the hapless ‘pee’ officer because his photograph would be in the papers and he’d be disciplined. (National security didn’t protect Dr Kelly. They threw him to the media wolves at the first opportunity.) The lower grade officers would be blamed and Sir Ian would not have tried to play ‘national security means no IPCC’ card. But none of this has happened. This is because senior people are protecting incompetent junior officers. Why?

SRR - In August 2005, The Guardian reported, that the Special Reconnaissance Regiment was “newly formed”. Perhaps this explains their incompetence, but I suspect they are merely SAS officers. The only other officers they may have been is the Force Reconnaissance Unit (I think). They engaged in surveillance, assassination and dirty tricks in Northern Ireland. The only explanation of the dependence on army reconnaissance could be that all the trained police reconnaissance officers were busy with other suspected terrorists and criminals. But, no one has said that to my knowledge.

The first time anyone connected De Menezes to Special Branch was the story about them altering logs. We were first told by the media that it was an Anti-Terrorist Branch operation. Then we were told SRR were involved. Why is Special Branch now involved?

Special forces killing – It was the SAS who devised and sponsored the ‘overwhelming force’ tactics where a target is shot multiple times. SAS officers killed the Gibraltar IRA trio (in the 1980s). People were shocked that one IRA activist was shot more than 18 times (or something like that). Up to eleven bullets were used on De Menezes. This is why Professor Michael Clarke makes his comments, except that there was no reason whatsoever to suppose that De Menezes was carrying bombs. Or is this yet another example of incompetence and cock-up. Blow people up on tubes: this has to be stopped and lethal force is necessary to protect innocent lives. Blow people up on buses: whose bothered even if surveillance officers are on the buses with him, so let him take two buses so can chose which bus to blew up with their passengers.

Tinfoil hat – I think M is old enough to stop taking fairy stories seriously, and anyone who thinks that intelligence services always behave honourably reads fairy stories. To suggest that the intelligence services could not have been behind 7/7 is obviously ridiculous. We now know that the Red Brigade and their terrorist activity was an intelligence operation. We now know that MI5 contemplated a coup against Harold Wilson. And we all know what was said about Harold Wilson and others who were saying this at the time.

For instance, the media says that the 7/7 bombers received training in ‘extremist Madrassas’. These Madrassas are run by Pakistan intelligence. Pakistan intelligence is a creature of the CIA. That is, the CIA helped to train the 7/7 bombers. Conspiracy or cock-up?

Cooperative Research has created a 911 timeline using published, mainly media, sources
 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=isi
March 1985: US Escalates War in Afghanistan
Osama bin Laden in 1989.
Tens of thousands more will study in the hundreds of new madrassas funded by the ISI and CIA in Pakistan. Their main logistical base is in the Pakistani city of Peshawar. [The Hindu, 9/27/01; Washington Post, 7/19/92; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/23/01; Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 9/23/01] In the late 1980s, Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, feeling the mujahedeen network has grown too strong, tells President George H. W. Bush, “You are creating a Frankenstein.” However, the warning goes unheeded. [Newsweek, 9/24/01] By 1993, President Bhutto tells Egyptian President Hasni Mubarak that Peshawar is under de facto control of the mujahedeen, and unsuccessfully asks for military help in reasserting Pakistani control over the city. Thousands of mujahedeen fighters return to their home countries after the war is over and engage in multiple acts of violence. One Western diplomat notes these thousands would never have been trained or united without US help, and says, “The consequences for all of us are astronomical.” [Atlantic Monthly, 5/96]

John Loftus is a former US federal prosecutor. He won an Emmy for a “60 Minutes” investigative report about ex-Nazi who were CIA agents.

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050801&articleId=782
LOFTUS: Yes, I'm afraid so. The CIA was funding the operation to defend the Muslims, British intelligence was doing the hiring and recruiting. Now we have a lot of detail on this because Captain Hook, the head of Al-Muhajiroun, his sidekick was Bakri Mohammed, another cleric. And back on October 16, 2001, he gave a detailed interview with al-Sharq al-Aswat, an Arabic newspaper in London, describing the relationship between British intelligence and the operations in Kosovo and Al-Muhajiroun. So that's how we get all these guys connected. It started in Kosovo, Haroon [Aswat] was 31 years old, he came on about 1995.

 http://www.officialconfusion.com/77/priorknow/surveillance/200206globalresearchHamzawhysolong.html
CNN reported on July 28, 2005: “About a month before the July 7 bombings in London, British authorities balked at giving US officials permission to apprehend a man [Aswat] now believed to have ties to the bombers, according to sources familiar with the investigation....

“US authorities wanted to capture Aswat, who was then in South Africa, and question him about a 1999 plot to establish a ‘jihad training camp' in Bly, Oregon.”

Interviewed on the July 29, 2005, edition of Fox News Channel's “Day Side,” Loftus insisted that Aswat was an MI6 agent.

He stated that Abu Hamza's Al-Muhajiroun group had formed during the Kosovo crisis, explaining that “back in the late 1990s, the leaders all worked for British intelligence in Kosovo. Believe it or not, British intelligence actually hired some Al Qaeda guys to help defend the Muslim rights in Albania and in Kosovo. That's when Al-Muhajiroun got started.”

He then noted that both British Intelligence and the US Department of Justice had protected Aswat:

“Back in 1999 [Aswat] came to America. The Justice Department wanted to indict him in Seattle because him and his buddy were trying to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon.... [W]e've just learned that the headquarters of the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors not to touch Aswat.... [A]pparently Aswat was working for British intelligence.”

Loftus went on to say that several weeks before the July 7 London bombings, Aswat was located by the South African Intel agency, but was allowed to escape to London.

He added, “He was a British intelligence plant. So all of a sudden he disappears. He's in South Africa. We think he's dead; we don't know he's down there. Last month the South African Secret Service come across the guy. He's alive.... [T]he Brits know that the CIA wants to get a hold of Haroon. So what happens? He takes off again, goes right to London. He isn't arrested when he lands, he isn't arrested when he leaves.... He's on the watch list. The only reason he could get away with that was if he was working for British intelligence. He was a wanted man....

“This is the guy, and what's really embarrassing is that the entire British police are out chasing him, and one wing of the British government, MI6 or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him. And this has been a real source of contention between the CIA, the Justice Department, and Britain.... [H]e is a double agent.”

This is some cock-up. I'd take this cock-up nonsense a little more seriously if those who held the cock-up theory were also pressing for disciplinary action and change in the intelligence services. But they're response is largely: one innocent man gets shot; 52 people get blown up, oh well, cock-up, these things happen...

"unless, the public nature of the execution is the point. "

Then isn't being publically seen to shoot the wrong guy a bit counterproductive? If they can get away with offing Kelly so cackhandedly, how come the same efforts didn't go into whitewashing this one? It would suggest that there was no state-sanctioned execution at all.

"Panorama reported that when De Menezes left his block of flats, the one SRR officer (in a van with videos) switched off the video surveillance and went for a pee."

Totally ridiculous claim that has surely been laughed at by the IPCC. BTW, his other excuse was "he was unable to switch on the video equipment". Attempting to destroy the audit trail is an act of total desperation- notleast a BIG gamble in decreasing your chances of being busted-, not of someone confidentally offing a threat. If they wanted this guy buried they could have easily faked his identity and past and the real identity would be just another missing person, no?

Perhaps Mr Peepee wiped the video after it quickly arose that the got the wrong guy? It's all baseless speculation really on both of our behalfs.

"There is so much pressure on, that individual police and SRR officers would have been publicly castigated and disciplined by now."

Not when you consider they are still under investigation and nothing can/should be made public until it's run its legal course. Otherwise, the right to a fair trial goes out the window.

The Special Operations Group encompasses many regiments. SSR could also include officers commissioned from Special Branch/MI5/MI6... nothing much is really known about them except that they are staying in the old 22 SAS HQ.

Citing past misdeed to support present allegations is a bit weak. That's like accusing someone of theft and pointing to the fact their dad once stole a car... irrelevant to the case.

Since when has ISI been a CIA proxy??? I thought they were heavily infilitrated by Jihadi sympathisers... much like their Saudi counterparts. Oh it's the PigeonPlanet line of "Al Qaeda is CIA" ZZzzz...

Just because the general got a leg up from the Yanks doesn't turn Pakistan into the new Israel.

Sorry, but the sites you link to are just way too barmy to be taken seriously. They often run completely loony conjecture and present it as qualified fact.

Do *you* actually have any proof of something? That'd be nice for a change.

As far as I can see, this has been raked over umpteen times with every loon linking every loon with webspace and this time nothing new has been brought to the table except that the BBC is sticking it's boot into Ian Blair & Assoc. for being lying shites.