US wants a 3day shutdown of central london for Bush.

how much??? what are they asking??? we have a very broad, generalized article that makes the claim they're asking for a virtual shut-down of the city. how, at this point, do you know if they're being reasonable or unreasonable?

We don't know specifics, but we do know this:

<I>
American officials want a virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protestors. They are demanding that police ban all marches and seal off the city centre.

But senior Yard officers say the powers requested by US security chiefs would be unprecedented on British soil.
</I>

If its that dangerous for Bush to be there, he simply should go. Unprecedented security on British soil?! They've had IRA terrorism there in the past, their own leaders in direct danger, who knows how many controversial foreign leaders, and never needed this kind of security? How much will sealing off the city center cost their economy?

Completely unnecessary, in my opinion. London should just say, this is what we'll do and if it's not enough, oh well. If the area can't be reasonably secured, Bush shouldn't go. Would we shut down half of D.C. for any foreign leader?

 

I think we should defer on security matters to the wisdom of General Oskar Potiorek.....

 

If he requires the cirtual shut-down of downtown London
then he shouldn't be there..

otherwise I think it is unrealistic to ask and require that

I am not saying the SS shouldn't do anything and everything they can to protect him, because the should.

I am saying that this stinks of keeping protestors out of camera view.

But you are correct in that we don't know what the SS knows and they know what is best. But if the security is that much of a concern, then why be there?

 

Max, I would assume that in the day-to-day matters of security for the President, the Secret Service is in charge and, frankly, why would the President wish to be bothered with the details? So no, ordinarily Bush would defer to the Secret Service.

But when, by all accounts (apparently)... the central part of London is to be "shut down" to an unprecedented degree, then it is the President's call. He is the C-in-C. If he says jump then "everyone" asks how high.

Having the British go to such lengths to assure his security that the public is affronted and Blair is put in a politically bad spot, just to have the proper "photo op", puts into question the wisdom of the visit. Why put the politically troubled Blair in a bad position? I would say that Bush and company have done plenty of that already. Why not meet on British soil that is relatively easy to secure? There must be a host of alternatives.

 

Max, it is almost painful to see you keep staining and straining to make this look like only a security issue devoid of any desire for Bush to avoid coming in contact with those who oppose him.

 

Eh, I'm not sure that's what he's doing (though MM can definitely speak for himself better than me!). His questions are certainly valid.

The security of the President is, without question, *the* main priority with anything he does. Personally, I think the London shutdown is about stifling dissent, not security. But it's not outside the realm of possibility that Bush's security team believes protests will be *so* large that it necessitates the virtual shutdown of one of the largest cities in the world. Given the hatred Bush inspires around the world, this viewpoint is definitely worth consideration.

Either way, it doesn't say much about The Appointed One.

 

Well Jakarta wasn't shutdown when Bush visited the terrorist-breeding-ground Indonesia. Bangkok wasn't shutdown when Bush went to the terrorist-highcommand-Hambali-caught-here Thailand. The Secret-Service had enough confidence then (that was last month).

Now the capital city of Bush's staunchest ally needs to be shutdown for his visit, for security reasons.

 

zhaozhilong, interesting coments about Indonesia.

It could be that Blair,too, wants to avoid political embarassment. Of course it is more embarrassingfor there to be massive protests against Bush, in Britain, our main ally, than in Indonesia.

While "security" or "national security" can be used to justify almost anything and it is indeed hard to know, when you look at the larger picture of Bush almost only speaking on aircraft carriers, military bases and Repuboican fund raisers, it certainly looks like he or his handlers want to shield him from any contact with those who disagree with him.

 

from now on you have permission to speak for me...particularly in response to a post like that.

 

While I agree that security should be left up to the security people, I also agree with those who point out that if there is a big enough security risk to shut down all of central London, then Bush shouldn't even consider going there.

If the "security" reasons are all a big attempt at keeping protesters away from Bush then the administration (and Secret Service) do not have a leg to stand on as far as this request. If they are actually trying to get demonstrators banned from a public area of a free country, that is wrong, especially as the request is coming from the country that is supposed to be the one that espouses freedom.

 

Could get ugly. (I do love the last paragraph... what class!)

From Time...
___________
The George and Tony Show Could Get Wild

Blair is looking forward to Bush's visit to Britain next week. So are the protesters

By J.F.O. MCALLISTER

It seemed like a great idea at the time. Two summers ago, Elizabeth II decided to invite Bush 43 for a formal state visit, the first for an American President since Woodrow Wilson called on her grandfather in 1918. Prime Minister Tony Blair's government was behind the idea, confident that lots of royal folderol — a white-tie dinner, a ride by the Queen and the President in a horse-drawn carriage — would put a big, emotional exclamation point on the transatlantic bonds Blair has nourished. But now, a week before Air Force One is scheduled to touch down, Bush's journey is starting to look like a cross between The Perfect Storm and Chevy Chase Goes to London.

All police vacations have been canceled so that some 4,000 officers can contain anti-Bush protests organized by the Stop the War Coalition, which mobilized a record 1 million marchers for a demonstration last February. The group's website sports an unflattering photo of Bush, complete with instructions on how to photocopy it at 141% magnification to produce the right dimensions for an effigy. Plans call for toppling a mesh statue of Bush, Saddam style, in Trafalgar Square on Nov. 20. The President will be kept as far away from protesters as the Secret Service can manage — he won't join the Queen for her carriage ride after all — but as a U.S. official says, "There's a lot of fear of surprises."


Because Blair is so articulate and stalwart, Bush has always got a boost from the Prime Minister's visits to the U.S. But Bush's reciprocal gesture can only hurt Blair. The PM's approval ratings have slumped, largely because of his decision to stand with Bush on Iraq. There aren't any weapons of mass destruction to vindicate Blair's key argument that Saddam Hussein was furiously producing them. Constant strife and death in Iraq are making the British public uneasy about Bush's competence and fearful that Britain's nearly 10,000 troops in Iraq will be killed in increasing numbers. (Twenty-three have died since Bush declared an end to major hostilities on May 1.) In a recent MORI poll of British adults, half the respondents said they wanted Blair to resign right away.

It's no wonder he has been straining to downplay Iraq in favor of domestic issues. The strategy has been helped by the fact that the British media have lately been focusing on upheavals in the Conservative Party, a lurid child murder and, last week, the strange tale of Prince Charles' denial — without disclosing the original allegation because a court injunction prohibits that — of a racy claim about him by a former aide with a history of alcoholism. Never mind: next week all of Fleet Street will be awash with coverage of the person a U.S. diplomat ruefully dubbed "the toxic Texan," whose handling of international affairs is panned by two-thirds of Brits. White House officials know their boss is making life awkward for his First Friend. "Maybe they'll keep the lights off and pretend they're not home," quips a Bush aide.

On the contrary, Blair's solution to his p.r. problem is to offer a full-throated advocacy of close U.S.-British ties. Far from keeping Bush under wraps for fear of gaffes, Blair is encouraging him to grant interviews with lots of local media. A trip to Blair's home constituency in the northeast is planned to showcase more of the President. "Anyone who thinks the Prime Minister is going to be apologetic about his relationship with Bush and the U.S. totally misunderstands his view of them — both personal and strategic," says a Blair aide.

But it's going to be a nerve-racking three days. "It's all thin ice," says a Foreign Office official. One element of unpredictability: Bush hates — really hates — the fuss and formality in which state visits are steeped. The last time he dined with the Queen — in 1992 at his father's White House, wearing cowboy boots emblazoned with GOD SAVE THE QUEEN — he asked if she had any black sheep in her family. "Don't answer that!" his mother Barbara interjected, trying to avoid embarrassment. This time he's the President, the man in charge. Whatever Bush does, Blair will have to live with it.

 

Next week in London will be a nice preview of what the Republican Party can expect in New York City during their convention next year.

 

The NYC Convention is going to be a zoo. I read where 83% of the City voted Democrat. With Bush trying to capitalize on 9/11, his only claim to fame it could be Chicago in 1968 all over again.

I'm not sure who the chaos that could happen would hurt most, the GOP or the Democrats.

 

With the genius of Karl Rove behind it, I'm sure it'd hurt the Democrats the most.

Potential protesters would be wise to keep it very calm and solemn, I believe. Of course, that would never happen.

 

WHY WE HAVE TO MARCH AGAINST DUBYA Nov 13 2003

Kate Allen Uk Director Amnesty International


THOUSANDS of people will take to the streets in Britain next week to voice their anger, frustration and political opposition to President George W Bush's policies.

Some will criticise these protestors, writing off their views as knee-jerk anti-Americanism. But the critics should think before condemning them.

Why? Because after almost three years of President Bush's "war on terror" many would argue that the world is now a more dangerous and divided place than it was immediately after 9/11.

Countries don't protect freedom by attacking hard-won civil liberties, locking up thousands of people without charge or trial, and rushing through ever-more draconian laws.

You don't win the hearts and minds of the doubters and the disaffected by riding roughshod over human rights.

But you DO provide terrorists and extremists with the kind of propaganda they could only have dreamt of a few years ago.

Take Guantanamo Bay. What is the impact of the image of the orange boiler-suited detainees crouching in submission behind Camp Delta's chain-link fences?

Most people in this country seem to be revolted that nearly 700 people are held without charge or trial and without access to lawyers or family for almost two years. They question our own government's weakness in failing to properly stand up for the rights of the nine British men imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.

RIGHTLY, they wonder whether our government would have been more robust had these men been held by a country like Iran or Syria or almost any other country besides the US.

But, take the understandable outrage in this country and apply it to a Middle-Eastern country. When the manacled men from Guantanamo Bay flash up on Al-Jazeera television, for example, we can easily guess that outrage reaches new levels.

No Americans are being held at Camp Delta. Only non-US citizens.

John Walker Lindh, the so-called "American Taliban", was given a defence attorney and brought before an independent civilian court. Camp Delta's "enemy combatants", on the other hand, have to endure indefinite detention without charge or trial and no access to legal counsel or any court.

Hanging over them is the possibility of unfair trials, military tribunals with restricted rights of defence, no independent appeals and the threat of the death penalty.

It stinks. And that's why Amnesty International plans to make its point - on the streets of London dressed in orange boiler suits.

The journey from the Twin Towers to Guantanamo Bay has been a disastrous one - from an international atrocity to an international disgrace. It is a massive own goal in the war on terror and its sinister consequences are likely to haunt the world for years.

But it is not just Guantanamo Bay that is so worrying. Since September 11 the USA has used its over-arching "war on terror" as an alibi to create a parallel justice system to detain, interrogate, charge or try suspects under the "laws of war".

In mainland USA people have already been held under military procedures as "enemy combatants'. For example, Jose Padilla - the so-called Dirty Bomber - has been held for more than a year in solitary confinement at a naval prison in South Carolina. He is imprisoned without charge, trial or access to his lawyer or family.

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, was arrested after flying back into the US from the Middle East where he had, according to officials, been plotting to use a bomb packed with radioactive waste on the US.

This is a virtually unprecedented suspension of the fundamental rights of a US citizen in US custody - not to mention a violation of international law.

In other countries people in the hands of US forces are seemingly classified as "enemy combatants" simply if Donald Rumsfeld's Defense `Department says they are. In Iraq as many as 10,000 people are being held, most without any legal process.

Beyond the high media visibility of Guantanamo Bay there also appears to be a shadowy network of "war on terror" detention sites.

At the US air base at Bagram in Afghanistan, for example, former inmates have spoken of a regime of forced stripping, hooding, blindfolding with blacked-out goggles, 24-hour lighting, sleep deprivation and prolonged restraint in painful positions.

As with Guantanamo Bay, Amnesty International is not allowed into Bagram and not even the Red Cross has had access to all prisoners there.

Meanwhile, there are rumours of other prisons - on island military bases or in embassy buildings. These are unconfirmed, but the US already admits to holding people at "undisclosed locations".

Frighteningly, what we are seeing is the almost day-by-day erosion of the USA's commitment to human rights. Where once the world might have looked to America for inspiration, Bush's America is now actively undermining the international system for human rights protection.

On other issues the trend is the same - America ripping up the rulebook. The US is now by far the most active opponent of the new International Criminal Court, a court that the US should be celebrating as a historic attempt to deter and punish genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

INSTEAD it has embarked on a campaign of bullying weaker countries into agreeing exemptions for US personnel.

Next week the slogans of the protestors will be mixed - anything from anti-war messages on Iraq, opposition to "Star Wars" defence projects, environmental objections to America's gas-guzzling economy and protests at its trade policies.

But one thing unites these voices. A belief that the United States has strayed way off course and forgotten its own traditions of supporting human rights and fundamental liberties.

Crucially, Bush protests will also test our own government's commitment to freedom of speech and legitimate dissent in Britain.

This month a court controversially ruled that police use of terrorism powers to arrest peaceful protestors at an arms fair in Docklands, East London was reasonable. Why are ordinary people with a point of view on the arms industry considered a threat to the nation?

Mr Bush's three-day trip to Britain is a high-level visit with all of the pomp and ceremony of any such occasion.

However, the right to have your say is a proud British tradition and the government should see to it that policing during President Bush's visit is done with a light touch.

There should be no "exclusion zones" and Mr Bush should not be protected from protests.

Four years ago protestors during the visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin had flags and banners ripped from their hands. Then the Metropolitan Police behaved in a way more reminiscent of the Chinese secret police than the friendly British bobby.

This time let's hear it for peaceful, good-humoured free expression. Taking to the streets to protest during George Bush's visit will be pro-American and pro-human rights.

Exercising your legitimate right to protest is a core American - and British - value. It's what makes me proud to protest.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnew...WE-HAVE-TO-MARCH-AGAINST-DUBYA-name_page.html

 

We wanted immunity in case we had to kill people... and we wanted to bring a special gun... just in case, of course.
_____________
'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US

Martin Bright, home affairs editor
Sunday November 16, 2003
The Observer

Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of President Bush's entourage this week.
In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush's protection squad will face justice in a British court as would any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed.

The issue of immunity is one of a series of extraordinary US demands turned down by Ministers and Downing Street during preparations for the Bush visit.

These included the closure of the Tube network, the use of US air force planes and helicopters and the shipping in of battlefield weaponry to use against rioters.

In return, the British authorities agreed numerous concessions, including the creation of a 'sterile zone' around the President with a series of road closures in central London and a security cordon keeping the public away from his cavalcade.

The White House initially demanded the closure of all Tube lines under parts of London to be visited during the trip. But British officials dismissed the idea that a suicide bomber could kill the President by blowing up a Tube train. Ministers are also believed to have dismissed suggestions that a 'sterile zone' around the President should be policed entirely by American special agents and military.

Demands for the US air force to patrol above London with fighter aircraft and Black Hawk helicopters have also been turned down.

The President's protection force will be armed - as Tony Blair's is when he travels abroad - and around 250 secret service agents will fly in with Bush, but operational control will remain with the Metropolitan Police.

The Americans had also wanted to travel with a piece of military hardware called a 'mini-gun', which usually forms part of the mobile armoury in the presidential cavalcade. It is fired from a tank and can kill dozens of people. One manufacturer's description reads: 'Due to the small calibre of the round, the mini-gun can be used practically anywhere. This is especially helpful during peacekeeping deployments.'

Ministers have made clear to Washington that the firepower of the mini-gun will not be available during the state visit to Britain. In return, the Government has agreed to close off much of Whitehall during the visit - the usual practice in Britain is to use police outriders to close roads as the cavalcade passes to cause minimal disruption to traffic.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: 'Negotiations between here and the US have been perfectly amicable. If there have been requests, they have not posed any problems.'

An internal memo sent to Cabinet Office staff and leaked to the press this weekend urged staff to work from home if at possible during the presidential visit. Serious disruption would be caused by 'the President Bush vehicle entourage requesting cleared secured vehicle routes around London and the security cordons creating a sterile zone around him'.

Meanwhile, negotiations are continuing between police and demonstrators about the route of the march. Representatives of the Stop the War Coalition will meet police at Scotland Yard tomorrow to discuss whether protesters will be able to march through Parliament Square and Whitehall. Spokesman Andrew Burgin said he hoped for 'a good old-fashioned British compromise'.

 

I am really begining to have a reeeally bad feeling about this trip. Why can't they just cancel it? What is the big deal? Is junior trying to just make history a la Churchill-Roosevelt?

Left to me I 'd say the president tell Queen Eliza II and the Prime Minister that this trip is not worth it now - POSTPONEMENT will be in order. I have a bad feeling.

 

Minigun is somewhat broad. Hope they didn't mean this one:
http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/kpm27.htm#M134
but it is a standard helicopter armament.

 

Perhaps this has something to do with the added security demands....

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 12 November 2003 1418 hrs

Al-Qaeda threat to Bush during Britain trip




LONDON : Al-Qaeda terrorists using the cover of anti-war protests are a real threat to the safety of US President George W. Bush during his state visit to London next week, Britain's most senior policemen have warned.

"We are not so concerned about some anti-war protester throwing rotten fruit at the president. Our worry now is the more dangerous elements who may be here," said a senior Scotland Yard source quoted in The Times newspaper Wednes

The report came the day after anti-war demonstrators accused the government of blocking their right to protest in central London against Bush's visit from November 18 to 21.

The Stop the War Coalition, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), and the Muslim Association of Great Britain intend to organize a 100,000-strong march on November 20 around the main government buildings.

But, according to Stop The War coalition, police have said any demonstration through Parliament Square and Whitehall in the heart of the capital would be banned.

(snip)

Link-Channelnewsasia

I don't understand why there is such outrage about taking every precaution possible to protect the President..