Implications of new security measures around the Olympics

So, today is the last day that pilots, both private and commercial can fly over the centre of London without clearing their flight with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and keeping in contact with military air traffic controllers. The background to this is the perceived threat of a terrorist attack by air on the Olympic venues, and that is fine. It is a realistic threat and appears on the surface to be a reasonable response to that threat. At least until you look at the small print and particularly when you understand the implications of that small print. The response to an unauthorised aircraft entering restricted airspace is to scramble military helicopters or fast attack Typhoon jets depending on the intruding aircraft, and attempts will be made to contact the pilot. It is at this point that it gets rather darker. If attempts to contact the pilot fail, and a credible threat is perceived then the RAF are authorised to use deadly force to bring the aircraft down. Technically the RAF has always had this power, but it is the first time that it has been authorised publicly over a major UK city.

It also raises another interesting question. Given that security for the games is being provided by Group 4 Security (G4S) backed up by up to 11,600 regular army and territorial army soldiers who will potentially, along with the police be armed, do these authorisations of deadly force extent to ground based threats? It would seem likely given the level of perceived threat. Think back to the aftermath of the July 7^th underground bombings, and particularly the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes the Brazilian electrician shot to death reportedly by armed police officers who mistakenly identified him as a terrorist threat. Of course it couldn't possibly be the case that he was actually shot by a military special forces unit of the SAS. The fact that he was shot using a double tap technique favoured by the unit, that he was shot repeatedly in the head by multiple shooters, a tactic favoured by special forces soldiers, and that he was shot using dum-dum bullets which are not approved for use by police marksmen is irrelevant.

So, if we do have armed military personnel providing security, and those personnel have a shoot to kill policy authorised by the UK government, isn't this the very definition of a military police state? Even allowing for the special circumstances how has this situation been allowed in a supposedly democratic society without raising serious political questions and heated debate? How has the mainstream media not been all over this? Perhaps the most important question of all is, if this state of affairs is possible without such debate and media interest, doesn't that rather suggest that those decisions have already happened in private, that there are already plans approved by previous governments for the creation of such a police state? Just how long has this been the case? It seems likely that it goes back to at least the 1980's and the use of the SAS in hostage situations such as the Iranian Embassy seige, and their engagement in the shooting of suspected terrorists in Gibraltar. There is some evidence that this was considered even earlier through the trade union disputes of the 1970's when the UK teetered on the brink of anarchy and the collapse of law and order.

It does rather make me wonder what the countries who are sending athletes and spectators to the games make of it all. Presumably they have all been made aware of this policy? What does that say about, lets say America, and its own policies and preparations for a police state? It appears that only time will tell.