By Sheri H. Mecklenburg, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois
Source of article: http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1264&issue_id=92007
The recent attempted bombings in London and Glasgow, like the earlier
suicide bombings of the Madrid and London transit systems, leave no doubt
that the threat of terrorism now comes from local cells, thrusting local
police into a role once thought of as the purview of international and
federal agencies: that of antiterrorism combatants. As a result of these
incidents, police chiefs in major U.S. cities must now equip their
officers to confront not only gangs, guns, and drugs but also suicide
bombers like those seen in London, Glasgow, and Madrid. As local law
enforcement agencies refine their strategies to combat urban crime,
potential suicide bombers represent a challenge that traditional local law
enforcement policies, practices, and training are particularly inadequate
to address. Although some elite units in big-city departments have trained
for the possibility of suicide bombers, the average U.S. cop on the street
is ill prepared to face a suicide bomber, and the traditional training
given to most officers provides them with tools that may actually increase
suicide bombers’ chance of success.1
Suicide Bombers in the United States
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were not the first suicide
bombings in the United States—and likely will not be the last.2
As early as July 1997, the New York Police Department (NYPD) foiled a
double–suicide bombing plot against the New York City subway system just
hours before the planned bombing. The offenders were linked to al Qaeda.3
Just two years later, law enforcement foiled yet another planned
suicide bombing in the United States, also linked to al Qaeda. On December
14, 1999, Ahmed Ressam attempted to cross the border from Canada into Port
Angeles, Washington. The customs inspector noticed that he was evasive and
appeared suspicious. She referred him to a secondary checkpoint, where
agents searched his car. The agents discovered in the trunk four boxes of
homemade timing devices and 12 bags of powder, which later was identified
as containing 124 pounds of urea and sulfate, ingredients for making
bombs. Although Ressam attempted to bolt upon discovery of the powder, the
agents gave chase and apprehended him after pursuing him for several
blocks. Interrogation disclosed that Ressam intended to make a 200-pound
bomb, which he planned to detonate in the crowded terminal of the Los
Angeles airport at the height of the millennium celebration. Ressam, since
labeled the “Millennium Bomber,” was convicted in March 2001 and,
facing 130 years in jail, began cooperating with the government. His
cooperation disclosed ties to al Qaeda and resulted in his identification
of and testimony against several al Qaeda operatives.4
Locally Organized Terrorism: A New Strategy?
On March 11, 2004, Madrid suffered a series of coordinated bombings on
its commuter trains, killing nearly 200 people and injuring almost 2,000
more. On July 7, 2005, London suffered four bomb attacks on three trains
and a bus, leaving more than 50 people dead and 700 injured. On September
1, 2005, one of the London bombers appeared on a video declaring his ties
to al Qaeda. On September 11, 2005, al Qaeda released a video announcing a
campaign of suicide bombings throughout the world. And just this year,
physicians who are living and working in England and Scotland were
arrested for attempted car bombings in London and Glasgow.
In fact, an al Qaeda campaign of suicide bombings in the West might
have been hatched months before the Madrid train bombings. In December
2003, a Norwegian intelligence officer came across a document on the
Internet that he initially disregarded as simply another al Qaeda strategy
for getting the United States out of Iraq. After the Madrid train
bombings, however, the Norwegian officer returned to the document,
realizing that it reflected a strategy for isolating the United States in
Iraq, by forcing out allies through a series of suicide bombings in the
allied countries.5 The Internet document
analyzes the likely ineffectiveness of suicide bombings in Poland,
characterizing the population as supportive of the war and able to
withstand high casualty rates. After dismissing Poland as a likely target,
the document presents a sophisticated analysis of Spain’s internal
politics. The document characterized the Spanish population as
unsupportive of the war and unable to tolerate casualties, concluding that
the Spanish population could handle “two, maximum three blows.” In
fact, the timing of the Madrid train bombings just before a national
election appears to have influenced the election of the Socialist Party
candidates, who advocated the withdrawal of the Spanish troops from Iraq
and began that withdrawal shortly after taking office. The Internet
document also analyzes the effectiveness that suicide bombings in London
would have on withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.
Some have asked why al Qaeda would post its strategy on the Internet.
Perhaps in response to the tremendous foreign intelligence efforts aimed
at stopping terrorism following September 11, 2001, al Qaeda no longer can
count on painstaking planning and prolonged training of terrorists at its
camps. Perhaps the organization is now counting on its Internet missives
to encourage local cells, such as the London bombers, to carry out its
missions. Los Angeles chief of police William Bratton has aptly noted the
effect of local terrorist cells on local law enforcement agencies in
reflecting on the 2005 London bombings:
[T]errorist cells seem cut off from Al Qaeda’s headquarters. Now,
rather than the well-financed groups of highly trained
“professional” terrorists right out of Bin Laden’s camps, we are
dealing with a new breed of young, educated men who are living among us
in the United States and Europe. They are following Al Qaeda-influenced
websites or heeding the calls to action by radical Imams. Without
financing or logistical support from Al Qaeda, their attack plan may be
whatever plan they can cobble together with imagination and Internet
research. Because of that, now more than ever, it is more likely that
the terrorist plot is going to be uncovered by the cop on the beat than
a foreign intelligence source.6
Indeed, breeding of local terrorists means that local law enforcement
agencies will play a greater role in both detecting and preventing
terrorism. Because suicide bombers live among ordinary people, these
people are the most likely to become aware of suspicious activity and to
report such activity to their local police department. Local police must
be trained to recognize the value of immediate investigation of citizen
tips about such suspicious behavior, even if the reported conduct does not
reflect traditional indicia of criminal conduct.7
Local Law Enforcement Tools for Combating Terrorism
Once local law enforcement agencies receive a threat of a suicide
bombing, they must be ready on very short notice to deploy their resources
and adapt their common tools to thwart terrorists. Such simple tools as
increased traffic enforcement can lead to the apprehension of potential
offenders.8 Dogs trained to detect bombs can
also be used at traffic stops, provided that they are used within the
confines set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Illinois v. Caballes.9
In Caballes, the Court held that drug- or bomb-detecting canines
can be used during a traffic stop if the initial stop is lawful, if the
use of the canines does not prolong the stop, and if the dogs are trained
to detect only contraband and not to “hit” on legitimate property.
This means that local law enforcement agencies must have canine units on
the scene in advance rather than detaining a driver to bring in
bomb-sniffing dogs.
Roadblocks represent another tool against suicide bombers. The Supreme
Court made it clear, in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, that
stopping a car at a roadblock constitutes a seizure within the meaning of
the Fourth Amendment.10 The Court noted that
the use of roadblocks to stop cars without individualized suspicion is
permissible in limited circumstances, such as sobriety checkpoints, checks
for drivers’ licenses and registration, and border patrol checkpoints.11
Although the Edmond Court refused to extend the use of roadblocks
to detect illegal drugs or other ordinary criminal wrongdoing, it agreed
that the “Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an
appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist
attack. . . . ”12 Thus, if local law
enforcement agencies have specific information of a potential suicide
bombing, a roadblock tailored to that information should be permissible.
It appears that only specific threats against a public event will
justify searches of those attending public gatherings where First
Amendment rights are implicated.13 General
terrorism concerns or elevated terrorism levels likely will not justify
either searches of the personal belongings of those attending a public
gathering, or use of metal detectors at a public gathering, absent a
specific terror threat.14 In response to an
argument raising general terrorism concerns to justify searches of
individuals attending a public gathering, one court noted that no evidence
of a specific threat was introduced, further stating, “While the threat
of terrorism is omnipresent, we cannot use it as the basis for restricting
the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protections in any large gathering
of people. In the absence of some reason to believe that international
terrorists would target or infiltrate this protest, there is no basis for
using September 11 as an excuse for searching protestors.”15
That same court also rejected the notion that the Department of
Homeland Security’s elevated threat advisory level justified the
searches. Observing that the threat level has been elevated for the
majority of its time in existence, the court stated, “Given that we have
been on ‘yellow alert’ for over two and a half years now, we cannot
consider this a particularly exceptional condition that warrants
curtailment of constitutional rights. We cannot simply suspend or restrict
civil liberties until the War on Terror is over, because the War on Terror
is unlikely ever to be truly over.”16 Thus,
only a specific threat will justify the targeted use of law enforcement
tools to prevent a suicide bombing.
Local Law Enforcement Deadly-Force Policy and Practices
Despite the best intelligence, detection, and prevention, there is
likely to be a time when rank-and-file local law enforcement officers
confront a suicide bomber on the street. With no time to call in the bomb
squad or special weapons and tactics (SWAT) team, cops on the street will
have to act quickly, according to their training on deadly force. The
traditional notions of deadly force, however, do not apply to suicide
bombers.17
The Supreme Court established the constitutional limits on the use of
deadly force by law enforcement officials in Tennessee v. Garner.18
In that case, the Court held that the use of deadly force is a seizure
subject to the reasonableness standards of the Fourth Amendment. The Court
allowed that where an officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect
poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to
others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using
deadly force. The Court further explained that “if the suspect threatens
the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he
has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of
serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent
escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”19
Local law enforcement agencies usually apply the principles of Garner
to the situation of a “man with a gun,” by training their officers to
shoot only if the gun is pointed at an officer and, even then, to give a
warning to drop the gun. Many departments have adopted a policy stricter
than that allowed by the Supreme Court, prohibiting shooting at offenders,
fleeing or otherwise, unless there is an “imminent” danger to the
officer or others. Imminent is often defined as whether the offender is,
in fact, making an irreversible move to shoot. Lawsuits arising out of
police shootings often focus on whether the police officer identified
himself and gave a warning before shooting and whether the offender was
imminently ready to shoot or was retreating. Experts are brought in to
debate whether bullet wounds in the back are indicative of whether the
offender was running away or whether the police began shooting while the
offender remained an imminent threat.
In the context of suicide bombers, however, this debate is irrelevant.
Suicide bombers always pose an imminent threat of death and serious
injury, whether they are moving toward or fleeing from their target, for
at any time they may detonate. Suicide bombers with their back toward, or
backing away from, officers and the public are just as dangerous as those
facing or moving toward officers and the public. Even suicide bombers some
distance away remain an imminent threat: if an officer is within shooting
distance of a bomber, then the bomber is certainly within range of killing
the officer. In assessing the use of deadly force against a suicide
bomber, officers must be trained to redefine imminent danger, for it is
very different from the “man with a gun” situation.20
In addition, the Supreme Court noted that a warning should be given
“if feasible,” and officers are regularly trained to give such
warnings. However, a warning is most likely not feasible when confronting
a suicide bomber. The purpose of a warning is to allow the “man with the
gun” to drop the gun and surrender peacefully without being shot. If law
enforcement officers confronting suicide bombers issue a warning to stop,
bombers, knowing that they have been detected and presumably ready to die,
likely will simply detonate. The warning itself may encourage bombers to
act sooner, giving officers even less time to assess their options and the
public even less time to seek safety. Nevertheless, local law enforcement
practice encourages warnings before the use of lethal force as part of its
continuum-offorce training, a practice that can prove dangerous when
applied to suicide bombers.
Other traditional policies and practices also may put officers in
greater danger when confronting suicide bombers or bombs detonated by
remote devices. For instance, officers confronting a dangerous situation
often immediately use their radio to inform their agency of the threat and
ask for assistance. Officers may not be trained to know that their radio
frequency could set off a bomb and that instead, they should immediately
turn off their radio. Similarly, use of a cellular phone can detonate a
bomb. Officers trained to use alternative means of force, such as a Taser
device, also may not know that the electrical charge of the Taser can
detonate a bomb. If suspects appear to surrender, traditional training
encourages officers to approach the offenders and pat them down for
weapons. In the context of suicide bombers, the officers’ approach and
pat-down may be the very things that increase their danger and set off the
bomb.
If deadly force is used, officers are traditionally trained to shoot at
the center of an offender’s body mass in order to increase the
likelihood of a hit. However, a shot to the center of a suicide bomber’s
body mass may be the very act that detonates the bomb carried on the
bomber’s body. A shot to the center of a suicide bomber’s body mass
also may, rather than immediately incapacitate the bomber, allow the
bomber a few extra seconds to detonate before succumbing to the bullet.
Therefore, experts recommend that when officers confront a suicide bomber,
lethal force should take the form of a shot to the head rather than to the
center of body mass.21
The use of deadly force, without warning, on a suspected suicide bomber
who appears to be fleeing, followed by a shot to the head, causes ethical
concerns for U.S. police officers and the public alike.22
The difficulty of such a policy has led one expert to opine that most U.S.
police departments will not adopt an effective suicide bomber policy until
after a suicide bombing occurs on U.S. soil.23
The difficulty of reconciling traditional police policies with those
considered effective to stop suicide bombers is apparent in the few
attempts made so far to draft a written law enforcement policy on
confronting suicide bombers. The U.S. Capitol Police adopted the first
written policy for local law enforcement officers in the United States
confronting suicide bombers on the street.24
This progressive policy recognizes the need to maintain distance rather
than approach the suspect, the danger of secondary devices, the danger of
using the radio when confronting a suspected bomber, and the necessity of
shooting at the suspect’s head when using lethal force. Nevertheless,
the policy demonstrates the tension between traditional policing
perspectives and confronting suicide bombers beginning with the preamble:
“The preservation of life and the protection of property will be the
foremost consideration of the Department in the event of a suicide bomb
threat. . . . This includes the life of the suspected bomber.” The
policy directs that the first officer on the scene “[o]rder the suspect
to stop all movement.” The policy directs that if suspects comply with
an officer’s order to stop, officers should then order suspects to open
their clothing to reveal their torso and then to lay prone on the ground.
Of course, the warning itself may give bombers notice to set off their
bomb, but even if they hesitate, they will have additional opportunities
to detonate when touching their clothing and when lying down. Even the
friction of moving to the ground can unintentionally detonate the bomb.
Although warnings feasible in traditional law enforcement confrontations
may still be feasible when officers confront suicide bombers, it is
extremely unlikely to be the case, and officers need to be trained
properly to make this critical judgment.
In July 2005, the IACP issued training keys on suicide bombers that
also demonstrate the conflict between traditional policing and confronting
terrorism.25 The IACP training keys recognize
the particularities of dealing with suicide bombers and aptly note the
necessity of maintaining a safe distance and the danger of using radios,
Tasers, and other electrical discharge devices. The IACP explains that
officers need not wait to use lethal force until the threat of death or
serious injury is imminent. However, the issue is not whether officers
must wait to use lethal force until the threat of death or serious injury
is imminent; the issue is recognizing that the threat of death or serious
injury is always imminent when facing an individual outfitted with a bomb.
The IACP also recommends that before using lethal force against a suicide
bomber, officers should, “[i]n open areas, fir[e] a warning shot in the
air to get members of the public in covered or prone positions.” Not
only does this practice ignore the dangers of giving suicide bombers
notice that they have been detected, but firing a warning shot in an area
where there are members of the public is dangerous in itself. The IACP
training keys drew considerable attention for advocating that “if lethal
force is justified or authorized, aim for the head.” The media, and
hence the public, misunderstood this recommendation as a novel
“shoot-to-kill” policy, when in fact all use of lethal force,
including a shot aimed toward the center of body mass, is by definition a
shoot-to-kill decision.26
The London subway bombing incident illustrates the public’s
misunderstanding of what is defined as a “shoot-to-kill” policy. On
July 21, 2005—just 14 days after four bombs killed more than 50 and
injured more than 700—London police discovered four additional bombs on
the subway and a bus, all of which malfunctioned, resulting in no
injuries. With tension high, the next day the police encountered Jean
Charles de Menezes on the subway, who reportedly was wearing
inappropriately bulky clothing, ran from the police, and ignored orders to
halt. Believing that they had encountered another suicide bomber, the
officers on the scene, in radio contact with supervisors, acted on orders
to shoot and put seven shots into Menezes, all in the head. It turned out
that Menezes was not a suicide bomber but a 27-year-old Brazilian
immigrant who had moved to London to work. In the wake of the discovery
that Menezes was not a suicide bomber, there has been considerable debate
about the “shoot-to-kill” policy,27 and
it has been reported that the policy initially had been kept secret due to
the concern over public acceptance.28 As with
the attention directed at the IACP training keys mentioned earlier, the
debate has not recognized the fact that the decision to use lethal force
of any kind is a “shoot-to-kill” choice. Despite the public concern,
London police announced that the deadly-force policy of shooting potential
suicide bombers in the head would remain.29
In the United States, a similar incident prompted surprisingly little
debate. On June 29, 2005, a man walked into the federal courthouse in
Seattle, Washington, and claimed that he was going to blow up the
building. He carried what appeared to be a grenade and had a backpack
strapped to his body. After evacuating the building, Seattle police shot
the man in the head. The man lay where he fell for two hours, without
medical attention, until the police could determine the danger from the
grenade or if there was a bomb in the backpack. The World War II–era
grenade turned out to be inactive, and the portable x-ray machine using
digital film purchased for detecting bombs revealed that the backpack
contained a cutting board. Perhaps the express verbal threats made by the
man in Seattle, as opposed to officers’ own assessment of the threat in
the London shooting, contributed to public acceptance of the response of
the Seattle police.30
As of this writing, the National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board
is in the process of developing guidelines for responding to bombers,
including suicide bombers. The guidelines are expected to address 14
situations, sorted into five categories, and to recommend that when
confronting suicide bombers, officers should not shoot near the bomb, that
is, not at the center of body mass. Presumably, the guidelines will
suggest shooting at the head. Although bomb squad officers are invaluable
in dealing with bombs detonated by remote devices, a suicide bombing
incident may well be over before bomb squad officers can reach the scene;
therefore, law enforcement agencies must train their street officers about
the specifics of confronting suicide bombers, which is very different from
the standard continuum-of-force training provided to most rank-and-file
officers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, local law enforcement agencies will have to adapt their
traditional policies and training to address new dangers when confronting
suicide bombers. Changes cannot take place simply on paper, nor can they
be limited to specialized units, because beat officers are the most likely
to find themselves facing suicide bombers on the street. Those officers,
as in all situations, must be able to count on their training, not their
luck.31■
Author’s note: This article is based on a speech given by the
author at the annual IACP conference in Miami, Florida, September 2005.
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are not
necessarily those of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Top
Notes:
1Some municipal police
departments, such as those of Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, Miami, and
Boston, have engaged in antiterrorism training, including training
specifically aimed at suicide bombers. Since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, the New York Police Department is regarded as a major
antiterrorism agency. See William Finnegan, “The Terrorism Beat,” The
New Yorker, July 25, 2005, 58.
2Robert Mueller, Director of the U.S. Federal
Bureau of Investigation, recognized in a May 20, 2002, speech at the
National District Attorneys Association’s spring Capital Conference,
Alexandria, Virginia, “I think that we will see [suicide bombings] in
the future. I think it is inevitable.” The motivations that are
increasingly likely to bring suicide bombers to U.S. soil are beyond the
scope of this article, but many useful reference materials discuss the
profiles, motivations, and history of suicide bombers. See, e.g., Robert
Pape, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (New
York: Random House, 2005); and Mia Bloom, Dying to Kill: The Allure of
Suicide Terror (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005).
3See Samuel Katz, Jihad in Brooklyn: The
NYPD Raid That Stopped America’s First Suicide Bombers (New York:
New York American Library, 2005).
4See “Millennium Bomber Sentenced to 22
Years: Ahmed Ressam Apprehended by Customs Officers in Port Angeles in
1999,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection Web site, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2005_press_releases/072005/07272005.xml
(accessed August 1, 2007). See also “Inside Ressam’s Millennium
Plot,” PBS Web site, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/
(accessed August 3, 2007).
5See, e.g., Jay Tolson, “Cracking Al
Qaeda’s Code,” U.S. News & World Report, May 9, 2004, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/040517/17strategy.htm
(accessed July 13, 2007). The original document, written in Arabic, is
available through http://www.mil.no/felles/ffi/start/article.jhtml?articleID=71589
(accessed July 13, 2007).
6Bratton, “Responding to Terror,” Subject
to Debate (newsletter of the Police Executive Research Forum) 19, no.
7 (July 2005): 2.
7The most recent attempted car bombing in
London was foiled when ambulance drivers, attending to a routine call of a
sick person in a crowded nightclub, reported smoke coming from a car
parked nearby. Investigation showed that the car was packed with
explosives, rigged with nails, and set for detonation through a mobile
phone. See “Police Avert Car Bomb ‘Carnage,’” BBC News Web site, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_news/6252276.stm
(accessed August 1, 2007).
8Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was
apprehended as a result of an ordinary traffic stop. See Whren v. United
States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which permits traffic stops even if the
goal is to deter crime other than traffic infractions.
9543 U.S. 405 (2005).
10531 U.S. 32 (2000).
11Id. at 38–39.
12Id. at 44. See also Norwood v.
Bain, 143 F. 3d 843 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting that the reasonableness
of a checkpoint seizure takes into consideration the gravity of the
interest sought to be advanced and the degree to which the seizures
advance that interest); and U.S. v. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.
2d 899 (9th Cir. 1986) (in upholding the search of an airline
passenger’s briefcase at an airport, the court noted that the government
interest in preventing terrorism at airports is significant enough to
allow the intrusion, in light of bombings and hijackings at airports).
13At a ticketed event, the ticket itself can
establish consent to search, but a public gathering implicating First
Amendment rights, such as a demonstration, must be open to everyone.
14Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F. 3d
1303 (11th Cir. 2004); Stauber v. City of New York, 2004 WL
1593870 at 31–32 (S.D. N.Y. 2004).
15Bourgeois, 387 F. 3d at 1311.
16Id. at 1312.
17As Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at the
Rand Corporation, warned, “[t]he police standard operating procedure of
addressing a suspect and telling them to drop their weapon and put their
hands up or freeze is not going to work with a suicide bomber. . . .
You’re signing your own death warrant if you do that.” Quoted in Sari
Horwitz, “Police Chiefs Group Bolsters Policy on Suicide Bombers,” Washington
Post, August 4, 2005.
18471 U.S. 1 (1985).
19Id. at 11–12.
20Of course, officers also must be trained to
make what may be a very difficult assessment of whether a person is
actually a suicide bomber, a potentially complex determination beyond the
scope of this article. This article addresses the use of force once the
assessment has been made that the person is, in fact, a suicide bomber.
21See International Association of Chiefs of
Police, Suicide (Homicide) Bombers, parts 1 and 2, Training Keys
581 and 582 (Alexandria, Va.: International Association of Chiefs of
Police, 2005), http://www.theiacp.org/pubinfo/IACP581SuicideBombersPart1.pdf
and http://www.theiacp.org/pubinfo/IACP582SuicideBombersPart2.pdf
(both accessed July 16, 2007); see also training materials for
“Prevention & Response to Suicide Bomb Incidents,” and “Incident
Response to Terrorist Bombings” (May 2005), which are available from the
New Mexico Institute on Mining and Technology, Energetic Materials
Research and Testing Center (www.emrtc.nmt.edu),
801 Leroy Place, Socorro, NM 87801.
22Acceptance likely will depend upon whether
the officer’s assessment was correct, a judgment that can be made only
in hindsight. There are no guarantees of certainty of a suspect’s
intentions and capabilities, and many of the signs attributable to suicide
bombers can also be innocent characteristics. The issue, beyond the scope
of this article, is how much intelligence an officer needs to determine
that the suspect is in fact a suicide bomber.
23The expert identified is David Heyman of the
Center for Strategic and International Studies. See Horwitz, “Police
Chiefs Group Bolsters Policy on Suicide Bombers.”
24United States Capitol Police Operational
Directive, “Responding to a Suicide Bomber,” effective February 3,
2004.
25International Association of Chiefs of
Police, Suicide (Homicide) Bombers, parts 1 and 2.
26See, e.g., Horwitz, “Police Chiefs Group
Bolsters Policy on Suicide Bombers,” claiming that officers using lethal
force are usually taught to “shoot to stop” or “shoot to
neutralize” rather than to shoot to kill. In fact, the definition of
lethal force is “shoot to kill,” and no local law enforcement officers
are trained to use firearms in any situation that does not justify lethal
force.
27See Vikram Dodd, “Police Rethink Shoot to
Kill Policy,” The Guardian, August 20, 2005.
28See Sophie Goodchild, “Police Chiefs Urged
Secrecy Over Shoot-to-Kill Anti-Terror Tactics,” The Independent,
February 12, 2006.
29Still, it is notable that an assistant
commissioner of the London Police, commenting on the policy to shoot
suicide bomber suspects in the head, reportedly claimed that the
department’s policy was “shoot to incapacitate” rather than “shoot
to kill.” “We will not accept ‘shoot to kill’ as a
characterization of what we do.” Quoted in “London Police Defend Using
Force against Suspected Suicide Bombers,” USA Today, October 27,
2005.
30See, e.g., “Man Killed at Seattle
Courthouse,” CBSnews.com, June 20, 2005, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/21/national/main703356.shtml
(accessed July 18, 2007).
31As the Irish Republican Army once put it in
a statement directed at former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher,
“[W]e only have to be lucky once; you will have to be lucky always.”
Top
|