APEC is over and signs on the roads this morning cosily reminded drivers that clearways will remain in place for the removal of the “APEC fence” (which is apparently on lease for another three years). Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, in a pre-Beattie cover showing a floodlit Opera House, harks back to the Olympics and tells us that Sydney has once again “shown the world how it’s done”. Howard agrees about “the wonderful way in which our nation has been put on display” to the world.
I was in Sydney during the Olympics and the comparison is laughable. In September 2000, people went around with smiles on their faces. Co-operation and helpfulness were the order of the day. There was a celebratory atmosphere. There wasn’t a dividing fence or a water cannon, let alone snipers in the city.
We knew about the fence and the water cannon in advance. We didn’t know about the snipers. There is no mention of snipers in the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Act 2007. It looks like the snipers were deliberately kept a pre-APEC secret - on the day when photos of the snipers, taken by office workers in nearby buildings, first came to public notice, NSW Police had yet to “confirm or deny the authenticity of the pictures circulated by email, which show police officers in high-visibility vests perched on the top of a building with a large rifle..” But two days later, Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione was upfront about it: “We have snipers deployed around the city“.
Not only were they there, but “They weren’t there for show, they mean business, that’s what they were there for.”
What business were they there for? David Marr reports that “the police refuse to say what protocols governed the snipers” and that they “cite ‘operational reasons’ for refusing to say”. Marr hopes Scipione’s implicit threat in relation to The Chasers was just fear-mongering. The Sydney Morning Herald’s Security Editor Tom Allard says: “If police snipers are trained to pick off people without warnings, then they seriously need to review their rules of engagement.”
Note the “if”. The thing is that none of us knows what the snipers were there to do and what powers they’d been given (and by who) and it looks like we’re not going to find out. But a precedent has been set - though again, exactly what precedent none of us knows. Were the snipers ‘licensed to kill’? If so, doesn’t that contravene the notion of the rule of law - the right to a fair trial, the illegality in this country of capital punishment?
Or were the snipers mostly there for show, as Marr hopes? Were they part of the display of power which was meant to intimidate/impress (depending on your point of view)? Were they there because there was a big security budget which had to be filled?
Maybe they there because the US Secret Service gave a few helpful hints - or a checklist - for what they expect when their President hits town?
Yeah, all good questions, suz. And I think you gave all the best answers as well.
In this manufactured age of fear and uncertainty, there’s a certain cohort of anal retentive blow-hards that get way too much say in how we run the joint.
Snipers. FFS.
Although given how shithouse the on the ground security was shown to be by the Chaser, maybe it’s snipers we need.
Or a crack team of custard pie hurlers to take down roving comics with maximum prejudice…
Are snipers on AWAs?
If so, I wouldn’t relish having to tell them that their over-award conditions have been abolished.
That Daily Telegraph front page was so out of touch with how people felt about APEC is was actually funny. Even the Tele’s editors must have felt embarrassed putting that edition out.
I am reliably informed that at least one of the snipers was an olympic marksman with no police or military training and he sat on a roof all week. One wonders what his orders were and what his rules of engagement were. And even if he had them had he been trained not t panic in a tight situation and fire off a round inadvertently?
Rubbish. They are all serving police in specialist units.
I’d be very surprised if snipers did not feature in Olympic security planning given the sad precedent of Munich. As you point out, though, they weren’t flaunted. The purpose of a sniper is, by the way, to shoot without warning. If it is necessary to save human life, say in a hostage situation, it is quite lawful and doesn’t contravene the rule of law any more than a security guard using a gun to stop a bank robber does.
Still the whole security thing seems to me, from a distance, to have been way over-the-top, and Scipione’s gung-ho messages didn’t help in conveying a message of calm and competent policing.
You are confusing two quite separate issues. Capital punishment from a jury and the legitimate need for police to use lethal violence in extraordinary circumstances (eg. to save lifes, stop a terrorist attack).
To be pedantic, they were Marksmen, not Snipers.
steve at the pub - the Police might call their guys marksmen, but I can assure you the Special Forces guys are called Snipers.
All those getting their knickers in a knot about having sniper/marksmen deployed - I’d much rather have those guys engaging targets when it all hits the fan, than a policeman on the ground waving around a pistol or an M4, no matter how good their training is.
And as for the questions about Rules of Engagement - do you expect them to be put on the internet so the bad guys can work out how to circumvent them? Good idea, Noddy.
How precious.
Oh, and Alan Kennedy - that is one of the most ridiculus claims I have ever heard. You definitely need to provide some proof - the media should get all the information if it is true. Otherwise, you are either a gullible fool or a liar.
I’m too gob-smacked by this post to say anything. If you believe the ABC, what Osama Ben Laden really wants is to replace David Stratten on the Movie Show (Oops, Margaret and David at the Movies). I’d love to hear his take on Harry Potter. All those witches and stuff. Witches! Burn them! Burn them!
Razor - what’s an M4 - I thought it was a big road from Western Sydney?
Sorry about that. This is serious. Did the small businesses who lost out get some sort of compensation from the Feds for the extra holiday? Or have they got everyone on AWAs where they have given up Public Holiday pay? I know our cafe in Rosebery was very put out by it all.
soozie - Look up M4 Carbine on Google.
Razor puts it very aptly.
The snipers are there for a reason. Their training is comprehensive, their skills finely honed, their rules of engagement are a classified security issue, end of discussion.
They aren’t there to shoot dickhead uni students, or immature adults who may carry “death to bush” banners.
Though I would recommend to the rent-a-crowd that if they are near to a VIP that they not act in the manner of someone who poses a deadly threat to that VIP.
“They aren’t there to shoot dickhead uni students”
The did at Kent State University in 1970, though the students weren’t dickheads, just people protesting about the Vietnam War.
And the students at Kent State got what they asked for.
Spiros - comparing National Guard troops, who were probably untrained in crowd control but armed with lethal force, and highly trained Police Marksmen and ADF Snipers is an apples and moranges comparison.
Nice Try.
Fail.
SATP actually has a half-decent point about the snipers, though the assumption that publishing the rules of engagement (or even some of it) compromises security is one that could use some scrutiny.
It’s the rest of the over-the-top security that’s the problem.
And, yeah, there probably were snipers as part of the Olympic security.
Bob - yep, the ADF was ready to roll, but given the security environment in 2000 it was generally kept out of the public eye.
For those who are interested in leraning something about the subject, one of the main roles of the Sniper in these sort of operations is counter-sniper operations. The kit that SF Command has is the duck’s guts.
Rules of Engagement are generally strategic and operational level documents. So if you are really keeen try to get them under an FOI application - I wish you all the best, but you’ve got Buckley’s. Maybe in 30 years from the national archive (they might roll out Gough like they do regularly at the moment!) you’ll get to see them.
What really matters is the Orders For Opening Fire at the trigger pulling level.
Yes, that is keeen with three e’s.
‘Rules of engagement’? What a crock. Sydney’s not a war zone, martial law hasn’t been declared and people who shoot someone other than in self defense are murderers.
The Kent State shootings were by National Guard units, equivalent to our Army Reserve. There’s no comparison with snipers deployed for VIP protection, who are highly trained professionals.
As pointed out above, snipers aren’t freelancers. They work in teams of at least two, and every team is linked by radio to commanders. They would normally not even think of firing at any target without getting permission from their commander.
suz raises some pertinent questions though. I think the issue is that, after 9/11, there is less reason to hide security measures, and the media have also become more interested in such things. Snipers have always been part of high level protection.
For example, when the Vietnamese prime minister visited Sydney in 1993, there were sniper teams on rooftops. I can say this with confidence because one was outside my office window. None of those preparations were reported in the media at the time.
There would certainly have been snipers in place during the Olympics. They’re on our side.
There would certainly have been snipers in place during the Olympics.
In what place?
Perhaps snipers were on call during the Olympics. I’d be very curious to know if they were actually stationed in a stadium or public place.
I can see a role for snipers in a hostage situation, like the Munich Olympics. I can’t see how a hostage situation could have developed or played itself out on Sydney streets during APEC. So I fail to see what role these particular snipers could have been expected to play - except shooting someone who was escaping after having attacked a ‘leader’ (or someone who was reported to them as having attacked a leader). In which case, it’s a policy of shoot-rather-than-arrest. As citizens who were moving around on those streets, I certainly think we have a right to know if such a policy was in place.
And the students at Kent State got what they asked for.
That’s just an obnoxious thing to say. Some of those who were shot dead - murdered - that day were simply walking nearby, while others were student protesters who posed no threat to the guardsmen.
Take out a suicide bomber?
Take out someone who is about to shoot someone?
Police have the power to kill - isn’t it better that in a high risk environment we give this power to the experts at it?
Terrorists can have morale problems like anyone else. Whenever people see a clear show of force up against them, they are more likely to freak out and think twice about it.
NO suz, the Kent State students were throwing lumps of concrete and stuff like that at armed troopers.
(Just walking by eh? With concrete crumbs in their pockets?)
The troopers were young and not trained for such a situation.
The students over the course of the dayfrightened and scared the troopers, believing the troopers to be well enough trained to cope with it.
The troopers weren’t, so some students were shot dead.
Play with fire and one may get burnt.
My sympathy is with the National Guard troops. Not with the rioters.
Killed (and approximate distance from the National Guard):
* Allison Krause 343 ft. (105 m); fatal left chest wound
* Jeffrey Glen Miller 265 ft. (81 m); shot through the mouth - killed instantly
* Sandra Lee Scheuer 390 ft. (119 m); fatal neck wound
* William Knox Schroeder 382 ft. (116 m); fatal chest wound
Rather good at throwing wouldn’t you say Steve?
Danny, it wasn’t a 5 minute event, it was a whole day.
Rather stupid of them to rile kids with rifles wasn’t it?
But it’s well attested that those national Guardsmen had excellent telescopic x-ray vision.
They picked off only those students who had concrete lumps in their pockets.
Whichever way you slice it, that’s mighty fancy shootin’.
I’ll take over here.
So were they at risk from 100 metre away alleged rock throwers or not Steve?
Is there a shoot on sight rule for ‘riling’?
Zarquon,
In the unlikely event that you had a gun in your hand and someone ran past you with perhaps an M4, shooting at everyone but you would you shoot that person and, if so, does that make you a murderer?
To me at least killing or severely injuring is permissible either in self-defence or in defence of the lives of others, not just self-defence.
My guess is that, as far as their rules of engagement go, the snipers / marksmen would have had similar rules.
Oh, and there were snipers around for the Olympics.
No Anthony, that was “serial riling”.
In fact it was worse. It was “serial, long-distance riling”.
I don’t understand why the little pissants stopped shooting.
I blame Dr Spock and his pampering doctrines that spoiled the baby boomers rotten.
They were killed. End of story. Darwinism.
Anthony, are you suggesting that students on Kent State campus were behaving a models of decorum that day?
Are you suggesting that there was no mass of students confronting the troops?
Better back off before you get in too deep.
Katz, if they had kept shooting it would only have raised the average IQ of the USA.
So you are saying that the pissant Guardsmen were both wimps and unpatriotic.
I agree!
Never took you for a Phil Collins fan Steve, just following the goal posts - so it’s not behaving as models of decorum is it now? Confronting them a hundred metres ways Steve? Weren’t there any a bit closer?
Long distance riling with intent and associating with known rilers Katz.
Some research for you to do Anthony. Coz the students got a lot closer than that to the National Guardsmen that day.
Suz: say somebody has taken one potshot at a foreign dignitary with a rifle of their own. Snipers stand the best chance of making sure they don’t get another shot.
That said, if snipers were used for against protestors, even rioting ones, it would be another matter entirely.
Robert, I second that. Snipers against a crowd would not do anything to modify the behaviour of the crowd.
Oh, and there were snipers around for the Olympics.
Around where?
There must be many unemployed snipers between “World-Class Events.”
Can I suggest that these otherwise idle snipers be employed in taking out real estate auctioneers when bids go more than 15% above the advertised indicative price range?
This efficient and socially beneficial use of skilled individuals would alleviate the housing crunch considerably.
Come now Katz. No need to overdo it. With this overheated market a 30% cut-in would be sufficient. The rest would soon get the message. (Otherwise there would be carnage every Saturday morning and I’m not sure that there would be enough snipers to cover the field).
STAP comments about the Kent State murders,has about the same credibility as Viet Nam Vets being spat on by hundreds of hippy’s.But never let the facts get in the way of a good piece of right wing propaganda. SATP = bullshit baffles brains.
I find the Kent State comment by SATP hideously offensive.
I’m riled by SATP, therefore by his logic I should be allowed to kill him. Great. hope he isn’t a parent.
You’ve all ignored Zarquon but he makes the most sensible points about the deployment of snipers in Sydney. It was an indefensible over the top reaction to a situation thta was deliberately manufactured and manipulated by the Federal Government in cahoots with the feckless Iemma.
Helen: That is the height of arrogance from you. Hehe, you are assuming you are quicker on the draw than am I. You try to kill me, you may wind up dead. Game to have a go?
By the way, there is nothing offensive about my comments on the Kent state shootings. The students are hardly in the same class as the lone chinese who faced up to the tank in Tiananmen, or the Berlin wall escapees.
On top of that they were getting all activist in front of armed troops (of the B team) who were there to keep order. No sane person would have been within 5 miles of that scene, especially given the amount of time the strife had been going on, and the obvious skittishness of the troops.
It is not as if the troops arrived and began blazing away.
Mocking the dead with this kind of thing shows a contempt for human life:
The fact is that Vietnam protests included some of America’s most intelligent people. Even if it was “stupid”, since when is stupidity a death sentence?
Keep up David, apparently it looks like the sentence is death for ‘getting all activist within 5 miles of skittish National Guardsmen’.
Put it away Steve, no one’s impressed.
Ah, well everything must perfectly okay then.