Interesting development from The Independent:
…the Pentagon confirmed it was authorising use of "non-lethal" gases of the type used in last October's disastrous Moscow theatre siege – a move that has already provoked accusations of hypocrisy by a country that claims to be at war to prevent chemical weapons being used.
In accordance with my USMC training, I'd always been told that ALL chemical weapons, including non-lethal "riot control style" agents were strictly forbidden in combat according to the UN Chemical Weapons Convention. This information was drilled into our heads during training, yet last night, according to a BBC radio broadcast on WAMU, I heard mention of the Corps possessing such illegal weapons in the Gulf. By the way, the U.S. signed the treaty on January 1, 1993 and the Senate ratified it on April 25, 1997.
According to a conversation I had this afternoon with Kerry Boyd of the Arms Control Association, Rumsfeld is currently searching for a way in which to use such weapons in combat, a clear violation of the treaty to which the U.S. has agreed to abide. A paper she wrote on the subject is available here.
We can't go to war to enforce a treaty and simultaneously break it.
—-
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
The gas we were thinking about using was tear gas… not what the russians used.
Do any of you stop to think of what kind of government (talking Iraqi here just to be clear), has its military dress as civilians and fire from crowds, fires on it’s own citizens when they try to flee, forces its regular forces to fight at gun point, dresses in US military uniforms in order to fire on it’s own citizens, fakes surrenders then opens fire…. Lets drop the high philosophy and look at black and white ethics here.
Posted by Bill Bloom on March 29, 2003 09:34 AM
Let me reconstruct the question this way :
How will the press react and report when Iraqi forces use CS gas.
How will the press react and reprt when the US force do the very same thing ?
I have got a clue for you : “Geneva convention”
By the way can you point me to some footage where horned Iraqi soldiers eat newborn babies while strangling their mothers?
No I know that Rumsfeld made all these claims at his press conference yesterday but than again he also claimed there was an uprising in Basra as well as many other lies.
When I consider the source I have great doubts about the validity of the claims made.
Wouter
Posted by Wouter on March 29, 2003 12:21 PM
More here:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/brief-riotControl.html
Excerpts:
“Professor Julian Perry Robinson, of the Harvard Sussex Program on chemical and biological warfare, said that the provisions of the CWC clearly forbid states that are party to it from using chemical agents (including CS gas and other similar agents) during armed conflict. U.S. forces would only be allowed to use riot control gas as an occupying power for law enforcement purposes, in any part of Iraqi territory over which they had established “effective control,” or for suppressing an uprising of prisoners.
Peter Herby, an arms and mines control specialist with the International Committee of the Red Cross, told the British Independent on Sunday, “We can say quite categorically that the use of chemical agents, whether riot control agents or lethal agents, in warfare would be entirely prohibited.”
In both these experts’ view, using CS gas when attacked by enemy combatants during active hostilities, or to separate enemy combatants from civilians during conflict, would be a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. They argue that the phrase “method of warfare” in the Convention refers to all engagements with enemy combatants during an armed conflict, whether offensive or defensive in nature.”
Posted by Igor Boog on March 29, 2003 12:59 PM
“Lets drop the high philosophy and look at black and white ethics here.”
“Black and white ethics” is a bit rich. Would any of those things be happening if America hadn’t invaded Iraq?
John Smith has been posting extensively on Condi Rice using the term “existential threat” in describing the “threat” supposedly posed by armed rogue states and terrorists to the US. (That’s over on the Lincoln Plawg — simply one of the best warblogs around, I suggest you check it out.)
Now, Rice’s use of the term is ridiculous — even events like 9-11, though obviously horrific, obviously don’t constitute” existential threat” to the US. Neither, obviously, does Iraq itself. But I think John correctly evaluated WHY Rice used that phrase; it means the gloves are off and the party being attacked won’t be judged for using any and all means to defend itself, even if they break the rules.
There are two entities facing an “existential threat” in Iraq. One of them is the Baath regime, to which most of us would, I think, say “so what?” No sympathy there.
The other entity, however, is Iraq as an independent state. I think Iraqis would be quite correct in interpreting the current invasion as an “existential threat” to that entity — and, given the amount of pain and suffering it’s taken to establish Iraq as an independent country rather than a colonial dependency, I think a lot of Iraqis will think to themselves “if we let ourselves be conquered now, what was it all for?” (In fact, the now-famous Salam Pax said precisely this at one point.)
If you find yourself fighting Iraqis who are in battle for that second entity — and I’ll be frank, I think you’re already at that point — do you think anyone will be sympathetic to whining about how they’re not wearing uniforms and marching in a straight line?
Posted by Doctor Slack on March 29, 2003 05:15 PM
Why did they always send us in the gas chambers filled with CS gas then? I was in those things so much that I was almost immune to CS.
3/31/2003 10:31:00
The Secret Russian Gas Identified
by Jack Wheeler
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/28/160126.shtml
3/31/2003 10:53:00
You are all missing the bigger picture, the problem isnt the chemicals, the fake war on Iraq. Its about us. Always has been. We are the only people on the face of the Earth that would stand and fight because we are a young nation. The spirits of the “older countries” was broke a long time ago. The facts are there, piece the puzzle. Look at the choices the leaders of the world. Ask the simple quiestions of who, what, when, where and why. The answers are there Americans. If I were you, I would learn that ethics and principals do not apply to power.
Posted by landon on February 13, 2004 11:53 AM