USA army HAVE used chemical weapons in Iraq

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

My nametape says US Army. My ID card says 'Army.' In addition to my state commission, I hold a federal commission. I have attended the same schools as a Regular Army officer of my rank. There is no difference in my education, authority or responsibility, particularly when it refers to what is or is not legal, since the US government is held equally culpable regardless of if an action is carried out by a full-timer or a reservist.

I don't agree that one should did reservists. Some who were rich and powerfull may have avoided going to vietnam but reservists in most armies are also in other jobs and are not "career" military. As such they bring a healthy perspective as they live and work in the non military world. this is a good thing. They are more likely not to fall into "group think" and close ranks when a dispute arises which questions the morality or validity of actions. They also hold the same duties and responsabilities of their career counterparts.

ISAW

Moriarty wrote:

My apologies, I was unaware of the get-out clause of it being righteous to justify the slaughter of civilian men, women and children if you aren't invading somewhere.

I don't support PIRA bombings but the "war" they conducted was different. They did not have massively superior forces. They were thus constrained in the tactics and stratigies they used whether justified or not. PIRA did not ever get in the position where they could surround a town and siege it. Innocent civilians were killed by them but very few of these were secterian. Statistically of the 1000 or so killed by the IRA most of them were military.
Loyalists to a much greater degree targeted Catholics. The PIRA did not targer Protestants and the innocent civilians killed were not targeted for their religion. Even given that they did bomb loyalist areas the Protestant /catholic breakdown of civilians is about 50/50. My source for this is the Sutton Database of deaths. PIRA did use the "collateral damage" excuse but the numbers were minimal compared to the numbers of soliders or Layalist paramilitaries killed by them. compare this to Iraq wher the vast majority of dead are civilians. I would add this is not only the US/UK killing them but also fundamentalists (who we are told are not iraqi but part of a worldwide orgainsation from elsewhere) . Mind you there werent any fundamentalists killing people when Saddam was there.

Had the IRA used WP it would also have been wrong but the difference migh have been that they would at least ring in advance and warn people that WP was going to be used. As it happens the PIRA never used chemical blister agents against troops or civilians. This is what the debate is about here namely whether it is justified to use a known chemical agent on people using the properties of that agent as a weapon and not as a flare or what it is usually used for.

Semtex (C4 for our US readers) is not a chemical weapon but say it has blister agent properties and was put on someones skin and set on fire I would not think that is acceptable use. The fact that Semtex might also be used as an unjustified bomb by terrorists is beside the point. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Moriarty

ISAW wrote:

I don't support PIRA bombings but the "war" they conducted was different. They did not have massively superior forces. They were thus constrained in the tactics and stratigies they used whether justified or not. PIRA did not ever get in the position where they could surround a town and siege it. Innocent civilians were killed by them but very few of these were secterian. Statistically of the 1000 or so killed by the IRA most of them were military.
Loyalists to a much greater degree targeted Catholics. The PIRA did not targer Protestants and the innocent civilians killed were not targeted for their religion. Even given that they did bomb loyalist areas the Protestant /catholic breakdown of civilians is about 50/50. My source for this is the Sutton Database of deaths. PIRA did use the "collateral damage" excuse but the numbers were minimal compared to the numbers of soliders or Layalist paramilitaries killed by them. compare this to Iraq wher the vast majority of dead are civilians. I would add this is not only the US/UK killing them but also fundamentalists (who we are told are not iraqi but part of a worldwide orgainsation from elsewhere) . Mind you there werent any fundamentalists killing people when Saddam was there.

Just because you don't have enough power to take on a military force directly doesn't make it any more acceptable to target civilians. I take your point re: proportions, but that's fairly irrelevant. We're always being told that numbers don't matter when civilian deaths are involved.

ISAW wrote:

Had the IRA used WP it would also have been wrong but the difference migh have been that they would at least ring in advance and warn people that WP was going to be used.

Aren't these weapons being opposed due to their 'barbaric' nature? What would a warning do to make being killed by these weapons less 'barbaric' (as opposed to, say, getting a rifle round through the stomach which is a lovely peaceful death)?

ISAW wrote:

As it happens the PIRA never used chemical blister agents against troops or civilians. This is what the debate is about here namely whether it is justified to use a known chemical agent on people using the properties of that agent as a weapon and not as a flare or what it is usually used for.

But the US haven't used blister agents either.. WP is an incendiary weapon. It explicitly does not come under the CWC because it was agreed by the signatories that the likes of WP are not and should not be classified as chemical weapons. The implication in some peoples posts that WP somehow escaped being banned by the CWC due to an oversight is misleading to say the least.

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

It is indeed a manual. Show me where it says that there is any reference to a prohibition on the use of WP as being contrary to the laws of war.

WP shells are classified as a flare or smoke. It is only to be used for that purpose. the agent that goes into WP is however classified as a chemical agent. The use of a chemical agent as a weapon makes it a chemical weapon, just as the use of battery acid by throwing it in someones face constitutes its use as a weapon. As it is not classified as a chemical munition it can not be forbidden for use for which it was not intended under that classification.

HEAT rounds for a recoiless rifle or tank may contain Uranium rods. If someone was to extract the rods and use the Uranium to poison the water supply they would be against the laws of war wouldn't it? It would not be a strong defence to suggest that "Uranium tips are classified as an armour piercing munition so they cant be illegal" would it?

Your applying one possible interpretation to a clause does not mean it is automatically the accurate one simply because it happens to fit your preferred theory.

But you asked for a reference and I gave you one. Now you are suggesting it is an incorrect interpretation. Do you think the use of a chemical agent as a weapon (a use for which it was not designed) is also an "incorrect interpretation"? do you really believe that poisioning the water supply with uranium constitutes acceptable use just because the uranium comes form an artillery round which is intended to penetrate armour?

The bit about chemical munitions is not applicable in this case because the US (or any other military) does not categorise WP as a chemical munition. If you were talking about VX shells or some such, then yes, it becomes relevant.

Oh so you do believe that classification of anti tank rounds means they cant be used as a different weapon in other circumstances for which they were not intended?

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote:

So the question arises "Was the use of WP into an area where civilians were known to be i.e. "collateral damage" using the minimum essential force"?

Who are you or I to say? Neither of us were there.

Fallujah was reported as being the most intense urban fight the US military has been involved in since Vietnam. This implies that it was closer to a full-on battle than one might initially assume. It is quite possible that the use of such weapons really was required. I know I wouldn't be calling artillery 'danger close' to myself unless there was a damned good reason for it. Running the risk of getting WP'd by a 'dropshort' is not something I'd take lightly, purely for self-preservation reasons, before getting anywhere into the humanity problem.

NTM

ISAW

Moriarty wrote:

Just because you don't have enough power to take on a military force directly doesn't make it any more acceptable to target civilians. I take your point re: proportions, but that's fairly irrelevant. We're always being told that numbers don't matter when civilian deaths are involved.

I did not justify what the IRA did I supplied you with their reasons for doing it. The Us do not have such a reason because they have overwhelming force.

Aren't these weapons being opposed due to their 'barbaric' nature? What would a warning do to make being killed by these weapons less 'barbaric' (as opposed to, say, getting a rifle round through the stomach which is a lovely peaceful death)?

No. The US military are claiming that these are NOT chemical weapons because they are classified as incendary or smoke or flare, in spite of the fact that the actual reagent in the artillery shell (which is NOT meant to be fired at people hence the classification as flare) is classified elsewhere under blister agents or similar chemical agent precursor for a chemical weapon.

But the US haven't used blister agents either.. WP is an incendiary weapon. It explicitly does not come under the CWC because it was agreed by the signatories that the likes of WP are not and should not be classified as chemical weapons.

No! WP shells are classified as flares and illumination because that was their intended use. WP however is ALSO classified as a percursor in one of the Appendices. You can use digitalis as a medicine for heart illness or you can use it to poision someone. Mens rea (malice of forethought ) comes into it.

The implication in some peoples posts that WP somehow escaped being banned by the CWC due to an oversight is misleading to say the least.

they didnt specifically ban the use of uranium tips to poision the water supply either. does that mean that uranium in the water supply is acceptable use because the uranium comes form an anto tank shell and is classified as such?

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Who are you or I to say? Neither of us were there.

Apparently christ was crusified and Bush believes that. Was he there?
i wasnt at auchwicz either but I believe Jews were killed there.
US troops who WERE there have attested to the fact that WP was used indiscriminately.

Fallujah was reported as being the most intense urban fight the US military has been involved in since Vietnam. This implies that it was closer to a full-on battle than one might initially assume. It is quite possible that the use of such weapons really was required.

Hmmm. And when Saddam used the same on the Kurds or the Iranians (wasn't that when the Us supported him?) he didn't have this excuse?
there is another problem with your explaination. You now state WP is a chemical weapon but your defence of the use of it is that it is not classified as such but as a flare to illuminate the battlefield.

I know I wouldn't be calling artillery 'danger close' to myself unless there was a damned good reason for it. Running the risk of getting WP'd by a 'dropshort' is not something I'd take lightly, purely for self-preservation reasons, before getting anywhere into the humanity problem.

so you accept that WP IS a chemical weapon?

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote:

WP shells are classified as a flare or smoke. It is only to be used for that purpose.

Since you've been quoting the artillery manuals, I suggest you go to the bit that references the recommended uses of different rounds. You will note that it states that WP also can be used, by US Army doctrine, to set fire to things such as equipment. There is no limitation to solely illum/screening uses, although that is the most common use.

the agent that goes into WP is however classified as a chemical agent. The use of a chemical agent as a weapon makes it a chemical weapon, just as the use of battery acid by throwing it in someones face constitutes its use as a weapon. As it is not classified as a chemical munition it can not be forbidden for use for which it was not intended under that classification.

You've lost me on that one. WP is classified as a Conventional Military Chemical, per FM-8-285, part II. The various battlefield chemical agents are listed in Part I, and WP is not listed.

HEAT rounds for a recoiless rifle or tank may contain Uranium rods. If someone was to extract the rods and use the Uranium to poison the water supply they would be against the laws of war wouldn't it?

Probably. (You're thinking of sabot rounds, by the way). The difference here is that the delivery system isn't even remotely close to the designed use.

But you asked for a reference and I gave you one. Now you are suggesting it is an incorrect interpretation.

You didn't exactly provide a convincing reference. You provided a clause which if the various restrictions mentioned happen to match up with what you think they should be would support your case. There is no evidence to support that they should match, however.

Do you think the use of a chemical agent as a weapon (a use for which it was not designed) is also an "incorrect interpretation"? do you really believe that poisioning the water supply with uranium constitutes acceptable use just because the uranium comes form an artillery round which is intended to penetrate armour?

Without falling for your use of the term 'chemical agent', since I presume you're referring to WP, I submit that you are attempting a false equation. The effects of WP are well known and can be expected as a result of the normal use of the munition. Pulverising a DU round and dropping the powder down a well is definitely not within the normal expected use of the munition. You might as well argue that cars are to be banned from use on the street as they can be used to deliberately run people over.

Oh so you do believe that classification of anti tank rounds means they cant be used as a different weapon in other circumstances for which they were not intended?

Sorry, won't fly. Classification of chemical (or bio, or nuclear) weapons basically falls under 'use/non-use;' you, but not I, are arguing that it's dependent on the 'context of use.' An AT round is 'conventional' in all cases, regardless of what the category of target is.

NTM

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote:

WP however is ALSO classified as a percursor in one of the Appendices.

Where am I looking? (Save me a bit of time here, I'm scanning around)

so you accept that WP IS a chemical weapon?

No, I never made any such admission. My aversion to getting hit by WP is that it probably hurts, at best.

NTM

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

The Army's statements can only be as accurate as the information they have obtained. You can't reasonably expect anything more.

Yes I can. the Law of Land Warfare.
510. Government Officials

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a war crime acted as the head of a State or as a responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility for his act.

Curiously, yes. The Judge Advocate General's corps (military lawyers) scrutinise new weapons and actions to determine whether or not they are deemed to contravene international law.

511. Acts Not Punished in Domestic Law

The fact that domestic law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law



Not at all. The Army does not make policy, it does not determine what constitutes a legal or illegal weapon. It only checks to make sure that the weapons which enter service meet or do not meet the criteria determined by others.

I submit then that the correct course of action is to draft a new law making it illegal.

i didnt ask you for a solution i asked you if the act was wrong? do you believe an act can be wrong even when there is no law saying it is worng? Furthermore do you believe that someone can be doing a wrong act even when there is a law permitting that action? that is central to Jackson's Nuremburg stance.

You may not understand it, but he is in fact correct. The contention on Abortion is based on the US (Federal) Constitution and its ammendments,

Bushes contention is based on natural law i.e. that there is an overarching law which is not necessarily written down.

the contention on the Death Penalty is based purely on the individual state's legislation, murder not being a federal crime.

And the individual state of Germany could justly claim some people deserve to be exterminated?
And southern states could claim slavery is right because they had laws saying so?

. As a former troop, you should know that despite all the talk of 'surgical precision', when you start slinging explosives and such around, things get a bit dodgy for everyone.

Yes. I agree. I was not fooled by the "surgical strikes" of desert Storm. we kept seeing the same two or three "bunker buster" movies but none of where the other 49,997 bombs landed.

I don't know. It seems a bit subjective. What does the Irish population think? I believe it's legal and accepted as 'right' in the Netherlands, no? (Age of consent being 12?)

so if it is legal that makes it right? didnt they do jurisprudence in OCR?

And if it is used against personnel with the intention of burning the flesh from their bodies? How about if it's used against people inside buildings, with the hope that some of the splash of phosphorous flies in through the window, setting the furniture on fire, and forcing the persons inside out of the building into the open where they can then be gunned down by small arms, or blown up by HE shells?

Being gunned down probably would be the least of their worries in that case. One cant justify doing something even if that act is right by doing something wrong to enable the act.

Quite possible. I fired into structures myself, not knowing exactly what it was I was shooting at. All I needed to know is that someone was in there shooting at me. I never knew how many, or if I hit them.

did you fire chemical weapons into structures?

That last post of yours was actually the most reasonable you've put up so far, not least because you at least acknowledge that there is some question over whether or not there was any outright illegality. (For example, the concept of 'Was there a less painful way of dealing with the issue?')

Oh don't worry. I have a tendency to improve Joking aside I believe in fair play and justice. I am not out to attack the US. I opposed Saddam back when the US administration supported him. I dont think the Monroe doctrine of "Team america world police" is a wise course of action or good for the American people. I also think the media is being managed and distorted and people not been given enough of the story to make up their own minds in a fair and balanced way.

I have no problem in admitting I am wrong when and if I am. I try to learn from those mistakes and improve. But I would rather llive speaking my mind than die fearing to speak.

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Since you've been quoting the artillery manuals, I suggest you go to the bit that references the recommended uses of different rounds. You will note that it states that WP also can be used, by US Army doctrine, to set fire to things such as equipment. There is no limitation to solely illum/screening uses, although that is the most common use.

If you are trying to interpret "things" as "people" then I suggest sir it is you who have a problem with interpretation. clearly it does not in any way suggest WP is to be used as a weapon and firea at or near people for that purpose.

You've lost me on that one. WP is classified as a Conventional Military Chemical, per FM-8-285, part II. The various battlefield chemical agents are listed in Part I, and WP is not listed.

I cant remember. I am sure Protocol III

yep:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

# It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
# It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
# It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
# It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

the following from a source which supports the "incendary weapons" position of the US.
If I am out of context here is the citation:
http://www.asil.org/insights/2005/12/insights051206.html

the CWC defines a toxic chemical as “[a]ny chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals” (Article II.2). A precursor is defined as “[a]ny chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical” (Article II.3). WP can pose harm to humans through its inherent toxicity, but this harm is not the kind WP munitions create. Munitions use may harm humans when WP ignites after coming into contact with oxygen. After WP ignites, it can harm humans directly through burning skin and tissue or indirectly through the smoke and toxic substances it releases as it burns. Whether the harmful effects of the fire and smoke produced by WP munitions constitute “chemical action on life processes” in the CWC’s definition of a toxic chemical would be the critical legal question at this step in the analysis.

Protocol III also prohibits the making of “any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event, minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects” (Article 2.3).

nternational humanitarian law prohibits (1) the use of weapons that are by nature indiscriminate; and (2) indiscriminate use of other weapons.

Without falling for your use of the term 'chemical agent', since I presume you're referring to WP, I submit that you are attempting a false equation. The effects of WP are well known and can be expected as a result of the normal use of the munition. Pulverising a DU round and dropping the powder down a well is definitely not within the normal expected use of the munition. You might as well argue that cars are to be banned from use on the street as they can be used to deliberately run people over.

Yes I will take up that argument. Cars are regulated by their normal use. If someone used a car to kill someone else then that person is wrong and can be found guilty. Saying that "cars are not classified as lethal weapons" wont really convince a judge or jury.

Sorry, won't fly. Classification of chemical (or bio, or nuclear) weapons basically falls under 'use/non-use;' you, but not I, are arguing that it's dependent on the 'context of use.' An AT round is 'conventional' in all cases, regardless of what the category of target is.

Apparently WP is "incendary" also. and cars are notin the "lethal weapon" catagory. Classification does not mean that they cant be used to commit wrongdoing.

ISAW

Darkman9999 wrote:

I'll put an end to this forum pretty fast. The US was rite to go into Iraq to get that prick out, all this WND stuff doesn't matter, even if they lied they did the rite thing. That guy had gangs going around murdering ppl that didn't agree with him, in fact daily killing number under his regieme are much worse than todays statistics. So there, cop urselves on

that is not the subject under discussion. But in any case.

Two wrongs do not make a right. One can not do a right by committing a wrong.
If Saddam was so evil then why did the US authorites support him when he had the gangs?
Pinochet , Suharto, Mugabe, Mobutu, they also had gangs. the Us supported them didnt they?
What statistical evuidence do you have that daily killing numbers were worse under Saddam?

Dirk Gently

Darkman9999 wrote:

I'll put an end to this forum pretty fast. The US was rite to go into Iraq to get that prick out, all this WND stuff doesn't matter, even if they lied they did the rite thing. That guy had gangs going around murdering ppl that didn't agree with him, in fact daily killing number under his regieme are much worse than todays statistics. So there, cop urselves on

Who are you exactly and how do you propose to end the thread.(I assume you're not talking about putting an end to the politics forum) The thread ends when the people involved in the debate cease to debate or when a mod closes it, not when you say so. Also I know of other people who go around killing people who don't agree with them, only they're not called gangs, they're called a coalition of the willing. Why not just let the lads continue with their debate and feel free to pick up and disprove the points you don't agree with. Anyway I believe they're talking about the weapons used in the war and not the reason for the war itself.

Manic Moran

ISAW wrote:

Yes I can. the Law of Land Warfare.
510. Government Officials

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a war crime acted as the head of a State or as a responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility for his act.

Oh, agreed. Is claiming that someone has WMD a war crime?

i didnt ask you for a solution i asked you if the act was wrong?

Fair enough. Personal opinion? Yes. Doesn't mean to say it's necessarily considered 'wrong' by society as a whole, or more specifically by those who society has chosen to represent them and formulate the associated laws. I'm well known for advocating common firearm ownership and defensive use, for example. Irish people appear in the majority not to agree with me. Ergo, in the small scale, personal opinion is irrelevant.

do you believe an act can be wrong even when there is no law saying it is worng?

Yes. But under criminal law, if it can't be considered illegal, I think you can't bring charges against them. Especially when you're talking about something subjective.

Furthermore do you believe that someone can be doing a wrong act even when there is a law permitting that action? that is central to Jackson's Nuremburg stance.

Sure. The difference between the Nuremburg concept and the WP issue, however, is that in one case the laws were unilaterally mandated, and in the case of the international conventions of warfare, they were mutually agreed upon.

Bushes contention is based on natural law i.e. that there is an overarching law which is not necessarily written down.

That's where he gets his principles from, yes. The legal arguments, however, are based on the Constitution.

And the individual state of Germany could justly claim some people deserve to be exterminated?
And southern states could claim slavery is right because they had laws saying so?

Your questions have nothing to do with my statement to which you are responding. My comment was not over the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of murder, only over the fact that the federal government has no jurisdiction over murder cases, and the individual states do. As long as -someone- has jurisdiction, that's all the American judicial system needs.

so if it is legal that makes it right?

Definitely getting into political philosophy here. Some might say 'yes,' on the basis that laws are a reflection of the morals of society. Members of the minority would be categorised as 'deviants.' What if you and I were the only two people who thought it was wrong? Are our beliefs invalidated simply because we're out-numbered? In which case, our answers would be 'no.' But then, what point of view of the rest of society? Do the standards of the many override the standards of the few? This is part of the reason of the controversy over the US's Senate system (two senators per state, regardless of size): The small states are happy that their morals cannot be roughshod ridden over by the majority, so things which can be considered 'right' by a majority cannot be made 'legal,' and possibly vice versa. The only practical solution is to trust that our representatives make sensible decisions.

Being gunned down probably would be the least of their worries in that case.

Why? Dying is dying. I have no greater desire to be killed by gunfire than to be burned in a house fire. It is 'legal' to set fire to things with incendiaries. That it has effects on people inside those things are incidental, no? After all, it's 'legal' to use incendiaries on people, so it can't be any worse.

did you fire chemical weapons into structures?

No, of course not. I fired anti-tank and incendiary rounds.

I have no problem in admitting I am wrong when and if I am. I try to learn from those mistakes and improve. But I would rather llive speaking my mind than die fearing to speak.

At this juncture, I'd like to give you some kudos. Unlike many people who are making purely emotional arguments, or rehashing copies/pastes from other threads or boards, you are taking the effort to do research and are providing me with quite the challenge. As someone who enjoys mature and intelligent debate, I appreciate that.

clearly it does not in any way suggest WP is to be used as a weapon and firea at or near people for that purpose

The FM specifically states that it can be fired at crewed vehicles. What do you think happens to the people inside those vehicles? How does this differ from firing at buildings, and the effects on the people inside those buildings?

the following from a source which supports the "incendary weapons" position of the US.
If I am out of context here is the citation:

No, you seem to be about right in context, but you have me lost on applicability vis-a-vis your argument. Maybe my brain is just fried and I'm having some difficulty keeping up. (see earlier comment about your providing me with a challenge)

Classification does not mean that they cant be used to commit wrongdoing.

Agreed. The problem we're having in coming to terms with, however, appears to be a correlation of 'classification' as it relates directly to 'wrongdoing.' Absolutely WP could be used illegally, even if there is absolutely no doubt of its classification. As can a 5.56mm round. Or the aforementioned car. What I understand a large part of your argument to be, however, is that the 'wrongdoing' is inherently dependent on classification: That of it being classified as a chemical weapon as a result of a reasonably forseeable use, which I contest.

Where you were on the better track was on the concept of whether or not the US military correctly acted under the 'conventional' rules for incendiaries, such as 'taking reasonable grounds to limit civilian casualties.' That strikes me as being one of those things that in court a jury would have to decide. (A question of fact, not a question of law) On the limited information we have, I believe they did. You may disagree. Congratulations to both of us, we've just spend all day arguing around in circles and ended up right at square one again.

NTM

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Oh, agreed. Is claiming that someone has WMD a war crime?

If the claim is false and known to be then yes. I do not necessarily believe the military knew there were no WMD though their senior commanders might have. I do believe someone else knew ther was no evidence of WMD. Ironically Iraq was invaded with no evidence to back it up but one is not allowed to cast suspicion on those who did it without backeing it up with evidence!

But the point I was making was not just your specific case of "don't blame the military [for invading Iraq] they were told by the NSF/CIA that WMD were in Iraq". the point is that that is not sufficient under law to justify the invasion of Iraq. "I was told to do it" or "I believed what my commanders (or intelligence agency) said" is not sufficient if the act is wrong.

...Ergo, in the small scale, personal opinion is irrelevant.

So "small scale" Ireland has a tiny percent of the population of the world. Do you think that the fact that in Ireland abortion is unconstitutional is irrelevant on a global scale?

The point is that if you believe things may be wrong in spite of there being no law against it then from where does this source of justice eminate?

Mind you I like firearms but I wouldn't condone availability for personal defensive purposes. Look at all the shootings in the US. Insisting the Iraqi constitution gave everyone a right to have an assault rifle in the house was in my opinion stupid.

Yes. But under criminal law, if it can't be considered illegal, I think you can't bring charges against them. Especially when you're talking about something subjective.

If the belief of people that sex with children is wrong then it is wrong whether or not they write that down. I agree I may not be able to state which part of a military civil or criminqal code was broken by the use of chemicals on civilians and insurgents in Iraq but that does not mean that because I don't know what law to prosecute under that no wrong occurred.

Sure. The difference between the Nuremburg concept and the WP issue, however, is that in one case the laws were unilaterally mandated, and in the case of the international conventions of warfare, they were mutually agreed upon.

Eighty percent plus of the populations of the World (or their representatives) did not support the
war in Iraq. I would guess ninety five per cent plus of the troops are US and most of the rest UK. Thats fairly unilateral. the reasons for invasion turned out to be (excuse the pun) a "ball of smoke". So the action in Iraq is fairly unilateral. the Us was going in no matter what anyone else did or said.

I would accept you point that times change but how can the US impose their view that people should be bound by international law and then later ignore it when people point out where it applies to them?

That's where he gets his principles from, yes. The legal arguments, however, are based on the Constitution.

The "contention" on abortion may well be legal but Bush is not fighting a lawyers battle, he is appealing to the Bible Belt vote and "gut feeling".

Your questions have nothing to do with my statement to which you are responding. My comment was not over the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of murder, only over the fact that the federal government has no jurisdiction over murder cases, and the individual states do. As long as -someone- has jurisdiction, that's all the American judicial system needs.

And the individual state of Germany could justly claim some people deserve to be exterminated? didnt they have juristiction over their own state?
And southern states could claim slavery is right because they had laws saying so? Didn't they have juristiction over what happened in their own state? What law was there that the Germans were breaking? What federal Law were the southern States breaking?

Definitely getting into political philosophy here. Some might say 'yes,' on the basis that laws are a reflection of the morals of society. Members of the minority would be categorised as 'deviants.'

I don't know what the definition of that would be but if you mean deviating from supporting a holocause then the minority would be correct to be deviants.

What if you and I were the only two people who thought it was wrong? Are our beliefs invalidated simply because we're out-numbered?

If we were the only two people in Germany opposing the Nazis then we would be correct wouldnt we?

But then, what point of view of the rest of society? Do the standards of the many override the standards of the few?

clearly not! Then you can have !"Tyranny of the majority" Something which the constitution tries to combat. "Inalienable" rights they are called. You cant give them up trade them or legislate them away.

This is part of the reason of the controversy over the US's Senate system...

And the inalienable rights which people have. apparently you believe the right not to be burned alive by phosphorus is not one? Even if one is a civilian and are in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Why? Dying is dying. I have no greater desire to be killed by gunfire than to be burned in a house fire. It is 'legal' to set fire to things with incendiaries. That it has effects on people inside those things are incidental, no? After all, it's 'legal' to use incendiaries on people, so it can't be any worse.

Ah! But the point you made earlier was that the use of WP constituted psychological warfare. In other words whether or not the people knew it was no different they certainly believed it to be so.
Cast you mind back to the ancient times of desert Storm (called Gulf War I but really was Gulf War II since the Iraq Iran War came earlier). REmember the panic over "white powder" in the mail. The Pentagon beiong closed. Trinity college was closed in Dublin over a powder scare.
Now at that time Bush had mentioned the possibility of "nukuler" weapons. The soviets were gone and there were still nukes lying around. It seems people were not so scared of them. Then "weapons of mass murder" was the phrase and finally "weapons of mass destruction". These created a fear of the unknown and a handy excuse for invasion at the same time.

Mind you in spite of the psychological warfare I believe most people would rather be shot deat instantly than be burned aloive by phosphorus for a few hours or several days. I would probably include myself in this. I dont think I am scared of death but I sure am scared of dying in certain ways.

No, of course not. I fired anti-tank and incendiary rounds.

Including the radioactive rounds?

At this juncture, I'd like to give you some kudos...

thank you for your kind consideration. However should you be shown to be correct you only have a phyric victory. As far as I see things it just isnt on to torture prisioners or burn enemy alive with chemicals - even if they are terrorists. I am not to hot on the bombing of civilians either. One must also remember that in WWI WWII bosnia etc the vast majority of casualties were from indirect artillery fire. Having stated that the military are bound by their own rules but they twist them to suit themselves and sometimes disregard them. At least the US has a media to expose this, even if it has been curtailed. But I expect some low ranking field officer to get the boot while the armchair general is off with the fat cats getting the cream.

The FM specifically states that it can be fired at crewed vehicles. What do you think happens to the people inside those vehicles? How does this differ from firing at buildings, and the effects on the people inside those buildings?

I shouldnt be fired at or near people anywhere period! No more than mustard gas or napalm should.

The problem we're having in coming to terms with, however, appears to be a correlation of 'classification' as it relates directly to 'wrongdoing.' Absolutely WP could be used illegally, even if there is absolutely no doubt of its classification. As can a 5.56mm round. Or the aforementioned car. What I understand a large part of your argument to be, however, is that the 'wrongdoing' is inherently dependent on classification: That of it being classified as a chemical weapon as a result of a reasonably forseeable use, which I contest.

It is the act which is wrong. Nuclear weapons are not evil in themselves nor are firearms. Killing people with them is. But it seems we are coming to some consessions here. I am prepared to admit that it is possible that the classification for use is an "incendary" weapon and not an anti personell weapon. It is in fact forbidded for such use under Protocol III but get this as far as I can tell The US did not sign Protocol III
Now I know that is giving you an advantage you didn't have in this debate, which is totally against the idea of beating the opposition but I believe in fair play and cant be hypocritical; . Mind you Protocol III is still international law which is strong argument if not immediately binding.

Where you were on the better track was on the concept of whether or not the US military correctly acted under the 'conventional' rules for incendiaries, such as 'taking reasonable grounds to limit civilian casualties.' That strikes me as being one of those things that in court a jury would have to decide. (A question of fact, not a question of law) On the limited information we have, I believe they did. You may disagree. Congratulations to both of us, we've just spend all day arguing around in circles and ended up right at square one again.

It isnt in winning or losing but in taking part that one learns.

Manic Moran

Sorry for the day's delay, I've had a long day in the real world.

But the point I was making was not just your specific case of "don't blame the military [for invading Iraq] they were told by the NSF/CIA that WMD were in Iraq". the point is that that is not sufficient under law to justify the invasion of Iraq. "I was told to do it" or "I believed what my commanders (or intelligence agency) said" is not sufficient if the act is wrong.

Actually, it would be if the knowledge that it is wrong is only available with the benefit of hindsight. The American UCMJ, for example, in the manual for courts martial generally has a principle that "I was only obeying orders" is not sufficient defense in and of itself. However, it does give all orders a presumption of legality. If the soldier in the dock had no reasonable grounds to believe that the order to be carried out was illegal, then the fact that he was 'just obeying orders' is in fact a valid defense. I don't know how that compares with other militaries' judicial systems. The Army had no reason to doubt that the instruction to invade was not one made with good cause. Therefore it cannot be held liable.

So "small scale" Ireland has a tiny percent of the population of the world. Do you think that the fact that in Ireland abortion is unconstitutional is irrelevant on a global scale?

Yes.

The point is that if you believe things may be wrong in spite of there being no law against it then from where does this source of justice eminate?

You can try going to court under tort and obtaining a judgement on the basis of equity or common law, I guess. Otherwise, there is none unless you can convince the lawmakers of the veracity of your position.

Mind you I like firearms but I wouldn't condone availability for personal defensive purposes. Look at all the shootings in the US. Insisting the Iraqi constitution gave everyone a right to have an assault rifle in the house was in my opinion stupid.

Operative words, 'in my opinion.' The Iraqis appear to have disagreed.

If the belief of people that sex with children is wrong then it is wrong whether or not they write that down. I agree I may not be able to state which part of a military civil or criminqal code was broken by the use of chemicals on civilians and insurgents in Iraq but that does not mean that because I don't know what law to prosecute under that no wrong occurred.

Assuming one changes 'chemicals' to 'WP' (I will not yield on that issue), then you may indeed continue to believe that the use on insurgents is wrong. Other people may believe that the use of 5.56mm ball on insurgents is wrong. In order to have a vaguely functioning system, however, a set of compromises must be reached, and this is done in this situation by our national representatives. Although we now have prohibitions on aerial firebombing of cities, or on three-sided bayonets, you would not see people being prosecuted retroactively for Dresden or Napoleonics, because the rules at the time permitted them. So even if tomorrow the world's governments were to decide that you are right, and to ban WP munitions, it's irrelevant for our Fallujah case: The US were simply using what they considered to be the most applicable legal weapon available to them. Therefor there can be no outrage.

Eighty percent plus of the populations of the World (or their representatives) did not support the
war in Iraq. I would guess ninety five per cent plus of the troops are US and most of the rest UK. Thats fairly unilateral. the reasons for invasion turned out to be (excuse the pun) a "ball of smoke". So the action in Iraq is fairly unilateral. the Us was going in no matter what anyone else did or said.

Again, however, there is a difference. The vast majority of the criticism is coming from third parties: Those neither involved in the invasion, or the invaded. I'm not going to sit here and try to claim that everyone in Iraq welcomed the US with open arms, but the vast majority rather appear to have approved of the concept. (That the concept was executed in perhaps a flawed manner, and over time subsequently pissed off more Iraqis is a different issue)

I would accept you point that times change but how can the US impose their view that people should be bound by international law and then later ignore it when people point out where it applies to them?

In the WP case here, it seems that it's the reverse situation. I'm the one arguing that the written law as stands should apply to their actions, and you're the one claiming that the use of WP is wrong, even if the law isn't written to state such.

The "contention" on abortion may well be legal but Bush is not fighting a lawyers battle, he is appealing to the Bible Belt vote and "gut feeling".

He may be. But that won't overturn Roe v Wade no matter how hard-felt the gut feeling. USSC will listen to legal argument only. Sure, some judges are probably inclined to look more favourably on some arguments than others, but they still need something from the Constitution to work with to counteract the current ruling which is based on the privacy clauses of that Constitution.

And the individual state of Germany could justly claim some people deserve to be exterminated? didnt they have juristiction over their own state?
And southern states could claim slavery is right because they had laws saying so? Didn't they have juristiction over what happened in their own state?

I'm not entirely sure how we got onto this tangent, but the answer to the questions is 'yes, they could make the claim.' One would have hoped that the victims of those claims would have received support from the rest of the world, to redress what I think the majority of the planet thought was a wrong. (That they didn't does leave one to wonder about the state of mankind's morality even as recently as 60 years ago). Again, however, we have a pretty major difference between these situations and that of the 'rules of war.' The 'rules of war' were hammered out between the national governments. There is no higher level on the planet. It is assumed that something like a 'law of averages' takes effect, and international agreements are as 'accurate' or 'fair' as is attainable, and does not suffer from regional 'blips.' The other is that when these international agreements are made, the governments are negotiating without any distinctions made to the subclasses within their jurisdiction. This is most definitely not the case with 1930s Germany or 1860s US. (For the record, I wish it noted that I did not invoke Godwin first, by the way)

What federal Law were the southern States breaking?

I have absolutely no idea. Evidently the Northern states thought there was something to it, they had a bit of a fisticuffs as a result of the issue after all. US Civil War history is a little out of my sphere of interest.

End Part I. I overran the length limit :-/

Manic Moran

If we were the only two people in Germany opposing the Nazis then we would be correct wouldnt we?

By our standards, yes. But that's not how the world can realistically function. You can't expect a national (or international) policy to be disrupted by two people, unless it's a very small country. Like Sealand.

"Inalienable" rights they are called. You cant give them up trade them or legislate them away.

There is some dispute over that issue, actually. The argument goes 'is a right a right because it's enumerated, or is it one inherent in itself?' Do you have an inalienable right to vote? To have as many kids as you want? To have firearms? All three are considered inalienable in some countries, and restricted priviliges in some others. I'm not sure where I stand on it myself, to be honest, but I think I'm leaning on the 'enumerated' side.

And the inalienable rights which people have. apparently you believe the right not to be burned alive by phosphorus is not one? Even if one is a civilian and are in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Part of the reason I lean towards the 'enumerated' option. Making the jump from philosophical reasoning to practical enforcement requires that the right be spelled out in writing. There may indeed be a right not to be burned alive by WP, but perhaps not everyone's aware of it. If they're not aware of something as ethereal as this, can they be held culpable? I don't think so.

Now, you can also go with a more collective point of view. Are there rights that a society has which supercedes that of the individual?

Ah! But the point you made earlier was that the use of WP constituted psychological warfare

The initial point was made in reference to your emphasis on the use of the weapon on people (post 64). My response was to point out 'legitimate' uses of the weapon which have exactly the same end result on the exact same people.

Including the radioactive rounds?

No, just shaped charge, we weren't cracking open bunkers or tanks. Since DU rounds don't explode, they weren't suitable for use in the situations I found myself in.

However should you be shown to be correct you only have a phyric victory.

Perhaps so. (Was that a pun?) But when dealing with something as generally unpalatable as combat by its very nature, what else can you do but work from the written law? Surely if things were based simply on what we'd like to be the case, we'd never have a war in the first place.

I shouldnt be fired at or near people anywhere period! No more than mustard gas or napalm should.

Again, this is your opinion. It does not appear to be shared by those who wrote the rules. (I have no idea if those who wrote the rules were combat veterans or not and really knew what they were writing). The soldiers on the ground are going to use the most effective system they have at their disposal, the only limitations to this are going to be the 'rules', not idealism.

It is the act which is wrong. Nuclear weapons are not evil in themselves nor are firearms. Killing people with them is.

Agreed.

but get this as far as I can tell The US did not sign Protocol III
Now I know that is giving you an advantage you didn't have in this debate, which is totally against the idea of beating the opposition but I believe in fair play and cant be hypocritical; . Mind you Protocol III is still international law which is strong argument if not immediately binding.

You may be right, I'm not entirely sure what international agreements the US has actually signed. I'm working from the US's official policy of following the international rules of warfare whether or not they have signed them, so I've no objection to your quoting Protocol III (or any other) as a reference.

I am prepared to admit that it is possible that the classification for use is an "incendary" weapon and not an anti personell weapon. It is in fact forbidded for such use under Protocol III

Forbidden for use as an anti-personnel weapon? Not in Protocol III it's not. It just says you can't lob it at civilians, it says nothing about combatant personnel.

NTM

So Glad

This thread is amazing. Some great points are being brought up. I'm so glad (no pun inteded) it getting so much discussion.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

There is some dispute over that issue, actually. The argument goes 'is a right a right because it's enumerated, or is it one inherent in itself?'

Or is it an inherent right that you should have, but only do have it once its enumerated.

The UDHR, for example, is primarily an aspirational document. It lists rights we should all have, not rights that we do all have. The simplest illustration of this is as follows: How many signatory nations of the UDHR do not have an army.

Warfare is a situation entirely at odds with "Universal" Human Rights. The same people who have us the UDHR also gave us the modern rules of war - the Geneva Conventions. One tells us that everyone has an inalienable right to life, and the other tells us who can kill whom in times of war, and what they can and cannot employ to achieve this. So its always wrong to kill someone, but its okay as long as its during a time of war and done meeting certain criteria????

Sounds to me like the "always wrong" is aspirational, while the GC attempts to be more practical in recognising that the reality won't always live up to the aspiration and needs further checks and balances.

The question of the use of WP is not simple. It is not a case of whether or not it was used, nor even whether or not it was used to flush people out of buildings. The question is whether or not sufficient due care was taken to ensure that civilians were not targetted. Indeed, even if civilians were knowingly targetted, one must also ask whether or not this could have been justified to deter "Human Shield" tactics which would lead to an even higher loss of life.

when dealing with something as generally unpalatable as combat by its very nature, what else can you do but work from the written law? Surely if things were based simply on what we'd like to be the case, we'd never have a war in the first place.

Indeed. The distinction - even when not in a time of war - must be made between something which is illegal and something which individuals find morally wrong. The major distinction being that one cannot meaningfully argue that there should be a legal reprecussion for someone carrying out a legal action which is perceived as being morally wrong. If its legal, then its legal. If you think the law is wrong, then campaign to have the law changed....not to have an illegal punishment meted out on someone who acted within the strictures of the law.

Again, this is your opinion. It does not appear to be shared by those who wrote the rules.

And this is the crux. If you say something is morally right, and I say its morally wrong....does that mean I have a right to demand punishment? If our positions are reversed, must I accept that because you fine it morally wrong that it must be punished?

Its an unworkable situation. We must agree that our morals differ, and refer to a seperate authority...which is typically the law. At least one of us will undoubtedly walk away believing that (moral) justice was not done, but thats just the thing....

...moral and legal justice are two seperate things. The former is a personal belief on how the world should work, and the latter is a societally-adopted compromise which seeks to find the right balance between the shades of gray which are our various moral stances.

ISAW wrote:

If we were the only two people in Germany opposing the Nazis then we would be correct wouldnt we?

Yes, but I can guarantee that without the advantage of hindsight it would be impossible to determine it so cleanly in every case.

Should the law be made to bow down because a small number of individuals believe they are right?

Sure, in some cases they will be shown to be right in hindsight....but what does that bring us?

Simple example - look at all the theories about 911 which are once more the rage. There are hundreds of them. They can't all be right, but if and when we ever do find out what happened, its almost certain that someone will stand up and say "See, I was spot on. I told you you should have listended to me". How can we know today that this is the person we should be listening to?

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Sorry for the day's delay, I've had a long day in the real world.

isaw wrote:

if you believe things may be wrong in spite of there being no law against it then from where does this source of justice eminate?

You can try going to court under tort and obtaining a judgement on the basis of equity or common law, I guess. Otherwise, there is none unless you can convince the lawmakers of the veracity of your position.

You can in Ireland. they have moved back in the positive direction from the "natural law" position but still the Suprepe court refers to "natural and constitutional justice" more so than "natural law". Problem being how do you argue on unwritten law?

But the invasion of Iraq and some would argue the execution of nazis was unilateral, non positive, some have argued post hoc in relation to WWII. also it was criminal and not private law (tort) or civil or common law.

Why for example is it seemingly accepted by US military justice that crimes committed outside the juristiction of the US by military are crimes but the US refuses to allow any of their troops to be prosecuted for such "crimes"?

In order to have a vaguely functioning system, however, a set of compromises must be reached, and this is done in this situation by our national representatives. Although we now have prohibitions on aerial firebombing of cities, or on three-sided bayonets, you would not see people being prosecuted retroactively for Dresden or Napoleonics, because the rules at the time permitted them. So even if tomorrow the world's governments were to decide that you are right, and to ban WP munitions, it's irrelevant for our Fallujah case: The US were simply using what they considered to be the most applicable legal weapon available to them. Therefor there can be no outrage.

And where before 1945 was there a law against the holocaust?

Again, however, there is a difference. The vast majority of the criticism is coming from third parties: Those neither involved in the invasion, or the invaded.

Even if true it is beside the point. there ARE people who were in Iraq who attest to abuse. some even are US military. There also is the embargo on reporting and censorship of the media. Finally I may have been pregnant or even a woman who never had a child but that does not give me an opinion superior to a male gynochologist dos it?

I'm not going to sit here and try to claim that everyone in Iraq welcomed the US with open arms, but the vast majority rather appear to have approved of the concept. (That the concept was executed in perhaps a flawed manner, and over time subsequently pissed off more Iraqis is a different issue)

what evidence it there that the vast majority of Iraq approved of occupation? But it appears here we are back to inalienable rights and natural law. Who gives the Us the right to act unilaterally? If the majority of Iraq wanted slavery would that make it right? And how come the US cosied up to Saudi Arabia and Kewait which are muslim Fundamentalist and dictatorial dont have democracy mistreat women etc. ?

In the WP case here, it seems that it's the reverse situation. I'm the one arguing that the written law as stands should apply to their actions, and you're the one claiming that the use of WP is wrong, even if the law isn't written to state such.

Yes but I am also arguing that under the written law internationally it is wrong and under US law it is arguable but the Us have not accepted the international law and the authorities argue on one side without the courts having tested it.

He may be. But that won't overturn Roe v Wade no matter how hard-felt the gut feeling.

But he will lead the public in the Bible belt to believe that he will overturn this!

USSC will listen to legal argument only. Sure, some judges are probably inclined to look more favourably on some arguments than others, but they still need something from the Constitution to work with to counteract the current ruling which is based on the privacy clauses of that Constitution.

But as I stated the Us will only bind themselves to Us law while appealing to and making grandiose statements about international justice and the horror of war crimes.

Take a look at the thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51353818&postcount=1

The US and UK stitched up the soverign inhabitants of those Islands. Maybe the french or Germans would have done the same in their place. the same happened in Iraq in the 1920s. The law is one thing but justice can go out the window when a unilateral acting power is involved.

I'm not entirely sure how we got onto this tangent, but the answer to the questions is 'yes, they could make the claim.' One would have hoped that the victims of those claims would have received support from the rest of the world, to redress what I think the majority of the planet thought was a wrong. (That they didn't does leave one to wonder about the state of mankind's morality even as recently as 60 years ago). Again, however, we have a pretty major difference between these situations and that of the 'rules of war.' The 'rules of war' were hammered out between the national governments. There is no higher level on the planet. It is assumed that something like a 'law of averages' takes effect, and international agreements are as 'accurate' or 'fair' as is attainable, and does not suffer from regional 'blips.'

Except in Diego Garcia???
Except in Honduras?
Except in El Salvador?
Chad?
Indonesia?
Vietnam?
etc.etc. there is a long list of exceptions.

The other is that when these international agreements are made, the governments are negotiating without any distinctions made to the subclasses within their jurisdiction. This is most definitely not the case with 1930s Germany or 1860s US. (For the record, I wish it noted that I did not invoke Godwin first, by the way)

I referred to WWII in reference to a legal principle and not in comparing the US to Hitler or the Nazis. I dont understand the point. Are you suggesting 1930s Reichstag was not a soverign parliament binding on its citizens?

End Part I. I overran the length limit :-/

I keep doing that.

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

Should the law be made to bow down because a small number of individuals believe they are right?

They dont even have to believe it. Innocence is assumed. Look at statutory rape. The law (in Ireland) was struck down by the courts because the accused was not accorded a righ to a defence since statutory rape has no defence!

Sure, in some cases they will be shown to be right in hindsight....but what does that bring us?

It brings us "innocent until proved guilty" Remember statatutory rape was introduced because it is difficult and unreliable to cross examine children. that does NOT mean rape didnt occur. It means it has to be shown.

Likewise even if there is a military coed that states WP is illegal one still has to show it was used. In the Falluja case it is easy to show it.

I must add about the use. It is clearly designated not as an weapon for firing at people but for smoke obscurant, illumination by flare or firing into areas where people are not present.

Now for those who do not know the term "shake and bake" refers to a US product which is put on the skion of poultry or meat and the meat covered with a bag and the bag shaken. This ensures the skin is covered with the chemical. It is then put into a oven and cooked.

So the term "shake and bake" betrays the use of WP to "burn" people alive with chemicals.

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

And where before 1945 was there a law against the holocaust?

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 would be my first guess.

At the very least, one finds within them:

Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

Religion, the right to life, ownership of private property.....seems to cover all the major bases.

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Forbidden for use as an anti-personnel weapon? Not in Protocol III it's not. It just says you can't lob it at civilians, it says nothing about combatant personnel.

NTM

Earlier you claimed that Use of mortars was not an air delivery i.e. not the same as bombing. ArtilleryProtocol III Article 2 is about protecting civilians but it does state the following :

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

That is a MILITARY objective. Also you have already admitted that the military KNEW there were civilians in Falluja.

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

Likewise even if there is a military coed that states WP is illegal one still has to show it was used.

Yes, but lets be clear here. There is no internati0onal military code which says that WP is unequivocably illegal. It states at best that it is illegal to use it in certain ways.

In a similar vein, it is generally legal to drive a car, but a car can be driven in an illegal manner.

In the Falluja case it is easy to show it.

In hte fallujah case it is easy to show a car was driven, but whether or not it was driven in an illegal manner is far from clear.

I must add about the use. It is clearly designated not as an weapon for firing at people but for smoke obscurant, illumination by flare or firing into areas where people are not present.

And yet MM insists that its use to flush people from vehicles is explicitly permitted. This is not the work of an obscurant, illuminant, nor is it use in an unoccupied area. Now, your response was that it shouldn't be used in this way, but you didn't make it clear whether this shouldn't is a statment of your moral beliefs, or one of law. My tendency is that its the former, else the explicit statements in the FM alone would be admission of illegality. I'm open to correction though.

So the term "shake and bake" betrays the use of WP to "burn" people alive with chemicals.

If you read back the Protocol III rules for the use of incendiary weapons that you yourself used a few posts ago, you'll see that it explicitly leaves situations open where incendiary devices are not prohibited.

How then is it sinister to have a substance who's incendiary use is supposed to be for these types of permitted situations only?

So the question becomes not whether or not there's something inherently illegal in it being Shake n Bake (as it would appear there isn't), but whether or not we meet the following criteria:

It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

The problem here is that there's quite a bit of wriggle-room. What constitutes a concentration of civilians? What constitutes a "clear seperation"? How sure do you have to be there are no concentrations of civilians, and how far do "all feasible precautions" extend?

I don't rule out that WP was used illegally. I'm simply questioning what I'm perceiving as the suggestion that its some sort of open-and-shut case and my gut feeling is that its generally going to be one of those "impossible to prove" situations, no matter how distasteful we may find that to be.

Moriarty

ISAW wrote:

Likewise even if there is a military coed that states WP is illegal one still has to show it was used. In the Falluja case it is easy to show it.

I must add about the use. It is clearly designated not as an weapon for firing at people but for smoke obscurant, illumination by flare or firing into areas where people are not present.

If it's clearly designated not as a weapon but as a smoke/flare deployment platform, why are there weaponised mortar and artillery shells specifically designed to disperse WP for maximum area of effect?

ISAW wrote:

Now for those who do not know the term "shake and bake" refers to a US product which is put on the skion of poultry or meat and the meat covered with a bag and the bag shaken. This ensures the skin is covered with the chemical. It is then put into a oven and cooked.

So the term "shake and bake" betrays the use of WP to "burn" people alive with chemicals.

Reach much?

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

Yes, but lets be clear here. There is no internati0onal military code which says that WP is unequivocably illegal. It states at best that it is illegal to use it in certain ways.

Yeah. It probably would not be considered bad if you hit someone physically with a detanator for a nuke. But if you used it for actually detionation??

In a similar vein, it is generally legal to drive a car, but a car can be driven in an illegal manner.

and in the above discussion I referred to the mens rea in this case of "shake and bake".

In the fallujah case it is easy to show a car was driven, but whether or not it was driven in an illegal manner is far from clear.

If the car didnt kill anyone or maim them for life (especially civilians) you might well have a strong case. as it happens there were innocent civilian victims.

And yet MM insists that its use to flush people from vehicles is explicitly permitted. This is not the work of an obscurant, illuminant, nor is it use in an unoccupied area. Now, your response was that it shouldn't be used in this way, but you didn't make it clear whether this shouldn't is a statment of your moral beliefs, or one of law. My tendency is that its the former, else the explicit statements in the FM alone would be admission of illegality. I'm open to correction though.

I think I was quite clear. I believe it morally wrong yes but I also suggest that it is contravening (among other laws) Protocol III of the CWC. Put it another way, suppose flamethrowers (although these are not the same as chemicals) were used on buildings with insurgents and there were also civilians in the buildings. Suppose also some insurgents ran through open squares and the US troops used flame throwers on them indiscrimanetly when there were other civilians present and they knew there were civilians in the area. Flamethrowers are allowed under conventional weapons. But not in this way.

If you read back the Protocol III rules for the use of incendiary weapons that you yourself used a few posts ago, you'll see that it explicitly leaves situations open where incendiary devices are not prohibited.

Yes but I also argue that though classified as a chemical phosphorus compounds do come under precursors of chemical weapons. Phosphorus penta and tri chloride for example. Mercury does NOT to my knowledge come uner persursors but putting it in food or water would breach the law by using mercury as a weapon.

How then is it sinister to have a substance who's incendiary use is supposed to be for these types of permitted situations only?

Cordite is used to propell bullets and shells. If it was placed on someones eyes and set on fire would you think that sinister?

So the question becomes not whether or not there's something inherently illegal in it being Shake n Bake (as it would appear there isn't),

I do not agree! I claim it is wrong but I also claim it is illegal. Protocol III is only one argument for illegality. I reserve the fact that other international law is also persuasive argument. But the Us is not boubd by international law!

but whether or not we meet the following criteria:

Protocol IIII 2A ...
The problem here is that there's quite a bit of wriggle-room. What constitutes a concentration of civilians? What constitutes a "clear seperation"? How sure do you have to be there are no concentrations of civilians, and how far do "all feasible precautions" extend?

this is a problem with all law. Civilians were present. One can easily determine if it was two twenty two two hundred or two thousand. I suggest one can easily determine "concentration". "Clear seperation" might be the same as considered dangerous for the person using the WP i.e. several hundred meters. If the civilians were in the same room building or square then it is clearly not clear seperation. The question isnt whether one has have to be CERTAIN there are NO civilians. The facts are that the US military KNEW that there WERE civilains! All feasible precautions might include telling the people in the buildings that chemicals are going to be used on them if they do not come out. Of course if they do come out you will shoot them in the open ;(

I don't rule out that WP was used illegally. I'm simply questioning what I'm perceiving as the suggestion that its some sort of open-and-shut case and my gut feeling is that its generally going to be one of those "impossible to prove" situations, no matter how distasteful we may find that to be.

The evidence of what happened is clear but the military have not disclosed all their knowledge. Whether the law itself applies is the question.

ISAW

Moriarty wrote:

If it's clearly designated not as a weapon but as a smoke/flare deployment platform, why are there weaponised mortar and artillery shells specifically designed to disperse WP for maximum area of effect?

Probably because if you want to use smoke to conceal movement from view then you want it to cover a large area. Likewise if you want to light up an area at night you want as large an area as possible.

Ohyeah

according to this depleted uranium has been brought through Shannon! :mad:

http://www.irishantiwar.org/news/item.tcl?scope=public&news_item_id=102021

it is on Irish Anti War Movement site and original article in Daily Ireland

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

suppose flamethrowers (although these are not the same as chemicals) were used on buildings with insurgents and there were also civilians in the buildings. Suppose also some insurgents ran through open squares and the US troops used flame throwers on them indiscrimanetly when there were other civilians present and they knew there were civilians in the area. Flamethrowers are allowed under conventional weapons. But not in this way.

Indeed. And were the events in Fallujah as clear-cut and beyond doubt as that, then there'd be little argument.

The problem is that they weren't. We might like to believe that the soldiers knew exactly what they were doing, and couldn't care less about distinguishing the non-combatants from the combatants....this has not been established to be the case.

Cordite is used to propell bullets and shells. If it was placed on someones eyes and set on fire would you think that sinister?

Thats not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that if someone referred to cordite as "bullet propellant" even when using it for another purpose, I wouldn't consider it necessarily unusual.

WP and the technique of Shake n Bake are not in and of themselves illegal. It would be illegal to use them in the situations expressly prohibited under PIII, but thats as far as I can go. I don't believe that anyone who actually understands the legal ramifications of what PIII really means (in terms of concentrations of civilians, what is feasible, etc.) and who also has a fully clear picture of what happened in Fallujah (in place of partial reports, some degree of confusion and often a healthy dose of supposition) has come out and clarified that it would be a violation.

And as you yourself pointed out earlier...innocent until proven guilty. IF you can't show beyond doubt that they violated PIII, but just suspect that its the case, then fine...you suspect its the case, but they ain't gonne be found guilty.

I reserve the fact that other international law is also persuasive argument. But the Us is not boubd by international law!

Neither is anyone else apparently, because no-one has actually brought a case for the US to ignore.

You can reserve what you like, but so far the only international law I've seen brought up which would be relevant is PIII (not just by yourself). Maybe there are others, but I find it hard to concede that you know a law has been broken, but don't apparently know which one.

One can easily determine if it was two twenty two two hundred or two thousand.

One can. I would suggest that one should before jumping the gun and assuming a law has been broken. Have you done this? Have you checked for the work of someone else who has done it for you? If so, can I see the data?

I suggest one can easily determine "concentration".

In empirical terms, sure. In terms of what constitutes "a concentration" in the legal term used...perhaps not so simple as you think. Is there case precedent? Is the term used in other cases which could set precedent?

"Clear seperation" might be

We need go no further. It might be, I agree. Whether or not it is, neither of us apparently know...yet you are happy to argue that a law has been broken without knowing the specifics of the conditions to be met?

The facts are that the US military KNEW that there WERE civilains!

They knew there were civilians in the city. DId they know they were targetting civilians with WP? Did they believe the civilians were being used to shield enemy units? Are there other factors here that need to be taken into consideration?

The evidence of what happened is clear but the military have not disclosed all their knowledge.

What happened is only clear in terms of the outcome. There is no way of knowing whether or not the specifics of events are clear, unless we have the knowledge you say hasn't been released.

Whether the law itself applies is the question.

IF it doesn't apply, then they can't have broken it!

Look - don't get me wrong here. I agree fully that this is a case of concern, and that it needs closer investigation. However, I think there would have to be a two-pronged approach.

Firstly, one would have to show what the US could be accountable for, given what we know. This involves knowing how the law works, and as much about what happened as possible. One would then have to show how the details we are missing would determine guilt or innocence . At that point there would be a compelling case to call on the US to release its information.

But cries of guilt at this point simply strike me as premature....or uncompelling.

Manic Moran

Its an unworkable situation. We must agree that our morals differ, and refer to a seperate authority...which is typically the law. At least one of us will undoubtedly walk away believing that (moral) justice was not done, but thats just the thing....

You speak the truth. I think a general agreement on this principle is the only way this thread is going to come to a conclusion.

Why for example is it seemingly accepted by US military justice that crimes committed outside the juristiction of the US by military are crimes but the US refuses to allow any of their troops to be prosecuted for such "crimes"?

Not quite. The US reserves the right to exclusively investigate and if required prosecute the soldier in question for those acts. There are two 'levels' of this reservation, one is the 'status of forces' agreements with the host country, the other is a refusal to submit its troops to the International War Crimes tribunal or some such. The former might be related somewhat to a diplomatic immunity clause: The soldiers are present in the host country as official government representatives in the same manner as embassy staff. They don't always enforce that reservation, however, for example I believe that some military types were handed over to Japanese authorities for a rape case a couple of years ago. The International Court issue is slightly different, the US is concerned that as the US is a country that everyone loves to hate, that American soldiers will be specifically sought after and given 'extra love and attention.' Clinton recommended that the US not ratify it without changes or safeguards to prevent such, and Bush followed a similar line. It seems to be an issue of bi-partisan support in the US political structure.

And where before 1945 was there a law against the holocaust?

I'm presuming that there wasn't one. This again differs from our WP issue, since I don't think anyone thought of drafting an anti-holocaust international treaty before 1945, whereas the use of incendiaries was indeed considered and agreed upon (and acted upon) before Fallujah.

But it appears here we are back to inalienable rights and natural law. Who gives the Us the right to act unilaterally?

Jus Bellum could. It's the same principle as asking 'Who gave the Israelis the right to invade Egypt in 1967?' but although there was no resolution passed in the UN or any other such thing, it's accepted as being a 'fair cop.' The question of whether or not the US had sufficient cause to invoke it is another issue.

And how come the US cosied up to Saudi Arabia and Kewait which are muslim Fundamentalist and dictatorial dont have democracy mistreat women etc.

Real-politik I figure. The US can't restructure the entire world, it needs to pick and choose the priority issues/countries that need dealing with.

[/quote]
Yes but I am also arguing that under the written law internationally it is wrong and under US law it is arguable [/quote]

I'm not arguing under US-specific law, I just don't see where the written international law makes it illegal. (and please don't quite Protocol III in its entireity again!). The way I see it, the only way the use in WP would have been illegal per international law would be under the 'reasonable procedures' clause, which is very far from being a cut-and-dry argument.

But he will lead the public in the Bible belt to believe that he will overturn this!

He can lead the Bible Belt to believe that he can walk on water, that doesn't have any effect on the laws of physics. This little detour is seriously off-tangent, however.

The US and UK stitched up the soverign inhabitants of those Islands.

I am not going to attempt to defend that action, which is not under review in this thread.

Except in Diego Garcia??? <snip>

Regional blips in terms of the overall agreed/compromised moral values of the planet, not in terms of specific actions of individual governments.

Are you suggesting 1930s Reichstag was not a soverign parliament binding on its citizens?

Not at all. Are you suggesting that the Reichstag made its law without reference to the various subcategories of its citizens? If not, then the analogy fails as the laws of warfare were not created with exemptions for jews, muslims, blacks, rich people, or whoever.

The law (in Ireland) was struck down by the courts because the accused was not accorded a righ to a defence since statutory rape has no defence!

I admit I've not been following that saga, but would not being found 'not guilty' provide a defence?

It is clearly designated not as an weapon for firing at people but for smoke obscurant, illumination by flare or firing into areas where people are not present.

You are quoting primary American use and attempting to equate that with exclusive international permissability. WP has been used in a direct anti-personnel role going back from WWII through Vietnam. The current US artillery FM says specifically that you can use WP in a direct-fire role if you need to. What does, say, Soviet or British doctrine say on the issue? The US no longer uses flamethrowers as a doctrinal weapon, but the Russians do. Quoting American doctrine proves nothing as to legality.

Earlier you claimed that Use of mortars was not an air delivery i.e. not the same as bombing.

Yes.

That is a MILITARY objective. Also you have already admitted that the military KNEW there were civilians in Falluja.

Killing/neutralising insurgents is a military objective. The presence of civilians in Fallujah does not preclude the use of incendiaries, it just means that the US has to take a few precautions. The nature of these precautions is the primary (and only) argument that I see you have which has weight.

If it's clearly designated not as a weapon but as a smoke/flare deployment platform, why are there weaponised mortar and artillery shells specifically designed to disperse WP for maximum area of effect?

Why are there hand grenades and tank rounds created for the direct-fire use of WP? Simply because mortars and artillery pieces can fire it doesn't mean anything in itself: High Explosive rounds are also fired by artillery and designed to detonate for maximum area of effect, and there's nothing wrong with frag hand grenades or HE rounds from tanks.

Suppose also some insurgents ran through open squares and the US troops used flame throwers on them indiscrimanetly when there were other civilians present and they knew there were civilians in the area. Flamethrowers are allowed under conventional weapons. But not in this way.

It sounds harsh, but actually it is allowed. The presence of civilians does not provide immunity from fires. It would obviously be preferred not to use a flamethrower, but if the flamethrower is the most reasonable way of getting the job done, then that's what gets used. Obviously you would want to make a snap 'cost/benefit' analysis before pulling the trigger, but it's a subjective issue, not a hard-and-fast rule.

according to this depleted uranium has been brought through Shannon

Talk about going off-tangent. As an aside, the Sergeant quoted is an idiot. "I thought DU was a myth." I'm also curious to know what a Marine platoon sergeant would know about US Air Force routing policies, and what is on airplanes that land at Shannon. The DU ammo he used in 2003 could quite easily have been part of the pre-positioned stocks the US has had in the area for some time.

NTM