USA army HAVE used chemical weapons in Iraq

ghost26ie

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.

flamethrowers use 'thickened Gasoline' which is probably similar to napalm, but are allowed under conventioanl weapons as you state. they do use chemicals but are still allowed.

secret_squirrel

The flamethrower example is also useful in another way.

Lets assume flame throwers are used in a similar way to the WP weapons, you could have examples of them being deliberately used to create toxic smoke, and I bet the fumes from them themselves aint great to inhale either.

That could damage both enemy combatants and civilians pretty indescriminately, without it ever being targeted directly at civilians.

The point is where do all the lawerisms stop? You cant legislate against all the vagaries of war. Its ridiculous to expect to do so.

Give a guy a tool, he's going to use it whichever way gets the job done at the time.

Regardless of however many conventions are made and rules of combat specified War involves a great deal of chaos and since it generally involves the breakdown of the normal rules and laws of a society it could be argued that its a futile task to apply rules down to the Nth degree which is exactly what the WP debate is about.

I would argue you are trying to apply the rules with a degree of granularity that they were never designed for. Any effort to do so serves only to waste resources away from stronger arguements and more blatant breaches (not that I am necessarily suggesting there has been any).

If you fail to convince either public opinion or the international community over WP then you potentially weaken the case for other issues to be raised.

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

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.
...

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.

If there is a case to be made it had to be supported yes but
Soldiers have testified to illegalities in Iraq.
Reportage is censored.
where are the copies of reports and commands given out before the seige?
What are the statements of all the marines present?
where is the uncensored footage taken by the journalists there present?

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.

Not true! I referred to The 1980 UN Cenvention on conventional weapons
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/500?OpenDocument
(about six or seven different references from the above source)

Protocol III of the CWC mentioned above http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument
which specifically does not allow weapons to be used in the way it seems they were used.


The Army actually admitting the use of WP as an anti personell weapon
http://www-tradoc.army.mil/PAO/ProfWriting/2-2AARlow.pdf

The ICRC study on Customary International Humanitarian Law reached; Rule 85 states: “The anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons is prohibited, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a person hors de combat” while the previous Rule 84 calls for particular care to avoid or minimize the impact of incendiaries on civilians.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/130?OpenDocument

A weapon can be unlawful is if its use would violate general principles against means of war causing “superfluous injury” or “unnecessary suffering,” a concept dating from the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration on Exploding Bullets and now widely recognized as constituting customary international law.

The law of war which says that armed forces must distinguish between military and civilian objects in conducting attacks; this principle of distinction requires situation specific consideration of the means and methods to be employed

A “danger close” environment, meaning U.S. forces were within 600 yards of the intended targets and the first rounds of each fire mission would thus be deliberately offset from the target in a direction away from friendly forces and then walked on using observer spots

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/7_19/national_news/16750-1.html
suggests first round accuracy of Palladin howitizers employed at Fallujah is +/- 370 meters.

And according to Fox NEWS hundreds of civilians were forced to stay in falluja
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138376,00.html

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?

That is for the courts to decide. I only make the case. As regards references I have posted them all in my various replies.

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?

Perhaps not so simple. Hundreds of people turned back and at lease 50,000 people in Falluja would make me think that there were concentrations of civilians however.

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?

I am not the court. But let me ask you this. when Mai Lai happened should everyone just have forgotten about it because it was not clear what happened?

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?

We need to see the evidence before anyone can decide whether civilians were targeted. That is part of the issue. another part is whether WP should be used to target anyone whether soldiers terrorists insurgents or civilians.

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.

Quite. But i am sure if you find a tree in the forest that you will believe it made a noise when it fell.

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

And I note "IF" is in capatals.

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.

... cries of guilt at this point simply strike me as premature....or uncompelling.[/QUOTE]

I don't know who is guilty. I don't assume anyone is. I think however there is a case to be answered.

ISAW

ghost26ie wrote:

flamethrowers use 'thickened Gasoline' which is probably similar to napalm, but are allowed under conventioanl weapons as you state. they do use chemicals but are still allowed.

Yes but as i point out NOT in proximity to civilians.

ISAW

secret_squirrel wrote:

Regardless of however many conventions are made and rules of combat specified War involves a great deal of chaos and since it generally involves the breakdown of the normal rules and laws of a society it could be argued that its a futile task to apply rules down to the Nth degree which is exactly what the WP debate is about.

This "bad things happen in war" is not really strong argument is it?

If you fail to convince either public opinion or the international community over WP then you potentially weaken the case for other issues to be raised.

I would rather die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak. I hope you understand that your "you might fail or make a fool of yourself so you shouldn't speak up" argument is not really convincing to me.

secret_squirrel

ISAW wrote:

This "bad things happen in war" is not really strong argument is it?

Not when a comment is treated that flippantly, no. However I believe its a valid and pretty strong point. You cant create order out of chaos.

ISAW wrote:

I would rather die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak. I hope you understand that your "you might fail or make a fool of yourself so you shouldn't speak up" argument is not really convincing to me.

Where does fear come into it? Or making a fool of one self?

Knowing what causes to choose and what battles to fight is how both Wars and Court cases are won.

Im not surprised your not convinced since you are massively misinterpreting what I said.

The simple fact is that the WP isnt a huge issue, and in trying to make it one your wasting time and energy better spend on other issues on the Irag conflict. Its sophistry at worst and a minor technicality at best.

ISAW

secret_squirrel wrote:

Not when a comment is treated that flippantly, no. However I believe its a valid and pretty strong point. You cant create order out of chaos.

You stated
1

War involves a great deal of chaos...

and 2

...it is a futile task to apply rules down to the Nth degree which is exactly what the WP debate is about.

In other words "bad things happen in war" and so we can forget about the law because war is chaotic.


Where does fear come into it? Or making a fool of one self?

If you fail to convince either public opinion or the international community over WP then you potentially weaken the case for other issues to be raised.

Where you above claim that be making a bad argument against WP one may either weaken other cases or fail to win this one. The conclusion is that one shouldn't try to speak up if one is not competent, or not a trained lawyer or skilled debater. So how does one become one of these ruling elites? A country run by "experts" is no better than a dictatorship. Your thesis is supporting the idea that if you have people in fear then they will look to others they deem their betters to lead them. Indeed you seem to be a victim of that self same philosophy yourself. I may fear making a mistake but I wont be paralized by that fear.

Knowing what causes to choose and what battles to fight is how both Wars and Court cases are won.

You are suggesting I should not be opposing the use of WP in Falluja because it is not a battle worth winning. I don't select out wrong doing and say that some wrongs are okay. I don't think it is fair to condemn Saddam as an evil dictator and support other dictators. I dont think it is on to invade a country and then announce the reasons for the invasion were wrong. The "it seemed like a threat to me" excuse just isnt good enough in my book and I oppose it! It is the same excuse that has liberty removed from US citizens with Patriot Acts and the like. The EU yesterday decided not to give personal information about people (credit card numbers and other personal data) to the US. they dont need it!

Im not surprised your not convinced since you are massively misinterpreting what I said.

What did I misinterpret?

The simple fact is that the WP isnt a huge issue, and in trying to make it one your wasting time and energy better spend on other issues on the Irag conflict. Its sophistry at worst and a minor technicality at best.

Was Mai Lai a huge issue?

ghost26ie

ISAW wrote:

Was Mai Lai a huge issue?

there are plently of issues in the vietnam "war" which just as much importance as Mai Lai, e.g. Agent Orange, the phoenix program. this WP incident is similar. i'd consider US marines going on the rampage and killing 24 innocent civilians in cold blood a bigger issue.

bonkey

I don't know who is guilty. I don't assume anyone is. I think however there is a case to be answered.

I think you need to go back and re-read some of your initial comments on this thread. You made quite unambiguous assertions that specific actions were unquestionably illegal. Are you now saying that you've changed position? That you're beginning to agree that maybe its not as cut and dry as how you made it out to be at the outset?

If so, then we're probably done here. I've only ever taken issue with the allegations that this is some sort of definitive situation and that there is no question about the illegality - y'know, the type of thing you were saying.

jc

ISAW

ghost26ie wrote:

there are plently of issues in the vietnam "war" which just as much importance as Mai Lai, e.g. Agent Orange, the phoenix program. this WP incident is similar. i'd consider US marines going on the rampage and killing 24 innocent civilians in cold blood a bigger issue.

Where did marines kill 24 people in cold blood?

ghost26ie

ISAW wrote:

Where did marines kill 24 people in cold blood?

you obviously haven't been watching the news lately.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1223278,00.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060531/ts_nm/iraq_usa_haditha_dc_4;_ylt=Ah2q1zvS5_3aFORrvBFWBSZX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

I think you need to go back and re-read some of your initial comments on this thread. You made quite unambiguous assertions that specific actions were unquestionably illegal.

In my first post I refferred to targeting WP as opposed to its intended use. I still believe that. there is also the point about not targeting people when any civilians are around. I also believe that is wrong.

Are you now saying that you've changed position? That you're beginning to agree that maybe its not as cut and dry as how you made it out to be at the outset?

Possibly.
I believe that firing WP at people is wrong but I have only shown that firing it at non combatants is illegal and the legal use does not mention foiring it at people but specifically details use in places where there are no people. I have also brought up military procedure which details use of obscurants and which details who odfers what and who should know what and what standing orders apply. We have not seen the details of these reports, footage taken etc. I have also shown that civilians were known to be present and military kept them from evacuating.

What I have not shown is a specific rule which forbids the use of WP even in the mitigating circumstances where you have no other alternative and do not believe civilians are present although I still do not approve of its use in such a way.

If so, then we're probably done here. I've only ever taken issue with the allegations that this is some sort of definitive situation and that there is no question about the illegality - y'know, the type of thing you were saying.

Not quite. I came in when the case being made was that there was nothing illegal done, that the military acted both humanely and in accordance with the law. I have a problem with that. They reduced a City the size of Cork to rubble and ashes. the tactics used were questionable. Saying "they broke no law and if they did it was a minor one so why not just forget it" does not really cut the mustard for me but for you apparently it does. does it?

ISAW

ghost26ie wrote:

you obviously haven't been watching the news lately.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1223278,00.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060531/ts_nm/iraq_usa_haditha_dc_4;_ylt=Ah2q1zvS5_3aFORrvBFWBSZX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Start a thread if you wish. I note
The military investagated this. It was quite simple to do so and to find the doctor or his report on the autopsy. It still took three months! It took another three months for that report to filter out!

In Falluja there were 50,000 to 200,000 people. It happened around the same time. Maybe more than 14 were indiscriminately killed. Where are the Army reports on Falluja? what were their standing orders?

The yahoo piece also mentions compensation. Where is the compensation for the 60,000 or so houses destroyed in Falluja?

ISAW

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/resources/falluja/

Details people killed in Falluja (way moe than 24) and the Military reasons/excuses given.
The IBC Falluja* Archive is derived from nearly three hundred selected news stories on the April 2004 siege of Falluja, with an emphasis on the humanitarian impact. It is far more than 24 deaths. and that is only April to July 2004

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11132004.html

By trapping as many as 100,000 men and boys in the city before invading it, the U.S. has assured that it will be killing many, many civilians, but we won't be hearing much about that. As far as the Pentagon and Centcom in Iraq go, the dead in Fallujah are and will be all rebels. If they die, they must have died fighting.

** Only 33 percent of Iraqis think they're better off now than before the war, as a Gallup poll discovered.
** Just 36 percent believe the interim government shares their values.
** 94 percent say Baghdad is more dangerous than it was before the war.
** 66.6 believe the U.S. occupation could start a civil war.
** 80 percent want the U.S. to leave directly after the January elections."

8,400 murders a year in a city of 5 million, or 168 per 100,000 per annum. The highest murder rate in the U.S. for 2003 was 45.8 per 100,000, in Washington, D.C., with Detroit coming in second. That is, Baghdad is nearly four times as dangerous as the most dangerous American cities, more than a year and a half after the fall of Saddam. The U.S. has by its stupid mistakes deprived Baghdad's residents of the basic right to personal security.

ghost26ie

ISAW wrote:

Start a thread if you wish. I note
The military investagated this. It was quite simple to do so and to find the doctor or his report on the autopsy. It still took three months! It took another three months for that report to filter out!

In Falluja there were 50,000 to 200,000 people. It happened around the same time. Maybe more than 14 were indiscriminately killed. Where are the Army reports on Falluja? what were their standing orders?

The yahoo piece also mentions compensation. Where is the compensation for the 60,000 or so houses destroyed in Falluja?

they are still investigating, no one has been charged yet, but if soldiers are convicted they could face the death penalty.

ISAW

ghost26ie wrote:

they are still investigating, no one has been charged yet, but if soldiers are convicted they could face the death penalty.

Something I also disagree with. sometimes it is pratical to "bury" a case in this way. the Birmingham six or Guildford Four would have been executed and possibly forgottten if this was that case.

gilroyb

Just in case anyone is actually interested, the U.S. never signed up the the relevant conventions regarding the use of WP. Their actions are therefore not illegal as international law relies on the conventions that people have agreed to, not the standards others would like to hold them to. This is the same reason that the Kyoto protocol does not affect the U.S.

There are other chemical weapons conventions that they are party to, but not one that makes the use of WP in this way illegal.

The U.K. on the other hand have signed up to protocols that make such weapons illegal, and they too have used them in Iraq.

People have refered to the Geneva Conventions - these are a particular set of rules which states have agreed to. There are a range of other international agreements dealing with what is illegal in war.

Manic Moran

Nobody on this thread is relying on the argument of 'The US didn't sign onto it', though it has been mentioned already. The US policy is to conform to international standards of warfare regardless of if it has signed on to the treaty or not.

NTM

gilroyb

They are within the international standards of law on this issue. The only way there is an issue with the use of these particular chemical weapons if if they have specifically limited their ability to use them, ie constrained themselves above and beyond the international standard. You could argue that using tanks isn't moral, but that doesn't make their use illegal. In the same way, it might be questionable to use these weapons, but what the US did was in no way illegal.

(The English use of the exact same weapons was, simply because they said before that they wouldn't use them)

If you want to talk about the Americans breaking International Law in Iraq, pick one of the other myriad of reasons.

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

Nobody on this thread is relying on the argument of 'The US didn't sign onto it', though it has been mentioned already. The US policy is to conform to international standards of warfare regardless of if it has signed on to the treaty or not.

NTM

Another related arguemtn is "The US must respect the law of other countries"

I sawpart of a documentary about "the tank man" the other night. You know the guy who stepped in front of the tank in Tinamen square in China. Anyway if you searcg Google or yahoo you get him. But in china Google and Yahoo and cisco censor the data so you get nice pictures of tourists.

Two REPUBLICAN senators were enraged about this in a congressional committee. One man sent a copy of a Chinese government memo
which the Chinese stated the policy of censoring the net. Yahoo sent it back to the Chinese along with the mans identity time sent IP address etc. the man was edit - sent to prison and is still there I believe

The VP of Yahoo said "we have to respect the law in other countries" and the senator asked if he would have said the same to Anne Frank.

Clearly there are standards of justice which we cant ignore. We cant invade one dictator and cosy up to another. well maybe we can but it would be hypocracy. Some people may well think Falluja was acceptable and worse things happen. I dont think it is acceptable and i want to see the information the US military have. I trusted them in Afghanistan, when the evidence didnt arrive I was opposed to Iraq. Now I want to see the evidence before I make up my mind. "Trust US" is not acceptable anymore.