Instead, they said, the Blackwater convoy appeared to be stuck in traffic and may have been trying to use the riot-control agent as a way to clear a path.
One canister could be written off as an accident. Two? From two separate vehicles? Sounds like stupid.
Weapons plus lack of disciplined adherence to rules of engagement equals thugs.
I agree that CS shouldn't really be that big a deal if the soldiers are prepared and equipped; it sounds like they weren't, for some reason.
In the final analysis, though, it was counterproductive for all concerned, and it wouldn't take much of that kind of incident for me to junk their contract, were I the State Department.
One canister cannot be written off as an accident.
The United States is a signatory to a chemical weapons ban treaty that makes it unequivocally clear that using CS gas in a military / war / foreign occupation is a violation, and anyone who authorises such or does such is a war criminal. this is grounds for trying much of the Bush administration as traitors to the Constitution and war criminals.
Clarification: that it was there at all was no accident. That the first one was fired at that timemight have been an accident, but the firing of a second one reduces the credibility of even that claim substantially.
As to the clarity of the treaty on that point, I don't know, and haven't time to go digging.
5. permitted for a purpose not prohibited by the Convention, namely and explicitly, “Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.” (Art. II.9(d))
Iraq is NOT a domestic riot control purpose, it is NOT law enforcement - this is a combat situation during a war. CS Gas is used to disperse crowds, and it has been demonstrated to be toxic when metabolised by the body, and can be lethal if the people it used on cannot disperse. A CHECK POINT makes it IMPOSSIBLE for people to disperse.
VIOLATION of a SIGNED CHEMICAL WEAPONS TREATY. Per the Constitution of the United States, all treaties hold the same legal weight as the Constitution itself. The Commander of the US Armed Forces (the President) authorising the use of banned chemical weapons to be used on foreign national during an occupation in wartime is a war crime, and violates his oath of office.
It seems that what is required here is proof that the CS gas was released "as a method of warfare." IANAL, but this seems likely to be fraught with legal subtleties; has a report (per Article X, paragraph 9) been submitted to the DG regarding this matter? Until that process gets well and truly under way, I doubt that this will form the core of an impeachment proceeding.
Assuming that can be settled, what remains is pretty straightforward: the President, through the Secretary of State, failed to take due precautions against the violation of this treaty by agents acting on behalf of the United States government, and furthermore, when it became known that these agents were equipped with riot control chemical agents and were operating in a war zone, failed to take any measures to prevent the use of those chemical agents as means of warfare in violation of the treaty. That should be sufficient for an impeachment; the president, as far as I know, didn't explicity authorize use of CS gas, but I'm pretty sure his constitutional obligations extend beyond that to include failure to take reasonable and prudent steps to prevent its use in violation of the Treaty.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 07:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 08:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 08:17 am (UTC)W......T......F!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 02:03 pm (UTC)2. In Canada we spend years building up an immunity to
iocane powderCS gas. Shouldn't be a big deal to trained soldiers with gas masks on hand.(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 02:26 pm (UTC)Weapons plus lack of disciplined adherence to rules of engagement equals thugs.
I agree that CS shouldn't really be that big a deal if the soldiers are prepared and equipped; it sounds like they weren't, for some reason.
In the final analysis, though, it was counterproductive for all concerned, and it wouldn't take much of that kind of incident for me to junk their contract, were I the State Department.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 03:46 pm (UTC)The United States is a signatory to a chemical weapons ban treaty that makes it unequivocally clear that using CS gas in a military / war / foreign occupation is a violation, and anyone who authorises such or does such is a war criminal. this is grounds for trying much of the Bush administration as traitors to the Constitution and war criminals.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 04:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 04:37 pm (UTC)As to the clarity of the treaty on that point, I don't know, and haven't time to go digging.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 07:02 pm (UTC)http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention
Under the Chemical Weapons Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention)
CN and CS gas are given special treatment under the convention in a number of ways. They are uniquely and explicitly:
1. defined (Art. II.7), http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_article_II.html
2. prohibited for use as a method of warfare (Art. I.5),
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_article_I.html
3. required to be declared (Art. III.1(e)),
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_article_III.html
4. cited in Art. X.8(b) on investigation and assistance if used against a State Party, and
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_article_X.html
5. permitted for a purpose not prohibited by the Convention, namely and explicitly, “Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.” (Art. II.9(d))
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_article_II.html
Iraq is NOT a domestic riot control purpose, it is NOT law enforcement - this is a combat situation during a war. CS Gas is used to disperse crowds, and it has been demonstrated to be toxic when metabolised by the body, and can be lethal if the people it used on cannot disperse. A CHECK POINT makes it IMPOSSIBLE for people to disperse.
VIOLATION of a SIGNED CHEMICAL WEAPONS TREATY. Per the Constitution of the United States, all treaties hold the same legal weight as the Constitution itself. The Commander of the US Armed Forces (the President) authorising the use of banned chemical weapons to be used on foreign national during an occupation in wartime is a war crime, and violates his oath of office.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-12 01:43 pm (UTC)It seems that what is required here is proof that the CS gas was released "as a method of warfare." IANAL, but this seems likely to be fraught with legal subtleties; has a report (per Article X, paragraph 9) been submitted to the DG regarding this matter? Until that process gets well and truly under way, I doubt that this will form the core of an impeachment proceeding.
Assuming that can be settled, what remains is pretty straightforward: the President, through the Secretary of State, failed to take due precautions against the violation of this treaty by agents acting on behalf of the United States government, and furthermore, when it became known that these agents were equipped with riot control chemical agents and were operating in a war zone, failed to take any measures to prevent the use of those chemical agents as means of warfare in violation of the treaty. That should be sufficient for an impeachment; the president, as far as I know, didn't explicity authorize use of CS gas, but I'm pretty sure his constitutional obligations extend beyond that to include failure to take reasonable and prudent steps to prevent its use in violation of the Treaty.