U.S. Use of Tear Gas Could Violate Treaty, Critics Say [Another 'Bush-is-always-wrong' piece]

New York Times ^ | Saturday, April 5, 2003 | By NICHOLAS WADE with ERIC SCHMITT

[JohnHuang2]

April 5, 2003

U.S. Use of Tear Gas Could Violate Treaty, Critics Say

By NICHOLAS WADE with ERIC SCHMITT

resident Bush has authorized American military forces to use tear gas in Iraq, the Pentagon says, a development that some weapons experts say other countries might see as a breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The Defense Department said tear gas, which has been issued to American troops, would be used only to save civilian lives and in accordance with the convention, ratified by the United States in 1997. But critics say any battlefield use of tear gas would violate the treaty, offend crucial allies, including Britain, and hand Saddam Hussein a possible pretext for using chemical weapons against the United States.

These different views reflect a deliberate ambiguity in the Chemical Weapons Convention, which says that riot-control agents may not be used as a "method of warfare" but does not define this phrase.

The United States has long held that tear gas should be available for certain defensive purposes, such as when civilians are being used to screen an attack. This view is national policy and expressed in an Executive Order of 1975.

But many other countries, and some American advocates of controlling chemical arms, say a bright line should be drawn against any use of chemicals on a battlefield, so as to bar escalation from tear gas to lethal chemicals.

Michael L. Moodie, a former State Department official who helped negotiate the convention in the previous Bush administration, said the treaty language was "left deliberately vague so that the competing sides in the debate — basically the U.S. on one side and much of the others on the other — could both adhere to their respective national interpretations." Mr. Moodie is now president of Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute.

The issue, and the difference of views among the convention's signatories, have been thrust to the fore by Iraq's use of civilians to shield its soldiers.

Use of the agents for defensive purposes to save lives "would be consistent with the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare," a Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Dave Lapan, said in response to questions on March 28.

But the British defense minister, Geoff Hoon, said on March 27 that nonlethal chemical agents "would not be used by the United Kingdom in any military operation or on any battlefield."

Elisa D. Harris, of the University of Maryland, said use of riot control agents against Iraqi soldiers using civilians as a screen is allowed by the 1975 executive order but would contravene the Chemical Weapons Convention. Ms. Harris, who worked on chemical weapons policy for the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, said of the Pentagon, "They are taking the position that anything done consistent with the executive order is consistent with the treaty, and that is not the case."

The signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention, she said, had barred riot control agents in war because their deployment might escalate to the use of lethal chemicals.

In four major uses of chemical weapons in the past — by the combatants in World War I; by the Italians in Ethiopia; by the Egyptians in Yemen; and in the Iran-Iraq war — deployment was preceded by use of nonlethal agents, Ms. Harris said.

In ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Senate wrote into its resolution a condition upholding the United States' interpretation of how riot control agents might be used, as specified by the 1975 executive order. Mr. Moodie acknowledged that other countries had different interpretations of the convention, but said, "I don't think it's appropriate to say one country's interpretation is more valid than another's."

The Senate also barred the president from altering the 1975 executive order, something the Clinton administration had hoped to do to align the American view on tear gas with that of other signatories. "By precluding the president from issuing a new executive order the Senate in effect adopted a position in conflict with the terms of the treaty," Ms. Harris said.

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention, signatories forswear possession and use of chemical weapons, and undertake not to retaliate in kind if chemically attacked. Iraq has not signed the convention, but it did sign the Geneva Protocol of 1925, in which signatories deny themselves first use of chemical weapons and some reserve the right to retaliate in kind.

If the United States used riot control agents on the battlefield, Iraq might claim it was justified under the Geneva Protocol in using chemical weapons against American forces, Ms. Harris said.

The potential conflict between the executive order and the convention was a sleeping issue that began to stir in February, when Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee that he was trying to find legal ways to use nonlethal weapons in Iraq. "Absent a presidential waiver, in many instances our forces are allowed to shoot somebody and kill them, but they're not allowed to use a nonlethal riot-control agent under the law," he said.

[JohnHuang2]

Saturday, April 5, 2003

Quote of the Day by PogySailor

[Fred Mertz]

When I was stationed in the ROK circa 1985, I got a good whiff of tear gas one weekend while visiting Seoul. It was student demonstration weekend I suppose.

Tear gas is normally effective and has no debilitating effects to my knowledge. This assumes it won't be used with the potent effects that the gummint used at Waco.

Heck, cops use mace all the time. Or so I've been told.

[sd-joe]

It seems totally stupid to BAN NON-LETHAL weapons, forcing countries to use LETHAL weapons. WTF.

[TheDon]

LOL! NYT, the official mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Hee Haw!

[faithincowboys]

Why was their no hue and cry when the Russians used mystery gas to subdue the Chechen terrorists and kill a hell of a lot of friendly Russians?

[tomahawk]

Well, I guess the NY Times it is more humane and legal to kill people than make them cry and disable them.

Typical Left-Wing sh*t for brains.

[Centurion2000]

President Bush has authorized American military forces to use tear gas in Iraq, the Pentagon says, a development that some weapons experts say other countries might see as a breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Hate to say it but they are right on this one. Tear Gas is one of the banned weapons according to the laws of land warfare.

[Timesink]

Wow, two New York Times QUAGMIRE articles in the same paper. The other one's already been proven wrong. Wonder how long it'll take for this one.

[halfdome]

There was hue and cry.

[goldstategop]

I'd like to see the NYT editorial staff tear gassed and then let them bellyache about treaty violations! ;-)

[faithincowboys]

I don't really remember the criticism being particularly intense. Nor do I remember the global left being particularly upset by the Russian atrocities in Chechnya. Bush is demonized, but Putin is not. Do you recall huge demonstrations in the western capitals opposing Putin and his war against the muslims in Chechnya? I don't either!!!

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

To hell with them, it was good enough for the Klintoon goons to use before killing women and children at Waco.

They also are a hell of a lot more sensitive about Muslim sensitivities engaging the enemy around mosques than they were about using tanks and burning out the Branch Davidians in their church.

Turns my stomach, individual lawyers down to the squad level sayng when, or when not to take a shot. PC garbage is getting our people killed.

[pragmatic_asian]

If other countries were to stop criticizing the US in every instance where their behavior had been far worse, the world would be a quiet place and we could get rid of the UN.

In anycase, we signed the damn treaty with the 1975 Pentagon regs incorporated. That would give us the right to use non-lethal methods to subdue people via our interpretation. However, if we use chemicals to impair enemy combatants so that they could be killed more easily, that would definitely be a violation of the treaty (surprise another Clinton mistake). It might be more trouble than it's worth. If we're going to get criticism either way, better that we handle the enemy with normal lethal force.

[Wolverine]

 

US Plans for Use of Gas in Iraq

(Austin and Hamburg, 7 February 2003) -

Rumsfeld acknowledged US ratification of the CWC but expressed "regret" about its restrictions, stating that the US has "tangled ourselves up so badly" on policy for use of incapacitating biochemical weapons. Rumsfeld indicated that - in his opinion - if President Bush signs a waiver of long-standing restrictions on US use of incapacitating chemicals, that the US will be able to legally field them in Iraq and elsewhere.

 

.

TESTIMONY AUDIO

 

mp3 (6 min. 41 sec.)

The speakers:

The first speaker, who poses the question, is Rep. Meehan of Massachusetts. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld replies (including a follow-up question from Meehan), followed by remarks from Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Wolverine]

Please note #14

[Windcatcher]

Remember Rush's "America Held Hostage" announcements, when he did it EVERY DAY? It drove the libs absolutely insane. Maybe it's time to really target the NYT. He could point out all the "hate Bush/Bush is wrong/vote Democratic/Communism is good/this war is failing" NYT articles, EVERY SINGLE DAY. Point out Pravda's (oops, the NYT's) propaganda.

EVERY *SINGLE* DAY.

[KeyWest]

One word.

Waco.

[TheDon]

The Democrats are trying so hard with the moral equivalence games. First, they equate the Iraqi state television display of our dead soldiers being mistreated with private Coalition television filming Iraqi prisoners being humanely treated. Next, they equate the use of tear gas with sarin gas and VX gas. I don't think so.

To make those kinds of comparisons shows you to be a Democrat, or you have no moral sense, which is pretty much the same thing.

[Centurion2000]

To make those kinds of comparisons shows you to be a Democrat, or you have no moral sense, which is pretty much the same thing.

Like hell ..... I am merely stating that if we are going to obey the laws of land warfare and cite that we are doing so ... we have to obey all of them.

There is no moral equivalence at all here. I'm all for backing out of the city and dropping nuclear weapons until this is over. But you have to the devils their due on this one. Using Tear gas is a violation of that convention .... if we use that, then the Iraqis just might up it to VX and Sarin

THEN your precious demoncrats will say that there is a moral equivalence.

[TheDon]

We are obeying them.

"Using Tear gas is a violation of that"

It is easy to pass along opinions, why don't you be a little more specific. Do you actually have a reference to a treaty the US has signed which makes the use of tear gas illegal in war? We obviously make good use of it in a domestic setting. Your claim that it can't be used in warfare is beyond belief.

If you can provide the reference url, I'd be happy to read it. If not, you shouldn't be making statements about issues which do not know what you are talking about.

To equate the use of tear gas with Sarin or VX gas simply because they are both proscribed by law is intellectually dishonest. As is the other issue regarding subjecting POWs to public humilation.