Posted on 09/26/2002 6:21:53 AM PDT by Overtaxed
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:55:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military is exploring ways to use drugs such as Valium to calm people without killing them during riots or other crowd control situations where lethal weapons are inappropriate.
Some critics say the effort violates international treaties and federal laws against chemical weapons, an allegation the military denies.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
Q: will military intervention be required?
Q: are these merely contingency plans?
He basically argued that agents that make all combatants (on the military field) or rioters "just sit down" would be humane. He proposed stuff like tranquilizers or agents that lower the blood pressure to the point where the combatant(s) can't stand up but must lie prone or sit.
--Boris
Do you TRUST the government? Do you believe that rioters are the only crowds they would seek to disperse? Do you trust everyone who may at one point be in the government? What about when they decide to drug rallies? What if it is a rally you agree with?
I'm imagining an NRA Million-Gun-March on the Washington Mall... after which the military/natguard dopes you all with valium or something else...
I would imagine this type of thing is being considered for Somalia type situations, where we are engaged in close combat with quasi-civilian/unarmed participants. Seems like a decent idea, if you aren't going to shoot to kill, that is....
But they day they use it on people here get ready for something big.
Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_.
Oh please. We'll just have to shoot them then. You'll complain and whine just as much about that, won't you Mr. Hammond? Sheesh, some people...
There was talk of an audio frequency projector which broadcast over loudspeakers facing the crowd. There are specific frequencies which the projector sends, and when humans are exposed to those frequencies, they suffer from nearly instantaneous projectile vomiting and diarrhea. It's rather difficult to continue to riot under such circumstances.
Of course, we couldn't deploy that device either, without having Mr. Hammond whining about public hygiene and the destruction of the rioters' dignity...
All I can say is keep that smoke out of my yard. It stinks to high heavens!
Ewwww! That would leave a big mess to clean up.
Generally I do not. I believe the US Constitution is clear on the point that the citizens should not trust the government.
Do you believe that rioters are the only crowds they would seek to disperse?
Do you trust everyone who may at one point be in the government?
Obviously I do not.
What about when they decide to drug rallies? What if it is a rally you agree with?
These are all arguments for making leathal force the means of dispersing riots. If the government sharts shooting down peaceful protestors there is perforce then a civil war in progress. Since the decision to open full hostilities against a substantial portion of the populace is far more grave than the decision to medicate them so they calm down it tends to limit the government's wi;;ingness to take that step. The fact that the people being repressed generally do have the means to resist makes that decision even more difficult to make. Thus we as a nation maintain rule of law with the liberty to dissent and enjoy those rights enumerated in our Constitution.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
But when the 2nd American revolution comes (hopefully not in either of our lifetimes), I would much prefer that govt goons have to shoot me and those around me, rather than simply put on gas masks and take us out with one big cloud.
Regardless, if this is for military use, I certainly endorse it over more violent means. I'm just worried by visions of non-violent protestors being gassed for the sheer convenience of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.