Skip to comments.
Use of CS gas in Gulf is illegal, Red Cross warns U.S.
The Independent ^
| 09 March 2003
| Severin Carrell
Posted on 03/09/2003 2:41:37 PM PST by yankeedame
Use of CS gas in Gulf is illegal, says Red Cross
By Severin Carrell
09 March 2003
The International Committee of the Red Cross has led protests by medical and human rights groups at plans by the US to deploy tear gas and pepper spray to the Gulf.
Senior officials in the ICRC, which champions legal rights for soldiers and civilians in wartime, warn that using these "riot control agents" would violate the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
Peter Herby, an arms and mines control specialist with the ICRC, said: "We can say quite categorically that the use of chemical agents, whether riot control agents or lethal agents, in warfare would be entirely prohibited."
Their protests, which follow The Independent on Sunday's disclosure last week that US troops could use CS gas and pepper spray in the Gulf, were supported by the British Medical Association and the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists.
They claimed that using even CS gas would undermine the prohibition on using chemical and biological weapons in war, and would be exploited by rogue states to justify their use of more dangerous weapons.
In the Commons, four senior Labour MPs have tabled questions asking the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, whether the Government had objected to the US plans. British officials also believe the use of CS gas in war would be illegal.
But, in a letter to the IoS, a senior Pentagon official insisted the use of tear gas for "defensive purposes to save lives" and to "protect non-combatants" would be "consistent" with the convention.
Victoria Clarke, the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs, denied allegations from a senior US military expert and Gulf War veteran that US special forces could use "knock out" gases.
The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said using tear gas against human shields or to pacify prisoners would be justified claims disputed by international legal experts.
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: redcross
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
LOL! Re: these characters... my stars and garters but the mind just reels with sarcastic replies!
To: yankeedame
Why? It was good enough for Waco!
2
posted on
03/09/2003 2:46:49 PM PST
by
Lucky Lyn
(God Bless Presisent Bush and our Troops)
To: yankeedame
Too bizarre for words.
Hopefully ICRC will escalate this to some more noticable forum, so that Americans will no longer send them $$$.
3
posted on
03/09/2003 2:46:52 PM PST
by
angkor
To: yankeedame
Senior officials in the ICRC, which champions legal rights for soldiers and civilians in wartime, warn that using these "riot control agents" would violate the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
I hope our commanders in the field laugh this stuff off. Non-lethal agents
save lives.
4
posted on
03/09/2003 2:47:13 PM PST
by
Asclepius
(hoping for the best)
To: yankeedame
Let's see: America has CS tear gas and pepper spray. Saddam has tabun and sarin and anthrax and VX. So, the fair and balanced thing to do would be to warn America against the use of gas. No need to say anything about Saddam's gas weapons.
Lunatics.
To: Asclepius
I have been CS'd, but I have never been shot. However, I still feel confident in saying that I would rather by CS'd. I imagine the Iraqis would feel the same way if they were given a chance to express their opinions on the matter.
To: yankeedame
""RED"" Cross, aptly named!!!!
7
posted on
03/09/2003 2:50:58 PM PST
by
Defender2
(Defending Our Bill of Rights, Our Constitution, Our Country and Our Freedom!!!!)
To: yankeedame
Unbelievable. The red cross is right, don't pepper spray them or tear gas them, just shoot them. THAT'S legal.
Unbelievable.
To: yankeedame
"warn that using these "riot control agents" would violate the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention."
They just want to make the point that bombing them is more HUMANE!
9
posted on
03/09/2003 2:52:28 PM PST
by
observer5
To: yankeedame
The Red Cross saw their last nickel from me when I donated two hundred fifty dollars to the victims of 911, and they used it for a variety of things, including community outreach.
To: American Soldier
You can shoot them, but don't use cs gas to make them surrender? What a crock.
To: yankeedame
Oh, my! The Red Cross! This is series.....
12
posted on
03/09/2003 2:53:28 PM PST
by
clintonh8r
(It is better to be feared than to be respected.)
To: yankeedame
Good thing the Red Cross is not allowed in Arab countries ( it's the Red Crescent )
13
posted on
03/09/2003 2:57:10 PM PST
by
RS
To: yankeedame
This confirms it for me. The earth has fallen off its axis!!
To: yankeedame
KGB use of gas against Chechen terrorists in hostage situation--no Red Cross protest.
Saddam Hussein use of lethal gas against Iranis and Kurds--no Red Cross protest.
Aum cult uses sarin gas in Tokyo subway March 1995--no Red Cross protest.
BATF/FBI/Delta uses CS gas to kill 80 U.S. civilians April 19, 1995--no Red Cross protest.
Now, U.S. forces have NOT used any gas, and Red Cross protests:
QED: Red Cross approves terrorism but not its defeat.
15
posted on
03/09/2003 2:57:41 PM PST
by
PhilDragoo
(Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
To: clintonh8r
"The Red Cross! This is series"
The Red Cross and the UN, both totally corrupt organizations, should be sent the same place of the dodo bird, extinction!
16
posted on
03/09/2003 2:58:17 PM PST
by
dalereed
To: I still care
just shoot them. THAT'S legal. We can also plunge a bayonette into their chest, or beat them about the head with the butt of our rifle. All perfectly legal. But we cannot make them cry with pepper spray.
17
posted on
03/09/2003 2:58:41 PM PST
by
Semper911
(For some people, bread and circus are not enough. Hence, FreeRepublic.com)
To: yankeedame
Red Cross = extortionists
The RC is concerned primarily with the RC. I unfortunately get the pleasure of dealing with these clowns at work, as our safety regs. are "American Red Cross Cerified." What a joke. If you write them a check, they'll certify anything.
18
posted on
03/09/2003 2:59:21 PM PST
by
way-right-of-center
(I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.-- Will Rogers)
To: yankeedame
OK Red cross we will not use CS on Iranis, we will just shoot them.
To: yankeedame
FYI, the ICRC is correct.
Clinton pushed the CWC through the Senate in 1997. We had opposed it because of this. Remember, we also almost signed the land mine ban.
This is series, and stoopid. But it is also what the Treaty says.
I commented on this before with links here.
20
posted on
03/09/2003 3:07:57 PM PST
by
optimistically_conservative
(We're approaching the one-year anniversary of Democrats accusing Bush of a "rush" to war.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson