Legality of teargas

Teargas Geneva Convention

Once again the main stream media is presenting slanted facts to imply malicious intent.

This exaggerated claim pops up from time to time and it pisses me off every time I hear it.

“ Teargas is banned by the Geneva Convention ”

Technically they are correct but it’s nowhere near as ominous as they lead the gullible to believe.

Here’s the actual text from the Geneva protocols.

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare

Signed at Geneva: 17 June 1925

Entered into force: for each signatory as from the date of deposit of its ratification; accessions take effect
on the date of the notification by the depositary Government Depositary Government: France

The Undersigned Plenipotentiaries, in the name of their respective Governments:

Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world; and

Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are Parties; and

To the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations;

Declare:
That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to extend this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration.

The High Contracting Parties will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the present Protocol. Such accession will be notified to the Government of the French Republic,
and by the latter to all signatory and acceding Powers, and will take effect on the date of the notification by the Government of the French Republic.

The present Protocol, of which the English and French texts are both authentic, shall be ratified as soon as possible. It shall bear to-day's date.

The ratifications of the present Protocol shall be addressed to the Government of the French Republic, which will at once notify the deposit of such ratification to each of the signatory and acceding Powers.

The instruments of ratification of and accession to the present Protocol will remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the French Republic.

The present Protocol will come into force for each signatory Power as from the date of deposit of its ratification, and, from that moment, each Power will be bound as regards other Powers which have already deposited their ratifications.

In witness whereof the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Protocol.

Done at Geneva in a single copy, the seventeenth day of June, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Five.

1925

To give the MSM Credit they don’t deserve. Many of the sensationalized headlines sometimes specify “use in warfare”.

But as is in the practice of yellow journalism. It is used misleadingly in a game of evocation .

By not including accurate information and specifying it’s illegal when used in warfare.

The naïve and uninformed walk away thinking “ we can’t use it in war but were using it on our people”?

“ my god that’s a war crime”!!!!!

The thing is it isn’t by any stretch of the imagination. With the exception of the mind of a liberal journalist.

The passage was intended to prevent the accidental escalation of the use of deadly chemical weapons.

In 1925 they didn’t have modern detection devices that would let you identify the substance in a matter of minutes.

With the horrors of world war one and poison gas attacks still fresh in their minds. The passage was intended to prevent instant retaliation with chlorine, mustard or phosgenes during battle.

This was clarified By the biological weapons convention of 1972 which the USA ratified in 1975.

1972

It was further clarified in the chemical weapons convention of 1993 which went into affect in 1997.

1993

Once again the media is blowing air up everyone’s ass in an attempt to divide and inflame the public.


*Note

The exact same protocol also includes pepper spray .

There’s nothing worse than a biased journalist with a head full of words and a axe to grind.

Tear gas is 100% legal for crowd control .

Grrrrrr

FD

Ok, so taking that information and mixing it with the current situation and the general ATS claims; if BLM/DNC/Antifa are bowing down to the CCP, what’s to stop them from obtaining chemical weapons from the CCP and using them against federal agents, thus, creating the exact situation tear gas was removed for.

a reply to: Fallingdown

This was clarified By the biological weapons convention of 1972 which the USA ratified in 1975.

Which of the following exceptions apply to the protesters at Lafayette Park?
Which of the following exceptions apply to the protesters In Portland?

(a) Use of riot-control agents in riot-control circumstances to include controlling rioting prisoners of war. This exception would permit use of riot-control agents in riot situations in areas under direct and distinct U.S. military control;

(b) Use of riot-control agents in situations where civilian casualties can be reduced or avoided. This use would be restricted to situations in which civilians are used to mask or screen attacks;

(c) Use of riot-control agents in rescue missions. The use of riot-control agents would be permissible in the recovery of remotely isolated personnel such as downed aircrews (and passengers);

(d) Use of riot-control agents in rear echelon areas outside the combat zone to protect convoys from civil disturbances, terrorists and paramilitary organizations."

2009-2017.state.gov...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

B fits pretty good.

Oh hell, let's just use bullets. I'm pretty sure that they are good under the Geneva Convention.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Except for the part of using the stuff only to reduce or prevent civilian casualties....

All of the exceptions fall under a military auspice, not civilian police or law enforcement.

a reply to: Drucifer

Ok, so taking that information and mixing it with the current situation and the general ATS claims; if BLM/DNC/Antifa are bowing down to the CCP, what’s to stop them from obtaining chemical weapons from the CCP and using them against federal agents, thus, creating the exact situation tear gas was removed for.

It would be easier to go to the local store and get a few ingredients. There are many combinations of common household chemicals that give off a deadly gas.

They would probably kill themselves with it before being able to use it against the federal agents. This also applies to anything they could get from the CCP.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You’re looking at the exceptions for military use in a time of war .

I gave a lot of information not just what you cherry picked .
1993

Article II(7) of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention defines “Riot Control Agent” as: “Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.”

Chemical Weapons Convention
Article II(9)(d) of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention provides:
9.“Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention” means:
…
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
The cumulative effect of these provisions is that riot control agents may not be used as a method of warfare but may be used for certain law enforcement purposes including riot control.

You must’ve missed the term “clarified” . Lol

a reply to: Fallingdown

Fck em. Just start shooting the ones acting like criminals. Nothing will put an end to all the childishness faster than that. I'd pay to see these idiots take a beanbag to the nose or larynx.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You’re looking at the exceptions for military use in a time of war .

I gave a lot of information not just what you cherry picked .
1993

Article II(7) of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention defines “Riot Control Agent” as: “Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.”

Chemical Weapons Convention
Article II(9)(d) of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention provides:
9.“Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention” means:
…
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
The cumulative effect of these provisions is that riot control agents may not be used as a method of warfare but may be used for certain law enforcement purposes including riot control.

You must’ve missed the term “clarified” . Lol

Do you have a link for your citation? It isn't in your OP, unless it's a link buried within one of your links.
Link please.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Who cares. If they weren't out there breaking the law, burning down buildings, looting, and rioting then they wouldn't have to worry about tear gas.

The better question is why do you openly support terrorists?

a reply to: LSU2018

The better question is why do you openly support terrorists?

This isn't about me. It's about whether or not Bill Barr broke the law.

It was legal enough for the government to tear gas me in USN boot camp.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No I made it up . 😘

The problem is I already know this stuff before I post it .

I just supply links for others benefit . 🤥

I found that hard quote after you asked the question .

But ask me anytime I can always back up what I say .

Here you go.

This was also included in the article I linked if you follow the sources. Didn’t look but I’m sure there was the actual text of the treaty also .

For example, riot-control agents such as tear gas are prohibited as a method of warfare, but they are permitted if designed strictly for law-enforcement purposes.

Try a little elbow grease next time .

a reply to: Fallingdown

But ask me anytime I can always back up what I say .

I shouldn't have to, and it wasn't was you said, it was what you quoted that you failed to source.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Whatever floats your boat .

Who was right ?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: LSU2018

The better question is why do you openly support terrorists?

This isn't about me. It's about whether or not Bill Barr broke the law.

Right. I've noticed the trend of alt-lefties always making it about everyone else and then get called out and try to exclaim that it's not about them.

But, as I expected, you couldn't answer my question.

a reply to: LSU2018

Next time I go to a protest. I’m gonna try and get my hands on some real skunk scent .

a reply to: LSU2018

Here's a question for ya. Why did the administration deny they used tear gas? Why lie? It's oh so "Law and Order" legal! And ethical!

No Tear Gas Used Ahead of Trump’s Church Visit: Police www.theepochtimes.com...

"There was no tear gas used," Barr said on Face the Nation www.salon.com...

Secret Service says it did not use tear gas when Lafayette Park was cleared before Trump church visit www.foxnews.com...

There’s nothing worse than a biased journalist with a head full of words and a axe to grind.

Interesting thread. We should make note of how it is deployed. Many videos of protesters being shot with tear gas / rubber bullets / pepper spray in ways that can and do severely hurt them. Often leading to permanent damage.

How often are these police fired for misuse?

Bias in journalism can go both ways.

Can somebody answer me this, Why don't the police use water cannons?