US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention - 2000+ CW Deployed In Iraq

The United States has been caught with at least 2,386 low-grade chemical weapons deployed in Iraq. The items appear in a spectacular 2,000 page leak of nearly one million items of US military equipment deployed in Iraq given to the government transparency group Wikileaks. The items are labeled under the military's own NATO supply classification Chemical weapons and equipment.

In the weeks prior to the March 19, 2003 commencement of the Iraq war, the United States received a widely reported rebuke from its primary coalition partner, the United Kingdom, over statements by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that the US military might use CS gas in Iraq and Afghanistan. Subsequently Washington has been quiet about whether it has deployed CS gas and other chemical weapons or not, except to deny, then to admit to using white phosphorus as "an incendiary" — a use not covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) — during a gruesome 2004 assault on Fallujah. [2]

The use of chemical weapons such as CS gas for military operations is illegal. The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997, drafted by the United Kingdom and ratified by the United States, declares “Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare”. Permissible uses are restricted to "law enforcement including domestic riot control."

Source: Wikileaks

I couldn't find any mention of this on ATS, and the major media doesn't seem to be interested either. But I feel this is an important issue... The Fallujah incident is widely covered here on ATS and this leak can be seen as a definite confirmation that the US have in fact deployed chemical weapons in Iraq. I would say that this seriously damages the credibility of the current administration, when they are using the very same weapons they claim to be fighting to remove...

Isn't CS gas just Tear Gas? I'm not positive, but, I'm hoping someone will confirm or deny this. But, if it is, we have cops that use tear gas in America here and....

..I'll shut up and listen.

Cuhail

Originally posted by Cuhail

Isn't CS gas just Tear Gas? I'm not positive, but, I'm hoping someone will confirm or deny this. But, if it is, we have cops that use tear gas in America here and....

..I'll shut up and listen.

Cuhail

I think it's the same yes. But that is only one of the weapons they have deployed. And the main issue is that using this in a combat situation is illegal, unregardless of wether the gass kills you or not. In Vietnam they used it to flush out the enemy and then shoot them as they ran away. Seem effective I know, hehe, but it's no different from gassing them with mustard gass really.

It would be interesting to see if some military geeks here can dig up more information on exactly what kinds of weapons these are...

"The most numerous item on the chemical weapons equipment list is a vehicle mounted gas canister launcher, the "DISCHARGER GRSCL XM7", used to launch 66mm smoke and CS gas grenades. The split between smoke and CS gas usage cannot be determined as the list does not cover expendables such as munitions."

"Prior to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, the US produced a GB (sarin) binary nerve agent weapon, the M687 projectile (a 155-mm artillery shell), and was in the late stages of development of two other binary weapons when its known offensive chemical warfare program was terminated."

Source: Wikileaks

I guess what they are saying is that we can't be sure what gasses they are using.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by DrLeary]

So help me understand what this is supposed to mean in a real world situation. I don't think the weapons listed in this article constitute a violation the Chemical Weapons Convention, but even if it is a violation - what happens then?

What do you expect the US or anyone else to do about it? The people trying to kill our soldiers don't seem to follow any rules at all - why don't you complain about their conduct??

Oh wait, I forgot - they are "freedom fighters" so no rules apply.

So this breaking news story about the US using chemical weapons, is about tear gas and incendiary devices? That's pretty weak. If the story was that Sarin, VX, Mustard Gas, etc... were being used, then that might be newsworthy. Using that standard, if we were to set something on fire, then the toxic fumes would be considered chemicals.

Personally I don't care what we use in war along the lines of chemicals. Its war people. There are no rules in war.

I know that comment will stir up some of the bleeding heart liberals.

Well GeeWiz...Sure would'nt want to make Habibs eyes tear-up while he's trying to decide if he should strap-on an "Allah" vest.....DrLeary...Tear gas is not Musard gas, calling Smoke, Flares and CS "Chemical Weapons" is absurd... Yeah RockPuck, We should have been full-bore from the start, by now the fires would have died down to a nice glow...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Personally I don't care what we use in war along the lines of chemicals. Its war people. There are no rules in war.

I know that comment will stir up some of the bleeding heart liberals.

It has nothing to do with being a bleeding heart liberal OR what type of gas that was used. The OP source clearly states that the use of this gas in war is ILLEGAL.

What the real issue is about, is that the US has violated signed and agreed upon Acts and Treaties which govern Warfare. Would some of you say it is ok if it were China doing it against Taiwan? Or maybe Pakistan against India? North Korea vs South Korea?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Personally I don't care what we use in war along the lines of chemicals. Its war people. There are no rules in war.

I know that comment will stir up some of the bleeding heart liberals.

Nice mentality when we were supposed to liberate the Iraqis from the very same weapons. Remember the whole WMD debackle?

And no. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal. But I'm no war mongoring neanderthal either.

Originally posted by section8citizen
Would some of you say it is ok if it were China doing it against Taiwan? Or maybe Pakistan against India? North Korea vs South Korea?

Don't even need to go there. How about Iraqi insurgents using it on our troops?

It's all war right?

I can see it now. Faux news would be calling for us to use the same on them.

[edit on 11/13/2007 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Well I see it a bit differently, if Iraqi insurgents used it I would have to ask...did THEY sign the same Treaties and Acts saying they would not use these weapons?

Like I said, the issue is a violation of Acts we have agreed to. Is it illegal if you do not agree to a treaty and sign it?

To answer your question though.... I would still have a problem with it. There is a reason why these weapons should not be used in warfare hence why there are treaties. However you can not expect someone to play by rules they never agreed to play by can you?

I see your point but I was asking the questions to those who are saying "what's the big deal, it's war".

On that we are in total agreement. The whole "It's war" argument is seriously flawed, narrow minded, and flat out ignorant.

EXTREMELY old news. This was brought about long ago. This is not really a chemical weapon. This weapon is made from a chemical (as are all) but they do not emit chemical gas for the lethal effect as do "chemical weapons". Big difference.

What part of this is hard to understand?

The use of chemical weapons such as CS gas for military operations is illegal. The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997, drafted by the United Kingdom and ratified by the United States, declares “Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare”. Permissible uses are restricted to "law enforcement including domestic riot control."

So - back to my original question from earlier in the thread; What happens now? What if the US did violate a "rule of war?" Is the UN going to take away our July 4th holiday?

Many people on ATS constantly bash the US for an "illegal" war. If a war is illegal then how can there be any laws governing it? Isn't war what happens after international law and treaties and negotiations have already failed?

Hmmmm

This "act"

Who enforces it?

Who controls it?

If someone "breaks it" who condemns them?

Who PUNISHES THEM? ... For a law is only a law measuring the level and severity a punishment for breaking that law is..

If there is no REPRECUTIONS it is a flawed law, and does not exist.

It may exist on paper, it may exist in SOME MINDS but it is not an enforced law, and thus, it is not a law.




Take an international relations class people -- International relations is anarchy, and there is no such thing as international law.

Now, if you want to say it is ethically wrong, be my guest, but stop the pathetic uneducated BS about "it was illegal" ...

[edit on 11/13/2007 by Rockpuck]

Tear gas can't be used for war, but it can be used for law enforcement. I would imagine that a big part of the soldiers' duties in Iraq include helping them with police work.

The article there seems rather biased. I love how they make assumptions because military vehicles have the tear gas weapons, and non-police units have them. They (and you) need to take into consideration that, A) Military is military, your task is not always in line with your assigned job; and B) Policing a war zone is not like policing a peaceful first world nation, you need military hardware to do it.

Anyways, if the United States signed a treaty promising not to use tear gas for warfare, it shouldn't have done so. First of all, if you can dispel attackers without lethal force it reduces civilian casualties and doesn't have the effect of killing one insurgent and inspiring half his family to take his place. Second, it's non-lethal, doesn't have any lasting effect on the environment, dissipates quickly, and requires large enough quantities that it doesn't blanket large uncontrollable areas. And third, we may have signed treaties, but I don't think any of them were with the insurgents who have signed nothing at all.

Well tear gas doesn't compare to DEPLETED URANIUM!! A clear war crime, since it inflicts damage on the battlefield long after the battle. Here's a good BBC article on it. D.U.
Apparently when a bomb or shell with D.U. goes off, it creates D.U. particles that the soldiers inhale, causing cancer, birth defects in children, deterioration of the G.I. tract, and lots of others. There was a good documentary on it called Poison DUst, it might still be on google video. But it's the cause of Gulf War Syndrome (the first war where DU was used since it was banned) and soldiers have had the same syndrome in every war with DU since.

Simple answer to why nothing will be done about this, or the DU rounds, or anything else similar:

When you act as the world police, you get the right to do whatever you want, as you can make the rules of the game up as you go along. The victor of a war dictates the history books - and it's no different in a "live" situation.

What happened to Saddam when he killed the kurds with chemicals?

How many deaths are attributable to Saddam, in total?

How many deaths are attributable to Bush's actions since 9/11?