The UN Convention bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilans, not against humans. See for yourself: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument
Of course any deliberate engagement or targeting of civilians is already a war crime. so that the US has not signed this one is not of especial import except to say that we aren't bound by it expressly.
White Phosphorus is not banned.
It also isn't a chemical weapon. We are signtory to the Chemical Weapons Convention which defines chemical weapons. See here: http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html
So it isn't a chemical weapon and it isn't banned.
Indiscriminate use is. The stories circulating do not support that contention. See here: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10...
Bogert received the coordinates for the targets and recorded them on a map. This is proper procedure. He's receiving coordinates from a Forward Observer, indirect fire weapons never see their targets, the FOs do. The coordinates are plotted so that it is known what was ordered where. There is also a verification that takes place in the call for indirect fire to avoid problems with numerical transposition or other mistakes.
Some of these facts were mentioned in the article, and I don't dispute them.
We are a nation that has used carpet-bombing napalm and nuclear weapons so white phosphorus might be one of the less terrible things we've done in a war.
White phosphorus is not currently on the list of forbidden chemical weapons and isn't banned because it has dual use, but I'm hoping we can rise above a discussion of technicalities and loopholes in treaties to agree with one another that burning people alive with phosphorus is a shitty thing to do.
Also, I've been waiting for a respectable source to start talking about the use of phosphorus in Falluja, because I've been reading for weeks about reports of the use of phosphorus on civilians. Just not from sources I would cite as beacons of truth, but are re-reporting on an Italian news report concerning the weapons being used on civilians(CSM story that covers this).
The combination of the acknowledgement that we used them with the reports now emerging that we may have used them on civilians suggests that the status of white phosphorus should be upgraded to that of a banned chemical weapon.
It's nice when even if a commenter disagrees with you, they at least know what they're talking about and actually cite things. This should be a model for how to criticize giveupblog.
If I may then point out htat dula use has no bearing on the classification of WP. It has only to do wiht its chemical properties.
WP is not especially toxic. It can be, but one has to great lengths to actually develop health effects from it. It isn't weaponizable on the basis of it's toxicity.
It is weapon because it is combustible on conatct with oxygen. It will continue to burn unless it is consumed or it is deprived of oxygen.
It is not banned, because we have banned weapons that operate by chemical toxicity.
Think about it. VX, because it kills you by biochemical means, and quickly, is banned. However, burning to death from phosphorus, slowly and painfully, is ok because it's not a toxin.
5 Comments:
The UN Convention bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilans, not against humans. See for yourself:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument
Of course any deliberate engagement or targeting of civilians is
already a war crime. so that the US has not signed this one is not of especial import except to say that we aren't bound by it expressly.
White Phosphorus is not banned.
It also isn't a chemical weapon. We are signtory to the Chemical Weapons Convention which defines chemical weapons. See here:
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html
So it isn't a chemical weapon and it isn't banned.
Indiscriminate use is. The stories circulating do not support that
contention. See here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10...
Bogert received the coordinates for the targets and recorded them on a map. This is proper procedure. He's receiving coordinates from a Forward Observer, indirect fire weapons never see their targets, the FOs do. The coordinates are plotted so that it is known what was ordered where. There is also a verification that takes place in the call for indirect fire to avoid problems with numerical transposition or other mistakes.
12:18 PM, November 16, 2005
Some of these facts were mentioned in the article, and I don't dispute them.
We are a nation that has used carpet-bombing napalm and nuclear weapons so white phosphorus might be one of the less terrible things we've done in a war.
White phosphorus is not currently on the list of forbidden chemical weapons and isn't banned because it has dual use, but I'm hoping we can rise above a discussion of technicalities and loopholes in treaties to agree with one another that burning people alive with phosphorus is a shitty thing to do.
Also, I've been waiting for a respectable source to start talking about the use of phosphorus in Falluja, because I've been reading for weeks about reports of the use of phosphorus on civilians. Just not from sources I would cite as beacons of truth, but are re-reporting on an Italian news report concerning the weapons being used on civilians(CSM story that covers this).
The combination of the acknowledgement that we used them with the reports now emerging that we may have used them on civilians suggests that the status of white phosphorus should be upgraded to that of a banned chemical weapon.
12:39 PM, November 16, 2005
By the way, go rto trainer!
It's nice when even if a commenter disagrees with you, they at least know what they're talking about and actually cite things. This should be a model for how to criticize giveupblog.
1:09 PM, November 16, 2005
Thank you Rev. Dr.
If I may then point out htat dula use has no bearing on the classification of WP. It has only to do wiht its chemical properties.
WP is not especially toxic. It can be, but one has to great lengths to actually develop health effects from it. It isn't weaponizable on the basis of it's toxicity.
It is weapon because it is combustible on conatct with oxygen. It will continue to burn unless it is consumed or it is deprived of oxygen.
It is not banned, because we have banned weapons that operate by chemical toxicity.
1:36 PM, November 16, 2005
That's kindof creepy.
Think about it. VX, because it kills you by biochemical means, and quickly, is banned. However, burning to death from phosphorus, slowly and painfully, is ok because it's not a toxin.
3:56 PM, November 16, 2005
Post a Comment
<< Home