Make you a deal: RE: US prepares to use toxic gases in Iraq

johnhall johnhall@isomedia.com
Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:53:25 -0800


Agreed that you can't redefine battle situations as 'crowd control'.

Just to be clear, "simply lob agents" is different from dispersing a
crowd after you have seized an area.

How about this operational definition: You can't use them to take
control of an area, or keep control of it against an organized force.

But if you have control of an area and have problems with an unorganized
civilian force you can consider gassing rather than shooting.

Or another operational definition: If there is no question you can
legally shoot people you have to shoot them not (CS) gas them.

But if someone might consider an order to shoot to be inappropriate
(civilian protestors) then you can use CS.

Does either one of those work?

Not attached to either definition, just trying to find one we can both
agree on.


> From: JS Kelly [mailto:jskelly@jskelly.com]
> 
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, johnhall wrote:
> 
> > Make you a deal: If the US simply lobs such agents into Bagdhad
(which
> > you seem to suggest) I'll oppose it too.
> 
> ok -- i'll hold you to that, if and when it happens. that this is the
plan
> is certainly the impression i got from the independent article which
> started this thread:
> <http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=383006>.
> 
> -jsk
> 
> ps
> 
> > Beyond that, using such agents in a crowd control environment isn't
a
> > violation of the treaty.
> 
> no fair redefining battle situations as 'crowd control' later
>