Re: OT: sponge burning!

[Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:03:00 +0000 (UTC)
Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:21:12 -0400, Celejar wrote in
> [🔎] 20070328182112.a494494f.celejar@gmail.com:
> 
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:14:40 -0400 (EDT) judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> >>      Actually, the war itself is a "war of aggression", which is a
> >> war crime.  Other actions which may be war crimes:
> >> 
> >>     Torturing prisoners.
> >>     Using white phosphorus against combatants and civilians
> >>        (as opposed to its legal use for battlefield illumination).
> > 
> > Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons [0]
> > clearly allows combat use of incendiary weapons against enemy forces
> > (i.e. to kill them, not just illuminate them), except in certain cases
> > involving civilians. It is also quite probable that such use isn't
> > banned by the agreements against chemical weapons; according to the
> > (London?) Times [1], the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
> > Weapons agrees with the US administration that it isn't. C.f. Wikipedia
> > [2] and the references there.
> 
> ..one argument against using Wikipedia here, is a not too recent case of 
> somebody editing a page to suit his argument, and then make use of that 
> edit to win his flame war, I understand it was spotted fairly quickly but 
> I dunno  the details.  ;o)

Absolutely right, but I just used wikipedia for a helpful primer. See
my other 2 footnotes. 
> > Celejar
> > 
> > [0] http://www.ccwtreaty.com/protocol3.html [1]
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article591095.ece [2]
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> White_phosphorus#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations
> 
> ..as a commander or combattant, you will here wanna make fully sure, that 
> the full 4 Geneva Conventions does not in any way override your "right" 
> to use these weapons, even against mercenaries, such as for _excessive_ 
> collateral damage.  

Fair enough.
 
> ..nukes will often (but not always) be illegal for precisely that reason, 
> _excessive_ collateral damage, "a little is ok", a few other kindsa 
> weapons are banned for more, I'd say moralistic reasons, e.g. poison gas, 
> dum-dum bullets etc, as are mercenaries.  
> 
> ..arguing how they _should_ be, is completely different to arguing 
> against or for the language or the spirit in the Conventions.  ;o)

Fair enough. My point still stands, though, that using WP to kill enemy
soldiers is not, per se, illegal.

Celejar