Re: OT: sponge burning!

[judd@wadsworth.org]

On 28 Mar, Celejar wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 

     Note that I said "may".  Protocol 3 was adopted in 1980.  A more 
recent document is the Chemical Weapons Convention, ratified by the
US in 1997.  The spokesman for the Organization for the Prohibition of 
Chemical Weapons, which monitors the CWC, had this to say:

     "... If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, 
the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, 
that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is 
structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against 
humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties 
of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm)

     Even the protocol which you mention states:

"2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective
located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by
air-delivered incendiary weapons."

which clearly happened in Fallujah.

It is not the case that WP itself is always considered a chemical
weapon; it depends on how it is used.

-Chris

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.                      judd@wadsworth.org   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------