Re: OT: sponge burning!

[Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:17:41 -0400 (EDT)
judd@wadsworth.org wrote:

> 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 

Point taken.

> 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)

How does that square with what I referenced from the Times article?
Here's the quote:

Washington’s new position is that phosphorus is “not a chemical weapon”
and “not outlawed or illegal”. The Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons, which polices the 1993 convention prohibiting
chemical weapons, accepts that position. Its spokesman said that
phosphorus was covered instead by the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions
or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be
Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects.> 

>      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.

My point was just to correct what you wrote that "Using white
phosphorus against combatants" might be, in and of itself, a war crime.

Also from the Times article:

Although the US ratified parts of this convention in 1995, it has
failed to enact Protocol III, which bans the use of incendiary weapons
against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces
in civilian areas. They can be used against military targets separate
from civilian positions.

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

>From your BBC article:
 	
WP - the arguments

So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal.
However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that "a
certain way" can easily be defined, if at all.

The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and
further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat
from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since
incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP
against combatants is not prohibited.

Critics claim that the US used chemical weapons in Falluja, on the
grounds that it is the toxic properties which cause the harm. The UK's
Guardian newspaper for example said: "The US used chemical weapons in
Iraq - and then lied about it."

There is an intense debate on the blog sites about this issue. "It's
not a chemical weapon" says Liberal Against Terror. "CONFIRMED: WP is a
CW if used to cause harm through toxic properties," says Daily Kos.
	

So I guess your "may" is correct :).

Celejar