US violates chemical weapons convention in Iraq

T.Ruth2power

(371 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-09-07 03:06 PM
Original message

US violates chemical weapons convention in Iraq

US violates chemical weapons convention
From Wikileaks
Jump to: navigation, search
2007-11-08 (Thursday)

The M33A1 bulk CS chemical dispenser, 21 of which appear together with their M254 high pressure loading kits in the leaked U.S weapons list for Iraq

“ The use of chemical weapons by US forces was explicitly banned by President Gerald Ford in 1975 after CS gas had been repeatedly used in Vietnam to smoke out enemy soldiers and then kill them as they ran away. Britain would be in a particularly sensitive position if the US used the weapons as it drafted the convention and is still seen internationally as its most important guardian.

The Foreign Office said: "All state parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention have undertaken not to use any toxic chemical or its precursor, including riot-control agents. This applies in any armed conflict." <1>
„
— US Prepares to Use Toxic Gases in Iraq, The Independent (London), March 2, 2003

The United States has been caught with at least 2,386 chemical weapons deployed in Iraq. The items appear in a spectacular 2,000 page leak of nearly one million items of US military equipment deployed in Iraq given to the government transparency group Wikileaks. The items are labeled under the military's own NATO supply classification Chemical weapons and equipment.

In the weeks prior to the March 19, 2003 commencement of the Iraq war, the United States received a widely reported rebuke from its primary coalition partner, the United Kingdom, over statements by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that the US military might use CS gas in Iraq and Afghanistan. Subsequently Washington has been quiet about whether it has deployed CS gas and other chemical weapons or not, except to deny, then to admit to using white phosphorus as "an incendiary" — a use not covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) — during a gruesome 2004 assault on Fallujah. <2>

The use of chemical weapons such as CS gas for military operations is illegal. The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997, drafted by the United Kingdom and ratified by the United States, declares “Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare”. Permissible uses are restricted to "law enforcement including domestic riot control."

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention

US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007)
From Wikileaks
Jump to: navigation, search
Digital mutiny
A Wikileaks exclusive investigative report by
JULIAN ASSANGE (ja@iq.org) & staff

2007-11-08 (Thursday)

Contents
1 Chemical weapons
2 Arms & equipment lists of notable military units
3 Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) hit hard
4 Military robots
5 Drone (robot) aircraft
6 Protective Armor and Equipment
7 Bulk cash counters
8 Over a thousand safes for secrets and cash
9 Cryptographic and communications security equipment
10 Chemical and biological portables
11 Minimum equipment costs per unit
12 Tally by NATO Supply Group
13 Tally by NATO Supply Classification
14 Tally by NATO Stock Number with price
15 Tally by NATO Stock Number
16 Analyzing the Contents of the Leaked Document
17 Further research tasks and questions
18 Tools for Analysis
19 About the Analysis
20 Full SQL database
21 See Also
22 Notes & References

This spectacular 2,000 page US military leak consists of the names, group structure and equipment registers of all units in Iraq with US army equipment . It exposes secretive document exploitation centers, detainee operations, elements of the State Department, Air Force, Navy and Marines units, the Iraqi police and coalition forces from Poland, Denmark, Ukraine, Latvia, Slovakia, Romania, Armenia, Kazakhstan and El Salvador. The material represents nearly the entire order of battle for US forces in Iraq and is the first public revelation of many of the military units described. Among other matters it shows that the United States has violated the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is currently a critical issue in the US. A majority of Democratic party candidates was elected to both houses of the US Congress in 2006 on an anti-war platform. Under the US Constitution, Congress has the 'power of the purse' to cut off funding for war, but Democrats have not yet sought to use this power. In late April, Congress passed a bill, HR 1591, which did not cut off funding, but instead authorized war funding through 2008 and into 2009. However, the bill was vetoed by President Bush on 1 May (2007) because it contained a non-binding timetable for withdrawal of US forces. With pressure building in Washington, further cracks are appearing within the US government itself. Some within the government believe enough is enough.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq_%282007%29

US Plans for Use of Gas in Iraq

(Austin and Hamburg, 7 February 2003) - Top US military planners are preparing for the US to use incapacitating biochemical weapons in an invasion of Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the plans in February 5th testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee. This is the first official US acknowledgement that it may use (bio)chemical weapons in its crusade to rid other countries of such weapons. The Sunshine Project and other nonprofits have warned since late 2001 that the "War on Terrorism" may result in the United States using prohibited biological and chemical armaments, thereby violating the same treaties it purports to defend. The US announcement creates grave concerns for the future of arms control agreements, particularly the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Rumsfeld stated that plans are being made for multiple applications, including use of gas or aerosols on unarmed Iraqi civilians, in caves, and on prisoners. Rumsfeld reiterated the confusing, typical US official language about so-called "non-lethal" biochemical weapons. Rumsfeld described applications of a "riot agent" that clearly imply the complete incapacitation of victims, combatant and non-combatant, in armed conflict - a definition and usages that are at odds with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Rumsfeld acknowledged US ratification of the CWC but expressed "regret" about its restrictions, stating that the US has "tangled ourselves up so badly" on policy for use of incapacitating biochemical weapons. Rumsfeld indicated that - in his opinion - if President Bush signs a waiver of long-standing restrictions on US use of incapacitating chemicals, that the US will be able to legally field them in Iraq and elsewhere.

TESTIMONY AUDIO

Choose format:

mp3 | aiff
(6 min. 41 sec.)

The speakers:

The first speaker, who poses the question, is Rep. Meehan of Massachusetts. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld replies (including a follow-up question from Meehan), followed by remarks from Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr/pr070203.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Igel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-09-07 04:58 PM
Response to Original message

1. So did they use them or

simply "deploy them", "plan" to use them, or "might (have) use(d)" them?

Your subject line entails "did use", but I'm not going to wade to see if the links support your subject line or not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sss1977

(206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Nov-09-07 05:13 PM
Response to Original message

2. that's the disgusting beauty of it all for them

They can claim they are police at the same time as claiming they are at war, so they can drop a nuke or lob tear gas.

They get to spend two trillion dollars to themselves for their cake and eat it too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 11th 2024, 03:10 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.