| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Pentagon Setting âRulesâ For Killing Iraqi Civilians |
| 2003-02-07 |
| The Pentagon is writing ârulesâ that will supposedly govern the behavior of the U.S. soldiers in their handling of the Iraqi popular resistance during expected confrontations between the U.S. forces invading Iraq and the Iraqi civilians defending their soil. The Pentagon is writing rules of engagement to allow U.S. forces to use ânon-lethalâ riot control agents, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, claiming that the goal is to minimize civilian casualties if the United States goes to war in Iraq. But Rumsfeld said that Geneva convention treaty restrictions and other laws that bar the use of riot control agents in warfare without a presidential waiver have made the process âvery complex,â Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported. âAbsent a presidential waiver, in many cases our forces are allowed âto shoot somebody and kill themâ but they are not allowed to use a non-lethal riot control agent under the law,â Rumsfeld said Wednesday, February 5. So the headline's not quite accurate, is it? They're laying out rules for not killing civilians. Rules of engagement for combatants are pretty straightforward. But since it's our intention to not kill large numbers of civilians, we have to figure how to do that... |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #4 What Rummy's talking about are 1) the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits use of riot control agents (RCAs) as a "method of warfare," and 2) Executive Order 11850, which controls US use of RCAs. EO 11850 (which you can find using Google) says that only the president can authorize use of RCAs under very controlled circumstances. Pres. Ford signed it in about 1975, and Congress has formally blest it. Rummy in fact misspoke - he doesn't need a waiver, just presidential authorization. |
| Posted by: ereynol 2003-02-07 22:42:24 |
| #3 This story (Kirtland To Test Pain Warfare) announced the test plan, and this (Active Denial Technology ) is a follow-up. While there may be questions about ADT safety, I think it's probably safer than cluster bombs and hand grenades. |
| Posted by: The Kid 2003-02-07 12:21:20 |
| #2 Sounds like weâre planning to deploy microwave- and flash-generating weapons to disperse or immobilize crowds. Need to get the paperwork straight first to keep the lawyers happy. |
| Posted by: The Kid 2003-02-07 12:08:28 |
| #1 I'm sorry, but this sounds extremely fishy: "Civilians defending their homeland" is a definition of Citizen soldiers. "Civilians" who non-violently defend their soldiers as >>voluntary<< human shields BECOME military equipment, in the same way that an APC protects the soldiers within it. As I understand it, this is especially the case when martial law is declared. This doesn't make sense: Why would the Geneva Conventions (there's more than one treaty) forbid something that REDUCES casualty counts? I could see a possibility of using non-lethal agents to effect the rescue of civilians are FORCED to be human shields. I'm wondering if more than just the headline is accurate. I could see why a presidential waver is required, since using a non-lethal agent is more risky to the soldier using it. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-02-07 09:23:01 |