4 ms·

How ironic that we hold government combatants to higher standards of morality when fighting foreigners than their own citizens.

JanisL 6y ago
As far as I understand it the ban on using tear gas in war is less about morality and more about preventing escalation into use of other chemical weapons in reprisal attacks.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  As a practical matter, many countries published doctrine restricting the use of tear gas and other riot control agents as a result of the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925. The language of the protocol is very general: "Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or any other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world..." It is probably this very general language that lead to the restriction of riot agents. Although they do not kill by poisoning or kill by asphyxiation, their method of operation certainly involves some combination of poisoning and asphyxiation. The USA has tended to hold that riot agents are not what is technically called a method of warfare because they produce "...merely transient effects...", and thus do not technically fall under the terms of the protocol, but has also long held that they are not authorized for general use, either. Per a field manual from 1956: It is the position of the United States that the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 does not prohibit the use in war of … riot control agents, which are those agents of a type widely used by governments for law enforcement purposes because they produce, in all but the most unusual circumstances, merely transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure to the agent has terminated. In this connection, however, the United States has unilaterally renounced, as a matter of national policy, certain uses in war of … riot control agents. The policy and provisions of Executive Order No. 11850 do not, however, prohibit or restrict the use of … riot control agents by US armed forces either (1) as retaliation in kind during armed conflict or (2) in situations when the United States is not engaged in armed conflict. Any use in armed conflict of … riot control agents, however, requires Presidential approval in advance. In Vietnam, riot agents nevertheless saw very wide application. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule75 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...
solidsnack9000 6y ago
How does what you're saying make any sense to you? Using non-lethal weapons like tear gas is not a lower standard of morality. Nor is using bullets that are less likely to pass through the intended target or the surroundings. Military personnel are not actually held to a very low standard -- much lower than police -- when they are fighting unlawful combatants like citizens, because people who are not fighting as military personnel enjoy no or almost no protections under the laws of war. Trying to draw a parallel here with the laws of war is silly.
- falcolas 6y ago
  None of these are non-lethal. They're less lethal. They still kill people. They still maim people. But since many people share your view - that they're non-lethal and thus morally superior - these less lethal means are used frequently, and often inappropriately, when the use of force is not justified. The parallel is clear: government funded and backed forces equipped with military gear, using military-developed weapons (chemical, sound, light, physical); some of which are restricted by international convention during war. And there will be no trials to hold people accountable for mis-using these weapons; as pointed out in the article, the government is actively blocking such attempts.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    Invoking the laws of war with reference to Portland doesn't make any sense unless you really believe that Antifa and BLM fall under the category of enemy combatants, which would mean that the government funded and backed forces were authorized to shoot them on sight. It's not because there is tear gas that police are sent to disperse crowds. Without tear gas, they'd use some other non-lethal implement authorized for that purpose. Authorizing non-lethal force to disperse crowds is not holding police to a lower moral standard than that to which the military is held. In fact, the military has the same kind of authorizations for dealing with (a) rebellious troops in its own ranks, (b) prisoners of war and (c) civilians in occupied territory. That is why the DoD does research on these incapacitating weapons. It's military forces that are held to police standards when these weapons are used, not the other way around.

JanisL 6y ago

As far as I understand it the ban on using tear gas in war is less about morality and more about preventing escalation into use of other chemical weapons in reprisal attacks.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
As a practical matter, many countries published doctrine restricting the use of tear gas and other riot control agents as a result of the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925. The language of the protocol is very general: "Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or any other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world..." It is probably this very general language that lead to the restriction of riot agents. Although they do not kill by poisoning or kill by asphyxiation, their method of operation certainly involves some combination of poisoning and asphyxiation. The USA has tended to hold that riot agents are not what is technically called a method of warfare because they produce "...merely transient effects...", and thus do not technically fall under the terms of the protocol, but has also long held that they are not authorized for general use, either. Per a field manual from 1956: It is the position of the United States that the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 does not prohibit the use in war of … riot control agents, which are those agents of a type widely used by governments for law enforcement purposes because they produce, in all but the most unusual circumstances, merely transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure to the agent has terminated. In this connection, however, the United States has unilaterally renounced, as a matter of national policy, certain uses in war of … riot control agents. The policy and provisions of Executive Order No. 11850 do not, however, prohibit or restrict the use of … riot control agents by US armed forces either (1) as retaliation in kind during armed conflict or (2) in situations when the United States is not engaged in armed conflict. Any use in armed conflict of … riot control agents, however, requires Presidential approval in advance. In Vietnam, riot agents nevertheless saw very wide application. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule75 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...

solidsnack9000 6y ago

How does what you're saying make any sense to you? Using non-lethal weapons like tear gas is not a lower standard of morality. Nor is using bullets that are less likely to pass through the intended target or the surroundings. Military personnel are not actually held to a very low standard -- much lower than police -- when they are fighting unlawful combatants like citizens, because people who are not fighting as military personnel enjoy no or almost no protections under the laws of war. Trying to draw a parallel here with the laws of war is silly.

falcolas 6y ago
None of these are non-lethal. They're less lethal. They still kill people. They still maim people. But since many people share your view - that they're non-lethal and thus morally superior - these less lethal means are used frequently, and often inappropriately, when the use of force is not justified. The parallel is clear: government funded and backed forces equipped with military gear, using military-developed weapons (chemical, sound, light, physical); some of which are restricted by international convention during war. And there will be no trials to hold people accountable for mis-using these weapons; as pointed out in the article, the government is actively blocking such attempts.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  Invoking the laws of war with reference to Portland doesn't make any sense unless you really believe that Antifa and BLM fall under the category of enemy combatants, which would mean that the government funded and backed forces were authorized to shoot them on sight. It's not because there is tear gas that police are sent to disperse crowds. Without tear gas, they'd use some other non-lethal implement authorized for that purpose. Authorizing non-lethal force to disperse crowds is not holding police to a lower moral standard than that to which the military is held. In fact, the military has the same kind of authorizations for dealing with (a) rebellious troops in its own ranks, (b) prisoners of war and (c) civilians in occupied territory. That is why the DoD does research on these incapacitating weapons. It's military forces that are held to police standards when these weapons are used, not the other way around.