US Prepares To Use

Toxic Chemical Gas In Iraq

3-2-3

The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance. "Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be employed.

 

The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare. This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home: both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by UK police forces. The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf.

 

It is British policy not to allow troops to take part in operations where riot control agents are employed. But the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has asked President Bush to authorise their use. Mr Bush, who has often spoken of "smoking out" the enemy, is understood to have agreed.

 

Internal Pentagon documents also show that the US is developing a range of calmative gases, also banned for battlefield use. Senior US defence sources predict these could be used in Iraq by elite special forces units to take out command and control bunkers deep underground.

 

Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, a Navy commander in the last Gulf War who is now senior adviser to the Centre for Defence Information in Washington, told The Independent on Sunday that US special forces had knock-out gases that can "neutralise" people. He added: "I would think that if they get a chance to use them, they will."

 

The Pentagon said last week that the decision to use riot control agents "is made by the commander in the field".

 

Mr Rumsfeld became the first senior figure on either side of the impending conflict to announce his wish to use chemical agents in a little-noticed comment to the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on 5 February ñ the same day as Colin Powell's presentation of intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to the UN.

 

The Defence Secretary attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in international treaties on using the weapons in warfare. He specified that they could be used "where there are enemy troops in a cave [and] you know there are women and children in there with them". General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of using them against human shields.

 

The revelations leave the Bush administration open to charges of double standards at a time when it is making Iraq's suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons the casus belli. Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said last night: "This all adds to the confusion over how the war will be conducted. If the argument with Saddam Hussein is over disarming him of weapons of mass destruction, it is perverse of the US to push the boundaries of international chemical warfare conventions in order to subdue him."

 

Leading experts and Whitehall officials fear that using even pepper spray and CS gas would destroy the credibility of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoke Iraqi chemical retaliation and set a disastrous legal precedent. Professor Julian Perry Robinson, one of the world's foremost authorities on the convention, said: "Legally speaking, Iraq would be totally justified in releasing chemical weapons over the UK if the alliance uses them in Baghdad.

 

"When the war is over and these things have been used they will have been legitimised as a tool of war, and the principle of toxic weapons being banned will have gone. The difference between these weapons and nerve gas is simply one of structural chemistry."

 

The Ministry of Defence has warned the US that it will not allow British troops to be involved in operations where riot control agents are used, or to transport them to the battlefield, but Britain is even more concerned about the calmatives. This is shown by documents obtained by the Texas-based Sunshine Project under the US Freedom of Information Act. These reveal that the US is developing calmatives ñ including sedatives such as the benzodiazapines, diazepam, dexmeditomide and new drugs that affect the nervous system ñ even though it accepts that "the convention would prohibit the development of any chemically based agent that would even temporarily incapacitate a human being".

 

A special working group of the Federation of American Scientists concluded last month that using even the mildest of these weapons to incapacitate people would kill 9 per cent of them. It added: "Chemical incapacitating weapons are as likely as bullets to cause death."

 

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 states 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."

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=383006

...to the crimes of the U.S. government you may recall that one of the gasses mentioned in this story, CS, is the same gas that was used, illegally, by the Bureau of Armed Torch Force (BATF), FBI, and (illegally again) Delta Force, in "subduing" the dangerous Women and Children at the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco Texas - before they were burned alive.

CS when burned produces Cyanide Gas.

hmm I wonder what toxic gasses a smart bomb produces when it explodes?

how about a bullet?

sure it might not be cyanide but it kills em' pretty darn good.

I guess there are treaties about the use of these things and if that is why we dont use them then fair enough but if we are going to use that sort of argument you have to show that the gass is less dangerous than the bullets and smart bombs.. unless you are proposing the usis capable of the squeaky clean war we (well me anyway) hopes they can achieve if they do it, then you have a hard road saying that the gasses are MORE dangerous than bombs and bullets.

The effects of "calmative" and other incapacitating agents are virtually impossible to predict when used in confined spaces. The world discovered this recently with the high number of deaths that resulted during the action to end the standoff with Chechyn rebels at the theatre in Moscow. Experts speculate that the agent used to flood the theatre may have been Fentanyl, a synthetic narcotic/anasthetic. The inability to predict or calibrate individual dose resulted in lethal levels being administered to many in the building. The US experience with the incapacitant gas BZ was no different - when dispersed into tunnels and bunkers in Vietnam, the gas resulted in high numbers of fatalities. Most of the Moscow hostages died despite the fact that fleets of ambulances rushed the victims to hospitals immediately following exposure - and it's certain that no such desperate efforts will be made in combat.

The rationale of using "non-lethal" means to subdue an adversary rests on the faulty premise that these agents are in fact non-lethal. Upon exposure to any chemical agent "useful" in warfare, complex physiological reactions are triggered that may lead to death if not immediately treated. The war gases that gained notoriety in World War I are deadly when inhaled and with simple contact can also cause problems resulting in death. The nerve gases kill more efficiently and in smaller doses, but are different only in the way they inhibit or destroy physiological functions essential to life. Incapcitants are capable of doing the same thing, and it doesn't matter much whether someone is killed quickly and efficiently by nerve gas, poisoned by arsine, suffers lung damage that takes three days to kill him, or succumbs to cardial or pulmonary failure brought on by the overdose of some "non-lethal" incapacitant. ANY chemical agent is potentially lethal depending on dosage, the weight and physical health of the victim, and circumstances surrounding the exposure. These are all imponderables when chemical agents are released in combat situations.

The effects of "calmative" and other incapacitating agents are virtually impossible to predict. However that of a daisy cutter is quite easy to predict.

The rationale of using "non-lethal" means to subdue an adversary rests not on the premise that these agents are non-lethal.

Instead it rests on the fact that they are LESS lethal than the alternative solution.

Gasses used by the russians were used with teh assumption that the terrirosts were going to kill everyopne with their bombs - therefore a very strong agent with high doses was required. They were willing to risk everyones life to avoid what they believed was certain death for almost everyone.

Of course there are situations where the risks would outweigh the benifits for example when there were a large number of friendly civilians who were also likely to breath the gas (and quite possibly some would die .. who knows maybe they will be standing over a bayonette when they become "incapacitated).

Generally however if it is - incapacitating agent vs daisy cutter.. hmm Ill take the gas thanks.

Like your new nick, Simple Simon?

The justification for using gas against Iraqis isapparently

that we're being nice in not just killing them all.

I am saying IF we have to attack them (I never said that I wanted that and I probably would have handled the whole thing differently from how bush has...) it would be nice to take them alive and re educate them, as opposed to killing them.

your argument seems to be force bush to kill lots of them with daisy cutters etc and then you can use the death statistics as a wet bus ticket to slap him with.

Nice one.

Just what sort of imbecile are you? Bush is not forced

to use either gas or daisy cutters. The possible

use of daisy cutters cannot be used as a justification

for the possible use of gas, as I've already pointed out.

An argument (a bad one) can be made that the Russians

faced this choice, but not Bush. Give it up.

Bush is not forced to use either gas or daisy cutters.

You mis-read me you Imbecile. I did not say that he was forced to use anything I am jsut saying that if you oppose war say "i oppose war" not "i oppose gas"

because when you say "I oppose gas" you imply that "bombs are better than gas" by your omission

The russians certinly thought that they faced with a every one die or jsut a few choice. Bushes position is of course less clear although he believes that he is faced with a moral decision and believes that he is taking the right path. Blair for example may be comitting political suicide and destroying his "dynasty" by supporting war - but he does it anyway because he thinks he is right. Sometimes people honestly disagree because one of them is just mistaken - the enemy doesnt have to be EVIL

They may be wrong or right - frankly I dont know.

Always was Always is. You just have to see it.

And stand before it to confront it with light.

this is death to it and its many pale followers.

I always found the "they are trying to make money" argument more convincing.

besides if you can believe that we dont have to kill all of the capitalists we can just take all of their money and call it even.

This 'Independent' newspaper wouldn't be the same one which forged a NSA document recently, would it? Nice reliable news source.

I have issues.

First

These liars have no honor. SS & BA.

Very tasteless

by Bush Admirer • Monday March 03, 2003 Mont 05:35 AM

That sort of thing is very tasteless.

This was an inappropriate remark:

"Perhaps Bush Admirer (aka Simple Simon) is behind this."

I'm not behind such juvenile behavior.

I'm not the same person as Simple Simon either. However, I'll take that as a

complement since Simon is one of the brightest bulbs on the board. It's flattering to

be confused with him

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/32862_comment.php#32914

For the war mongering big bucks.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/31468.php

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/32029.phpJosh

by Bush Admirer • Sunday March 02, 2003 Sunt 03:08 PM

Josh - Re your horse post. You sound like such a typical liberal. It's hard to tell you

apart from the others

(Sheepdog, KPC, etc.).

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/31246_comment.php#32987

Oh this is for Simple Simon who is a liar. and has no honor..

Support Communism

by Sheepdog • Friday February 28, 2003 Frit 04:25 PM

Down with America. Join me and my comrades in overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with a more

compassionate Communist society.

add your comments



Simple

by Simple Simon • Friday February 28, 2003 Frit 04:34 PM

Advocating the overthrow of the government is a crime. Please report to your local police station for

detention prior to your trial.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/29397.php

Both of you are really pieces of work.

-Issues with the editors-

examples of untoutched racism



Listen here loudmouth

by sheepdog • Sunday March 02, 2003 Sunt 11:28 PM

I say fuck you

angry negro

Shut the hell up

please

add your comments

And ...

To all my enemies...

by Sheepdog • Saturday March 01, 2003 Satt 12:05 PM

You can hate me all you want, but who cares what a bunch of nigs and poofs think anyways? Get a

life!

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/23140_comment.php#32868

News Flash

by Sheepdog • Sunday March 02, 2003 Sunt 01:18 PM

I hate Jews.

Isreal sucks.

They only like gentiles

Thank you-

Sexism

Lou Reed

by Sheepdog • Saturday March 01, 2003 Satt 12:12 PM

So what if Lou Reed is a fucking fag? Looks like even the buttfuckers have the riht

idea on this one..-



That is all. For now. Waiting.......