Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

I don't think that's how it works? I think that the particulars of that intervention are very vague, yes. But I don't think that because it hasn't been enforced in every case that they are legally not accountable for breaking it. I definitely don't think any of the international laws on chemical weapons were intended or implied to be aimed squarely at soldiers rather than civilians.

I don't see any provision for civil war/any internal conflict. It appears to apply to warfare/conflict in general. The manufacturing part could care less whether you are at war or no. Multiple signatories were advised beforehand. Israel and the UK both have come forward with that, I would be unsurprised to find that other nations were also aware. They also advised both Syria and Russia beforehand. It was not a secret.

Legally it look like "Chemical Weapon = Vague Intervention". I think it's more because those cases don't really get to international court before they are "resolved" one way or another. For instance, Saddam committed chemical weapon based genocide during his reign, and he never made it to an international court.

E: I've also seen those reports, and multiple similar others about that kind of retribution. They don't seem confirmed yet.

The trouble with the international court is that nobody can just swoop in, arrest the offender, and take them to court. It doesn't work the way domestic/national courts do due to international laws, and there isn't some international police or some international equivalent of a police force that can swoop in and arrest offenders. Though obviously that idea has major issues because 'national sovreignity'. While extradition treaties are the method that states move criminals to one country to another, a dictator who is in trouble with the international court isn't going to up and extradite themselves.

[Dunamisdeos]

@smjjames - Yeah I agree with all of that.

Like I absolutely understand that someone can think that the missile strike was out of line, or out of proportion, or otherwise inappropriate. It does seem super clearly in line with actual law, adequate or inadequate as that law might be.

[Frumple]

More it's less a matter of enforced in every case and more a matter of not enforced period, especially by this particular method, near as I can tell. And it's not like there hasn't been events where it came up since the treaties started getting signed.

... though whether it was strictly towards soldiers or civilians, well... there's a reason you have treaties that specifically address civilian protections, and as others have noted, I do believe, the rules on gassing civilians are not what they are for soldiers. And they're not more strict. So whether we think they're particularly specific in scope or not, the people signing and enforcing the treaties damn sure seem to. Or to put it a different way, whereas assad definitely violated shit with production and storage, near as I can tell his use was about as legal as our air strike. Possibly more. Fucked up as that may be. Nation states seem rather intent on having looser rules on when they can gas noncombatants. The why is even pretty obvious, since the treaties largely cover "riot suppression chemicals", too.

[Max™]

I don't think that's how it works? I think that the particulars of that intervention are very vague, yes. But I don't think that because it hasn't been enforced in every case that they are legally not accountable for breaking it. I definitely don't think any of the international laws on chemical weapons were intended or implied to be aimed squarely at soldiers rather than civilians.

I don't see any provision for civil war/any internal conflict. It appears to apply to warfare/conflict in general. The manufacturing part could care less whether you are at war or no. Multiple signatories were advised beforehand. Israel and the UK both have come forward with that, I would be unsurprised to find that other nations were also aware. They also advised both Syria and Russia beforehand. It was not a secret.

Legally it look like "Chemical Weapon = Vague Intervention". I think it's more because those cases don't really get to international court before they are "resolved" one way or another. For instance, Saddam committed chemical weapon based genocide during his reign, and he never made it to an international court.

E: I've also seen those reports, and multiple similar others about that kind of retribution. They don't seem confirmed yet.

The trouble with the international court is that nobody can just swoop in, arrest the offender, and take them to court. It doesn't work the way domestic/national courts do due to international laws, and there isn't some international police or some international equivalent of a police force that can swoop in and arrest offenders. Though obviously that idea has major issues because 'national sovreignity'. While extradition treaties are the method that states move criminals to one country to another, a dictator who is in trouble with the international court isn't going to up and extradite themselves.

Uh, hello...

America! Fuck Yeah!

[Dunamisdeos]

I think we have one set of laws for chemical weapons, and it does not specify civilian or soldier.

It does specify that no one who signs is allowed to use or produce chemical weapons.

It does not specify which actions may or may not be taken, or that specific action must be taken before force is applied.

And are you really saying that chemical weapon laws should not be enforced? Because that is what your posts amount to.

[smjjames]

I suppose that's the problem of using the honor system with treaties rather than anything with actual teeth, those with no honor won't follow it anyway. Most likely the reason it doesn't have much of an enforcement is because the major signatories (the US especially) didn't want something that could actually bite them back.

Which is why it results in either a massive international backlash with some dealmaking on the side (and incentives to get rid of the chemicals) or the US launching missiles. Assad just happened to be slightly more responsive to international backlash than Saddam did.

I think we have one set of laws for chemical weapons, and it does not specify civilian or soldier.

It does specify that no one who signs is allowed to use or produce chemical weapons.

It does not specify which actions may or may not be taken, or that specific action must be taken before force is applied.

And are you really saying that chemical weapon laws should not be enforced? Because that is what your posts amount to.

Nobody's saying that they shouldn't be enforced, it's that they aren't enforced when it comes to actual use.

[Frumple]

Yeah max, we're a fair chunk of why the laws are like that, it seems. Probably one of the more common violators, too, which to all appearances has been exactly what we wanted.

And nah, there's like a half dozen different treaties that address CW in one way or another. And again, the one that covers production does, in fact, stipulate how violations of that in particular are to be addressed. There's not much in the way of limitations on what the conclusion is, but there does appear to be some on what to do leading up to that conclusion. And to all appearances, so far as I've been able to tell, the rest of been conspicuously and consistently interpreted to address the protections given soldiers and non-soldiers differently.

Though no, what my posts amount to is noting that the CW laws apparently can't be used to justify the sort of "enforcement" this particular air strike is being called. If you can't tell by my repeated statements that it's fucked up, I'm not claiming that's a particularly desirable state of things. Though I'll admit I'm not exactly opposed to having more explicit controls on what comes before it.

[smjjames]

The strike is fucked up? That what you're saying. Though Syria is fucked up in general anyhow.

The question remains though, where the heck did Syria get the sarin? They were supposed to have destroyed all stockpiles of the bi-chemical mixture that makes sarin, and apparently someone (on this thread I think) said that the stuff supposedly has a shelf life of several weeks. Though I don't know if that was for sarin itself or the two chemical components.

[Max™]

I think sarin itself has the limited shelf life, the precursors are another matter.

[Frumple]

The fact that soldiers and civilians appear to have different protections is fucked up, is what I'm saying, smj. That it's apparently not clear that intervention for gassed civilians is mandated or clearly supported by international law, is fucked up.

[Max™]

I'm pretty sure there are several general human rights conventions which came into existence after everyone agreed certain things shouldn't be done to soldiers and that exact problem was noted. I don't think there is anything which is legal to do to soldiers in wartime that is broadly acceptable against civilians, and I'm pretty sure there is nothing illegal against soldiers but legal against civilians outside of like "enemy of the world" piracy statuses?

[Frumple]

Tear gas and shit seems to be caught by (at least some) wartime provisions, but not by civilian protections. E: As an example. In any case, most of what I've been saying is just that there's rather little support for carte blanche retaliation, and that international courts seem to have been notably recalcitrant when it comes to internal conflicts. Not terribly much more.

[Max™]

Yeah, that's a case of loopholes being worked through/around/redefined and should be closed but for various groups lobbying on the "geneva applies to lethal/long-lasting tear gas" parts, and I don't think you can use the stuff they were dumping in WWI on civilians without being charged with war crimes.

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/genesis-and-historical-development/

The US has pushed to keep those loopholes open, and I place the blame squarely on all the (unfortunately not dead yet) boomers with their love of awful hateful shit and concern about "the colored folks" wanting to make sure they can drop tear gas on them at will.

[smjjames]

Yes, it is odd how riot control stuff such as tear gas or mace is on there and is not allowed against soldiers but legally okay against citizens.

[Max™]

If you look, I think those exceptions were later developments, like I said, certain awful people wanted to make sure they could "control riots" and with any luck that piece of orange shit in office now will be the last hurrah of them in power. Let us all be grateful anti-senescence technology hasn't been invented yet, if boomers became biologically immortal we'd have to hunt them down.