![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
An update from this morning's BBC says:
Now, the Enigma, as you know, is a Brit and as such has certain other notions of right and wrong that he takes for granted such as oh...the Geneva Conventions and the fact that the Death Penalty was abolished in the UK in the 60s--that's country wide. So last night as we were chatting he asked me "What International Treaties is the US signatory to?"
Not having a good idea on that I went to Google for the answer (as did he) We tramped through the web together for a good 30-40 minutes. Almost every (public) link we hit was a dead end. You would not believe the number of 404 errors or "this page no longer exists" we got in our search. I'm no conspiracy theorist...but I began to seriously wonder just why they don't want us to know what treaties we've signed. Even the info.gov site was empty and broken links.
We did find the UN site somewhat helpful. And eventually I landed on this site, the Avalon project at Yale Law School. If you click on the 20th and the 21st century you will find an alphabetical (not chronological list) of agreements, conventions and treaties that the US is party to.
I do not have the link here, but the Enigma found a page of current International multi- or bi-lateral treaties that the US is not signature to and one of them is the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty.
Okay...here we are, invading Iraq because that rat-bastard Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction...get me...CHEMICAL, if not, NewQueLear weapons--all pointed right at us. UN Weapons inspectors be damned. Did you ever wonder why the UN Weapons inspectors might be there? Well, in part because there is a multi-national chemical weapons ban treaty on deposit with the Secretary General of the UN.
The US is a member of the UN and a member of its Security Council and we are NOT signatory to this ban. Why? Because we refuse to agree to the weapons and the chemicals expressly written into the ban treaty. We want veto power over the list of what is considered a chemical weapon. We do not want mandatory, verifiable weapons inspection of OUR weapons by a 3rd party-neutral or not. We want to solicit voluntary reports, that are in no way subject to proof or verification by any other national or international entity.
In short...we want what we accuse Hussein of.
::: run in circles scream and shout :::
Then again...had I just known that we haven't signed the ban, therefore it doesn't matter if we launched a deadly illuminate at rebels, I could have slept much better! Oh, it doesn't matter, sez I...and oh look! They only fired it directly at rebels--not civilians, so it double-dog-dare-ya doesn't matter.
A chemical used to illuminate the sky even in battle is not a chemical weapon, according to the ban treaty. A chemical fired directly at a living human being with the intent to cause injury or death through the reaction of chemicals in that chemical weapon is.
It doesn't say SOME humans, or just the humans we don't like, or just the ENEMY, or even just my mother-in-law; it says H*U*M*A*N*S.
Now the irony of the IRAQ body of Human Rights beginning the investigation into this is not lost on me. I am not saying the US is the lone bullying bastard in this world, but once again as the self-proclaimed "Leader of free nations" we should be setting a fuck lot better example.
An Iraqi human rights team has gone to the city of Falluja to investigate the use of white phosphorus as a weapon by US forces, a minister has told the BBC.
Acting Human Rights Minister Narmin Uthman said her staff would examine the possible effects on civilians.
The US has now admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year, after earlier denying it.
The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon.
Now, the Enigma, as you know, is a Brit and as such has certain other notions of right and wrong that he takes for granted such as oh...the Geneva Conventions and the fact that the Death Penalty was abolished in the UK in the 60s--that's country wide. So last night as we were chatting he asked me "What International Treaties is the US signatory to?"
Not having a good idea on that I went to Google for the answer (as did he) We tramped through the web together for a good 30-40 minutes. Almost every (public) link we hit was a dead end. You would not believe the number of 404 errors or "this page no longer exists" we got in our search. I'm no conspiracy theorist...but I began to seriously wonder just why they don't want us to know what treaties we've signed. Even the info.gov site was empty and broken links.
We did find the UN site somewhat helpful. And eventually I landed on this site, the Avalon project at Yale Law School. If you click on the 20th and the 21st century you will find an alphabetical (not chronological list) of agreements, conventions and treaties that the US is party to.
I do not have the link here, but the Enigma found a page of current International multi- or bi-lateral treaties that the US is not signature to and one of them is the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty.
Okay...here we are, invading Iraq because that rat-bastard Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction...get me...CHEMICAL, if not, NewQueLear weapons--all pointed right at us. UN Weapons inspectors be damned. Did you ever wonder why the UN Weapons inspectors might be there? Well, in part because there is a multi-national chemical weapons ban treaty on deposit with the Secretary General of the UN.
The US is a member of the UN and a member of its Security Council and we are NOT signatory to this ban. Why? Because we refuse to agree to the weapons and the chemicals expressly written into the ban treaty. We want veto power over the list of what is considered a chemical weapon. We do not want mandatory, verifiable weapons inspection of OUR weapons by a 3rd party-neutral or not. We want to solicit voluntary reports, that are in no way subject to proof or verification by any other national or international entity.
In short...we want what we accuse Hussein of.
::: run in circles scream and shout :::
Then again...had I just known that we haven't signed the ban, therefore it doesn't matter if we launched a deadly illuminate at rebels, I could have slept much better! Oh, it doesn't matter, sez I...and oh look! They only fired it directly at rebels--not civilians, so it double-dog-dare-ya doesn't matter.
A chemical used to illuminate the sky even in battle is not a chemical weapon, according to the ban treaty. A chemical fired directly at a living human being with the intent to cause injury or death through the reaction of chemicals in that chemical weapon is.
It doesn't say SOME humans, or just the humans we don't like, or just the ENEMY, or even just my mother-in-law; it says H*U*M*A*N*S.
Now the irony of the IRAQ body of Human Rights beginning the investigation into this is not lost on me. I am not saying the US is the lone bullying bastard in this world, but once again as the self-proclaimed "Leader of free nations" we should be setting a fuck lot better example.
