White Phosphorous: The U.S. Used It; The U.S. Says It's Illegal

[G_j]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6023

White Phosphorous: The U.S. Used It; The U.S. Says It's Illegal

Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2005-12-27 00:49. Criminal Prosecution
By David Swanson

The U.S. military used white phosphorous as a weapon in Fallujah, and the U.S. military says such use is illegal. That's one heck of a fog fact (Larry Beinhart's term for a fact that is neither secret nor known). This fact has appeared in an article in the Guardian (UK) and been circulated on the internet, but has just not interested the corporate media in the United States.

It interests Congressman John Conyers, however. Last week, Conyers released a 273-page report titled "The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War." This 273-page report covers many war-related crimes, including the use of white phosphorous.

On page 165, following discussion of other crimes against humanity, the report states: "Finally, there is evidence that the U.S. Military used an incendiary weapon in combat known as White Phosphorus, even though the U.S. Battle Book states, 't is against the Law of Land Warfare to employ WP against personnel targets,' and which would be in contravention of the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the War Crimes Act."

That's an impressive criminal feat, violating multiple U.S. laws and international laws at one shot. But it may be a greater feat of hypocrisy and irony. After all, this war was supposedly launched in order to prevent the use of so-called weapons of mass destruction. While that lie has been exposed, we now know that WMDs have been wantonly employed in the course of this war by the so-called liberators. That fact is not yet widely known within the United States
..more..

[ComerPerro]

1. I can't wait until the Administration blames the troops

Just like the torture scandals...

"Its not our fault. Its those damned troops, and those 'rogue commanders' who do things their own way"


Really? Then, how, exactly, is Bush "Commander in Cheif" if he can't even control his forces?

[malaise]

2. It amazes me that people buy

the total inversion of reality. The leading terrorists since WW2 have been the US government. Bushco and the goons are merely the most vulgar example of this reality.

[acmejack]

3. Not to defend the practice, but...

WP has been in the standard ammunition inventory forever, used a lot of it for "smoke" in the past. Everyone knew what it was about then. Better late than never for sure, but the US has engaged in terribly unsavory (at best, criminal, to be honest) practices since at least the Moro wars (exterminations) in the Philippines.

[G_j]

4. Vietnam: 400,000 tons of napalm

http://www.commondreams.org/views/050300-102.htm

Vietnam War Is A Study In US Crimes
by Robert Jensen

[acmejack]

10. Bob Jensen is one of our Austin jewels.

He is a dedicated advocate (he prefers "radical") of peace and liberal causes. Never misses a peace march and a wonderful person, too!

[BushOut06]

7. It's one of those "wink wink" things

When I was in the military, we used WP primarily for smoke as well. It's also used to take out non-living targets (ie fuel depots, tanks). We were told that it's illegal and against the Geneva Conventions to use it against people...but if there just "happened" to be people in the same areas as those targets, well...too bad for them!

WP is one of the nastiest weapons we've ever had in our arsenal.

[Kagemusha]

8. I knew that too but apparently they stopped using it for "smoke".

They use other stuff now so there's just no way to mistake the two...

[acmejack]

12. We used it for smoke in the eighties.

I have personally handled many, many, rounds of it. It is how they get away with keeping it in the arsenal, contrary to treaties we have made.

[Kagemusha]

17. Someone decided they didn't need to play that game anymore.

And to think we complained about FAE's in Chechnya.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Burning people alive is a Traditional American Value.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia...

[losdiablosgato]

9. Yes it is and I support it.

I was a soldier once. And for the record if it took using, willie pete, napalm, a flamethrower, whatever to get me and my men home alive then great. Use it. This is war. Whether is it right or not does not matter to the grunts, they just want to survive.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Does that go for nukes and biochem weapons too?

What's going on in Iraq isn't "war" it's an occupation of a sovereign nation by a foreign invader. The soldiers who carried out the massacres in the Ukraine, Russia, Hungary, Nanking and My Lai, just wanted to "survive".

BTW, I was a soldier once. USMC '61 - '65.

[losdiablosgato]

13. No, napalm, and willie petes are not weapons of mass destruction

They are consider tactical weapons. A Sargent can call in a strike.

[BushOut06]

14. At one time, battlefield commanders could call in nukes also

Thankfully it never happened, but up until not too long ago, generals in the field could call in tactical nukes. This was probably in anticipation of the Soviet war that never happened. Just because they can call it, does it make it right? I know quite a few servicemen that I would have never trusted with WP.

[losdiablosgato]

15. They could only call them in if the President authorized its use

Nation Command Authority had to give the go ahead to release these weapons to the commanders int hte field. Once that was done they had the ablity to use them as they saw fit. Thankfully it never happened.

[G_j]

16. Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html


Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.

..more..

[EFerrari]

6. (The unthought known.)

"I once called what we know but cannot think, or have not thought, the "unthought known" by way of discussing what was known by the unconscious that had yet to be transformed into conscious thought."

Christopher Bollas