CS gas used in Waco - Illegal?

[Star_Was]

Is the CS gas used in Waco illegal? Is it banned for use in war?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/topten2.html#cs

[Valgard]

CS is tear gas. It’s not illegal for law enforcement use, and the military makes use of it as well.

Using it in wartime may or may not be in violation of parts of the Geneva Convention. No big shock that various international groups and the US government disagree on this:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0309-05.htm

[askeptic]

@Star Was

Is the CS gas used in Waco illegal? Is it banned for use in war?

Short answer: No and No.

Some things to consider: Is it illegal for whom and when and where. You asked if it was banned for use in war. Banned by whom? If you are asking if it addressed by in the rules of land warfare under the Geneva Convention, the answer is no. To my knowledge there is no law prohibiting it’s use by law enforcement personnel. There may be guidelines concerning its use by various agencies and violating those guidelines may be grounds for discipline and a basis for Tort liability, but it does not make it’s use by law enforcement illegal.

Consider all the news coverage of riots and protests where CS, Pepper spray, plastic bullets are shown on national News. Don’t you think somebody would have brought up this issue if it was illegal.

Furthermore, consider the actions of the Police officers in a rural CA town envolving peacefull environmental protestors who had chained themselves inside a local building. The officers ordered them to leave, they refused so the officers soaked q-tips in pepper spray and applied it directly to their eyes by lifting their eyelids and wiping it on their eyes. It was never questioned whether the use of the irritant was illegal, but whether the circumstances and method were justified.

I doubt any merit worthy arguments can be made to suggest that the governments use of CS was not justified when a group of religious zealots armed to the teeth and resisting lawful arrest, fired on and killed several officers.

Granted I think the Waco fiasco was a fiasco. It was known that Koresh went to town for supplies regularly on specific days, and the agents could have simply waited till then and arrested him away from his supporters and arsenal, without incident. They chose not to do this, while I may disagree, I have to concede that there actions were certainly legal in every respect. Stupid, IMHO, but legal.

I am curious as to why you are dragging out such ancient events. With all that is going on today, why so concerned about some religious crackpots, who murdered their own children and followed a madman? Got an agenda, maybe?

[Star_Was]

I am curious as to why you are dragging out such ancient events. With all that is going on today, why so concerned about some religious crackpots, who murdered their own children and followed a madman? Got an agenda, maybe?

Thanks for the factual answers, but I am sure there are better forums for comments like these.

[Dissonance]

The Red Cross considers the use of CS in war to be a violation of the 1925 Gas Protocol, and their use is also a no-no as per the Chemical Weapons Convention, if they are used on the battlefield as a method of war, rather than as riot control: W. Hays Parks, Special Assistant to the Army JAG

Q: Are either of you able to speak to this talk about whether or not tear gas, the use of tear gas by U.S. forces would be a violation of any of the laws of war or chemical weapons conventions? Is that –
PARKS: I can speak to that. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use of riot-control agents as a method of warfare. It’s not a precisely defined term. The United States has an executive order that suggests that riot-control agents can be used for defensive purposes to save lives. That’s a very long-standing executive order.
It gives a few examples in there. One is combat search and rescue. The others are rioting prisoners of war. A third example is, if in fact an enemy placed civilians in front of it, to advance on your lines. There is a very careful process for the decision as to whether or not riot control agents may be used on the battlefield, requiring presidential authorization, which may be delegated to the combatant commander. But it’s not something that we do lightly.

It’s perfectly legal for law enforcement use.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Many illegal things happened at Waco, but I am not qualified to speak to that.

The use of poisonous gas is prohibited in war. This is by treaty and so oddly, the fact that such a weapon cannot be used against Iraqis does not mean it cannot be used against David K and friends.

I am a bit of an expert on military law, however.

It is the policy of the United States government not use riot-control gases overseas except:

1. To protect nuclear weapons.
2. To control rioting POWs (a lesson we learned in Korea)
3. To control crowds of civilians who are being used to shield combatants.

I will bow to our resident experts in civil law to demonstrate the the use of tear gas by the police is permitted. Still the evidence is obvious, such agents are widely and legally used throughout the world. The fact they are prohibited in war is just an anomaly.

[CurtC]

askeptic wrote:
It was known that Koresh went to town for supplies regularly on specific days, and the agents could have simply waited till then and arrested him away from his supporters and arsenal, without incident.

I’ve heard this before, but I’ve also heard it explained that, although law enforcement could have easily nabbed him on one of his trips into town, they would not have been able to charge him with anything, since going to town is not illegal.

[askeptic]

@CurtC

I’ve heard this before, but I’ve also heard it explained that, although law enforcement could have easily nabbed him on one of his trips into town, they would not have been able to charge him with anything, since going to town is not illegal.

Not to be snotty, but when the feds first went to his compound they were attempting to serve a warrant for Koresh’s arrest based on probable cause that he was in possesion of illegal weapons. So it does not matter whether he was in the compond or in town, he was subject to arrest. The feds were not investigating him they already had a warrant for his arrest, which could just as easily have been executed in town. They did not need to charge him with anything, he had already been charged.