Educating the Blogosphere

The Raw Story screws up by suggesting - or repeating someone else's false info - that the military use of pepper spray is against international law.

The Navy can spray recruits in the eyes with pepper spray, even though it has been linked to death and is banned during warfare by international law, a federal judge ruled Friday.
-------
“The use of direct-impact [pepper] spray indisputably risks injury, but the agency decided that this risk was offset by the benefits of training,” Leon wrote. “Plaintiffs allegation that the action was ‘clearly not the product of reasoned thought,’ is little more than a legal conclusion and provides insufficient support for its claim that the agency decision was arbitrary and capricious.”

Pepper spray is made from oleoresin capsicum, an oily extract of pepper plants. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, there have been 27 deaths among people sprayed in California alone since 1993, although the deaths were not directly linked to the chemical. In particular, it can be fatal for individuals with asthma.

Pepper spray is banned for use in war by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Yeah, ah, not really. What the first article, fifth paragraph says is " Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare." Using pepper spray during military training is not an act of warfare. Police trainers do this also. Pepper spray isn't on the CWC schedules either. I suppose that the ACLU and/or journalist here was suggesting that, since pepper spray can be used as a riot control agent, that it is banned from use during military operations. Except that isn't true, either, since the president can in fact authorize military personnel to use RCAs as a defensive option in particular circumstances. RCAs cannot be used as offensive weapons during military operations, due to political criticism over US employment of CS gas during the Vietnam Conflict.

You know what's also linked to deathes... automatic rifles and cigarettes. Somehow the military is allowed to use these devices also. And from the Global Security Newswire, this story where an attorney misinterprets Title 18 US Code on "weapons of mass destruction."

A Pennsylvania woman should not have been convicted of trying to use a chemical weapon against her husband's mistress, her lawyer said yesterday during an appeals hearing (see GSN, June 4, 2008).

The 1999 federal chemical-weapon statute "was intended to deal with a rogue state, intended to deal with terrorists. It wasn't intended to deal with a housewife," said defense attorney Robert Goldman.

Carol Anne Bond, 37, acknowledged that she applied potassium dichromate taken from her employer, Rohm & Haas, to the front door handle and car tail pipe of her romantic rival. While the material can be lethal if ingested, Myrlinda Haynes suffered no harm.

While it is true that anyone would be hard-pressed to identify potassium dichromate as a WMD, it is nonetheless true that the Department of Justice can interpret the use of any chemical by any individual in any dose to harm another person as an act of WMD terrorism. It's a stupid law, poorly worded and administered, but it was not intended solely for "rogue states" or terrorism.

Comments

[Total]

The part you quoted doesn't specify "offensive operations", nor did the Raw Story say that it was outlawed in training. It said it was "banned during war." I think you're overreading them.

[J.]

Maybe. I think the article and/or ACLU are directly implying that pepper spray must be a horrible thing if it is "banned for use in war." I clearly demonstrate that RCAs are not banned for use in war but are banned as offensive weapons by military forces. There is a difference.

I would also suggest that calling pepper spray a "riot control agent" is a bit of an exaggeration, since the use of the term RCAs is largely dependent upon the circumstances. That is, pepper spray can be used as an RCA if employed in significant quantities, but it is employed much more commonly as a personal defense tool or non-lethal weapon against single persons or small groups. As such, I think the article's reference to pepper spray as something that is "banned during warfare" is just bad journalism.

[James]

Has pepper spray ever actually been used as a "riot control agent?" It's used to control individuals, generally, and not crowds. Moreover, (Jason, maybe you can elaborate on this) is everything a military does considered "warfare?"

To use pepper spray to clear a bunker would almost certainly be banned. But an occupying force that is engaged in police activity would seem to be entitled to use all common and internationally-accepted police weapons and tactics.

Pepper spray and Tasers are useful and even laudable when used in place of guns. They become excessive when they are used for punishment or intimidation, or in situations where force is not ordinarily indicated. One of the faults of weapons that "hurt" rather than "kill" is that the user adopts a blase "better safe than sorry" attitude that causes him to Taser everyone on the grounds that there are unlikely to be any lasting consequences. This is the logic behind subjecting the user to the effects of the weapon in training: to remind him that the use of the weapon is not trivial to the person on the receiving end.

[J.]

James - there have been instances where pepper spray-based products have been used for "crowd control" - see here and here, for instance. Saw a comment at one pepper-spray sales site where a cop said he used a four-ounce dispenser to force a perp out of a room.

Re: military operations as "warfare", absolutely there is the confusion by liberal groups (and perhaps other critics) that the two are the same. But military operations span many things other than war, which is why we used to have the MOOTW acronym (military operations other than war). Personal opinion, the ACLU is trying to stop the general use of pepper spray by cops and military because of some bad judgment shown by a few that have led to unnecessary deaths.

[Sock Puppet of the Great Satan]

"Carol Anne Bond, 37, acknowledged that she applied potassium dichromate taken from her employer, Rohm & Haas, to the front door handle and car tail pipe of her romantic rival. While the material can be lethal if ingested, Myrlinda Haynes suffered no harm."

Feh. I had two vials of Potassium Dichromate in my chemistry set, back when chemistry sets actually had chemicals in them.