Two Minneapolis friends who have been monitoring immigration officers’ actions during the Trump administration’s latest crackdown say they were detained without charge for several hours in distressing conditions, denied phone calls, and pressured to rat out protest organizers and people living in th
  • FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish
    2·
    3 hours ago

    If that were true, there would be a carve out in the provision for the use of gasses with transient effects, like cs gas. There is none. Just the opposite, there is a carve out for their use against civilians, but they are prohibited in warfare.

    I refer you to the following line of my reply:

    There is no appetite for removing the ban for tear gas because there is no appetite by militaries to start lobbing gas of any type at each other, because of the risk of the other side panicking and lobbing back something worse.

    If it is used to disperse dangerous protests as a deterrant to advance, sure, I get it.

    I refer you to the following line of my reply:

    Use of tear gas is a use of force. It can be justified or unjustified.

    Hopefully it is clear from what I have said that I have not in any way tried to justify the US police’s use of tear gas or their other use of force, though it does seem like you might not be reading what I wrote very carefully.

    I’m just pointing out that referring to Laws of War when discussing police action is a non-sequitur.