catapult magazine

Now that there seem to be no chemical weapons in Iraq, we’re told that they’re in Syria. Is Syria next? Where will Syria move their chemical weapons to if they are invaded? Iran? I can’t believe the American people will buy this shit. Why does nobody ask questions about American chemical weapons? We have huge stashes—and then we act surprised when we find gas masks in Iraqi trenches. Can anyone explain to me why America still has chemical weapons (in violation of international law of course)?

Yes, we give ourselves plenty of time to destroy these weapons and push back deadlines at will. I believe 1985 was the date the United States committed to destroying its chemical weapons (biological weapons are a different story). It’s been nearly twenty years and we still have the world’s second-largest stockpile. I don’t get it. If America doesn’t see a use for chemical weapons, what’s all this foot-dragging? United Nations weapons inspectors have never been allowed into these facilities. Again I ask, why do Americans trust their government so much? Do we think our government is for some reason incapable of attrocities? I remember seeing CNN coverage of the time American soldiers found the 300 chemical weapons suits in Iraqi positions. The coverage slant was immediately that this was evidence that Iraq was going to use chemical weapons. Nobody even mentioned the fact that America has chemical weapons too—how are Iraqis supposed to know that we never use them?

mrsanniep, I don’t recall anything more than speculation about the use of chemical/biological weapons during the Gulf War. Maybe I missed something.

It’s no secret where America stores the chemical weapons it’s still trying to get rid of. A cursory internet search reveals these facilities have their own websites, even. Seems to me that if a country or countries wanted to eliminate our chemical weapons stockpile for us (like we’re doing to Iraq), they wouldn’t have to look too hard to find a large portion of them.

This entire discussion all has to do with the question: is the US the moral equivalent of Iraq under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein? No. That’s the heart of the issue. We’re a democracy. Iraq wasn’t. If George Bush orders the use of chemical weapons on another country, he ain’t gettin’ re-elected. Bottom line. That’s why Americans can have a balanced trust in their government.

(And Dan, correct me if I’m reading you wrong here, but aren’t you portraying yourself as the more enlightened dual citizen trying to show us mere Americans the truth and failures of our beloved political and administrative system? Isn’t this what you claim the US does to the rest of the world?)

No offense was intended. I suppose hearing criticism from the ‘outside’ isn’t easy. But please, do you really expect the United States not to face criticism after defying the international community? The scrutiny will be all the greater because the action was done without broadly acknowledged legitimacy. Also, I will make one correction, I haven’t here criticized the United States political and administrative system, which has worked remarkably well over the last 220 years. I oppose the Bush administration’s unilateral approach to remaking the world, not the American political system—in this I’m not alone. I apologize if I came off sounding arrogant.

There are many Americans aside from me who are well aware of the attrocities committed by their country in the past, and thus reserve a healthy mistrust of their government. This is why the US is one of the only countries to have refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the war-crimes tribunal at the Hague. Meanwhile the administration is quick to label Iraqis as war criminals without having any legal recourse for prosecuting such crimes. mrsanniep, I’m not saying these people aren’t war criminals, but they can’t be tried in American courts can they? The Hague would be the place, but the U.S. doesn’t ackowledge that court.

The issue is not about moral equivalents but about accountability. The fact that the American president is accountable to the American people is not enough in today’s world.

Hearing criticism from the outside really isn’t my issue. It’s more the delivery/tone of the criticism. I wish you’d pick a citizenship and argue from that standpoint, rather than putting on your American or Canadian cap, depending on your argument.

As for the war crimes tribunal issue, please reference a source for this information, as I’m not up-to-date and would like read more about it.

Here are all sorts of US government links about this. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/rights/law/icc.htm

Then here’s a lovely piece of British journalism about it http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1970312.stm

I think Prof. Madeline Morris states some pretty good arguments as to why the United States is right in questioning the authority and scope of the ICC.

The United States is most likely the MAIN country these days to be leading the fighting on behalf of and in other countries – putting the U.S. in danger of violating the vague definitions of war crimes held by the ICC. Other countries to which the ICC would inpact are committing horrendous crimes against their own people. Everyone else? Bystanders in all this. I think it’s not unusual that the U.S. would have a different take on the ICC than the other two categories of countries I just mentioned. Of course it appears to be unilateral – it kind of is, based on the fact we’re the only country these days with military might – putting ourselves under the microscope of the ICC.

But, like you said, who knows what the U.S. plans to do with war criminals in Iraq, if it doesn’t agree with the ICC. Are there any proposals out there?

I’ve emailed the President for the answer to that question. I wonder if they’ll put me on some special list? Monitor my movements? Ooh, how exciting!

I happen to know where the stockpiles of chemical weapons in the US are. In fact, I’ve been inside one of our Chemical Depots. Although much information is classified, I can say that in the chemical depot I was at, out of the original bunkers, only about 10% of them still had NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) material. Implying that we have been disposing of them since the end of the cold war.

I also know a little bit about Hazardous Material disposal. There are many regulations that govern these things. There are specific areas and specific methods of disposal.

In the army’s MTOE (Modified Table of Organization and Equipment) there are no NBC weapons. Nor do we train with NBC weapons. We only do NBC decontamination and detection training.

I’m very happy to hear that! Perhaps the reason why the disposal is getting drawn out for so long is because of the stringent regulations, and concern for public safety. Makes me wonder then how we could expect Iraq to destroy its chemical weapons in 6 months.