The helicopter was hovering over a Baghdad checkpoint into the Green Zone, one typically crowded with cars, Iraqi civilians and United States military personnel.
Suddenly, on that May day in 2005, the copter dropped CS gas, a riot-control substance the American military in Iraq can use only under the strictest conditions and with the approval of top military commanders. An armored vehicle on the ground also released the gas, temporarily blinding drivers, passers-by and at least 10 American soldiers operating the checkpoint.
“This was decidedly uncool and very, very dangerous,” Capt. Kincy Clark of the Army, the senior officer at the scene, wrote later that day. “It’s not a good thing to cause soldiers who are standing guard against car bombs, snipers and suicide bombers to cover their faces, choke, cough and otherwise degrade our awareness.”
Both the helicopter and the vehicle involved in the incident at the Assassins’ Gate checkpoint were not from the United States military, but were part of a convoy operated by Blackwater Worldwide, the private security contractor that is under scrutiny for its role in a series of violent episodes in Iraq, including a September shooting in downtown Baghdad that left 17 Iraqis dead.
None of the American soldiers exposed to the chemical, which is similar to tear gas, required medical attention, and it is not clear if any Iraqis did. Still, the previously undisclosed incident has raised significant new questions about the role of private security contractors in Iraq, and whether they operate under the same rules of engagement and international treaty obligations that the American military observes.
“You run into this issue time and again with Blackwater, where the rules that apply to the U.S. military don’t seem to apply to Blackwater,” said Scott L. Silliman, the executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at the Duke University School of Law.
Officers and noncommissioned officers from the Third Infantry Division who were involved in the episode said there were no signs of violence at the checkpoint. Instead, they said, the Blackwater convoy appeared to be stuck in traffic and may have been trying to use the riot-control agent as a way to clear a path.
Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for Blackwater, said the CS gas had been released by mistake.
So which is it? Reckless, cowboy-type behavior, or incompetence? Either way, Blackwater should no longer be permitted to operate in Iraq -- or anywhere, for that matter.
Some information about CS gas is here. And this is from a report of the Journal of the American Medical Association from August 4, 1989:
Tear gas has gained widespread acceptance as a means of controlling civilian crowds and subduing barricaded criminals. The most widely used forms of tear gas have been o-chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile (CS) and (-chloroacetophenone (CN). Proponents of their use claim that, if used correctly, the noxious effects of exposure are transient and of no long-term consequences. The use of tear gas in recent situations of civil unrest, however, demonstrates that exposure to the weapon is difficult to control and indiscriminate and the weapon is often not used correctly. Severe traumatic injury from exploding tear gas bombs as well as lethal toxic injury have been documented. Moreover, available toxicological data are deficient as to the potential of tear gas agents to cause long-term pulmonary, carcinogenic, and reproductive effects. Published and recent unpublished in vitro tests have shown o-chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile to be both clastogenic and mutagenic. Sadly, the nature of its use renders analytic epidemiologic investigation of exposed persons difficult. In 1969, eighty countries voted to include tear gas agents among chemical weapons banned under the Geneva Protocol. There is an ongoing need for investigation into the full toxicological potential of tear gas chemicals and renewed debate on whether their use can be condoned under any circumstances.
[snip]
The widespread use of tear gas agents naturally raises the question of their safety. Relatively little, however, has appeared in the mainstream medical literature regarding their toxicology. In general, authors of review articles have averred that, if used correctly, the noxious effects of exposure are transient and of no long-term consequence (2-4). Much emphasis has been given to the findings of the Himsworth Report, (5) the results of an inquiry by a committee appointed by the British Secretary of State for the Home Department following the use of CS in Londonderry, Northern Ireland, in 1969. In addition to investigating the use of CS in Londonderry, the committee reviewed a wide range of scientific data. Its main conclusion was that while exposure to CS can be lethal, most likely in the form of toxic pulmonary damage leading to pulmonary edema, such an occurrence would only be at concentrations that were several hundred times greater than the exposure dosage that produces intolerable symptoms.
Many questions remain, however. Epidemiologic inquiry following the use of tear gas under actual field conditions has been almost completely absent.
And a paper published in 2000 in the British Medical Journal states:
The key issue with regard to the safety of CS is not CS toxicity itself but that of its formulation.
Do we know the formulation of the CS gas used by Blackwater?
Here we have a private army, unaccountable to no one, not even the president, using tear gas against American soldiers because of a traffic jam. Where is the outrage? Why is Blackwater still allowed to operate in Iraq? Where is Congress?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire