Slashdot Mirror
Incapacitating Chemical Agents: Coming Soon To Local Law Enforcement?
Lasrick writes To this day, Russian authorities refuse to disclose the incapacitating chemical agent (ICA) they employed in their attempt, 12 years ago, to save 900 hostages held in a theater by Chechen fighters. Malcom Dando elaborates on a new report (PDF) that Russia, China, Israel, and a slew of other countries are continuing research into ICAs, and the apparent indifference of the international community into such research. Proponents of ICAs have long promoted their use in a variety of scenarios, including that of law enforcement, because in theory these chemicals incapacitate without permanent disability. Critics, however, point out that these weapons rely on exact dosage to prevent fatality, and that the ability to 'deliver the right agent to the right people in the right dose without exposing the wrong people, or delivering the wrong dose' is a near-impossible expectation. ICAs represent the further misuse and militarization of the life sciences and a weakening of the taboo against the weaponization of toxic substances, and the idea that they could be used in law enforcement situations is a disturbing one."
US-Americans would NEVER do such things.
Also, if you can save 400 of 500 in a hostage situation and catch all the 10+ terrorists. Go for it. The terrorists would kill them anyway and if they escape, they can continue their business.
"if you can save 400 of 500 in a hostage situation " - Is this the best way to save them? Is this the way to save the most of them?
"catch all the 10+ terrorists" - Who judged them? Who decided they are terrorists?
"The terrorists would kill them anyway" - Are you a Oracle? Do the police employ oracles or futurologists?
"if they escape, they can continue their business" - Are you sure?
So, your scenario is:
1 - The official "police judge" condemns the terrorists with his judging powers that don't require lawyers, juries nor all that hassle.
2 - The official "police oracles" see the future to know how many innocents would the terrorists kill.
3 - Based on the police judge's decision and the police oracle's prediction, the best possible result "killing just a few of the innocents to capture the guilty" is selected and applied with the new weapon.
FYI, the federal definition of terrorism:
- - - - - - - -
18 U.S.C. 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
* Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
* Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
* Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
* Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
* Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
* Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
* Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
* Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. 1801(c).
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Your concern for the hostages is appropriate. While a crime is in progress, the police should be concerned with reducing the number of victims, as well as reducing the suffering of the remaining victims.
The concern for the criminals during the time of the crime is misplaced. The legal process is how we deal with the aftermath of a crime, not the crime itself. You're right is being careful with the label "terrorist"; that relates to motive. Wed need a trial to establish that. I use "criminal" because that broader label is appropriate during any crime. " Hostage takers" would have worked too, here. Condemning them isn't necessary - they're in the act of committing a crime.
It's incredibly naive to assume hostage takers won't kill the hostages, so force is always appropriate. The relevant question then becomes how much force to apply, as any form of force also places the hostages at a risk. The single relevant question thus is, what is the lower risk to the hostages? The best bet is to look at historical outcomes in comparable situations. This is complex. It depends on the number of hostage takers and hostages, the site, time, the background of the hostage taker, etcetera.
That said, negotiation helps with an ill-prepared bank robber turning hostage taker. 10 hostage takers and 500 hostages indicates a lot of preparation, and strongly points at a lack of negotiation options.
Protestors should be able to protest WITHOUT the police using either lethal or non-lethal weapons against them.
Except that you are not doing that.
You are providing the police with pain-compliance (aka "torture") devices.
And as can be seen in many news reports, once the police/government has them, they will use them. And that use will not be INSTEAD of more lethal options. They will be used when the victims do not IMMEDIATELY follow the orders of the police. Even if those orders are illegal to begin with.
Those weapons will be treated as a "force multiplier". Not as a preferred option over lethal force.
In 2004, VIctoria Snelgrove was hit in the eye with a pepper spray bullet by the Boston Police as part of crowd control (for a non-riotous crowd that was not responding to their commands). She subsequently died of her injury.
Non-lethal ICA? No such thing.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
As the USA nears bottom in its slide toward becoming a complete corporatist police state, I see no surprises in any new "law enforcement tool". Hell, the cops have AFV's, drones, and crew-served weapons. Why not chem warfare, right?
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
We should be able to protest without a large police force always quickly descending on us. Police see protests like shooting galleries at a state fair and break out the riot gear and anti-mine vehicles as fast of possible. The best way for police to win is to not even show up unless looting or actual rioting happens. But guess what? You can't have a riot with only one side there! It's Art of War 101. It's easy to to turn a protest into a riot by showing up looking like an invasion force and screaming at everyone over bullhorns. When the PD does that, their still attacking first just via psychological means instead of physical. Once the general melee is going THEN the looters show up to take advantage of the chaos. The PD uses this as an escalation point, going after everyone including members of the press, teargassing citizens who are complying and staying inside...there must be a manual somewhere probably written by the CIA.
During the raid, all 40 of the attackers were killed, with no casualties among spetznas, but about 130 hostages died due to adverse reactions to the gas (including nine foreigners).[3] All but two of the hostages who died during the siege were killed by the toxic substance pumped into the theater to subdue the militants.[4][5] The use of the gas was widely condemned as heavy-handed, but the American and British governments deemed Russia's actions justifiable.[6] Physicians in Moscow condemned the refusal to disclose the identity of the gas that prevented them from saving more lives. Some reports said the drug naloxone was successfully used to save some hostages.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."