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."
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.
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."