🚀 go-pugleaf

Gregory Gadow wrote:
> Rafael Block wrote:
> 
> 
>>Charles Packer wrote:
>>
>>>"Robert McClelland" <robert.mcclelland@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<bVlka.3634$N94.299783@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters) - Oakland police fired rubber bullets to
>>>>disperse about 750 anti-war demonstrators on Monday in what was
>>>>believed to be the first use of the projectiles against U.S.
>>>>protesters since the American-led war on Iraq began.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Historical question: Have U.S. police _ever_ used projectiles against
>>>protest demonstrators before? The most likely recent instance would
>>>have been in Seattle against the anti-globalist demonstrators in 1999.
>>>Does anybody recall? What about Chicago, 1968?
>>
>>No rubber bullets to my recollection, but they did use [Geneva
>>convention banned] tear gas.
> 
> 
> The police did, indeed, use rubber bullets.

That's right...they used them at the other end of 4th than I was 
on...the north end...

  There was a great hue and cry when those little "souveniers" began 
popping up on
> E-bay along with the spent tear gas canisters (the printing on which proved that they were military grade munitions that had come
> from a National Guard arsenal.) There was a great hue and cry, not reported by the mainstream media, when E-bay invoked their "no
> weapons" policy and forbade such "souveniers" from being sold on their system.
> 
> As for the Geneva Conventions, there is a loophole. The Convention -- specifically, the First Convention (link below), prohibits
> the use of chemical weapons *as a weapon of war.* Subsequent treaties regarding chemical weapons limit the use of poison and
> noxious agents on the battlefield but explicitly permit their use by a government on its own people. Just as a recent example,
> the Chemical Weapons Convention (http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/nndi-agency/cwc_1-en.asp) states in Article II (Definitions and
> Criteria), Section 9 (Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention): "(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control
> purposes." This treaty was signed although it apparently has not yet been ratified as US law by the Senate.
> 

That makes me feel a lot better...

> * Geneva Convention 1(Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating Gas, and of Bacteriological Methods of
> Warfare 8 February 1928)
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva01.htm
> --
> Gregory Gadow
> techbear@serv.net
> http://www.serv.net/~techbear
> 
> If it is the act of a traitor to speak out against the
> unConstitional acts of my government, to excercise my
> rights guaranteed by that Constitution -- the right to
> publish my opinions and speak my thoughts, the right
> to petition for a redress of grievances, the right to
> be secure in my person and property against search and
> seizure without due process of law -- then I am a traitor.
> And God grant us many, many more traitors, for we are in
> dire need of them.
> 
>