Use of tear gas in interstate warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925: it prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials", a treaty that most states have signed. Police and civilian self-defense use is not banned in the same manner.
>or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials
Very gentlemanly, no? Penetrating and even non-penetrating weapons are fine, but no permeating ones please, that's ignoble like ew.
A naive class analysis would say, but of course our glorious peacekeepers would immediately agree to not gas each other right after they figured out the stuff. Otherwise they'd just have all gassed each other to death by now. And then us few poor survivors would be left with nobody to gas us, and the environment probably ruined.
It's extremely easy to build chemical weapons out of household cleaning supplies. You might even have the ingredients in your house already.
The reason why using them is forbidden by international law is that EVERYONE, rich or poor, looks at a weapon that makes everyone in a city block barf up their lungs and agrees that it should probably be illegal.
That is definitely a less noble way to die than a bullet. Mock it if you want, but you're wrong.
If you wanna do some Marxism, focus on the exemption for domestic use of tear gas. Banning chemical weapons is one of the few good things the world has done.
If there's an exemption, I'd state it more generally: call it any way you like, but when a state does it, it's just called policy. Peace from the Bloodlands (Snyder 2010).
It's 2025 so we expect that violence to be done in accordance with the law and the will of the people, and no matter how much you snark about it that's a big difference.
Of course many terror groups have claimed that mantle for themselves. It's not in question, it's happened multiple times.
I'm sorry but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This place just keeps on giving
But man oh man going after anyone with means who tries to help people who the government decides looks like an illegal immigrant is hell of an escalation. Can't have people keeping government accountable.
It's about someone helping people protesting us immigration enforcement.
Helping people commit a crime is itself very often a crime, but protesting isn't a crime, so helping them shouldn't be either.
They have always, since their inception, protected and served wealth and privilege, and they've always been willing to gas, torture, kidnap, or murder people to do it.
Laws and court precedence matter. And the police are regularly defended by both, regardless of guilt.
Never trust the police, kids. Especially in America, where standing court precedent holds that the police are neither required nor expected to know what the law says.
yawpitch•2mo ago