Max Kennerly @MaxKennerly Trial lawyer by day. Cookie monster by night. Nov. 25, 2018 1 min read

That's arguably a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. The U.S. fought hard to preserve an exception to use toxic chemicals for "law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes," but this isn't domestic and it wasn't done to control a riot.

Various trolls have descended to claim, without citing any sources, that tear gas is not a toxic chemical. It is a toxic chemical and that part isn't disputed. The question here is if this cross-border use falls within the law enforcement exception.  https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule75 

I don't see how the cross-border usage of tear gas in that photo, which looks nothing like a "riot," much less a "defensive military mode to save lives," can be squared with the relevant Treaties, Executive Order, and U.S. military policy.

So it was not domestic, not riot control, and not a defensive measure to save lives? Who ordered it, and who reviewed the order to ensure compliance with U.S. treaties and laws? cc @brianschatz

Always nice to have thoughtful conversations on this website about the merits of gassing women and children who are trying to comply with U.S. law by applying for asylum.

This is such a weird defense. Yes, it is used in military training -- but would you be okay with it being used against U.S. soldiers on the battlefield? Of course not. It'd be a war crime, and you'd want it prosecuted and punished accordingly.

By claiming current laws are "broken," Lindsey Graham accidentally admits that, in fact, under current U.S. law, an application for asylum can only be made by someone "physically present in the United States." They're *required* to come here to apply.


You can follow @MaxKennerly.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Become member.