zlacker

>>MDWoli+(OP)
As a veteran this hits me particularly hard. This kind of force goes beyond most uses of force I personally used in Afghanistan and Iraq, actual fighting being the exception. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’d be brought up on charges if we treated nonviolent people the way these videos portray.

>>teraki+2h
The Geneva Convention permits the use of tear gas for non military crowd control purposes. It's use is simply prohibited for military purposes. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/aug/26/facebook-p...

>>gamblo+j41
You provide a link that directly contradicts your claim.

First of all, the Geneva Conventions (plural) are about treatment of prisoners of war, not agents or munitions used.

Your given link refers to the Chemical Weapons convention, but its scope is specific to wartime use between combatants.

The Hague convention has munitions provisions, but the USA is not a signatory.

>>DrScum+uB1
There are multiple Geneva Conventions, true. One of them deals with POWs. Other Conventions deal with other war-related topics. If you want to be technical about it, the one prohibiting the use of gas is formally known as the Geneva Protocol.

I linked to the CWC because that is the relevant international convention allowing for the use of tear gas in non-military contexts. IOW, the GP creates the ban, but the CWC provides an exception.)