Senate rejects limits on cluster bombs

[cal04]

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a move by Democrats to stop the Pentagon from using cluster bombs near civilian targets and to cut off sales unless purchasers abide by the same rules.

On a 70-30 vote, the Senate defeated an amendment to a Pentagon budget bill to block use of the deadly munitions near populated areas. The vote came after the State Department announced last month that it is investigating whether Israel misused American-made cluster bombs in civilian areas of Lebanon.

Unexploded cluster bombs — anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area — litter homes, gardens and highways in south Lebanon after Israel's 34-day war with Hezbollah militants.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have long sought to keep cluster bombs from being used near concentrated areas of civilians. They say that as many as 40 percent of the munitions fail to detonate on impact — they can still can explode later — leaving innocent civilians and children vulnerable to injury or death long after hostilities have ceased.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060906/ap_on_go_co/cluster_bombs_2

[maxsolomon]

1. rules for warfare are just so antiquated

don't cut off all the mens' genitals & cart them back to Thebes! don't enslave all the women & children that you don't rape & kill! don't plunder! don't loot!

:sarcasm: i guess.

how can you terrorize a populace into embracing democracy if you can't cluster bomb them?

[madrchsod]

18. you forgot the impaling on poles

and of course nailing on crosses

[msmcghee]

28. Once wars start each side . .

. . has everything at stake . . including potentially the lives of themselves and their families. That's what wars are for - to kill as many people and cause so much destruction on the other side that they submit to you - before they can make you submit to them.

There's no way to control how people will fight a war or what weapons it will use once it starts, especially with the future being asymmetrical warfare. It seems to be some liberal fantasy that kinder and gentler wars are possible through cooperation and working together - with the people who are trying to kill you.

Forget it. It will never happen. Instead, wars must be stopped before they start. That means the world needs to come down very heavy on those who use even a slight bit of force or intimidation against others - rather than dialog and negotiation.

The UN is a joke in this regard. They often make things worse than if they weren't there to start with - by trying to avoid (or being incapable of) talking any stand in such matters - until things are well out of hand. The recent clash in Lebanon is a perfect example. UNIFIL was there ostensibly to monitor the illegal buildup of weapons by Hizbullah - and totally failed to do so creating a false sense of security among "wishful thinkers" in Israel and the elsewhere.

We need to start over from scratch with the UN or perhaps create some NATO-like political organization - with NATO as a well armed backup when necessary. Things are getting way too deadly in this world to keep screwing around with assholes who want to start shooting every time their neighbor gets in their way.

I'm just sayin'.

[Beaverhausen]

2. I'm ashamed

I saw a bit of DiFi's speech this morning. For us to use these bombs, for anyone to use them is immoral.

[whistle]

3. How many deaths and human disabilities have been caused by

...cluster bombs? Here are some stats:

http://www.cursor.org/stories/abovethelaw.htm

[Lautremont]

4. "Stevens argued that the amendment would restrict

'the ability of our military to use these munitions to protect our people.'"

Uh, yeah. That's the idea.

[sutz12]

5. Surprising, actually...

I would have thought that they would have voted it in to look good.

Shrub would just toss a signing statement on the idea anyway.

Not that DoD really gives a shit what Congress says anymore. They just want their money and their new toys.

[zreosumgame]

6. well, of course to repukes

they are the perfect answer for 'urban renewal'...

[krispos42]

7. This is redundant

International law already bans dropping these kinds of weapons on civilian areas, along with with things like white phosphorus. You can't just indiscrimately drop bombs on targets in civilian areas. Our fire-control systems are much more accurate than back in the days of WW2, when it was more or less a free-for-all. Except for the Norden bombsight used on our stategic bombers, everything else was sort of a 'best guess' attempt. And even the Norden was often degraded in use by cloud cover and ground wind conditions.

The controversy over WP is that it has many uses besides being a weapon. Cluster bombs are ONLY a weapon, and any soldier or pilot that drops them on civilian populations should be tried for war crimes. Cluster bomb dispersal depends on the height that the bomb casing opens up. The higher it opens the more dispersed the bomblets are. The impact area can be hundreds of yards long. NOT someting that works well in civilian-rich areas!

[Solo_in_MD]

20. Your statement is factualy incorrect

[krispos42]

29. Your statement is uninformative

Fortunately, my message isn't.

The use of cluster bombs is hotly opposed by many individuals and groups, such as the Red Cross, the Cluster Munition Coalition and the United Nations, because of the high proportion of civilians that have fallen victim to the weapon.

Cluster bombs pose a threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a very wide area of effect, and they almost always leave behind unexploded bomblets.

The area affected by a single cluster munition, also known as the footprint, can be as large as two or three football fields. Because of the weapon's very wide area of effect, accidentally striking both civilian and military objects in the target area is possible. This characteristic of the weapon is particularly problematic for civilians when cluster munitions are used in or near populated areas and has been documented by research reports from groups such as Human Rights Watch<1> and Landmine Action.

<snip>

Although other problematic weapons, such as land mines have been banned in many countries under specific legal instruments for several years, notably the Ottawa Treaty and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, cluster bombs are not banned by any international treaty and are considered legitimate weapons by many governments (including NATO). International governmental deliberations revolve around the broader problem of explosive remnants of war, a problem to which cluster munitions have contributed in a significant way. However, despite calls from humanitarian organisations and some governments, no international governmental negotiations or formal discussions are underway to develop specific measures that would address the humanitarian problems cluster munitions pose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bomb

Burning WP (white phosphorus) produces a hot, dense white smoke. Most forms of smoke are not hazardous in the kinds of concentrations produced by a battlefield smoke shell. However, exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) does have the potential to cause illness or even death.

WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur. However, no recorded casualties from the effects of WP smoke alone have occurred in combat operations and to date there are no confirmed deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes. <7> The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02mg/m³, the same as fuel oil fumes. (By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m³.) <8>

<snip>

Use of white phosphorus against military targets (outside civilian areas) is not specifically banned by any treaty. However, there is a non-binding debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The Convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.). The Convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals".(CWC, II). Because its effects are physical and not chemical, WP was not included in the CWC's original annex listing chemicals that fell under this definition for purposes of verification.<12>

<snip>

Some opponents have also argued that because of its incendiary effects, WP is potentially restricted by the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III), which prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. <14> However, that protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effects are secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. In any case, the third protocol has not been signed by the United States.<15>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

[eccles12]

8. Well, this is state sponsored terrorism. More reason to get rid of those

in office come next election.

[The Stranger]

9. Voting against it is also complicity in committing war crimes.

[stepnw1f]

10. Sickos

It's all about greed and death. Disgusting war profiteering, right before your eyes.

[YankeyMCC]

11. Well of course

that would be a consistant vote for the republicans who claim they are part of the 'party of life' :sarcasm:

[joanski0]

12. Some of the Democratic Senators who I

heard voting for it were Joe Lieberman, Mary Landreu, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Frank Lautenberg. Of course, my two Senators, Specter and Santorum, voted for it, too.

[w4rma]

13. How did I know that LIEberman would be pro-maiming kids with these things?

I didn't even have a doubt that he would proudly vote in favor of killing civilians with these things.

[Greeby]

14. You've got it backwards

They voted AGAINST an amendment from DiFi to ban the use of cluster bombs, 30 Dems voted for that

[godai]

16. Another source

"The amendment, written by Feinstein and cosponsored by Leahy had wide support from Democrats though some, including Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) voted to defeat it."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Senate_votes_to_continue_use_of_0906.html

[godai]

15. So, Hillary voted against the restriction

Why am I not surprised. If you want an example of why I can't support Hillary Clinton, here's a good example. She is a totally political animal, always testing the wind, not voting her conscience.

Can someone who supports Hillary respond how they justify this vote?

[cosmicdot]

19. Here's the vote

so, will those organizations/groups which 'score' votes include this one in their tallies?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00232

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---30

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---70

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bayh (D-IN) <----------
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE) <---------
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY) <----------
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT) <-----------
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI) <---------
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA) <--------
Lautenberg (D-NJ) <--------
Lieberman (D-CT) <---------
Lincoln (D-AR) <----------
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL) <---------
Nelson (D-NE) <--------
Pryor (D-AR) <----------
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV) <-------
Salazar (D-CO) <---------
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY) <--------
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

[annabanana]

21. (angry letters to Clinton & Schumer.. . on their way). . . .eom

[Judi Lynn]

22. Thanks for the list. It's horrifying seeing how bad off Democrats are,

when we can't trust this many Democratic senators to do the right thing.

It's worth mentioning there's not even one Republican cross-over, either. What has happened to their sense of honor, anyway?

They obviously have talked themselves into believing there will never be a day of reckoning.

[MH1]

25. Hmmm...interesting how the 2008 potential players voted

Against the amendment (against limitations on cluster munitions):

Bayh
Biden
Clinton
Dodd


FOR the amendment:

Feingold
Kerry


Did I miss anyone?

Looks like the line is drawn once again in the usual place.

[peacebird]

26. Clinton has just lost my vote even if she becomes the Dem Pres Nominee

period. Point blank.

No excuse for this vote. None. I do not care if she is running against Jeb Bush - I will NOT vote for her.

[MH1]

27. I can't go that far.

Any Dem I can imagine winning the nomination - Hillary, Biden, Bayh, and Dodd included - will be a far better president than any republican I can imagine winning the nomination. If any of them get the nom, I will be right there fighting and clawing to get them in office, even though my heart will hurt for not having a more liberal candidate.

I will feel much better if someone wins the nomination whose conscience I feel I can trust. I think either Kerry or Feingold could fill the bill, although even they each, at times, exasperate me.

[hedgehog]

17. Cluster bombs are just plain hideous.

There's no sense restricting their use in civilian areas, modern wars are fought among civilians. AS a weapon that remains active forever, they are even worse than land mines. In theory, someone at least is supposed to know where the land mines are. No one can tell for certain where all the bomblets went and how many are still waiting to explode.

[Karenina]

23. Americans cling to the myth

"We're the GOOD GUYS." Actions such as this reveal to the ROTW the hateful, aggressive, destructive society, completely oblivious to its responsibility to rein in its "leaders" that hides behind the mask of "altruism." Katrina REVEALED THE TRUTH of Ami gubmint and her people to so many on this side of the big pond...

[Gregorian]

24. And so how are we morally superior to the Taliban?

They do it for revenge, and we do it for money?