Just to address the one point on the clarification in the resolution of ratification, it has been said that our resolution of ratification clarifies and we should not need this language in the definition. Here is the problem I have. Several years ago when we were debating the Chemical Weapons Convention and riot control agents, there it is right there in the resolution of ratification that these riot control agents can be used in operations to protect civilian life. Yet to this day, our State Department lawyers continue to argue they cannot, even though in the resolution of ratification we clearly stated that these riot control agents, tear gas basically, could be used to protect civilian life. Yet our State Department continues to argue against that. That is why putting it in the definitions within the treaty, we believe, is important to clarify the difference we seem to have with the Russians based on statements they have made to the press.
On the recordDecember 21, 2010
Said by
John Ensign
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
The speaker discusses the importance of clarifying the use of riot control agents in a treaty.
Share
More from John Ensign
Feb 2, 2011
I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the Republican leader to repeal what I believe is an unconstitutional government takeover of our health care system. Make no mistake, we all want to improve access to affordable health…
Mar 29, 2011
S. Res. 85 received the same amount of consideration that a bill to name a post office has. This legislation was hotlined.
Mar 9, 2011
The House bill needs to be the floor for what we accomplish out of this process. The House bill isn't nearly enough, and we cannot allow this process to capture a modest improvement in the name of compromise by watering it down to a…