[_heimdall]

Can you elaborate on your point here? It seems that you're linking to documentation of where the exception was made, but I don't think the existence of that exception was in question here.

I don't have a dog in this fight as it were, but the GGP comment was taking issue with the exception allowing a tool that would violate the Geneva Convention in war being used against civilians in a context where law enforcement considers it crowd or riot control.

[lurk2]

> A party which is being attacked by riot control agents may think it is being attacked by deadly chemical weapons and resort to the use of chemical weapons. It is this danger of escalation that States sought to avert by agreeing to prohibit the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare in armed conflict.

The implication of the statement “These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.” is that riot agents are considered too barbaric to be deployed even in war, which is not the reason these agents are prohibited in wartime use. Instead, there was a worry that it would be too difficult to differentiate riot agents from chemical weapons (e.g. chlorine or mustard gas), which could lead the party attacked with riot agents to retaliate with chemical weapons.

[_heimdall]

Is your argument, or would you agree with governments making the argument, that the use of force should be acceptable as long as you/they know its asymmetric?

[lurk2]

I made no such argument. My argument is that the claim

> These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.

is misleading because it implies that riot agents are comparable to chemical weapons. Riot agents are intended to disperse crowds while keeping casualties to a minimum. Chemical weapons are intended to kill people.