They don't get it

The Times of London admits that the "white phosphorus" story is a propaganda blow for the United States, but not a legal problem:

On the facts available now, it [the U.S. military] is within the letter of the law, even though it has not signed the most relevant protocol on the use of the weapon.

But that assertion depends on the US claim that there were few civilians left in Fallujah by the time the assault began last November. There is strong evidence to support the US position. But conflicting reports, inevitable in the circumstances, leave room for debate, and even more for rumour.

The "relevant protocol" mentioned above is Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits the use of incendiaries against civilians.

In other words, this argument presumes that WP is not a chemical weapon. If the Times believes that, then why don't they ask a scientist to explain how an "incendiary" weapon could melt bone yet leave clothing intact?

Then we read the following gem:

The US is a signatory to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, but denies that this covers white phosphorus.

If judges allowed the accused party to define the law, all the jails of the world would be as empty as a concert hall during a twelve-tone festival.

The head of the organization overseeing that Convention has been quoted as saying what should be obvious to anyone who has seen the photographs: WP is a chemical weapon. His view -- not the Pentagon's -- should be considered final.