U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein disagreed that allegedly toxic defoliant and similar U.S. herbicides should be considered poisons banned under international rules of war, even though they may have had comparable effects on people and land.
The Brooklyn judge also found that the plaintiffs could not prove that Agent Orange had caused their illnesses, largely because of a lack of large-scale research.
A plaintiffs' lawyer, William Goodman, said the judge made "a clear error" in deciding Agent Orange was not a poison and said an appeal was planned.
"The use of this chemical in Vietnam was a scandal from the very beginning, and the failure of this court to redress these wrongs is a continuation of that scandal," Goodman said.
Some 10,000 U.S. war veterans receive medical disability benefits related to Agent Orange.
The Vietnamese government has said the United States has a moral responsibility for damage to its citizens and environment but has never sought compensation for victims.
I'm going to have to go with the observation of the lawyer in this instance, as well as the Vietnamese government, and disagree with the dismissal of this suit by this judge.
I don't know if simple monetary compensation is a reasonable request, but some sort of subsidy or underwriting of the medical expences these people face certainly is, along with any research or compilation of data relative to the aftermath, given that we do know now what damage it can cause, is worth pursuing.
Military and Civilians who were dowsed in Dessert Storm and Operation-whateverwecalled it should probably be similarly protected and/or compensated.
None of these people "asked" to be dowsed with this stuff, and none of them could avoid it. It's not like some frivelous smoking lawsuite or suit for compensation for dropping hot coffee in ones lap, where the individual made a choice to endulge and are trying to not take responsibility for the consequences, these people had no choice when we dumped chemicals upon them.
.Make It Right. (or as "right" as one can, considering).
I think I would rather have seen some portion of the 200 Billion Bush spent on the current Iraq war set asside for use in assisting these people with medical bills than bombing Iraq.
Anyway, my humble opinion, for whatever it's worth.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
The question is who should be held liable. The companies produced the stuff, but it was produced for a war for use in a warzone by the government at the government's request. Since they can't sue the government (immunity), they're suing the manufacturers.
But think about this. Would you consider suing the manufacturer of the rifles or bullets or bombs that killed people in a war? Of course not, it's war and people get killed and maimed, that's what war is for. I'm not sure you could make a claim that Agent Orange was "defective" in the normal sense either since it pretty much did what it was designed to do.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
