NEWS: Agent Orange legal case dismissed

A U.S. federal court judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Vietnamese plaintiffs over the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. Agent Orange was used extensively in the conflict as a defoliant and it is alleged to have caused birth defects, miscarriages and cancer. The plaintiffs had claimed that its uses was a war crime. Judge Jack Weinstein ruled that there was no legal basis for the suit.



The chemical companies had payed U.S. soldiers 180 million to settle claims previously. However, it raises an interesting point. It was a time of war and while not anything we would do today it was considered a legitimate tactic to use in that time frame. Tragic as it may be, should resident of Tokyo be allowed to sue for the firebombing of the city or the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima? At some point the sins of the past should be learned from but the endless cycle of liability has to stop at some point.

Am I to understand that you advocate stopping the liability while continuing the actions that create said liability?

sp

[edit on 10-3-2005 by soficrow]

Originally posted by soficrow
Am I to understand that you advocate stopping the liability while continuing the actions that create said liability?

I am advocating a stop to the endless cycle of liability claims that are only enriching the pockets of lawyers. At what point do you keep going back? Should we go after say Krups for building the huge gun that shelled Paris? Or say the group that wiped out Custer? You have a casino now so you a culpable for events that took place in the distant pass.

While I realize you would like to turn this into a Bush favors business rant, at some point its enough.

I'm confused, are you suggesting that the U.S.is still spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam?

as posted by soficrow
...while continuing the actions that create said liability?

as posted by FredT
I'm confused, are you suggesting that the U.S.is still spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam?

I am quite confused myself, FredT.
The US is not using Agent Orange in Vietnam anymore.
I mysitified by "continuing actions" in respect to "that created said liability."




seekerof

I have to agree with you on this one Fred T, to a point though. I believe that these veterans that were exposed to agent orange should definitely be taken care of as far as medical costs are concerned and to some extent financially. For instance, I have a first cousin that had heavy exsposure to agent orange and now in his mid fifties is fighting for his life with a rare form of cancer. It's a form of cancer that is technically in his blood and can cause tumors to pop up virtually any where. It's such a shame that for the time he has left he has to go through the horror of treatment after treatment just to survive. Thankfuly he was somewhat successful, after vietnam, so he is able to support his family but I can't help imagine if things were different. I think that we need to take care of these veterans, much better than we are currently, but we need to keep the lawyers out.

Originally posted by soficrow
Am I to understand that you advocate stopping the liability while continuing the actions that create said liability?

Are we still at War with Vietnam?

I would have sworn I heard that it was over.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Amuk]

FredT

the endless cycle of liability has to stop at some point.

I don't hear you saying that anyone has to stop doing the things that hurt people - just that the liability lawsuits have to stop.

Maybe you could expand on your thoughts?




[edit on 10-3-2005 by soficrow]

Originally posted by soficrow
I don't hear you saying that anyone has to stop doing the things that hurt people - just that the liability lawsuits have to stop.

I guess we could fight the next war with pillows and nerf balls but do you think the otherside would do the same?

Originally posted by soficrow
I don't hear you saying that anyone has to stop doing the things that hurt people - just that the liability lawsuits have to stop.

You are over generalizing things here. The thread was about Agent Orange Liability, yet you seem to be insistent on taking things further.

And I maintain that at some point where do you stop liability claims?

At anyrate as I responded in your thread about Class action suits:

1) The judge threw out this case based on its lack of merit
2) Your assertions that it was political pressure is bogus as he has a lifetime appointment to the court and cannot be removed for going against the administration.
3) He was Johnson era appointment and not beholden to Bush for anything.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by soficrow
I don't hear you saying that anyone has to stop doing the things that hurt people - just that the liability lawsuits have to stop.

You are over generalizing things here. The thread was about Agent Orange Liability, yet you seem to be insistent on taking things further.

We're talking court here - it's called a "legal precedent" - not over generalizing.

And I maintain that at some point where do you stop liability claims?

Yes. That was my question. Where do you recommend stopping liability claims? And what kind of claims do you recommend allowing?


.

It's not enough that they killed over 53,000 of our soldeirs, now you want to give them millions if not billions of dollars because they were an enemy combatant that was infiltrating and trying to capture southern nam which we were trying to save to stop communism. Give me a freaking break, this lawsuit crap needs to end! If a tractor fell on your head and killed you then thats a suitable lawsuit, not some enemy pig. whats next, japan suing us for hiroshima or france suing us because our soldiers who died in utmost bravery are taking up land in their country. Come on people.

Train

now that worldwide air space is being abused. there are many violations of polutions chemtrials and other threats to airspace that the whole world is connected too.a war court is needed to balance war crimes of all nations.should of been build after the 2 world war.but for some reason it was a nice loop hole to play with.vietnam needs to take this to an outside court to win the dumping of toxic chemicals on 4 million people.companies govenerments think there above enviromental laws.new air space laws need to be ineffect.now with the new arms problem this is a must .time for the u.n to get going on this.what an international court would rule out any major weapons damaging to planet earth as a whole.all countries would be have the right to defend themshelves but if they used any weapons they would face large fines and would be made to clean up any mess also.this would make the act of war more responsive to after effects.a deterent to making wars is making countires clean up there mess afterwards by stripping them of there currency until the matter is settled.that in it shelf would make any country think twice about using very deadly weapons.because the cost is too great on many levels..........

PARIS (AFP) - Agent Orange and other toxic chemicals sprayed by the US army during the Vietnam war three decades ago still pollute the soil and damage people's health, experts said.

A war of disease charts followed the war itself," said one participant in a two-day conference on the health effects of war-era chemicals with high dioxin levels dumped on Vietnam, which opened in Paris on Friday.

Between 1961 and 1971, the US army spread more than 100,000 tons of toxic chemicals, "constituting the greatest chemical warfare ever known to mankind," the general secretary and vice president of the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA), Tran Xuan Thu, said in an opening address.
Experts denounce continuing effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam

Ah yes, limit the Liabilities America it only show how hypcritical your government has become. You denounce and invade Iraq for using chemical weapons (and supposedly stockpiling them as well)then go around and tell your own soldiers that they have no recourse to seek reparations to the damages they incurred by being exposed to a chemical weapon(or is it classified as a Herbicide? Same difference).

Not to mention all the ecological devestation is caused in the Country itself. Biodiversity still hasn't made a comback in Vietnam. And you wonder why people believe the USA is using these types of weapons in Iraq right now

[edit on 11-3-2005 by sardion2000]

Sardion, Your an idiot. Typical, blame america for the worlds problems. What have you done to better the world, invent a cure for a disease, or invent a new car that doesnt pollute or invent free energy, your an idiot and will never invent # or offer a solution, just keep blaming, so shut your trap im tired of everyone talking crap about the greatest country in the world.

Train, Ill beat you up too

BigTrain, tone down the rhetoric a notch, k?
Take a step back and breath.
Read this while your at it: Terms And Conditions Of Use.

Bear in mind that this is ATSNN, and not the regular forums.




seekerof

Seekerof, I had a bad day yesterday!

Ive followed your posts for 3 years. I just wish people who are placing blame would just stop blabbing their traps. If they have a solution then offer it, but I guess this is what hating american liberals do.
Train

Bigtrain,

Heres a thought for you to fester on.

AMERICA LOST THE VIETNAM WAR.

You should pay reparations to the Vietnamese people.

Cheers

BHR