c***c
发帖数: 21374 | | t***h
发帖数: 5601 | 2 有没有对这些受害者进行赔偿?
【在 c***c 的大作中提到】
: 橙色剂受害者
| h*******3
发帖数: 1141 | 3 只对美军中的受害者有赔偿。
【在 t***h 的大作中提到】
: 有没有对这些受害者进行赔偿?
| c****g
发帖数: 37081 | | c******k
发帖数: 8998 | 5 On January 31, 2004, a victim's rights group, the Vietnam Association for
Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA), filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, against
several U.S. companies for liability in causing personal injury, by
developing and producing the chemical. Dow Chemical and Monsanto were the
two largest producers of Agent Orange for the U.S. military and were named
in the suit along with the dozens of other companies (Diamond Shamrock,
Uniroyal, Thompson Chemicals, Hercules, etc.). On March 10, 2005, Judge Jack
B. Weinstein of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York - who had presided over the 1984 US veterans class action
lawsuit - dismissed the lawsuit ruling that there was no legal basis for the
plaintiffs' claims. He concluded that Agent Orange was not considered a
poison under international law at the time of its use by the U.S.; that the
U.S. was not prohibited from using it as a herbicide; and that the companies
which produced the substance were not liable for the method of its use by
the government. The U.S. government was not a party in the lawsuit, due to
sovereign immunity, and the court ruled that the chemical companies, as
contractors of the US government, shared the same immunity. The case was
appealed and heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 18, 2007.
The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the case stating that the
herbicides used during the war were not intended to be used to poison humans
and therefore did not violate international law.[65] The US Supreme Court
declined to consider the case.
Three judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan heard the
Appeals case on June 18, 2007. They upheld Weinstein's ruling to dismiss the
case. They ruled that though the herbicides contained a dioxin (a known
poison) they were not intended to be used as a poison on humans. Therefore
they were not considered a chemical weapon and thus not a violation of
international law. A further review of the case by the whole panel of judges
of the Court of Appeals also confirmed this decision. The lawyers for the
Vietnamese filed a petition to the US Supreme Court to hear the case. On
March 2, 2009, the Supreme Court denied certiorari and refused to reconsider
the ruling of the Court of Appeals.[66]
In a November 2004 Zogby International poll of 987 people, 79% of
respondents thought that the US chemical companies which produced Agent
Orange defoliant should compensate US soldiers who were affected by the
toxic chemical used during the war in Vietnam. However, only 51% said they
supported compensation for Vietnamese Agent Orange victims.[67] |
|
