...when you took it.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...y_lawsuit_dc_1
What a misguided lawsuit... oh wait, this is the U.S., of course they're going to file a suit like this.
Suing the chemical companies who legally sold products to a government that at the time was considered favorably by the United States is bad enough. Suing banks who helped move the money though? That's ridiculous.
This will go the way of the cities who tried to sue gun manufacturers for hepling to promote street crime.
Yeah, they should be suing Halliburton for selling oil equipment to Iraq that the Iraqi's used to produce more oil which they sold off to have the money to buy the weapons.
A couple of those won their initial lower court decisions as I recall. I don't agree with it, but they didn't have the so-called "common sense" outcome one would hope.Originally Posted by Jim F.
I'm not entirely sure I agree, but it's not a crazy area of law. For example, lets say a guy comes in to your gun store angrily declaring that he wants a weapon to "off his fucking cheating wife." I think most people would agree you'd have some legal liability here. In general, it just appears to be how much knowledge of use the manufacturer/seller had.
There is a point at which you're suing the farmer who grew and sold the corn to Jack Daniels who made the whiskey who sold it to the bartender who served it to the man who got in his car and killed someone by driving drunk.
Since I've been thinking of WWII, I think for jollies I'll look up when I get home what happened when companies like BASF (I believe) were sued for selling the chemicals to the Nazis that were used to gas concentration camp prisoners.
Vote McCullough: because hot coffee is basically just like a firearm.
I still prefer the slogan:
Vote McCullough: You too can sue to be sole Valedictorian!
So if Saddam told them "hey, I need you to sell me some poison gas," and they sold it to him, you don't think the companies should be liable at all? How about if they had contractors filling up the tanks and watching the helicopters dump it on people?
I don't know where to draw the line, but there is a line. I'll leave the location to the experts.
But Jason, this was pre-1991 that these events occured. BEFORE the Gulf War. Before the invasion of Kuwait. Before Iraq was considered a terrorist threat and an enemy to the U.S.
Iraq was not on a no-trade list. No embargo.
Now I can see if the chemicals in question here are pre-made chemical weapons, but those are already illegal to sell due to international arms treaties and U.S. laws. Instead, without knowing the details, I'm guessing these 11 companies supplied such items as nitrates and processing equipment. Items that are used legitimately all over the world and in your backyard.
I dunno; I think you're still liable for selling someone a gun you know they'll kill their wife with, whether they've been to jail/are on the run from the law or not.
Mind you, I don't think anything will/should happen, because they probably didn't know and it was all dual-use anyway.
I don't think at any point during the US relationship with Iraq anyone could at any point claim they thought Saddam was anything other than a very unpleasant man.
But then the West has been perfectly happy to sell to all and sundry for many years.
I'm not saying they thought he was a great man and that's why they shouldn't be held responsible for selling to him.
What I'm saying is that, short of cutting off all trade with Iraq, who is to say what should and shouldn't have been sold? One man's pesticide is another man's chemical weapon.
Hell, Racin, one of the worst chemical weapons out there, is created by processing the shells of chickpeas (or something like that).
So, for me, unless the companies in question knew that the chemicals were going to be turned into weapons, or even had a strong suspicion, i have a hard time faulting them. I mean, if Iraq purchased 3 ingredients for a deadly chemical concoction from one company, that should have set off some red flags. But if they bought fertilizer from one company, turtle wax from another company, and pesticides from a 3rd... spose those companies should have been psychic.
New entries:Vote McCullough: because hot coffee is basically just like a firearm.
Vote McCullough: You too can sue to be sole Valedictorian!
Volt McCullough: Because selling hot coffee is just like selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein
Volt McCullough: He doesn't know where the line is drawn but that won't stop him from equivocating the most extreme examples on each side of it
We'll get Jason elected yet goddamnit! And if we don't, we'll blame the right-wing conservative media.
Jason, change your name to Hat and I'll vote for you.
Hat?
Yeah! Hat McCullough. He was sent to prison in '82, and we believe he should be released!
(Crowd: Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat!)
He killed those 23 babies in self defence.Yeah! Hat McCullough. He was sent to prison in '82, and we believe he should be released!
(Crowd: Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat!)
I am so out of touch on South Park anymore.
Vote McCullough: Because toddler murder is easy!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote