۞

From krasu at msn.com Wed Mar 4 15:24:26 2009

From: krasu at msn.com (Debra Kraus)

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:24:26 -0800

Subject: [aowg] VN: US Court's AO rejection unjust Message-ID: <COL111-W74588A14A448CC5B0BB8BDBBA70@phx.gbl>

https://www.saigon-gpdaily.com.vn/National/Society/2009/3/68900/

US Court’s Agent Orange rejection unjust

The US Supreme Court’s rejection of Vietnamese Agent Orange (AO) victims’ petition against US companies that produced toxic chemicals used in the Vietnam War is a wrong and unjust judgement, said Tran Xuan Thu, Secretary General of the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA). .

A family of Agent Orange in Hanoi (Photo: Tien Phong) VAVA will hold a press conference Mar. 4. They will express their determination to continue their struggle for justice for Vietnamese AO victims and call for more support for them, said Thu.

Lawyer Jonathan Moore, counsel for VAVA, stressed that the struggle would continue until they gained justice for all Vietnamese AO victims, as well as others who were victims of the ‘chemical war’ conducted by the US government in Vietnam. In 1961 - 1971, US troops used about 80 million liters of herbicide in Southern Vietnam, including nearly 400 kilograms of dioxin. About 4.8 million Vietnamese were exposed to dioxin, of which some 3 million have become AO victims, VAVA said.

On October 6, 2008, VAVA lodged its petition to the US Supreme Court, calling for a reconsideration of the decision by the Appeal Court on the lawsuit brought against companies that produced the toxins. In the 41 page petition, VAVA said that verdicts by the US First Instance Court and Appeals Court were contrary to US juridical procedure. Those verdicts also deliberately denied the reality that AO has had serious consequences for millions of Vietnamese when they said that chemicals used by the US troops in the war were herbicides, not substances that are toxic to human health.

By Q. Khanh - Translated by Mai Truc

Email to a friend Print version To Top

۞

From krasu at msn.com

Wed Mar 4 15:26:08 2009

From: krasu at msn.com (Debra Kraus)

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:26:08 -0800

Subject: [aowg] VN: Nation decries US denial of AO appeal Message-ID: <COL111-W42B9E3F3FF4F1699EE7A40BBA70@phx.gbl>

https://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/showarticle.php?num=07SOC040309

Nation decries US denial of Agent Orange appeal (04-03-2009) HA NOI -

The Vietnamese public is extremely unhappy with the unjust decision by the US Supreme Court to deny hearing an appeal by Vietnamese Agent Orange victims, Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Dung said yesterday. "With this decision, the US Supreme Court has denied the serious effects of Agent Orange and dioxin sprayed by the US Army during the war in Viet Nam on the environment and health of the Vietnamese people, even though these effects have been confirmed by numerous research projects, carried out by scientists around the world,including US scientists," said Dung. The US Supreme Court on Monday announced its decision to refuse petitions to reinstate the lawsuit lodged by Agent Orange (AO) victims against producers of the toxic chemical used during the Viet Nam war.

The court made no comment on the decision, announced on February 27, which denied a review of the complaints submitted by Vietnamese AO victims as well as the two other petitions filed by US veterans to request compensation from US chemical companies for ill effects suffered by themselves and their families. "It is unfortunate that the US Supreme Court has put forth this groundless decision at a time when the Viet Nam-US relationship is developing positively and the US Government has effectively co-operated with Viet Nam to overcome the consequences of the use of Agent Orange and dioxin in Viet Nam," Dung said.

Viet Nam has repeatedly held that solving the consequences of Agent Orange and dioxin was an urgent humanitarian and moral issue, he added. "Even though many decades have gone by since the end of the war, millions of victims are still suffering from psychological and physical pain. The US chemical companies should be well aware of this matter and should uphold their legal, spiritual and moral responsibility, joining efforts to resolve the consequences of dioxins on their Vietnamese victims," Dung said.

"We believe that the struggle for justice by Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange and dioxin will continue to receive strong support from the international community, including US organisations and individuals," Dung said. Earlier, the New York Court of Appeals rejected these complaints despite the fact high levels of dioxin had been proven to lead to cancer, diabetes and foetal deformities. Lawyer Jonathan Moore, who is lead counsel for the Viet Nam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA) in the lawsuit against 37 US companies that produced the toxic chemical, said he was sad to hear of this decision. "Although we have lost this battle, our struggle must continue until we achieve justice for all those who were victimised by the US Government’s campaign of chemical warfare during the Viet Nam War,"

Moore said. The Co-ordinator of the Viet Nam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign, Merle Ratner, said: "As a US citizen, I am outraged that the Supreme Court has refused justice for the more than 3 million Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange as well as to Agent Orange affected US veterans whose suit was also denied review."

"However, the VAVA lawsuit has produced unprecedented public support, both in the US and internationally, for justice and compensation for Viet Nam’s Agent Orange victims." "Americans will keep on fighting for justice and for full compensation for the victims and clean up of the hot spots," Ratner said. Lawsuits regarding AO were launched by US veterans immediately after the war ended. / VNS

۞

Wed Mar 4 15:28:39 2009

From: krasu at msn.com (Debra Kraus)

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:28:39 -0800

Subject: [aowg] USA: Supreme Court won't review AO lawsuits Message-ID: <COL111-W323CD0FB0355776989488BBA70@phx.gbl>

https://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212211935.shtml

Supreme Court Won't Review "Agent Orange" Lawsuits by Staff aff

The Supreme Court let stand on Monday the dismissal of lawsuits by Vietnamese nationals and U.S. military veterans against Dow Chemical Co, Monsanto Co and other chemical makers over the use of the herbicide Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. Without comment, the justices declined to review a ruling last year by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the plaintiffs could not pursue their claims for their alleged injuries from their exposure to the chemical defoliant. (Reporting by James Vicini, Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

From krasu at msn.com Wed Mar 4 15:36:27 2009 From: krasu at msn.com (Debra Kraus) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:36:27 -0800 Subject: [aowg] USA: Unopened claims letters hidden at VA offices Message-ID: <COL111-W57CD8971D7C40198CE5B43BBA70@phx.gbl>

https://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/03/military_veteransaffairs_unopenedmail_030309w/

۞

Wed Mar 4 16:30:51 2009

From: krasu at msn.com (Debra Kraus)

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 08:30:51 -0800

Subject: [aowg] USA: Supreme Court rejects three AO lawsuits

Message-ID: <COL111-W322E8FDC210E463D34EF48BBA70@phx.gbl>

https://michiganmessenger.com/14151/supreme-court-rejects-three-agent-orange-lawsuits

Supreme Court rejects three agent orange lawsuits suits

By Ed Brayton 3/4/09 7:29 AM

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied cert (that is, decided not to hear the appeal) on three separate cases against Michigan-based Dow Chemical Company (NYSE:DOW) over illnesses the plaintiffs blame on the use of agent orange during the Vietnam War. The cert denial means the dismissals of all three cases by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will stand.

The cases were Stephenson v. Dow Chemical, Isaacson v. Dow Chemical and Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chemical. The plaintiffs included American military personnel and Vietnamese nationals who were allegedly harmed by the herbicide, which has long been linked to cancer and a host of other conditions. Dow is one of many companies that produced the chemical for the military during the Vietnam War.

In all three cases, Justice John Paul Stevens, as he has done in past cases, recused himself from considering the cert petitions and would have recused himself from ruling in the cases if his colleagues had voted to accept them. As is customary, the court did not comment on why Stevens recused himself, but legal scholars have noted in previous cases that his son was a Vietnam veteran who died of cancer in 1996 and his death may have some connection to agent orange, thus prompting the justice to recuse himself.

Print Subscribe to RSS

۞

Wed Mar 4 16:34:02 2009

From: krasu at msn.com (Debra Kraus)

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 08:34:02 -0800

Subject: [aowg] VN: The hypocrite of the world

Message-ID: <COL111-W74441536C5FD9AE96ABCD8BBA70@phx.gbl>

https://army.qdnd.vn/world.vietnam-world.ForeignersinVietnam.23137.qdnd

PANO - Vietnam and the world

World Vietnam and the world Foreigners in Vietnam etnam

The hypocrite of the world

US planes spray toxic defoliants in Vietnam. Spusa file photo.James Rhodes, a Vietnam veteran who is in Vietnam, receiving treatment of consequences of the Agent Orange exposure during his service in Vietnam, was disappointed with the decision of the US Supreme Court on March 2nd to deny the lawsuit lodged by the Vietnamese plaintiffs against 37 chemical companies. Hereafter is his comments sent to PANO:

Yet, once again, the United States has shown itself to be the 'hypocrite of the world" controlled by big business special interest.There is no other explanation for the United States Supreme Court denying hearing the cases of the victims we poisoned here in Vietnam. Let there be no mistake about it, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Le Dung was right on the money when he called for the chemical manufacturers to do their "legal, spiritual, and moral responsibility..."

However, let us remember the United States legal system has already ruled that the chemical companies have "no legal responsibility" to do anything. Sounds bad, right? But please do not forget how the United States treated, and continues to treat, their own veterans exposed to herbicidal poisons-myself included.For years, they denied there was a problem.Then they admitted there may be 'a few' problems or conditions created by exposure to herbicidal poisons.

They then commissioned a study that "proved" Vietnam veterans were in better health than the 'average American' who 'did not go to Vietnam.' It's all about money. We veterans were allowed, some time ago, to sue the chemical companies.My 14 tumors, which the government wrote were "inherited from my mother"-although no government doctor has ever met my mother-was worth $1000/year for six years; however, the non-veteran lawyers raked in millions of dollars per law firm. This is the justice system in America. It is the "just us" systemfor fat cats, special interests, and politicians. Everything we (unjustly) criticize you "godless Communist" as being-we ARE and MORE. I have never been denied medical treatment here (Hanoi)-as I have in the United States.

An isolated incidence? No way, my friend. Look at the history the United States government has with our own Atomic Veterans; Agent Orange veterans; Gulf War Syndrome veterans; and now the War on Terror veterans-we all have one thing in common; our treatment and neglect from our own government is shameless and immoral. And you think you will get something better? I really had hoped you would; but, I feared no change would be coming. Do not forget that the American veteran was legislated out of their rights with the passage of the 1933 Economy Act, ruled unconstitutional in 1935; but, the illegal clauses stripping U.S. veterans of judicial review rights-guaranteed under the 14th Amendment-were rewritten into the 1940 Veterans Benefit Act.

This simply means illegal aliens, child molesters, convicted felons, murderers, etc. all have judicial review; but, the injured U.S. Combat soldier, who fights and dies to defend the Constitution, was legislated out of those same, exact rights. When I was actively pursuing such a position for the Vietnamese victims, decades ago, my brother, who was then active in the military, hadhis security clearance revolked. My Los Angeles attorney, William Smith, who was assisting me prepare a legal case in this regard suddenly and unexpectedly died.

And in the '90s when Bill Clinton issued a presidential executive order requiring the Veterans Administration to treat children of Vietnam veterans with spina bifida, immoral government lackeys went on national television to explain to the gullible American public that spina bifida was "not necessarily" a result of herbicidal poisons and such a link could "not be consulsively proven"; but, since they were such good guys they would treat the little (American) victims anyway. Yes, my Vietnamese friends, we will wave our flag and display our Bibles and in the name of all that is holy pursue those evil Islamic fundamentalist; continue our sanctions against Cuba (how many decades now and for what reason?); and oppose democratically elected governments (Hugo Chavez, Hamas) that do not bend to the will of our 'god', the American special interest!And in this process, we will ignore the evil we have done!

Do not forget the "just us" system in 2005 expanded the government private land grab, called 'eminent domain' aka forced compulsory purchase of private property. This meant, and was put into practice, to legally steal private land and homes if the governmental municipalities thought thatthose targeted propertiescould be used for other structures that could better "increase governmental revenues" as shopping malls and businesses. Once again showing you, it is all about the money-who gets it and where it goes. We praise and promote this system of capitalism, which is nothing more than corporate welfare for the rich (special interest political contributers). I am ashamed of our conduct.

I remain here in Hanoi to attempt to do what I can for the Vietnamese victims of herbicidal poisons, who are my extended family. "My" country has lost its way, and for this, I truly beg your forgiveness and pardon. You have spiritual understanding that far exceeds the fundamentalist in "my" country. I have learned so much from you. I pray daily that I may be an insignificant instrument that will allow "my" country to see it MUST do the right thing regarding this situation we, and we alone, created. Obviously the American "just us" system will continue the neglect here, at the encouragement of U.S. big business special interest. Our Congress lacks a backbone and whose chief concern deals with their own reelection.

So, the ball is in the President's court. Obama is a fair man, and I do believe a religious one-so, I call upon him to do the right thing through Presidential Executive Orders. And to the American Christian community, I ask you, WHERE are YOU regarding this issue? I ask YOU: "What would Jesus do?" James Rhodes

۞

Wed Mar 4 18:20:18 2009

From: kelly_franklin at telus.net (Kelly Franklin)

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:20:18 -0800

Subject: [aowg] Agent Orange victims; go after the people or organizations who ordered your destruction

Message-ID: <7AB3E7AF27E6487AACF6E48646374114@admin4d0auqaln>

In response to dozens of stories related to the dismissal of the court cases against US producers of the Rainbow chemicals by the US Court and Supreme Court, published over the last three days.

Dear Editor, itor,

Again I must stress that the US courts in all cases had no choice but to dismiss the cases against the producers of war products as the US law is written in such a way that no company can be held in any way liable for products manufactured in the USA for the US war efforts.

Judges can't change the laws they can only rule on given subjects using the laws that are in place and were in place at the time of the production of these chemicals.

The US and Canadian Governments on the other hand are quite another question. The chemicals were not only ordered but produced and delivered to the US military for use in Vietnam, in these countries. I know that the Geneva Convention forbid the use of war chemicals but I wonder in the case of Canada just how legal is it for a country to produce war chemicals and sell it to another country when they know full well what use it will be put to?

Then again Canada and the US both seem to think that it isn't even illegal or immoral to kill your own soldiers or civilian population with these chemicals and have systematically ignored both the Blue Water Navy and CFB Gagetown Victims, so what chance does a foreign population have in claiming damage against countries who just don't give a damn about how many lives they have destroyed.

We victims here in Canada are suing the Federal Government because it was the Federal Government who ordered which mixtures of chemicals they wanted, paid for these mixtures, ordered how much and where the spraying of these mixtures would take place and then ordered the soldiers to be in locations where it was being sprayed or shortly after it was sprayed. We didn't feel that the Chemical industry had a hand in much if any of these decisions and we felt that if Ottawa wanted to sue the industry for reimbursement, that it should be on their nickel not ours.

Ottawa however as most now know claimed Dow and Pharmacia (formally Monsanto) as co-defendants, so we got stuck with them and their uncounted lawyers and resources anyway.

All Rainbow Chemical or defoliant victims; go after the people or organizations who ordered your destruction, the ones who without any second thought to the consequences to our health, welfare or to future generations made decisions which now can't be reversed.

Cpl. Kenneth H. Young CD (ret)

3205 Telescope Terrace

Nanaimo, BC V9T-3V4

Kentar at telus.net

250-758-8837

Destroying Chemical Use - Before Chemical Use Destroys Me.

One of many Gagetown Victims

For more information please see; https://www.agentorangecanada.com/

and https://www.agentorangealert.co

۞

Wed Mar 4 21:10:43 2009

From: krasu at msn.com (Debra Kraus)

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:10:43 -0800

Subject: [aowg] VN: Defoliant victims denounce US court Message-ID: <COL111-W27EA342FACD6C36136BFF8BBA70@phx.gbl>

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/world/world/general/defoliant-victims-denounce-us-court/1450812.aspx

Defoliant victims denounce US court HANOI HANOI

Vietnamese officials have attacked a US Supreme Court decision not to hear an appeal of a lawsuit against the American manufacturers of the toxic defoliant Agent Orange that was thrown out by lower courts. Vietnam's Association of Victims of Agent Orange head Tran Xuan Thu called the decision yesterday ''nonsensical and incorrect''. Vietnam's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman, Le Dung, said earlier ''the Vietnamese people are completely disgusted'' with the US court's decision.

On March 2, the United States Supreme Court refused to reinstate a lawsuit lodged by Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange, a defoliant containing toxic dioxin that was widely used by US forces during the Vietnam War.

A group of more than 100 Vietnamese plaintiffs launched the suit in 2004 against dozens of US companies involved in manufacturing Agent Orange, saying the chemical had caused them to suffer illnesses including cancer and genetic defects. American courts have ruled repeatedly the plaintiffs had not established their illnesses were caused by Agent Orange, and the manufacturers were immune from prosecution because they produced the defoliant on the orders of the US government. Mr Dung called the decision ''incorrect and unjust''. He said the court had ''denied the serious effects of Agent Orange and dioxin ...

on the environment and the health of the Vietnamese people''. The US government acknowledged dioxin from Agent Orange severely contaminated several hotspots where the defoliant was used heavily, and appropriated $US3 million ($A4.7million) in aid for clean-up and remediation projects. Large numbers of Vietnamese were exposed to the defoliant when US forces sprayed it on jungles to deny sanctuary to communist troops during the war. Scientists said while it was difficult to link any particular case to Agent Orange, dioxin was associated with a number of diseases, including some cancers and respiratory illnesses. Vietnam claims up to four million of its citizens suffer from Agent Orange-related diseases.

DPA

۞

Wed Mar 4 22:26:25 2009

From: cpk at kokkorislaw.com (Constantine P. Kokkoris)

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:26:25 -0800 (PST)

Subject: [aowg] US SUPREME COURT TURNS DOWN AGENT ORANGE CASES

Message-ID: <284319.87712.qm@web301.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Wayne: ? Bringing a case in the Hague (i.e. International Court of Justice) is not an option for private citizens. The ICJ is the legal arm of the United Nations, only member nations can bring cases before it. The government of Vietnam is probably not inclined to start a case at the ICJ against the US now over the use of Agent Orange during the war. ? Even if it was so inclined, the lesson of Nicaragua v. U.S. would be discouraging. Nicaragua commenced a case against the U.S. at the ICJ over U.S. support of the contras who commited numerous acts of sabotage (i.e. state-sponsored terrorism) against the legitimate Sandanista government there.

Rather than defend the case, the U.S. withdrew from mandatory jurisdiction when Nicaragua commenced the case. The ICJ heard the case and issued a multi-million dollar judgment against the U.S. on behalf of Nicaragua. Nicaragua has not collected a penny on it, because the U.S. refused to recognize the legitimacy of the judgment.

To sue the US now at the ICJ, the US would have to consent to jurisdiction.? ? If you are talking about the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague, that only came into force in 2006 (or thereabouts) and can only adjudicate acts that occured after the date of its commencement. The US is not a party to the ICC anyway, and I don't believe the ICC prosecutes corporations, just individuals. ? Dean

۞

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Paul Sutton <ssgtusmc6169 at yahoo.com> wrote: ; wrote:

US SUPREME COURT TURNS DOWN AGENT ORANGE CASES posted 10:48 am Mon March 02, 2009 - Washington from ABC 7 News - https://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0309/599781.html

The Supreme Court has turned down American and Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange who wanted to pursue lawsuits against companies that made the toxic chemical defoliant used in the Vietnam War. The justices offer no comment on their action Monday, rejecting appeals in three separate cases, in favor of Dow Chemical, Monsanto and other companies that made aAgent Orange and other herbicides used by the military in Vietnam.

Agent Orange has been linked to cancer, diabetes and birth defects among Vietnamese soldiers and civilians and American veterans.

The American plaintiffs blame their cancer on exposure to Agent Orange during the military service in Vietnam . The Vietnamese said the U.S.' sustained program to prevent the enemy from using vegetation for cover and sustenance caused miscarriages, birth defects, breast cancer, ovarian tumors, lung cancer, Hodgkin's disease and prostate tumors.

All three cases had been dismissed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York .

The appeals court said that lawsuit brought by the Vietnamese plaintiffs could not go forward because Agent Orange was used to protect U.S. troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations.

The other two suits were filed by U.S. veterans who got sick too late to claim a piece of the $180 million settlement with makers of the chemical in 1984. In 2006, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on whether those lawsuits could proceed.

The appeals court ultimately said no to both. In one case, the court said companies are shielded from lawsuits brought by U.S. military veterans or their relatives because the law protects government contractors in certain circumstances who provide defective products.

In the third suit, the appeals court ruled that the companies could transfer claims from state to federal courts.

The cases are Isaacson v. Dow Chemical Co. 08-460, Stephenson v. Dow Chemical Co., 08-461, and Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chemical Co., 08-470. ?

Paul Sutton "Dominus Fortissima Turris" Patriotism: Supporting your Country ALL THE TIME; and, your government when it deserves it - MARK TWAIN

"For ours?was a Noble Cause and we will be remembered as the Noble Generation."

IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS,

PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM !!!

"Freedom is not free . . . but the U.S. Military will pay most of your share."

Pacifism is a luxury paid for by warriors!!

-- Gerson Smoger Smoger & Associates, P.C.

۞

Thu Mar 5 03:40:41 2009

From: krasu at msn.com (Debra Kraus)

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:40:41 -0800

Subject: [aowg] US SUPREME COURT TURNS DOWN AGENT ORANGE CASES

In-Reply-To: <284319.87712.qm@web301.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

References: <284319.87712.qm@web301.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.comm>

Message-ID: <COL111-W115ACED70214191EB29DAABBA40@phx.gbl>

Dear Dean,

What a shame. The corporations have the alibi, protective laws, and justices to support their P&L statements while our environment and its people are ruthlessly injured and their family lines destroyed. The court understands how grave the situation is in Viet Nam from poor manufacturing of our own government's prescribed herbicide programs. They also understand the poisonings involve our allies from many nations. Add to it those injured in New Zealand from Dow in Paritutu, the testing in Gagetown, Canada, then toss into the mix those injured where herbicides were secretly tested in the US and globally, its continued exposure as it was transported from base to base, and you have a real time nightmare. Let us wonder what the hell is in our soils from decades of Dow et al producing products for agriculture. There is no wonder why they decided not to let these cases move forward. There will be no precedence set.

These facts, among others, do not constitute standing by and not doing anything about our contamination. It is obvious it has reached critical mass. We, globally, must band together regardless of this poor decision. We must focus on continued soil remediation, as Clinton would say, "...like a laser beam." We should demand an apology and financial support for everything that needs to be done as listed by Dr Schecter and Andrew Wells-Dang as well as here and abroad.

Further, I would like President Obama to open up a transparent dialogue about what needs to be done to protect our future and the future of generations yet to be born. It is extremely important to let the world know that this type of action from our corporations is unacceptable and will not be stood for in the future. We must amend our laws to protect people, NOT the corporations and that there will be something done to "bailout" those countries hardest hit.

Let US move forward with hope.

Sincerely,

Debra Kraus

۞

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:26:25 -0800 From: cpk at kokkorislaw.com To: wdwernychuk at telus.net CC: aowg at ngocentre.org.vn Subject: Re: [aowg] US SUPREME COURT TURNS DOWN AGENT ORANGE CASES

Sent to Agent Orange Working Group List - AOWG. Do not CC: to others on this list - send a separate message to them. Avoid sending attachments but if necessary keep them small (1.5 mb maximum).

--- Wayne:

Bringing a case in the Hague (i.e. International Court of Justice) is not an option for private citizens. The ICJ is the legal arm of the United Nations, only member nations can bring cases before it. The government of Vietnam is probably not inclined to start a case at the ICJ against the US now over the use of Agent Orange during the war.

Even if it was so inclined, the lesson of Nicaragua v. U.S. would be discouraging. Nicaragua commenced a case against the U.S. at the ICJ over U.S. support of the contras who commited numerous acts of sabotage (i.e. state-sponsored terrorism) against the legitimate Sandanista government there. Rather than defend the case, the U.S. withdrew from mandatory jurisdiction when Nicaragua commenced the case. The ICJ heard the case and issued a multi-million dollar judgment against the U.S. on behalf of Nicaragua. Nicaragua has not collected a penny on it, because the U.S. refused to recognize the legitimacy of the judgment. To sue the US now at the ICJ, the US would have to consent to jurisdiction.

If you are talking about the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague, that only came into force in 2006 (or thereabouts) and can only adjudicate acts that occured after the date of its commencement. The US is not a party to the ICC anyway, and I don't believe the ICC prosecutes corporations, just individuals.

Dean

۞

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:06 AM,

Arnold Schecter < Arnold.Schecter at utsouthwestern.edu wrote:

Sent to Agent Orange Working Group List - AOWG.

Do not CC: to others on this list - send a separate message to them.

Avoid sending attachments but if necessary keep them small (1.5 mb maximum).

The disappointing but not unexpected US Supreme Court refusal to hear the Agent Orange case causes us to think about what needs to be done now that we can make happen:

1. Congress can fund more for the Vietnam Agent Orange Remediation efforts. They have appropriated $3 million and are planning another $3 million. This can be very helpful in determining where TCDD from Agent Orange is still present and help decide what to do about it to protect Vietnamese now. And it may well provide information to US and other Vietnam veterans about possible dioxin contamination where they served during wartime.

2. Foundation funding, from the Ford Foundation and others, can help with preventive health measures and medical care. This should go to all in need and not attempt to spend money determining who is a "Victim of Agent Orange", but supply health care and prevention directly to all in Vietnam who need help.

3. The Ranch Hand study, of US Air Force veterans who sprayed Agent Orange from fixed wing aircraft, has now been turned over to the US Institute of Medicine for further research to determine which diseases can be associated with Agent Orange in Americans heavily exposed during spraying activities. However, money, perhaps $3,000,000 US per year, is needed for good, university based research which will continue to determine diseases caused by Agent Orange. This is used in the USA to compensate US Vietnam veterans and can help Vietnamese exposed to Agent Orange by providing credible scientific information useful to all exposed to TCDD, including from Agent Orange.

4. I too was a member of Admiral Zumwalt's Agent Orange Coordinating Committee for many years. Admiral Zumwalt asked scientists to tell him which diseases they thought were caused by Agent Orange exposure. They gave him a report listing about 30 diseases. The Office of Veterans' Affairs now compensates US Vietnam veterans for many of these diseases, based on science and policy.

5. We need to continue to look for places in Vietnam where TCDD, the dioxin from Agent Orange, is getting into people, food, wildlife and is in the environment. The work started by Dr. John D. Constable of Harvard Medical School and his colleagues, including my work with Dr. Constable and others, has documented, after studying thousands of Vietnamese for elevated dioxins, many areas which are not hot spots but where Vietnamese are still being exposed to dioxin from Agent Orange; this was found by us and others in blood and milk dioxin measurement of many people.

6. The latest Ranch Hand scientific publications by Michalek, Pavuk, Schecter and others, showed more skin and prostate cancer in those veterans with higher dioxin levels, but also with longer service in Southeast Asia. This suggests that not only dioxins are causing cancer in Vietnamese and those who served in Vietnam, but there are other possible causes of cancer, of which chemicals may be one cause. Further research is needed to determine how to prevent cancer and other diseases in Vietnamese, and to help understand the cause of some diseases found in veterans of the Vietnam war, including the Vietnamese, Americans, Koreans and others.

Arnold Schecter, MD, MPH

Professor of Environmental Sciences Univ. of Texas

School of Public Health, Dallas

Mail Address: 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Room V8.112

Physical Address: 6011 Harry Hines, V8.112 Dallas, Texas 75390-9128

Phone: 214-648-1096 FAX: 214-648-1081

E-Mail: arnold.schecter at utsouthwestern.edu

Personal e mail: AJSchecter at aol.com Cell phone: 214-336-8519

۞

From: andrewwd at gmail.com (Andrew Wells-Dang)

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:58:23 +0700

Subject: [aowg] FW: US SUPREME COURT TURNS DOWN AGENT ORANGE CASES

In-Reply-To: <49AD1D61.8632.0012.0@UTSouthwestern.edu>

References: <000001c99c26$6d196180$474c2480$@net>

<49AD1D61.8632.0012.0@UTSouthwestern.edu>

Message-ID: <b67d006b0903032358lc0b4dbdq68116281071270a6@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Arnold,

Thanks for posting this analysis. Many of us working on health and disability issues in Vietnam are already focusing on your point (2), providing services to all people in need in the areas where we work. We have started making efforts to identify project locations where people may be exposed to dioxin, so as to make sure these possibly affected people are not left out. CRS currently has disability projects in Phu Cat district, Binh Dinh and several districts of Quang Nam with a combination of USAID and private funds. Other organizations are working in Danang and elsewhere. I hope available funding will continue so that this work can be expanded.

For our future project planning, I'm particularly interested in your point (5) regarding "areas which are not hot spots but where Vietnamese are still being exposed to dioxin". Which locations are those, and can we access that information? I thought in fact that ongoing exposure was part of the definition of a hotspot, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Best wishes,

Andrew Wells-Dang

Catholic Relief Services,

Hanoi

۞

From: baggyw at yahoo.com.au (Bruce Weir)

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:09:53 -0800 (PST)

Subject: [aowg] Re Lawsuit

Message-ID: <624031.42859.qm@web58708.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Hi Everyone, I have been following with interest all the Court judgements in the AO Crisis. I have a couple of comments to make:-

- First of all I am a Vietnam Veteran and served with V3/4RAR Anzac Bn 1968/69. I am the Founder and Spokesperson of the Vietnam Veterans Action Group (VVAG). I have been a former State Secretary/Delegate of the VVAA?for Queensland Australia and are currently a delelegate of my sub branch Coolangatta /Tweed Heads. I have been involved with the Vietnam Veterans plight for several years. See our website www.vvanz.com and this can give you an idea of what I am about. The points are:

1/ The spraying of the deadly herbicide/chemical known with the unnecessary and unwanted by-product TCCD known?as Agent Orange is a War Crime and is breach of the Geneva Protocol and this should be heard in the International Court at the Hague for any determintion and judgement.

2/ While that in itself is a Crime the knowledge of the systems and he effects of the Dioxin poisoning and the Failure of Duty of Care is the real crime.

3/ Whilst the chemical companies may get away with idemnification in the production of the chemical/herbicide ?it does not absolve them from the responsibility of the effects or the failure to advise the affected persons of the dangers of Dioxin poisoning. This alone would have saved?hundreds of thousands of lives and a mountain of unnecessary grief. This is?what demands the compensation/restitution to all the victims of this tragedy..

4/ I would suggest that the legal team put the case through the International Court at the Hague.

5/ You will never get any justice at any Court in the USA. The chemical companies have too big a pockets and the predjuce is too widely spread to gain any sort of real justice. You only have to look at the USA Vietnam Veterans, nearly 800,000 out of the 2,500,000 who are alleged to have served their during the Vietnam War.?are dead and their deaths could well be?attributed to Dioxin poisoning. Veterans Affaires in America appears to be corrupted by politcal interferance. The Veteran is being crapped on by burocracy and has to fight toothand nail for his legal entitlements.Cheers Bruce Weir As our VVAG motto says"Onward, we will never surrender and in Maori "Huakina Ake Ake"

Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look https://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox

۞

From: krasu at msn.com (Debra Kraus)

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:58:27 -0800

Subject: [aowg] VN: Vietnam blasts US court denial of AO appeal

Message-ID: <COL111-W16AA37CD81C7848BB5C746BBA70@phx.gbl>

https://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-38326320090304

Vietnam blasts U.S. court denial of Agent Orange appeal Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:39am IST

HANOI (Reuters) - Vietnam said a U.S. Supreme Court decision not to hear appeals by Agent Orange victims was unfortunate for the development of bilateral ties, and said the court was denying the effects of the chemicals.

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Le Dung also called on the chemical manufacturers being sued to uphold their "legal, spiritual and moral responsibility, joining efforts to resolve the consequences" of the chemicals, Vietnam News reported on Wednesday. On Monday the Supreme Court let stand the dismissal by an appeals court in New York of lawsuits by Vietnamese nationals and U.S. military veterans against Dow Chemical Co, Monsanto Co and other chemical makers over the use of the herbicide Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.