NY court spurns bid for damages by Viet victims of Agent Orange
2/22/2008, 3:53 p.m. EST
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
The Associated Press

"NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court Friday rejected an effort by Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange to reinstate claims that U.S. companies committed war crimes by making the toxic chemical defoliant used in the Vietnam War.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said it agreed with U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, who ruled in March 2005 in Brooklyn that Agent Orange was used to protect U.S. troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations.
"
Read more at SiLive
_______________

I am a bit befuddled by the distinction of being "used to protect U.S. troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations." Does the US Department of Justice consider the use of chemical and biological weapons to be justified when it is aimed at preventing ambushes? That would be a curious precedent in terms of the current US aggression against weapons of mass-destruction (WMDs).

I understand that it is generally considered different to seek civilian casualties versus to seek preemption of known / suspected / anticipated enemy combatants. However, when the weapon is dispersed over large areas and is indiscriminate in its effect, I do not see why its user should receive a free "that a boy" pass (other than a protecting one's own form of b*llsh*t).

_______________

For an article featuring [WARNING: GRAPHIC / DISTURBING] pictures of some of Agent Orange's effects, you can go to China Daily (pictures courtesy of Reuters).