Re: US vs. United Nations

["Ann Li" <annzl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think tort actions from foreign governments or individuals carries
much weight in US courts although it is clear that given our military
blunders some would like to see such reparations become more pervasive; the
three-hour-tour boat in Honolulu for example aka Gilligangate and the
Japanese trawler. Although it certainly would be interesting to see such
suits from those citizen non-combatants damaged by our anti-personnel
weapons.

Nor do I think that other governments are stupid enough to give lawyers that
much power (this is of course assuming that their are other means to ensure
individual democratic rights). And of course, having been thrown out a jury
pool in a civil action because I thought there were excessive damage awards,
I think the US is not exactly a poster child for equity. The discourse of
victimology in the US is quite amusing. This is where the seller of the hot
coffee is responsible for the idiot who places the cup between their legs
when obtaining it at the drive-up and sues the company for negligence when
they spill it in their lap. The jury then awards millions to the "victim"
for their individual stupidity.

The irony of a "smart" gun is really one of liability protection rather than
safety, for example, and was used by Colt as a pretext to streamline its
produce line where Smith & Wesson attempted to increase its law enforcement
sales by compliance. Will we see such guns in military use, I think not.

The tobacco settlement I leave to others more informed on the list, but I
think it's really another welfare scheme to redistribute money to the states
not unlike our use of lottery money, where useless advertising PSAs get
created.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Keaney Michael" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>
To: "PEN-L (E-mail)" <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 10:24 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:14978] US vs. United Nations


> Ann Li writes:
>
> I fail to see how (inter)national record keeping will curb "the
continuation
> of a trade which kills 1000 people a day worldwide".
>
> =====
>
> I think it has to do with the US legal mentality: Admit not the least
> potential liability. Aren't there these parent groups and others trying to
> sue US gun manufacturers in class action suits similar to the ones that
have
> succeeded against tobacco companies? The logic of current developments is
> that the jurisdiction of these suits expands to envelop greater parts of
the
> globe. On some "horrendous" technicality the victims or relatives of
victims
> of such weapons could use US courts to seek recompense.
>
> Michael K.
>
> Michael Keaney
> Mercuria Business School
> Martinlaaksontie 36
> 01620 Vantaa
> Finland
>
> michael.keaney@xxxxxx
>
>