Animal Rights
Pepe_Muffassa
Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">A different spin.</div> Hopefully this will be a refreshing, thought provoking topic. I bring this up because I don't want it to be a liberal/conservative battle. I just found this article, and I wanted opinions on it. How would one go about procecuting something like this? Who would get the money - not the fish? They don't need it.
Can Bush be sued directly?, Can the animals of all the worlds oceans sue, or just the ones near our coasts?
Now, I know it looks a little rediculous, but I do want to know how someone would go about doing this sort of thing, and if you people here think this sort of thing should be done.
<a href='http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id=143&art_id=vn20041021064759606C762774' target='_blank'>http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...64759606C762774</a>
text:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US Navy's sonar equipment 'harms marine life'
October 21 2004 at 08:12AM
Los Angeles - The world's whales, porpoises and dolphins have no standing to sue American President George Bush over the United States Navy's use of sonar equipment that harms marine mammals, a federal appeals court has ruled.
A three-judge panel in San Francisco, widely considered one of the most liberal and activist in the country, said on Wednesday it saw no reason why animals should not be allowed to sue but said they had not yet been granted that right.
"If congress and the president intended to take the extraordinary step of authorising animals as well as people and legal entities to sue, they could and should have said so plainly," Judge William Fletcher wrote.
The lawsuit was brought against Bush and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the Cetacean Community - defined as the world's whales, porpoises and dolphins - by their self-appointed lawyer, marine mammal activist Lanny Sinkin.
He claimed that the US Navy had violated the Endangered Species Act with its use of long- range, low-frequency sonar that can cause tissue damage and other injuries to marine mammals.
Sinkin could not be reached for comment on the decision, which upheld a lower court ruling. - Reuters<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can Bush be sued directly?, Can the animals of all the worlds oceans sue, or just the ones near our coasts?
Now, I know it looks a little rediculous, but I do want to know how someone would go about doing this sort of thing, and if you people here think this sort of thing should be done.
<a href='http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id=143&art_id=vn20041021064759606C762774' target='_blank'>http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...64759606C762774</a>
text:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->US Navy's sonar equipment 'harms marine life'
October 21 2004 at 08:12AM
Los Angeles - The world's whales, porpoises and dolphins have no standing to sue American President George Bush over the United States Navy's use of sonar equipment that harms marine mammals, a federal appeals court has ruled.
A three-judge panel in San Francisco, widely considered one of the most liberal and activist in the country, said on Wednesday it saw no reason why animals should not be allowed to sue but said they had not yet been granted that right.
"If congress and the president intended to take the extraordinary step of authorising animals as well as people and legal entities to sue, they could and should have said so plainly," Judge William Fletcher wrote.
The lawsuit was brought against Bush and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the Cetacean Community - defined as the world's whales, porpoises and dolphins - by their self-appointed lawyer, marine mammal activist Lanny Sinkin.
He claimed that the US Navy had violated the Endangered Species Act with its use of long- range, low-frequency sonar that can cause tissue damage and other injuries to marine mammals.
Sinkin could not be reached for comment on the decision, which upheld a lower court ruling. - Reuters<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
/eating woodland creatures since 1980
If this is a way to get the word out, it is a sad attempt. There are better ways that do not depend on whether news agencies find the stories worthy.
As for animals should be given the ability to sue, they just don't have the right. How does an animal go about filing a law suit? Once a preson does it, its no longer the animal suing.
/eating woodland creatures since 1980<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, a judge's role is to interpret and apply the law. If the law does not give animals the right to sue, they do not have the right to sue. You seem to have missed this:<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]A three-judge panel in San Francisco, widely considered one of the most liberal and activist in the country, said on Wednesday it saw no reason why animals should not be allowed to sue but said they had not yet been granted that right.
"If congress and the president intended to take the extraordinary step of authorising animals as well as people and legal entities to sue, they could and should have said so plainly," Judge William Fletcher wrote.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The judges say that they see no reason why animals should not have the right to sue, but that they have not yet been granted that right. Simple.
I just want this to be a light, "what do you think" topic.
Is this real? The lawyer's surname makes me suspicious.
Soon microbes and robots will have rights. I pity the world.
Soon microbes and robots will have rights. I pity the world. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That isn't entirely true.
The law suit was for whales, porpouses, and dolphins - none of which we eat a whole lot of. Also, if my understanding of it is correct, they aren't trying to sue for killing them, it is for causing them undue harm by using sonar type x (long-range, low frequency).
I think the point is that the navy is torturing these mamals by using this type of sonar - not necessarily killing them.
Now, I'm not an animal rights activist, but I believe that we as a forum can distinguish between giving our food rights, and harming animals unintentionally.
So, given what this article is argueing, Does he have a point?
Should animals under these circumstances have the right to sue? Should the laws be changed to allow animals (or their reprentatives) sue for misconduct?
And that is just one example. I can't even imagine how far it would be taken.
It is a new type of sonar that people believed was implemented only during the Bush admin. Therefore it must be their fault.
Pretty much I think they are blaming the Bush admin. because they did not stop it.
I would think that hurting them would even be less of a big deal than killing. Animal rights activists need to worry about more important things like livestock getting killed before worrying about whales getting a mild headache due to sonic waves.
I mean, I haven't flipped right? People still do eat hamburgers right? It isn't the other way around?
Animals have the right to be my delicious dinner.
[refering to what Hawkeye said]
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I quit.
I think this is pathetic...
If you honestly can see a dog get beaten in front of you by a master with little reason I would be shocked if you didn't care even mentally.
Whales are not a common food source, there whole species is mostly endangered in fact and further damaging this species via radar is something that must be brought up.
I mean, theres a difference between killing an animal with a few quick moves and another matter totally when you disrupt their living day for no reason what so ever with searing pain from which can get them beached is a problem.
But for the species that are harvested for food, as long as you kill them outright and not take your time its not a problem as there food. (There are obviously sick people that torture animals just for fun of it, including cows, although there is not that many as people proclaim.)
Whales are not for eating or killing, its like you value dirt (cows) as much as diamonds (whales), you can't both treat them as easy throw aways and not expect someone to yell at you for such a stupid mistake.
Tell that to Japan and Russia, because apparently they weren't informed of the facts.