Cap'n Arbyte's
Main page

FAQ
Biography
Contact
Essays
Zany stuff
Best blog articles
Technical articles
Blog archives

Advertisements


Blogroll


Non-blog sites
(coming soon)
Friends
(coming soon)

Lawyer Logic

Shocking! Outrageous! And sorta funny, too…

Mehdi sends this amusing bit of lawyer logic:

In the bird bombing case, conservationists sued to protect an important nesting island for migratory birds in the Pacific. They established that the U.S. military's bombing of the island during live-fire training exercises violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Haynes' team argued in a legal brief that conservationists actually benefit from the military's killing of birds because it helps make some species more rare — and "bird watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one." They argued the bombing was good for the birds too, as it kept the island free of other "human intrusion." [source]

<eye roll> Okay. <deep breath> Granted, this is ridiculous, but it's actually what lawyers are supposed to do. They're expected to argue for their client in as many different ways as possible so as to increase the odds that at least one of the arguments will be convincing. This one was wacky and they got called on it, but that doesn't invalidate the strategy in general.

I'm sure that this legal team made other arguments, too. Presumably ones that weren't quite so awful. Hopefully some that mentioned the military value of live fire exercises and the need to conduct them somewhere despite the inevitable NIMBY contingent from every possible alternative, who will also make every possible argument against the exercises. Presumably the opponents have a few good arguments too, better than this environmentalist nonsense.

Tiny Island