Rachel Corrie family asks court to reinstate case against Caterpillar

[Purveyor]

SEATTLE: The family of a woman killed trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in 2003 asked a federal appeals court panel to reinstate its lawsuit against Caterpillar Inc., saying the company knew bulldozers it sold to the Israeli government were being used to commit human rights violations.

"Caterpillar sold this product knowing — or it should have known — it would cause exactly this harm," one of the family's lawyers, Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky told the three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.

Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old peace activist from Olympia, Washington, was crushed by a 60-ton Israeli bulldozer as she stood before a Palestinian home in the Gaza Strip.

Her parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, sued Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar, which manufactured the bulldozer, seeking to hold the company civilly liable for aiding and abetting human rights violations — the destruction of civilian homes.

Four Palestinian families whose relatives were killed or injured when the Israeli Defense Forces flattened their homes joined the Corries in filing suit.

---eoe---

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/10/america/NA-GEN-US-Israel-Corrie-Caterpillar.php?45

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

2. anybody put in jail?

for discussing the case?......didnt think so.......i think that kind of throws out the "no free speach arguement" pretty fast.

and from the blog...this is one of those really stuiped statements that ruin any credibility the writer might have had:

I spent quite a bit of time reviewing the case, and it is obvious that the bulldozer driver saw and heard Corrie

heard?.......what is obvious is that hes never been near a D9 while at work let alone inside an armored one.

[Robson]

5. Yeah that's what I think too!

You must have missed the part about the direct radio communications with the IDF who was responsible for directing the D9 driver. He did what he was told and Cat sold them the dozer to do it with.

BTW censorship is the act of censoring and is not usually imposed brashly with jail or punishment except in 3rd world countries. In the western world it simply means that thoughts, words and expressions are kept out of the public purview so as not to incite others to question or say....."yeah that's what I think too!"

[pelsar]

8. i didnt miss the part of the radio communications...

all military vehicles have radio communication..its standard.

you should read what he wrote:

bulldozer driver saw and heard Corrie....i dont believe corrie has radio communications with the driver....as you seem to be suggesting.

as far as "directing the driver"....its actually the officer in the cabin with the driver...i guess the guys research wasnt very good if he didnt know that

so rachels words were "kept out of public purview?...really?....which areas of the US was there a news black out about rachel?

[oberliner]

3. The play is currently running as part of the CATF

The Contemporary American Theatre Festival is current producing the play. Panel discussions with her parents took place as part of the festival.

Reviews of the play have been mixed.

[Robson]

4. Anne Frank and Rachel Corrie both had diaries.

Not to deflect from the subject of this thread, which is the lawsuit.

Thank you for the information that it has been allowed to play in West Virginia. Interesting though that the Jewish community had the play barred from running on Broadway per the Balt Sun article below.

Of course the play received mixed reviews. It was based upon the diary and writings of a 23 year old that never intended to have them published.....somewhat similar to Anne Frank. The difference is that Anne's diary was the basis of many theatrical productions and plays, while Rachels's diary received only major pressure to censor it.

So much for freedom of expression and speech.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/stage/bal-catf0709,0,6610028.story?coll=bal-artslife-theater

[oberliner]

6. One is a play, the other a monologue

The Rachel Corrie play is a one-woman show. Essentially a long monologue. It is made up almost exclusively of diary entries and emails that she wrote.

The Anne Frank play was written as a stage play with a variety of characters and a script written by professional writers Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, both academy award nominated screenwriters.

One is about an adult activist killed while engaged in protest and the other is about a girl in her early teens who is killed because of being born Jewish. Very different types of stories.

Incidentally, the Rachel Corrie play ran at the Minetta Lane Theater in New York City for several months to mixed reviews (The New York Times reviewer wrote: "Toward the end of the performance I attended, I heard one man choking back sobs and another snoring. I could sympathize with both responses.")

In addition to the current production in WV there was a recent production of the play at a major professional theatre company in Seattle (Seattle Rep).

The play is allowed to be performed wherever some producer feels that they can generate a profit from staging it.

[Scurrilous]

14. "The play is allowed to be performed ...

...wherever some producer feels that they can generate a profit from staging it."

Not really.

Rachel Corrie play cancelled in Florida

<snip>

"This appears to be classic: A respected theater announces they will produce the play My Name Is Rachel Corrie, based on the writings of the young Seattle woman who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to protect the home of a Palestinian pharmacist and his family. A short time later, after protests by a small minority (it’s not clear by whom), the play is cancelled. (The Rachel’s Words initiative offers more complete information about Rachel and the play).

The Miami Herald reported yesterday:

But Mosaic’s board of directors agreed to drop the play after phone calls, e-mails and comments on a special Rachel Corrie blog — which has now been removed from the company’s website — made it clear that an impassioned, vocal minority strongly objected to the play…

Artistic director Richard Jay Simon, who declined a request for comment, wrote in a release Monday announcing the cancellation, “Exploring critical issues to inspire healthy dialogue is and always will continue to be our mission at Mosaic Theatre. I believe strongly in the piece and, while I respect the board’s decision, I am obviously disappointed."

A more telling sentence in the release notes that "numerous conflicts have arisen, and the associated risks appear too great for our community and our angel sponsor, American Heritage School."


The article goes on:

After Mosaic’s Simon, who is Jewish, announced he planned to present My Name Is Rachel Corrie, he posted an open letter on the company’s website, outlining his reasons for doing the play and soliciting comments on a blog.

Although the majority of the entries expressed support (some for the exercise of free speech and artistic freedom, if not for the play itself), others expressed outrage.

One woman suggested doing the play might mean the end of Mosaic. Another said she wouldn’t see My Name Is Rachel Corrie, any more than she would see a play titled My Name Yasser Arafat or one called My Name Osama bin Laden…

…Just after the local controversy began to heat up, Simon said that comments were running 85 percent for doing the play, 15 percent against, adding, “I’ve been astonished at the attacks on me as a Jew."

We’re not.

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=151

Related DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=171871

[Scurrilous]

15. The play was also cancelled in Canada...

...at CanStage, the country's largest not-for-profit theater.

I believe 'artistic' reasons were cited.

'Corrie' canceled in Canada

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=161519

[Robson]

16. Again....why was it canceled?

True progressives would never lobby to have a play canceled, based upon content. I know I wouldn't regardless of content.

True liberal progressives would allow the content to stand on its own, as well as the message, and permit everyone involved to make their own decision.

As a progressive and supporting member of DU, I'm 100% sure that true progressives would agree that it is only those with far right wing conservative fascist values who would attempt to stifle dissemination of free expression.

Again.....thanks for reading.


edited to add: May I add these eloquent words from a 23 yo "Anne Frank like" young idealist?

The month before she was killed, Rachel wrote the following in an email to us: “I look forward to seeing more and more people willing to resist the direction the world is moving in, a direction where our personal experiences are irrelevant, that we are defective, that our communities are not important, that we are powerless, that our future is determined, and that the highest level of humanity is expressed through what we choose to buy at the mall.” Action has already flowed from her words.

[msmcghee]

7. Please don't apologize for . .

. . "deflecting from the lawsuit". The lawsuit is hardly as interesting as your post.

You compare the public reaction to the Diary of Anne Frank to the play about Rachel Corrie. Let's think about that for a minute. Your post starts with the implication that the two stories are comparable in terms of the human values that are being examined. But, is that true?

Anne Frank was an innocent child caught up in the vast cruelty of an ugly and militarily powerful racist state. She suffered terribly as her whole family disappeared and she was forced to live in a hole in the wall - until she was finally discovered and exterminated by that state. Her life spoke to the innocence of human life that we are all born to.

Rachel Corrie lived a privileged life by any standards. She voluntarily chose a political cause - that was aligned with political opposition to a foreign state that was under terrorist attack by the people she championed. She inserted herself into that deadly conflict knowingly.

I don't question Rachel Corrie's idealistic attachment to her cause - or her belief that she was on the side of justice and her enemies (Israel) was not. But this is a political and ethical question for which two sides disagree.

Rachel Corrie chose one particular side in that conflict of her own free will. Many ethical people - some of them in this forum - believe she chose the wrong side in that instance. She was well aware of the risks and she wrote about them. I think it's admirable when someone risks their life for a cause they believe in. I don't think it's so admirable when they risk others' lives for their cause - especially when those others do not ask to be placed at risk. Rachel was doing that too. The tunnels the IDF were destroying were being used to smuggle in the weapons and explosives that were being used to kill innocent Israeli civilians. In that sense Rachel was anything but innocent.

Anne Frank chose no cause. She was truly innocent and was a victim in the purest sense of the term. Rachel Corrie chose to be a warrior for her cause and willingly placed herself in harms way - as a means to publicize her beliefs - beliefs that directly placed others' lives at risk.

Rachel Corrie had many choices. Anne Frank had none. Perhaps that's why many people do not see quite the same equivalence between these two deaths as you do. In fact, I can only imagine why anyone would attempt to compare the two.

Finally, after your specious and absurd comparison - you then complain about freedom of expression - as if "the Jews" or maybe AIPAC - were suppressing the Rachel Corrie play. You say,

Thank you for that information that it is allowed to play in West Virginia. Interesting though that the Jewish community had the play barred from running on Broadway per the Balt Sun article below.

Your words reveal some serious logical errors. First, the play was not "allowed" to play in West Virginia. Any play is allowed to run anywhere in this country as per the first amendment. The Baltimore example shows only that the company planning to do the play changed their mind - after input from the community convinced them it would not be profitable for them to do it. There were no laws invoked by anyone. Part of free speech means that people are free to say - or not say - whatever they wish - for whatever reasons they choose to apply. You are free to raise money, go to Baltimore and run your own production of the play. No-one will stop you. No-one stopped the Baltimore theater company either. It was their own decision.

But, that's not as much fun as taking no risks yourself while typing from your keyboard that "the Jewish community" is stifling free speech in America. It's becoming a tiring mantra from one side in this conflict. When people reveal the many logical errors, the ethical and moral inconsistencies and untruths in your argument - they are now commonly accused of "suppressing" your views.

It's an interesting narrative that perhaps appeals to the many liberals out there who don't have the simplest understanding of the freedoms our country embraces in our Constitution and Bill of Rights - but I think you need more than that for a decent argument in this forum.

[pelsar]

9. I might add....

Corrie was attempting to stop a military mission...she obviously confused that with civil disobedience. The military mission in gaza for the bulldozers was not just to uncover tunnels, etc. but clear fields of fire so that israeli troops are safer when on missions, or to protect israeli civilians near the borders. IDF military missions are not going to be stopped by the Palestinians nor by their supporters. Such actions would in fact endanger israelis, which is precisely why those specific missions exist.

she entered a war zone and chose a side, and acted upon her beliefs....i dont think she really understood what she was doing...but I do wonder what the ISM thinks of gaza these days...and the fact that many of the palestenians there now prefer israeli occupation to their present rulers.

[Robson]

10. I highly respect them both for their idealism in the face of adversity.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Again I apologize to the OP for following up on this IMHO related sub-thread but nonetheless still a tangent.

You make the point that Rachel Corrie lived a privileged life although I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. As a sidebar, according to wiki Anne Frank also lived a privileged life as short as her life was. Both lived short lives, but both likely made a larger footprint on the earth than most who live four score and ten.

Both of these young ladies were documenting injustices of man's inhumanity to man, and for that the world should be eternally grateful. One voluntarily risked her life to expose what she and most of the world and the UN believes to be injustices. The other was involuntarily incarcerated and died at the hands of injustice. Actually both died at the hands of injustice that most of the world was against. One had her story told multiple times by the best directors and producers that the entertainment industry could provide. The other's story was relegated to a monologue in a theater in West Virginia.

I highly respect and admire them both for their idealism in the face of adversity.

edited: spelling (I'll learn yet I can't spell w/o a checker) :)

[oberliner]

11. Interesting framing

Rachel Corrie's "story" was not "relegated to a monologue in a theatre in West Virginia".

The play was directed by one of the most acclaimed actor-directors in Britain and ran at two different theatre's in London's West End.

It has since been included in two of the UK's most attended theatre festivals - in Ireland at the Galway Festival and in Scotland at the Edinburgh Festival.

The play was produced in New York City at the Minetta Lane Theatre, at the largest professional theatre in Seattle, the Seattle Rep, and is currently featured at the Contemporary American Theatre Festival, about an hour and a half from DC.

That it was conceived as a one-woman show was an artistic choice made by those who wished to present her story in a particular fashion.

[Robson]

13. Thank you.

Thank you .... but is it OK if I humbly and respectfully disagree?

Rachel's story was indeed relegated to a monologue in a West Virginia theater. This is no secret. Major newspapers have described the uproar about this play that resulted in its banning in all major markets. BTW a sample link was quoted previously.

Who knows? Sixty years from now the "Rachel Corrie Story" may receive the same respect and commercial interest that "Anne Frank's Diaries" receive today. Both are about major injustices against David while Goliath has a major advantage in political and military stature and power.

Sixty years ago in Germany the Jewish people were victims and had little power. OK...I admit I'm a sucker for the underdog and the oppressed, and 60 years ago I would be standing up tall for Anne Frank in present tense. Historical perspective has a way of changing perspective. For the sake of balance in the media and the Middle East, let's hope and pray that is the case with the I/P conflict.

Was it Socrates (or Robson) who said that truth and justice are compromised and opposed only by those who have an agenda that is neither truth nor justice?

http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/?p=47

OBER....I'm a realist and accept your opposition, it's about self interest. I see the same response from some major theater chains that refuse to show “Sicko”. For corporatists, an anti-corporate theme resonates as anti-American. Others have their own “anti” theme.

[msmcghee]

12. Anne Frank spent the last seven months of her life . .

. . in Bergen Belsen concentration camp dying of typhus watching the remaining members of her family (except for her father) get killed. She spent the two years prior to that in a hidden room with her family in Amsterdam. You may call that privileged if you wish.

One died at the hands of a brutal racist occupation through absolutely no fault of her own. The other died in a militarized zone that she entered voluntarily - to protest a military operation and to make a political point. She could easily have removed herself from all danger at any time.

I don't mind if you like to see these stories as equivalent. But, if you really want to present an argument in a forum for that view - one could justifiably take the other side.

You (and some few others) may see equivalence - but most of the world does not. And that is more likely why "One had her story told multiple times by the best directors and producers that the entertainment industry could provide" - as you say - and the other did not. Also, Anne Frank died in 1944 and the world has had many years now to learn (and write) about her.

Rachel Corrie's story simply does not resonate with the same human values - and so far, has not attracted the same human interest.

Another reason is that many people can sense when they are being sold a bill of goods. Rachel Corrie's story has now been fully co opted by the anti-Israel, anti-American left - as exemplified by the (admittedly limited) political nature of the play itself - and by the homage paid to Rachel on many of the far-left websites. Thanks to that campaign, and through no fault of her own, the only thing that keeps her from the same fate as Cindy, IMO - is respect for the dead.

Rachel was simply an idealistic young woman - who was not very good at politics - who died supporting her beliefs. That in itself is laudable, even if those beliefs were misguided in the eyes of many.

For the record, and as I have said before, I think Rachel Corrie's death was tragic in its own right. But, trying to equate Rachel Corrie's death with Anne Frank's reeks of political opportunism. I think those who despise Israel so much that they would equate Israel with the Nazis - which could be taken as the subtext of your premise - would do better to let Rachel's death speak for itself.

[Lithos]

17. Agreed, there is no comparison

Very well stated.

L-

[Robson]

18. Thank you for your opinion on this discussion....as a mod carries much weight.

I once again must apologize to the OP for diverting from the original post and the lawsuit against CAT.

US manufacturers being held accountable for the use of their products...whether CATS or munitions or cruise missiles truly opens a can of worms for the US Chamber of Commerce.

But in reality how many US manufacturers would continue to exist under the Bush (screw everything America) regime? We should have compassion for those few US manufacturers...otherwise everything will be manufactured in China or India or Mexico or Israel with a US CEO raking in multi-millions while everyone in the USA is slashed.

But what the hell? This is America, we're resilient, we can survive and subsidize everyone else.

[Lithos]

19. Product Liability is an interesting legal area.

And as a former engineer, I remember several apocryphal stories about liability. The most famous concerned a lawn mower which hurt someone because the user decided to lift it up and work on it while it was running. Lost a case, so the manufacturer thought they would get smart and add a "dead man's switch" on the handle bar so that someone would have to hold it while operating it. Sure enough, as the story goes, they were sued again because someone taped the switch shut as it kept killing the motor when they were using the lawn mower as a hedge trimmer.

Most cases as I recall really fell down to proving some sort of design failure or short-coming that contributed to the accident. The usual tactic, especially for older equipment, was to cite the manufacturer for failure to anticipate new safety technology that may not have been common practice at the time the unit was manufactured. The requirements concerning labeling, alarms, guards, kill-switches, and documentation have changed over times, but these changes can and have been cited as proof of inherent flaws which have often resulted in fees for manufacturers to retrograde changes onto older equipment. So what may have been considered state of the art "safe" at one time may not be considered safe by today's standards.

However, the Cat D9 was designed for general construction involving a work site clear of bystanders; and for those cases where people needed to work close in, general construction protocol generally dictates that there be some spotters who would communicate to the operator. It never was designed for the operations for which the IDF uses for; Cat for instance never designed the armored cage which severely limited the view of the operator. As such, it is very hard to show what defect Cat made in its design.

To add, there is also a bit of jurisdictional issue involved, the "failure" did not occur in the US. As such, no US court really has any authority to act on a liability issue, that if existed, would need to be handled by an Israeli court.

All told together, the legal theories that the Corries are trying to advance are pretty much non-existent. Do I have sympathy towards them for losing a daughter, yes? Do I think the IDF could have done more knowing there were civilians around? Yes. Do I think their legal challenge on Cat is nothing more than a publicity stunt? Yes.

[Tom Joad]

20. I actually find a greater parallel to Sophie Scholl, one of the instigators of the

participants in the German nonviolent resistance movement, the "White Rose" -- against her own nation wars of aggression and Sophie's speaking out for human rights, no matter the cost.

There are differences of course, but i think Rachel acted in that spirit. Sophie acted from a position of privilege (all she had to do was be silent, and she would have survived) as did Rachel, who took a risk of solidarity with others who she saw as part of humanity, as part of the human family --as she saw everyone like that, ironically, she even wrote of the humanity of the bulldozer drivers who she saw daily, going about their assigned tasks of destroying homes and water wells in Gaza. If Rachel had been silent, and let the bulldozer driver destroy the home of her friends that day, she would have likely lived a long life. Instead she felt compelled to do something, to not be silent, to not be complicit by her silence and inaction.

Martin Luther king did a sermon once on the Good Samaritan parable... the man who sees the wounded fellow on the dangerous road in Jericho... King says, that the others that passed him... the pious and powerful, each asked themselves "What would happen to me if i stop to help this man?".... the Good Samaritan asked a different question... "What will happen to this wounded man if i do not stop and help?" I think Rachel just asked a different question than most people, who do not understand the concept that all of us are tied together, as King said, that we are caught in this "inescapable network of mutuality. And whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly".

That is why Rachel choose solidarity rather than complacency. That is why Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, who left their eastern city comforts and went to sweat and struggle in Mississippi to participate in the civil rights movement. They also paid the ultimate price.

Sophie Scholl, Rachel Corrie, Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and thousands more... their spirit will forever be with us as humanity struggles against war and for human rights & social justice for all.

[Tom Joad]

21. When Rachel was 10 years old she said this....

She was giving a speech about world hunger, and after describing the extent of hunger in the world, she said

"People in Third World countries think and laugh and smile, just like us. We have got to understand that we are them; they are us."

Just another way of expressing what is said in just about any religious text... that you must look out for your neighbor, that your personal well-being is tied into how you treat your neighbor.

Well, maybe it's like Casy says. A fella ain't got a soul of his own, just a little piece of a big soul - the one big soul that belongs to ever'body. Then...then, it don't matter. I'll be all around in the dark. I'll be ever'-where - wherever you can look. Wherever there's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad - I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise, and livin' in the houses they build - I'll be there, too.

[oberliner]

22. It's a shame such an idealistic young girl got mixed up with the ISM

Otherwise she may have devoted her life to fighting world hunger.

[Tom Joad]

23. I suppose many people in Mississippi thought that Michael Schwerner & Andrew Goodman were wrong to

get mixed up in the civil rights movement, while they could have devoted their lives to doing something else.

I think protecting the homes of civilians is a worthy act. as was supporting a people's right to vote.

[oberliner]

26. The civil rights movement was, of course, a very worthy cause

Protecting the homes of civilians is a worthy act as well.

[Tom Joad]

24. She was an adult when she chose to volunteer with the solidarity group

she was not a "young girl". although, i suppose at a certain age, maybe any woman under 35 might be so categorized.

[oberliner]

25. A ten year old is a young girl

The quote you provided was from a 10 year old Rachel Corrie. She was a young girl when she made that speech about fighting world hunger.

I realize that she was no longer ten years old when she got involved with the ISM. I apologize if I gave a different impression in my post.

[Englander]

27. Grief Crosses All Boundaries

By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Updated: 11:40 a.m. ET July 27, 2007

July 27, 2007 - Maybe you’ve heard something about the play, "My Name Is Rachel Corrie." You probably haven’t seen it; few people have. But you know it’s controversial, that it’s not balanced, that it’s too sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view and doesn’t fairly present the Israeli side.

That’s all true, and it was enough to get a scheduled production in New York City canceled. But the play is also a remarkable piece of art, and it’s not meant to be balanced. It’s based solely on the writings, journals and e-mails of a young woman volunteering for a peace organization who was run over by a bulldozer operated by the Israeli Defense Forces in Rafah, in the Gaza Strip, on March 16, 2003.

Originally staged in Britain, the play opened in Shepherdstown, W.Va., in July amidst much consternation over how it would be received. The Contemporary Theater Arts Festival housed at Shepherd University is the brainchild of producer-director Ed Herendeen, and he stood his ground in the face of the uproar. One board member resigned, but fears that the controversy would hurt ticket sales proved unfounded. The festival is having its best year yet fulfilling its goal of producing edgy and original theater pieces. Rachel Corrie’s parents were there the weekend I saw the play. Talking with them made the experience especially meaningful.

Craig and Cindy Corrie were living in North Carolina when Rachel, their third child, announced she wanted to go to Gaza. Her mother’s first reaction was to search the Internet for a similar stressed place in the world, like India, that might attract their idealistic daughter without posing as much danger. Rachel, fresh out of college and living in Washington State, had gotten caught up in the peace movement in Seattle, where she signed up with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), an organization set up to support Palestinian nonviolent resistance to the Israeli military occupation. The Corries had never thought deeply about the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and their sympathies, like most Americans, tended toward the Israeli side. They worried about their daughter’s safety. But she was a 24-year-old woman living in another state, and this was her decision to make, not theirs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19996131/site/newsweek/

[ohio2007]

28. Greed Crosses All Boundaries

They want to sue a company that manufactures earth moving equipment. eom

[Tom Joad]

29. and equipment used in war crimes against Palestinian people

most of us oppose war crimes.
We would rather see homes built, not demolished.
We would not want to see homes and whole neighborhoods demolished.
Such is the history of the use of caterpillar bulldozers in Occupied Palestine by the occupation forces. It has brought Caterpillar millions of dollars in sales, yet without moral basis they continue this despicable transaction.

War profits? Hell NO.

[msmcghee]

30. I've read some pretty bizarre theories on this site . .

. . but this one is ranks right up there with the nuttiest I've seen yet.

It seems to me, based on your theory, that if you sell your car to someone who is involved in a drunk driving incident, the family of the kid he killed should be able to sue you for damages? Is that right?

Perhaps everyone that sells a car should hire a private detective first to find out if that person is likely to be driving drunk. But wait, the state gave that guy a license and said he was legal to drive. Still your liability?

Let's say you hired the detective and the guy passed the DUI audit with flying colors. But the guy fell on hard times and used the car you sold him to rob a bank. Maybe you should do some time with him for your inability to predict what he would do with that car.

Maybe Caterpillar (and all other companies that do it) should be shut down for the despicable practice of selling equipment to countries that do bad things (according to the far left brigades) with that equipment. How many large US companies would survive that audit do you think? BTW Caterpillar provides thousands of good jobs to Americans - some of them, my relatives in Illinois.

How many Caterpillar tractors do you think the PA or Hamas has in their possession - some perhaps purchased by peace organizations or donated by Caterpillar itself to the PA? The PA has an annual budget of many millions of dollars. They also have roads and infrastructure to maintain and build. Maybe they should be prohibited from using D9s for that purpose since Israel use those same models to destroy tunnels and create fields of defensive fire. I would note that many believe that such use is entirely legitimate and humane - saving Israeli lives. In fact, a good case could be made that the destruction of tunnels and the creation of defensive fire corridors has probably saved as many or more Palestinian lives as it has Israeli lives.

How many pieces of Caterpillar equipment have been used by Palestinian militants to excavate tunnels to smuggle explosives into Gaza - that were then sent via rockets into Israel to kill Israeli civilians. Since in that case, those were used to intimidate and kill Israelis - the bad guys in your book - shouldn't Caterpillar get some extra credit for that?

I ask those questions rhetorically, of course - no answers expected. But surely you can see the logical dead-end for this line of attack against even companies now - that sell products to the evil Gov. of Israel (it wouldn't be fair to call it reasoning).

It would be entertaining to see some logical (moral, ethical or legal) basis for making a manufacturer (or seller) liable for what a government (a legitimate member of the UN) does with products they buy that have common legitimate peaceful purposes - like building roads and preparing ground for the foundations of new homes - or in this case, defending their citizens from terrorist attacks.

I'll enjoy reading your answer if you provide one - but I won't be holding my breath.

[Tom Joad]

33. Po tweet.

[msmcghee]

35. As I expected.

If you want to get serious you might read the court order denying every one of the Corrie family's (and their Palestinian co-plaintiff's) claims.

http://ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/corporate_accountability/docs/cat_decision_1105.pdf

It makes for some interesting reading and pretty much shows that this is nothing but a publicity stunt. Their appeal will be denied in spades. You can quote me on that.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

36. ITA. It's the government of Israel who are the criminals. n/t

[Englander]

31. Corrie et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc.

Synopsis

This federal lawsuit was initiated on March 15, 2005 against Illinois-based Caterpillar, Inc. on behalf of the parents of Rachel Corrie, a 23 year old American peace activist and student who was run over and killed by a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer in Gaza as she was trying to protect a home from being demolished while the family was inside. On May 2, 2005, the complaint was amended to include four Palestinian families whose family members were killed or injured when Caterpillar bulldozers demolished their homes on top of them.

Working with CCR on the case are: the International Human Rights Clinic at Ronald A. Peterson Law Clinic at Seattle University School of Law, Seattle-based Public Interest Law Group, PLLC, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.

Current Status

In November 2005, Judge Franklin Burgess granted Caterpillar's motion to dismiss the case without permitting discovery or hearing oral argument. CCR appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit on March 20th, 2006 and will present oral arguments setting out why this case should be permitted to go forward on July 9, 2007 in Seattle, Washington.

Description

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges that Caterpillar, Inc. violated international and state law by providing D9 bulldozers to Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that it knew would be used to demolish homes and endanger civilians. In doing so, Caterpillar aided and abetted the crimes committed by the IDF by knowingly providing assistance that had a substantial effect on the commission of the violations.

The violations of international and state law include: war crimes (including destruction of private property), extrajudicial killings, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and wrongful death. The claims were brought under the Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

The United States, international human rights organizations, and the United Nations have condemned house demolitions as a clear violation of international humanitarian law.

Plaintiffs

Al Sho'bi family: Mahmoud Omar Al Sho'bi is from Nablus in the West Bank. In April 2002, a D9 bulldozer destroyed Mr. Al Sho'bi's family home without warning in an IDF attack in the middle of the night. His father Umar, his sisters Fatima and Abir, his brother Samir and pregnant sister-in-law Nabila, and their three children, ages 4, 7, and 9, were all killed. After the Al Sho'bi family home was demolished, the IDF kept the area under strict curfew for days, denying access to rescue workers, and it was not until a week later that the families' bodies were found under the rubble of the house by relatives and neighbors.

Fayed family: Fathiya Muhammad Sulayman Fayed's home was bulldozed during an IDF incursion into the Jenin Refugee Camp in 2002. Hundreds of buildings were destroyed allegedly to clear paths for IDF's tanks. During the demolition, her son, Jamal, who was paralyzed, needed assistance to get out of the house. While the IDF initially stopped bulldozing so Fathiya could help Jamal, they resumed demolition. Fathiya escaped, but Jamal could not and was killed.

Abu Hussein family: A D9 bulldozer demolished the Abu Hussein home in the al-Salam neighborhood of Rafah in 2002. The destruction began without warning at 5:00 a.m., physically injuring six family members inside. After being warned, the IDF halted active demolition, but fired on neighbors or relatives trying to evacuate those in the house. The family was eventually rescued.

Corrie Family: On March 16, 2003, Rachel Corrie, a student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, was killed by a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza, Palestine. Rachel was attempting to prevent the home of a local pharmacist from being demolished while the family was still inside. Despite being in plain view and wearing a florescent orange vest, Rachel was crushed to death when the bulldozer drove over her.

Khalafallah family: In a July 2004 incursion into Khan Yunis Refugee Camp, the IDF demolished over 70 homes. At midnight, a bulldozer approached the home of Ibrahim Khalafallah and his wife Eida, where they lived with their 5 children, 2 daughters-in-law, and 4 grandchildren. Ibrahim, in his 70s and sick, was unable to move. When the bulldozer hit the house, Eida tried to stop the driver, but he continued, destroying the home and killing Ibrahim.

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/corporate_accountability/corporateArticle.asp?ObjID=CRXBCCBcud&Content=1069

[Tom Joad]

32. Human Rights Watch. Caterpillar Should Suspend Bulldozer Sales

Weaponized Bulldozers Used to Destroy Civilian Property and Infrastructure

(New York, November 23, 2004)--Caterpillar Inc., the U.S.-based heavy-equipment company, should immediately suspend sales of its powerful D9 bulldozer to the Israeli army, Human Rights Watch said today. As Human Rights Watch documented in a recent report, the Israeli military uses the D9 as its primary weapon to raze Palestinian homes, destroy agriculture and shred roads in violation of the laws of war.

“Caterpillar betrays its stated values when it sells bulldozers to Israel knowing that they are being used to illegally destroy Palestinian homes,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Until Israel stops these practices, Caterpillar’s continued sales will make the company complicit in human rights abuses.”

In a letter to Caterpillar’s chief executive officer and board of directors, Human Rights Watch on October 29 called on the company to cease all sales to the Israeli military of the D9, as well as parts and maintenance services, so long as the military continues to use the bulldozer to violate international human rights and humanitarian law.

Caterpillar’s CEO James Owens responded to Human Rights Watch in a letter dated November 12 by saying the company did “not have the practical ability or legal right to determine how our products are used after they are sold.” This head-in-the-sand approach ignores international standards on corporate social responsibility and the requirements of Caterpillar’s own code of conduct.

Since 2003, the United Nations has begun to develop standards for corporations in the form of the U.N. Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights. This document states that companies should not “engage in or benefit from” violations of international human rights or humanitarian law and that companies “shall further seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights.”

Caterpillar’s own code of conduct requires it to consider the broad impact of its business. The company’s Code of Worldwide Business Conduct states that “Caterpillar accepts the responsibilities of global citizenship.” The company’s commitment to financial success, the code says, “must also take into account social, economic, political and environmental priorities.”

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/22/isrlpa9711.htm

[Tom Joad]

34. Amnesty Urges Action on Caterpillar

Amnesty International is urging Queen's University and its students at to bring pressure on Caterpillar Inc for their role in the destruction of Palestinian homes.

As reported in The Gown, the Queens University student newspaper, The company - which has recently given $100,000 to the university towards the costs of its new library - is one of the biggest equipment suppliers to the Israeli army. Amnesty International has previously reported how Caterpillar bulldozers are being used to destroy thousands of homes of Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The company's bulldozers have also been used in the construction of the fence/wall built around and through the West Bank. In 2004 the International Court of Justice declared the fence/wall to be unlawful.

The company has donated $100,000 to the University towards the cost of its new £45 million library, due for completion in 2009. The library is due to have an area named after the company's charitable wing.

Amnesty International's Northern Ireland Programme Director Patrick Corrigan said:

'Caterpillar produces the bulldozers used by the Israeli army to destroy the homes of innocent Palestinians. This is clearly illegal - a serious violation of international law which deprives innocent people of the right to a home.

'Amnesty International has asked Caterpillar to adopt a code of conduct which complies with the United Nations Human Rights Norms for Business. To date, the company has refused to do so and to take steps to prevent their products being used to commit human rights abuses.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17353

[Tom Joad]

37. Success at Caterpillar annual shareholder meeting 2007

June 15, 2007

For the fourth year in a row, Jewish Voice for Peace, joined by the Sisters of Loreto and the Sisters of Mercy, returned to the Caterpillar annual meeting to introduce a shareholder resolution which raised the issue of Caterpillar's profiting from Palestinian home demolitions.

This year was the most challenging for us-- in an attempt to minimize damage caused by the presence of human rights activists and journalists, Caterpillar moved Wednesday's annual meeting to a remote suburb some 40 miles outside of Chicago; tightened up rules about speaking at the conference; and added heavy security. But none of these actions prevented JVP from achieving every one of our objectives, yet again:

1. The shareholder resolution met the minimum threshold of votes to return next year.
2. The issue of home demolitions framed the entire meeting, with StopCAT protestors effectively shutting down the meeting early.
3. Global media covered the event with headlines like "Protesters toss wrench in Caterpillar meeting," and content linking Caterpillar to home demolitions and the death of Rachel Corrie.

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_861.shtml

[Tom Joad]

38. One Million Olive trees uprooted. Ecocide!

Thanks Cat!

[Tom Joad]

39. I got my own history with Cat..."Tractored Out by the Cats"

or i should say, my alter-ego has its own history with the Cats.
Different situations of course, but there are striking parallels as well... the complete dehumanization of the driver, who in regular life is (in the Grapes' novel) just a regular neighbor doing a job, is under control of the monster that set him out to destroy other people's lives.

From The Grapes of Wrath:

The tractors came over the roads and into the fields, great crawlers moving like insects, having the incredible strength of insects….The man sitting in the iron seat did not look like a man; gloved, goggled, rubber dust mask over the nose and mouth, he was part of the monster, a robot in the seat…

A twitch of the controls could swerve the cat’, but the driver’s hands could not twitch because the monster that built the tractor, the monster that sent the tractor out, had somehow gotten into his brain and muscle, had goggled him and muzzled him—goggled his mind, muzzled his speech, goggled his perception…He could not see the land as it was, he could not smell the land as it smelled; his feet did not stamp the clods or feel the warmth and power of the earth. He sat in an iron seat and stepped on iron pedals. …

The iron gate bit into the house corner, crumbled the wall, and wrenched the little house from its foundation so that it fell sideways, crushed like a bug. And the driver was goggled and a rubber mask covered his nose and mouth. The tractor cut a straight line on, and the air and the ground vibrated with its thunder. The tenant man stared after it, his rifle in his hand. His wife was beside him, and the quiet children behind. And all of them stared after the tractor. Chapter 5

An Israeli bulldozer operator presents his view:

"For three days, I just demolished non-stop. The whole area. Any house they fired from came down. And to knock it down, I tore down some other houses. were warned by loudspeakers to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. I didn't wait. I didn't give just one push, and wait for them to come out. I would just ram the house with full power, to bring it down as fast as possible. I wanted to get to the other houses. To get as many as possible. ...I didn't give a damn about the Palestinians, but I didn't just ruin with no reason. It was all under orders.”

From an interview with a Cat' driver, who under orders of his Israeli military superiors, operated a giant Caterpillar D-9L bulldozer and helped make 4,000 camp residents homeless in Jenin refugee camp, April 2000.

Amnesty International has stated "the repeated practice by the Israeli army of deliberate and wanton destruction of homes and civilian property is a grave violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, notably of Articles 33 and 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and constitutes a war crime".