U.S. Court hears arguments in Rachel Corrie lawsuit 

Tuesday July 10, 2007 09:33 by Saed Bannoura - 1 of International Middle East Media Center - IMEMC Editorial Group saed at imemc dot org

On Monday, July 9th in Seattle, Washington, in the U.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, heard oral arguments on whether to allow the case Corrie et al., v. Caterpillar to proceed.

Hundreds of supporters of the family of Rachel Corrie gathered outside the courthouse as the hearing took place. Rachel Corrie was killed in 2003 when she was run over by an Israeli armored bulldozer while trying to protect a Palestinian doctor's home from demolition.

Corrie's family filed a lawsuit against the American company, Caterpillar, the manufacturer of the armored bulldozer, in 2005. Along with the Corrie family, four Palestinian families who had family members killed or injured by Caterpillar bulldozers also joined the lawsuit.

The case alleges that Caterpillar sold the D9 bulldozers to Israel even though the company knew they would be used to unlawfully demolish homes and endanger civilians in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza. The case was dismissed in November 2005 by a judge in the Western District, and the current appeal will determine if it can move forward.

Supporters of the Corrie family came from Seattle and Olympia, and carried photos of home demolitions, signs and banners. Many of the participants dressed in black, and carried signs calling for corporate support of human rights, corporate responsibility, and an end to Caterpillar's support of home demolitions.

Rachel Corrie's parents asked participants in the vigil to focus on the Palestinians killed and injured by CAT equipment during home demolitions, as well as on their daughter Rachel--the Al Sho’bi family members killed in Nablus: Umar, Fatima, Abir, Samir, Nabila, and Samir and Nabila’s three children, Anas age 4, Azzam age 7, and Abdallah age 9; Jamal Fayed (paralyzed and disabled) killed in Jenin Refugee Camp; the six members of the Abu Hussein family in Rafah, traumatized and physically injured when demolition of their home began at 5 AM with no warning; and Ibrahim Khalafallah, killed in Khan Yunis Refugee Camp, age 70, sick and unable to move.

In their press release, they stated, "This is a call for corporate accountability for past actions and for responsible corporate behavior in the future. We believe in the potential of this case to impact how Caterpillar, Inc. and all U.S. corporations behave in the world."

But lawyers for Caterpillar and the U.S. Justice Department, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Caterpillar's behalf, argued that letting the case proceed would require U.S. courts to improperly intervene in the political arena.

The judge asked the Justice Department lawyer, Robert Loeb, to consider the hypothetical case of a U.S. oven manufacturer during World War II, asking, "If the company continued selling ovens to Germany, knowing they were being used to kill Jews, would there be legal grounds to go after the company?"

"Yes," Loeb replied, adding "Treason, for starters."

But the lawyers for the Justice Department and Caterpillar Corporation continued to make the case that Israel's home demolitions are legal, and American judges do not have the jurisdiction to pass judgment on the state of Israel.

The lawyers for the Corrie family stated that the U.S. government has publicly condemned the Israeli policy of demolishing Palestinian homes in the West Bank in order to build Israeli settlements on the land, and that this case is not about the U.S. government, but the actions of a corporation in a foreign country where human rights abuses are known to be occurring, using the equipment sold by that corporation to carry out the abuses.

---

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.