Rachel Corrie's Parents and Supporters Press for Justice Against Israel

Tweet Below is a portion of an AP article on the Rachel Corrie case against Caterpillar. The appeal was heard at the 9th District Court of Appeals in Seattle this week. Linda

SEATTLE -- The family of a woman killed trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in 2003 asked a federal appeals court panel Monday 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, well-known Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, told the three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old peace activist from Olympia, 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, Ill.-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.

A U.S. District Court judge in Tacoma dismissed the lawsuit in 2005, agreeing with the company's argument that it wasn't responsible for how the Israeli army used its product. The family's request to have the case reinstated drew dozens of protesters to the courthouse, some carrying black silhouettes of Corrie and others holding a painting of a diminutive figure standing before an oncoming bulldozer.

Chemerinsky insisted that the judge applied the wrong legal standard, and that as long as the company knew how the bulldozers were being used, it can be held liable under common law dating back centuries. The case should be sent back to the lower court for further proceedings to determine what Caterpillar executives knew, he said.

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 political issues reserved for the president and Congress. It would also require American judges to pass judgment on Israel's practice of demolishing Palestinian homes - "you can't aid and abet a legal activity," Caterpillar attorney Robert Abrams told the judges.

Abrams also said Israel purchased the bulldozers with U.S. aid, further complicating the issue.

"If your honors did look at the U.S. as paying for the bulldozer, the U.S. would be an aider and abettor as well," he said. "There is no conclusion that can be reached other than, it presents a political question."

Judge Michael Hawkins asked Justice Department lawyer Robert Loeb to consider the hypothetical case of a U.S. oven manufacturer during World War II: 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 - treason, for starters.

AP article can be found on the Corrie's website: http://www.rachelcorriefoundation.org/