Rachel Corrie: Court rules Israel not at fault for death

[Hillary]

Not the greatest of shocks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19391814

An Israeli court has ruled that the state of Israel was not at fault for the death of US activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed in the Gaza Strip by an Israeli army bulldozer in 2003.

Ms Corrie's family had brought a civil claim for negligence against the Israeli ministry of defence.

The judge said the 23-year-old's death was a "regrettable accident" and that the state was not responsible.

She had been trying to stop Palestinian homes being pulled down in Gaza.

Judge Oded Gershon, presiding at the court in the town of Haifa, said Ms Corrie had been protecting terrorists in a designated combat zone.

He said the bulldozer driver had not seen her, adding the soldiers had done their utmost to keep people away from the site. "She [Corrie] did not distance herself from the area, as any thinking person would have done."

He ruled the state of Israel did not have to pay any damages. The Corries had requested a symbolic $1 in damages and legal expenses.

They had accused Israel of intentionally and unlawfully killing their daughter, and failing to conduct a full and credible investigation.

An Israeli army investigation in 2003 concluded its forces were not to blame for Ms Corrie's death.

Cindy and Craig Corrie travelled to Israel from the US to hear the ruling along with a group of friends and activists.

After the ruling, Mrs Corrie told a press conference they wanted to see more accountability from the state of Israel, saying they had been "deeply troubled by what we heard today".

"From the beginning it was clear to us that there was a process of investigation, operational investigations, military police investigations, and it was confirmed to us today that that extends through the court system in Israel - a well-heeled system to protect the Israeli military, the soldiers who conduct actions in that military, to provide them with impunity at the cost of all the civilians who are impacted by what they do," she said.

She said she believed at least one person in the bulldozer had seen their daughter, and that Rachel's death "could have been and should have been avoided".

She added: "I believe this is a bad day not only for our family, but a bad day for human rights, for humanity, for the rule of law and also for the country of Israel."

The family's lawyer has said they will appeal against the ruling to Israel's supreme court.

Ms Corrie was a committed peace activist even before her arrival in the Gaza Strip in 2002.

She had arranged peace events in her home town in Washington State and become a volunteer for the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement (ISM).

In 2003, Ms Corrie was in the town of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip as part of a group of ISM protesters.

They were acting as human shields to try to stop the Israeli army demolishing Palestinian homes and clearing land around Rafah.

The Israeli army argued the area was being used by militants and that the protesters should not have been in a closed military zone.

The army's investigation found that Ms Corrie was not visible and that she was killed by debris falling on her.

But Ms Corrie's supporters say it is impossible that the bulldozer driver did not see her.

Pictures taken on the day Ms Corrie died show her in an orange high-visibility jacket carrying a megaphone and blocking the path of an Israeli military bulldozer.

A collection of Ms Corrie's writings was turned into a play - My Name Is Rachel Corrie - which has toured all over the world, including Israel and the Palestinian territories.

An aid ship intercepted by the Israeli military in 2010 while trying to break the blockade of Gaza was named after her.

The subject of independent courts came up recently in the Julian Assange thread - can anyone here enlighten me as to the independence of the Israeli courts?

[The Grim Squeaker]

IThe courts are seperate from other branches of the government (Unlike the US where the supreme judges are appointed by the branches they're supposed to curtail).

My understanding of the case is, that the bulldozer had no way of physically seeing here in the angle where she was. (I'll try to find an angle of the FOV).
(The overall thing to take away is: don't stand under an armored bulldozer - they might not see you)

A non armored caterpillar bulldozer:.



Random GIF of the internet on fields of view. Not what I was looking for, no idea if it's relevent
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UAHKgPkGJcU/T ... 2Bview.jpg

[Simon_Jester]

The legal precedents for people stepping in front of heavy machinery and the state being liable- I'm having trouble thinking of examples. If a suicide steps in front of a moving train, the metropolitan transport authority isn't liable. The only other thing I can think of is deliberately suicidal political protests, such as monks setting themselves on fire- and again, I'm not sure anyone would expect the state to have to pay damages for that, symbolically or otherwise.

It all depends on whether the bulldozer operators and other Israeli personnel on site can reasonably be charged with any kind of negligence.

[Hillary]

The legal precedents for people stepping in front of heavy machinery and the state being liable- I'm having trouble thinking of examples. If a suicide steps in front of a moving train, the metropolitan transport authority isn't liable. The only other thing I can think of is deliberately suicidal political protests, such as monks setting themselves on fire- and again, I'm not sure anyone would expect the state to have to pay damages for that, symbolically or otherwise.

It all depends on whether the bulldozer operators and other Israeli personnel on site can reasonably be charged with any kind of negligence.

The question is presumably - did they know anyone was in the immediate vicinity or should they have reasonably expected anyone to be. The fact that she was acting in a reckless/illegal manner does not obviate the need for the bulldozer operator to consider the danger to human safety.

I'm not quite sure where your suicide examples are relevant here. She was NOT attempting to get herself killed.

[mr friendly guy]

I'm not quite sure where your suicide examples are relevant here. She was NOT attempting to get herself killed.

He is using it as an example of the state not being liable for people stepping out in front of machinery. He could have used a totally different motivation instead of suicide for stepping out in front of a machine, and it would make no different to his argument.

[Mr Bean]

I'm not quite sure where your suicide examples are relevant here. She was NOT attempting to get herself killed.

He is using it as an example of the state not being liable for people stepping out in front of machinery. He could have used a totally different motivation instead of suicide for stepping out in front of a machine, and it would make no different to his argument.

By that logic during the Tienanmen square incident the lead tank was well within his rights to run down the protestor?

Correct me if I'm wrong but was not Ms Corrie attempting something similar and shouting at the bulldozer operator with aid of a megaphone? They don't go into specifics of the incident.

[Grumman]

He is using it as an example of the state not being liable for people stepping out in front of machinery. He could have used a totally different motivation instead of suicide for stepping out in front of a machine, and it would make no different to his argument.

By that logic during the Tienanmen square incident the lead tank was well within his rights to run down the protestor?

It's not a question of rights but of responsibilities. If the tank driver couldn't avoid running over the "Tank Man" because he was standing in the vehicle's blind spot and the driver didn't know he was there, it would have been unreasonable to blame him for continuing to drive down the road.

Correct me if I'm wrong but was not Ms Corrie attempting something similar and shouting at the bulldozer operator with aid of a megaphone? They don't go into specifics of the incident.

That's probably because the protesters and the Israelis do not agree even upon what the bulldozer was doing that day. But even the protesters claim she climbed up on top of the debris being pushed by the bulldozer while the bulldozer was moving, which is just fucking stupid.

[Atlan]

I'm not quite sure where your suicide examples are relevant here. She was NOT attempting to get herself killed.

He is using it as an example of the state not being liable for people stepping out in front of machinery. He could have used a totally different motivation instead of suicide for stepping out in front of a machine, and it would make no different to his argument.

By that logic during the Tienanmen square incident the lead tank was well within his rights to run down the protestor?

Correct me if I'm wrong but was not Ms Corrie attempting something similar and shouting at the bulldozer operator with aid of a megaphone? They don't go into specifics of the incident.

Shouting at a man inside of an armored cabin, behind bullet-proof glass, with a honking big diesel engine running and a huge dozer blade in front of him. Chances are very good the guy never saw or heard her.

[Ace Pace]

IThe courts are seperate from other branches of the government (Unlike the US where the supreme judges are appointed by the branches they're supposed to curtail).

Uh...no. The Judicial Selection Committee is composed of Judges, lawyers, parliament members and the Justice Minister. The courts themselves are also (like in any other country) under the jurisdiction of both the legislative branch, and the Ministry of Justice (such an Orwellian translation).

[The Grim Squeaker]

IThe courts are seperate from other branches of the government (Unlike the US where the supreme judges are appointed by the branches they're supposed to curtail).

Uh...no. The Judicial Selection Committee is composed of Judges, lawyers, parliament members and the Justice Minister. The courts themselves are also (like in any other country) under the jurisdiction of both the legislative branch, and the Ministry of Justice (such an Orwellian translation).

Ah, yeah. What Ace Said. I was thinking only of specific aspects of the supreme court compared directly to the US equilevents. (Wasn't focused)

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not quite sure where your suicide examples are relevant here. She was NOT attempting to get herself killed.

He is using it as an example of the state not being liable for people stepping out in front of machinery. He could have used a totally different motivation instead of suicide for stepping out in front of a machine, and it would make no different to his argument.

Corrie wasn't actively trying to die, but she did move into the path of moving heavy machinery- on purpose. She was expecting the machine to stop, not for it to just keep going and kill her, of course, but there is that similarity.

I can't think of a lot of examples of people deliberately going out of their way to get into the path of big moving vehicles. The only ones I can remember are either protests like this (also including things like laying down on railroad tracks, I seem to recall a mention of that somewhere once)... or suicides.

Rules for accident liability should treat the case differently if the victim was going out of their way to do something dangerous.

By that logic during the Tienanmen square incident the lead tank was well within his rights to run down the protestor?

No. The logic here is that "in a construction zone where 180-ton bulldozers with limited fields of view are moving around, pedestrians do not always have the right of way. Especially if they walk directly into the path of the bulldozer.

There are reasons why those machines are painted bright yellow and have big sirens that run whenever they're moving. People at construction sites are assumed to be active participants in ensuring their own safety. If they change their mind and start deliberately going out of the way to make things more dangerous, it's hard to stop them. They're actively bypassing normal measures taken for their own safety. And I think you can make a case for it reducing the liability of whoever's operating the machinery.

[Edi]

The Israeli army routinely engages in coverup of murders by its personnel and has that enforced in court. There were a couple of excellent op-eds in the Guardian yesterday, the best one being this one. So the declaration by the court that the Israeli army was not at fault is absolutely worthless.

[Simon_Jester]

Do we have any particular evidence that this wasn't just a horrible accident of the sort one might expect when people start running in front of huge bulldozers?

[tim31]

No. The logic here is that "in a construction zone where 180-ton bulldozers with limited fields of view are moving around, pedestrians do not always have the right of way. Especially if they walk directly into the path of the bulldozer.

There are reasons why those machines are painted bright yellow and have big sirens that run whenever they're moving. People at construction sites are assumed to be active participants in ensuring their own safety. If they change their mind and start deliberately going out of the way to make things more dangerous, it's hard to stop them. They're actively bypassing normal measures taken for their own safety. And I think you can make a case for it reducing the liability of whoever's operating the machinery.

Except this falls over when you recognise that these are military vehicles and painted as such, used for destruction of property under tenuous legal circumstances. And they're so confident that this is legit and justified that they need an armoured vehicle to do it.

[Grumman]

Except this falls over when you recognise that these are military vehicles and painted as such...

No, it doesn't. Not unless you're trying to suggest that a fifty ton armoured vehicle, which Corrie was there to specifically stop, managed to sneak up on her.

...used for destruction of property under tenuous legal circumstances. And they're so confident that this is legit and justified that they need an armoured vehicle to do it.

You seem to be a bit confused. Armour is not used to protect yourself from lawsuits, but from bullets.

[Kamakazie Sith]

EYE WITNESSES
Still wearing her fluorescent jacket, she knelt down at least 15 meters in front of the bulldozer, and began waving her arms and shouting, just as activists had successfully done dozens of times that day.... When it got so close that it was moving the earth beneath her, she climbed onto the pile of rubble being pushed by the bulldozer.... Her head and upper torso were above the bulldozer's blade, and the bulldozer operator and co-operator could clearly see her. Despite this, the operator continued forward, which caused her to fall back, out of view of the driver. [sic] He continued forward, and she tried to scoot back, but was quickly pulled underneath the bulldozer. We ran towards him, and waved our arms and shouted; one activist with the megaphone. But the bulldozer operator continued forward, until Rachel was all the way underneath the central section of the bulldozer

The bulldozer built up earth in front of it.... She tried to climb on top of the earth, to avoid being overwhelmed. She climbed to the point where her shoulders were above the top lip of the blade. She was standing on this pile of earth. As the bulldozer continued, she lost her footing, and she turned and fell down from this pile of earth. Then it seemed like she got her foot caught under the blade. She was helpless, pushed prostrate, and looked absolutely panicked, with her arms out, and the earth was piling itself over her. The bulldozer continued so that the place where she fell down was directly beneath the cockpit.... The whole [incident] took place in about six or seven seconds

There's no way he didn't see her, since she was practically looking into the cabin. At one stage, he turned around toward the building. The bulldozer kept moving, and she slipped and fell off the plow. But the bulldozer kept moving, the shovel above her. I guess it was about 10 or 15 meters that it dragged her and for some reason didn't stop. We shouted like crazy to the operator through loudspeakers that he should stop, but he just kept going and didn't lift the shovel. Then it stopped and backed up. We ran to Rachel. She was still breathing

As the bulldozer reached the place where Rachel was standing, she began as many of us did on the day to climb the pile of earth. She reached the top and at this point she must have been clearly visible to the operator, especially as she was still wearing the high visibility jacket ["orange fluorescent ... with reflective strips"]. She turned and faced in my direction and began to come back down the pile. The bulldozer continued to move forward at [5–6 mph]. As her feet hit the ground I saw a panicked expression on her face.... The pile of earth engulfed her and she was hidden from my view

"We were horribly surprised. They had been careful not to hurt us. They'd always stopped before

BULLDOZER OPERATOR
You can't hear, you can't see well. You can go over something and you'll never know. I scooped up some earth, I couldn't see anything. I pushed the earth, and I didn't see her at all. Maybe she was hiding in there
------------------------------------------

So, it seems the activists were working together and appeared to be safe in a group. When Rachel took it upon herself to climb the pile of earth by herself is when she was killed. One witness remarks that they had always stopped before and been careful not to hurt them.

We have two possibilities here.

1 - The incident was an accident. The driver did not see Rachel because she was acting alone. 2 - The driver decided he would murder this one person when they've been dealing with the activists all day.

Thoughts? Additional evidence?

Is there reasonable doubt that the operator intentionally drove over Rachel?

Is there evidence that the IDF acted recklessly?

[eyl]

Normally, IDF rules require a spotter when any heavy vehicle (bulldozer, tank, APC, atc.) is moving. In this case, no spotter was used because they would be exposed and endangered - I don't know if this was within regs or not (obviously, regs don't require a spotter in an active combat zone, but this wasn't such a situation).

The reason for a spotter is that these bulldozers have a rather limited field of view, and that the operator can't really hear anything quieter than an explosion outside.

Personally, what I believe happened is that everyone grew complacent. The activists had been running in front of the bulldozers all day, stopped their work, dodged or got chased off, and came back. I suspect the driver - if he saw her at all - got fed up with stopping every time and assumed she got out of the way when he lost sight of her (the bulldozer isn't an especially swift vehicle). Likewise, Corrie probably assumed the driver would see here and would stop.

I should also note that grom what I recall, the original eyewitness reports conflicted as to what exactly Corrie was doing. Some had here standing in front of the bulldozer, others had her sitting, etc.

[eyl]

The Israeli army routinely engages in coverup of murders by its personnel and has that enforced in court. There were a couple of excellent op-eds in the Guardian yesterday, the best one being this one. So the declaration by the court that the Israeli army was not at fault is absolutely worthless.

Without getting in the specifics of that article, all the courts mentioned there were, AFAIKm military courts. This trial was held in a civilian court, which is a whole separate system.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The Israeli army routinely engages in coverup of murders by its personnel and has that enforced in court. There were a couple of excellent op-eds in the Guardian yesterday, the best one being this one. So the declaration by the court that the Israeli army was not at fault is absolutely worthless.

Without getting in the specifics of that article, all the courts mentioned there were, AFAIKm military courts. This trial was held in a civilian court, which is a whole separate system.

Honestly, it does not matter. It does not matter for the same reason that the US president can assert Executive Privilege to get the government out of a lawsuit for the kidnapping, drugging, and torturing (via starvation, sensory deprivation, beating and rape) of a german citizen (Yes, I am a bit sore about that one).

Let's be blunt: Israel was ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip. There certainly ARE terrorists in the Gaza Strip, I wont dispute that. They are there, they are bad. There are also plenty of people who are legitimately fighting a brutal foreign occupation of their home territory and have been for decades. That said, even if the people there were terrorists, bulldozing a neighborhood is not a sane way to deal with them (because it creates more terrorists in the form of dispossessed people with nothing to lose and every reason to blow up a fertilizer bomb in a shopping mall). Plowing a neighborhood is one way in which you engage in ethnic cleansing. An activist got killed either by ragic accident, accident via negligence, or "accidentally-on-purpose". It is not like this is new. It is not as if the IDF uses particular care when using force against Palistinians, or for that matter activists. I seem to remember a blockade runner (a blockade that interdicts building materials and other forms of humanitarian aid as I recall) a while back where the Israelis shot first and the IDF might have pulled a George Lucas with the footage, with Israeli investigations concluding in an entirely predictable way. Either way, which of those three possibilities is true is ambiguous from the evidence. It can and will be judged based on factors other than evidence.

No court is ever really an independent rational judge of the law, particularly inside the country in which an incident such as this occurred (which is why we need international courts for this shit). It might be on paper, but the reality is, a combination of social pressure, politics, and personal identity get involved. There is a reason why the US supreme court has political divisions it only rarely transcends.

A) No one wants to admit their government and homeland does terrible things. Hell, most people try not to think about the fucked up shit the US does. The judge may simply have been in denial.

B) Let us not pretend that someone in some position within the government--or even not in government--did not have a polite talk with the judge. This case has been going for years. The idea that no one talked to the judge is ridiculous. Humans are basically hairless apes. We can do math, but our brains evolved as Machiavellian Cogitators. Social forces play a huge role in our decision making. Unless there is overwhelming evidence one way or the other, well...

C) What are the politics of the judge? Israel has like six different factions, some are crazier than others. If the judge is a jewish zionist, he will rule one way. If a secularist two-stater, the judge will probably rule another way etc.

[Simon_Jester]

Except this falls over when you recognise that these are military vehicles and painted as such, used for destruction of property under tenuous legal circumstances. And they're so confident that this is legit and justified that they need an armoured vehicle to do it.

Er, I don't see how this changes the liability issue.

We can say "the entire Israeli occupation is immoral and should go away at once." And that's at least a consistent legal position. It's coherent, it's fine. We can agree or disagree, but I'm not even trying to dispute it here.

What I don't agree with is "therefore, the Israelis are legally liable when someone leaps in front of their giant bulldozer and is crushed to death."

[Purple]

Except this falls over when you recognise that these are military vehicles and painted as such, used for destruction of property under tenuous legal circumstances. And they're so confident that this is legit and justified that they need an armoured vehicle to do it.

Er, I don't see how this changes the liability issue.

We can say "the entire Israeli occupation is immoral and should go away at once." And that's at least a consistent legal position. It's coherent, it's fine. We can agree or disagree, but I'm not even trying to dispute it here.

What I don't agree with is "therefore, the Israelis are legally liable when someone leaps in front of their giant bulldozer and is crushed to death."

Correct me if I am wrong. But I do believe that his point was more along the line of "therefore, any ruling by their courts about any incident that happens as a result of said occupation is in doubt unless verified by an independent source."

[Simon_Jester]

OK, that's fair.

In another case I'd be more inclined to disbelieve the Israeli courts. This one just... eh. I can't prove it, but it sounds plausible, in that it's the kind of accident that can happen when activists protest in front of heavy machinery.

[eyl]

Honestly, it does not matter. It does not matter for the same reason that the US president can assert Executive Privilege to get the government out of a lawsuit for the kidnapping, drugging, and torturing (via starvation, sensory deprivation, beating and rape) of a german citizen (Yes, I am a bit sore about that one).

Let's be blunt: Israel was ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip. There certainly ARE terrorists in the Gaza Strip, I wont dispute that. They are there, they are bad. There are also plenty of people who are legitimately fighting a brutal foreign occupation of their home territory and have been for decades. That said, even if the people there were terrorists, bulldozing a neighborhood is not a sane way to deal with them (because it creates more terrorists in the form of dispossessed people with nothing to lose and every reason to blow up a fertilizer bomb in a shopping mall). Plowing a neighborhood is one way in which you engage in ethnic cleansing. An activist got killed either by ragic accident, accident via negligence, or "accidentally-on-purpose".

First of all, as far as I recall they were bulldozing specific buildings, not the entire neighborhood. Furthermore, while bulldozing a neighborhood can be part of an ethnic cleansing campaign, it does not follow that all cases of bulldozing neighborhoods are part of such a campaign.

No court is ever really an independent rational judge of the law, particularly inside the country in which an incident such as this occurred (which is why we need international courts for this shit). It might be on paper, but the reality is, a combination of social pressure, politics, and personal identity get involved. There is a reason why the US supreme court has political divisions it only rarely transcends.

A) No one wants to admit their government and homeland does terrible things. Hell, most people try not to think about the fucked up shit the US does. The judge may simply have been in denial.

B) Let us not pretend that someone in some position within the government--or even not in government--did not have a polite talk with the judge. This case has been going for years. The idea that no one talked to the judge is ridiculous. Humans are basically hairless apes. We can do math, but our brains evolved as Machiavellian Cogitators. Social forces play a huge role in our decision making. Unless there is overwhelming evidence one way or the other, well...

C) What are the politics of the judge? Israel has like six different factions, some are crazier than others. If the judge is a jewish zionist, he will rule one way. If a secularist two-stater, the judge will probably rule another way etc.

It's true, of course, that judges are ultimately human beings and part of their society. I should note, however, that the Israeli court system has actually been willing to "interfere" with IDF operations to a degree which is, AFAIK, fairly unique worldwide (up to and including ruling on the allowability of specific tactics in an ongoing conflict).

As far as the specific judge (Oded Gershon) is concerned, an admittedly brief Google search doesn't shed any light on his politics, so apparently he's not known for any particular bias.

EDIT - and frankly, I'm not sure an indternational court would be better. You think onlookers to the conflict don't have their own biases? And often with less intimate knowledge of the circumstances?