|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 19 users and 101 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by white feather on Fri, 03/24/2006 - 10:51am.
Glad to see the Judge had some common sense with his ruling to dismiss the lawsuit. The Corrie's need to get a clue and move on. Dragging Cat into this was stupid, regardless of what you think about Rachel. Read the comments, seems the community agrees with the Judge.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Catepillar Complicity and Law-suit
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 03/24/2006 - 5:38pm.The action to hold catepillar accountable for complicity in crimes against humanity is an important step in working toward a better world.
Why do you think that the "Corrie's need to get a clue and move on?"
From my perspective, it is companies like catepillar which are responsible for enabling so much of the violence that is occuring in Israel and Palestine. Does that make sense?
If my child was killed, I know that I would want definitive answers and would want those who were complicit in the killing to be made accountable.
"Problems can never be solved by using the same pattern of thought which created them." - Albert Einstein
Rob,First I would likely
Submitted by white feather on Fri, 03/24/2006 - 6:31pm.First I would likely disagree with you on the conflict that is going on over there, but that is a different discussion. If people believe Rachel was killed unlawfully, then hold the appropriate people/government accountable, not the likes of Cat.
Much like I don't agree with sueing Glock because some crook uses their product to murder someone else, or Benchmade when a scumbag stabs someone to death. You hold the person that commits the crime accountable. Otherwise where does it stop? If I run you down intentionally, or not, with my Subaru, should Subaru be held accountable? Since more people are killed with cars each year than with guns? I'm guessing you would say no to the Subaru but yes to Glock. Why because you have a use for a car but no use for a gun. But that Glock has MANY uses other than for murdering.
And then if you are going to sue Cat, why not the clothing companies that make the uniforms for the military? Their boot manufacture? Where does it stop?
This whole lawsuit is silly. Chase the driver of the bulldozer if you think he committed a crime. Chase the government/military officials, there is your line of complicity, not a bulldozer company.
I just went to the Cat web site. You can order a bulldozer with many options. But nowhere can you get the demolish a house option. I bet if I had enough money, I could buy a D-9 tomorrow and then bulldoze TESC, should Cat be held responsible then too?
And even though I said I wasn't going to go here, where is Rachel's responsibility in this? Bulldozers move real slow, even in high gear and not pushing dirt. She could have moved out of the way, but she made a choice not to move. Why doesn't she have any ownership for her own actions and choice? Why does Cat have more culpability than Rachel?
I've gone on enough. But you can quote me later, the Corrie's will lose this even in the most liberal 9th Circuit.
Subaru
Submitted by chaney on Sat, 03/25/2006 - 1:01pm.When you sell your bulldozer to the Israeli military, the use it will be put to is common knowledge. If that use is a violation of human rights, then the company that knowingly enabled the violation is at least partially responsible. Does that fit the legal definition of liability? I don't know. Is the lawsuit a waste of time? Maybe. The real question here, and the one that the Corries are obviously attempting to bring attention to with this lawsuit, is whether or not Israel has violated international law, and what consequences that should or could have.
If Glock was knowingly
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 03/25/2006 - 4:35pm.So Rob,Do you have
Submitted by white feather on Sun, 03/26/2006 - 6:41am.So Rob,
Do you have substantive evidence that Cat knows that Israel is ordering these bulldozers exclusively and specifically for bulldozing homes?
The case still needs to be heard the first time
Submitted by Drew3000 on Fri, 03/24/2006 - 6:02pm.Bulldozing houses of
Submitted by white feather on Fri, 03/24/2006 - 6:33pm.Thanks,
Submitted by Drew3000 on Sat, 03/25/2006 - 3:53pm.Drew3000, I fully
Submitted by white feather on Sat, 03/25/2006 - 5:39pm.I fully understand what is going on over there. And both sides have ownership in the conflict. I will say that I side with Israel MOST of the time.
So with that said its pretty obvious I have nothing to do with the NSM group.
Now, if you are a hardcore supporter of the Palestinians, like Corrie, then you are a hate monger like the NSM group. Because the Palestinians hate the Jews, like most of the Arabic nations, and yes NSM hates the Jews too. Seems like you may be more like NSM than you may want to admit to.
All or nothing?
Submitted by Rick on Sat, 03/25/2006 - 6:17pm.Is it possible to agree that bulldozing houses is collective punishment and against international law, while agreeing that blowing up bombs on busses is also wrong? The generalizations that you're thowing around cover up a lot of the complexity in the situation.
They need to get along
Submitted by white feather on Sat, 03/25/2006 - 7:37pm.Yes I have made some generalizations, as this is a convoluted issue, and I don't believe discussing in depth in this blog will be productive, as most here are set in their positions. Nor do I have the desire to commit the discussion at length to type.
I will say that if I have to pick between the bulldozer or the bomb, I will take the dozer. I can hear and know when the bulldozer is coming and get my family out of harms way. The bomber can strike at any moment without warning and kill my entire family.
Corrie was an observer
Submitted by Rick on Sun, 03/26/2006 - 12:05am.From Democracy Now:
Hmmmm
Submitted by white feather on Sun, 03/26/2006 - 4:15am.So if Craig and Cindy say it ain't so, we are to believe them, because they would ALWAYS tell the truth?
I have read the Corrie's claims before. I have read the Israeli position on the house too, which is in conflict with the Corrie'. Sure the Israelis may be lying too, or it may be a case of mistaken identity on the house. Our police even screw that up occasionally when they serve search warrants.
But this has gone off topic.
Rachels death could have been prevented by Rachel shaggin her butt out of the way. She thought they would stop, she guessed wrong. But Cat shouldn't be sucked into this dispute. Do a complete investigation, hold the Cat operator accountable, the government/military accountable. But Rachel has some responsibility in her own death too.
To use your language
Submitted by Rick on Sun, 03/26/2006 - 7:58am.So WF,
Do you have substantive evidence that the Corries are lying?
It would seem like pretty strong evidence that the family that Corrie was trying to protect was allowed into Israel and the US.
I think in this situation,
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 03/26/2006 - 8:47am.It's far easier to prove a trip happened (especially at our level) than to disprove one took place. To disprove the trip happened, White Feather would have to either know someone in Immigration who could look visa information up or find a reliable source which said, This is untrue.
To prove the trip happened, all that would have to be posted is a picture of the family in Des Moines.
Now, about the family being a group of randomly selected people who had the unfortunate fate of the IDF throwing a dart at the board and hitting their house, I don't know? I'm certainly not going to say Israel does not make mistakes when they're demolishing a house but I doubt this family only worked during the week, bought their groceries, did their daily routine and poo-poo'd action against Israeli forces. I would be willing to bet, on some level, they either directly participated or directly helped those who do participate in action against Israel.
As far as Caterpillar should be concerned, they are breaking no law. They're selling equipment to a recognized country which has no trade restrictions (at least that I'm aware of) placed upon it. I have yet to see any international body step-in and write Caterpillar a letter stating which laws they are breaking.
Do any of you answer a question, or just ask another?
Submitted by white feather on Mon, 03/27/2006 - 4:09am.The lawsuit isn't about the integrity of the Corrie's.
You said...
Submitted by Rick on Mon, 03/27/2006 - 6:41am."Bulldozing the house of a terrorist isn't a crime." Well, the Corries claim that the people living in the house aren't terrorists, an assertion you challenged. So now it's about the integrity of the Corries. To the question of whether Cat knew about the use of the bulldozers, it seems to me that that is exactly the question the court will have to decide. So, let the court decide.
I agree
Submitted by white feather on Mon, 03/27/2006 - 8:36am.