Rachel Corrie
Comments
-
bump for rachel.0
-
We are protecting civilians. We are unarmed. We are no threat to you. Please do not shoot.0
-
bump for Rachel.
the Corrie's civil lawsuit resumes in Haifa, Israel, on September 5.
hoping for truth, justice and accountability.
finally.0 -
keep us updated please.TriumphantAngel wrote:bump for Rachel.
the Corrie's civil lawsuit resumes in Haifa, Israel, on September 5.
hoping for truth, justice and accountability.
finally.0 -
Rachel Corrie's parents could face men who killed her in court
Civil suit into death of US activist crushed to death in Gaza by Israeli bulldozer to hear testimony from vehicle's operators
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/se ... civil-suit
The family of Rachel Corrie, the American activist crushed to death in Gaza seven years ago, could face the men driving the Israeli bulldozer that killed her in the second stage of their civil suit against the state.
The case, which began in March, reopened at Haifa district court today and will hear Israeli state witness testimony on her death. The 23-year-old had been trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian house in Rafah, in the Gaza strip.
In 2003 an Israeli army investigation into the incident concluded that its troops were not to blame for Corrie's death. Her family says that a full investigation was never carried out.
Representing the Corrie family, Hussein Abu Hussein, a leading human rights lawyer in Israel, said: "It is clear that the army investigation was very far from being sufficient, thorough or impartial."
Today the court heard from one of the military investigators into the case, referred to only by his first name, Oded. He told the court that he did not think it important during the investigation to question Palestinian eyewitnesses to the incident, or the medical team that treated Corrie. Abu Hussein said: "It is amazing that this 20-year-old – at that time with no legal background and no experience – was responsible for this investigation."
The court was also shown about 12 minutes of Israeli footage from surveillance cameras close to where the incident took place. Hussein said the clip started minutes after the incident, although the cameras it came from are supposed to operate around the clock.
Rachel's father, Craig, said: "Being here is emotionally taxing in ways that are really hard to explain, but we have to do it and have an obligation to the many who cannot. It is not just about Rachel or our family."
The state will present as witnesses the head of the military investigation and the men who were operating the bulldozer that killed Corrie.
Corrie, from Washington, travelled to Gaza during a period of intense conflict between the Israeli military and the Palestinians. Her diaries, in which she describes her experiences in Gaza, were later turned into a play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, which has toured internationally.
American peace activist Rachel Corrie speaks during an interview with MBC Saudi Arabia television in 2003. Photograph: Getty Images"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
0
-
the Haifa District Court resumed hearings today.
hopefully will have an update in the next few hours.0 -
hopefully it will be good news.TriumphantAngel wrote:the Haifa District Court resumed hearings today.
hopefully will have an update in the next few hours."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
we are hoping for truth, justice and accountability.gimmesometruth27 wrote:
hopefully it will be good news.TriumphantAngel wrote:the Haifa District Court resumed hearings today.
hopefully will have an update in the next few hours.
i don't think that's too much to ask for.0 -
i know that. and i am optimistic. they can't hide the truth and escape justice and accountability forever...TriumphantAngel wrote:
we are hoping for truth, justice and accountability.gimmesometruth27 wrote:
hopefully it will be good news.TriumphantAngel wrote:the Haifa District Court resumed hearings today.
hopefully will have an update in the next few hours.
i don't think that's too much to ask for."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 7, 2010
Israeli soldiers to testify behind screen in Corrie Case
Extraordinary state secrecy motion is granted
Haifa, Israel - The Haifa District Court on Thursday granted a government request to allow soldiers to testify behind a screen in the lawsuit filed by Rachel Corrie's family against the State of Israel for her unlawful killing in Rafah, Gaza.
The order includes the driver of the bulldozer that killed Rachel, who is slated to testify later this month. However, Judge Oded Gershon ruled that both the commander of the unit and the second soldier in the bulldozer that hit Rachel would testify in plain view, because their faces were already publicly known.
Rachel Corrie, an American human rights defender from Olympia, Washington, was crushed to death on March 16, 2003, by a Caterpillar D9R bulldozer while nonviolently protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes.
In asking for the highly unusual protective measures, state attorneys argued that they were necessary to protect the soldiers' safety and prevent their images from being circulated. They based the request on an overbroad security certificate issued by Defense Minister Ehud Barak in 2008, but did not provide concrete evidence to substantiate their concerns for the soldiers' safety or security.
Corrie attorneys opposed the motion, arguing that allowing the soldiers to testify behind a screen infringes upon the right to an open, fair and transparent trial. They asked to dismiss the request, filed just 48 hours before the first soldier's testimony. Alternatively, the lawyers asked the court to allow the family to see the witnesses even if the public could not, but their request was denied. Lawyers for the Corrie family plan to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Israel.
"While Rachel stood in front of a wall to protect the two families huddled behind it, the state is now making the soldiers hide behind a wall that denies us the opportunity to see them," said Cindy Corrie, Rachel's mother. "The State of Israel has been hiding for over seven years. Where is the justice?"
The first soldier to testify under the extraordinary new measures was the commander of the second bulldozer. Known to the court only as A.S., with voice muffled behind the screen, he told the court he did not see the other bulldozer strike Rachel and did not remember much about that day.
Contrary to the detailed affidavit he signed less than eight weeks ago, A.S. said he did not know how Rachel had been hurt; did not know the distance from which the bulldozer had approached Rachel; and did not know the height and width of the mound of earth the bulldozer was pushing.
Also testifying on Thursday was the head of the Military Police Special Investigative Unit, Shalom Michaeli, who oversaw the investigation into Rachel's killing. He told the court that he stood by his 2003 investigation and saw no reason that anyone should have been prosecuted.
Michaeli was also in charge of the investigation into the killing of Iman al Hams, a 13-year-old Gaza school girl who was shot and killed by an Israeli soldier in Rafah as she lay injured on the ground in October 2004. A military police internal investigation subsequently found major failures in Michaeli's investigation, saying it was conducted unprofessionally and with negligence. The solider who killed al Hams was court-martialed but subsequently acquitted - in part because of this flawed investigation.
Michaeli's cross-examination revealed similar flaws in the Corrie investigation. These flaws support the family's claim of government negligence, for allowing soldiers and their commanders to act recklessly using armored military bulldozers without due regard for the presence of civilians.
Michaeli said that he ordered only a partial transcript of radio transmissions because he did not think it important to transcribe the full audio.
He said he did not go to the site of Rachel's killing because it was dangerous, the terrain had already been altered, and the vehicles removed by the Israeli military. He acknowledged that he could have gone to the scene in an armored vehicle, but chose not to.
Michaeli testified in his written affidavit that when he inspected the bulldozer he did not find any signs of blood or other evidence that the vehicle had injured anyone. However, in court testimony he said the bulldozer could have been washed "or even painted" before he inspected it.
Michaeli said he knew, prior to opening the investigation, there was a video camera recording the area around the clock. But he failed to obtain the tape until March 23, a week after the incident, because it had been previously taken by senior commanders. When questioned about his failure to interrogate the camera operator, who panned away from the scene only minutes before Rachel was killed, he said he did not think it was relevant.
When asked whether he questioned the bulldozer crews about an Israeli military manual for low intensity conflict that states bulldozers should not be operated near people, Michaeli said the manuals were not relevant. He added that bulldozer operators could not be expected to follow such procedures in this zone. He went on to say that he believed the Israeli army was "at war" with everyone in the area, including the ISM peace activists.
Michaeli still heads the Military Police Special Investigative Unit, but has since been promoted from Sergeant Major to Warrant Officer.
"Today I was struck by the lead investigator's failures - his failure to look for evidence, to secure evidence, to resolve conflicting evidence, and to turn evidence over to this court," said Craig Corrie, Rachel's father. "This is not what we and the U.S. government were promised by the government of Israel when Rachel was killed and it is not what we will accept now."
The proceedings on Thursday were attended by representatives of the US Embassy, who have closely followed the hearings throughout the trial.
Subsequent hearings are scheduled for October 17,18 and 21 between the hours of 9:00-16:00 before Judge Oded Gershon at the Haifa, District Court, 12 Palyam St., Haifa, Israel.
See any changes to the schedule and register to receive further press releases at rachelcorriefoundation.org.
For press related inquiries and further information, please contact:
Stacy Sullivan
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:stacy@rachelcorriefoundation.org">stacy@rachelcorriefoundation.org</a><!-- e -->
Phone (Israel): 972-52-952-21430 -
outrageous......why the protective measures? why behind a curtain? i can understand why they would not want the faces made public, but why will they not AT LEAST face the family? do they think that a family member will attack them or something? do they think that seeing the family face to face might make one of them find their conscience crack and tell the entire truth of what they know and what they saw?? it is much easier to hide the truth when you are not looking at someone face to face. maybe one of them would jeopardize "the official story" and expose it as a whitewash?? maybe that is the reason???? i think her family has done the right thing going through the appropriate legal channels throughout this whole process and it makes me very angry that the legal system seems to be playing with them and repeatedly breaking their hearts. why??TriumphantAngel wrote:FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 7, 2010
Israeli soldiers to testify behind screen in Corrie Case
Extraordinary state secrecy motion is granted
Haifa, Israel - The Haifa District Court on Thursday granted a government request to allow soldiers to testify behind a screen in the lawsuit filed by Rachel Corrie's family against the State of Israel for her unlawful killing in Rafah, Gaza.
The order includes the driver of the bulldozer that killed Rachel, who is slated to testify later this month. However, Judge Oded Gershon ruled that both the commander of the unit and the second soldier in the bulldozer that hit Rachel would testify in plain view, because their faces were already publicly known.
Rachel Corrie, an American human rights defender from Olympia, Washington, was crushed to death on March 16, 2003, by a Caterpillar D9R bulldozer while nonviolently protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes.
In asking for the highly unusual protective measures, state attorneys argued that they were necessary to protect the soldiers' safety and prevent their images from being circulated. They based the request on an overbroad security certificate issued by Defense Minister Ehud Barak in 2008, but did not provide concrete evidence to substantiate their concerns for the soldiers' safety or security.
Corrie attorneys opposed the motion, arguing that allowing the soldiers to testify behind a screen infringes upon the right to an open, fair and transparent trial. They asked to dismiss the request, filed just 48 hours before the first soldier's testimony. Alternatively, the lawyers asked the court to allow the family to see the witnesses even if the public could not, but their request was denied. Lawyers for the Corrie family plan to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Israel.
"While Rachel stood in front of a wall to protect the two families huddled behind it, the state is now making the soldiers hide behind a wall that denies us the opportunity to see them," said Cindy Corrie, Rachel's mother. "The State of Israel has been hiding for over seven years. Where is the justice?"
The first soldier to testify under the extraordinary new measures was the commander of the second bulldozer. Known to the court only as A.S., with voice muffled behind the screen, he told the court he did not see the other bulldozer strike Rachel and did not remember much about that day.
Contrary to the detailed affidavit he signed less than eight weeks ago, A.S. said he did not know how Rachel had been hurt; did not know the distance from which the bulldozer had approached Rachel; and did not know the height and width of the mound of earth the bulldozer was pushing.
Also testifying on Thursday was the head of the Military Police Special Investigative Unit, Shalom Michaeli, who oversaw the investigation into Rachel's killing. He told the court that he stood by his 2003 investigation and saw no reason that anyone should have been prosecuted.
Michaeli was also in charge of the investigation into the killing of Iman al Hams, a 13-year-old Gaza school girl who was shot and killed by an Israeli soldier in Rafah as she lay injured on the ground in October 2004. A military police internal investigation subsequently found major failures in Michaeli's investigation, saying it was conducted unprofessionally and with negligence. The solider who killed al Hams was court-martialed but subsequently acquitted - in part because of this flawed investigation.
Michaeli's cross-examination revealed similar flaws in the Corrie investigation. These flaws support the family's claim of government negligence, for allowing soldiers and their commanders to act recklessly using armored military bulldozers without due regard for the presence of civilians.
Michaeli said that he ordered only a partial transcript of radio transmissions because he did not think it important to transcribe the full audio.
He said he did not go to the site of Rachel's killing because it was dangerous, the terrain had already been altered, and the vehicles removed by the Israeli military. He acknowledged that he could have gone to the scene in an armored vehicle, but chose not to.
Michaeli testified in his written affidavit that when he inspected the bulldozer he did not find any signs of blood or other evidence that the vehicle had injured anyone. However, in court testimony he said the bulldozer could have been washed "or even painted" before he inspected it.
Michaeli said he knew, prior to opening the investigation, there was a video camera recording the area around the clock. But he failed to obtain the tape until March 23, a week after the incident, because it had been previously taken by senior commanders. When questioned about his failure to interrogate the camera operator, who panned away from the scene only minutes before Rachel was killed, he said he did not think it was relevant.
When asked whether he questioned the bulldozer crews about an Israeli military manual for low intensity conflict that states bulldozers should not be operated near people, Michaeli said the manuals were not relevant. He added that bulldozer operators could not be expected to follow such procedures in this zone. He went on to say that he believed the Israeli army was "at war" with everyone in the area, including the ISM peace activists.
Michaeli still heads the Military Police Special Investigative Unit, but has since been promoted from Sergeant Major to Warrant Officer.
"Today I was struck by the lead investigator's failures - his failure to look for evidence, to secure evidence, to resolve conflicting evidence, and to turn evidence over to this court," said Craig Corrie, Rachel's father. "This is not what we and the U.S. government were promised by the government of Israel when Rachel was killed and it is not what we will accept now."
The proceedings on Thursday were attended by representatives of the US Embassy, who have closely followed the hearings throughout the trial.
Subsequent hearings are scheduled for October 17,18 and 21 between the hours of 9:00-16:00 before Judge Oded Gershon at the Haifa, District Court, 12 Palyam St., Haifa, Israel.
See any changes to the schedule and register to receive further press releases at rachelcorriefoundation.org.
For press related inquiries and further information, please contact:
Stacy Sullivan
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:stacy@rachelcorriefoundation.org">stacy@rachelcorriefoundation.org</a><!-- e -->
Phone (Israel): 972-52-952-2143
"In asking for the highly unusual protective measures, state attorneys argued that they were necessary to protect the soldiers' safety and prevent their images from being circulated. They based the request on an overbroad security certificate issued by Defense Minister Ehud Barak in 2008, but did not provide concrete evidence to substantiate their concerns for the soldiers' safety or security.
^ ^^^ that paragraph explains a lot to me. an over broad security certificate to protect the soldiers at trial, yet there was nothing in place to protect the palestinians who lost their homes that day and there was nothing to protect Rachel. they should AT LEAST face the family. it is only right. hopefully the supreme court will have a favorable ruling on this issue....."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
protect the soldiers? from what?!!0
-
It seems to me that "overbroad" is a pretty subjective term, especially since the article is from the Rachel Corrie Foundation, which is pretty clearly not an objective source of information on this case (doesn't mean they're wrong per se, but they clearly have a strong stake in the case's outcome).
A question: what would your reactions be if the trial does not find in favor of the Corries? I ask because everyone commenting here seems to have made up their minds along time ago about the "truth" of what happened, so it seems to me that rather than looking to the court to establish the truth (as one would normally do with a trial) you are looking to the court to affirm what you have already decided to be true.you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane0 -
yosi wrote:It seems to me that "overbroad" is a pretty subjective term, especially since the article is from the Rachel Corrie Foundation, which is pretty clearly not an objective source of information on this case (doesn't mean they're wrong per se, but they clearly have a strong stake in the case's outcome).
A question: what would your reactions be if the trial does not find in favor of the Corries? I ask because everyone commenting here seems to have made up their minds along time ago about the "truth" of what happened, so it seems to me that rather than looking to the court to establish the truth (as one would normally do with a trial) you are looking to the court to affirm what you have already decided to be true.
the trial update is accurate. prove it's not yosi.
and if the court doesn't rule in favor of the Corries after all of the evidence is presented then i'll just keep doing what i'm doing now. nothing will change.
i'll keep demanding that the international community and the US government stop simply condemning Israel's brutal and illegal blockade of Gaza, the settlement expansion in the west bank, the murdering of peaceful civillians, and keep campaigning against their offering of unconditional support to Israel until they actually start doing something to end it.
Rachel's death will never be in vain. there's too many people who are actively keeping her memory alive.0 -
what's the defense then?yosi wrote:It seems to me that "overbroad" is a pretty subjective term, especially since the article is from the Rachel Corrie Foundation, which is pretty clearly not an objective source of information on this case (doesn't mean they're wrong per se, but they clearly have a strong stake in the case's outcome).
A question: what would your reactions be if the trial does not find in favor of the Corries? I ask because everyone commenting here seems to have made up their minds along time ago about the "truth" of what happened, so it seems to me that rather than looking to the court to establish the truth (as one would normally do with a trial) you are looking to the court to affirm what you have already decided to be true.
what possible reason could there be for running over someone who was trying to draw attention to the fact that they were about to destroy a house?0 -
throughout history, when committing an atrocity does there need to be a reason? generally, when atrocities are committed it is because there is no fear of being held accountable. and when people are tried in attempt to hold them accountable, the reason turns out to be a convenient excuse....something like "i was only following orders" or " i was only doing my job"....Commy wrote:
what's the defense then?yosi wrote:It seems to me that "overbroad" is a pretty subjective term, especially since the article is from the Rachel Corrie Foundation, which is pretty clearly not an objective source of information on this case (doesn't mean they're wrong per se, but they clearly have a strong stake in the case's outcome).
A question: what would your reactions be if the trial does not find in favor of the Corries? I ask because everyone commenting here seems to have made up their minds along time ago about the "truth" of what happened, so it seems to me that rather than looking to the court to establish the truth (as one would normally do with a trial) you are looking to the court to affirm what you have already decided to be true.
what possible reason could there be for running over someone who was trying to draw attention to the fact that they were about to destroy a house?"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:
throughout history, when committing an atrocity does there need to be a reason? generally, when atrocities are committed it is because there is no fear of being held accountable. and when people are tried in attempt to hold them accountable, the reason turns out to be a convenient excuse....something like "i was only following orders" or " i was only doing my job"....Commy wrote:
what's the defense then?yosi wrote:It seems to me that "overbroad" is a pretty subjective term, especially since the article is from the Rachel Corrie Foundation, which is pretty clearly not an objective source of information on this case (doesn't mean they're wrong per se, but they clearly have a strong stake in the case's outcome).
A question: what would your reactions be if the trial does not find in favor of the Corries? I ask because everyone commenting here seems to have made up their minds along time ago about the "truth" of what happened, so it seems to me that rather than looking to the court to establish the truth (as one would normally do with a trial) you are looking to the court to affirm what you have already decided to be true.
what possible reason could there be for running over someone who was trying to draw attention to the fact that they were about to destroy a house?
actually i think without question that those committing the atrocities felt they were doing the right thing. from pol pot to george bush to netanyahu to hilter.
in this case i was specifically asking Yosi what the defense was for running over an unarmed girl with a bulldozer, in the trial.0 -
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 18, 2010
Bulldozer driver and ground commander to testify in Corrie trial
Supreme Court refuses challenge to use of screen to shield soldiers
Haifa, Israel - The driver of the bulldozer that crushed to death Rachel Corrie in Rafah, Gaza, in March 2003, and the military commander in charge of the unit on the ground that day, are scheduled to testify on Thursday, October 21 in the civil lawsuit filed by Rachel's family against the state of Israel for her unlawful killing.
Earlier this month, the court granted the State of Israel's request that soldiers involved in the incident be permitted to testify behind a screen to protect their identity. Lawyers for the Corrie family appealed the decision to the Israeli Supreme Court, requesting that at a minimum the family be allowed to view the soldiers, but the court refused to hear the challenge.
Consequently, the bulldozer driver will testify behind a screen. However, because the unit commander on the ground that day, Captain R.S., gave an interview that was broadcast on Israeli television in 2003, and was thus already known to the public, the presiding judge ruled that he will testify in plain view. Although disclosed during the TV broadcast, his name still remains redacted in official court records.
A third witness scheduled, known only as S.L., was driving the second bulldozer in the unit near Palestinian homes in Rafah. He will also testify from behind a screen.
The court was to hold hearings in the case on October 17-18, but postponed due to a death in Judge Gershon's family. Therefore, additional court dates are anticipated to be added to the court calendar.
The October 21 hearing will take place between the hours of 9:00-16:00 before Judge Oded Gershon at the Haifa, District Court, 12 Palyam St., Haifa, Israel.
Please visit rachelcorriefoundation.org/trial for trial updates, changes to the court schedule and related information.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help