Rachel Corrie

gimmesometruth27

TriumphantAngel

yosi wrote:

You're so right. The only reason I could possibly cut back on my posting here is that in the face of your overwhelmingly persuasive arguments ("I'm right and you're a hasbarat!") I have realized it's a losing battle. It couldn't possibly be that I have better things to do than argue politics endlessly on a Pearl Jam fan site (which has got to be the least important and impactful venue for these discussions).

poor yosi, always the victim. some things never change.

if you have better things to do than argue politics endlessly then maybe you shouldn't have come into this thread last week with this smart ass comment which was purely designed at trying to instigate an argument.

i noticed you never came back. what, you didn't have anything to say to my reply? of course you didn't, you just came into the thread to try and fire people up.

TriumphantAngel wrote:

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.

TriumphantAngel

regarding the Supreme Courts decision to allow the bulldozer driver to testify behind a screen, i'm yet to see a fair and reasonable argument as to why this was granted.

the Corrie family has spent so much time publicly advocating for justice, freedom, security and economic viability for both Israelis and Palestinians. they've spent years battling in Israeli courts since Rachel died and their only motivation is to seek truth, justice and accountability to hopefully give them some closure. why don't the Corrie family get the chance to look their daughter's killer in the eye in court?



for anyone who might like to know more about the Corries. from Cindy Corrie, a year or so after Rachel was killed. it speaks for itself.
http://www.nimn.org/Perspectives/other_ ... p?section=

yosi

T, if you're really interested in talking (rather than just having a public argument for the sake of it) I reached out to you through IM, and I'm still waiting to hear back from you.

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

T, if you're really interested in talking (rather than just having a public argument for the sake of it) I reached out to you through IM, and I'm still waiting to hear back from you.

really???

why would you ever publicize something like that? unless you're trying to make her look bad for the sake of it..

pms are supposed to be private...

i think that is pretty low to state that publicly, but that is just me....

Commy

cincybearcat wrote:

I'm a bad typist....but damn are you drunk or just really upset and typing very fast? That was a bit of a mess to read.

lil bit drunk.

yosi

Gimme, I was responding to what she said in this thread regarding my non-responsiveness to her comments. I'm not sharing what was said through IM, only that I reached out and have heard nothing but silence in response (as you said, IMs are meant to be private). I don't think this is inappropriate given that it is in response to the claim that I am only here to hijack threads and "fire people up" and not to actually try to have a constructive dialogue. I don't reach out to everyone. I reached out to T because I feel that her heart is in the right place, and that it would be better for us to hash out our disagreements privately. I would still like to do that, if she's willing to engage with me.

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

Gimme, I was responding to what she said in this thread regarding my non-responsiveness to her comments. I'm not sharing what was said through IM, only that I reached out and have heard nothing but silence in response (as you said, IMs are meant to be private). I don't think this is inappropriate given that it is in response to the claim that I am only here to hijack threads and "fire people up" and not to actually try to have a constructive dialogue. I don't reach out to everyone. I reached out to T because I feel that her heart is in the right place, and that it would be better for us to hash out our disagreements privately. I would still like to do that, if she's willing to engage with me.

well it reads like you are calling her out and i think to point out publicly that she did not write back is inappropriate. suppose i would have pmd you and you did not reply, i would never post that here in attempt to make you look bad because it is nobody's business.

yosi

T, regarding your request that I prove that the trial update is inaccurate...I don't believe that I said that it was inaccurate to begin with. What I said was that the source for the information is not reliably objective since they clearly have a stake in the outcome/perception of the proceedings. I simply suggested that the information conveyed by this source should be viewed critically before being accepted as "fact" (which is actually true of most all information).

I also suggested that when the article you cited called the court's ruling "overbroad" they were going beyond the mere reporting of facts, and making an editorial (i.e. subjective) comment on the proceedings. I'm sure that the presiding judge doesn't feel his ruling to be "overbroad." Again, this doesn't mean that the interpretation presented by the article is necessarily false. My aim was simply to to point out a distinction between opinion and fact.

gimmesometruth27

"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."

if they did not provide justification or evidence for protecting these people's identities when those same standards are not applied to everyone across the board can be interpreted as overbroad. i did not write that article, and i will bet that most reasonable people would agree that protecting their identity and not allowing at least the family to face those responsible for Rachel's death is "overbroad".

yosi

Again, the interpretation could very well be valid. It is still and interpretation, though.

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

Again, the interpretation could very well be valid. It is still and interpretation, though.

everything legal is based on interpretation. decisions are not always concrete black and white. decisions are always scrutinized and are always analyzed interpreted by the public.

yosi

Of course, that's true. My point is that the article was presented (or presented itself) as a factual recounting of the court proceedings (as opposed to an opinion piece), such that the subjective opinions that were mixed into the article were not highlighted as such. If anyone missed the distinction they could be liable to accept the opinion as fact. In this case if one believes it to be a fact that the court is accepting an "overbroad" argument, that will inevitably color one's assessment of the court's actions. Given that, I merely wanted to point out the relevant distinction and allow others to make up their own minds.

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

Of course, that's true. My point is that the article was presented (or presented itself) as a factual recounting of the court proceedings (as opposed to an opinion piece), such that the subjective opinions that were mixed into the article were not highlighted as such. If anyone missed the distinction they could be liable to accept the opinion as fact. In this case if one believes it to be a fact that the court is accepting an "overbroad" argument, that will inevitably color one's assessment of the court's actions. Given that, I merely wanted to point out the relevant distinction and allow others to make up their own minds.

it sounds to me like you are being an apologist. can you find a source that says that the court's ruling was justified? if those standards do not apply to all witnesses, then that is preferential treatment and can be contstrued as "overbroad".

TriumphantAngel

"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. The state of Israel has been hiding for over seven years. Where is the justice?"

-Cindy Corrie

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Of course, that's true. My point is that the article was presented (or presented itself) as a factual recounting of the court proceedings (as opposed to an opinion piece), such that the subjective opinions that were mixed into the article were not highlighted as such. If anyone missed the distinction they could be liable to accept the opinion as fact. In this case if one believes it to be a fact that the court is accepting an "overbroad" argument, that will inevitably color one's assessment of the court's actions. Given that, I merely wanted to point out the relevant distinction and allow others to make up their own minds.

Did Alan Dershowitz teach you this?

yosi

B, please stop trying to pick a fight.

gimmesometruth27

here is an article NOT from the corrie foundation...

Rachel Corrie case: Israeli soldier to testify anonymously
Family criticises decision to allow soldier who drove bulldozer that killed daughter to give evidence from behind screen

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... -anonymous

The Israeli soldier at the controls of a bulldozer that crushed to death 23-year-old Rachel Corrie in Gaza in March 2003 is due to give evidence tomorrow in the civil lawsuit brought by the American activist's family.

However the judge hearing the case in Haifa has ruled that, for security reasons, the soldier can testify anonymously from behind a screen, denying Cindy and Craig Corrie the opportunity to face the man who directly caused their daughter's death.

Israel's supreme court refused to hear an appeal by the family challenging the judge's ruling. However, the unit commander in charge that day will testify in full view of the court as his identity is already known.

"I'll be grateful at least to be able to hear [the bulldozer driver's] words but I won't get the complete picture and I'll be disappointed by that," Cindy Corrie said in an interview in Jerusalem last week.

"They've said it's the security of the witnesses they are trying to protect. I can understand it would be uncomfortable for the soldiers to have to see us, but I can't understand how our family is a threat to their security."

Corrie, from Olympia, Washington state, was killed while attempting to protect the home of a Palestinian family in the Rafah area of Gaza from being demolished by Israeli troops seven and a half years ago. A posthumous book and play based on the graphic and moving emails she wrote to friends and family made her an iconic figure.

An internal Israeli military investigation, which was never published nor released to the US government or the Corries, concluded that the bulldozer driver had not seen Rachel and that no charges would be brought. The case was closed.

The family brought a civil case – "absolutely our last resort" – against the state of Israel, which opened in March this year and is expected to conclude early next year. Among the early witnesses was a fellow activist, Briton Richard Purssell, who described how Corrie disappeared from view under the advancing bulldozer.

The driver's evidence will be a key moment in the case but the Corrie family has been careful not to invest too much in his evidence. "While the driver is very important, to me he is not the only person who has responsibility," said Cindy Corrie. "Responsibility is shared with a lot of people. My focus isn't entirely on the driver."

Sarah Corrie Simpson, Rachel's older sister, said: "Ultimately the individual had the ability to stop that act. However if you only hold responsible the individual, you're losing the broader context of what's going on. You have to look at the chain of command and what sort of orders were being given at that time."

The family, while wanting an acceptable end to their battle for justice, was wary of the concept of closure. "It's hard to conceive of that," said Craig Corrie. "People talk about it, but it's real hard to define what closure would be when you've lost a child, lost a little sister."

Corrie Simpson said closure was difficult to define: "I'm not sure how you ever get to a place where you even feel close to that when you know there are people out there on the other end of what happened to Rachel, and you've never even been able to see their faces. Mum talks about being able to see the humanity of the person that was on the other end – and now the majority of soldiers will get to testify behind a screen, and that takes that away from us."

At the very least, the family hoped their legal battle would shine a light on the Israeli Defence Force's (IDF) investigative process.

Cindy Corrie said if the IDF were, as it claimed, the most moral army in the world, "they should be willing to look at a system that is much more transparent than what exists right now".

Last month, a colonel responsible for writing operating manuals for military bulldozers, testified that there were no civilians in a war zone.

Cindy Corrie said: "It's a window, hearing that coming from these people, a real window into the mindset – and it's very, very concerning. And I think every Israeli should be really concerned."

gimmesometruth27

sounds like a cover up to me. no remorse, contradicting other witnesses and even his own prior statements...how the hell can you not remember events and details of an incident where you killed someone? how can you not remember if the protesters were armed or not?? and he did not call an ambulance because it was not in his level of command...pass the buck there.... :roll:

it is a sham and a cover up!! :twisted: :twisted:

Rachel Corrie case: Israeli soldier in bulldozer 'did not see her'
Driver of machine that crushed 23-year-old American to death in Gaza in 2003 tells court he only saw her after the incident

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... iver-court

The Israeli soldier at the controls of the bulldozer that crushed the pro-Palestinian activist Rachel Corrie told a court today that the first time he saw her was when fellow protesters were already tending to her dying body in the dirt.

Giving evidence for more than four hours in the civil case brought by Corrie's family against the state of Israel, the former soldier repeatedly insisted that had not seen the 23-year-old American standing in front of his 66-tonne Caterpillar bulldozer before she was fatally hit.

"I didn't see her before the incident," he told the court in Haifa. "I saw people pulling the body out from under the earth."

The soldier, named only as YB, gave evidence from behind a screen after a ruling by the judge for "security reasons". A gagging order was imposed on identifying details, although it was disclosed in court that YB is a 38-year-old Russian immigrant who learned Hebrew after arriving in Israel at the age of 23 and now works for a food processing company.

The Corrie family had requested that they be given dispensation to see YB give evidence, which was refused. "I do feel that the state of Israel is saying [we] are security risks and I am affronted by that," Cindy Corrie, Rachel's mother, said after the hearing. "I wanted to be able to see the whole person, not just hear the words."

Rachel Corrie was protesting against the demolition by the Israeli military of Palestinian houses in Gaza when she was crushed to death in March 2003. An internal military investigation concluded that no charges should be brought and the case was closed.

YB, who was in communication with his unit command and a second bulldozer on the scene, told the court that he was told through his headphones that he had hit someone. "I reversed … There was this thought that something wasn't right … It looked like I hit someone. I didn't understand what had happened."

In evidence that frequently contradicted his own earlier affidavits, YB said he reversed the bulldozer 25-30 metres. "After I reversed I saw they took out a body." He was "absolutely certain" Corrie's body was between the bulldozer and a mound of earth he had been ordered to flatten, contradicting earlier evidence given by two other military witnesses.

Asked if anyone from his unit went to the aid of the fatally injured protester, YB said: "No, we weren't allowed to leave [the vehicle]." Asked why he didn't call a military ambulance over his radio, he said: "That's not my level of command."

He recalled being warned that morning that there were civilian protesters in the area, and some might be armed. "Did you see any of them armed?" asked Hussein Abu Hussein, the family's lawyer. "I can't answer that, I don't remember," said YB.

Later Abu Hussein asked: "Did they carry anything that made them look like terrorists?" YB said: "They carried a loudspeaker and a sign."

"Did you suspect they were dangerous?" YB said: "I suspect everyone."

YB had offered no explanations, said Abu Hussein. "You continued driving forward, you pushed the dirt and you buried her. You didn't see anyone. You have no explanation of how [Corrie] was killed."

After the hearing, the lawyer told reporters: "The more we hear the more the impression is that someone tried to whitewash what happened."

Cindy Corrie said she was "glad to get this day behind me". Although the driver was a key witness, she said, "my sense is that there are other people on the ground and in the rear who also have responsibility and were giving orders, and allowed these things to happen to Rachel and continue to happen".

She had brought the book of her daughter's writing to court, she said. "I wanted to keep Rachel's humility and compassion for everyone in my heart today, but it was very hard as I did not hear one word of remorse from this witness today. That saddens me."



Rachel Corrie's parents, Craig and Cynthia, stand next to a photograph of their daughter at the start of their civil case against the state of Israel earlier this year.

gimmesometruth27

trial update.

Former IDF Spokesperson and Southern Brigade Commander to Testify in Corrie Civil Trial

May 22 to be Final Court Hearing

http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/blog/ ... ivil-trial