The plaintiffs could have sued in Israel, and if they obtained a judgment against Caterpillar

But they never could for the reasons I enunciated clearly in my earlier comment. The Israeli High Court would never second guess intelligence or military decisions even if they WERE worthy of sanction for reasons that have to do w. Israeli inability or unwillingness to exercise the judicial perogative of oversight.

Many Israelis groan about the Supreme Court in the same way that some Americans groaned about Earl Warren a generation ago. The Court has held the government’s feet to the fire on many occasions, and on the separation wall, has caused work to be halted or rerouted.

That’s perfectly true. In some instances the Court has shown great courage & sound judgment. And in others it has completely absconded fr. its judicial responsibility (usually when the case involves Palestinians or second guessing or punishing military violations of law or morality).

Many states, including Virginia where I practice, have enacted the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act. Under that statute, assuming personal and subject matter jurisdiction, a judgment of a foreign court can be docketed in a state court, under the same principles as a judgment of another state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. This does not apply where the foreign judgment was “rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” Thus, a judgment from a British court can be docketed in Illinios (which as adopted the UFCMJRA) or Virginia, but not a judgment from Burma.

The plaintiffs could have sued in Israel, and if they obtained a judgment against Caterpillar, then dockted that judgment in Illinois under the UFCMJRA. The language in the statute refers to the “system”, i.e. is the judicial system of the foreign country independent and does it provide for due process of law. In the Corrie case, the plaintiff’s “forum shopped”, hoping that they would find success in the Ninth Circuit, when they could have brought an action in a court that has jurisdiction over all of the participants.

If there was a human rights violation, they could have brought it in Israel, which has a very independent judiciary, and would have jurisdiction over the IDF.

I don’t know how much you know about the Israeli judiciary but its independence, esp. in cases involving national security, terror & oversight of the IDF is decidedly in question.

1. Tort liability on the part of Caterpillar is wrong. It is generally accepted law that the manufacturer of a legal product is not liable for the wrongful act of a third party — for example, should Ford or General Motors be liable if one of their cars is used in a bank robbery? To argue that Caterpillar knew or should have known that the bulldozers would be used in a “war crime” creates a huge due process problem for Caterpillar. There is no way to compel the cooperation of the IDF in this case, which would be essential. For the 9th Circuit to hold otherwise, and presume the existence of a war crime, would have our courts making foreign policy independent of the other branches of government.

2. The plaintiffs were simply in the wrong court. If there was a human rights violation, they could have brought it in Israel, which has a very independent judiciary, and would have jurisdiction over the IDF. If the Israeli legal system were to hold that the home demolition program is not a “war crime”, the Israeli courts are entitled to the same deference that we would give to Canada or Britain.

I note that the Corrie’s lawyer, Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the country’s most distinguished constitutional scholars, was denied a position as dean of UC Irvine’s new law school because local S. California Republican nincompoops derailed his appointment using this as one of the grounds. There is hell to pay for upholding the rights of individuals and forcing public scrutiny upon them.

On July 9th, three justices of the 9th circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from lawyers representing Rachel Corrie’s family and Caterpillar about the former’s lawsuit over their daughter’s 2003 death under the treads of an IDF operated bulldozer

And you can find the decision here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6DFD4322CA06B5FA88257359005660A6/$file/0536210.pdf?openelement

Maybe a more forcefull and early response would have PREVENTED death and injury to BOTH Jewish and Arab citizens.

…Or else provoked a full blown internal Israeli intifada that, instead of lasting 10 days, might’ve lasted 10 months or 10 years.