Comments on: Bulldozer’s progress

By: Marc J. Randazza

Marc J. Randazza — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 05:05:30 +0000

Ron, I like you and all... but if you're going to accuse someone of a bizarro world suit, let he who is without frivolity cast the first Rule 11 zippity doo dah. Hi, Marc. It was a breach of contract case, fundamentally. If you read the answer, you will see that far more is admitted than is denied. I don't see the frivolousness of it all.v-- RDC

By: Guest

Guest — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:56:35 +0000

🙂 I like arguing with you, we should do it more often!

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:27:26 +0000

And I says so’s your old man, Guest!

By: Guest

Guest — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:30:35 +0000

That all makes a ton of sense. And I definitely agree that using the courts to make political points is bad news (although I strongly suspect that me and you would differ on where that line should be drawn).

But that’s not the post you published. And I didn’t have to make much of an argument – you included a bunch of stuff in your post that was just obvious partisanship and had nothing to do with the point you were making, and I pointed this out. So I was just gathering low-hanging fruit 🙂

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:42:57 +0000

Guest, “um,” you’re no more “arguing” your case than I am, though you seem actually to agree with me about the preposterousness of the argument, as does Amsterdamsky despite his obvious hangups (“war crimes”). But let me grant your point for argument’s sake and say this: these legal arguments are not only weak, as you acknowledge; they represent a fundamental moral void — not as to the Rachel Corrie angle, but as to the attempted use and abuse of the courts, in the most cynical way, to attempt to make political statements — and that, not politics itself (even my, morally correct political views, as opposed to your patently wrong ones — 😉 ) — is one point of this blog and the main point of this post.

By: Amsterdamsky

Amsterdamsky — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:08:38 +0000

Free cluster bombs for Israel, no liability, bulldozer manufacturers get sued? As much as I oppose the US funded occupation and other war crimes commited by Israel this is absurd.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:07:53 +0000

Um, this is a really, really lazy piece of ad hominem non-argument. You’re obviously just using the weakness of the legal arguments made here as a pretext to tee off on “liberals.” Shame.

By: DBL

DBL — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:50:08 +0000

Ugh – Miss Corrie was trying to prevent the Israelis from destroying tunnels used by the Palestinian Arabs to smuggle bombs and weapons. Now, granted, she wasn’t carrying bombs herself, but to my way of thinking, her actions constituted what we lawyers would call “aiding and abetting” terrorism.

By: Ugh

Ugh — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:39:56 +0000

My understanding is that was what she was doing when she was killed by the bulldozer, see, e.g., the IHT article to which you link:

Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old peace activist from Olympia, Washington, was crushed by a 60-ton Israeli bulldozer as she stood before a Palestinian home in the Gaza Strip.

You say “the promotion of violence (by the likes of Rachel Corrie)” – I was wondering what you were using to support that statement as the only thing I see linked in your post that says what she did was what the IHT describes.

And note that Chemerinsky was arguing that Caterpiller knew Israel was using the bulldozers for the purpose of demolishing homes, not that they knew they were using them to commit murder, which seems much more likely to me.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:09:13 +0000

Ugh, I don’t know. It might not be. My post was about the Rachel Corrie situation, though.