Cindy and Craig Corrie, the parents of American human rights activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed in Gaza in 2003 as she attempted to defend a Palestinian family‚Äôs home from demolition by the Israeli army, talk to us on their way to Jerusalem as the Israeli high court plans to hear the appeal in their wrongful death lawsuit. The following is the transcript of an interview with the parents of Rachel Corrie submitted by Nora Barrows-Friedman to the Electronic Intifada on Tuesday 05/13/2014
Nora Barrows-Friedman: Can you talk about this appeal, and what it focuses on specifically?
Cindy Corrie: That‚Äôs a very good question. It‚Äôs at the heart of what we‚Äôre doing. It really focuses on the findings, from our point of view, of what was problematic with the verdict which was issued in the case of August 2012 by the district court. And what I will say right up front is that these are legal arguments that are going to be discussed, and as in all the other procedures and things, Craig and I and our family have had to wait to actually read what‚Äôs been filed. There had been written statements filed by us, bringing the appeal, and then there has been a response by the state, and then we‚Äôve been able to respond. Our attorney, Hussein Abu Hussein, has been able to respond back to what the state said.
And all of those, of course, were in Hebrew and needed to be translated for us. So I just want people to know that we have just actually today gotten the translations of all of those documents and are beginning to review them ourselves. So we‚Äôll be looking at that material more closely.
Craig Corrie: Let me just say that the crux of what we‚Äôve been arguing and our attorneys translated ‚ÄĒ he says that the appellants argue (the appellants, that‚Äôs us) ‚ÄĒ argue that the lower court erred in determining essential facts in identifying the role of the legal norm in its application of the facts in drawing the requisite legal conclusion. So basically we‚Äôre arguing that the lower court didn‚Äôt understand the facts, didn‚Äôt understand the law and didn‚Äôt apply the law to the facts, or the facts to the law in the proper way, which is pretty much about everything they‚Äôre supposed to do.
I think that‚Äôs ‚ÄĒ if the audience remembers back to 2012, the judge didn‚Äôt find anything right with ‚Ä¶ if our attorney and our witnesses and even the state‚Äôs witnesses had not been at that trial, they just really went with the opening statements of the state‚Äôs attorney in finding that court‚Äôs decision. So we‚Äôre arguing all of that.
Nora Barrows-Friedman: Cindy and Craig, I‚Äôm reading from your press release that the Rachel Corrie Foundation just put out: ‚ÄúTestimony also revealed serious flaws in the military‚Äôs investigation into Rachel‚Äôs killing. Investigators failed to question key military witnesses, including those recording communications; failed to secure the military video, allowing it to be taken for nearly a week by senior commanders with only segments submitted to court; failed to address conflicting testimony given by soldiers; and ignored damning statements in the military log confirming a ‚Äėshoot to kill‚Äô order and a command mentality to continue work in order to avoid setting a precedent with international activists.‚ÄĚ All of these pretty clear and basic legal proceedings were ignored or completely mishandled ‚ÄĒ how will your appeal‚Äôs arguments proceed with these types of flaws that were brought up?
Cindy Corrie: The appeal, as I understand it, is very limited and in fact, in finding the written part of it, our attorney had to determine the number of pages or suggest the number of pages that he could submit. And I believe he had asked for 50 pages and was actually allowed to do 25. So obviously everything that came up in the course of all the testimony that we heard in the district court ‚ÄĒ there were 15 court sessions, there were 23 court witnesses, we have over 2,000 pages of translated testimony ‚ÄĒ every detail is not going to be argued in this appeal, so it will be some of the places where our attorneys determine that the judge, in his decision, in how he made that decision, really overlooked the relevant law.
We want people to wrap their heads around the whole course of this process, and what we all saw and heard in court ‚ÄĒ some of it we saw, we didn‚Äôt get to see everything because there were six key witnesses who testified from behind a screen ‚ÄĒ but we want to focus on those things that were key to us and that we think were not addressed. It seemed that they weren‚Äôt even considered by the district judge in making his decision.
I can‚Äôt tell you for sure how they‚Äôre going to be approached on the hearing day in Jerusalem because of course we‚Äôre new to this process. What we understand is that the hearing will be 2-3 hours long, it will be three judges, and they will hear from the attorneys on both sides ‚ÄĒ our attorney and someone representing the state ‚ÄĒ they will hear those arguments. We‚Äôre not even sure ‚ÄĒ I think from things that I‚Äôve read that the judges will be able to interrupt and ask questions, it‚Äôll be interesting to see whether it‚Äôs similar to what we here [in the US] ‚Ä¶ when we hear news reports about our own Supreme Court here in the United States, to see if there are similarities in how they handle and use that time.
But again, I guess I would just point out that all of the information that we have, all of the things we thought important ‚ÄĒ they will be addressed at a different level, and it will be very much a legal level than what we heard when we were in the district court.
NBF: Hypothetically, if the Israeli high court decides that the Haifa district court ‚ÄĒ which issued the ruling in August 2012 that the state was not culpable or responsible for Rachel‚Äôs killing ‚ÄĒ if they overturned that decision or found that the district court was wrong and erroneous in their ruling, what happens next?
Craig Corrie: I‚Äôm not really even sure about that. I think it‚Äôs also possible, I suspect, that they could find in some ways for us, but not actually overturn the entire verdict. In other words, one of the huge, egregious things about the trial judge‚Äôs verdict was that since he found that Rachel was killed as an ‚Äúact of war,‚ÄĚ he ruled that you could not hold Israel responsible for anything it did in an act of war.
So that flies in the face of international law, and that‚Äôs one of the reasons we felt we had to object to that. We had to go back into court and say no, that‚Äôs wrong. I think we have a moral obligation to do that. They could conceivably overturn that, but find, for other reasons, the facts that the judge found ‚ÄĒ and remember, there‚Äôs only one person hearing this. The judge in this case, in Israel, the judge is also the jury ‚ÄĒ so he determines what‚Äôs fact when it comes out of there. And that‚Äôs much harder to get overruled, once he‚Äôs heard it.
I don‚Äôt know what could come out of this, in the end, but again we just have to pursue it.
Cindy Corrie: And there will be, as we understand it, a considerable period of time before we know what the outcome is. We were told originally that they can take as long as they want, the panel of justices that will hear it, in making their decision, but we were told to expect it to be up to a year before they come back. And again, that‚Äôs similar to our Supreme Court process, where we hear what gets argued in the court and then [it‚Äôs] at the end of the session before we actually find out what the Supreme Court justices decided.
Craig Corrie: The exception is that there‚Äôs no session over there, so there‚Äôs never that endpoint that actually forces them to hand down a ruling.
NBF: Cindy and Craig, how can people follow the appeals process when it begins next week, and where can people go for more information on the Rachel Corrie Foundation?
Cindy Corrie: I hope that people will go to the Rachel Corrie Foundation website, www.rachelcorriefoundation.org, if they look on the homepage up at the top there is a link to the trial section. The Rachel Corrie Foundation is trying very hard to provide information about the trial, about these legal proceedings, and providing information about the associated issues.
I feel like we continue to want to come back to thinking about the treatment of human rights observers and human rights defenders, the other American human rights observers who have been injured and killed, and also the Palestinian ones in these years. And really, all around the world, this is an issue now.
So I think bringing attention to that is very important and I hope people will use the focus on Rachel‚Äôs case to think about that more and what we can do.
Gaza is very much in our minds, and there‚Äôs information on the website about Gaza and some of the connections we‚Äôve been making there during the past year. Gaza is ‚ÄĒ Rachel would be sad to find that it is as closed ‚Ä¶ Gisha, the Israeli human rights organization, calls it ‚Äúclosure,‚ÄĚ what‚Äôs happening now, and it‚Äôs as difficult a situation as we‚Äôve seen in many years.
So all of these things are deserving of attention and we hope people will go to the website and learn what they can.
Craig Corrie: I think it‚Äôs not only possible to learn from the website but you can participate in some ways, at least ‚ÄĒ it‚Äôs kind of beyond Cindy‚Äôs and my technical ability, but there will be friends tweeting. The Rachel Corrie Foundation ‚ÄĒ you can friend us on Facebook, you can follow the tweets, but you can retweet and can help pass the word out there.
I think for all the reasons that Cindy mentioned, it‚Äôs a good time to focus on some of these issues and help get the world focused on that. And people can participate in that process.