Bulldozing homes is argued by some as a war crime, and if Cat was producing equipment specifically to perpetrate war crimes, that could entail some legal liability. I'm not saying the court will agree with either premise (bulldozing houses being a war crime or designing tools for warcrimes incurring liability), but this doesn't sound like a completely baseless lawsuit, like suing a food maker that supplied soldiers (whether or not you're arguing that they're war criminals).
from the Geneva Convention:
Quote:
|
"Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."
|