Live data from Hacker News

Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

bbc.com

1–10 of 343 posts

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#2
It's about time one of these Chiquita (ex United Fruit Company, Cuyamel Fruit Company, and others) / Dole (ex Standard Fruit Company) are held liable.

[1]:https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/story-bananas-ban...

[2]:https://growjungles.com/united-fruit-company-in-costa-rica/

[3]:https://www.biggerlifeadventures.com/chiquita-bananas-cia-fu...

[4]:https://history.wsu.edu/rci/sample-research-project/

Edit: formatting

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#6
post #4

I'm curious about why nobody from Chiquita went to prison for financing a terrorist group. Random Afghans and Iraqis were kidnapped for Guantanamo or outright murdered for less.

> I'm curious about why nobody from Chiquita went to prison for financing a terrorist group.

That's not how democracy works. /s

Companies do not have to obey the law and, when they are caught, nobody goes to jail. They just need to pay some protection money.

Want to be a criminal without fear of prosecution ? Join a company, preferably on a management position.

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#7
post #4

I'm curious about why nobody from Chiquita went to prison for financing a terrorist group. Random Afghans and Iraqis were kidnapped for Guantanamo or outright murdered for less.

Because they were working in the vein of manifest destiny/US gov’t interests.

The CIA helped them, by overthrowing at least one gov’t. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%2527%...]

Money has always been a national interest for every gov’t everywhere.

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#8
post #4

I'm curious about why nobody from Chiquita went to prison for financing a terrorist group. Random Afghans and Iraqis were kidnapped for Guantanamo or outright murdered for less.

This was a civil case, seeking damages for actions that occurred over 2 decades ago, it's unlikely anyone currently with the company was sufficiently high ranking then to be considered personally responsible.

For the 2007 criminal case, the company came to the department of justice and disclosed the payments, saying they had been made under threat of violence. Specifically the AUC was threatening physical harm to employees of a Chiquita subsidiary in Columbia. The department of justice appears to have accepted that the payments were made under duress, but did not recognize that as a sufficient excuse, and decided to prosecute anyways. The company reached a plea agreement.

Honestly, it seems like the justice department came down pretty hard. Obviously giving money to terrorist groups under any circumstances shortly after 9/11 would be highly scrutinized, and the company could have dropped the columbian subsidiary, which they wound up doing eventually anyways, instead of continuing to pay the protection racket. But still it seems like they were victims in this too.

Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

#9
post #4

I'm curious about why nobody from Chiquita went to prison for financing a terrorist group. Random Afghans and Iraqis were kidnapped for Guantanamo or outright murdered for less.

> curious about why nobody from Chiquita went to prison for financing a terrorist group

It looks like the people who could be held individually criminally liable were in Colombia [1]. (I also imagine Chiquita gets points for notifying the DoJ versus getting caught.)

> Random Afghans and Iraqis were kidnapped for Guantanamo or outright murdered for less

To be fair, there is a world of difference between financing a foreign terrorist group and financing one that is attacking Americans. (That and we're cavalier with the lives of South Americans.)

[1] https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/March/07_nsd_161...

Post reply on HN