Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's kind of ironic, as the US wants every other country to follow their laws too sometimes (patents, copyright, probably more). For the extra cup of strange irony, part of the government in my country (Australia) just tried forcing X to delete posts for everyone globally instead of just not showing them to Australian users. Thankfully the court system told the Aust gov to bugger off due to overreach. ;)
I didn’t hear about the tweets. What are they about?
Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
131–140 of 343 posts
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#132The Alien Tort Statue [1], the reason this case [2] is in the US at all has sometimes been used for significant environmental and social justice global legal activism. Because of this, it is in the sights of the conservative legal movement. Sadly I suspect this case may end up at the supreme court and end up another victim of the removal of redress for the evil of the powerful. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ali…
So basically every corporation operating in the US has to follow US law at all times, regardless of the economic/legal circumstances in other countries? I can see why that is controversial and almost certainly will be extremely selectively enforced.
I feel like the US government has a legitimate interest in making sure US corporations don't pay paramilitary death squads for drug traffickers, especially ones that the US had designated as terrorist organizations at the time.
I don't think it's really that controversial to prevent US companies from doing this.
But to be clear they had already pled guilty to doing that crime in 2007 (and they also prosecuted the AUC, many AUC leaders were extradited to the US in 2008).
This isn't about enforcement at all, this is them being found liable in a civil class action lawsuit, one brought by families of folks the AUC murdered.
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, yes? There are dozens of specific US laws that govern this and tons of existing case law that committing a serious crime overseas is punishable in the US regardless of its legality elsewhere. The Travel Act for example makes it illegal to fly to another country to engage in sexual acts with a minor, even if it is legal in that country. Do you think that is some sort of government overreach?
Yes because it is a breach to the principle of jurisdiction and it's ultimately based on American imperialism. Mind you, Id gladly have pedos and banana execs shot in public.
The relevant principle of jurisdiction here is that a state has jurisdiction over the acts of its citizens. It's not uncommon and it's certainly not just a US thing (eg. here is a Brazilian court convicting one of its citizens over a murder committed in Australia: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/23/cecilia-haddad... ).
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone pays protection money in Colombia, every single commercial entity except in the most upscale places.
It's incredibly unjust that companies are punished for paying "protection money" (read: "pay us or we burn your property and employees to the ground.")
No it's not. They always have the option to leave.
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#135The Alien Tort Statue [1], the reason this case [2] is in the US at all has sometimes been used for significant environmental and social justice global legal activism. Because of this, it is in the sights of the conservative legal movement. Sadly I suspect this case may end up at the supreme court and end up another victim of the removal of redress for the evil of the powerful. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ali…
Notable claim from part of that link: corporations are persons, but cannot be sued like a person can.
> corporations are persons, but cannot be sued like a person can
Yes. Just like Californians, non-Americans and children are all natural persons with varying rights, Delaware C corporations, New York non-profits and unions are all legal persons with different rights.
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we’re talking about crimes like “murder”, yes, it’s pretty clear. If we’re talking about crimes like “bribing a public official”, it’s less so. There are countries where that is simultaneously 1) technically illegal by that country’s own laws, 2) absolutely an expected and required part of doing business. So what do you do in that case?
idk, I see it the other way around actually. if you kill someone in another country, that's still bad, but it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request. whereas if you bribe public officials in other countries as normal business practice, that might give you an advantage over other compani…
Why stop there and not take it to the next step? Surely company A killing whistleblowers or rabble rousers overseas lets it outperform company B that isn’t doin that state-side? Doesn’t that encourage company B to do the same on red, white, and blue soil?
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we’re talking about crimes like “murder”, yes, it’s pretty clear. If we’re talking about crimes like “bribing a public official”, it’s less so. There are countries where that is simultaneously 1) technically illegal by that country’s own laws, 2) absolutely an expected and required part of doing business. So what do you do in that case?
IANAL, but I believe that under US law you are allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do their job in places where that is customary. You just aren't allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do something that they aren't supposed to do.
> under US law you are allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do their job in places where that is customary
Not quite.
You may be thinking of the “grease payment” exception [1] to the FCPA [2]. Customariness isn’t as important as whether the payment is to speed up a decided outcome or effect the outcome.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitating_payment
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac...
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#138> During the 2007 trial, it was revealed that Chiquita had made payments amounting to more than $1.7m to the AUC in the six years from 1997 to 2004. > The banana giant said that it began making the payments after the leader of the AUC at the time, Carlos Castaño, implied that staff and property belonging to Chiquita's subsidiary in Colombia could be harmed if the money was not forthcoming Not saying this is the case…
Agreed, punishing someone because they were extorted under threat to life and property makes no sense. If someone threatens to kill your employees and burn everything you own to the ground - and you know they will - you're gonna pay them. The government of Columbia should be held to account for allowing this evil to run rampant, not the victims of these cartels.
> If someone threatens to kill your employees and burn everything you own to the ground - and you know they will - you're gonna pay them
No, you withdraw from the country. Maybe you bring in a hostage negotiator to exfiltrate your staff. But paying the bribe and then continuing to do business with a foreign terrorist organisation is not grey area stuff.
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#139The Alien Tort Statue [1], the reason this case [2] is in the US at all has sometimes been used for significant environmental and social justice global legal activism. Because of this, it is in the sights of the conservative legal movement. Sadly I suspect this case may end up at the supreme court and end up another victim of the removal of redress for the evil of the powerful. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ali…
> Because of this, it is in the sights of the conservative legal movement
I suspect the problem is more that the statute gives U.S. courts jurisdiction over conduct that happens in foreign countries, and applies incomprehensibly vague standards such as “the law of nations.” It’s a statute that made sense in 1789 when it was enacted by a bunch of people that thought God made universal law applicable to the whole world.
Re: Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries
#140The Alien Tort Statue [1], the reason this case [2] is in the US at all has sometimes been used for significant environmental and social justice global legal activism. Because of this, it is in the sights of the conservative legal movement. Sadly I suspect this case may end up at the supreme court and end up another victim of the removal of redress for the evil of the powerful. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ali…
Notable claim from part of that link: corporations are persons, but cannot be sued like a person can.
The statute uses the word “alien” (which generally refers to natural persons) not the word “person.”