Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banana giant Chiquita held liable by US court for funding paramilitaries

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 343 posts

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

#161

Post by jazzyjackson »

shiroiushi wrote: post #146
leetcrew wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. This would make it very easy for Americans to be mercenaries and assassins for foreign governments.

aren't they? :p

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

#162

Post by ruined »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #147
darby_nine wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a blatant abuse of the term person.

> seems like a blatant abuse of the term person Fictitious personhood is older than childhood personhood (or universal natural personhood, for that matter). To the degree we need a better term, it’s for natural persons. It’s a logical consequence of assembly, tracing back thousands of years to trade guilds and municipalities needing the ability to stand in court as a collective. Anyone who thinks we should end it sho…

oh, comeon. this is just responsibility laundering.

individual natural persons are implementing every act of these artificial hyperagents, and there is precedent and reason for holding individuals accountable for individual actions.

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

#163

Post by saghm »

rayiner wrote: post #139
advisedwang wrote: post #45

The 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…

> 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.

Yet the same people who are likely to be responsible if this law does get thrown out are totally fine with plenty of other laws that make a lot less sense today than in 1789. Let's not pretend that the same court who ruled that all firearm regulations need to be interpreted in the context of what people would have thought in the 18th century[1] would rule differently on a case covering the law we're discussing because of legitimate legal reasoning; they're happy throw out precedents from the most recent couple of centuries in favor of regressing to some ancient historical standard when it ends up with the result they want.

[1]: https://apnews.com/article/politics-mississippi-state-govern...

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

#164

Post by throwawayqqq11 »

dmix wrote: post #141
WesternWind wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes I'm aware of the details > 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). That's exactly what I mean for extremely selective enforcement Say some hypothetically medium/small US business with some operations in Mexico has their employees stalked/intimidated and their equipment gets burned down and peop…

Well, feel good justice isnt even just one part here because justice isnt the primary goal of a legal system. Your premise is wrong.

Its about punishment to enforce the civil contract and once you exclude bodies, eg drug trafficing CIA officials or sociopathical CEOs, you start to loose credibility.

> But I don't see how that behaviour at all should allow civil action by random families from Mexico who were harmed (indirectly) by the same Cartel to make a case in the US

So then only attorneys are left to lead the charge, right? How can you still trust a system that prosecutes journalists that uncover war crimes that get covered up by the same cartel?

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

#165

Post by darby_nine »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #147
darby_nine wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a blatant abuse of the term person.

> seems like a blatant abuse of the term person Fictitious personhood is older than childhood personhood (or universal natural personhood, for that matter). To the degree we need a better term, it’s for natural persons. It’s a logical consequence of assembly, tracing back thousands of years to trade guilds and municipalities needing the ability to stand in court as a collective. Anyone who thinks we should end it sho…

I of course understand the necessity of representing collectives in a legal system, but given that we cannot apply many legal concepts people rely on to trust such a system (say, punishing bad behavior with more than just a fine), it stands to reason they shouldn't be granted many of the benefits, either. Perhaps if we could have the board or stockholders stand in and accept the punishment personally it would make more sense, but we seem very averse to this as a society for some reason. As a result these parties are likely to have predominantely negative effects on society that relies on the concept of meaningful liability.

> Anyone who thinks we should end it should consider the consequences of requiring a find-and-replace exercise across our entire body of law, specifying which persons each statute and case applies to, and then prepare for an endless game of whack-a-mole as new categories of person are created.

I don't have much hope for fixing our body of laws, frankly. I don't think a good reaction to this realization is to accept them as rational or reasonable.

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

#166

Post by oblio »

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #92

The term banana republic comes from Chiquita history in various countries, in case you didn't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

It's so sad that it's used to disparage these smaller countries that were just bullied by the US. Victim blaming.

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

#167

Post by jc6 »

Log_out_ wrote: post #159
advisedwang wrote: post #45

The 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…

>" 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." I find it deeply ironic that such morally guided policy unravells a power projection machine only to then be replaced by another powers power projection machine void of values. A power that engages in values mimicry on the surface level and copies the colonial strategies it c…

Not really. Read Pareto's Circulation of the Elites.

The mistake is assuming all those who have some amout of power all have the same agenda.

Such a state is never possible purely because people's personalities, needs, values, environment exist in a wide spectrum. Littlefingers and kissengers loose something everytime they win.

Its like a virus cant kill the host without killing itself.

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

#169

Post by throwawaycities »

advisedwang wrote: post #45

The 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…

Back in my law school days I was part of our school’s Immigration and Human Rights Clinic that won a $22M judgment under the Alien Tort Statute Act on behalf of Liberian torture victims against “Chuckie” Taylor, son of Liberian President Charles Taylor.[1]

The background is the stuff of movies, Charles Taylor was a high ranking official in Liberia that fled to the US after being accused of embezzlement (principally from US contracts), he was arrested in the US and “escaped” from Federal prison, fled back to Africa where he was armed and funded by Gaddafi, and became President of Liberia after a coup. His campaign slogan was "He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him.”

In fact both Charles and Chuckie are depicted in the Movie Lord of War, where Chuckie was the one who asks Nicolas Cage for the Rambo’s golden gun. Their brutality was also depicted in Blood Diamond, in neighboring Sierra Leon where they were behind Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and would cut people’s arms off (long sleeve/short sleeves for above/below the elbow) when they voted in elections, because voters hands/thumbs were inked as evidence of voting.

Chuckie interestingly was actually a born in the US and a private school kid. Then went to Liberia after Charles became President and became head of his anti-terrorists unit called the “demon forces”, the rest is the stuff of nightmares they leave out of the movies.

If you can read between the lines, this stuff goes to the highest levels of government and intelligence which is another reason the ATS Act is under attack.

[1] https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2010/02/fiu-im...

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

#170

Post by codedokode »

avalys wrote: post #112
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? It is wild to me how some people can throw something like this out as this like, unreasonable and clearly sarcastic question like, what you expect a corporation to follow the law everywhere? And I'm just over here like... yeah? Yeah. I... always did, really, I neve…

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?

> absolutely an expected and required part of doing business

You just don't do business in such countries? Why do you want to work with corrupt regimes so much?

Post reply on HN