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

231–240 of 343 posts

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

#231

Post by justinclift »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #157
justinclift wrote: post #110

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. ;)

That's still good. Austrian courts forced Meta to delete certain posts globally. That's some crazy overreach. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/die-gru... .

Wow, that seems pretty insane. :(

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

#232

Post by eigenket »

wil421 wrote: post #230
hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #212

Merely a sliver of the total suffering through coups, wars, and corporate exploitation imposed on Central and South American countries in the spirit of America's Monroe Doctrine colonialism project spanning 200 years.

[flagged]

This is a bad response. The person you're replying to said something to the effect of "America caused a bunch of harm in these places", and your response is "America didn't cause all the problems in these places".

Theres a pretty big gap between the point you're replying to and the strawman you're arguing against.

Sure there are other factors which caused problems in South America, but its clear that a lot of problems were caused by America.

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

#233

Post by Rinzler89 »

justinclift wrote: post #231
Rinzler89 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still good. Austrian courts forced Meta to delete certain posts globally. That's some crazy overreach. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/die-gru... .

Wow, that seems pretty insane. :(

Welcome to Austrian "free speech".

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

#234

Post by lentil_soup »

xvector wrote: post #125

It is clear that most HNers aren't reading the article. This has nothing to do with the UFC's "banana republic" atrocities, and seems to be a rather unjust situation: - Chiquita was forced to pay "protection money" to the AUC. Read: "pay us or we kill your employees and burn your plantations to the ground." - Chiquita makes the payment and alerts the Department of Justice that they were forced to pay under duress. -…

it's Colombia, not Columbia

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

#235

Post by immibis »

wil421 wrote: post #228
mavili wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US is the same country that kills Iraqi civilians and requests money for the bullets from the Iraqi government that they control indirectly. US is an evil empire.

Article III of The Hague convention: “ (III): Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities[26][27] This convention sets out the accepted procedure for a state making a declaration of war. It provides the basis on which, in international law, war reparations may be demanded.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_an...

[flagged]

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

#236

Post by raffraffraff »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #198
raffraffraff wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strangely enough, we've ignored that "find-and-replace across the body of law" in the past. Even the new gender laws ignore existing laws. I sometimes wish that we had written a compiler for law. And a statically typed language designed for compiling policy (think Rego + Rust). Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it. Lawyers would have to lear…

> Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it I look forward to when code can express the richness of natural languages. In the meantime, formally-declared law is a fantasy. (Exhibit A: any court opinion.) > You might have to start off an extremely simplistic set of rules (kinda like RocoCop's prime directives or Moses' 10 commandments) Every civil…

lol, you picked out my "Killing is wrong unless X is true" quote but ignored my follow up which acknowledges that prime directives are insufficiently flexible. I'm not even suggesting starting off a legal system from scratch. I'm saying that it would be good to begin by encoding our current system into a purpose-built language and compiler, and of course one should start with the basics and build upon it, using the language and compiler to find inconsistencies, clashes etc.

I think your point may be that laws currently do have nuance (eg murder vs manslaughter vs...) which is all fine. By all means load those rules into the system too, but the point of the language and compiler is that while you're doing this you pay attention to compiler errors along the way and at least be aware when a change (to a rule, or the meaning of a term or type) caused some other change that you didn't expect. Eg: changing the meaning of a word here makes one law ambiguous and causes these two to clash.

Using it in law school is a great idea. It's where it should begin.

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

#237

Post by rustcleaner »

caf wrote: post #133
thsksbd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... ).

I don't need no stinkin' god (State)!

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

#238

Post by rustcleaner »

shiroiushi wrote: post #144
thsksbd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thing that's a bit scary about that Travel Act is: what happens when US laws change? Instead of having sex with minors, suppose the US elected some crazy religious zealots who managed to make it illegal to have sex outside of heterosexual marriage, after getting abortion banned (so, not exactly far-fetched). So does that mean that all "US persons" (citizens, green card holders, residents, etc.) who travel (or liv…

>So does that mean that all "US persons" (citizens, green card holders, residents, etc.) who travel (or live) outside the US and have sex with someone they're not married to are now criminals?

If we're keeping with consistency... yes.

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

#239

Post by rustcleaner »

phs318u wrote: post #120
caf wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who has ever worked for a medium-large corporation will have done the inevitable employee training that, among many other things, tells you that "no, you cannot pay bribes or facilitation payments in another country even if it's normal and expected there, and yes you and us can still be prosecuted at home for that" .

Which can be code for: “We have specialists[0] for sensitive in-country negotiations.” [0]. Arms-length, third-party, paper-trail-negative contractors.

>Arms-length, third-party, paper-trail-negative contractors

Sounds lucrative.

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

#240

Post by bryanrasmussen »

atwrk wrote: post #201
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But the EU only enforces that for transactions involving EU citizens. If you want to grab all the data from US visitors, go for it, the EU will not complain (as long as you don't do it to EU visitors). https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers... >The GDPR applies if: >your company processes personal data and is based in the EU, regardless of where the actual data processing takes place >your comp…

The don't emphasize citizenship because it is enough to live in the EU for the law to apply, i.e. immigrants etc. are included. If you look into the actual GDPR, you will find the phrase "data subjects who are in the Union", which are "natural persons", for whom the data protection laws apply.

>If you look into the actual GDPR,

oh good! Cause I've done that.

>you will find the phrase "data subjects who are in the Union", which are "natural persons", for whom the data protection laws apply.

tourists who are in the union also apply, there is no idea that you can figure out if that person is just traveling through the EU for some months you can do what you want with them.

https://www.dataprotectionreport.com/2018/12/edpb-clarifies-...

>Data subjects in the Union means any person in the Union whose information is being collected at that moment, regardless of their nationality or legal status. That means EU citizens and residents are squarely in scope. And someone in the EU, even a US tourist using an app in the EU, is a data subject in the Union for purposes of the GDPR.

on edit: if you were just clarifying/backing up my original point, sorry, I thought it seemed you were going with interpretation of the person who I was replying to an EU company can do what they want with any U.S citizen's data.

Post reply on HN