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

241–250 of 343 posts

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

#241

Post by coldtea »

lstodd wrote: post #221
coldtea wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they pay money to some local cartel to make them go away Traditionally it's more like "they pay money to some local armed group to get rid of union activists and unruly workers asking for more rights and better conditions and salaries".

Yes, where the "union activists and unruly workers" represent the rival armed group.

Yes, because real workers are never exploited and never have legitimate concerns and demands, especially in developing world countries /s

It's not like such companies like Chiquita even support dictators or topple goverments (or lobby to get it done on their behalf) to protect their margins and cheap labour...

"Among the Honduran people, the United Fruit Company was known as El Pulpo ("The Octopus" in English), because its influence pervaded Honduran society, controlled their country's transport infrastructure, and manipulated Honduran national politics with anti-labour violence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

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

#242

Post by WJW »

immibis wrote: post #235
wil421 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

You don't have to rely on (faulty) memory, the very Wikipedia article mentions that the USA was a signatory of the Hague treaty.

As an aside it is pretty hilarious in hindsight that at the time all the countries who are now permanent UN Security Council member (which its associated veto powers) were in favor of a binding international arbitration court, but it was vetoed by the powers of that time like Germany.

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

#243

Post by cies »

immibis wrote: post #235
wil421 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

> it [the US] doesn't believe in the concept of human rights.

Unless when China, Russia, Iran or DPRK violates humans right according to their Secretary of State; in that case they cry an additional Mississippi river over human rights violations.

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

#244

Post by simiones »

whearyou wrote: post #217
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]

There are clear, well documented, notorious cases, some of them even ruled on by international tribunals, of the USA causing direct harm in several South American countries (support and training of anti-government CONTRA torture squads, assassinations of El Salvador priests, mining Nicaragua's harbors, and there are many others).

That others also caused harm, both in South America and in many other places, in no way whatsoever excuses the clear harms caused by the USA.

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

#245

Post by cies »

generationP wrote: post #204
sensanaty wrote: post #194

The punishment being fines is criminal in and of itself. Everyone involved needs to be locked away for a long, long time, not have to pay pennies as "punishment"

Keep in mind that any company operating in Russia (paying taxes, providing data to "law" enforcement, etc.) would fit the same jumpsuit. We could go that way, but it would be a serious change of rules and create its own perverse incentives.

Paying a terrorist org or doing business in a unaligned country is a very different story.

The US needs certain things from Russia: it's not that all trade has been sanctioned. Just trade that does not have enough lobby power to protect it.

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

#246

Post by 0dayz »

sensanaty wrote: post #194

The punishment being fines is criminal in and of itself. Everyone involved needs to be locked away for a long, long time, not have to pay pennies as "punishment"

I would imagine that will be a bit hard as I assume most involved is either dead or too old to stand fit for jail.

But this is a civil case so they can't get more than money.

Honest what is disgusting is the chump change they are getting 38 mil only for the insane amount of profit the company gained.

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

#247

Post by dunekid »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #205
dunekid wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you remember the insurgency at the Capitol?

> Do you remember the insurgency at the Capitol? Yes, we get our share of Emperor Nortons [1] and sovereign citizens [2]. Those aren't coups. At best, they're idiotically-attempted coups. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

>At best, they're idiotically-attempted coups.

I am tempted to add an image of Jack Sparrow saying, But you've heard of me.

That aside, US would not fall for a coup because of the strong institutions in place. But these places are not that mature in its institutions. So they would fall. It doesn't mean that a similar sentiment is not present in US. And for all the talk of the freedom and democracy US always prefers demagogues and dictators in other parts of the world, as long as US can control them.

The Capitol insurgency and the stop the steal was pretty popular, but it is not a reason for another country to lie and invade this place. Same should have been applied to Iraq. That's all.

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

#248

Post by rvense »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #200
ruined wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> this is just responsibility laundering It's linguistics. Corporations were people in English before many folks of darker skin colour. (OP argued the use is abusive. That is wrong. The term wasn't manipulated. Our world got kinder faster than our English.) > individual natural persons are implementing every act of these artificial hyperagents With responsibility comes power. (See: Tiberius.) If the CEO is entirely r…

> Corporations were people in English before many folks of darker skin colour.

Etymonline[0] cites phrases like "person corporate" as linguistic precedent this use of the term, but the meaning "individual, human being" goes back to 1200. Legal rights notwithstanding, I don't think you're at all correct if you are suggesting that there was ever a stage of daily English usage where the word would be used to refer equally to free citizens and corporations, but not to slaves. And I'd certainly argue that today, the idea that a corporation can be referred to as a 'person' is very much a specialists' usage that does not at all align with its everyday use.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=person

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

#249

Post by whearyou »

simiones wrote: post #244
whearyou wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There are clear, well documented, notorious cases, some of them even ruled on by international tribunals, of the USA causing direct harm in several South American countries (support and training of anti-government CONTRA torture squads, assassinations of El Salvador priests, mining Nicaragua's harbors, and there are many others). That others also caused harm, both in South America and in many other places, in no way…

Agreed.

Other external actors (in particular the Soviets) and internal actors played mayor roles as well.

Castigating only the US paints an inaccurate picture of the realities, leading the public and future policy makers to learn partial lessons which when applied will perform less than optimally for preventing the next incident of large scale sufferings

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

#250

Post by bryanrasmussen »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #189
marcus_holmes wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-EU companies need to follow GDPR when serving EU customers, yes. There are many websites that geoblock EU visitors because they don't want to comply with GDPR. 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). I think the difference here is that the US is enforcin…

>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…

Reading over the post I realize they meant that companies in the U.S need to handle EU citizens data properly but they can do what they want with U.S citizens data, which I misunderstood so my apologies on the misunderstanding.
Post reply on HN