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

251–260 of 343 posts

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

#251

Post by elktown »

refurb wrote: post #84
caycep wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

last 2? weren't they toppling latin American governments since Teddy Roosevelt?

Absolutely. The Monroe Doctrine was a clear statement that foreign influence in the Americas was a non-starter. The USSR was funding leftist rebels in several central and South American countries throughout its existence - Argentina, Grenada, Guatemala, the list goes on. Doesn’t seem odd to me for the US to come in and back the current government? Even if those governments weren’t democratic, I don’t think anyone can…

It's both worrying and refreshing that reactionaries of today are comfortable enough to just say "Yeah, so what if we did?" instead of the usual weaseling.

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

#252

Post by Moru »

0dayz wrote: post #246
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.

Another cost of doing business

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

#253

Post by snapcaster »

whearyou wrote: post #249
simiones wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can you actually point to a specific harm you envision from acknowledging the US atrocities in LatAm or elsewhere? What do you actually think is the problem? It's so weird how people seem to come out of the woodwork with random concern trolling anytime the empire gets called out

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

#254

Post by mavili »

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...

You telling me a country initiating a war has the right to then ask for reparations for the damages and destruction they caused on the country they initiated the war against? That's so freaking absurd that it is actually funny!

I can only guess the wikipedia article is only a summary and the real convention could be around who is to blame for the war and other factors. Otherwise that's just so ridiculous that it actually encourages declaring wars on countries!

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

#255

Post by folkrav »

kalium-xyz wrote: post #211
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"

Its a step in the right direction.

How is it a step in the right direction? If anything, it just sets a precedent - this is how much you should expect to pay in fines for committing atrocities.

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

#256

Post by ToucanLoucan »

pjc50 wrote: post #227
stavros wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you aware of the history of labor organizing in the states...? No, I'm not. It sounds like a very interesting read, though. I don't think those things tended to happen over here, beyond mafia-style illegal dealings.

Americans get taught a weird fictionalized version of their own history where political violence ended at the Civil War, conveniently overlooking anything that might be awkward to explain in the present day. Little things like General MacArthur opening fire on veterans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army ; MOVE bombings; Tulsa massacre https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/12/tuls... ; the general…

One of my favorite stories from the Civil Rights era is the fact that California created the template for modern gun control as a direct response to the Black Panthers policing the Police with open-carried guns (just like, standing there, armed, while police did their jobs in Black communities), and the white establishment at the time absolutely shit bricks at the notion of the negro having firepower and demanded it be regulated by none other than Governor Ronald Reagan.

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

#257

Post by verisimi »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #229
verisimi wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. We are talking about social conventions, not right or wrong. This is plain when we see that the same action can be legal in one country, and a serious crime in another. It's simply the rules of the game, no different to Scrabble or poker. How the individual engages with the culture/game is their business. Similarly, if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they?

> the same action can be legal in one country, and a serious crime in another Social constructs are socially constructed. Given social systems are heterogenous, this variation is far from profound. (It’s almost corollary.) > no different to Scrabble or poker In the way Duplos and dielectric physics are the same. > if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they? One usuall…

> Social constructs are socially constructed. Given social systems are heterogenous, this variation is far from profound. (It’s almost corollary.)

Not really. I imagine its fine to shoot a burglar in the US who breaks in your house, but you could go to jail for murder in the UK. Soldiers can kill civilians without consequences. So can governments (death row, in the US).

>> if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they?

> One usually can’t.

I think most(/all?) law is created this way. Eg a pretty small collection of individuals that have the sway in a corporation use the corporation to pay lobbyists to draft laws to benefit them (creating a moat, force individuals to pay (health insurance), etc, etc). This is done in the name of serving the public interest. The political class then rubber stamps these proposals, in order to receive a seat on the board on retiring from politics.

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

#259

Post by lupire »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #197
xvector wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, you withdraw from the country. And you watch your employees die? Great, you've saved your business and yourself from legal ramifications, and the people you worked for are dead, and your business is in ashes. Chiquita did actually end up withdrawing from Columbia shortly after this. > Maybe you bring in a hostage negotiator to exfiltrate your staff. This is not how the real world works. If you try this stuff wi…

> watch your employees die? If a gunman comes to your office, what do you do? You defer to competent authority. Same here. Particularly when it comes to scheduled foreign terrorists, there is no (legal) excuse. (Moreover, if the gunman comes to your office every Monday.) > If you try this stuff with the AUC in Columbia [ sp ], they will torture and kill your people for fun If you're operating in Colombia without K&R…

The AUC is the local competent authority.

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

#260

Post by rayiner »

pen2l wrote: post #190
rayiner wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue has nothing to do with conservatism versus liberalism, but sovereignty. Why should the US get to make law for the whole world, and then enforce that law in US courts? The funny thing about the leftist children of Reaganites is that they maintain their parents’ universalism and lack of respect for foreign sovereignty. “Maybe America should fuck off and mind its own business” is never part of the political co…

I want to say something and I promise I say it not as a dig on you... as someone who's followed you for more than 10 years, I am fascinated that despite the many, many changes and revisions in your belief systems over the years, something that never changes is the certainty and conviction and confidence in your tone. I guess it's a good thing, wish I had it. Makes for persuasive and effective writing, that's for sure…

On this issue, I don't think there's been a change. I don't believe in universalism, which Americans on both the left and right tend to do. I opposed the Iraq War because I thought America had no business trying to bring democracy to Iraq (and knew Iraqi society couldn't handle democracy). Similarly, I oppose current U.S. efforts to impose universal norms. America shot a bunch of striking workers and polluted the environment on the way to becoming rich. Why shouldn't Bangladesh have that same prerogative?
Post reply on HN