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

271–280 of 343 posts

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

#271

Post by WesternWind »

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…

Governments can and cooperate on international crimes, and the US has more resources to prosecute US corporations.

Columbia extradited the AUC leaders.

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

#272

Post by moogly »

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're probably thinking of Protocols I & II of the Geneva Conventions. Signed but not ratified.

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

#273

Post by nradov »

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"

The court decision requires payment of damages to the plaintiffs, not a fine. This was a civil case. In the US court system, fines are a criminal matter.

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

#274

Post by stef25 »

dunekid wrote: post #181
NicoJuicy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That already encountered a coup? That barely happens in a democracy.

Do you remember the insurgency at the Capitol?

Why do people take that so serious ? As if a bunch of preppers could topple law enforcement, feds, cia and the most powerful army in the world. I mean come on. It belonged on Jerry Springer.

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

#275

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...

By the way, that summary only says "It provides the basis on which.. war reparations may be demanded". If anything I bet it sets out 'restrictions' on when countries can do that.

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

#276

Post by trust_bt_verify »

dventimi wrote: post #94
trust_bt_verify wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes.

Was Uribe center-left or far-right? It seems like was both at different times. In any case, viewed by this outsider from thousands of miles away, Colombian politics looks fluid enough that labels lose distinction. The one constant seems to be U.S. policy.

Ok… no then? I was just trying to save the original poster from being badgered in bad faith with questions like, ‘take a guess’.

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

#277

Post by NicoJuicy »

dunekid wrote: post #181
NicoJuicy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That already encountered a coup? That barely happens in a democracy.

Do you remember the insurgency at the Capitol?

That's not a "planned" coup.

Those were idiots under the hype of a wannabe dictator with propaganda influence very similar to Russia.

Great video about it here: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/31/17804104/strikethrough-lies-pr...

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

#278

Post by germandiago »

evulhotdog wrote: post #51
anigbrowl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incrementalism normalizes dystopia, in my view; this becomes just another contingency that can be budgeted for. Imagine, by contrast, the impact that executing one Chiquita executive would have.

I don’t know if I necessarily agree with eye for an eye mentality, but risk of prison or enough money that it makes you actually consider your decisions, seems like a better path. The goal being that it is enough so that it cannot and should not be planned for and can’t be covered by insurance or similar.

Bukele did not think the same and he was right.

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

#279

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rvense wrote: post #248
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 equal…

Personhood has obviously applied to humans across languages for millennia. I’m not arguing that usage doesn’t predate corporate personhood in English; I’m saying many common uses of person today post-date corporate personhood.

Corporate personhood, and the referring of entities as persons, goes back to ancient Latin and multiple Indian languages for a reason: it’s a natural consequence of (a) collective rights and (b) polytheistic vesting, whereby “personhood” was understood in a broader context than even today [1]. (See: any spiritual practice that vests inanimate objects with a will and thus, in a sense or directly, personhood.)

> certainly argue that today, the idea that a corporation can be referred to as a 'person' is very much a specialists' usage

Agree. But that doesn’t make it wrong. When you look at why it has that specialist usage, suspending the use makes zero sense. (It also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t debate its use.)

[1] https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publishing/journal-briti...

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

#280

Post by buildsjets »

mistrial9 wrote: post #49
buildsjets wrote: post #44

My family home is built on the former estate of Minor Cooper Keith, a founder and former VP of United Fruit, who did many similar horrible things to people in Central and South America. I learned this while researching the name of the waterway behind our house, called "Keith Canal". You can see the history of the development in historic maps from 1829 thru 1976. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Cooper_Keith https:…

none of that Wikipedia article reflect the comments here.. maybe take a minute to organize some references and edit? a new section on "controversy" might fit

Editing Wikipedia is way too much of a pain in the butt. What will and will not they accept as a primary source? What if even the United Fruit Company website provides a citation that 4000 enslaved people died under his supervision at the age of 23 while overseeing construction of just 25 miles of his railroad? It would probably just get deleted.

(That's a death every 33 feet of construction, for 25 miles...)

https://www.unitedfruitcompany.com/biographies/the-seldom-re...

Post reply on HN