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

291–300 of 343 posts

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

#291

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #143
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…

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…

> Why should the US get to make law for the whole world, and then enforce that law in US courts?

A longish response would be: "The United States is generally a force for good, and it's the main provider of the very-costly Pax Americana that supports so much of global commerce and a rules-based international order. If we decide you need to follow our standards everywhere if you want to enjoy access to our country, you're always free to refuse — and to accept the consequences."

The short, brutalist response would be: "Because we can."

A footnote: You seem to think that "sovereignty" is some kind of magical concept that causes everyone to honor the wishes of another people. It's not; history amply proves that "sovereignty" is simply shorthand for "we think we shouldn't have to do what you want us to do, because reasons, and we're willing to gamble that our economic power and military might (alone and/or with allies) are enough to enforce our preference over yours."

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

#292

Post by rayiner »

dctoedt wrote: post #291
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…

> Why should the US get to make law for the whole world, and then enforce that law in US courts? A longish response would be: "The United States is generally a force for good, and it's the main provider of the very-costly Pax Americana that supports so much of global commerce and a rules-based international order. If we decide you need to follow our standards everywhere if you want to enjoy access to our country, you…

I agree with the short version, but that doesn’t answer the question of why. It’s one thing to invade other countries’ sovereignty to materially benefit your own citizens. But to do so without such benefits is irrational. It’s religious nutjobbery, like the crusades.

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

#293

Post by xvector »

caf wrote: post #134
xvector wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's incredibly unjust that companies are punished for paying "protection money" (read: "pay us or we burn your property and employees to the ground.")

No it's not. They always have the option to leave.

Okay, you leave, and now your employees are dead (probably tortured to death on LiveLeak.)

Or you could pay the ransom, report it to the DOJ, and then leave, like Chiquita did.

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

#294

Post by freejazz »

whateveracct wrote: post #288
freejazz wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal (il)literacy on HN is astounding. The punishment isn't a fine, it's a civil judgment being awarded to the eight Colombian families that sued... this is the third paragraph in the article: "Following a civil case brought by eight Colombian families whose relatives were killed by the AUC, Chiquita has been ordered to pay $38.3m (£30m) in damages to the families."

people here don't RTFA when there'a juicy contrarian stuff to say instead

Yes, but I also consistently seeing people refer to anything resulting from a court case (criminal or civil) as a "fine".

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

#295

Post by freejazz »

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…

It's just dress-up for really specious legal theories, such as we should disregard this statute because they believed in the "law of god" at the time, but of course, not any other law he would prefer not be overturned from that time.

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

#296

Post by rayiner »

freejazz wrote: post #295
pen2l wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's just dress-up for really specious legal theories, such as we should disregard this statute because they believed in the "law of god" at the time, but of course, not any other law he would prefer not be overturned from that time.

I’m not arguing ad hominem. In this case, the nonsensical thing they believed makes the statute itself nonsensical:

> The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.

The highlighted part just doesn’t make sense unless you believe in some universal, God-given “law of nations.” In this context, the supernatural belief renders the statute itself nonsensical, like a law setting tariffs on imported “faerie wings.”

I’m not using it as an ad hominem to disparage a statute that makes sense on its face. The part of the statute referring to acts in violation of US treaties is perfectly fine.

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

#297

Post by swores »

freejazz wrote: post #294
whateveracct wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people here don't RTFA when there'a juicy contrarian stuff to say instead

Yes, but I also consistently seeing people refer to anything resulting from a court case (criminal or civil) as a "fine".

Because in non-legalise common English usage, "fine" just means "financial (usually) penalty for wrongdoing".

A civil lawsuit doesn't need to be anything like a speeding ticket from a legal point of view, from a normal person's point of view they can both result in a "you did something wrong, now you have to pay an amount set by the legal system".

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

#298

Post by refurb »

elktown wrote: post #251
refurb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, what was a good alternative? Let the USSR overthrow the governments instead? Install a far left authoritarian state?

Would those people really have been better off? Would the US be better off? Would the world be more stable?

What I see a lot with the left is “well if it can’t be perfect we shouldn’t do it”, ignoring the fact that doing nothing is actually a worse outcome than intervening.

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

#299

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

codedokode wrote: post #170
avalys wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There will be nowhere to do business in, perhaps. /s

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

#300

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #292
dctoedt wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should the US get to make law for the whole world, and then enforce that law in US courts? A longish response would be: "The United States is generally a force for good, and it's the main provider of the very-costly Pax Americana that supports so much of global commerce and a rules-based international order. If we decide you need to follow our standards everywhere if you want to enjoy access to our country, you…

I agree with the short version, but that doesn’t answer the question of why. It’s one thing to invade other countries’ sovereignty to materially benefit your own citizens. But to do so without such benefits is irrational. It’s religious nutjobbery, like the crusades.

> It’s one thing to invade other countries’ sovereignty to materially benefit your own citizens. But to do so without such benefits is irrational. It’s religious nutjobbery, like the crusades.

Short-term vs. long-term analysis. Analogously, if I understand your argument correctly: It's entirely rational for citizens to support costly- and occasionally-violent enforcement of the law against others — e.g., arrest and (upon conviction) imprisonment of murderers, robbers, tax cheaters, etc., and then publicizing that action — even though few if any citizens get any near-term material benefit from doing so. Likewise with the rules-based international order supported by Pax Americana.

Taking (what I think is) your argument to an extreme: The U.S. didn't get involved in WWII to stop Germany from exterminating European Jewry; nor did we invade Rwanda to try to stop the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis and others. But in either case, had we done so, I don't think it would have been "religious nut[-]jobbery."

(You and I are in agreement about the Crusades.)

Post reply on HN