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

301–310 of 343 posts

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

#301

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#302

Post by rayiner »

dctoedt wrote: post #300
rayiner wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

The U.S. is an entity that has duly enacted laws and some of them require paying taxes. But nobody made the “laws” that the U.S. pretends to enforce on the international stage.

That’s my beef: if the U.S. wants to meddle in other country’s affairs “because it can” nobody can stop it. But it’s insulting to disguise what is an exercise of power as the enforcement of “law.” And if Americans really do believe there is law that binds the whole world that’s where the religious nutjobbery comes in. Law is something that only exists within a state that has the monopoly on violence to enforce it.

(Intervening in World War II can be justified as an exercise is protecting U.S. security. Intervening in Rwanda cannot, and is an example of Americans believing it’s their job to enforce God’s law everywhere in the world.)

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

#303

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #302
dctoedt wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (…

The U.S. is an entity that has duly enacted laws and some of them require paying taxes. But nobody made the “laws” that the U.S. pretends to enforce on the international stage. That’s my beef: if the U.S. wants to meddle in other country’s affairs “because it can” nobody can stop it. But it’s insulting to disguise what is an exercise of power as the enforcement of “law.” And if Americans really do believe there is la…

> But nobody made the “laws” that the U.S. pretends to enforce on the international stage.

You're setting the bar pretty high. Some "law" simply evolves, by custom and practice, without any formal enactment by anyone. One example that comes to mind is (maritime) anti-piracy law.

Keep in mind that, unless I'm very much mistaken, American extraterritorial law is fundamentally grounded on, "if you want access to our country, financial system, etc., then you gotta follow our rules — and not necessarily just while you're within our geographic borders. You pays your money and you takes your choice."

BTW, the U.S. didn't invade Rwanda at all, to save the Tutsis or otherwise.

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

#304

Post by elktown »

refurb wrote: post #298
elktown wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

False dichotomy

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

#305

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #296
freejazz wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

> some universal, God-given “law of nations.”

I'm not an international lawyer, but my understanding is that for a very long time there has indeed been a generally-accepted "law of nations" that simply evolved by (more or less) common consent, not necessarily by any formal enactment on the part of some generally-accepted authority. Lex mercatoria ("the Law Merchant") comes to mind, as does the "right" of any nation to execute pirates captured on the high seas.

The brute fact is that ultimately, might does indeed make right.

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

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

#306

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #302
dctoedt wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (…

The U.S. is an entity that has duly enacted laws and some of them require paying taxes. But nobody made the “laws” that the U.S. pretends to enforce on the international stage. That’s my beef: if the U.S. wants to meddle in other country’s affairs “because it can” nobody can stop it. But it’s insulting to disguise what is an exercise of power as the enforcement of “law.” And if Americans really do believe there is la…

> Intervening in Rwanda [to stop genocide] cannot [be justified], and is an example of Americans believing it’s their job to enforce God’s law everywhere in the world.

Many of us would assert that trying to stop mass murder is a good thing in its own right and doesn't need to be justified by reference to "God's law," whatever that might mean.

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

#307

Post by dventimi »

refurb wrote: post #298
elktown wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> what was a good alternative?

Not support coups d'etat against democratically-elected leaders?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Brother_Sam#Developi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

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

#308

Post by rayiner »

dctoedt wrote: post #305
rayiner wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

> some universal, God-given “law of nations.” I'm not an international lawyer, but my understanding is that for a very long time there has indeed been a generally-accepted "law of nations" that simply evolved by (more or less) common consent, not necessarily by any formal enactment on the part of some generally-accepted authority. Lex mercatoria ("the Law Merchant") comes to mind, as does the "right" of any nation to…

> The brute fact is that ultimately, might does indeed make right.

Sure. But that’s not “law” that’s the exercise of power. In 2024 we shouldn’t indulge the fiction that it’s more than that.

The way it has been construed, the ATS empowers US courts to do whatever they want if some foreign conduct offends the sensibilities of some Americans. Some feelers in America upset that Bangladesh summarily executes drug traffickers? They can sue for violation of “the law of nations.” I’m not saying the US can’t do that, I’m saying it’s stupid and arrogant.

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

#309

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #308
dctoedt wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some universal, God-given “law of nations.” I'm not an international lawyer, but my understanding is that for a very long time there has indeed been a generally-accepted "law of nations" that simply evolved by (more or less) common consent, not necessarily by any formal enactment on the part of some generally-accepted authority. Lex mercatoria ("the Law Merchant") comes to mind, as does the "right" of any nation to…

> The brute fact is that ultimately, might does indeed make right. Sure. But that’s not “law” that’s the exercise of power. In 2024 we shouldn’t indulge the fiction that it’s more than that. The way it has been construed, the ATS empowers US courts to do whatever they want if some foreign conduct offends the sensibilities of some Americans. Some feelers in America upset that Bangladesh summarily executes drug traffic…

> Some feelers in America upset that Bangladesh summarily executes drug traffickers? They can sue for violation of “the law of nations.”

Citation? In the mifepristone case just yesterday, SCOTUS reminded us of the need for "standing" — albeit while practically drawing a road map for other plaintiffs to try again.

Question: Under your reasoning, are Judge Kacsmaryk's nationwide injunctions, e.g., in the mifepristone case, similarly "stupid and arrogant," even though they're technically permissible under the All-Writs Act [which needs major revision IMHO]?

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

#310

Post by rayiner »

dctoedt wrote: post #309
rayiner wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The brute fact is that ultimately, might does indeed make right. Sure. But that’s not “law” that’s the exercise of power. In 2024 we shouldn’t indulge the fiction that it’s more than that. The way it has been construed, the ATS empowers US courts to do whatever they want if some foreign conduct offends the sensibilities of some Americans. Some feelers in America upset that Bangladesh summarily executes drug traffic…

> Some feelers in America upset that Bangladesh summarily executes drug traffickers? They can sue for violation of “the law of nations.” Citation? In the mifepristone case just yesterday, SCOTUS reminded us of the need for "standing" — albeit while practically drawing a road map for other plaintiffs to try again. Question: Under your reasoning, are Judge Kacsmaryk's nationwide injunctions, e.g., in the mifepristone c…

> Citation? In the mifepristone case just yesterday, SCOTUS reminded us of the need for "standing" — albeit while practically drawing a road map for other plaintiffs to try again.

Some “human rights” group in the U.S. would just have to find a random Bangladeshi person (including a non-citizen) to claim some family member was killed in some supposedly “illegal” execution of drug dealers.

> Question: Under your reasoning, are Judge Kacsmaryk's nationwide injunctions, e.g., in the mifepristone case, similarly "stupid and arrogant," even though they're technically permissible under the All-Writs Act [which needs major revision IMHO]?

No because he’s a judge of the same legal entity being enjoined. Unlike the national borders, the federal districts are mostly just lines in an org chart.

Post reply on HN