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

311–320 of 343 posts

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

#311

Post by feoren »

rayiner wrote: post #265
saghm wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a statute that made sense in 1789 when it was enacted by a bunch of people that thought God made universal law applicable to the whole world. Yet the same people who are likely to be responsible if this law does get thrown out are totally fine with plenty of other laws that make a lot less sense today than in 1789. Let's not pretend that the same court who ruled that all firearm regulations need to be interpre…

The Second Amendment imposes a clear textual standard that makes as much sense today as it did in 1789. It's not like anyone is confused about what "bear arms" means. You might think that standard is bad policy today in light of intervening changes, and maybe you would add more caveats, but plenty of people disagree about that . The Alien Tort Statute, by contrast, literally doesn't make sense--talking about the "law…

> It's not like anyone is confused about what "bear arms" means.

Did you intentionally avoid the actual term whose meaning there is legitimate argument over? It's "well-regulated militia", and there absolutely is wildly different opinions over what that means.

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

#312

Post by freejazz »

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…

None of this is responsive to what I wrote or accused you of, which is pretty typical for my interactions with you.

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

#313

Post by freejazz »

swores wrote: post #297
freejazz wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

They mistake the civil legal system for a fine imposed by the gov't, no need to be. obtuse about it.

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

#314

Post by swores »

freejazz wrote: post #313
swores wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

They mistake the civil legal system for a fine imposed by the gov't, no need to be. obtuse about it.

Yes, people make mistakes, especially when common usage of a word like "fine" doesn't align precisely with legal use. In my opinion it's getting upset about not everyone having a concrete understanding of the legal system that there's no need for.

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

#315

Post by freejazz »

swores wrote: post #314
freejazz wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mistake the civil legal system for a fine imposed by the gov't, no need to be. obtuse about it.

Yes, people make mistakes, especially when common usage of a word like "fine" doesn't align precisely with legal use. In my opinion it's getting upset about not everyone having a concrete understanding of the legal system that there's no need for.

Where's the discontinuity, they just assume everything that happens in court is the result of actions by the gov't when it's not just true. I don't get your tone, as if people making mistakes is a concept I'm not familiar with. That's not what I'm discussing, I'm discussing widely made mistaken assumptions from an otherwise incredulous crowd.

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

#317

Post by fuzztester »

pjc50 wrote: post #225
fuzztester wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also this, right in the USA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Overpass Mentioned here too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford

> In the aftermath, Ford Motor Company attempted to control the narrative by destroying news photographs onsite America's own micro Tianamen. Private sector, of course.

America's private sector is to its government as China's government is to its private sector.

If you know what I mean ...

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

#318

Post by diputsmonro »

freejazz wrote: post #315
swores wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people make mistakes, especially when common usage of a word like "fine" doesn't align precisely with legal use. In my opinion it's getting upset about not everyone having a concrete understanding of the legal system that there's no need for.

Where's the discontinuity, they just assume everything that happens in court is the result of actions by the gov't when it's not just true. I don't get your tone, as if people making mistakes is a concept I'm not familiar with. That's not what I'm discussing, I'm discussing widely made mistaken assumptions from an otherwise incredulous crowd.

Generally, it's a distinction without a meaningful difference. The people you're complaining about don't really care whether or not it's government or civil action. They care that these people are getting away with murder and mass extortion and the only penalty they face is a meager chunk of the profits.

I'm glad that some victims are getting some recompense, but frankly, justice has not really been served.

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

#319

Post by NicoJuicy »

boffinAudio wrote: post #192
dunekid wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you remember the insurgency at the Capitol?

Or Ukraine, 2014.

That's not a coup. That's a Russian invasion. Not Ukrainians.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukra...

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

#320

Post by refurb »

dventimi wrote: post #307
refurb wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I would suggest doing some research on those and NOT relying on Wikipedia. But even then, your last 2 links even disprove your point.

The Arbez coup was an attempt to prevent the USDR from gaining a foothold there.

The Brother Sam operation didn’t even happen - “The operation was thus deactivated before it had any physical effect in Brazil”

The Chilean coup happened before the CIA actually got involved. But regardless that coup was done because Allende refused to follow the Supreme Court “the Supreme Court publicly complained about the government's inability to enforce the law of the land”

So using the “democratically elected” hides the fact the situation was far from democratic at the time of the coup.

Post reply on HN