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

321–330 of 343 posts

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

#321

Post by elktown »

refurb wrote: post #320
dventimi wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 regardles…

Yes, constructing a justification through surgically extracted shallow gotchas (but ofc told in an authoritative way like any good gaslighter would do) in each case and ignoring the general pattern - it doesn't exactly end at 3 occurrences - is definitely the epitome of research.

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

#322

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…

> 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.

I'm no expert, but this seems overbroad and even flat-out wrong.

1. Here's something from The New Republic [0] (certainly not a bastion of right-wing thought) earlier this week: "In recent history, as well, the U.S. has closed off some of the few venues through which victims of human rights violations committed by corporations can be heard in U.S. courts. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum [1], in 2012 [sic; 2013], the Supreme Court ruled that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply to human rights violations committed outside of the country, unless claimants can prove a strong connection to the United States."

2. From the Court's 9-0 decision in Kiobel:

The question presented is whether and under what circumstances courts may recognize a cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute, for violations of the law of nations occurring within the territory of a sovereign other than the United States.

***

[N]othing in the text of the statute suggests that Congress intended causes of action recognized under it to have extraterritorial reach.

The ATS covers actions by aliens for violations of the law of nations, but that does not imply extraterritorial reach—such violations affecting aliens can occur either within or outside the United States.

Nor does the fact that the text reaches "any civil action" suggest application to torts committed abroad; it is well established that generic terms like "any" or "every" do not rebut the presumption against extraterritoriality.

(Extra paragraphing added.)

3. Then a few years later in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC (2018) [2], the Court said, 5-4: "With the ATS [Alien Tort Statute], the First Congress provided a federal remedy for a narrow category of international-law violations committed by individuals. Whether, more than two centuries on, a similar remedy should be available against foreign corporations is similarly a decision that Congress must make." (Emphasis added.)

And of course the Court has gotten much more conservative and pro-business since 2013 and 2018 ....

[0] https://newrepublic.com/article/182589/chiquita-colombia-dea...

[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=622061642165784...

[2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=157429310963466...

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

#323

Post by GOD_Over_Djinn »

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…

> Doesn’t seem odd to me for the US to come in and back the current government?

It seems odd to me. The US presents itself as the “city on a hill”, a shining beacon of democracy and freedom for the world to look up to as an example. This should, ostensibly, mean supporting democratic processes even when they yield outcomes that are not necessarily optimal for American interests. It’s clear that this isn’t the case.

If your main motivator is your own personal benefit, and you’re not shy about using realpolitik, deception, and violence to achieve it, at least be open about that fact. Attempts to disguise it as a moral and ethical position are shallow and easily identified.

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

#324

Post by seethedeaduu »

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...

was there a declaration of war?

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

#325

Post by dventimi »

refurb wrote: post #320
dventimi wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 regardles…

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

Rubbish, but even if it were true, so what? Who gave the US the right to decide what happens in other nations?

> The Brother Sam operation didn’t even happen the operation was thus deactivated

If it was deactivated, then it sounds like it happened. You can't deactivate something that hasn't already been activated. The fact is that it did happen. Oh, sure, the supplies weren't delivered and the land invasion was never launched, but the ships did leave port. Moreover, can you be certain that word of this operation wasn't sent to the Brazilian opposition to reassure them an give them confidence? All of which is moot, of course, because what I wrote earlier was, "[to] Not support coups d'etat against democratically-elected leaders [was an alternative]". Whether or not it had "physical effect"--whatever that is--this was clearly support.

> The Chilean coup happened before the CIA actually got involved

I would suggest doing some research on those and reading further into Wikipedia. Right there after the first paragraph in that section, the article quotes the 2000 report which says, "[The CIA] had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters" (among other things), which again constitutes "support."

> regardless that coup was done because Allende refused to follow the Supreme Court

Only the coup plotters know why the conducted a coup and I'm not convinced they've told you. But if it was because "the Supreme Court public complained" well Heavens to Betsy! Oh no! The Supreme Court "complained" did it? Well now, that is serious. That definitely automatically grants the U.S. the right to decide the matter.

Please.

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

That's not a fact. That's a matter of judgement (yours). That Arbenz and Allende at least won elections which were generally regarded as fair, those are matters of fact.

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

#326

Post by refurb »

dventimi wrote: post #325
refurb wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regardles…

> The Arbez coup was an attempt to prevent the USDR from gaining a foothold there. [sic] Rubbish, but even if it were true, so what? Who gave the US the right to decide what happens in other nations? > The Brother Sam operation didn’t even happen the operation was thus deactivated If it was deactivated, then it sounds like it happened. You can't deactivate something that hasn't already been activated. The fact is tha…

> Rubbish, but even if it were true, so what? Who gave the US the right to decide what happens in other nations?

So the US should sit back as the USSR does it?

> Whether or not it had "physical effect"--whatever that is--this was clearly support.

Is it wrong for the US to support on side of a conflict?

> "[The CIA] had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters"

That's not the same as supporting a coup. It's literally the CIAs job to collect intelligence, no? It's something you can do without impacting the outcome?

> Only the coup plotters know why the conducted a coup and I'm not convinced they've told you.

Read up on the conflict. Allende was refusing to follow the constitution. It's not like Chile was some stable democracy, it was teetering on authoritarianism.

> That definitely automatically grants the U.S. the right to decide the matter.

The US wasn't doing that it. It was monitoring the situation and never got involved. But if it had, would it have been wrong to pick a side?

> That's not a fact. That's a matter of judgement (yours).

It absolutely is a fact. Calling it "overthrowing a democracy" is inaccurate. They were highly unstable governments teetering on chaos. Whether the US got involved or not wasn't going to change that fact.

So again, I raise my original point - the alternative isn't a democracy and stability, it's chaos. The US can stand back and let the USSR fund the opposition and end up with a dictatorship. Is that a better outcome than the US getting involved?

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

#327

Post by 20after4 »

rolandog wrote: post #206
gxs wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very cool, I’ve had very similar thoughts in the past. Thinking about the law in this way actually made realize how the number of bugs there is actually low for what a clusterfuck it is.

I think that corporations' leadership (and anyone that aided in the process) not being held criminally accountable, not being stripped of their ill-gotten gains, and not having to pay reparations for the damages they caused is a very serious bug. CVE 9.8/10.0 and all that.

That's a feature, not a bug. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

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

#328

Post by dventimi »

refurb wrote: post #326
dventimi wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Arbez coup was an attempt to prevent the USDR from gaining a foothold there. [sic] Rubbish, but even if it were true, so what? Who gave the US the right to decide what happens in other nations? > The Brother Sam operation didn’t even happen the operation was thus deactivated If it was deactivated, then it sounds like it happened. You can't deactivate something that hasn't already been activated. The fact is tha…

> Rubbish, but even if it were true, so what? Who gave the US the right to decide what happens in other nations? So the US should sit back as the USSR does it? > Whether or not it had "physical effect"--whatever that is--this was clearly support. Is it wrong for the US to support on side of a conflict? > "[The CIA] had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters" That's not the same as supporting…

> So the US should sit back as the USSR does it?

Do what exactly?

> Is it wrong for the US to support on side of a conflict?

That's a question of morality. A question of personal preference is, "Would you prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict in another country?" to which I would answer, "Yes. I would prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict, just as I would prefer the other countries not support a side in an internal political conflict in the US." A question of fact is, "Was the US allowed to support a side in these conflicts." The answer is "no."

> That's not the same as supporting a coup. It's literally the CIAs job to collect intelligence, no?

No, it's not the CIA's job to share intelligence with the plotters, which I believe it did. It's also not the CIA's job to supply the plotters with weapons and encourage them to commit a coup as they did in 1970, something to which I don't have to resort to believe because the CIA itself says that it did do those things. It goes on to say that its support of a coup in 1970 probably led the 1973 plotters to believe they had the CIA's blessing.

> Read up on the conflict. Allende was refusing to follow the constitution. It's not like Chile was some stable democracy, it was teetering on authoritarianism.

Read up on basic logic, and while you're at it, read up on basic physics. If Chile was "teetering on the authoritarianism" then evidently it hadn't yet succumbed to authoritarianism. The coup plotters didn't have the ability to see into the future, like the precogs in "Minority Report." Moreover, again even if the plotters said why they did it, that doesn't mean we know why they did it.

> The US wasn't doing that it. It was monitoring the situation and never got involved.

Tell that to the CIA, which wrote in 2000 that it did get involved in the Chilean coup (for instance).

> It absolutely is a fact

"far from democratic" is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

> Calling it "overthrowing a democracy" is inaccurate

Who has called it "overthrowing a democracy"? Who are you quoting? It can't be me because I never said that. Although...I would if you asked me my opinion on the subject.

> they were highly unstable governments teetering on chaos

That's debatable, but even so, again if they were "teetering on the edge" of chaos then evidently they hadn't yet lapsed into chaos. No one can predict the future, not even you in 2024 and not even US politicians in 1954 or in 1973.

> So again, I raise my original point - the alternative isn't a democracy and stability, it's chaos

That's not a point. That's an opinion (yours).

> The US can stand back and let the USSR fund the opposition and end up with a dictatorship. Is that a better outcome than the US getting involved?

The USSR funding the one side in a political conflict was every bit as legal as the US funding the other side in a political conflict. That that would end up with a USSR-favored dictatorship is theoretical because it didn't happen. What did happen was that they ended up with US-favored dictatorships after the coups. So my personal opinion is that yes, it would've been a better decision in 1954 or 1973 to stop short of supporting those coups, and allow the USSR to continue to wield its influence.

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

#329

Post by freejazz »

diputsmonro wrote: post #318
freejazz wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Generally, it's a distinction without a meaningful difference.

Seems like you might be as confused as they are!

> The people you're complaining about don't really care whether or not it's government or civil action.

They do, because it's always in the context of how the "gov't" levied a fine on some business, when it was actually a civil suit and there's no governmental action at all.

> 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.

That's not what I'm talking about!

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

#330

Post by refurb »

dventimi wrote: post #328
refurb wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rubbish, but even if it were true, so what? Who gave the US the right to decide what happens in other nations? So the US should sit back as the USSR does it? > Whether or not it had "physical effect"--whatever that is--this was clearly support. Is it wrong for the US to support on side of a conflict? > "[The CIA] had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters" That's not the same as supporting…

> So the US should sit back as the USSR does it? Do what exactly? > Is it wrong for the US to support on side of a conflict? That's a question of morality. A question of personal preference is, "Would you prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict in another country?" to which I would answer, "Yes. I would prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict, just as I would pref…

> "Yes. I would prefer the US not support a side in an internal political conflict, just as I would prefer the other countries not support a side in an internal political conflict in the US."

It's not an internal conflict if the USSR is already supporting one side, is it?

> No, it's not the CIA's job to share intelligence with the plotters, which I believe it did.

Sorry, but "which I believe it did" holds no weight with me.

> f Chile was "teetering on the authoritarianism" then evidently it hadn't yet succumbed to authoritarianism.

When the elected leader is already violating the constitution, it's no longer a democracy, is it?

> Tell that to the CIA, which wrote in 2000 that it did get involved in the Chilean coup (for instance).

You're going to need a source for that. From the FOIA releases, the CIA states it didn't even think Pinochet had the ability to lead a coup. The CIA was basically an observer.

> That that would end up with a USSR-favored dictatorship is theoretical because it didn't happen. What did happen was that they ended up with US-favored dictatorships after the coups.

Are you suggesting the USSR would support a democracy? Do they have a track record that demonstrates that? I haven't seen it.

Post reply on HN