It is clear that most HNers aren't reading the article. This has nothing to do with the UFC's "banana republic" atrocities, and seems to be a rather unjust situation:
- Chiquita was forced to pay "protection money" to the AUC. Read: "pay us or we kill your employees and burn your plantations to the ground."
- Chiquita makes the payment and alerts the Department of Justice that they were forced to pay under duress.
- The AUC kills 8 people, as cartels tend to do.
- Chiquita is held accountable.
This does not seem reasonable: First you get extorted at threat to life/property, then you get punished for getting extorted. Furthermore, it's tenuous at best to say "8 people died because you paid the AUC." The AUC kills/maims/tortures children every day for fun. This is not an exaggeration, most people will never comprehend the sheer evil of these organizations.
Calling for the execution[1] of Chiquita execs as some HNers are doing is absurd. Should Chiquita just let their employees get tortured to death and watch their properties burn to the ground?
Perhaps the government of Columbia itself should be responsible for not exterminating its cartels, and instead allowing them to infiltrate the deepest ranks of its military and government.
I'm surprised that most of the previous comments assume they could have just not paid and faced no consequences.
I grew up in a town where these groups had significant influence. It was very common to see businesses, both big and small, paying a "vacuna." Not paying could lead to kidnapping, intimidation, or even death for the owners or operators of the business.
I read the article, and the fact that they continued sending payments even after that group was designated a terrorist organization by the US government seems pretty egregious to me, and gives me very little faith into their claim that they were forced into payment, rather than wanting to pay and fund them to combat Chiquita's political opposition. With their company's history they should be hyper-aware about what they are doing when they give money to paramilitary groups that run large drug trafficking operations.
The DoJ actually acknowledges the payments were made under duress, but it is still technically a violation. The AUC absolutely threatened to kill their employees.
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."
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".
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.
> 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.
My feeling is that you're the one confused with what other people think and care about, not the other way around. I'll leave it there and agree to disagree, as you've been ignoring the points made by both of us who replied to you.
Might I suggest asking a friend who you trust to read the thread and share their thoughts with you - because I thought we just disagreed, and I didn't think much of your opinion, but saying that either of us have "made up scenarios" means you're just completely misunderstanding something we've said (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't write that knowing it's nonsense in the hope that it saves you face).
“ (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.”
You telling me a country initiating a war has the right to then ask for reparations for the damages and destruction they caused on the country they initiated the war against? That's so freaking absurd that it is actually funny!
I can only guess the wikipedia article is only a summary and the real convention could be around who is to blame for the war and other factors. Otherwise that's just so ridiculous that it actually encourages declaring wars on countries!
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.
Who cares when it's the US. Laws only apply for the weak-handed. They controlled the Iraqi government anyway, and they were stealing all of its oil as they wished regardless. The reparations were only the icing on the cake.
You don't have to rely on (faulty) memory, the very Wikipedia article mentions that the USA was a signatory of the Hague treaty.
As an aside it is pretty hilarious in hindsight that at the time all the countries who are now permanent UN Security Council member (which its associated veto powers) were in favor of a binding international arbitration court, but it was vetoed by the powers of that time like Germany.
> it [the US] doesn't believe in the concept of human rights.
Unless when China, Russia, Iran or DPRK violates humans right according to their Secretary of State; in that case they cry an additional Mississippi river over human rights violations.
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.
How is it a step in the right direction? If anything, it just sets a precedent - this is how much you should expect to pay in fines for committing atrocities.
The Alien Tort Statue [1], the reason this case [2] is in the US at all has sometimes been used for significant environmental and social justice global legal activism. Because of this, it is in the sights of the conservative legal movement. Sadly I suspect this case may end up at the supreme court and end up another victim of the removal of redress for the evil of the powerful.
Back in my law school days I was part of our school’s Immigration and Human Rights Clinic that won a $22M judgment under the Alien Tort Statute Act on behalf of Liberian torture victims against “Chuckie” Taylor, son of Liberian President Charles Taylor.[1]
The background is the stuff of movies, Charles Taylor was a high ranking official in Liberia that fled to the US after being accused of embezzlement (principally from US contracts), he was arrested in the US and “escaped” from Federal prison, fled back to Africa where he was armed and funded by Gaddafi, and became President of Liberia after a coup. His campaign slogan was "He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him.”
In fact both Charles and Chuckie are depicted in the Movie Lord of War, where Chuckie was the one who asks Nicolas Cage for the Rambo’s golden gun. Their brutality was also depicted in Blood Diamond, in neighboring Sierra Leon where they were behind Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and would cut people’s arms off (long sleeve/short sleeves for above/below the elbow) when they voted in elections, because voters hands/thumbs were inked as evidence of voting.
Chuckie interestingly was actually a born in the US and a private school kid. Then went to Liberia after Charles became President and became head of his anti-terrorists unit called the “demon forces”, the rest is the stuff of nightmares they leave out of the movies.
If you can read between the lines, this stuff goes to the highest levels of government and intelligence which is another reason the ATS Act is under attack.
> Because of this, it is in the sights of the conservative legal movement
I suspect the problem is more that the statute gives U.S. courts jurisdiction over conduct that happens in foreign countries, and applies incomprehensibly vague standards such as “the law of nations.” 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.
> 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 interpreted in the context of what people would have thought in the 18th century[1] would rule differently on a case covering the law we're discussing because of legitimate legal reasoning; they're happy throw out precedents from the most recent couple of centuries in favor of regressing to some ancient historical standard when it ends up with the result they want.
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 of nations" is like talking about the "aether" or "faeries." It's not even an originalism issue. Even in 1789, the Founders likely didn't intend for the ATS to e.g. allow suits in U.S. courts against the British East India Company for violations of "human rights."
> 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.
That's not at all what Supreme Court ruled with regards to the 2nd amendment. They precisely said that contemporary laws related to firearms must be consistent with the centuries of jurisprudence we have on the limits and liberties enabled by the 2nd amendment. In your own words, states must not "throw out precedents from the most recent couple of centuries."
This law, by contrast, was enacted in 1789 but only invoked exactly twice until 1980. [1] Since then it seems to have been regularly enacted with very little in the way of jurisprudence to guide its purpose, limits, and overall meaning. It also suffers from an issue that it appeals to "international law" which is a term more subject to political than legal interpretation. Contemporary examples abounds.
The Supreme Court in this case was also not basing their opinion on fact, since there actually was jurisprudence about gun control [1]
Also, it doesn't make sense to say laws should perfectly adhere with jurisprudence. Laws are enacted and changed precisely because lawmakers don't like the results the legal framework is giving them up until that point in time. To whit, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights were enacted because the lawmakers at the time did not enjoy the British legal framework and their 'unwritten constitution' as they now like to call it.
You're expressing an extremely common misconception about the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant you e.g. the right to free speech or the right to bear arms. You already naturally have these rights. The way the Constitution works is to instead restrict what laws the government can pass. The government cannot simply say 'times have changed, we're going to pass laws banning speech and guns' because the Constitution expressly prohibits that.
So instead, if they want to do that, then they would need to amend the Constitution. And that's entirely possible - the process for that is well defined, and it has been done many times. It requires a supermajority vote in both the House and Senate, and then 75% of the US states agreeing to it. It's intentionally designed such that the Constitution will only change when there is overwhelming consensus across all affected groups.
The Supreme Court's role in all of those is exclusively to ensure that laws do not violate the Constitution.
Spirit of the law should still apply even if it's an old law. You should change the law if you want a different outcome. Things get very arbitrary when judges can decide a law is too old to apply - that's how communists did their revolutionary courts in many European countries.
The whole point of corporations is that they can sue and be sued like a natural person can - they have legal personhood, and can pursue and defend actions in their own name.
I assume the portion of the first link you're referring to is the section that starts
> Courts have also split on whether corporations may be held liable under the ATS.
This is a question about the ATS and its scope specifically; the source is not discussing the nature of corporations generally.
It sounds like the scope of the ATS is fairly ill-defined, and that at various points courts have looked for whatever reasons they could to limit its scope, and whether a corporation was involved has just been one of those reasons.
> corporations are persons, but cannot be sued like a person can
Yes. Just like Californians, non-Americans and children are all natural persons with varying rights, Delaware C corporations, New York non-profits and unions are all legal persons with different rights.
Fictitious personhood is older than childhood personhood (or universal natural personhood, for that matter). To the degree we need a better term, it’s for natural persons.
It’s a logical consequence of assembly, tracing back thousands of years to trade guilds and municipalities needing the ability to stand in court as a collective.
Anyone who thinks we should end it should consider the consequences of requiring a find-and-replace exercise across our entire body of law, specifying which persons each statute and case applies to, and then prepare for an endless game of whack-a-mole as new categories of person are created. (Murder is legal if you’re a DAO!)
oh, comeon. this is just responsibility laundering.
individual natural persons are implementing every act of these artificial hyperagents, and there is precedent and reason for holding individuals accountable for individual actions.
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 responsible for their corporation, then they are king. We've derived feudalism.
> 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 equally to free citizens and corporations, but not to slaves. And I'd certainly argue that today, the idea that a corporation can be referred to as a 'person' is very much a specialists' usage that does not at all align with its everyday use.
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.)
I have to admit I find it a little hard to understand what you're trying to say. It seems to me like you're mixing up a few things. In everyday English, the word 'person' primarily refers to an individual human. This is distinct from and (at least in my view of semantics) comes before philosophical and religious discussions about what it might mean to be human; and also distinct from discussions of the legal rights and duties that persons are given which might also be conferred upon non-humans. Even if these give rise to derived (polysemous) usages of the word person.
Strangely enough, we've ignored that "find-and-replace across the body of law" in the past. Even the new gender laws ignore existing laws. I sometimes wish that we had written a compiler for law. And a statically typed language designed for compiling policy (think Rego + Rust). Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it. Lawyers would have to learn the language and compiler tools as part of their study, but anyone in the country would have access to them so that they could run their own tests and even settle minor legal disputes without having to pay lawyers. New laws that cause compiler errors don't get through, unless you can first unblock them with a refactor (which must also compile without errors). I think it's obvious that an attempt to encode the current statue book would fail miserably. You might have to start off an extremely simplistic set of rules (kinda like RocoCop's prime directives or Moses' 10 commandments) because I think we can all generally agree that killing is wrong generally. Ok, add a law "thou shake not kill". Oh, but what if someone's trying to kill you or your child? "Killing is wrong unless X is true". At the very least it would be an interesting exercise.
> Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it
I look forward to when code can express the richness of natural languages. In the meantime, formally-declared law is a fantasy. (Exhibit A: any court opinion.)
> You might have to start off an extremely simplistic set of rules (kinda like RocoCop's prime directives or Moses' 10 commandments)
Every civilisation has a leader who thought they could reïnvent law from first principles. Nobody uses their systems. (Legal axioms ultimately track to time immemorial, i.e.g prehistory.)
> Killing is wrong unless X is true
Murder vs manslaugher vs self defence vs execution vs being stabbed by a soldier is a good lens into law. (Or, to be provocative, eating meat.)
> it would be an interesting exercise
It's a popular in laws school. In its failure one learns of the intersection between culture and the law and why VHS beat Betamax.
lol, you picked out my "Killing is wrong unless X is true" quote but ignored my follow up which acknowledges that prime directives are insufficiently flexible. I'm not even suggesting starting off a legal system from scratch. I'm saying that it would be good to begin by encoding our current system into a purpose-built language and compiler, and of course one should start with the basics and build upon it, using the language and compiler to find inconsistencies, clashes etc.
I think your point may be that laws currently do have nuance (eg murder vs manslaughter vs...) which is all fine. By all means load those rules into the system too, but the point of the language and compiler is that while you're doing this you pay attention to compiler errors along the way and at least be aware when a change (to a rule, or the meaning of a term or type) caused some other change that you didn't expect. Eg: changing the meaning of a word here makes one law ambiguous and causes these two to clash.
Using it in law school is a great idea. It's where it should begin.
> these are all interpretations of the same type of event
Sure. But legally--and culturally--very different. If someone doesn't see that, they probably shouldn't be commenting on the law. (Practically speaking, they probably aren't.)
Right. We are talking about social conventions, not right or wrong. This is plain when we see that the same action can be legal in one country, and a serious crime in another. It's simply the rules of the game, no different to Scrabble or poker. How the individual engages with the culture/game is their business. Similarly, if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they?
> Social constructs are socially constructed. Given social systems are heterogenous, this variation is far from profound. (It’s almost corollary.)
Not really. I imagine its fine to shoot a burglar in the US who breaks in your house, but you could go to jail for murder in the UK. Soldiers can kill civilians without consequences. So can governments (death row, in the US).
>> if an individual is able to direct the creation of rules in their favour, why shouldn't they?
> One usually can’t.
I think most(/all?) law is created this way. Eg a pretty small collection of individuals that have the sway in a corporation use the corporation to pay lobbyists to draft laws to benefit them (creating a moat, force individuals to pay (health insurance), etc, etc). This is done in the name of serving the public interest. The political class then rubber stamps these proposals, in order to receive a seat on the board on retiring from politics.
Your mistake here, imo, is that you think law is something other than an instrument of control. You believe that it is about codifying a set of good behaviours or something. The compilation errors are intentional, rich people are able to get the coder/solicitor to express the law in terms they want. The reality is that anything written down is a metaphor for the internal moral awareness of right and wrong, and as such can be subverted. We are each able to work out right from wrong, but if we believe we have to defer to a law book, we externalise our personal authority to a book.
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.
I of course understand the necessity of representing collectives in a legal system, but given that we cannot apply many legal concepts people rely on to trust such a system (say, punishing bad behavior with more than just a fine), it stands to reason they shouldn't be granted many of the benefits, either. Perhaps if we could have the board or stockholders stand in and accept the punishment personally it would make more sense, but we seem very averse to this as a society for some reason. As a result these parties are likely to have predominantely negative effects on society that relies on the concept of meaningful liability.
> Anyone who thinks we should end it should consider the consequences of requiring a find-and-replace exercise across our entire body of law, specifying which persons each statute and case applies to, and then prepare for an endless game of whack-a-mole as new categories of person are created.
I don't have much hope for fixing our body of laws, frankly. I don't think a good reaction to this realization is to accept them as rational or reasonable.
> given that we cannot apply many legal concepts people rely on to trust such a system
Your problem isn't with corporate personhood. It's with our quasi-aristocracy.
To that extent, complaining about legal entities is entirely a distraction. (Akin to how "corporate death penalties" distract from proportional fining. Red herrings littering the path.)
> don't have much hope for fixing our body of laws, frankly
Have you studied them? They're precedented in millenia, not tweets, for good reason.
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?
I can see why that is controversial and almost certainly will be extremely selectively enforced.
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, many AUC leaders were extradited to the US in 2008).
This isn't about enforcement at all, this is them being found liable in a civil class action lawsuit, one brought by families of folks the AUC murdered.
> 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 people with guns hang out in the office, usual cartel stuff that happens daily there
Then they go to the Mexican gov for help and find out they don't give a shit because they are paid off or worse directly working for the cartel (as this particular Colombian paramilitary group was notorious for being protected by the gov).
So they pay money to some local cartel to make them go away
This is bad yes and should be punished.
But I don't see how that behaviour at all should allow civil action by random families from Mexico who were harmed (indirectly) by the same Cartel to make a case in the US
That's the most disconnected and roundabout form of justice imagineable.
Their crime should have rightfully been procescuted by Colombia at the time or the US sanctioning them. That is the real deterence. Civil courts in the US have no business playing judge in that context IMO. Unless your goal is feel good emotions by giving victims of crime money by takkng money from another party coerced by the same criminals.
>So they pay money to some local cartel to make them go away
Traditionally it's more like "they pay money to some local armed group to get rid of union activists and unruly workers asking for more rights and better conditions and salaries".
Yes, because real workers are never exploited and never have legitimate concerns and demands, especially in developing world countries /s
It's not like such companies like Chiquita even support dictators or topple goverments (or lobby to get it done on their behalf) to protect their margins and cheap labour...
"Among the Honduran people, the United Fruit Company was known as El Pulpo ("The Octopus" in English), because its influence pervaded Honduran society, controlled their country's transport infrastructure, and manipulated Honduran national politics with anti-labour violence."
Well, feel good justice isnt even just one part here because justice isnt the primary goal of a legal system. Your premise is wrong.
Its about punishment to enforce the civil contract and once you exclude bodies, eg drug trafficing CIA officials or sociopathical CEOs, you start to loose credibility.
> But I don't see how that behaviour at all should allow civil action by random families from Mexico who were harmed (indirectly) by the same Cartel to make a case in the US
So then only attorneys are left to lead the charge, right? How can you still trust a system that prosecutes journalists that uncover war crimes that get covered up by the same cartel?
>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?
wait - was the argument that the laws of these other countries they were operating in required them to fund paramilitary death squads? I must have missed that part.
I'm thinking the slope is not as slippery as feared here.
on edit: Ok I read your Mexican cartel example, slipperiness still not apparent to me how one slides from we hired death squads that killed people to we hired a cartel for protection but the money we paid was put in a big pile of money that cartel used to also fund bad stuff the cartel did that hurt people who were not trying to damage our company.
at any rate the amount of money paid out here having people killed is the usual cost of doing business slap on the wrist considering Chiquita's size and doesn't actually affect them. The negative publicity is worse.
I mean actually this is probably the rule for most countries regarding some laws at least - EU companies as I understand the law need to follow GDPR when outside EU, there are laws against bribery and money laundering that work across nations despite what the economic/legal circumstances are in play in other countries.
Luckily though I believe every country in the world that is not a fictional dystopia actually has laws against corporations paying to have people killed so it probably doesn't matter much in this case anyway.
Non-EU companies need to follow GDPR when serving EU customers, yes. There are many websites that geoblock EU visitors because they don't want to comply with GDPR.
But the EU only enforces that for transactions involving EU citizens. If you want to grab all the data from US visitors, go for it, the EU will not complain (as long as you don't do it to EU visitors).
I think the difference here is that the US is enforcing US law on an operation in a foreign country by a company that operates in the US. The equivalent would be the EU enforcing GDPR for all site transactions, regardless of the visitor's nationality.
The point of making this distinction is that there are countries that have laws that we don't want to follow (e.g. various Middle East countries having drastic punishments for atheism and apostasy), and that should not be applied to people (or organisations) who don't reside there. If the USA makes the precedent that it can enforce its domestic law on actions happening in other countries, then it's possible that (e.g.) Australia could enforce its ridiculous anti-online-bullying laws on US citizens who have never left the USA.
>But the EU only enforces that for transactions involving EU citizens. If you want to grab all the data from US visitors, go for it, the EU will not complain (as long as you don't do it to EU visitors).
>your company processes personal data and is based in the EU, regardless of where the actual data processing takes place
>your company is established outside the EU but processes personal data in relation to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EU, or monitors the behaviour of individuals within the EU
Notice how they emphasized EU citizens? Yeah, neither did I.
Reading over the post I realize they meant that companies in the U.S need to handle EU citizens data properly but they can do what they want with U.S citizens data, which I misunderstood so my apologies on the misunderstanding.
which of course is not an exactly correct understanding - no American company without holdings in Europe needs to worry about what they do with their websites accessed by European citizens.
The don't emphasize citizenship because it is enough to live in the EU for the law to apply, i.e. immigrants etc. are included.
If you look into the actual GDPR, you will find the phrase "data subjects who are in the Union", which are "natural persons", for whom the data protection laws apply.
>you will find the phrase "data subjects who are in the Union", which are "natural persons", for whom the data protection laws apply.
tourists who are in the union also apply, there is no idea that you can figure out if that person is just traveling through the EU for some months you can do what you want with them.
>Data subjects in the Union means any person in the Union whose information is being collected at that moment, regardless of their nationality or legal status. That means EU citizens and residents are squarely in scope. And someone in the EU, even a US tourist using an app in the EU, is a data subject in the Union for purposes of the GDPR.
on edit: if you were just clarifying/backing up my original point, sorry, I thought it seemed you were going with interpretation of the person who I was replying to an EU company can do what they want with any U.S citizen's data.
It's kind of ironic, as the US wants every other country to follow their laws too sometimes (patents, copyright, probably more).
For the extra cup of strange irony, part of the government in my country (Australia) just tried forcing X to delete posts for everyone globally instead of just not showing them to Australian users. Thankfully the court system told the Aust gov to bugger off due to overreach. ;)
> 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 never considered that if I formed a corporation I could fund death squads in other countries to maintain access to cheap products. What the hell is wrong with you where you thought that was not only desirable, but a normal situation...?
I grew up very conservative and pro-free-market, and honestly a huge part of my transition to being a pinko commie scum was recognizing just how FUCKED big businesses are, especially overseas. Like you have the banal stuff like tax sheltering which is shitty but like, it's just money but then, oh MAN, they get up to some truly horrific shit. Death squads, union breaking, cataclysmic environmental damage, and it's 100% enabled by our system. I hope that this trend continues and we can finally get some justice out of these organizations that have clearly overstepped in so many ways.
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?
Anyone who has ever worked for a medium-large corporation will have done the inevitable employee training that, among many other things, tells you that "no, you cannot pay bribes or facilitation payments in another country even if it's normal and expected there, and yes you and us can still be prosecuted at home for that".
One could make the argument that if the corporation is required by law in all the non-legal countries to abide by those laws and not bribe officials that the practice will necessarily have to die out among the few countries you would be arguing for, simply because the risk is too great to the corporation. Maybe it would be maintained among local businesses, but it would be an understood fact that a politician could not expect a broad multi-national to participate in it, irrespective of their desire or willingness, if they stood to face prosecution from... however many countries they operate in, all of whom would demand a penalty be served. Even if they're slap-on-the-wrist penalties, that's going to add up real fast.
IANAL, but I believe that under US law you are allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do their job in places where that is customary. You just aren't allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do something that they aren't supposed to do.
> under US law you are allowed to pay bribes to get someone to do their job in places where that is customary
Not quite.
You may be thinking of the “grease payment” exception [1] to the FCPA [2]. Customariness isn’t as important as whether the payment is to speed up a decided outcome or effect the outcome.
idk, I see it the other way around actually. if you kill someone in another country, that's still bad, but it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request.
whereas if you bribe public officials in other countries as normal business practice, that might give you an advantage over other companies that also operate in the US. if they have to also engage in bribery to compete with you, that seems like a much more direct harm to another US entity.
Why stop there and not take it to the next step? Surely company A killing whistleblowers or rabble rousers overseas lets it outperform company B that isn’t doin that state-side? Doesn’t that encourage company B to do the same on red, white, and blue soil?
are A and B both operating in the US in your example? if yes, then USG has a legitimate interest in removing that perverse incentive. if not, then the US criminal justice system seems like the wrong place to solve the problem.
my point is that the jurisdiction of the US criminal justice system should be limited to the US. if people do things in another country that demonstrably harm US residents, that's fair game. otherwise, it seems like an overreach for the US to enforce laws that might not even exist in other countries. just my opinion, you don't have to agree.
>it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request.
This would make it very easy for Americans to be mercenaries and assassins for foreign governments.
The company in question managed to get the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala and replace it with a military dictatorship.
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 conversion.
America is not enforcing its laws on some random people outside its borders, its regulating the behavior of people who are very much subject to our legal system. I am quite surprised to see there's a contingent of folks who think that leaving our borders means you can do whatever you want and expect to be welcomed back
The Alien Tort Statute applies specifically to "aliens" not Americans. It's about holding foreigners liable for conduct on foreign soil in U.S. courts.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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]?
> 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.
> 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:
<quote>
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.
</quote>
(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 ....
On this issue, I don't think there's been a change. I don't believe in universalism, which Americans on both the left and right tend to do. I opposed the Iraq War because I thought America had no business trying to bring democracy to Iraq (and knew Iraqi society couldn't handle democracy). Similarly, I oppose current U.S. efforts to impose universal norms. America shot a bunch of striking workers and polluted the environment on the way to becoming rich. Why shouldn't Bangladesh have that same prerogative?
> 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."
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."
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.)
> 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.
> 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.
Other countries are free to levy such fines for offenses they deem worthy and have done so in the past certainly. The US does not have exclusive right to this.
Uh, yes? There are dozens of specific US laws that govern this and tons of existing case law that committing a serious crime overseas is punishable in the US regardless of its legality elsewhere.
The Travel Act for example makes it illegal to fly to another country to engage in sexual acts with a minor, even if it is legal in that country. Do you think that is some sort of government overreach?
The relevant principle of jurisdiction here is that a state has jurisdiction over the acts of its citizens. It's not uncommon and it's certainly not just a US thing (eg. here is a Brazilian court convicting one of its citizens over a murder committed in Australia: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/23/cecilia-haddad... ).
The thing that's a bit scary about that Travel Act is: what happens when US laws change?
Instead of having sex with minors, suppose the US elected some crazy religious zealots who managed to make it illegal to have sex outside of heterosexual marriage, after getting abortion banned (so, not exactly far-fetched). So does that mean that all "US persons" (citizens, green card holders, residents, etc.) who travel (or live) outside the US and have sex with someone they're not married to are now criminals?
>So does that mean that all "US persons" (citizens, green card holders, residents, etc.) who travel (or live) outside the US and have sex with someone they're not married to are now criminals?
What might you say about war crimes? When was the last time we had a large scale war within the borders of the U.S.? Should the wars that have taken place since been free of such prosecution since they were overseas?
>" Sadly I suspect this case may end up at the supreme court and end up another victim of the removal of redress for the evil of the powerful."
I find it deeply ironic that such morally guided policy unravells a power projection machine only to then be replaced by another powers power projection machine void of values. A power that engages in values mimicry on the surface level and copies the colonial strategies it condemns. And in the end, the morally just but powerless are just written out of history. All the good intentions and they will have never existed.
Some kissinger minion will remove us from the internet archives to have a more correct history for the great leader. And lets not forget the physical, real disasters of antirealpolitics in Europe. Everyone scrambles to get nukes that idealists declared redundant.
In this game the moral and decent loose totally if they allow one player to gain enough power to flip the gameboard. Worser still the moral rightous ones become defacto usefool gamepieces rambling about "red lines & rules" of the opponents, while the littlefingers and kissingers play this game with one arm tied back. The blood in Ukraine is on your hands too, oh moral ones.
Not really. Read Pareto's Circulation of the Elites.
The mistake is assuming all those who have some amout of power all have the same agenda.
Such a state is never possible purely because people's personalities, needs, values, environment exist in a wide spectrum. Littlefingers and kissengers loose something everytime they win.
Its like a virus cant kill the host without killing itself.
Great documentary that Frontline made about something similar called Firestone and the Warlord. Firestone paid warlord Charles Taylor money to ‘protect’ their rubber plantations (essentially extortion), this money ended up providing him almost all of his funding during the Liberian civil war and made him a major player. He is now in prison for war crimes for what he did during this period.
To add insult to injury, these countries are then lectured at by rich Western governments. Easy to lecture when you don't get couped every time you elect a social-democrat politician.
Merely a sliver of the total suffering through coups, wars, and corporate exploitation imposed on Central and South American countries in the spirit of America's Monroe Doctrine colonialism project spanning 200 years.
This is a bad response. The person you're replying to said something to the effect of "America caused a bunch of harm in these places", and your response is "America didn't cause all the problems in these places".
Theres a pretty big gap between the point you're replying to and the strawman you're arguing against.
Sure there are other factors which caused problems in South America, but its clear that a lot of problems were caused by America.
There are clear, well documented, notorious cases, some of them even ruled on by international tribunals, of the USA causing direct harm in several South American countries (support and training of anti-government CONTRA torture squads, assassinations of El Salvador priests, mining Nicaragua's harbors, and there are many others).
That others also caused harm, both in South America and in many other places, in no way whatsoever excuses the clear harms caused by the USA.
Other external actors (in particular the Soviets) and internal actors played mayor roles as well.
Castigating only the US paints an inaccurate picture of the realities, leading the public and future policy makers to learn partial lessons which when applied will perform less than optimally for preventing the next incident of large scale sufferings
There's no accountability that can be had by the Soviets because the Soviet union doesn't exist anymore.
The American empire on the other hand is very much alive and well. So it makes sense to point fingers at them.
This also goes to internal actors, and a lot of Latin American countries (for example Chile) have failed at properly keeping their own players accountable.
But it doesn't in any way make the call for retribution for the USA any less valid.
Can you actually point to a specific harm you envision from acknowledging the US atrocities in LatAm or elsewhere? What do you actually think is the problem? It's so weird how people seem to come out of the woodwork with random concern trolling anytime the empire gets called out
Allegedly also Coca-Cola, Drummond and even some local companies like Postobón have been involved with paramilitary groups and sponsored crimes against civilians - and haven't faced any consequences. But this is a good precedent.
Certain there are others. Naomi Klein wrote about Ford paying to have its own Argentine employees murdered during the junta in the 70s, apparently to prevent unionization.
Are you aware of the history of labor organizing in the states...? Not meant as an attack, I'm genuinely wondering. Strike breakers routinely killed people, destroyed property, cars would have sticks of dynamite chucked into them, and famously the coal miners blew up a fucking bridge.
I think people tend to think that modern politics is how all politics was done and... nah. Before we had more robust judicial, communication, and surveillance systems, if someone threatened your business and you were wealthy enough, having them killed and dumped in a bog was 100% on the fuckin table.
> Are you aware of the history of labor organizing in the states...?
No, I'm not. It sounds like a very interesting read, though. I don't think those things tended to happen over here, beyond mafia-style illegal dealings.
Americans get taught a weird fictionalized version of their own history where political violence ended at the Civil War, conveniently overlooking anything that might be awkward to explain in the present day. Little things like General MacArthur opening fire on veterans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army ; MOVE bombings; Tulsa massacre https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/12/tuls... ; the general high levels of violence in the civil rights era; lynching, and so on.
One of my favorite stories from the Civil Rights era is the fact that California created the template for modern gun control as a direct response to the Black Panthers policing the Police with open-carried guns (just like, standing there, armed, while police did their jobs in Black communities), and the white establishment at the time absolutely shit bricks at the notion of the negro having firepower and demanded it be regulated by none other than Governor Ronald Reagan.
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.")
Offhand, I agree with the judgment. But I am also gratified that the term "Banana giant" led off a Hacker News title. Surprisingly it wasn't on my 2024 HN bingo card.
See also the Banana Massacre instigated by the United Fruit Company against plantation workers making outrageous demands like limiting the work week to 6 days. 100 years later, that company operates under the name Chiquita.
"The United Fruit Company (UFC), whose highly profitable business had been affected by the softening of exploitative labor practices in Guatemala, engaged in an influential lobbying campaign to persuade the U.S. to overthrow the Guatemalan government."
It's amazing how decades later, they heirs of United Fruit Company are still using violence as a tool for increasing profit. This is what happens when individuals are not criminally prosecuted for bad conduct. I'm sure it will happen again.
When I was in Nepal, they were getting USD to "fight the communists" and when I read their manifesto, it was all about removing corruption from the system. Nothing "communist" about it.
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.
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...)
$38 million fine for funding paramilitaries for a company that commands a little under $2 billion in revenue a year is a total joke of course. Then again if these US courts were actually worth their salt and not total kangaroo courts, they'd hold the US liable for funding paramilitaries in Latin America as well.
When I saw the headline I assumed this was going to be about practices from the "banana republic" era in the 60s.. almost unbelievable that they were still doing this in the 21st century.
> During the 2007 trial, it was revealed that Chiquita had made payments amounting to more than $1.7m to the AUC in the six years from 1997 to 2004.
> The banana giant said that it began making the payments after the leader of the AUC at the time, Carlos Castaño, implied that staff and property belonging to Chiquita's subsidiary in Colombia could be harmed if the money was not forthcoming
Not saying this is the case here but imagine if Mexico allowed families harmed by cartels to sue every businesses that paid off cartel mobsters threatening to ruin their business, because they happen to operate in areas where the police/army consistently fail to control them and the gov/police often colludes with the cartel.
AUC is pretty notorious for penetrating the Colombian gov and law enforcement at varying levels.
> If someone threatens to kill your employees and burn everything you own to the ground - and you know they will - you're gonna pay them
No, you withdraw from the country. Maybe you bring in a hostage negotiator to exfiltrate your staff. But paying the bribe and then continuing to do business with a foreign terrorist organisation is not grey area stuff.
And you watch your employees die? Great, you've saved your business and yourself from legal ramifications, and the people you worked for are dead, and your business is in ashes.
Chiquita did actually end up withdrawing from Columbia shortly after this.
> Maybe you bring in a hostage negotiator to exfiltrate your staff.
This is not how the real world works. If you try this stuff with the AUC in Columbia, they will torture and kill your people for fun, and post it on LiveLeak laughing about it.
If a gunman comes to your office, what do you do? You defer to competent authority. Same here. Particularly when it comes to scheduled foreign terrorists, there is no (legal) excuse. (Moreover, if the gunman comes to your office every Monday.)
> If you try this stuff with the AUC in Columbia [sp], they will torture and kill your people for fun
If you're operating in Colombia without K&R (or, apparently, basic OpSec), that's on you. Otherwise, I know plenty of people who do good business in Bogotá and Medellín and need not debaucher themselves.
This was a civil case, seeking damages for actions that occurred over 2 decades ago, it's unlikely anyone currently with the company was sufficiently high ranking then to be considered personally responsible.
For the 2007 criminal case, the company came to the department of justice and disclosed the payments, saying they had been made under threat of violence. Specifically the AUC was threatening physical harm to employees of a Chiquita subsidiary in Columbia. The department of justice appears to have accepted that the payments were made under duress, but did not recognize that as a sufficient excuse, and decided to prosecute anyways. The company reached a plea agreement.
Honestly, it seems like the justice department came down pretty hard. Obviously giving money to terrorist groups under any circumstances shortly after 9/11 would be highly scrutinized, and the company could have dropped the columbian subsidiary, which they wound up doing eventually anyways, instead of continuing to pay the protection racket. But still it seems like they were victims in this too.
> curious about why nobody from Chiquita went to prison for financing a terrorist group
It looks like the people who could be held individually criminally liable were in Colombia [1]. (I also imagine Chiquita gets points for notifying the DoJ versus getting caught.)
> Random Afghans and Iraqis were kidnapped for Guantanamo or outright murdered for less
To be fair, there is a world of difference between financing a foreign terrorist group and financing one that is attacking Americans. (That and we're cavalier with the lives of South Americans.)
Never underestimate people defending their home. Remember the Serbs going out with targets painted on their t-shirts when NATO (read “USA”) was bombing Belgrade? Of course that was the 90’s.
First protest of Iraq was in 1991, but a decades long dictator ofc. has severe military superiority.
A lot of Iraqi's were a big fan of toppling Saddam.
Note : not saying it was a good idea with what we know now.
And about Serbia. The bombing from "NATO" with a focus on military targets made it possible for it's population to overthrow Milosevic by the citizens a year later.
The boots on the ground in this case were the Serbs themselves. From my POV, NATO only provided air-support for them.
I am tempted to add an image of Jack Sparrow saying, But you've heard of me.
That aside, US would not fall for a coup because of the strong institutions in place. But these places are not that mature in its institutions. So they would fall. It doesn't mean that a similar sentiment is not present in US. And for all the talk of the freedom and democracy US always prefers demagogues and dictators in other parts of the world, as long as US can control them.
The Capitol insurgency and the stop the steal was pretty popular, but it is not a reason for another country to lie and invade this place. Same should have been applied to Iraq. That's all.
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.
I think we can all be happy with the fine that's less than a hundredth of a percent of their annual income that they'll have to pay. Justice is served.
Power assymetries and parasites leaching of off that. And the anti colonial is a horrific part of that, preventing societal adaption and chanfe to be able to compete. Its so bad, colonial history goto repeat itself in africa with chinese recolonialization. Thus proofing racism a effect, not a cause.
Just more hypocracy from the US. US have been funding and training paramilitaries in just about every continent for decades now. Don't your government have anything better to do then throw their weight around the global arena?
I see the lies of Communists have now expanded from our public schools and infected the population as a whole. These US companies did massive amounts of good in terrible environments they worked in and now that has been twisted around.
You guys do realize cartels are selling avocados, growing them in protected forrest, killing grounds keepers, all the while murdering majors, governors, judges, police, basically terrorizing the nation and we're worried about 99 cent for a bunch of bananas while avocados are running up to 3 dollars each?
Through at least two administrations, Republican and Democrat, Bush and Obama, the U.S. has funded anti-leftist militarism in Colombia, to the military and to paramilitary groups like AUC. It's not just a fruit company and it's not just a relic from the past.
The JFK admin and CIA were openly committing terrorism on Cuban soil ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose ), at the same time the Joint Chiefs of Staff were begging Kennedy to let them perform terrorist attacks on Americans(!), to be blamed on the Cuban government ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ); that plan was apparently just a little too far over the line to get green lit
Yes. That's why I wrote, "Through at least two administrations". Personally, I consider the scale of injustice in Latin America alone at the hands of U.S. policy to be vast and unsparing in the culpability it lays at the feet of every American. I recognize that not everyone will be joining me out on that limb, however, so I chose to make my opening bid smaller but more unassailable.
There's not really anything the average person can do to influence this policy, so by saying "of every American", the blame is diluted across the population, instead of held directly against those responsible.
So what is the answer? Large scale protests against imperialism are just shut down and the protestors get doxxed or arrested and the band plays on.
Probably the best example I can think of where a vast injustice was halted, while assigning broad social culpability, with participation of some of those deemed culpable, and without substantial reliance on external force… would be the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Notably, the assignment of broad culpability was probably an essential component of that… and so probably was the limited application of consequences for that culpability.
There are other historical examples I can think of which involved mass violence as a significant part of the means to halt the vast injustice. Those examples are probably not what we’d want to model, but they’re notably more readily available for reference.
> There's not really anything the average person can do to influence this policy, so by saying "of every American", the blame is diluted across the population, instead of held directly against those responsible.
Assign for yourself whatever share of the blame your conscience will allow.
> So what is the answer?
I have no idea, but whatever it is I suspect it's not yelling at strangers on the internet.
> There's not really anything the average person can do to influence this policy, so by saying "of every American", the blame is diluted across the population, instead of held directly against those responsible.
Latin American countries wouldn't have become banana republics without Western demand for bananas. There are different levels of culpability but the rest of us aren't blameless - our collective demand drove these policies and I don't know about you but I've enjoyed a lot of tropical fruit in my life.
To be honest I can empathize. I'd totally support going to war with Mexico if it threatened my year round supply of avocados.
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 argue the Soviet backed ones were going to be beacons of liberty either.
> 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.
I'm willing to accept a lot of the blame, but that stops at the border. I may not have much political influence in America where I live, but I'm pretty sure I have no political influence in Russia.
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.
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.
> 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 happenthe 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.
> 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?
> 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.
> "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.
> It's not an internal conflict if the USSR is already supporting one side, is it?
Yes, it's still an internal political conflict.
> Sorry, but "which I believe it did" holds no weight with me.
Suit yourself. I'm not trying to persuade you.
> When the elected leader is already violating the constitution, it's no longer a democracy, is it?
No, it's still a democracy. In America, the Right believes President Obama violated the Constitution and the Left believes Trump did the same, yet few on either side would claim America ceased to be a democracy.
> Are you suggesting the USSR would support a democracy?
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating two facts. First, you don't know what the USSR would've done. Second, in both Guatemala and Chile the US did support dictatorships.
> Do they have a track record that demonstrates that? I haven't seen it.
Have you seen a track record of the US supporting democracy? Not in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Haiti, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, you haven't.
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.
Again with the made up quotes. No one in this thread has said, "if it wasn't for the US, these people would be living in a democracy."
Anyway, you don't know that these are the only two options. You don't know that the USSR would've installed dictators like the US actually did, though I consider it unlikely as there's no evidence they even tried.
> The options are basically US-aligned dictator, or USSR-aligned dictator.
It's a textbook example of it, just like this follow up. But I expect nothing else from a user that for years and years always, with no exceptions, no matter the subject, sides with wealth and power. Utter contempt is all I have for you.
I apologize. I sometimes introduce typos, especially when using autocomplete on tiny mobile keyboards. I'm sure it's just me and never happens to anybody else.
Anyway, I corrected that typo. Please, oh please, take me seriously now.
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.
Yeah, but also anti-comunist propaganda from the cold war is still prominent, so when they say anti-leftist it feels like a justification. I'm sorry this is not my main language.
so not like, historical atrocities from the era most people think of when they say "banana republics". current-era atrocities, perpetrated by people who probably still work at the company today.
They have been fined $38m for killing 8 people, which amounts to a tad over 1% of their 2023 revenue.
I'm very happy that an example is being made of them to warn other corporations that committing murder to protect your profits may cause a slight dip in your next earnings report.
If this verdict stands, you can bet there will be more lawsuits coming.
> which amounts to a tad over 1% of their 2023 revenue
There's income statements available for some years. Their margins are tiny - usually profits are 10% of their revenue or less. Sometimes much less or none.
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.
I agree with wanting stronger action, but incremental change isn't incompatible with revolutionary vision. We can say, "Yes, this is a good move, and I still want the other 99% of the work done." It is likely that at some point we'd have to move faster than 1% at a time, but it's easier to get up to speed when you're already moving vs standing still.
It can certainly exacerbate it. I'm less sure about creation; Tsarist Russia was not a nice place for anyone but the aristocracy, and life was also highly precarious in China before Mao came along - the Taiping Rebellion is estimated to have killed as much as 10% of the population, while China's population grew close to 50% during Mao's tenure despite the death of tens of millions from starvation.
I'm not communist, but it has arguably been a good fit for underdeveloped agrarian societies that feel a strategic need to industrialize rapidly without giving up political/industrial autonomy.
[1]:https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/story-bananas-ban...
[2]:https://growjungles.com/united-fruit-company-in-costa-rica/
[3]:https://www.biggerlifeadventures.com/chiquita-bananas-cia-fu...
[4]:https://history.wsu.edu/rci/sample-research-project/
Edit: formatting