> 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?
> 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.