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 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.
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.
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.
>" 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
$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.
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.)
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.
[+] [-] thebeardisred|1 year ago|reply
[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
[+] [-] Xelbair|1 year ago|reply
I'll add this to the list
[+] [-] xvector|1 year ago|reply
- 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.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40663586
[+] [-] dcastm|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] AngryData|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] lentil_soup|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] boffinAudio|1 year ago|reply
You do realize this same justification has been given for the invasion of sovereign nations, and their destruction, since the beginning of time?
[+] [-] sensanaty|1 year ago|reply
Everyone involved needs to be locked away for a long, long time, not have to pay pennies as "punishment"
[+] [-] barbarr|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] nradov|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] 0dayz|1 year ago|reply
But this is a civil case so they can't get more than money.
Honest what is disgusting is the chump change they are getting 38 mil only for the insane amount of profit the company gained.
[+] [-] kalium-xyz|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hulitu|1 year ago|reply
If i make a crime, i go to jail. If a company does it, it gets a pat on a back and an insignificant fine. (exceptions - Volkwagen - apply).
[+] [-] generationP|1 year ago|reply
We could go that way, but it would be a serious change of rules and create its own perverse incentives.
[+] [-] advisedwang|1 year ago|reply
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien_tort_statute
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4232180/in-re-chiquita-...
[+] [-] throwawaycities|1 year ago|reply
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.
[1] https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2010/02/fiu-im...
[+] [-] rayiner|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] o11c|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dmix|1 year ago|reply
I can see why that is controversial and almost certainly will be extremely selectively enforced.
[+] [-] Log_out_|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lbsnake7|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] 9cb14c1ec0|1 year ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
[+] [-] hi-v-rocknroll|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Gualdrapo|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] digging|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] danlugo92|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tomcam|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] iwontberude|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rgovostes|1 year ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Massacre
[+] [-] buildsjets|1 year ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Cooper_Keith
https://westisliphistoricalsociety.org/index.php/archives/ma...
[+] [-] kjkjadksj|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] caf|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dmix|1 year ago|reply
> 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.
[+] [-] xvector|1 year ago|reply
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.
The government of Columbia should be held to account for allowing this evil to run rampant, not the victims of these cartels.
[+] [-] sharpshadow|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] msarrel|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] sofixa|1 year ago|reply
Random Afghans and Iraqis were kidnapped for Guantanamo or outright murdered for less.
[+] [-] jjk166|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|1 year ago|reply
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.)
[1] https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/March/07_nsd_161...
[+] [-] lazide|1 year ago|reply
The CIA helped them, by overthrowing at least one gov’t. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%2527%...]
Money has always been a national interest for every gov’t everywhere.
[+] [-] riddley|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] frontalier|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] zardo|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] hulitu|1 year ago|reply
That's not how democracy works. /s
Companies do not have to obey the law and, when they are caught, nobody goes to jail. They just need to pay some protection money.
Want to be a criminal without fear of prosecution ? Join a company, preferably on a management position.
[+] [-] zrn900|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] barbazoo|1 year ago|reply
They had the choice between not doing business there and paying the criminals. They chose paying the criminals.
[+] [-] lupire|1 year ago|reply
It's the same thing US residents do, with the same abusses by the government.
[+] [-] ETH_start|1 year ago|reply