[HN Gopher] Banana giant held liable for funding paramilitaries
___________________________________________________________________
Banana giant held liable for funding paramilitaries
Author : no_exit
Score : 43 points
Date : 2024-06-11 14:58 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| thebeardisred wrote:
| It's about time one of these Chiquita (ex United Fruit Company,
| Cuyamel Fruit Company, and others) / Dole (ex Standard Fruit
| Company) are held liable.
|
| [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
| tomcam wrote:
| 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.
| sofixa wrote:
| I'm curious about why nobody from Chiquita went to prison for
| financing a terrorist group.
|
| Random Afghans and Iraqis were kidnapped for Guantanamo or
| outright murdered for less.
| zrn900 wrote:
| White supremacy. The rules work differently for those who are
| from the 'right' ethnosocial background. They work even more
| differently for the rich ones among those...
| hulitu wrote:
| > I'm curious about why nobody from Chiquita went to prison for
| financing a terrorist group.
|
| 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.
| lazide wrote:
| Because they were working in the vein of manifest destiny/US
| gov't interests.
|
| 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.
| jjk166 wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-11 23:02 UTC)