4 ms·

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

by sofixa 2y ago

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 2y ago
[flagged]
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  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.
  - NicoJuicy 2y ago
    The biggest and longest time slave traders were in the middle east. The best documented and most mentioned ones were the ones that were white.
    - NicoJuicy 2y ago
      Down voting doesn't make it untrue. Slavery exists till today and I don't see much "white" in it: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/ https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/ The whole white supremacy is mostly because you're free to talk about anything in the west. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68945445.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-e... Note: I'm not saying it didn't happen through history. I'm saying it's time to stop blaming "white" for everything that happens.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  The Chiquita corporation is a White person?
- octopoc 2y ago
  No their CEO is Eli Black, a Rabbi. If you're going to make a connection between people's race and their behavior you should start there. /s
hulitu 2y ago
> 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 2y ago
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%C3%A9tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%2527%...] Money has always been a national interest for every gov’t everywhere.
jjk166 2y ago
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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pyuser583 2y ago
  This is really important context. As is the relatively small amount of money paid. It’s also strongly analogous to an issue faced in tech: whether to pay the demands or ransomware gangs. If the ransomeware gang has ties to terrorism, it’s a crime to pay the ransom.
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  I vaguely remember Coca-Cola being accused of doing the same thing with their bottling plants there but not sure what came of it legally
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> 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.) [1] https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/March/07_nsd_161.html https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/March/07_nsd_161...
- adhamsalama 2y ago
  And why were those Iraqis attacking American soldiers? Perhaps because the US invaded Iraq?
  - NicoJuicy 2y ago
    You're claiming that Iraqi's were so happy under Saddam's reign, that some even fought for him?
    - cardiffspaceman 2y ago
      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.
      - NicoJuicy 2y ago
        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.
zardo 2y ago
An anti-communist paramilitary in Columbia? They aren't exactly going to top the US most wanted list.
frontalier 2y ago
you might find the answer to this when looking out the window of the train as you head to the yearly jazz festival by the lake
riddley 2y ago
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.

by sofixa 2y ago

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 2y ago

[flagged]

Log_out_ 2y ago
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.
- NicoJuicy 2y ago
  The biggest and longest time slave traders were in the middle east. The best documented and most mentioned ones were the ones that were white.
  - NicoJuicy 2y ago
    Down voting doesn't make it untrue. Slavery exists till today and I don't see much "white" in it: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/ https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/ The whole white supremacy is mostly because you're free to talk about anything in the west. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68945445.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-e... Note: I'm not saying it didn't happen through history. I'm saying it's time to stop blaming "white" for everything that happens.
dingnuts 2y ago
The Chiquita corporation is a White person?
octopoc 2y ago
No their CEO is Eli Black, a Rabbi. If you're going to make a connection between people's race and their behavior you should start there. /s

hulitu 2y ago

> 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 2y ago

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%C3%A9tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%2527%...] Money has always been a national interest for every gov’t everywhere.

jjk166 2y ago

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.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pyuser583 2y ago
This is really important context. As is the relatively small amount of money paid. It’s also strongly analogous to an issue faced in tech: whether to pay the demands or ransomware gangs. If the ransomeware gang has ties to terrorism, it’s a crime to pay the ransom.
selimthegrim 2y ago
I vaguely remember Coca-Cola being accused of doing the same thing with their bottling plants there but not sure what came of it legally

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> 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.) [1] https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/March/07_nsd_161.html https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/March/07_nsd_161...

adhamsalama 2y ago
And why were those Iraqis attacking American soldiers? Perhaps because the US invaded Iraq?
- NicoJuicy 2y ago
  You're claiming that Iraqi's were so happy under Saddam's reign, that some even fought for him?
  - cardiffspaceman 2y ago
    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.
    - NicoJuicy 2y ago
      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.

zardo 2y ago

An anti-communist paramilitary in Columbia? They aren't exactly going to top the US most wanted list.

frontalier 2y ago

you might find the answer to this when looking out the window of the train as you head to the yearly jazz festival by the lake

riddley 2y ago

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.