3 ms·

> 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 bana

by dmix 2y ago

> 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.

xvector 2y ago
Agreed, punishing someone because they were extorted under threat to life and property makes no sense. 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.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > 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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - xvector 2y ago
    > No, you withdraw from the country. 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.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > watch your employees die? 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.
      - lupire 2y ago
        The AUC is the local competent authority.
      - xvector 2y ago
        > when it comes to scheduled foreign terrorists, there is no (legal) excuse Okay, how - as a human being - will you reconcile that with the fact that your employees will be tortured to death if you don't pay? You could stay legally compliant, or you could save your employees' lives. Most moral people would do the latter. > If you're operating in Colombia without K&R (or, apparently, basic OpSec), that's on you. Hindsight is 20/20. You are correct, but this statement is fundamentally unhelpful when the AUC is already at your doorstep.

by dmix 2y ago

xvector 2y ago

Agreed, punishing someone because they were extorted under threat to life and property makes no sense. 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.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- xvector 2y ago
  > No, you withdraw from the country. 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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > watch your employees die? 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.
    - lupire 2y ago
      The AUC is the local competent authority.
    - xvector 2y ago
      > when it comes to scheduled foreign terrorists, there is no (legal) excuse Okay, how - as a human being - will you reconcile that with the fact that your employees will be tortured to death if you don't pay? You could stay legally compliant, or you could save your employees' lives. Most moral people would do the latter. > If you're operating in Colombia without K&R (or, apparently, basic OpSec), that's on you. Hindsight is 20/20. You are correct, but this statement is fundamentally unhelpful when the AUC is already at your doorstep.