8 ms·

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

by dmix 2y ago

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.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> 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? It is wild to me how some people can throw something like this out as this like, unreasonable and clearly sarcastic question like, what you expect a corporation to follow the law everywhere? And I'm just over here like... yeah? Yeah. I... always did, really, I never considered that if I formed a corporation I could fund death squads in other countries to maintain access to cheap products. What the hell is wrong with you where you thought that was not only desirable, but a normal situation...? I grew up very conservative and pro-free-market, and honestly a huge part of my transition to being a pinko commie scum was recognizing just how FUCKED big businesses are, especially overseas. Like you have the banal stuff like tax sheltering which is shitty but like, it's just money but then, oh MAN, they get up to some truly horrific shit. Death squads, union breaking, cataclysmic environmental damage, and it's 100% enabled by our system. I hope that this trend continues and we can finally get some justice out of these organizations that have clearly overstepped in so many ways.
- justinclift 2y ago
  > I hope that this trend continues. Err, which one? You've mentioned a few different things. :)
- avalys 2y ago
  If we’re talking about crimes like “murder”, yes, it’s pretty clear. If we’re talking about crimes like “bribing a public official”, it’s less so. There are countries where that is simultaneously 1) technically illegal by that country’s own laws, 2) absolutely an expected and required part of doing business. So what do you do in that case?
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    One could make the argument that if the corporation is required by law in all the non-legal countries to abide by those laws and not bribe officials that the practice will necessarily have to die out among the few countries you would be arguing for, simply because the risk is too great to the corporation. Maybe it would be maintained among local businesses, but it would be an understood fact that a politician could not expect a broad multi-national to participate in it, irrespective of their desire or willingness, if they stood to face prosecution from... however many countries they operate in, all of whom would demand a penalty be served. Even if they're slap-on-the-wrist penalties, that's going to add up real fast.
  - caf 2y ago
    Anyone who has ever worked for a medium-large corporation will have done the inevitable employee training that, among many other things, tells you that "no, you cannot pay bribes or facilitation payments in another country even if it's normal and expected there, and yes you and us can still be prosecuted at home for that".
    - phs318u 2y ago
      Which can be code for: “We have specialists[0] for sensitive in-country negotiations.” [0]. Arms-length, third-party, paper-trail-negative contractors.
      - lstodd 2y ago
        so very true
      - rustcleaner 2y ago
        >Arms-length, third-party, paper-trail-negative contractors Sounds lucrative.
  - leetcrew 2y ago
    idk, I see it the other way around actually. if you kill someone in another country, that's still bad, but it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request. whereas if you bribe public officials in other countries as normal business practice, that might give you an advantage over other companies that also operate in the US. if they have to also engage in bribery to compete with you, that seems like a much more direct harm to another US entity.
- rayiner 2y ago
  The issue has nothing to do with conservatism versus liberalism, but sovereignty. Why should the US get to make law for the whole world, and then enforce that law in US courts? The funny thing about the leftist children of Reaganites is that they maintain their parents’ universalism and lack of respect for foreign sovereignty. “Maybe America should fuck off and mind its own business” is never part of the political conversion.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Other countries are free to levy such fines for offenses they deem worthy and have done so in the past certainly. The US does not have exclusive right to this.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    America is not enforcing its laws on some random people outside its borders, its regulating the behavior of people who are very much subject to our legal system. I am quite surprised to see there's a contingent of folks who think that leaving our borders means you can do whatever you want and expect to be welcomed back
    - rayiner 2y ago
      The Alien Tort Statute applies specifically to "aliens" not Americans. It's about holding foreigners liable for conduct on foreign soil in U.S. courts.
  - pen2l 2y ago
    I want to say something and I promise I say it not as a dig on you... as someone who's followed you for more than 10 years, I am fascinated that despite the many, many changes and revisions in your belief systems over the years, something that never changes is the certainty and conviction and confidence in your tone. I guess it's a good thing, wish I had it. Makes for persuasive and effective writing, that's for sure.
- Thlom 2y ago
  The company in question managed to get the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala and replace it with a military dictatorship.
justinclift 2y ago
It's kind of ironic, as the US wants every other country to follow their laws too sometimes (patents, copyright, probably more). For the extra cup of strange irony, part of the government in my country (Australia) just tried forcing X to delete posts for everyone globally instead of just not showing them to Australian users. Thankfully the court system told the Aust gov to bugger off due to overreach. ;)
- grecy 2y ago
  I didn’t hear about the tweets. What are they about?
  - justinclift 2y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/05/x-elon-musk-vs-australia-esafety-commissioner-wakeley-church-stabbing-footage https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/05/x...
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  That's still good. Austrian courts forced Meta to delete certain posts globally. That's some crazy overreach. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/die-grunen-v-facebook-ireland-limited/#:~:text=The%20Austrian%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled,just%20in%20Austria%20but%20worldwide https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/die-gru....
  - justinclift 2y ago
    Wow, that seems pretty insane. :(
    - Rinzler89 2y ago
      Welcome to Austrian "free speech".
mike_d 2y ago
Uh, yes? There are dozens of specific US laws that govern this and tons of existing case law that committing a serious crime overseas is punishable in the US regardless of its legality elsewhere. The Travel Act for example makes it illegal to fly to another country to engage in sexual acts with a minor, even if it is legal in that country. Do you think that is some sort of government overreach?
- thsksbd 2y ago
  Yes because it is a breach to the principle of jurisdiction and it's ultimately based on American imperialism. Mind you, Id gladly have pedos and banana execs shot in public.
  - caf 2y ago
    The relevant principle of jurisdiction here is that a state has jurisdiction over the acts of its citizens. It's not uncommon and it's certainly not just a US thing (eg. here is a Brazilian court convicting one of its citizens over a murder committed in Australia: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/23/cecilia-haddad-murder-lane-cove-sydney-australia-2018-mario-marcelo-santoro-sentenced-27-years-jail https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/23/cecilia-haddad... ).
    - rustcleaner 2y ago
      I don't need no stinkin' god (State)!
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    The thing that's a bit scary about that Travel Act is: what happens when US laws change? Instead of having sex with minors, suppose the US elected some crazy religious zealots who managed to make it illegal to have sex outside of heterosexual marriage, after getting abortion banned (so, not exactly far-fetched). So does that mean that all "US persons" (citizens, green card holders, residents, etc.) who travel (or live) outside the US and have sex with someone they're not married to are now criminals?
WesternWind 2y ago
I feel like the US government has a legitimate interest in making sure US corporations don't pay paramilitary death squads for drug traffickers, especially ones that the US had designated as terrorist organizations at the time. I don't think it's really that controversial to prevent US companies from doing this. 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). This isn't about enforcement at all, this is them being found liable in a civil class action lawsuit, one brought by families of folks the AUC murdered.
- dmix 2y ago
  Yes I'm aware of the details > 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.
  - throwawayqqq11 2y ago
    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?
bryanrasmussen 2y ago
>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? wait - was the argument that the laws of these other countries they were operating in required them to fund paramilitary death squads? I must have missed that part. I'm thinking the slope is not as slippery as feared here. on edit: Ok I read your Mexican cartel example, slipperiness still not apparent to me how one slides from we hired death squads that killed people to we hired a cartel for protection but the money we paid was put in a big pile of money that cartel used to also fund bad stuff the cartel did that hurt people who were not trying to damage our company. at any rate the amount of money paid out here having people killed is the usual cost of doing business slap on the wrist considering Chiquita's size and doesn't actually affect them. The negative publicity is worse.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  continuing instead of editing: I mean actually this is probably the rule for most countries regarding some laws at least - EU companies as I understand the law need to follow GDPR when outside EU, there are laws against bribery and money laundering that work across nations despite what the economic/legal circumstances are in play in other countries. Luckily though I believe every country in the world that is not a fictional dystopia actually has laws against corporations paying to have people killed so it probably doesn't matter much in this case anyway.
  - marcus_holmes 2y ago
    Non-EU companies need to follow GDPR when serving EU customers, yes. There are many websites that geoblock EU visitors because they don't want to comply with GDPR. But the EU only enforces that for transactions involving EU citizens. If you want to grab all the data from US visitors, go for it, the EU will not complain (as long as you don't do it to EU visitors). I think the difference here is that the US is enforcing US law on an operation in a foreign country by a company that operates in the US. The equivalent would be the EU enforcing GDPR for all site transactions, regardless of the visitor's nationality. The point of making this distinction is that there are countries that have laws that we don't want to follow (e.g. various Middle East countries having drastic punishments for atheism and apostasy), and that should not be applied to people (or organisations) who don't reside there. If the USA makes the precedent that it can enforce its domestic law on actions happening in other countries, then it's possible that (e.g.) Australia could enforce its ridiculous anti-online-bullying laws on US citizens who have never left the USA.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
There are certain crimes that might take place outside the US that the US enforces on US citizens/entities. E.g. war crimes.
pyrale 2y ago
Non-US corporations are held to the same standard. US court making frivolous jurisdiction claims is nothing new.

by dmix 2y ago

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

> 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? It is wild to me how some people can throw something like this out as this like, unreasonable and clearly sarcastic question like, what you expect a corporation to follow the law everywhere? And I'm just over here like... yeah? Yeah. I... always did, really, I never considered that if I formed a corporation I could fund death squads in other countries to maintain access to cheap products. What the hell is wrong with you where you thought that was not only desirable, but a normal situation...? I grew up very conservative and pro-free-market, and honestly a huge part of my transition to being a pinko commie scum was recognizing just how FUCKED big businesses are, especially overseas. Like you have the banal stuff like tax sheltering which is shitty but like, it's just money but then, oh MAN, they get up to some truly horrific shit. Death squads, union breaking, cataclysmic environmental damage, and it's 100% enabled by our system. I hope that this trend continues and we can finally get some justice out of these organizations that have clearly overstepped in so many ways.

justinclift 2y ago
> I hope that this trend continues. Err, which one? You've mentioned a few different things. :)
avalys 2y ago
If we’re talking about crimes like “murder”, yes, it’s pretty clear. If we’re talking about crimes like “bribing a public official”, it’s less so. There are countries where that is simultaneously 1) technically illegal by that country’s own laws, 2) absolutely an expected and required part of doing business. So what do you do in that case?
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  One could make the argument that if the corporation is required by law in all the non-legal countries to abide by those laws and not bribe officials that the practice will necessarily have to die out among the few countries you would be arguing for, simply because the risk is too great to the corporation. Maybe it would be maintained among local businesses, but it would be an understood fact that a politician could not expect a broad multi-national to participate in it, irrespective of their desire or willingness, if they stood to face prosecution from... however many countries they operate in, all of whom would demand a penalty be served. Even if they're slap-on-the-wrist penalties, that's going to add up real fast.
- caf 2y ago
  Anyone who has ever worked for a medium-large corporation will have done the inevitable employee training that, among many other things, tells you that "no, you cannot pay bribes or facilitation payments in another country even if it's normal and expected there, and yes you and us can still be prosecuted at home for that".
  - phs318u 2y ago
    Which can be code for: “We have specialists[0] for sensitive in-country negotiations.” [0]. Arms-length, third-party, paper-trail-negative contractors.
    - lstodd 2y ago
      so very true
    - rustcleaner 2y ago
      >Arms-length, third-party, paper-trail-negative contractors Sounds lucrative.
- leetcrew 2y ago
  idk, I see it the other way around actually. if you kill someone in another country, that's still bad, but it's not clear why the US government should be the entity that holds you accountable for it. seems more appropriate to turn you over to that country's government upon request. whereas if you bribe public officials in other countries as normal business practice, that might give you an advantage over other companies that also operate in the US. if they have to also engage in bribery to compete with you, that seems like a much more direct harm to another US entity.
rayiner 2y ago
The issue has nothing to do with conservatism versus liberalism, but sovereignty. Why should the US get to make law for the whole world, and then enforce that law in US courts? The funny thing about the leftist children of Reaganites is that they maintain their parents’ universalism and lack of respect for foreign sovereignty. “Maybe America should fuck off and mind its own business” is never part of the political conversion.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Other countries are free to levy such fines for offenses they deem worthy and have done so in the past certainly. The US does not have exclusive right to this.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  America is not enforcing its laws on some random people outside its borders, its regulating the behavior of people who are very much subject to our legal system. I am quite surprised to see there's a contingent of folks who think that leaving our borders means you can do whatever you want and expect to be welcomed back
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The Alien Tort Statute applies specifically to "aliens" not Americans. It's about holding foreigners liable for conduct on foreign soil in U.S. courts.
- pen2l 2y ago
  I want to say something and I promise I say it not as a dig on you... as someone who's followed you for more than 10 years, I am fascinated that despite the many, many changes and revisions in your belief systems over the years, something that never changes is the certainty and conviction and confidence in your tone. I guess it's a good thing, wish I had it. Makes for persuasive and effective writing, that's for sure.
Thlom 2y ago
The company in question managed to get the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala and replace it with a military dictatorship.

justinclift 2y ago

It's kind of ironic, as the US wants every other country to follow their laws too sometimes (patents, copyright, probably more). For the extra cup of strange irony, part of the government in my country (Australia) just tried forcing X to delete posts for everyone globally instead of just not showing them to Australian users. Thankfully the court system told the Aust gov to bugger off due to overreach. ;)

grecy 2y ago
I didn’t hear about the tweets. What are they about?
- justinclift 2y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/05/x-elon-musk-vs-australia-esafety-commissioner-wakeley-church-stabbing-footage https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/05/x...
Rinzler89 2y ago
That's still good. Austrian courts forced Meta to delete certain posts globally. That's some crazy overreach. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/die-grunen-v-facebook-ireland-limited/#:~:text=The%20Austrian%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled,just%20in%20Austria%20but%20worldwide https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/die-gru....
- justinclift 2y ago
  Wow, that seems pretty insane. :(
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Welcome to Austrian "free speech".

mike_d 2y ago

Uh, yes? There are dozens of specific US laws that govern this and tons of existing case law that committing a serious crime overseas is punishable in the US regardless of its legality elsewhere. The Travel Act for example makes it illegal to fly to another country to engage in sexual acts with a minor, even if it is legal in that country. Do you think that is some sort of government overreach?

thsksbd 2y ago
Yes because it is a breach to the principle of jurisdiction and it's ultimately based on American imperialism. Mind you, Id gladly have pedos and banana execs shot in public.
- caf 2y ago
  The relevant principle of jurisdiction here is that a state has jurisdiction over the acts of its citizens. It's not uncommon and it's certainly not just a US thing (eg. here is a Brazilian court convicting one of its citizens over a murder committed in Australia: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/23/cecilia-haddad-murder-lane-cove-sydney-australia-2018-mario-marcelo-santoro-sentenced-27-years-jail https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/23/cecilia-haddad... ).
  - rustcleaner 2y ago
    I don't need no stinkin' god (State)!
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  The thing that's a bit scary about that Travel Act is: what happens when US laws change? Instead of having sex with minors, suppose the US elected some crazy religious zealots who managed to make it illegal to have sex outside of heterosexual marriage, after getting abortion banned (so, not exactly far-fetched). So does that mean that all "US persons" (citizens, green card holders, residents, etc.) who travel (or live) outside the US and have sex with someone they're not married to are now criminals?

WesternWind 2y ago

I feel like the US government has a legitimate interest in making sure US corporations don't pay paramilitary death squads for drug traffickers, especially ones that the US had designated as terrorist organizations at the time. I don't think it's really that controversial to prevent US companies from doing this. 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). This isn't about enforcement at all, this is them being found liable in a civil class action lawsuit, one brought by families of folks the AUC murdered.

dmix 2y ago
Yes I'm aware of the details > 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.
- throwawayqqq11 2y ago
  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?

bryanrasmussen 2y ago

>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? wait - was the argument that the laws of these other countries they were operating in required them to fund paramilitary death squads? I must have missed that part. I'm thinking the slope is not as slippery as feared here. on edit: Ok I read your Mexican cartel example, slipperiness still not apparent to me how one slides from we hired death squads that killed people to we hired a cartel for protection but the money we paid was put in a big pile of money that cartel used to also fund bad stuff the cartel did that hurt people who were not trying to damage our company. at any rate the amount of money paid out here having people killed is the usual cost of doing business slap on the wrist considering Chiquita's size and doesn't actually affect them. The negative publicity is worse.

bryanrasmussen 2y ago
continuing instead of editing: I mean actually this is probably the rule for most countries regarding some laws at least - EU companies as I understand the law need to follow GDPR when outside EU, there are laws against bribery and money laundering that work across nations despite what the economic/legal circumstances are in play in other countries. Luckily though I believe every country in the world that is not a fictional dystopia actually has laws against corporations paying to have people killed so it probably doesn't matter much in this case anyway.
- marcus_holmes 2y ago
  Non-EU companies need to follow GDPR when serving EU customers, yes. There are many websites that geoblock EU visitors because they don't want to comply with GDPR. But the EU only enforces that for transactions involving EU citizens. If you want to grab all the data from US visitors, go for it, the EU will not complain (as long as you don't do it to EU visitors). I think the difference here is that the US is enforcing US law on an operation in a foreign country by a company that operates in the US. The equivalent would be the EU enforcing GDPR for all site transactions, regardless of the visitor's nationality. The point of making this distinction is that there are countries that have laws that we don't want to follow (e.g. various Middle East countries having drastic punishments for atheism and apostasy), and that should not be applied to people (or organisations) who don't reside there. If the USA makes the precedent that it can enforce its domestic law on actions happening in other countries, then it's possible that (e.g.) Australia could enforce its ridiculous anti-online-bullying laws on US citizens who have never left the USA.

kjkjadksj 2y ago

There are certain crimes that might take place outside the US that the US enforces on US citizens/entities. E.g. war crimes.

pyrale 2y ago

Non-US corporations are held to the same standard. US court making frivolous jurisdiction claims is nothing new.