5 ms·
The punishment being fines is criminal in and of itself. Everyone involved needs to be locked away for a long, long time, not have to pay pennies as "punishmen
by sensanaty 2y ago
The punishment being fines is criminal in and of itself.
Everyone involved needs to be locked away for a long, long time, not have to pay pennies as "punishment"
- barbarr 2y agoAlso if you take a step back, it's more like the US is getting a cut of the $, almost like profit sharing.
- mavili 2y agoUS is the same country that kills Iraqi civilians and requests money for the bullets from the Iraqi government that they control indirectly. US is an evil empire.
- wil421 2y agoArticle III of The Hague convention: “ (III): Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities[26][27] This convention sets out the accepted procedure for a state making a declaration of war. It provides the basis on which, in international law, war reparations may be demanded.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907#Hague_Convention_of_1907 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_an...
- immibis 2y ago[flagged]
- WJW 2y agoYou don't have to rely on (faulty) memory, the very Wikipedia article mentions that the USA was a signatory of the Hague treaty. As an aside it is pretty hilarious in hindsight that at the time all the countries who are now permanent UN Security Council member (which its associated veto powers) were in favor of a binding international arbitration court, but it was vetoed by the powers of that time like Germany.
- cies 2y ago> it [the US] doesn't believe in the concept of human rights. Unless when China, Russia, Iran or DPRK violates humans right according to their Secretary of State; in that case they cry an additional Mississippi river over human rights violations.
- moogly 2y agoYou're probably thinking of Protocols I & II of the Geneva Conventions. Signed but not ratified.
- mavili 2y agoYou telling me a country initiating a war has the right to then ask for reparations for the damages and destruction they caused on the country they initiated the war against? That's so freaking absurd that it is actually funny! I can only guess the wikipedia article is only a summary and the real convention could be around who is to blame for the war and other factors. Otherwise that's just so ridiculous that it actually encourages declaring wars on countries!
- mavili 2y agoBy the way, that summary only says "It provides the basis on which.. war reparations may be demanded". If anything I bet it sets out 'restrictions' on when countries can do that.
- seethedeaduu 2y agowas there a declaration of war?
- mavili 2y agoWho cares when it's the US. Laws only apply for the weak-handed. They controlled the Iraqi government anyway, and they were stealing all of its oil as they wished regardless. The reparations were only the icing on the cake.
- freejazz 2y agoThe legal (il)literacy on HN is astounding. The punishment isn't a fine, it's a civil judgment being awarded to the eight Colombian families that sued... this is the third paragraph in the article: "Following a civil case brought by eight Colombian families whose relatives were killed by the AUC, Chiquita has been ordered to pay $38.3m (£30m) in damages to the families."
- whateveracct 2y agopeople here don't RTFA when there'a juicy contrarian stuff to say instead
- freejazz 2y agoYes, but I also consistently seeing people refer to anything resulting from a court case (criminal or civil) as a "fine".
- swores 2y agoBecause in non-legalise common English usage, "fine" just means "financial (usually) penalty for wrongdoing". A civil lawsuit doesn't need to be anything like a speeding ticket from a legal point of view, from a normal person's point of view they can both result in a "you did something wrong, now you have to pay an amount set by the legal system".
- freejazz 2y agoThey mistake the civil legal system for a fine imposed by the gov't, no need to be. obtuse about it.
- swores 2y agoYes, people make mistakes, especially when common usage of a word like "fine" doesn't align precisely with legal use. In my opinion it's getting upset about not everyone having a concrete understanding of the legal system that there's no need for.
- generationP 2y agoKeep in mind that any company operating in Russia (paying taxes, providing data to "law" enforcement, etc.) would fit the same jumpsuit. We could go that way, but it would be a serious change of rules and create its own perverse incentives.
- cies 2y agoPaying a terrorist org or doing business in a unaligned country is a very different story. The US needs certain things from Russia: it's not that all trade has been sanctioned. Just trade that does not have enough lobby power to protect it.
- kalium-xyz 2y agoIts a step in the right direction.
- folkrav 2y agoHow is it a step in the right direction? If anything, it just sets a precedent - this is how much you should expect to pay in fines for committing atrocities.
- 0dayz 2y agoI would imagine that will be a bit hard as I assume most involved is either dead or too old to stand fit for jail. 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.
- Moru 2y agoAnother cost of doing business
- hulitu 2y agoI think you missunderstand the "everybody is equal in front of law". 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).
- nradov 2y agoThe 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.
- JohnClark1337 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]