Free Markets on a roll in Colombia...

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Nice.


Colombian families' suit says Chiquita liable for torture, murder

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Chiquita Brands International faces a $7.86 billion lawsuit filed Wednesday on behalf of nearly 400 Colombian families who say the company should be held responsible for the "torture and murder" of their loved ones.

Attorney Jonathan Reiter said his clients are seeking "damages for terrorism, war crimes ... and wrongful death."

The plaintiffs are asking for $10 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages for each of the 393 victims named in the suit.

Earlier this year, Chiquita, as part of a plea agreement, admitted that what it called protection payments had been given to Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, or AUC. AUC was named a terrorist organization by the United States in 2002, making it a crime to give them money.

The lawsuit alleges Chiquita's interaction with the paramilitary group went further than the payments -- it accuses the company of facilitating shipments of arms to the group.

"They conspired with the AUC, aided and abetted them in a far-reaching conspiracy and plan to control every aspect of banana growing, distribution and sale," Reiter said.

The attorney said one couple refused to sell their banana farm "for pennies" and were killed by AUC in 2001, and other murder victims had been directed to "sell their bananas only to Chiquita."

The families filing the suit will remain anonymous because of fear of reprisals in their home country, he said.

"The principle upon which this lawsuit is brought is that when you put money into the hands of terrorists, when you put guns into the hands of terrorists, then you are legally responsible for the atrocities, the murders and the tortures that those terrorists commit," Reiter said

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/14/chiquita.lawsuit/index.html?section=cnn_latest
Click to expand...
 
Bush said you're either with the terrorists, or you're with us.

If Chiquita Corporation is found guilty of funding and supporting terrorism, what do you think the odds are that Bush will raid corporate headquarters with FBI agents, shut them down, and confiscate their money?

Do you suppose the odds are exactly Zero?
 
Watermark said:
...

This isn't capitalism.
Click to expand...


Your right. I bet if we apply the libertarian model of less regulation, less corporate oversight, and less civil and consumer protection laws, the free market and consumer choice will prevent these kind of abuses from happening.
 
Darla said:
Ron Paul is behind this.
Click to expand...

Of course he's behind this! Ron Paul is the master of all things! He giveth and he taketh away, and if something evil happens, remember, nothing happens without a purpose, and you must simply accept it, because He (Ron Paul) works in mysterious ways.

Like taking down public education.
 
Cypress said:
Your right. I bet if we apply the libertarian model of less regulation, less corporate oversight, and less civil and consumer protection laws, the free market and consumer choice will prevent these kind of abuses from happening.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with reasonable consumer protection laws, not to mention tort laws. But I wonder if you realize how often the largest and most powerful corporations write their own regulations when they get in bed with big government.

At the end of the day, government must be there to protect every individual's natural rights - in the case above, this clearly wasn't occurring.
 
Why do I increasingly get the impression that Watermark only posts on here when taking a break from hours spent on sites like 4chan and SomethingAwful?
 
Cypress said:
Your right. I bet if we apply the libertarian model of less regulation, less corporate oversight, and less civil and consumer protection laws, the free market and consumer choice will prevent these kind of abuses from happening.
Click to expand...

Yes. Because obviously all the regulation and oversight now in place prevented this from happening. Oh, wait.

Magpie said it right.
 
Beefy said:
Yes. Because obviously all the regulation and oversight now in place prevented this from happening. Oh, wait.

Magpie said it right.
Click to expand...

Chiquita had a reponsibility to appeal to the colombian government to uphold the rule of law, and provide security. In other words, yes presumably there are laws, regulations, and procedures in Colombia that Chiquita should have used and adhered to. Instead, they choose to hire violent mercenaries to protect their interests. They therefore, allegedly, operated outside those hated regulations, laws and procedures that could have or should have kept this from happening.

And Chiquita's decision to operate outside of the rule of law, outside of regulations and procedures, allegedly caused people to be murdered, tortured, intimidated, and unions to be busted.

If Chiquita didn't feel the colombian security forces, and colombian law couldn't protect their interests, they had no business operating in the country. And consequently, they did not have any business hiring terrorists to enforce their interests.

In short, it was evidently either the absence of functioning regulations, procedures and rule of law that got a bunch of people killed, or Chiquita made a deliberate business decision to allegedly operate outside the rule of law.
 
Cypress said:
Chiquita had a reponsibility to appeal to the colombian government to uphold the rule of law, and provide security. In other words, yes presumably there are laws, regulations, and procedures in Colombia that Chiquita should have used and adhered to. Instead, they choose to hire violent mercenaries to protect their interests. They therefore, allegedly, operated outside those hated regulations, laws and procedures that could have or should have kept this from happening.

And Chiquita's decision to operate outside of the rule of law, outside of regulations and procedures, allegedly caused people to be murdered, tortured, intimidated, and unions to be busted.

If Chiquita didn't feel the colombian security forces, and colombian law couldn't protect their interests, they had no business operating in the country. And consequently, they did not have any business hiring terrorists to enforce their interests.

In short, it was evidently either the absence of functioning regulations, procedures and rule of law that got a bunch of people killed, or Chiquita made a deliberate business decision to allegedly operate outside the rule of law.
Click to expand...

So what's it gonna be Cypress? These "hated regulations" that apparently don't prevent corruption and torture, murder and intimidation? Or the straw man that preaches anarchy?

Perhaps there's another way. Think for once. Take off those dopey blnders.
 
Beefy said:
So what's it gonna be Cypress? These "hated regulations" that apparently don't prevent corruption and torture, murder and intimidation? Or the straw man that preaches anarchy?

Perhaps there's another way. Think for once. Take off those dopey blnders.
Click to expand...

State-mandated unions will fix it, Beefy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top