Chiquita Banana and AUC

[Admiral Yi]

Just saw on 60 Minutes.

Chiquita Banana is a US company headquartered in Cincinnati.  They used to grow tasty golden bananas in Colombia.  They used to pay "taxes" to AUC, the right-wing paramilitary group, for "protection."  AUC was put on the US Terrorist Watch List, which made it illegal to give them money.  Chiquita kept on doing so for several years.  They claim no one was aware of the inclusion of AUC on the list.  Eventually they found out (they claim) and self-reported the violation to the Department of Justice.  Justice levied a $25 million fine but did not press criminal charges against any of the company's executives.

Enter the lawyers.

A US attorney, representing families of Colombian victims of the AUC, is seeking money from Chiquita on the grounds that Chiquita knowlingly enabled AUC's violence.

So, do you think Chiquita should be found guilty and cough up some dough?

[Jaron]

Yes.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I believe so. 

[Strix]

No. The US government pays off governments linked with terrorists all the time, so why should a private company get in trouble for protecting it's workers in a region known for violence against those that do not.

[DontSayBanana]

Horrible position to be stuck in.

1) Either you stick to your principles, and face the potential PR nightmare of being accused of wanton disregard for your workers, or...
2) Use the (closest to) legal and nonviolent means possible to protect your workers, and then be accused of supporting terrorism.

My personal opinion is that the ones who want to try to milk money from this are involved in racketeering almost as bad; they should realize that, being a private company, they don't exactly have access to military-grade security.

[Barrister]

What is the basis for liability?  Negligence?  Or that Tort Feasors Act from the 18th century?

Does civil law have any defence of necessity?

It's a troubling concept.  Take it to an individual - should you hold a shop owner liable because he pays protection money to the mafia (or else his business gets vandalized) for the other crimes the mafia perpetrates?

[Razgovory]

I'd say no.  Not unless they were paying them as mercenaries or something.

[Admiral Yi]

It's a troubling concept.  Take it to an individual - should you hold a shop owner liable because he pays protection money to the mafia (or else his business gets vandalized) for the other crimes the mafia perpetrates?

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Ed Anger]

If more beaners get greased, and I get delicious bananas at low prices well, then fuck the beaners.

[Faeelin]

Quick question: Is anybody arguing this "protection money" was funding to subsidize a crackdown on leftists?

[DisturbedPervert]

I don't care where they come from, the bananas must flow.

[DontSayBanana]

Quick question: Is anybody arguing this "protection money" was funding to subsidize a crackdown on leftists?

From the sounds of it, only the would-be plaintiffs.

[Jos Theelen]

So, do you think Chiquita should be found guilty and cough up some dough?

Is this a legal question or a moral question?

If they payed already $25 mln to a party who got no damage from the AUC, why shouldn't they pay to people who were really damaged by the AUC. Or does the Department of justice send that $25 mln to the real victims?

[DontSayBanana]

Is this a legal question or a moral question?

If they payed already $25 mln to a party who got no damage from the AUC, why shouldn't they pay to people who were really damaged by the AUC. Or does the Department of justice send that $25 mln to the real victims?

Fine. Do you really thing DoJ would cough up the money it extorted raised to victims? They figure that's what federal aid programs are for.

[Valmy]

I think having Chiquita pay fines (which they have already done) is perfectly adequate under the circumstances.

Holding them responsible for the actions of the group shaking them down seems a bit sketchy.