Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
cORPORATE PROTECTION?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 


madriver


Mar 19, 2007, 11:52 AM
Post #1 of 15 (687 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700

cORPORATE PROTECTION?
Report this Post
Can't Post

If a foreign government can't protect a US Corps interests in that country, why would the US sue a corporation that did what it had to do to protect those interests? WTF!! The United States imports millions of barrels of oil every day from a country it deems a "Terrorist Nation" Iran. I find this hypocrisy beyond compare..

In reply to:
Chiquita Pleads Guilty in Terror Probe
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
5 hours ago


Colombia's chief federal prosecutor Mario Iguaran, right, is seen ...
WASHINGTON - Banana company Chiquita Brands International admitted in federal court Monday that, for years, it paid terrorists to protect its Colombian banana-growing operations.

The company pleaded guilty to one count of doing business with a terrorist organization. The plea is part of a deal with prosecutors that calls for a $25 million fine.

The agreement ends a lengthy Justice Department investigation into the company's financial dealings with right-wing paramilitaries and leftist rebels the U.S. government deems terrorist groups.

Prosecutors say the Cincinnati-based company and several unnamed high-ranking corporate officers agreed to pay about $1.7 million between 1997 and 2004 to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, known as AUC for its Spanish initials.

The AUC has been responsible for some of the worst massacres in Colombia's civil conflict and for a sizable percentage of the country's cocaine exports. The U.S. government designated the right-wing militia a terrorist organization in September 2001.

Prosecutors said the company made the payments in exchange for protection for its workers. In addition to paying the AUC, prosecutors said, Chiquita made payments to the National Liberation Army, or ELN, and the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, as control of the company's banana-growing area shifted.

Chiquita stock has risen sharply since the deal was announced last week. Company shares were trading down 6 cents at $13.46 in midmorning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.


....we should sue the US Goverment on the same grounds...


(This post was edited by madriver on Mar 19, 2007, 11:57 AM)


dingus


Mar 19, 2007, 12:25 PM
Post #2 of 15 (673 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17361

Re: [madriver] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

madriver wrote:
If a foreign government can't protect a US Corps interests in that country, why would the US sue a corporation that did what it had to do to protect those interests? WTF!! The United States imports millions of barrels of oil every day from a country it deems a "Terrorist Nation" Iran. I find this hypocrisy beyond compare..

I'm not sure I understand the nuances of your position here.

It seems to me that in this age of globalism, if the US cannot bend US based corporations to its will we will pretty much lose all regulatory control. Corporations will off shore those aspects of their business that run afoul of US law and that would be that?

What am I missing there maddy?

DMT


madriver


Mar 19, 2007, 12:32 PM
Post #3 of 15 (668 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700

Re: [dingus] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
madriver wrote:
If a foreign government can't protect a US Corps interests in that country, why would the US sue a corporation that did what it had to do to protect those interests? WTF!! The United States imports millions of barrels of oil every day from a country it deems a "Terrorist Nation" Iran. I find this hypocrisy beyond compare..

I'm not sure I understand the nuances of your position here.

It seems to me that in this age of globalism, if the US cannot bend US based corporations to its will we will pretty much lose all regulatory control. Corporations will off shore those aspects of their business that run afoul of US law and that would be that?

What am I missing there maddy?

DMT


...whats the difference between the US importing oil from Iran a Terrorist State, under the premise of National Security and Big Bannana Corp. buying protection under the same guise as in it's corp. security? If the US is going to prosecute a Corporation for dealing withwhat it deems terrorist Governments than it better clean it's own house first. This is Catch 22 at it's finest...


(This post was edited by madriver on Mar 19, 2007, 12:34 PM)


dingus


Mar 19, 2007, 12:38 PM
Post #4 of 15 (665 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17361

Re: [madriver] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

madriver wrote:
dingus wrote:
madriver wrote:
If a foreign government can't protect a US Corps interests in that country, why would the US sue a corporation that did what it had to do to protect those interests? WTF!! The United States imports millions of barrels of oil every day from a country it deems a "Terrorist Nation" Iran. I find this hypocrisy beyond compare..

I'm not sure I understand the nuances of your position here.

It seems to me that in this age of globalism, if the US cannot bend US based corporations to its will we will pretty much lose all regulatory control. Corporations will off shore those aspects of their business that run afoul of US law and that would be that?

What am I missing there maddy?

DMT


...whats the difference between the US importing oil from Iran a Terrorist State, under the premise of National Security and Big Bannana Corp. buying protection under the same guise as in it's security? If the US is going to prosecute Corporation for dealing what it deems terrorist Governments than it better clean it's own house first. This is Catch 22 at it's finest...

I don't know what is different and it sure isn't clear from the quote above. is Big Oil paying off Al Queda and other terrorist organizations to preserve drilling access?

In terms of 'better do this or that first' I disagree. We NEED oil, we don't need no bananas.

DMT


madriver


Mar 19, 2007, 12:48 PM
Post #5 of 15 (656 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700

Re: [dingus] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't know what is different and it sure isn't clear from the quote above. is Big Oil paying off Al Queda and other terrorist organizations to preserve drilling access?

In terms of 'better do this or that first' I disagree. We NEED oil, we don't need no bananas.

DMT


...SO IN THE GUISE OF nATIONAL sECURITY IT'S O.K FOR THE us TO FUND STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM (AS constantly espoused by the current Gov.) by purchasing oil from said terrorist state, but if a US Corp. buys protection from said Terrorist State to maintain it's interest it's illegal? Yeah....you're right...I don't get it. This is why our pesence in the Middle East is absurd. While I don't equate oil with bannanas on the "have to have scale", I don't see how or why we don't see the hypocrisy in our Goverments funding of middle east terrorism while urging our support in fighting the war on terrorism. They can't have it both ways.


thorne
Deleted

Mar 19, 2007, 12:53 PM
Post #6 of 15 (652 views)
Shortcut

Registered:
Posts:

Re: [dingus] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
we don't need no bananas.

They make you constipated. Unsure






Does this have anything to do with Mad's recent ramblings about...



"Fear the turtle"? Shocked


madriver


Mar 19, 2007, 1:00 PM
Post #7 of 15 (649 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700

Re: [thorne] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

thorne wrote:
dingus wrote:
we don't need no bananas.

They make you constipated. Unsure





Does this have anything to do with Mad's recent ramblings about...



"Fear the turtle"? Shocked


...dude...as old as you are you need them for potassium...you now...I think AARP sponsors the bannana industry...


(This post was edited by madriver on Mar 19, 2007, 1:01 PM)


Partner bill


Mar 19, 2007, 1:01 PM
Post #8 of 15 (645 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2004
Posts: 1061

Re: [madriver] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

We don't import oil from Iran.


dingus


Mar 19, 2007, 1:05 PM
Post #9 of 15 (644 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17361

Re: [madriver] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

madriver wrote:
...SO IN THE GUISE OF nATIONAL sECURITY IT'S O.K FOR THE us TO FUND STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM

WHAT??? I CAN'T FUCKING HEAR You!!!111xxxyyyzzz

In reply to:
I don't see how or why we don't see the hypocrisy in our Goverments funding of middle east terrorism while urging our support in fighting the war on terrorism. They can't have it both ways.

So which terrorist organizations is Chevron/Mobil paying off again?

DMT


madriver


Mar 19, 2007, 1:16 PM
Post #10 of 15 (635 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700

Re: [bill] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

bill wrote:
We don't import oil from Iran.


...crap...well what about Venezula and Canada?


reno


Mar 19, 2007, 1:24 PM
Post #11 of 15 (627 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [madriver] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

madriver wrote:
bill wrote:
We don't import oil from Iran.


...crap...well what about Venezula and Canada?

Canada is a terrorist state?

Shit. There goes my planned trip to Squamish.


petsfed


Mar 19, 2007, 1:32 PM
Post #12 of 15 (620 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [madriver] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I think this is either a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do situation, or an enemy-you-know kind of situation.

As for the latter, if we import oil from Iran (which I was not aware that the US does so), it would be with the understanding that they need our business too much to dick us over.

On the other hand, contracting with the AUC, counter-leftist though they may be, is to bargain with the devil. As soon as all of the leftist insurgents are rooted out of Colombia, the organization will go after other people they see as a threat to Colombia. Groups like, for instance, American banana exporters.


jgloporto


Mar 19, 2007, 2:11 PM
Post #13 of 15 (605 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 8, 2006
Posts: 5522

Re: [madriver] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

This thread seems to represent a very oversimplified version of the global market place. It seems to me that in order for any global business enterprise to conduct business in certain regions like central and south america or south east asia, that those enterprises need to take certain steps that seem inappropriate in a macro sense in order to develop those regions and safely conduct business. For instance, businesses frequently need to bribe government officials in those areas. For a long time, those companies were fighting legal battles in the US to receive tax deductions for those bribes claiming that these are ordinary business expenses in South America.

If you penalize big business too much for this type of stuff they simple won't be able to conduct business in those areas. Some people might say that global business takes advantage of developing nations but given the lack of domestic economic stimulus if it wasn't for globalization, these regions would be far worse off. No one benefits in that scenario.


dingus


Mar 19, 2007, 2:16 PM
Post #14 of 15 (603 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17361

Re: [jgloporto] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

jgloporto wrote:
If you penalize big business too much for this type of stuff they simple won't be able to conduct business in those areas.

Reworded - if require big business to adhere to the law they won't be able to conduct business.

DMT


jgloporto


Mar 19, 2007, 2:23 PM
Post #15 of 15 (596 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 8, 2006
Posts: 5522

Re: [dingus] cORPORATE PROTECTION? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
jgloporto wrote:
If you penalize big business too much for this type of stuff they simple won't be able to conduct business in those areas.

Reworded - if require big business to adhere to the law they won't be able to conduct business.

DMT

No disagreement here with your rewording. You know what they say about serving two Ceasars. Globalization means that in some cases, companies have to pick one of the following and go with it: domestic law, local law where they are operating and international law principles and in some cases all three could conflict. What to do. What to do. Go with the one that best helps fuel corporate profit growth and wait and see on the other ones. If the penalties exceed the benefit, than cut that business loose. Sorry Columbians, back to mud hunts and wide scale government sponsored massacres for you but I hear the Cartles are hiring...


(This post was edited by jgloporto on Mar 19, 2007, 2:23 PM)


Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook