July 25th, 2014
A US appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit against banana grower Chiquita brought by at least 4,000 Colombians who accused the company of supporting paramilitary forces who killed or tortured their relatives.
In the 2-1 decision on Thursday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found a 2013 US Supreme Court ruling limited foreign nationals’ ability to seek damages against corporations in US courts.
Chiquita, the world’s largest banana producer, pleaded guilty in 2007 to making over 100 payments beginning in 1997 to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a right-wing paramilitary group the United States considered a terror organization. Chiquita handed AUC $1.7 million in cash and checks before ending the practice in February 2004.
In 2001, Chiquita was identified in invoices and other documents as the recipient of a shipment from Nicaragua of 3,000 AK-47 assault rifles and 5 million rounds of ammunition. The shipment was actually intended for the AUC.
Banana giant Chiquita has spent around $780,000 in the past year and a half to block a 9/11 victims’ bill in the US Congress. The legislation aims to aid victims and families in their claims against supporters or sponsors of terror attacks.
The bill would attempt to impose civil liabilities on those found to have aided and abetted US-designated terrorist groups overseas.
Now-Attorney General Eric Holder represented the fruit company in the previous lawsuit.
View in high-resolution
Originally from Ⓐnarcho Queer
“She warned us against becoming a movement only for white middle class people, this was 41 years ago, and today, so much of the ways in which LGBT equality has played out has been about white middle class people.”
Laverne Cox talking about Sylvia Rivera
Originally from F*ck Yeah, Laverne Cox!
(i am such a fucking geek)
The only good thing about my birthday being today is it means it is not longer americas.
If I put a gun to someone’s head, say, a 30-year-old healthy male, pull the trigger, and kill him, assuming an average life expectancy of, say, 84, you can argue that possibly 54 years of life [were] stolen from that person in a direct act of violence.
However, if a person is born into poverty in the midst of an abundant society where it is statistically proven that it would hurt no one to facilitate meeting the basic needs of that person and yet they die at the age of 30 due to heart disease, which has been found to statistically relate to those who endure the stress and effects of low socioeconomic status, is that death, the removal of those 54 years once again, an act of violence?
And the answer is ‘Yes, it is.’
You see, our legal system has conditioned us to think that violence is a direct behavioral act. The truth is that violence is a process, not an act, and it can take many forms.
You cannot separate any outcome from the system by which it is oriented.”
Peter Joseph, from this lecture. (via universalequalityisinevitable)
Originally from Universal Equality Is Inevitable