Hacker News Reader

Comment by barbarr | Hacker News Reader

Also if you take a step back, it's more like the US is getting a cut of the $, almost like profit sharing.

The 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."

people here don't RTFA when there'a juicy contrarian stuff to say instead

Yes, but I also consistently seeing people refer to anything resulting from a court case (criminal or civil) as a "fine".

Because 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".

They mistake the civil legal system for a fine imposed by the gov't, no need to be. obtuse about it.

Yes, 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.

Where's the discontinuity, they just assume everything that happens in court is the result of actions by the gov't when it's not just true. I don't get your tone, as if people making mistakes is a concept I'm not familiar with. That's not what I'm discussing, I'm discussing widely made mistaken assumptions from an otherwise incredulous crowd.

Generally, it's a distinction without a meaningful difference. The people you're complaining about don't really care whether or not it's government or civil action. They care that these people are getting away with murder and mass extortion and the only penalty they face is a meager chunk of the profits.

I'm glad that some victims are getting some recompense, but frankly, justice has not really been served.

> Generally, it's a distinction without a meaningful difference.

Seems like you might be as confused as they are!

> The people you're complaining about don't really care whether or not it's government or civil action.

They do, because it's always in the context of how the "gov't" levied a fine on some business, when it was actually a civil suit and there's no governmental action at all.

> They care that these people are getting away with murder and mass extortion and the only penalty they face is a meager chunk of the profits.

That's not what I'm talking about!

My feeling is that you're the one confused with what other people think and care about, not the other way around. I'll leave it there and agree to disagree, as you've been ignoring the points made by both of us who replied to you.

> My feeling is that you're the one confused with what other people think and care about, not the other way around.

You'd be wrong, then.

>I'll leave it there and agree to disagree, as you've been ignoring the points made by both of us who replied to you.

Well you both keep making up scenarios that aren't what I'm talking about.

Might I suggest asking a friend who you trust to read the thread and share their thoughts with you - because I thought we just disagreed, and I didn't think much of your opinion, but saying that either of us have "made up scenarios" means you're just completely misunderstanding something we've said (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't write that knowing it's nonsense in the hope that it saves you face).

There's no face to save here and I don't particularly care. I made myself clear, the rest is on you. It's not as if I asked for clarification.

> That's not what I'm talking about!

Okay, but when people are complaining about fines in this cases and similar cases, that is what they're talking about.

You can take a fine detail and make an argument out of it, but it's not a point anyone else cares about.

US 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.

Article 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_an...

You 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!

By 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.

was there a declaration of war?

Who 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com