JacksonLamb

joined 6 months ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] JacksonLamb 8 points 3 months ago

In a healthy society people can see that there is a difference between holding an opinion, and bullying or slandering someone.

[–] JacksonLamb 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Sure. But normally a headline tells you who did what. That's the point of a headline.

Active sentence construction is one of the first skills they teach in journalism.

"Carcinogens Cause Cancer in Cows" not something useless like "Cancer is Caused In Cows."

[–] JacksonLamb 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sorry I misinterpreted you! :-)

[–] JacksonLamb 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

why didn’t he run away sooner? Usually perpetrators escape after the abuse

No, they don't. Statistically the majority of rapes are by people who know the victim personally. In cases of intimate partner rape the perpetrator does not typically "run away from" his wife or girlfriend etc afterwards.

[–] JacksonLamb 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

It doesn't sound reasonable. Its argument is neoliberal economics at its worst:"we don't want countries to be able to control their own domestic food markets because we want them to be forced to take our exports", only counched in paternalistic We Know What's Best For You rhetoric.

[–] JacksonLamb 2 points 4 months ago

Or use pixelfed.

[–] JacksonLamb 12 points 4 months ago

"Settlers" isonly weird to you if you discount all the other times settler colonialists stole land and committed ethnic cleansing and genocide.

[–] JacksonLamb 2 points 4 months ago
[–] JacksonLamb 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Your kid is called The Expanse?

Acceptable.

[–] JacksonLamb 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Bit of an emotional rollercoaster for the poor guy.

Shark attack.

But I escape.

But my leg is now missing.

But hey my leg just washed up.

[–] JacksonLamb 3 points 4 months ago

I would actually watch dressage if it only had pantomime horses.

[–] JacksonLamb 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That country is sleepwalking into full fascism.

 

A U.S. jury in Miami has ruled that Chiquita Brands International is liable for financing the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary death squad designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. during Colombia's civil war.

This decision comes after 17 years of legal proceedings and a previous conviction in 2007 when Chiquita was fined $25 million for illegal payments to the AUC. The recent verdict marks the first time an American jury has held a major U.S. corporation accountable for complicity in human rights abuses in another country, newsletter Pirate Wire Services explained.

Plaintiffs represented by Earth Rights International, an NGO advocating for corporate responsibility, have long sought justice through courts in both Colombia and the United States regarding this issue. The jury in Miami recommended a civil fine of $2 million for each family member filing suit, following two "bellwether cases" selected from over a hundred filed by victims.

Court documents reveal that Chiquita paid 3 cents per dollar for each box of bananas exported from Colombia to the AUC, an organization responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, including the eradication of entire villages, the murders of trade union representatives and rivals, and the kidnapping of politicians. Victims and their families had lobbied for years to sue Chiquita in civil courts, efforts that the company delayed through various legal tactics.

In addition to the payments, victims and ex-AUC commanders claim that Chiquita provided weapons and gasoline to the paramilitary forces in the Urabá region of Colombia. They argue that Chiquita executives knew these resources were being used to kill civilians and suppress unions near their operations. Chiquita has denied these accusations, maintaining that the payments were extortion made under duress, an argument previously rejected by U.S. courts.

Chiquita attempted to move all civil cases to Colombian courts, but its motion was denied, and the cases proceeded in the U.S. In 2018, Colombia's Prosecutor's Office formally accused Chiquita executives of aggravated conspiracy to commit a crime and attempting to hide these payments as "security payments." The investigation was suspended in 2019 but may resume under Colombia's new lead prosecutor, Luz Adriana Camargo Garzón, who has expressed interest in the case.

The Colombian Peace Court has characterized Chiquita's actions, including labor union repression, as "crimes against humanity."

 

A U.S. jury in Miami has ruled that Chiquita Brands International is liable for financing the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary death squad designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. during Colombia's civil war.

This decision comes after 17 years of legal proceedings and a previous conviction in 2007 when Chiquita was fined $25 million for illegal payments to the AUC. The recent verdict marks the first time an American jury has held a major U.S. corporation accountable for complicity in human rights abuses in another country, newsletter Pirate Wire Services explained.

Plaintiffs represented by Earth Rights International, an NGO advocating for corporate responsibility, have long sought justice through courts in both Colombia and the United States regarding this issue. The jury in Miami recommended a civil fine of $2 million for each family member filing suit, following two "bellwether cases" selected from over a hundred filed by victims.

Court documents reveal that Chiquita paid 3 cents per dollar for each box of bananas exported from Colombia to the AUC, an organization responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, including the eradication of entire villages, the murders of trade union representatives and rivals, and the kidnapping of politicians. Victims and their families had lobbied for years to sue Chiquita in civil courts, efforts that the company delayed through various legal tactics.

In addition to the payments, victims and ex-AUC commanders claim that Chiquita provided weapons and gasoline to the paramilitary forces in the Urabá region of Colombia. They argue that Chiquita executives knew these resources were being used to kill civilians and suppress unions near their operations. Chiquita has denied these accusations, maintaining that the payments were extortion made under duress, an argument previously rejected by U.S. courts.

Chiquita attempted to move all civil cases to Colombian courts, but its motion was denied, and the cases proceeded in the U.S. In 2018, Colombia's Prosecutor's Office formally accused Chiquita executives of aggravated conspiracy to commit a crime and attempting to hide these payments as "security payments." The investigation was suspended in 2019 but may resume under Colombia's new lead prosecutor, Luz Adriana Camargo Garzón, who has expressed interest in the case.

The Colombian Peace Court has characterized Chiquita's actions, including labor union repression, as "crimes against humanity." The central issue in the U.S. civil court case was whether Chiquita's payments to the AUC materially assisted the group in its illegal actions.

view more: next ›