Chiquita Brand International pleaded guilty in 2007 to financing terrorism in Colombia, but the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that relatives of victims could not sue the company for reparations. (Photo: Maciek Bielec/flickr/cc)
Apr 20, 2015
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from relatives of thousands of victims of conflict in Colombia aiming to sue Chiquita Brand International.
In its decision, the court referred to a 2013 Supreme Court ruling which limited attempts by foreigners to use U.S. courts to seek retribution for human rights abuses abroad under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
"By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court has created yet another obstacle in the path of victims seeking remedies for abusive corporate actions abroad, and allows a U.S. corporation to get away with financing terrorism without accountability to its victims in U.S. courts," said EarthRights International (ERI), an environmental and human rights legal nonprofit.
ERI continues:
From 1997-2004, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, or AUC), used Chiquita's financial support to spread fear in the banana-growing region of Uraba, Colombia. The AUC tortured and killed thousands of villagers, labor leaders, and community organizers who were suspected of favoring leftist guerrillas or making trouble for the plantation owners.
"For human rights advocates around the world, this decision is particularly baffling considering Chiquita admitted to paying the paramilitaries in response to a U.S. government investigation," ERI stated.
As noted in the petition (pdf) filed with the Supreme Court, Chiquita pleaded guilty in 2007 to "Engaging in Transactions with a Specially-Designated Global Terrorist." The U.S. District Court imposed a $25 million fine on the company and stated:
What makes this conduct so morally repugnant is that the company went forward month after month, year after year, to pay the same terrorists. It did so knowing full well that while its farms may have been protected, and while its workers may have been protected while they literally were on those farms, Chiquita was paying money to buy the bullets that killed innocent Colombians off those farms.
The justices did not comment on their ruling on Monday.
As Reuters explains, "The Chiquita matter was the first human rights case of its type to reach the top court since an April 2013 ruling that made it harder for plaintiffs to sue corporations in U.S. courts for alleged abuses that take place overseas."
Marco Simons, ERI general counsel, said that the dismissal of the appeal was not the end of a "long overdue" bid for justice. "We will do everything we can to bring this case to trial so Chiquita and its executives can answer for their decision to put profit before human life."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Our Summer Campaign is now underway, and there’s never been a more urgent time for Common Dreams to be as vigilant as possible. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from relatives of thousands of victims of conflict in Colombia aiming to sue Chiquita Brand International.
In its decision, the court referred to a 2013 Supreme Court ruling which limited attempts by foreigners to use U.S. courts to seek retribution for human rights abuses abroad under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
"By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court has created yet another obstacle in the path of victims seeking remedies for abusive corporate actions abroad, and allows a U.S. corporation to get away with financing terrorism without accountability to its victims in U.S. courts," said EarthRights International (ERI), an environmental and human rights legal nonprofit.
ERI continues:
From 1997-2004, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, or AUC), used Chiquita's financial support to spread fear in the banana-growing region of Uraba, Colombia. The AUC tortured and killed thousands of villagers, labor leaders, and community organizers who were suspected of favoring leftist guerrillas or making trouble for the plantation owners.
"For human rights advocates around the world, this decision is particularly baffling considering Chiquita admitted to paying the paramilitaries in response to a U.S. government investigation," ERI stated.
As noted in the petition (pdf) filed with the Supreme Court, Chiquita pleaded guilty in 2007 to "Engaging in Transactions with a Specially-Designated Global Terrorist." The U.S. District Court imposed a $25 million fine on the company and stated:
What makes this conduct so morally repugnant is that the company went forward month after month, year after year, to pay the same terrorists. It did so knowing full well that while its farms may have been protected, and while its workers may have been protected while they literally were on those farms, Chiquita was paying money to buy the bullets that killed innocent Colombians off those farms.
The justices did not comment on their ruling on Monday.
As Reuters explains, "The Chiquita matter was the first human rights case of its type to reach the top court since an April 2013 ruling that made it harder for plaintiffs to sue corporations in U.S. courts for alleged abuses that take place overseas."
Marco Simons, ERI general counsel, said that the dismissal of the appeal was not the end of a "long overdue" bid for justice. "We will do everything we can to bring this case to trial so Chiquita and its executives can answer for their decision to put profit before human life."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from relatives of thousands of victims of conflict in Colombia aiming to sue Chiquita Brand International.
In its decision, the court referred to a 2013 Supreme Court ruling which limited attempts by foreigners to use U.S. courts to seek retribution for human rights abuses abroad under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
"By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court has created yet another obstacle in the path of victims seeking remedies for abusive corporate actions abroad, and allows a U.S. corporation to get away with financing terrorism without accountability to its victims in U.S. courts," said EarthRights International (ERI), an environmental and human rights legal nonprofit.
ERI continues:
From 1997-2004, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, or AUC), used Chiquita's financial support to spread fear in the banana-growing region of Uraba, Colombia. The AUC tortured and killed thousands of villagers, labor leaders, and community organizers who were suspected of favoring leftist guerrillas or making trouble for the plantation owners.
"For human rights advocates around the world, this decision is particularly baffling considering Chiquita admitted to paying the paramilitaries in response to a U.S. government investigation," ERI stated.
As noted in the petition (pdf) filed with the Supreme Court, Chiquita pleaded guilty in 2007 to "Engaging in Transactions with a Specially-Designated Global Terrorist." The U.S. District Court imposed a $25 million fine on the company and stated:
What makes this conduct so morally repugnant is that the company went forward month after month, year after year, to pay the same terrorists. It did so knowing full well that while its farms may have been protected, and while its workers may have been protected while they literally were on those farms, Chiquita was paying money to buy the bullets that killed innocent Colombians off those farms.
The justices did not comment on their ruling on Monday.
As Reuters explains, "The Chiquita matter was the first human rights case of its type to reach the top court since an April 2013 ruling that made it harder for plaintiffs to sue corporations in U.S. courts for alleged abuses that take place overseas."
Marco Simons, ERI general counsel, said that the dismissal of the appeal was not the end of a "long overdue" bid for justice. "We will do everything we can to bring this case to trial so Chiquita and its executives can answer for their decision to put profit before human life."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.