• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

So many bastards, so little time.

We will not go quietly into the night; we will not vanish without a fight.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

’Where will you hide, Roberts, the laws all being flat?’

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Sometimes the world just tells you your cat is here.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

If a good thing happens for a bad reason, it’s still a good thing.

Donald Trump found guilty as fuck – May 30, 2024!

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith.

“The defense has a certain level of trust in defendant that the government does not.”

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Open Threads / Excellent Links / Bananas

Bananas

by John Cole|  July 2, 200810:31 am| 67 Comments

This post is in: Excellent Links

FacebookTweetEmail

This HuffPo piece seems to not really put things into perspective:

The co-host of a recent top-dollar fundraiser for Sen. John McCain oversaw the payment of roughly $1.7 million to a Colombian paramilitary group that is today designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Carl H. Lindner Jr., the billionaire Cincinnati businessman, was CEO of Chiquita Brands International from 1984 to 2001, and remained on the company’s board of directors until May 2002. Beginning under his tenure, Chiquita executives paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by the Spanish acronym AUC), which is described by George Washington University’s National Security Archive as an “illegal right-wing anti-guerrilla group tied to many of the country’s most notorious civilian massacres.”

However, the story really is not that simple, and 60 Minutes had a piece on this in May that I thought was fascinating. Some backstory:

But since the 1980’s, the business of bananas there has been punctuated with gunfire. First, the area was taken over by Marxist guerillas called the “FARC,” whose ruthlessness at killing and kidnapping was exceeded only by the private paramilitary army that rose up to fight them. Chiquita found itself trying to grow bananas in the middle of a war, in which the Colombian government and its army were of no help.

“These lands were lands where there was no law. It was impossible for the government to protect employees,” says Fernando Aguirre, who became Chiquita’s CEO long after all this happened.

Aguirre says the company was forced to pay taxes to the guerillas when they controlled the territory in the late 1980s and early 90s. When the paramilitaries, known as the “AUC,” moved in in 1997 they demanded the same thing.

“Did the paramilitaries state, specifically to you, that if you didn’t make the payments, your people would be killed?” Kroft asks.

“There was a very, very strong signal that if the company would not make payments, that things would happen. And since they had already killed at least 50 people, employees of the company, it was clear to everyone there that these guys meant business,” Aguirre says.

Chiquita only had a couple of options and none of them were particularly good. It could refuse to pay the paramilitaries and run the risk that its employees could be killed or kidnapped, it could pack up and leave the country all together and abandon its most profitable enterprise, or it could stay and pay protection, and in the process, help finance the atrocities that were being committed all across the countryside.

“These were extortion payments,” Aguirre says. “Either you pay or your people get killed.”

“And you decided to pay,” Kroft remarks.

“And the company decided to pay, absolutely,” Aguirre says.

There was no doubt in the company’s mind that the paramilitaries were very bad people, Aguirre says.

Read the whole thing.

Not to go all corporate shill and defend McCain and Chiquita, because I know what would be going on if the shoe were on the other foot (witness this bullshit WaPo piece on Obama’s home loan– also notice that the Red State hacks still have not commented on our appropriating torture methods from the chicoms but sure as hell are lying about Obama’s loan), but the facts are more complicated than “a prominent McCain backer supports terrorism.”

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Update From the “No Shit” Department
Next Post: McLiar »

Reader Interactions

67Comments

  1. 1.

    donovong

    July 2, 2008 at 10:38 am

    “it could pack up and leave the country all together and abandon its most profitable enterprise….”

    Well, that makes it all better then, huh? Better to allow yourself to support those assholes, rather than take your enterprise somepleace a little less profitable.

  2. 2.

    Martin

    July 2, 2008 at 10:46 am

    but the facts are more complicated than “a prominent McCain backer supports terrorism

    Are they?

    it could pack up and leave the country all together and abandon its most profitable enterprise, or it could stay and pay protection, and in the process, help finance the atrocities that were being committed all across the countryside.

    So the conclusion was that profits trump atrocities. And we should be okay with that?

    Basically, they gave money to terrorists knowing they were terrorists because it was in their best interest to do so. How is that any different from ANY other person that gives money to terrorists? Just because he got profits out of it rather than the satisfaction of seeing his enemies blown up? Wouldn’t a corporation knowingly selling weapons to terrorists be perfectly alright then by the same reasoning?

  3. 3.

    stickler

    July 2, 2008 at 10:48 am

    Nice explanation. But who cares: wrap this bastard around McCain’s neck as tight as you can anyhow. He deserves it.

    But what I don’t get is this — who actually reads RedState nowadays? Except for comedy value, what could possibly be the purpose? Watching Moe Lane type “blam!” can’t be that amusing after the fiftieth time, right? I mean, they’re just a tiny part of the Regnery money-losing propaganda apparatus.

    Seriously — what are their numbers like?

  4. 4.

    The Bearded Blogger

    July 2, 2008 at 10:49 am

    Actually, Chiquita Brand does support terrorism.
    American banana companies have used violence against workers since, at least, the 1920’s, with the aim of keeping workers from demanding fair wages and working conditions(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre).

    Today, in general, private industries in Colombia use the AUC as a way of killing off union leaders and producing a pro-corporate environment. Chiquita Brand didn’t just pay off the AUC, they gave helped them acquire 3000 AK-47s and 5 million projectiles in 2001 (http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=56717- sixth paragraph, it’s in spanish, sorry). I find it hard to believe that C.B was not glad when the AUC displaced FARC as the dominanting force in Colombia’s banana producing region.

    Even if C.B was just paying protection, that is a monstrous criminal act in itself. They gave 1.7 million dollars to an organization that has killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions and kidnapped thousands of people. Among other things, they are famous for playing soccer with the skulls of victims ad dismembering them live with a chainsaw.

    For the record, the FARC are probably just as nefarious as the AUC, but the fact that asshole A is the enemy of asshole B does not make neither A nor B any less of an asshole

  5. 5.

    Wilfred

    July 2, 2008 at 10:52 am

    but the facts are more complicated than “a prominent McCain backer supports terrorism.

    Said facts will no doubt be treated as such in this case, but in similar cases they have not been. this was how Tariq Ramadan was denied a visa to the United States after Notre Dame had offered him a tenured faculty position. Ramadan had donated money to a Palestinian charity BEFORE the government had declared it a terrorist enabler.

    This guy is lucky he left in 2002. According to 18 U.S.C.
    2339B (material support for designated terrorist organizations)he can be prosecuted. See, if he were a Muslim, he would have known that. This is how the State Department justifies its lack of entry visas to Iraqis. If a family pays ransom money to kidnap that’s, you guessed it, material support for terrorism.

    Quite an educational series of posts today, John.

  6. 6.

    The Bearded Blogger

    July 2, 2008 at 10:52 am

    Martin is absolutely right. Helping terrorists, whatever the motive, is helping terrorists.

    “Basically, they gave money to terrorists knowing they were terrorists because it was in their best interest to do so. How is that any different from ANY other person that gives money to terrorists? Just because he got profits out of it rather than the satisfaction of seeing his enemies blown up? Wouldn’t a corporation knowingly selling weapons to terrorists be perfectly alright then by the same reasoning?”

  7. 7.

    calipygian

    July 2, 2008 at 10:53 am

    it could pack up and leave the country all together and abandon its most profitable enterprise,

    Making money counts for more than how you make it and who gets paid off in the process. Not to mention who gets killed and hurt in the process.

    As for McCain and Chiquita, I take my cue from the Deciderer – You’re either with us or against us.

  8. 8.

    Seebach

    July 2, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Combat heroism matters: McGovern ’72

  9. 9.

    El Cid

    July 2, 2008 at 10:57 am

    I’m sure if the situation were reversed, and this were an Obama fund-raiser, that the McCain / Republican / Mainstream nexus would be urging us to see the issue for its complexities, like they always do.

  10. 10.

    Palooza

    July 2, 2008 at 10:57 am

    But.. but… Obama attended a cocktail party with a 60s radical!

  11. 11.

    Wilfred

    July 2, 2008 at 11:00 am

    I forgot to add that 18 U.S.C. 2339B has also severely restricted the activities of US Muslim charities since the government has refused to alert Muslim organizations as to which of them it (the government) considers to be ‘material supporters of terrorism’. Knowing that they would avoid them. But DOJ said it would not disclose the list.

    Think about that for a minute and you’ll see how Kafkaesque DOJ has become under Bush.

  12. 12.

    The Bearded Blogger

    July 2, 2008 at 11:06 am

    L’esprit de l’escalier is what the french call a witticism that comes a little to late. After having posted twice, here’s mine:

    So John, it’s okay to fund terrorist organizations as long as it’s for profit?

  13. 13.

    Zifnab

    July 2, 2008 at 11:07 am

    Not to go all corporate shill and defend McCain and Chiquita… but the facts are more complicated than “a prominent McCain backer supports terrorism.”

    Even if C.B was just paying protection, that is a monstrous criminal act in itself. They gave 1.7 million dollars to an organization that has killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions and kidnapped thousands of people. Among other things, they are famous for playing soccer with the skulls of victims ad dismembering them live with a chainsaw.

    Right, let’s put this in a bit of context. I’m a small oil trader operating out of the Arabian Peninsula and I regularly have to deal with AQI or Iranian agents to get through the Straight of Hormuz. So I cough up a few million dollars to an organization that kills US troops and another organization that is picking fights on the Iraq-Iran border.

    How kindly do you think the US Government is going to treat me?

    Or, let’s say I’m a diamond miner in Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe comes calling. He says I can keep mining diamonds, but I have to support his Presidential run and donate money to his campaign. Oh, and he’s going to be killing a bunch of the locals who aren’t a member of his tribe, so please stay out of his way.

    How about if I’m a rice grower in Vietnam / Cambodia / Laos circa 1973, and the Vietcog rolls into my part of town demanding I offer them money for “protection”?

    I mean, I could go on forever with these analogies. Chiquita did what I imagine any savy business would do. It ran the numbers and found the solution most profitable to its enterprise. The problem, from a US and humanitarian perspective, was that Chiquita’s math lead them to decide giving mafia goons large kickbacks was preferable to closing up shop and refusing to support the blood bath.

    Had the AUC been a band of Islamic Radicals or Maoist anti-capitalists or Cuban-affiliated insurrectionists would we be cutting them slack? If the AUC was being run by Che Guevera?

    Just wondering…

  14. 14.

    Tim H.

    July 2, 2008 at 11:08 am

    Just for a change, let’s go with the literal truth (McCain’s buddy is a terrorist financier) and let the GOP expound on the complications and subtleties. Because they’re so good at it.

  15. 15.

    DR

    July 2, 2008 at 11:12 am

    Problem is: Chiquita was convicted of providing help to terrorists…. by the Bush administration, no less.

    So whatever story they have concocted to “justify” those payments, which were really a way to arm a pro-business right-wing guerilla to ensure FARC wouldn’t interrupt their little ultra-profitable anti-democratic racket.

    Chiquita has left a trail of blood throughout Latin America; to take “their word for it”, as you’re doing now, would be like saying “but Hitler only did it because he was fighting Communism!”…

  16. 16.

    Sirkowski

    July 2, 2008 at 11:15 am

    There was no doubt in the company’s mind that the paramilitaries were very bad people, Aguirre says.

    But bananas are worth more than beaners, AMIRITE?
    /sarcasm

  17. 17.

    BFR

    July 2, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Chiquita has left a trail of blood throughout Latin America; to take “their word for it”, as you’re doing now, would be like saying “but Hitler only did it because he was fighting Communism!”…

    Yeah, I recall from my Latin American history classes in college that bananas are pure evil. Think about it – there is no reason on earth that bananas, shipped halfway around the world should generally be cheap fruit. The only way that this works is by using factory techniques and borderline, if not outright slave labor.

    If you are in the banana business, then you pretty much are a terrorist.

  18. 18.

    SpotWeld

    July 2, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    See, this is just bad business practice.
    What the bananananana people should have is just hire a well known and obviously above reproach contactor like Black Water to handle all these problems. Then there would be no issue what so ever… right?

  19. 19.

    John Cole

    July 2, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    So John, it’s okay to fund terrorist organizations as long as it’s for profit?

    Did I ever say that? I said the facts in this case are more complicated that simply ‘McCain backer supporters terrorism.’

    And, as Martin and the links I have provided have shown, it is true. Additionally, they were convicted because they acted in good faith and turned themselves in, as it is noted in the 60 minutes piece.

    For my part, I see a fundamental difference with funding terrorism for the express point of funding terrorism and paying off people to not kill your employees. Both are obviously problematic, but I would argue the latter is much less so.

    Additionally, we have been funding terrorism for decades, anyway. You have heard of petroleum and Saudi Arabia, right?

  20. 20.

    calipygian

    July 2, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    Just for a change, let’s go with the literal truth (McCain’s buddy is a terrorist financier) and let the GOP expound on the complications and subtleties. Because they’re so good at it.

    Win.

  21. 21.

    rawshark

    July 2, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    but the facts are more complicated than “a prominent McCain backer supports terrorism

    But these types of ‘facts’ only matter when a republican is involved. Would anyone care about these facts if someone from Obama’s campaign supported terrorism? Would old John Cole care if it was a Kerry’s campaign or Gore’s?

  22. 22.

    kth

    July 2, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    There’s a difference between someone who contributes to a terrorist org out of sympathy with its aims, and someone who contributes out of fear. But it’s a continuum, not a categorical distinction: no doubt a lot of Al-Qaeda’s money comes from Arab plutocrats who want to deflect political pressure away from themselves, or even fear for their personal safety if they don’t pony up.

  23. 23.

    Wilfred

    July 2, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    For my part, I see a fundamental difference with funding terrorism for the express point of funding terrorism and paying off people to not kill your employees.

    Doesn’t matter – justice being blind and all. They can bring up whatever they want in their defense at the trial but if they’re not prosecuted there ought to be a better explanation than they meant well.

    Ramadan was kept out of the US for things much less severe. Maybe they only go after brown skinned people. Nah.

  24. 24.

    Jon H

    July 2, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    but the facts are more complicated than “a prominent McCain backer supports terrorism.”

    Perhaps the lesson to take from this is that support for terrorism in general is more complicated than we have assumed.

    Lots of people have similar reasons for “supporting terrorism”, but then most of them lack the resources and power and options that Chiquita had.

  25. 25.

    Wilfred

    July 2, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    FYI:

    § 2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
    a) Prohibited Activities.—
    (1) Unlawful conduct.— Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).

  26. 26.

    donovong

    July 2, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    “Both are obviously problematic, but I would argue the latter is much less so.

    Additionally, we have been funding terrorism for decades, anyway. You have heard of petroleum and Saudi Arabia, right?”

    Oh, alright, Fuck it. That makes it all okay. Two wrongs making a right, and all that.

  27. 27.

    Jon H

    July 2, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Wilfred wrote: ” They can bring up whatever they want in their defense at the trial but if they’re not prosecuted there ought to be a better explanation than they meant well.”

    I believe they were made to pay a sizable fine, something like $20 million, which was more than the $1.7 they claim to have paid these terrorists. (Though I wonder if the actual amount was larger, leading to the large fine, but was kept quiet.)

  28. 28.

    John Cole

    July 2, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Oh, alright, Fuck it. That makes it all okay. Two wrongs making a right, and all that.

    When did I ever say it makes it alright and okay? When?

    When did you guys start channeling your inner Red State and adopt Bush’s Manichean view of the world? Christ. If you have something to offer, go for it, but quit pretending I said something I didn’t.

  29. 29.

    Genine

    July 2, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    The Bearded Blogger Says:

    Martin is absolutely right. Helping terrorists, whatever the motive, is helping terrorists.

    “Basically, they gave money to terrorists knowing they were terrorists because it was in their best interest to do so. How is that any different from ANY other person that gives money to terrorists? Just because he got profits out of it rather than the satisfaction of seeing his enemies blown up? Wouldn’t a corporation knowingly selling weapons to terrorists be perfectly alright then by the same reasoning?

    This is a terrible situation and I do not agree with what C.B did. However, I see a big gray area here.

    Yes, it could move to something less profitable and then cut a ton of jobs. It sucks but, in a lot of cases if a company is making less profit they will cut jobs rather than deny the CEO his or her $10 million dollar bonus.

    If they paid terrorists to take out union leaders and such, that’s horrible and they should be strung up for that. But paying “protection” money to keep your employees from being killed- that’s horrible, but understandable to a certain degree. (Please note I am saying I understand it. I do not condone it.)

    One can certainly see this situation in more simplistic terms and they would be correct. But there is more to the story, which doesn’t necessarily make it sound better. But it makes the situation a little more complex.

  30. 30.

    Wilfred

    July 2, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Here’s a real victim:

    Consider Rita, an Iraqi Christian woman who worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority and helped manage the TIPS Hotline, which Iraqis can call to share critical information about wanted terrorists or pending attacks on the United States military. Her supervisor, Bernard Kerik, wrote in a recommendation letter that her “courage to support the coalition forces has sent an irrefutable message: that terror will not rule, that liberty will triumph, and that the seeds of freedom will be planted into the great citizens of Iraq.”

    But Rita’s courage was repaid by insurgents who abducted her 16-year-old son at gunpoint on his way to school one August morning. Terrorists demanded $600,000 for his release. She doesn’t know how much her husband ultimately paid the kidnappers because he divorced her, blaming her work for the American government for the calamity that had befallen the family. He took her traumatized son and daughter to Syria, and she hasn’t seen or heard from them since. When the death threats became unbearable, she fled to Jordan.

    Appallingly, Rita’s family cannot be resettled in the United States because of the material support bar. Unless the secretary of homeland security himself applies a waiver for her, she’ll never reach American soil. Does this woman, who lost everything because she worked for the Americans, who had a security clearance from our government to work in its embassy, pose a threat to the United States? If she does, then who doesn’t?

    The law’s the law. If only Iraqis and Muslim-Americans get prosecuted (see US vs. Afshari) then that’s complete injustice. Change the law or apply it to everybody.

  31. 31.

    Napoleon

    July 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Yeah, I recall from my Latin American history classes in college that bananas are pure evil. Think about it – there is no reason on earth that bananas, shipped halfway around the world should generally be cheap fruit. The only way that this works is by using factory techniques and borderline, if not outright slave labor.

    I don’t have time to look it up, but around a couple of weeks ago I saw a pretty good story, I think in the NY Times about how the era of cheap and/or available bananas is at an end, and part of the story was how banana’s are much cheaper then things like apples even though apples are easy to ship, last forever and tend to be grown close to where they are sold, and part of the way they did it cheaply was labor suppression methods. It was an eye opener.

  32. 32.

    Dennis - SGMM

    July 2, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    Anyone care to guess how many companies worldwide are paying someone off? My guess: lots. If they’re operating in a region that has insurgents or a thuggish government or both then the odds are pretty damned good that payoffs are a cost of doing business. They may have to hire certain individuals as “security guards”, fund specified “charities” or pay made-up fees and tolls but, they’re paying off nonetheless. Calling in hits on troublemakers is way beyond the pale and likely unnecessary – once the locals determine which side their bread is buttered on they probably take care of the troublemakers without being asked.

  33. 33.

    rawshark

    July 2, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    Another difference is these were right wing terrorists.

  34. 34.

    jibeaux

    July 2, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    Ramadan had donated money to a Palestinian charity BEFORE the government had declared it a terrorist enabler.

    You’ve just declared yourself an asshole, too!

  35. 35.

    Zifnab

    July 2, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    When did I ever say it makes it alright and okay? When?

    Additionally, we have been funding terrorism for decades, anyway. You have heard of petroleum and Saudi Arabia, right?

    That sure as hell sounds like a tacit endorsement to me. Or, at the very least, a “whatcha complainin’ ’bout?” retort. Are you suggesting that we don’t regularly bitch about the oil industry for-profit stranglehold on Arab nations? Cause, you know, its not like people were chanting “Blood for Oil” all the way through the Iraq War. We clearly missed that connection.

    For my part, I see a fundamental difference with funding terrorism for the express point of funding terrorism and paying off people to not kill your employees. Both are obviously problematic, but I would argue the latter is much less so.

    Yikes, dude. “I didn’t pay the mafia to snuff out my competition because I wanted them to snuff out my competition. I was just paying protection money and… oops… competition up and died on me.”

    This line of logic might work if you can show where Chiquita was paying off FARC with equal abandon. And EVEN THEN, I’m not seeing why a US Company should be doing business in the middle of a civil war hotzone while paying off militants because, by golly, we’ve got to protect our stockholders. We’ve got longer standing embargos against Cuba for doing far less damage over the same amount of time.

    But still, its the basic premise. Chiquita was passing millions of dollars to a right-wing guerrilla cell that just happens to target unionizers and left-wing orgs and you’re saying they did it all because they were protecting their sub-minimum wage employees?

    Give me a fucking break.

  36. 36.

    jeroen

    July 2, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    As other posters have pointed out, Chiquita has a history of doing nasty stuff for profit,

    I just read Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World’. It’s a great read about a subject that’s much more fascinating than I would have guessed before reading the book.

  37. 37.

    Wilfred

    July 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Ramadan had donated money to a Palestinian charity BEFORE the government had declared it a terrorist enabler.

    Nope, you remain the only asshole:

    Finally, in January, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors and PEN American Center filed a lawsuit on my behalf, challenging the government’s actions. In court, the government’s lawyers admitted that they could establish no connection between me and any terrorist group; the government had merely taken a “prudential” measure by revoking my visa. Even then, the government maintained that the process of reconsidering my visa could take years. The federal court — which issued a ruling recognizing that I have been a vocal critic of terrorism — rejected the indefinite delay. In June, it ordered the government to grant me a visa or explain why it would not do so.

    On Sept. 21, the long-awaited explanation arrived. The letter from the U.S. Embassy informed me that my visa application had been denied, and it put an end to the rumors that had circulated since my original visa was revoked. After a lengthy investigation, the State Department cited no evidence of suspicious relationships, no meetings with terrorists, no encouraging or advocacy of terrorism. Instead, the department cited my donation of $940 to two humanitarian organizations (a French group and its Swiss chapter) serving the Palestinian people. I should note that the investigation did not reveal these contributions. As the department acknowledges, I had brought this information to their attention myself, two years earlier, when I had reapplied for a visa.

    In its letter, the U.S. Embassy claims that I “reasonably should have known” that the charities in question provided money to Hamas. But my donations were made between December 1998 and July 2002, and the United States did not blacklist the charities until 2003. How should I reasonably have known of their activities before the U.S. government itself knew? I donated to these organizations for the same reason that countless Europeans — and Americans, for that matter — donate to Palestinian causes: not to help fund terrorism, but because I wanted to provide humanitarian aid to people who desperately need it. Yet after two years of investigation, this was the only explanation offered for the denial of my visa. I still find it hard to believe.

    Pretty scary, huh? Few people gave a shit. I’ve been screaming about infringements on academic freedom around here for a long time. What happened to Ramadan could happen to anyone. Well not anyone, if you’re Pipes you can get away with anything.

  38. 38.

    Dennis - SGMM

    July 2, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Time to dust off an old quote from General Smedley Butler. This should be read to Congress at least once a year.

    I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

  39. 39.

    John Cole

    July 2, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    But still, its the basic premise. Chiquita was passing millions of dollars to a right-wing guerrilla cell that just happens to target unionizers and left-wing orgs and you’re saying they did it all because they were protecting their sub-minimum wage employees?

    Give me a fucking break.

    No. It is not that simple. They were passing millions to rightwing groups, before that, left-wing groups, and basically, anyone who would not kill their people.

    Somehow or another you all seem to think I am defending the practice, and I think what really has you all in a dander is the appearance of “right-wing” and “McCain.” It all sucks, but it isn’t as simple as people are making it out to be.

    Additionally, this sort of shit is going on everywhere, almost anywhere there is a resource worth extracting- see also diamonds, oil, whatever. Fucking cut me some slack. I am not endorsing the shit, just saying that McCain is hardly to blame for a standard (yet deplorable) business practice of one of his backers. granted, and I said this in the post, the Republicans would be running with it with their usual level of dishonest and faux outrage.

  40. 40.

    Thom

    July 2, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    John

    The reason people took it the way you did is because you wrote this after the blockquote: “Not to go all corporate shill and defend McCain and Chiquita…” which is usually something said when someone is defending someone. Y’know?

    And it seems to me that the 60 Minutes story starts late. The existence of rebel groups in Columbia are largely in response to what Chiquita and the U.S. in general have been doing there for decades. You can’t start in 1980 and say, “Oh look, those rebels are dangerous!”

  41. 41.

    jibeaux

    July 2, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    Nope, you remain the only asshole:

    Wait, did something happen to TZ?

  42. 42.

    The Moar You Know

    July 2, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    rawshark Says:

    Another difference is these were right wing terrorists.
    July 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    No such thing. Right-wing terrorists are “freedom fighters”, i.e. Contras.

  43. 43.

    jibeaux

    July 2, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    By the way, Wilfred, my point is nothing substantive about Mr. Ramadan. It is that you said I had declared myself an asshole because I stated that Clinton had declared someone a terrorist. You stated that a Palestinian charity was declared to have enabled terrorism, ergo under Wilfred Rules, you have declared yourself an asshole too, or at least declared yourself to have enabled assholery.

  44. 44.

    John Cole

    July 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    The reason people took it the way you did is because you wrote this after the blockquote: “Not to go all corporate shill and defend McCain and Chiquita…” which is usually something said when someone is defending someone. Y’know?

    Well, in my case I said it because I meant it. I am not defending them, just stating it is not as clear cut as it seems.

  45. 45.

    Susan Kitchens

    July 2, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    TO: James Carville reads Balloon Juice! He just told Ben Smith about the Duke Cunningham, fighter pilot angle.

  46. 46.

    Susan Kitchens

    July 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Ack. two letter dyslexia, or dystypia. meant to say O.T. as in off-topic. But my typo-correcting macro thought I meant “to” and helpfully corrected me. Now that I’ve taken things off-off-topic, I offer double apologies.

  47. 47.

    jibeaux

    July 2, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    I’ve got your back, JC. Context is always helpful. I concur with Wilfred that the statute has no intent component, which is what I think he’s getting at there, and I am certainly inclined to think that it should have one.

    But it does matter, if for no other reason than more information and context mean greater understanding, to know that they aren’t funding FARC because they support and like kidnapping, rape, murder, and narcotrafficking. It doesn’t mean John’s saying they’re good guys. It means he’s saying there’s more to the story.

    Remember, we’re liberals. Liberals want information. Conservatives want ammunition. We’re better than that.

  48. 48.

    Martin

    July 2, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    It sucks but, in a lot of cases if a company is making less profit they will cut jobs rather than deny the CEO his or her $10 million dollar bonus.

    And this helps their case how? Now you’ve excused paying terrorists in order to protect the CEO bonus by noting that they really don’t care about the jobs anyway. So, when the CEO is paying terrorists, he’s really paying himself!

    Simply acknowledging this is the reality of how business works doesn’t make it right. Next question: are terrorists smart enough to recognize which acts are more likely to help the profitability of those corporations willing to pay, and change behavior accordingly?

    just saying that McCain is hardly to blame for a standard (yet deplorable) business practice of one of his backers.

    You have to start somewhere, and the head of the GOP seems like as appropriate a target as any, even if he has no personal involvement. The standard out there seems to be to point out these little issues and see what the candidate has to say about them. Does McCain have it in him to call it a standard business practice?

    I don’t say that to tear him or you down, but I think we’re better off walking through life with our eyes open. If that’s standard business practice, then let’s advertise and celebrate that fact. Maybe offer some MBA courses in it and open it up for everyone to participate. And if it’s a standard business practice let’s get everyone the same opportunities to participate, because just letting the multinationals (or even corporations) play is hardly free-market.

  49. 49.

    Randy Paul

    July 2, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    John,

    Chiquita in its various incarnations (United Fruit, for example) has been a consistent bad actor in Latin America, whether engineeering the overthrow of a democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954, which ushered in a series of brutal dictators that resulted in nearly forty years of civil war and over 200,000 dead or the murder of hundreds of strikers in Cienaga, Colombia in 1928.

    The message that this sends to Latin America is that McCain believes in business as usual. He doesn’t deserve a pass on this at all.

  50. 50.

    John Cole

    July 2, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Here’s a real victim:

    That shit is just outrageous. My blood boils everytime I think of the pitiful numbers of people who have been allowed to flee Iraq to the United States. This is even worse.

    Why the fuck couldn’t Terri Schaivo happen in 2002?

  51. 51.

    Jeff

    July 2, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    No open thread today, but thought this Scalzi observation was interesting:

    Over the last seven elections, the superior military service is 1-6 in presidential elections. If McCain is hoping his service record is going to matter much in this election, he might want to look at the historical record.

  52. 52.

    jibeaux

    July 2, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    He doesn’t deserve a pass on this at all.

    He wasn’t giving him a pass. He was providing context, just like you did vis a vis Chiquita.

  53. 53.

    John Cole

    July 2, 2008 at 2:22 pm

    John,

    Chiquita in its various incarnations (United Fruit, for example) has been a consistent bad actor in Latin America, whether engineeering the overthrow of a democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954, which ushered in a series of brutal dictators that resulted in nearly forty years of civil war and over 200,000 dead or the murder of hundreds of strikers in Cienaga, Colombia in 1928.

    The message that this sends to Latin America is that McCain believes in business as usual. He doesn’t deserve a pass on this at all.

    Anyone have some links that could serve as a primer? In undergrad I was more interested in Africa (in particular Julius Nyrere), and really overlooked Latin America.

  54. 54.

    Brachiator

    July 2, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    The message that this sends to Latin America is that McCain believes in business as usual.

    OT, but maybe not.

    Not only is McCain about business as usual, evidently he has decided to run officially as the third Bush term (McCain Orders Shake-Up of His Campaign):

    Responding to Republican concerns, John McCain placed a veteran of President Bush’s 2004 re-election in charge of day-to-day operations.

    Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign has gone through its second shake-up in a year as Mr. McCain, responding to Republican concerns that his candidacy was faltering, put Steve Schmidt in charge of day-to-day operations and abandoned an effort to have the campaign run by 11 regional managers, the senator’s aides said Wednesday.

    Mr. Schmidt is a veteran of President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign and he worked closely with Karl Rove, who was Mr. Bush’s political adviser. His installation at Mr. McCain’s headquarters represented a sharp diminishment of the responsibilities of Rick Davis, who has been Mr. McCain’s campaign manager since the last shake-up nearly a year ago.

  55. 55.

    Wilfred

    July 2, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    This is even worse.

    Nah, this is, actually. More from the Annals of the Age of Bush:

    In 1993 a Mandingo family in Liberia was kidnapped by rebels working for Charles Taylor, the former Liberian president now facing war crimes charges in the Hague. The wife and her 13-year-old daughter were repeatedly raped and, with the husband and three other children, forced to work for two weeks as slaves for the rebels, fetching water and cooking for them.
    Now living in a refugee camp in West Africa while awaiting resettlement to the United States, the family members were interviewed in February by a Department of Homeland
    Security adjudicator, who found they had the “credible and well-founded fear of persecution” required for refugee status. But the official discovered something else, as well.
    The slave labor the wife and children provided violated a provision of U.S. immigration law, one that forbids admittance of anyone who provides “material support” to a terrorist organization. Whether that support — the cooking and the fetching of water — took place under threat
    of torture or death is irrelevant. Whether the “support” is as minimal as fixing one meal instead of many does not matter, either. According to the family’s case file, their refugee claim was put on hold, and they remain in the camp.
    “Everyone realizes there are cases that are quite sympathetic,” says Igor Timofeyev, the DHS special adviser on refugee and asylum affairs. But the language of the immigration statute is “pretty plain and pretty uncompromising,” he says. “There is no exception depending on the amount of support, and it does not exempt cases of duress,” adds Timofeyev, a former Sidley Austin associate and law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

  56. 56.

    Dennis - SGMM

    July 2, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Anyone have some links that could serve as a primer?

    United Fruit Company

  57. 57.

    Punchy

    July 2, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    OT (via TPM):

    Wow. It’s not even subtle. It’s egregious.

  58. 58.

    Wilfred

    July 2, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Nice mention of General Butler. read his bio when I was 16 and always admired him. He was actually the first victim of swiftboating – ragged unmercifully as a Bolshevik. A real red fighting man. Today he’d be trashed to smithereens on Fox.

  59. 59.

    DR

    July 2, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    @John:

    Primer on United Fruit and Chiquita:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiquita_Brands_International

    Also: Let’s not forget that UFC was in league with Batista, and that its actions were in significant part responsible for the rise of a certain Fidel…

    They are one of the worst corporate offenders out there. If they were trying to protect anyone, it was THEMSELVES and only THEMSELVES. They’ve let thousands of their workers die; it’s only when the bosses are threatened that they take action…

  60. 60.

    Martin

    July 2, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    Kos needs to buy you a new server and better software… or at least some hamster food.

  61. 61.

    Martin

    July 2, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    Wow. It’s not even subtle. It’s egregious.

    Remember the lawsuit against Fox that Fox won on appeal: News organizations have no legal obligation to tell the truth.

    Just putting the law to practice.

  62. 62.

    Randy Paul

    July 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    John,

    Read Bitter Fruit by Stephen Schelsinger and Stephen Kinzer. It’s the best book on the subject I have read.

  63. 63.

    Napoleon

    July 2, 2008 at 4:11 pm

    TO: James Carville reads Balloon Juice! He just told Ben Smith about the Duke Cunningham, fighter pilot angle.

    This wasn’t the only place I saw it pointed out. I also saw pointed out that Bush Sr was a fighter pilot as well several others (names excape me now) who have not turned out so good.

  64. 64.

    Genine

    July 2, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Martin Says:

    It sucks but, in a lot of cases if a company is making less profit they will cut jobs rather than deny the CEO his or her $10 million dollar bonus.

    And this helps their case how? Now you’ve excused paying terrorists in order to protect the CEO bonus by noting that they really don’t care about the jobs anyway. So, when the CEO is paying terrorists, he’s really paying himself!

    Simply acknowledging this is the reality of how business works doesn’t make it right. Next question: are terrorists smart enough to recognize which acts are more likely to help the profitability of those corporations willing to pay, and change behavior accordingly?

    What are you talking about? That is NOT what I am saying and I am not making excuses for them. I think the practice is horrible and have said so.

    What I am saying is if they moved their business to something less profitable it will mean job cuts. I was talking about that aspect and that aspect only in that particular sentence. If profits fall, its the employees who pay the price, not the CEOs and I think that sucks. I am not saying they should engage in the practice. I am not saying they are “good guys”. I think its wrong.

    I do not think it is acceptable and how we do business should be changed. However, at the moment, what happened/is happening is the reality right now. How it is happening right now is wrong and more complex than how people are framing it.

  65. 65.

    Kyle

    July 2, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    The slave labor the wife and children provided violated a provision of U.S. immigration law, one that forbids admittance of anyone who provides “material support” to a terrorist organization. Whether that support — the cooking and the fetching of water — took place under threat
    of torture or death is irrelevant.

    So they’re refugees because they were kidnapped and enslaved by terrorists, but they supported terrorism by working for their captors under threat of death so they are inelegible for refugee status.

    Just. Fucking. Horrible.

    And I’m sure this legal standard will be applied impartially to Chiquita and its corporate officers. Not.

  66. 66.

    rawshark

    July 2, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    Punchy Says:

    OT (via TPM):

    Wow. It’s not even subtle. It’s egregious

    ‘hit piece’ is popular on the right isn’t it? Must be a tool of dismissipacity.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Tête-à-Tête-Tête - » Titles are odious says:
    July 3, 2008 at 6:06 am

    […] Just a few random notes. I don’t read much of John Cole’s web-site any more. Lately, there hasn’t been much there that hasn’t already been said on Daily Kos. But I was glad to see him counter the idea that we should go after McCain for his crony’s big payments to terrorists. It’s good that he is providing some perspective on this. Prior to that, I was inclined to accept a worse interpretation of Chiquita’s actions. Not that Chiquita are saintly by any stretch… And, I still have questions – like, why if this was the case, was Chiquita forced to pay a big fine for their actions, and what happened after they stopped making those payments? And, of course, Fox News, McCain, and their media friends will seldom stop to include the context making perspective on Barack Obama and his time spent serving on the board of a community organization alongside a former Weatherman… or anything else. But that’s a separate battle, I guess. […]

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - PaulB - Olympic Peninsula: Salt Creek Recreation Area & Kalaloch Beach
Image by PaulB (5/10/25)

Recent Comments

  • YY_Sima Qian on Squishable Morning Thread (May 15, 2025 @ 12:49pm)
  • Enhanced Voting Techniques on Political Wins Open Thread (May 15, 2025 @ 12:44pm)
  • bbleh on Political Wins Open Thread (May 15, 2025 @ 12:42pm)
  • Gin & Tonic on Political Wins Open Thread (May 15, 2025 @ 12:41pm)
  • The Audacity of Krope on Squishable Morning Thread (May 15, 2025 @ 12:40pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!