Apartheid Victims Seek Compensation From International Companies

[Bird of Prey]

US court gives hope to Apartheid victims


NEW YORK – Victims of South African apartheid will seek compensation from 22 international companies for helping maintain the repressive state regime, after a landmark US court ruling paved the way for such lawsuits last week, their lawyer told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
Michael Hausfeld said he hoped to begin civil proceedings in 60 to 90 days, seeking damages from companies including Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Shell and BP.
Victims say such companies helped prop up South Africa’s apartheid regime by doing business with them. A federal appeals court in New York on Friday said the class action suits could go ahead, overturning an earlier ruling from 2002.
The suit is to be brought by some 91 victims of human rights abuses during the apartheid regime, which ended in 1994 with all-race elections that brought Nelson Mandela to power.
Hausfeld said he represents another 20,000 to 40,000 South Africans who were tortured and mistreated, or had family members that were tortured or killed. He would not say how much compensation the victims will be seeking, but denied media reports that they were after hundreds of billions of dollars. –Sapa-dpa . . . .http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=50426,1,22

The outcome here could forever change the nature of doing business in or with nations with an appalling human rights record.

The implications are enormous if the victims win.

[tourdeforce]

This is the equivalent of suing the electric company for supplying power to the police station where you were beaten in a back room because it allowed them to have light.

[Dawno]

That wasn't a very well thought out statement tour. How about something of substance? These toss-off one liners around here, if not meant in jest but rather to belittle the previous post or it's substance, are wearisome at best and insulting at worst. Sharpen the pencil a bit, will you?

[InfinityGoddess]

The implications are enormous if the victims win.

Indeed.

[tourdeforce]

That wasn't a very well thought out statement tour. How about something of substance? These toss-off one liners around here, if not meant in jest but rather to belittle the previous post or it's substance, are wearisome at best and insulting at worst. Sharpen the pencil a bit, will you?


You must be kidding.

My analogy is dead on.

This persecution has entered the realm of absurdity.

[tourdeforce]

Defend it?

It is as obvious and simple as it needs to be.

[William Haskins]

This is the equivalent of suing the electric company for supplying power to the police station where you were beaten in a back room because it allowed them to have light.

if the "electric company" represents the businesses that operated in s. africa, who provided a service to "the police", which represents the regime (implicit is that it did so without any endorsement of their philosophy or tactics) and the "beaten prisoner" represents the oppressed black south africans, then it holds water as an analogy.

[Dawno]

Nice justification Haskins, but I asked for tour's.

I'm serious about these threads needing to be taken more seriously or this forum is pointless to have on a writing site.

[William Haskins]

again, he reduced all three elements (the companies, the regime and the victims) to a valid scenario, in my opinion.

[davids]

Yes yes the companys had no knowledge of what was going on so therefore they could not possibly be held responsible in any way shape or form. After all the motive of profit is at all times a justifiable one-all hail thou dwelling pure and holy if it makes you a buck or two right?

[Dawno]

Very well. I've deleted my post. I apologize to tourdeforce for misunderstanding his post. My reading comprehension was very poorly applied.

[xhouseboy]

again, he reduced all three elements (the companies, the regime and the victims) to a valid scenario, in my opinion.

And all in one sentence.

A job well done.

[Bird of Prey]

A job well done.



Can a job be well done when his entire premise is wrong?

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Can a job be well done when his entire premise is wrong?
Yes.

[Jean Marie]

And all in one sentence.

A job well done.
Meaning what?

1. Apartheid victims shouldn't be taken care of? Or should.

2. Or, that Tour gave a good summary and it has nothing to do w/ how Apartheid victims should be compensated.

[Jean Marie]

Never mind, Duncan just answered my question.

[William Haskins]

he's obviously stating that the companies bear no responsibility for the crimes carried out by their customers.

you can argue the merits of the contention, but the analogy was apt.

[Bird of Prey]

Yes.


Really?

I don't think so but feel free to explain.

[Jean Marie]

he's obviously stating that the companies bear no responsibility for the crimes carried out by their customers.

you can argue the merits of the contention, but the analogy was apt.
Hey, I had a basil cell carcinoma taken off the side of my face, today. I'm a tad slow on the uptake. It's starting to hurt, some.

Had to read it a couple of times, but I got it now.

Of course the company isn't responsible for what the customer does. The company doesn't have reps all over, watching. It's not 1984...big brother. Impossible situation...horrific nonetheless.

[xhouseboy]

Meaning what?

1. Apartheid victims shouldn't be taken care of? Or should.

2. Or, that Tour gave a good summary and it has nothing to do w/ how Apartheid victims should be compensated.

2

[Bird of Prey]

If the companies are successfully sued by the apartheid victims, it will create an atmosphere in which businesses are reluctant to do business with governments that are reprehensible in terms of human rights violations.

I am delighted at the prospect. It means that BP and Exxon may have to examine their role for example, in Saudi Arabia where women can still be beaten to death in the streets.

God forbid companies should be sued a decade down the road for acting in consort with oppressive and frankly, immoral governments.

I hope the victims get all they're due and then some.

[clintl]

If the companies are successfully sued by the apartheid victims, it will create an atmosphere in which businesses are reluctant to do business with governments that are reprehensible in terms of human rights violations.

I am delighted at the prospect. It means that BP and Exxon may have to examine their role for example, in Saudi Arabia where women can still be beaten to death in the streets.



I, too, am delighted. I wish them well in their lawsuit. It can only improve the world.

[InfinityGoddess]

I am delighted at the prospect. It means that BP and Exxon may have to examine their role for example, in Saudi Arabia where women can still be beaten to death in the streets.



Might also cause Rupert Murdoch or Wal-Mart to give pause about doing business with China, which is also a country with an appalling human rights abuse record as well.

[William Haskins]

while it's quite noble to advocate justice for the victims of apartheid, it's odd (and rather amusing) to see the same names popping up who believe that the descendants of 1.2 million murdered armenians should just get over it.

[Bird of Prey]

while it's quite noble to advocate justice for the victims of apartheid, it's odd (and rather amusing) to see the same names popping up who believe that the descendants of 1.2 million murdered armenians should just get over it.


Let's try to stick to the topic at hand, Mr. Haskins. If I'm not free to address your overall record as a basis of motive and therefore credibility, I would prefer that neither I nor others be held to some substandard.

[William Haskins]

i find it a relevant connection. i'm not particularly interested in your imagined limitations in terms of rebuttal.

[robeiae]

It can only improve the world.
Are you sure of this?

Suppose this causes all international interests to pull out of China, for fear of what might be down the road, based on China's less-than-wonderful record on human rights. Now, this might be beneficial for other regions in the world, but what does it do for the millions of Chinese who would suddenly be out in the cold? And would it cause China to "mend its ways," or push it to take drastic action, ala war?

And yes, the implications are enormous: another nail in the coffin for freedom.

[billythrilly7th]

I don't think they should get a dime.

Who's to say which countries are bad, etc....

What level of bad? How much does someone deserve.

Can Russians sue companies working in Russia now?

Can this person sue that business for this that happened in that country they used to live in then?

It's opening a can of worms that we don't need opened.

You don't like that Exxon deals with so and so. Boycott Exxon. Etc.

Thanks.

[Bird of Prey]

i find it a relevant connection. i'm not particularly interested in your imagined limitations in terms of rebuttal.


I don't really care what you think the limitations are or aren't. I speak for myself only: I intend to address the topic and nothing more.

[Voyager]

Boycotting and compensations as a way to send a message to unethical regimes or those who do business within these countries, doesn't hurt the regime. No matter what happens, they are in control and their comfort level will be seen to, as well as that of the military that keeps them in power and holds sway over the people. It's the little guys, the ones we'd all love to save, that will suffer in the end if companies pull out based on how a government is run. You want to send a message? Find an effective way to punish those governments who prop up these regimes.

[Bird of Prey]

You want to send a message? Find an effective way to punish those governments who prop up these regimes.


And what would that be?

[William Haskins]

I don't really care what you think the limitations are or aren't. I speak for myself only: I intend to address the topic and nothing more.

and i believe it's germane to that topic that you feel reparations are due to the victims of apartheid while believing the world should remain silent in regards to genocide.

you are free not to respond. but i will not be manipulated as to what i can post, be it from intimidation or some bizarre sympathy ploy.

[Voyager]

And what would that be?


Got me, I'm not a politician. But I do know that everyone I know from El Salvador was pissed off at the US government for arming and training the NPA, but they were very happy that they could still have a Coke and a smile.

[Bird of Prey]

and i believe it's germane to that topic that you feel reparations are due to the victims of apartheid while believing the world should remain silent in regards to genocide.

you are free not to respond. but i will not be manipulated as to what i can post, be it from intimidation or some bizarre sympathy ploy.


Mr Haskins, of course you are free to say whatever you want, but I am tired of you maliciously misrepresenting my position with gross exaggeration, snide remarks, sneering asides, blatant hyperbole and red herrings. As such, I will no longer dignify your absurd allegations and your rather ridiculous hypotheses with a response. But by all means. Blab on.

[Cranky]

Got me, I'm not a politician. But I do know that everyone I know from El Salvador was pissed off at the US government for arming and training the NPA, but they were very happy that they could still have a Coke and a smile.

Exactly. Businesses are distinct and separate entities from the governments (countries) from which they originate. You could, of course, toss that aside in cases of government contractors, but for the most part, nah.

I know you addressed this to Voyager, but I'll take a crack at who ought to step up. Perhaps the United Nations? Since they seem to really stink at peacekeeping and/or enforcing resolutions, it might be a wasted effort, but they are supposed to be the voice of the global community. Perhaps they ought to actually try to inject some backbone into their resolutions, and then, someone might actually take them seriously when they condemn human rights abuses, etc, and have a leg to stand on when calling said regimes to account for their behavior.

That's all I got, and it stinks, but it's still a better answer than boycotting and suing private businesses. Perhaps the victims of genocides or apartheids or slavery could bring some kind of international lawsuit against the governments which had oppressed them. Of course, I don't think that would work, either, but again...better choice than attacking a private enterprise. (Not government contractors, let me re-iterate).

In other words, I don't think there is much that can be done in terms of economics here. The best thing we can do is just work our asses off to try to prevent and/or put a stop to things like it both now and in the future.

Nothing else even comes close to making sense, but that doesn't have much chance of succeeding, either.

Okay, now I'm freakin' depressed.

[William Haskins]

Mr Haskins, of course you are free to say whatever you want, but I am tired of you maliciously misrepresenting my position with gross exaggeration, snide remarks, sneering asides, blatant hyperbole and red herrings. As such, I will no longer dignify your absurd allegations and your rather ridiculous hypotheses with a response. But by all means. Blab on.

there's no misrepresentation. the posts are all there to see.

fact: you believe that there should not be condemnation by the US of the murder of 1.2 million armenians.

fact: you believe that victims of apartheid are entitled to monetary compensation for the oppression they suffered.

no misrepresentation, no exaggeration.

[Jean Marie]

What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander. I suppose.

If the Apartheid victims should be compensated, then so should the Armenians. And why not.

[Bird of Prey]

Jean Marie, how may Turks do you think are still alive that could be sued or held accountable for atrocities committed ninety plus years ago?

[dmytryp]

I am delighted at the prospect. It means that BP and Exxon may have to examine their role for example, in Saudi Arabia where women can still be beaten to death in the streets.

God forbid companies should be sued a decade down the road for acting in consort with oppressive and frankly, immoral governments.


Your contention has two problems:

1. You think US court is apt to extend its sense of morality all over the world (I'd say this would be a problematic contention to many countries)
2. You should add to Saudis the Chineese, Russians and a long list of countries. By following your logic, any country's court can do this and they would find a reason or two not to do business with US too. Or are you extending this on small countries like the Saudis, only?

[dmytryp]

Perhaps the United Nations?

Do you mean the general assembly, ruled by an automatic majority of the Muslim world and the supplements? Or do you mean the security council, where two (or maybe more, I forget) of the most gross violators of human rights (Russia and China) reside?
UN is a biased, polytical organization. It has to mend its ways before it can pass judgement on any nation.

[Opty]

Mr Haskins, of course you are free to say whatever you want, but I am tired of you maliciously misrepresenting my position with gross exaggeration, snide remarks, sneering asides, blatant hyperbole and red herrings.

Wait...are you talking about his posts or yours?

[InfinityGoddess]

there's no misrepresentation. the posts are all there to see.

fact: you believe that there should not be condemnation by the US of the murder of 1.2 million armenians.

fact: you believe that victims of apartheid are entitled to monetary compensation for the oppression they suffered.

no misrepresentation, no exaggeration.

Fact: The Armenian genocide happened over 90 years ago. Unless you can find someone who was a part of the Ottoman regime in that time who is still alive enough to be sued instead of being six feet under or lower, then your argument makes no sense.

Fact: Apartheid was not abolished until fairly recently. People who participated in the oppressive South African regime are likely to still be alive and well enough to be held to account for their actions.

[dmytryp]

Fact: Apartheid was not abolished until fairly recently. People who participated in the oppressive South African regime are likely to still be alive and well enough to be held to account for their actions.

Fact: and they were, and South Africa had a free democratic elections.

[InfinityGoddess]

Fact: and they were, and South Africa had a free democratic elections.

Only the government, not private enterprise.

[dmytryp]

Fact: Apartheid was not abolished until fairly recently. People who participated in the oppressive South African regime are likely to still be alive and well enough to be held to account for their actions.

Only the government, not private enterprise.

Notice the bolded part in your first statement. The companies traded with a country. They didn't participate in the regime.

Did you see Holocaust victims suing companies that supplied Germany with weapons, the cyclon gas?

[InfinityGoddess]

Notice the bolded part in your first statement. The companies traded with a country. They didn't participate in the regime.


They traded with an oppressive regime and continue to be apologists for regimes that are still oppressive by doing business with them. The more these corporations are sued, the more they'll be made to understand that perhaps things like having their goods made in sweat shops is not profitable.

Because really, that's the only way to get corporations to comply with issues like human rights. By hitting them where it hurts; in the wallet.

[dmytryp]

They traded with an oppressive regime and continue to be apologists for regimes that are still oppressive by doing business with them. The more these corporations are sued, the more they'll be made to understand that perhaps things like having their goods made in sweat shops is not profitable.

Because really, that's the only way to get corporations to comply with issues like human rights. By hitting them where it hurts; in the wallet.

Why does US trades with China or Russia, then?
You'd be the first to shout how the people of the country suffer if corporations refused to sell, say oil, to these countries.

Was there an official boycotte in place?

[dmytryp]

What would happen if somebody went to any court in Europe and sued a company for trading with US during the time of race segregation?

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Really?

I don't think so but feel free to explain.
Because how one performs a job has no bearing on its supposed morality.
For example: Mike is employed as a Death Row prison guard, and is in charge of the lethal chamber. He makes sure that the chamber itself is always clean, the equipment is in perfect working order, and that the proper supplies of drugs are inventoried and kept locked away. He assists the physician during the executions, and follows procedures to the letter.
Mike's job is a job well done.

[Jean Marie]

Jean Marie, how may Turks do you think are still alive that could be sued or held accountable for atrocities committed ninety plus years ago?
I'm talking about condemnation by the US for those atrocities. And compensation for the families of the survivors. Why not.

[Bird of Prey]

Notice the bolded part in your first statement. The companies traded with a country. They didn't participate in the regime.

Did you see Holocaust victims suing companies that supplied Germany with weapons, the cyclon gas?


Heh:


How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power
By Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell
The Guardian U.K.

Saturday 25 September 2004 Rumours of a link between the U.S. first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy. . . .

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. . . . . But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty. . . . .http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/6457

What do you think, dm? You think there are grounds for reparations?

Or how bout Krupp?

[Bird of Prey]

Because how one performs a job has no bearing on its supposed morality.
For example: Mike is employed as a Death Row prison guard, and is in charge of the lethal chamber. He makes sure that the chamber itself is always clean, the equipment is in perfect working order, and that the proper supplies of drugs are inventoried and kept locked away. He assists the physician during the executions, and follows procedures to the letter.
Mike's job is a job well done.


Until capital punishment is abolished and there's a significant shift in public opinion about exactly what Mike had been up to and whether or not he should have been up to it.

[dmytryp]

Heh:


How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power
By Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell
The Guardian U.K.


Saturday 25 September 2004Rumours of a link between the U.S. first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's presidentGeorge Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy. . . .

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. . . . . But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty. . . . .http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/6457

What do you think, dm? You think there are grounds for reparations?

Or how bout Krupp?

No, I don't think there are grounds for reparations. Maybe grounds for legal actions by the state for dealing with an enemy during war time, but no grounds for reparations. I may be morally outraged and would feel the need to boycott such companies, but not to sue them. There is no end to this. Don't you see what kind of can of worms this may open? Most of the countries have some kind of bif with their governments in the past. Should they all sue the companies that traded with that government? Almost any action can be misconstrued by one of the sides.

[xhouseboy]

Until capital punishment is abolished and there's a significant shift in public opinion about exactly what Mike had been up to and whether or not he should have been up to it.

So who you gonna hold to account?

Mike? For doing what was his job at the time? The system? Those who held opposing views to you prior to capital punishment being abolished?

If capital punishment is abolished in the US somewhere down the line, you'll have got what you wanted. You'll have scored a victory. Be thankful and move on.

Unless what you really want is the opportunity to kick the arses of those who were operating within what was the law of the land then, but isn't any more.

[Bird of Prey]

So who you gonna hold to account?

Mike? For doing what was his job at the time? The system? Those who held opposing views to you prior to capital punishment being abolished?

If capital punishment is abolished in the US somewhere down the line, you'll have got what you wanted. You'll have scored a victory. Be thankful and move on.

Unless what you really want is the opportunity to kick the arses of those who were operating within what was the law of the land then, but isn't any more.


It was hypothetical, Xhouse. That's all. I'm not advocating that anything happen to Mike other than he retire and enjoy a rocking chair on his front porch overlooking a big river in Montana.

[Bird of Prey]

Because how one performs a job has no bearing on its supposed morality.
For example: Mike is employed as a Death Row prison guard, and is in charge of the lethal chamber. He makes sure that the chamber itself is always clean, the equipment is in perfect working order, and that the proper supplies of drugs are inventoried and kept locked away. He assists the physician during the executions, and follows procedures to the letter.
Mike's job is a job well done.


Duncan, there is a moral point of no return, though, where doing a good job is no excuse for complicity in an atrocity committed by a company or a state. I hope you agree.

[Cranky]

Do you mean the general assembly, ruled by an automatic majority of the Muslim world and the supplements? Or do you mean the security council, where two (or maybe more, I forget) of the most gross violators of human rights (Russia and China) reside?
UN is a biased, polytical organization. It has to mend its ways before it can pass judgement on any nation.

I know, and I said as much. :)

[dmytryp]

there is a moral point of no return, though, where doing a good job is no excuse for complicity in an atrocity committed by a company or a state. I hope you agree.

That would depend on your definition of 'complicity'. If I would to follow your line, i should go to US court and sue Pepsi for trading with USSR and thus participating in that country's violations of human rights.
If a company had a direct participation in those violations it is one thing. If it simply traded with the country while no international boycotte was in place this would be another matter altogether. As I said, you should distinguish between moral outrage and going to court. You don't like the company doing business with someone -- don't buy its products. Hell, make a public plea and raise awareness. But do not go to court and sue that company.

[InfinityGoddess]

Why does US trades with China or Russia, then?
You'd be the first to shout how the people of the country suffer if corporations refused to sell, say oil, to these countries.


Personally speaking, I don't think that the US should do any business with any dictatorship, number one. Number two, I wouldn't cry out if other countries refused to sell oil. That's stuff that's bad for the environment.

[dmytryp]

Personally speaking, I don't think that the US should do any business with any dictatorship, number one. Number two, I wouldn't cry out if other countries refused to sell oil. That's stuff that's bad for the environment.

So, what you're basically suggesting 'We won't do business with you. You won't do business with us (because every country can find reasons not to trade with almost any other country) and all will be swell.'
The oil thing was just an example. Would a victim of suicide bombing be justified in your eyes to sue our electricity company for supplying electricity to PA because it at one time (during Arafat's reign) supproted suicide bombers?

[Roger J Carlson]

Number two, I wouldn't cry out if other countries refused to sell oil. That's stuff that's bad for the environment.Interesting. The US uses 11% of the world's oil reserves. The US has only 3% of the world's oil reserves. Of the 107 million households in the US, 8.1 million use oil to heat their homes. Are you willing for 8.1 million homes to be without heat this winter? Are you willing to pay the skyrocketing gas prices a drop of 8% of our oil reserves would entail?

[InfinityGoddess]

So, what you're basically suggesting 'We won't do business with you. You won't do business with us (because every country can find reasons not to trade with almost any other country) and all will be swell.'
The oil thing was just an example. Would a victim of suicide bombing be justified in your eyes to sue our electricity company for supplying electricity to PA because it at one time (during Arafat's reign) supproted suicide bombers?


I'm basically asking for some consistency in my government. We have a trade embargo on Communist Cuba, but for some reason we're still trading with Communist China? Makes no sense to me, you see?

I'm also saying that people who have lived under oppressive regimes have the right to sue corporations who backed those regimes. Your suicide bombers analogy is comparing apples to oranges. Regimes are governments; suicide bombers are not.

[InfinityGoddess]

Interesting. The US uses 11% if the world's oil reserves. The US has only 3% of the world's oil reserves. Of the 107 million households in the US, 8.1 million use oil to heat their homes. Are you willing for 8.1 million homes to be without heat this winter? Are you willing to pay the skyrocketing gas prices a drop of 8% of our oil reserves would entail?

I'm willing to have my taxes go to funding cleaner, alternative fuels. We won't need oil then.

[dmytryp]

I'm also saying that people who have lived under oppressive regimes have the right to sue corporations who backed those regimes. Your suicide bombers analogy is comparing apples to oranges. Regimes are governments; suicide bombers are not.

Sorry, wrong. Try again, please.
It is well documented and proven that PA under Arafat backed suicide bombers, so by your reasoning victims of such bombings are entitled to sue the israeli electric company.
As for the first part of your post -- the difference is simple -- there is an embargo in place against Cuba. There isn't embargo in place against China. Until such time that there is an embargo against China, companies are free to trade with them. You have a problem with the fact there isn't an embargo, go to your congressman/senator or write a letter to the president. Suing the companies for trading with China is wrong. You want the m to stop, write to the CEO, don't buy their products, call the public to do the same.

[Roger J Carlson]

I'm willing to have my taxes go to funding cleaner, alternative fuels. We won't need oil then.Once again, you didn't answer the question.

Are you willing to put yourself and others through the horrors that an 8% drop of our oil reserves would entail.

If you wouldn't, then stop making silly statements like: "I wouldn't cry out if other countries refused to sell oil."


ETA: Sorry. 8% is wrong. It would be a 72% drop in our oil reserves. Nearly three quarters of our oil.

[dmytryp]

"I'm willing to have my taxes go to funding cleaner, alternative fuels. We won't need oil then."



And until such a clean energy source is found, the people just should freeze in winter, right?

[MacAllister]

I've split the Tour/Mac discussion out. If you'd like to follow along, you can find the thread here. (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80744)

[Roger J Carlson]

By the way, did you know that the NorthEast (including New Jersey) uses 82% if the fuel oil? Guess you'd be one of those hit.

[InfinityGoddess]

You want the m to stop, write to the CEO, don't buy their products, call the public to do the same.

Boycotts don't usually take as big of a bite out of corporations unless there is one en masse. Lawsuits do.

[InfinityGoddess]

Once again, you didn't answer the question.

Are you willing to put yourself and others through the horrors that an 8% drop of our oil reserves would entail.

If you wouldn't, then stop making silly statements like: "I wouldn't cry out if other countries refused to sell oil."


ETA: Sorry. 8% is wrong. It would be a 72% drop in our oil reserves. Nearly three quarters of our oil.

Like I said, I wouldn't be complaining. Oil is bad for the environment. I can't speak for everyone else.

[WarrenP]

Like I said, I wouldn't be complaining. Oil is bad for the environment. I can't speak for everyone else.

Millions of people without heat for years should be a very serious problem in anyone's mindset. The loss of human life and the complete destruction of the economy would be devastating.

It is a noble goal to find cheaper energy sources, but cutting off the oil supply isn't a reasonable plan to getting there.

[dmytryp]

Boycotts don't usually take as big of a bite out of corporations unless there is one en masse. Lawsuits do.

That doesn't make them legitimate in my view

[Fingers]

If the companies are successfully sued by the apartheid victims, it will create an atmosphere in which businesses are reluctant to do business with governments that are reprehensible in terms of human rights violations.

I am delighted at the prospect. It means that BP and Exxon may have to examine their role for example, in Saudi Arabia where women can still be beaten to death in the streets.

God forbid companies should be sued a decade down the road for acting in consort with oppressive and frankly, immoral governments.

I hope the victims get all they're due and then some.

This kind of behaviour in Saudi Arabia was going on long before BP or Exxon showed up there and started doing business with the saudis. What exactly then is BP or Exxons role in this treatment of saudi women? Should the US stop doing business with BP or Exxon because some of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? This analogy escapes me completely.

yer pal Brian

[dmytryp]

Boycotts don't usually take as big of a bite out of corporations unless there is one en masse. Lawsuits do.

By your logic people should also sue the companies that do business with companies that do business with these countries. And so on. Where does it end. I personally draw the line on the direct involvement. If you can link the company to actively promoting these kind of violations they are a fair game. Otherwise -- out of bounds.

[InfinityGoddess]

Millions of people without heat for years should be a very serious problem in anyone's mindset. The loss of human life and the complete destruction of the economy would be devastating.

It is a noble goal to find cheaper energy sources, but cutting off the oil supply isn't a reasonable plan to getting there.


I wouldn't mean "right away", obviously. ;P But we certainly should get crackin'.

By your logic people should also sue the companies that do business with companies that do business with these countries. And so on. Where does it end. I personally draw the line on the direct involvement. If you can link the company to actively promoting these kind of violations they are a fair game. Otherwise -- out of bounds.

And by your logic, we shouldn't sue companies for outsourcing jobs to third world countries, paying workers slave wages, forcing abortions on women, and participate actively in government censorship and oppression.

[Bird of Prey]

I've stated before that I would like to see the US with a formal, written foreign policy: the what we will and won't tolerate Amendment. That way we could promote trust in the international community instead of littering it with conflicting messages.

We would have open and consistent expectations; it would then be fairly easy for nations to gauge whether or not they are "trading" material/foe or ally.

In lieu of that, I find it heartening that in essence the judiciary branch may step in and do what the administrative/legislative branches have failed to do; hold our country to a reasonable standard of conduct through business.

[Cranky]

I've stated before that I would like to see the US with a formal, written foreign policy: the what we will and won't tolerate Amendment. That way we could promote trust in the international community instead of littering it with conflicting messages.

We would have open and consistent expectations; it would then be fairly easy for nations to gauge whether or not they are "trading" material/foe or ally.

In lieu of that, I find it heartening that in essence the judiciary branch may step in and do what the administrative/legislative branches have failed to do; hold our country to a reasonable standard of conduct through business.

The problem is, BoP, that a written foreign policy is not going to adapt well to sudden changes in geopolitics, imo. And we all know things can go down the drain suddenly...

I don't like the idea of any President being hemmed in by that. Diplomacy and foreign relations in general need to be much more flexible and responsive than any written document could allow it to be.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Duncan, there is a moral point of no return, though, where doing a good job is no excuse for complicity in an atrocity committed by a company or a state. I hope you agree.
Absolutely not. (Read that as I don't agree). In my view, there is never an excuse for doing a poor job. (Which does not mean that there is no reason for doing a poor job.)
Also, no atrocity can be committed by either a company or a state. Atrocities are committed by people.
Again, in my view, it is utterly ludicrous to sue a company for its actions, one should sue the person(s) for their actions. I understand that for purposes of law, a corporation can be considered a person -- I just disagree with that interpretation.

[Bird of Prey]

The problem is, BoP, that a written foreign policy is not going to adapt well to sudden changes in geopolitics, imo. And we all know things can go down the drain suddenly...

I don't like the idea of any President being hemmed in by that. Diplomacy and foreign relations in general need to be much more flexible and responsive than any written document could allow it to be.

Right is right, Cranky. If a president has to maneuver around ethics - which is what the amendment would entail, an ethical guideline - then I don't want that president. Without a stated mandate, we run the risk of loose cannons, such as we have now, imho.

[InfinityGoddess]

Also, no atrocity can be committed by either a company or a state. Atrocities are committed by people.


Um, what? This statement makes no sense. Companies are perfectly capable of committing atrocities. Look at Blackwater, for example.

And so do states. I was just reading up on the current policies of Nicaragua in terms of its extreme abortion ban that has already killed a good number of women. It's a human rights travesty over there.

[Cranky]

Right is right, Cranky. If a president has to maneuver around ethics - which is what the amendment would entail, an ethical guideline - then I don't want that president. Without a stated mandate, we run the risk of loose cannons, such as we have now, imho.

I'm not talking about ethics, here, BoP. I'm talking about necessary flexibility to changing regimes, etc., etc. That friendly country may not be so friendly...in a matter of hours.

That said, I'm guessing that I misunderstood what you were actually referring to. I didn't read closely enough, I think.

Anyway, I don't think we need such guidelines, especially since that's all it would really be. I don't think it would be worth the paper it's written on, and could easily be overturned with enough votes. An Amendment is difficult but not impossible to overturn, as I am certain you are aware.

I think it creates more problems than it solves. The truth is, there is no way to force governments to put ethics above what they perceive as "national interests". Hell, for many countries, the two are one and the same. We just don't happen to agree on the same set of ethics.(countries, I mean, not necessarily BoP and Cranky, JFTR)

[dmytryp]

And by your logic, we shouldn't sue companies for outsourcing jobs to third world countries, paying workers slave wages, forcing abortions on women, and participate actively in government censorship and oppression.

How the hell did you make the leap from my statement to the last bolded part?

This is a direct quote of what I said:

I personally draw the line on the direct involvement. If you can link the company to actively promoting these kind of violations they are a fair game

[InfinityGoddess]

How the hell did you make the leap from my statement to the last bolded part?

This is a direct quote of what I said:

I personally draw the line on the direct involvement. If you can link the company to actively promoting these kind of violations they are a fair game

Well, these companies being sued were directly involved in perpetuating apartheid. So where's your dispute?

[robeiae]

Well, these companies being sued were directly involved in perpetuating apartheid. So where's your dispute?
They were?

[dmytryp]

Well, these companies being sued were directly involved in perpetuating apartheid.

In what way? And simply trading with a country doesn't qualify with me as perpetuating anything.

[InfinityGoddess]

In what way? And simply trading with a country doesn't qualify with me as perpetuating anything.

By simply doing business with them, they helped prop up the apartheid regime. It's still just as sick as opening a sweat shop.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Um, what? This statement makes no sense. Companies are perfectly capable of committing atrocities. Look at Blackwater, for example.

And so do states. I was just reading up on the current policies of Nicaragua in terms of its extreme abortion ban that has already killed a good number of women. It's a human rights travesty over there.
I'll try.

A company has no arms. No legs, torso, brains, fingers, toes, or tastebuds. It can do nothing but lie there, ink on paper formed into words. People do things.

Similarly for a country.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

By simply doing business with them, they helped prop up the apartheid regime. It's still just as sick as opening a sweat shop.
InfinityGoddess -- do you have any diamonds? If so, and by using your logic here, if those diamonds can be traced to a mine in South Africa, then they came from a business that did/was doing business in support of apartheid. By doing business with that business yourself, you yourself become one of the defendants in this case, as you are equally culpable.

[InfinityGoddess]

InfinityGoddess -- do you have any diamonds? If so, and by using your logic here, if those diamonds can be traced to a mine in South Africa, then they came from a business that did/was doing business in support of apartheid. By doing business with that business yourself, you yourself become one of the defendants in this case, as you are equally culpable.


I don't own diamonds, no. I'm 100% androgynous. That means no jewelry, short hair almost like a boy's, and no make-up and all t-shirts and jeans. Furthermore, you're talking about consumers. Often people have no idea where the products came from. Diamonds do not just come from South Africa.

I'll try.

A company has no arms. No legs, torso, brains, fingers, toes, or tastebuds. It can do nothing but lie there, ink on paper formed into words. People do things.

Similarly for a country.

Sorry, but that still doesn't mean that they can't have rules forced on them.

[dmytryp]

By simply doing business with them, they helped prop up the apartheid regime. It's still just as sick as opening a sweat shop.

As I said. We're in disagreement on this point. because, say supplying fuel to heat the houses or produce electricity doesn't qualify with me as propping Apartheid.
I already mentioned, that by this logic there is no limit -- let's sue the companies that did business with the companies that did business in South Africa. And we run out of those, let's sue the next circle. You may have a full right for moral indignation or whatever boycott you want to employ in regard to those companies, but not for financial reparations (and by 'you' I mean the playntiffs)

[Duncan J Macdonald]

<snip non-essential personal information> Furthermore, you're talking about consumers. Often people have no idea where the products came from. Diamonds do not just come from South Africa.I understand that diamonds come from other places. That wasn't the point. Receiving stolen goods is illegal, regardless of how far down the purchasing chain you are, and ignorance is no defense.
The companies in question were just consumers as well, and are therefore entitled to the same protections that you are implying for consumers.

Sorry, but that still doesn't mean that they can't have rules forced on them. Of course they can -- there are all kinds of rules that recstrict what the people who comprise a company can do. Those rules are also unenforceable without people -- people to be enforced, and people to do the enforcing. The company itself lies insensate, alone in the darkness of a vault.

[InfinityGoddess]

As I said. We're in disagreement on this point. because, say supplying fuel to heat the houses or produce electricity doesn't qualify with me as propping Apartheid.
I already mentioned, that by this logic there is no limit -- let's sue the companies that did business with the companies that did business in South Africa. And we run out of those, let's sue the next circle. You may have a full right for moral indignation or whatever boycott you want to employ in regard to those companies, but not for financial reparations (and by 'you' I mean the playntiffs)

The article wasn't specific on the kinds of business that these companies were conducting. For all you know, they could have helped by denying the blacks of South Africa service because of their race.

[dmytryp]

The article wasn't specific on the kinds of business that these companies were conducting. For all you know, they could have helped by denying the blacks of South Africa service because of their race.

If this was the case, I am with the victims, but somehow I doubt it. I believe such a claim would have been included in the article. I can be wrong here