"Tchiowa" wrote in
news:1172623146.309219.281930@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
snipped
>> >> > I guess the same reason that you are spending a lot of time on
>> >> > SCT smearing innocent people for something that was alleged to
>> >> > have happened in Burma.
>>
>> >> 'Alleged'
>> >> To others, the Holocaust is alleged to have happened.
>>
>> > Maybe to you.
>>
>> Trolling the Jew now?
>
> You brought up the topic. Don't know why you're denying the Holocaust.
And keeps on trolling..
>
>> >> Your denialism
>>
>> > "denialism"?
>>
>> >> is as appalling as is the Bush 'justice' department's
>> >> avoidance of the facts of Burmese atrocities--and of UNOCAL's
>> >> complicity.
>>
>> > Unfortunately for you the "facts" you claim simply don't exist.
>> > Unocal wasn't even the operator. The Burmese government built a
>> > pipeline and Total was the operator. Unocal was a minority partner
>> > and had no direct control of the operations and certainly no
>> > control over what the Burmese government did.
>>
>> Willingness to do business with craven criminals is just business as
>> usual to you.
>
> International businesses don't get to pick their governments.
But at times they do pick the governments their willing to do business
with, nobody forced Unocal to take part in the projects in Myanmar.
Anyhow would you say the Burmese government are a bunch of criminals
or do you have another view on them?
>
> I assume you're aware that Chevron and Unocal were among the early
> signers of the Sullivan Principles.
Why would he be aware? Does it matter anyhow as the lawsuit preceeds
Chevron and Unocal signing of the Sullivan Principles (20/5/99) and signing
doesn't have to mean abiding by them.
http://investor.chevron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=66900&p=irol-
pressreleaseArticle&ID=32760&highlight=
http://tinyurl.com/2rmdua
http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/unocal2.html
As for the principles in action, isn't it odd there's no mention
of the adoption of "Principles #1: Express our support for universal human
rights and, particularly, those of our employees, the communities within
which we operate and parties with whom we do business" on the following
page!?!:
http://www.thesullivanfoundation.org/gsp/inAction/inAction%20-%
20Chevron/GSPinAction-Chevron.asp
http://tinyurl.com/2k84nf
>
> I also assume you're aware that Unocal specifically said that every
> single person who worked for them in Burma came to them and *asked*
> for a job and every single person was paid above average wages and got
> about average benefits. No slavery. What the Burmese government may or
> may not have done is beyond their control.
Yea, you keep repeating that but yet:
"A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, reversed the district court
and ruled that the case may proceed, and that there was enough evidence
for a “reasonable fact-finder” to conclude that Unocal may be liable for
“aiding and abetting” the military in forced labor, murder, and .."
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/news/releases/2003/20030902unocal.pdf
Plus there's this:
"32. Because state action is not required in the present case, the District
Court erred when it required a showing that Unocal “controlled” the Myanmar
Military’s decision to commit the alleged acts or murder, ., and torture
to establish that Unocal proximately caused these acts. See Doe/Roe II, 110
F. Supp. 2d at 1307. We require “control” to establish proximate causation
by private third parties only in cases — under, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983 —
where we otherwise require state action. See, e.g., Arnold, 637 F.2d at
1356-57. In other cases — including cases such as this one — where state
action is not otherwise required, we require no more than “forseeability”
to establish proximate causation. See id. at 1355. This requirement is
easily met in the present case, where Unocal Vice President Lipman
testified that even before Unocal invested in the Project, Unocal was aware
that “the option of having the [Myanmar] [M]ilitary provide protection for
the pipeline construction . . . would [entail] that they might proceed in
the manner that would be out of our control and not be in a manner that we
would like to see them proceed,” i.e., “going to excess.” (Emphasis
added.)"
http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/unocal5.html
>
> But what the heck. You've got a handful of radical lawyers claiming
> differently. Why would you not want to believe them even though both
> facts and logic are against them?
Your interpretations, your logic, your description of the lawyers as
radicals (based on what?).
>
>> > But I'm sure you won't little facts like that get in the way of a
>> > rant.
>>
>> While you and your corporation won't let .s, murders, and slavery
>> by trading partners get in the way of profits.
>
> Idiotic statement.
Well quite harsh and not necessarily accurate, but considering the way you
described the plaintiffs and considering Unocal had been warned about the
Burmese junta human rights trackrecord not entirely surprising.
>
>> >> The appeal was heard by a panel of Ninth Circuit judges that
>> >> ruled unanimously to reverse the dismissal. The court found that
>> >> the evidence presented by the villagers supported the conclusion
>> >> "that Unocal gave practical assistance to the Myanmar Military in
>> >> subjecting Plaintiffs to forced labor."
>>
>> > But that doesn't mean it was proven. It specifically means that if
>> > the evidence bears it out then *maybe* there would be a case. And
>> > there was a trial ordered. Again, as I pointed out before, no
>> > findings as you had claimed.
>>
>> Denialism remains rampant.
>
> I see. Even though your statement has been conclusively proven wrong
> you still want to rant.
A finding is: the result of a judicial examination or inquiry; the verdict
of a jury, the decision of a judge or arbitrator (OED).
So it's simple there were findings, the ruling to reverse the dismissal was
a finding as was the dismassal, just not what one would likely call in a
sense a "final" one since the case was setlled out of court.
>
>> >> As the court described it, this practical assistance "took the
>> >> form of hiring the Myanmar Military to provide security and build
>> >> infrastructure along the pipeline route in exchange for money or
>> >> food." The assistance "also took the form of using photos,
>> >> surveys, and maps in daily meetings to
>> >> show the Myanmar Military where to provide security and build
>> >> infrastructure."
>>
>> > Which is why the claim is false. Unocal was *NOT* the operator and
>> > didn't hire the government to do *anything*.
>>
>> Your denial is not a disproof, and as the phrase "as the court
>> described it" shows not a claim by adversarial counsel, but an
>> opinion of a non-interested judicial party, it bears more weight than
>> either of the contenders.
>
> Wrong. That phrase was not part of the court record. Read it again.
That phrase meaning: "took the form of hiring the Myanmar Military to
provide security and build infrastructure along the pipeline route in
exchange for money or food."? It's part of the record in this case that
appeared before the United States District Court for the Central District
of California:
http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/unocal4.html
Starts with:
http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/unocal.html
And can be found here too:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3D534390583B882F88256C38000
4FE18/$file/0056603.pdf?openelement
http://tinyurl.com/2exfho
>
> The court responsible for trying fact found that it didn't happen.
So let's see a verdict that clearly shows that (yes links and quotes are
asked).
> An
> appeals court who rules only on legal technicalities reversed it. But
> the tryer of fact say it didn't happen and dismissed the case.
It didn't happen? What's "it" supposed to mean? "took the form of hiring
the Myanmar Military to provide security and build infrastructure along the
pipeline route in exchange for money or food."?
As for technicalities, one could conclude that the District Court acquitted
Unocal erroneously on a technicality:
"Because state action is not required in the present case, the District
Court erred when it required a showing that Unocal “controlled” the Myanmar
Military’s decision to commit the alleged acts or murder, ., and torture
to establish that Unocal proximately caused these acts. See Doe/Roe II, 110
F. Supp. 2d at 1307"
http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/unocal5.html
>
> So now who is the "disinterested party"?
It still remains the court if one understands "disinterested" in the sense
of being impartial, unbiased (by personal interest).
>
>> > The radicals filing the lawsuit were trying to claim otherwise,
>> > despite the obvious facts. You got suckered in. Not surprising.
>>
>> OIC--they're to be smeared as "radicals" ?
>> Nice (NOT!) to know you mouth the party line of the Burmese generals.
>
> You're denying that? Do you have any idea who filed the lawsuit? Hint,
> it wasn't filed by Burmese people. It was filed "on behalf of" Burmese
> people by a radical Leftist group. That's a fact. Sorry if it offends
> you.
That's something what you call a fact, can't right wing people (or people
in the center where ever that is) care about human rights too?
Anyway if their left they must be lying is that the point you want to make?
Another one of your "facts"?
As far as I'm concerned they could be communists, Republicans or whatever,
I don't care as long as they do something good for these Burmese people
that have been victims.
snipped
Nick |