Where Were You On September 11th, 2001?

11 09 2007

September 11th, 2001 is our generation’s D-Day or Pearl Harbor, to name a few, a catastrophic event which is remembered by asking people where they were when it happened.

Today marks the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. There’ll be demonstrations and there’ll be remembrance events. Will there be another terrorist attack? Probably not. Too obvious. Today is most likely the safest day to fly in America. Then there’s all the conspiracy theories of the events of 9/11. Do you believe in any of them? Was 9/11 an inside job? If you know any “credible” theories of 9/11 on the net, add the link with a small description below in the comments section!

Six years ago today I was a senior in high school in Hungary, on a bus with the other seniors, heading to Bovec, Slovenia for fall trips. Around the half point of our 12-hour bus ride, our school director paused the movie we were watching and announced that there’s been an incident in New York. It was around the time that people knew that it wasn’t an accident. Naturally, blame was immediately attributed to several powers, such as Muslims, Palestinians, and Americans. Someone even suggested the Japanese… Obviously, none of us had any clue as to what had really happened. We were on a bus with barely any means of communication to the outside world, with the exception of the school director calling the school a few times to get updates and one student’s Nokia Communicator from which was somewhat broken as only about one word out of four were legible from the screen. What he managed to decipher from one piece of news was that in the region of 50,000-100,000 had died. What was left out was that that number was the number of people working in the Twin Towers on a normal day. You can imagine the panic that some people went through. There were some 35ish of us on the bus from many different nationalities, mainly Americans. Upon reaching our destination, most of us retreated into our hotel rooms to watch the news on TV. Spending the trip in a room with two Americans, what was surprising was that I was the one who stayed up until 2am to watch President Bush’s speech to the nation and the rest of the world… The next evening, we got drunk on Slovenian wine.

So, where were you on September 11th, 2001? What did you do that day? Where were you when you first heard about the attacks? Please reply in the comments section below!

CommentRight comment care tool





Signs Of Success? Iraq Ranked Second On Failed States Index

13 07 2007

For the past three years, Foreign Policy magazine and the non-profit Fund for Peace have ranked 177 states to create a “Failed State Index”.

In the latest report card, which ranks the nations in order of their “vulnerability to violent and internal conflict and societal deterioration”, Iraq found itself taking home the silver, losing only to Sudan.

And all this “despite billions of dollars in development and security age and the continued presence of U.S. troops”.

Last year, Iraq ranked fourth place, and has seen its position in the Index fall for a third consecutive year. And the U.S. troops have been there for what, 4 and a bit years now…

Quick look at Afghanistan, another war-torn country, and another “important” front in the War on Terror. Where was Afghanistan on the Failed States Index? In eighth place… So a little better, but not too much.

Sudan, where the United States doesn’t have a substantial number of soldiers (are there any American military personnel there?), ranked first on the list. This is attributable to the violence in the Darfur region, violence that has killed at least 200,000 people and displaced a further 2-3 million people. And this is a place that could potentially benefit from a prolonged U.S. military presence, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where things keep going from bad to worse each year.

The violence in Darfur is worrying because it’s pulling Sudan’s neighbouring countries down with it. Actually, with the exception of Iraq and Afghanistan, all the countries in the top 10 on the list were found in sub-Saharan Africa…

So there are the facts. Now let’s spin in towards the White House…

The Bush Administration has repeatedly argued that U.S. troops are necessary in Iraq to prevent the country from becoming a failed state (well done there, maybe next year…), and also to stop Iraq from becoming a breeding ground for international terrorists.

Overall levels of violence in Iraq have actually increased throughout the country, shifting away from Baghdad to the previously “peaceful” provinces.

Does that mean that the surge is working? The main point of the surge was to clear Baghdad of insurgents, right? So having them move out to the countryside to do as they please without much interference should be considered a success, right?

“Political reconciliation has almost entirely stalled, suicide bombing have more than doubled between January and April, secretarian deaths have increased beyond pre-[surge] levels, and U.S. troop deaths are spiking.

Sound like success to you?

Let’s hand the mic to White House spokesman Tony Snow for a second to hear his thoughts on the success of the surge:

“…it does fit a pattern that we see throughout the region, which is that when you see things moving towards success, or when you see signs of success, that there are acts of violence. …we’ve seen that in Lebanon…”

On the Failed States Index, Lebanon experienced the biggest slide, ending up in 28th place. 16-17 years of progress made since the end of its 15-year-long civil war 1990, bombed to rubble (quite literally actually) by Israel last summer, driving 700,000 people out of their homes.

So, are those signs of success? Didn’t think so…

Snow also suggested that the increased violence in Iraq is a by-product of “pro-democracy movements…making some progress…”

Meanwhile, security forces in Baghdad have stated that only 40 % of Baghdad is very safe on a routine basis, with about 30% lacking control and a further 30 % suffering a high level of violence.

Signs of success, maybe?

Jordan’s King Abdullah predicted last November that three civil wars could erupt in the Middle East in 2007. He’s top three?
Palestine (check)
Lebanon (check)
Iraq (check)

I said check to all three for one simple reason: call it what you will, Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq are for all sakes and purposes experiencing civil war. Wars and civil wars are named and typically classified as such by subsequent generations, not by the one fighting it. World War I, at the time, was referred to as the Great War, as it was seen as the war to end all wars.

Point is, the only reason “there is no civil war in Iraq” is because the Bush Administration doesn’t want it to be called that. Having aided in the birth of a civil war wouldn’t look so good on Bush’s legacy, would it?

Oh wait, too late…

I’ll leave you with a Q & A between reporters and White House spokesman Tony Snow:

QUESTION: “Has the war in Iraq has helped push the peace process forward in any way…?”

SNOW: “Don’t know. I mean, what I don’t think is — quite often people say, well you can’t — you’re not focusing on the Middle East because you’re focusing on Iraq. They are all related.”

QUESTION: “But before the war the president said that taking out Saddam Hussein would help stabilize the Mideast. Do you think that’s turned out to be true?”

SNOW: “Hard to say…”

Where did they find this guy…? Seriously…

For the complete Failed States Index 2007, click here.

Sources:
Salon.com: We’re No. 2!
DailyKos: On The Bright Side…
ThinkProgress.org: Iraq ranks #2 on failed state index
Reuters: Iraq now ranked second among world’s failed states
Yahoo! News: Pentagon: Iraqi violence still rising (via Digg)
Yahoo! News: US: 60 pct. of Baghdad not controlled (via Digg)
ThinkProgress.org: Snow: Intense New Levels Of Viole In Iraq Are “Signs Of Success”
Huffington Post: Iraqis Assure Bush Progress Being Made
ThinkProgress.org: Snow: “I Don’t Know” If Iraq War Has Helped Stabilize Middle East, It’s “Hard To Say”





GOP Chief: More Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Soil, Please. ¿Que?

25 06 2007

In an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the new head of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan stated that he is “150 percent” behind Bush on the war in Iraq.

Milligan also said that America needs more terrorist attacks on its soil.

That’s not a misprint. He actually said that. Here, see for yourself:

At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.”

Wow… What the hell?

Maybe what Milligan said about President Bush’s latest immigration bill shines some light on his state of mind:

“That is between the president and Congress, and I am just going to let them hash it out and work it out. I just think that is something for probably smarter people than me to figure out. It is a tough situation either way, but something definitely needs to be done.”

Yup, he said it. There’s smarter people than him. BIG surprise…

Sources:
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: GOP chief: New strategy key





Homeland Security Guards Not Paid Nor Trained Enough

21 06 2007

Potential terrorist targets within the United States are not as well protected as one might assume. Ill-trained and low-paid private security guards stand by skyscrapers, unsure what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. Convicted criminals slip through the net, as background checks aren’t always enforced. Training for security guards is inadequate at best, the equipment insufficient, the directions vague and ludicrous.

After 9/11, the one industry which saw a great demand for its services in the wake of terror scares was the security guard industry. The men and women in uniform in the industry found themselves being “promoted” from rent-a-cops to protectors of the homeland.

Changes in the industry itself must have occurred simultaneously, from better training to increased enrollment and a bigger paycheck, right?

This is where business ethics and corporate rules come into play.

Remember that the men and women who work as security guards at sites designated as potential terrorist targets by the Bush Administration are not on the government payroll. They work for private security contractors, who battle with each other over government contracts to provide security for these locations.

As such, the security companies operate with typical business models.

Business rule #1: To save money, start with your employees.

Large corporations are always trying to cut costs to make more money, and a bigger bonus for the executives. And why not smaller companies too? It’s business, after all. Concerning employees, there are two ways to save money. Either you lay off “unnecessary” employees, or you pay them less. (read: minimum wage.)

Security guards are generally paid very little. Their median hourly pay in 2006 was $11.35, which is only slightly more than restaurant cooks ($10.11), janitors ($10.45) and laboratory animal caretakers ($10.13).

Security guards are typically assumed to belong to the same paygroup (because their jobs are similar in nature) as police patrol officers ($23.27), emergency management specialists ($24.26) and firefighters ($20.37).

Keep in mind that the numbers above are the median hourly income, not the industry minimum wage. There are security guards out there who make a lot less than $11.35/hour.

The middle ground pay for security guards in 2006 was $23,620/year, well below the national average income.

Business rule #2:Hire people who’ll work for less.

If there’s no law forbidding you from hiring just about anyone, why don’t you? There are a lot of people (criminals, ex-convicts, illegal immigrants, the mentally ill, etc…) who have a hard time finding jobs, due to their backgrounds or present status.

The differences in requirements for training and background checks differ vastly between states and the rules to provide for background checks within the security industry are conflicting.

Some states require FBI fingerprint checks for every applicant applying for a guard job, whilst others let the industry police itself. Some states don’t regulate the industry, such as Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Kentucky, Wyoming and Idaho. Yet,the city of Boise and many Idaho communities do regulate guards. Some states require background checks for company owners but not guards, which kinda diffuses the purpose.

Security firms which go through background checks have found tens of thousands of guard applicants having criminal backgrounds, some 7.3% of applicants. This number does not include the applicants with criminal records who didn’t go through background checks.

Instead, they got jobs as security guards. I’m all for rehabilitating ex-cons and hiring them, but what about the ones who’ve been convicted of serious felonies, such as murder, arson, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and so on? What’s to stop them from continuing while on the clock?

In fact, there are reports of guards with criminal backgrounds having committed criminal offenses on and off duty in numerous cities.

Business rule #3:Cut corners at every turn to save that extra penny. Start with training and equipment.

The training of security guards is typically inadequate, usually performed by someone not trained for such a lesson. But hey, there’s plenty of manuals on the matter, just get someone to read the manual to the guards! That’ll work just as well…

Security and evacuation drills? Waste of money and time. Any more advice? “Look smart and if someone attacks the building, call the police.”

Does this seem like adequate training?:
Franklin Bullock, 51, a guard at the busy bus and rail commuter station in Kent, Wash., said he’s had no drills with police and fire responders despite terrorist bombings of trains and buses overseas. A supervisor once tested Bullock by walking him down the platform to see whether he would spot a package he could hardly miss. It had “BOM” written on it. That was the end of his useful hands-on training…

We know that “terrorists” can be idiots as is to judge from the planned attack on JFK airport, but come on, this is ridiculous.

The ineffectiveness of the guards, due to lack of training, is particularly evident in this event:
In fall 2005, an envelope with suspicious powder was opened by guards at the Washington headquarters of the Homeland Security Department. The guards carried the substance past the office of Secretary Michael Chertoff, took it outside and then shook it outside Chertoff’s window without evacuating people nearby. The powder turned out to be harmless.

Proper equipment? Private guards at military bases have complained that they were trained to use handguns and nightsticks to fight terrorists who might be equipped with assault rifles and grenade launchers.

Business rule #4: Business means money, nothing else. Make everything seem to be just fine, even when they’re not.

Security firm insiders have noted that when it is known that learn military inspectors are on the way, patrols are increased, and just about anyone in the corporate structure is made to play the part of a security guard.

The low pay of security guards reflects the cutthroat competition between private security companies, battling for the contracts by offering the lowest bids. Cheaper bids mean lower profit margins and less money for training and background checks for guards. You’d think they’d save some money by paying their employees less money, but hey, it’s business…

As the market for private security boomed after 9/11, companies which employ private guards began spending more on security, but, in the absence of further terrorist attacks, have began to cut back on spending.

There’s some hope for the security industry in the end as some companies have decided to conduct anti-terrorism training, regardless of whether their clients will cover the cost.

As the security guards and the whole industry seems to be in a bit of a pickle in the event of an actual terrorist attack, how’s about the TSA guards at the nation’s airports? Are they being paid better? It seems that there is a certain hierarchy in the whole anti-terrorism complex in the United States, dumping responsibility on those below one other.

If a terrorist attack occurs within the United States, the fingers start pointing in every direction. The Bush Administration is blamed for providing a cause celebre for the terrorists, the CIA and the FBI are blamed for not catching the bad guys before they attack, the TSA guards are blamed if the terrorists manage to get on the planes, and the private security guards get blamed if an attack occurs on their building.

You can’t expect the world of everyone individually, as the anti-terrorism game is one where everyone needs to work together.

How do you blame a private security guard for not protecting a skyscraper when someone flies a jumbo jet into it?

As a final final thought, as I was writing this post, a bit of related news popped into my RSS reader. Apparently, a private security guard at Walter Reed fired at his colleague, a whole ten shots, thankfully without injuring him. (Link: CNN.com) This is the level of training and the kind of people hired for these jobs. The two guards had been arguing and one of them started shooting at the other. Didn’t hit him though. But what if it had been terrorists? The guy fired 10 shots at his colleague without hitting him. How would he perform in the event that someone is shooting back at him?

Sources:
CBS News: Homeland Security Guards; Paid Little





Terrorism Myths Debunked With Statistics

16 06 2007

Since 9/11, Americans (and to an extent, the rest of the Western world) have feared for their lives because of terrorism. The market for terrorism preparedness utilities and courses in America has soared. The media is overfeeding the public with stories painted with fear. Will terrorism eventually kill us all?

Actually, no. There are multitudes of other ways we could die, the majority of them more likely to occur than an act of terrorism taking your life.

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) based at the University of Maryland, with funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has gathered an unclassified Global Terrorism Database (GTD), detailing some 80,000 terror incidents that occurred from 1970 through 2004. The database is open to the public at http://www.start.umd.edu/data/gtd/.

Now, here’s a quick, interesting question: what country do you think experienced the greatest number of terror attacks between 1998 and 2004? The answer will come later…

And now it’s time for some statistics:

80,000 terror incidents is quite a large number. This includes more than 30,000 bombings, 13,400 assassinations and 3,200 kidnappings. To fully understand the numbers depends on your definition of “terrorism”.

Terrorism experts have found there to be over 100 definitions of terrorism, mainly signifying violence or the threat of violence. Terrorism is typically described as “acts intended to create fear or ‘terror’…perpetrated for an ideological goal…[which] deliberately target ‘non-combatants’…” (Wikipedia)

Included within the 80,000 incidents are more than 1,200 terrorist attacks within the United States.

When one thinks of acts of terrorism, the four incidents/places which spring to mind are typically 9/11, the Madrid train bombings, the London tube/bus bombings, and every single day in Iraq lately.

The reality of matter is that the majority of terrorist attacks result in no fatalities, with just 1 percent of such attacks causing the deaths of 25 or more people.

Huh, fancy that. Although, again depending on your definition of terrorism, there have been tens of thousands of instances of terrorism recorded since 1970, only a fraction have ended in great loss of like.

The year 2001 marked the beginning of the War on Terror, when in fact terror incidents began rising (a little) in 1998, and that level remained relatively constant through 2004.

The database is very well researched, as experts reviewed more than 2 million news articles and 25,000 news sources just for a section of the database spanning 1998 to 2004. The database parses the data by more than 100 variables, ranging from type of perpetrator such as religious or ethno-nationalist to type of weapon used and the number of injuries incurred. Summaries of each incident divulge the date, location, weapons used, target type, number of casualties and, when possible, the perpetrator.

It was also found that terrorist groups are not so long-lived, with about 75 percent of such alliances formed between 1970 and 1997 lasting no more than one year.

And finally, here’s the answer to the earlier question: what country do you think experienced the greatest number of terror attacks between 1998 and 2004?

And the answer is… India. You guessed Iraq, Israel/Palestine or some other country in the Middle East, didn’t you?

Between 1998 and 2004, India experienced 1,000 terrorist attacks, followed by Colombia, the Russian Federation and Iraq, which came in fourth with nearly 500 attacks.

I wonder how the statistics are for Iraq since 2004…?

Sources:
LiveScience: New Database Debunks Terrorism Myths
(via Schneier On Security
START | Global Terrorism Database





Photographing French Fries A National Security Threat?

13 06 2007

Take a picture of the french fries on the Bridgeport ferry, and you might as well just admit that you’re a charter member of Al Qaeda

Tom Gogola wrote a piece for the Fairfield County Weekly, recalling an interesting event which he experienced on the Bridgeport ferry

I’m of the mindset that when overzealous 9/11-hero wannabes start making ridiculous accusations, I am going to stand up and say something. If I hear you talking about me like I might be a terrorist for taking a picture of french fries, I am going to interrupt and put some perspective on the matter.

Read the whole, unbelievable, piece here: Fascist Fries

Sources:
Fairfield County Weekly: Fascist Fries (Via Digg)





IRS & DHS Not Too Good At Catching Terrorists

9 06 2007

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) hunts terrorists within America, right? Well, their focus seems to be elsewhere, it seems. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has also been found to be poor at finding terrorists. Did you know the IRS was supposed to be hunting terrorists? Neither did I.

The IRS is supposed to be identifying tax-exempt groups that may have links to terrorists, a task it has been found to be doing a poor job at, not so surprisingly.

The IRS manually compares the records of charitable and other nonprofit groups to a limited terrorist watch list.

In 2006, there were some 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations, excluding churches.

The terrorist watch list, maintained by the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), contains a mere 1,600 unique terrorist and organization names or aliases. For the sake of comparison, the Terrorist Screening Center, an interagency operation run by the FBI, contains more than 200,000 names suspected of terrorist activities. Slight difference…

The IRS apparently looks for “Middle Eastern-sounding names” when investigating the tax filings, figuring out which cases to flag for further review. That’s a pretty biased and narrow perspective to employ when trying to halt the flow of U.S. dollars to terrorist organizations. Anyone with a non-Middle Eastern-sounding name who funds terrorism easily slips under the radar of the IRS.

Most, actually all but a single digit number, of flagged cases were approved for tax-exempt status because they didn’t match the limited list in use.

In regard to the DHS, an organization which is technically supposed to be the nation’s primary authority on catching terrorists on U.S. soil, their focus seems to be a little askew. The DHS charged 814,073 individuals in the part three years. A respectable number of charges, yet only 12 of them faced terrorism charges. That’s 0.0015% of all cases that the DHS filed.

The findings were released by the Transactional Records Action Clearinghouse (TRAC), which is associated with Syracuse University, from documents attained through the Freedom of Information Act.

The DHS claims it is focused on terrorism, and calls the findings of the TRAC study “ill-conceived”.

The TRAC analysis alre found that the DHS only filed 114 national security charges in the past 3 years, a mere 0.014% of all cases.

The majority of the charges included more common immigration violations such not having a valid immigrant visa, overstaying a student visa or entering the United States without an inspection.

According to the DHS, clamping down on all forms of immigration has made it difficult for terrorists to come to the United States.

A TRAC spokesman stated that: “Either there’s no terrorism, or they’re terrible at catching them. Either way it’s bad for all of us.” How is no terrorism bad for America?

Sources:
Yahoo! News: Report: IRS poor at finding terrorists
Transactional Records Action Clearinghouse (TRAC)





Victims Of Terrorism Hit The Road

2 04 2007

New York City has found an inventive way to honor the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; by using their bones to fill potholes and pave city roads.

Court papers filed a few weeks ago stated that the city of New York hadn’t done enough to search for remains at Ground Zero, denying victims a proper burial.

The lawsuit filed for proper burial states that the remains of about 40 percent of the victims were never recovered, and hundreds of bone fragments have been discovered in and around Ground Zero in the last six months.

Don’t think it would be too difficult to find the remains of the victims, seeing as the crime scene was pretty well localized, but leave it to city bureaucracy to mess that up.

Construction employees at the Fresh Kills (love that name) landfill, where the rubble was taken to from Ground Zero, say that the process of sifting through the debris was rushed, and the debris (with a side dish of human bones) were subsequently moved onto tractors and trucks to use for road construction.

Some relatives of the 2,749 people who died in the attacks on the Twin Towers have opposed any effort to rebuild on Ground Zero, calling it “sacred ground” and that it would “disrespect those who perished there.”

Sure, because a big gaping hole in the middle of Manhattan is the perfect memorial for people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, as they went about their lives.

Not to say that the world doesn’t feel sorry for those who died there (I do, and I’m not an American), but wouldn’t leaving Ground Zero as a heap of nothing be the best way to show those responsible for the attacks that they are winning.

One would think that moving on and showing them that they can’t hurt America is the best way for the general population to go about supporting the War on Terrorism…

Leaving Ground Zero as it is today would send a message that the United States is permanently crippled by the attacks, possibly initiating more such attacks.

Instead of being the big tough guy at school who starts to cry once someone punches them in the face, America needs to be the the solid fortress that doesn’t crumble as soon as the first crack appears in the wall.

Then again, maybe putting the bones of the victims of the attacks in to the city’s roads maybe isn’t the best way to go about honoring those who died…

Sources:
9/11 remains possibly used on roads: court papers – Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070323/ts_nm/sept11_remains_dc





Terrorist School Bus Drivers

2 04 2007

The FBI has issued an “informational bulletin” to state and local officials, warning them to watch out for terrorists trying to earn licences to drive school buses.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, “some school districts have reported an increased number of foreign nationals seeking school bus driver positions and a number of other unusual events.”

“…a number of other unusual events.”? That passage seems to indicate that foreign nationals seeking school bus licences in an “unusual event”. In that phrase seems to lie an underlying assumption that whenever a foreign national seeks a job that brings them close to the American people, they are suspect in having evil deeds.

The FBI memo did suggest that “most attempts by foreign nationals in the United States to acquire school bus licences to drive them are legitimate.” in addition, a FBI spokesman told FOXNews: “There is no plot. There is no threat. And parents and children can feel perfectly safe.”

So, um, why the warning if there is “no threat”? Did the American people begin to seem like they felt safer, and the FBI just had to up the ante and give a bogus “warning”?

“Warning, your kids could be the next target of terrorists. We have no leads on the matter, and we’re just making this up to give you a little scare. Don’t worry, we’re just incapable of making logical conclusions from random data. We just like to keep you on your toes at all times. Stay tuned for the next installment of Things To (Not) Worry About, courtesy of yours truly, the FBI. Now go back to your bomb shelters to wait for whatever we come up with next.”

Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing went a bit further on the “threat” and suggested several other “threats” and how the American population should prepare for them. [link: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/19/fbi_terrorists_might.html ]It’s quite an interesting read, not just for the entertainment, but it also gives a slightly frightening unspoken suggestion of how deeply the “terrorist scare” could scar the civil liberties and social framework of the United States. In the worst case scenario, of course.

Sources:
Boing Boing: FBI: terrorists might drive school-buses, but they probably won’t
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/19/fbi_terrorists_might.html
Schneier on Security: Terrorist Bus Drivers
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/03/terrorist_bus_d.html
FOXNews.com – FBI Puts Local Officials on Notice About Extremists Trying to Sign Up to Be School Bus Drivers
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259168,00.html





Terrorist Bananas

20 03 2007

Chiquita has admitted in court paying terrorist organizations in Colombia to protect one of their most profitable banana-growing operations. Between 1997-2004 Chiquita paid the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) $1.7 million for protection.

Representatives of Chiquita told the court that the company was forced to make the payments and was acting only to ensure the safety of its workers. Sure, yet between 2001 (when the U.S. Government designated AUC as a terrorist organization) and 2004 (when Chiquita sold the plantation for $43.5 million), Chiquita paid $825,000 in illegal protection payments, whilst earning $49.4 million in profits from the operation, making it the company’s most profitable unit.

Chiquita also paid the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), as control of the company’s banana-growing area shifted. Both groups have also been designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S..

Chiquita looks to get away from the ordeal with a fine of $25 million in a plea deal with prosecutors.

No word on the possibility of Chiquita working with terrorist organizations to build Banana Bombs, as of yet…

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_bi_ge/terrorism_bananas