We have put a lot of credence in President Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder.
I suggest that this trust that they will represent a new, law-abiding variety of public servant may not be entirely well-placed, particularly when it comes to restoring the credibility of the Justice Department. [actually, my interpretation is entirely wrong, so ignore my comments. The story itself is a very revealing one. But not for the reasons I first suggested.)
(Asa matter of 'meta-blogging,' the reason I am sitting here typing instead of working is that I am sitting here in incredible pain, and could not schedule a dr.s appt for today. Maybe I should just delete this whole thing? It seems intellectually dishonest, especially since jsfox has already written his/her excellent comments to this. I think the effort he/she put into them is the reason I will not just delete this since it is embarrassing to myself. And, I am currently too ill to feel too  embarrassed on that score.)
[extremely 'marginal' gloss removed]

When the US Justice Department announced in March 2007 that Chiquita Brands had pleaded guilty to "one count of engaging in transactions with a specially-designated global terrorist" and would be paying a $25 million fine, observers were astonished at the lightness of the sentence.

Between 1997 and February of 2004, Chiquita made $1.7 million in payments to a right-wing paramilitary group, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), in regions where it had banana-growing operations. During that period, AUC conducted a "dirty war" against Colombia's left-wing FARC guerrillas, marked by widespread murders of union leaders and farmers, as well as trafficking in cocaine and heroin.

<snip>

"The plea agreement reached with Chiquita in March [2007] - in which it acknowledged making the illegal payments - has been criticized as far too lenient by many outside legal experts and some high-ranking Justice Department prosecutors," the Times added.

Although the decision to let Chiquita off lightly was criticized as a case of the Bush administration favoring powerful corporations, it was not seen at the time in light of the deep-seated politicization of the Bush Justice Department, which only became fully apparent in the wake of the US Attorney scandal. That scandal - which involved the firing of nine US Attorneys, allegedly for political reasons - was just starting to break at the time of the plea agreement.

The US Attorney who arranged the plea agreement for Chiquita, Jeffery A. Taylor, had been sworn in just six months earlier, in September 2006, under a controversial provision of the Patriot Act which enabled him to hold that position until May of this year without ever being confirmed by the Senate.

         <snip>

According to the announcement of the plea agreement, senior executives at Chiquita learned that AUC was being paid off by their Colombian subsidiary "no later than September 2000," at which time "the payments were reviewed and approved by senior executives of the corporation, including high-ranking officers, directors and employees."

In June 2002, after several years of paying AUC by checks sent through intermediaries, Chiquita switched to making direct cash payments, which were concealed by new procedures approved by Chiquita's audit committee.

By that time, AUC had been designated by the US government as a foreign terrorist organization. Although the designation was widely publicized in both the US and Colombia, Chiquita officials allege that they were not aware of it until an employee brought it to their attention in February 2003.

They then consulted an outside lawyer, who advised them that the payments were illegal, since any claims of extortion had long since been invalidated by their "decision to stay in harm's way," and that they should be stopped immediately.

Instead of following this advice, a group of Chiquita executives paid a visit to the Department of Justice to explain the situation. There they were also informed that "the payments were illegal and could not continue."

[more inaccurate commentary of mine removed]

According to the Los Angeles Times, "the prosecutors handling the Chiquita case had wanted to bring charges of material support of terrorism against the banana company and to pursue charges against some of its top executives by early 2004, if not sooner."

Yet the investigation dragged on for over three years and ended with a relatively modest fine of $25 million instead of a potential $180 million in legal costs. No charges were ever brought against any individual Chiquita executives, since the firm's lawyer, Eric Holder - now the Obama administration's attorney general - successfully arguedthat they had been the victims of extortion by AUC.

[the story was probably worth reading, but my conclusion certainly wasn't, so it is gone, too.]