Should Pinochet stand trial?

Redleslie2

A court in Chile has stripped the naughty general of his immunity from prosecution. BBC story. But should he stand trial for alleged human rights violations committed following his 1973 coup or is he too old or would a trial destabilise a polarised Chile or what?

If I was a death penalty or torture advocate I'd recommend that he should receive some of the treatment his goons (allegedly ) dished out to people when he was in power , but I'm not, so hopefully he'll go down and at least die in a small cell or a mental home or something. The coup and his regime's crimes are indefensible imo.

Case studies of alleged boldness here.

As a side issue, I'd appreciate any info on the performance of Chile's economy during his tenure as el presidente. I've read quite a bit of contrary stuff meself.

sceptre

Quick answer from me is yes. If they reckon he's too old and/or infirm to go to jail, assuming he's found guilty, that's another thing but yes to trial.

mike65

He should stand trial his age is not important for me, even if he never sees the inside of a cell due process has to be carried out. Of course there's a very good chance he'll be dead before he came to trail but thats another matter.

As for the effect of Pinochets economic policies -

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/ecarar/313%20warwick.doc

Historical perspective
http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/chile/chile_history_introduction.html


Mike.

PaulHughesWH

Well if Pinochet should stand trial, there is no question that dirtbag Henry Kissinger should be extricated from his cosy little life, put on trial and executed if possible.

Manach

No, he was fighting a civil and won, this does not fall under civilian justice. He had parlimentary backing in ending the terror of the Allende regime, which was violating the laws of that country. Once Chile stabalised, he stepped down from power, leaving one of the most prosperous & stable nation in South America.

sceptre

Originally posted by Manach
No, he was fighting a civil and won, this does not fall under civilian justice. He had parlimentary backing in ending the terror of the Allende regime, which was violating the laws of that country. Once Chile stabalised, he stepped down from power, leaving one of the most prosperous & stable nation in South America.

Ah yes, the well-documented terror of the Allende regime as opposed to the fuzzy niceness, openness and accountability of the Pinochet regime. Insert reality chip and reboot yourself.

PaulHughesWH

Of course, Allende would be a popular bumpkin on here.

bonkey

I find it amusing that the only reason yet offered as to why Pinochet shouldn't stand trial is not that he did nothing wrong, but rather that his actions shouldn't be subject to the law because of the situation.

Interesting way to defend him...its not that he didn't do anything wrong...its that he shouldn't go to trial because he shouldn't be held accountable!

jc

vorbis

he should definetly stand trial. The whole infirmity thing was a set up in the first place. Hopefully, he'll get the death penalty.

The Corinthian

It is interesting to note that few if any of the proponents for the trial of Pinochet have been of a similar opinion for Castro. If authoritarianism, repression and political murder is the metre by which we should judge dictators, then Pinochet is a novice compared to Castro, who has ruled Cuba several times longer than Pinochet ruled Chile and caused to disappear several times more opponents than Pinochet did.

So naked is the partisanship expressed by many of those who would damn Pinochet, while simultaneously shouting “hands off Cuba” that it’s difficult to see them as anything more than whited sepulchres.

However, should Pinochet stand trial? It may be necessary for political stability in Chile to offer him up as a sacrificial lamb. As such, it may simply be a practical necessity. Would it be justice? Perhaps, but only if we were willing to dish out the same justice irrespective of partisanship - something I sincerely doubt from the left-wing intelligencia.

However, I would say this in Pinochet’s defence; he staged a coup at a time perceived by many in Chile to be one of crisis. When he voluntarily resigned his dictatorship and left a country that is now not only democratic, but also one of the most economically stable and prosperous in the region. So he would be closer to the old model of dictatorship of Cincinnatus, or at worst Sulla, than that of Stalin, Gaddafi or Castro, and so perhaps should be judged in that light.

Meh

Originally posted by The Corinthian
So naked is the partisanship expressed by many of those who would damn Pinochet, while simultaneously shouting “hands off Cuba” that it’s difficult to see them as anything more than whited sepulchres.

True, but there also are a significant number of people (me for one) who dislike Castro just as much as Pinochet.

However, I would say this in Pinochet’s defence; he staged a coup at a time perceived by many in Chile to be one of crisis. When he voluntarily resigned his dictatorship and left a country that is now not only democratic, but also one of the most economically stable and prosperous in the region.

I would be interested to hear you explain how raping women and murdering children promoted democracy and prosperity in Chile.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Meh
I would be interested to hear you explain how raping women and murdering children promoted democracy and prosperity in Chile.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that both cases you’ve highlighted are based upon hearsay and the testimony of unsubstantiated unnamed sources, how responsible can or should a general or head of State be for the actions of subordinates? Should Bertie be found culpable for the alleged actions of certain members of the Gardai in Donegal, as uncovered by the Morris Tribunal?

Certainly commanding officers hold a certain responsibility for those under their command but should it be equal to the perpetrators themselves?

shotamoose

For all the economic growth of Chile under Pinochet, he did little or nothing to reduce poverty - that only happened in the subsequent government. And as far as I understand he didn't really resign voluntarily - he wanted to go on as dictator until 1997 but was foolish enough to hold a referendum which he unexpectedly lost. So yes, in a sense he was democratically removed from power, but without actually wanting to be.

Should Castro also stand trial? Yes, if the evidence is there. Personally I hadn't heard of him disappearing several times as many people as old Augusto so if there's any proof I'd genuinely like to see it.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by shotamoose
For all the economic growth of Chile under Pinochet, he did little or nothing to reduce poverty - that only happened in the subsequent government.

Economic change does not occur by magic and any policies enacted by the successive governments in Chile would have been built from the results of Pinochet’s economic policies.

Yet even to accuse him of doing nothing about poverty is a little laughable when you consider all that was done by other many South American leaders to combat poverty.

And as far as I understand he didn't really resign voluntarily - he wanted to go on as dictator until 1997 but was foolish enough to hold a referendum which he unexpectedly lost. So yes, in a sense he was democratically removed from power, but without actually wanting to be.

Let me get this right, he reintroduces democracy and when it goes against him he doesn’t overturn it like the nasty dictator that he was and reintroduce martial law but respects it and leaves office. Yet you still managed to make it sound as if he dragged from power, kicking and screaming. Nice spin.

Personally I hadn't heard of him disappearing several times as many people as old Augusto

You tend not to find many articles on the subject of Castro’s abuses on Indymedia for some odd reason... :rolleyes:

bonkey

Right...

so now we have two new reasons why he shouldn't stand trial :

1) Because others who are allegedly* worse then him should also have to stand trial, and no-one's calling for that here.

2) He made things better, even if he did some questionable things on the way.

*Isn't it funny how the two linked cases are only hearsay and from questionably far down the chain of command to assign responsibility, but the charges against Castro are somehow to be taken as cast in stone because hey...he must have done the stuff personally and there's no doubt about it.

Funnily, I always thought the point of a trial was to determine guilt or innocence. If there is even only arguably a case against Pinochet, then he should stand trial if the prosecutors think that they have a genuine case they can prove.

More and more, the excuses for Pinochet seem to be reading "he's guilty, but should he be punished." Why not? Because he made things better? Please.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Isn't it funny how the two linked cases are only hearsay and from questionably far down the chain of command to assign responsibility, but the charges against Castro are somehow to be taken as cast in stone because hey...he must have done the stuff personally and there's no doubt about it.

Yet there are not the same calls from the same quarters to try Castro as there are to try Pinochet, which is my point, not that Castro should be tried. The question of Pinochet’s dictatorship has long since become an overly emotive centrepiece for leftist propaganda.

Funnily, I always thought the point of a trial was to determine guilt or innocence. If there is even only arguably a case against Pinochet, then he should stand trial if the prosecutors think that they have a genuine case they can prove.

Taking aside possible political motivation for such a trial, a case cannot be brought forward in law if there is only spurious evidence or accusations. Legal process, regardless of the guilt or innocence of an accused, cannot reasonably act against an individual in such a scenario.

More and more, the excuses for Pinochet seem to be reading "he's guilty, but should he be punished." Why not? Because he made things better? Please.

A man may kill in self-defence, yet he will still be guilty of homicide, regardless of his motivation. Does that damn him? No, because it was the appropriate, if regrettable, action to be taken.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Yet there are not the same calls from the same quarters to try Castro as there are to try Pinochet, which is my point, not that Castro should be tried.

There is a clear distinction. Castro is still in power, Pinochet is not. The calls for Pinochet to be tried are generally saying that he should be tried by his own people for the crimes he comitted in the past.

Who would try Castro? His own government who collude with him? If not, then who? Should Castro be yet another example where we throw away the notion of nations having self-governance and should instead insist that he be subject to international laws that many nations would refuse to have their own governments subject to?

So its hardly surprising that there's fewer calls for Castro to be tried.

The question of Pinochet’s dictatorship has long since become an overly emotive centrepiece for leftist propaganda.

But unless tehre is a convincing reason why he should not stand trial, surely the best way to remove this centerpiece - rather than help build it higher - is to make Pinochet stand trial. It may be overly-emotive, but that is no reason to refuse to hold him accountable for his actions, no more than Castro's continued rule in Cuba is.

A man may kill in self-defence, yet he will still be guilty of homicide, regardless of his motivation.

Poor example from your persepctive. Most courts recognise justifiable homicide (self-defence) as being entirely seperate to homicide.

Does that damn him? No, because it was the appropriate, if regrettable, action to be taken.

Thats exactly what I'm driving at.

If Pinochet is guilty of no more than having to do distasteful things as a regrettable but necessary course of action.....then let a court determine that.

A court is the only body who has the right to determine how his actions should be interepreted. Because the existence of this uncertainty is the best reason why he should stand trial?

Again - if its an overly-emotive centrepiece, then deal with it, rather than allowing it to remain and grow.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Ignoring for a moment the fact that both cases you’ve highlighted are based upon hearsay and the testimony of unsubstantiated unnamed sources,

So let's have a proper trial, with sworn witnesses, rules of evidence, defence lawyers and all the rest. That should put all the hearsay, unsubstantiated allegations and accusations to rest.

how responsible can or should a general or head of State be for the actions of subordinates? Should Bertie be found culpable for the alleged actions of certain members of the Gardai in Donegal, as uncovered by the Morris Tribunal?

If it's found that he ordered them to do it, then he's just as guilty as they are. If it's found that he knew about it and did nothing to stop it, then he is guilty to a lesser degree. Again, all this is stuff that a court can decide.

shotamoose

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Yet even to accuse him of doing nothing about poverty is a little laughable when you consider all that was done by other many South American leaders to combat poverty.

You were the one who used his supposed economic prowess as a mitigating factor in his abuses (what's your acceptable deaths-to-percentage-GDP-growth ratio, by the way?). Now he's simply no worse than anyone else. Keep clutching for those straws.

Let me get this right, he reintroduces democracy and when it goes against him he doesn’t overturn it like the nasty dictator that he was and reintroduce martial law but respects it and leaves office. Yet you still managed to make it sound as if he dragged from power, kicking and screaming. Nice spin.

He only held the referendum because he was convinced he wouldn't lose. So he hoist himself on his own petard, amusingly. Sorry, but your image of Augusto as a genial uncle gladly handing over the reins of power is a fantasy.

You tend not to find many articles on the subject of Castro’s abuses on Indymedia for some odd reason... :rolleyes:

I'll have to take your word for it, since I don't read Indymedia :rolleyes: .

I was inviting you to provide some evidence against Castro. Since you haven't, can we assume that your "Castro's much worse and that makes it okay!" defence is about as reliable as your "His economic policies were much better and that makes it okay!" defence?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
The calls for Pinochet to be tried are generally saying that he should be tried by his own people for the crimes he comitted in the past.

Those same voices were happy enough to have him tried by the Spanish too, not so long ago.

Who would try Castro? His own government who collude with him? If not, then who?

Didn’t stop a lot of interest groups suggesting regime change for Pinochet when he was still in power.

It may be overly-emotive, but that is no reason to refuse to hold him accountable for his actions, no more than Castro's continued rule in Cuba is.

That it is overly-emotive is a one reason why there should not be such a trial, on the grounds that it would not be fair.

Poor example from your persepctive. Most courts recognise justifiable homicide (self-defence) as being entirely seperate to homicide.

A fair point.

Again - if its an overly-emotive centrepiece, then deal with it, rather than allowing it to remain and grow.

As I already said in my initial post it may be both necessary and inevitable for political stability in Chile for him to be tried.

Originally posted by Meh
So let's have a proper trial, with sworn witnesses, rules of evidence, defence lawyers and all the rest. That should put all the hearsay, unsubstantiated allegations and accusations to rest.

You’re assuming there is enough substantiated evidence to warrant such a trial in the first place or that any such trial would be fair.

Originally posted by shotamoose
You were the one who used his supposed economic prowess as a mitigating factor in his abuses (what's your acceptable deaths-to-percentage-GDP-growth ratio, by the way?). Now he's simply no worse than anyone else. Keep clutching for those straws.

I never said he was no worse than anyone else. I said that you used an economical argument to damn him and conveniently ignored the rest of the continent, which in most cases was a lot worse off. That’s called a double standard.

He only held the referendum because he was convinced he wouldn't lose. So he hoist himself on his own petard, amusingly. Sorry, but your image of Augusto as a genial uncle gladly handing over the reins of power is a fantasy.

Did he? And when he lost, how come he didn’t just turn around and say “I’ve changed my mind hombres, I’m staying in power” - you’ve neglected to address that or even give him credit for calling a free election in the first place, regardless of whether he thought it likely that he would win.

Sorry, but your image of Augusto as a homicidal dictator fighting tooth and nail to hold on to power is a fantasy.

I'll have to take your word for it, since I don't read Indymedia :rolleyes: .

Actually you’re beginning to sound like you could write for them.

I was inviting you to provide some evidence against Castro. Since you haven't, can we assume that your "Castro's much worse and that makes it okay!" defence is about as reliable as your "His economic policies were much better and that makes it okay!" defence?

I haven’t seen a lot of credible evidence against Pinochet either. But since you need some hand-holding:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Allegations%20of%20human%20rights%20abuses%20in%20Castro's%20Cuba

shotamoose

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I said that you used an economical argument to damn him and conveniently ignored the rest of the continent, which in most cases was a lot worse off.

I was simply pointing out that his economic policies (which mostly benefittted the rich) can't be seen as justification for his atrocities (which were mostly aimed at the poor). I'm sure we could sit around comparing Latin American countries all day - for example, comparing life expectancies in Chile during Pinochet's regime with those in Cuba. But of course the Cuban government's successes shouldn't be used as an excuse for its atrocities - that would be just silly.

Did he? And when he lost, how come he didn’t just turn around and say “I’ve changed my mind hombres, I’m staying in power” - you’ve neglected to address that or even give him credit for calling a free election in the first place, regardless of whether he thought it likely that he would win.

Hey, I'm glad the old creep recognised the turning tide and got out when he did, I just realise he did it reluctantly (while making himself head of the armed forces and a senator for life) and that painting him as the father of a prosperous democracy is a dangerous fantasy.

But since you need some hand-holding

Don't get touchy - I'm just suspicious of people who seem unwilling to back up their rhetoric with evidence. So it's good that you've finally provided some.

Having looked at, I'm unconvinced that Castro has really "caused to disappear several times more opponents than Pinochet did". There's been a lot of human rights abuses, sure, but the only support for the claim of killing on that scale seems to come from a single, unpublished book.

That said, I'd like to see justice brought to bear on Castro, just like Pinochet.

sceptre

Originally posted by PaulHughesWH
Of course, Allende would be a popular bumpkin on here.

The popularity or lack of popularity of Allende has nowt to do with the price of cabbage. Still it's nice to have a quick jab of an oar without mentioning the word "Red".

The Corinthian

Originally posted by shotamoose
I was simply pointing out that his economic policies (which mostly benefittted the rich) can't be seen as justification for his atrocities (which were mostly aimed at the poor).

Sure they can.

I'm sure we could sit around comparing Latin American countries all day - for example, comparing life expectancies in Chile during Pinochet's regime with those in Cuba. But of course the Cuban government's successes shouldn't be used as an excuse for its atrocities - that would be just silly.

Was that be his successes before or after all those Soviet subsidies funding them were pulled? Given this, US trade sanctions would give an equally inaccurate if his more recent failures.

Hey, I'm glad the old creep recognised the turning tide and got out when he did, I just realise he did it reluctantly (while making himself head of the armed forces and a senator for life) and that painting him as the father of a prosperous democracy is a dangerous fantasy.

Yet he did oversee the transition to one of the few truly prosperous democracies in the region. If you stopped spitting venom for a moment you might have to concede that.

shotamoose

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Yet he did oversee the transition to one of the few truly prosperous democracies in the region. If you stopped spitting venom for a moment you might have to concede that.

Whatever I'm spitting, at least it's not bull****. Pinochet violently overthrew a democratically elected government, ffs. He then oversaw the murder of thousands, and brought no improvement in the conditions of the vast numbers who lived in poverty. Poverty reduction and democracy came after Pinochet. If it makes you feel better to believe that he enthusiastically 'oversaw' his own relegation to the sidelines, so be it, but don't use it to excuse his dicatorship and expect anyone to take you seriously.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by shotamoose
Whatever I'm spitting, at least it's not bull****.

Now who’s getting touchy?

Pinochet violently overthrew a democratically elected government, ffs.

Yes he did. That makes him unique then?

He then oversaw the murder of thousands, and brought no improvement in the conditions of the vast numbers who lived in poverty.

And this alleged murder of thousands obviously marks him as Latin America’s most evil dictator, seeing as no other Latin American dictator has done similar. Or is his political leaning the deciding factor in your eyes - looks that way.

As for this rubbish about the economic status of the poor - you’ve brought forward no shred of evidence to back up the claim that their situation in any way deteriorated. Indeed, they were arguably better off than most of their peers in the rest of Latin America.

Poverty reduction and democracy came after Pinochet.

You mean a continuation of Monetarist policies followed by the Pinochet regime by the succeeding Christian Democrat dominated government improved the economy even further.

If it makes you feel better to believe that he enthusiastically 'oversaw' his own relegation to the sidelines, so be it, but don't use it to excuse his dicatorship and expect anyone to take you seriously.

I suspect you’re a bit too partisan to take any dissenter seriously.

shotamoose

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Yes he did. That makes him unique then?

Even if everyone else was worse, how would that make Pinochet innocent? Comparisons make a diverting game, but they don't change the facts of what he did. If other governments were just as bad, they should get the same treatment - we shouldn't just let them all off, which is what you seem to be suggesting. According to that logic, any atrocities a socialist regime committed are just fine as long as a capitalist dictator did the same - but I'm sure if anyone else tried to put forward that defense you'd be one of the first to throw a fit.

As for this rubbish about the economic status of the poor - you’ve brought forward no shred of evidence to back up the claim that their situation in any way deteriorated.

The percentage share of national income going to the lowest quintile plummeted by over a quarter between 1970 and 1990. By privatising, introducing user charges and under-investing in health care and other essentail services services, the Pinochet regime made them much harder for poor people to access.

The successor governments of Aylwin and Frei ditched the Monetarist doctrine by raising taxes, redistributing to the poor, and investing in and subsidising public services. The result? Higher growth, better access to services, greatly reduced poverty.

I suspect you’re a bit too partisan to take any dissenter seriously.

Yeah, if only I could see through all that ideology like you, eh? :rolleyes:

Redleslie2

Thanks for the links Mike. I wasn't aware that the Chilean economy went tits up around 1982 with unemployment reaching 22%.

Castro and Cuba are not particularly relevant to whether Pinochet should stand trial or not, not least because the overwhelmingly popular Cuban revolution overthrew a hopelessly corrupt dictatorship of crooks.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
As I already said in my initial post it may be both necessary and inevitable for political stability in Chile for him to be tried.

I'm at a loss where the disagreements are coming from then? You both agree that he should go to trial, which is what the topic is about....

And yet, having agreed on the subject you're supposed to be discussing, the two of you are still circling each other spitting invective about who is right and wrong!!!

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by shotamoose
Even if everyone else was worse, how would that make Pinochet innocent?

I never said it would, only that people’s preoccupation with Pinochet while ignoring the leftist dictators smacks of hypocrisy. Even in your own case, while you say that Castro should be held equally accountable, it’s pretty obvious from the language that you use when discussing one and not the other that you don’t see them in the same light.

The successor governments of Aylwin and Frei ditched the Monetarist doctrine by raising taxes, redistributing to the poor, and investing in and subsidising public services. The result? Higher growth, better access to services, greatly reduced poverty.

They didn’t ditch Monetarist doctrine, but they didn’t follow it as actively as Pinochet. Monetarism hadn’t been discredited by the Nineties, however economic thinking had moved on. It is inadvisable to doggedly stick to a single fiscal or monetary policy as it may cease to be effective or even beneficial after a time, even if it had been previously.

Whether Pinochet would have softened his stance of privatization is debatable, but regardless with relatively low budget deficit, inflation and current account balance, compared to that inherited by Pinochet from Allende, the Chilean economy was in a better position to make such expenditures.

Yeah, if only I could see through all that ideology like you, eh? :rolleyes:

I’m afraid I don’t share your capacity for self-delusion.

Originally posted by Redleslie2
Thanks for the links Mike. I wasn't aware that the Chilean economy went tits up around 1982 with unemployment reaching 22%.

Actually unemployment had dropped by about 5% within a year, as GDP came back from the red, and decreased steadily for the remainder of the Eighties.

Castro and Cuba are not particularly relevant to whether Pinochet should stand trial or not, not least because the overwhelmingly popular Cuban revolution overthrew a hopelessly corrupt dictatorship of crooks.

And here we have another example of the same hypocrisy, whereby violence is justified if the cause is just, it would appear. The moment that the same is suggested of the ‘bad guy’ the revolutionaries get all indignant.

Four legs good, eh? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm at a loss where the disagreements are coming from then? You both agree that he should go to trial, which is what the topic is about....

I never said that he should go to trial, only that it may be necessary or even inevitable, but that’s not the same as ‘should’.

zervi2003

The Corinthian

How can you use the word "alleged" when talking about the murder of thousands of Chileans under Pinochets rule?

Pinochet ordered these murders and torturing.

I studied Chilean history........as part of this we had a, how would you say, "talk" from a man whos family and himself were tortured by order of Agusto Pinochet. He doesnt know where most of his family is now as alot of people who were tortured entered "witness protection". He doesnt know if most of his family are dead or still alive.

A first class source, not someone on tv, news paper etc, someone who had experienced this first hand.

A man who has been through this animal's regime.

I could not repeat here what the man told us. It is painful and shameful to think human beings could do that.

Disgusting.

No matter how old he is, Pinochet should stand trial.

I and many others wrote to Jack Straw around the time of the decision of whether or not to extradite him.

He has alot of blood on his hands that he cannot simply wash away.

Shame on anyone supporting him.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by zervi2003
How can you use the word "alleged" when talking about the murder of thousands of Chileans under Pinochets rule?

Because they’re alleged. Why would we even be talking about a trial if they were otherwise - unless of course you’ve already passed judgment?

I studied Chilean history........as part of this we had a, how would you say, "talk" from a man whos family and himself were tortured by order of Agusto Pinochet. He doesnt know where most of his family is now as alot of people who were tortured entered "witness protection". He doesnt know if most of his family are dead or still alive.

He doesn’t know if most of his family are dead or still alive, yet he knows that they were tortured by order of Pinochet. That’s credible :rolleyes:

As for your ‘studies’, was this part of a degree/diploma/certificate course (and if so accredited by whom) or a private study? Was this study connected to a political movement perchance?

A first class source, not someone on tv, news paper etc, someone who had experienced this first hand.

There’s lots of first class sources that were abducted by aliens. Do you believe them too?

Shame on anyone supporting him.

Would you say the same of Castro?