Should Pinochet stand trial?

The Corinthian

To_be_confirmed wrote:

The age of his claims has nothing to do with the validity of them.

A fair point.

Certainly that Nicaraguan regime should be brought to justice but dont belittle the abuses Pinochet carried out.

Allegedly carried out. However, such sentiments regarding the Sandinistas seem to be in a minority. We don’t really see any international campaigns demanding to see former Sandinistas officials being brought to justice, or any of the usual activists dressing up to demonstrate outside the Nicaraguan embassy as they would outside the Chilean embassy. Even your own condemnation seems to smack of little more than lip service.

Yet, the Sandinistas are (allegedly) guilty of carrying out an even more horrific reign of torture and murder than Pinochet’s regime has ever been accused of, let alone carried out.

It would seem to me that it is more fashionable to belittle the abuses of the Sandinistas.

I would like to see your reply to:

I gave one. As evidence the testimony of one individual was given as evidence and I questioned its validity. Just because someone says something does not make it true, even if they are an authority on it:

“Then, in 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and director of Iraq's military industries, defected and provided verification of Iraq's bioweapons program.”
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/threat.htm

I don’t see anyone waving that about as credible evidence any more, do you?

You have made accusations about the accuracy of others' evidence but I think you should back up your own claims now.

TBH, I’ve not really made all that many claims, outside of economic ones earlier in the thread. What I have largely done is questioned the objectivity and motivation of claims made against Pinochet.

The reality is regrettably that the vast majority of those who would see Pinochet brought to justice are motivated not by law or justice, but by political agendas. This does not mean that Pinochet should not be tried, but it does mean that they are little more than petty political hypocrites. That alone would cause me to defend Pinochet.

lucernarian

originally posted by corinthian
The reality is regrettably that the vast majority of those who would see Pinochet brought to justice are motivated not by law or justice, but by political agendas. This does not mean that Pinochet should not be tried, but it does mean that they are little more than petty political hypocrites. That alone would cause me to defend Pinochet.

Hold on, dont defend Pinochet for that reason. Using that reason, voting for Nazis in 1933 Germany could be justified as one didn't want communists in power. Dont let anyone else influence your opinions like that. It would be best if you supported/didn't support him by basing your opinion on Pinochet's actions alone.

The Corinthian

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Hold on, dont defend Pinochet for that reason. Using that reason, voting for Nazis in 1933 Germany could be justified as one didn't want communists in power. Dont let anyone else influence your opinions like that. It would be best if you supported/didn't support him by basing your opinion on Pinochet's actions alone.

Have we reached the Godwin’s Law point in this thread?

Your analogy is a little forced to be honest as you are basing it upon your own subjective view of the man - you’re hardly going to urn around now and say that you haven’t already decided he’s guilty, are you? After all we’re talking about bringing him to justice, not simply to sentencing - aren’t we?

Think of it as defending a man against a politically motivated lynch mob. Or would you stand aside and let them hang him regardless?

shotamoose

The Corinthian wrote:

It would seem to me that it is more fashionable to belittle the abuses of the Sandinistas.

And this, it seems, is always your excuse of last resort when you run out of anything sensible to say: "Since you are not complaining about Y and Z, you have no right to complain about X". Bollocks. The title of this thread is "Should Pinochet stand trial?". If you want to start one on the Sandinistas, feel free.

The Corinthian

shotamoose wrote:

And this, it seems, is always your excuse of last resort when you run out of anything sensible to say: "Since you are not complaining about Y and Z, you have no right to complain about X". Bollocks. The title of this thread is "Should Pinochet stand trial?".

Trial. You do know what that means? That's where you're innocent until proven guilty. And if such a trial is so politically motivated, then it's hardly going to be that is it?

There might be agreement here if we were talking about a trial, but - let's call a spade a spade - we're discussing a glorified lynching.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Trial. You do know what that means? That's where you're innocent until proven guilty.

Exactly, and if there is evidence which suggests that you might be guilty, and it has yet to be debunked, the trial is exactly where that should be done.

You keep saying that the proof which was offered is - in your eyes - suspect, because it may be politically motivated. Fine...but it may also be true, and if it is of sufficient quality, then there is no reason to base a trial on it.

Your defence of Pinochet seems to be based on a premise that anyone seeking his trial must consider him guilty. Maybe he shoudl be tried instead to resolve the issue of whether he is guilty or not?

And if such a trial is so politically motivated, then it's hardly going to be that is it?

Lets turn the table here, Corinthian. Could you prove that this yet-to-be-announced trial is politically motivated. So far, you seem to be drawing that conclusion on anecdotal and assumptive evidence alone....which is kinda funny consider thats what you're knocking the calls for his trial for doing in the first place.

There might be agreement here if we were talking about a trial, but - let's call a spade a spade - we're discussing a glorified lynching.

Assumption on your part again. The topic asks whether or not he should go to trial. You have assumed that this must mean a politically-motivated kangaroo-court of some description.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that Pinochet should be brought in front of a kangaroo court. I've only seen people suggest that there is sufficient evidence to bring him to trial. You've filled in all the dots after that yourself.

jc

p.s. I saw that he lost his immunity from being brought to trial today....

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Exactly, and if there is evidence which suggests that you might be guilty, and it has yet to be debunked, the trial is exactly where that should be done.

Only if it’s fair. If it’s not, then the point is moot.

You keep saying that the proof which was offered is - in your eyes - suspect, because it may be politically motivated. Fine...but it may also be true, and if it is of sufficient quality, then there is no reason to base a trial on it.

It may also be true that there was a third gunman on the grassy knoll too...

Remember, it’s not simply a case of any of these events having taken place, but that Pinochet himself is culpable or responsible for them (and simply saying that as dictator, the buck stops with him is hardly a rational argument).

Your defence of Pinochet seems to be based on a premise that anyone seeking his trial must consider him guilty. Maybe he shoudl be tried instead to resolve the issue of whether he is guilty or not?

Actually, no I was accusing posters here of that. However I would be suspicious of the motivations of those seeking to prosecute him in Chile.

Assumption on your part again. The topic asks whether or not he should go to trial. You have assumed that this must mean a politically-motivated kangaroo-court of some description.

Not an unfair assumption, or more correctly extrapolation, considering the rather emotive and subjective reactions we’re getting here, for a start.

Additionally let’s look at the situation in Chile; No one would deny that from both opponents and supporters, Pinochet has evoked emotional responses (hardly a good basis for impartial adjudication). Add to this a government that could legitimately be accused of wanting to ‘settle the score’ (many of which are veterans of Allende’s, including the president, Ricardo Lagos Escobar).

I haven't seen anyone suggest that Pinochet should be brought in front of a kangaroo court.

Don’t be silly JC, no one ever suggests bringing anyone before a kangaroo court – however, they do suggest that they are already guilty before the trial begins.

Out of curiosity, how many kangaroo courts advertise themselves as such?

I've only seen people suggest that there is sufficient evidence to bring him to trial. You've filled in all the dots after that yourself.

You’ve not been reading very closely then:

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

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

“Do you condone replacing a democratically elected liberal democracy with a military dictatorship by rather violent means and then enforcing political control by torture, rape, murder, carbombings, chucking people out of helicopters and so on?”

That’s not suggesting that there is sufficient evidence to bring him to trial - when you state such things as facts, the trials well over.

Redleslie2

The Corinthian wrote:

He probably does, but whether what he’s talking about is true is another thing. Didn’t a lot of Iraqi defectors claim that Saddam had loads of WMD after all?

Is it really necessary to point out why intelligence on a friendly country like Chile is likely to be a lot more reliable than intelligence on a hostile country like Iraq?

Since his claims are apparently backed by up by material evidence such as that supplied by retired general Lagos, it might turn out that he was only following orders as they say. Transcript of Judge Guzman's interview with Pinochet here.

Joaquín Lagos, a retired general who was a local commander in northern Chile in 1973 who would surely be an important witness in any trial, appeared on state television on Thursday to rebut General Pinochet's reported testimony. He said that at the time General Arellano Stark, then a middle-rank officer, was taking prisoners under his command for execution, he showed a document "showing that Pinochet had appointed him as his personal delegate."

With that document in hand, General Lagos said, it was as if General Pinochet himself was giving the orders. General Lagos also said he had personally confronted General Pinochet about the executions, adding that he warned the dictator 28 years ago that "sooner or later, we will all be tried for this, especially you, as the commander of the army."

New York Times article.

Pinochet told Lagos to write up a report on what happened, when he did, Pinochet sent it back and ordered him to rewrite it and remove all mention of Stark and the commander in chief (Pinochet himself) so Lagos would be on record as being responsible. He did so but kept a copy of the original document. Stark got promoted afterwards, which is a strange thing to happen to someone in the military who might have disobeyed orders.

Of your ‘evidence’, are there any updates on his claims since the above article was published six years ago?

The latest is here. Pinochet's been stripped of his immunity. Contreras might end up giving evidence if the trial goes ahead.

And while we’re on the subject of state sanctioned killings and torture, here’s an interesting look at some of your mates:

Irrelevant, as Shotamoose pointed out.

Think of it as defending a man against a politically motivated lynch mob. Or would you stand aside and let them hang him regardless?

A politically motivated lynch mob is a fairly accurate description of Pinochet's regime and its supporters.

That’s not suggesting that there is sufficient evidence to bring him to trial - when you state such things as facts, the trials well over.

Dodged the question I see. Never mind.

Add to this a government that could legitimately be accused of wanting to ‘settle the score’ (many of which are veterans of Allende’s, including the president, Ricardo Lagos Escobar).

Any evidence that the president is trying to settle scores? What has he said or done about Pinochet's case?


More hearsay in addition to the entire truth and reconciliation report.

Pinochet admits responsibility.
Pinochet generals admit exhumations.
Doctors say 200,000 tortured in Chile.
Guardian article on General Lagos's claims.


Keep shovelling that bullshìt.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Is it really necessary to point out why intelligence on a friendly country like Chile is likely to be a lot more reliable than intelligence on a hostile country like Iraq?

Actually it would be necessary for you to point out, or more correctly demonstrate, that an ‘authoritive’ witness from a friendly state is going to be any more truthful or reliable than one from a hostile state.

Pinochet told Lagos to write up a report on what happened, when he did, Pinochet sent it back and ordered him to rewrite it and remove all mention of Stark and the commander in chief (Pinochet himself) so Lagos would be on record as being responsible. He did so but kept a copy of the original document. Stark got promoted afterwards, which is a strange thing to happen to someone in the military who might have disobeyed orders.

Did you glean this from the transcript you referenced (which denies this) or the propaganda site you added to your list of evidence?

The latest is here. Pinochet's been stripped of his immunity. Contreras might end up giving evidence if the trial goes ahead.

So what? No one has denied that he may well go on trial, however whether that trial would be just is another matter. There’s a long list of political enemies and opponents looking to settle scores out there rather than seek justice:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/the_pinochet_file/198977.stm

Irrelevant, as Shotamoose pointed out.

Not at all, as it raises questions about your objectivity and moral honesty when viewing this case.

A politically motivated lynch mob is a fairly accurate description of Pinochet's regime and its supporters.

I see you’ve already passed judgement - so it is punishment rather than justice that interests you. You know that would make you little better that what you accuse Pinochet of being?

Dodged the question I see. Never mind.

No I answered it. Your incomprehension is not my concern.

Any evidence that the president is trying to settle scores? What has he said or done about Pinochet's case?

Oh, does the principle of innocent until proven guilty apply now? How convenient.

Keep shovelling that bullshìt.

Being accused of that by someone who is so obviously disinterested in justice as he is in politically motivated revenge would be almost comical were it not so distasteful.

bonkey

I've had it with you two bickering like a pair of old wymmyn.

Go sort this out between yourselves via PM or something.

Thread locked.