Should Pinochet stand trial?

Redleslie2

Originally posted by The Corinthian
IAnd 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:

You can do as many rolleyes smilies as you want but that alone won't convince many people that throwing the mafia and Batista out of Cuba is equivalent to deposing a democratically elected government.

And I repeat, this is not a discussion about Castro or Chavez or even more "good guys" like Efrain Rios Montt or Suharto. If you want to discuss Cuba, why not be a good fellow and start a new thread.

zervi2003

Seeing as you are so interested in my education, like that matters in this, or maybe you think my opinion is more credible if I have an education, it was for a BA in what you would call a third level educational institution i.e a University here in Ireland.

Is that ok with you? I have other qualifications if you'd like to know them too?

He knows who he was tortured by.

I cant believe you actually support a murdering criminal like this.

Cant believe that you would make fun by comparing getting the living **** kicked and tortured out of you, and telling people your story, to aliens.

I can understand a little your "innocent until proven guilty" stance in a normal, everyday case.

But you are ridiculing Chileans who were murdered and Chileans who were tortured, thousands and thousands of human beings like you and I, by taking this stance which cannot be applied to this case.

He is guilty as hell for these atrocities.

Disgusting, filthy inhumane acts brought against these people by Pinochet and your going to sit in your computer chair and bring the memory of these people, their families down with you by calling them what, LIARS?

You think victims of these atrocities like what happened to them? Thousands of people suffered at his hands, they swear by it because now they have the freedom to express their humiliation, to express their frustration, to express their sadness.

He should pay for his crimes.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
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’.

Well can you asnwer the question then so that its clear where you stand, and that you're actually discussing the topic, rather than something somewhat related to it?

Should Pinochet stand trial?

Not whethere or not it is right that he does so while others dont?
Not whether or not there is enough evidence to convict him.
Not whether there are others who are condoning greater evils, actions, or whatever.
Not whether or not history remembers him accurately.

Should Pinochet stand trial????
If not, why not?

The only possible reason I can see why he shouldn't stand trial is if the prosecutors decide that there is insufficient evidence.

I can see no other possible justification for saying that he should not stand before a judiciary which will judge his actions against the relevant law.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Redleslie2
You can do as many rolleyes smilies as you want but that alone won't convince many people that throwing the mafia and Batista out of Cuba is equivalent to deposing a democratically elected government.

Then you would condone violence as a means of enacting political change?

You’ve also ignored Castro’s (alleged) behavior since then too, I’ve noticed. That’s convenient.

And I repeat, this is not a discussion about Castro or Chavez or even more "good guys" like Efrain Rios Montt or Suharto. If you want to discuss Cuba, why not be a good fellow and start a new thread.

I'm discussing the inherent hypocrisy in the application of justice based not upon guilt or innocence but by ideology. That kind of justice makes a mockery of objectivity and is indicative of all that you accuse Pinochet of being.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
That kind of justice makes a mockery of objectivity and is indicative of all that you accuse Pinochet of being.

Yes, but from what I can gather (its kinda hard) you don't think he should stand trial for reasons removed from the actions he comitted...which equally makes a mockery of objectivity.

So exactly why is your logic any better then that which you are knocking?

Surely the objective answer is that of course he should stand trial if there is a case the prosecution feel should be answered.

Just because that answer may be arrived at subjectively doesn't make it the wrong answer. It just means that the particular subjective approach matches the objective conclusion in this case...which should be welcomed, not criticised.

I would agree in your condemnation that teh subjective logic in case maz excuse others, but that is no reason to claim that Pinochet should also be excused. Unless you see the existence of subjectivity to mean that no law should be applied to anyone.

jc

Manach

Personally for me it is not about supporting Pinochet per say, but to try and see both sides of a debate and not automatically except the common viewpoint.

A trial would be logistically difficult, as seen from a similar occurrence in The Hague re: Milosevic which has been ongoing since Feb of 2002.

Again, it would be inappropriate for the nature of Pinochet's actions are more political than based in a legal framework. His coup d'etat supersedes the normal laws of the state, in that once he assumes state control he can re-write laws to make himself justified <cynical of me I know>. There were, and still are, a good proportion of Chileans who would agreed with his actions and supported his regime. Would they be also trialled?

The simplest solution might be to have a plebiscite, guilty or not, let the Chileans decide.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Should Pinochet stand trial?

From the viewpoint of justice, only if it is served fairly and without favour. While I cannot judge the political environment in Chile, if it is as impartial as some of the others in this thread, I would doubt that it would result in justice, only revenge. Similarly, it may be that he still holds enough sway to influence an acquittal, which would also be unjust (if arrived at unfairly).

From the pragmatic viewpoint, his trial and condemnation may be needed to finally silence many of the bitter divisions that have remained in the country. Again, as I cannot judge the political environment in Chile, I cannot say if this would be advisable.

Of course there is the old argument that a dictator should be forgiven his excesses if it is found to be for the greater good, but I’d prefer not to proffer that one as I’m undecided on it myself.

As an aside, it would send an interesting message to dictators who might think of releasing the reigns of power. A disincentive.

So I would think that if fair, then there should be no objection to trial - which is why I would tend to object, as I get the impression that it would fall to a pragmatic solution, which would not be fair or just.

Originally posted by zervi2003
Is that ok with you? I have other qualifications if you'd like to know them too?

How about your affiliations?

Cant believe that you would make fun by comparing getting the living **** kicked and tortured out of you, and telling people your story, to aliens.

Why not? Should I believe a man because his story would bring a tear to a glass eye?

I can understand a little your "innocent until proven guilty" stance in a normal, everyday case.

But you are ridiculing Chileans who were murdered and Chileans who were tortured, thousands and thousands of human beings like you and I, by taking this stance which cannot be applied to this case.

You favour a lynch mob then, it would seem. You’d make a good dictator yourself.

Redleslie2

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Then you would condone violence as a means of enacting political change?

I don't 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. Do you.

You’ve also ignored Castro’s (alleged) behavior since then too, I’ve noticed. That’s convenient.

I said it wasn't relevant and since the most credible details of Castro's repression that I'm aware of come from the same sources that you dismiss as 'hearsay' when it comes to Pinochet there'd be no point in discussing it anyway.

I'm discussing the inherent hypocrisy in the application of justice based not upon guilt or innocence but by ideology. That kind of justice makes a mockery of objectivity and is indicative of all that you accuse Pinochet of being.

I suppose Operation Condor is a left wing invention and 30,000 communists are all lying, and charges against Pinochet are all politically motivated and Allende asked for it. . The concept of justice is by definition 'left wing' so it's no wonder the parasitical criminal fraternity and those who have an affinity with it see it as something inherently biased against them.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Redleslie2
I don't 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. Do you.

Actually I think you do. I doubt you’d have any problem with doing that if it suited your cause.

I said it wasn't relevant and since the most credible details of Castro's repression that I'm aware of come from the same sources that you dismiss as 'hearsay' when it comes to Pinochet there'd be no point in discussing it anyway.

So you’re happy to quote those same 'hearsay' sources when it suits you but not when it doesn’t? You can’t have it both ways.

Regardless of whether Pinochet should be tried or not, you can’t apply such rules on one dictator and ignore all others because it’s inconvenient. That simply exposes you as a hypocrite.

Redleslie2

I said "I don't 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. Do you."

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually I think you do. I doubt you’d have any problem with doing that if it suited your cause.

Care to back this up with any evidence other than "because I say so"?

Fellow posters, is it not a little bit amusing to see this guy accuse others of "shovelling bulls**t", "presenting opinion as fact" and "polluting our bandwidth with sweeping statements, stupid questions better suited to Google or an FAQ and inane chatter." on the Venezuela thread while coming out with finger pointing stuff like this?

Oh, and can you answer the question please? 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? I suspect you do because you declared Pinochet to be a "good guy" elsewhere, but I'd like a categorical answer if you can be bothered. See? Amn't I fair? If Pinochet style fascism (or whatever you want to call it, but I call it fascism) is your bag then I sort of wonder why you bother posting here at all.

The whole when is political violence justified question is one which should be explored and I wouldn't mind seeing a thread on it, but not if it's going to come down to the level you've dragged it to here.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Care to back this up with any evidence other than "because I say so"?

Actually, I don't really need to. My opinion of you is just that, and I've not attempted to dress it up as fact or anything else.

And guess what, my opinion of you is still pretty low.

Redleslie2

Should've posted this earlier I suppose. It might have stopped a few silly posts.

Report of the Chilean National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation.

Rather a lot of evidence there against the "good guy" Pinochet.

The report says that at the torture centre known as The Discotheque or La Venda Sexy -

"Torture methods were different from those elsewhere since the emphasis was on sexual humiliation. Rape and other sexual abuses by the guards and agents were common practice. The male prisoners were also subject to such abuses. The grill and the use of electrical current were common practice at this site."

Is this "good guy" ultimately responsible for this type of thing? Well the report says he had absolute power (see 'The top-down nature of political rule' section) and according to this article about declassified US intelligence documents,

"US intelligence explicitly placed Pinochet at the top of the chain of command overseeing DINA's bloody operations. A May 1977 CIA "Regional and Political Analysis" report, for example, contained a detailed section on "Chile: Violations of Human Rights." The report stated that DINA was "behind the recent increase in torture, illegal detentions, and unexplained 'disappearances,' and identified Manuel Contreras as a "close confidant of Pinochet: Contreras answers directly to the President, and it is unlikely that he would act without the knowledge and approval of his superior." Indeed, Pinochet was briefed every morning at 7:30 on "the coming events and status of existing DINA activities," a "very senior DINA official" informed the US military attaché in Santiago. According to a DIA intelligence report dated July 10,1975, the source stated that "the President issues instructions to DINA; is aware of its activities; and in fact heads it."

All hearsay I suppose. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

All hearsay I suppose. :rolleyes:

Actually, yes it is.

Redleslie2

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, yes it is.

Do us the courtesy of actually reading the report, or some of it at least, before posting your predictable knee jerk reaction please.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Do us the courtesy of actually reading the report, or some of it at least, before posting your predictable knee jerk reaction please.

I have.

Flukey

To get back to where we began: put Pinochet on trial and get Kissinger and a few others too!

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, yes it is.

Corinthian...

if you're not going to explain why, then it would appear that you're not interested in discussing the topic...which begs the question as to why you're still posting on the thread.

jc

Redleslie2

The Chilean military has admitted killing, torturing and throwing people into rivers and out of helicopters so how does that count as "hearsay" exactly?

Lionel Hutz would do a better job of defending Pinochet that The Corinthian is doing.

Manuel Contreras, the former head of DINA, probably doesn't know what he's talking about here either.

"The DINA was a military organization that depended, first, directly on the President of the Junta of the Government (Pinochet), and subsequently on the President of the Republic (Pinochet)," wrote Contreras. He reported daily to the head of state, he said, on all his activities and received orders from Pinochet. "I always fulfilled...according to the orders the President of the Republic gave me. Only he, as the superior authority of the DINA, could allow and order the missions that would be carried out and I always, as the President's delegate,...strictly followed those orders."


There's something desperately pathetic yet oddly admirable about such fanatical loyalty but I'd be vaguely interested to find out what made Pinochet such a "good guy". The abolition of democracy, banning of political parties and the burning of the electoral rolls? The torture and rape stuff? Or the way he wore a uniform? What?

It must be great crack to be a supporter of fascist ideology. The enemy gets killed tortured and raped all day long then when the fuhrer is caught and brought to book the huffing and puffing about "fairness" begins.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Manuel Contreras, the former head of DINA, probably doesn't know what he's talking about here either.

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?

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

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

http://www.insightmag.com/news/1999/07/26/World/Nicaragua.Will.Sandinistas.Face.Justice-210374.shtml

Kind of makes Pinochet’s regime look tame in comparison. Still, I don’t really see you campaigning to bring them to justice though. Too close to home I reckon.

lucernarian

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

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

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

I would like to see your reply to:

originally posted by redleslie2
The Chilean military has admitted killing, torturing and throwing people into rivers and out of helicopters so how does that count as "hearsay" exactly?

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

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.