Pinochet What?

Subject: Pinochet What?
From: Hyperabid
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 06:00 AM

Straw says Pinochet can go home (Reuters) Thursday March 2, 9:25 AM LONDON (Reuters) - Home Secretary Jack Straw has dropped extradition proceedings against Augusto Pinochet, clearing the way for the former Chilean dictator to return home immediately.

What!!!???

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 06:06 AM

Victor Jara of Chile

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Hyperabid
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 06:15 AM

Thanks Wolfgang - my point entirely.

Why is it when a crime goes beyond a certain scale we find ourselves unable to deal with it????

Hyp

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 06:27 AM

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/html/news.html

(London Evening Standard) gives the full story of this shameful saga. If I'm ever up before the law will they believe I'm too old and sick to face justice?
RtS( delayed on way to work by wall to wall camera crews and photographers waiting outside Wentworth estate: what did they expect to film except a car going past?!

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Skipjack K8
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 07:31 AM

There must be some truly terrible duplicitous reasons why the Tories dread Pinochets ultimate defence, so damaging to Britain that even Straw has washed his hands of it.

However, the bile rises easily on hearing Thatcher's minions, notably Widdicombe, this morning, trying to hide behind the indefensible "domestic issue" argument once more.

This has got to be more than basing a few harriers to the west of Argentina during the Malvina's war.

Skipjack

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From:
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 08:15 AM

It's a travesty of justice on a massive scale. However, from the point of view of the British legal system, it appears that Jack Straw had little choice - if he had opted for extradition, the chances are that Pinochet's legal team could have challenged and won, based on the law that the alleged crimes have to be in the last ten (?) years (need to check up on this).

Nevertheless, as far as I'm aware it's not the end of the story. There is still a chance that other European countries or even Brussels can hold up proceedings. Remember, the British legal system is still under the jurisdiction of Brussels, even when the Home Secretary himself is involved in the case. So much for British sovereignty.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Micca
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 08:29 AM

As we speak his plane has taken off and he is gone back to Chile...where his health will, I have no doubt, miraculously improve in the" saunders" effect.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GUEST,The Yank
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 08:31 AM

Was afraid that Straw was going to let the S.O.B. go all along, as I'm sure that tremendous pressure was exerted by Right-Wing Reaganite/Thatcherite clones in the U.S., to once again de-emphasize the Nixon administration's pivotal role in the overthrow & murder of Allende et.al.& subsequent support(which still continues!!!)for the abominations that followed.

If they're going to let the General off, lets proceed to indict Henry Kissinger for perpetrating War Crimes in Chile (not to mention Cambodia)- as he richly deserves.
BR> A sad day for us all.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GMT
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 08:33 AM

Yes the timing of Straws decision is very suspect. It allowed almost no time to read it and appeal against it before Pinochet could get away.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Willie-O
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 08:54 AM

Yeah they talked tough for awhile and then backpedalled furiously. Where have we heard that before?

Americans interested in the Chilean fallout should know that I heard Joyce Horman (Charle's Hormans real-life wife, as played by Sissy Spacek in "Missing") on the radio recently--she is very close to having actual documentation of the CIA's role in her husband's death--and the current administration needs to be pressured to stand up to the CIA's desire to keep its secrets.

Willie-O

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 09:39 AM

Just to present the other side here--obviously there was a deal made that if Pinochet would step down, he could have immunity--Which is more important, removing a brutal ruler from power, or "punishing"?

Remember, Castro has been watching these proceedings carefully, not I'll wager, to make sure that Pinochet is punished, but rather to see if it is possible for a Dictator to "retire"

If Pinochet is 'punished", the message is clear, if you take power through use of force, you must hold on to it at any cost, because you can't trust the Western Powers to let you walk away--

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Willie-O
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 11:00 AM

Well, he supposedly doen't have immunity in Chile, since part of the rationale for returning him is that he can be prosecuted in Chile for crimes committed there. Who are you saying offered it to him?

And Castro is not about to invest any trust in the U.S. government to leave him in peace, whatever happens to Pinochet. After all, the U.S. has been in a state of hostility or outright war with him for the past forty years! The equation between Castro and Pinochet does not hold up at all, since Pinochet took power with U.S. complicity, and provided opportunities for U.S. based corporate investment in his dictatorship.

There's a big distinction between how your Communist and capitalist dictators are permitted to step down...look up Baby Doc Duvalier or Imelda Marcos.

Willie-O

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 11:34 AM

Pinochet was granted immunity from prosecution in Chile, along with the position of Senator-for-Life in exchange for stepping down from office. At the time of his arrest, the Chilean Ambassador maintained that he had diplomatic immunity--Chile's current president says that legal action against Pinochet is not a priority--

The action against Pinochet was initiated by a request from Spain, who would have cause to act against Castro, as well-The United States has been making efforts for a number of years to ease tensions to a degree that would permit Castro to reliquish power-- these have not always worked, other forces have often overridden the positive efforts--

Appearances to the contrary, political interests usually take precedence over anything else--

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 12:03 PM

Maybe if he just ... disappeared ...

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 12:34 PM

Can any of you tell me why, in the pa couple of weeks, all of the newscasters have started pronouncing it "pin oh chet" instead of what they used to say, "peen oh shay", which, from what I remember of Spanish class, is the correct pronunciation? Thanks

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere again)
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 01:11 PM

Apparently, chet is how they say it in Chile. I feel really let down by this. Thatcher still rules. Why do it in the first place if he was going to be let go?

One of his supporters (Brit, Tory) said that governments have to respect other people's democracy. Like Allende's?

Penny

Cheesed off.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 01:45 PM

The official line is that he's been allowed to go, not because of any kind of immunity but he's because he's lost his marbles, and wouldn't be able to stand trial.

But I can't see why, once the decsiion had been made that he should be deported to Spain, the decision as to whether he was fit to stand trial shouldn't have been left to the Spanish to decide, where the doctors and the judges all speak the same language as him. After all the legal system in Spain is much easier on old people than the one in England.I just can't see what it had to do with the British government at all.

What I suspect happened is that Pinochet was in a position to threaten important poeople in America with telling then truth about US involvement in the Chile coup, and important people in America were in a position to tell Jack Straw what to do.

Anyway, good riddance.Too bad he can't take his crony Thatcher with him.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GUEST,Mike Cahill whose cookie keeps dissapearing
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 02:36 PM

You can bet your life that somehow pinochet gets legal aid, so we pay for this farce as well

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 02:44 PM

Does anyone remember a fiery left-wing student politician called Jack Straw, who made us all sigh for his namesake Wat Tyler's sidekick?

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: wildlone
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 03:31 PM

New Labour is but old Conservitive writ large

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GUEST,Petr
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 04:17 PM

Re: Willie-O big difference between communist and capitalist dictators stepping down. Honneker of East Germany was also not prosecuted because of old age (as far as I can remember) How many of them were? In fact the only one that got what he deserved was Ceaucescu.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 04:23 PM

Good riddance, at least we are not going to continue to pay our taxes to keep the bastard here anymore. perhaps a pilotless plane to mid atlantic would have been a good idea, but as we live in a country with a history of contraviening more human rights than many in modern europe it's not suprising. We are getting more and more control exercised over us all here. And nobody takes the blame for it. This lot (politicians) are as bad as the last lot. John Smith would turn in his grave. perhaps there will be a welcoming comittie with a snipers rifle waiting for him when he lands. I remember the left wing outcry at his crimes and his dictatorship-where has it all gone since those who spoke most loudly for the people are now in power? Sadly. Eric

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GUEST,Ickle Dorritt
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 05:31 PM

Oh Eric, John Smith- if ever a man died too soon. The Pinochet thing was a bit of a farce wasn't it- If Labour has learnt anything of late it is that having ideals in oppositon is easier than having them in government. Frankly given the choice, I would rather donate tax payers millions to Mozambique than throw them into the pockets of lawyers defending an 80 year old dictator. Good riddance and it is a shame thatcher lamont and co weren't on the plane with him. I detect something sinister about their frantic defence of him as a 'friend of this country'-will the truth ever be known?

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 05:38 PM

I now hear Chileans saying "shay".

I say shame.

Penny

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 07:36 PM

The Spanish probably were yielding to Human Rights oriented political pressure when they initially went after Pinochet, and they discovered that they had underestimated his political power--

When it became clear that they were going to get into a lot of trouble if they actually prosecuted him ,they decided they didn't want him--

They couldn't risk alienating the Human Rights Advocates, so they set things up so that the UK let him go on a legal technicality(the UK has a reputation for being overly attentive to the letter of the law)--Just to make it all look above board, they let a one-time "fiery left-wing student politician" take responsibility for letting the extreme right-wing dictator off the hook--

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 07:43 PM

Maybe so - but the outcome is that the British Government have now in effect said that Spanish doctors are not competent to decide whether a Spanish-speaking defendant is fit to stand trial, and that Spanish justice is not to be trusted. Coming from a representative of the British justice system, with its record, that is pretty rich.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 02 Mar 00 - 08:56 PM

The British Government has, in the past, often decided that people throughout the world are not fit to either govern or administer justice in their own lands, so this is hardly a surprising development--

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GeorgeH
Date: 03 Mar 00 - 01:23 PM

MTed, I really don't know where you get your supposed information from; most of it (including the suggestion that Spain "decided it didn't want him") contradicts all I've heard of this case.

But what offends me most of all is Straw putting himself above the law in deciding this for himself rather than allowing it to go to the courts. And having the audacity to claim some sort of moral "example" in how this case has proceeded; he even said that (Pinochet getting off scot free) "sent a message to dictator" (why not to us presidents and uk premiers as well??) "that they can't escape responsibility for their human rights violations." Oh, yeah!

The man has the same moral integrety as Pinochet himself, so far as I'm concerned.

And I find the comparison of Castro with Pinochet "sucks", too.

G.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 03 Mar 00 - 09:01 PM

Information? I never said I had any information--I know what I see--And I don't see international leaders anywhere eager to prosecute Pinochet--There are a few relatively low level officials making obligatory protests--

Maybe, as I reflect, no one important ever wanted him prosecuted, maybe everyone has been looking for a graceful way out of this all along--

At any rate, why are you so offended when I compare the interests of two dictators? Even one was good, and one was bad, they both are considered by signifcant numbers of people to be guilty of massive Human Rights violations--

For myself--a dictator is a dictator, and I am old enough to remember stories about massive roundups, stadiums full of prisoners, and mass executions in Cuba--

I am not disposed to argue about Castro, and you may regard him however you wish--However, there are significant numbers of wealthy and politically powerful Cuban exiles here in the US who will demand that Castro be arrested and tried if he ever steps from power--and he has to be concerned about how the International Community will respond to this pressure--

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GUEST,Petr
Date: 03 Mar 00 - 10:25 PM

The Irony today is that a Serbian general has just been sentenced for war crimes at the international tribunal and received a 45yr sentence. (Which I dont think is enough) and at the same time the Pinochet gets of scot free.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GUEST,Amergin
Date: 04 Mar 00 - 02:57 AM

Politics: the breadline for the unemployed comedian.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GUEST,The Yank
Date: 04 Mar 00 - 09:17 PM

Remember that those " wealthy and politically powerful Cuban exiles " are largely members- or descendants of members- of Batista's(dare I call him a 'dictator'?) clique of cronies who were supported by the U.S.- and that Cuba since 1900 was a U.S. colony, kept subservient to business interests on purpose. The U.S. created Castro-and the comparison to Pinochet is NOT apt.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Ringer
Date: 05 Mar 00 - 06:18 AM

I can't believe you lot: a Labour Home Secretary returns Pinochet to Chile and you all blame the Tories! What nonsense you all talk about right-wing conspiracies. Isn't it more likely, human-beings being what human-beings are, and politicians being what politicians are, that the government reacted in knee-jerk manner to an extradition request from Spain, before their brains were in gear? Then, realising that they had stirred up a hornets' nest, they've been seeking to get rid of the problem with the minimum of loss of face. And have finally done so.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Hyperabid
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 04:21 AM

Plotical hornet's nest, kneejerk thinking and a belief that the UK still had a tendency to meddle in other people's affairs left over from its colonial history I guess could be valid.

That does not change the fact that once Jack Straw had opened the "can of worms" he should have dealt with it.

There remains a considerable fudge factor here.

In the meantime, the punishment for crimes against humanity seems to vary from 16 months of reduced liberty but maintained luxury to 45 years hard time based on whether there was a war declared at the time or not.

Quite a paradox?

Hyp

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GeorgeH
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 10:02 AM

MTed, you ask why I'm offended by your comparison between Castro and Pinochet. Simple. Status ("Dictator"/"President"/"Prime Minister" etc.) is irrelevent. In very rough terms, in causing massive inhumanity Castro is about on a par with a typical US President or UK premier; Pinochet is in a different league. (In UK soccer terms, Castro and the President would probably make the first division, while Pinochet would be battling it out at the head of the premiership.)

And, Bald Eagle, the right and simple way for Straw to have dealt with this would be for Straw to have left it to the courts to decide the issue. Except that could (probably) been appealed up to European Court level. And since it's damn nigh impossible to detect a shread of difference between the Tories and New Labour there's plenty of reason for blaming the Tories too.

Mind you, while Pinochet's case was resolved he was held in luxury in Sunningdale (a MOST exclusive address . .). Contrast the passengers of the Afghan jet who applied for asylum when it was hijacked to Stanstead . . they were held in (or told they would be held in) detention centres while they were co-erced into dropping their applications and returning to Afghanistan . . and once again Jack Straw showed his contempt for the separation between Law and Executive by announcing in the House of Commons his intention of ensuring that none of the refugees was allowed to remain in the UK.

Straw, like most US presidents, deserves arrest for Crimes against humanity. And - IMO - US policy towards Cuba, taken as a whole, shows all the very worst facets of US foreign "policy", and of that nation's underling xenophobia and paranoia (from which, I grant, many of its individual citizens must be excluded).

G.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 11:22 AM

To add insult to injury he's been awarded legal costs of half a million sterling which the UK taxpayer will have to cover.[btw re: Castro. Surely the main reason US politicians don't like him is not that he's a dictator but that he's not their dictator?]
RtS

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 11:52 AM

C'mon folks get real! No powerful leader (or their immediate toadies) wants another powerful leader (or ex leader) to REALLY be prosecuted. The mothers and families of "the disappeared" will as usual have to be content that compassionate lefties, University intellectuals, and the odd low level govt. officials are the only ones who truly support them. Gosh, Maggie Thatcher even gave him a going away present! Every person of conscience shout be absolutely outraged...but the story will die out in a few weeks, and all those higher ups who said nothing will breathe easier. Can you imagine the shock waves if the Pope (even in his dotage)had come out and TOTALLY condemmed this evil man? 'Course he'd never have been allowed to, (probably wouldn't have wanted to) but what a great moment that could have been.

Rick

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: InOBU
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 12:06 PM

Well GeorgeH, another point of agreement between us, (without mentioning the one we dont!:)...) As to Petr and the double standard, the double standard certainly exists here in the US. Just go to Florida and you may find Dr. (and I use that term with some irony) Orlando Bosh running around with a live torpedo on a boat trailer, or running free at all, after having bombed a cuban civilian jet liner killing all the passengers including the cuban olympic fencing team - if memory serves, while Chilean ambasodors are not safe from assasination in Washington DC, and the US sponsored coup in Chile murders as many representatives of one political thought as possible - on a musical note, killing Victor Hara for the crime of singing the truth.
It seems, like the Ronald Regan, old criminals of one ilk dont get prosicuted, their minds just fade away...
All the best (not encluding Penochet- bad cess to the beast!)
Larry

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 01:24 PM

GeorgeH and Guest The Yank,

You really seem to completely miss my point--I am not attacking Castro, I am simply pointing out that he has many, powerful political enemies, admittedly on what amounts to the political right, who regard him him as the same same sort of murderous dictator that others regard Pinochet..

For Castro, the question of whether to step down or not, rests heavily on whether he will be able to retain his political presence(as, until he was arrested in the UK), Pinochet was allowed to do--or whether he will be placed under house arrest, tried, and possible executed, as his political enemies even now are demanding--

So, for Castro, the way that Pinochet is treated gives a clue to the way he will be treated--if he should choose to retire--

When Castro either resigns, or fullfills his President-for- Life contract, the Cuban Exile community will move in quickly---they still have strong ties to the island, but more important, they alone have economic and political power that Cuba needs to move forward--

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 02:42 PM

SO!!! half a million pounds richer-damages. You have got to have the greatest faith in our legal system!!!!!!! FREE ADVERT ANY OTHER MURDERERS OUT THERE WANT FREE HOLIDAY, ALL MEDICAL EXPENSES PAID, FIRST CLASSS TREATMENT AND RESIDENCE apply now. ps; We'll give you £500,000.00 for the trip after you've gone. Now where is my mate Adolf and uncle Joe? Eric the sick at heart!

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: InOBU
Date: 06 Mar 00 - 06:38 PM

My dear friend M Ted:
Excuse me if I finish your sentence...So, for Castro, the way that Pinochet is treated gives a clue to the way he will be treated--if he should choose to retire--

When Castro either resigns, or fullfills his President-for- Life contract, the Cuban Exile community will move in quickly---they still have strong ties to the island, but more important, they alone have economic and political power that Cuba needs to move forward--

Into the kind of criminocracy that Russia now exists under then the Cuban mafia returns to the island...
All the best
Larry

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Ringer
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 05:13 AM

Come on, George, this is not up to your usual standards of argument. "And since it's damn nigh impossible to detect a shread of difference between the Tories and New Labour there's plenty of reason for blaming the Tories too." On that basis, you're guilty of torturing kids to death because, like Ian Brady, you've got 2 arms, 2 legs and a nose.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: GeorgeH
Date: 07 Mar 00 - 10:58 AM

Well, thanks for the back-handed comment, Bald Eagle . . OK, I should have laboured my post with emoticons; it was heavily ironic and the "argument" was shortcut out of existence. But I do believe, and could argue with great force, that:

a) There's little difference between the Old Tories and New Labour (except that you have an even higher hypocrisy and bullshit quotient with NL). Indeed, I'm increasingly coming to feel that John Major ('though not the party he led) was far more decent than Thatcher, Blair or Haig.

b) I do believe that the Tories do have a share of the blame for the Pinochet fiasco . . although at the end of the day Labour should have had the "bottle" to let the law run its course.

Having last night seen a 90 minute documentary on the effects of sanctions on Iraq (which contained little I didn't already know, but made me think that probably my Arab contact weren't exaggerating their claims, after all) my contempt, disgust and despair about my Government and Nation have reached new heights.

G.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 11:39 PM

Pinochet indicted for the killing and disappearance of dissidents - they've got him!!

Chilean police took fingerprints and mugs shots of Gen. Augusto Pinochet on Wednesday following his indictment for the killing and disappearance of nine dissidents during his dictatorship — the first time he has had to submit to a police booking. But government spokesman Osvaldo Puccio said the booking of Pinochet "shows that in Chile all citizens are equal before the law."

Wednesday's procedure was ordered by Judge Victor Montiglio, who issued the indictment of Pinochet for the killing and disappearance of nine dissidents in 1975 in a case known as Operation Colombo. The nine were among 119 victims of the operation; the Pinochet regime said they were killed in clashes between rival opposition groups.
He also is under indictment on tax evasion and corruption charges related to secret multimillion-dollar bank accounts he maintained overseas.

Also Wednesday, a Chilean appeals court upheld a life prison sentence for Pinochet's secret police chief, who was convicted of killing 12 suspected urban guerrillas in 1987.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: alanabit
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 04:17 AM

Everyone knows that left wing dictators are "evil tyrants" whereas as right wing dictators are an "unfortunate embarrassment".
It is too late to punish Pinochet anyway. Any adequate form of deterrent and retribution would make his accusers look cruel and undignified. He is a pathetic old fugitive, now ninety years old.
I am glad he has been booked though. The issue should not be one of punishment. What most needs to be done, is that the false aura of dignity, which surrounds this nasty, sordid, ruthless criminal should be removed for ever. He is essentially Ronnie Kray on a bigger scale. I hope that the current legal action wakes more people up to the fact.

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 09:37 AM

Why is this thread upstairs?

Subject: RE: Pinochet What?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:24 AM

because it has been started before the great divide.

Wolfgang