If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
What do you think?
Interesting how you can rarely bring yourself to criticise the content of people's posts and instead rely on making baseless statements. :rolleyes:
I have to be honest, I strongly disagree with this - I mean some people just deserve to be dead/killed whatever.
I'm not reaching into whether Pinochet should be or not, but really come on, this is very idealistic to suggest that everyone deserves to live - don't you think?
I think its more accurate to say that you (and notable others) only ever respond to my more flip comments. My in depth posts tend to get ignored.
He's recovered so fast people begun to be suspicious... I'd like to know what you think about it...
If murder is wrong why should the State be allowed to do it?
Many of us remember the disgraceful cop-out by Jack Straw when he allowed him to return to Chile on the excuse that he was too ill and fragile. You could almost picture him dancing with his great chum Maggie inside the plane that was going to take him home to celebrate another instance of cheating justice.
Chances are he will never see trial due to these tricks. However there is some consolation. Rather than spending his final years welcomed everywhere as a revered statesman, as he had no doubt imagined it, Pinochet is a wanted and hounded man in many countries and unable to travel abroad, under house arrest at home and facing the constant threat of jail. He will be angry and scared- just a small fraction of of the anger, despair and anguish his many thousands of victims experienced.
But still, perhaps now he will start to understand what a revolting monster he is, and no matter how many acts of repentance he might do, he will also believe that he's bound for the deepest pit in Hell the second he pegs it where the Devil will no doubt have large packs of trained dogs ready to rape him, just as the old dictator liked to do to female prisoners of the regime.
Let him ponder all of that while he sits at home under house arrest for the rest of his days.
Items in bold changed by me to highlight the irony of Disillusioned's general beliefs and stand on things.
Britain/US made no pretence about Iraq and Saddam; we removed Saddam and invaded Iraq.
With regard to Pinochet we arrested a former Head of State of Chile against the wishes of Chile's democratic leaders, Chile's sovereignty was breached and it was not in the context of warfare.
And again:
Interesting to see how you can rarely bring yourself to criticise the content of people's posts and instead rely on making baseless statements. Do you ever have a point to make? :rolleyes:
Nice logic there.
The wishes of people have no impact on crimes and justice, and you know it.
And unless those democratic leaders you speak of had put in their manifesto that they would fight outside attempts to arrest and charge Pinochet with crimes, they were certainly not speaking on behalf of the people of Chile- millions of which would like to see nothing more than the old murdering cunt being brought to justice for his hideous crimes.
Once again you go out of your way to defend the wellbeing and immunity of a murderous tyrant. I wonder why that is...
It doesn't show you in very good light, at any rate.
Pinochet is Chilean, he does not have British citizenship or residency. He was arrested in Britain for crimes committed in Chile against Chileans. As a former Head of State slightly different rules also apply. On a side note Chile and its legitimate democratic representatives opposed his arrest and detention.
Should we arrest any visiting foreign tyrant for foreign crimes?
All pretty debatable. Even the BBC in recent days reported how divided Chile is, Pinochet still has enormous support in Chile. There's even talk of a state funeral. Regardless, since Chile is a functioning democracy with free and fair elections and an independent judiciary if he is tried, he should be tried in Chile surely. (It's not really a case of war crimes either).
I believe trying Pinochet to be a Chilean matter.
And they both were ruthless in making sure no one could stop them.
There are plenty worse dictators on both sides of the Left/Right divide who are alive and running their countries at the moment.
Burma and North Korea and half of the "stan's" in central Asia, most of sub saharan Africa, all would better off under a Pinochett than their current rulers.
How do you work that one out, exactly?
If there is an international warrant for their arrest we should, yes.
And many others despise him. Just like Saddam and Iraq, then...
Forgive me for believing you would say something quite different if we had been talking about, say, Fidel Castro.
I thought he was arrested on a request from the Spanish ...
I oppose trying a Chilean leader in Europe for crimes committed in Chile against Chileans.
The Iraq War is a separate issue. I supported the Iraq War because at the time I believed its WMD programme was a threat. My support for the war was not initially based on the fact that Saddam is a vicious tyrant - there are many of them after all. However, since we did invade and the fact that our actions cannot be undone mean I accept the removal of a bloodthirsty dictator and moves towards democracy as a positive step.
The Spanish judge based his case on the idea of 'universal jurisdiction' - the precedent of accepting his idea would surely be to arrest any visiting foreign tyrant for foreign crimes.
Not at all. Should Castro go through the UK to attend talks with the EU or whatever I would object to his arrest.
Perhaps if we did so the world would be far better place.
Naturally I understand sometimes you have to be pragmatic. The arrest of the leader of China, fantastic as it would have been, would quite probably have led to an inimaginably costly war. That, incidentally, was one of the reasons why the Iraq war was so wrong.
The arrest of Pinochet had absolutely no drawbacks. Justice would be served. A tyrant and murderer would face trial. And no war or serious repercusions of any type would ever take place.
Yes, absolutely. For a start Israel of course didn't exist as a sovereign state at the beginning of the Nuremberg Trials.
And Israel through being a Jewish state does not have a monopoly on bringing the perpetrators of the Holocaust to justice or on prosecuting other atrocities that occurred during Nazi Germany.
In principle I'm wary of international courts. However, I accept that such international institutions are sometimes necessary to try war criminals. With regard to Milosevic I don't think there were many alternatives to trying him at the Hague. Pinochet, however, is not accused of war crimes - and I don't think anybody has ever claimed the Hague has any jurisdiction over what happened during his governance.
That's getting pretty close to the basic principles of neo-conservatism...
So we only trampled on Chilean sovereignty because we could get away with it? i.e. They wouldn't declare war.
As I have said again and again Pinochet is a Chilean citizen and whatever crimes he committed were in Chile and against Chileans. He is not guilty of war crimes or anything that the Hague, Spain or Britain has legitimate jurisdiction over. And the idea of 'universal jurisdiction' can never be universally implemented.
If Chileans wish to try and prosecute him in Chile (as some have been trying to) I have absolutely no objection. However, stretching international law to prosecute some foreign tyrants for foreign crimes (but not others) does not make for a good foreign policy.
I assume you think Mugabe should have been arrested when he was in Britain?
Yeah! That's what I thought .. in fact, I am positive that was the case.
Pinochet was Chile's Head of State and any crimes committed took place in Chile and not Spain. Chile has not been a Spanish colony for nearly 200 years I believe, the idea that the perpetrator of the murder of Spanish citizens abroad should stand trial in Spain is pure imperialism.
I dont believe they should, I was just commenting on the issue about everyone deserving to live.
Yep, that's right, baseless statements all the way. You have a very selective memory don't you dis?
My point here is obvious dis and you have come through as predicted - you're an apologist for mass murder as long as its done in the name of the political ideology that you support.
I challenge you to find a single post of mine justifying that belief...
How does believing that a Chilean leader should be tried in Chile for crimes committed in Chile make me an apologist for mass murder?
Don't fucking scare me like that!
No, not quite. My position is that we should always seek to bring justice unless the price is unnaceptably high. It is a far from perfect scenario but in my opinion the best we have.
Brining Pinochet to justice based on on an international warrant arrest, and when the chances of civil war or international conflict are next to nil are a lot more acceptable than waging war against a sovereign nation or arresting its leader when it is clear it would almost certainly lead to a major war.
You should also bear in mind Dis that most observers agreed that Pinochet was unlikely to be jailed even if he was found guilty due to his age. But it was the principle of it at stake. The fact is that the trial was not allow to happen for political reasons. And we are not supposed to interfere with our judiciary for political reasons.
I think he should have, yes. I think such situations should be judged on a case by case basis, and I think in the case of Mugabe we should have arrested him- if there was an international warrant for his arrest anyway.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=10&ItemID=11491