History Doesn't Wait
The long reign of Augusto Pinochet began in 1973 when the government of Chile which had been elected legally was overthrown in a violent coup. From that time on, human rights violations mounted until the recent imbroglio from which the former dictator escaped by his death. I have inserted a collection of sketches of the many cases which I am sure are horrible, but a finding commemoration of the Pinochet record.
THE RIGGS CASE - FINANCIAL INQUIRY
What it is about:
An American investigation into the US-based Riggs Bank found in 2004 that Gen Pinochet held up to $8m in secret accounts there. Chilean investigators later found that the former ruler had about $27m in secret foreign accounts.
The judicial process:
General Pinochet was free on bail after being charged with tax evasion and using false passports to open accounts abroad. A court also stripped him of his legal immunity so he could be investigated for embezzlement of state funds, but no charges were filed. His wife, four of their five children and a number of other associates have also been charged in this case.
What the defence said:
Gen Pinochet's fortune was acquired legally, through savings, donations and accrued interest. His lawyers say that the reason he did not declare all his income was not to evade taxes, but to protect himself against possible trials abroad. They say he was given false passports for security reasons.
VILLA GRIMALDI - HUMAN RIGHTS CASE
What it is about:
Villa Grimaldi is said to have been one of the biggest secret detention centres in operation in Santiago during the military regime. Thousands of people were tortured at the centre between 1974 and 1977; many of them disappeared.
Judicial process:
The allegations against Gen Pinochet involve 23 cases of torture of political prisoners at the Villa Grimaldi detention centre and 36 of kidnapping, a charge that refers to people who disappeared in police custody and are presumed dead. Before charges could be filed, the Supreme Court had to uphold a ruling stripping him of his legal immunity.
What the defence said:
Gen Pinochet was not fit to stand trial. Lawyers also argued that there was no basis for the allegations - they said a face-to-face meeting between their client and the former head of the secret police, ordered by a judge, had cleared the general.
OPERATION COLOMBO - HUMAN RIGHTS CASE
What it is about:
At least 119 dissidents are alleged to have been abducted by state forces and later killed in what was known as Operation Colombo in 1975. At the time, the government claimed that the victims had died in clashes between rival armed dissident groups.
Judicial process:
The former president spent seven weeks under house arrest, charged with the disappearance of nine dissidents, before being granted bail. During this time, the Supreme Court ruled Gen Pinochet was fit to stand trial and he was formally booked for the first time. The court was due to rule on the lifting of the general's immunity by a lower court so he could be investigated for the disappearance of 37 dissidents.
What the defence said:
Gen Pinochet did not order that anyone be tortured, killed or disappeared, and was not in charge of the secret police. His lawyers also disputed medical reports that suggest the former leader was fit to stand trial.
OPERATION CONDOR - HUMAN RIGHTS CASE
What it is about:
Operation Condor was established in 1975 by at least six South American military regimes - Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia - to hunt down and kill their left-wing opponents. A joint information centre was established at the headquarters of the Chilean secret police, the Dina, in Santiago.
Judicial process:
In December 2004, Judge Juan Guzman charged Gen Pinochet with nine counts of kidnapping and one of murder and placed him under house arrest. But, the following year, the appeals court ruled that he was not mentally fit to stand trial; the ruling was upheld by the top court. The case was expected to be dismissed.
What the defence says:
Gen Pinochet's lawyers successfully argued in this case that he was to ill to stand trial.
Return to top
CARAVAN OF DEATH - HUMAN RIGHTS CASE
What it is about:
In October 1973, soon after the coup led by Gen Pinochet, a military "delegation" toured provincial cities in northern and southern Chile, killing 97 of the new regime's political opponents.
Judicial process:
In 2000, the appeals court stripped Gen Pinochet of his immunity so he could be charged with 18 kidnappings and 57 executions. The former leader was charged and placed under house arrest in January 2001. The appeals court later downgraded the charges - accusing him of being an accessory to the crimes rather than the author - before ruling he was unfit to face trial.
However, in January 2006, the appeals court lifted the former ruler's immunity so he could be investigated in connection with the deaths of two of President Salvador Allende's bodyguards during the Caravan.
What the defence says:
Gen Pinochet's lawyers denied he had any responsibility for the killings and argued he was not mentally capable of defending himself.
PRATS CASE - HUMAN RIGHTS
What it is about:
The former head of the army, Gen Carlos Prats, and his wife, Sofia, were killed in 1974 by a bomb detonated by the Chilean secret police in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires.
Judicial process:
Gen Pinochet was accused of being the intellectual author of the attack against his predecessor. In December 2004, the appeals court stripped the former ruler of his legal immunity in this case, but the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court and later dismissed on procedural grounds. However, in 2006, the Buenos Aires district attorney issued an international warrant for Gen Pinochet's capture in connection with the killings.
What the defence says:
Lawyers for the general said there was no precedent to charge him in "such a horrible case". As in other cases, they also argued the general was unfit to stand trial.
As recounted in a brief sketch in Wikipedia, the rift between leftists who elected Salvador Allende and Pinochet's faction was encouraged by aggressive support of Richard Nixon and on the other side Fidel Castro. Armed conflict overthrew the Allende government and the atrocities resulted.
It has been argued [weasel words] that with a mere 36.61% of the vote, Allende did not have a clear "mandate" to embark in the wide reforms put forward on his program. Conversely, it has been argued [weasel words] that because Radomiro Tomic garnered 28.11% of the vote with a similar platform, Allende did have a "mandate". In any event, the legality of the election itself has never been in dispute. President Allende's Socialist political agenda brought opposition from many sectors of Chilean society as well as the United States, which placed diplomatic and economic pressure on the government to unstabilizing it and deteriorate the internal atmosphere.
Towards the end of 1971, Cuban leader Fidel Castro toured Chile extensively during a four-week visit. [1] This gave credence to the belief of those on the right that the Chilean Way to Socialism was an effort to put Chile on the same path as Cuba.
In an open support of Richard Nixon, in October 1972, Chile saw the first of what were to be a wave of confrontational strikes led by some of the historically well-off sectors of Chilean society. A strike by truck-owners soon joined by the small businesmen, some (mostly professional) unions, and some student groups. Other than the inevitable damage to the economy, the chief effect of the 24-day strike was to bring the head of the army, general Carlos Prats, into the government as Interior Minister.[2]
Despite declining economic indicators, Allende's Popular Unity coalition actually slightly increased its vote to 43.2 percent in the parliamentary elections of March 1973. However, by this point what had started as an informal alliance between Allende's coalition and the Christian Democrats was long gone. [3] The Christian Democrats now leagued with the right-wing National Party to oppose Allende's government, the two parties forming the Confederación Democrática coalition (CODE). The conflict between the executive and legislature paralyzed initiatives from either side. [4]
On June 29, 1973, a tank regiment under the command of Colonel Roberto Souper surrounded the La Moneda presidential palace in a violent but unsuccessful coup attempt.[5] This failed coup was followed by a general strike at the end of July, joined this time by the copper miners of El Teniente as well.
In August of 1973, a constitutional crisis was clearly in the offing: the Supreme Court publicly complained about the government's inability to enforce the law of the land and on August 22 the Chamber of Deputies (with the Christian Democrats now firmly united with the National Party) accused Allende's government of unconstitutional acts and called on the military ministers to enforce constitutional order. [4]
Forsome months, the government had been afraid to call upon the national police known as the Carabineros, for fear of their lack of loyalty. On August 9, Allende made General Carlos Prats Minister of Defense. Nonetheless, General Prats was forced to resign not only this position but his role as Army Commander-in-chief on August 24, 1973, embarrassed by the Alejandrina Cox incident and a public protest of the wives of his Generals in front of his home. He was replaced as Commander-in-chief by General Augusto Pinochet that same day. [4]
I hear the left wing in Latin America called communist, socialist, left-leaning, anarchist, all manner of unflattering descriptions. It has a history that this administration would like to be forgotten by the same history the cretin in chief says is going to judge him only after his death. History marches much too quickly for those who've stood for really destructive measures. It caught up with Pinochet.
THE RIGGS CASE - FINANCIAL INQUIRY
What it is about:
An American investigation into the US-based Riggs Bank found in 2004 that Gen Pinochet held up to $8m in secret accounts there. Chilean investigators later found that the former ruler had about $27m in secret foreign accounts.
The judicial process:
General Pinochet was free on bail after being charged with tax evasion and using false passports to open accounts abroad. A court also stripped him of his legal immunity so he could be investigated for embezzlement of state funds, but no charges were filed. His wife, four of their five children and a number of other associates have also been charged in this case.
What the defence said:
Gen Pinochet's fortune was acquired legally, through savings, donations and accrued interest. His lawyers say that the reason he did not declare all his income was not to evade taxes, but to protect himself against possible trials abroad. They say he was given false passports for security reasons.
VILLA GRIMALDI - HUMAN RIGHTS CASE
What it is about:
Villa Grimaldi is said to have been one of the biggest secret detention centres in operation in Santiago during the military regime. Thousands of people were tortured at the centre between 1974 and 1977; many of them disappeared.
Judicial process:
The allegations against Gen Pinochet involve 23 cases of torture of political prisoners at the Villa Grimaldi detention centre and 36 of kidnapping, a charge that refers to people who disappeared in police custody and are presumed dead. Before charges could be filed, the Supreme Court had to uphold a ruling stripping him of his legal immunity.
What the defence said:
Gen Pinochet was not fit to stand trial. Lawyers also argued that there was no basis for the allegations - they said a face-to-face meeting between their client and the former head of the secret police, ordered by a judge, had cleared the general.
OPERATION COLOMBO - HUMAN RIGHTS CASE
What it is about:
At least 119 dissidents are alleged to have been abducted by state forces and later killed in what was known as Operation Colombo in 1975. At the time, the government claimed that the victims had died in clashes between rival armed dissident groups.
Judicial process:
The former president spent seven weeks under house arrest, charged with the disappearance of nine dissidents, before being granted bail. During this time, the Supreme Court ruled Gen Pinochet was fit to stand trial and he was formally booked for the first time. The court was due to rule on the lifting of the general's immunity by a lower court so he could be investigated for the disappearance of 37 dissidents.
What the defence said:
Gen Pinochet did not order that anyone be tortured, killed or disappeared, and was not in charge of the secret police. His lawyers also disputed medical reports that suggest the former leader was fit to stand trial.
OPERATION CONDOR - HUMAN RIGHTS CASE
What it is about:
Operation Condor was established in 1975 by at least six South American military regimes - Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia - to hunt down and kill their left-wing opponents. A joint information centre was established at the headquarters of the Chilean secret police, the Dina, in Santiago.
Judicial process:
In December 2004, Judge Juan Guzman charged Gen Pinochet with nine counts of kidnapping and one of murder and placed him under house arrest. But, the following year, the appeals court ruled that he was not mentally fit to stand trial; the ruling was upheld by the top court. The case was expected to be dismissed.
What the defence says:
Gen Pinochet's lawyers successfully argued in this case that he was to ill to stand trial.
Return to top
CARAVAN OF DEATH - HUMAN RIGHTS CASE
What it is about:
In October 1973, soon after the coup led by Gen Pinochet, a military "delegation" toured provincial cities in northern and southern Chile, killing 97 of the new regime's political opponents.
Judicial process:
In 2000, the appeals court stripped Gen Pinochet of his immunity so he could be charged with 18 kidnappings and 57 executions. The former leader was charged and placed under house arrest in January 2001. The appeals court later downgraded the charges - accusing him of being an accessory to the crimes rather than the author - before ruling he was unfit to face trial.
However, in January 2006, the appeals court lifted the former ruler's immunity so he could be investigated in connection with the deaths of two of President Salvador Allende's bodyguards during the Caravan.
What the defence says:
Gen Pinochet's lawyers denied he had any responsibility for the killings and argued he was not mentally capable of defending himself.
PRATS CASE - HUMAN RIGHTS
What it is about:
The former head of the army, Gen Carlos Prats, and his wife, Sofia, were killed in 1974 by a bomb detonated by the Chilean secret police in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires.
Judicial process:
Gen Pinochet was accused of being the intellectual author of the attack against his predecessor. In December 2004, the appeals court stripped the former ruler of his legal immunity in this case, but the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court and later dismissed on procedural grounds. However, in 2006, the Buenos Aires district attorney issued an international warrant for Gen Pinochet's capture in connection with the killings.
What the defence says:
Lawyers for the general said there was no precedent to charge him in "such a horrible case". As in other cases, they also argued the general was unfit to stand trial.
As recounted in a brief sketch in Wikipedia, the rift between leftists who elected Salvador Allende and Pinochet's faction was encouraged by aggressive support of Richard Nixon and on the other side Fidel Castro. Armed conflict overthrew the Allende government and the atrocities resulted.
It has been argued [weasel words] that with a mere 36.61% of the vote, Allende did not have a clear "mandate" to embark in the wide reforms put forward on his program. Conversely, it has been argued [weasel words] that because Radomiro Tomic garnered 28.11% of the vote with a similar platform, Allende did have a "mandate". In any event, the legality of the election itself has never been in dispute. President Allende's Socialist political agenda brought opposition from many sectors of Chilean society as well as the United States, which placed diplomatic and economic pressure on the government to unstabilizing it and deteriorate the internal atmosphere.
Towards the end of 1971, Cuban leader Fidel Castro toured Chile extensively during a four-week visit. [1] This gave credence to the belief of those on the right that the Chilean Way to Socialism was an effort to put Chile on the same path as Cuba.
In an open support of Richard Nixon, in October 1972, Chile saw the first of what were to be a wave of confrontational strikes led by some of the historically well-off sectors of Chilean society. A strike by truck-owners soon joined by the small businesmen, some (mostly professional) unions, and some student groups. Other than the inevitable damage to the economy, the chief effect of the 24-day strike was to bring the head of the army, general Carlos Prats, into the government as Interior Minister.[2]
Despite declining economic indicators, Allende's Popular Unity coalition actually slightly increased its vote to 43.2 percent in the parliamentary elections of March 1973. However, by this point what had started as an informal alliance between Allende's coalition and the Christian Democrats was long gone. [3] The Christian Democrats now leagued with the right-wing National Party to oppose Allende's government, the two parties forming the Confederación Democrática coalition (CODE). The conflict between the executive and legislature paralyzed initiatives from either side. [4]
On June 29, 1973, a tank regiment under the command of Colonel Roberto Souper surrounded the La Moneda presidential palace in a violent but unsuccessful coup attempt.[5] This failed coup was followed by a general strike at the end of July, joined this time by the copper miners of El Teniente as well.
In August of 1973, a constitutional crisis was clearly in the offing: the Supreme Court publicly complained about the government's inability to enforce the law of the land and on August 22 the Chamber of Deputies (with the Christian Democrats now firmly united with the National Party) accused Allende's government of unconstitutional acts and called on the military ministers to enforce constitutional order. [4]
Forsome months, the government had been afraid to call upon the national police known as the Carabineros, for fear of their lack of loyalty. On August 9, Allende made General Carlos Prats Minister of Defense. Nonetheless, General Prats was forced to resign not only this position but his role as Army Commander-in-chief on August 24, 1973, embarrassed by the Alejandrina Cox incident and a public protest of the wives of his Generals in front of his home. He was replaced as Commander-in-chief by General Augusto Pinochet that same day. [4]
I hear the left wing in Latin America called communist, socialist, left-leaning, anarchist, all manner of unflattering descriptions. It has a history that this administration would like to be forgotten by the same history the cretin in chief says is going to judge him only after his death. History marches much too quickly for those who've stood for really destructive measures. It caught up with Pinochet.
Labels: Banana Republic, Torture
posted by Ruth at 11:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home