posted 11-27-98 01:00 PM ET            

least of all pinochet

posted 11-27-98 01:01 PM ET            

Whereas, I believe he should be shot, I also believe it's up to the people of Chile to do so !!!

Mind you, I also think the world court should also recognise the difference between an imposed official and an elected official !!!

If an official is elected by a country, then he should not be held accountable for his/her actions .. it is the people of his/her country who should be judged !!!

If on the other hand an official is a dictator who came into power without being voted in, than he/she should be held responsible for his/her actions !!!

The only problem with this, is that I'm afraid this difference will not be recognised clearly by the rest of the world, so in fact, for the sake of the rest of the world leaders, I think he shouldn't be sent to Spain .. even if he is up there with Hitler !!!

posted 11-27-98 01:09 PM ET            

Can anyone explain to me why is the reaction of Chile government to the demonstrations so extreme?

posted 11-27-98 01:17 PM ET            

1. There are international treaties establishing international tribunals. No head of state can plead immunities against these.

2. There are international treaties against torture, hostage taking and genocide. Immunity is a bit unclear under those.

3. There are general principles of law and customary law about immunity. First, spanish jurisdiction is IMO not in violation of international law as there is enough to connect pinochet's (alleged, I'm talking as a lawyer here) crimes: some are international crimes like torture, some affected spanish citizens.
Immunity can mean two things: a) You can't prosecute a person as he/she is immune; b) You can't prosecute a person for certain crimes cause that person was immune when the crimes were committed.

a) is not the case with pinochet. He's a chilean senator, not a head of state. He's a former head of state, not a present head of state. And he was in no diplomatic mission in the UK.
b) is more difficult, especially in common law where there is a long established act-of-state or sovereign-act doctrin, protecting the ***holes. The arguments of the house of lords are concentrated on a number of aspects, eg that pinochet's (alleged) actions are not part of the role of a head of state, that they were illegal under chilean law etc.

4. This has some consequences for other head of states (some want Belgium to arrest Kabila when he goes there). But for states acting (not for international tribunals), there are still limits:
- no present head of state
- no former head of state on a diplomatic mission
- no acts committed in the role of head of state. This may also apply to military actions for which the right of self defense under the UN charter may be invoked.

posted 11-27-98 01:18 PM ET            

always kill your suppressors; never let them live

posted 11-27-98 01:26 PM ET            

It could mean a terrorist group kidnaps Clinton vacationing in Europe or something, and brings him back to virtually any anti-US state !!!

posted 11-27-98 01:31 PM ET            

Ehm... what I've said wouldn't amke that lawful. Beyond, the same things that stop them from doing that now will keep stopping them.

posted 11-27-98 01:50 PM ET            

If they are wrongfully accused of something, then their country should protest!!!

If that doesn't work, then they should go to the UN !!!

posted 11-27-98 01:52 PM ET            

As I understand it this will not set a precedent for arresting national leaders who are carrying out official government policies but may make tyrants and dictators think
twice before carrying out abhorrent acts against their own or other nationals.

I should think it would be quite hard for any dictator to justify "disappearances", murder and torture as an *official* policy as a head of state.

This distinction should prevent the presidents/prime ministers of legitimate democratic countries being arrested and tried by over zealous prosecutors, whilst on overseas visits, yet still allow the international community to try leaders who are seen to be carry out genocidal acts.

As an example I don't think Thatcher could be arrested for Britain's policy during the Falklands war or Clinton for the bombing of Chemical plants in Sudan but someone like Idi Amin (sp) could very well face prosecution for his crimes.

I know there are complicated issues involved, especially in this case, but I believe this decision may lead to greater accountability for evil actions and to greater freedom for individuals living under oppressive regimes.

It's an imperfect world we live in but things can get better, I hope this is a step in the right direction.

posted 11-27-98 11:54 PM ET            

I think it's an excellent decision, as long a he gets a fair trial in Spain. Immunity should only be granted by special permission of a government, e.g for ambassadors, and not automaticially to every bigshot visitor who enters the country.

posted 11-28-98 02:37 AM ET            

If US would blast themselves with nuclear bombs, the world would be better. United States are supporting every ring-wing, fascists dictatures in the world. The scoup in Chile was organized by USA. The only problem of the world is USA.

but the main problem is there:
like Castro said: Arresting Pinochet is good for vertue but bad for liberty.

Because In today's world, everycountry has good reasons to arrest the leader of other country.

The process will the new weapon of world's rich right-wings powers.

posted 11-28-98 03:21 AM ET            

"United States are supporting every ring-wing, fascists dictatures in the world" - of course they don't. They did, to some extent, in some cases during the cold war in a (to me) misguided attempt to keep out the Russians.

Anyway, there's a difference between arresting current leaders and ex-leaders.

posted 11-28-98 10:20 AM ET            

This is one reason why the U.N. should be given more clout ... to prevent things like this from happening in the future !!!

posted 11-28-98 12:53 PM ET            

The US supports all right-wing fascist dictators??? I don't think so! Were we supporting Hitler, the Kaiser, etc? Are we supporting Hussein, did we support Pol Pot?? NO! I admit we supported some, but like DCA said, that was a misguided attempt to keep the commies out.

The only problem in the world is the USA?? No, the only problem in the world is people like you, who do nothing but point fingers, but do nothing else.

posted 11-29-98 01:38 AM ET            

Imran: So, you're saying that, since it is practically impossible to 'do right' in all cases, we should for consistency's sake always 'do wrong'? The lowest common denominator might not be a good basis for moral judgements..

Anyway, we're talking crimes against humanity here. In Nazi Germany it was perfectly legal to kill Jews by the million - that didn't mean we couldn't put the ****ers on trial afterwards. I agree, though, that Pinochet should preferably be put before an international court for all his crimes. Since that doesn't seem to be realistic, a Spanish trial for the murders of Spanish citizens does quite nicely, thank you very much.

posted 11-29-98 02:10 PM ET            

Ehm... suggest some categories ???

AUH: "Maybe we'll pay our UN dues when you pay your debts for World War I"

Hey, Austria doesn't have any lend/lease debts... we were fighting against you!

DJ "You guys still don't understand..."

You are having a good point there, that's why there are rules in international law about who can prosecute whom for what. Territory is not the only link (though some cases refer to actions of the chilean secret police in spain, IIRC), others can be:

- international crimes like genocide
- crimes against citizens of your country (spanish citizens killed in Chile)

posted 11-29-98 03:41 PM ET            

What if the hypothetical situation was switched to stealing the wallet of an arab tourist?

posted 11-29-98 07:44 PM ET            

All right then, I agree with Imran. Take away China's MFN status! Take away dictatorships MFN status!

posted 11-29-98 10:33 PM ET            

I think there's some kind of confusion here on just what can happen under international law, so I hope this will help:

The decision of the Law Lords to overturn the ruling of the High Court that General Pinochet benefits from "sovereign immunity" and the initiative of Spanish judge Garzon to ask for Pinochet's extradition were made possible by a turn in the tide in international law, as evidenced last summer in Rome with the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. The statute is meant to counter impunity for particularly egregious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law: all individuals, regardless of official rank or capacity, are legally bound to refrain from committing such horrific crimes as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Rome Statute envisages the establishment of a permanent international criminal court to handle in a more comprehensive and prospective manner similar kinds of cases that have come before the ad hoc organs created by the UN Security Council: the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Domestic courts too have the authority to prosecute and punish individuals for crimes under international law, or failing that, to extradite, transfer or surrender an alleged offender to face criminal proceedings in another country - as the Pinochet case illustrates - according to one of the oldest and most well established principles of international law, that of aut dedere aut judicare. Several international instruments, including the UN Convention against Torture, legally require States to establish jurisdiction over such offences. States must either extradite offenders or try them, and they expressly confirm in these treaties that the defence of sovereign immunity shall not be available. Just last week, the Committee against Torture recommended that in the case of Mr. Pinochet the matter be referred to the office of the public prosecutor, "with a view to examining the feasibility of, and if appropriate initiating criminal proceedings in England", in the event that the decision was made not to extradite him.

posted 11-29-98 10:52 PM ET            

Btw AUH2O, when did I say to nuke anyone who sneezes on Bibi? I hate Netanyahu. He should go to HELL in a Handbasket. NUKE HIM!! And I support NAFTA and GATT. Where'd ya get your info from? You're reading CWAL propaganda aren't you.

posted 11-30-98 06:23 AM ET            

para 64 austrian penal code

Austrian law is applicable on the following crimes committed abroad, regardless of whether they were ounishable abroad:
...
4. hostage taking, ..., slave trade, ....
...
4b. production and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, if the accused is an austrian citizen...

6. other crimes where austria is obliged to prosecutes... (this is a reference to international obligations, eg crimes of torture, genocide etc - the principle of universal punishment)
...

para 65

Crimes committed abroad are under austrian law, if those crimes are crimes under the law of the place where the crime has been committed.

1. if the person who committed the crime was an austrian citizen at that time...

The respective person cannot be prosecuted:

1. if there can be no punishment under the laws of the place where the crime has ben committed (this refers to foreign statutes of limitation)

2. if the accused has been tried in the state where the crime has been committed
...

This is a reflection of what a state may do or has to do under international law. In addition, it may be possible to prosecute crimes against a citizen of that state (Germany has such a provision), again, this is subsidiary to the trial in the respective state (no prosecution, if the accused has been tried in the state where the crime has been committed)

For the example of stealing something from an Iraqi citizen in the USA: If the thief has not stood trial in the US, Iraq could prosecute that person.

For Pinochet, it is about the principal of universal prosecution, so that limitation does not apply.

If you want to read the Lords' decision:

http://www.elevennewsquare.demon.co.uk/hol/frames/04/25.htm

some comments about the issue:

http://www.nd.edu/~psimo/pinochetnew.html

http://wwwlaw.murdoch.edu.au/icjwa/icjpress.htm

posted 11-30-98 05:10 PM ET            

On the matter of Pinochet being a American pawn. This is not really correct. Yes we did support him, if for the only reason that he did not like the Commies. But Pinochet was at NO time our pawn, he was first and foremost his own controller and ruler. He might have once in a while agreed with us, but he used us just like we tried to us him. Pinochet was a very intelligent man and is not the type of man that can be controlled, even by the US.

posted 11-30-98 07:22 PM ET            

Oh, the US invading Grenada and Nicaragua, THAT was against international law. And blocking the UN-supported elections in Viet Nam was not very supportive of international law either. But I'm sure you were equally indignified by those acts, right? O sorry I forgot, you did all that to protect my freedom to write this. Noriega would have been standing next to my computer pointing a gun to my head now hadn't it been for the good ol' US of A. You should know, after all you trained the guy.

posted 11-30-98 07:39 PM ET            

The CIA was runing around there for awhile, but i do not remember using real troops.

GOdSMurf: you have a really weird view of the world. You keep claiming saying America is constantly breaking international law. Well we are not doing anything that every other nation does. Sheesh, read something!!!

For example: Franch sent in troops into not just the Cormoros but also the CAR to create goverments that like the French better then the ones that where already there.

Sheesh, most of this stuff is under the table things that ALL countrys do. Dirty work that needs to be done.

posted 11-30-98 09:55 PM ET            

I make the point again: PINOCHET COMMITTED CRIMES AGAINST SPAINISH CITIZENS! THAT IS WHY SPAIN WANTS HIM!

posted 11-30-98 10:06 PM ET            

This country has had a dodgy past as far as intervention in other nations affairs goes, and as far as free trade is concerned, America is way behind many other countries - the american view of free trade can be summarised as access to other markets while preserving protection/susidies for their own.
(If only small countries *could* sell their products on the american market - they have a nightmare doing so at the moment...)

Defending america's new liberalism against leftist Europeans is fine, I certainly don't like them either (German environmentalists are near the top of my "avoid at all costs" list). But if you believe for a second that america leads the world in economic freedoms, democracy or free trade, you have a VERY naive view of matters.

posted 12-01-98 12:42 AM ET            

Don't make me laugh.

Crimes against humanity should be tried somewhere, and if the Chileans aren't going to do it, then good on the Spanish for doing so. And frankly, even if the Chileans wanted to try him, let them have a go after the Spanish do. Nobody says they both can't prosecute him...

Hothram, what country has New Zealand "intefered" in the government of? Australia?

Also, just because one country does it, doesn't mean that yours should. After all, that would mean that we should all do as Chile does, and make people "vanish"...

posted 12-01-98 02:37 AM ET            

I had completly forgotten about that. Was really not that big a deal. All we had was few marines training Nicaraguaian troops to fight rebals in the hills. Not a war by any lenght of the imagionation.

Pinoche being held is doing god knows how much harm to the always fragial Chillian Democracy. There where large amounts of negosations when that country became free. By what right do the Spanish have to take the chance that a country could go into a cival war?

Pinoche should NEVER be tried in spain. A International Court is the best option. Altough if i where Chile i would send a nice special forces unit into that hospital and get that guy home. To them i would imagion its kidnaping.

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 12-01-98 11:25 AM ET            

First, noone is hindering Chile from prosecuting Pinochet except Chile itself. Second, there is no competent international court - therefore, the rules about the competences of national courts apply. Third, why do you think he won't get a fair trial in Spain ?

Hothram: "You keep claiming saying America is constantly breaking international law. Well we are not doing anything that every other nation does. Sheesh, read something!!!"

Problem: the US has more power than other states to break international law, and the consequences are bigger...

Shining: "I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) a country is also allowed to pursue action against individuals who are responsible for illegal acts against that countries citizens."

Quoting myself: "Territory is not the only link ... others can be:
- international crimes like genocide
- crimes against citizens of your country (spanish citizens killed in Chile)"
and: "In addition, it may be possible to prosecute crimes against a citizen of that state (Germany has such a provision)..."

Seems like no one's reading my posts..

posted 12-01-98 03:00 PM ET            

I'm sure Imran and Hothram will think the US had to sponsor these murderers' fight against a democratically elected government to protect our 'freedom' (a synonym for 'economic interests' in American propaganda).

Funny how you can't mention a South American country without some dirty story with American involvement coming up.

posted 12-01-98 04:01 PM ET            

As for 'protecting' the South American people from Communism by supporting fascism and dictatorship - oh yes, very noble. It has little to do with democracy and a lot to do with making hard cash.

Safe for dictatorship, you mean.

posted 12-01-98 05:49 PM ET            

Although it was and is very nice for us to have .

What was wrong with sending in the troops against Panamia? A petty little dictator got the idea he was inportant and that he could sell enormaous amounts of drugs. So we showed that he was a very very little fish, and at the same time created a more democratic goverment. Not bad, two birds with one stone.

Hothram Upravda
TB

"O yea most importantly, you seem to forget something very important. If the US or for that matter ANY other goverment has a choice between a Dictator that will work with us, or a Commie goverment who only wants to kill us we are going to pick the Dictator." I mean sheesh we are not the only country to support dictators over Commies. The Euro nations supportied them along side us.

And we do not just do everything for money. A country cannot allow its interests to be destoryed or stolen if that country wants to remain a power.... normal internation realations.

O yea, when i say the past 50 years have been the most peacefull in human history i really do mean that. Nam, Panima, Iraq War. These are VERY small little things. No where near the carnage that happened in the 19th century wars. Which happened about every 10 years in Euro....

Which would you rather have? The world continuing like it historicly has? With massive bloody horrable war every few years, or a few minor little things and true peace for the vast majority of the world?

posted 12-02-98 05:19 AM ET            

Imran, if you look at Cuba, Nicaragua and Grenada, these were left wing, but not communist governments. I know it's hard for you to see the difference, but it's there. You overthrew Grenada, big deal, you got Nicaragua and Cuba turn to the USSR for help. A bit more diplomatic approach and no support for every freakin' pseudofascist motherf***er would have served the west's interest a lot better than that anticommunist hystery.

Hothram, if you took a history book, you would, for example, find that there has been no war in western europe from 1871-1914, and only (in your definition, I'd guess: minor) conflicts in the balkan at that time.

posted 12-02-98 06:05 PM ET            

Roland, actually, Nicaragua's Sandinistas were Commies as was Cuba. Maybe Castro wasn't that bad, but Che Gueverra (that nut) was definetly a Commie, and he influenced Castro. Think about it though, the US was living in constant fear. European nations would not be as targets as the US, hence the need for friendly governements, in the the Americas (Central and South).

posted 12-03-98 04:59 AM ET            

"Well, there are no drug trafficing laws in the UN or Geneva whatever, or whatever. So sure, Noriega should be tried in the US. It's not a violation of international law, like genocide is."

I really can't see the logic here. Murder is, if you want, an ordinary crime like drug traficking. If the Americans can try Noriega, why can't the spanish try Pinochet ?

That genocide is an international crime means that in the absence of an international court, national courts are competent. The one that gets its hands on the accused - not just that of the home country.

And the more interesting question about Noriega: Did he have head of state immunity ? Is it justified to invade a country for that porpuse ? If the US can invade Panama to get Noriega for drug traficking, would the spanish have the right to invade Chile to get Pinochet ?

"Nicaragua's Sandinistas were Commies"

No, they were/are a left wing group who toppled that corrupt and brutal dictator the US sponsored, just can't remember the name. With the US hostility, they turned more and more left - just the thing that had happened with Cuba.

"the US was living in constant fear"

What ? Fear of what ? Of the united fruit losing a bit of business ?