Asymmetrical Information

The people of Chile should be ashamed that they have chosen to permit Pinochet’s enemies to unceasingly persecute him. It is not justice that they seek, it is revenge for bringing democracy and prosperity to Chile.

I would be less disappointed in this ceaseless persecution if also sought those that created the chaos in Chile. The people who Pinochet waged war with were real, violent and attackers of liberty and peace. The terrorist acts that they perpetuated against Chileans was horrible. Why are they not be activity persecuted? Why are the crimes they committed forgotten? History and liberty demands justice that is balanced and reflective of the truths that empower them.

Finally, Pinochet is the only leader of our time who returned a democratic nation brought to its knees by terrorists back from the brink of chaos. Chile is today a prosperous and democratic state. Pinochet reinvigorated the institutions of the nation and laid the foundations of the most prosperous nation of South America.

While I recognize that Pinochet has many flaws, focusing narrowly upon them at the expense of his great accomplishments if sheer folly. He deserves our respect.

不锈钢反应釜
轴承加热器
浓缩罐
酒精回收塔

My defense of Pinochet was simple, and never had to deal with the merits or demerits of Pinochet himself. Instead it was straightforwardly utilitarian:

If you want dictators to voluntarily give up power, you have to give them the same soverign immunity for their acts in office after they leave office that they have as long as they stay in office. Otherwise, the only rational action for a dictator is to cling to power as long as possible.

Just look at how Fidel Castro freely visited Spain with legal impunity at the same time a Spanish extradition warrant for Pinochet was out. The lesson to dictators from the prosecutions of Pinochet is not, "Refrain from abusing power," but "Refrain from surrendering power, no matter what you have to be to keep it."

What does that comment in Chinese say?

God, I love the Internet.

Frankly judging from the links that come up when I do a mouse-rollover, I think those comments in Chinese are spam. Although I'd love to be proven wrong.

Pinochet was a murderous dictator. By all means put him in jail.

The comment that "Pinochet was a murderous dictator" is only partially correct. Pinochet was a "dictator" but he was not "murderous". The murder and terrorism that the communists unleashed in Chile would be more correctly termed as murderous. They took human lives without the mandate afforded to them by the state. They set off the chain of vents that culminated in the need for Pinochet to take power. Pinochet employed the force necessary to re-establish law and order to the nation. Were there excesses, yes but to focus on the excess without appreciating the context of civil war is not naive but intellectually dishonest. What about pursuing those communists who initiating the civil war behind bars? What about looking at the entire problem with the honesty to guarantee that we learn from the civil war that Chileans created for themselves?

Simon,

You are absolutely right.
In my mind Pinochet is the greatest leader in the second half of the 20th century.

He saved Chile from total Marxist ruin, and brought it to a remarkable free market revolution, much deeper and earlier that the Reagan-Thatcher revolutions. Thanks to that, Chile is now the most succesful and prosperous nation in South America, by far. And he laso restored a vibrant democracy.

The lefties and the press are denigrating him as a monster because he had the temerity to stand up to violent marxist terrorists and annihilate them -there is no bigger crime in the eyes of the left than thwarting their revolutionary and murderous ambitions.

I'm not a Chilean, but I lived there for 2 years during Pinochet's regime, and his free-market revolution was something fantastic to behold. It was no totalitarian state (lamentably I have experienced that horror too).

So, three cheers for Pinochet, and long may he live.

Absolutely! The U.S. needs a Pinochet to torture us to a free market. Bush is a wuss!

Pinopchet also helped the UK against the Argies when the US wanted the whole thing to be over, abandoning its closest ally for the 2nd time (Suez was arguable, but Falklands had no reason for not supporting the brits, except for insane overallegiance to real-politik, aka Scowcroft/Bakerism).

You'll notice that no leftwing dictator that has been froced from power has ever been pursued in the west. We have not pursued the various functionaries that aided and abetted the genocidal policies of the Eastern Block. Anytime that the US comes close to actually enforcing the ideals of the left, the left switches sides and decides that the oppressors are actually heroes (see Serbia, Iraq, China, etc).

Ideally, in the future we will recognize that apology and advocacy for communist regimes is the continual conspiracy to committ crimes against humanity, and will be prosecuted as such.

Yeah, I second that. No leftie murderer is ever indicted by the "west" or any international body - why, they aren't even censured. Castro, the destroyer af nations and murderer of thousands gets red carpet treatement everywhere. And the murderer Che is a cult figure !

I undestand that Chile is a far away place, and people don't really know what happened there, except what they read in the biased leftie media.Of course the media would not applaud a free market revolution. (They didn't have many kind words for Reagan or Thatcher either). Actually, that is one of the things they hold agains Pinochet, that he didn't beleive in Socialism !

Come on, don't be taken in so easily !

Blah, I'm so sick of this. I spend so much time hearing from left-wingers about how Castro, Mao, and Lenin were heroes, and then I come here and have to hear about how great Pinochet was. No doubt you'll all start defending Franco next--why, he saved Spain from Communism!

Dictators are evil. Period. Left-wing, right-wing--anyone who rules by force rather than consent is violating fundamental human rights. This really shouldn't be that difficult a concept.

"Dictators are evil. "

Maybe.
But not every country has managed to have the "ideal" democratic government. We don't know exactly why, but it's a fact. Maybe 4/5 have undemocratic governments.

And among undemocratic regimes - some are more evil that others, and some are better. And among democratic regimes - some are better and some are worse. And some democratic regimes are worse that other undemocratic regimes. (Iran ?)

"No doubt you'll all start defending Franco next--why, he saved Spain from Communism!"

Yes, I will. He did! Saving a country from communism is no trivial accomplishment. You probably haven't had the "privilege" to live under communism. The saviour may have had some warts of his own, but such is life. You don't always get a perfect savior.

I will point out that I've also opposed the pursuit of Daniel Ortega on during-reign charges. If you don't let dictators retire peacefully and safely, then you are pushing dictators into the position where they must continue to oppress people to stay personally safe.

Now, hunt down overthrown disctators all you like. That will be useful, and it will also give dictators an incentive to hand over power peacefully instead of clinging to the end. And if we could get a consensus on going after them in office, that would even be better.

But with things they are now, those who retire should be given amnesty. The alternative is to promote continued repression.

Franco is a hero. He saved his country from world communism. Leftist liberals and communists flocked to over through reason with insanity. Franco led the fight against these nihilistic forces.

This left our nihilistic liberal friends to encourage the Eastern bloc and China to flush millions down the toilet in the name of the idea of the “people” . I have not heard a single one of these liberal swine apologize for the tremendous harm they supported in the name of liberty.

The leftist left speaks of democracy and liberty but only for themselves. The rest of humanity is not worthy of the right. Thus they condemn the President of the US for bringing democracy to Iraq. Oh, the compassion they have for the idea of liberty.

It's ironical that western liberals cast Pinochet as a demon even as they fete Castro as a good guy and celebrate Che Guevara (the murderer of thousands of innocents in Cuba when he presided over the firing squads), as some kind of latter day Jesus.

I have little respect for people whose reputations and livlihoods derive from the exertions of capitalism, and yet who have no qualms about propping up the worst type of leftist ideologues.

Funny, I thought the post was about Pinochet, not Castro. There are murderous dictators on the left, and there are murderous dictators on the right. Neither are to be commended.

Anyway, as one of those effete western liberals who's getting reamed in the comments, I have to say that I'm no great fan of Castro. And I have to say that the other effete western liberals whom I call my friends (fellow travelers, all) have no great love of the Cuban dictator, either.

Franco is a hero. He saved his country from world communism. Leftist liberals and communists flocked to over through reason with insanity. Franco led the fight against these nihilistic forces.

Do you even know what the word "nihilist" means? Here's a hint: It's not the same as "communist" or "liberal," although you apparently think it is. Whatever you think about communism and liberalism, you can't accuse them of lacking values and ideals.

Don't worry too much about nihilism. Self-proclaimed nihilists are basically cowardly posers--didn't you ever see "The Big Lebowski?" If you want to see what nihilists are up these days, read some Jean Baudrillard. But please, do us all a favor and stop calling people nihilists who aren't really nihilists. You sound like a grumpy old Catholic.

Frankenstein,

Funny, I thought the post was about Pinochet, not Castro. There are murderous dictators on the left, and there are murderous dictators on the right. Neither are to be commended.

"I have to say that I'm no great fan of Castro. And I have to say that the other effete western liberals whom I call my friends (fellow travelers, all) have no great love of the Cuban dictator, either."

Whatever your personal views - Castro is given red carpet treatement by most governments and international organizations - lately - in France and Spain. Mybe that is not due to those "effete western liberals " that you say you are one of, but caused by some other mysterious forces - maybe the MSM, which is dominated by aliens from outer space....

Libertine,

Your camplaint of the (maybe) incorrect use of the term "nihilist" avoids the main issue, which is: those communists and anarchists, had they won the civil war, would have really, and catastrophally destroyed Spain, killing and impoverishing millions.

Looks like Ms. McArdle's latest comment really flushed out the fanatics. Well, as Mark Falcoff -- who frequently writes for the American Spectator -- pointed out in the New Republic in a Sept. 7, 1987 article, Pinochet wasn't just "anti-Communist": he was explicitly "fascist", opposed to democracy itself in principle. In his 1980 autobiography "The Decisive Day", he declares that electoral democracy ALWAYS degenerates into Communist totalitarianism, and that the only workable human society is a fascist one run by an alliance of wealthy businessmen and the military -- which, as even Milton Friedman has pointed out, also means that Pinochet was in favor of "crony capitalism" rather than the real thing. Falcoff: "Like most authoritarian regimes of the Right, the Chilean government is anti-political, rather than just anti-Communist."

Fortunately, Falcoff was wrong in his prediction that Pinochet would rig the 1988 plebiscite to assure his victory, and that the rest of the Chilean military would follow him -- that is, "march blindly off the precipice of history and take an entire country with it." For whatever reason, he DIDN'T so rig the plebiscite, and the military refused to follow him in any attempt to stay in power in spite of its results. The former may have been partly due to the latter -- that is, the more intelligent military officers had concluded that Chile was being slowly destroyed by a nitwit, and were not after all willing to let him continue to do so against the wishes of the people. But I've heard an extraordinary story, whose accuracy I can't judge, that Pinochet and his wife (who apparently encouraged him to be extreme) were ardent believers in numeralogy, who picked the date of the plebiscite in the confident belief that the Magical Power of Number would take over the minds of Chile's voters and compel a majority of them to vote for him. All one can say is that such ignorance would mesh well with his political theories (and that it also matches well with the stated belief of the simultaneous Argentine junta that Einstein was responsible for a large part of the 20th century 's political woes because his theory of relativity was linked to moral relitivism -- and to the fact that, like Marx and Freud, he was Jewish).

And, while we're on the subject of "double standards", it was Jeane Kirkpatrick who solemnly announced -- in her famous "Commentary article of the same title -- that right-wing dictators are inevitably far less malevolent than left-wing ones, and that the "totalitarian" states of the latter virtually never collapse bloodlessly, unlike the regimes of the former. She wrote this about half a decade before the Soviet Union totally disproved her hypothesis, which may explain why we're heard very little from or about her since. As for Franco, how the hell do we know what would have happened if the Left had won the Spanish Civil War, since they were an amalgam of groups some of whom were far more democratic than others? (Which explains why Stalin was unwilling to give them any major assistance; he was terrified that a genuinely democratic left-wing state might draw the allegiance of the world's socialists away from his own regime. Instead, the Spanish Communists, on his orders, devoted a large part of their energies to trying to stab the coalition's democratic leftists in the back, rather than fighting Franco.)

I want some of whatever you people are smoking, because it must be good.

Libertine-

The word nihilist is correctly used in my post. I would suggest that it is you who does not understand the meaning of the word. I would go a step further and ask you to actually read Jean Baudrillard or Friedrich Nietzsche (and not just the book jacket or back cover).

The reference to nihilism is simple, most leftist and liberals when pushed will not accept any set of values to be foundational. Further, they hide in rhetorical sophistry when challenged and insist that nothing can be known or effectively communicated. These are the two core elements of nihilism my friend Libertine. Feel free to re-watch "The Big Lebowski?" if it makes you feel like an intellectual.

Jacob: Only 1/5 of the world's nations are democratic? You're very behind the times. According to Freedom House's latest report, 46% of independent states are rated "free", and another 28% are rated "partly free". Those numbers go up every year.

No, I've never lived under Communism, and I'm very glad. I'm *also* glad I've never lived under Fascism. I refuse to draw a distinction between the two. As Hayek observed, they're just two small variations of anti-liberal socialism.

I'm stunned by your moral relativism. Franco's being a fascist dictator, just like Hitler and Mussolini, is a "wart"? Dictatorships are only "maybe" evil?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the right has the same kind of cranks found on the Democratic Underground boards, but I *am* surprised that they would wander over to such a literate, thoughtful, and moderate blog such as Jane's.

kim,

there are a lot of people on the right who see pinochet as a rather benevolent dictator. no one said he didn't commit crimes, nor that he was a political genius. we did say that he did good things and is being persecuted by the in ternational left in a manner that they don't use on their own, far greater, criminals.

on the franco point... there were no good sides to the spanish civil war. like the eastern front in WWII. given his rule, he ended up being better than the alternative, and he wasn't genocidal. now normally thats not much of an accomplishment or reccommendation, but given our history in the lsat century, it's actually saying something.

In September 1974 in Buenos Aires members of the secret police force established by Pinochet, DINA, exploded a car bomb that took the life of General Carlos Prats, the man who preceded Pinochet as commander of the Armed Forces and his wife.

In October 1975, members of DINA contracted with Stefano Delle Chiae, a neofascist (who later went on to bomb Bologna's train station in 1980 killing some 85 people) to assassinate Bernardo Leighton, the co-founder of the Christian Democratic Party in Chile who opposed Pinochet and lived in exile in Rome. Leighton and his wife were wounded in the attempt.

In September 1974 DINA set off a car bomb in Washington, DC that killed Orlando Letelier, an exiled former minister under Allende and Ronni Moffitt a 25 year old newlywed US citizen.

There's a word to describe these acts: terrorism

So, in those days of calls for moral clarity on terrorism, it seems to me that if you support Pinochet, then you support terrorism.

As for Allende's rule, I heartily recommend this article in The Economist. Here's a short excerpt:

For further evidence, go to a source of the time: The Economist, non-Chilean but firmly critical of Allende and what its then Chile specialist was later to entitle his savagely critical book, “Chile’s Marxist Experiment”. That title was in fact overblown. Allende’s economics were, approximately, Marxist and certainly disastrous. Not so the political system he ran. The opposition press and parties carried on. So did elections, and even in March 1973 the regime could win only 44% of the vote for Congress. Still, this paper was deeply suspicious, and the more so—in those days of raging cold war—because of Allende’s friendship with Fidel Castro.

I am a left-leaner who detests Fidel Castro, the Sandinistas, have no use for Hugo Chávez and vigorously supports the dissidents who have been jailed under Castro's regime. I have corresponded with Claudia Marquez Linares, the wife of one of them who has been released (she is now in the US).

I certainly won't defend any dictator regardless of their political leanings. Mores the pity that some here seem compelled to do so.

The word nihilist is correctly used in my post. I would suggest that it is you who does not understand the meaning of the word. I would go a step further and ask you to actually read Jean Baudrillard or Friedrich Nietzsche (and not just the book jacket or back cover).

Way ahead of you, Emando. If you're looking for arch, ironic discourse about precessions of simulacra, hyperreality, image seduction and what have you, well, I can give you that, although I frankly don't care much for Baudrillard. But I'd be more than happy to discuss Nietzsche with you, since anyone who insists he's a nihilist obviously hasn't read him very carefully. Don't take my word for it: Here's the Big N himself on the topic:

"The faith in the categories of reason is the cause of nihilism. We have measured the value of the world according to categories that refer to a purely fictitious world." ("Will to Power," Walter Kaufmann, 13)

[Comment: The "categories of reason" Nietzsche refers to are of the otherworldly and metaphysical sort--Platonic and Christian--that posit a "true" world (hence, "Truth" with a capital T) beyond the "apparent" world (i.e. the world you and I actually live in). He's not attacking scientific reason or empiricism in general, a common mistake of those who conceive of Nietzche as either a symptom of romanticism or postmodern prophet.

It's also important to remember that Nietzsche believed that nihilism is primarily a consequence of Platonism and Christianity--the result of thousands of years of believig in a ficitious, impossible "true world" that is the source of all value and meaning. The falling away of the shroud, the disintegration of illusional comfort of an absolute, infallible standard and measure of things produces a psychological counter-reaction which supposedly turns us into either depraved anarcho-destroyers ("active" nihilism) or self-narcotizing, hedonistic consumers, i.e. "democratic man," or "last man"--or, alternatively, Buddhists (!) ("passive" nihilism).]

Would you like to hear more? Here's another:

Nihilism is the "belief in valuelessness... the most extreme form of nihilism would be the view that every belief, every considering-something-true, is necessarily false because there simply is no true world."

[Comment: This quotation shows why it's an error to conceive of nihilism in strictly moral terms. The "true" nihilist--if such a person can even be said to exist, or ever existed--is not just someone who is an atheist, disbelieves in all morals, and likes to torture kittens. A bona fide nihilist must also reject the very *possibility* of a world that can be described accurately under *any* mode of analysis. That means no science, no mathematics, no empiricism, no morals, no economics, no anything. In short, a bona fide nihilist is basically someone who subscribes to a "Matrix" worldview and believes with his heart of hearts that nothing is real nor ever can be real.]

Interestingly, Nietzsche did at one point refer to himself as a nihilist--but this is simply because he believed that nihilism was a necessary stage of mankind's history, and a purely transitional one at that. It was, in fact, "a normal condition." (See 17, Kaufmann) I'll leave you with this:

"Nihilism represents a pathological transitional stage...The nihilistic question "for what" is rooted in the old habit of supposing that the goal must be put up, given, demanded from outside--by some superhuman authority. Having unlearned faith in that, one still follows the old habit and seek another authority that can speak unconditionally and command goals and tasks. The authority of conscience now steps up front (the more emancipated one is from theology, the more imperativistic morality becomes) to compensate for the loss of a personal authority. Or the authority of reason. Or the social instinct (the herd). Or history with an immanent spirit and a goal within, so one can entrust oneself to it. One wants to get around the will, the willing of a goal, the risk of positing for oneself; one wants to rid oneself of the responsibility (one would accept fatalism). Finally, happiness--and, with a touch of Tartuffe, the happiness of the greatest number.

[The bolded section is my emphasis, since I think it gets at the root of what separates nihilists from Nietzsche's vision of man's becoming--the nihilist does not believe that any goals are possible, so he posits none and wishes to achieve none. A Nietzschean perspective, even recognizing that absolute "goals" and "values" in the Platonic sense are illusory, wills these goals and values into existence by the sheer power of one's creativity and affirmation. If you want the vulgarized version of this, read any Ayn Rand book. (The problem with the Nietzschean perspective, of course, is that violence and oppression can be means of enforcing one's goals and values on other people. Which is why I think it's best to temper Nietzschean creativity/will to power-ness with a healthy dose of liberal humanism.)

I think it should be obvious at least that communism is definitely not nihilism, for the reason that communism is very history-oriented. A Marxist believes that communism is the inevitable historical outcome of capitalism, though who knows how long it'll take for history to reach that point. A nihilist would find this claim ridiculous, since he doesn't believe in "history" anyway.

As for liberalism, I don't think they can be tarred with the nihilist brushstroke, either. I don't buy that all, or even most, or even any, liberals believe that communication is impossible and that foundational values are imposible (Richard Rorty is the closest I can think of who comes to this view, but even he doesn't want there to be no values, period). Seems to be that liberals are very keen on imposing "their" values on the rest of us, no?

Bruce Moomaw,

A few years ago General Matthei, who was head of the air force at the time of the 1988 plebscite, said in an interview on Chilean television that the night of the plebiscite when the results were coming in and Pinochet appeared to be losing, he wanted to send the troops out on the street and suspend the vote. General Matthei, the commander of the Caribineros and the commander of the Navy all said forget it. There is video footage of Matthei arriving at La Moneda the night of the plebiscite and being asked about the results and stated that it appeared that the “No” vote (i.e. no to Pinochet) had won and said “We are calm.”

The opening chapter of the inevitable "Democracy and Its Discontents" will no doubt cite threads such as these as evidence of an inate human desire to be ruled by a king, hindered primarily by an equally innate human inability to agree on what political ideals the king ought to espouse.

"I'm stunned by your moral relativism. Franco's being a fascist dictator, just like Hitler and Mussolini, is a "wart"? "

I'm stunned by your moral relativism, or ignorance or whatever.

Hitler was a instincive murderer, a mass murderer, he started by murdering in cold blood the co-chairman of his own party - Rohm, a short time after gaining power. He was a mad murderer.

Franco was nothing of the sort. He was basically a decent soldier. Bundling both together is preposterous.
Seems the term "fascist" clouds you mind and turns off judgement.

Dictators come in different kinds and flavours. To claim: "a dictator is a dictator" is a wild oversimplification. Some are indeed "benevolent" dictators, others are murderous dictators. Not all are the same.
Nevertheless, you are wllcome to dislike them all and dream of a world where there are no dictators. Utopia is so enticing !

And one should also judge by the end result: leaving behind a peaceful, democratic and prosperous nation, where chaos and ruin reigned before, is a remarkable acheivement.

As to Pinochet being "rejected" by the Chilean people in 1987 - he was, but barely. He lost 46%-54% in that plesbicite. Though nobody likes dictators, a very great part of the chilean people approved of his regime.

(I apologize that my remarks can be seen as a stain upon this great blog, and I declare hereby, that my opinions are not those of the management).

I'll agree that not all dictators are all the same. Cromwell is a case in point. As far as England is concerned, he is largely responsible for several hundred yaers of vibrant parliamentary democracy and a throne that no longer steps out of line.
Yes, I know he did bad things in Ireland, but that supports the point that things are rarely black and white.

Warmonger writes: "If you want dictators to voluntarily give up power, you have to give them the same soverign immunity for their acts in office after they leave office that they have as long as they stay in office. Otherwise, the only rational action for a dictator is to cling to power as long as possible."

Then how do you dissuade them from behaving that way in the first place, hmm?

Your approach would signal to totalitarian freaks that, if they can seize power, they are free to abuse it and get their rocks off in the torture chambers.

Jacob,

I take it you're a big fan of the free-market Communists in China?

I, personally, hope Pinochet dies a long, drawn-out death, preferably from an extremely painful form of cancer, metastasized throughout his body.

And the same for anyone who supports dictators.

emando writes: "This left our nihilistic liberal friends to encourage the Eastern bloc and China to flush millions down the toilet in the name of the idea of the “people” . I have not heard a single one of these liberal swine apologize for the tremendous harm they supported in the name of liberty."

What? I was born in 1971. It's a bit much to try to pin China and Eastern Europe on me.

Nutjob. Fuck off.

gazzer writes: "I'll agree that not all dictators are all the same. Cromwell is a case in point."

Perhaps, but non-Dictators were pretty scarce in his day. So it's easy for him to look relatively good in comparison.

Still ended up with his head on a pike, tho.

Jon H
"Nutjob. Fuck off."

I was going to reply to your first comment, but given the above, I won't.

"Your approach would signal to totalitarian freaks that, if they can seize power, they are free to abuse it and get their rocks off in the torture chambers."

And that's different from the current approach with the leaders of, for example, China, Cuba, North Korea, and Syria? We already, as a practical matter, grant dictators immunity for their crimes -- as long as they manage to hold on to power. Which creates the perverse incentive to commit more of those crimes to hang on to power.

Consider the effects it would have if the criminal justice system worked that way. "Look, Tony is a current capo, so we can't go after him. But Johnny the Icepick? He just quit the Mob in disgust and offered to turn state's evidence, so let's indict him." What rational person would suggest this approach?

"Then how do you dissuade them from behaving that way in the first place, hmm?"

Go after reigning dictators, instead of retirees. Next time Castro vistis Spain, arrest him. Mugabe goes to a UN conference? Never goes home again, unless a successor democratic government requests his extradition for trial. Deny sovereign immunity.

Now that they're staying home, make serious efforts to drive them from power at home. If they're running weak enough countries, use military force to overthrow them, seize them, try them, and (IMO) hang them. If they're running China, well, there's a practical limit to what you can do, unfortunately, but provide support, sanctuary, and the like to the opposition.

But if you leave reigning dictators alone while going after dictators when they've stopped killing and oppressing, you aren't discouraging anybody from seizing and abusing power; you're merely discouraging people from ceasing to hold and abuse power. Which is utterly perverse.

It's more than just tax-evasion. Pinochet accumulated a fortune of US$23 million on a salary of about US10 thousand per year. It is widely believed that he got bribes from arms dealers while he was still in charge of the military (which was until 1998). He held this money in overseas accounts under false names, largely with the aid of Riggs Bank. When his offices were inspected, false passports were discovered for Pinochet.

This was all discovered under a US Senate investigation into Riggs Bank and money laundering. That's what they did for Pinochet. That's the sort of things that criminals and terrorists do.

Pinochet was also one of the architects of Operation Condor. One of their plots was a contract taken out on then US Congressman Ed Koch because he opposed military aid to Uruguay's military dictatorship. DINA agents were going to carry out the assassination.

As for Castr, a lawsuit was filed against him in Belgium that could have had him tried there. However, the Bush administration pressured Belgium to amend its law and thus mooted the suit.

Warmongering Lunatic,
Extremely well put.

Jon H,

I, personally, hope Pinochet dies a long, drawn-out death, preferably from an extremely painful form of cancer, metastasized throughout his body.

And the same for anyone who supports dictators.

Hmm...I assume you'll include Chomsky, "Gorgeous" Gerorge Galloway, and all of the Hollywood folks engaged in an ongoing love-in with Castro in your blanket damnation. Or is it only intended for dicatators you disagree with?

I, personally, hope Pinochet dies a long, drawn-out death, preferably from an extremely painful form of cancer, metastasized throughout his body.

The worst thing you can imagine upon your enemy is always less than the worst thing that could happen to you, and has probably already happened to someone who gave no appearance of deserving it. Instead of reveling in nasty thoughts, how about moving the present discussion forward on its merits?

My opinion:

While dictators hang onto their power, we should keep trying to get them killed. Cruise missiles, support to revolutionaries, whatever it takes, but reserve invasions with US forces (ala Iraq) for cases where overthrowing them is not only a good thing for their people and the world, but it greatly advances American interests. If they survive being overthrown, they should pay for their crimes. Saddam should have been hanged already.

However, to encourage them to step down voluntarily, give them a chance to arrange immunity from prosecution in exchange for stepping down, and stick to such deals if they were made. IIRC, Pinochet falls in this category.

Finally, that only refers to criminal prosecution. Allow civil lawsuits from the people the dictator abused and their survivors until every dollar they stole has been taken from them. I think it would be quite appropriate for Pinochet to end his days free, but dying of cancer in a charity ward.

"...we should keep trying to get them killed. "

Yeah, dicators bad, bad, bad.... kill them, cruise missile them ....
Such shrill, infantile sloganeering !

Some dicatotors are very bad, others less so. You have to judge each dictator by what he actually does, not just chant "kill... kill.. kill..".

For example: would you kill Musharaf in Pakistan, only to get there an Islamist tyranny like in Iran ?
We live in an imperfect world, sometimes relatively benign dictators are the best alternative available. Some democracies have been very inept and corrupt, and managed to destroy the economy of a country. There are many factors you need to consider.

And acheivemnts of dictators count for nothing ? Saving a country from communism (mass murder regimes) gets you no credits ? Sometimes dictator B grabs power after deposing dictator A which was really bad - what do you do ? Kill B too ?

To the folks that love Pinochet and Franco:

Before you make even a limited defense of these guys, you should at least appreciate just what they did.

Pinochet overthrew a democratically elected government, and ruled as a dictator for over a decade. You can say what you will about Salvador Allende's leadership, but the Chilean people chose him. Pinochet and his cohorts had no right to overturn the results of the Chilean elections. To say that Pinochet brought "democracy" to Chile is thus one of the most Orwellian statements anyone could ever make.

Additionally, Pinochet executed over 3,000 Chilean leftists in the national soccer stadium, most of whom were guilty of nothing more than having political views that Pinochet disagreed with. He also, as someone else noted, collaborated with other right-wing dicatorships in South America to engineer some of the most infamous human rights abuses of the period, including "disappearances" of political opponents of the military regimes, and dropping people out of planes over the ocean with no parachute.

Finally, Pinochet was a state sponsor of terrorism in the United States. This puts him in a class with few other people. His government set off a car bomb in Washington D.C. that killed a well-known Chilean dissident. His protectors in Washington never redressed this awful crime.

As for Franco, it wasn't just that he was a dictator. He suppressed all artistic freedom in his country for 30 years. Talk to any Spaniard who lived through his reign. Homosexuals were jailed. Bohemian cafes were shuttered. Movies and books were censored. Imagine giving Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson dictatorial powers-- that's what Franco did to Spain, which before and after his rule maintained one of the great and interesting cultures on earth.

If you still want to argue that these folks were better than the Communists, fine. But spare me the crap about how they "saved" Chile and Spain and brought "democracy" and "freedom" to those countries. That's easy to say if you weren't one of the people that they arrested, tortured, or killed.

Comments are Closed.