# Augusto Pinochet ha muerto



## Víctor Pérez

Lamento que Augusto Pinochet haya muerto:

ningún dictador, tirano o torturador debería morir antes de recibir la condena formal de la justicia de su pueblo.

¿Creéis que el dictador recibió esta condena o pensáis que no se hizo justicia?


----------



## maxiogee

To believe that Pinochet 'received' a sentence one would need to be a believer in a God, or in a retributive 'fate'. I don't believe in either. 
What 'sentence' is it to kill an man aged 91, some 33 years after his crimes began? 
If there is a 'fate' or a God who dispenses such justice, I'd like to think it happened more contemporaneously with the offence. 
There is a well-known saying "Justice delayed is justice denied".


----------



## Víctor Pérez

A sentence is not necessarely to kill anybody, Tony. I don't believe in divine justice (as I don't believe in God) but I don't beleive neither in the death penalty (sorry if I misunderstood you).

Sure that "Justice delayed is justice denied" but as far as a dictator is alive, does'nt matter how long ago he did his crimes to be condamned by the Justice.


----------



## TimeHP

I'm against the death penalty. 
But I also think that the horrible crimes Pinochet and his men committed couldn't have been repaired in no way and with no sentence...

Ciao


----------



## Lemminkäinen

While I unfortunately can't claim to understand the question, I'll just say that I agree with maxiogee (though any sentence would have been better than none. On the other hand, he will receive the sentence of history).

I won't shed any tears for his demise. Good riddance.


----------



## Víctor Pérez

Of course not, TimeHP, but I think that the families of the victims would be "satisfied" if they saw him in jale por the rest of his life.


----------



## Layzie

Tristemente, lo mismo pasara con Fidel Castro. Va morir sin recibir justicicia.


----------



## ElaineG

I'm not Chilean, of course, but I find it frustrating that he was able to escape justice for so long and to die in a luxorious exile, rich with the money he looted from the Chilean people.

He should have died in jail.


----------



## panjabigator

No matter how old he was, there is no reason to deny the Chilean people their justice.  So even if he were to spend one day and prison and then die by natural causes, justice would have been served.

Even though you and I KNOW he was a criminal, it was important that the Chilean goverment also convict him as one.  Now he'll never get that.

Side note:  Maybe a new Isabelle Allende novel out of this...


----------



## caballoschica

would one day really serve justice? I'm not sure.  Justice probably can never be served in this instance. What is justice? is it just a sentence? or is it social isolation and/or ridicule?  I do believe that dead people can be convicted of crimes. Maybe he will be. I'm an advocate of life in prison rather than the death penalty.  I actually think jail time is a harsher punishment.  They're isolated from society, with in mates, and don't have the ability to be "put down" while they're miserable.  I just don't like the death penalty in general, though.


----------



## danielfranco

I wonder if dead people can still somehow know we think about them....
If so:

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I hope in the last thirty years you understood at least once all the suffering and pain you caused, or allowed to be caused in your name, and that you learned to feel remorse, and that remorse will be the only thing left to you in the darkness of oblivion.

In other words (as we might say around these here parts): f**k you, and the horse you rode in on, Pinochet!

[On behalf of some of my Chilean friends, who lost loved ones to his regime]

Dan F.


----------



## .   1

May I suggest that he be sent to Coventry and no one should speak his name.  He should just be 'the bad one' or something faintly demeaning but his name should not be glorified.
Dictators hate to be ignored.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Lemminkäinen said:


> While I unfortunately can't claim to understand the question, I'll just say that I agree with maxiogee (though any sentence would have been better than none. On the other hand, he will receive the sentence of history).
> 
> I won't shed any tears for his demise. Good riddance.





panjabigator said:


> No matter how old he was, there is no reason to deny the Chilean people their justice.  So even if he were to spend one day and prison and then die by natural causes, justice would have been served.
> 
> Even though you and I KNOW he was a criminal, it was important that the Chilean goverment also convict him as one.  Now he'll never get that.
> 
> Side note:  Maybe a new Isabelle Allende novel out of this...





caballoschica said:


> would one day really serve justice? I'm not sure.  Justice probably can never be served in this instance. What is justice? is it just a sentence? or is it social isolation and/or ridicule?  I do believe that dead people can be convicted of crimes. Maybe he will be. I'm an advocate of life in prison rather than the death penalty.  I actually think jail time is a harsher punishment.  They're isolated from society, with in mates, and don't have the ability to be "put down" while they're miserable.  I just don't like the death penalty in general, though.



Linking these, I think the true 'sentence' is the official acknowledgement that his crimes took place, and that we know he did was behind them. That  may require that he be _tried in mortis_ (my attempt at a legalese expression akin to being _trial in absentia_) and that no official sentence be passed on him (maybe it would be possible to pass one his bank accounts!).
The true sentence is indeed the knowledge among the people that he was guilty, and that the state recognise this. The Chileans do not need, at some remove from now, to have the equivalent of a David Irving spreading Piochet denial b*llsh*t.


----------



## Fernando

As said about old age, "It is bad untill you have in mind the alternative".

I must remain that Pinochet has not been punished because he gave up on the understanding (constitutionally stated) that he would not be.

In many cases (S Africa, El Salvador, Nicaragua, S Korea, Spain, etc.) the agreement with the dictator/the ruling government is: "Relinquish your  power and you will not be punished". The alternative is the continuity of the dictator till death. 

Should Cubans oppositors, as an example, make a deal with Castro or should they try to take him to a court? 

In Spain we have, walking unmolested, many criminals of the Spanish Civil War (from both sides) and the repression after it. Should we pubish them?

The answer in both cases is unclear to me.

Meanwhile, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and others much worse than Pinochet have died in bed.


----------



## Cecilio

Last night I was watching a Chilean TV channel at home and there was live coverage of the event. In the centre of Santiago a multitude had gathered to celebrate the death of the dictator. They were throwing confetti and drinking champagne as if it was New Year and some of the participants spoke on the mike to express their joy.

I don't like this. I think there's something wrong in celebrating somebody's death.


----------



## danielfranco

Because of their conscious and deliberate actions, I think it might be also wrong to celebrate their life. As a matter of fact, the most neutral thing one can do about those kind of people well exemplified in Fernando's post is _*to deplore their existence.*_


----------



## TimeHP

> worse than Pinochet


 
Is it possible to be 'worse or better' when you are a killer and a bestial torturer that makes women raped by dogs? And that just 'cancels' people because you don't like them? 
No joy, no sadness for the death of Pinochet. No thoughts for men like him.
Only a prayer: I hope the world can be free from criminals of that kind...


----------



## Fernando

TimeHP said:


> Is it possible to be 'worse or better' when you are a killer and a bestial torturer that make women raped by dogs?



Indeed it is. Pinochet killed thousands, Pol Pot killed hundreds of thousands, Hitler killed millions.


----------



## cristina friz

Cecilio said:


> Last night I was watching a Chilean TV channel at home and there was live coverage of the event. In the centre of Santiago a multitude had gathered to celebrate the death of the dictator. They were throwing confetti and drinking champagne as if it was New Year and some of the participants spoke on the mike to express their joy.
> 
> I don't like this. I think there's something wrong in celebrating somebody's death.


 

Cecilio, I agree with you !


----------



## TimeHP

> I don't like this. I think there's something wrong in celebrating somebody's death.


 
Maybe you're right. Maybe I wouldn't have acted like this.
But how can we judge them?
Have you had a brother or a child or your mother kidnapped, tortured and killed by a criminal dictator? 

It's easy to be correct and wise when you are looking at someone's else tragedy...
Sorry, but I think we don't have the right to judge the relatives of the victimes now.


----------



## Etcetera

I believe in God, so I can believe that Pinochet has finally received his sentence from the Almighty himself. 
There is indeed something wrong in celebrating one's death, but the Chileans know better.


----------



## ernest_

Don't forget who was behind the Chilean coup of 1973: Henry Kissinger and the USA. I remember when Pinochet was arrested in London, Margaret Thatcher said how sorry she was that a good friend of hers was having a hard-time.

No offense to my English and American mates, but at this point one has to ask why some dictators are so bad (think of Castro, Hussein...) while others are not only tolerated but backed with political and economic support.


----------



## Cecilio

Etcetera said:


> I believe in God, so I can believe that Pinochet has finally received his sentence from the Almighty himself.
> There is indeed something wrong in celebrating one's death, but the Chileans know better.



I assume that the Chileans who went out to celebrate Pinochet's death in public do not represent the majority of the population, in the sense that most Chileans must have other ways of expressing their feelings.

When I see people celebrating someone's death what I really see is people exhibiting their hate.


----------



## cristina friz

Of course, they do not represent the majority of the population.


----------



## badgrammar

I have a very hard time understanding how anyone outside of Chile would pass judgement on Chileans who celebrate the passing of the mot vilainous criminal their country ever knew.  They had reason to hate him.  Of course those who hate him celebrate his death.  Why on earth would they, should they not? 

It's not like thy killed him, for Pete's sake, he died comfy in bed at the age of 91!


----------



## Cecilio

badgrammar said:


> I have a very hard time understanding how anyone outside of Chile would pass judgement on Chileans who celebrate the passing of the mot vilainous criminal their country ever knew.  They had reason to hate him.  Of course those who hate him celebrate his death.  Why on earth would they, should they not?
> 
> It's not like thy killed him, for Pete's sake, he died comfy in bed at the age of 91!



Hate engenders hate. In Chile and elsewhere.


----------



## TimeHP

> I assume that the Chileans who went out to celebrate Pinochet's death in public do not represent the majority of the population, in the sense that most Chileans must have other ways of expressing their feelings.
> 
> When I see people celebrating someone's death what I really see is people exhibiting their hate.


 
Or their relief...
Really, I can't understand you. 
This is the only thing that makes you worry?
They are not damaging anyone, aren't they?
Everyone has a different way to express his feelings, and, as I've already said, we have no right of judging them.



> No offense to my English and American mates, but at this point one has to ask why some dictators are so bad (think of Castro, Hussein...) while others are not only tolerated but backed with political and economic support.


 
Right.


----------



## badgrammar

Cecilio said:


> Hate engenders hate. In Chile and elsewhere.



And so...? 

Yes, what Pinochet did surely engendered a lot of hate.  That people celebrate his death may be a symbolic way for those folks to have closure, to celebrate the death of someone who embodied hate.  Why should you/would you judge their actions?


----------



## Cecilio

badgrammar said:


> And so...?
> 
> Yes, what Pinochet did surely engendered a lot of hate.  That people celebrate his death may be a symbolic way for those folks to have closure, to celebrate the death of someone who embodied hate.  Why should you/would you judge their actions?



Someone who expresses their opinions of feelings in public is open to public criticism.

It is 'generally' assumed that Pinochet was a horrible person. What about the people who so openly show their hate to the world? Should we assume that they're 'good people'? Should I trust them? Is their hate better than any other type of hate?

What is the aim of this thread? To get people together in a celebration of hate? Am I a 'bad person' if I don't share these people's hate?


----------



## cristina friz

TimeHP said:


> Or their relief...
> Really, I can't understand you.
> This is the only thing that makes you worry?
> *They are not damaging anyone, aren't they?*
> Everyone has a different way to express his feelings, and, as I've already said, we have no right of judging them.
> 
> -----
> 
> Apart from Celebrating they have destroyed the streets, the shop-windows, the traffic signals, etc...


----------



## danielfranco

I understand what Cecilio is trying to say. He personally wouldn't consider correct or appropriate to celebrate a person's death. Life is sacrosanct. 
So. He's not passing judgment on the people who do celebrate Pinochet's death. He's just stating his personal preference.
Maybe I misunderstand, but it's the principle of the thing, I suppose.


----------



## Zoowärter

as has been stated, he died aged 91(!) in his bed.
and yes, we can "generally" assume, that someone is not a good person, if he tortures people and commits other crimes. personally, i still did not hate him, yet i find it quite "fitting" that he died on the international day of human rights.


----------



## Cecilio

danielfranco said:


> I understand what Cecilio is trying to say. He personally wouldn't consider correct or appropriate to celebrate a person's death. Life is sacrosanct.
> So. He's not passing judgment on the people who do celebrate Pinochet's death. He's just stating his personal preference.
> Maybe I misunderstand, but it's the principle of the thing, I suppose.



More or less. I'm not judging the Chilean society or history. I'm giving my opinion about this portion of the Chilean population who would go out to the street to celebrate Pinochet's death. Some of them, by the way, were holding flags of the former Soviet Union (I saw it live on TV). No comment.


----------



## Etcetera

Cecilio said:


> More or less. I'm not judging the Chilean society or history. I'm giving my opinion about this portion of the Chilean population who would go out to the street to celebrate Pinochet's death. Some of them, by the way, were holding flags of the former Soviet Union (I saw it live on TV). No comment.


Did they really?!
But why?
I honestly can't understand that...


----------



## danielfranco

Cecilio said:


> Last night I was watching a Chilean TV channel at home and there was live coverage of the event. In the centre of Santiago a multitude had gathered to celebrate the death of the dictator. They were throwing confetti and drinking champagne as if it was New Year and some of the participants spoke on the mike to express their joy.
> 
> I don't like this. I think there's something wrong in celebrating somebody's death.



Although, to be fair to all of us who have actually taken it _*personally*_ about Augusto Pinochet's death, I'm quite certain it would have been a bit less polemic to soften some statements with a slightly less judgmental tone, especially since we seem to be rather emotional about the death of this particular d*ckwad. Pardon my....
Stow that.
I meant it.
Is all.


----------



## Cecilio

Etcetera said:


> Did they really?!
> But why?
> I honestly can't understand that...



I must say that maybe I'm a bit wrong. I saw red flags with the symbols of the Soviet Union (the hammer and the sickle) but maybe they were the flags of the Chilean communist party, that is, they shared these international symbols as other parties do. I'm not a hundred percent sure, and I just want to clarify it. I'm sorry about the possible misunderstanding.


----------



## LV4-26

Pinochet's death deprived his fomer victim's relations of an official trial, in which the judges would have made clear what exactly was done in 1973+ and who did it. The Chileans needed that to be said to the face of the world. Truth must be said, even if doesn't bring to life those who  have died under the tyrant, words like that are of crucial importance.
The trial won't be held and I sincerely think it's too bad. As for the sentence itself, I think it's really of second importance, especially when dealing with a 91 year-old on the verge of death.

Now about celebrating someone's death. Judging the act is not necesarily judging the people. Everyone is entitled to have their opinion as to whether it is wrong or right to celebrate someone's death. From where I stand, I wouldn't celebrate his death and I do hold that it means feeding more hatred into the neverending vicious circle of hatred.

However, I'm speaking as a privileged person whose relations haven't been tortured by Pinochet's henchmen. And I wouldn't dream of blaming those who're celebrate his death. I'd probably do the same, were I in their shoes.

But then again, I intend to enjoy that privilege I have,  not to be directly involved, by saying, again and again, what I think is right or wrong. (*what*, not who).


----------



## Everness

Los Pinochos de este mundo mueren pero los Gepetos siguen vivitos y coleando. Paradojas de la vida. De pronto nos olvidamos que los Pinochos no son más que marionetas de madera controlados a discreción por los Gepetos. ¡A veces la escenografia y coreografia es tan perfecta en nuestros escenarios latinoamericanos que ni los hilos vemos!  ¡Ah, el poder de un cuento bien contado!

Ayer otro Pinocho murió. Hoy lo convertimos en santo o en demonio. Ese es el propósito del que escribe la historia de nuestros pueblos. Endilgar culpa o gloria a las marionetas de madera que tienen tanto control como el titeretero de turno desea otorgarles. El escritor de nuestras historias colectivas no quiere que posemos nuestra mirada en aquel o aquellos que manejan los hilos desde arriba. No vaya a ser que algun personaje de la historia se le rebele y se le ocurra cortarlos a balazos o sablazos. 

Pinocho chileno con corazón de madera: duerme en paz en el cielo de las marionetas. Pero no compartirás el cielo de los Salvadores. Nunca.


----------



## Víctor Pérez

I agree that nobody, Cecilio, should do such kind of things that will merite the people's celebration when he dies. I think too that the people celebrating the dictator's death, should'nt be the trees that hide the wood: the very main thing is, in my opinion, that a tyrant has died without being brought to justice.
I wonder how people affected by the dictator feel when they hear his recent words: "I don't have to beg their pardon. They have to beg my pardon." 

I don't understand, Cristina, what do you mean by saying that these people don't represent the majority of the population. Do you mean that because less people less fault?


----------



## Víctor Pérez

Fernando said:


> Indeed it is. Pinochet killed thousands, Pol Pot killed hundreds of thousands, Hitler killed millions.




I aggre with you, Fernando, that by killing more you are a bigger killer. But I desagree that by killing less you are a smaller killer.


----------



## cristina friz

Victor , I live in Chile, that's why I said that they do not represent the majority.  
The coin has two sides.


----------



## cuchuflete

The coin has many sides.  Those who mourned the death of the 
dictator in public also do not represent the majority.


----------



## cristina friz

Of course they do not represent the majority either.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:


> Indeed it is. Pinochet killed thousands, Pol Pot killed hundreds of thousands, Hitler killed millions.





Víctor Pérez said:


> I aggre with you, Fernando, that by killing more you are a bigger killer. But I desagree that by killing less you are a smaller killer.



Theoretically, these people had these numbers killed - some of them may have actually ordered the deaths of named individuals, but in general they were only the instigators of the deaths. Let's not forget that they had very willing accomplices who actually saw the people they were killing. I honestly believe that these were the 'worse' humans - to think high-falutin' thoughts of world domination is easy - it requires little to dream of it, but it takes a thug of a special kind to physically shoot several hundred helpless people at a time, or to facilitate this by organising the logistics for it.


----------



## ayaram7700

Cecilio said:


> Last night I was watching a Chilean TV channel at home and there was live coverage of the event. In the centre of Santiago a multitude had gathered to celebrate the death of the dictator. They were throwing confetti and drinking champagne as if it was New Year and some of the participants spoke on the mike to express their joy.
> 
> I don't like this. I think there's something wrong in celebrating somebody's death.


 

Cecilio: Yo soy chilena y viví los 17 años de dictadura de Pinochet EN CHILE y te puedo decir: todavia es poco celebrar con champagne. Cuando Pinochet usurpó el poder en Chile, sus partidarios celebraban con fiestas y banderas al viento cuando veian que se llevaban detenido a alguno de sus propios vecinos,  que a veces jamás regresaron. Por favor si tu no lo viviste, averigua, lee y escucha porque quienes no hayan vivido el horror, o al menos lo puedan  intuir, realmente pueden dar una opinión superficial e influenciada por quien sabe qué ideas de gente que vivió este periodo sin realmente saber o aceptar que Pinochet era - como la historia lo ha comprobado - un asesino, un ladrón, un sangriento dictador y espero que como dice la Biblia, 7 veces 7 paguen sus hijos y los hijos de sus hijos. Y los hijos de los hijos de sus hijos.

Ayaram7700


----------



## ayaram7700

Cecilio said:


> Hate engenders hate. In Chile and elsewhere.


 
Pinochet was the one who engendered  hatred in Chile. Before him, we lived in a different way. It does not mean that we loved each other or were extremely nice, bla bla, but the thing is that Pinochet and his horrible actions first of all  divided our country into two irreconcilable "parties" and these two parties are still enemies. My own family was divided and this will never go away. For years after we had a democratic government, we were still scared to express ideas against the dictator on the phone. I am speaking 1996, 1997... It's too much to explain. I do not want to explain. Franco was a horrible dictator, too and you should have learned from that.

Sincerely,

Ayaram7700


----------



## Fernando

Franco was a horrible dictator, right. And he died in bed, just the same as Pinochet...

...and he did not relinquished his power, unlike Pinochet.

When Franco died many people laughed loud, for sure, many people mourned him and most people prayed we would not have another civil war (about half a million deaths). People was coward enough (or wit enough) to swallow their tears / laughs.

Thanks to that, Franco regime was removed in 3 years and Franco ministers shared the Parliament with communists suspected of terrible crimes in the civil war.

The problem is that most of the people who express his (possibly justified) happiness is expressing his hatred for the people who have (possibly unjustified) nostalgia of Pinochet times. If they feel threatened, how long they will bear Bachelet (clearly from the laughers) and will try to retaliate?


----------



## Ayutuxtepeque

A mi la única interrogante que me queda es si la historia va a juzgar del mismo modo a Fidel Castro y a Augusto Pinochet.

Saludos,


----------



## Cecilio

ayaram7700 said:


> como dice la Biblia, 7 veces 7 paguen sus hijos y los hijos de sus hijos. Y los hijos de los hijos de sus hijos.
> 
> Ayaram7700



Por suerte, la Biblia dice otras muchas cosas aparte de esta. Sobre todo el Nuevo Testamento.


----------



## Victoria32

Fernando said:


> Indeed it is. Pinochet killed thousands, Pol Pot killed hundreds of thousands, Hitler killed millions.


But it doesn't matter really - if he had killed only _tens_, that would not excuse him... 


badgrammar said:


> I have a very hard time understanding how anyone outside of Chile would pass judgement on Chileans who celebrate the passing of the mot vilainous criminal their country ever knew. They had reason to hate him. Of course those who hate him celebrate his death. Why on earth would they, should they not?
> 
> It's not like thy killed him, for Pete's sake, he died comfy in bed at the age of 91!


I agree! 

Vicky


----------



## Hakro

Fernando said:


> Pinochet killed thousands, Pol Pot killed hundreds of thousands, Hitler killed millions.


Not to mention the one who's still holding the record: Stalin.


----------



## luis masci

panjabigator said:


> No matter how old he was, there is no reason to deny the Chilean people their justice.


Don’t sure so late justice is really justice. I think Chilean governments were so much hesitated to do justice in the time it would be (and not only Chilean; remember when he was jailed in London).
I mean...it’s not the same judging a dictator like Pinochet (or anyone else) immediately afterwards his crimes were committed that judging a weak old man who hardly can realize what is happening around him and is not aware so much of the reality. 
I don’t deny he deserved punishment, I just say punishment after so long time isn’t the same(and even probably would be nonsense depending of the case).


----------



## TimeHP

> Not to mention the one who's still holding the record: Stalin.


 
Yes, the list of criminals is very long. 
And, very strange, many of them were or still are the heads of some important countries. 



> I don’t deny he deserved punishment, I just say punishment after so long time isn’t the same(and even probably would be nonsense depending of the case).


 
Not the punishment, but the truth. 
A trial that could make light over a period of history full of infamy.   

Ciao


----------



## Etcetera

Hakro said:


> Not to mention the one who's still holding the record: Stalin.


Yes.
But when Stalin died in 1953, it was a real tragedy for many people in the Soviet Union. They truly believed that he was a benefactor of the country, that everything he'd done was right, because it served to a high purpose... 
The thing I find most awful about dictators is that it's not the dictator himself who kills people, tortures children and so on. It's the people who follow him.


----------



## Fernando

Victoria32 said:


> But it doesn't matter really - if he had killed only _tens_, that would not excuse him...



That would not excuse him, but you can let tens unpunished, while you can not let millions unpunished.

Every country have let unpunished "minor" crimes (GAL in Spain, Rainbow Warrior in France, ETA crimes in Franco times...) on the understanding that the major crimes for an individual are minor crimes for the State. When you do not pay 1% from your taxes, you steal hundreds euros. When a banker does, he steals millions.

I think a country has the possibility (and let me say it is not the ideal solution) to turn the blind's eye (I think I got the expression right) to their own shit (as far as the shit is not big enough). Sometimes it is a mistake, sometimes not. ETA criminals were amnistied in democracy. Do you think they should have been punished? They certainly deserved. Ditto for some surviving Franco generals and the afore mentioned Communist Party leader (attributted death toll: 5,000).


----------



## TimeHP

> ... you can let tens unpunished, while you can not let millions unpunished.


 
The way you speak of crimes makes me feel bad.
It's not a matter of less or more.
We are not speaking of coins.
And we are not speaking of stealing money.  
We are talking of children, women and men who were tortured and killed from the head of their own country in time 'peace' only beacause they believed in a different idea of democracy.
Turning an eye once it's the just the same that turning it hundreds of time. 

Too much politics, too less solidarity. 
What a pity.


----------



## Fernando

I am glad you are a supporter of "Fiat justitia, pereat mundis" policy. So am I, as a general rule.

Just to check where do you stand:

- I think that Italy has granted 21 amnesties since the Constitution was approved. Do you endorse them?

- All Brigate Rosse criminals have been punished?

- Mussolini was killed, right. Do you think all members of the Fascio have been punished? I am sure many of them are still alive. The same for Abisinia invasion.

- Do you endorse the pardon for IRA and Unionist terrorists? I do not, for the record.

- US invaded Afghanistan because they thought a war was worth if served to punish a bunch of criminals and prevent further crimes. Do you endorse that policy? I do.

- Sandinists have returned to power after the period when they had to leave the power. They were unmolested despite crimes and plunder in the war against the contra (also nice guys). Do you think Nicaraguan government should have sued Ortega?

My questions are not intended to provoke you. Just to say nothing is so simple. I was outraged when Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Mobutu and others have died in bed unmolested and without public apparent disconfort. Fujimori, Gadaffi, Iranian leaders, Argentinian torturers, Castro, Soviet leaders are all to die in bed, and I am outraged too. 

Only Cauceascu and Saddam have been punished for their crimes recently. I understand your rage, but there are many dictators alive and well and my list did not begin with resigned dictators.


----------



## Víctor Pérez

TimeHP said:


> The way you speak of crimes makes me feel bad.
> It's not a matter of less or more.
> We are not speaking of coins.
> And we are not speaking of stealing money.
> We are talking of children, women and men who were tortured and killed from the head of their own country in time 'peace' only beacause they believed in a different idea of democracy.
> Turning an eye once it's the just the same that turning it hundreds of time.
> 
> Too much politics, too less solidarity.
> What a pity.



Totally in agreement with you TimeHP. 
As I said, not by killing or torturing "only" a "few thousands" a criminal is less criminal than the one who did it to millions.

I agree that justice does'nt have to be slow, for sur! Specially in these cases. But I believe that to the tyrants (and to their accomplices, of course) justice has to be done even if it comes very late, even after their death. Someone could ask what justice is then: the *truth*. Just the truth. People don't want more blood. People just want everybody to know and to admit the truth. That's justice, in my opinion.


----------



## Víctor Pérez

Fernando said:


> I am glad you are a supporter of "Fiat justitia, pereat mundis" policy. So am I, as a general rule.
> 
> Just to check where do you stand:
> 
> - I think that Italy has granted 21 amnesties since the Constitution was approved. Do you endorse them?
> 
> - All Brigate Rosse criminals have been punished?
> 
> - Mussolini was killed, right. Do you think all members of the Fascio have been punished? I am sure many of them are still alive. The same for Abisinia invasion.
> 
> - Do you endorse the pardon for IRA and Unionist terrorists? I do not, for the record.
> 
> - US invaded Afghanistan because they thought a war was worth if served to punish a bunch of criminals and prevent further crimes. Do you endorse that policy? I do.
> 
> - Sandinists have returned to power after the period when they had to leave the power. They were unmolested despite crimes and plunder in the war against the contra (also nice guys). Do you think Nicaraguan government should have sued Ortega?
> 
> My questions are not intended to provoke you. Just to say nothing is so simple. I was outraged when Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Mobutu and others have died in bed unmolested and without public apparent disconfort. Fujimori, Gadaffi, Iranian leaders, Argentinian torturers, Castro, Soviet leaders are all to die in bed, and I am outraged too.
> 
> Only Cauceascu and Saddam have been punished for their crimes recently. I understand your rage, but there are many dictators alive and well and my list did not begin with resigned dictators.



*Fernando, don't forget Franco in your black inventory, please.*


----------



## Fernando

Víctor Pérez said:


> *Fernando, don't forget Franco in your black inventory, please.*



I did not. As a matter of fact, you will find it in all my previous posts. I understood you would find I was a bit retarded if I repeated in all of them.

As a matter of fact you should recall it to Baltasar Garzón, which was very interested about Pinochet crimes while he had work at home.

People like to have high principles abroad, while in house they are more pragmatic with their own scrap.


----------



## TimeHP

> I am glad you are a supporter of "Fiat justitia, pereat mundis" policy. So am I, as a general rule.


 
No, actually I'm not.
I'm not a fan of punishments and lynching. And I'm against the death penalty, as I've already said.

But I've had the impression that for someone it's so difficult to admit: _Yes, he was a criminal of the worst kind._

This is a thread about a specific case.
We could open other threads about all the crimes of the world. I'm sure we could agree...


----------



## Fernando

TimeHP said:


> No, actually I'm not.
> I'm not a fan of punishments and lynching. And I'm against the death penalty, as I've already said.
> 
> But I've had the impression that for someone it's so difficult to admit: _Yes, he was a criminal of the worst kind._
> 
> This is a thread about a specific case.
> We could open other threads about all the crimes of the world. I'm sure we could agree...



My comment has nothing to do with death penalty. "Fiat justitia..." is the policy of apply justice regardless of their consequences ("pereat mundis").

In this particular case: He was a criminal of the worst kind. He traded his power for inmunity. Should have the Chileans betrayed the deal and provoked civil unrest?

I have posted some recent examples when dictators, terrorists of the worst of the worst kind have been offered a silver bridge to abandon power/war. All of them are wrong?


----------



## Víctor Pérez

Fernando said:


> I did not. As a matter of fact, you will find it in all my previous posts. I understood you would find I was a bit retarded if I repeated in all of them.
> 
> * As a matter of fact you should recall it to Baltasar Garzón, which was very interested about Pinochet crimes while he had work at home.
> 
> People like to have high principles abroad, while in house they are more pragmatic with their own scrap.*



All this sounds very interesting but I think you can't state things like this without explaining them.


----------



## manana

Pues yo  como chilena,   respeto a los que quieren celebrar su muerte en las calles, con champañazos y muestras de alegría,  y aunque son personas distintas a mi en este aspecto, allá ellos, el mundo es ancho y da para todo,  y Pinochet es un personaje que  despierta muchas pasiones. A los que repudio  son a los que quieren hacer desmanes, destrozos  y aprovecharse de esta situación tan particular para  demostrar su odio de una forma  irracional.  
Yo  que detesté siempre a Pinochet,  por las razones que todos sabemos,   me era  absolutamente  necesario  que en  el momento de su muerte  el gobierno de turno no le rindiera  los honores de estado, que no se lo enterrara  con los honores de un ex presidente de Chile como pedían sus seguidores.  Eso para mi es suficiente  en estos momentos. Después veremos como sigue todo lo de los juicios que están pendientes y la forma de hacer justicia (difícil cuestión   en este país y sus instituciones tan particulares que  lograron aplazar el juicio a Pinochet hasta  el punto en que ya no podremos juzgarlo en vida). Pero que en el momento de su muerte no se le  reconociera  como un ex presidente o  como una especie de  héroe que salvo a  Chile; eso es lo que tenía que hacer el gobierno y  menos mal que lo hizo. 
Vivir dentro de este país no es fácil, hay una gran presión de un grupo  de gente con poder (económico sobre todo)  seguidores  de Pinochet  que piensan lo contrario, que lo ven como un salvador y que no pueden creer que se lo entierre así  como un chileno más. Frente a esta situación puntual, estoy conforme  con lo hecho por el gobierno, es un gran paso y si ustedes vivieran  en esta sociedad tal vez podrían entenderlo. Hay que estar en Chile para  comprenderlo. Imagínense que somos  una sociedad pequeña con  apenas trece millones de habitantes y  que  muchos pinochetistas están emparentados con  otros que no y que muchos altos funcionarios de gobierno están ligados de una u otra forma a gente  que está en estos momentos en los funerales de Pinocho. Para nuestra sociedad es un gran acto de repudio moral  el no rendirle los honores que  se  pedían para  el dictador y creo que una gran mayoría de chilenos piensan como yo.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:


> Just to check where do you stand:
> - Do you endorse the pardon for IRA and Unionist terrorists? I do not, for the record.


If such pardons are not granted (whether it be in Ireland or in South Africa, where the inspiration for the Irish pardon came from) where does the slaughter end?
The question you ask is the only validity such pardons have - "do you endorse?" … if the public doesn't endorse the pardons then they are valueless. The 'terrorist' will never be really able to 'come in from the cold'.
In Ireland these pardons are, at least in the eyes of the public, fully conditional on the pardoned making a positive contribution to the progress of the social and political lives of their nations. I can well imagine the distaste which will well up against them if they renege on their side of the 'bargain'.


----------



## Fernando

For a fun turn on the tide, I am defending that Ireland solution (NOT punishing the guilties) is bad while I am stating that Chile solution (NOT punishing the guilties) is (reasonably) good. 

Understand I only have to point out that this is not black-and-white. Positions can vary depending on the circunstamces.

My knowledge of both problems is limited, but, since I can not find unanimity among "natives" I have the right to give my two pence. I AM NOT ENTERING INTO A DISCUSSION ON IRISH OR S AFRICAN CASES.

In both countries they have "signed" a bargain.

The point (arguably) is: Is it worth to renounce to justice on behalf of lives?

To me, the Irish solution is not worth because you are avoinding 50-100 deaths a year in a (mostly) democratic country in exchange of a precarious cease-fire and giving the right to govern NI to the extreme part of both sides, apart from the obvious fact of the impunity.

In Chile, they have exchanged the pardon of a dictator and his accomplices in exchange of a civil war. The country is given to people, soldiers become more and more powerless and constitutional restraints can be easily removed with time.


----------



## Víctor Pérez

I wish to thank all of you for giving your opinion on such a delicate question. Thank you.
Víctor


----------



## .   1

You are welcome.
Thank you for listening with decorum.

Robert


----------



## Cintia&Martine

maxiogee said:


> Linking these, I think the true 'sentence' is the official acknowledgement that his crimes took place, and that we know he did was behind them. That may require that he be _tried in mortis_ (my attempt at a legalese expression akin to being _trial in absentia_) and that no official sentence be passed on him (maybe it would be possible to pass one his bank accounts!).
> The true sentence is indeed the knowledge among the people that he was guilty, and that the state recognise this. The Chileans do not need, at some remove from now, to have the equivalent of a David Irving spreading Piochet denial b*llsh*t.





TimeHP said:


> Not the punishment, but the truth.
> A trial that could make light over a period of history full of infamy.
> Ciao





Víctor Pérez said:


> I agree that justice does'nt have to be slow, for sur! Specially in these cases. But I believe that to the tyrants (and to their accomplices, of course) justice has to be done even if it comes very late, even after their death. Someone could ask what justice is then: the *truth*. Just the truth. People don't want more blood. People just want everybody to know and to admit the truth. That's justice, in my opinion.


 
I totally agree: people have to look after the truth. The own people who endured tirrany. A trial would serve to make clear the facts.

Even with an internacional trial (witnesses, pieces of evidence, film, fotographs, documents...) there is people will refuse to accept the facts. We all saw that in the conference about Holocaust in Iran these recent days.


----------



## ayaram7700

manana said:


> Pues yo como chilena, respeto a los que quieren celebrar su muerte en las calles, con champañazos y muestras de alegría, y aunque son personas distintas a mi en este aspecto, allá ellos, el mundo es ancho y da para todo, y Pinochet es un personaje que despierta muchas pasiones. A los que repudio son a los que quieren hacer desmanes, destrozos y aprovecharse de esta situación tan particular para demostrar su odio de una forma irracional.
> Yo que detesté siempre a Pinochet, por las razones que todos sabemos, me era absolutamente necesario que en el momento de su muerte el gobierno de turno no le rindiera los honores de estado, que no se lo enterrara con los honores de un ex presidente de Chile como pedían sus seguidores. Eso para mi es suficiente en estos momentos. Después veremos como sigue todo lo de los juicios que están pendientes y la forma de hacer justicia (difícil cuestión en este país y sus instituciones tan particulares que lograron aplazar el juicio a Pinochet hasta el punto en que ya no podremos juzgarlo en vida). Pero que en el momento de su muerte no se le reconociera como un ex presidente o como una especie de héroe que salvo a Chile; eso es lo que tenía que hacer el gobierno y menos mal que lo hizo.
> Vivir dentro de este país no es fácil, hay una gran presión de un grupo de gente con poder (económico sobre todo) seguidores de Pinochet que piensan lo contrario, que lo ven como un salvador y que no pueden creer que se lo entierre así como un chileno más. Frente a esta situación puntual, estoy conforme con lo hecho por el gobierno, es un gran paso y si ustedes vivieran en esta sociedad tal vez podrían entenderlo. Hay que estar en Chile para comprenderlo. Imagínense que somos una sociedad pequeña con apenas trece millones de habitantes y que muchos pinochetistas están emparentados con otros que no y que muchos altos funcionarios de gobierno están ligados de una u otra forma a gente que está en estos momentos en los funerales de Pinocho. Para nuestra sociedad es un gran acto de repudio moral el no rendirle los honores que se pedían para el dictador y creo que una gran mayoría de chilenos piensan como yo.


 

Lo siento Manana, pero de acuerdo a toda la informacion, somos 16.000.000 chilenos (dieciseis) segun el ultimo censo.

Ayaram7700


----------



## villagras

¿Que es esto?, es un foro para discutir sòlo problemas de los idiomas o pedir ayuda para quienes sepamos menos, pero veo este link, que sòlo hablan de ¿politica?, de verdad no lo entiendo, pero de igual modo, veo que la gran mayoria de las personas que opinan o han opinado, no son chilenas, entonces, ¿a que se debe esto?yo especificamente tengo muchos datos de Pinochet siendo chileno, sin dejar aun lado, lo hijo del demonio que fue, pero, ¿todos los demàs "presidentes" "dictadores", estan libres de pecado?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Nota de moderadora:

Así que el estimado Victor abrió este hilo antes de las nuevas reglas del foro, ahora dicho hilo se encuentra fuera de los parametros.



> No es una sala de chat ni un lugar para defender o promover puntos de vista personales acerca de cómo deberían ser las cosas. Lo que se busca es ayudar a que comprendamos cómo son las cosas en realidad, y cómo van cambiando a lo largo del tiempo.



Entonces, ahora que hay que tener más que opiniónes personales, mando este hilo a disfrutar su jubilación en algún lugar tranquíl.

Gracias a todos por sus comentarios.


----------

