Kissinger and Chile The Myth That Will Not Die

American Enterprise Institute ^ | October 31, 2003 | By Mark Falcoff

[GoGophers]

But you don't give Pinochet the same leeway there do you?

You will have to excuse my preference for due process.

[Rodney King]

We did not shoot German and Japanese POWs, which would be the correct comparison.

Yeah, but they wore uniforms meaning that we were obliged to treat them properly. However, non-uniformed combatants do not receive any protections under the rules of war.

[GoGophers]

And once again, there were possibly hundreds of thousands of real Leftist/socialists in Chile---If the goal was to annihilate opposition how is it that only 3000 were killed(and once again, many were killed in combat situations)

Combat? Get informed please.

[GoGophers]

However, non-uniformed combatants do not receive any protections under the rules of war.

Based on those rules a government could murder just about anyone.

[Rodney King]

Combat? Get informed please.

The enemies of freedom learned that all they have to do is take off their uniforms, and blend into society. That way, they get to pick and choose the time and location of every battle. The government can not pick the time and place i.e. the terrorists apartment at 6 in the morning, without the pinko westerners bitching and moaning. The government is supposed to sit around and wait for the terrorists to finish their breakfast and set up an ambush before the government is allowed to shoot them.

[Rodney King]

Those are the rules. Non-uniformed combatants do not receive the protections of war. When Skorzeney sent Germans dressed as Americans behind our lines to stir up trouble, we executed those that we found. Or do you object to that?

[TaxRelief]

Out west in Gopher Gulch lived Indian tribe.
Then come the pioneers, pushed them aside.
All Indians leave but two, they vow to fight.
What can two Indians do?

Go go gophers, watch them go go go.
Go go gophers, watch them go go go.

Here comes the colonel with his sergeant.
Both are a-roarin’ and a-chargin’.

Go go gophers, watch them go go go.
Go go gophers, watch them go go go.

Two little Indians, no others near.
Colonel he vows these two soon disappear.
Fighting the army with soldiers galore.
What can two Indians do?

Go go gophers, watch them go go go.
Go go gophers, watch them go go go.

Here comes the colonel with his sergeant,
Both are a-roarin’ and a-chargin’.

Go go gophers, watch them go go go.
Go go gophers, watch them go go go.

[Rodney King]

ROFLMAO!

[Skywalk]

You oppose all authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, but the right wing ones seem to garner more of your attention.


But OK, let's go with that.

If a government like Allende's is taking power(or Castro or Ho or Pol Pot) what would you have those who do not want to be enslaved do? Doesn't someone have to stand up and fight?

And what do you think such a war in the US would look like? You think ideological wars only take place on the battlefield in nice uniforms with flags from every tank and position?

If there was a major leader of a Communist/Nazi/whatever cell who posed as a professor, what would you do in a crisis? Bring him to trial? For what?

By your argument even espousing treasonous or freedom-hating views is protected speech, even if you coordinate with others to erode and destroy the civic institutions of the country or society. What protection would we have? And if such activity is protected, what due process can there be for the "teflon terrorists?"

[GoGophers]

Those are the rules. Non-uniformed combatants do not receive the protections of war. When Skorzeney sent Germans dressed as Americans behind our lines to stir up trouble, we executed those that we found. Or do you object to that?

There is a world of difference between executing civilans accused of political crimes without a trial and executing soldiers dressed as civilians engaging in hostile acts against our military. I oppose the former and support the latter.

[GoGophers]

You oppose all authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, but the right wing ones seem to garner more of your attention.

No one is praising a left wing authoritarian or totalitarian regime.

[TaxRelief]

Based on those rules a government could murder just about anyone.

But most don't. And neither did Pinochet. Only extreme threats were dealt with, judging from how few "disappeared".

[GoGophers]

If a government like Allende's is taking power(or Castro or Ho or Pol Pot) what would you have those who do not want to be enslaved do? Doesn't someone have to stand up and fight?

Fight yes. Execute citizens without trials no.

[Skywalk]

Ok, that's reasonable.

I would merely argue that many of those "accused of political crimes" are actually guilty of military acts against the government.

Next question:

In such a situation, would it be OK to detain these accused conspirators, so long as they are not physically harmed so they cannot foment further destruction to economic liberty, property and the social order?(including making the homeland a satellite state of a foreign power)

[GoGophers]

By your argument even espousing treasonous or freedom-hating views is protected speech, even if you coordinate with others to erode and destroy the civic institutions of the country or society.

Treason should be punishable by death. How would you even begin to define "freedom-hating views"?

[GoGophers]

In such a situation, would it be OK to detain these accused conspirators, so long as they are not physically harmed so they cannot foment further destruction to economic liberty, property and the social order?(including making the homeland a satellite state of a foreign power)

As long as they receive a fair trial at some point in time.

[Huber]

How do you define a "civilian". Are you familiar with the term "fifth column"?

[TaxRelief]

What political crimes do you think they were executed for? Picket lines?

[Rodney King]

There is a world of difference between executing civilans accused of political crimes without a trial and executing soldiers dressed as civilians engaging in hostile acts against our military. I oppose the former and support the latter.

Fair enough. However, my basic argument is that the Marxists have learned that most people in the west hold that view, so they shifted their tactics and eschewed overt military action in favor of subversive action by people who otherwise live apparently normal lives. That does not mean that they people are any less soldiers in a war against the government. I would imagine that those who conducted the many terrorist bombings in Chile in the 70's and 80's did not even wear so much as a bandana around their head identifying themselves as soldiers. Most likely they went straight home to their families and blended in with the populace. That does not mean that they are not soldiers involved in combat.

[Skywalk]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I still disagree with you on the facts of Chile, at least events contemporaneous with the coup, but I can see some common ground now.

BTW, it is my fault for poor choice of words.

Freedom-hating should not be simply those one disagrees with, but those that openly or covertly agitate(perhaps even with military or terrorist actions) for the restriction or abolition of basic individual rights--economic liberty, property(part of the first) and freedom of thought.

Meaning, if you act in concert with totalitarian regimes in order to usher in a satellite regime with similar attributes in your home country you should be subject to internment, trial and possibly execution--unless you are found on anything resembling a field of battle, then summary execution.