Posted on 12/11/2006 12:42:02 AM PST by bruinbirdman
To some he was a tyrant, to others a hero. In life and in death, Chileans remain divided over the former dictator
As news of the death of Augusto Pinochet spread through Chile last night, scores of jubilant people blasted car horns and danced in the streets of the capital Santiago with relief at what they called the country's "liberation" from the last vestiges of the former dictator's control.
But others wept outside the military hospital where he died aged 91, a week after a heart attack, singing in broken voices the national anthem and praises to their deceased general.
Although he left power 16 years ago, Pinochet remained a senator for life. He continued to influence Chilean politics, dividing this traumatised and conservative society between those outraged at the human rights abuses he presided over and those convinced that the military ruler saved the country from a Marxist disaster and set it on a path to becoming the economic success story it is today.
"He broke the chains of communism for us... we didn't become a second Cuba, and that's thanks to him," one woman told local television.
Pinochet was accused of dozens of human rights violations but a lengthy effort to bring him to trial in Chile failed as his defence lawyers successfully argued that he was too ill to face charges. In 2000, he managed to escape being sent from London to Spain, where he faced charges of human rights abuses, after British medical experts ruled he was suffering from "mild dementia" and therefore unfit to stand trial. The same happened when he returned to Chile in 2000.
However Chilean prosecutors gradually dismantled all the constitutional and medical objections and he was due to appear in court to answer charges of tax evasion and human rights abuses.
Among several cases against him, Pinochet was facing charges over the 1973 "Caravan of Death", where it is alleged a military death squad rounded up suspected Leftists from prisons around the country and murdered them. Witnesses said that many of the bodies were thrown from helicopters into the sea, with the corpses opened up and filled with stones.
However it was recent allegations that he had lined his own pockets with state funds during the 17 years he was in power that threw many of his staunch supporters into doubt. "I was a believer in Pinochet," said Jaime Ceballos, 57, a former army officer. "I thought that he did some unpleasant things but because he was a patriot and saw no other way. It turns out he was just a thief."
A spokesman for Spain's ruling Socialist party, Diego Lopez Garrido, called Pinochet a "detestable character of history". Amnesty International, human rights group, said: "General Pinochet's death should be a wake-up call for the authorities in Chile and governments everywhere, reminding them of the importance of speedy justice for human rights crimes, something Pinochet himself has now escaped."
Sheila Cassidy, a British doctor who was tortured for helping a Left-wing dissident, said: "I don't think that he ever thought that he'd done wrong. I think that he continued to think that the people that he tortured were dirt really, and got what was coming to them."
The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture said it was "regrettable" Pinochet would never face trial for his actions. Even as Pinochet lay on his death bed, debate was raging in Chile as to whether he should receive the state funeral normally the privilege of former presidents. A poll conducted yesterday by the leading daily newspaper La Tercera showed that 55 per cent of Chileans were against so honouring Pinochet.
The current president, Michelle Bachelet, herself a victim of the military regime, had already said that she was against a state funeral since Pinochet has been indicted on very serious charges. "The conscience of Chileans would feel violated," she said.
Last month, during celebrations for his 91st birthday, Pinochet took responsibility for all the actions carried out during his regime, but expressed no remorse, insisting everything was done to save the country.
"Today, close to the end of my days, I want to make clear that I hold no rancour toward anybody, that I love my country above all else."
He was asked in 1989 before he gave up power how he would fare under divine judgment.
"I'll go to heaven. Where would I have gone, do you think? To hell? No, don't worry, I'll go to heaven."
"This Sheila person was an uninvited busybody poking her nose into a South American political upheaval."
Are you sure you're not talking about some U. Wisconsin undergraduate who took a bus down south to Alabama to help register black voters the summer before the 1968 elections?
'Cause there was this guy there in Birmingham who said that girl was dirt. The girl was tortured 'n all, and this guy said she had it coming to her.
Sounded familiar is all.
Castro had already done that. Allende was his puppet. He did nothing without Castro's approval. Nothing "democratic" about that, is there? Unless, of course, you believe the voters of Chile elected Fidel Castro to the presidency.
Yep, I'm sure.
'Cause there was this guy there in Birmingham who said that girl was dirt
That guy was an a**hole.
The girl was tortured 'n all, and this guy said she had it coming to her.
That girl wasn't in Alabama helping to foment a communist takeover. She was behaving lawfully. This idiot Brit was aiding communist rebels.
Sounded familiar is all.
Then you didn't pay close enough attention.
L
Whether or not Pinochet handled the power he got well is another issue, though.
What about a communist takeover? How about a socialist takeover with elimination of the 2nd Amendment?
The Supreme Court of Chile thought so. And so did the Chilean Bar. Both of them requested that Pinochet relieve Allende of the burdens of office and assume them himself so that order might be restored.
Pinochet got rid of the baccilus of Communism in Chile, improved the economy, and returned Chile to a Democratic form of government. Not a bad record at all!
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants"
~Thomas Jefferson
If you wanna make an omellete....
L
I've met Sheila Cassidy twice. She did have a terrible time in the prison camp, wondering day-by-day if she was going to be killed. But you know what Sheila? You weren't killed. How many of Castro's prisoners could say that?
Allende was really not democratically elected. He was Prime Minister by virtue of the fact that his Communist Party had about a third of the parliament, and headed a coalition, pretty much the same as Hitler did when he was appointed Chancellor. Based on that authority, Allende proceded to try to make Chile into a Communist dictatorship. I distinctly remember seeing demonstrations against him on TV, while it happened, and before he was overthrown, (I am that old) in which the chant was "Chile si, Cuba non." At the time, I was rooting for Allende.
Pinochet led a coup against Allende and saved Chile from Cuba's fate. Did he do some very bad things? Yes, but he saved his countrymen from much worse things. What he did was overthrow a constitutional government, but it was a government that would have shortly scrapped the Chilean constitution anyway. In balance, Chile is much better off, while those he offed in the process, if they were truly Allende supporters, they deserved it.
Allende was going to do a bit more than that. He was importing Soviet weaponry and would have developed Chile into a full blown communist state, not just implement a few socialist programs here and there.
If the military in this country ever tried to overthrow our government and suspend the constitution
Allende was going to suspend democracy; Pinochet was acting to allow democracy to continue in the long term.
(1) They are not "insurgents." They are terrorists. Thanks for ripping the mask off your true sentiments.
(2) The argument does nothing to justify terrorist murders of American soldiers. The argument is that killing Communists is always the right thing to do.
That's a universal truth, and it applies to US troops in no way, shape or form.
On a purely semantic level, killing soldiers in uniform is not an act of terrorism.
That is a myth.
Allende did not win the election - the election results were not conmclusive by Chilean constitutional law and the decision was placed in the hands of the Congress.
Initially, Congress were going to decide against Allende, but Allende's supporters brokered a deal whereby Allende agreed to sign a document promising not to violate the Chilean constitution on a number of specific points - even though he campaigned on the stance that once elected he would violate the constitutional guarantees on private property and other matters.
Once he secured the Congressional vote, he violated the document he had formally and legally signed as a condition of his taking office.
Moreover, academic studies of the original vote show that Allende had engaged in significant vote fraud - in 1970 an unusually high number of new voters were registered and more than 90% of the surplus new voters voted for Allende - despite the fact that he received fewer votes overall in 1970 than he did when he ran in 1964.
Allende tried to steal an election and failed.
He did not win any election.
He was appointed President by the Chilean Congress pursuant to a formal agreement which he then violated.
Pinochet did not depose a legitimate officeholder.
Apples and oranges.
Bizarre argument.
So, when the IRA kill a soldier, it's not terrorism?
When the ETA kill a soldier it's not terrorism?
When Hezbollah kill a soldier, it's not terrorism?
Terrorism, semantically, is the use violence and intimidation by criminal groups to achieve political goals.
American soldiers are allies and guests of the democratically elected Iraqi government, and when criminal organizations like al-Qaeda use violence against them to try to intimidate the legitimate government of Iraq and its allies, it's terrorism.
I don't remember FDR putting armed leftist militias in the streets and trying to pack the Court isn't in the same league as asassinating judges is it?
Don't think for a second that those condemming Pinochet aren't going to be praising Fidel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.