Posted on 12/14/2006 3:15:09 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Harare, Zimbabwe (AHN) - Zimbabwe will not turn over former Former Former Ethiopian dictator Mengistu Haile Miriam, despite his conviction of genocide.
William Nhara, a spokesperson for President Robert Mugabe's government, says, "As a comrade of our struggle, Comrade Mengistu and his government played a key and commendable role during our struggle for independence and no one can dispute that."
"The judgment is an Ethiopian judgment and will not affect his status in Zimbabwe. As far as we know there is no extradition treaty between Harare and Addis Ababa."
Mengistu, who has been living in exile in Zimbabwe since he fell from power in 1991, was convicted of charges ranging from genocide, to imprisonment, homicide, and illegal confiscation of property.
Ethiopia's Federal High Court convicted Mengistu and 71 other defendants for their parts in the "Red Terror." According to the U.S. government, "The enormity of government-sponsored operations against suspected political opponents during the 'Red Terror' has defied accurate analysis and has made attempts at quantification of casualties irrelevant."
"Sources estimated that, during 1977-78, about 30,000 people had perished as a result of the Red Terror and harsh conditions in prisons, kebele jails, and concentration camps."
lcqlamar: (post 145) "I think you were when you dishonestly suggested that the Reconquista was an event that happened 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest."
zimdog: (post 150) "It did happen then. Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492."
You then pointed to Khaldun to justify your claim that this was implicit in your original characterization, even though Khaldun had been dead for a century.
You seem to be missing the point. The CoD did not strip Allende of his title, nor did Pinochet. The CoD called upon the military to intervene against Allende's violation of the Constitution and take him into custody. The formal ejection of Allende from office would have certainly followed after his intended arrest by the military on 9/11/73, in which case I believe the constitutional process was some sort of legislative trial that was to take place.
But it never got to that because Allende chose to commit suicide before he could be transferred into military custody.
You know the title of Kamian's book. You can also consult Myron Echenberg's "Colonial Conscripts" if you're still curious.
But only after the tied had turned against Germany and they were hastily shipped off to France in a ditch effort by Hitler to delay the inevitable.
Of course, the unit was formed only in the spring of 1943 and the mutiny occurred before they were out of training.
But that doesn't mean they were not nazis.
No, it doesn't.
Source please. And I'll be expecting a religious breakdown of their ranks when you provide it as well, since West Africa also has large Christian and pagan populations.
I gave you my sources and my estimate of the number of Muslims based on the numbers at hand. If you continue to press the issue, rest assured you will be made the fool again.
In fact the main French colonies in sub-saharan Africa to opposed the Nazis or Vichy regime were predominantly NON-MUSLIM, contrary to your suggestions.
That would be all of them, once the Vichyists were rousted from AOF posts in November 1942.
Gabon's muslim population is less than 1% of the entire country. The rest are all Christian or voodoo.
Let me call to your attention that you are quoting present figures (probably from the CIA World Factbook) with regards to the religious demography of these countries. Just so you know, it makes for a weak historical argument.
Also, you'd be hard pressed to produce a more than a handful of practitioners of "voodoo" (either Haitian Vodou or Beninois Vodoun). Again, just so you know.
Please explain how I "pointed to Khaldun" to justify a claim. I pointed your attention (if it can be called that) to the fact that I raised the topic with regard to Khaldun's 14th century contemporaries, who lived in the 14th century, which is before the 15th century.
Sheesh.
Which was, to my knowledge, an unconstitutional act. If you have some evidence that suggests that the lower house of Chile's bicameral legislature had the constitutional authority to legitimate a military coup, then by all means, present it.
Honestly, I thought you were one of those "republic not a democracy" people. You'd think someone who understands the meaning of republicanism would understand whether or not the lower house of the chilean legislature had the constitutional authority to call for a military coup.
That doesn't seem to be the case at all. The CoD declaration contained a list of constitutional breaches by Allende presented to the "President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces" to inform them of the "breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic." The declaration then invoked the constitutional oath taken by those parties to restore the constitution. Allende was given the opportunity to do so, but the same oath also bound the military if he did not. Pinochet's action was dictated by his oath. The point of the CoD declaration was to list the charges and invoke that oath as a basis for arresting Allende should he not come back into compliance with the constitution.
But then, I don't have a copy of the Chilean constitution on hand. Perhaps you do. Feel free to point out where the lower house resolution acquired constitutional legitimacy.
You persist in holding the mistaken belief that, at the time of Pinochet's coup, the Chilean constitution was still functioning. Remnants of it were still functioning in the legislative and judicial branches, but those remnants were being forcefully overrun and ignored by Allende. By invoking the constitutional oath as a basis to arrest Allende they were invoking the doctrine of self preservation. Western legal tradition has long recognized that no constitution is a suicide pact, meaning an affirmative action that is procedurally unaccounted for in a constitution's text (note that the arrest of Allende was not barred by the Chilean constitution either though) may nonetheless be a constitutional act when it is necessary to save that constitution from complete destruction. The Chamber of Deputies' recognized that, and the strong endorsement of the coup given by virtually all non-Allendist officials in Chile served to affirm it.
I already documented it in several previous posts, particularly 190. As you are determined to ignore inconvenient facts and records regardless of how many times they are presented to you, posting it again is unlikely to serve any purpose other than to waste my time.
But by extraconstitutional means and for extråconstitutional ends.
Western legal tradition has long recognized that no constitution is a suicide pact, meaning an affirmative action that is procedurally unaccounted for in a constitution's text (note that the arrest of Allende was not barred by the Chilean constitution either though) may nonetheless be a constitutional act when it is necessary to save that constitution from complete destruction.
Of course, that is not what happened. And you'd be hard-pressed to find an informed observer of Chile who would say that Pinochet intended to preserve the Chilean constitution. The fact that he didn't is perhaps the strongest evidence.
The Chamber of Deputies' recognized that, and the strong endorsement of the coup given by virtually all non-Allendist officials in Chile served to affirm it.
Sounds like you're favoring the tyranny of a politically correct majority over the rule of law.
The whole rigamarole began when I pointed out that the Christians fighting to expel Moorish "invaders" from Iberia during Khaldun's lifetime were in fact fighting to expel a Moorish population with 600+ year roots in Iberia. Khaldun sets the period in question. He does not "justify" a claim.
or rather, my reference to Khaldun denotes the period in question.
And yet still no numbers from you.
Of course, the unit was formed only in the spring of 1943 and the mutiny occurred before they were out of training
You're mistaken as usual. The regimental history of the 13th Waffen-SS shows them seeing their first action in the Balkans in the spring of 1943. They were sent on a training exercise in France in July 1943, which is where the "mutiny" you mentioned happened in September. Before you make much more of it, you should probably know that there were only 14 mutineers out of the entire 20,000 muslim division, and all of them were promptly executed. In fact, the mutiny itself was quashed by other muslims in the division. It was so inconsequential that it didn't even alter the division's assignment. When the division formed in 1943 it had 21,065 soldiers. Over a year later in June 1944 they still had 19,136. The mutiny had a virtually negligible impact on their numbers, and in fact they lost more members to combat than to its morale toll.
Within days of the mutiny they went right back to the training exercise, and remained in France until January 1944.
Next they shipped to a base in Neuhammer, Germany thru March.
They transferred back to Bosnia and ran a counter-guerilla campaign from March-September 1944.
In September they moved to the front in Hungary to counter the advance of the Russians.
Like most German units on the eastern front they were slaughtered, and by early 1945 mass desertions were underway. Even so, the January 1945 muster still put them at 12,000 men. In April 1945 they pulled back into Austria with the 2nd Panzer army, and finally surrendered to the Brits on May 8th near Kaernten.
I gave you my sources and my estimate of the number of Muslims based on the numbers at hand.
Both your estimates and sources are vague and unspecific. Barring further information they cannot be evaluated as credible at this time. Your extreme reluctance to provide better numbers also suggests that you are using this vagueness to hide something.
That would be all of them, once the Vichyists were rousted from AOF posts in November 1942.
Even with the fall of Vichy, the largest and most important FFL African forces were already formed. They came from the aforementioned non-Muslim colonies where De Gualle based his operations.
Let me call to your attention that you are quoting present figures (probably from the CIA World Factbook) with regards to the religious demography of these countries.
The CIA factbook is the only readily available source with reliable estimates of these figures. You are correct that they are from 60 years later, but they nonetheless indicate the approximate breakdowns of the countries in question. You can rest assured that Gabon did not change from 95% to less than 1% muslim in only half a century, so as approximations they are valid. If anything did change in the last 60 though, I would wager it is probably an increase in the muslim population of coastal Africa due to migratory workers and population displacements in regional wars there. So it's probably safe to say that places like Ivory Coast and Senegal have become more muslim today than they were six decades ago under Vichy France.
Also, you'd be hard pressed to produce a more than a handful of practitioners of "voodoo"
As several of my prior posts indicated, I chose the term "voodoo" to signify the hundreds of small tribal and pagan religions that are practiced in sub-saharan west africa. There isn't really any single name that fits them all, though their followers collectively outnumber muslims in all of the original Free French colonies except Chad.
The voodoo designation itself derives from the fact that modern Voodoo proper - if it can even be called such a thing - of the type they practice in Haiti derived directly from the various practices of those same tribal and pagan religions in west Africa, where the slave ships to Haiti originated.
No. You were pretty specific in both date and location during your harping about Granada 1492:
lcqlamar: (post 145) "I think you were when you dishonestly suggested that the Reconquista was an event that happened 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest."
zimdog: (post 150) "It did happen then. Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492."
I think Mugabe should be one the next ones to go.
To be unconstitutional, an act must violate something specific in the constitution itself. For example, Allende violated several dozen specific clauses in the Chilean constitution and was found in violation of them by both the Supreme Court and the Legislature.
To my knowledge there was nothing in the constitution actively barring the Chamber of Deputies from asking the police and military to defend the constitution against its attackers. There wasn't a process spelling out step by step how they were to do this, but certainly nothing prohibiting them from doing it, particularly when facing a threat of constitutional overthrow itself.
Not really. Eduardo Frei Montalva concluded as much. Considering that he was President of Chile from 1964-1970 and a leader of the center-left CDP at the time of the coup, you'd be hard pressed to argue that he was not an informed observer of Chile.
The fact that he didn't is perhaps the strongest evidence.
Your history is mistaken yet again. By the time of the coup the Chilean constitution was already in shreds due to Allende. Pinochet set about to restore constitutional government almost immediately. In 1976 he convened a constitutional commission consisting of the country's most respected political leaders including 2 former presidents, and tasked them with drafting the document. It was completed in 1979 and put before the voters, where it was approved, in 1980. Pinochet abided by its terms and voluntarily yielded office to an election in 1990.
Sounds like you're favoring the tyranny of a politically correct majority over the rule of law.
You've yet to show what "rule of law" gave sanction to Allende in 1973. In fact, you've yet to establish your original comment on this topic, namely that you considered Allende "legitimate."
A ruler's legitimacy is a prerequisite of his power under the rule of law. If Allende was not a legitimate ruler at the time of the coup, then overthrowing him cannot be a violation of the rule of law.
This one's a real piece of work, BTW. This thread started out with him making apologies for islamic jihadis and generally bashing western Christian civilization at every chance he got.
Part of the conversation turned to Pinochet/Allende about a hundred posts back. Naturally, he's quite fond of proclaiming Allende's "legitimacy" and thinks Pinochet is the devil incarnate.
That's because I am still looking for my copies of these books. However, I did read them, which is more than you can honestly say.
Both your estimates and sources are vague and unspecific.
We'll get back to this point later.
Your extreme reluctance to provide better numbers also suggests that you are using this vagueness to hide something.
Or it suggests that I can't find the books in question. But if you want to be a jerk about it, I could say that your reluctance to check the citations I gave you suggests that you don't care about the truth.
Even with the fall of Vichy, the largest and most important FFL African forces were already formed. They came from the aforementioned non-Muslim colonies where De Gualle based his operations.
Since you're making claims about the number of troops recruited from specific colonies, you must have some sources about the FFL's African troop strength. What are they?
You are correct that they are from 60 years later, but they nonetheless indicate the approximate breakdowns of the countries in question.
I gave a citation and an approximate breakdown and you derided both as "vague and unspecific". I can say the same thing about your use of contemporary CIA Factbook data in a discussion of WW2. In addition to being a "vague and unspecific" source and estimate with regards to demographics two generations past, your "approximate breakdown" is also ahistorical.
As several of my prior posts indicated, I chose the term "voodoo" to signify the hundreds of small tribal and pagan religions that are practiced in sub-saharan west africa. There isn't really any single name that fits them all,
The CIA Factbook uses "animist" or "indigenous beliefs" and you use the CIA Factbook's numbers. Why are the numbers good enough for you (ahistorical as they are) but the categories they describe aren't? You're playing fast and loose with the facts.
You're also playing fast and loose with the numbers. In your post #200 you said that Cameroon's Muslim population "is in the 15% range" -- a phrase that you don't use in any other citations from the CIA Factbook. Why is that? Well, perhaps it's because the CIA Factbook doesn't give those numbers it puts the number of Cameroonian Muslims at 20% of the total population. You've got some 'splainin to do.
The voodoo designation itself derives from the fact that modern Voodoo proper - if it can even be called such a thing - of the type they practice in Haiti derived directly from the various practices of those same tribal and pagan religions in west Africa, where the slave ships to Haiti originated.
All the more reason why you shouldn't use the term to describe non-Vodoun (or "voodoo," if you insist) faiths that are not in West Africa. Just because you would prefer that a word have different meaning doesn't mean it does. I believe we went over this issue before and you have yet to produce any sources that are "reliable by any academic standard" that agree with your definition of the term in question being a religious slur but not a racial one.
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.