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."
You said (#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. (Emphasis mine)
My response was: It did happen then. Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492.
Note that "it" and "then" both refer to previously mentioned ideas. "It" clearly refers to the Reconquista, the subject of my suggestion, according to your own characterization. "Then" clearly refers to a time period 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest, according to your own characterization of my suggestion.
Therefore, the meaning of my post is clearly:
The Reconquista did happen 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest. Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492.
Since we both agree with your the Moorish conquest occurred shortly before the Reconquista began in the early 8th century, 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest marks the period in question as being the 14th century, which basic math shows to be 6 centuries after the 8th century.
You keep harping on the fact that I mentioned the defeat of Granada. Perhaps you were unaware, but the defeat of Granada marks the end of the Reconquista, as it consisted of the defeat of the last Moorish kingdom in Iberia.
Therefore, the meaning of my post can be further clarified as:
The Reconquista did happen 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest. The end of the Reconquista occurred in 1492.
Or even more clearly:
The Reconquista did happen in the 14th century. The end of the Reconquista occurred in 1492.
And, not surprisingly, the late 14th century is the period I initially referenced when I wrote in #125 that "Khaldu[n] was writing as Christian Spaniards were engaged in a bloody Reconquista that they felt was a completely Just War by Augustinian standards."
I'm sorry you have such trouble understanding simple history and grammar.
I was under the impression that political constitutions (at least in the Western republican tradition) were in the business of enumerating government powers rather than merely paring back an omnipotent ruler. Your statement suggests that governments have all powers not expressly denied them in the constitution. Such a belief puts you at odds with the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Something that a Justice of the Supreme Court should know.
In any case, the CoD was violating the Chilean constitution. Much like the American system, article 39-1a of Chile's 1925 constitution gives the lower house the power to accuse the president of "actos de su administracion en que haya comprometido gravemente el honor o la seguridad del Estado, o infrinjido abiertamente la Constitucion o las leyes" and article 42-1a gives the Senate the power to convict the president of these charges with a 2/3 supermajority.
So, given that, I would say that the CoD's call for a military coup, and Pinochet's answer to that call, violated article 4, which I quote in full: "Ninguna majistratura, ninguna persona, ni reunion de personas pueden atribuirse, ni aún a pretesto de circunstancias estraordinarias, otra autoridad o derechos que los que expresamente se les hayan conferido por les leyes. Todo acto en contravenvion a este artículo es nulo."
Sounds pretty straightforward to me. In American terms, Allende was "impeached" but not "convicted" when the lower house called for a military intervention and Pinochet responded by overthrowing the elected government.
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.
Certainly they could ask as a group of individuals, but it was not a power granted to the CoD and thus not an act given sanction or legitimacy by the Chilean constitution.
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.
In fact, article 4 makes it clear that claims of "extraordinary circumstances" do not constitute a legitimate excuse for overstepping constitutionally defined powers. Again:
"Ninguna majistratura, ninguna persona, ni reunion de personas pueden atribuirse, ni aún a pretesto de circunstancias estraordinarias, otra autoridad o derechos que los que expresamente se les hayan conferido por les leyes. Todo acto en contravenvion a este artículo es nulo."
So by calling for a coup, the CoD was overstepping its authority (usurping the Senate's power to convict or acquit an accused president) and thus acting unconstitutionally.
Let's just say I'm not holding my breath.
Or it suggests that I can't find the books in question.
If you conducted yourself more honestly in other parts of this discussion I might be inclined to believe your excuse. But you already have a track record.
Did he say that before, during, or after Pinochet's dictatorship? Maybe he just wanted to prove his bona fides to the military dictatorship to avoid being tortured in a soccer stadium or somesuch.
Your history is mistaken yet again.
If my history is mistaken about Chile's 1925 constitution, the one you seem to claim Pinochet was protecting, please tell me exactly when the 1925 constitution was observed after Pinochet's coup.
You've yet to show what "rule of law" gave sanction to Allende in 1973.
He was the elected president of Chile. He had not been removed from office under the powers outlined in the constitution. He stood accused of abusing the power of the presidency, but he was still the legitimate president.
You'll remember that this debate started when you suggested that Pinochet's coup could be considered a Just War. By your definition of Aquinas and St. Augustine's Just War theories, that would require Pinochet to have the legitimacy to wage such a war. Under the constitution, this would be considered in violation of article 3, which states that "Ninguna persona o reuinion de personas pueden tomar el título o representaticion del pueblo, arrogarse sus derechos, ni hacer peticiones en su nombre. La infraccion de este artículo es sedicion."
Which means that had Pinochet actually preserved the constitution you claim he was defending, he would stand charged with sedition for illegitimately assuming the powers of the state.
Not really. My copy (1995 ed) lists Cameroon's muslim population at 15.8%. Are you saying in a more recent edition that they've grown to 20%? If so, fine by me. Use 20% for all I care, which also demonstrates my previous point about muslim populations in those countries growing right now, meaning they were likely LOWER during WWII. Of course the point is that Cameroon is nowhere even remotely near a muslim-majority nation, and thus would not have supplied predominantly muslim toops to the FFL.
Can't read the whole post, can you?
If you conducted yourself more honestly in other parts of this discussion I might be inclined to believe your excuse. But you already have a track record.
My "track record" includes citations from the OED and a prominent African history and culture publication. You dismissed them summarily and have yet to offer any evidence for why anyone should believe your fanciful ideas over vetted facts.
I have a feeling that you wouldn't accept any sources about the number African Muslims in the FFL, short of marching every one of the soldiers in front of you for them to pronounce the shahadah. And even then you would point out that there are plenty too many dead veterans whose faith cannot be ascertained.
You've given too points in history. It takes three points to define a line. You're overstepping again.
Of course the point is that Cameroon is nowhere even remotely near a muslim-majority nation, and thus would not have supplied predominantly muslim toops to the FFL.
Of course, you're operating under the assumption that military recruitment in African colonies is perfectly representative of the population as a whole. That assumption is a faulty one.
lqclamar
two points in history
Second, I would like to ask what evidence you have that I think Pinchet is "the devil incarnate". My posts have dealt with the legitimacy of his coup and his legitimacy as a ruler.
Actually, you didn't say that in #145. I guess I shouldn't ever take you at your word. it was #148.
And now that we've put to rest the issue of that particular exchange's historical periodization, what exactly is so "dishonest" about saying that we can reasonably assume 20 generations over six centuries? Or that the Moors had been in Iberia for six centuries at the time Khaldun was writing? Or that the Reconquista was not yet complete? Do you question the veracity of any of these?
If so, I'll ask you these:
How many human generations do you expect over 600 years? I believe the convention is that a "generation" is roughly equivalent to 30 years, if not less.
How long had the Moors been in Iberia in the late 14th century?
When did the Reconquista end, if it was over by the 14th century?
And the answer is all three. Prior to the coup he sent letters all over the free world asking for help in holding off the totalitarian schemings of Allende. During the coup he penned a letter of endorsement for the CDP. After the coup he defended its necessity and participated in the drafting of the new constitution.
If my history is mistaken about Chile's 1925 constitution, the one you seem to claim Pinochet was protecting, please tell me exactly when the 1925 constitution was observed after Pinochet's coup.
Your word games aside, he retained all of the main features of the 1925 constitution and incorporated them into the 1980 constitution that exists today. It was necessary to convene a constitutional convention because of the damage Allende had already done to the 1925 document well before Pinochet ever arrived.
He was the elected president of Chile.
In 1970 he was. By 1973 he had seized dictatorial powers into his office and was operating in criminal breach of the constitution, including directly contradicting the Chilean Supreme Court. Criminality in office forfeits electoral legitimacy.
He had not been removed from office under the powers outlined in the constitution.
Only because he committed suicide before they had the chance to bring him to trial.
He stood accused of abusing the power of the presidency
It was more than simple accusation. The Supreme Court ruled his were actions unconstitutional. They were the final authority and Allende was obliged to abide by their rulings. He didn't though.
Under the constitution, this would be considered in violation of article 3, which states that "Ninguna persona o reuinion de personas pueden tomar el título o representaticion del pueblo, arrogarse sus derechos, ni hacer peticiones en su nombre. La infraccion de este artículo es sedicion."
Your reading is a specious reading at best (although it is also one that's not uncommon to leftist pro-Allende bloggers, hence what I suspect to be your source for it). The clause in question actually damns Allende rather than Pinochet, which is among the reasons why it was among the charges made against him by the Chamber of Deputies. Given the rulings against him and record of his actions it is difficult to dispute that Allende had assumed rights and powers beyond those conferred to his office by law.
As arresting a criminal is not an assumption of unconferred power, Pinochet's attempt to apprehend Allende cannot be construed as a violation. Nor can it be construed as a usurpation of Allende's office, considering that Allende lost that office not by force or expulsion, but rather by his own hand when he chose to commit suicide rather than face trial for his crimes before the legislature and judiciary.
If you desire that courtesy first demonstrate that you are deserving of it. Your conduct to date has not done so, thus none will be afforded.
As I've already openly caveated the limitations of 1996 CIA factbook data for WWII, your continued harping on its 55 year removal from 1941 serves little constructive purpose to this discussion. The only point is to show a rough indicator of the given countries' muslim populations, which should not be all that far from what they were only two generations ago.
As an aside I do find it interesting though that you would object so vocally to half a century in time while casually dismissing the significance of the entire century between Khaldun and Granada. But you've never been one for consistency.
Of course, you're operating under the assumption that military recruitment in African colonies is perfectly representative of the population as a whole.
I don't recall assuming that or even commenting on it either way. But since some of the places in question were less than 1% muslim, their enlistment rates could be twice that of everybody else and they'd still be a tiny minority in the FFL. Or in other words, inconsequential and peripheral.
Now back on the Hitler side of the war there were units that were almost entirely mahometan. And those units fought on Hitler's front lines in Hungary and Austria. But we've already established that you don't like to talk about them...
Depends on the timeframe and technology. Medieval lifespans were notoriously short by today's standards. It was often death at 40, with marriage and childbearing being commonplace at about age 15, conceivably placing a European generation's length then at about half what it is today.
Of course that wouldn't necessarily apply in the mahometan world, where the precedence of their paedophiliac pseudo-prophet seems to have permitted intervals of as little as 9 years on the female side.
How long had the Moors been in Iberia in the late 14th century?
Too long. Which is why the last ones were dutifully booted in the 15th.
...one of which had nothing to do with FFL troop numbers, and the other of which - an editorial letter - offered no specificity or religious breakdown. Thus your contention about all those muslim troops remains unproven.
Meanwhile we do know there were at least 21,000 jihadi SS troops defending Hitler's southeastern front in Europe, and at least another 10,000 of a Hitler-allied Iraqi regime attacking the Brits in the middle east.
What does this have to do with Pinochet's
During the coup he penned a letter of endorsement for the CDP.
To establish his political bona fides with the new dictatorship?
After the coup he defended its necessity and participated in the drafting of the new constitution.
Which means that he recognized that Pinochet did not defend the old one.
Your word games aside, he retained all of the main features of the 1925 constitution and incorporated them into the 1980 constitution that exists today.
So seven years without a constitution? Some defense.
It was necessary to convene a constitutional convention because of the damage Allende had already done to the 1925 document well before Pinochet ever arrived.
What damage did Allende do to 1925 that required its complete abrogation?
Criminality in office forfeits electoral legitimacy.
And it was in the Senate's power to determine this.
The clause in question actually damns Allende rather than Pinochet,
It damns them both.
Nor can it be construed as a usurpation of Allende's office, considering that Allende lost that office not by force or expulsion, but rather by his own hand when he chose to commit suicide rather than face trial for his crimes before the legislature and judiciary.
And where did Pinochet stand in the line of succession?
It's the rules.
Proving that you didn't read it, or, if you read it, didn't understand it.
What a shock - back to the word games. You asked "Did he [Frei] say that before, during, or after Pinochet's dictatorship?" The answer was all three.
To establish his political bona fides with the new dictatorship?
Why would he need to do that? Frei had already been calling for Allende's ouster for months. Pinochet knew where he stood.
So seven years without a constitution?
Actually three, which is not surprising considering the amount of damage Allende did to constitutional government. There was a lot of sweeping up to do after him. Pinochet restored a provisional government in 1976 though to draft the 1980 constitution.
What damage did Allende do to 1925 that required its complete abrogation?
Ask him. He's the one that completely abrogated it. I suspect the answer would reflect the fact that he trampled the legislative and judicial branches while unconstitutionally seizing power into his own.
And it was in the Senate's power to determine this.
Actually it was the judiciary's power to decide criminality. The Senate's power was to decide the legislative trial (sorta like Chile's equivalent of impeachment). But Allende chose to off himself before he could be brought to justice.
It damns them both.
Repeat that all you want, but it simply isn't in the clause. Only seizing unlawful powers is, as Allende did. Arresting a criminal is not a seizure of power though.
And where did Pinochet stand in the line of succession?
I don't know what the exact Chilean succession statutes were at the time, but he would've been somewhere near the top of it as commander of the military. Pretty much everybody who would've been ahead of him - the political officers in Allende's regime - fled the country though, or got taken into custody for their own criminal acts. The succession eventually came to Pinochet because he was the highest ranked of the non-Allendists.
The title of the thing says "editorial" and it is signed and dated as a letter by somebody who works for the magazine. How is that NOT an editorial letter?
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.