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."
If so, it's an implicit rule and one that obviously does not apply at all times. Now the rule against disruptive liberal trolls such as yourself is fairly explicit...
Back to the question at hand is more like it.
And I'll remind you that you're in no position to accuse other people of playing "word games" after having defended (without evidence) your definition of a racial slur that is so divergent from accepted use that you have yet to produce a dictionary that even approximates the definition you gave.
Also, even though you correctly place the practice of "voodoo" in the Caribbean and West Africa, you insist on using it (in the place of more appropriate terms) to describe religions that not only cannot be described as "voodoo", Vodou, or Vodoun in a way that is "reliable by any academic standard" but also are not practiced in the Caribbean or West Africa.
You asked "Did he [Frei] say that before, during, or after Pinochet's dictatorship?"
In response to my statement in #211 that few informed observers "would say that Pinochet intended to preserve the Chilean constitution" you said (#218) "Eduardo Frei Montalva concluded as much." When I asked (#224) if that happened "before, during, or after Pinochet's dictatorship?" you said (#231) "all three." Your support for the claim that Frei believed that Pinochet intended to preserve the Chilean constitution before the coup is based on the fact that (and here I quote your #231 again) "Prior to the coup he sent letters all over the free world asking for help in holding off the totalitarian schemings of Allende."
So I ask you: Did these letters mention anything about Pinochet's alleged desire to protect the Constitution?
And I'll remind the reader that you neglected to mention the fact that Frei was a strident opponent of Pinochet and his government in the early 1980s.
Actually three
What constitution was in effect then? The one you claim that Pinochet was defending with his coup? The one he suspended after the coup, in violation of its article 4?
Ask him.
If you can't tell me yourself, why should I believe you? Salvador Allende's answer to any question asked of him today would be, at the very least, an "unreliable source".
Arresting a criminal is not a seizure of power though.
Pinochet did more than arrest a criminal. He seized executive power as well. That was the violation.
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.
As president of the Senate, Frei preceded Pinochet in the line of succession, according to article 66. You've already established Frei's "non-Allendist" credentials. Assuming that Frei was the highest-ranking official still in the country (or even the highest-ranking "non-Allendist"), it seems that Pinochet violated article 3 by refusing to ceded power to Frei.
If you had read it, you would know that it's not dated. It might be splitting hairs to note it's not written "as a letter," if by that you mean in a form common to letters exchanged between correspondents, from readers to editors, or from editors to readers in response.
However, it is from the desk of the president of the journal's governing board -- a journal of African history and culture, I'll remind you. So, if an expert on African history presents this 200,000 figure as uncontroversial, what reason do you have to doubt it?
I thought it was a rule, but now I can't find it. Probably better for me, since I break it often, though unintentionally.
Now the rule against disruptive liberal trolls such as yourself is fairly explicit...
Actually, the rule against personal attacks such as this one is fairly explicit: "NO personal attacks" is on every "posting comment" page below the "post" button.
So probably more than 20 generations. Duly noted.
Too long. Which is why the last ones were dutifully booted in the 15th.
Booted from land that Moors had ruled twice as long as did the Dark Age Visigothic kings upon whom Ferdinand and Isabella based their claims.
I'll ask again: In the late 14th century, how long had the Moors been in Iberia?
If that's what you believe, why do you take issue with my (conservative) figure of 67,000 Muslim troops out of the 200,000 froml West Africa? Here are the low-end estimates of the Francophone West Africa countries' Muslim populations, according to the current CIA Factbook:
Benin – 20%
Burkina Faso – 50%
Côte d’Ivoire – 35%
Guinea – 80%
Niger – 80%
Mali – 90%
Mauritania – 100%
Senegal – 94%
Togo – 20%
Being familiar with the region, I don't expect these numbers to be much different than the figures given in your 1995 print edition. Perhaps you are being deliberately argumentative. Perhaps.
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.
Please explain how I "casually dismissed" it. I mentioned that the Reconquista was not complete in Khaldun's 14th century life. It ended with the fall of Granada at the end of the 15th century.
And since you're harping on inconsistencies that don't exist, I take great pleasure in pointing out that there was no gap in time "between Khaldun and Granada," as Granada (the state and the city proper) was in existence for the entire duration of Khaldun's life. The fall of Granada occurred in 1492, ending the Moorish Granada state 86 years after Khaldun's death.
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...
From your description, it doesn't sound like they did much fighting there, really. They were on the "front lines" because the front had been pushed westward in 1944-1945 as the Nazi war machine crumbled. I'm sure the Aryan supremacists in Berlin preferred to send Slavic ûntermenschen to the eastern front slaughter in order to preserve their blond-haired, blue-eyed praetorians for defense of the Heimat.
As you mentioned (#214), the the Handschar troops deserted in massive numbers in Hungary and the remaining troops raised the white flag a month after arriving in Austria, presumably having moved there for the opportunity to surrender to the Brits rather than Stalin's Red Army.
Of course, the French could have focused their recruitment efforts in Muslim areas, right?
Well, if 2% is an "inconsequential minority...
Now back on the Hitler side of the war there were units that were almost entirely mahometan.
... then why do you keep bringing up Nazi Germany's 21,000 Muslim troops? Since, the Germans had millions of soldiers, these 21,000 would be, by your standards an "inconsequential" "tiny minority" of their overall forces.
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.
I'm amazed at how overlooked the Ninth Amendment actually is. Its importance belies the relatively high number it holds in the Bill of Rights.
In my opinion, it is one of the most important. Without it, the Federal Government could just invent new powers for itself at a whim. The Ninth is the last stand against tyranny, giving freedom the benefit of the doubt where the Constitution is silent.
Absolutely.
Apples and oranges. 2% of a military unit, as with the FFL forces you describe as being "muslim," is a tiny fraction. With the German officers included, the jihadi SS units would've been somewhere in the 99% muslim range.
Really? Cause the OED definition you produce said absolutely nothing about Arabs. Yet you explicitly insisted it was an anti-Arab racial slur in practically every post up until then. Your definition did however state that the term was based on a type of headgarb, which I've acknowledged from day one. So since you seem to be in the business of keeping score on that definition, mine was closer to it than anything you've produced before or since. Point to lqclamar.
Nah, voodoo suffices, it being synonymous with junk heathenistic pseudo-religions. Kinda like the one mahomet made up.
They mentioned a desire to protect the Constitution from Allende, and supported the military's intervention to do so. Pinochet did not become head of the military until August 23rd. Frei had been calling for Allende's ouster for several months by that point though. He quickly endorsed the Chamber of Deputies' call on August 22nd, and supported the newly appointed Pinochet as the one to lead the military response.
Less than 1% of the entire population of Gabon is an awfully small pool to draw from. It would be comparable to the US today focusing its recruitment efforts only on Indian reservations. I doubt that even the French are that stupid.
Where'd ya find that out, Sherlock. Wikipedia?
Actual history, of course, was more complex. Frei was always a leader of the CDP, the center-left opposition party, from 1973 until his death. So of course he opposed the Pinochet government's policies - particularly economic ones - which he disagreed with.
But that does not equate to opposition of the Pinochet government, which Frei participated in very actively. He led the constitutional convention that produced the current Chilean Constitution, all while leading the CDP opposition party. Frei also publicly campaigned for the 1980 constitution referendum - not exactly an act of "strident" political opposition you purport.
It's funny that Frei's politics came up though. I mean, you'd have us believe Pinochet was a mean old dictator who didn't tolerate any political dissent...yet there was an active center-left opposition party operating and participating in the government at the highest levels throughout Pinochet's entire presidency!
What constitution was in effect then?
A functioning constitution in Chile ceased in early 1973 when Allende declared himself able to unilaterally overrule the other 2 branches. So none. Remnants of the 1925 Constitution were still functioning in the Chamber of Deputies, which called for Allende's ouster on August 22nd for his previous violations and refusal to restore the parts he had suspended. Allende's suicide left the military in charge of a dysfunctional government that had no executive branch (all of the cabinet ministers either fled or were arrested as Allendist criminals in their own right) and a power-striken judiciary. The only semi-functioning remnant, the legislature, was controlled by a CDP plurality, that along with the conservatives gave its support to the coup. The military filled the executive branch's absence with a junta consisting of the commanders of each branch and ruled until the Allendist militias were put down in 1974. Pinochet transferred its power into a restored executive branch in December 1974, taking the office of President. He then called the convention to repair and restore constitutional government in 1976. It completed its work in 1979, producing a document built directly upon the 1925 constitution. This was approved in 1980 by a national referendum.
Pinochet did more than arrest a criminal. He seized executive power as well.
Pinochet's office as commander of the armed forces placed him well within the line of presidential succession under Allende. When Allende offed himself he vacated his office. The rest of his cabinet fled or was brought to justice for its own criminality. That left Pinochet the highest ranking official left in the remnants of the government, which is why he was selected president in 1974 over the other generals.
As president of the Senate, Frei preceded Pinochet in the line of succession, according to article 66. You've already established Frei's "non-Allendist" credentials. Assuming that Frei was the highest-ranking official still in the country (or even the highest-ranking "non-Allendist"), it seems that Pinochet violated article 3 by refusing to ceded power to Frei.
Not if Frei endorsed Pinochet and threw his own support behind the military...which is exactly what Frei did.
"Nada puedo hacer yo, ni el Congreso ni ningún civil. Desgraciadamente, este problema sólo se arregla con fusiles. Les aconsejo plantear crudamente sus aprensiones, las que comparto plenamente, a los comandantes en Jefe de las Fuerzas Armadas" - Eduardo Frei Montalva, giving directions to the leadership of the Chilean Industrial Association, July 6, 1973.
"The truth is that the actions of the Armed Forces and the National Police were no more than a preventative measure which preempted a coup d’etat which, with the aid of armed militias and the enormous military power at the government’s disposal and with the collaboration of no less than 10,000 foreigners in the country, would have established a Communist dictatorship" - Patricio Alwyn, President of the CDP, October 19, 1973
"The Allende government had exhausted, with the greatest failure, the Chilean road to socialism and it was rushing towards an “auto-coup” in order to install a Communist dictatorship by force. Chile had been on the edge of experiencing a “Prague Coup,” which would have been tremendously bloody, and the Armed Forces did nothing other than head off that imminent risk" - Alwyn, statement to the press 6 days after the coup
"The country has no way out other than a military government. The world does not know that Chilean Marxism had at its disposal arms superior in number and quality to that of the Chilean Army. The Armed Forces were called, and they complied with a legal obligation, because the executive and judiciary, the Congress and the Supreme Court, had all publicly denounced the presidency and its regime for destroying the Constitution." - Frei, statement to the Spanish media, October 10, 1973
"They were implacable in their efforts to impose a social model clearly inspired in Marxism-Leninism. In order to achieve their ends they twisted the laws or openly trampled over them, ignoring the Judicial Branch. In their attempt at domination, they even tried to substitute a Popular Assembly in the place of the Congress as well as trying to create a system of Popular Tribunals, some of which actually began to operate. This was denounced publicly. They also attempted to transform the entire educational system, based on a process of Marxist indoctrination. These attempts were vigorously rejected, not only by the democratic political parties, but by unions and organizations of every kind, and with regard to education that meant the protests of the Catholic Church and of all of the Protestant faiths, who all made their opposition public. Faced with these realities the Christian Democrat Party could not remain silent. It was its duty—which it fulfilled—to denounce a totalitarian plot which was always disguised behind a democratic mask in order to buy time and to cover up its true objectives." - Frei, letter to Mariano Rumor of the international CDP, November 8, 1973
Because it lacks specific sourcing or explanation of how you arrived at that number. You will also notice significant disparity in muslim populations for each of the colonies you named, ranging from as low as 20% to as high as 100%. An accurate number would thus require estimates based on the troops provided out of each of these colonies, not the region as a whole.
Incorrect. The records show the muslim 13th Waffen-SS was attached to the 2nd Panzer Army under Artillery General Maximilian de Angelis. They were pulled to the front line in Hungary to counter the Red Army's advance. They engaged the Soviets almost continuously from December 1944 until their surrender.
I'm sure the Aryan supremacists in Berlin preferred to send Slavic ûntermenschen to the eastern front slaughter in order to preserve their blond-haired, blue-eyed praetorians for defense of the Heimat.
Incorrect again. The muzzies served right along side plenty of blue eyed blond haired Germans in the 2nd Panzer army. Hitler sent 'em there because the Soviets were making a push straight for his beloved blue-eyed, blonde haired Austria and Hungary was the gateway.
As you mentioned (#214), the the Handschar troops deserted in massive numbers in Hungary
The January 1945 muster puts them at 12,000, down from 20,000 the previous year. IOW, they lost 8,000 in deaths, injuries, and desertions combined during a year of combat. The number is comparable to just about any other eastern front division in similar conditions circa 1945.
and the remaining troops raised the white flag a month after arriving in Austria, presumably having moved there for the opportunity to surrender to the Brits rather than Stalin's Red Army.
Actually they were forcefully pushed back into Austria by the Soviet advance on Vienna, the city where Hitler grew up. Along with Berlin, it was the focal point of the Nazi's last stand. The Soviets and Brits met in Austria, so yes - they picked the better side to surrender to.
Except that the Visigothic claim to Spain came directly from Roman Emperor Honorius. Rome's claim on Spain dates to 201 B.C., which puts their cumulative right of succession at 912 years before the Moors showed up.
So as I said in answer to your question, too long.
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.