Pinochet.
Edward Sparkes
He was here as a guest. Perhaps they did not want him. If so,
they should have refused him entry.
Once here he was in our 'care'.
The most primitive societies honour the status of a man as long as
he is a guest.
I do not, in any way support his behaviour.
Leave him to Chile. There are enough people there who would like to
see him pay for his disgusting acts.
Do not fall back on the law. That is a' ass.
Edward.
Guy King
from Edward Sparkes <spa...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Leave him to Chile. There are enough people there who would like to
> see him pay for his disgusting acts.
But they've had years to do it, and are only now saying that they
mean to get him.
--
| |\_/|
Guy King |~~(o o) My mother warned me about
Hounslow, Middlesex | /=(Y)= loose cars and fast women.
guy....@zetnet.co.uk |(
www.users.zetnet.co.uk/gking/ | \
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from Edward Sparkes <spa...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> He was here as a guest. Perhaps they did not want him. If so,
> they should have refused him entry.
> Once here he was in our 'care'.
> The most primitive societies honour the status of a man as long as
> he is a guest.
> I do not, in any way support his behaviour.
> Leave him to Chile. There are enough people there who would like to
> see him pay for his disgusting acts.
> Do not fall back on the law. That is a' ass.
I quite agree.
--
Adrian Tupper, Edinburgh
adrian...@zetnet.co.uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/adriantupper/
David Jackson
from Edward Sparkes <spa...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> He was here as a guest. Perhaps they did not want him. If so,
> they should have refused him entry.
> Once here he was in our 'care'.
. . . and that is the big problem.
He was invited to the party, and now the bully from down the road
wants to work him over. Do you send him out, or continue the 'care' . . .
--
Dave
Frodsham
Mark Trudgill
from David Jackson <dija...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
That all depends on who invited him to the party doesn't it,
especially if it was the previous householder that thinks they have a
right in the say of the day to day running of the said household.
I believe he came here of his own free will and requested to recieve
medical treatment.
There were Nazis that dangled at the end of a rope for less, and I
dont recall Rudolph Hess being released in his twilight years because
he was old.
Musolini had quite a fitting end if I recall correctly, dangling from
a lampost by piano wire.
Mark Trudgill..
David Jackson
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I believe he came here of his own free will and requested to recieve
> medical treatment.
I read that he came as part of a military purchasing group and had
the treatment while here.
The group was invited by the government. This lot or that lot is irrelevant.
> There were Nazis that dangled at the end of a rope for less, and I
> dont recall Rudolph Hess being released in his twilight years because
> he was old.
He had been sentenced by the international courts after the war - he
would have been released as far as the West was concerned but the
Russians wouldn't go along with that.
> Musolini had quite a fitting end if I recall correctly, dangling from
> a lampost by piano wire.
Wasn't he lynched by the Italians? Perhaps the Chileans should be
given a similar courtesy where Pinochet is concerned.
--
Dave
Frodsham
... He's not dead, Jim, he's just metabolically challenged.
David Jackson
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Yes, you've really got to feel sorry for him, suddenly hounded by the
> relatives of all the dead, tortured, maimed....
I didn't say I felt sorry for him.
On the other hand, of course, Spain has many who are as guilty as
Pinochet from the Franco years (so I hear - history is not a
favourite subject in this household). Could it be that Pinochet is a
scapegoat? Could it be that they'll suddenly get to like the flavour
and sort out one or two "home-grown" characters?
--
Dave
Frodsham
Colin Reeves
from Edward Sparkes <spa...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> He was here as a guest. Perhaps they did not want him. If so,
> they should have refused him entry.
> Once here he was in our 'care'.
> The most primitive societies honour the status of a man as long as
> he is a guest.
> I do not, in any way support his behaviour.
> Leave him to Chile. There are enough people there who would like to
> see him pay for his disgusting acts.
> Do not fall back on the law. That is a' ass.
Nice to see a logical post instead of the pseudo-legal rantings of
David(s), Mark and Aonghas
--
Colin, Blantyre (Home of the David Livingstone Centre)
Gerald L R Stubbs
from David Jackson <dija...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Wasn't he lynched by the Italians? Perhaps the Chileans should be
> given a similar courtesy where Pinochet is concerned.
> Dave
Yes, there is a very famous photograph of
him dangling beside his mistress.
Neither of them look as stylish as they
were in life.
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Gerald L R Stubbs
from Colin Reeves <colin...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> from Edward Sparkes <spa...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > He was here as a guest. Perhaps they did not want him. If so,
> > they should have refused him entry.
<snip>
> > Do not fall back on the law. That is a' ass.
> Nice to see a logical post instead of the pseudo-legal rantings of
> David(s), Mark and Aonghas
> Colin
I can't say that I agree with your sentiments,
Colin. Whilst Edward's post is probably the
right moral attitude to take I don't see the
logic, the question in hand is what the
British government is going to do about an
extradition demand from Spain.
What the man has or has not done is none of our
business as we have never had any intention
of trying him. While he was over here, perfectly
legally, the government was landed with a
particularly hot potato in its lap.
I personally couldn't care less what happens to
him, but I am very interested to see what the
government does to get itself out of the mess.
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Mark Trudgill
from Colin Reeves <colin...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Nice to see a logical post instead of the pseudo-legal rantings of
> David(s), Mark and Aonghas
Well thank you William Wallace for that articulate outburst there.
I'd tell you what to do but alas I can do without the wode on your
face blueing up my backside.
I think that the dicussion is a legal one, and therefore relavent. As
for pseudo, I hardly think that the learned DWG would take kindly to
that remark as no doubt he's in a position with his legal background
throw a little light on judicial precedings.
The answer to not liking our rantings is to not read them.
I notice this is your first posting on the subject, If you have an
opinion either way please feel free to state them and not take snipes
at people that have. I sit here awaiting with baited breath.
Mark Trudgill..
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> There were Nazis that dangled at the end of a rope for less, and I
> dont recall Rudolph Hess being released in his twilight years because
> he was old.
Neither was he arrested when he landed over here.
Mark Trudgill
from Adrian Marsh Tupper <adrian...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The message <199811290...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > There were Nazis that dangled at the end of a rope for less, and I
> > dont recall Rudolph Hess being released in his twilight years because
> > he was old.
> Neither was he arrested when he landed over here.
I think you'll find that he was. He was at least detained here and
wasn't returned to Germany untill after the war.
Mark Trudgill..
Gerald L R Stubbs
> from Adrian Marsh Tupper <adrian...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > Neither was he arrested when he landed over here.
> I think you'll find that he was. He was at least detained here and
> wasn't returned to Germany untill after the war.
> Mark Trudgill..
Whether arrested or detained, it would have been
unfair to have sent him back, no?
I have never really understood why he was sentenced.
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
John Greetham
> > > There were Nazis that dangled at the end of a rope for less, and I
> > > dont recall Rudolph Hess being released in his twilight years because
> > > he was old.
> > Neither was he arrested when he landed over here.
> I think you'll find that he was. He was at least detained here and
> wasn't returned to Germany until after the war.
Hess flew to Scotland on 10th May 1941 with peace proposals,
demanding a free hand for Germany in Europe in return for Germany's
promise to respect the integrity of the British Empire and the return
of Britains former colonies. He was treated as a prisoner of war and
held here throughout the rest of the war. Having been tried and
convicted at Nürnberg he received a life sentence, which actually
meant life due to the Russian's refusal to accept pleas of clemency
through failing health.
JG
Rick Hayward
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I think that the dicussion is a legal one, and therefore relevant.
Of course it is. There are political connotations, obviously - of
which the main one is the issue of the effect within Chile and the
relationship between this country and that. But the issue *is* a
legal one - Spain has asked for extradition, and unless you want
international agreements - and law in general - to be a matter of
individual predeliction, choice and convenience (got a few I'm not
too keen on), then the process has to go on.
Trite no-think like 'the law's an ass' isn't an argument - it's just
playpen rattling. What's assinine about an extradition request which
leads to the collaring of an individual linked to thousands of deaths?
Whatever the ultimate outcome. I can't understand all these crocodile
tears about the evil old US-client bastard - at least he is subject
to a judicial process - which is more than can be said for a few
thousand of the Disappeared. Prejudgement? Of course he's as guilty
as hell - Thatcher's support established that :-)).
As to 'guest', Edward - if Ian Brady happened to turn up at your
party, would you hide him in the cellar if you found out and the
police knocked on the door?
Perhaps Pinochet shouldn't have been allowed in in the first place
(we all know about the iniquities of the arms trade) - but it's not
too late to start doing some of the right thing.
The consistency argument: 'What about Spain, Russia .... ?' (fill in
the blanks) doesn't hold water. It's reminiscent of the kid in the
classroom who gets caught and uses as justification the assertion
'Well - he did it too, sir'. Agreed some comparable criminals have
got the red carpet treatment - and that a lot of diplomacy involves
pragmatism - even cynical hypocrisy. But it's still worth getting
some of it right some of the time. Just because the world isn't
perfect doesn't mean that you give up on the process of attempting to
make it better.
Beyond the immediate case, it is valuable that the whole notion of
'crimes against humanity' in the international context has got an airing.
--
RH
Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
Gerald L R Stubbs
from John Greetham <cres...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> He was treated as a prisoner of war and held here throughout
> the rest of the war. Having been tried and convicted at
> Nürnberg he received a life sentence, which actually meant life
> due to the Russian's refusal to accept pleas of clemency through
> failing health.
> JG
This I know, but what did he get the life
sentence for?
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Mark Trudgill
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The message <199811301...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > The message <199811291...@zetnet.co.uk>
> > from Adrian Marsh Tupper <adrian...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > > Neither was he arrested when he landed over here.
> > I think you'll find that he was. He was at least detained here and
> > wasn't returned to Germany untill after the war.
> > Mark Trudgill..
> Whether arrested or detained, it would have been
> unfair to have sent him back, no?
> I have never really understood why he was sentenced.
I suspect it might have been something to do with his involvement in
the nazi regimes activities prior to having his collar felt around 1940.
If memory serves me right they came to power in 1933, so 7 years of
being a bad lad.
I also suspect that it was done as an example to others.
Mark Trudgill..
Edward Sparkes
from Rick Hayward <rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The message <199811292...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > I think that the dicussion is a legal one, and therefore relevant.
> Of course it is. There are political connotations, obviously - of
> which the main one is the issue of the effect within Chile and the
> relationship between this country and that. But the issue *is* a
> legal one - Spain has asked for extradition, and unless you want
> international agreements - and law in general - to be a matter of
> individual predeliction, choice and convenience (got a few I'm not
> too keen on), then the process has to go on. ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have absolutely no sympathy for Pinochet and feel that he should have
been dealt with legally by his own country or proceedings followed through
the International Court.
He should never have been allowed into this country but if we are using
our medical services to bait a trap we are hardly on high moral ground.
The law of the 'piano wire' lynch mob may satisfy primitive urges but
*justice*?
> Trite no-think like 'the law's an ass' isn't an argument - it's just
> playpen rattling.
This is the "Yah! Boo! Sucks! Language of the playground.
> Whatever the ultimate outcome. I can't understand all these crocodile
> tears about the evil old US-client bastard -
I have considerable respect for you Rick and for you Mark and have always
enjoyed you contributions but I do not understand why you have to keep
waving your red Kipper ties at us on all knee jerk occasions.
[ ;) Mark ] [ No genuflection Rick. ]
Fundamentalism has no place in sensible thought, be it left or right.
This is sheer emotional coruscation masquerading as thought.
Edward.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Rick Hayward <rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Of course it is. There are political connotations, obviously - of
> which the main one is the issue of the effect within Chile and the
> relationship between this country and that. But the issue *is* a
> legal one - Spain has asked for extradition, and unless you want
> international agreements - and law in general - to be a matter of
> individual predeliction, choice and convenience (got a few I'm not
> too keen on), then the process has to go on.
All the international conventions, including those on both genocide
and torture, give the paramount jurisdiction to the country in which
the offence was committed. There is some basis in international law
for attempts by a state to extend it's jurisdiction to acts committed
by it's citizens outside it's territory, but none for attempts by a
state to claim jurisdiction over the acts of nationals of third
countries within such countries.
In an ideal world all absolute rulers should be subject to an
international tribunal for their actions. There is no such thing as
a benign absolute ruler, and they are all revolting people differing
only in the magnitude of their crimes against their people.
With Pinochet there is some evidence of the application of double
standards. If Mao or Chou had been treated in the London Clinic, I
greatly doubt that there would have been any widespread support for
their extradition to Taiwan. Equally if Joe Stalin had survived and
was having treatment at the clinic, attempts to extradite him to the
Ukraine would go unanswered.
--
~~~~~~~~~~
David W-G
~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Trudgill
> With Pinochet there is some evidence of the application of double
> standards. If Mao or Chou had been treated in the London Clinic, I
> greatly doubt that there would have been any widespread support for
> their extradition to Taiwan. Equally if Joe Stalin had survived and
> was having treatment at the clinic, attempts to extradite him to the
> Ukraine would go unanswered.
I think its to do with the fact that under international law, heads
of state are immune from prosecution for acts in their own country.
Pinochet is no longer head of state so has no longer any immunity,
hence the extradition warrant for him.
If any of the others you mention were have been succeded to to power
by a 3rd party before their deaths and other states required them to
stand trial, I think we would be having this discussion about them also.
We afterall are not trying the man all we've been asked to do is hand
him over to a democratically accountable government that wishes to do so.
Mark Trudgill..
Rick Hayward
from Edward Sparkes <spa...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I have absolutely no sympathy for Pinochet and feel that he should have
> been dealt with legally by his own country or proceedings followed through
> the International Court.
Agreed that the ideal situation might be the framework of an
international court, but failing that, the present situation is a
reasonable step forward in pursuing a vital principle ...
> He should never have been allowed into this country but if we are using
> our medical services to bait a trap we are hardly on high moral ground.
Perhaps he shouldn't have been let in ... but I have seen no evidence
to support the 'baiting of a trap' theory. And even if it was a trap,
it seems an eminently worthy objective.
> The law of the 'piano wire' lynch mob may satisfy primitive urges but
> *justice*?
But this isn't a lynch-mob process, is it? - it's a complex judicial
one. As I said - more than Pinochet ever applied to those murdered in Chile.
> > Trite no-think like 'the law's an ass' isn't an argument - it's just
> > playpen rattling.
> This is the "Yah! Boo! Sucks! Language of the playground.
Not really - simply a pointed description of generalized comments
(noises) totally unrelated to the substance of the issues. There is
no way that the proceedings relating to the extradition of Pinochet
can be held to be an example of assinine or perverse law.
> > Whatever the ultimate outcome. I can't understand all these crocodile
> > tears about the evil old US-client bastard -
> I do not understand why you have to keep
> waving your red Kipper ties at us
Again, Edward - the judgement is harsh, but simply a statement of the
evidence. My feelings about it are shared by a very wide political
spectrum - nothing singularly 'left' wing about it (unless the rest
of politics has coralled itself into a definition which embraces mass
murder as a normal political tool - in which case, I guess civilized
society basically wears a red kipper tie).
The facts are : (1) Pinochet was supported by the CIA in
overthrowing/murdering the democratically elected Allende and (2)
Subsequently headed an illegitimate government which operated through
a reign of terror, and whose secret organs were instrumental in
murdering thousands of Chilean citizens.
If anyone has evidence to contradict that basic description of what
happened, I'd be happy to hear it. But I haven't heard anyone
claiming that there is no primae facie case that Pinochet was guilty
(if not formally convicted) of crimes against humanity.
> Fundamentalism has no place in sensible thought, be it left or right.
> This is sheer emotional coruscation masquerading as thought.
There are issues of fundamentalism. Not the narrow, exclusive sort,
but the fundamental principles of the UN Declaration of Human Rights
- which seems to me to still be a reasoned statement of civilized
principles. There are bottom lines for all of us - if that's confused
with 'fundamentalism' - so be it.
So no, it's not 'emotional corruscation' - it's a reasoned
indignation at the gross violation of the right to life that Pinochet
represents.
If you wish to argue that, despite this, there are pragmatic reasons
that a greater good may be achieved by not upsetting the Chilean
applecart at this juncture, then fine - I think that is an argument
that can be made. But I don't think that there is any basis upon
which to argue that the proceedings against Pinochet are willful or
wrong-headed in terms of the principles or the process.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> If any of the others you mention were have been succeded to to power
> by a 3rd party before their deaths and other states required them to
> stand trial, I think we would be having this discussion about them also.
I was speculating about the situation that might have happened if
they had lived on after losing power, and then come to London for
medical treatment. I greatly doubt there would have been the same
reflex action regarding any of them.
Mark Trudgill
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
We're argueing hypotheticals here Dave but times have changed with
the death of the Russian bear.
Major players on the world stage need another great evil to direct
its military might towards, and I think its now the turn of despots
that were once supported in the fight against communism. The yanks
lifted Ortega from Panama, Saddam Hussien has been well documented.
The Afghans are begining to step out of line a little after being
armed by the Americans.
I think the Pinochet experience will become a regular occurence if he
does get extradited.
I would bet large ammounts of cash on the fact the American, British
and Isreali secret services knew well in advance that an extradition
warrant was in the offing long before it arrived. So if they didn't
want to be party to this, they would have told him to make a rather
rapid exit back to Chile and say he flew the coup before we could catch him.
Another reason I think he will be extradited is it would show an
example to others that might want to step out of line.
Mark Trudgill..
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Rick Hayward <rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> There is no way that the proceedings relating to the extradition of Pinochet
> can be held to be an example of assinine or perverse law.
> But I don't think that there is any basis upon
> which to argue that the proceedings against Pinochet are willful or
> wrong-headed in terms of the principles or the process.
Under the normal rules of international law Chile is the only country
with jurisdiction over Pinochet. Spain's claims to be able to extend
it's jurisdiction to cover acts by foriegn nationals in their own
contry are highly dubious. Under the Conventions on Torture and
Genocide, jurisdiction lies with Chile as the country where the
alleged crime was committed, or with the UK as the apprehending
state. It will be for the Chief Magistrate to decide if Spain has
established jurisdiction, and whether there is a prima facie case to
answer, which will in turn depend on the evidence the Spaniards are
able to produce.
There is no doubt that many crimes were committed during Pinochet's
rule. Whether there is any evidence which can directly connect him
to any of those crimes we do not know, but it is likely that it will
be found only in Chile.
The UK today signed a convention to set an international criminal
court, which will provide a better means of dealing with similar
cases in the future
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I think its to do with the fact that under international law, heads
> of state are immune from prosecution for acts in their own country.
> Pinochet is no longer head of state so has no longer any immunity,
> hence the extradition warrant for him.
The House of Lords ruling applies equally to heads of state still in
office as to those who have retired from office. It held that
sovereign immunity from prosecution did not apply to acts outside the
normal scope of the duties of a head of state, and could never
include breaches of the conventions on torture and genocide. The
decision may well cause considerable problems in future with visits
by heads of state if the Spanish claim to extra territorial
jurisdiction is upheld.
Colin Reeves
from Rick Hayward <rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> There are issues of fundamentalism. Not the narrow, exclusive sort,
> but the fundamental principles of the UN Declaration of Human Rights
> - which seems to me to still be a reasoned statement of civilized
> principles. There are bottom lines for all of us - if that's confused
> with 'fundamentalism' - so be it.
This argument does have a degree of sense in it. However, the present
situation is one country (Spain) taking unilateral action.
For your argument to hold water any legal action should be taken in
the name of the UN and any trial held in a suitable international court.
The present parochial debacle is unsustainable.
Rick Hayward
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Under the normal rules of international law Chile is the only country
> with jurisdiction over Pinochet. Spain's claims to be able to extend
> it's jurisdiction to cover acts by foriegn nationals in their own
> contry are highly dubious.
... but worthy, I think, of being tested. The argument from Spain is,
I believe, that Pinochet committed crimes against Spanish nationals.
> Under the Conventions on Torture and
> Genocide, jurisdiction lies with Chile as the country where the
> alleged crime was committed, or with the UK as the apprehending
> state. It will be for the Chief Magistrate to decide if Spain has
> established jurisdiction, and whether there is a prima facie case to
> answer, which will in turn depend on the evidence the Spaniards are
> able to produce.
Which is part of the point I was making - that this is a rational
judicial process, not a case of 'the law is an ass'.
> The UK today signed a convention to set an international criminal
> court, which will provide a better means of dealing with similar
> cases in the future
I would heartily agree that if it is established that there is a
basis for an international definition of certain crimes, then an
international court is the forum in which they should be tried.
My prime objections to some comments was firstly the idea that
Pinochet was in some way suffering injustice, and secondly the notion
that because some sadistic perverts have managed to get away with
crimes as heads of state, then all such crimes should be ignored.
In my view, any step forward, however imperfect, in making such
behaviour subject to penalty is worthwhile.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Rick Hayward <rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Which is part of the point I was making - that this is a rational
> judicial process, not a case of 'the law is an ass'.
We agree! My objection is not to Pinochet being tried for what he
did, but the attempt by Spain to usurp jurisdiction. It is
thoroughly silly because (a) it is highly unlikely there will be
evidence sufficient to convict and (b) there is no possibility of
Pinochet being actually punished as Spain does not send people of his
age to prison. The whole thing is a stupid farce and looks to be
getting worse. In the end the only sensible thing to do is to send
the ghastly man back to Chile, which is what should have been done
immediately he was able to be discharged from the clinic.
Peter Ellis
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The UK today signed a convention to set an international criminal
> court, which will provide a better means of dealing with similar
> cases in the future
Are we still waiting for the Americans to sign it and are they still
prevaricating?
Cheers
Peter
Peter Ellis
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Whether arrested or detained, it would have been
> unfair to have sent him back, no?
> I have never really understood why he was sentenced.
>
Neither have I. He was away from Germany when all the worst excesses
were being perpetrated. Presumably it was a fear of Russian intentions.
Cheers
Peter
Peter Ellis
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I would bet large ammounts of cash on the fact the American, British
> and Isreali secret services knew well in advance that an extradition
> warrant was in the offing long before it arrived. So if they didn't
> want to be party to this, they would have told him to make a rather
> rapid exit back to Chile and say he flew the coup before we could catch him.
I tend to agree with you on this. The subsequent hiatus, which is
obviously problematical whichever way it goes, makes one wonder who
had it in for the Foreign Secretary? Whilst Jack Straw has the
immediate problem, Cookie will have to sort out the result.
Cheers
Peter
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Peter Ellis <peter...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Neither have I. He was away from Germany when all the worst excesses
> were being perpetrated. Presumably it was a fear of Russian intentions.
Hess was Deputy to Hitler until he flew to the UK. He seemed to be
mentally unbalanced, and I wonder if he should have been tried at all.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Peter Ellis <peter...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Are we still waiting for the Americans to sign it and are they still
> prevaricating?
No idea who has signed other than us
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Peter Ellis <peter...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I tend to agree with you on this. The subsequent hiatus, which is
> obviously problematical whichever way it goes, makes one wonder who
> had it in for the Foreign Secretary? Whilst Jack Straw has the
> immediate problem, Cookie will have to sort out the result.
If the extradition proceedings do go ahead the forecast is now that
they will last months, so there will be considerable embarrassment
for a long period. I expect that there are members of the government
who wish they had resisted their initial reflex action and bundled
Pinochet back to Chile as soon as it was possible to do so.
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Under the normal rules of international law Chile is the only country
> with jurisdiction over Pinochet. Spain's claims to be able to extend
> it's jurisdiction to cover acts by foriegn nationals in their own
> contry are highly dubious.
That may be so but extra-territorial law is nothing peculiarly
Spanish. The USA apply such a system to foreign companies for
example. Israel are happy to try John Demjanjuk and Iran Salman Rushdie.
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The whole thing is a stupid farce and looks to be
> getting worse.
Unusual agreement with you here.
I see today that another Bosnian Serb has been arrested. This one
was commander of the unit which went in to Srebrenica seemingly with
the UN's blessing (or at least with no resistance). However Mr
Seselj, former Yugoslav crack army unit commander and now senior
member of the Belgrade goverment was "tipped off" by the UN in
Bosnia. He could, apparently, have been arrested. These are the
guys we should be apprehending not old fools who we refused to pick
on when they were "our own size". Cowards.
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from Peter Ellis <peter...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Whilst Jack Straw has the
> immediate problem, Cookie will have to sort out the result.
Oh dear.
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from Peter Ellis <peter...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > Whether arrested or detained, it would have been
> > unfair to have sent him back, no?
> > I have never really understood why he was sentenced.
> >
> Neither have I. He was away from Germany when all the worst excesses
> were being perpetrated. Presumably it was a fear of Russian intentions.
Well wasn't he offering peace to Britain so that the Nazi's could
move in to Russia without worrying about the western front?
Surely the Russians saw this as an act of war.
Rick Hayward
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The message <199812012...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from Rick Hayward <rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > Which is part of the point I was making - that this is a rational
> > judicial process, not a case of 'the law is an ass'.
> We agree!
I think that we broadly do :-)
> The whole thing is a stupid farce and looks to be
> getting worse.
... except that my view is that, whatever the ultimate outcome, the
process has been a useful exercise on moving this agenda (re.
fundamental human rights) further forward.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Rick Hayward <rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> ... except that my view is that, whatever the ultimate outcome, the
> process has been a useful exercise on moving this agenda (re.
> fundamental human rights) further forward.
It has certainly done that, and may even have speeded up the
establishment of the proposed International Criminal Court.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Adrian Marsh Tupper <adrian...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Israel are happy to try John Demjanjuk and Iran Salman Rushdie.
Israel also dealt with Eichmann. There was no opportunity for
Eichmann to challenge the legality of his abduction, trial and
subsequent execution! Iran has no wish or need to try Salman
Rushdie as he has already been sentenced to death by a fatwa.
Gerald L R Stubbs
from Adrian Marsh Tupper <adrian...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Well wasn't he offering peace to Britain so that the Nazi's could
> move in to Russia without worrying about the western front?
> Surely the Russians saw this as an act of war.
> Adrian Tupper
I think the terms were that we would be left alone
if we did not intervene in Germany's territorial
ambitions.
The whole thing strikes me as strange. It could
surely have been arranged through official channels
so that he came over under the protection of a
white flag, said his piece and then returned?
Instead he comes over on his own, crash lands, I
believe, and then has to convince his captors that
he has something important to say to Mr Churchill!
Acts of war, BTW, are not criminal if conducted
within the terms of the Geneva convention, and as
DWG says, he arrived fairly early on in the war
before, I think, the Germans got their extermination
programme under way.
--
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Peter Ellis
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Acts of war, BTW, are not criminal if conducted
> within the terms of the Geneva convention, and as
> DWG says, he arrived fairly early on in the war
> before, I think, the Germans got their extermination
> programme under way.
IIRC, that was me. The Geneva Convention has some interesting clauses
in it. It is acceptable to kill a man with a bayonet, for example,
providing it is not rusty. The thinking seems to be that a rusty
bayonet could give rise to blood poisoning. Since a muffed bayonet
wound could well turn gangrenous anyway, it seems a moot point.
Cheers
Peter
Gerald L R Stubbs
from Peter Ellis <peter...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> IIRC, that was me. The Geneva Convention has some interesting clauses
> in it. It is acceptable to kill a man with a bayonet, for example,
> providing it is not rusty. The thinking seems to be that a rusty
> bayonet could give rise to blood poisoning. Since a muffed bayonet
> wound could well turn gangrenous anyway, it seems a moot point.
> Peter
I am only allowed by law to shoot game with
expanding, soft-nosed rounds, commonly known
as dum-dums. This is because they do a great
deal of damage and if they don't kill a beast
outright it will stand a good chance of
dying of its wounds.
I am only allowed to shoot at people, under the
Geneva Convention, with a fully clad round as
it stands more chance of passing straight through
a body, leaving the victim wounded, given that it
does not hit anything vital.
Work that one out!
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I am only allowed by law to shoot game with
> expanding, soft-nosed rounds, commonly known
> as dum-dums. This is because they do a great
> deal of damage and if they don't kill a beast
> outright it will stand a good chance of
> dying of its wounds.
But only with high-velocity rifles, and the
rounds are not Dumdum. A proper Dumdum round is
usually cast lead, with a depression or a cut
cross in the nose. (First made at the Dum Dum
Armoury near Calcutta, and IIRC, the bullets
were for the ·577"/·450" round.
The high-velocity bullets 'mushroom', tearing
back strips of the metal jacket, causing severe
trauma and shock, which almost always prevents
the animal from moving, in the event of it being
living yet. I have only ever seen one deer run
after being hit with a heart-shot from such a
bullet. (The gralloch showed that the bullet had
passed through the heart - should have killed the
beast immediately.)
> I am only allowed to shoot at people, under the
> Geneva Convention, with a fully clad round as
> it stands more chance of passing straight through
> a body, leaving the victim wounded, given that it
> does not hit anything vital.
> Work that one out!
>
> Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
>
> <:)(((((><<
No need to, if it has passed clean through. <G>
APM
David Wynne-Griffiths
The poor man had an almost impossible decision to make. If he had
done what the Foreign Office wanted and returned the old tyrant to
Chile he would have upset the back bench MP's who supported Allende
in their youth. Now he has made the left wing happy, but faces months
of legal proceedings and endless difficulties both for himself and
Robin Cook. If the proceedings are successful and extradition
eventually goes ahead, there will be further months of a show trial
in Spain, at the end of which a rather older Pinochet, if he is still
with us, will be returned to Chile! Seems all a rather pointless
waste of money, but I suppose it will make some people happy.
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Seems all a rather pointless
> waste of money, but I suppose it will make some people happy.
That's lawyers!
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Adrian Marsh Tupper <adrian...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > Seems all a rather pointless
> > waste of money, but I suppose it will make some people happy.
> That's lawyers!
Quite right! They are the people who will make the money.
Gary Jackson
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> So Jack Straw has decided to let the extradition proceedings start.
> The poor man had an almost impossible decision to make.
He said he had taken the decision based on the legal aspect, and from
that point of view he was right I think.
Gary
David Wynne-Griffiths
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Just the sort of response you'd expect from a fascist.
> I should /imagine/ that in this delicate situation, Jack Straw acted on
> the best /legal/ advice he could get and that political considerations
> didn't enter into it. If you know otherwise, and are a man of honour,
> then you must surely make your concerns available to the appropriate
> authorities rather than resorting to posting here what appear to be
> snide, politically motivated comments.
I suppose typical of the pathetic responses we have come to expect
from you. Incapable of arguing to the point you have to attack your
opponent.
Political considerations inevitably entered into Jack Straw's
decision, but all he has done is to allow the proceedings to start.
When they conclude in about a year's time he will still have to take
the decision of whether or not to allow extradition to proceed, but
in the meantime he has pleased his own left wing which may be
important to his political ambitions.
Even if extradition eventually takes place, and even if Pinochet is
tried and found guilty in Spain nothing will happen to him because he
is too old to be sent to prison in Spain. The end of the long saga
is that Pinochet will be returned to Chile. The lawyers in the UK
and Spain will be at least £10 million richer but will any useful
purpose have been served?
Under the international conventions on torture and genocide he should
be tried either in Chile or the UK and not in any third country. If
Chile does not undertake to try Pinochet, then we should.
David Wynne-Griffiths
of the House of Lords has never previously been asked to set aside a
decision. The application on behalf of Pinochet is being heard next
week by three Law Lords. No one wants to admit the possibility that
Lord Hoffman might have been biased, but the revelation that he is a
director of Amnesty International and that his wife works for them
could create that impression. He should have disqualified himself
from sitting as Amnesty International were represented by Counsel in
the application heard by the House of Lords.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Then maybe the international conventions are in need of updating. If
> Spanish citizens suffered under Pinochet, then Spain feels it has, or
> should have, the right to try him.
They are both fairly recent, and observe the basic principle that the
country where the offence was committed is the most appropriate
country for the case to be tried. The country where the acccused was
arrested has jurisdiction if for some reason the country where the
offence was committed is unwilling or unable to exercise it's jurisdiction.
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
/snip/
No one wants to admit the possibility that
> Lord Hoffman might have been biased, but the revelation that he is a
> director of Amnesty International and that his wife works for them
> could create that impression. He should have disqualified himself
> from sitting as Amnesty International were represented by Counsel in
> the application heard by the House of Lords.
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> David W-G
> ~~~~~~~~~~
Thoroughly in agreement here. I would go further though: his failure
to register his interest uncovers a distinct lack of judgement on his
part, which would in my opinion disqualify him from making any more
legal judgements - period.
He is known to be opinionated and stubborn. I think that this latest
manifestation of his thoughtlessness catapults him into the realms of
arrogance.
--
Aonghas Mackenzie
an.b...@zetnet.co.uk
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
/snip/
> The country where the acccused was
> arrested has jurisdiction if for some reason the country where the
> offence was committed is unwilling or unable to exercise it's jurisdiction.
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> David W-G
> ~~~~~~~~~~
In which case, since Chile has the ability to proceed, and has
stated its willingness to do so, there can be no excuse for not
returning Pinochet to Chile.
Could it be that Chile and HMG are in secret collusion here? If
Pinochet is returned, Chile will be a nation divided against itself,
and the government of both our nations might think that the best way
out is to prevent any conflict between the civil and military courts in Chile.
APM
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Could it be that Chile and HMG are in secret collusion here? If
> Pinochet is returned, Chile will be a nation divided against itself,
> and the government of both our nations might think that the best way
> out is to prevent any conflict between the civil and military courts in Chile.
I think there are big problems for Chile in dealing with Pinochet,
because a deal was done with him as part of the settlement on the
return to democracy at the end of his dictatorship. It would be
rather like HMG deciding to try Adams for terrorism and murder after
the Good Friday agreement.
If the trial in Spain takes place, there is going to be massive
embarrassment for the Spanish government, which chose to take no
action against those responsible for torture and murder during the
reign of Franco, and has happily sheltered and refused to extradite
those wanted for serious crimes in many other countries.
I think everyone will wish in the end that the murdering bastard was
flown back to Chile as soon as it was possible. The apparent joy of
the red kipper tie brigade at the possibility that Pinochet might
have to stand trial in Spain, seems unaffected by the fact that he
will not be punished even if found guilty and that Pinochet will
almost certainly be returned to Chile. There is a possibility that
Pinochet will die during the protracted farce which will make him a
martyr to his followers in Chile.
Mark Trudgill
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> If the trial in Spain takes place, there is going to be massive
> embarrassment for the Spanish government, which chose to take no
> action against those responsible for torture and murder during the
> reign of Franco, and has happily sheltered and refused to extradite
> those wanted for serious crimes in many other countries.
I think Spains past is slightly different inasmuch as Franco and many
of his righthand men are dead.
> The apparent joy of the red kipper tie brigade
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn't this the copyright of E Sparkes esq ?. :)
> There is a possibility that Pinochet will die during the protracted
farce which will make > him a martyr to his followers in Chile.
Yes but dying peaceful in his sleep as it were hasn't quite the same
heroic quality (sic) to martyrdom that dangling from a rope or facing
a firing squad would have does it.
Mark Trudgill..
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Yes but dying peaceful in his sleep as it were hasn't quite the same
> heroic quality (sic) to martyrdom that dangling from a rope or facing
> a firing squad would have does it.
He is not going to face execution or prison even if he is convicted,
which is why the whole farce would be better not played.
Martin Briscoe
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
I see on the news that Pinochet is now accusing the British
governement of kidnapping - he was invited to the vountry and then arrested.
I wonder if this means that the Chileans could ask for the
extradition of Straw if he should visit a country that they have an
extradition treaty with (Spain perhaps!). Of course any such country
would have to arrest Straw and hold him in custody for the months
that it could take to decide - can't have politics influencing a
decision. Its a nice thought - I can remember Straw from his days
running the NUS.
Martin
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from Martin Briscoe <martin....@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I see on the news that Pinochet is now accusing the British
> governement of kidnapping - he was invited to the vountry and then arrested.
/snip/
> Martin
OTOH HMG claims that it advised Pinochet to stay out of the country
when it learned that Spain's investigation into the matters were complete.
APM
Martin Briscoe
from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The message <199812122...@zetnet.co.uk>
The newspaper report says the British embassy in Madrid passed that
message to the Chilean embassy which passed it onto Pinochet but he
presumed he was OK as he had been invited to the UK by the Ministry
of Defence. Whole thing is just a mess, I wonder if we will ever
find out how much it has all cost the British taxpayer.
Martin
m.far...@zetnet.co.uk
<martin....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The newspaper report says the British embassy in Madrid passed that
>message to the Chilean embassy which passed it onto Pinochet but he
>presumed he was OK as he had been invited to the UK by the Ministry
>of Defence. Whole thing is just a mess, I wonder if we will ever
>find out how much it has all cost the British taxpayer.
>
>Martin
>
Hi,
Given the imbalance in trade between the two countries (In favour of
Chile) their threat of economic sanctions is mere posturing. It's a
pity that their health service isn't upto offering the kind of
treatment the General needed then he wouldn't come to the UK in the
first place. The sooner he is bundled off to Spain to face the music
the better.
Mike
Anne Jackson
from m.far...@zetnet.co.uk :
~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello, hello, hello!! That there's a new name, is it not!
How long have you been lurking in the wings? Welcome to .local Mike! <g>
Anne
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Martin Briscoe <martin....@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Whole thing is just a mess, I wonder if we will ever
> find out how much it has all cost the British taxpayer.
The big cost is yet to come as the extradition proccedings now look
as if they will take at least a year. With police protection the cost
will be well over £5 million.
teres...@my-dejanews.com
Every time you bring a criminal to justice it costs the taxpayers money. Do
you want to do away with the entire criminal justice system?
Teresa in New York
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own