Extradition
Gerald L R Stubbs
extradited, it is up to the government to ratify that decision, as I
understand things.
The government seems to be prevaricating. It would seem to me that
the evidence against the man is sufficient for him to stand trial to
answer the allegations that he was responsible for executing Spanish
citizens among the 30 thousand people he is alleged to have 'purged'.
When the present government was in opposition it was very critical of
the activities of South American governments, I notice a softening in
their attitude now.
Does anyone have any views on this subject?
--
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Mark Trudgill
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
I have a friend who whose family were political refugees from the
Pinochet regime.
Her father was a journalist that wasn't too favorable towards the
coup. Her brother disappeared along with thousands of others.
On a personal point of view I think he should be brought to book
along with all the others that are responsible for human rights
atrocities. (spasm in the knee just subsiding :))
On a pragmatic view, Spain is part of the EC we trade throughout it
and these implications need to be weighed up. Chile buys our arms we
get wine, fruit and corned beef in return. I suspect the balance
between the two will have more of a bearing on the validity of the
extradition order than the moral implications.
If Spain want Pinochet badly enough, I also suspect that the "We've
got him if you want him I think we need to talk about fisheries
policy and the beef ban" will also hold alot of sway in whether he
gets extradited or not. I notice the beef ban has been lifted fairly
recently, Is there a connection with this I wonder?.
I seem to remember that spain has had a bit of a difference of
opinion with GB concerning the extradition of criminals and they
supported Argentina during the Falklands fiasco and Chile was on our
side. However that was under a previous administration and the
present one owes no favors, unlike Empiress Marge who was wining and
dining the despot. I expect the evening went swimmingly talking about
the good old days.
It's a bit of a toughy, but personally for the above reasons I think
its a flight on Iberian airways for the general to the strains of "Oh
we're off to sunny Spain....."
Mark Trudgill..
Paul Hand-Griffiths
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The government seems to be prevaricating. It would seem to me that
> the evidence against the man is sufficient for him to stand trial to
> answer the allegations that he was responsible for executing Spanish
> citizens among the 30 thousand people he is alleged to have 'purged'.
Jack Straw should remember what he said at the time Pinochet was
first arrested - this has not set a political process in motion but a
*legal* one. He should at least allow the next stage of the the
extradition system to be tested in this case, that is, to find out if
the extradition warrant holds up in a court of law (and any
subsequent appeal(s)). He still has, as I understand it, a further
opportunity to overrule the process and repatriate the General at a
later stage.
I *is* a difficult call - when I first heard about his arrest, I felt
pleased that someone who smugly thought themselves to be above the
law was at the very least going to be brought down to earth with a
bump. Then you start considering the effect on Chile today - will
this have serious repercussions for the current democratic government
further down the line?
Would we (or the Government of this country for that matter) be
thinking so long and hard if the dictator in question was Hitler? Is
there some lower level of evil which is forgivable at a later date
because of political expediency?
--
Paul
handgr...@zetnet.co.uk
Ramsbottom!
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Does anyone have any views on this subject?
If he is extradited to Spain and tried there he will probably not be
convicted. The only places he should stand trial are in Chile or
before an international court like that at Nurnberg, where if the
present government of Chile wished to co-operate it may be possible
to obtain a conviction. However, he is 83, and I suspect that he is
going to be found unfit to stand trial and will eventually be
returned to Chile. The decision in the HoL was narrow and probably
wrong. The fact that two of the three judges against him were Jews
with the genocide of their people under Hitler in mind probably
tilted the balance.
--
~~~~~~~~~~
David W-G
~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Trudgill
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The message <199811280...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > Does anyone have any views on this subject?
> If he is extradited to Spain and tried there he will probably not be
> convicted. The only places he should stand trial are in Chile or
> before an international court like that at Nurnberg, where if the
> present government of Chile wished to co-operate it may be possible
> to obtain a conviction.
This is not strictly true, as you will proberbly remember the
Lockerby bomb suspects case.
I believe the original act of placing the bomb in the hands of the
airline was proberbly either Athens or Frankfurt. These countries
dont seem to be involved too much in the resulting case pending.
Recently law seems to be taking an international flavour inasmuch as
we now have cases that have been tried where people have been
prosecuted in GB for paedophile activities in the far east.
I think this is a tough one, I would much more like to see these
people tried in the country of the offence, but alas the precident
has been set. Can we now find people tried over here for smoking
cannabis in a bar in Amsterdam?.
> However, he is 83, and I suspect that he is
> going to be found unfit to stand trial and will eventually be
> returned to Chile.
What difference does his age make?. They seem to use this excuse for
many rich and powerfull figures. You know the names, you dont need me
to tell you. I doubt somehow that if I were charged with killing
someone saying I cant stand trial because I have a wife that naggs
and kids that constantly bicker would cut any mustard with the
judiciary. Its not like theres a compete lack of evidence against the
man is it?. I doubt also that if a man of 85 was caught with 2
bottles of Bollinger and a kilo of beluga inside his coat when
stopped by store detectives outside Fortnum & Mason he'd be let off
because he's old.
> The decision in the HoL was narrow and probably
> wrong. The fact that two of the three judges against him were Jews
> with the genocide of their people under Hitler in mind probably
> tilted the balance.
This is irrelavent, You cant have it both ways. Your greatest defence
of the HoL is the diversity of its members. Except when they come to
a decision you dont like, Would you hold the same view if it was
Hitler on trial?, I doubt it some how.
Standards need to be upheld in the international community, Despots
have to be brought to book. Otherwise the UN becomes emascalated and
as in the days of the old League of Nations. This is the price we all
have to pay to stop another world war errupting.
Mark Trudgill..
Ag@whd
wrote these words:
>The message <199811280...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> If he is extradited to Spain and tried there he will probably not be
>> convicted.
He may be convicted, but certainly not jailed.
>> However, he is 83, and I suspect that he is
>> going to be found unfit to stand trial and will eventually be
>> returned to Chile.
>
>What difference does his age make?. They seem to use this excuse for
Spain do not jail people over the age of 70 (I think it is). Equivalent
of "House arrest" has been touted as more likely.
Adrian
WWW WWW Adrian Gothard
WWW ww WWW White Horse Design
WWWWWWWWWW
WWWW WWWW w...@zetnet.co.uk, http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/whd
---
Designers of video capture/filter/processing systems for aircraft
Keith Griffiths
The message <199811280...@zetnet.co.uk>
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I seem to remember that spain has had a bit of a difference of
> opinion with GB concerning the extradition of criminals and they
> supported Argentina during the Falklands fiasco and Chile was on our
> side. However that was under a previous administration and the
> present one owes no favors, unlike Empiress Marge who was wining and
> dining the despot. I expect the evening went swimmingly talking about
> the good old days.
> It's a bit of a toughy, but personally for the above reasons I think
> its a flight on Iberian airways for the general to the strains of "Oh
> we're off to sunny Spain....."
> Mark Trudgill..
Like most people, I regard Pinochet as a ruthless dictator who
employed totally unacceptable methods whilst in office. I gather
that his predecessor, Allende, was little different. But he seems
to have been rehabilitated in Chile, and it should not be forgotten
that he finally stepped down from office in favour of a democratic
regime without bloodshed.
The overwhelming majority of his victims were Chileans and thus
Chileans should decide whether Pinochet is to be pursued. I know
that there were some British citizens who were victims: doubtless
there were nationals of many other countries. So why is it that
Spain is the country that is pursuing him, a Chilean temporarily
resident in UK? Could it be because
of their own (much longer) experience with the dictator Franco who
did the same sort of thing as did Pinochet for twice as long without
any serious opposition? Does Spain seek a whipping boy?
No doubt commercial considerations will play their part in the final
decision, as Mark suggests. For my own part, the pursuit of an 83
year old man, at vast public expense, doesn't seem worthwhile. The
state that suffered incomparably the most should decide Pinochet's fate.
Keith G
Mark Trudgill
from w...@directors-1.zetnet.zet (Ag@whd) contains these words:
> Spain do not jail people over the age of 70 (I think it is). Equivalent
> of "House arrest" has been touted as more likely.
I'd like to see this one work in practice, if this is so I'm going to
retire in Spain.
So when I'm the oldest drug & gun runner in the business I wont have
to worry about getting my collar felt, as I'll just say "I'm an old
aged pensioner, what are you going to do about it, jail me?." I some
how doubt that this would work in practice as organised crime would
have jumped on this bandwaggon and made their activities asbestos. If
they have, I haven't heard of this happening, but living in the back
of beyond thats not surprising.
Would any of zets senior citizens care to supplement their meager
pensions (especially you Dave, just think of the terrible burden to
the taxpayer you could be helping) by becoming mules bringing in
large quantities of drugs for me into Spain?. :)
Mark Trudgill..
Gary Jackson
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> It's a bit of a toughy, but personally for the above reasons I think
> its a flight on Iberian airways for the general to the strains of "Oh
> we're off to sunny Spain....."
I agree Mark. I'm sure most of us would if the reverse was the case,
and for example Spain was holding a Jap who had committed atrocities
against our people during the war.
Gary
Linda Sutherland
from Keith Griffiths <kei...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The overwhelming majority of his victims were Chileans and thus
> Chileans should decide whether Pinochet is to be pursued.
That sounds sensible to me. I've just heard on the radio that Chile
wants him back to face trial there, and I wouldn't be surprised if
our lot latch on to the idea as a way out of the current morass.
--
Linda Sutherland
linda.su...@zetnet.co.uk
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> This is irrelavent, You cant have it both ways. Your greatest defence
> of the HoL is the diversity of its members. Except when they come to
> a decision you dont like, Would you hold the same view if it was
> Hitler on trial?, I doubt it some how.
The twelve judicial members of the House of Lords are among the most
eminent lawyers we have. When their decision is unanimous it will be
correct. On a split verdict the majority is not always right, and
the minority opinion is sometimes to be preferred. It was a 3:2
verdict and with a different judge sitting the result might well have
been the other way round. Emotions appeared to have got in the way
of proper judgement. Hitler would never have been tried other than
before an international tribunal.
If extradition were to be allowed, the Spanish government would be
even more embarrassed than ours and would seek to get Pinochet home
as soon as possible without trial. I do not think there is any
realistic expectation of a conviction if Pinochet is tried in Spain
simply because without evidence supplied by the Chilean government it
will probably prove impossible to connect him directly with the deaths.
Trials of anyone aged over 80 are rare and they usually collapse. I
do not know what his state of health may be but I am sure that it is
on health grounds that Pinochet will be flown back to Chile.
Gerald L R Stubbs
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> If he is extradited to Spain and tried there he will probably not be
> convicted. The only places he should stand trial are in Chile or
> before an international court like that at Nurnberg, where if the
> present government of Chile wished to co-operate it may be possible
> to obtain a conviction.
It is the Spanish who have asked for the man to stand
trial in Spain. Whether a conviction will be obtained
or not is a matter for the Spanish, not us.
We are being asked to fulfil a treaty obligation, and
to hand the man over given that we are satisfied that
there is a case to answer.
> However, he is 83, and I suspect that he is
> going to be found unfit to stand trial and will eventually be
> returned to Chile.
In view of the seriousness of the charges I do not see
that his age should be a consideration. If he is seen
to be unfit through illness then that is another matter.
> The decision in the HoL was narrow and probably
> wrong. The fact that two of the three judges against him were Jews
> with the genocide of their people under Hitler in mind probably
> tilted the balance.
Wrong or not, a decision has been made by the highest
court in the land, and we must abide by it. The fact
that two of their lordships are Jews would, I think have
added a dimension of realism to the serious allegations
against the man. Do not forget that they were not trying
him, but merely deciding if he should stand trial.
If he were not an ex-head of state but merely a private
citizen accused of murdering one man he would now be in
a Spanish goal awaiting trial, having been refused leave
of appeal in this country.
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Gerald L R Stubbs
from Paul Hand-Griffiths <handgr...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I *is* a difficult call - when I first heard about his arrest, I felt
> pleased that someone who smugly thought themselves to be above the
> law was at the very least going to be brought down to earth with a
> bump. Then you start considering the effect on Chile today - will
> this have serious repercussions for the current democratic government
> further down the line?
> Paul
It seems to me that there is only one question here.
Do we fulfil our treaty obligations with Spain or not?
If we do not then we can expect all successful British
criminals to find a safe haven in Spain in the future.
This used to be the case, much to the frustration of
our law-enforcement agencies. For some years now the
Spanish have played ball and returned individuals who
are required to face charges in Britain.
If we fulfil our obligations then we have in the first
instance to satisfy ourselves that there are charges to
answer. As, in this case, there are charges to answer
the man should be dispatched forthwith to Spain.
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Gerald L R Stubbs
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> On a pragmatic view, Spain is part of the EC we trade throughout it
> and these implications need to be weighed up. Chile buys our arms we
> get wine, fruit and corned beef in return. I suspect the balance
> between the two will have more of a bearing on the validity of the
> extradition order than the moral implications.
A man is required to face serious criminal charges
in Spain. We have an extradition treaty with that
country, and we have established that there are
charges to answer.
The present government has been punting morality
both before and after it was elected. One of the
reasons for its landslide victory was the fact that
the previous administration was seen to be corrupt
and had in some instances broken its own ground rules.
It will be very interesting to see if the government
can find a cop-out of its obligation to the Spanish
government to deliver the man to them.
I fully expect Pinochet to be returned home.
Watch this space.
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Gerald L R Stubbs
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> If extradition were to be allowed, the Spanish government would be
> even more embarrassed than ours and would seek to get Pinochet home
> as soon as possible without trial. I do not think there is any
> realistic expectation of a conviction if Pinochet is tried in Spain
> simply because without evidence supplied by the Chilean government it
> will probably prove impossible to connect him directly with the > > deaths.
> David W-G
None of the above is relevant to my mind.
They are not questions that concern us. Spain
has asked for him to stand trial in that
country. It is established that there is a
case to answer. We have an extradition treaty
with Spain. We should hand him over.
I doubt if we will.
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Frances Patricia Amas
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> It seems to me that there is only one question here.
> Do we fulfil our treaty obligations with Spain or not?
> Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
>
Treaties are precious things. At work we recently obtained the
return of two children to their father, who had Residence Orders in
his favour. This was done under the Hague Convention, as the
children had gone abroad to visit their mother for a 4 week holiday.
If they had gone to a non-Hague Convention country it could have been
months or years down the line, or never. In the event it took just a week.
--
Fran
ja...@zetnet.co.uk
Ag@whd
wrote these words:
>The message <3674f688...@news.zetnet.co.uk>
> from w...@directors-1.zetnet.zet (Ag@whd) contains these words:
>
>> Spain do not jail people over the age of 70 (I think it is). Equivalent
>> of "House arrest" has been touted as more likely.
>
>I'd like to see this one work in practice, if this is so I'm going to
>retire in Spain.
I can see you taking up Spanish citizenship on this basis! :-)
>So when I'm the oldest drug & gun runner in the business I wont have
>to worry about getting my collar felt, as I'll just say "I'm an old
>aged pensioner, what are you going to do about it, jail me?." I some
>how doubt that this would work in practice as organised crime would
>have jumped on this bandwaggon and made their activities asbestos. If
>they have, I haven't heard of this happening, but living in the back
>of beyond thats not surprising.
Well I haven't heard of it either, just regurgitating what I heard on
BBS News 24 today or yesterday about it.
>Would any of zets senior citizens care to supplement their meager
>pensions (especially you Dave, just think of the terrible burden to
>the taxpayer you could be helping) by becoming mules bringing in
>large quantities of drugs for me into Spain?. :)
If you ask "iFFi" nicely ... <ggg>
Ag@whd
<stu...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote these words:
>The message <199811281...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> If extradition were to be allowed, the Spanish government would be
>
>None of the above is relevant to my mind.
>Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
Hey!
Your line length just got shorter! :-)
Gerald L R Stubbs
from w...@directors-1.zetnet.zet (Ag@whd) contains these words:
> >None of the above is relevant to my mind.
> >Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
> Hey!
> Your line length just got shorter! :-)
> Adrian
Serious subject, no excitement, short.
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Does anyone have any views on this subject?
I would be happy just to deport him back to Chile.
Yes, he was a ruthless dictator, but he gave all that up in favour of
democracy. There are ruthless dictators/generals/officials today who
we should bring to justice such as Saddam Hussain as well as
oppressive regimes such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and China with whom
we trade at will.
Why pick on an old fool like Pinochet? What's the point, it won't
save any lives now.
Besides, I bet there is hardly a leader / ex-leader in the world who
is innocent in every one of its countries.
--
Adrian Tupper, Edinburgh
adrian...@zetnet.co.uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/adriantupper/
Mark Trudgill
from w...@directors-1.zetnet.zet (Ag@whd) contains these words:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 15:29:59 GMT, Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk>
> wrote these words:
> >The message <3674f688...@news.zetnet.co.uk>
> > from w...@directors-1.zetnet.zet (Ag@whd) contains these words:
> >
> >> Spain do not jail people over the age of 70 (I think it is). Equivalent
> >> of "House arrest" has been touted as more likely.
> >
> >I'd like to see this one work in practice, if this is so I'm going to
> >retire in Spain.
> I can see you taking up Spanish citizenship on this basis! :-)
Well there'd be one or two customers here on zet.local. I'm just
practicing the sales pitch now "ehhh meester bueno hasheesh, for you
tourist very cheap". :)
> >Would any of zets senior citizens care to supplement their meager
> >pensions (especially you Dave, just think of the terrible burden to
> >the taxpayer you could be helping) by becoming mules bringing in
> >large quantities of drugs for me into Spain?. :)
> If you ask "iFFi" nicely ... <ggg>
I dont think so Adrian, She has more than enough lumpy bits as it is
without trying to hide a couple of kilo's of Morrocco's finest about
her person. :)
Mark Trudgill..
Martin Briscoe
from Gary Jackson <gary.j...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I agree Mark. I'm sure most of us would if the reverse was the case,
> and for example Spain was holding a Jap who had committed atrocities
> against our people during the war.
I thought most were living in comfort in Japan - some owning large
companies. They have no need to hide in Spain as the Japanese
government are not likely to take any action against them.
Martin
Martin Briscoe
from Keith Griffiths <kei...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The overwhelming majority of his victims were Chileans and thus
> Chileans should decide whether Pinochet is to be pursued. I know
> that there were some British citizens who were victims: doubtless
> there were nationals of many other countries. So why is it that
> Spain is the country that is pursuing him, a Chilean temporarily
> resident in UK? Could it be because
> of their own (much longer) experience with the dictator Franco who
> did the same sort of thing as did Pinochet for twice as long without
> any serious opposition? Does Spain seek a whipping boy?
Could it be that they never seriously thought that the British
government would treat their request seriously. It would be refused
and they could then tell their protest groups that they had done
everything possible and then forget about it.
They claim they want to ask him some questions about people who
disappeared etc but I can't see him giving out any information. As
some one else wrote, he is not going to be sent to jail so the whole
exercise is rather pointless.
Nasty precedents are set for every group of exiles and protest groups
to apply for extradition or trial of ex-members of foreign
governments in the future - most of them have someone who would love
to see them on trial.
I have got fed up of some of the attempts to equate him with Hitler,
just about every communist government has had a far worse record on
human rights than Pinochet - including Blair's friends in China.
Martin
Martin Briscoe
from Frances Patricia Amas <ja...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Treaties are precious things. At work we recently obtained the
> return of two children to their father, who had Residence Orders in
> his favour. This was done under the Hague Convention, as the
> children had gone abroad to visit their mother for a 4 week holiday.
> If they had gone to a non-Hague Convention country it could have been
> months or years down the line, or never. In the event it took just a week.
many of the articles that I have read about cases of trying to get
children returned from countries have given the impression that the
treaty is not worth the paper it was written on. Even countries like
Germany ignore it.
Martin
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> It is the Spanish who have asked for the man to stand
> trial in Spain. Whether a conviction will be obtained
> or not is a matter for the Spanish, not us.
> We are being asked to fulfil a treaty obligation, and
> to hand the man over given that we are satisfied that
> there is a case to answer.
Actually it is a rogue Examining Magistrate who is trying to make a
name for himself. The last thing that Spain could possibly want is a
bad breech in relations with Chile, so if we do not find a way out
the Spaniards probably will.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> A man is required to face serious criminal charges
> in Spain. We have an extradition treaty with that
> country, and we have established that there are
> charges to answer.
Actually we have not! That is a matter for the stipe at Bow Street
to determine and it will take
several weeks.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> None of the above is relevant to my mind.
> They are not questions that concern us. Spain
> has asked for him to stand trial in that
> country. It is established that there is a
> case to answer. We have an extradition treaty
> with Spain. We should hand him over.
It is not yet established either that there is a case to answer, or
that there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction. I am not even
sure that the extradition treaty covers crimes alleged to have been
committed outside Spain.
As a lawyer, I deplore the general attempts to extend jurisdiction to
cover crimes committed outside the state concerned. While it may be
justified in child abuse cases where the relevant country is
reluctant to act, it becomes a total farce in situations like the
Pinochet case with countries queuing up to try him, which only
confirms that an international court would be the only sensible
forum. This trend could cause the most terribly adverse effects on
the carefully wrought settlements in situations such as South Africa,
Northern Ireland, Chile, Israel and many others. Spain, for
instance, if it does a deal with the Basque separatists, would not be
best pleased if France then tried to extradite the Basque leaders.
Mark Trudgill
from Martin Briscoe <martin....@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Nasty precedents are set for every group of exiles and protest groups
> to apply for extradition or trial of ex-members of foreign
> governments in the future - most of them have someone who would love
> to see them on trial.
This I dont doubt. We have had the shoot to kill scandal of the RUC
on IRA members in recent years, but I think dragging people from
their beds and then disappearing is a little different if only in
terms of scale.
> I have got fed up of some of the attempts to equate him with Hitler,
> just about every communist government has had a far worse record on
> human rights than Pinochet - including Blair's friends in China.
I'm supposed to be the one with knee jerk reactions, The polarising
of left and right wing regimes is just smoke screening. For one I
dont recall any extradition orders for any of these other despots
being received by our government.
I think there needs to be a holding to account for all despots that
violate the human rights of their citizens. Like Pinochet, these
people only have a finite term and once deposed they should be
brought to book if for nothing else as a warning to others.
Mark Trudgill..
Ag@whd
<DA...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote these words:
>In article <366c569f...@news.zetnet.co.uk>,
> Ag@whd <w...@directors-1.zetnet.zet> wrote:
>
>No wonder human rights violations occur!
>
>> Adrian
>
>> WWW WWW Adrian Gothard
>> WWW ww WWW White Horse Design
>> WWWWWWWWWW
>> WWWW WWWW w...@zetnet.co.uk, http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/whd
>> ---
>> Designers of video capture/filter/processing systems for aircraft
>
>WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO PUT A BLOODY SIG SEPARATOR BETWEEN YOUR MESSAGE
>AND YOUR SIGNATURE?
Agent strips it out nicely. What are you using?
David Wynne-Griffiths
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Probably DWG's usual rubbish - he has admitted posting to serious
> subject threads only for the fun 0f keeping the thread going and
> eliciting argument. Bow Street is pretty low down on the Monopoly
> board, so I doubt it has that much clout compared with the Law Lords,
> or Jack Straw.
The HoL decided the preliminary point of whether Pinochet is immune
from legal proceedings on the ground of sovereign immunity. Next
Jack Straw has to decide whether he will permit the extradition
proceedings to commence. If he does, then the case goes before the
Chief Magistrate at Bow Street to decide whether or not Pinochet
should be extradited to Spain. The case is expected to last several
weeks and can be appealed right up to the HoL on the entirely
different point of whether a good case has been made by the Spanish
authorities to extradite Pinochet.
Many right wing regimes have done terrible things to their people.
However, even Hitler's murder of 6 million Jews pales into
insignificance beside the 27 million who perished in the Gulag and
millions more in the other camps across Siberia. How many China
killed may never be known but it is probably even more than in the USSR.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Today, it's better do things strictly by the book - unless you're the
> proud possessor of an older version?
You, of course being the acknowledged expert on international law!
What book? The challenged may have difficulties recognising the
difference between a country claiming jurisdiction over crimes
committed by it's citizens in third countries, and attempting to try
a citizen of another country for a crime committed in that country.
Frances Patricia Amas
from Martin Briscoe <martin....@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> many of the articles that I have read about cases of trying to get
> children returned from countries have given the impression that the
> treaty is not worth the paper it was written on. Even countries like
> Germany ignore it.
> Martin
Maybe, but when it works it works very well indeed.
--
Fran
ja...@zetnet.co.uk
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from Paul Hand-Griffiths <handgr...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
/snip/
> I *is* a difficult call - when I first heard about his arrest, I felt
> pleased that someone who smugly thought themselves to be above the
> law was at the very least going to be brought down to earth with a
> bump. Then you start considering the effect on Chile today - will
> this have serious repercussions for the current democratic government
> further down the line?
/snip/
Now that Chile has unequivocally indicated that Pinochet will face
charges if he returns (or, if he is returned - it is within the Home
Office's remit to deport him as an undesirable alien - though
difficult to sustain as he was allowed in, his desirability or lack
of it known to the authorities), Jack Straw must weigh up the
situation, which I see like this:
We don't want him here, but allowing him to return to Chile would
mean overruling due process of Law.
Spain doesn't want him, but constitutionally, cannot overrule due
process of Law.
Chile wants him back. Half so that he can stand trial, half because
they revere him.
If he is allowed home and legal action is taken against him, the
Military will insist that it is a military matter and must be tried
in a military court, from which he would almost certainly be acquitted.
If Chile's civil courts refuse to allow the military court's
jurisdiction, there will be a crisis, and the possibility of a coup.
If Pinochet has any regard for his country, Spain or the UK, he will
become terminally ill in an expedited manner.
--
Aonghas Mackenzie
an.b...@zetnet.co.uk
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
/snip/
> Does anyone have any views on this subject?
> --
> Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
>
> <:)(((((><<
You are using the word 'prevaricating' in
the same (wrong) context as did the Blessèd
Margaret.
APM
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
/snip/
> it left intact the Saddam regime, yet imposed such
> terms that thousands of individuals (mainly children) would suffer
> and/or die, attempting to put the blame for such suffering on Saddam,
> yet refusing even to attempt to kill Saddam.
/snip/
One must be pragmatic: you can go back to the time when Mesopotamia
was on the map and ask yourself how many liberal rulers can you count
on the fingers of an Islamic thief's right hand.
Even if Saddam had been liquidated, the chances of anything much
better appearing in his stead are about as good as the aforesaid hand.
Democracy cannot be imposed. It took many centuries for ours to
reach its rather imperfect condition, and the route it took by and
large was happy happenstance rather than a concious movement towards
universal (adult) suffrage.
--
Aonghas Mackenzie
an.b...@zetnet.co.uk
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
/snip/
> It will be very interesting to see if the government
> can find a cop-out of its obligation to the Spanish
> government to deliver the man to them.
It is extremely unlikely that the Spanish government wants Pinochet
to stand trial in Spain. The Spanish courts are as independent of
their government as are ours.
> I fully expect Pinochet to be returned home.
> Watch this space.
So do I.
> Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
>
> <:)(((((><<
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > Actually we have not! That is a matter for the stipe at Bow Street
> > to determine and it will take
> > several weeks.
> Probably DWG's usual rubbish - he has admitted posting to serious
> subject threads only for the fun 0f keeping the thread going and
> eliciting argument. Bow Street is pretty low down on the Monopoly
> board, so I doubt it has that much clout compared with the Law Lords,
> or Jack Straw.
I think David (W-G) is right. The Law operates from the bottom up.
If there is ground for appeal on the first decision, it goes up a
floor, and so-on.
IIRC the Lords' decision was not on whether there was a case to
answer but on the Court's jurisdiction on such a matter.
APM
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The message <199811281...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > This is irrelavent, You cant have it both ways. Your greatest defence
> > of the HoL is the diversity of its members. Except when they come to
> > a decision you dont like, Would you hold the same view if it was
> > Hitler on trial?, I doubt it some how.
> The twelve judicial members of the House of Lords are among the most
> eminent lawyers we have. When their decision is unanimous it will be
> correct. On a split verdict the majority is not always right, and
> the minority opinion is sometimes to be preferred. It was a 3:2
> verdict and with a different judge sitting the result might well have
> been the other way round. Emotions appeared to have got in the way
> of proper judgement.
If eminent judges can disagree by a 3/2 ratio on a matter of law, as
you say, David, it only needed a different judge to interpret the law
as found by the Court of Appeal for the Lords' decision to be
reversed. However, i am not convinced that the split was due to
emotions. I wouldn't rule it out though.
> Hitler would never have been tried other than
> before an international tribunal.
Unless he had survivd long enough for Israel to have snatched him.
> If extradition were to be allowed, the Spanish government would be
> even more embarrassed than ours and would seek to get Pinochet home
> as soon as possible without trial.
I would believe this to be true
> I do not think there is any
> realistic expectation of a conviction if Pinochet is tried in Spain
> simply because without evidence supplied by the Chilean government it
> will probably prove impossible to connect him directly with the deaths.
I know nothing of Spanish law, but a direct responsibility is not
necessary even here. They hanged Bentley.
> Trials of anyone aged over 80 are rare and they usually collapse. I
> do not know what his state of health may be but I am sure that it is
> on health grounds that Pinochet will be flown back to Chile.
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> David W-G
> ~~~~~~~~~~
That is the obvious cop-out, and if the UK doesn't send him back,
and Spain doesn't, there are several other nations' courts joining in
the fun and games now.
He will probably turn up his toes before the game of 'Pass the
Pinochet' is over.
--
Aonghas Mackenzie
an.b...@zetnet.co.uk
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> If eminent judges can disagree by a 3/2 ratio on a matter of law, as
> you say, David, it only needed a different judge to interpret the law
> as found by the Court of Appeal for the Lords' decision to be
> reversed. However, i am not convinced that the split was due to
> emotions. I wouldn't rule it out though.
5 judges, including the Lord Chief Justice and two law lords, found
that there was sovereign immunity. Three found there wasn't The
trouble was that they were all in the HoL. From reading the opinions
I think the result was entirely due to the panel chosen. The LCJ is
reported to have said that "there are already two votes against
before the hearing" when he heard Lords Steyn and Hoffman were
sitting. It is getting a bit like the Supreme Court in the US
where the political opinions of the various justices are crucial in
determining the outcome of a case, but it is a shame our judges are
becoming politicised.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> We don't want him here, but allowing him to return to Chile would
> mean overruling due process of Law.
All that has so far been decided is that Pinochet does not have
sovereign immunity. There is as as yet no due process of law to over
rule. Straw has to decide whether proceedings should be brought, but
he is free to decide to just send Pinochet home. I wonder whether
Chile would use the International Court in the Hague to claim
paramount jurisdiction over Pinochet?
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> In article <199811282...@zetnet.co.uk>,
> Adrian Marsh Tupper <adrian...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Yes, he was a ruthless dictator, but he gave all that up in favour of
> > democracy. There are ruthless dictators/generals/officials today who
> > we should bring to justice such as Saddam Hussain as well as
> > oppressive regimes such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and China with whom
> > we trade at will.
> If he was so ruthless, do you think that one day he just thought, "I
> know, I'll retire and introduce democracy"? I doubt it had much to do
> with him.
> So, you think we should abandon the search for the serial rapist just
> because there is a murderer about?
A better analogy, David, is whether we would allow a known rapist to
continue commiting crimes whilst not aprehending him. If we would do
that we would be hipocrites to arrest him once he has "retired".
> That we trade with oppressive regimes is our fault; we should make our
> discontent known to government. But, we don't care - as long as the
> taxes don't go up.
> > Why pick on an old fool like Pinochet? What's the point, it won't
> > save any lives now.
> Ever heard of deterrence? - Or justice?
Deterrence means what we did/are doing to Saddam Hussain - i.e.
change your attitude now, sonny. Justice in Pinochet's case is
window-dressing.
> > Besides, I bet there is hardly a leader / ex-leader in the world who
> > is innocent in every one of its countries.
> All leaders must make decisions which have the potential to harm some
> citizens. Some are more harmful than others.
Yep, that's my point.
We could arrest Amin or one of the Central American ex-dictators if
we so wished let alone those currently perfoming in Burma and Nigeria
for example.
Martin Briscoe
from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> He will probably turn up his toes before the game of 'Pass the
> Pinochet' is over.
He could become a martyr to his supporters if that happens.
Can they get Gerry Adams to sign him up in the IRA then he can be
released immediately?
Martin
Ag@whd
<dav...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote these words:
>5 judges, including the Lord Chief Justice and two law lords, found
>that there was sovereign immunity. Three found there wasn't The
>trouble was that they were all in the HoL.
House of Lords obviously.
(Obvious).
>The LCJ is
LCJ ???
Mark Trudgill
from w...@directors-1.zetnet.zet (Ag@whd) contains these words:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 1998 17:28:41 GMT, David Wynne-Griffiths
> <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote these words:
> >5 judges, including the Lord Chief Justice and two law lords, found
> >that there was sovereign immunity. Three found there wasn't The
> >trouble was that they were all in the HoL.
> House of Lords obviously.
> (Obvious).
> >The LCJ is
> LCJ ??? Middle of the top line, Lord chief Justice.
Mark Trudgill..
David Wynne-Griffiths
from w...@directors-1.zetnet.zet (Ag@whd) contains these words:
> >The LCJ is
> LCJ ???
Lord Chief Justice. Lord Bingham
~~~~~~~~~~
David W-G
~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Ellis
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Ever heard of deterrence? - Or justice?
Ask the Japanese ex POWs
Cheers
Peter
Peter Ellis
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> We do not turn a blind eye to crimes against humanity (unless
> perpetrated by the USA) but have even created international structures
> to deal with them. The time was when the affairs of a nation state were
> its own affairs. Yet, who seeing a neighbour mistreating an animal
> would hesitate to call the RSPCA or the police? When a country
> mistreats its citizens, it beholds us all to cry out and call that
> country and its leaders to account.
I haven't heard you leading the call against Israel, China, Saudi
Arabia or Nigeria !
Cheers
Peter
Mark Trudgill
from Peter Ellis <peter...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I haven't heard you leading the call against Israel, China, Saudi
> Arabia or Nigeria !
> Cheers
> Peter
As and when they're in the same position as Pinochet I think you
proberbly will.
International condemnation of human rights violations is often at the
forefront of the worlds media.
Tiannaman Square, death of a princess, Isreal is never out of the
news and the shell/Nigeria scandal has been pretty well documented.
But alas the leaders of these countries are still in power so can't
be touched under international law as far as I understand.
Mark Trudgill..
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from Peter Ellis <peter...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I haven't heard you leading the call against Israel, China, Saudi
> Arabia or Nigeria !
> Cheers
> Peter
To name but a few. :-(
APM
Colin Reeves
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The message <199811300...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from Peter Ellis <peter...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > I haven't heard you leading the call against Israel, China, Saudi
> > Arabia or Nigeria !
> > Cheers
> > Peter
> As and when they're in the same position as Pinochet I think you
> proberbly will.
Mark
Do you mean by "the same position as Pinochet", "the position of
having handed over the government to a democratic government"? -
i.e. kick the man AFTER he has done the correct thing. Is this
going to encourage other extremists to allow a democracy to
take over - I think not!
--
Colin, Blantyre (Home of the David Livingstone Centre)
Mark Trudgill
from Colin Reeves <colin...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Do you mean by "the same position as Pinochet", "the position of
> having handed over the government to a democratic government"? -
> i.e. kick the man AFTER he has done the correct thing. Is this
> going to encourage other extremists to allow a democracy to
> take over - I think not!
This all depends on whether he jumped or was he pushed.
Omnipotent power brokers tend not to go unless its expedient for them to do so.
Mark Trudgill..
Gerald L R Stubbs
from Mark Trudgill <mtru...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> This all depends on whether he jumped or was he pushed.
> Omnipotent power brokers tend not to go unless its expedient for them to do so.
> Mark Trudgill..
One point of view that I have yet to see aired
is the view that Pinochet prevented a communist
government from forming, and that only the army
had the ability to form a right wing administration.
I have seen this view expressed in e-mails to the
BBC sent in by Chileans. (as well as criticism)
Chile is currently the no 1 economic force in
South America, Brazil having gone down the pan,
and whether anyone likes it or not it is largely
as a result of Pinochet.
The Americans and the British thought he was the
saviour of South America in his day, and do not
forget that Chile was the only South American
country to support Britain during the skirmish
over the Falkland Islands, which was, to say the
least, sticking his neck out a long way.
Against the above it is common knowledge that his
regime committed the most appaling acts against
large sections of the population, which in a left
wing government would have been roundly condemned
by HMG.
Hence the present government's dilemma. Here is
a man, a proven ally of Britain at a time of war,
(irrespective of one's views of that particular
war) visiting Britain on Government business and
stopping over for medical reasons. HMG had no
problem with this state of affairs.
The Spanish issue an extradition warrant for his
arrest and deportation to Spain and one instantly
has a supposed Socialist government with an
obligation to fulfil over the extradition of a
right wing mass-murder. Glad my name's not Straw.
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
Colin Reeves
from Gerald L R Stubbs <stu...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Hence the present government's dilemma. Here is
> a man, a proven ally of Britain at a time of war,
> (irrespective of one's views of that particular
> war) visiting Britain on Government business and
> stopping over for medical reasons. HMG had no
> problem with this state of affairs.
> The Spanish issue an extradition warrant for his
> arrest and deportation to Spain and one instantly
> has a supposed Socialist government with an
> obligation to fulfil over the extradition of a
> right wing mass-murder. Glad my name's not Straw.
>
> Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
>
> <:)(((((><<
I agree with the last bit - I do not envy Jack Straw when he
finally has yo make a decision - however, the courts have yet
to decide if there is sufficient grounds for extradition so
Jack Straw has two bites of the cherry, one now and then another,
if the courts decide that there are sufficient grounds. This
second one is the "political" decision, the present one is
based on legal precedents.
It is also a very valid point (and seems to have been forgotten)
that HMG granted Senator Pinochet a visa to enter this country
for medical treatment - as he is a visitor I feel that the whole
extradition process should never have been allowed (i.e. the warrant
should never have been issued despite Spanish requests).
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from Colin Reeves <colin...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I do not envy Jack Straw when he
> finally has yo make a decision - however, the courts have yet
> to decide if there is sufficient grounds for extradition so
> Jack Straw has two bites of the cherry, one now and then another,
> if the courts decide that there are sufficient grounds. This
> second one is the "political" decision, the present one is
> based on legal precedents.
Put it to a referendum.
A Straw Poll ?
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from Adrian Marsh Tupper <adrian...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Put it to a referendum.
> A Straw Poll ?
> --
> Adrian Tupper, Edinburgh
I think he's a pretty good Home Secretary - one of the best of a
rather lack-lustre bunch. I don't subscribe to his beheading.
APM