I’m worried by this. What happenned while he was in power is well documented, but he stepped down peacefully on certain conditions. Now those conditions are being broken. How in future will we be able to persuade a dictator to step aside?
*“We promise you total immunity.”
“I don’t believe you’ll keep your promise: you did that with Pinochet.”*
Is it better to keep our word or to prosecute a dictator for the evils of his reign? For the reason given in the exchange above, I believe that while the latter may give short-term satisfaction, the former offers a better long term solution.
I’m curious about the legal reasoning the Court used in deciding that Pinochet should not have immunity. Any ideas?
But the incentive argument cuts both ways. It’s true that murderous dictators will have less incentive to step down because they may be prosecuted for their crimes. But now dictators have (more) incentive to not torture thousands of their own people because they may be prosecuted for their crimes.
I disagree. Simply because a dictator will likely do whatever it takes to stay in power until the writing is clearly on the wall. Or, more simple, they don’t think that far ahead.
Like **Evil Captor ** said, but one has to take into account that most of the legal maneuvers against Pinochet occurred in other countries like England or Spain, that gave the Chileans a good reason to prosecute. Also the Chileans did not really strip all the immunity: the Chileans found a loophole:
The logic is that if you can not produce the body, victims might still be imprisioned somewere or their remains are hideen to protect criminal prosecution of non-military elements of the Chilean elite that commited crimes to support Pinochet.
Chile now has legislation protecting the right of relatives of the “disappeared” to pursue the truth about the fate of their loved ones. So even though the military cannot be prosecuted for murder, they are prosecuted for obstructiing justice: for attempting to stop the right to know the fate of your relatives and friends.
How many dictators step aside peacefully? Very few from what I can tell. Most die in office, are overthrown or their government falls apart. Since most dictators are not willing to step aside peacefully telling them by using Pinochet as an example that your own people will arrest you and/or that you cannot travel internationally for fear of arrest may be a deterrent.
fyi … pinochet has been stripped of his immunity several times before (taxfraud w/ riggs bank, etc…)
this is the first time that he had been stripped of immunity for human rights issues …
I am pretty sure he will be stripped even more often in the future as he has literally dozens or 100s of trials ahead of him.
His workaround: everytime he needs to appear in court, he is flown by helicopter to the army hospital where he is diagnosed with XXXXX (insert random desease that a 90 yr. old could suffer).
so he aint gonna be SENTENCED, but he sure does have a rather crappy life (he is not enjailed, but under housearrest) … Not even within his very own UDI (Union Democrata Independiente UDI ) he is pretty much considered a persona non grata.
There were presidential elections las dic. and the UDI candidate steered way clear of him or the few who still would touch him …
who says there is no justice in life?
In one hand I think that I´d rather set a precedent that persuades them to NOT step up in the first place.
On the other hand, in the case of my own country while the dictatorship lasted there wasn´t one big General Bananas running things and the goverment was more or less handed to them by the then president Bordaberry. But after they were voted out the pact was of total amnesty for crimes commited during the 1972-1984 period.
That has been upheld so far, but there are a few loopholes that are being exploited to nail people that commited crimes during AND before the stipulated date, and that´s quite fine by me. If Pinochet can be indicted for things that weren´t specifically ruled out by the amnesty I´m all for it.
But if there is a treaty that gives amnesty for the crimes Mr. Pinnochio commited while he held power, it must be enforced and should not be violated.
Now if you´d excuse me I have to puke my guts out.
Right on! Murder and torture are wrong no matter who is in power.
Great book out now on the CIA’s setting up Operation Condor so the dictators in Latin America could better persecute their political enemies. The Condor Years By John Dinges.