Does Augusto Pinochet deserve the death penalty?

But I wouldn't kill him now. Would it really change anything and bring resolve? He's so old and feeble.

complicity in the coup.

Nobody deserves the death penalty.
John
I have no problem with letting him rot in an 8x10 prison cell for the rest of his miserable days, however.

Same reason as John. No death penalty.

He should be taken up in a helicopter and tossed out over the ocean, as he had done to many people.

This model

http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/

as indeed all people subjected to state violence...everywhere

No more hiding under rocks and no more rich kids living off of the slave labor of Jews in Poland and then running for President...for instance

Truth and Reconciliation for all and then we all can live by our chosen beliefs without the propaganda...

Is your point to try to bring up every example of a really horrible person and ask if they deserve the death penalty.

Let me save you the trouble: If hitler were alive today, would he deserve the death penalty?

Deserve? Yes.

Should we kill him? No.

I would commute it to life without parole

would sentence him to death. He is evil personified.

Yes, Augusto Pinochet deserves the death penalty. Yes. Too many innocents died at his command to ever excuse him.

:kick:

I feel the death penalty should be reserved for people just like him. Some others who would have deserved the death penalty for their crimes against humanity?

Hitler
Pol Pot
Idi Amin
Stalin
Osama bin Laden

I think there a possibility there are some in the U.S. government who are quickly earning a spot on the list too. Care to guess who they are?

So why should Pinochet be executed alone? Kissinger has to be arrested, tried and executed, too. From what I can see he is living a fat life in Washington and shows up on talk TV to explain American policy.

Frankly I think they should be picking up Henry first

Kissinger & BCCI spells BUSH & 9-11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=377323

This guy is one of the main architects of the national security state, the one that they want use to deprive you of your rights. Seems to me if knew much about him, you really be needing to thank him (if you where wearing one of those newly restyled brown shirts)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/New_NSC_System_TPOP.html

The Price of Power
Kissinger in the Nixon White House
by Seymour M. Hersh
Summit Books, 1983, paper

(snip)
Of the men closest to the President-elect in December I968, Kissinger was the most experienced in national security affairs. He had been a consultant to the NSC under Kennedy, and was far from a newcomer to covert intelligence operations. He had served in the Army Counterintelligence Corps at the close of World War 11 and stayed on active duty in occupied West Germany after the war. He was eventually assigned to the 970th CIC Detachment, whose functions included support for the recruitment of ex-Nazi intelligence officers for anti-Soviet operations inside the Soviet bloc. After entering Harvard as an undergraduate in I947, at age twenty-four, he retained his ties, as a reserve officer, to military intelligence. By I950, he was a graduate student and was working part time for the Defense Department-one of the first at Harvard to begin regular shuttles to Washington-as a consultant to its Operations Research Office. That unit, under the direct control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conducted highly classified studies on such topics as the utilization of former German operatives and Nazi partisan supporters in CIA clandestine activities. In I952, Kissinger was named a consultant to the director of the Psychological Strategy Board, an operating arm of the National Security Council for covert psychological and paramilitary operations. In I954, President Eisenhower appointed Nelson Rockefeller his Special Assistant for Cold War Planning, a position that involved the monitoring and approval of covert CIA operations. These were the days of CIA successes in Iran, where the Shah was installed OR the throne, and in Guatemala, where the government of Jacobo Arbenz, considered anti-American and antibusiness, was overthrown. In I955, Kissinger, already known to insiders for his closeness to Rockefeller and Rockefeller's reliance on him, was named a consultant to the NSC's Operations Coordinating Board, which was then the highest policy-making board for implementing clandestine operations against foreign governments.

... There is evidence, however, that Nixon and Kissinger, within days of Kissinger's appointment, were working in far more harmony than outsiders-and many Nixon insiders-could perceive. The grab for control had been signaled at President-elect Nixon's news conference on December 2, I968, at which he made the formal announcement of Kissinger's appointment and introduced his national security adviser to the press. Nixon told the press that Kissinger would move immediately to revitalize the National Security Council system. He would set up "a very exciting new procedure for seeing to it that the next President of the United States does not hear just what he wants to hear, which is always a temptation for White House staffers, but that he hears points of view covering the spectrum...." In addition, "Dr. Kissinger is keenly aware of the necessity not to set himself up as a wall between the President and the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. I intend to have a very strong Secretary of State."

Nixon's public statements had little to do with what he wanted done. At their first meeting, on November 25, according to Kissinger's memoirs, Nixon talked about "a massive organizational problem . . . He had very little confidence in the State Department. Its personnel had no loyalty to him; the Foreign Service had disdained him as Vice President and ignored him the moment he
was out of office. He was determined to run foreign policy from the White House. He thought the Johnson Administration had ignored the military and that its decision-making procedures gave the President no real options. He felt it imperative to exclude the CIA from the formulation of policy; it was staffed by Ivy League liberals who behind the facade of analytical objectivity were usually pushing their own preferences. They had always opposed him politically."
Kissinger records himself as merely agreeing that "there was a need for a more formal decision-making process." Nixon recalls much enthusiasm. In his memoirs, he even credits Kissinger with actually articulating the notion of centralizing power in the NSC inside the White House: "Kissinger said he was delighted that I was thinking in such terms. He said that if I intended to operate on such a wide-ranging basis, I was going to need the best possible system for getting advice.... Kissinger recommended that I structure a national security apparatus within the White House that, in addition to coordinating foreign and defense policy, could also develop policy options for me to consider before making decisions."
(snip)

Is Henry Kissinger a war criminal, fascist or just misunderstood
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=345935

It's time for another Bush/Nazis thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=199853

Republican from the past. Yes, and why aren't they arresting him?

Where justice is possible, let it be done.


Pinochet is a mass murderer, with aggravating circumstances (torture) and he misused the power of the state to commit his crimes. He robbed people of their lives and his country of its liberty. Let him get what Keitel, Jodl, Eichmann and other top Nazis got.

He should not go free while the other guy is punished.

He is just a bit player as far as Henry goes in my thinking. I am giving this thread a :Kick: to also thank Bobthedrummer. With out this last clue he gave me, I would have never put these things together and throw them out for maybe others to look at. Here are a couple more good threads that seem interesting for people that might be new here.

WT7 Collapse Caught on Video ---------------------------MPEG PART 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=211010

Connect the Dots, America!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=133055

No matter what the current of decreptitude, this reptile's crimes require slow death....

If you're using the death penalty to punish the criminal then you're not punishing him. He's dead. What does he care? Punishment over. Oh... he may care up until the time that he's actually dead... but after that point, he doesn't care anymore.

Even if you're a Christian and you belie that the criminal will be punished in the "afterlife"... it's my understanding that one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven by faith alone... that one need only ask for forgiveness and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and they shall be saved and shall be allowed to enter.

Now... if you belive... that sounds like a peachy deal to me. Punishment over. Welcome to heaven!

Compared to a lifetime in prison... punishment continues... day after day. Which is the REAL punishment?

Now... if you're asking whether or not the death penalty is in reality nothing more than "REVENGE for the living"... then that's a different matter entirely.

-- Allen

I refuse to affirm that anyone should be subject to state-sanctioned murder. By endorsing such murder, we lower ourselves to the methods of evil tyrants like Pinochet.

As pointed out by an earlier poster, it's important to focus on the true victims of Pinochet -- the Chilean people. Only with complete exposure of the truth behind Pinochet and the reconciliation of said truth, will this matter be properly resolved.

?????????

Just a guess, was I close? I was thinking why do Democracies over throw other democracies in clandestine and cryptic coups like they did in Chile and Iran.
Maybe there is somebody trying to hide the truth from the majority of the population of them countries?




http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB21/index.html
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 21

20 Years after the Hostages:
Declassified Documents on
Iran and the United States
Edited By Malcolm Byrne
Director, Project on U.S.-Iran Relations
November 5, 1999


The shocking seizure of the American embassy and its staff in Tehran on November 4, 1979, placed U.S.-Iran relations firmly in the deep freeze. Whatever hopes existed on either side for a rapprochement after the Shah’s departure at the start of the year were quickly doused. Twenty years later, the controversy over reestablishing ties rages on in both countries. Serious differences exist on strategic matters and regional policy, while public discourse is complicated by lingering images of blind-folded hostages and rhetorical invocations against "Global Arrogance".

In the last two years, however, Iran’s political scene has become far more fluid. President Mohammad Khatemi’s surprise landslide victory in May 1997 reflected strong grassroots demands to rejuvenate Iran’s post-revolutionary policies, and the new moderate leader has responded, even reaching out to the United States with a compelling call for a "dialogue of civilizations". Gingerly as yet, the White House has endorsed the idea, but neither side seems ready to take the official plunge. Instead, both President Khatemi and President Clinton have promoted private, non-governmental contacts as a way to crack the ice that has shrouded the two countries’ interactions for the past two decades.
(snip)

With out it, digging for more info would be twice as tough

http://www.copernic.com/en/index.html

Being Googled
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=17950

glad you like it :7 me too

While I'm at it, I'm amazed that so many people on this board are (correctly) full of contempt for Pinochet, but relatively few express the same visceral disdain for Castro, who is arguable far worse. Pinochet, for all his crimes, did not stand in the way of the ultimate democratization of his country. And Chile today is a free and prosperous country. Cubans, on the other hand, still live under a lawless dictator who, like Pinochet, also murdered innocent people without trial, ran concentration camps, suppresses free speech, etc. And continues to do so today.

I think the difference comes because Pinochet's crimes were committed with US support while Castro's crimes were committed with US opposition.

They are both terrible people. But what Pinochet did was done with my money in my name. That's why I object strongly to him.

Although I think you'd have to acknowledge that there are many who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the monstrousness of Castro's undemocratic rule over the Cuban people. To them, the fact that Cubans have universal health care and there is very little income disparity (everyone has been made poor) seems to be enough to overlook the concentration camps, the extra-judicial killings, the jailed journalists, etc.

A lot of people, as you say, "can't bring themselves to acknowledge" the injustices and the failure to do so increases their credibility gap.

so can't make an exception even for this piece of garbage.

but he deserves it.

of their assets and properties.

The Eddie Murphy character in "Trading Places" had it right: The way to hurt rich people is to turn them into poor people.


:kick:

and whether he should get it, are two different things, to me. I don't support the death penalty, so I'd have to say no. But he's a rotten guy, and if anyone deserves it, he's one of the ones that do, so I'd have to say yes.

maybe the question should read "Should Augusto Pinochet be given the death penalty" In which case I'd say no, since I don't support the death penalty.

I wouldn't shed a tear, that's for sure.

because I don't beleive in the death penalty. But I don't think Pol Pot should get it either.

But that's just me - I fully understand why one would support the death penalty. I just don't.

When will we consign this relic of our barbaric past to history's ash heap, along with it's companions the rack, the wheel, drawing and quartering, etc.?

These people need to be sentenced to life at hard labor, or caged like the animals they are, but killing them to teach respect for life is like fucking for virginity!:grr:

Edited for typos

:kick:

NT.

however I have conflicting opinions on the death penalty and I would not kill him. Does he deserve it? Absolutely. Would I sentence him to death? No.

I hope he dies naturally, but very slowly and painfully. It's just what he deserves.

But this man makes my ideology collapse. I can think of few more despicable people in the world than Augusto Pinochet. He killed thousands, and with the aid and encouragement of our government wrecked a well-functioning socialist government that was doing no harm WHATSOEVER to the United States. The bastard should be tortured.




Peace (heh)

A vile excuse for a human being, surely. But the death penalty? No - we might as well be Pinochet ourselves.

Killing an old man just creates a martyr for right-wing loons. He deserves it, but it's a bad idea