This is the sort of regime that Maggie so admired, run by a man she was proud to call "a friend"
"A year-long investigation into state-sponsored torture in Chile has documented that an estimated 35,000 people were abused during the 1973-90 military regime.
The report, which has not been made public, identifies dozens of secret facilities under the control of General Augusto Pinochet, who headed the military junta.
The National Commission on Political Prisoners and Torture presented its study to President Ricardo Lagos late last week. The three volumes include hundreds of new claims about torture tactics, ranging from sexual abuse using dogs, to forcing suspects to watch as family members were sodomised or slowly electrocuted. "

Is any of this study on t'internet?

The standard defence used by supporters of Pinochet [Taki, the Greek millionaire publisher springs to mind] is that the victims were all Marxist terrorists.
I do not deny that Pinochet's regime was responsible for appalling atrocities against countless victims. What business of ours is this? Pinochet's adoption of a free market system obviously endeared him to Baroness Thatcher. He helped Britain in the liberation of our Falklands territory, so "thankyou" was appropriate. Foreign policy should be calculated in the nation's interests. It was a good idea to have a good, diplomatic relationship with Pinochet back then. I reiterate, his treatment of his own people is not our affair. Alright, I'll get my coat...

Originally posted by timo
The standard defence used by supporters of Pinochet [Taki, the Greek millionaire publisher springs to mind] is that the victims were all Marxist terrorists.
I do not deny that Pinochet's regime was responsible for appalling atrocities against countless victims. What business of ours is this? Pinochet's adoption of a free market system obviously endeared him to Baroness Thatcher. He helped Britain in the liberation of our Falklands territory, so "thankyou" was appropriate. Foreign policy should be calculated in the nation's interests. It was a good idea to have a good, diplomatic relationship with Pinochet back then. I reiterate, his treatment of his own people is not our affair. Alright, I'll get my coat...

As long as it's not in our back yard or carried out by us then we can turn a blind eye right? Get real….these are people we are talking about. They were tortured and persecuted, illegally.

Marxist terrorists? Were did you get that? Pinochet led a coupe and toppled the recently DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Marxist government. That makes him and his followers the "terrorists" for going against the democratic decision.

I think you should do some reading my friend.

Originally posted by boyface
As long as it's not in our back yard or carried out by us then we can turn a blind eye right? Get real….these are people we are talking about. They were tortured and persecuted, illegally.

Marxist terrorists? Were did you get that? Pinochet led a coupe and toppled the recently DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Marxist government. That makes him and his followers the "terrorists" for going against the democratic decision.

I think you should do some reading my friend.

just as a footnote, the coupe was supported by kissinger

i often wondered, whether Pinochet was related to that peer who was jailed a few years a go for corruption (no, not J*ffry *rch*r) who was released early, on the grounds that he was suffering from the incurable and irrevresible diseases of Alzheimers and dementia, and yet underwent a miraculous recovery to sanity and health, the second the prison gates closed behind him, on his release.

They have been using a similar tactic over pinochet...

"Aww he's jut an ill old man"

and "He is to frail to stand trial!"

bull SHINE!

this man's reigime was evil, there were so many people who were "disappeared" under his governance...

the man deserves the full weight of international justice to fall on his shoulders, and for him to get the just desserts of what he has done.
PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
who was released early, on the grounds that he was suffering from the incurable and irrevresible doseases of Alzheimers and dementia, and yet underwent a miraculous recovery to sanity and health, the second the prison gates closed behind him, on his release.

Are you thinking of Ernest Saunders, the only recorded recovery from Alzheimers?

Wikipedia Entry for Ernest Saunders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Saunders)

yes, Phanerothyme, I believe that this is the very person I was thinking of; the only person I know of who managed a recovery from Alzheimers...

The prison sentence and the association with "Have I Got News For You" are definitely ringing bells.

I remember the comments about him, on HIGNFY, and I remember then getting censured for them, (although I cannot imagine why they should have been censured when they were telling what appeared to be the truth; it is beyond me).

PT

Boyface,
Actually, it is you who should, "do some reading". If you had read my posting properly, you would see that I identified Taki as the originator of the "Marxist terrorists" comment/defence of Pinochet. What on earth do you mean by "Get real"? Yes, I know that "people" have been allegedly tortured and murdered under Pinochet's regime. Did you think I thought they were holograms? I reiterate, Pinochet may well have been a nasty man, but what business of ours is that? Foreign policy must be calculated in terms of British interests. What do you think the then British government should have done? Send the troups in? We already have a ludicrous situation where British soldiers are posted in around eight different locations on the globe. It is you who should,"get real". Too much trouble is caused on the international stage by "well-meaning" meddlers, interventionists, evangelicals for liberal democracy etc in various shapes and hues [i.e, American neo- conservatives etc]. Let us have a return to the paleo-conservatism of Burke and Salisbury; if the matter is of no strategic interest or vital importance to Britain- KEEP OUT! Too many British lives have been lost "liberating" other countries, and fighting other peoples' wars.

Well. I'll keep this short.

I never once went down the lines of advocating sending troops in, liberating or meddling etc. You just made that up.

I disagree with the situation in Zimbabwe, we haven't sent troups in there, but we also aren't best of mates with Mugabe are we?

There is a vast difference between condemning something and sending troops in.

Thatcher knew what pinochet had done to the people of Chile yet still chose to befriend him and use him for Britains means as you claim. I don't buy this complteley as she is STILL friends with him now, despite her knowledge of what he done. This serves Britain in no way. In my eyes this is her giving the green light from Britain to what he was doing.

oh, and thanks for the pm saying you regret your last post? why post then? was this so I wouldn't post and disagree with you and you'd look superior on the board. ho hum.

Boyface,
You implied that Britain ought to do something. As for my regretting anything, again you prove yourself incapable of reading posts properly. I said, in what was a well-intentioned private posting, that I regretted the tone of sarcasm that I implied not the posting itself, which I stand by. To misread a posting is one thing. Here, you have exposed yourself as chippy and dishonourable in your public misinterpretation of and rudeness about a well-meant private posting. How is my private, and now public- thanks to your lack of grace, posting in which I regret sarcasm an attempt to seem "superior"? You think in a rather childish, immature way to say the very least. Grow up, and have the mature grace to accept apologies. Whilst we are at it, it might also serve you well to remember that people are allowed to dissent from your opinions on what is a free forum.

Originally posted by timo
Whilst we are at it, it might also serve you well to remember that people are allowed to dissent from your opinions on what is a free forum.

Ditto.

Boyface,
Isn't it past your bedtime? You are up at 20 past eight posting your semi-literate "opinions" when you should be in your cot. Go to bed. Little man, you've had a busy day.

There are 2 points I would like to make here.
Pinochet was being held in detention following a Spanish request for extradition. Jack Straw , the Attorney General and all were happy to see him released on spurious medical eveidence which was never properly scrutinised. If Britain had acted properly in accordance with International Law, Pinochet would now be in a Spanish prison. Presumably Straw agreed with Thatcher that he was a nice man and good friend and was happy to see him slip out of the country.
Secondly, if we invaded Iraq to put Sadaam under lock and key why did we release Pinochet when he conveniently dropped into our laps? A murdering dictator could have been dealt with at very little cost in money or lives.

Ned Ludd,
I am sure you are correct here re Straw. With respect, this is the "real" world of international relations and politics. Look at how the Americans let Japanese scientists who used nerve gas etc against pows in WW2 "off the hook" in return for their findings. This is what governments do; they weigh up the consequences of protecting or punishing peoplelike Pinochet in terms of national interest. Or rather they should do. What business of ours is the behaviour of any foreign "dictator", if they are not harming British nationals or British interests? Look at how things have been made ten times worse in Iraq by the meddling, interfering attempts to foist liberal democracy on to a "country" that was created by international idealists in the first place. To hell with international idealism and utopian panaceas. Let Britain mind our own business. Thatcher and Straw did the right thing- the man, however vile he may have been to his own people, did British national interests more than a few favours. This is NOT the same as condoning torture, although there are doubtless certain dishonourable, snide, yellow-bellied contributors who will attempt to twist my words again with their callow, emotional reasoning. Hi Boyface!

I don't think it's me who is looking childish here. Carry on, it amuses me and passes my time at work.

Boyface,
nah, I'll be really childish [i.e, try to emulate a daft chuff like you] and stop here. Wonder what you do for a living? Are you a disgruntled, angry abbatoir- hose cleaner? Perhaps a [secretly anarcho-syndicalist] window cleaner's assistant? You'll have to make do with this as you "pass the time" at work. As for my "superior" self [as you called me], I shall enjoy the rest of my paid research day, avoiding anything too strenuous like work, and congratulating myself that I am not you. Oh lucky, lucky man!

I think we've probably covered Pinochet now. Thank you and goodnight