Talk:Augusto Pinochet

Domestic support for the coup

Okay, i'm DEFINITELY not neutral here, but I'm somewhat skeptical of how NPOV is the passage beginning

A large fraction of the population expected an intervention of the military to end the chaos caused by Allende's economic policies and foreign-backed domestic political opposition to them, culminating in a national transport owners' strike.

Specifically, the use of the word "expected" suggests "wanted" - is this true? I would hardly think so.

Yep, it is true, there were celebrations after the coup. Even people that became oppositor to Pinochet after it was clear he was going to stay a long time, considered at first a welcome change. It doesn't say a mayority, though, just " a large fraction". I guess it was at least in the tenths, but I don't have hard data about that.

Also the passage suggests that the economic chaos is entirely the result of Allende's policies, and somewhat glosses over concerted efforts by business interests to make Allende pay for his decisions. Graft 16:29 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)

I don't think that. It says "foreign-backed domestic opposition to them". The internal opposition had to do with the economical chaos too, and they received money from abroad. i don't see how that puts all the blame on Allende.--AN

Needs editing

Moved this here - it needs more work than just a copyedit:

It's being juged for his crime to the humanity. Actually 30% of the actual population still beleving in him, but less every time, due to the public aceptation of the systematics tortures and assesinats comited during his regime.

Dementia

Two things I was unable to do anything about.

(vascular demency)

I have no idea.

his partidaries try to explain them

should this be 'partisans'?

A start...the following quote is from CNN:

"[Chilean] law excuses people from trial only if they are certified as 'mad' or 'demented'."

I would guess "demency" an attempt by the original author at translating a term with a technical sense in the Chilean courts, "demented" being CNN's go at the same trick -- the quotes around it imply that this is Chile speaking, not CNN. -- Paul Drye

dementia, maybe? 'Vascular dementia', as opposed to (I have no idea how - I'm no m.d.) 'senile dementia'?

We may have a winner. A Google check turned up "vascular dementia", and a legitimate-looking advocacy page says it is the second most common form of dementia in the States after Alzheimer's. -- Paul Drye

I'm pretty sure it is vascular dementia -- it is the same type of dementia claimed by the last surviving person indicted for the 1968? curch bombing in Alabama -- I think his name's Cherry. Anyway, It was reported on the news the other day that he would stand trial because he wasn't suffering from vascular dementia. JHK

Torture on Spaniards

34 cases of torture of spanish citizens in a few months? I don't think so.

The Spanish charged him, eventually, with 94 counts of torture, but they were people of a wide variety of nationalities. This was justified under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which says that any state can prosecute it regardless of where it took place or against whom. Similar idea to the "crimes against humanity" thing that allows the trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

The British 1988 Criminal Justice Act was when this convention entered into force in Britain, so this is why they stuck to charges alleged to have taken place after that time. -- Paul Drye

Bloodiest coup

I'm not sure i'm willing to take BBC's word that the 1973 coup was the "bloodiest in 20century southamerica". The actual fighting was little. All branches of the armed forces supported the coup, the were no "loyal forces" defending Allende, except for Allendes personal guard the "GAP" (Group of Personal Friends) (and maybe a few others). The actions were on large scale because more resistance was expected. If the idea is to consider not only the coup itself, but also the aftermath, to compute the number of casualties, Argentina's "Guerra Sucia" (Dirty War) had several times the number of deaths and dissaperances. I'd said that what it did have was one of the largest (if not "the" largest) psycological impact: the fall of a democratically elected socialist president in a country with a long democratic tradition. --AN

Rettig Commission

"Rettig Commision"

If we use the name "Rettig Commission", we should explain what it is. What is it? DanKeshet

The "Rettig Commission" official name was "Comision Nacional de Verdad y Reconciliacion" , National Commision of Truth and Reconciliation. It was created by the government of President Patricio Alwayn, and its aim was to "establish the most complete frame about the most serious violations to the humans rights with result of death or dissapereance, performed by agents of the State or particulars with political purposes, to obtain infomation that would make posssible to identify the victims and establish their fate or location, to recommned reparations and reivindications that would be considered fair and those that should be adopted to prevent the ocurrence of new violations". The period under study was between September 11, 1973 and March 11, 1990. The Rettig report documented 2,920 cases of dissapearances and deaths (included in this number there is a small number of military killed in attacks by guerrilla forces).--AN

Anonymous POV edits

Oh great. The adder of extremist POV links to this page is back again, *sigh*. I've temporarily protected it. FearÉIREANN 18:08, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The user has been adding in links all over the place. I have blocked his IP. Others have removed his links. I have now unblocked this page. FearÉIREANN 18:16, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I haven't really checked out his Pinochet links prior to now. Two of them are crap links, but one looks possibly useful as a "Defenses of Pinochet" link (the http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/pinochet/index.htm link). We added a similar "alternate theories" section to the Attack on Pearl Harbor article and I think the result was good. The other ones aren't source-able or verifiable, etc.

Re: protecting the page, I don't think that's really necessary. We seem to be tracking his edits well enough. Oh, I see you've unblocked it and blocked his IP. That's a nice gesture, but the guy has rarely, if ever, used the same IP address. He roams all of 67.31.x.x. Check my (incomplete) listing on the vandalism page about 67.31.x.x.

Whoever you are, could you please at least sign up for an account and use it to make your changes? Daniel Quinlan 18:35, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

Euphemisms

Regarding "terrorist attacks" -> "violent attacks". Um, isn't violent redundant? "terrorist" told me something useful about the attack -- they're attacks against non-military and/or civilian targets. However, aren't pretty much all attacks violent? I realize you could have a "non-violent attack", but that's pretty much an oxymoron. Daniel Quinlan 23:01, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

In this context, 'terrorist' is a POV-loaded term. Many saw Pinochet and his regime as an illegal entity of state-backed murderers. It is one thing to talk about those engaged in armed violence against a legally empowered state, where the state demonstrably has legal and constitutional legitimacy, as 'terrorists'. But it is more problematic where the 'state' is made up of a military junta that seized power contrary to law and was responsible for the death of tens of thousands, to describe their opponents who also practiced voilence as terrorist. Saying they engaged in violence is a statement of fact, calling them terrorists when they were acting against a military junta that had no democratic mandate, is dangerously judgmental. In their eyes they were the equivalent of those who fought against German control of France during WWII. I am not saying they were and I am not saying their actions were justified, but the situation under Pinochet was not akin to ETA fighting the democratic Spanish state, or the IRA fighting a democratically elected and accountable UK. FearÉIREANN 00:36, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Disappointments

I have little dissapoints with the article:

1. The assasination intent against Pinochet by the Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodríguez was the ONLY ONE intent in the 17 years of dictatorial government.

2. About the chilean opossition to Allende and the "economic chaos", thats very inexact. Allende wons the 1070's presidential ellections with a 36% (was no second election system in chilean constitution in 1970); at 1971 the government parties won the legislative ellections with a 42%, 6 percentile points more in just one year. The civil opossition was hard, but not come from active majorities; come from high-level chilean and US enterprises and who sabotage the government with a deploy block, stacking the production (for that was the US dollars, to support the blocking enterprises). The economic chaos come from this, and so the oposittion. Inclussive in this situation, with a terrible support crisis, the day of the coup d'etat great portions of the population come to the "industrial cordon's" (an industrial colective structure of the socialist democratic government) in expect of weapons to resist the military intervention. In fact, the popular support to Allende growth continually from 1970 to 1973 because the Allende's program prove to be very similar to the Christian Democracy party (the last party at the government). All this, of course, in the fragile atmosphere of crisis and conspiration who the enterprises generate.

About the discussion here, i just want to say two more things:

1. Was a hard resistance inside the chilean's army forces. It's not true that was no loyal forces to Allende. Great groups of the naval army was enclosed at Valparaiso port by the golpist, grat groups of the Carabineros (uniformed chilean police) and Investigaciones (chilean not uniformed police) resist in santiago, entire batallions of the terrestrial army was enclosed too at their cuartels, important groups of the air force was arrested in their own homes and incomunicated during the night before the attack, and a lot o loyal soldiers was executed; this assasinations do not figure in any lists because the chilean army statutes authorize vertical executions without judge at alert or emergency state. Anyway, the Pinochet coup has been named the "most bloody" not because numbers. Its because it's proved the sistematically planned assasination of people, and the coordinated use of assasinations and torture of great ammounts of people to generate social and political effects. In fact, from 1973 to 1985 in Chile was not a serious armed resistance; so the golpist force do not confront little armies; use planned assasinations series to dismount civil organizations killing great numbers of selected objectives. The practice of torture and assasination against civil organizations in latin america was common, but in the "crisis-control-mode", not in the periodic and constant model of the chilean golpist, who use them until at least 1987.

2. The FPMR - Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodríguez - was an armed side of the Chilean Communist Party (PC). In Chile, the PC was the most moderate of the socialist coalition (Unidad Popular), and a republican party with a long democratic tradition. In fact, the FPMR organize it self at 1983, and operate first at 1985, after 12 years of cruel repression, torture, assasinations, people who's burned alive in the streets and pregned womens who're tortured until die, 12 years of day after day tryng a democratic way to change the situation. This guys, the FPMR, was primely young chileans who leave from their 7 to 9 years old under a hard repressive dictator. No one can say these guys was terrorist; in no one, really, NO ONE of the FPMR operations a civil was murdered, they NEVER use explosives in urban objectives and the few times who take hostages they where returned with no damage and telling about the polite manners of their captors. It's not possible to equal a patriotic resistance group against an illegal government supported by external interests with the ETA or similars.

You'll see, im not really neutral, i'm chilean (my english its very bad), but i think i know about my country history. I`m not socialist, but i've seen the FPMR history with my eyes and the historical context of their actions. It's because this I tell the FPMR its proudly remembered by a lot of chileans, not only socialist, even by important sectors of the chilean catholic church (the most "people-like", of course). They was a dignity bastion against repression when appeared to not exist hope.

Dictatorship vs. democracy

The article had:

was a military dictator who...

I cut this, because dictators don't generally create constitutions which result in their getting voted out of office! --Uncle Ed 19:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 29, 1936 - Hitler gets 99% approval in a "free" plebicite approving Nazi rule Mintguy (T) 19:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

CIA-backed coup?

This page at George Washington University has a number of important declassified documents that provide information on the involvement of the CIA in supporting the coup on September 11, 1973: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:18, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Balanced perspective

Okay, maybe I'm all wrong about Pinochet, but check out talk:Chile for the current state of the country.

My POV is that Pinochet stopped Allende from turning Chile into a Marxist dictatorship. Ah, if only Germany had someone who could have stopped Hitler from turning Germany into a fascist dictatorship!

Let's discuss how we can balance the two main POVs:

Pinochet is bad because he overthrew an "elected president"; and because he prevented socialists from establishing a worker's paradise; and because he brutally suppressed revolutionaries trying to overthrow his dictatorship; versus,

Pinochet is good because he stopped Allende from seizing power and creating a dictatorship; he reversed the damage Allende's ill-advised socialist reforms caused; he stepped down voluntarily after holding free elections

--Uncle Ed 19:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed - you are embarking on revisionism. Pinochet expected to win the plebicte, otherwise he wouldn't have held it (just like Hitler in 1936). He was surrounded by sychophants who told him he would win. Many members of the opposition has just been executed after the attempt on Pinochet's life the previous year, the remainging figures in the opposition movement were not united. Mintguy (T) 19:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good. Put that in the article! "Pinochet had no intention of giving up the perverse thrill of being a dictator. He thought that like Hitler he could consolidate his power by holding a special election that would forever trample democracy under his boots. In an incredible quirk of fate, democratic forces jerked the rug out from under him."

Just make sure that it's labelled as the point of view of its advocate -- and, oh yes, balance it with the point of view of its opponent. We want a neutral article, right? Not just one which praises or condemns Pinochet... --Uncle Ed 19:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm banning myself from this article for the rest of the week. My rule is: if there's even a 10% chance that I'm biased and don't know it, I stop work and search my conscience. --Uncle Ed 19:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The plebiscite was programmed since 1980, it was among the transitory articles in the constitution aproved by referendum on that year (that also gave Pinochet 8 more year, so he was elected in a sense for the period 1981-1989). Pinochet didn't govern alone, the "Junta" (the other commanders in chief) were the only ones that could have prevented the plebiscite, and with difficulty, because it would have meant a constitutional reform. The "many members of the opposition executed" were three comunists (only a small part of the opposition) that didn't help important positions, and who were murdered, the crime was investigated. The opposition had access to free time on TV for the plebiscite, the same as the "yes" option (half an hour each everyday for a month or so). Of course there was unnoficial tv time for the yes option in news or so, but I don'tr think that that is so unusual. Recent versions say that Pinochet thought of not accepting the results, but he was not the sole ruler, the Junta would have had to approve a break of the constitution, and they didn't. --AstroNomer 19:49, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

CIA role

The CIA, and the government of the US in general did contribute the the conditions that led to the coup, that is very well documented. It is also documented relation of the CIA with the repressive apparatus. But the involvement of the CIA in the coup itself is not documented anywhere. It might be in the still not declassified documents, but until they are declassified (if they exist) there is no proof of involvement of the CIA in the coup. If I am wrong, please point me to the appropiate sources.--AstroNomer 17:00, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Give me a break...US and CIA support of the coup is not even a topic of dispute. I can go beyond that and say the US government handed the Chileans the name of American journalists and the like in Chile who were subsequently executed is not in dispute. The US also let the Chilean spooks come into the US and assassinate an American, Ronni Karpen Moffitt on a street in Washington DC during a time that they were assassinating Chilean exiles and pro-Chileans all over Europe as well, something the US government gave less of a damn about, although there is no smoking gun to speak of. But of course, someone was killing Chilean exiles and supporters all over the world and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The US support of Chile's coup is braindead, you should stick to arguing about DINA's hit on Moffitt and the like. -- Hanpuk 17:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The best collection of declassified material can be found in the National Security Archive, also online here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/chile.htm. The website collects numerous declassified documents that show US support for an overthrow of Allende and other measures to bolster a dictatorship in Chile. AstroNomer is correct that there is little direct evidence that the CIA had a hand in the actual coup, but that is not the issue - we are talking about the phrase "CIA supported", which is certainly warranted by the available evidence. To quote:

Cables written by U.S. Ambassador Edward Korry after Allende's election, detailing conversations with President Eduardo Frei on how to block the president-elect from being inaugurated. The cables contain detailed descriptions and opinions on the various political forces in Chile, including the Chilean military, the Christian Democrat Party, and the U.S. business community.

CIA memoranda and reports on "Project FUBELT"--the codename for covert operations to promote a military coup and undermine Allende's government. The documents, including minutes of meetings between Henry Kissinger and CIA officials, CIA cables to its Santiago station, and summaries of covert action in 1970, provide a clear paper trail to the decisions and operations against Allende's government

National Security Council strategy papers which record efforts to "destabilize" Chile economically, and isolate Allende's government diplomatically, between 1970 and 1973.

State Department and NSC memoranda and cables after the coup, providing evidence of human rights atrocities under the new military regime led by General Pinochet.

FBI documents on Operation Condor--the state-sponsored terrorism of the Chilean secret police, DINA. The documents, including summaries of prison letters written by DINA agent Michael Townley, provide evidence on the carbombing assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington D.C., and the murder of Chilean General Carlos Prats and his wife in Buenos Aires, among other operations.

Now, as to whether it is justified to speculate about very direct involvement, I think the orders to the CIA station chief in Santiago, Henry Hecksher, are quite clear: "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup." These operations were explicitly ordered to be conducted to hide the "American hand". Given that not all material is declassified, and given that the evidence is clear, informed speculation about direct involvement is certainly on solid ground and has a place in the article about the matter.

—Eloquence 18:02, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Informed speculation is on firm ground, and has a place in the article, no doubt about it. But do we want speculation on the first paragraph, that defines the article? I belive that the coup would have happened even without CIA involvement, (not so sure without the whole US involvement in international organizations) and given that, also, there is strong suggestion that Pinochet wasn't even involved in the planning until shortly before (lower officials in the Army, and the Navy and Air Force apparently did most of the planning) I do not like the impression that Pinochet was simply doing the CIA's bidding in the coup, epecially when there is no proof about that. --AstroNomer 18:23, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

We do not imply that the CIA carried out the coup, or that it would not have happened without them. That the CIA supported the coup is a fact. And that fact belongs into the introduction.—Eloquence 18:26, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Dictator

Just to return to the question of why we can't call him a "military dictator". He clearly was a military dicatator. Holding a plebiscite when you feel like it does not stop you from being a dictator. —Cadr

He didn't hold a plebiscite when he felt like it, the plebiscite was decided in 1980, when the constitution (that still rules) was approved. Anyway, you can call it a military dictator, but please do the same with Fidel Castro. I put dictator there but was reverted telling he is "elected". In competition with whom? In Cuba there isn't even a "no" option like there was in the 1980 and 1989 plebiscites...--AstroNomer 18:12, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)