The Americas The - "Why Should I have to State Pinochet was terrible?" - Thread

[Big Steve]

TBH, if you put me on a judge's bench and had me run a tribunal where members of DINA (Pinochet's secret service) were proven to be guilty of having people raped by dogs or defenestrated from helicopters or otherwise tortured, I'd probably send them to prison for life. Or have them do the hemp fandango. The cause of stopping Allende did not justify the extremes DINA went to. Hell, IIRC some of Pinochet's junta even resigned over some of the behavior, feeling the junta went too far.

That, I think, is the point people defending Pinochet's actions must make to avoid the charge of supporting torture and other atrocities. You defend that he acted initially to stop Allende from ripping up Chilè's constitution, with the support of Congress and (IIRC) the Courts. What is not defensible are the things he and/or his supporters did after the moment of danger was passed.

(I really need to get A Nation of Enemies out of the library again...)

 

[JagerIV]

TBH, if you put me on a judge's bench and had me run a tribunal where members of DINA (Pinochet's secret service) were proven to be guilty of having people raped by dogs or defenestrated from helicopters or otherwise tortured, I'd probably send them to prison for life. Or have them do the hemp fandango. The cause of stopping Allende did not justify the extremes DINA went to. Hell, IIRC some of Pinochet's junta even resigned over some of the behavior, feeling the junta went too far.

That, I think, is the point people defending Pinochet's actions must make to avoid the charge of supporting torture and other atrocities. You defend that he acted initially to stop Allende from ripping up Chilè's constitution, with the support of Congress and (IIRC) the Courts. What is not defensible are the things he and/or his supporters did after the moment of danger was passed.

(I really need to get A Nation of Enemies out of the library again...)

I partially look at some of that as, collateral damage. Collateral damage is unfortunate, but also to some degree unavoidable. Things like DINA are interesting collateral damage though, in the sense that they're abuses of power which may in some way have had to be tolerated. Or were inevitable parts of the package.

Like, on the broader Pinochet issue, assuming its taken as given that Allende needed to be dealt with as the noncontroverial and necessary part, while the later dictatorship was questionable, the two big questions are

1) Was the dictatorship afterwards necessary to the success of the operation? Or was it just a power trip of Pinochet and his underlings?

2) Was someone else available who would have succeeded at the coup who wouldn't also seize power himself? You always hope for a George Washington, but sometimes the best you have is a Napoleon or a Caesar. By which measure Pinochet was far superior, due to actually managing to preserve the republic he took over for its own good.

 

[Big Steve]

I partially look at some of that as, collateral damage. Collateral damage is unfortunate, but also to some degree unavoidable. Things like DINA are interesting collateral damage though, in the sense that they're abuses of power which may in some way have had to be tolerated. Or were inevitable parts of the package.

Like, on the broader Pinochet issue, assuming its taken as given that Allende needed to be dealt with as the noncontroverial and necessary part, while the later dictatorship was questionable, the two big questions are

1) Was the dictatorship afterwards necessary to the success of the operation? Or was it just a power trip of Pinochet and his underlings?

2) Was someone else available who would have succeeded at the coup who wouldn't also seize power himself? You always hope for a George Washington, but sometimes the best you have is a Napoleon or a Caesar. By which measure Pinochet was far superior, due to actually managing to preserve the republic he took over for its own good.

I'd say that there's a difference between shooting people in a moment of emergency and torturing them, emergency or otherwise. And honestly Pinochet remaining in power is where he loses much of my sympathy, particularly the way he went about it. If he'd won a genuine free and fair election, that's one thing, or even enjoying the universal acclaim of his nation like Washington initially did (although not so much by the mid 1790s). But instead he used terror and murder to hold onto power and only relented well after a decade had passed.

 

[Scottty]

I'd say that there's a difference between shooting people in a moment of emergency and torturing them, emergency or otherwise. And honestly Pinochet remaining in power is where he loses much of my sympathy, particularly the way he went about it. If he'd won a genuine free and fair election, that's one thing, or even enjoying the universal acclaim of his nation like Washington initially did (although not so much by the mid 1790s). But instead he used terror and murder to hold onto power and only relented well after a decade had passed.

If you want a military dictator to peacefully give up power, you need to create a path for him to do so without landing himself in prison or death.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

My take-away from this is that Pinochet and his henchmen should've burned all evidence and traces before stepping down.

Seriously, only 3000 people killed, and the world knows about that because the regime decided to do the right thing and come clean? They could've buried everything and lived long lifes. But they decided to let law and order do their job, even if they could've avoided that.

EDIT: That alone makes them better people than any commie in their position would've been.

 

[GoldRanger]

I get the impression that some people have a difficulty with the concept of a necessary evil.
Sometimes we have to do things that we really don't like doing, because the alternative would be much, much worse.

It's not an impression. These people you're talking about usually mock this concept relentlessly (the phrase "hard men making hard decisions while being hard" rings a bell?), not realizing that mocking something doesn't invalidate it - see Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia

 

[Big Steve]

If you want a military dictator to peacefully give up power, you need to create a path for him to do so without landing himself in prison or death.

While true from a pure cynical, pragmatic viewpoint, this completely destroys the ability of said dictator to claim solely patriotic motives for his actions. If he (or she) acted to save the Nation, even allowing terrible things to be done, then the moment the threat is passed they should be willing to quickly restore their nation's normal order. Even if it means their own incarceration, exile, or death.

My take-away from this is that Pinochet and his henchmen should've burned all evidence and traces before stepping down.

Seriously, only 3000 people killed, and the world knows about that because the regime decided to do the right thing and come clean? They could've buried everything and lived long lifes. But they decided to let law and order do their job, even if they could've avoided that.

EDIT: That alone makes them better people than any commie in their position would've been.

So how many tortured and slain people does it take before someone is wrong? Or is it perfectly fine to torture and murder so long as your victims are of the wrong political persuasion, with your count of victims being irrelevant? Because that's the gist I'm getting from this comment: "The regime was right because their victims were people I think were bad, and you should be grateful they didn't cover it up".

It's not an impression. These people you're talking about usually mock this concept relentlessly (the phrase "hard men making hard decisions while being hard" rings a bell?), not realizing that mocking something doesn't invalidate it - see Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm one of those people who detest "Hard men making hard decisions!". Sure, reality isn't always a bright place, and sometimes dirty things have to be done, the lesser evil to prevent the greater evil. But that doesn't excuse you entirely from committing said lesser evil. Committing it still demands a price for your spirit and your soul, it still stains you with its commission, even if it was the best way to avoid the greater evil. And you have to live with that stain, and the way you do speaks to what kind of person you are.

The "hard men making hard decisions" crap tries to ignore that. "It was a hard thing to do and you were totally right for it!" It's like that episode of Stargate Atlantis, "Critical Mass", where Dr. Weir authorizes the torturing of a suspect in a moment of crisis, then afterward remarks, "I crossed a line", just for Major Sheppard to blow it off with "You did what you had to do" like it was nothing (and indeed echoing a line once spoken by a villian of the flagship series). And this attitude is morally bankrupt.

If you want to argue that Pinochet's coup was justified, fine, the evidence supports that from what I've read and recalled. But summary execution, torture, lasting long beyond the moment of emergency, in such a way as to cow and intimidate people into towing the line and keeping the military junta in power? That's not the same thing and you cannot so easily excuse it as justified like with the coup itself.

 

[Scottty]

While true from a pure cynical, pragmatic viewpoint, this completely destroys the ability of said dictator to claim solely patriotic motives for his actions. If he (or she) acted to save the Nation, even allowing terrible things to be done, then the moment the threat is passed they should be willing to quickly restore their nation's normal order. Even if it means their own incarceration, exile, or death.

Hey, even people who are acting from patriotic motives don't want to go to prison. People are only human.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

So how many tortured and slain people does it take before someone is wrong? Or is it perfectly fine to torture and murder so long as your victims are of the wrong political persuasion, with your count of victims being irrelevant? Because that's the gist I'm getting from this comment: "The regime was right because their victims were people I think were bad, and you should be grateful they didn't cover it up"

This is not at all what I intended to say. My impression is that Dictatorships tend to cover up how many people they murdered, and refuse to peacefully step down. Pinochet's junta was the exception from that rule. It appears that you have misunderstood my post, may I ask how you came to that conclusion?

 

[Big Steve]

This is not at all what I intended to say. My impression is that Dictatorships tend to cover up how many people they murdered, and refuse to peacefully step down. Pinochet's junta was the exception from that rule. It appears that you have misunderstood my post, may I ask how you came to that conclusion?

I think it was your opening statement of "they should have burned it all", as if that's what you wanted, not a remark of "they could have burrned it, we should give them credit for honesty".

And Scottty, that's why I added exile, and yes, I agree it's Human to want to have your freedom. It's also Human to want to live quietly and to not endanger yourself, but the entire point of this line of argument is that Pinochet was a patriot saving his nation. If he's proud of his record, he could stand on it and face judgement. Or alternatively, if he felt he had to go over the line and do terrible things to the citizens he swore to protect in orrder to save the whole, well, maybe he should accept that he must also face judgement for this terrible things.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

I think it was your opening statement of "they should have burned it all", as if that's what you wanted, not a remark of "they could have burrned it, we should give them credit for honesty".

Yeah, I can see how that can be missunderstood. Hazards of english being a second language, I guess.

 

[Scottty]

@Big Steve I'm certainly not in any way claiming that Pinochet wasn't an imperfect man, perhaps one who got corrupted by the power he claimed, but in response to your rejection of the "hard man" concept... sometimes there's no perfect course of action.
Sometimes it's akin to a trolley problem or a game of lifeboat.

And I say: don't condemn or judge the choices someone made in a hard place, if you can't suggest anything better.

 

[Big Steve]

And I say: don't condemn or judge the choices someone made in a hard place, if you can't suggest anything better.

Except, in this case, I can suggest something better.

I can suggest restoring the constitutional order of Chilè before 15 years have passed!

Oh, and, just as important... I can suggest don't fucking torture people.

As for my "hard men" point, no duh there's not always a perfect course of action. My point wasn't "there's always a more moral alternative!", my point is that when you make your "lesser evil" choice, it costs something. It stains you. And glorifying it undermines that understanding, indeed, it ignores the very existence of said lesser evil!

 

[Realm]

Frankly, we are more diverse and tolerant of guys who think differently from us than them, if keeping dudes like Realm, Ioseb and 2BDamned

I've literally seen y'all folks consistently justifying murdering me and mine so I can at least understand why you didn't tag me in this fundamentally ridiculous self congratulation.

 

[Comrade Clod]

Frankly, we are more diverse and tolerant of guys who think differently from us than them, if keeping dudes like Realm, Ioseb and 2BDamned around for so long shows anything

People on this site have justified overthrowing democratic leftist governments and actively stated the murder of said people is fine and dandy.

Pardon me If I find this statement ridiculous.

 

[Terthna]

I've literally seen y'all folks consistently justifying murdering me and mine so I can at least understand why you didn't tag me in this fundamentally ridiculous self congratulation.

People on this site have justified overthrowing democratic leftist governments and actively stated the murder of said people is fine and dandy.

Pardon me If I find this statement ridiculous.

Okay, I'm going to have to ask... no, demand, that you two qualify that assertion with facts right the hell now; otherwise, you can rest assured that whatever respect I once held for either of you will disappear in a puff of smoke, never to return again.

 

[Realm]

Okay, I'm going to have to ask... no, demand, that you two qualify that assertion with facts right the hell now; otherwise, you can rest assured that whatever respect I once held for either of you will disappear in a puff of smoke, never to return again.

Literally just read the Pinochet thread, the one that started with "Pinochet is bad" and then was overtaken by everyone else saying Pinochet was bad but justified at best.

 

[prinCZess]

People on this site have justified overthrowing democratic leftist governments

When a democratically-elected leader ignores the laws of the country he's elected to lead, the decisions of that country's court system, and the decisions of the democratically-elected legislature underneath them, their claim to being 'democratic' is...tenuous and doubtful, at best.

Which, to round this all back to Hong Kong, is also relevent in regards to the...rigged attempt at something which faintly smells of democracy that HK has both because of their representation of corporate interests and the PRCs oversight of allowed candidates.

 

[Terthna]

Pinochet thread in general.

That was a fucking wakeup call, my experience on the site had mostly positive up until that point.

There's an adage I live by, and I'm just going to quote a post I made in a different thread describing it:

I assume that everyone has something that, if you knew about it, would cause you to become totally disgusted with them as a human being. Maybe it's something they've done, maybe it's something they've said, maybe it's a sexual fetish they have; whatever it is, ignorance is the only reason anyone can seem like a decent person.

A corollary to that assumption though, is that everyone also has something that would earn them your respect, if you knew about it. The only question is; what do you know about someone, and what don't you? That can have everything to do with what kind of person you think they are; and no matter what, what you think you know about them is never the whole story.

In short? People are complicated; so try not to let one experience define how you perceive another person, let alone an entire group. Though, admittedly, even I struggle with that bit of advice on a daily basis.