Pinochets The Politics

I am writing a review on Pinochet case and its problem with International jurisdiction The British House of the Lord ruled twice his sovereign immunity.
Isn't it his crime against the Chilean crime against humanity ? I'm having trouble to defend the reason he was declared medical unfit for trail ? Is there anything wrong with the universal jurisdiction?
Anyone from the law department willing to pass some information ?
jacque

[Menydh]

The British were returning him a favour for supporting the military actions of Britain against Argentina.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The British were returning him a favour for supporting the military actions of Britain against Argentina.

Ha! stupid chimierdos/chilians; it is an argentine who crossed the Andes in 1818 with his army to liberate Chili from the royalists, not the contrary: He should have remembered that , Pinochet

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The British were returning him a favour for supporting the military actions of Britain against Argentina.

Is it your theory, facts or speculation? Theory always argueable, facts always accepted, howerver speculation is hard to prove in a thesis.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by jacque

Is it your theory, facts or speculation?

Do you know when the Falkland War took place and who was involved?
Falklands War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There can be no doubts Pinochet allied with GB, since he also was an ally of the USA and one of the pro-West dictators of South America.
BBC News | UK | Pinochet - Thatcher\'s ally
Spectrezine - Falklands/Malvinas dispute
Telegraph | Comment |

Originally Posted by jacque

Theory always argueable,

Indeed...

Originally Posted by jacque

facts always accepted,

If it was like that life would be so much more easier..

Originally Posted by jacque

howerver speculation is hard to prove in a thesis.

There are no speculations about "Western" policy when it comes about dictators that violate human rights but serve own interests: "It is a son of a b-ch but it is our son of a b-ch!"

[Tennyson]

Do you study at the faculty of Law, Jacque?

This might be helpful:
The Lords’ Decision in Pinochet III: A Legal Analysis

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by jacque

Is it your theory, facts or speculation? Theory always argueable, facts always accepted, howerver speculation is hard to prove in a thesis.

Telegraph | Thatcher always honoured Britain\'s debt to Pinochet |

Why do I have the feeling that you think that people lie to you?

[Erasmus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Telegraph | Thatcher always honoured Britain\'s debt to Pinochet |

Why do I have the feeling that you think that people lie to you?

I have the same feeling

He, he, "Galtieri is a Fascist dictator", said Maggie (but Pinocho is our nutzee, isn't he?)

Pinocho and Maggie

Lie is different than speculation? You always can speculate certain politics agenda howerver You ( you in this term i do not mean you) needs facts to prove it such as THEORY! I'm talking Pinochet case not about anything personal.You need law such as universal jurisdiction to prove wethere the theory could be tested. You don't use word such lie ,as a scientific term to indentify a case. In this context I'm purely refering to Pinochet case where the Universal Jurisdictions, and the problems around this particular case

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Do you study at the faculty of Law, Jacque?

This might be helpful:
The Lords’ Decision in Pinochet III: A Legal Analysis

Yes , I'm talking about Universal jurisdiction, wonder why some people take it so personal.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Do you know when the Falkland War took place and who was involved?
Falklands War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There can be no doubts Pinochet allied with GB, since he also was an ally of the USA and one of the pro-West dictators of South America.
BBC News | UK | Pinochet - Thatcher\'s ally
Spectrezine - Falklands/Malvinas dispute
Telegraph | Comment |

Indeed...

If it was like that life would be so much more easier..

There are no speculations about "Western" policy when it comes about dictators that violate human rights but serve own interests: "It is a son of a b-ch but it is our son of a b-ch!"

Read the question, i asked the problems around the universal jurisdication. Not history the connects to his politics.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by jacque

Read the question, i asked the problems around the universal jurisdication. Not history the connects to his politics.

There is more than one question there.

For example, you asked: "I'm having trouble to defend the reason he was declared medical unfit for trail ?"

Reading that article it is not difficult to conclude the reason why he was declared unfit. That is, the political reasons behind it. The legal reasons would lie in the details of the medical diagnosis. But clearly the decision was political behind the scenes.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by jacque

Is it your theory, facts or speculation? Theory always argueable, facts always accepted, howerver speculation is hard to prove in a thesis.

Otherwise , I don't think the British House of Lords would have been so keen to take his defense.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

There is more than one question there.

For example, you asked: "I'm having trouble to defend the reason he was declared medical unfit for trail ?"

I do agree that you theory is right because it is acceptable!

Howerver,he was in Britain while the Spanish court send him a warrants for his arrest, according to the Universal Jurisdiction you can't arrest a ex head of a state in the third country for the crime that he has committed,
because the head of state has a sovereign immunity.
In this case the Spanish charge him for crime that he committed in Spain not in Chile. The new international criminal court did issued him a warrant where he was under the house arrest in Britain for 18 months. I do not think its because his medical condition however because of the problems where the Spanish state made a mistake. Howerver he still could have been prosecuted, i just need a theory to motivate it, that is the whole problem.

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by jacque

Howerver he still could have been prosecuted, i just need a theory to motivate it, that is the whole problem.

A theory...uh...personnally I cannot be helpfull on that but instead I can propose you to consider this; when the israeli goverment sent an special comando to Argentina to kiddnap Eichman and bring him to Israel for trial and execution no body protested or revolted. No body summoned to international jurisdiction and law to cancel and invalidate Israel actions neither.
Pinochet benefited of an immunity that Eichman couldn't have and why? they both has comited crimes against human kind, no matter if Eichman had "more deads on his consciense" than Pinochet; both of them were criminals of the same kind in a maner or another...the thing is that jews seem to have became "intouchable" since the holocaust but when this kind of isues come to third world countries international or national courts seems to have a "trick" at hand to circumvent the laws ...
Just try to imagine what woud have happened if chilian or spanish governement would have had senta comando to kiddnap him ???

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Pinochet's Chile was one of the first countries in the world to adopt strict neo-liberal economic policy. They actually tested that economic conception, which was to become dominant in the whole world in the 1990-ies, on Chile.
Pinochet was always an Anglo-Saxon stooge.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by jacque

Read the question, i asked the problems around the universal jurisdication. Not history the connects to his politics.

I got the question, no worries, it seems you did not get "universal jurisdition laws" are not in force, without exception. It is truantly to talk about these laws. With my examples I just wanted to show you the open hypocrisy appearing with these courts that pretend to enforce "human rights". The idea any criminal has "immunity" is crap, no criminal ever must enjoy any privileges; the thing is the liberal vermin arrogating the judgement of Pinochet at that time deserves nothing less but the gallows for the crimes they are committing against their own people. But, of course, the liberals spare themselves from hanging by inventing "universal laws", outlawing the "inhuman" death-penalty" and appointing judges following exact these laws, and name this "seperation of powers" and "rule of law". Guess why even bribing politicans is not punishable in FRG - not to mention out of all criminals politicans enjoy "immunity"