Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,721
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 281:
Line 281: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Unprotected: move discussion from User talk
::::::Are you, in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --PF Fox 22:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Are you, in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --PF Fox 22:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
''Discussion moved from [[User:RobS|User talk:RobS]]'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS#Augusto_Pinochet_--_Welll.3F]
The article on Augusto Pinochet reads;
"He came to power as a member of a council of military leaders after the overthrew the government of President Salvador Allende on 11 September 1973."
My Goodness, Rob, why are you allowing that to stand? Shouldn't it be removed immediately? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 21:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:That is supported by the cites. Now, once you begin adding all the extra stuff, like CIA was complicit in bring Pinochet to power (unsupported), CIA was complicit in activities after Pinochet came to power (unsupported), "Many in the US protested" CIA complicity in bringing Pinochet to power (unsupported), "Many in US protested" CIA complicity in human rights abuses (unsupported), etc. there is absolutely no sourcing to support any claim of that nature. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::As you know, nowhere in my entry does it say "the CIA was complicit in bringing Pinochet to power." I simply say the allegation was made. You are editing out the word "alleged" from my comments. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes the allegation was made, however we have three cites now that say its unsupported. Hence, we cannot repeat an unsupported allegation that two official US investigations, and one Chilean, have refuted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, THE ALLEGATION WAS MADE. Thank you for admitting that fact. Acknowledging that the allegation was made does not qualify as "repeating an unsupported allegation" when it's identified as an allegation.
:::::Are you in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yes the allegation was made Don Rumsfeld blew up the World Trade Center by remote control, and G.W.H. Bush flew to Madrid on an SR-1, and a one arm-man was seen running from the grassy knoll, and Jimmy Hoffa was abducted by space aliens. Doesn't mean we should reference any of it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Are you in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Please explain what this statement means:
:::::::::*'' CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
It means the CIA did not give material support to the coup. Now please answer my question.
Are you in all seriousness, denying that Pinochet took over hours after the coup? That he was not in charge when Victor Jara was murdered? Whose forces arrested Jara then? Who tortured him? Who shot him? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:We are back to the issue of timeframes; what document can you produce prove that Pinochet ordered human rights abuses in the immediate wake of the coup? The CIA document above makes a clear separation between "the military Junta", and Pinochet's accession to the Presidency. In otherwords, in the chaos of a regime change like this, none of the three investigations can make the claim Pinochet ordered these executions, hence we cannot preclude the possibility these human rights violations were the independent actions of participants in the coup acting on thier own. Further, there is clear evidence from these documents of a potential coup within a coup, that Pinochet was not fully in command, and that he lacked the support from even the CIA whom, according to the documents, had assisted coup plotters for three years prior to these events. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Please show where in these documents it is indicated that anyone other than Pinochet was in charge after the coup, i.e., as of September 11, 1973. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*(1) [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/index.html#12] "According to the Church Committee report, in their meeting with CIA Director Richard Helms and Attorney General John Mitchell on 15 September 1970 President Nixon and his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, '''directed the CIA to prevent Allende from taking power'''." years prior.
*(2) [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/index.html#6] "Although '''CIA did not instigate the coup''' that ended Allende’s government on 11 September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, ''had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with '''some''' plotters'', and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it."
*(3) [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/index.html#2] "CIA '''actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow''' of Allende '''but did not assist Pinochet''' to assume the Presidency
So, the CIA had ongoing relationships with '''''some''''' plotters, it did not however assist Pinochet. So we can conclude that the plotters, and later the junta in the early hours or days, was not an entirely organized affair, there were differences of opinion as to who should lead the coup and who should succeed Pinochet, and these activities were ongoing for three years prior to events, and did have some foreign (i.e. US CIA) influence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Can you cite anything that indicates this other than your highly questionable "guess?" I have yet to hear or read a single account of what Time Magazine described as a "carefully planned and meticulously executed" coup that casts any doubt about who was in charge. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::Have you read the Clinton era CIA Report? Here's two more references, which must be read in the context of the foregoing,
*(4) [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/index.html#16 Early Allende Presidency ] "General Augusto Pinochet (not a coup plotter..."
*(5) [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/index.html#19 Violations of Human Rights Committed by Officers or Covert Agents and Employees of the CIA] This heading is interesting in what it does not say, it does not say "Violations of Human Rights Committed by Subordinates of Pinochet
*(6) [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/index.html#18 Accession of General Augusto Pinochet to the Presidency], "Chile‘s new military Junta—Army General Augusto Pinochet, Air Force General Gustavo Leigh, Navy Admiral Jose Merino, and Carabinero Chief General Caesar Mendoza—was sworn in on the evening of 11 September 1973. The next day, the four drafted an official document constituting the Junta as Chile’s supreme power. Pinochet was designated as its first President, and '''the four verbally agreed to rotate the office. Shortly after, the Junta established an advisory committee, which Pinochet was successful in staffing with Army officers loyal to himself. One of their first recommendations was to discard the idea of a rotating Presidency''', arguing it would create too many administrative problems and lead to confusion.
So, the evidence suggests (a) US was aware of, but did not give direct support to coup plotters; (b) Pinochet was not a coup plotter; (c) there was immediate confusion in the first days of the coup as to the basic strucure of the new junta; (d) some human rights abuses that did occur in the "early months after the coup" can be attributed to Pinochet, however because of the foregoing evidence regarding Pinochet's lack of involvement in the coup itself, and the fundamental change in the structure of the junta, there is ample evidence to suggest Pinochet did not have full control of the regime in the first few days; (e) finally a question arises about the difference between a "covert agent and employee of CIA" vs a member of the Chilean junta? Can a man serve two masters? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::How does the fact that they quickly discarded the idea of the rotating four man junta indicate so much confusion that there was question about who was actually in charge? Which of them are you claiming was in charge when Jara was murdered? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The four who agreed to the structure of the junta did not agree to discarding it, as the source doucments states. Source document does not give a timeframe either, only states, "shortly thereafter". How shortly is shortly thereafter? Well, it would have to include how long it takes for Pinochet to make appointments, the appointments to be accepted, and the appointees to meet and make decisions. In the absence of testimony, how long could this possibly take? Could it be done in two or three days? Perhaps. And at least one other day is lost between Allende's suicide & Pinochet working out the original deal with the other Generals. Most importantly is two factors, (1) obvious confusion and renigned deals at the outset, and (2) how did the Generals who made the original deal react? Source document doesn't tell us, but presumably it may have been problematic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
According to the Rettig Report, the idea of a rotating junta was just that -- an idea -- and one that was dropped after a few weeks. It was never really implemented, and the man who had been sworn in as leader from the beginning, Augusto Pinochet, remained in charge. And there is no sign of any "obvious confusion" about who was calling the shots beyond your unfounded extrapolations in either historical or contemporary accounts. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)