Michigan jury jails Pastor Terry Jones

[Samuel]

Also, in 1998 documents were declassified detailing CIA support for the regime, coup, and manufacturing the conditions that led to the coup, as well as trying to influence the election away from Allende anyhow. Go check out Project FUBELT.

All the attempts to cause a coup were in 1970. They failed and strengthen support for the regime. After that the US used economic and political means to cut off Chile. I'm don't see how the latter actions is remotely wrong. If you elect an anti-American regime, no shit the US is going to constrict trade. The 1973 coup was not planned by the US government.

http://foia.state.gov/Reports/HincheyReport.asp#17

The CIA continued to collect intelligence on Chilean military officers actively opposed to the Allende government, but no effort was made to assist them in any way. Some CIA assets and contacts were in direct contact with coup plotters; CIA guidance was that the purpose of these contacts was only to collect intelligence. As coup rumors and planning escalated by the end of 1972, CIA exercised extreme care in all dealings with Chilean military officers and continued to monitor their activities but under no circumstances attempted to influence them. By October 1972 the consensus within the US government was that the military intended to launch a coup at some point, that it did not need US support for a successful coup, and that US intervention or assistance in a coup should be avoided.

Any thinking person would have known this in 1973 because when hasn't the US overthrown latin american governments that work against US business or foreign policy interests, but it's confirmed as of over 20 years ago, so there's no excuse claiming the US wasn't involved.

There is a difference between involved and responsible. Of course the US was involved- we sponsered opposition parties. We were sponsoring them until 1973 (which doesn't make sense if we were also responsible for the coup). There is nothing morally wrong with financial support- although how we did it was probably illegal.

"They elected the guy I don't like!" or "They elected someone who's not friendly towards our country!" are not valid justifications for rigging an election. Period.

That is great. And when countries stop reacting to what other nations do that might be true. Whenever you are willing to interfere in another country to ensure a friendly government, covertly rigging elections is less bloody than most of the alternatives.

Lets take an example- Palestine. The election of Hamas lead to the blockade of Gaza, the halt of financial aid and rocket attacks by Hamas. Not electing Hamas would not have lead to those things.

[SVPD]

Indeed. It's very disturbing how, in the last 8 months to a year we've seen arguments like this no less than 3 times that I recall - Once claiming elections ought to be rigged in certain circumstances and one claiming trials ought to be rigged against people who "undermine the justice system."

Wait, what? Could you provide the links?

I can understand cases where rigging elections might be justified, but they are pretty rare- in the countries that it might make sense, the opposition would notice and respond... possibly with bombs. In the countries where you can get away with it, generally it is a poor idea because most leaders aren't dangerous enough that you need to subvert the democratic process to keep them out of office.

It would have made sense for someone to rig the 1970 election and keep Allende from office. It certainly beats a military coup.

However, I can't see when rigging trials would ever be worth it. If someone is inherently dangerous, just have internal security keep them under survelliance.

No one (that I recall) ever talked about rigging a specific election. There was a thread several months back wherein someone claimed that elections in general ought to be rigged to prevent the wrong people from winning.

I wasn't addressing anything to do with Chile's 1970 election at all.

Here is the thread. I don't know how to link to individual posts, but the issue starts on the third post.

[Samuel]

Thanks. Yeah, rigging the elections to prevent the Republicans from winning is crazy. While I know that their social policies are crap and some of their economic ones as well (some are probably better than the Dems- it is hard to tell between their rhetoric and what they plan on passing) the Republican party does not use violence to contest elections. If you rig them and they realize it, they will be in a situation where they are a majority and they realize legal means no longer work.

[Master of Ossus]

And if the ACLU were the "American Constitutional Law Union" that might be a valid point, but unless you accept the idea that all civil liberties are defined in the US Constitution, the "it's not in the constitution" argument is baseless. As much as I dislike the ACLU's apparent lack of vision, consistancy, good timing, sense of proportion, and regard for unintended consequences in other cases, I've never thought that their arguments weren't about civil liberties and on topic.

Actually, I think the ACLU is very consistent. Mind you, I don't always agree with their positions on particular issues, but they always come to the defense of things like free speech. For instance, they wrote an influential amicus brief in the Citizens United v. FEC case.

[Questor]

And if the ACLU were the "American Constitutional Law Union" that might be a valid point, but unless you accept the idea that all civil liberties are defined in the US Constitution, the "it's not in the constitution" argument is baseless. As much as I dislike the ACLU's apparent lack of vision, consistancy, good timing, sense of proportion, and regard for unintended consequences in other cases, I've never thought that their arguments weren't about civil liberties and on topic.

Actually, I think the ACLU is very consistent. Mind you, I don't always agree with their positions on particular issues, but they always come to the defense of things like free speech. For instance, they wrote an influential amicus brief in the Citizens United v. FEC case.

Consistency is probably not the right word for what I was looking for, because I agree with you. What I meant is that the national organization does not always focus the local ones, and that you end up with some of the same issues you do with any organization that allows local control.

Of course, I still think the rest of that rant was right on the money, though. I'd rather go to PMs for further discussion though.