FORMER USA BACKED DICTATOR LAUNDERED "DIRTY" MILLIONS IN USA BANKS

[Mr. Anarky]

Ex-dictator had millions in U.S. bank

BY ANDRES OPPENHEIMER AND JUAN O. TAMAYO

Former Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet -- a man charged with widespread human rights abuses but never tied to major corruption scandals -- had up to $8 million in a U.S. bank, according to a U.S. Senate report released Wednesday.

A 119-page report by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations said Pinochet opened at least six accounts and several certificates of deposit at the Washington-based Riggs Bank while he was under house arrest in London and his assets were subject to court proceedings.

The Senate inquiry, which looked into whether Riggs had violated U.S. laws that prohibit banks from accepting ''dirty'' money from foreign government officials, found that ``Riggs opened multiple accounts and accepted millions of dollars in deposits from Mr. Pinochet with no serious inquiry into questions regarding the source of his wealth.''

The bank also ''helped him set up offshore shell corporations and open accounts in the names of those corporations to disguise his control of the accounts,'' the report added. The total amount of Pinochet's funds at the bank ranged from $4 million to $8 million, it said.

CONFUSING FACTS?

Pinochet was not immediately available for comment, but Gen. Guillermo Garín, a friend who often acts as a family spokesman, said similar past reports of Pinochet bank accounts have been dismissed.

''I have no knowledge of this at all, but in the past there were rumors of this type and they were always denied because there was nothing to them,'' Garín said in a phone interview from Santiago.

''It could be that they are confusing things . . . because in the past the [Chilean] army operated with the Riggs Bank in Washington, in its institutional role,'' Garín added. ``I was always aware that we had accounts there, with the knowledge of everyone and the approval [of several government financial agencies] for such things as logistical operations.''

The Senate investigators -- who in 1999 launched a similar inquiry into Citibank's deposits of Raúl Salinas, the brother of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari -- said they reviewed more than 100 boxes containing hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from Riggs Bank. Many of those documents were obtained through subpoenas.

Pinochet, who took power in a 1973 coup that set a trend of military governments in the region, served as president until 1990 and became a senator for life afterward.

http://65.54.172.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?...Kga%2fmhfm1401

Not only do we help obediant dictators overthrow democratically elected governments and murder the usurped leader and his followers, but we will also help them hide their stolen millions.

This is how the USA promotes democracy and justice in Latin America.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Mr. Anarky

Not only do we help obediant dictators overthrow democratically elected governments and murder the usurped leader and his followers, but we will also help them hide their stolen millions.

I thought people who helped and supported Dictators, such as Castro, deserved the Nobel peace prize?

[Mr. Anarky]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I thought people who helped and supported Dictators, such as Castro, deserved the Nobel peace prize?

Surely, you recognize a difference between:

1. A revolution that occurs from within a country and a coup within a country that was instigated and supported by another country purely for its own interests.

2. Helping a leader launder dirty money and distributing aid to ordinary people in a country.

You were joking, right?

[Misteria]

nothing new about this news nor will it be the last also ask yourself how did the German Gestapo get to South america after world war2 and how come the American secret service or British service didnt work out the transfer of billions to south americans banks for these men to live on the rest of their lives, i could name them here but am not bothered to even give importance to these evil criminals and a whole lot of etc.... cases.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Mr. Anarky

Surely, you recognize a difference between:

1. A revolution that occurs from within a country and a coup within a country that was instigated and supported by another country purely for its own interests.

It is false that the US instigated the coup in Chile. Though we approved of the overthrow of Allende, we did not INSTIGATE it. There was a growing opposition to his rule from the Conservative elements of Chile. The notion that Pinochet required an American ambassador to convince him of overthrowing Allende is ridiculous.

The question you SHOULD ask yourself is, why did Allende stuff his cabinet with Generals before the next election which he would certainly lose?

2. Helping a leader launder dirty money and distributing aid to ordinary people in a country.

Castro's aid comes in the form of a bullet to the back of the neck, paid for by the State.

As for Pinochet, I don't care. I'm not the one supporting despots, you are. It seems dictators are all right in your book as long as they have a copy of Marx in their library.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Misteria

nothing new about this news nor will it be the last also ask yourself how did the German Gestapo get to South america after world war2

Because there were hundreds of thousands of Gestapo and SS men with all the resources of the Third Reich to make false papers and we can't put a Nazi expert on every transport.

[Mr. Anarky]

It is false that the US instigated the coup in Chile. Though we approved of the overthrow of Allende, we did not INSTIGATE it. There was a growing opposition to his rule from the Conservative elements of Chile. The notion that Pinochet required an American ambassador to convince him of overthrowing Allende is ridiculous.

This is just hysterical craziness, refuted so many times already that it beggars belief that you would even dare to make such an outrageous claim. Recently, even more tapes have been released in which Kissinger clearly indicates that the USA significantly facilitated the coup from the beginning. Why, even the conservative Christopher Hitchens (who tried to trash Moore) has written a book on the subject. He rightly believes Kissinger should be tried as a war criminal.

The question you SHOULD ask yourself is, why did Allende stuff his cabinet with Generals before the next election which he would certainly lose?

I don't have to ask myself anything like this at all. The very fact that your throw out this red herring puts the lie to your claim below that you have no feeling for Pinochet. Do you know why? Allende was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED...he was ALLOWED to put anyone he wanted on his cabinet. Does the phrase “None of our business” mean a damn thing to you?

Moreover, you are clearly WAY OUT of your depth here because it is well known in the scholarship that, except for the elites in a country, the most educated class in South American countries has been the military. That is why they often fill many positions of government in countries. I wish that were different. I wish LA countries would spend more on public education. But whenever they do the USA crawls up their butts, sometimes even gets threatening, and says "But, oh, that money should be going to pay off your debts to us." And then someone like you comes along, who is virtually clueless on the real situation down there, and gets all conspiratorial and condemnatory about the class filling these cabinet positions, a class whose opportunities the USA's policies have unwittingly helped to create. The entire dance between the reality of what happens in LA and people like you mouthing off about it would be truly comical if it weren't so utterly asinine.

Castro's aid comes in the form of a bullet to the back of the neck, paid for by the State.

Ooooooo, how dramatic! Do you ever tape your statements like this one to your wall and just gaze at the strength of them? Do you ever have a moment when you know that that are total BS?

Castro is an angel compared to any dictator you care to name in LA that the USA has supported that has been in power for even 1/4 of the time Castro has been in power in a roughly comparably sized LA country. You won't be able to think of name because everyone who knows what the hell they are talking about would concede the point w/o further adieu.

As for Pinochet, I don't care.

Well, that is just outright horse hockey. You're the one who started this off so defensively w/ a logically blunderous analogy that I see that you have now wisely abandoned by trying to shift the conversation onto other matters. Come on, Sulla. You have "Dictator" in your very name. Who do you think you are fooling? We are not children. We have read your posts. You love right-wing dictators, esp. the ones the USA authorizes.

I'm not the one supporting despots, you are. It seems dictators are all right in your book as long as they have a copy of Marx in their library.

Well, I see you are now back to your filthy smears and what you know to be outright lies. I guess on the board on Cuba I never said that I thought Castro should have left office long ago, never said that I thought there should be multi-party elections and so on. Well, I did say them and I have said it a scores of times throughout these boards that there are many (indeed most) Marxist inspired governments that I see no or very little redeeming value in whatsoever. But you just ignore all that for the sake of your desperate smear.

Sorry, I blew your dumb analogy to pieces. If it humiliates you for me to do those things, then don't make it so damn easy in the future. Take some responsibility for your OWN actions, esp. when you are caught talking out your ____. Being caught doesn't entitle to you to tell outright lies about people because you get angry. It just makes you look like a petty, disgusting little man when you do.

[Bochephus]

I want to make sure I understand. The US government helped Pinochet launder money secretly and then issues a report saying Pinochet was corrupt. HOw is this keeping a secret?

[Bochephus]

I am waiting the report about who helped the UN launder millions, almost a billion dollars of "oil for food" money.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Mr. Anarky

This is just hysterical craziness,

For hysterical madness, see Anarky's post. Foam at the mouth much, bud?

refuted so many times already that it beggars belief that you would even dare to make such an outrageous claim.

You certainly didn't refute it here. LOL You didn't even disagree with what I said.

Did Pinochet overthrow Allende on the ORDERS of the United States or did the United States simply approve of Pinochet's desire to overthrow Allende?

Lets see you answer. And then, when you do, lets see you provide evidence.

Why, even the conservative Christopher Hitchens (who tried to trash Moore)

ROFLMAO Simply because Hitchens has enough intellectual integrity to despise Michael Moore doesn't mean he's a Conservative. Of course, being a "Conservative" to you means that you oppose shooting anyone who makes more than $35,000 a year.

has written a book on the subject.

Hitchens also wrote a rather ridiculous attack on Mother Theresa, and Princess Di. He's an odd bird.

I don't have to ask myself anything like this at all.

Of course not, you're a fanatic. You don't want to reflect on anything which might shatter your fragile worldview.

The very fact that your throw out this red herring puts the lie to your claim below that you have no feeling for Pinochet.

I have no feeling for Pinochet, except for some bemusement at the homage to Sulla when he retired.

Do you know why? Allende was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED...he was ALLOWED to put anyone he wanted on his cabinet. Does the phrase “None of our business” mean a damn thing to you?

And in the face of rising opposition, growing because of his dismal fiscal policies, he was going to lose the next one. Not to mention a growing disgust by thugs losely affiliated with Allende's leftists, in the case of the assassination of Perez Zujovic. The people were also sickened by the 'redistribution of wealth' by Allende's radicals. ILLEGAL siezures of property without any real state mandate.

Moreover, you are clearly WAY OUT of your depth here

Really?

because it is well known in the scholarship that, except for the elites in a country, the most educated class in South American countries has been the military.

Appeal to Authority, which you most certainly DO NOT posess. The 'elites' happen to make up the vast majority of the educated class, with only the upper ranks of the military having comparable education. The suggestion that Allende picked military leaders because they were the only educated people in the country is LAUGHABLE.

Do you know anything about Chile? If you did, you might be aware that due to Allende winning a plurality instead of a majority, one of the conditionals for his service in government was military autonomy. To a LOGICAL person, Allende's appointment of military officers can be seen as an attempt to erode at that autonomy.

That is why they often fill many positions of government in countries.

Great. Thanks for your meaningless generalization about South America in a discussion about a specific South American state. As irrelevant as it is, thanks.

I wish that were different. I wish LA countries would spend more on public education. But whenever they do the USA crawls up their butts

Give an example of the United States 'crawling up' a Latin American nation's 'butt' because it spends more on public education, please. Show us what American leader wanted to put a stop to that.

, sometimes even gets threatening, and says "But, oh, that money should be going to pay off your debts to us."

So then you oppose lending money to SA nations? Is that it? Because if we don't loan money to them, they can't owe us. Is that your preferred method of dealing with the situation?

Or is it your view that America is the slave state, which owes its wealth to every petty despot who aspires to the throne of El Presidente, and that asking for debts to be repaid is racist imperialism?

Ridiculous.

And then someone like you comes along, who is virtually clueless on the real situation down there,

Don't stop babbling. Don't stop whining either. I find you rather symbolic of your political persuasion as a whole.

and gets all conspiratorial and condemnatory about the class filling these cabinet positions,

Really? So why are you generalizing about "South America" instead of specifically speaking about Chile? I would like to see your data.

Oh, you don't have any? Not surprising.

a class whose opportunities the USA's policies have unwittingly helped to create.

Yes, we've heard you blather on about that. Lets see it.

The entire dance between the reality of what happens in LA and people like you mouthing off about it would be truly comical if it weren't so utterly asinine.

Do you have any idea how much of a pretentious ass you are when you ramble on like this?

Ooooooo, how dramatic!

It has the added benefit of being true.

Castro is an angel compared to any dictator you care to name in LA that the USA has supported that has been in power for even 1/4 of the time Castro has been in power in a roughly comparably sized LA country. You won't be able to think of name because everyone who knows what the hell they are talking about would concede the point w/o further adieu.

Well, lets illustrate what I just said. PINOCHET has a better record of human rights than Castro. Yes, the man the left whines about incessantly has a BETTER RECORD on human rights than their beloved bearded butcher, Castro. Anarky doesn't know this, because Anarky doesn't want to know. So while the rage, simper, and whine about our 'support' of Pinochet, they kick and scream at the thought of opposing Castro!

They're charlatans and liars. "Rules" and "morality" only go as far as they can use them, and then left by the wayside once inconvenient.

Examples? Glad to give them. Lets make sure we meet Anarky's criteria. Pinochet ruled Chile for 17 years, give or take. Castro has ruled Cuba for about 44 years. So Pinochet ruled for longer than 1/4th Castro's tenure. Are Chile and Cuba comparable in size? The population of Cuba is about 12 million people. The population of Chile is around 15 million. So yes, they are comparable in size. Chile is in fact larger. Certainly, with all the attention given to Pinochet and the size of his country, his body count would be larger? No.

Lets make sure that we use sources that are beyond dispute, from your point of view.

On December 10, 1998, Judge Garzón indicted General Pinochet for genocide, terrorism, and torture, combining the findings of the Chilean and Argentinian investigations. The indictment details the crimes of a political regime that killed or made "disappear" more than 3,000 of its citizens

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/chil...htm#P182_61349

Human Rights Watch. You don't get more anti-Pinochet than that. Around 3,000 murdered in 17 years. How does Castro stack up against that?

Castro faced strong opposition early on. To consolidate his power he executed thousands who opposed him, even though many had actively participated in the effort to overthrow Fulgencio Batista.

In the first five years of Castro’s tenure, 2900 people were executed after trial and an estimated 4200 executed without a trial. Many of these were carried out at the La Habana fortress while Che Guevara was commander. From 1959 to today, an estimated 18,000 political prisoners have been executed.


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Alleged%20human%20rights%20abuses%20in%20Castro's% 20Cuba

Yes, the encyclopedia. That 'right wing' rag. So Castro killed more people in five years than Pinochet killed in his entire time in Chile. And how was Pinochet deposed? Through violent coup? Lets take a look.

Pinochet thought he had completely removed the influence of the left and in 1980 was confident enough to introduce a new national constitution. This established a timetable for the election of a president.

In October 1988 a referendum took place to decide if Pinochet should be the only candidate in the forthcoming presidential election. Much to his surprise and dismay, this proposal was rejected, and he won only 44 per cent of the vote.

In 1989 Patricio Aylwin, a Christian Democrat, won 55 per cent of the votes to become Chile's new president.


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDpinochet.htm

Some basic history for you, bud. Whats this? AN ELECTION? A national constitution with a timetable for an election? Well, by golly, can we see an example of CASTRO'S commitment to Democracy? Or after 44 years of butchery, isn't Cuba 'free' of 'reactionary sabotuers'?

How many corpses need to be stacked at the Revolution's door before the people can vote, Anarky?

So we've watched Anarky rant and rave about the horror of Pinochet. About how 'progressive' Castro is compared to any Rightist dictator in SA. But by what measure? Anarky wants to give people aiding Castro a Nobel Peace Prize, and anyone aiding Pinochet a garrote in their cell.

Why? Because Pinochet WASN'T as bad a despot as Castro? Because Pinochet DIDN'T kill as many people as Castro? Because Pinochet didn't try to aim nuclear weapons at the United States?

No. Most likely the reason is much more basic than any of these. He knows nothing about Castro's brutality. In fact, he knows nothing about Pinochet.

Well, that is just outright horse hockey.

Not everyone is like you. Not everyone identifies with murderers in order to empower themselves on the Internet. I wouldn't mind if Pinochet was hung on the same gallows as Castro. But then, we would see you protesting the execution of Castro. He is loved by you.

You're the one who started this off so defensively w/ a logically blunderous analogy that I see that you have now wisely abandoned by trying to shift the conversation onto other matters.

I have systematically destroyed you.

Come on, Sulla. You have "Dictator" in your very name.

(Raised eyebrow) Are you as ignorant of Roman history as you are about this topic?

As to Anarky 'delving' into the motives or views of anyone on this board, keep in mind he was saying I was a Nazi a week ago.

Who do you think you are fooling? We are not children.

Could have fooled me.

Well, I see you are now back to your filthy smears and what you know to be outright lies.

Which one of us spent two weeks calling the other person a racist? Who is the smear merchant?

I guess on the board on Cuba I never said that I thought Castro should have left office long ago

He should be tried as a war criminal worse than Pinochet, as I've shown.

, never said that I thought there should be multi-party elections and so on.

LOL You don't care. There "should" be? Why aren't you launching threads demanding he be put on trial?

It just makes you look like a petty, disgusting little man when you do.

Eat your words, little Marxist.

[Ponycar_302]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I have systematically destroyed you.

I would call it a complete decimation of the opposition.

I eagerly await his response.

[Bochephus]

Great post Sulla.

[Von Apfelstrudel]

Originally Posted by Ponycar_302

I would call it a complete decimation of the opposition.

I eagerly await his response.

According to your own assesment, Anarky still has a 90% fighting capacity yet
This should be a cool thread
(xcept if it turns to a "Castro sucks" "No, Pinochet sucks" contest, considering how they both suck equally)

[arfurvirus]

Quick look at U.S./Middle Eastern state of affairs.

Originally Posted by someonelse

America flip flops with friends......

Part1
- US likes Shah of Iran
- Shah thrown out by A.K.
- A.K. takes US hostages
- US hates A. K.
- US finds new friend in S. H. and funds War agains A.K.
- War ends in a draw, US not happy
- S.H. not such a good friend now
- Iraq invade Kuwait, time to get back at S.H.
- Bush 1 was a softy
- Bush 2 in mess

Part2
- US hate Russia
- Russia invades Afgan
- US supports who ever want to fight the Russians
- US train and supply Rebels- Taliban & A.Q, best of friends!
- Russians go home, US forget their new friends
- A.Q. see Bush 1 in Iraq going after S.H.
- 9-11
- US now really hate their old friends
- Bush 2 in mess

US can not decide who their friends are....... at this point, maybe nobody

[Bochephus]

Originally Posted by Von Apfelstrudel

According to your own assesment, Anarky still has a 90% fighting capacity yet
This should be a cool thread
(xcept if it turns to a "Castro sucks" "No, Pinochet sucks" contest, considering how they both suck equally)

I agree, but Castro sucks more.

[Von Apfelstrudel]

Originally Posted by Bochephus

I agree, but Castro sucks more.

Only because Pinochet is out ot the buisinesss

[Bochephus]

Originally Posted by someonelse
America flip flops with friends......

Part1
- US likes Shah of Iran
- Shah thrown out by A.K.
- A.K. takes US hostages
- US hates A. K.
- US finds new friend in S. H. and funds War agains A.K.
- War ends in a draw, US not happy
- S.H. not such a good friend now
- Iraq invade Kuwait, time to get back at S.H.
- Bush 1 was a softy
- Bush 2 in mess

Part2
- US hate Russia
- Russia invades Afgan
- US supports who ever want to fight the Russians
- US train and supply Rebels- Taliban & A.Q, best of friends!
- Russians go home, US forget their new friends
- A.Q. see Bush 1 in Iraq going after S.H.
- 9-11
- US now really hate their old friends
- Bush 2 in mess

US can not decide who their friends are....... at this point, maybe nobody

Actually SH ws never our friend and the US did not want to see a "winner in the IRan/Iraq war.

Taliban and AQ were never the best of friends. In fact, OBL threatened to kill any westerner in Afghi, he hated us so.

It is these kind of distortions that prevent an honest discussion.

[Mr. Anarky]

Sulla,

I'll give you your rejoinder. Since your reply was long, mine will take some time. Just one question: was the encyclopedia a gift from your mommy & daddy?

[Von Apfelstrudel]

Might be dense, but I can't see the logical link between that sentence :

Originally Posted by Bochephus

Taliban and AQ were never the best of friends.

and this one,

In fact, OBL threatened to kill any westerner in Afghi, he hated us so.

despite the "in fact"

[Mr. Anarky]

Originally Posted by Von Apfelstrudel

Might be dense, but I can't see the logical link between that sentence :

and this one,

despite the "in fact"

Indeed, there is none. And these statements are outright howlers:

Actually SH ws never our friend and the US did not want to see a "winner in the IRan/Iraq war.

In spite of the fact that we gave them, mulitiple millions in military aid and cultivated them quite explicitly as an ally in trying to reduce soviet influence in the area? It certainly counts by our usual standards of cozy relationships w/ thugs.

Taliban and AQ were never the best of friends.

LOL!! Their leaders are related to each other by familial marriage!