Augusto Pinochet is about as unrepentant a dictator as has ever walked the Earth.  In recent statements to the Spanish press he made it clear that he in no way views his actions as reprehensible and he even boasted that he would do it all again if it ever proved necessary.

So, here we have a man whose crimes against humanity are so well documented that I do not need to repeat any of them here.  He is served a writ in Britain on behalf of Spain and is held, pending the outcome of legal procedures, under house arrest.... or should I say mansion arrest.

Meanwhile, legal vultures swoop up and down from the heights of the House of Lords to the plains of the Tribunals of Madrid in search of some way to return the poor frail old man to his people.

If this case is not a brilliant example of the old adage:  "There is one law for the Rich an another for the Poor"... what is?

If there is any true justice in the world:

Why isn't this mass murderer being held behind prison bars in a common jail?
Why are British tax payers forking out thousands of pounds to pay for him to live in luxury in Surrey?

How can it be even conceivable that he might go free simply because he was "an acting head of state" at the time of his crimes.  No one voted him in and even if they had of done so, would that make his crimes any less heinous?  Taking that argument to its logical conclusion Hitler need not have committed suicide, he could have given himself up to the British authorities and while his henchmen were being hung at Nuremberg, he could have been sunning himself on the Costa Blanca, having been freed as an "inviolable" ex head of state.

How is it possible that people have suggested that Spain has no jurisdiction to try this self satisfied torturer?  Let us put aside, for one moment, the fact that a significant number of Spanish citizens died in Chile as a result of Pinochet's actions.  While there is no "World Court" set up as an independent body to try political leaders accused of crimes against humanity, hasn't Spain, as a respected state in the family of nations, got a right to act on behalf of the whole of humanity?  Shouldn't any country that considers itself civilized offer no shelter to mass murderers?  Shouldn't Britain itself be trying the unrepentant anti-democrat?

If there is a shred of justice left in the world, if cynicism and short term gain have not become the only benchmark of political reality, then this man must stand trial and serve time for his crimes.

There is a lot more at stake here than merely Pinochet's ancient wrinkled carcass.  I believe the long term consequences of the decisions made in the Pinochet case will profoundly affect the direction humanity is taking as a whole.  If he goes free, many will think we have learned nothing from the 20th Century: such a decision would leave the doors wide open to all those who proclaim the absurdity of human life.  If he is tried and serves the rest of his life in jail it will be a boost, however small, to the idea that there really are universal human values, that there is universal justice and that a significant number of influential states really are committed to trying to bring about a world where the innocent will not have to suffer while the guilty go unpunished!"

The imminent turn of the milennium has been creating a feeling that it is time to take stock of where we are and where we are going as a world.  We would definitely be giving out the wrong signals for the new era if mere words were allowed to have more weight than actions; if legal babble were to outweigh long unpunished injustices.

The actions of Pinochet, Milosevic and their ilk must be seen not only to be reprehensible, but to be crimes which no one is big enough to commit with impunity.