Missing

You are the attorney for the US government attempting to prove no role or complicity on the US government’s part in the death of Charles Horman.
Briefly summarize your case by listing 3–5 key arguments you will make in court on behalf of your client.

The military coup in Chile created an atmosphere of chaos. The curfew forced people to find short term shelter if they were caught too far from home at sundown. The arrest and confinement of thousands of people at the National Stadium added to the general confusion.

Charles Horman was arrested by the Chilean military with thousands of other people. He was held at the National Stadium. The United States has no control over who the military arrested or how they conducted interviews.

There is no proof that the US government knew of Charles Hormans situation after he was arrested. The only witness who claims he saw Horman with Chilean military and U.S. advisors cannot definitively prove that the prisoner he saw was actually Charles Horman. There is no evidence to prove that the United States or its emissaries ever saw or allowed one of their citizens to be executed by the Chilean military.

The United States government resolutely denies having any part in the coup that took place in Chile. The presence of US military personnel in Vina is not proof that they were part of any military action. Vina del Mar is a very busy port city that might naturally have a large naval presence. This is not evidence of US collusion with the military junta.

Personally, I have no doubt that the US was involved, either as instigator or collaborator, of the military coup in Chile in 1973, however without corroboration from some other, more objective, sources there is no real evidence that the US was complicit in Charlie Hormans death.

The question of protecting our “way of life” is obscene. Any sovereign nation should be free to choose its own politics and policies. The audacity of America to believe that our lifestyle is more important than anyone else’s is the ultimate in egocentrism. The United States should be more willing to negotiate than force their will onto those who disagree with them.

I was lucky enough to live in Santiago for a year (1999). Twenty six years after the coup the scars were still evident. Friends of ours who were children in 1973 remember family members who disappeared or others who were taken away and came back physically and emotionally scarred after being tortured. The evidence that the violence of this era still affects the entire country was vividly illustrated when Pinochet was arrested in London. The riots that surrounded the Chileans demand for his return were fierce and more than just a little frightening. The fervor that the people felt was indicative of how deeply wounded the country still is by Pinochet regime.

The knowledge that the United States is, in some way, responsible for this national pain just reinforces my belief that the US should not dictate, as I stated above, the politics and policies of sovereign nations.