HR advocate: 4,500 people killed in Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro

[Bacchus4.0]

http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/130323/hr-advocate-4500-people-killed-in-venezuela-under-nicolas-maduro

Lawyer and human rights advocate Alfredo Romero underscored that some 4,500 people have been killed in the first 100 days of acting President Nicolás Maduro's government. Romero added that this has been the result of inefficiency and anarchy stemming from the Venezuelan government's lack of political will to cope with crime, one of the main problems Venezuelans are facing.

"Twenty security plans have been implemented, yet violent crime continues escalating. This will go on as long as anarchy prevails in the legal system, and hatred and death are encouraged," Romero outlined. He warned that people should no longer be cheated with failed security plans.

According to the United Nations Report on Human Development and Violence, Venezuela is in the top-five list of violent countries in the world.

"We all have in Venezuela one friend or a relative who has been a victim of a robbery or an assault, even ourselves. If we wonder who has not been a victim of violence, 100% of the population will say it has. It is also common to hear that nobody trusts in the legal system today. This is because we are living on the foundations of anarchy," Romero remarked in a press release.

[Wilms]

1. wilms: 2,244 people killied since Newtown under Barak Obama.

And that's without counting drone strikes, etc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-us-newtown_n_2935686.html

Pretty messed-up headline ya got there from FoxNewsVZ.

[Bacchus4.0]

2. thats just stupid since Venezuela doesn't even have a tenth of the population

by the way, Venezuela banned guns too.

[sabrina 1]

3. Lol, the danger of blaming presidents for crime rates. You'd think they'd

learn. I get a kick out of them though. If I wanted to smear someone's reputation, I sure would not try to do it that way.

Got the statistics on crime in Rahm Emmanuel's Chicago? And what has he done about it?

Thanks for the reality check!

[Bacchus4.0]

4. the numbers under Rahm are terrible, he sucks

while crime under Obama overall has fallen. It rose sharply under Chavez and appears unabated under Ripe Banana.

Of course 20,000+ murders a year in the country, 25% committed by the security forces, and a non-existent judicial system are no where near as important as price controls.

[sabrina 1]

5. Crime has fallen over the past 20 years according to what we are told.

But then we have the revelations exposing the under-reporting of crime by the NYPD eg, a huge scandal surfacing over the past number of years.

Crime 'inched up in 2011' according to reports by the FBI.

Your attempt to place the blame or credit for crime on Presidents, well on SOME presidents, is the issue here.

The drop in crime rates in the US over the past 20 years therefore should be credited to both Bushes, and Clinton as well as Obama. And the rise in crime in 2011 would be Obama's fault, according to your logic.

However when you factor in the under-reporting of serious crime by large PDs such as the NYPD for political purposes, it's hard to know exactly what the facts are.

The point is that presidents have little control over crime rates. The US eg, credits the drop in crime rates (which are still not certain are accurate considering the recent scandals surrounding the reporting) to such Reagan policies as the Drug War. High incarceration is credited with the 'drop in crime'. I suppose Venezuela could lock up one in less than 100 of its citizens but if they did that, the Chavez haters would accuse them of oppression.

Another factor credited with the 'drop in crime rates' in the US is 'lengthier sentences'. The Prison Industrial Complex therefore is responsible being that they lobby for longer sentences to ensure their profit margins.

Obama is President of Chicago and all the other cities on the highest crime list of cities in the country. So, according to your logic, he IS responsible for Chicago, St. Louis and all the others.

Crime is a tragedy for all of its victims, ONE victim is one too many. To try to use such a tragic issue for political purposes is reprehensible. No president is responsible for what criminals choose to do. And no president can magically prevent crime. It takes many programs, policies and most of all, COOPERATION of all citizens, parties etc. to deal with the issue of crime.

It is really sick to see the glee with which the anti-Chavez contingency repeatedly 'boasts' about Venezuela's crime rate. Sort of the way Republicans here blamed Democrats for high crime, for being 'soft on criminals' but we all know they could not have cared less about the issue.

If you care about those victims, then the best thing to do is try to help the government in its efforts to reduce the numbers. USING those victims for political purposes is simply disgusting.

[naaman fletcher]

6. I'm curious

While you have provided some very good commentary on crime, crime stats, and whether or not it should be blamed on or credited to a president, do you have any thoughts on why:

1. Crime increased DRAMATICALLY as soon as Chavez entered office, and
2. Whether or not you agree with the Chavez decision to stop producing murder statistics and whether or not you think that decision has anything to do with your answer to no. 1?

[sabrina 1]

15. I have no knowledge as to why crime is so high but I will do some research

on the subject. To question #2, I was not aware that crime statistics were being hidden, and no, I do not support that.

I do support the initiatives of the Government to try to deal with the problem, something we never hear from our Western media.

And I would like to know what policies the Opposition proposes to deal with crime. I have never heard anything from them regarding THEIR solutions to the problem. Obviously whatever they proposed did not convince the people to elect them. All I hear from the opposition is that 'crime is high and it's Chavez' fault'. That is not policy and will do little to reduce crime.

[Bacchus4.0]

7. presidents are responsible for policies and Chavez failed miserably

on any type of policy that would address the issue. The US would never stand for the level of violence experienced in Ven. Venezuelans shouldn't have to stand for it either.

Crime in Venezuela is outrageous and the judicial system is a disgrace. Yet nothing has been done or is being done to combat the crime and corruption there other than open a couple discos at the prisons.

[naaman fletcher]

8. Actually, most of Chavez's efforts on crime have been successful

Unless, that is, you think PP just loads this board up with horseshit, like on the literacy thing:


The corporate press and rightwingers here at DU as well as in Venezuela talk up the murder rate but never mention Chavez government efforts to address the problem. In fact, they never mention ANY of the Chavez government's efforts to solve problems, successful (most of them) or not, or still in progress.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11089442

[sabrina 1]

9. Presidents are responsible for policies?? Really? I am told here constantly

that our President basically has no power. He is not responsible for the policies pushed through by Republicans. That he has to 'compromise' which is why he is putting programs like SS 'on the table' in the Deficit discussion despite his knowledge that SS had nothing to do with the deficit.

We were told also that he had no power to put the PO on the table, because of the opposition by Republicans.

So which is it? What has the opposition done in Venezuela to help lower the crime rates?

I am happy to know that our President actually does have power. There are days here on DU where I wondered whether he had any power at all.

[naaman fletcher]

10. I havent' seen anyone on this forum say that

Do you have a link, or are you creating a strawman argument?

[sabrina 1]

11. Do you mean on the Latin America forum or DU?

We most certainly are told on a regular basis that the President is unable to keep SS off the table, that he was forced to remove the PO from the HC bill, that he is not responsible for the Drone Program etc etc. Iow, whenever he supports policies such as eg, the vile piece of Bush legislation known as the NDDA, it is not his fault. He 'had' to do it.

If you have not seen any of this, I have to assume that you are not participating in the main forums.

[naaman fletcher]

12. LA forum

I have seen it on the main forum, and you and I hold the same opinion on the matter.

[Bacchus4.0]

13. Obama has been driving the debate for 5 years

he got the health bill though, gay service members can serve openly, taxes on the wealthy. I haven't heard anyone say Obama has no power other than a poster or two on THIS forum who don't believe Obama is in charge and GWB operatives are still determining US foreign policy.

The opposition in Venezuela hasn't had any meaningful power in years. They had no power to push through any initiatives or block anything until the assembly elections a couple of years ago. When the opposition won sufficient number of seats to block legislation, the chavistas simply passed a rule by decree law for Hugo before the opposition was seated.

face it, Hugo sucked.

[sabrina 1]

14. The HC Bill that put public funds in the hands of Private Corporations

Corporations that were FAILING and good riddance but he saved them, so there is that.

Gays in the military should have been one of the first policies to go into effect in Jan. of 2009. A majority of Americans supported it and Democrats had a majority. Instead it was delayed, as predicted, to use in the Lame Duck Congress as a bargaining chip. To pretend that he was forced to vote with Republicans on the Bush Tax cuts extension in exchange for Gays in the Military. In fact his administration went so far as to fight the court's landmark decision that refusing to allow Gays to serve was 'unconstitutional. No Obama held up that easy piece of legislation and did what observers predicted, pretended he was FORCED to support the extension of the Bush tax cuts to get that passed. It would have passed easily in Jan 2009. For the gays who lost their jobs and benefits while the politicians played their games, it was an unnecessary travesty.

Chavez passed so much legislation that benefited the Venezuelan people that they continued to elect him election after election. I will take their opinion of whether he 'sucked' or not over the Right Wing propaganda any day. They have been unable to stop the people of Venezuela from supporting him and his policies, despite all the money spent on propaganda. It must suck for them to have failed so miserably.

[joshcryer]

21. I remember when you laughably compared executive powers to decrees.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4919827&mesg_id=4922385

[sabrina 1]

24. I remember when you laughably denied that fact. The US President has more 'decree'

powers than the Venezuelan president or any other democratic president. He has the decree powers of a King. Thanks to the Bush war criminals, the US President has the to order the assassination/execution, without charges, without trial or prosecution and without Congress, of a US citizen.

He can and has ordered the deaths of several human beings without charges or trial, and even the death of a teenage US citizen who was never charged with any crime. Because he doesn't have to. He has the decree powers of a king.

de·cree noun \di-ˈkrē\

Definition of DECREE

1
: an order usually having the force of law
2
a : a religious ordinance enacted by council or titular head
b : a foreordaining will
3
a : a judicial decision of the Roman emperor and of the US President since lost our democracy Sabrina
b : a judicial decision especially in an equity or probate court

Stop embarrassing yourself and learn what has become of this democracy before worrying about the business of other, ACTUAL democracies.

Btw, how many decrees to execute Venezuelan citizens and others, without charges or trial or even congressional oversight, were issued by Chavez? As I said, it was laughable that anyone who has lived in this country for the past decade did not know of the dangerous decree powers granted to the US President. Well, not laughable in the fun sense.

[joshcryer]

25. Wow, doubling down.

Quaint.

The US President, as Commander in Chief, certainly has military powers more than anyone on the planet. But those are not legislative powers. A point which you embarrassingly miss over and over again. Interesting attempt at deflection though.

[Peace Patriot]

16. No matter how often you repeat this crap, Bacchus, Maduro is going to win!

So why not give it up, and do something constructive--like explain to people WHY Chavez's VP, Nicholas Maduro, is going to win the April special election, despite all your efforts and those of the Corporate Media, and WHY Chavez's socialist party just beat the crap out of the RW opposition in the gubernatorial elections, and WHY leftist Michele Batchelet is going to win her second election as president of Chile, and WHY leftist Cristina Fernandez has won two elections as president of Argentina (and her Leftist husband two elections before her), and WHY leftist Rafael Correa just won re-election as president of Ecuador, by a big majority, and is the most popular president of Ecuador, ever, and WHY Evo Morales has won two presidential elections in Bolivia--the first Indigenous president of Bolivia (a largely Indigenous country)--ending Bolivian apartheid and securing Bolivian natural resources for the benefit of all Bolivians, and WHY Jose Mujica (leftist rebel, once tortured by the U.S.-backed fascist regime) was elected president of Uruguay, and WHY the once-armed revolutionary parties in Nicaragua and El Salvador are now running the governments of those countries, and WHY the Workers' Party is so successful in Brazil, producing two successive Leftist presidents (both of whom were tortured by U.S.-backed fascists)?

Hm? Why, Bacchus? Why this Leftist tide? Why are Venezuelan voters--in "the best election system in the world," according to Jimmy Carter--so fed up with "neo-liberalism" and U.S. domination and exploitation, that they keep electing the Chavez government and chavistas to undo it all? WHY is this occurring all over South America and into Central America?

THAT is the MISSING INFORMATION--the great big black hole--in the Corporate News and your posts. You and they keep hammering away at the same "talking points" over and over again--and Latin American voters just IGNORE this disinformation and keep electing Leftists! WHY?

Ah, there's the rub! They see things you don't see. What are they, Bacchus? Give us YOUR explanation for why Latin American voters are not blaming their Leftist governments for street crime nor for any of the other Corporate Media/RW opposition campaign "talking points"? What does the majority see that you and the Corporate Media are concealing? WHY do they keep ignoring you and voting for Leftists?

Really. I'd like to hear your explanation.

[Judi Lynn]

18. The idiots have their charges against the Venezuelan government running in cycles.

They run them in rotation, so it seems there are more.

They are totally transparent and dishonest. It must truly suck being that underhanded.

[joshcryer]

20. Because he represents chavismo.

He's not winning because he's a homophobic bigot idiot who has made bizarre claims, insulted whole groups in Venezuela, and sent Chavez a check to heaven via red balloons.

[idwiyo]

17. Chávez no ha muerto, el vive en la revolución! ¡Hasta la victoria siempre!

[joshcryer]

19. Every time Maduro says Chavez' name, a Venezuelan dies.

http://www.madurodice.com/

No, really.

[Peace Patriot]

22. Oh, for Pete's sake! You, too? I know you are a Capriles supporter but...

...really, you aren't going to win with these "talking points" so why do you keep it up, slandering the next president of Venezuela as if Maduro mentioning his predecessor and mentor Chavez kills people, as if Maduro approves of murder, as if he is a murderer himself?

That is not only wrong and a lie, it is stupid campaigning. It's why you've been losing time and again. Why don't you devote some energy to new ideas and programs for Venezuela, instead of tearing down the most successful poverty-reduction government in the world, with mean and petty comments like this? You're wasting your brain on garbage--on cheap sloganeering, on repetitive, monotonous, boring negative "talking points" that aren't getting you or your candidate anywhere.

Something else you could do: Examine why Capriles lost the last election and is going to lose this one. My sense of it is that he is not genuine--he is a front man for the most fascist element in Venezuelan society, and for transglobal corporations and their U.S. government servants--and Venezuelan voters sensed that falseness, and felt that it was confirmed when the far right platform of part of his coalition came too light.

Why should they vote for someone whose agenda is to deconstruct the "New Deal" that they've voted for, time and again, by big majorities, for over a decade--or whom they believe has that agenda?

That's my feeling about it--but what is yours? Your time would be better spent figuring this out--why Capriles lost despite the lavish support of the Corporate Media and its non-stop, 14 year campaign against Chavez, and why he is going to lose again, despite the continued support of the Corporate Media and their new campaign against Maduro. Why don't the voters trust Capriles? Should the opposition re-think its platform and its relationship with the Venezuelan majority (like Republicans are having to do here) and develop new leadership that the majority can trust not to rob the poor of their gains?

You keep losing because you are NOT thinking--you are not analyzing; you are not learning lessons; you are relying on the Corporate Media which failed, time and again, to oust Chavez, and I think you have also fallen prey to the Corporate Media lie that the Bolivarian Revolution was all about Chavez. It was not. It was and is about the people of Venezuela--the voters, the grass roots activists, the community organizers, the poor who have food on the table, a real roof over their heads and health care for the first time in their lives, the parents of children with no hope of ever going to college now being able to go to college, the passionate believers in fairness--the People, who rated their country FIFTH IN THE WORLD in the Gallup Well-being poll, which measures individuals' current sense of well-being and future prospects. 5th the world!

You need to think about these things and stop riffing on Corporate Media and rightwing "talking points." It is a useless exercise. It has repeatedly failed. And it paints an inaccurate, and in some ways slanderous and vicious, picture of Venezuela and its people. You got a solution for street crime? Tell us about it--and better yet tell Venezuelans about it. Where are your constructive ideas?

[joshcryer]

23. I have nothing in the game.

Nothing whatsoever. Venezuelan politics don't have any effect on me. I only post the truth on these forums. Facts. I do it because there's a void missing in criticism. If we cannot criticize left leaders then we are lost.

The reason Capriles is going to lose is simple, he's not the chavista. He can't start playing ads until April 2nd, he doesn't have nearly the coffers at his disposal as Maduro has, and generally he cannot penetrate the Venezuelan media as effectively as Maduro. We all hate Citizens United, but when a Latin American "populist" uses unlimited coffers to display his campaign, that's A-OK. It's the happy double standard that is regularly cited on this forum.

I will be mostly silent as Maduro is anointed the next President of Venezuela, and I will sit back and gawk in awe at people championing a homophobic bigot on these forums.

Capriles still has a big group of supporters from 40% of the Venezuelan population or thereabouts.



Your comments against Capriles (which are really knee-jerk opinions that don't merit rebuttal, because every time I have rebutted them you have been silent) are a criticism on the diverse array of people who support him. Not because he's promised to usher in neoliberal policies (a recent conspiracy I debunked here on these very forums), but because he's an excellent manager, and the people in the cities and state under his guide have prospered without the windfall oil profits at their disposal.

I contemplated starting another thread showing Capriles' rallies again across the country, and the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands who show up to hear him speak, but I realized it was a lost cause. He has no ability to win this thing. None whatsoever. It's not even a David vs Goliath. It's an ant vs an elephant.

The real question should be why so many expend so much effort to argue against things, dishonestly in large part, that aren't going to happen. It is very reminiscent of global warming denialists. They spend so much time harping about how global warming isn't happening, using false data, using deflection, using conspiracy theories, and in the end, nothing is being done about global warming, the status quo remains. Why get so worked up if the status quo remains? Why destroy your integrity with ideological falsehoods and misleading information which is rather easily shown to be false?