Miami Herald/AP: Chávez wants to weaken judiciary, rights group says

[PhilipShore]

Miami Herald
Richard Jacobsen
Jan. 19, 2006

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/13658576.htm

MEXICO CITY - Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who says he is leading a socialist revolution for the poor in his country, has teamed with allies in Congress to undermine the country's judiciary and limit press freedoms, Human Rights Watch said on Wednesday.

In its annual report on the global rights situation, the organization said Latin America nations -- from Haiti to Argentina -- were still plagued by abuses ranging from overcrowded prisons to torture and widespread impunity.

[roguevalley]

1. not goof. not good at all.

[julianer]

2. Thanks for posting yet more anti-Chavez propaganda n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Yes, Human Rights Watch...

That fount of neocon agitprop. :eyes:

[julianer]

6. Do a bit of investigation about the HRW rep for the area

The credibility of HRW with reference to Venezuela is not absolute:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/6/17/15422/6410

In particular about the Supreme Court issue:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1200

More criticism of HRW here:

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_19370.shtml

Obviously these issues are in dispute, and there probably are human rights issues in Venezuela that need to be dealt with, but we mustn't forget the unscrupulous and lying nature of the propaganda directed against Washington's enemies. If the CIA are known to have operatives in the US press, why shouldn't they have them in 'human rights' organisations, especially when 'human rights' has become a justification for invasion of oil producing countries?

I don't believe for one minute that the US government or this paper are interested in the human rights of Venezuelans.

[PhilipShore]

8. The CIA probably has no agents in Human Rights Watch

The main groups that the CIA has many agents in-- from what my sources inform me-- are the Media, the Red Cross, and Peace Corps.

Human Rights Watch, is to credible a organization to be infected with Repuke CIA spies.

http://hrw.org/about/

[julianer]

12. Of course not

the CIA wouldn't be interested in the internal affairs of another country and certainly wouldn't do anything to influence events there. What a wild idea!

I expect they have their agents in the Boy Scouts as well as the Peace Corp. Dangerous people these Scouts. Militarised, you see.

:sarcasm:

[1932]

18. He's not a CIA agent. He's an agent of the wealthy and powerful.

[K-W]

132. Your sources inform you?

The CIA has agents in all kinds of groups across the country. Human Rights Watch is a somewhat credible organization, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there are CIA agents in the organization. In fact the more credible an organization is, the more likely the CIA will take an interest in it, no?

[Judi Lynn]

11. Bush surely doesn't intend to respect the result of their elections.n/t

[zann725]

29. Agreed. Something "smells" about this press coverage.

Too similar to propaganda known to be manufactured by certain 'alleged' Free governments.

A leader who has offered food and supplies to American hurricane victims,and discounted heating oil to poor in a country that had plans to assassinate him...is NOT 'logically' someone to limit his OWN country's judicial powers and "human" rights. If he cares about the rights of "humans" in foreign countries, he cares at home too. The words of this news articles do NOT match the recent human "actions" of Chavez.

[MrPrax]

36. Thx...

You beat me to it...amazing how these groups still rely on old 'branding' and some vague notion of 'good' to react...I haven't listen to a thing these clowns have said for years. (It would be flamebait to post HRWs inconstitencies vis a vis the Palestinians, so I won't ;-)

Amnesty still has some credibility, but I always rely on the locals and their NGOs...I don't NEED an transnational company based in the US telling me what to think.

(LOL...most social democrats tend to agree on this point)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

80. Bingo. Dead on. The NeoCons are out to get Chavez any way they can.

[rinsd]

197. HRW vs Al Giordano and a state run new org

I'll take HRW over a state run news org that claims there is no problem with the state.

As far as Al goes, he's about as objective as Fox News whgen it comes to leftist politics.

[Judi Lynn]

202. It would be a magnificent gesture if you provided some examples

of lies, or errors for which you can find Al Giordano responsible. You really should provide evidence of your charges, or you've just got slander.

[rinsd]

204. Huh?

Saying Al Giordano is biased is slander? Read his interviews, he's proud of this.

If the point is that HRW is biased against Chavez, are we supposed to take wholesale the words of a state/party run news org and a reporter who takes great pains to write the side of the socialist struggle.

Christ he praises Chavez for not shutting down news orgs that make fun of him as an example of Chavez's valuing of press freedom.

"You really should provide evidence of your charges, or you've just got slander."

I love the implied threat too for DARING to call someone biased.

I knew you had a thing for defending authoritirain lefties Judi(we've slugged it out on many a thread) but that's taking it a bit far, doncha think?

[rinsd]

61. Don't you understand.

HRW cannot be trusted. Only venezeulananalysis tells the truth.

Sure its government/party run and is fierce in its defense of the new establishment but hey it worked for Fox News.

[K-W]

133. it also worked for FDR

But I forgot, Latin Americans arent allowed to change their governments.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

81. Every time you post something that is ant-Chavez, I automatically begin...

...to suspect the opposite is true. Why do you think that's true?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

121. Because the enemy of your friend is your enemy?

Not that this would be true at all. I certainly don't consider myself an enemy of Chavez, or Evo Morales for that matter. You'd be surprised to know that I actually support Chavez and think he's done a lot of good for his country. I also happen to believe that he has a tendency towards the autocratic, and a penchant for grandstanding. I certainly have no love for the people who want to see him overthrown or voted out. However, I believe in balance of power, and I worry that the balance in Venezuela is tipping too much in his favour - that whole "absolute power corrupts absolutely" thing, you know. The fact of the matter is that legitimate NGOs have concerns about this as well. I am by no means clamouring for his head, and neither are the NGOs. It's still possible to support someone yet have legitimate questions about their actions, isn't it? Or am I damned for not falling into the with-us-or-against-us trap?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

124. I have to say. I'm surprised to read this. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

126. Look at it this way:

How many oil countries have non-schizoid governments? I can't think of any, honestly, with the exception of Venezuela under Chavez. It is really, really hard to run an oil country properly, because the temptation to sell your country down the river for personal gain is HUGE - not just for the head-of-state, but for the various ministers, as well. If anything, Chavez is proving that it's possible to run an oil country in such a way that the people keep the benefits of the natural resources that are being extracted. I think the world, and definitely other oil producing nations, could learn a lot from Chavez. However, I think he undermines his own credibility every time he goes on a tirade about America, or tries to modify the constitution to put himself in a more favorable position. These things may gain him favour in Venezuela and other left-leaning parts of South America, but that's not the way it looks to the world at large. I wish he'd stop giving fuel to the Chavez-is-a-nutter crowd.

He's already proven that social democracy can work in oil nations. Now he needs to prove that it can sustain itself without succumbing to autocracy, in effect becoming a psuedosocialist clone of rightist oil nations.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

128. But his tirades are about the government. Which I also do all the time.

I'd be pissed of somebody provided support to my kidnappers. But hey to each his own.

One thing I have to say is how funny it is that some of the Venezuelans I hang out with (including an opposition politician's son). Are pissed that he's giving "those people" too much. How dare he?

[rinsd]

198. Absolutely outstanding post (nt)

[oblivious]

206. I think you're wrong about the 'world at large' thinking him a nutter.

From what I read of his visits to other countries he's very well-respected almost everywhere. Notice he's very careful only to attack the Bush administration, never the American people. Basically he says what most others are thinking but are too tactful or fearful to say.

[K-W]

134. Can you prove this tendency?

Not that this would be true at all. I certainly don't consider myself an enemy of Chavez, or Evo Morales for that matter. You'd be surprised to know that I actually support Chavez and think he's done a lot of good for his country.

Its a proven fact.

I also happen to believe that he has a tendency towards the autocratic,

Is this belief based on evidence?

and a penchant for grandstanding.

So did the founding fathers, Abe Lincoln, FDR, and MLK among others. The fact that the man can give a good speech that people want to listen to is a POSITIVE, not a negative. This is just another catchphrase used to stigamitize people who have something to say.

I certainly have no love for the people who want to see him overthrown or voted out. However, I believe in balance of power, and I worry that the balance in Venezuela is tipping too much in his favour

Do you have any evidence to support your worrying?

Im guessing you dont since you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Venezuala pre-Chavez was a deeply corrupt republic that served the interests of the very wealthy and foriegn investors. I sure as shit hope the balance of power is changing and I hope it is shifting to Chavez's constituents rather than the constituents of the old guard. This Chavez grabbing power thing is a red herring. The people are grabbing power, Chavez is thier elected representative.

But I could be wrong, if you have some evidence showing Chavez grabbing power for selfish reasons I would be more than happy to look it over.

- that whole "absolute power corrupts absolutely" thing, you know.

Except we arent talking about George W. Bush who has claimed absolute power, we are talking about Chavez who HASNT.

The fact of the matter is that legitimate NGOs have concerns about this as well.

Everyone has concerns, but concerns and evidence of malfeasence are two very different things.

I am by no means clamouring for his head, and neither are the NGOs. It's still possible to support someone yet have legitimate questions about their actions, isn't it? Or am I damned for not falling into the with-us-or-against-us trap?

The issue here is that many people on the left want desperately to jump to the conclusion that Chavez is just another corrupt powermongering liar. He might be, but the cry of the cynics that anyone who doenst autmotically suspect Chavez of being a bandit is a Chavez lover does nothing but poisen legitimate discourse. Of course we are all deeply concerned about the future of Venezuala, and of course we all know how difficult it is to establish real democracy in a country, but sitting around fretting about Chavez because he isnt perfect doesnt accomplish anything.

I would also like to point out that both FDR and Abe Lincoln changed the balance of power in our government in order to accomplish thier goals. Both were accused of autocracy when in reality, particularly in FDR's case, the reforms were neccessary to get around the deeply autocratic institutions in our government.

I just wonder why so many people are worried about protecting a balance of power that served the interests of wealth. I am happy Chavez is destroying the old balance of power, that is a good thing. And so far I have seen zero evidence that the new balance of power is anywhere near as authoritarian as the last.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

141. You know what, forget it.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[K-W]

142. What is exactly what you are talking about?

Whats with this hit and run post? Im wrong but you cant be bothered to explain how? Glad to see you came for a discussion.

[1932]

156. This is an excellent post.

These are excellent points.

DU is at its best when people make fact-based arguments. It's at its most useless when people post opinions unsuported by facts in response to a fact-base argument and pretend that they've said something even worth reading.

If someone has a counter-argument about Chavez, make it, and make it based on facts.

But if you're just going to post your feelings, and not cite any credible facts (ie, if you can only cite other people disguising opinion as fact) then please don't waste peoples' time. Oh, and if you're not going to do that, then you probably shouldn't cover your exit with a "that's exactly what I'm talking about" post when you haven't been talking about anything but your unsubstatiated opinions.

[Judi Lynn]

158. You've nailed it. Sad. Hopefully, people who take the time to follow

the discussions will be able to recognize simple fact-free hostility derived from rumor and speculation and deliberate invention, and legitimate effort by DU'ers to search for answers and share them.

[1932]

160. Amen to that.

[manic expression]

207. What are you afraid of?

Chavez has not demonstrated a tendency for the "autocratic", and he has democratic elections to back it up. His so-called "grandstanding" is just a stand against the Bush regime, so that charge is unreasonable and unnecessary. The balance of power is not threatened. As a matter of fact (tangent), the balance of power is shifting to the people instead of the wealthy. THAT is the balance of power that is needed.

NGO's are not always right. They have been known to parrot falsities, especially in regards to left-wing Latin American movements. Sure, the NGO's may not be clamoring for his head, but the groups behind the campaign against him are, and it would be a grave mistake to give any validity to their ridiculous falsities.

No, if there is a trap you are falling into, it is that you are not questioning the misinformation that is all too prevalent. Please, your concerns may be well-intentioned, but I do not see any basis for them.

(if I took you out of context, say so, but I think I addressed what you said accurately)

[Clutch Cargo]

22. self delete

[patdem]

32. Listen to this guy if you can on C-Span..I heard him and if you replace

the name Chavez with bush* you could not tell the difference. He spoke of Chavez consilidating more power for the executive and packing the supreme court. And the 'self censorship' of the press. NOT about Chavez directly censoring the press. I PROMISE YOU IT SOUNDS EXACTLY LIKE WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT HERE IN THE GOOD OL USofA!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

83. Yeah, right.

[1932]

106. Time to do some research. They're actually devolving power out to people.

Venezuela is becoming more Democratic under Chavez.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

129. Chavez and Bush...

...personality-wise have more in common than either of them would like to admit. On the other hand, personality does not equal policy, and you'd be hard pressed to compare Bush favorably to Chavez on social policy. On the other hand, they both have a vested interest in increasing the power of the executive, and both are extremely egotistical.

[killbotfactory]

3. hmm...

There is growing discontent over the lack of economic growth and opportunities in the region, which has led some to turn away from democracy, Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth said.

''That's one way to understand the Chávez phenomenon,'' Roth said.

Turn away from democracy? Active democracy is fundamental to their new constitution, which is promoted by their the Venezuela government, and used as a tool to teach people to read.

The New York-based rights group expressed concern in its annual report over the state of Venezuela's democratic institutions, citing a ''packing'' of the country's Supreme Court with Chávez allies in December 2004, which it called ''a severe blow'' to the independence of the nation's judiciary.

I doubt the judiciary was ever independent pre-Chavez.

Though, I do respect the HRW, and I understand their mission makes it important to err on the side of caution, but I don't think they have been nuetral in their coverage of Venezuela.

[wakeme2008]

4. Miami Herald is an anti-Cuba paper

and them attacking Chávez does not surprise me. Be interesting to see what parts of the HRW doc they left out.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. I wouldn't even be surprised if the insitutions Chavez is "attacking"

are constituted of rabi blanco type people who would resist improving things for the poor.

[julianer]

13. Yep, Chavez is, in fact, trying to make the

Supreme Court less corrupt and more accountable to the people, rather than the oligarchy.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1871

The goverment has to root out the old placemen. How else but through constitutional reform? For HRW to object to the removal of the support system of the oligarchy is a bit rich given the human rights situation that pertained in Venezuela under their rule.

[robcon]

9. This is not news.

He packed the Supreme Court of Venezuela with his cronies (extra-constitutionally) within months of assuming his office. Chavez is looking more and more like Pinochet every day.

[1932]

21. Robcon, you are really uninformed on this issue (or you're deliberately

misinforming people?).

The CONSTITUTION provides for the appointment of additional judges. Nothing done by the government has been extra-constitutional. The people decided that they didn't want a judicial system that was like millstone around the neck of progress. They wanted a judiciary that more closely reflected CONTEMPORARY notions of justice. That's IN the constitution. Countries do not have an obligation to appoint judges who come from the elite for life so that no matter how society changes, the judiciary can act as a static protector of the wealthy, and, as in Venezuela's case, many countries WRITE INTO THEIR CONSTITUTION DIFFERENT RULES.

Furthermore, the judiciary is NOT in the pocket of the government. Since you've asserted so many things that are not true in your short post, you're probably also not aware of the trial of the suspects in the Danilo Anderson murder.

An expert from a recent article on it:

Caracas, Venezuela, December 22, 2005—In two court decisions that highlight the class disparity in the Venezuelan judicial system, three men were convicted of carrying out the 2004 murder of Venezuelan state prosecutor Danilo Anderson, while three others, accused of being the architects of the crime, were released from jail pending trial.

The events are typical of the Venezuelan judicial system, where members of the economic elite are given considerable freedom during their trials, and generally fairly light sentences, while others languish in prison while awaiting their court appearances.

...

Attorney General, Isaías Rodriguez, did not appeal the decision, saying that it demonstrated the independence of the judiciary. The Chávez administration is commonly criticized by the Venezuelan opposition and the United States of controlling the courts.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1854

Why are you so aggressively uninformed on the issue of Venezuela?

[Stockholm]

110. Or Bush?

n/t

[tanyev]

10. Has the Human Rights Watch denounced George Bush

for doing the same thing?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

85. I'll be sitting in the corner holding my breath waiting for that to happen

[Judi Lynn]

14. HRW Jose Vivanco tries valiently to apply double standards

whenever convenient:

Human Rights Watch fixer Vivanco's decidedly anti-human rights double standard when it comes to Venezuela and his obsession with toppling the democratically elected government of President Hugo Chávez has been documented on these pages before, and before that.

U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey, during a Friday press briefing, said: "we're very disappointed by the July 7 decision of a Venezuelan judge to try the four leaders of the civic nongovernmental organization Sumate on charges of conspiracy for accepting a $31,000 grant from the National Endowment for Democracy to carry out voter education activities."

Of course, an administration that coddles and protects some violent terrorists while waging a so-called "war on terrorism" elsewhere, not surprisingly, speaks with forked tongue. Nobody really expects the government to tell the truth anymore. It's the government. It's here to help you... yada yada. That's why it needs a simulating "human rights" organization to "independently" back up its spin, and thus the beltway media circus that ensued yesterday.

And so on Friday, as the State Department held a press briefing where it whined about "democratic rights" in Venezuela, Jose Vivanco of Human Rights Watch was a golf swing up Connecticut Avenue NW following orders from headquarters as a soldier in the war against authentic democracy.

Human Rights Watch issued a press release, charging:

"The (Venezuelan) court has given the government a green light to persecute its opponents. Prosecuting people for treason when they engage in legitimate electoral activities is utterly absurd."

Vivanco did not elaborate about how receiving clandestine, unreported, contributions from foreign government groups for a national political campaign constituted "legitimate electoral activities."

Vivanco is not alone in having his panties all up in a bunch over the upcoming trial and what the public could learn from it.

The government of Spain - the first government to recognize that of Venezuelan dictator-for-a-day Pedro Carmona during the short-lived 2002 military coup there - also chimed in, announcing it would send observers to the trial. The American Bar Association has sent court observers, too. They're all very welcome.

Yet what bothers the same governments that tolerated (and authorized) the 2002 bloody coup d'etat in Venezuela is not that the trial is taking place. It is that the trial is taking place under democratic norms, out in the open, and the information likely to surface during these public proceedings is what has them on edge from Washington to Madrid.

Another interesting contrast between the case of John Kerry's $2,000 foreign check in the United States and Súmate's $31,000 foreign check in Venezuela - both received in 2004 - is that the U.S. candidate reported the donation to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) as was his duty under the law.

But the political action group Sumate insists that it alone has the "human right" to hide the sources of its funding, and to engage in partisan political activity above the laws governing financing of political parties in Venezuela. Once again, upper class former oligarchs insist they have a "human right" to live above the law.
(snip/...)

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071205_world_stories.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guy's got a problem. He's either uninformed or he's severely biased.

[PhilipShore]

16. Why are they not in the The International Criminal Court (ICC) ?

I am not a lawyer, so I do not understand a lot of the legal mumbo jumbo from the articles, but is the trial being held in an independent Court-- such as the The International Criminal Court (ICC)and/or other type of International court?

They are the ones that seem to have jurisdiction over this, in my opinion.

International Criminal Court
http://hrw.org/campaigns/icc/
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/icc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court



At the end of the bloodiest century in human history, the international community adopted a treaty creating the world's first independent and permanent International Criminal Court. That court is now a reality. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is able to investigate and prosecute those individuals accused of crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes of war. The ICC complements existing national judicial systems and will step in only if national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. The ICC will also help defend the rights of those, such as women and children, who have often had little recourse to justice.
The CIA probably has no agents in Human Rights Watch

[1932]

Why would you think Venezuelan courts wouldn't have jurisdiction over

these cases?

These are Venezuelan laws that address the legitimacy of Venezuelan elections and acts conducted by people on Venezuelan soil.

Why should Venezuela defer jurisdiction to a court an ocean away?

[1932]

20. Why would you think Venezuelan courts wouldn't have jurisdiction over

these cases?

These are Venezuelan laws that address the legitimacy of Venezuelan elections and acts conducted by people on Venezuelan soil.

Why should Venezuela defer jurisdiction to a court an ocean away?

[PhilipShore]

37. Because of the militarism of the government...

sort of reflects that he gained power-- by perhaps-- corrupt military means which may also be a crime against humanity.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PhilipShore]

47. Wiesenthal Center Condemns Chavez Statements Which Banalize The Holocaust

News Releases
Centro Simon Wiesenthal
Maipú 853 - 4º - Buenos Aires - Argentina

Simon Wiesenthal Center Condemns Statements Made by Venezuelan President Which Banalize The Holocaust

The Simon Wiesenthal Center condemned statements made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who said, "Hitler was nothing compared to (former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria) Aznar."

http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=245494&ct=901509

[Judi Lynn]

49. That's been done before. What would the Center have to say

about these illustrations published in Spain by Aznar's own fellow citizens?



Do you think they meant for this to be believed literally?



.

[Solon]

53. So instead of taking up my challenge, you deflect, how original. n/t

[PhilipShore]

55. I am not a politician...

I have the theory-- that he could be a dictator because he is or was being dragged into International court and US Courts for Crimes against humanity.

I personally think-- that if he was such a great advocate for the poor, and not a dictator, then he should just simply go to the trials, and present his side of the story by having an independent hearing of the facts.

I am not a lawyer, but that would convince me that he is not a fake and a fraud.

I don't pay my own heat where I live so, I could care less, that he gives oil to poor landlords.

And to be frank, I would not even want his money even if he offered it to me, because I am a pacifist, and I am opposed to all militarism left or right.

[Solon]

57. First they weren't government sharpshooters...

You should actually read more about this, and even better, actually view the videos of the incident. Chavez SUPPORTERS were targeted in a crowd, and the sharpshooters disappeared, surprise, surprise. Also, it wasn't Chavez or his supporters that committed the police suppression of Caracas on April 11-12 in 2002, that was the opposition mayor and the coup plotters themselves. Why aren't they in jail, they killed over 20 people those two days, why does the US harbor terrorists?

Plus the fact that this action you talk about was brought over 2 years ago, why hasn't anything happened since then, is the investigation still ongoing, or was the complaint dismissed?

[PhilipShore]

62. Well Chavez should then simply present those facts to the ICC...

if he really had-- absolutely nothing-- to do with it, and it is so plain to see as you say, then he should say that to the International Criminal Court, and the US Courts.

[Solon]

64. US courts have no authority, why should Chavez answer to the nation...

that is harboring "Dictator for a day" Pedro Carmona? Why isn't he, or half the opposition involved in the coup not in jail? Are they not the instigators of crimes against humanity from the police suppression on the 12th? Not to mention that the US government itself supported the coup, calling it a "Victory for Democracy" I believe, all while the poor of Caracas protested peacefully against the coup, and the opposition police made them bleed onto the streets. During this time, Pedro Carmona himself then suspended the Constitution, fired Chavez's cabinet, and kidnapped the legally elected president and sent him off to a secret location, claiming he resigned. Where is the democracy and freedom in that?

As far as the ICC, I can see him defending himself against erronious charges, but only if the case goes past the discovery phase, which it apparently has not. The case has to be reviewed, just like cases here in the States, to see if it has merit before it can even be considered for trial. Up till that time, Chavez can do little to defend himself besides just presenting the evidence, not to mention that he himself has been silent, as far as I can tell, about the case, or the ICC itself.

[manic expression]

70. Yeah, sure

every head of state who is accused of something, no matter how ridiculous, has to prove their innocence in court? BS.

Hey, I think the Queen of England has made gross human rights violations! Drag her in front of the ICC! :eyes:

Please, there is no reason for Chavez to make an appearance in any court, as the accusations you speak of are thoroughly debunked and patently false.

[PhilipShore]

71. Fine with me if Chavaz is so opposed to courts...

then he should then abolish all of the courts he created by his own rule of law, and let the people of his country (that are opposed to the Chavez courts)write the rules of law they have to live by.

I am not a lawyer, but did Chavez simply overrule the rules of law in his country because he thought they were ridiculous?

I am done, no more, debates about this dictator Chavez-- go wait for your Chomsky/ Moore Press releases, to figure out how the world works.

[manic expression]

72. What are you talking about?

What you said was that he should go to the ICC and US courts because of allegations. Those allegations are false.

This has nothing to do with abolishing any judicial system. What you said had nothing to do with Venezuelan courts.

Furthermore, the people are in support of Chavez, that much is clear.

Chavez is not a dictator at all. He is an elected leader, and your refusal to recognize that fact indicates complete ignorance of the situation at hand. Your views smack of US imperialist propaganda, so I'm sorry that you are blinded by that.

[PhilipShore]

76. It does not matter...

because even if the majority of people support-- Dictator Chavez--which is fine in and of itself, just a long as he (I am assuming because the majority support a military dictatorship) as the governor of and writers of those laws has provisions to protect the civil and human rights of the minority of his country that do not support him (Chavez).

In addition, if they are not free to express their opposition no matter how much it offends, the majority, then his government breaches the International Civil and human rights of the citizens of his country.

People without the freedom of the opposition (themselves or as a group as a minority) to; oppose Dictator Chavez means that they are not fundamentally free, and thus have a right,in my own personal opinion, to apply to the International Criminal Court and/ or US Federal Court for --an injunction-- or other means to achieve their civil and human rights under International rules of law.

I am not a lawyer, perhaps a lawyer knows about this area of law.

[manic expression]

77. Yeah, it does

Secondly, he is not a dictator. Chavez was elected by a very fair election. That is an indisputable fact.

"In addition, if they (the opposition) are not free to express their opposition no matter how much it offends, the majority, then his government breaches the International Civil and human rights of the citizens of his country."

You need a clue. The opposition owns virtually all of the media in Venezuela. This means that much of the news is decidedly biased to the RW (as in the opposition). The opposition (the wealthy conservatives) has almost a monopoly on this, making any claims of oppression or lack of "freedom" absolutely laughable.

Freedom of speech is not abridged at all in Venezuela. If anything, the opposition is in a better position in terms of getting their message out.

Another thing is that US Federal Courts have NOTHING to do with civil rights in Venezuela. Are you being so arrogant as to suggest that the US is where "freedom reigns", and where all criminals should be tried?

It doesn't take a lawyer to know the facts about Venezuela.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

75. Sir, put the bottle down. Then type. n/t

[TankLV]

169. Hint for the clueless: Chavez was ELECTED - multiple times!

He is hardly an example of a "dictator" no matter how you and your repuke allies wish it to be.

Unlike your repuke hero.

[Judi Lynn]

46. How odd! Please try to find out more about your subject. n/t

[julianer]

65. That is wildly inaccurate

It is by no means a military government. He did not gain power by corrupt means.

Why on earth do you say these things?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

67. WTF? Try reading, it's gooder than making shit up.

I'll give you a hint 1999 election. There have been about six more elections (midterms included) since then. Nobody (even the rich venezuelans I talk to) has claimed that they were fraudulent or that the military was involved. That comment shows everybody in this thread that you don't understand the situation in Venezuela.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

82. LOL!! This kind of post never fails to make me laugh out loud.

[Judi Lynn]

15. More on Vivanco's double standards which always favor Bush

against Hugo Chavez:

If you want to make a donation to the campaign of George W. Bush in the United States (we're not recommending it, for the record) and you go to Bush's website and click "donations" and you will find that, before you can give him money, you have to affirm:
"By clicking on this box I acknowledge that contributions from corporations and foreign nationals are prohibited."
Likewise, if you want to make a donation to the campaign of John Kerry in the United States (neither are we recommending this) go to Kerry's campaign website and click "contributions," and there you will have to affirm:
"I confirm that the following statements are true and accurate:
"1. I am a United States citizen or a permanent resident alien..."
Those who have violated these laws against foreign contributions have been prosecuted in the United States…
As this 2000 interview with Federal Elections Commissioner Danny McDonald on the U.S. State Department website states:
"Q: There is a ban on contributions to candidates from foreign nationals.
Why is that?
"A: I think it is very strongly felt that it simply is not right for foreign nationals to be involved in the U.S. political process. Clearly it is a very sensitive area and one that, over time, people have felt very strongly about.
"It is a complete ban. It even goes to state and local elections, which is unusual, because we normally do not regulate state and local elections. But the theory is very straightforward, which is that foreign nationals simply should not be determining American politics."
But what is good for the goose (or eagle) is apparently not good for the troupial (the national bird of Venezuela) and apparently not good for a turkey named Jose Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch.
He told Oligarch's Daily, er, Miami Herald columnist and anti-Chavez cheerleader Andres Oppenheimer yesterday (subscription required) that it's just fine with him that the U.S.-taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy pumps money into the Venezuelan opposition group SUMATE (the sponsor of the drive to recall Venezuela President Hugo Chávez, on the ballot on August 15th).
Vivanco told Oligarch's Daily:
"The fact that NED, the European Union, the Swedish government, the Canadians or any other country supports groups like these is not only legitimate, but necessary and within the hemisphere's democratic principles,'' said Jose Miguel Vivanco, head of the Latin American office of Human Rights Watch."
Analyze Vivanco's words very carefully. He doesn't say that "the European Union, the Swedish government, the Canadians or any other country" financially supported SUMATE, the official sponsor of the campaign to unseat Chavez in the upcoming August 15th referendum. He claims those other governments support "groups like these."
Vivanco is blowing smoke. There are no other "groups like these" in Venezuela. SUMATE is unique. SUMATE was an organization that made its number one priority a referendum to unseat a sitting president.
Imagine the situation inverted: If a foreign government had given money to a U.S. group whose main stated goal was to impeach Bush or Clinton in the United States, or unseat them by referendum (oops, the "democracy" of the United States doesn't allow presidential recall referenda like the new Venezuelan Constitution allows) what would have happened?
I'll tell you what would have happened: the same thing that has happened before when the U.S. government has found foreign money in U.S. electoral campaigns (even state, local, or referendum campaigns as the State Department interview above makes clear). There would have been a prosecution for violation of campaign laws.
And José Miguel Vivanco would have sat at his desk, in his suit and tie, collecting his exorbitant Peter-Principle salary, and he would have said nothing… absolutely nothing.
Because it is every democracy's right to prevent wealthy foreign interests from meddling financially in its elections. If Vivanco doesn't support that, he doesn't support democracy. And, again, we wonder why an organization like Human Rights Watch continues to keep this oligarch prince of the double standard around, treading upon human rights instead of defending them.
(snip/)

http://www.venezuelafoia.info/articulosa1.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm curious about why Bill Clinton didn't obsess over Hugo Chavez, actually.

[PhilipShore]

17. Spain sends case against Chavez to International Criminal Court (ICC)...

No Peace No Justice
Spain sends case against Venezuelan President to ICC

http://www.npwj.org/?q=node/1215

The article below provides some background on a case against Venezuelan Hugo Chavez reportedly filed by Spain at the International Criminal Court.International Enforcement Law Reporter, June 2003, VICTIMS COMPENSATION; Vol. 19, No. 6, 1578 words,

Spain Sends the Case Brought Against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to the International Criminal Court Elizabeth Boburg; The author is an attorney, licensed in New York, and a graduate of Duke Law School (2001). She has worked in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the U.S. Department of State (1995-1997). She is currently doing an apprenticeship in the Intellectual Property Department in the Barcelona office of Mullerat Abogados, a Spanish law firm.

In the Chavez case, a group of Spanish and Venezuelan attorneys initiated legal proceedings, explaining that the alleged criminal activities "have resulted in murders, torture and political pressure . . . and include crimes of terrorism of the Government of Hugo Chavez, such as the financing of certain terrorist nets in other parts of the world and collaboration and financing of armed groups."

[1932]

19. Bringing a case is one thing. Winning it is another.

What happened to this case?

[PhilipShore]

24. Wikipedia: Criticism of Chávez...thus far the case has not been rejected

Criticism of Hugo Chávez
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://tinyurl.com/7g6sz

As of 2005, family members of the victims in the April 11, 2002 events have filed a lawsuit at the International Criminal Court in The Hague against Chavez and several government officials for crimes against humanity. Although it is still unclear if the ICC would have jurisdiction over the April events that occurred before the Court was constituted on July 1st, 2002, thus far the case has not been rejected.

[1932]

26. That looks like a different case, and it looks like it has an even lower

chance of success. And, I don't think people reasonably disagree about what happened during the oligarch's coup in April 2002, anyway.

It's incredibly unlikely that any court anywhere would rule against Chavez's government in regard to anything that happened during that coup.

You're throwing a lot of stuff at the wall today. I wonder what's going to be left sticking to it?

[Solon]

59. Hey, can you use a more impartial source than El Universal? n/t

[Judi Lynn]

28. What is this organization? It has U.S. tax-exempt status, it also says

"The article below provides some background on a case against Hugo Chavez reportedly filed by Spain at the International Criminal Court."

Either it was or it was NOT. "Reportedly" is a dodge.

If Spain had filed a suit like this it would have surely been in all the papers, no two ways about it. This is more of that good old crap from the Venezuelan opposition, more rumors paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, through arranged payments to opposition nutballs in Venzuela.

This is ridiculous. Please provide something easily recognized as truthful.

If Spain has been out to put Hugo Chavez on trial, why did Spain just transact some expensive business with Venezuela concerning airplane sales, etc.?

[Clutch Cargo]

23. Starting to walk and quack like a duck a bit more each day! n/t

[1932]

25. Yes. Miami Herald and HRW are quacking more like a duck every day when

it comes to Venezuela. Of course they've been quacking this same quack for a long time, but the duck-ness of it becomes more and more apparent all the time.

[Clutch Cargo]

27. Actually, I was referring to our lil' dictator buddy, Hugo, n/t

[1932]

31. Actually, the sord to which I'm referring has a few more DUcks

than just those two.

[Judi Lynn]

30. Provide information to your claims. Otherwise no one knows what

you're talking about. Walking and talking like a duck seems a little obscure.

[Bridget Burke]

117. Yes, you are!

No surprise here.

[TankLV]

170. Yes, yes you are!

Getting real transparent to ALL of us, ya know?

[oneoftheboys]

33. It looks like this guy is applying the same methods...

That Mugabe applied in Zimbabwe. And the results will no doubt be the same. Within a few years, Venezuela will have become a basket case.

They say you can judge a man by those he picks as friends. As such, it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that this guy is nothing but a backward thinking tyrant.

[Judi Lynn]

34. Would you take the time to explain what you're talking about?

What methods?

What information do you have to lead to the conclusion Hugo Chavez is backward thinking, and a tyrant?

Share it here, if you would.

[PhilipShore]

35. Reuters: Wiesenthal Center slams Chavez "anti-Semitic" talk

Wiesenthal Center slams Chavez "anti-Semitic" talk
04 Jan 2006

Source: Reuters

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N04386817.htm

CARACAS, Venezuela, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Prominent Jewish rights group, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, accused Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday of using what it said were anti-Semitic remarks and demanded an apology.

___________________________________________

Suing Hugo Chavez

Miami lawyer sues Venezuelan president in federal court over shooting deaths last year during Caracas protests

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1056139974401

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

38. The funny thing about that is that members of the Venezuelan

jewish community said this was all bullshit.

[Clutch Cargo]

39. Maybe they were afraid to say otherwise.

It's best not to upset a dictator if you value your well-being. I would put more credibility in how the majority of Jewish people felt about that speech. I suspect that the majority view it as anti-Semitic.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

41. Did you poll the majority of jewish people? I didn't think so.

So let me get this straight. People are not afraid to say he's F Castro's lover, call him all kinds of racist names, photoshop his photos in the press. But they are afraid to call him anti semitic? You seem to be strangely fixated on this guy. Does he owe you money or something? You don't seem to know jack shit about Venezuela. Yet every thread there you are.

[Clutch Cargo]

42. The SWC speaks for a lot, lot more Jewish people

than a selectively interviewed set of Jewish people in Venezuela!

BTW, I'm not fixated on him anywhere close to the extent of some of his admirers!!! I find some here who do seem fixated because they spend an enormous amount of time refuting EACH AND EVERY negative Hugo remark with extremely long and lengthy diatribes. And they do it within minutes of the post!! Obviously there are cut n' paste answers at the ready, depending on the issue.

I don't like the guy. He's a dictator. These threads get crammed full of "I love Hugo" posts. To me, that's propagandizing.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clutch Cargo]

88. Anyone who limits freedom of the press

And sets himself up as president for 25 years (which is effectively a lifetime) is interested in a dictatorship, not democratic principles. He is an evil person. Chavez is a dictator.

[1932]

102. There are so many paralles between Chavez and FDR.

The press was brutal to FDR. IIRC, unsubstantiated claims were made that he was limiting press freedoms. However, the people liked FDR and kept electiing him. And people like you claimed that the fact that he kept getting elected was evidence that he was interested in dictatorshi and was an evil person, and was a dictator.

[Clutch Cargo]

115. Unlike the people who kept reelecting FDR

People won't have that option with Chavez. They have the option of voting for no one for the next 25 years. They're stuck with him. He's locked himself in for the next 25 years. Do you believe the people who voted fo him knew they were voting to keep him in office for, essentially the rest of his life? No.

Now that he's accomplished that, it's time to nationalize the media and control the press. Day by day, bit by bit. Tactics from the typical dictator playbook.

[1932]

150. This is so uninformed, it's not worth a response.

[Clutch Cargo]

159. I disagree

Chavez will be dictator for the next 25 years. Perhaps he will be forced out, but, unless I'm mistaken, the good people of Venezuela do not have the option of voting every 4 years as we do.

So, he's got a stranglehold on power.

Next, he's nationalizing the media. Stranglehold on the message.

Nest, he's made it a crime for the independent media to criticize him. Stranglehold on the people.

Oh, and throw in an attempt to abolish Halloween as an example of those colorfully inane things that dicators tend to do for no known reason. LOL!

Controlling the power, message and people. That's a dictator.

[1932]

161. More fact-free opinions. A waste of time to read.

And a bigger wast of time to post these three sentences in response to it.

Stop wasting everyone's time. Do you want that to be the mark you leave on the world?

[Clutch Cargo]

162. As you would say, and have said,

Your response to my post is not an argument, but merely an opinion. But, you're still welcome to it.

My post stated facts.

[1932]

163. Has anyone seen the movie Cronicas?

I hear it's really good. I think I'm going to rent it. Anyone have any opinions about it?

[Clutch Cargo]

164. No, what's it about?

Is it sci-fi? Is it about dictators? Love story?

[Judi Lynn]

165. Thanks for bringing it up. Sounds like something to see.

I found an interesting customer review:

Unlike most of you I just seen it on DVD which gives us 2 shocking endings to choose from. I'll stick to the one shown at the festival. This is a great movie with great acting from everyone, even the foreigners. Very intense & it took me on an emotional roller coaster ride. I couldn't take my eyes off the movie anticipating the next scene. Leguizamo was great and has always been a great actor in drama roles. He was brilliant in this role as a reporter. The ending will leave most of us depressed imagining what child victims actually go thru when these monsters victimize them but the director chose to keep it real and we have to appreciate that. It will put something on your mind long after the movie ends but well worth watching. Very, very intense. Some parts will leave you feeling creeped out but it's a thrilling ride!
(snip)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382621/

and the movie website:

http://www.cronicasthemovie.net/

Amazon:

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
In twisty thriller Crónicas, John Leguizamo (Moulin Rouge) finally lands a lead role worthy of his talent. The Columbian-born actor is Manolo Bonilla, an ambitious Miami-based reporter for a Spanish-language news outlet. When a serial killer devastates a small town in Ecuador, he and his crew, Marisa (Leonor Watling, Talk to Her) and Iván (José María Yazpik, Innocent Voices), fly down to cover the story. Shortly after their arrival, Bonilla saves the life of shifty-looking salesman Vinicio Cepeda (Damián Alcázar). His intentions aren't as honorable as they seem. Cepeda claims to have information regarding the "Monster of Babahoyo" and Bonilla will do anything to keep him talking. Soon his star begins to rise as Cepeda provides him with more and more ratings-grabbing details. Then Bonilla discovers something even the authorities don't know about--another body. His decision to follow the lead on his own could make his career...or completely destroy it. Worse yet, another child may lose his life if Bonilla fails. Featuring Alfred Molina (Frida) as Marisa's TV host husband (seen only via monitor). Written and directed by Sebastián Cordero and produced by Guillermo del Toro and Alfonso Cuarón, Crónicas was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival. --Kathleen C. Fennessy

Product Description:
John Leguizamo stars as Manolo Bonilla, a tabloid TV reporter who traveled from Miami with his news crew on the trail of a story about a serial killer striking a small town in Ecuador. Convinced this story could be the ‘big one’ that makes him a network star, he is willing to bend the rules to get the facts. But the closer he gets to uncovering the truth, the more he finds his carefully planned story spinning dangerously out of control. Soon, Bonilla and his crew find themselves at the center of a frightening situation where even the best intentions can backfire.
(snip/...)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000AYYVII/104-2140865-0801539?v=glance&n=130

[1932]

166. "Manolo Bonilla" -- that's a great name for a fictional character.

Interesting reviews, too. I'm definitely going to see this movie.

By the way, I'm not going anywhere with this. It's just that nothing in this subthread was giving me anything to think about so my thoughts wandered to movies I'd like to see.

[Clutch Cargo]

167. It does sound good!

Perhaps I'll see it too. Let's compare notes afterwards!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

174. Saw it last sunday...good. n/t

[SOS]

208. Why are "facts" prefaced with "unless I'm mistaken"?

Your "facts":

"unless I'm mistaken, the good people of Venezuela do not have the option of voting every 4 years as we do."

Yes they do, except the term is six years.

From the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution:

"The president is elected by a plurality vote with direct and universal suffrage. The term of office is six years, and a president may be re-elected to a single consecutive term."

In the July 30th, 2000 elections, Chavez got 59.76% of the vote.

[Flanker]

168. I don't think you have been paying attention

"Chavez will be dictator for the next 25 years. Perhaps he will be forced out, but, unless I'm mistaken, the good people of Venezuela do not have the option of voting every 4 years as we do."

This is unsubstantiated, Chavez will go up for re-election and referndums every 3 years, even if term limits are abolished as predicted by cynics, again just because you say Chavez is a martian does not make it fact.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

45. If we do a search of your posts I guaran-damn-tee that 95%

of them are about Chavez. Starting with your first post ever. I think somebody named Hugo used to take your lunch money. That's my theory on that.

He's not a dictator please stop making shit up. These people you talk about actually take time to research and find out what's going on. You only throw names like a little kid with nothing to back it up. That is propaganda as much as the other stuff you're bitching about.

[Clutch Cargo]

89. So what?

I'll post about whatever I want. Have I personally offended you because of my posting percentages on Chavez?????? If I were 95% complimentary, then you'd be OK with that, right? WTF!!?? If you don't care for my posts, use the ignore button.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

90. No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of criticizing others

because they post flattering things about his policies while very one of your posts shows your obsession with him. That's so fucking what. If you don't like what others post about him or his government. Ignore them.

The fact that all you post is anti Chavez shit does matter.

[Clutch Cargo]

91. What????? I'm not criticizing others.

If I feel differently than someone, I will say so. That is not criticism of them. I've been personally attacked and insulted for my opinion, but I won't stoop to that level and personally attack others. They're certainly welcome to their opinion. And so am I. If you think Chavez is a good guy in the white hat, good for you! But, I am allowed to respond and say I disagree. And I will. Believe me, I see where the Chavez obsession is. And, it's not with me! And I still believe that Chavez is a dictator and evil person!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

92. I don't believe in good or bad guys with white hats and shit.

Maybe when I was 10. The world is a complicated place. Believe what you want. I could believe I'm the rightful heir to the Spanish throne, but that wouldn't make it so. Would it? Everything you post about is Chavez this, Chavez that but others are obsessed???? OK whatever you say.

[Clutch Cargo]

93. Everything I post is not about Chavez.

That's a bit of an exaggeration, eh? Nonetheless, I don't care for dictators. If there were more threads on Castro, I would be just as opinionated there, for I find him to be just as repulsive as Chavez.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

94. I said 95%. Obsessed much? n/t

[Clutch Cargo]

95. I was referring to these words you wrote in post 92:

"Everything you post about is Chavez this, Chavez that" Nonetheless, everything I post is not about Chavez. :-)

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

96. I'll rephrase then: 95% of what you post is Chavez this......n/t

[Clutch Cargo]

97. I'll try to post more about the Castro dictatorship, k?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

98. I heard there's some shit going down in Middle Earth with the elves and

dwarfs. Stay on top of that too.

[Clutch Cargo]

99. LOL! Good one! n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

100. We do our best. n/t

[High Plains]

105. Your posts don't say anything

except "Chavez is a dictator, Chavez is a dictator, Chavez is a dictator."

Which is just plain factually wrong, and you know it. Why don't you come back when you have something to contribute besides spite and ignorance?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

86. You've got NOTHING to back up your anti-Chavez rhetoric. NOTHING.

[Bridget Burke]

125. The Jewish people in Venezuela heard the speech.

Since they speak Spanish, they understood what he said. Even a decent translation of the whole thing shows that it is not anti-Semitic.

If you don't like Chavez, that's a point in his favor!

[Clutch Cargo]

130. It's not just Chavez I dislike

I dislike all dictators. BTW, there are Jewish people all over the world that speak and understand Spanish, including those in the SWC.

[Bridget Burke]

131. Chavez is not a dictator.

And you're wrong about his speech. I was able to undertand it--why not you?

[Judi Lynn]

40. Bless your heart. Here's a look at two threads we did here already

on your first topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2020953#2020953

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2039980

You might want to look them over, and see if there's anything you want to add.

There's quite a bit of history rewriting which goes on in Miami. Everyone knows that. They have their own RIGHT-WING way of interpreting the world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's something I just grabbed quickly which concerns that event:

Concerning your second article, did you note this sentence?

There is some controversy about whether government or anti-Chavez forces were responsible for the shootings.
(snip)

Odd, isn't it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thursday, November 6th, 2003
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised - Why is Amnesty Not Screening a New Documentary About the Failed 2002 Coup in Venezuela?

~snip~
NARRATOR: The opposition march was fast approaching and some in the vanguard seemed ready for a fight. With thousands of Chavez supporters still surrounding the palace a confrontation seemed imminent. Then at about 2:00 p.m., we saw the opposition march arrive. The army tried to act as a buffer between the two groups.

NARRATOR: We moved back into the heart of the Chavez crowds when all of a sudden the firing started.

NARRATOR: We couldn't tell where the shots were coming from, but people were being hit in the head.

NARRATOR: Soon it became clear that we were being shot at by snipers. One in four Venezuelans carry hand guns and soon some of the Chavez supporters began to shoot back in the direction the sniper fire seemed to be coming from.

WITNESS (in Spanish): One of the channels had a camera opposite the palace that captured images of people shooting from the bridge. It looks like they are shooting at the opposition march below, but you can see them, they themselves are ducking. They are clearly being shot at, but the shots of them ducking were never shown. The Chavez supporters were blamed. The images were manipulated and shown over and over again to say that Chavez supporters had assassinated innocent marchers.

ANDRE CESARA, RCTV (in Spanish): Look at that Chavez supporter. Look at him empty his gun. That Chavez supporter has just fired on the unarmed peaceful protesters below.

NARRATOR: What the TV stations didn't broadcast was this camera angle which clearly shows the streets below were empty. The opposition march had never taken that route. With this manipulation, the deaths could now be blamed on Chavez. Back in the palace, there was total confusion. Nobody seemed to know what was happening or what information to believe.
(snip/...)

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/06/1558221
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who is Alfredo Pena? The mayor of Greater Caracas was a supporter of Chavez and had been a journalist himself (his email, should you want to write him and tell him to give CatiaTV their transmitter back, is [e-mail]). But his more recent fame has come from his use of the Policia Metropolitana in Caracas. There is evidence that Pena's police were instrumental in the coup, murdering Chavistas on April 11 2002 in actions that were blamed on the government and used to justify the coup. A reporter for the Narconews Bulletin, Alex Main, describes some of the actions of this police force during the coup in April 2002:

"The PM played their first major political role on April 11th of this year <2002> when they accompanied an illegal opposition march on Miraflores presidential palace that produced a cloud-cover of chaos allowing a media-driven coup d'etat to take place. That afternoon, Venezuelan commercial television showed images of a few pro-government demonstrators who, for several minutes, fired automatic pistols over the railing of the Puente Llaguno bridge which overlooks the Avenida Baraldt, a main artery that leads towards Miraflores. Private Venezuelan television channels showed these images over and over while a commentator explained that the shooters were assassins who were deliberately killing "peaceful" demonstrators in the opposition march. What these TV channels failed to show their viewers was the wider-angle camera shots that allowed one to observe that other individuals on the bridge were ducking for cover and were quite obviously being shot at by an unseen aggressor.

"The unseen aggressor, as the pictures and videos of Venezuelan independent media were to reveal, was none other than the Policia Metropolitana." (1)

Pena's police continue to play this role. During Venezuela's 'National Strike' in January 2003, the Policia Metropolitana killed two more Chavistas, who the media then claimed were members of the opposition. (2)
(snip/...)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=3993

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[rman]

177. we've been back and forth over that - where were you then?

[MrPrax]

48. Congrats...

Your so dedicated, most would just simply assume that the posters are "fill in blank"--and not bother. :eyes:

They are posting without context, knowledge and little more than finding the 'right words' to put in a Google search, like

"http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=chavez+dictator&btnG=Search&meta=" for instance.

and you get with the first four hits:

1. Hugo Chavez - Dictator in the making - - Venezuela - Dictator in
   Hugo Chavez - Venezuela - Dictator in the making - Hugo Chavez - Venezuela.
   www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Rec_Read/Dictator_In_The_Making.htm - 49k - Cached - Similar pages
   
   
2. Hugo Chavez, Dictator of the Month June, 2005
   Biography and picture gallery of Hugo Chávez, Venezuela.
   www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Chavez/Jun2005ChavezEN.htm
   
   
3. Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez: Castro's Mini-Me by Peter Brookes ...
   It's tempting to write off Chavez simply as Latin America's latest tin-pot
   dictator, but that would be a mistake. Venezuela's own "Fidelito" has the
   capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4199
   
   
4. WorldWide Religious News-Venezuela: Cardinal calls Chavez 'dictator
   WorldWide Religious News is a non-profit service that has been providing the
   international academic and legal community (as well as various government
   www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=18115&sec=59&cont=8
   

It's easy to Google...

[Judi Lynn]

50. Interesting! I always have wondered why they come up with crap

and the rest of us often take real time looking, and checking for the things that seem to have that helpful context, and make a bit of sense! It takes so much longer!

Sheesh.

[PhilipShore]

52. Human Rights Watch: Americas : Venezuela

Venezuela: Media Law Undercuts Freedom of Expression
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/30/venezu9754.htm

A draft law to increase state control of television and radio broadcasting in Venezuela threatens to undermine the media’s freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today. Venezuela’s National Assembly, which has been voting article by article on the law, known as the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, is expected to approve it today.

________________________________________

Testimony of José Miguel Vivanco
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/venezu9020.htm

Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs
Over the past year, President Chávez and his allies have taken steps to control Venezuela’s judicial branch. These steps undercut the separation of powers and the independence of judges. They violate basic principles of Venezuela’s constitution and international human rights law. And they represent the most serious threat to Venezuela’s fragile democracy since the 2002 coup.

______________________________________________________

Court-Packing Law Threatens Venezuelan Democracy
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/venezu9015.htm

By José Miguel Vivanco and Daniel Wilkinson
Published in The Washington Post
When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez faced a coup d'etat in April 2002, the international community roundly condemned the assault on Venezuela's constitutional order. Now, as he faces a recall referendum in August 2004, Chavez's own government threatens to undermine this country's fragile democracy through a political takeover of its highest court.
June 22, 2004 Commentary

________________________________________

Rigging the Rule of Law
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/venezuela0604/

Judicial Independence Under Siege in Venezuela
The Venezuelan government is undermining the independence of the country’s judiciary ahead of a presidential recall referendum that may ultimately be decided in the courts. President Chávez’s governing coalition has begun implementing a new court-packing law that will strip the Supreme Court of its autonomy. This 24-page report examines how the new law will make judges more vulnerable to political persecution and help ensure that legal controversies surrounding the recall referendum are resolved in Chávez’s favor.

[MrPrax]

56. So you put HRW in the search?

I will speak to you from my initial criticism of 'lack of context'--


Firstly, you seem to not have read this thread as they are MORE than enough criticism of the 'appropriateness' of HRW's attack and Vivanco. (you simply posted what we already know--assume for any 'debate' that your opponent can google as well). Again you missed the context of this thread and some of the posters.

Secondly, you missed the point that what HRW seems to be upset about is the inability of the odious NED to subvert elections. Funny virtually every nation on the planet has tough laws against foreign contributors. Hell rem even something small like the Guardian's 'cook county' insanity, which produce this very good anaylsis. Slate's famous "Dear Limey Asshole

Thirdly, is human rights criticism warranted in the case of Venezuela's media. Funny I don't recall the American Media model being mandatory for nation's of the world? Canada protects it's culture and media with laws and so do most of the world.
Moreover, the 'context' you missed is that in the case of Venezuela, the all of the media was owned by one company. So even IF I take HRW at face value, I wonder why they didn't bother to point it out when Panorama was running the show. They only are concerned NOW? I am sure this has NOTHING to do with the Chevaz leading the charge for an independent made in Latin America press. Real progressives have NO problem with their side getting honest coverage actually.
Let's be honest on this point, unchecked media control in our OWN countries should be 'checked' by state control to make the system as fair as possible, especially on matters of democracy. So why is HRW more concerned with THEM, than their own shitty Pravda-like uber Fuhrer dictations, or Murdoch.

etc etc etc


My real problem is that you are IN FAVOUR of the 'our backyard' thesis and are really worried about how much you might have to pay for a banana instead of the latest rightwing fad: 'human rights'.

[PhilipShore]

60. The right wing does not care about human Rights...

and they only care about it in as much as they can control, the debate as far as moving military hardware around the globe via PNAC and the military-industrial-complex.

Liberals and dissent in the USA is much more complex, then what most will ever read about in the mainstream and even alternative media in the past, present in the future ever.

Human Rights-- is a liberal issue, that can and has been manipulated--by some on the left and right that want to manipulate the real issues.

This is what gets me all upset, about these sorts of debates, some read an article, about some right wing repuke and assume it is the truth, or that what they are saying is the truth.

Not one of the sources quoted as being right wing sources for human rights has ever been a advocate --other then in lip service for human or civil rights.

[MrPrax]

63. this is nuts...

The right wing does not care about human Rights and they only care about it in as much as they can control, the debate as far as moving military hardware around the globe via PNAC and the military-industrial-complex.

They use human rights as a vehicle to power in the same way they manipulate the debate on education, security, etc. They CARE about human rights when it comes to Cuba, Vene., pre-Aristide Haiti, Saddam's Iraq, etc...more of the time they simply avoid the debate, like rendition, by screeching that 'liberals' are hypocrite.

Besides, what the hell does the PNAC have to do with century old Big Brother-little brother, 'Our Pond' imperialism? Feith and Frum never worked for Untied Fruit company, for instance.

You posted them as 'buzz words' right? Coz you think lefties go for that stuff, right?

Liberals and dissent in the USA is much more complex, then what most will ever read about in the mainstream and even alternative media in the past, present in the future ever.

No it isn't...this is more 'exceptionalist' garbage...you ain't unique.

If anything the shocking nature of 'dissent' in America is the viciousness in which it is supressed (COINTEL, NSA taps, Eisenhower's sabre slashing poor people in Hooverville, etc), the strange addition of the concept of 'unAmericanism' (that's a head scratcher to most foreigners), the lack of a coherent opposition and mutual sense of world mission (the civil right's model) shared by most liberals in the US.

This of course has produced not a complex 'liberal', but at best, a 'scared' Liberal or worst, an apologist.

Human Rights-- is a liberal issue, that can and has been manipulated--by some on the left and right that want to manipulate the real issues.

Wrong...it's a legal issue, both domestically and internationally that should be strongly held by all people who value freedom and the governments that sign these agreements. People who don't usually split hairs on things like torture, state-sanction killings, extra-legalities, carpet bombing.

But your attempt at moral equivalence ("left and right that want to manipulate the real issues")is a little much...so what is the real issue? Fundamentalist who can't hand out Bibles in downtown Havana?
Monopoly ownership of the Latin American press?
Journalists who place our troops at risk?
Trade Unionists involved in organizing for better working conditions in Latin Coka Cola plants not wanting a 'free vote' on the employers' property?
Foreigners not being allowed to subvert elections?

You tell us all about it

I'll stop here cause I am not sure what you mean by debates and people quoting right wing pukes...Counterpunch regularly runs articles on HRW among others...they are hardly right wing.

No the big problem is that some liberals simply believe that the left is little more than polemics and confrontation and never bothered to listen, preferring to 'mediate' debate, instead of particiating.

Now if your NOT even going to address the fact that this Washington-based group is attacking Venezuela for highly questionable human rights abuses that many have posted here are bogus and misinformed, then DON'T bother to respond.

So you really believe that the State has no business in regulating media? That IS one of the criticism levelled by these dipshits, no? Funny, I don't recall HRW chiming in with this 'rightwing private property uber alles' point of view when the FCC was debating a boobie.

[PhilipShore]

68. They do not have to suppress it...

If anything the shocking nature of 'dissent' in America is the viciousness in which it is supressed (COINTEL, NSA taps, Eisenhower's sabre slashing poor people in Hooverville, etc), the strange addition of the concept of 'unAmericanism' (that's a head scratcher to most foreigners), the lack of a coherent opposition and mutual sense of world mission (the civil right's model) shared by most liberals in the US.


because the majority of people in the United States-- do not care about liberalism.

You can read Chomsky until the year 2100 and more then likely liberalism-- will be ignored then as it is now. Wait for a Chomsky Press Release and/ or a Moore Press release that talks about all the fired up masses, that are going to give the power back to the people, but in the end it a illusion, nothing will change.

The Repukes know this-- that is why they are laughing about all their victories, because they know--that they write the story regardless if it is false or not.

It more then likely is out of fear—but not cowardice as being the reason. America is a cultureless society-- most are sheeple that can be-- brainwashed quite easily.

If your hero for the poor-- Chavez-- will not go to court, then why does he not write his own story of the facts and print it in the press?

Perhaps he could have someone write his autobiography-- so that we can be made aware of all his achievements for liberalism, around the world, and in his country.

[Bridget Burke]

120. Hmm... You claim to care about "liberalism"

But your use of "Chomsky" & "Moore" as code-words reveals your true orientation.

[PhilipShore]

69. Human Rights is basically about civil rights

They use human rights as a vehicle to power in the same way they manipulate the debate on education, security, etc. They CARE about human rights when it comes to Cuba, Vene., pre-Aristide Haiti, Saddam's Iraq, etc...more of the time they simply avoid the debate, like rendition, by screeching that 'liberals' are hypocrite.

Human Rights is basically about civil rights--but is International. Can you name one Repuke, that has achieved great things for International human rights, rules of law, etc.?

[Darranar]

73. Yes, Evo Morales is just awful, isn't he?

Daring to campaign for Bolivia's poor majority - shameful.

And this Lula person - standing up the wealthy elite and the IMF? How evil of him.

Oh yes, and the American poor, too. Doesn't he know they're just lazy, and don't deserve to have warm homes?

[oneoftheboys]

78. I suspect so, but I was referring to these boys...

[Darranar]

87. Chávez has every reason to align himself with Mugabe and Castro.

They share enemies, and as far as the geopolitical scene goes, they share objectives.

Unlike you, I do not believe in guilt by association.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

122. The enemies they share

are the United States and the other imperialist powers, plus the institutions of the global economic order that the rich and powerful nations have set up.

The objectives they share are the empowerment of Third World nations and their liberation from dependency on the colonial powers.

[K-W]

135. Yes, all popular leaders are crooks, we better keep electing republicans!

nt

[oneoftheboys]

144. If you think Republicans are bad...

you ain't seen nothing yet. Just give this backward thinking bastard a little more time and he will show you the true meaning of HELL!

[K-W]

145. I hope this is satire. EOM

[oneoftheboys]

147. I wish it were.

But unless you think the state of affairs in Zimbabwe are acceptable, you will not find any humor with respect to what is taking place in Venezuela.

[K-W]

148. Zimbabwe and Venezuala have nothing to do with each other. EOM

[oneoftheboys]

154. Yes, they do. Their circumstances are quite similar.

Both are ruled by corrupt men who are leading their countries ruin.

It is probably too late for Zimbabwe. However, a civil war that leads to the overthrow of Chavez is a possibility. Unfortunately, that may be Venezuela's only hope for survival.


(They aren't smiling back home)

[1932]

157. That's an opinion. It's not an argument.

And it's completely devoid of facts.

[SOS]

209. "Both are ruled by corrupt men who are leading their countries ruin."

This picture works well with your observation!

[TedsGarage]

51. Don't You Know?

Brown people aren't supposed to control the oil under their countries. They might not give it to the U.S. That's the problem.

[jseankil]

54. No, the problem is Chávez limiting freedoms and judiciary rights

But it's Chávez, he hates Bush, he can do no wrong! This must be a CIA trick!!!

[Solon]

58. Heh, more unsubstantiated claims beyond "Couldas". n/t

[julianer]

66. Here's another one!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

84. Oh, my. They're like moths drawn to a flame...they just can't help it.

[Darranar]

74. Like that other notorious dictator, Franklin Roosevelt.

:eyes:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

79. If you want to have some real fun, look up Woodrow Wilson and the....

...actions he took to muzzle the press when the U. S. entered WWI.

Lincoln was no slouch, either, when it came to controlling the press.

[1932]

103. And then top that off with the fact that Venezuelan press is completely

unrestricted, except that they can't show porn before a certain hour and have to play domestically produced music for a certain amount of time.

[Darranar]

104. If Chávez attempted to institute a Venezuelan FCC

he'd be denounced as an authoritarian dictator for it in seconds.

[Miss Chybil]

101. Sounds like Bush. nt

[PhilipShore]

107. If Dictator Chavez did not have control of Citgo Oil Company...

I am sure all the Chavez advocates here-- would have no hesitation-- to continue to support him.

[Stockholm]

111. Pls provide links to back up your "dictator" allegations

n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

123. You already proved in your crazy ass posts above that you have

no idea how the man came to power in the first place. Why do you insist on peddling this bullshit? You have zero credibility on this matter. If we've learned anything from Mr Rove is that if one repeats something enough times it must be true. But hey I'm not a lawyer.

[K-W]

136. The word dictator has a meaning.

If you could avoid butchering the english language when spreading your talking points id appreciate it.

[PhilipShore]

108. It boggles the mind that so many would overlook the injustices...

...of a dictator oil baron named Chavez, because he throws a few crumbs to the poor.

I am no idiot-- I know that Chavez is a Bush provocateur in which Bush Inc. is attempting to divide the liberals; however it will fail, the Abramoff scandal is too big to even let the Dems failures on Chavez cause the Dems to loose in 2006 and 2008

Rove, go back to your Nazi gold vault and buy some more votes.

[Moochy]

112. Strongman, but no dictator

ppsssst .. Chavez is not a dictator. Get your right-wing talking points straight.

[K-W]

137. Strongman? Huh. EOM

[Moochy]

149. Sorry needed to add the :sarcasm: tag to that

That's the preferred NYT phrase that seems to get used for him.

"Venezuelan Strongman Hugo Chavez"

It was late, I forgot to add :sarcasm: to that last post. :D

[SOS]

127. It also boggles the mind

that so many overlook the injustices of America's favorite allies and trading partners.

The vicious military dictatorship in Burma, the torture chambers of Equatorial Guinea, the mass executions in China,
roving paramilitary death squads in Columbia, public whippings of women in Saudi Arabia for the crime of driving a car...

But who cares? American corporations make money in these abusive countries, so they are never mentioned in our Wall Street-controlled media.

As long as the brutal, anti-democratic crooks who rule over these countries don't impinge on American financial
investments, it seems they are free to torture and kill without a peep of criticism.

Personally I'd rather live in Caracas than Riyadh.

[rman]

175. much more then a few crums, as you might know if

you'd investigate instead of repeating RW talking points.

And of course Chavez is neither an oil baron nor a dictator.

[oblivious]

109. This issue is all about AP - the propaganda press - not HRW or Venezuela.

Here is the Human Rights Watch 2006 World Report

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/13/global12428.htm

Note that the opening heading and paragraphs are about US abuses.

But AP chose to make Venezuela the headline and opener.

If you go to the country reports, the complaints about Venezuela pale in comparison to those about the US. There's simply no comparison. The US is ten million times worse.

US: http://hrw.org/wr2k6/us/index.htm
Venezuela: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/venezu12258.htm

Yet AP chooses to make Venezuela the focus of their report on HRW's world report.

If you ever needed proof that AP is nothing but a propaganda mouthpiece for the US government here it is. I keep saying this over and over on DU, but people still accept AP as the real news. I just don't get it. It's propaganda, pure and simple.

[Judi Lynn]

114. AP serves a master quite apart from simple information. You have to

go through phases of adjustment once you discover it, as in shock, rage, and "acceptance," sadly. What they're doing is a real moral crime. There's no way you're just going to get a clean story from them about Latin America and the Caribbean islands, nor, I suspect, Democrats.

Thanks for making the HRW point. Expect right-wingers to ignore it. Deliberate misrepresentation is ideal for them, if it benefits their position.

[Bridget Burke]

119. How dare you do your homework!

Why bother to read through whole paragraphs? That's really hard!

The Chavez-haters would rather use selected excerpts (preferably, just headlines) to bad-mouth him than stretch their minds.

(Thanks for posting this.)

[0rganism]

200. You hit the nail on the head, oblivious

Something ugly is going on at the AP that might just merit some investigative reporting all its own.

[depakid]

113. ''packing'' of the country's Supreme Court with Chávez allies..."

Venezuelan legislators ''have also enacted legislation that seriously threatens press freedoms and freedom of expression,'' the rights report said.

Hmmm, somehow this sounds very familiar....

Wonder whether the Herald is for or against this sort of thing at home? Nahh.

[Clutch Cargo]

116. Chavez News Sources

Boy, I'm learning a lot about reliable news sources for Chavez. I've learned that if you want to source a criticism for him, the Miami Herald is not a good source. Neither is the AP. Or the UPI. Or any human rights watch commissions. Or the NYT. Or the LA Times. Or the BBC. Or the Guardian. No US paper will do. Amnesty International: no. Basically, there is no news source that's reliable for a criticism of Chavez. This is hilarious!

[K-W]

138. Yes, most of us dont just take news stories at face value.

If you want to be on a forum where people do less thinking and more blind following of newspapers Im sure you can find a better fit out there.

[Clutch Cargo]

139. I disagree, I see many who take news at face value.

There seems to be no hesitation at all by some of blindly accepting pro-Chavez media pieces. It seems that, for some, it's the good stories are legitimate, impartial and well researched, but the negative stories are written by sources that have an agenda. I find that amusing! Amusing indeed!

[K-W]

140. I hope you and your strawman have an exciting Friday night. EOM

[Clutch Cargo]

143. Thanks! I wish you a pleasant Friday too. n/t

[Clara T]

152. Who is Human Rights Watch?

Who is Human Rights Watch and how were they able to gain access to Jenin for an inquiry at the very time that Israel was denying entry to a delegation chosen by the UN Security Council? Human Rights Watch was supposedly created to monitor “human rights abuses” worldwide. In reality, it is an institution that has acted at every turn to reinforce the policies of the United States and justify its “humanitarian interventions.” It is composed almost entirely of US citizens and its board includes multimillionaires, former U.S government officials and mainstream academics.

Human Rights Watch began as Helsinki Watch in 1975. It was a powerful Cold War instrument against the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc countries of Eastern Europe. Its network became a web of support for pro-capitalist forces and political dissidents in every country.

Multibillionaire George Soros has played a major role in the development of Human Rights Watch and in linking it with his own personal NGO network. Open Society Institute. Aryeh Neier, the director first of Helsinki Watch and then Human Rights Watch moved on to head the Open Society Institute. Many other directors share positions and change titles within a small world of US-based NGOs.

HRW’s Middle East North Africa division has used its position to build support for the continuing US war and sanctions against Iraq. According to the reports of four major UN agencies (WHO, FAO, UNICEF, WFP), UN Security Council sanctions, kept in place at US insistence, have caused the deaths of over 1.5 million Iraqis. Withholding food and civilian supplies is a war crime. However, Human Rights Watch has proposed that to help weaken Saddam Hussein and “encourage Iraqi officials to overthrow him. Saddam Hussein be indicted by an international court for war crimes.” (HRW press release, January 5, 2000). If the US objective is an invasion of Iraq, Human Rights Watch is only too happy to oblige with reports and suggestions.

Human Rights Watch claims its reports are objective, balanced and evenhanded. When it comes to Palestine this has meant equating the violence of the illegal Israeli occupation with the resistance of Palestinians to overwhelming military force. Once Human Rights Watch declared that “no massacre” had occurred in Jenin, the demand for an inquiry and international action against Israeli crimes virtually disappeared. Media coverage shifted sharply. The Bush administration made a new round of demands on the Palestinians to condemn violence while calling Ariel Sharon “a man of peace” and expressing sympathy for Israeli “self-defense” measures. HRW statements echoed these shifts.

http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=3220

[Judi Lynn]

153. Omigod.HRW is responsible for smothering press coverage on Jenin

during a time people all over the world were worried sick about what was going on in there. Omigod. Suddenly all reference to Jenin was dropped entirely.

I whole-heartedly reccommend both the links you've posted on HRW. Looking forward to seeing more information like this coming out as people lose their fear of the PNAC choke-hold on our government and the threat they present to the rest of the world.

[1932]

155. People are making evidence-based arguments about media bias.

You're just posting opinions.

Big difference.

Support your arguments. Hell, start by making a coherent argument.

[Clara T]

151. Who is HRW? Follow links.

Background

HRW was set up by the United States government to monitor human rights in Eastern Europe following the signature of the Helsinki Accords. Initially, the group was called Helsinki Watch (NB: there is a British group with the same name – specializes in monitoring elections…). The United States used Helsinki Watch for propaganda purposes, and to amplify the "human rights" contradictions in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In this it was singularly successful, and it led to the broadening of HRW to cover additional regions. HRW-Americas, etc. and it also spun off the Index on Censorship, the latter to monitor abuses of "freedom of the press". HRW may claim that it is independent and nongovernmental, but its origins inidicate that these properties were absent.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Watch#External_links

[redqueen]

146. Oh boy! More anti-Chavez crap!

Some people just hate that a leader is finally helping the poor... wonder why that is.

[PhilipShore]

171. Chavez admits he is for anti-liberalism--Source: Venezuelan Nazism

Reuters

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3200616,00.html

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez on Friday rejected as propaganda charges by the Simon Wiesenthal Center that he made anti-Semitic remarks during a nationally broadcast Christmas speech last month.

'Never anti-Semitic'

"Anti-liberal I am, anti-imperialist even more so, but anti-Semitic, never, that's a lie," Chavez said addressing the parliament. "It's part of a imperialist campaign, I am sure."

_________________________________________
Petroleum world
Op-Ed Commentary
Michael Rowan: Nazism

http://www.petroleumworld.com/Ed040505.htm

The combination of nationalism and socialism is arguably the worst duality of ideas in modern history. Nazism, for short, is not dead, nor has its endless toll against peace and prosperity for those who embrace it, been paid in full.

Venezuela under Chavez is a case in point. In humanity's immediate past, nationalism brings to mind Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Hirohito - the Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan of a half century ago; while socialism brings to mind Stalin and Mao - the Soviet Union and China of several decades ago.

But in Latin America generally, and Venezuela in particular, national socialism, or Nazism, has an appeal which is nothing less than frightening, especially when perceived through the lens of 20th century history.

With the military loyal to the Chavez revolution running many of the nation's institutions; and with independent justices, ministers, prosecutors, governors and mayors largely a thing of the past; and with new 'laws' restricting the freedoms of life, liberty, speech, press, and assembly under the façade of democratic lawfulness, Venezuela is sinking into Nazism very rapidly.Countries fall into Nazism for subjectively 'rational' reasons: frustration, inequality, resentment or rage against the past.

[Clutch Cargo]

172. Sorry, your source is unreliable.

Your source is critical of Chavez; therefore it is unreliable.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

173. What a fucking joke. He's always said he is against neo-liberalism.

The kind of corporatist bullshit that has decimated the South American economies. The kind that country after country has been voting against. Come on bro. Put more effort on it. I'm sure if you look harder you can find that he has links to this man.

[Blue_Tires]

205. Cobra Commander RAWKES!

[rman]

176. sure, Chavez is opposed to neo-liberalism

because neo-liberalism is no more then a nice sounding name for exploitation of developing nations by wealthy nations.

[rman]

179. Venezuela's Jews Defend Leftist President in Flap Over Remarks

News
Venezuela's Jews Defend Leftist President in Flap Over Remarks
By MARC PERELMAN
January 13, 2006
http://www.forward.com/articles/7189

The Venezuelan Jewish community leadership and several major American Jewish groups are accusing the Simon Wiesenthal Center of rushing to judgment by charging Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, with making antisemitic remarks.

Officials of the leading organization of Venezuelan Jewry were preparing a letter to the center, complaining that it had misinterpreted Chavez's words and had failed to consult with them before attacking the Venezuelan president.

<more>

[Judi Lynn]

181. Some clot here scrawled they wrote that letter because they were

skeert f'r their lives. No matter what the facts are, they will attempt to bend them to fit their lies.

[stepnw1f]

185. PhilipSNORE Just Made my Shit List

Really sick of the attempts here to spread anti-chavez stuff. Incredibly obvious...

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

187. We do know he's not a lawyer. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

190. Maybe not even a rocket scientist! n/t

[Solon]

195. I think you were smacked with a dumbass stick to post shit like that...

Chavez is a damned Keyesian(look it up in Economics 101), and if that's a bad thing, then you really don't belong on this board. First, he's against NEO-Liberal Policies, the same policies that RUINED the economy of Argentina. He and others in South America are leaning left for a reason, and that reason is that they have seen FIRST HAND what the policies of "Free Trade" do to the people of their nations. I'm mean, for crying out loud, due to IMF and WTO policies, Bolivia had to privatize RAINWATER(Owned by Bechtel)! If that happened here, I'd vote for Bernie Sanders to be president, and he would probably win if such policies were made nationwide. So is it any surprise that a Socialist won there? No it isn't, its simply a result of USian arm twisting, using international institutions to turn every nation south of the Rio Grand into a personal playtoy for the rich and a factory floor to further enrich them.

Not to mention that you proved Godwin's law correct, on this discussion, congrats, that article REALLY disqualifies you from mentioning anything on this subject. Who the hell can take you seriously now, besides the rich and ignorant?

[Judi Lynn]

196. I don't look for a response to your post, although there should be one.

These people surely already know how wildly off base they are. I think they hope to influence idiots who don't have the first clue about the subject.

[rman]

178. a whole bunch of low post count Chavez denouncers

of course it's just coincidence.

[Heewack]

180. His popularity numbers are rivaling the chimp's.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez losing popularity
Jan. 21, 2006


Confidence in Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez fell almost five points in eight months to 43 percent, private market research firm Consultores 21 found, the Venezuelan political weekly Fifth Day reported Jan. 20. In response to another question, 48.7 percent of those polled called the Chavez government "very good" while 48.5 percent called the regime "very bad."

http://www.indiadaily.com/breaking_news/56505.asp

[1932]

182. An article about "private market research firm Consultores 21" :

Wishful Polling: Systematic Bias and Manipulation in Venezuela’s Public Opinion Racket
Tuesday, Jul 13, 2004

With Venezuela’s campaign to recall or reaffirm Hugo Chávez’ Presidential mandate heating up, opinion polls are coming out on what seems like a daily basis. Yet rather than giving any indication of the outcome of the recall referendum this August 15th, they are reinforcing both camps of their projected victories. According to Venezuelan polling company Consultores 21, for example, support for the recall against President Chávez was 65.8% in March, though they note that it has recently fallen to 54.5%.

In May another Venezuelan polling firm Datanálisis, put support for the recall at 57.4% (a ‘Yes’ vote), and 43.6% against (a ‘No’ vote). Directly contradicting Consultores 21 and Datanálisis was North American Opinion Research Inc. who recently announced nearly the exact inverse results in a poll they conducted in June: 57% ‘No’ to the recall, 41% ‘Yes’. Corroborating these figures was Venezuelan polling company Indaga who broke public opinion down at 55% ‘No’, and 42% ‘Yes’.

According to Rangel, the problem is that the polling industry in Venezuela is completely unregulated. No listing of companies conducting polls in Venezuela exists. Furthermore, “the situation is complicated by the fact that there is no mechanism to regulate quality, resulting in a situation where bogus firms proliferate along with legitimate organizations.”

http://venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php/articles.php?artno=1217

The outcome of that election sort of proved the inaccuracy of the Consultores 21 polling methods.

[Heewack]

184. Wasn't that election considered a fraud?

I guess "rigged" is the word I hear associated the most with it. His second coup so to speak.

[1932]

186. Who are you hanging out with?

Why don't you hit the books or the google or whatever and come back with facts to support your suppositions. Or you should hang out with better-informed people so that you hear more facts and less bull-shit.

[Judi Lynn]

189. Probably not, with so many international observers, including Jimmy Carter

and open source programming on the voting machines, which means they are THOUROUGHLY transparent.

Nice try.

[Judi Lynn]

188. A problem with polls, as DU'ers who have lived in Venezuela have told us,

is that phone polls in Venezuela can't reach the majority of people in Venezuela, as they don't have phones, in many cases, not having even running water, or electricity. Also, door-to-door polls won't ever reflect their opinions, as polsters won't go into their neighborhoods.

[Clutch Cargo]

191. The earlier polls that showed him with a 69%

favorable rating were touted by some as very accurate. The ones that show a steady decline are unreliable and inaccurate. Go figure, huh?

[Judi Lynn]

192. You wouldn't know he has lost momentum from articles we're reading

Latin America Shifts Left: It's the Economy

By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet. Posted January 21, 2006.

~snip~
Even in the case of Venezuela, much can be understood by looking at the situation in economic rather than just political terms. Of course President Hugo Chavez is locked in a bitter political struggle with the Bush administration, and much of this is due to the latter's support for a military coup against his democratically elected government in 2002 and for an unsuccessful recall effort last year. But Chavez' popularity at home is primarily based on the country's recent economic performance.

The first four and half years of his government were marked by enormous political instability, including capital flight, several oil strikes -- one economically devastating in 2002-2003 -- and a military coup. But since political stability was established, the economic recovery has been remarkably rapid.

The Venezuelan economy grew by nearly 18 percent in 2004 and about 9 percent this year. Furthermore, the government more than doubled social spending and is providing free health care to a huge number of the poor population, as well as subsidized food for 40 percent of the country. It is common to attribute all of this to high oil prices, but oil prices increased faster and reached even higher levels in the 1970s -- and Venezuela's per capita income actually fell during that decade. In fact, from 1970-1998, Venezuela suffered one of the worst declines in per capita income in the world: It actually fell by 35 percent. The Chavez government's most lasting legacy may well turn out to be not his defiance of the United States, but the reversal of his country's remarkably long economic decline.

The tangible improvements for those living in Caracas' poor barrios have been noticed in the rest of Latin America, a region with the most outrageously unequal income distribution in the world. But Venezuela has changed the economic equation in Latin America in another very important way: by using its oil revenues to provide an alternative source of funds. Venezuela has loaned about a billion dollars to Argentina, and Chavez pledged last month to do more if necessary.
(snip/...)

http://www.alternet.org/story/31056/

[stepnw1f]

194. No One is as Low as the Most Hated Man in the World=Bush

Sorry... wrong... try again... oooops

Free Republikkk is that way

[stepnw1f]

183. Whateverrrrrrrr (nt)

[WinkyDink]

193. REALLY? IF true, maybe he's seen how well it's worked for BUSH.

Yeah, he's a "wacko"; just ask McCain. (Sarcasm)

[0rganism]

199. oblivious has it exactly right in #109 -- this is all about AP slant

It's so fucking obvious. Go to the primary source for the article, and take a look at the title.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/13/global12428.htm

C'mon, do it. Click the goddam link. What does it say? Anything about Venezuela up their in the boldface type?

No?

Well, it'll be a spoiler, but here goes:
Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 (pretty good so far, eh?)
U.S. Policy of Abuse Undermines Rights Worldwide (uh oh)

Hey now, did that somehow slip past Dick Jacobson? Maybe he was given a copy with the first page missing? I'd like to think so.

Dick still manages to write that "Latin America nations -- from Haiti to Argentina -- were still plagued by abuses ranging from overcrowded prisons to torture and widespread impunity", but here we get to focus on two in particular: Venezuela and Cuba. Why, exactly, are we so very interested in Venezuela and Cuba? What makes their human rights abuses more newsworthy than those in, say, Colombia or Guatemala?

“Displaced families in Colombia are doubly dispossessed,” said Michael Bochenek, counsel to the Children’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch. “After armed groups uproot them from their homes, the government then denies them their basic needs.”

How is the forced migration and degredation of millions of Colombians any less newsworthy than Hugo Chavez' antics, whatever they may be? Agenda Setting 101.

"In January 2005, Guatemala’s Human Rights Ombudsman reported a plot to assassinate Bishop Álvaro Ramazzini, who has been an outspoken voice on social and economic issues. In March, radio journalist Marielos Monzón, who had broadcast special programs on recent clashes between police and indigenous protestors, reported that an anonymous caller had told her to '(s)top defending those stinking Indians, you bitch, or we will kill you.' In August, members of the Guatemalan Foundation for Forensic Anthropology received repeated death threats, apparently due to their work exhuming bodies buried in clandestine cemeteries throughout the country."

The political killings in Guatemala continue, and it's no joke. Hey, we even have some specific stories that any AP journalist with a penchant for investigative reporting could dig into -- if s/he dared! One of my cousins is married to a diplomat who worked the Guatemala beat for a few years, she sure as hell didn't go outside the compound after dark. People are kidnapped and ransomed as a matter of course. Rape and murder are commonplace there, and the police are corrupt to the point of utter ineffectiveness when they aren't outright complicit. Wow, that's pretty harsh, certainly good enough to merit a lead of its own. Still, Venezuela is our AP headliner. Agenda Setting 101.

IMHO, the motivation for such obvious cherrypicking has more to do with Chavez promoting Citgo oil with cut rate fuel sales to certain states than anything Chavez says about Bush, but the agenda is there.

[Judi Lynn]

201. Thanks for taking the time to add your post. Very, very well done.

I'd also like to point out Julianner's post #6, which I read previously, without getting around to reading all three link. I just read the third, which is very illuminating, as well:

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_19370.shtml

The intensity and purposefulness of your remarks reflect a lot of thought and concern. I appreciate the points you made greatly.

[0rganism]

203. No prob, after I looked over the HRW report, I had to say something

The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get. AP is one of the primary print-reporting newswires, and to the extent they're compromised by agitprop, our entire print media is compromised. I wonder how much of the ludicrous rightwing bias we've been seeing from the NYT and WP lately is coming straight off the wire from our "free" AP.