VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY TARGETING OPPONENTS - Amnesty

[naaman fletcher]

Amnesty International urged the Venezuelan authorities to stop targeting government critics following a series of politically motivated arrests.

At least three individuals seen as opposed to President Hugo Chávez were arrested and charged in March alone.

"Charges brought for political reasons against critics are being used to silence dissent and prevent others from speaking out," said Guadalupe Marengo, Americas Deputy Director at Amnesty International.

"President Chavez must stop persecuting those who think differently or speak out against his government."

Oswaldo Álvarez Paz, former governor of the state of Zulia, was arrested on 22 March after he said in an interview that Venezuela had become a haven for drug trafficking and citing accusations by a Spanish court that the government supports armed opposition groups. He is currently being held in the Helicoide, headquarters of the national intelligence services.

Wilmer Azuaje, parliamentary deputy and a critic of President Chávez, was arrested on 25 March. He was accused of reportedly insulting and hitting a woman police officer. He has since then been released but faces prosecution.

Guillermo Zuloaga, owner of TV station Globovisión, was arrested on 25 March and charged with disseminating false information and insulting the President in statements that he made during a recent Inter American Press Association meeting in Aruba. He has since been released but also faces prosecution.

In December 2009, Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni was arrested and charged with complicity in the escape of a former banker because she ordered his release.

Richard Blanco, a member of an opposition party, was arrested in August 2009 and charged with inciting and injuring a police officer during a demonstration.

The evidence against him is based on video footage from the demonstration. To Amnesty International's knowledge there is no evidence in these videos of Richard Blanco inciting violence or injuring a police officer.

Over recent years the Venezuelan government appears to have established a pattern of clamping down on dissent through the use of legislative and administrative methods to silence and harass critics. Laws are being used to justify what essentially seems to be politically motivated charges, which would indicate that the Venezuelan government is deliberately targeting opponents.

The Inter American Commission of Human Rights has stated that the arrest of Guillermo Zuloaga "evidences the lack of independence of the judiciary and the utilization of the criminal justice system to punish criticism, producing an intimidating effect that extends to all of society."

Following the detention of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni UN experts said that "Reprisals for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed functions and creating a climate of fear among the judiciary and lawyers' profession serve no purpose except to undermine the rule of law and obstruct justice."

In January, after the RCTV and other TV channels were suspended from broadcast the European Parliament stated that "The 'National Telecommunications Commission' should show itself to be independent of the political and economic authorities and ensure equitable pluralism".

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/venezuelan-government-deliberately-targeting-opponents-2010-04-01

Why do progressives support this government?

[Peace Patriot]

1. This report is 4 months old. How come you shout the title, as if this were breaking news?

How come you didn't include the date?

-------------------------------------

The Chavez government is not above criticism. But I think we need later news reports to properly assess this criticism. Did the guy arrested for insulting and hitting a woman police officer really do it? If so, is he above arrest and prosecution BECAUSE he is a Chavez critic? This report is vague on what the Globovision mogul said. Was he urging overthrow of the government, as he did in 2002? "Complicity in the escape of a former banker" fails to mention that the banker was a fugitive from justice.

This report lacks AI's more usual rigor and documentation. It is sketchy. It is out of date. And it doesn't provide **ANY** information on the justice and accuracy of the charges against these men, nor statements of the prosecutors, nor statements of the government. It is completely one-sided. It doesn't even give them a chance to defend their actions. Not one word. The report itself is doing exactly what the report accuses the Chavez government of doing--suppressing the opposition.

If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and the CEO of Fox News were arrested, I would cheer. I think they all are guilty of a coup d'etat. They belong in prison. I have a similar feeling about the "opposition" in Venezuela. They literally overturned Venezuela's elected government, and swiftly suspended the Constitution, the courts, the legislature and all civil rights. This is not normal politics, in either case. So, you will have to come up with more evidence that these arrests were unjust or merely political to convince me that these charges are true.

This is shoddy work by AI. And guess what AI did, under pressure from the Venezuelan media moguls, back in 2003, after the attempted coup that Globovision and RCTV participated in? They pulled "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"--a documentary about the coup--from their AI film festival in Canada.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/22/film.venezuela

AI is not always right. Neither is Chavez. But he at least deserves the right to say something in a report that condemns his government--as do the prosecutors, judges, police officers and others involved. Is the problem that prosecutors in Venezuela are unjustly charging opposition figures with crimes, or that the opposition in Venezuela tends to be criminal? Given the coup attempt in 2002, I would say the opposition is contemptuous of the law. The law is a trifle to them. They overturned every law in Venezuela with a stroke of their pens. And it is certainly interesting that it was AI-Caracas, not the main offices of AI, who said that merely showing "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" in AI's film festival, in Canada, would put them in danger in Caracas. What did they fear, if not the lawless rightwing? (The documentary is sympathetic to the elected government and to Chavez and his many supporters and provides an incisive analysis of the part played by the corporate media in the coup attempt.)

[naaman fletcher]

2. I didn't shout it,

Amnesty did, I just copied and pasted the headline. While it may be for months old, you routinely site things that are Many years old. Plus, I just learned today from you that amnesty is an acceptable source. Also, while you say Chavez in not above criticism, you have never actually criticized him, so I don't believe you.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Why should I criticize Chavez when you and the entire corpo-fascist media swamp do so non-stop,

creating an utterly false bogeyman, and never ever EVER mentioning ANY of the Chavez government's significant accomplishments nor those of the Venezuelan people, and never mentioning, never even referring to, let alone quoting, the members of the MAJORITY who support him, and who helped to write their own Constitution, and whose grass roots activists have not only pulled off election victory after election victory, but are also responsible for some of the best and most interesting ideas of this political movement, such as the community councils.

He has quite enough "criticism," non-stop from Venezuela's media moguls, the entire world's media moguls, and the rightwing echo chamber. I was referring to the substance of this AI article, for what it is worth. And neither is AI above criticism. This is a skimpy, uninformative, biased piece of writing, containing one rightwing accusation after another, with no documentation and not one word from the government, the police, the prosecutors or the judges involved in these cases. It might as well be a Fox News report. And to remind us that AI can be pressured by the rightwing in Venezuela (and here), we have the shameful, cowardly AI canceling of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" documentary, which gives the Chavez government's point of view and that of the MAJORITY of Venezuelans!

Apparently, rightwing coups suspending the Constitution, the courts, the legislature and all civil rights don't count as violations of human rights, to AI, if enough pressure is exerted upon them by "organized money" (as FDR called it).

That action at the film festival was shameful. So is this report, especially the one following the other.

[naaman fletcher]

5. let's dissect this:

Why should I criticize Chavez when you and the entire corpo-fascist media swamp do so non-stop,

because you should be intellectually honest, and by doing do your praise of Chavez in certain areas and criticism of Colombia would carry a lot more weight with people because your analysis would look honest instead of appearing to be the analysis of a Chavez stooge.

,

creating an utterly false bogeyman,

what utterly flase bogeyman? the one who walks around downtown and points to buildings and says "appropriate that" and the one who Amnesty and HRW insist imprisons his political opposition? this is another reason you should criticize Chavez when deserved, because your defense of him when he is unfairly attacked carries no weight because you also defend him when he is fairly attacked.

and never ever EVER mentioning ANY of the Chavez government's significant accomplishments nor those of the Venezuelan people, and never mentioning, never even referring to,

That is false. I have said repeatedly that poverty is down, and that needed land reforms were done.

let alone quoting, the members of the MAJORITY who support him, and who helped to write their own Constitution, and whose grass roots activists have not only pulled off election victory after election victory, but are also responsible for some of the best and most interesting ideas of this political movement, such as the community councils.

He is down in the polls, we'll see how this election comes out.

He has quite enough "criticism," non-stop from Venezuela's media moguls, the entire world's media moguls, and the rightwing echo chamber. I was referring to the substance of this AI article, for what it is worth. And neither is AI above criticism. This is a skimpy, uninformative, biased piece of writing, containing one rightwing accusation after another, with no documentation and not one word from the government, the police, the prosecutors or the judges involved in these cases.

So if that is the standard for a good report, would you join me then in rejecting any report about Colombia where those accused don't have a say?

It might as well be a Fox News report. And to remind us that AI can be pressured by the rightwing in Venezuela (and here), we have the shameful, cowardly AI canceling of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" documentary, which gives the Chavez government's point of view and that of the MAJORITY of Venezuelans!

Apparently, rightwing coups suspending the Constitution, the courts, the legislature and all civil rights don't count as violations of human rights, to AI, if enough pressure is exerted upon them by "organized money" (as FDR called it).

That action at the film festival was shameful. So is this report, especially the one following the other.

OK, so it is fair to say then that you don't think Amnesty is a credible human rights organization?

[Peace Patriot]

7. "...you don't think Amnesty is a credible human rights organization?" Typical simplistic rightwing

thinking. My criticism of this shoddy report means that I'm saying that Amnesty International--a worldwide organization, which has issued many CREDIBLE reports--is not "a credible human rights organization"? That's your conclusion? That's like the conclusion that if I like universal free medical care, free college education for the poor, use of oil profits to benefit the poor, and other policies and activities of the Chavez government, I am a Chavez "worshiper"! Stupid, simplistic, lame--"tea bagger" thinking.

I am saying that NO ONE IS ABOVE CRITICISM--not AI, not Chavez, not ANYBODY.

If they've got something to flog Chavez with, they can damn well present it with more credibility than this. And it just so happens that AI has a weak point, on Venezuela--lack of impartiality, cave-in to rightwing pressure and threats--as evidenced in their cowardly withdrawal of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" from their Canadian film festival.

So I am withholding judgment on these charges that the Chavez government--and the police in local jurisdictions, and prosecutors, and judges, and victims, and the justice system--are engaging in political prosecution. Many members of the rightwing opposition in Venezuela have proven themselves to be lawless, greedy, thugs and thieves, whose contempt for the law is PROVABLE. They overturned the law--all laws, the Constitution! Globovision's owner actively participated in the coup! Chavez would have been within his rights, as the elected president of the country, responsible for its security, to arrest that traitor and the others like him, back in 2002. He and his government showed restraint. Do they get any credit for that, from the likes of you and the corpo-fascist press? Never.

I do not believe that there is anything normal about the relentless campaign to demonize Chavez, and I fault AI and other groups that should know better for not pointing this out. I have never seen the likes of it, in my lifetime. There are parallels, resemblances, nothing like this. I have seen egregious bias and outright lies ACROSS THE BOARD, from EVERY major "first world" news source. And it never stops. It is never relieved by ANY recognition of the Chavez government's achievements or its overwhelming support within Venezuela.

The most immediate parallel that I see, for this on-going campaign of lies, distortion and black holes where information should be, is the WMDs that weren't in Iraq, and there is also an element to this psyops campaign that attempts to segue the use of Saddam Hussein-- who actually committed crimes and really was a dictator--as the bogeyman to slaughter a hundred innocent thousand people and steal their oil, and stamp that demon figure onto Chavez. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, for sure, but he was also used as a bogeyman, to disguise the horrible reality that it would be the innocent who would suffer, with mass death, chaos and theft of their resources. The psyops campaigners are actively working on this segue--right now, today--with Colombian charges that Chavez is harboring terrorists. Chavez has done absolutely nothing to deserve this bogeyman status and has done much good, and furthermore is clearly, transparently, democratically supported by the majority of Venezuelans. The "Alice in Wonderland"-ishness of this is staggering to me.

So I will not participate in it. This is NOT a normal political debate. If my worst fears are true, it is psyops preparation for a second oil war, this time in South America, with the Colombian government and military as the proxies (as in Vietnam). Venezuela is a normal democracy, with a normal government, normal problems and a normal leader. There is plenty to criticize. I've read LEFTIST criticisms of the Chavez government--serious criticisms--at a pro-Chavez web site (venezuelanalysis.com). But in THIS country--with our lethal war machine--and in the allied "first world" (most particularly Great Britain and Canada)--there nothing even resembling normal political debate about the Chavez government, nor about the leftist democracy revolution that Venezuela has inspired throughout the region, with ELECTED governments like those in Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras (until the coup) at long last acting in the interests of their own people and not in the interests of U.S. multinational corporations and war profiteers.

I. WILL. NOT. ENGAGE. IN. THIS. PHONY. 'DEBATE.' My criticisms of the Chavez government or any government that is allied with the Chavez government (as are all of the above) are NOT NEEDED, and I will not make them until this psyops campaign STOPS. It is NOT a political debate. It is a PROPAGANDA campaign to pick out every vulnerability, every mistake, every stray word, every failure, most especially of Chavez and his government, and exaggerate it beyond reason, adding in outright lies--that Chavez is a "terrorist lover," that Chavez is anti-Semitic, that Chavez suppresses "free speech," and on and on--and COMPLETELY IGNORING EVERY ACCOMPLISHMENT, of which there are many, and the accomplishments of the people of Venezuela, and of these others countries as well, including their amazing, grass roots driven electoral victories.

We should be looking to this democracy revolution for models in the restoration of democracy HERE--not listening to rightwing crapola about how "undemocratic" they are. That is utter bullshit and it has an AGENDA--U.S. corporate/war profiteer re-conquest of Latin America--whether by coups, as in Honduras, or by USAID funding of every rightwing group in the region, or by U.S. "war on drugs" militarization, or by outright war. The Chavez government and its allies are the MOST DEMOCRATIC governments that Latin American countries have ever had! They are models of democracy compared to our own. They put us to shame!

We should save our criticism for the real villains--our own corporate rulers and war profiteers, the perps of our broken, corporate-run election system, the propagandists of our rancid corpo-fascist press, and the heinous war criminals that we are "harboring" from anti-Castro airplane bombers to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. These are truly anti-democratic leaders and murderers who mean ill to the world and to us. Chavez is a saint by comparison. And now do I get the charge of "Chavez worshiper" leveled at me again? I will say it again: Chavez is a SAINT by comparison to those who are really running things here. Level away! Twist on! Simplify to your heart's content!

[ChangoLoa]

8. Did Globovision's owner participated in the coup? How? I don't think so...

Can you prove it? Please enlighten us.

[naaman fletcher]

10. BS

you can say Chavez is not above criticism all that you want, but it is BS because you have never criticized him. didn't read the rest of your usual meaningless rant.

[Judi Lynn]

3. Geez, that was exceptionally rotten. You'd think A-I would have refused to bow down

to the Venezuelan opposition, wouldn't you? They must have gotten pressure from their U.S. American members, sponsors, etc.

A memory refresher:

Film Festival Censorship (2003)
AI sponsors an annual film festival focused on human rights issues. During its 2003 festival it banned the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised under dubious circumstances. This is what Macdonald Stainsby had to say about it:

"Beginning Thursday, November 6th until Sunday the 9th, Amnesty International held their annual film festival on Human Rights in Canada. The listings were much of the usual fare for AI: Films on Tibet, Burma, Pinochet's 1973 coup in Chile, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, even a film on Israel's secret nuclear weapons program. The festival had one other film scheduled to be the last one shown. That film had been broadcast on the CBC's 'Passionate Eye' program (twice). It had won more awards than any other film on the list of films to be put on screen at the film festival. It has been shown across Europe, including the BBC. It was removed two days before the festival, and AI still hasn't clarified why or who convinced them to do this. The film is "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised", and citing a series of contradictory reasons, the film was banned from the festival by Amnesty International, after it had already been booked and listed in all of the AI programs."
"A controversy immediately ensued, and it was Venezuelans who support the film who first noticed that the very people from Venezuela that the film exposed as human rights violators had launched a campaign against it globally, wherever people might see it. Don Wright, local region (BC Yukon) coordinator of AI, was interviewed on 'Democracy Now', a radio program in New York run on the station Pacifica. There, the arguments given were (quote): "...when we choose films we strive to choose films that are nonpartisan and nonpolitical to reflect the mandate of our organization."<6> That is a rather bizarre statement, to say the least, for an organization dealing with human rights and coming from a film festival thatnk included topics such as a successful coup in Chile and discussions of Israeli nuclear programs. Perhaps nuclear weapons in the Middle East and military coups in South America are non-political and failed coups in South America are? I guess I'm missing something here. And nonpartisan, well – I guess the Chinese government will be invited to talk on why it maintains sovereignty over Tibet next year, no doubt that we need balance here."
— Macdonald Stainsby, After the Censorship by Amnesty International, we Need to See The Revolution Will Not Be Televised More Than Ever, Venezuelanalysis.com, Nov. 12, 2003.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amnesty_International

By the way, this same link informs us Amnesty DID NOT COMDEMN APARTHEID! Odd, isn't it? Damn! This would nudge people to start investigating them a little more closely.

[naaman fletcher]

6. So,

If Amnesty is so rotten that they were so easily swayed, and didn't even condemn apartheid, why do you give them credibility by citing them as a source as you did earlier today?

[Wilms]

9. Read her post again and you'll possibly see that she didn't call A-I rotten. n/t

[naaman fletcher]

11. yes, she did. nt

[Wilms]

13. Not where I went to school.

In describing the action, Judi wrote, "that was exceptionally rotten". I would have expected a line like, "they are exceptionally rotten" if what you are claiming were true.

I really think it's that simple. And that such a simple form of English should run into a buzz saw speaks volumes about the ridiculous and immature nature of some of the posts I see in this forum.

If we can't agree on definitions within the English language, we'll never see eye to eye even to have an honest disagreement. I will term your complaint a dishonest disagreement as a result.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.