Venezuela: Judicial Independence Under Siege

[HuckleB]

Venezuela: Judicial Independence Under Siege

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/17/venezu8855.htm

"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, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. President Chávez’s governing coalition has begun implementing a new court-packing law that will strip the Supreme Court of its autonomy.

The 24-page report, “Rigging the Rule of Law: Judicial Independence Under Siege in Venezuela,” also 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.  
 
“In the 2002 coup, Venezuela’s democratic order was attacked by some of Chávez’s opponents,” said José Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch. “But today the biggest threat to the country’s rule of law comes from the government itself.”  
 
The new law, which President Chávez signed last month, expands the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 members. It empowers Chávez’s governing coalition to use its slim majority in the legislature to obtain an overwhelming majority of seats on the Supreme Court. The law also gives the governing coalition the power to nullify existing judges’ appointments to the bench."

----------

As reported in the NY Times:

Critics Say New Law Undermines Venezuela Referendum
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/international/americas/17CND-VENE.html

[Jabbery]

1. Sounds like the US

Except those who are threatening the independence of our judiciary are Republican "Christian" nutcases.

[AP]

4. ...crica 1930s. HRW and NYT would have hated FDR.

[GermanDJ]

5. Something I find quite interesting

is why do we read so much about Venezuela these days? There are so many countries with a much worse human rights record, but the mass media don't seem to care. Like Uzbekistan for example or El Salvador? Looking at the Human Rights Watch reports about El Salvador shows some very interesting facts, but did someone here recently read a report about this country?

Here's the Human Rights Watch website about it:

http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=elsalv

I have read some of Noam Chomsky's books, but realizing that practically nothing has changed since he wrote "Manufacturing Consent" is really disturbing to me.

[geek tragedy]

6. Wow, it sounds like

you're talking about Israel or the US.

Chavez has a referendum coming up, and he produces oil. Not all human rights violations get equal time, unfortunately, but all kind of nastiness gets ignored because the country itself is low profile.

FDR faced a backlash for his court packing, which was partly to counter the legislative efforts of the Lochner-era court.

[denverbill]

11. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but Venezuala has LOTS of oil.

However, I'm sure that has nothing to do with why the US is so interested in portraying Chavez as a commie dictator, or why we were so elated when an elected leader was deposed in an illegal coup attempt, or why we fund opposition to Chavez. It's just a coincidence about the oil.

[On the Road]

2. Packing the Courts?

He sounds almost as bad as FDR.

Note that the "biased" courts allowed the recall election to proceed despite finding hundreds of thousands of fraudulent signatures.

[AP]

3. It's alwasy easy to take the ahistorical view of things.

Does HRW care that half the judges on that court are sympathetic to an oligarch that, when last in power, was the embodiment of "human rights violation"?

Are they going to be on the ass of that government if the opposition comes into power and that starts murdering people in order to maintain control, like they used to?

The first thing the opposition did when the coup leaders took over was tear up the constitution. If there's no constitution, there's nothing about the courts which HRW could complain, I guess. So that would make things easier for HRW, I guess.

[papau]

7. Why not assume good people will be appointed to the Court - and wait

before one screams that human rights are ending?

[rastignac5]

8. Do you guys not understand that it's undemocratic for the executive branch

to carry so much influence over the judicial branch? And that this is Chavez's way to overrule the referendum in August?

[geek tragedy]

9. What judicial branch?

It's now effectively part of the executive authority. There is no judicial "branch"--it's a twig that Chavez and his party control exclusively.

But this is the "Hugo Chavez Can Do No Wrong" zone, so details like an independnet judiciary are considered irrelevant at best and toxic at worst, should they interfere with Chavez.

[AP]

13. The problem -- and this is a problem throughout modern history --

is that the judicial branch is alwasy the last bastion for the oligopoly in a developing country.

The US in the '30s isn't the perfect example, but this was the case then, too?

In Africa and South America, historically, they didn't put poor people into law school, and often the law schools that educate lawyers are back in the European country which colonized the developing nation.

Unlike the legislature, where you can elect someone with no experience governming, the judiciary is almost ALWAYS filled with people who are children of the oligopoly, who went to one or two schools with the rest of the oligopoly (who are running the army and are captains of industry) and practiced law representing the interests of the oligopoly, and who got appointed to the judiciary by the oligopoly, and who are loyal to the oligopoly.

In a country which is trying to change to a democracy representing the interests of the people, the LAST place you ALWAYS find that is looking after the interests of the people will be in the judiciary. This is the story in almost every African and South American nation. It is the story in Nigeria today. It has been the story in Zimbabwe recently. It's just the way things work in developing, post-colonial nations.

It is so easy to look at this ahistorically: the three branches should check and balance each other. Period. But you look at it historically, and I don't know how you can say that it's good to have a judiciary that is the biggest anchor holding back progress when the legislature and the executive are clearly acting on the mandate of an overwhelming percentage of the electorate to take society forward.

Life is too short. Many Venezuelans could die before they see a little social justice and democracy. It's so obvious where Venezuela is headed. Why wait 100 years for somethign to happen much more gradually, when so many people clearly want it much sooner? Isn't that what government is all about?

Now, HRW might be able to convince maybe 10% or 20% of the population that Chavez is acting like a tyrant (which is how FDR was portrayed by the right wing when FDR was trying to take America a big step forward). But I have no doubt that if people sat down and argued about whether they want the judiciary to go beyond balancing policy and act as weight pulling everything backwards, I am sure that 80% of venezuelans would say it's so right to increase the court to 32 members at this time so that it's closer to representing the interests of the people of venezuela.

And I'm sure those new members will come from sectors of society that aren't part of the oligopoly. Since they've been way underrepresented in the judiciary, who can complain about giving them a voice in the judiciary now? Especially when you consider this historically.

[rastignac5]

30. the judicial branch is absolutely not the last bastion for the oligopoly

in a developing country. Where do you get this from? Cite an example.

The judicial branch is either independent enought to appply the rule of law, or it's a political pawn of the executive arm. Latin America will always oppress its lower classes as long as the rule of law is given short thrift. Here, Chavez is making a mockery of the rule of law.

[AP]

32. I believe Said writes about this. I can't remember where I first read

about it. But it's almost so obvious I can't believe you feel comfortable denying it.

[rastignac5]

36. I feel comfortable denying it because I've lived 15 years in Latin America

The judiciary is either a symptom of oppression or a force against it- not the force behind it.

[AP]

37. Across Africa and in South America and in the US, it's the last voice for

a way of thinking that prevalied 20 years earlier.

In countries where 20 years earlier only the oligopoly got a legal education and the qualitifications to reach the judiciary, it's the last hurdle standing in the way of real democracy and an end to the tyranny of colonialism.

[Algomas]

107. I agree...

My gut tells me that the forces deployed against Chavez have lots of money and want more. I would be willing to bet the judicial branch is already stacked in favor of the ruling class and would be all too happy to assist in bringing Chavez down.

[papau]

47. Well said :-)

:-)

[AP]

104. Thanks.

It is someone else's argument though. Can't remember whose. Might be Said's.

Well, regardless of where I read that analysis first, the facts supporting can be observed by anyone.

These aren't hard puzzles to solve.

It's amazing to me that HRW is so stubbornly ahistorical in their cricicism.

[geek tragedy]

10. That's really naive

The judges appointed will be puppets whom Chavez can fire any time he wants.

[AP]

14. Or they'll be people who don't represent the interests of the oligopoly.

When the coup leaders took over for weekend, they tore up the consititution and dissolved the legislature. So, don't worry. If they get their velvet coup, I'm sure they'll get rid of every judge who doesn't hold dear the interests of the oligopoly.

[geek tragedy]

16. Chavez can get rid of the judges he doesn't like

under this law. They just abolished the independent judiciary.

Roosevelt may have tried to pack the court, but he never tried to destroy the third branch of government.

You do realize that now the law is whatever Chavez says it is, right? If a judge votes the wrong way, he can just pull a Trump and "You're Fired" the guy.

[AP]

18. Could you cut and paste the source for that?

I read the article quickly and I didn't see where it said that the executive has sole impeachment power.

[AP]

22. Oops.

The article does say the law applies to "removing" judges. But it still doesn't make sense to me. (And the author can't find anyone who comments on the "removing" part.

If it had the removal power, they wouldn't need to appoint new judges. They'd just remove the onese the oligopoly appointed.

Anyway, presuming it's passed constitutionally, I can definitely see the wisdom in allowing a majority to appoint Supreme Court judges, rather than a super majority.

After all, isn't that how we do it in the US?

As for the "removing" part, I suspect there's more to it.

[geek tragedy]

67. The appointment power if perfectly appropriate

it's the removal/dilution factor that is undemocratic.

Remember--if Chavez gets to play by these rules, the oligopoly/conservatives will get to play by them when (and this will happen eventually, if not soon) they win a fair election.

[Vladimir]

56. There never was an independant judiciary

The problem with you argument is that the starting premise is completely false - i.e. that there is an 'independant judiciary' to be abolished. What is being dealt with is a supreme court stacked with the corrupt officials of the old regime. This is the same court that let the coup leaders of 2002 go free - tell me, what do you expect would happen to the leaders of a failed coup in the USA? Chavez has a majority in parliament, ergo he is carrying out his democratic mandate. We will see on August 15th what the Venezuelans think of it.

[AP]

61. Exactly. They want it more reperesentatitve.

[Judi Lynn]

23. Hi, A.P. I seem to remember when Pedro Carmona tried to assume

the Presidency of Venezuela, he suspended the Constitution, he suspended the legislature, AND their Supreme Court. Smoooooth.
And, of course, _Bush had nothing to say against this odd behavior, and, in fact, had Condoleeza Rice imply Chavez really had it coming to him, anyway.

I have a link to a Human Rights Report from 1993 which I have kept for its reference to one specific item I'm interested in, but as I looked it over, I see some very interesting points which were glossed over very capably without our ever hearing a word. This point in time had Venezuela being ruled, of course, by the same U.S.-approved right-wing crowd we've seen everywhere else in exploited Latin American countries:

Venezuelans traditionally have enjoyed a wide range of freedoms
and individual rights, including a free press, active unions,
and free elections, but serious human rights abuses continued in
1993. They included arbitrary and excessively lengthy
detentions, abuse of detainees, extrajudicial killings by the
police and military, the failure to punish police and security
officers accused of abuses, corruption and gross inefficiency
in the judicial and law enforcement systems, deplorable prison
conditions, a lack of respect for the rights of indigenous
people, and discrimination and violence against women. In
addition, the courts made no progress in prosecuting those
responsible for many extrajudicial killings during the two 1992
coup attempts, the November 1992 massacre at Reten de Catia
prison, or the 1989 urban riots.
(snip)

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/democracy/1993_hrp_report/93hrp_report_ara/Venezuela.html

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

In case you wonder if you haven't heard the name of the reporter who cranked out the N.Y. Times article in the opening post, this may refresh your memory. It's taken from an article addressing the foolish, contemptible reporter, Francisco Toro, who wrote true crap for the N.Y.Times until his ties to the Venezuelan "opposition" drove him out, once his bias was too well known. The article cited above was written by Juan Forero who is mentioned in this article:

Also last April, New York Times reporter Juan Forero reported that President Chávez had “resigned” when, in fact, Chávez had been kidnapped at gunpoint. Forero did not source his knowingly false claim. Forero, on April 13, wrote a puff piece on dictator-for-a-day Pedro Carmona – installed by a military coup – as Carmona disbanded Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitution and sent his shocktroops house to house in a round-up of political leaders in which sixty supporters of Chávez were assassinated. Later that day, after the Venezuelan masses took back their country block by block, Carmona fled the national palace and Chávez, the elected president, was restored to office.


Forero – who, Narco News reported in 2001, allowed US Embassy officials to monitor his interviews with mercenary pilots in Colombia, without disclosing that fact in his article – was caught again last month in his unethical pro-coup activities in Venezuela. Narco News Associate Publisher Dan Feder revealed that Forero and LA Times reporter T. Christian Miller had written essentially the same story, interviewing the same two shopkeepers in a wealthy suburb of Caracas, and the same academic “expert” in a story meant to convince readers that a “general strike” was occurring in Venezuela. The LA Times Readers Representative later revealed that Forero and Miller interviewed the shopkeepers together. Neither disclosed that fact.


In many ways, it has been the credibility problem posed by Forero that led to Toro’s hiring last November by the Times, and the importation of Times Mexico Bureau Chief Ginger Thompson to Venezuela last month.
(snip/...)

http://www.narconews.com/Issue27/article584.html

[AP]

24. Sounds like Forero has his head up his ass.

As always, thanks for the leg work.

[geek tragedy]

12. No, HRW

is a bunch of right-wing monsters who suck up to Bush and oil companies.

If you can't see the importance of having an independent judiciary, you need to go back to civics class. Do you have any idea what this means: "The law also gives the governing coalition the power to nullify existing judges’ appointments to the bench."

I'll tell you--it means that Hugo Chavez is an elected King.

[AP]

15. With a majority vote. In CA, you need a 2/3 vote to pass a tax law. It...

...means that a tiny minority of republicans can prevent progressive tax laws which a majority really want.

It's a minority protecting the interests of the oligopoly. Is that democracy?

[geek tragedy]

17. Oligopoly?

2/3 supermajorities are not uncommon at all--they're required to amend the US constitution.

Or would you prefer that the Repug dominated House and Senate be able to vote on the FMA today and enact it?

[AP]

19. In CA, the 2/3 requirement for tax bills operates to protect oligopoly

from progressive taxation.

That's just a fact.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[AP]

21. I'm not even sure I understand what your not accepting.

- CA has a 2/3 requirement to pass tax laws (IIRC -- you're free to confirm that I'm wrong)

- It prevents CA from making it's tax code more progressive, which a majority of legistlators want to do.

- This is keeping some very rich people rich, by shifting the tax burden down to people who work for a living and off themselves

- It's not very democratic.

(And then read post 13.)

Now what is it that you're not accepting?

[geek tragedy]

69. That it's intended to preserve the oligopoly

One cannot simply infer intent from the beneficiaries.

Moreover, most Californians are taxpayers. The measure also prevents a downward shifting of the tax burden, I believe. It preserves the status quo.

Is it good policy? I don't think so. But, the people of California approved it.

[AP]

83. Do you disagree that it OPERATES to preserve the oligopoloy?

As for the tax policy, 2/3rds requirement was sold to the people as a way to prevent a government which cares about lining it's pockets from voting to raise taxes. People thought it would make it harder to pass tax bills.

However, the reality of the tax code is that it's not about raising or lowering taxes in an absulte sense, it's all about allocating the tax burden.

The government has to run, so now with the 2/3rds requirement, which was sold to the public with false advertising paid for by people who are in the top 1/3rds (or 1/10th) the only tax bills that can pass are regressive tax bills, and the tyranny of the rich minority prevents any bill that would benefit a majority of voters.

You don't need a 2/3rd requirement to prevent the tax burden from being shifted to the majority of voters because the majority would still rule. You need a 2/3rds requirement to prevent the tax burden from being shifted up to the top 1/3rd because it allows a minority to block those kinds of changes.

[geek tragedy]

91. First

the top 1/3 is hardly an Oligopoly.

Second, it may benefit the rich. That doesn't make it undemocratic.

[missedherniceguy]

25. Chavez may not be a dictator yet

But he sure is priming the pump for himself to become one.

[PeaceProgProsp]

26. How so? By being subject to a recall election?

Or because the paper which endorsed the coup in Aprll 2002 wrote an article saying so?

[geek tragedy]

27. Read the HRW report.

Putting the entire judicial system under his thumb is a royalist move.

[HuckleB]

28. Dude. How can you criticize Chavez?

He's the epitome perfection. Why I've been polishing and dusting my Saint Chavez shrine all the live-long day. In fact, it's time for me to go pray.

;)

[AP]

29. If you had to pick one politician in the world today more willing to stand

up against the oligopoly in order to spread economic, political and cultural power down the people, which will bring democracy faster (and will result in a country that doesn't have a bunch of low paid workers who steal American jobs, but has a wealthy middle class which contributes their full talents as well as consumptive abilities to the global marketplace) who would that leader be?

Who should my heroes be if that's what I care about?

Go ahead. Make a list of the top five. I'll pick from your list, and that person will be my new political hero.

[HuckleB]

33. I don't have heroes.

And, if I did have heroes, I'd sure as heck hope that I could acknowledge their faults. I can think of no politician that I have looked up to in this life that has not received venemous thoughts for some of his or her actions, often venemous letters. They're not perfect. Nor am I. Criticism has a worthy place. And if Chavez is truly aiming to do all that you seem to hope he'll do, I hope that he is willing to take criticism. We all know what happens to leaders who only listen to "yes men and women."

Anyway, fnfortunately, there is a tendency on these boards to look at Chavez in black and white terms. I don't do that. I won't do that. Sorry if that bothers you.

[AP]

35. Why care about politics if you can't even name a couple politicians who

are doing the right thing for their people?

[HuckleB]

38. Oh, you mean you're unhappy that I didn't want to play your game?

Sorry about that. It's not something that's pertinent to the issue. You're just trying to distract from the topic at hand. I gently ignored the game, which means I don't want to play "Who's your hero?" Besides, I know that the ones I would name are not perfect either, and I can and do criticize them. I don't need to list some folks just so you can play distraction games and offer up crtiques that I've probably already made.

This thread is about Chavez, and the reality that he's not perfect, that he's got some tendencies that even his close associates worry about. For some reason, those tendencies don't worry some around here. Hey, that's your choice. I choose to worry.

Salud!

[AP]

40. No. I'm wondering what you're doing here.

Are you just the voice for no change?

Who's doing a better a job of fighting for positive change than Chavez?

Why shouldn't I be impressed with him?

Can you name any other politicians doing a better job?

[HuckleB]

42. I'm here because I'm concerned about Chavez.

You want to talk about those other topics, start a thread somewhere. I think you're just working very hard to change the subject. Unfortunately, sometimes hard work doesn't pay off. I don't play that game.

[AP]

45. If you can't think of single politician your respect for moving his or her

country in the right direction today, maybe you shouldn't be mocking people for respecting chavez.

There might be something else going on which you don't understand.

And you can put a label on this -- "changing the subject" -- but I'm ready to jump into any thread here, regardless of which direction it goes. And the one I'm jumping into here is the idea that people are just blindly respecting Chavez.

Like I said, I can't really think of another politician today willing to fight against the oligopoly (and against neoliberalism) and for his people as effectively as Chavez.

It's not easy being a democratic leader in a country so rich with natural resources that an American president wants to get his greedy hands on.

[HuckleB]

55. You are stubborn.

Besides, I'm not mocking respect. Respect includes acknowledging and participating in criticism. I'm mocking the mindless defense of all criticism of Chavez that pervades these boards.

Hope you found someone else to play your goofy game with you.

;)

[AP]

59. You like putting labels on things.

People are willing to criticize Chavez, when he does something wrong, like, say, not prosecuting the coup leaders.

[HuckleB]

117. Oh brother.

Thanks for proving my point.

SHEESH.

[AP]

119. sound and fury signifying nothing.

What IS your point?

You're like the random internet board response generator:

"find someone else to play your games"

"sheesh"

"thanks for proving my point"

You can write those things, but it doesn't mean they make sense.

[Judi Lynn]

126. Look out for that incoming "dictator humper" label.

You know it's on the way. All that's missing is a smooth way to sneak it in.

[AP]

129. Yeah. The random response generator isn't all that random.

Sheesh. Thanks for proving my point. LMAO. Sigh. Dictator humper.

[HuckleB]

146. No point in responding to the usual distractions.

:roll:

[AP]

147. random response generator. What am I distracting you from?

It's not even clear what your argument is other than to post these responses that do nothing more than try to lable me, personally.

Don't you have anything to say about Venezuela other than to try to cast aspersions against the people trying to talk about it?

[HuckleB]

145. If you can't read your response to my post and understand that.

Then I won't waste my time with you.

I do think you are smart enough to understand it.

However, you'd rather play games, as evidenced by this entire conversation. You'd rather glorify a politician than engage in serious discussion. Whatever floats your boat. Just stop pretending that you're doing anything other than that. Please.

[AP]

148. Why do you keep wasting your time with me after saying you won't?

Is it a game to ask you what your argument is?

Is it game to point out that personally attacking and trying to label me isn't an argument?

How can you say I'd rather play games than talk about serious issues?

Didn't you like post 13? Was that a game.

Do a search of AP and Venezuela and tell me where the games are?

[AP]

31. Read post 13. The judiciary is in post colonial societies is usually the

last vestige of the royalty and of colonialism.

[geek tragedy]

39. Yes, all of the dictators say that.

The problem is that this creates an elected King. It's a structural defect that destroys the judiciary and turns it into a bunch of kangaroo courts.

Btw, the courts packed with Old Guard communists have also interfered with the attempts to reform Eastern European economies. But, they did not sacrifice democracy for political and economic expediency.

[AP]

41. Name one dictator who said that. FDR? Llumuba?

Name one communist country with an old guard judiciary.

[geek tragedy]

43. Hungary is a case

where the judges declared almost all welfare payments as positive constitutional rights that couldn't be undone by the legislature. In a country with few resources, that meant that the courts were determining where money was going, not the elected representatives.

And you cited it in your apologia for the dictator of Zimbabwe. But never mind that--we already know that you don't think democracy and human rights apply there, and that inconvenient facts like starvation shouldn't be allowed to interfere with dime store marxist rhetoric.


It's always the same old excuse used by the tyrant and his apologists: I want to do x, y, and z. The Courts won't let me. I therefore must crush them.

[AP]

46. Would you call Hungary a post-colonialist society?

Per your last sentence, what if it's "I want to spread the resources of this country down to the people, but the judiciary is of and by and for the oligopoly"?

What do advise?

Letting the oligopoly win so they can continue to oppress?

You are familiar with what the previous VZ gov't did to prevent democracy, right?

They shot four thousand people in the street one day, right?

Court packing or shooting people in the streets? I'll go with court packing to dissolve the last vestiges of the same authority that probably didn't see a judicial problem with shooting people in the streets.

[geek tragedy]

66. Hungary was a colony of the Soviet Union

And courts are always going to be criticized as barriers to a particular agenda. I'm sure Clinton wasn't thrilled with the appointments made by Reagan and Bush Sr.

Of course, if Chavez LOSES and another party takes power, they can legally just throw out every pro-Chavez judge and put their own cronies in.

The position that "People who agree with me can be trusted with absolute power" paves the way for war and totalitarianism.

[Vladimir]

64. When you oust a corrupt regime in a coup

and inherit a Supreme Court loyal to the old regime, what exactly do you do then? The Court is not some mythical entity apart for the executive, it is mired in the same socio-political context. To move forward, a revolution must necessarily rid itself of remnants of the old regime. Chavez and his party were elected on a clear mandate of revolutionary change - and progressive reform. If the Supreme Court stands in the way, and if they have the majority in parliament, they must reform it in order to carry out their mandate. How do you propose Chavez should reform the judiciary (I assume you accept it needs reform)?

[AP]

34. I love this recommendation by the HRW:

"The international community can help.  In recent years, the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank have supported projects aimed at improving the administration of justice in Venezuela—from training prosecutors and police to developing court infrastructure.  The most urgent improvement needed now is the strengthening of judicial independence and autonomy.  Without that, other improvements may only help a fundamentally flawed system function more efficiently.  To encourage progress where it is most needed, all future international assistance aimed at improving the Venezuelan justice system should be made contingent upon Venezuela taking immediate and concrete steps to shore up the independence of its judges and the autonomy of its highest court. "

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/venezuela0604/1.htm#_Toc75153595

[Judi Lynn]

44. Little known aspects of the time-honored voting system in Venezuela

Venezuela's Discrimination of Poor Voters Prompts Measures

Thursday, Jun 17, 2004

By: Venezuelanalysis.com


All citizens should have equal opportunity to exercise their voting rights, according the CNE board member Jorge Rodriguez
Credit: Venpres
Caracas, Venezuela. Jun 17, 2004 (Venezuelanalysis.com).- As the August 15 recall referendum on President Chavez's mandate approaches, pro-government sectors have complained to Venezuela's National Electoral Council (CNE) about the disparity in the number of voting centers between working-class and wealthier neighborhoods.

During a press conference last Tuesday, Jorge Rodriguez, member of the board of directors of the CNE, expressed his "indignation due to the absolutely lack of democracy, lack of justice, and of equality with regard to the distribution of voting centers."

Rodriguez, who is serving at the CNE since late last year, when Venezuela's Supreme Court appointed him and other directors to lead the elections commission, criticized the way the voting centers have traditionally been set up, especially in big urban centers. After reviewing the voting centers' distribution by zone and population in Caracas and other cities, Rodriguez concluded that their unequal distribution amounts to discrimination against the poor.

A high percentage the population of the valley of Caracas, who live in shanty towns built in the city's hills, must travel long distances to find their assigned voting place as none is located in those hills, according to Rodriguez.
(snip/...)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1292

On edit: After thinking about this article, it seems more interesting to know Hugo Chavez was elected in a landslide, considering the additional burden imposed on the large majority of the population in having to go to far more trouble to reach voting places.

It's also good to remember that the recall petitions were brought to their workplace, and were overseen by their supervisors, whom, we have read, threatened job loss against those who considered not signing, most specifically at the Coca Cola companies, owned by Gustavo Cisneros, personal friend of George H. W. Bush, and more recent friend of Jimmy Carter.

[bemildred]

48. I am starting to be annoyed with HRW.

What "rule of law"? There is nothing unconstitutional going
on here, no laws are being violated. This is bullshit.

[Dirk39]

49. They are just preparing to topple Chavez with a velvet revolution

Bolivarian Project in Mortal Danger

by Hans Dieterich

The legalization of the recall referendum against President Hugo Chavez—conducted by the Venezuelan right with pre-meditated fraud and recurring acts that violate the rule of law—open the doors for a possible loss of power for the Bolivarian forces. Such a loss could occur either de facto or de jure (via the institutions).

The August referendum is, in military terms, the decisive battle in the four year war between the oligarchic–imperial axis and the presidential–patriotic axis. It is the Waterloo of Napoleon Bonaparte, the Ayacucho of Antonio José de Sucre, the Kursk (1943) of the Red Army, and the Carabobo of Hugo Chavez.

The importance of the coming referendum cannot be overestimated. “The ultimate remains of Spanish power in America expired in this fortunate field,” wrote the victor of Ayacucho to the Liberator (Simon Bolivar), when the battle had just ended, on December 9, 1824. Nothing less is at stake this August, 2004, in Venezuela.

To lose this battle means to lose the war. It means, to lose everything. Just as the legalization of George Bush’s electoral robbery by Washington’s Supreme Court initiated a disgraceful period, not just for the U.S. population, but for the whole world, the liquidation of the Bolivarian Process would be the end of any attempt to unify Latin America because its dynamic element, the Venezuelan president, would disappear.

The defeat would be equivalent to the triumph of the FTAA, of Plan Colombia, of dollarization, of the hemispheric exterritoriality of U.S. jurisdiction and of the Democratic Charter; it would be the end of the progressive and Latin American potential of Kirchner and Lula’s politics; it would create an extremely dangerous situation for Cuba and would leave the MAS of Bolivia and the FARC and ELN of Colombia, the CONAIE of Ecuador, and the other progressive social movements in all of Latin America without a concrete strategic horizon.

"The electoral process of 1990 in Nicaragua, in which the paramilitary aggression of the “contras,” nine million dollars given to the opposition by the U.S. Senate, along with the threat of war on the part of Washington, caused the Sandinstas to lose the government; comparing the populations of the two countries, the Venezuelan right would receive about 72 million dollars for August.

The substitution of Edvard Schevardnadse in Georgia with Mikhail Saakashvili in 2004, is probably even more important. In November 2003, following a prolonged campaign of street protests, organized and financed by Washington and the mega-speculator George Soros, Schevardnadse gave up the presidency, opening the path for the country to be controlled by the energy transnationals of the empire.

The parliament’s speaker, Nino Burdshanadse, assumed the presidency so as to be replaced subsequently by a perfectly designed and financed campaign from Washington, which then brought the New York educated lawyer Saakashvili to power in January 2004, with an absolute majority of 96%.

Finally, the process of the electoral triumph of Boris Yeltsin, of 1996. Faced with a popularity of 6% for Yeltsin in February of 1996—similar to Toledo’s in Peru or Gutierrez in Ecuador—the white house was very worried about losing its puppet in the Kremlin. It immediately sent a campaign management team that converted the moribund candidacy of Yeltsin into a solid triumph in June (!!) of the same year.

At that time, Stalin had positive valuations that were higher and negative valuations that were lower than that of Yeltsin, who more than 60% of Russians considered corrupt.

However, a combination of falsified opinion polls; the permanent repetition of the supposed danger of a civil war in the case of a triumph of the Communist party; the systematic violation of electoral laws; the conversion of the media into a state propaganda apparatus; the extensive use of focus groups, of representative samples, of in-depth interviews, of visual culture, and of the massive disbursement of money, brought about in merely four months a result, which the moved President Clinton called, “The consolidation of the democratic process in Russia.”

It is obvious that Bush will send a similar team, along with suitcases filled with tens of millions of dollars to buy the necessary voters, functionaries, judges, editors, and TV spots. If the manipulative and corrupting machinery of Washington manages to repeat the successes in Russia and Georgia, the headlines of the U.S. press are predictable: “Consolidation of the Democratic Process in Venezuela.”"

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=5717

Sorry for quoting so much of the article, but it is a brilliant analyses of what is really at stake with the referendum.

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[bemildred]

50. Hi Dirk. I've read Mr. Dieterich's piece.

While he is correct about the stakes, I do not believe it will
be so easy to remove Mr. Chavez at this point, and his adversaries
do have a stunning record of incompetence. I'm just disappointed
in HRW for spouting this drivel. I suppose it's all good for
business from the HRW point of view, you can't be a hero without
some bad guys and victims littered about.

[Dirk39]

52. HRW:

"Source: Human Rights Watch
Date: 14 Feb 2004
Aristide should uphold rule of law

(New York, February 14, 2004) -- In responding to Haiti's worsening violence, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide should ensure that the country's security forces respect international human rights standards on the use of lethal force, Human Rights Watch said today."

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/bffe30e5a7740a3349256e3c00063510?OpenDocument.

Isn't it funny, how much is reported about Haiti from HRW now, AFTER Artistide was toppled. And if HRW would publish tons of news about Haiti AFTER Aristide was toppled, how many newspapers and TV-channels in our countries would report it and quote them and interview them?

I'm not as optimistic as you are, although I wish you're right.
The ruling people in the U.S.A. will never ever accept the existence of any democratic government in the world that respects social rights. Never, ever. They would rather nuke the whole world back to the stoneage. They would use every dirty trick, every money, every lie and every organisation to destroy any kind of alternative to their barbaric kind of capitalism.
And if just one example, like Venezuela, should work, it would endanger all poor countries, who are slaves of the USA right now.

I hope you're right,
Dirk

[bemildred]

53. We will see. I live here, and it appears to me that

the imperialists here are much weaker politically, economically,
and militarily than they were 50 years ago, and the rest of the
World is starting to notice. You are correct that they will never
give up, they will have to be removed, as the ones you once had
in your country required to be done also. Let us hope the damage
is less horrendous this time. I comfort myself with the fact that
Senor Castro's democratic experiment continues in Cuba some 45 years
or so after it's beginnings.

[AP]

62. This is why Bush always says "they're jealous of our freedoms."

He doesnt' want it to only apply to al Qaeda. That's the frame he want's people to put around,say, the next time people rise up against a government which has privatized their water system for the immense benefit of a company like Bechtel.

The people are getting fed up, and they don't want globalization to be a one-way transfer for the wealth created by their natural resources (whether oil, copper, labor, water, farmland) from their countries to Houston, NYC, LA and SF. And they're going to struggle against attempts to do that.

Bush hopes that when they fight back, we think it's because they're "jealous." Jealousy is a much more base emotion than, say, patriotism, or that they want justice and democracy and understand the math and economics of globalization. (And he hopes that people conflate fascist, power-concentrating terrorism with real power-decentralizing democratic movements.)

[bemildred]

73. Shrub says "they're jealous of our freedoms" because

he does not want to go anywhere near the real reasons.
It is a loaded statement, every word tells:

"they" - those other different people, not "us"

"jealous" - a tepidization of muderous anger
- implies we have something they should be envious of

freedoms - implies we have freedoms, a disputable point given
the patriot act, our drug laws, the failed political
system, the callous monopoly capitalism we have foisted
on us, and so on ...

It is blather and distraction for the muttonheads.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. What's funny, Dirk?

HRW have reported from Haiti from both before and after Aristide was toppled on Feb 29th.

Aristide Should Uphold Rule of Law Feb 14th: "The violence in Haiti is threatening to spiral out of control. President Aristide must take immediate, constructive steps to reestablish the rule of law and rebuild the country’s democratic institutions."

Violent Reprisals Feared Feb 24: "Given the horrendous human rights records of some of the leaders of the armed rebellion, we are extremely concerned that the rebel forces will take advantage of the opportunity to settle scores."

Don’t Turn Away Haitian Refugees Feb 26: "Bush’s policy should respect the commitments the U.S. has made toward people fleeing persecution. The administration should not return refugees to a place where their lives are in danger."

Rebel Leaders’ History of Abuses Raises Fears Feb 27: "A rebel attack on Port-au-Prince could lead to widespread bloodshed and indiscriminate destruction of civilian property."

Recycled Soldiers and Paramilitaries on the March Feb 27: "Among the leaders of the insurgency are such notorious figures as Louis Jodel Chamblain, a former paramilitary responsible for countless atrocities under the military government that ruled Haiti from 1991 to 1994. The reemergence of such violent and lawless men is a worrying portent for Haiti’s future."

U.S. Return of Asylum Seekers Is Illegal March 2: "Given the violence and disorder reigning in Port-au-Prince, the 867 Haitians should never have been returned there. With people being shot dead in the street by gangs of criminal thugs, it was unconscionable for the U.S. to dump entire families into this danger zone."

International Forces Must Assert Control March 3: "It is irresponsible for the international community to abdicate effective power over Haiti to armed insurgents whose leaders include men responsible for some of Haiti’s worst abuses."

Security Vacuum in the North March 22: "It’s been three weeks since the Multinational Interim Force arrived in Haiti, but the rule of law has yet to be reestablished in the north."

Powell Should Back Rebel Prosecutions April 5: "The contrast between the Haitian government's eagerness to prosecute former Aristide officials and its indifference to the abusive record of certain rebel leaders could not be more stark. Secretary Powell should remind Haitian officials that, if justice is not evenhanded, it's little more than politics."

The quotes are the ones that HRW choose to highlight in their report. It seems fairly obvious that they regard the rebel leaders as a bunch of dangerous thugs, while they saw Aristide as someone losing control. And they also criticise the USA for turning away refugees.

So what's your problem with Human Rights Watch?

[Dirk39]

100. I don't have a problem with HRW

but they're in the same trap as Amnesty was during the 70's.
As I did write: they might report about Haiti now as they did, before Aristide was toppled. But will we see any speaker of HRW in our mainstream news now? And in a way, they were used as a tool to topple Aristide.
Amnesty somehow understood after the 70's that you simply cannot defend human rights without defending social rights.

HRW is concerned about human rights. I don't doubt this in any way, and they don't care, who is violating human rights. But the elites of the capitalist regimes and their media-whores make a differance. And on the other hand, "human rights" is simply a cheap bigot ideology of the USA.
Everybody who dares to critizise capitalism, every government who dares to care about the social rights of their people will be offended by the US-elite for offending human rights. And organisations like HRW just serve their needs. And later they will send their death-squads and torturers to "defend freedom, democrazy and human rights".

I don't know how many million people were killed and tortured since the end of WWII by the USA in one of the about 300 illegal wars they started. But if something is happening like in Abu Ghraib, millions of Americans will cry: this is not our country, this isn't what America is about. But torture and violating human rights is as american as apple-pie and their doing this for decades now, and there isn't a real differance between democratic and republican administrations.
Dirk

[geek tragedy]

74. This HRW bashing is funny.

They get bashed for being anti-American by the freepers all the time. I guess that happens when one values human rights and democracy over ideology.

[bemildred]

76. Having a diverse set of enemies does not mean you are noble. nt

[geek tragedy]

77. The common response of apologists for dictators

is to attack the messenger and question their motives. Oldest trick in the book.

[bemildred]

78. Indeed, and therefore we must attack no messengers? nt

[geek tragedy]

79. No, just address the argument

that for the executive to abolish the independent judiciary raises deep concerns about the democratic process.

Attacking the messenger just because they criticize someone you like is not an honest or constructive debating tactic, and makes one look defensive.

[bemildred]

80. The judiciary has nothing to do with the "democratic process".

Other than to meddle with it as in the US in 2000.
As in the US, the executive and judicial branches always
serve at the pleasure of the legislature. That is what
impeachment is all about.

[geek tragedy]

81. That is a colossally ignorant statement.

Without an independent judiciary, there are no individual rights. With no individual rights, there is no democracy.

How many sitting judges have been removed from the bench in the entire history of the United States? My guess is that Hugo will remove more judges than the Congress has in its history.

The US has a system of checks and balances. That cannot be said for Venezuela anymore.

[Judi Lynn]

82. How do you explain Pedro Carmona's removal of 100% of the Supreme Ct.?

During his brief tenure, Mr Carmona dismissed Congress and the Supreme Court, abolished the constitution and appointed a cabinet.
(snip)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2005591.stm

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


The tumor on the right.

[geek tragedy]

85. Explain?

It was the action of a right-wing thug and coup leader.

[Judi Lynn]

87. Why not stay out of Venezuela, and respect their choices? n/t

[geek tragedy]

92. I take it then

that you favor the abolition of all human rights organizations and treaties. Human rights should just be an internal concern.

Is that your position?

[Judi Lynn]

95. It's my position to stay out of Venezuela's internal affairs.

I think "the abolition of all human rights organizations and treaties" may be something you've pulled outta somewhere.

[geek tragedy]

96. "Staying out of their affairs"

means that nobody outside Venezuela has a right to comment on what's going on. If that principle holds true, what's the point of international human rights work?

[Vladimir]

108. No that is not the argument

the argument is that organisations like HRW comment on those aspects of human rights abuses that it suits them to highlight. It is grossly disingenuous to accuse Chavez of 'loading the judiciary' without acknowledging that is is alreadyt loaded the other way. There are 2 choices before August 15th:

1) The present judiciary, containing judges appointed by the pre-Chavez regime and expressly hostile to the current governement

2) An expanded judiciary with an element appointed by the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez

Take your pick.

[bemildred]

84. Your "thinking" appears muddled.

Rights come from the Constitution and the laws made by the
legislature, not from judges. Judges are there to enforce them,
not to be "independent". I challenge you to specify how aside
from name-calling one may tell an "independent" judiciary from
a "dependent" one. Do you think the judiciary in the US is
"independent", and if so, how do you know? The 2000 selection
would seem to call that into question, as would our high
incarceration rate and mandatory sentencing guidelines designed
to prevent judges from thinking too independently.

Individual rights and democracy, while often seen together, have
no cause and effect relationship.

The power of impeachment is rarely used because it is well understood
and the legislature dislikes exercising that power, it prefers to
leave things to the front men as much a possible.

The "Checks and balances" in the US government are bullshit for the
Rubes.

Mr. Chavez has every right to seek a judiciary more congenial to his
purposes, and any claim to the contrary is propaganda.

[geek tragedy]

89. That was no better

If there is no one to enforce a right, it doesn't really exist.

The key to determining whether a judiciary is independent is determining who controls the judges once they get on the bench. In the US, they are virtually free from influence from the executive and Congress.

One can contrast administrative judges as opposed to Article III judges in the US. The former are subject to a great deal of control, while the latter are not.

Your comment about checks and balances being for "the Rubes" was both stupid and arrogant. Those who actually work within those institutions know that those checks and balances are very real.

But, your last claim reveals your ultimate premise: Hugo Chavez should be allowed to rule like a King, and anyone who disagrees is a poo-poo head.

[bemildred]

90. LOL.

"The key to determining whether a judiciary is independent is determining who controls the judges once they get on the bench."

I rest my case. Good day.

[geek tragedy]

93. What was funny about that? n/t

[Vladimir]

123. US, checks, balances all in the same sentence?

and without the word nonexistent? You know why no-one gets impeached? Because the establishment protects its own. Otherwise, Scalia would have long been gone.

[AP]

127. How about the blue slip procedure. In the US either senator from a state

could stop a judicial nominee. The Bush adminsitration thought that was too much of a check on their ability to shove through extremist judges.

So, was blue slipping undemocratic? Is sidestepping it as a moderating influence undemocratic?

I really don't know. Should we ask HRW what they think? Why haven't they weighed in? Does the World Bank have a position on this issue?

[Vladimir]

134. The World Bank probably

believes blue-slipping refers to the melting of the ice caps, given their research methodology. You know they calculate world poverty rates with hardly any data from China and India?

[Judi Lynn]

86. YOU?????? A dictator-lover? bemildred!

God, you just never know, y'know?

I'm at the end of my wits. I can't tell who's on the level anymore.



I'm skeered to death they'll be coming for my tv set next. How will I ever watch Fox News again? How will I know whom to hate?

[bemildred]

88. Now, now, he didn't SAY that.

It was just a general statement.
I didn't like Carmona at all, either.

[Judi Lynn]

94. You're right. Didn't plainly say it, it's true.

I always notice whenever one of our visiting posters "tells it like it is," and calls someone out as an "appeaser," or "apologist," I get weak in the knees, and nearly collapse.

God only knows WHAT anyone is doing here who isn't completely committed to our radical right-wing reactionaries' worldview!

[bemildred]

97. Yeah, I know, it just disables me.

When someone calls you "appeaser" or "apologist" or
"un-american", how do you top that? You just have to
slink away to spread your poison somewhere else ...
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[geek tragedy]

98. I apologize if

my post seemed as if I were accusing you of being an apologist for a dictator.

My point, inartfully stated, is that the tactic I was criticizing is often used to discredit honest, well-intended arguments.

[bemildred]

99. Accepted.

One may well attack the messenger because one does not like the message.
But, one could also be honestly annoyed with the messenger himself.
And it might be difficult to tell the difference, and one might have
both reasons at work, not liking the messenger or the message.

And all of that has little to do with whether the message itself is
correct and useful or not.

I brought up the subject of HRW, as opposed to their statement on
Venezuela, so I suppose one could accuse me of an ad hominem attack
on the message, but that was not my intent. The message may be
easily criticized on it's own terms. I have been irritated with
HRW statements, which I have read quite a few of now, for some time,
and this just crystallized it for me, so I introduced the subject of
HRW itself as a side-issue because it was of interest to me.

[Dirk39]

101. Human rights are used as an Ideology

"I guess that happens when one values human rights and democracy over ideology."
Please don't get me wrong: But while HRW might value human rights over ideology, the mainstream-media and the ideologists of US-capitalism use human rights as an ideology. And they use organisations like HRW, if it serves their interests and they silence them, not mention them, don't care about their reports, if the crimes of the USA are mentioned.
And an organisation like HRW has to recognize this and has to take action against being used for criminal propaganda.
Dirk

[AP]

103. That's one of the points made in the doc "The Corporation"

Corporations use these NGOs (which, incidentally, spend most of their time discrediting GOVERNMENTS and not corporations) to wrap themselves in the appearance of doing good.

I bet if you asked corporations what they think the solution to governements violating human rights is, they'd say "turn the government over to the corporations!" Privatize government.

Hey wait. Notice HRW's first solution to the problem after advising that the law doesn't pass is to advocate trainging programs for judges conducted by the world bank.

Yes. The World Bank.

[Vladimir]

109. World Bank - that is fucking priceless AP n/t

[AP]

60. It's a velvet coup, like in the the US in 2000

[CharlesGroce]

51. Never trust the ole mouthpiece of Imperialism...

the NY Times.

Not that I claim to know all that much about the situation in Venezuala, but I've seen what Supreme Courts did in our country: undemocratically delivered the election to GW Bush while the media (and most of you) blamed Ralph Nader. Thomas Jefferson warned of the undemocratic nature of Supreme Courts accountable to no one, reminded him of a certain class of magistrates from a certain European country who eluded all political accountability yet retained supreme oversight of the people.

[Vladimir]

57. I'm getting a little bored

of reading NY Times propaganda on Venezuela. Especially since they have admitted being a mouthpiece for the opposition.

[HuckleB]

58. Your criticism of the "propaganda" at hand, please.

Thank you.

[AP]

63. See JudiLyn's post above. The NYT had to fire Mr Forero's predecessor...

...because his ties to the opposition became too apparent.

Mr Forero's reporting is qualitatively the same.

Incidentally, the Times editorialized in favor of the coup, which was an absurd position to take.

By the way, speaking of reporters with conflicts of interest, did you know that in Iraq Chalabi's niece was on the staff and ran the office of the reporter covering Iraq for months before the NY office was told that that was incredibly improper.

They fired her.

During her tenure, the paper wasn't criticial of Chalabi.

Along similar lines, the AP stringer in Haiti is a Duvalier crony.

There's a book called the Hearts of Darkness which lays out an increbibly sound argument that the Times's Africa coverage is junk. There's a section on Rwanda where they talk about how the wife of the NYT reporter was employed by the government which, in retrospect, started the civil war. Although you wouldn't have know from his coverage since he tried to portray it as a "tribal" fight rather than the political fight it was.

Time and time again, for whatever reason, newspapers like the Times present only one side of the story when it comes to discussing neoliberalism. There are many theories about how it happens, from conspiratorial to structural. The cases above show that their reporters themselves tend to have conflicts of interest and agendas. Regardless of why they do it, there's little question that it does happen.

[Vladimir]

70. That it ignores context is my main problem

HRW, as all similar organisations, routinely ignores context when passing judgement. Any assesment of the Venezuelan sitation rooted in reality would have to begin with a discusson of this political context, namely the circumstances around Chavez's rise to power and the coup of 2002. It would have to discuss the current state of the judiciary, and ask whether a Venezuelan Supreme Court (VSC) that acquite coup-ringleaders is in fact 'impartial' or indeed worth defending. Instead, HRW starts from the position that process is more important that material reality, which leads directly to the wonderful quote:

“Chávez should be working to strengthen the rule of law in Venezuela,” said Vivanco. “Instead his government is rigging the justice system to favor its own interests.”

The implication is clearly that however corrupt the VSC, Chavez must treat it with kid gloves for the sake of some mythical version of democracy. Certainly a truly independant judiciary doesn't exist in the US where all SCOTUS judges are political appointees (who go fishing with government memebers whose cases they are ruling over), certainly not in Britain where the final appeals court is the House of Lords. To ignore the pressing need for the reform of the VSC is to ignore both the significance of the objective democratization that has taken place under Chavez, and of the significance of August 15th for the vast majority of the Venezuelan poor. One cannot ask a popular government to retain a corrupt SC purely for reasons of due process, when doing so will quite clearly damage the interests of the vast majority of Venezuelans who have, by the ballott and the bullett returned Chavez to power twice.

Once the need for reform is acknowledged, method certainly remains to be discussed. For example, I am sure that we could have a healthy debate on the merits of simple vs. 2/3 majority voting on such changes. But the fact is, Chavez has both a majority and a personal mandate. This is not a government dictat - it is the dictat of the democratically elected ruling party, implementing a mandate for progressive change from the people. We will see on Aug. 15th what the people think of their actions.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

72. Well said! n/t

[bemildred]

75. Excellent.

The use of loaded language, e.g. "rigging the justice system",
is telling.

[AP]

111. This post kicks ass.

[Judi Lynn]

112. Absolutely right. Vladimir hit it squarely in the center.

We must have all be scattering to the four winds Friday afternoon, and it probably didn't get the close reading it deserves.

Can you imagine what would have been written in the previous corrupt and heavy-handed government's allied newspapers, and howled on the previous government-allied tv and radio stations, had Venezuelan Vice-President José Vincente Rangel treated one or more of the Supreme Court Judges to a weekend's frolic? Holy moly.

[Vladimir]

113. Its one of the clearest examples of latent racism

this double standard that gets applied. For Cheney and Scalia to go fishing is okay, because we all know that they (being good americans) would never act improperly or be able to suffer conflicts of interest. On the other hand, those dirty latino/arab/slav fuckers have to be watched at all times in case they step outside some imaginary norm of civilized behaviour dreamt up by the West - after all they are all on the earth to immigrate to our countries, steal our women and live off our taxes, aren't they?

[Judi Lynn]

114. Hell, yes. They're furriners, ain't they? Sheesh.

You overlooked one BIG goal they've got: They ALSO wanna grab our guns.

Then where will we be? We can't get drunk, jump in our jaloppies, wave our guns out the window and go chasing them around or we'll hafta go to jail.

Talk about a mood deflater. We'll have to string someone up to raise our spirits. Let's git one of them lefties, a Chavez-humper.

[Vladimir]

115. Yeah! First we sold them our surplus guns,

then they want us to give up our god-given-right-to-protect-ourselves-from-the-other. Damn them all!

[HuckleB]

116. Context indeed.

It's funny how you feel they don't offer context, because your "context" includes criticism of only side. That's not context. That's prejudice on your part.

[Vladimir]

118. So you do not believe the Supreme Court is corrupt

right now? Because ultimately, that's what my post above comes down to. They are already corrupt. Chavez may be cutting procedural corners, but he was democratically elected to reform things. You have 2 choices for Aug 15th:

1) A Supreme Court as it stands, staffed by coup-supporters who are hostile to Chavez and who were appointed by the previous government.

2) An expanded court with elements appointed by the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez.

Neither is perfect, but they are all that is on the table. There is no middle or third way. Blue pill, red pill. Swallow one.

On Edit: in case it needs further spelling out, I do not believe in some universal human rights, decreed by the infallible West, for the world to follow. I would argue that to not reform the VSC would be a serious infringement of the rights of the hunderds of thousands who risked sniper fire to bring Chavez back to power. They deserve better than Pedro Carmona and the cabal of profiteering warmongering bastards in his entourage.

[HuckleB]

144. That's right. When you can't respond. Repeat what you've already said.

You are doing exactly what you accuse the Times of doing. You are offering a one-sided "argument" that conveniently ignores much of the story: That which would show your criticism to be lacking, overbearing and off base.

Sorry to point that out.

WIll you offer another repeat?

[AP]

120. "That's prejudice"

There's no PRE-juding here. Vladimir has presented his facts and made his argument based on the facts.

[HuckleB]

143. Yes, That's prejudice.

And facts that conveniently ignore the whole story are not facts. They are out of context. It's pure disingenuousness.

I'm amazed to watch people criticize certain press outfits while doing exactly that which they criticize those outfits for doing. WTF?

[Judi Lynn]

65. I know what you mean. It's pathetic.

I'd bet very few people who spend time actually reading the news outside Newsmax, and whatever other crap publications the right-wing remedial readers revere, are unaware of this particular perversion of their responsibility. Coup? What Coup?

New York Times foreign editors never liked Hugo Chavez, having
repeatedly painted the Venezuelan president as a dangerous would-be
dictator. So they must have popped their last bottle of Pulitzer
champagne last week when they heard that Chavez had been toppled by
an alliance of business and military leaders.

Of course, the Times was too diplomatic to use the word "coup."
Instead, in an April 13 front-pager, Juan Forero reported that the
"mercurial strongman" had been "forced to resign" by military men
after his supporters killed 14 civilians during a strike.

When the White House called Chavez's fall a victory for democracy,
Times editors must have thought they had an excuse to downplay the
unconstitutional moves of interim president Pedro Carmona. From
Forero's perspective, dissent was minimal, with only Cuba calling the
resignation a coup. In the same edition, the Times ran a fluffy
Carmona profile and an editorial saluting Venezuela for independently
replacing a "ruinous demagogue" with a "respected business leader."
In a news analysis, Larry Rohter explained why the transition was not
technically a coup.
(snip)

It was on March 19 that there came a decided shift in the message
portrayed by propagandists who call themselves journalists, led by
Juan Forero of the New York Times, who was, by now, installed in
Caracas. (Narco News, last year, reported that Forero allowed U.S.
officials in Colombia to monitor his interviews with private-sector
U.S. mercenaries there, without having disclosed that fact in his
reports.)
(snip)

The journalistic crime of the new century was the mass media's
Orwellian misrepresentation of which side of the conflict represented
which D-word.
(snip)~~~~ link ~~~~

[Judi Lynn]

68. Continuing to consider the New York Times' reporter, Juan Forero

who was linked in the opening post, responding to the awareness we bear of the extreme shabbiness and disrespect for the truth the N.Y. Times has shown toward Hugo Chavez by employing TWO twisted reporters to cover Venezuela during his Presidency, I'd like to add this article concerning the typical Forero coverage of Colombian events, and his abject service of the _Bush perspective on Latin America:

September 9, 2002

Washington's Mouthpiece in Colombia

by Garry Leech

According to the byline of the September 4 New York Times article, "U.S. Is Stepping Up Drive to Destroy Coca in Colombia," the paper's Colombia correspondent Juan Forero was in the southern department of Putumayo exactly one week after I had left the same region. But according to the tale he tells regarding the ongoing fumigation of illicit crops, we may as well have been in different countries (I urge readers to compare for themselves the dramatic difference between U.S. Is Stepping Up Drive to Destroy Coca in Colombia and my report Plan Colombia's Killing Fields). Forero's article is nothing more than a propaganda piece that helps the Bush administration deceive the U.S. public regarding the effectiveness of almost two billion dollars in U.S. taxpayer money that has so far constituted Washington's contribution to Plan Colombia.
(snip)

Not only does the single-minded militaristic attitude exhibited in this quote typify the tone of Forero's entire article, it also illustrates the embassy's willingness to accommodate reporters from mainstream media organizations who, for the most part, refrain from seriously criticizing Washington's drug war strategies in Colombia. Meanwhile, the embassy has been less than forthcoming with journalists who write for publications more willing to honestly critique Plan Colombia.

I know several independent journalists who have been stonewalled by the U.S. embassy in Bogotá. And I have personally contacted the embassy more than a dozen times before, during, and after my last two visits to Colombia in an attempt to obtain interviews with embassy counternarcotics officials and access to information about the ongoing fumigations. It is now more than six months since my initial request and I am still waiting for an answer. One embassy official in charge of arranging interviews openly acknowledged that he knew of my work and made it clear that he did not approve of it.

Clearly, such censorship of the media undermines U.S. democracy and is reminiscent of the tactics used by authoritarian governments that only disseminate information to media outlets willing to promulgate the official propaganda. In other words, instead of providing the U.S. public with access to differing perspectives about U.S. policy that allows people to develop informed opinions about the actions of elected and appointed officials, government officials limit the flow of information in order to ensure the continued implementation of their own agenda. For such propaganda techniques to be effective, Washington needs reliable mouthpieces working for so-called respectable media organizations. Juan Forero serves this purpose regarding U.S. policy in Colombia.
(snip)

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia129.htm



Juan Forero

[Judi Lynn]

71. Juan Forero, anyone? He's one of our information sources on Venezuela

if you attempt to believe the New York Times. Here's part of a LTTE written with him in mind to the N.Y. Times:

I hope the Times will make some sort of frank, unequivocal public statement
about its errors on Chávez. I'd like to see a full report on the issues with
the petroleum company, for example, and the Caracas media. I also think that
you should look into the background and possible motives of Juan Forero's
reporting. He's been accused in the past of being too close to American
officials, hasn't he?
(snip)

Another LTTE, in part:

Now Venezuela is on the brink of civil war. Police and soldiers are shooting
at pro-Chávez demonstrators. Where is The New York Times now on these
developments? How is it possible that you were so completely off-base in
your news coverage?

I think that the Times really does have to review the way it covered this
event and make some changes. I realize that the situation was chaotic, but
if an observer in the crowd could come up with an entirely different version
of what happened, you begin to wonder if the Times' correspondent was just
watching it all on TV.

Or was it worse -- was he on someone's payroll? That's an ugly accusation,
but the credibility of the paper is at stake. Is the New York Times an
independent news source or is it somebody's propaganda outlet? I could offer
you other examples of how your newspaper seems to run the official line
instead of digging out the news. After a while, it really begins to look
suspicious, doesn't it?

You might argue that there was no other interpretation possible, but the San
Francisco Chronicle looked at the same events and came up with an entirely
different conclusion. I am sending you their editorial below. I think it's
well worth your consideration. I look forward to seeing what I believe is
the world's greatest newspaper -- The New York Times -- examine its own
policies and make the necessary changes.
(snip)

A NY Times flippant and unworthy reply:

Dear Mr. Siegel,
> Nobody should ever cheer the overthrow of a democratically elected
> government. You're right, we dropped the ball on our first Venezuela
> editorial.
> Best wishes,
> Gail Collins
(snip)

http://64.225.103.105/forum/showthread.php?threadid=375

[AP]

105. It's amazing that these three posts don't get more attention.

I guess the argunments these facts suport are irrefutable.

[Judi Lynn]

106. Thanks for taking the time to read them, AP.

Since time available for actually snuffling around for links is somewhat limited, it's ALWAYS a real pleasure when one can dive in and locate something one knows will shed light on a disputed area.
In a very small way, it's like hitting one out of the park!

It's a real shame when anyone holds up the "writing" of Juan Forero to us as representing anything respectable, isn't it?

[Hekate]

102. When is Human Rights Watch issuing its report on the US? n/t

Here's an :argh: for us in the US.

Hekate

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. 20 articles in the last month concerning the US

many about Iraq (eg Abu Ghraib), but also things like the Alabama Department of Corrections, or arbitrary detentions and due process violations.

http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa

[AP]

131. Sounds like the media is highly selective about when HRW is worth quoting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

142. I think you're very right about that

Of the reports on that page for the US, I had seen only one before (the Abu Ghraib report), and I think that may have been because of discussion here at DU.

[Judi Lynn]

121. Chavez, TV Magnate and Carter Discuss Venezuela Vote (yesterday's news)

Chavez, TV Magnate and Carter Discuss Venezuela Vote
Sat Jun 19, 2004 07:03 PM ET

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez held talks on an upcoming referendum on his rule with a Venezuelan media magnate and with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the Carter Center said on Saturday.

Carter organized the meeting on Friday between the left-wing president and billionaire Gustavo Cisneros, who owns a TV channel, Venevision, which often broadcasts views critical of Chavez's government.

They discussed the upcoming Aug. 15 recall vote and media coverage of it, the Atlanta-based Carter Center said in a statement released in Caracas.

"There was a mutual commitment to honor constitutional processes," the statement added.
(snip/...)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5463325&src=rss/worldNews§ion=news

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

You'd think most people would need to take a bath after speaking with Cisneros, personal friend of George H. W. Bush, and, more recently, Jimmy Carter. Gotta hand it to Chavez for openness.


Here he is with Alberto Ibarguen, Miami Herald publisher, who is also from Cuba. Cisneros is the tumor on the right.

[Vladimir]

122. What a dictator this boy Chavez is!

He'll, like, talk to you! Even if you, like, go around calling him, like, a monkey 24/7! I can feel the opression half a world away...

[Judi Lynn]

125. How many times can one read that name they hurl at Chavez?

They couldn't find more comical looking and behaving idiots than their own past presidents who even slaughtered folks, and embezzled millions.

Such refined taste coming from the "opposition."

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

Then there is the relentless propaganda against Chavez himself, especially inside Venezuela. He is called everything from a "monkey" (due to his mixed race) to another Mussolini or Hitler. It even stoops to forgery, as when the daily paper Tal Cual printed a front-page photoshopped image of him waving a revolver around, under the headline, "A Nation at Gunpoint." In the original picture, Chavez was in fact holding a rose.

Internationally, the propaganda is more subtle, but only just. The Guardian, adored by many as a progressive voice, last month published a piece straight out of the CIA text-book. Headlined "Leftwing dictator or saviour of the poor: Chavez faces new challenge to his rule", it was illustrated with a beret-wearing Chavez waving to supporters, arm frozen in an almost nazi-like salute. Writer Sibylla Brodzinsky, who usually works for the Miami Herald (a.k.a "the coup-plotters journal") makes the pretence of being balanced by quoting both sides, but then slips in some outrageous distortions. For example, we are told that many Venezuelans "worry about his apparent sympathy with neighbouring Colombia's left-wing rebels." (Note the cute use of the word "apparent".)

This accusation (repeated over and over in the US press) is extremely serious, as the "rebels" concerned are on George W Bush's terror hit-list, and such a link could provide Washington with pretext for militarily intervention. Unfortunately for the coup-plotters, the US's own top soldier for the region, General Benjamin R. Mixon, Director of Operations of the Pentagon's US Southern Command, has dismissed these reports for lack of any credible evidence - ironically in the Miami Herald itself.
(snip)

For some time now the right-wing Cuban exiles in Miami have joined forces with Venezuelan Chavez-haters, and are even undergoing military training together in the Florida Everglades. When publicly challenged about this by Chavez, US Ambassador to Venezuela Charles S. Shapiro said that it was "not necessarily a crime" for terrorists to train on US soil, just as long as they weren't preparing terror against the US. As in the first hypocritical "War on Terror" heralded by Reagon, it's pretty clear that Bush is engaged in a war OF terror against the progressive movements of Latin America, and specifically the people of Venezuela, Colombia and Cuba. This time the stakes could not be higher.
(snip)

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/articles/venezuela_columbia_cuba.html

On edit:

Found the photo, and the fake photo which was used by the Vene. paper, TalQual:

[Judi Lynn]

124. Oh, isn't this pathetic? You'll only feel nauseous. Proceed at risk.

Do you, by the way, remember reading the news in the last few weeks of the local police discovering over 100 Colombian paramilitaries holed up on a ranch near Caracas, owned by Roberto Alonso, a Cuban "exile?" They were in possession of lots of weaponry, as well, and this followed recent reports that Colombian paramilitaries were coming across into small towns and offering their services for hire in killing local political leaders.

Here are a few paragraphs from an article I simply STUMBLED across, looking for different information on George H. W. Bush's friend, Gustavo Cisneros:

(snip) Miguel Rodriguez, the director of the national investigative police, DISIP, said that his organization has carried out over 25 raids in the past two days. According to Rodriguez, “everything indicates that there is a well organized and financed plan whose fundamental objective is the elimination of the president of the republic, Hugo Chávez.” He also said that in the next few days the DISIP would release details of all of the raids and what was found.
(snip)

Cisneros Ranch Raided

Another prominent home that was searched yesterday was the Hacienda “Carabobo”, which belongs to the family of Gustavo Cisneros, the media tycoon who owns the Spanish TV Network Univision in the U.S. and Venevision in Venezuela. Luis Queremal, a legal representative of the Cisneros family, said that “this is a campaign of discredit launched by the government against the Cisneros family.”

Gustavo Cisneros, a personal friend of US ex-president George Bush, is thought to be one of the main financers of the anti-Chavez movement. According to several sources, Mr. Cisneros was one on the main architects of the April 2002 coup against Chavez.

Venevision president, Víctor Ferreres, was quoted in the newspaper El Mundo as saying that the fact that Gustavo Cisneros’ ranch is located next to that of “that gentleman Alonso,” where the paramilitary contingent was arrested, is just circumstantial. “The Cisneros Group of Companies is willing to cooperate with any investigation,” said Ferreres, who added that the presence of Colombian paramilitaries in Venezuela does a great disservice to the opposition's goals of ousting President Chavez by electoral means.
(snip/...)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1269

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

Who will be the next stepping forward to claim the flip-flops of Windnsea?

[AP]

128. I wonder if that came up in the meeting with the Carter Center.

Didn't I read that Cisneros provided Carter with a place to stay in Venezuela? Mabye Carter's familiar with this ranch.

[Judi Lynn]

130. I'll keep my eyes out for anything on this, AP.

I do remember reading that Jimmy Carter was also a guest at the wedding of Gustavo Cisneros' own daughter not too long ago. It really makes me uncomfortable if Carter's going to be overseeing opposition matters with Chavez, for him to be socializing closely with Cisneros, don't know about you. (I really admire and like Carter, too.) I think it's unwise.

Meanwhile, have you seen the Vene. newspaper "TalQual's" phony photograph of Hugo Chavez holding a gun in the air? I just located it with the real photo.

Here they are, again:





I remember seeing these quite a while ago when Say_What found them and posted them at D.U.

[Judi Lynn]

132. Jeez,here's one I had forgotten.It'll do until I find the right one,maybe.

Good grief! It's from 1-2003.

Carter visits Venezuela to "confer" with coup mogul Cisneros

Former US President Jimmy Carter is in Venezuela as a special guest of shadowy billionaire Gustavo Cisneros on a fishing trip up the Rio Orinoco.

The visit comes in the wake of a specious US State Department advisory advising US citizens not to travel to Venezuela because of security risks related to the now 6-week opposition national stoppage, which is showing all signs of petering out completely.

Carter is expected to meet Organization of American States (OAS) secretary general Cesar Gaviria next Monday as the latter continues his unsuccessful quest to mediate between the government and anti-constitutional opposition saboteurs.

Meanwhile, in related news, Gustavo Cisneros has turned up at the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) in Caracas with a highly-paid legal team from the Diego Cisneros organization to file a writ against President Hugo Chavez Frias claiming defamation in statements made during last Sunday's 'Alo Presidente' broadcast to the nation. Cisneros is also said to be infuriated over the leaking of a 'private' letter he is said to have sent to President Chavez Frias.
(snip/)

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=1357

[Judi Lynn]

133. Gustavo Cisneros, Jimmy Carter, etc........

Cisneros, by contrast, goes fishing with former President George Bush, counts 'Dubya' and his brother Jeb as pals, knows Jimmy Carter - another former President - and was hailed as a visionary when he was awarded an International Emmy by the US television industry last year.

The son of Cuban immigrants, Cisneros has turned the family firm into one of the biggest conglomerates on the other side of the Atlantic. Everything, from Coca-Cola to Playboy magazine, the Miss Venezuela contest to supermarkets and Pizza Hut to the Internet provider AOL, comes under his embrace.

But just like Rupert Murdoch, with whom he is often compared, Cisneros knows that sport is the way into the hearts and minds of his target audience.

And when he already owns virtually all the satellite and Spanish language pay-TV stations, the chance to buy ready-made access to the Premiership in the form of Aston Villa is an opportunity he is not ready to let pass by.
(snip)

He has the means to do exactly that. The American "Forbes" magazine valued his fortune at around £4bn, making Cisneros the 64th richest man on the planet, and No.2 in South America.

When Venezuelans speak about Cisneros, they do so with an element of fear, so wide do his tentacles reach. One source in Caracas explained: "If Mr Cisneros wants something done, it tends to happen. He is that important. He is more wealthy than anybody else in the country and more powerful too. He can do anything he wants."
(snip)

~~~~ link ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Caracas, Jan 15 (EFE).- Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter arrived in Venezuela Wednesday afternoon at the invitation of telecommunications and media mogul Gustavo Cisneros. Carter was welcomed at the airport by Cisneros, whom Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has accused publicly of heading the abortive coup of April 11, 2002.

The Caracas daily El Universal reported that Carter, winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, will remain in the country for a week as Cisneros' guest at a fishing camp on the Orinoco River in southern Venezuela.
(snip/...)

http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/6270.php

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

According to union spokespersons, workers at a Coca-Cola plant in Antimano, Caracas, were fired from their jobs for refusing to go repair their signatures, which were included in the anti-Chavez signature drive without their authorization or under pressure. The workers introduced a formal complaint at the Ministry of Labor, and claimed that similar situations were experienced at Coca-Cola plants in the states of Carabobo, Lara, Bolivar, and Monagas. The Venezuelan subsidiary of Coca-Cola is owned by billionaire Gustavo Cisneros, who also owns Venzuela's biggest TV network, and who is believed to be the main economic supporter of the anti-Chavez movement in Venezuela.
(snip)

Dario Ostos, a repair center witness in the pro-Chavez municipality of Libertador in Carabobo, was found dead this morning. Pro-government sectors blame opposition militants for the death of Ostos, who was shot in the head.
(snip)

http://www.franz-lee.org/files/pandemonium01004.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you imagine a President sitting down and speaking with the foremost sponsor of his illegal, violent coup? What about Bill Clinton having a one-to-one with that slimey, stinking creep who bankrolled the Whitewater war against him? How would that work?

[Vladimir]

135. Of course, HRW see no problem

with all this - after all, Jimmy Carter is both white and an American. Its genetically impossible for him to have a conflict of interest!

[Judi Lynn]

136. Now you're talking. What conflict of interest, indeed!

Mighty white of you to point it out!

[Vladimir]

137. What on earth is that picture? n/t

[Judi Lynn]

138. Oh, you had to ask. Yikes. I found it in a search.

Here's the link:
&imgrefurl=http://www.cameltoe.org/mens04.html&h=400&w=300&sz=16&tbnid=nvFMUrBKIkQJ:&tbnh=120&tbnw=90&start=158&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwhite%2Bman%26start%3D140%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DN">~~~~ link ~~~~

It was that one, or this:



or this one:

[Vladimir]

139. Sorry

:P

[AP]

140. THE TRON SUIT!!!!

I saw this guy's story months ago.

Where DO you find your pictures?

[Judi Lynn]

141. I dumpster dive in google images!

Still haven't outgrown the childish glee in having access to so many photographs! I never cease to marvel at just how damned many there ARE in there!

I started out looking for photos of landscapes, animals, gardens, etc. for a desktop background. You could spend YEARS in there looking around. There are even 360 degree landscapes to discover. Wunnerful, wunnerful.