lmfao Chavez has outlawed " offending in any way the honor, reputation, or dignity of a member of Congress or any public official" and is punishable by a year in prison whereas in the U.S. in the 1964 SCOTUS case of NYT's Co. V Sullivan made it impossible for a public official to even sue a publisher for defamation unless the publisher new the information was false, and the 1974 SCOTUS case of Gertz V Robert Welch one can not be found guilty of defamation for stating matters of opinion. But ya not dramatically different at all.The other issues you've mentioned don't appear to have much legitimacy behind them, considering that the "restrictions" on freedom of expression aren't dramatically different from slander/libel/defamation laws that exist in the U.S.
Considering that Chavez has a history of imprisoning opposition journalists the idea that RCTV wouldn't be tried for supporting the coup if the accusations against them were even partially true is laughable.and other major Western countries and the media broadcasters that are being "seized" committed violations of their licensing contracts, some of them related to endorsement of the anti-democratic coup that likely would have gotten them imprisoned in the U.S..
Yes a million man armed militia answerable only to a single man is not troublesome at all.The militia issue also seems to be a non-starter if you're not able to prove that that body is being deliberately used by the administration for human rights violations.
I know I want our Constitution rewritten in the midst of populist fervor. Regardless Chavez doesn't even give a damn about the Constitution which he wrote as he has already violated it by packing the court.I noticed you also glossed over the inconvenient fact that the 1999 Constitution was democratically approved by a supermajority, incidentally.
So the opposition would kill it's own supporters but Chavez wouldn't? More anti-Chavez supporters were killed than pro-Chavez supporters, I can't find anymore on this case or whether or not they won their suit, but in that article they claim to have audiotapes of Chavez personally ordering troops to fire on the opposition, it seems like a pretty bold statement to make before a trial without having evidence to back it up. But what is not up for debate is that Chavez ordered the implementation of Plan Avila and that the military refused to implement it against unarmed protesters which prompted them to stage a coup.This is an interesting report and illustrative of the nature of your "evidence." When the best you can provide are unsupported allegations from ideological opponents of Chavez who attempted to sue him in a foreign court, I do feel relatively secure in my own pronouncements. That said, I found it curious that you neglected to mention certain aspects of the report...slip of the memory, I'm sure:
Interesting. Killing his own supporters certainly does seem to be a clever tactic; I'm puzzled as to why more Western politicians haven't adopted it so they can be as popular as Chavez...and killing his own supporters with a police force that opposes him is quite a devilish twist. How does that man do it?
Yes the Chavizistas must have just been shooting at air.Or...hmmm...maybe he didn't do it. Shockingly enough, it appears that the baseless allegations made by the plaintiffs are even more...uh...reality-challenging that we initially presumed. As put by Newsday reporter Bart Jones:
You offer no link for your article which is merely echoing the propaganda film "The Revolution Will Not be Televised," which has been debunked by tv producer and engineers Thaelman Urgelles and Wolfgang Schalk:Interesting. So apart from the inability of the Chavistas on the bridge to have gunned down the civilians that opponents have alleged they shot and shot at not only due to time issues but to the distance and angle impediments that would have rendered them physically incapable of shooting many of those civilians, we also have testimony from a CNN correspondent that the military opposition leaders were somehow able to miraculously predict that deaths would occur and that a certain minimum number of deaths would occur. That certainly is remarkable premonition...or plotting. Then we have the illogical nature of an alleged plan by Chavez to kill a number that included his own supporters in a bloodbath that provided support for his kidnapping and near-execution...unless you think that benefits him?
· The so called “case of the gun shooters on the Llaguno Bridge” is more complicated. Those who are not experts in audiovisual matters cannot have perceived what Eng. Wolfgang Schalk could notice and demonstrate. As you can remember, the images of a group of President Chavez’s supporters shooting from a bridge in the direction of the place where the opposition rally was coming became famous (the journalistic team that took the images was awarded the King of Spain’s Journalism Prize for this report). The film supported by you backed up the government “propaganda version” that those people were not shooting at any rally, and for this, film makers used images from an amateur video taken from a different angle than the one used by the journalistic team that won the prize in Spain. In this second video, the bridge and the avenue underneath are completely empty, without persons or rally walking and no person shooting from the bridge. Using a “shadow analysis” procedure similar to the ancient sun dials, Mr. Schalk showed that the images of this amateur video were taken from about 1:00 to 1:30 in the afternoon, when the opposition rally was not even near that location, while the images taken by the prize-winning journalists were taken between 4:30 and 5:00 in the afternoon, when the tragic events were indeed happening. If the film makers had access to that amateur video, they could have also shown the images of the same place three hours later, when tens of people could be seen running and falling dead or injured in the same avenue, which was empty before.
El gusano de luz