Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 62 of 62

Thread: Tens of thousands protest Chavez in Venezuela

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Tens of thousands protest Chavez in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post


    The only element that I can identify as a legitimately troublesome aspect of that is the court packing plan...but even the results there would likely have been similar if the judiciary had been subject to popular election instead of undemocratic appointment, considering the continued support for the Chavez administration throughout Venezuela.
    He expanded the size of the court and packed it with his supporters, the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a branch of the Executive office.

    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.
    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.

    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..
    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.

    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.
    Yes a million man armed militia answerable only to a single man is not troublesome at all.


    I noticed you also glossed over the inconvenient fact that the 1999 Constitution was democratically approved by a supermajority, incidentally.
    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.


    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?
    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.

    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:
    Yes the Chavizistas must have just been shooting at air.

    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?
    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:


    · 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

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Tens of thousands protest Chavez in Venezuela

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Apparently, you're not very familiar with the Venezuelan national media, which tends to be the case when one cherrypicks biased reports from inaccurate rightist sources.
    Yes yes the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is a inaccurate rightist source. I guess that's why they posted the exact wording of the expanded desacato laws right on their website.

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There has traditionally been powerful hatred of him from that sector that has at times crossed into defamatory reports...that he's typically done nothing about. Indeed, there have been numerous Venezuelan media reports alleging that he was insane, even apart from the disingenuous attempt to frame him for orchestrating the murder of Venezuelan protesters and endorsement of an anti-democratic and illegal coup against him that would have likely landed journalists in prison in the U.S...not exactly a sign of a repressed media, methinks, though they'd of course not be able to loudly bleat that they were repressed if they were legitimately repressed because dissent would not be tolerated.
    Do I really have to post the excerpt again?



    Article 148. Any person who offends, verbally or in writing or in any other fashion, the President of the Republic or the person serving in that capacity shall be punished with a prison term of between six and thirty months, if the offense was serious, and of half that duration, if it was slight.



    The punishment shall be increased by one-third if the offense was made publicly.



    Article 150. Any person who publicly insults the Congress, the Chambers of the National Legislature, the Supreme Court of Justice, the Cabinet or Council of Ministers, any of the Legislatures or Legislative Assemblies of the nation’s states, or any of the Superior Courts, shall be punished by a prison term of between fifteen days and ten months.



    Those who carry out the same acts against Municipal Councilors shall receive half that punishment.



    The punishments shall be increased by one-half if the offense was made during performance of official functions by the institutions in question.

    Article 223. Any person who, by word or deed, offends in any way the honor, reputation, or dignity of a member of Congress or any public official shall be punished as indicated below, if the offense was made in the presence thereof and in connection with their functions:



    1. If the offense was directed against a law-enforcement officer, with a prison term of one to three months.



    2. If the offense was directed against a member of Congress or a public official, with a prison term of one month to one year, according to the rank of the person in question.

    Article 226. Any person who, by word or by deed, offends in any way the honor, reputation, or dignity of a judicial, political, or administrative body, if the crime is committed at a time when it is established, or any magistrate in a hearing, shall be punished with a prison term of between three months and two years.



    If the perpetrator used violence or threats, the prison term shall be from six months to three years.



    Prosecution shall take place only by means of a request lodged by the offended party. If the crime is committed against bodies not meeting at the time, the prosecution shall only proceed following a request made by its presiding members.



    Said request shall be lodged with the Public Prosecution Service in order for the applicable steps to be taken.
    Oh and FYI the desacato laws are being used to crack down on the press:


    VENEZUELA
    JULY 27, 2005
    Posted: August 8, 2005

    El Universal LEGAL ACTION

    The Attorney General's Office opened a criminal investigation against the Caracas-based daily El Universal after it published an editorial that criticized the prosecutor's office and the judiciary. The probe was launched under desacato (contempt) provisions, which criminalize expressions deemed offensive to public officials and state institutions.

    In its July 25 edition, El Universal published a front-page editorial titled "Justicia arrodillada" (Justice on its Knees), saying that the criminal justice system had become politicized, had lost its autonomy, and had grown ineffective. As a result, the editorial argued, the Attorney General's Office and Venezuelan courts were losing legitimacy.

    On July 26, the Attorney General's Office issued a press release rejecting charges of politicization of the justice system and accusing El Universal and Venezuelan media in general of engaging in unethical practices and biased coverage.

    A day later, the office announced it had opened a criminal investigation to determine whether the editorial constitutes a crime. The editorial, the office said, "offends the Attorney General's Office and the Judiciary, exposes them to public contempt, and allegedly disrespects them."

    VENEZUELA - Committee to Protect Journalists
    But I guess the Committee to Protect Journalists is just another inaccurate rightist source. Wouldn't want the press to be critical of or make claims about the judiciary becoming politicized, I mean that's akin to U.S. anti-defamation laws. lmfao

    Here's another one from the rightist source:

    On May 25, 2004 Ibeyise Pacheco, a columnist with El Nacional, was sentenced to nine months in prison for continuous and aggravated defamation. The charges against her were brought by Col. Angel Alberto Ballorin, after the journalist had published a statement in her weekly column En Privado, dated June 15, 2001, accusing the Colonel of having falsified an examination score when he was a law student. Moreover, in February 2002, Ms Pacheco published a claim that the Colonel had secured a series of questionable promotions.

    https://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2004eng/chap.5d.htm
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 09-07-09 at 08:06 PM.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •