Tens of thousands protest Chavez in Venezuela

Agnapostate · Sep 7, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
No the last time that Chavez ordered the military to fire on unarmed civilians they staged a coup

By all means, elaborate on this. Considering the fact that many of the civilians shot during the 2002 violence were Chavistas and that the footage of Chavistas allegedly shooting civilians was manipulated, this one should be interesting...

Alex Libman said:
It seems that pretty much everything that is rational and based on empirical evidence is "new to you".

Nothing you've said is "rational or based on empirical evidence"; it's based on the standard idiocy regurgitated by all acolytes of mises.org...or...perhaps you'd like to engage in a little True Debate on libertarian economics to prove your superiority? :2wave:

Agent Ferris · Sep 7, 2009

Agnapostate said:
Of course, of course. Would you care to provide for...evidence of such, or will this be a claim to stand alongside:

:2wave:

Venezuela: Chávez Allies Pack Supreme Court

The law passed in May expanded the court from 20 to 32 members. In addition to the justices named to the 12 new seats, five justices were named to fill vacancies that had opened in recent months, and 32 more were named as reserve justices for the court. Members and allies of President Chávez’s Fifth Republic Movement (Movimiento V República, or MVR) form a majority in Congress.

Venezuela: Chávez Allies Pack Supreme Court | Human Rights Watch

Report: Venezuela's Hugo Chávez aggressively seizing control of media

Report: Venezuela's Hugo Chávez aggressively seizing control of media - Top Mobile Story - MiamiHerald.com

1. Desacato laws (insults to authority)

451. As was stated in the section dealing with the Supreme Court’s judgment of July 15, 2003, Venezuela’s criminal laws contain provisions that are incompatible with Article 13 of the Convention. An example of this are those laws that criminalize offensive statements made against public officials, known as desacato laws (insults to authority).

452. Venezuela’s Criminal Code contains a series of provisions that, if enforced, would restrict full enjoyment of freedom of expression by criminalizing offensive statements made about public officials. These precepts are the following:

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.

If the offense was made against the President of either Chamber of the Legislature or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the punishment shall be from four months to two years, if the offense was serious, and half that duration, if it was slight.

Article 149. When the actions described in the Article above are made against the Governor of one of the nation’s States, or against Cabinet Ministers, the General Secretary of the President’s Office, the Governor of the Federal District or Federal Territories, Supreme Court Justices, the Presidents of the State Legislatures, and Superior Judges, or against persons serving in those capacities, the punishment indicated in that Article shall be reduced to one-half; and, with respect to Presidents of Municipal Councils, Federal District Department Prefects, or District Civil Chiefs, it shall be reduced to one-third.

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 151. The courts shall be responsible for distinguishing the serious and slight offenses referred to in Articles 148, 149, and 150.

Article 152. Prosecution for the actions referred to in the articles above shall not commence except at the request of the offended person or institution, lodged with the competent judge through the offices of the Public Prosecution Service.

[...]

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 224. If the action described in the Article above is accompanied by violence or threats, it shall be punishable by a prison term of between three and eighteen months.

Any person who, in another way not provided for in the cases listed in the previous chapter, makes use of violence against or threatens a member of Congress or other public official, should that act take place as a result of the victim’s functions, shall be punishable with the same punishments.

Article 225. When any of the actions described in the above articles is committed against a public official not as a result of his functions but at a moment in which he is performing them, the same punishments shall apply, with a reduction of between one-third and one-half.

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.

Article 227. In the cases provided for in the Articles above, the guilty party shall not be allowed to admit any evidence regarding the truthfulness or notoriety of the allegations or defects with which the offended party is accused.[235]

Venezuela 2003 - Chapte VI

Venezuela is building a civilian militia

By Fabiola Sanchez

The Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chávez constantly warns Venezuelans a U.S. invasion is imminent.

Now he's begun training a civilian militia as well as the Venezuelan army to resist in the only way possible against a much better-equipped force: by taking to the hills and fighting a guerrilla war.

Supporters of the president, a former paratroop commander, are increasingly taking up his call. Chávez wants 1 million armed men and women in the army reserve, and 150,000 have already joined, surpassing the regular military's force of 100,000. Now Venezuelans are also organizing neighborhood-based militia units for Chávez's Territorial Guard.

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Venezuela is building a civilian militia

...............................................................................

Alex Libman · Sep 7, 2009

Agnapostate said:
Nothing you've said is "rational or based on empirical evidence"; it's based on the standard idiocy regurgitated by all acolytes of mises.org...or...perhaps you'd like to engage in a little True Debate on libertarian economics to prove your superiority? :2wave:

Your failure to understand something does not prove you right.

The competitive advantage of individual property rights has been proven thousands of times over by history. It would be a more interesting debate if you were to pick any year in recent history, and I would demonstrate the advantage of capitalism with events just from that year.

Agent Ferris · Sep 7, 2009

Agnapostate said:
By all means, elaborate on this. Considering the fact that many of the civilians shot during the 2002 violence were Chavistas and that the footage of Chavistas allegedly shooting civilians was manipulated, this one should be interesting...

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was sued Thursday in federal court in Miami, accused of violating the human rights of 15 anti-government protesters who were killed or wounded while demonstrating in front of the presidential palace in Caracas.

"We have audiotapes of Chavez giving orders to fire on the demonstrators," Martinez-Fraga said. On the tapes, which were picked up from two-way radio transmissions, Martinez-Fraga said, the Venezuelan leader is referred to by the code name "Tiburon Uno" -- which in English means "Shark One."

Law.com - Suing Hugo Chavez

.......................................................................

Tashah · Sep 7, 2009

Agnapostate said:
That's probably because you didn't say anything. :shrug:

But you did. Apparently, your pearls of wisdom are not cross-applicable.

Agent Ferris · Sep 7, 2009

Agnapostate said:
Could you elaborate? I hope we're not going to hear about RCTV again; I'd hoped rightists had become a little more informed when it came to that one...

Chavez has outlawed criticism of the state.

Agent Ferris · Sep 7, 2009

Agnapostate said:
Let's delve a tad deeper:

Claims of suppression of media dissent are of course to be expected, and will come as they did when RCTV did not gain license renewal in 2007. However, the more accurate reality is one of media broadcasters not gaining license renewals due to their endorsement of illegal violence against a democratically elected government that was briefly destabilized and its head of state kidnapped during a short 2002 military coup. This was certainly the case with RCTV, which continued to operate as a network broadcaster for five years after the coup until their numerous violations of their license contract were finally used as a basis for denying them renewal and continued to operate as a cable broadcaster even beyond that. One must wonder whether journalists in the U.S. and other allegedly "progressive" Western countries would have avoided prison time or other serious punishment if they'd engaged in such improprieties, especially considering the enthusiasm that some apparently have for the assaultive use of tear gas canisters against nonviolent and non-provocative reporters if their political and ideological commentary is regarded as unacceptable.

Criticism of the government is illegal in Chavez's Venezuela, one can be fined and imprisoned for 6 months up to a year under the expanded desacato laws.

Agent Ferris · Sep 7, 2009

Joe Castro said:
If it happened in the UK they would be spending the rest of their days in a jail cell. In the US theres every chance they would have been executed.

If the accusations are true have them face trial, why is Chavez afraid to prosecute for these supposed acts of treason even in his own packed courts? I'm guessing because the accusations are complete bull****. Regardless Chavez criticizing coup attempts is a bit hypocritical don't you think?

Agnapostate · Sep 7, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
...............................................................................

:spin:

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.

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. 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. 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 noticed you also glossed over the inconvenient fact that the 1999 Constitution was democratically approved by a supermajority, incidentally. :2wave:

Alex Libman said:
Your failure to understand something does not prove you right.

The competitive advantage of individual property rights has been proven thousands of times over by history. It would be a more interesting debate if you were to pick any year in recent history, and I would demonstrate the advantage of capitalism with events just from that year.

There's nothing I've not understood except your woeful ignorance of economics...to some extent. Your request for a specific year won't help you, as capitalism continues to be reliant on substantial government support for its continued existence, particularly in the realm of strategic trade policy. Instead, it's preferable to discuss the relation between liberty and capitalism as a whole...are you or are you not willing to engage in a True Debate on the topic? :2wave:

Agent Ferris said:
.......................................................................

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:

While pro-Chavez forces have been identified as participating in the shootings, some investigators and human rights groups have said that anti-Chavez Metropolitan Police officers also shot at Chavez supporters on that bloody day. In April of this year, the New York Times reported that seven of the 19 dead were Chavez supporters.

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? :2wave:

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:

As later investigations and documentary films proved, the Chavistas on the bridge probably did not kill anybody. When they were captured on film shooting, they were not firing at the marchers, but at the Metropolitan Police and the snipers who were firing at them. They were defending themselves and the hundreds of unarmed Chavez supporters on the bridge, who were lying facedown on the street to avoid the bullets coming at them - not to launch an "ambush." The Venevision video never showed what the Chavistas were shooting at on Avenida Baralt. It only showed them firing.

As the documentary film Llaguno Bridge - Keys to a Massacre later demonstrated, using videos and digital photographs with the current time recorded, the bulk of the opposition marchers who were killed were shot between 3:20 PM, when Tony Velasquez was wounded, and 3:55 PM. The Chavistas filmed on the bridge did not start shooting until 4:38 PM. Nearly forty-five minutes passed between the two events. But Venevision combined them, to make it seem like the Chavistas had killed the marchers.

...

There was also another problem with the pronouncement made by navy vice admiral Ramirez and the others. It was taped. Otto Neudstadl, a correspondent with CNN en Espanol, later said at a public conference that when Ramirez and the others summoned him to an office in Caracas earlier in the day to tape the announcement, it was before any shots were fired at the marchers. The military officers seemed to have advance knowledge that people were going to be killed. They even offered a number up to that point: at least six, with dozens injured....[t]he killings begged the question: WHo benefited? Clearly, Chavez did not. But now, with the streets of Caracas bathed in blood and the nation's television screens filled with horrifying reports of the massacre, the opposition had "the political cover to stage a coup" that the CIA reported they lacked five days earlier. Chavez was a cold-blooded murderer. Who could blame the CIA for stepping in and removing him?

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? :lol:

Tashah said:
But you did. Apparently, your pearls of wisdom are not cross-applicable.

You didn't say anything either. Is this some kind of genetic trait?

Agnapostate · Sep 7, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
Chavez has outlawed criticism of the state.

Agent Ferris said:
Criticism of the government is illegal in Chavez's Venezuela, one can be fined and imprisoned for 6 months up to a year under the expanded desacato laws.

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. 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. :2wave:

Agent Ferris · Sep 7, 2009

Agnapostate said:
:spin:

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. :2wave:

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? :2wave:

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. :roll:

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? :lol:

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

Agent Ferris · Sep 7, 2009

Agnapostate said:
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. :roll: 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. :2wave:

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. :doh 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 :roll:

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