Critic of Venezuela's Chavez sentenced for remarks

[Bacchus39]

Source: AP

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — An outspoken opponent of President Hugo Chavez has been convicted of spreading false information during a television talk show, but it remains unclear if he will be going to prison.

Oswaldo Alvarez Paz says the judge has not yet released details of the sentence, which normally carries a two-year prison term. The former state governor denies any wrongdoing.

Alvarez Paz has hopes of running in next year's presidential election but he also faces charges of publicly inciting crime.

Alvarez Paz was arrested last year and later released after saying in a television appearance broadcast on Globovision that Venezuela has turned into a haven for drug traffickers.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/critic-venezuelas-chavez-sentence...

[Itchinjim]

1. Hugo is an asshole.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[MADem]

95. +1 -- succinctly put, as well. nt

[jefferson_dem]

106. Yup.

Inarguable.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted sub-thread

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

[bvar22]

127. Yep...

Imagine:
Diverting Profits from the Global Mineral Extraction Corporations,
and using them to:

*Feed the hungry

*Heal the Sick

*Clothe the naked

*Educate the Ignorant

*House the homeless

Whoever HEARD of such a thing?
What an ASSHOLE!!!


Venezuela belongs to the Venezuelans.
They don't care what you think.

VIVA Democracy!
I "hope" we get some here soon.

[joshcryer]

136. Social democracies in Latin America have done the same things, quicker, and more equitibly.

Without a windfall of oil profits. The populist regimes are not the best friends of the impoverished. Yes they deserve credit for helping them, but they don't deserve praise for being inefficient, slow, and overall corrupt at doing it, particularly those populist regimes that have had a commodity price boon and who should be doing a lot better than is claimed by the supporters.

[Ash_F]

163. Well said, but be careful who you support.

...when you attack Chavez

People are way too quick to jump right into the hands of the Oil tycoons who previously controlled the country.

[joshcryer]

165. I'm not a Venezuelan, therefore I don't support anyone there.

I might support the Venezuelan libertarian socialists, but they're a niche group, as they are everywhere really.

As far as I'm concerned the hands didn't change very much.

[Ash_F]

166. Read a little about their history and you will know they changed very much.

This Paz guy is one of those old-money/selling-off-resources-to-other-countries-for-chump-change/banks-eat-the-little-people/IMF/NAFTA types. He is one of the types who will give the big boys what they want at the peril of his countrymen, as long as he gets his cut. Part a group of people whom when they can't get what they want democratically, resort to violence. So basically he is a metaphor for what was wrong with South America for much of the last century. An era where they are painfully crawling out of with slow twostepsforward-onestepback progress.

So yeah, stand by your principles but don't stand by a turd. The Anti-Chavez movement has to distance themselves from these people if they are to get anywhere.

[joshcryer]

167. Oh lordy, Paz is horrible, I am not defending him at all!

Hell I think I said in this thread he didn't have a chance in hell anyway.

In any event I do think there's evidence to suggest that the Chavismo agenda is quite in line with the neoliberal agenda. Read this rather interesting interview with anarchists in Venezuela.

But, again, this is left of the leftist so of course a lot of things look this way to us, so it's easily dismissed by Trotskyites, etc. I think it's important, however.

[spanza]

168. Wait. No one's defending a guy

This is not about Alvarez Paz.

Why do you support such law? We're talking about 2 to 5 years of prison. Are you standing by your principles?

ps: Venezuela is a bit more complex than the quick stereotype you're presenting.

[BenzoDia]

2. Is there more to this story? Can you really be convicted of spreading lies in Venezuela?

[Bacchus39]

3. if the government says its a lie you can n/t

t

[Arctic Dave]

4. This story is absurdly thin.

I would suspect it is a lot of distortion and misrepresentation to the nth degree as usual.

There is a dedication set of groupies that do nothing but post "bad" stories about Venezuela. It is bizarre to the point of almost being a fetish.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

5. Will you condemn Chavez if he goes to prison?

Or will you claim that's more misinformation?

[Arctic Dave]

6. Since the reporter's story is thin as a cheesclothe I would have to

see what it is he was doing. Until then, not enough info to go by.

[EFerrari]

22. Why should Venezuelan courts be criticized for upholding Venezuelan law?

That's ridiculous.

[Bacchus39]

24. ummmm.....its the law thats the problem. surely even you see that???

p.s. lol

[EFerrari]

26. Baloney. That's your biased frame. I'd say when tv stations can stage coups

in their studios, they need to reigned in.

[Bacchus39]

28. good for you. I say criticism of the government and speaking out makes a health society

and democracy. by the way, no-one was criticizing the judges, the criticism of this repressive law should be directed at all levels of this inept and repressive government for creating it in the first place.

[EFerrari]

29. Criticism of the government is not the same as spreading panic

on purpose, like when you claim the president has resigned which these people have done.

[Bacchus39]

30. how about that Ven is a haven for drug traffickers, you know the reason the guy was sentenced

heck, anyone could say that about the US, Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, the DR. just about anywhere. the television station isn't the issue here no matter how much you are trying to make it to be.

[EFerrari]

36. The TV station is precisely the issue. n/t

[ChangoLoa]

38. The TV Station is not at question here. Alvarez Paz is.

He could have said those words anywhere.

Do you really support this new law?

[naaman fletcher]

42. They didn't convict the TV station

they convicted a guy speaking on it. good to know that you are a totalitarian with zero respect for freedom.

[joshcryer]

63. LOL

[UnrepentantLiberal]

102. Stalin and Putin couldn't have said it better.

[sabrina 1]

81. We have laws here that are a problem. Is that Obama's fault?

[joshcryer]

92. Did Obama sign them by decree? I know Bush used his executive orders to change policy.

And I know that DU was up in arms about it for his entire presidency. I can't think of any that Obama has backed, but I am sure you can come up with one I'd disagree with. I know the DADT thing is iffy, but I'm not sure I want to see it go to courts, because we have a right wing SCOTUS.

[sabrina 1]

128. How many laws has Chavez 'signed by decree'?

[joshcryer]

137. Why didn't he deny this totalitarian law by decree?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

101. Yes... if he uses a bad law to imprison someone unjustly.

Wasn't that easy?

[sabrina 1]

126. Opinions are always easy, everyone has one.

I assume you are implying that Chavez created this law and then implemented alone, by himself?

Some links to back up your opinion would be nice. Not easy to go back and check out the history of the law, and how it was implemented I know, but you'll have to forgive me if I don't take people's opinions too seriously, until they turn out to be correct!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

130. So now your down to splitting hairs about who created the law?

Arguing with fanatics is pointless. If Chavez disagreed with the law he'd be pushing to repeal it rather than using it to persecute people who disagree with him.

[sabrina 1]

132. So, you really don't have anything after all.

Just the usual 'Chavez bad' and everything that happens in Venezuela that is questionable is his fault. Okay, pretty much what I thought.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

133. Nice dancing with you.

[hack89]

27. Bradley Manning was jailed in accordance with US law - you ok with that? nt

[naaman fletcher]

43. No.

Is what VZ is going here OK because the US is bad, too?

[hack89]

49. There is nothing OK about either case. nt

[joshcryer]

66. As long as it's not US law, and as long as it's as totalitarian as it can get, it's "Good Law."

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

61. No it isn't, they have used these tactics in the past to stop candidates from running for office.

This is just more of the same, with their new very arbitrarily implemented law.

[Arctic Dave]

74. Well, since you say so.

LOL.


Did you write this?

[joshcryer]

91. Would you like a link? They arbitratily, administratively, deny people from running...

...without a trial, without anything other than an accusation: http://democraciaenjuego.org/en/?p=1441

This is on par with Katherine Harris' crap.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Indeed you can

[harun]

13. You can in the U.K. too.

[backtomn]

15. Unfortunately, the short answer is "YES"

The question is.....were they actually lies ?? !!! This is getting to be a trend in South America......as sad trend.

[EFerrari]

23. Sad for the rich wing nuts who own the media that they can't tell the people

"your president has resigned" when they've kidnapped him any more.

My heart bleeds for them.

[ChangoLoa]

35. They didn't. The Army told the people that the president had resigned. nt

[bitchkitty]

85. oh, sure.

The Army. yes, then went riding through town, ringing bells and shouting that the president had resigned. The TV stations NEVER lie about Chavez, EVER.

Thank God we have you to set our lying eyes straight. How's that go again? Dicktater! Dicktater! Dicktater!

[ChangoLoa]

113. The general who announced Chavez's resignation, Lucas Rincon, was later promoted by Chavez

to the highest military rank in the country.

Rincon announced Chavez's resignation during a joint conference given by the Armed Forces' top officials, which was obviously transmitted as a mandatory broadcast on every single TV channel, public or private.

Concerning the wobbly insinuation you made, note that I have never said nor considered that Chavez is a dictator.

Don't hurt yourself any longer, pantallera.

[bitchkitty]

116. So?

Are you then saying that everyone else is wrong, and that Chavez really did resign/

I'm not a pantallera. I don't even have a TV, pantallero.

[ChangoLoa]

117. So he's the one who should be punished. Why was he promoted instead?

And pantallera has nothing to do with teevee.

[bitchkitty]

121. Maybe Chavez felt he had atoned.

Being able to forgive your enemies is the mark of a great man.

Of course, in your eyes it's probably a character flaw.

[ChangoLoa]

122. Being able to forgive your enemies is one thing. Promoting them is a different one. nt

[bitchkitty]

123. It's my guess that the general was under the gun, literally.

Chavez would understand that. Wisdom is also the mark of a great man. Thanks for reminding me of his wisdom. It's reassuring to me when I'm surrounded by idiots like the Chavez-haters.

[ChangoLoa]

153. Indeed, it is your "guess". nt

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

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

[ChangoLoa]

156. No, you're just making noise

That's the essence of the pantallera.



Hasta aquí te trajo el río

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[naaman fletcher]

44. What does that have to do with saying that Venezuela is a drug haven? nt.

[sabrina 1]

56. There's always more to the weekly anti-Chavez propaganda

bought and paid for with some of our much needed tax dollars.

[joshcryer]

59. Yes. It's not been forcefully implemented because it can backfire very easily.

Particularly with statements that may or may not be a lie but can be spun either way.

[harun]

7. Anti-Chavez lies.

[COLGATE4]

9. And you base this sweeping statement on what???

[harun]

14. Everything the Corporate Media says about Chavez is a lie.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[ChangoLoa]

67. Venezuelan State News Agency. It's called AVN

http://www.avn.info.ve/node/67177

[naaman fletcher]

79. ???

What corporation owns the Venezuelan state news agency?

[classysassy]

53. Our right wing nuts

hate Chavez because he want to use the country's resources to help the poor.The wealthy criminals don't want to use money to help the needy,it should go to the greedy,so they hate him.The same racist clowns here and in his country hate him because he is Indian/Black,and just as Ob ama catches flack from the racists in our midst so does Chavez.Hate will destroy us all unless we rid this planet of the racist scum among us.

[naaman fletcher]

108. So

Therefore, people who say that Venezuela is a haven for drug trafficking should be put in prison? How does that logic work?

[KarmakazeNZ]

162. I guess you must be near rioting over this then:

"LAKE GEORGE, N.Y. (AP) — A newspaper reporter is facing misdemeanor charges after police say he refused to leave the scene of a shooting.

Authorities from the Warren County Shefiff's Office arrested David Taube shortly after noon Saturday. The 24-year-old reporter with The Post-Star had been at the scene of a shooting in Lake George."

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/reporter...

That was less than a fortnight ago.

I can find LOTS more. It seems locking up journalists is a tradition in the US. How about when Judtih Miller was locked up for refusing to reveal her sources? She actually went to prison.

I don't remember any progressives being upset about that.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

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

[naaman fletcher]

107. Venezuela Analysis chimes in...

Another corporate press outlet?

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6353

Mérida, July 14th 2011 (Venezuelanalysis.com) - On Wednesday Venezuela’s Oswaldo Alvarez Paz was formally convicted of “spreading false information” to the general public by making unsubstantiated claims on national television that his country had “become a safe haven for drug trafficking and terrorism.” Alvarez, ex-governor of Zulia state and a possible candidate in the opposition’s presidential primaries, was handed a two-year prison sentence which he will serve on conditional release (house arrest) and is also barred from leaving the country.

The conviction against Alvarez, which was issued by the Caracas-based 21st Courthouse of the Metropolitan District (AMC), finds him guilty of violating Article 296-A of Venezuela’s Penal Code which prohibits “any individual, by way of print, radio, television, electronic mail, or written leaflets, from using false information to cause panic or a sustained anxiety in the general collective.”

With a possible sentence of “between two and five years in prison,” Alvarez’s two-year sentence with house arrest privileges is the lightest possible sentence for someone convicted of violating said law.

The incident in question occurred 08 March 2010 during a televised interview on the opposition’s private media network Globovision. During a 40-minute exclusive, Alvarez told viewers that the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had allowed their country to become a “safe haven” for drug trafficking and “for subversive and terrorist groups around the world”, including the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC) and Basque Homeland and Freedom, or Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA).

[ChangoLoa]

10. Source: Venezuelan State news agency

Condenan a dos años de prisión a Oswaldo Álvarez Paz por difusión de información falsa/
{b]Sentenced to 2 years of jail for diffusion of false information

Caracas, 13 Jul. AVN .- A dos años de prisión fue condenado el ex gobernador del estado Zulia, Oswaldo Álvarez Paz, por la comisión del delito de difusión de información falsa emitida en un programa de televisión el pasado 08 de marzo de 2010, cuando afirmó que Venezuela se había convertido en un centro de operaciones que facilita el narcotráfico.

Luego de numerosas audiencias, la fiscal 21° nacional, Gineira Rodríguez, solicitó al Tribunal 21° de Juicio del Área Metropolitana de Caracas (AMC) se dictara sentencia condenatoria por el referido delito, mientras que solicitó que con relación a la instigación a delinquir se dictara el sobreseimiento de la causa.

De acuerdo con una nota emitida por el Ministerio Público, el tribunal dictó la condena y ordenó que Álvarez Paz permaneciera en libertad condicional, pero le mantuvo la prohibición de salida del país.
A Álvarez Paz se le ordenó su enjuiciamiento al admitir el Tribunal 25° de Control del AMC los delitos de instigación pública y difusión de información falsa, de acuerdo con lo previsto en los artículos 285 y 296-A, del Código Penal/
The criminal offense is called "public instigation and diffusion of false information"

His exact words were: "Venezuela has turned into a operative platform (centro de operaciones) that makes drug trafficking easier"


http://www.avn.info.ve/node/67177


(The former governor will be jailed at home apparently, or released on parole without the possibility of going outside the country)
___________


Some supporters will now switch from denial to justification mode.

It's a break dance for la prise de la Bastille day

[Bacchus39]

11. thanks for that. incredible. n/t

s

[RedCloud]

12. he did this on TV too. Meanwhile our torture worshipers are free to blab about it.

[Judi Lynn]

19. Here's a smaller version of that photo:

[ChangoLoa]

60. Merci beaucoup

hadn't noticed mine was so big (did I just write that)

[bitchkitty]

18. Too bad we don't have a law that says it's illegal to

tell a bald-faced lie on television. Our country would be a better place.

[totodeinhere]

31. We have a little thing called the First Ammendment. n/t

[sabo_tabby]

39. The Social Contract is not a Suicide Pact...

The Rebugs cynically hide behind the fig leaf of the First Amendment to spread racism, hatred and barefaced lies every single day. Millions suffer because of their continued racism, their warmongering and their criminal anti-immigrant, anti-minority and anti-women attempts at tyranny-through-legislation.

The only difference between them and al Qaeda is that al Qaeda doesn't wrap itself up in the flag and pretend that the murders they allegedly committed were done in the name of 'Murrika.

Isn't there a mechanism for the President to declare the RNC a "domestic terrorist" organization? Why do we accomodate murderers, warmongers and racists in our midst?

[bitchkitty]

55. No we don't.

We do have a First Amendment, however.

It doesn't cover screaming FIRE in a crowded theatre, and it shouldn't cover telling LIES in place of what is supposed to be NEWS.

[joshcryer]

65. Untruths are not dangerous or obscene speech, and therefore are protected.

Untruths are extremely subjective. The only way to be sure that they're being upheld consistently is if we had a "Ministry of Truth."

And I'm sorry, I refuse to go down that road.

[bitchkitty]

75. If a station advertises itself as news, and then tells lies,

that doesn't bother you? They can say what they want, in a soap opera or a teevee drama. The news is supposed to be true. Keep spinning like a ballerina, but that's the long and short of it.

[joshcryer]

76. If a station has an individual on its channel and that individual tells what is considered a lie...

...should that individual go to jail?

No, it doesn't bother me that FOX News exists, and I would be repulsed if every FOX News anchor, all of whom have lied one time or another to the people, were arrested and jailed.

You are advocating a "Ministry of Truth" here, and it's very disturbing.

[bitchkitty]

78. I am advocating that television news

should report the news. Period.

Would I put them in jail? No - but I think some kind of punishment would be in order for stations that knowingly spread falsehoods.

[joshcryer]

88. You wouldn't put them in jail, but you'd punish them, so you're somewhere in between.

I myself believe in unfettered free speech that does not pose a clear and present danger to society (that includes unfettered obscenity).

[bitchkitty]

93. Fines. License suspension.

They're lying to the public. The people who depend on the news to be you know, unbiased and impartial?

Why is truth so unimportant? I don't think the First Amendment was meant to be a license to lie. If they are going to lie on the news, then they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news. Simple.

[joshcryer]

94. Politics and other things are not governed by objective truth, it's always subjective.

This guy may or may not have lied, I personally don't see it going by the report posted at the bottom of the thread, however, if Venezuelan courts chose to reject that truth, then he has no basis for his claim, and so on. It's basically a question of whether or not you're going to allow people to have a free opinion, even if you disagree with that opinion or consider that opinion wrong, non-factual, or even intentionally a lie.

You would need a "Ministry of Truth" to govern what is truthful and what is not, and as we can see there are plenty of websites out there, both left leaning and right leaning, that pretend to know the "truth" about a given issue. Whose truth is real or correct? I personally would hate to be on the wrong side of the "Ministry of Truth."

What's more important is how this law is being arbitrarily enforced. The Venezuelan opposition has a website where these sorts of stories are reported daily and yet the thousands of participants are allowed to speak. Why? Because it would cause an international uproar if Venezuela arrested thousands of innocent civilians because their opinion went contrary to their virtual ministry of truth.

[bitchkitty]

111. Sigh...

I'm not going to waste any more time with you. Hugo Chavez, in your eyes, is in the wrong just by breathing. It's your mission to trash him and you can't/won't listen to reason. Pity.

[ChangoLoa]

114. Admit it. You just don't know how to support such a reactionary law

So you zigzag from half arguments to different subjects. Ridiculous.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[Bacchus39]

119. and if you say the truth but the government call it a lie as the case is here??? n/t

s

[ChangoLoa]

120. 2-5 years of prison says the law you support.

"progressive"

[sabrina 1]

135. Was Chavez the one to implement that law?

Is Obama responsible for all the laws we have here that are reactionary? Like DOMA, eg? Maybe he is and we have been letting him off the hook for all the laws that are unfair and rectionary?

Ven. is a democracy. Since when is the president in a democracy responsible for every law that is passed.

We got the Patriot Act after this country was attacked on 9/11. Ven was the victim of a CIA backed coup in 2002, a coup aided and abetted by the rightwing controlled media there. What would have happened here if the media had been involved in backing the attempted removal of a US president, or had they been involved in promoting any other attack on this country?

I'm surprised Chavez did not work to get laws in place to prevent another attack such as the CIA backed coup against their democracy, as we did here.

He's way too tolerant of the traitors who tried to overthrow their democratic process imho.

[joshcryer]

138. Obama doesn't have decree powers, and therefore cannot control laws. Chavez does.

And Chavez can. If he wanted to, right now, because he's still in the 18 month window of decree powers, he could crush that law with one sign of the pen. Do not try to deflect blame on this. While the man convicted on this had no hope of winning against Chavez, there are others who did have a chance, and his administration worked quickly to create trumped up charges against those people, without even taking it to court.

Chavez effectively runs unopposed in his elections.

[sabrina 1]

139. Wrong, the US president absolutely has decree powers.

And since this country is in a permanent 'state of emergency' Obama can do what you are claiming Chavez can do. Eg, he could have used those those powers to end DADT, and as CIC, he had the absolute right to do it, I have written about his and it is in my journal. He could have done it, but did not. He could bring home the troops as CIC also, but has not.

Link to the powers Chavez has as a result of that democratic decision made by Ven's Congress to give him decree powers please. As I understand it, those powers are limited and he does not have the power to change laws passed by Ven's legislative body.

The man is way too tolerant as I have said already, of the rightwing forces still operating against Democracy in Venezuela. He should have jailed them all and prosecuted them when they committed treason against their country in 2002. But choosing to be more tolerant, he left far too many of them free to continue to try to undermine Venezuela's democracy, and your misunderstanding of the history of that region of the world over the past decade, proves how wrong he was. It gave the western powers the opportunity to continue to operate in Latin America and to try to destabalize every emerging democracy there.

No one claiming to support the Arab Spring can be anti-Venezuelan democracy and their right to choose, as they have, the leader of their choice rather than the usual puppets installed by Global Capitalists who will do their bidding, as is likely to happen in Libya, as happened in Iraq and will keep happening unless the Muslim world is fortunate enough to find leaders like Chavez who will not give in to Globalists whose main interest in his country is its resources for their own profits.

[joshcryer]

140. That's absurdly false, executive powers are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Obama cannot, right now, declare all speech that isn't validated by a Ministry of Truth as illegal. Chavez can.

Show me where his decree powers are "limited." They allow him to arbitrarily create law.

[sabrina 1]

144. No, you show me where it is not. You are the one claiming he has

these powers, not me. And the US President can over-ride Congress by issueing executive orders as Bush did many times.

You're saying the Ven. President can silence the whole country?? An outrageous claim. This is getting ridiculous.

[joshcryer]

145. Do you know what rule by decree is? It is power to create law. There is almost no limit on the laws.

What the legislator can do is remove the decree powers from him, if he steps over the line. Otherwise he can't amend the constitution.

Sorry, but you trying to deflect for Chavez as if he was powerless to "stop" these laws is just hilariously bad, and patently dishonest.

Chavez was behind the Media Responsibility Law and the Telecommunications Law. He also veto'd the university control law. Why did he not veto this totalitarian law if he's a man for liberty? Huh?

Gosh this is sad.

[Bacchus39]

151. Executive orders only apply to Federal executive agencies, not to the citizenry

or the states, the Congress, the courts, or private businesses. executive orders can't override Congress or laws.

Obama could not declare a law.

[naaman fletcher]

129. Actually

He's in the wrong for supporting this law. Why is it so hard to say " while I support Chavez, I don't support this one law"? Being honest about so obviously an oppressive law would actually bolster your positive opinions of Chavez.

[joshcryer]

134. I'm afraid you don't know me at all.

I am not even sure I have mentioned Hugo at all in this thread. It is the law and the implementation of it that I have a problem with. Such laws cannot logically be implemented without corruption playing a key part. George Orwell wrote extensively on these kinds of totalitarian laws.

[MADem]

96. I'm with you.

Funny how when ya go so far to the left, you come back around on the far right. Scary, that.

It's an odd thing. Chavez can say/do anything, no matter how repressive, and we get the "greater good" argument, yet when Obama tells us to "eat OUR peas" he's derided six ways to Sunday and there are calls to run him outta town on a rail.

The torturous justifications are stunning in their faulty logic. It's rose colored glasses all the way.

[bitchkitty]

118. Obama lied to us. He said what he needed to say to get elected.

That's my issue with him. Venezuelans made it illegal to tell lies on the news. Wish we could do that here. As far as Chavez, he keeps getting elected. His enemies have to suck it up.

The news is supposed to be the truth. It's supposed to be factual. The First Amendment wasn't meant to be license to lie, or a gift for con men end liars.

I wish we had a law that said all shows that present themselves as "News" should be held to a strict standard of truth.

[MADem]

142. Oh, please. He doesn't have his eye on YOU, so you're going to take your little ball and go home.

Fine--GO!! Run away, stop whinging about how awful he is, and work for some other bozo that you like better. He didn't lie--you just "interpreted" his language to suit your deepest desires. Example--he never said he was in favor of gay "marriage," yet people are somehow shocked when he sticks to that.

The griping doesn't change anything. He's not going to tack hard to the left--he doesn't need to, so just give it up. He's going to sail his ship in the middle waters, even if you carp. Get used to it, and stop saying he "lied" because you didn't listen.

Obama wasn't my first choice, but he's President of all the people, now, and he's doing the best he can managing competing priorities. He's a Democrat, and that, to me, beats the alternative.

Venezuela is a drug-laden, sad shithole of a nation run by a despot who calls truths lies when he wants to get rid of the competition. The population of the abject poor put that assclown back in office because they like the social programs and supports they receive from him--just enough to keep them from starving, never enough of anything to lift them out of a poverty-stricken life of dependency on "The State."

Go on and call the UN a bunch of liars. Everyone lies but Chavez....yeah, sure.

[bitchkitty]

149. Don't you dare try to bully me.

I've seen your tactics on this board, and they won't work here.

I'm voting for Obama, but he's a lying asshole. I can't be responsible for your selective memory, and I trust my own, so bully someone else.

[MADem]

152. Right back atcha--and I don't "do" tactics and I certainly could not be

bothered to "bully" you--but do go on playing the victim, like anyone cares. Life isn't all about you and your opinions, you know--others are allowed to hold divergent views in the real world.

I simply call 'em like I see 'em. If you can't play in the Big Kid's Playground, go to an echo chamber where everyone tells you how wonderful you think you are. Your name suits you to a T, you know.

[bitchkitty]

154. Thank you!

[KarmakazeNZ]

160. Obama didn't lie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYTKj8pU5M

Obama said during his campaign that he would withdraw US troops from Iraq by 2009. Are you telling me he has done that?

In October 2009, the US was spending 7 billion per month on the Iraq occupation. In one year, the US spent at least 84 billion dollars in Iraq. So by not withdrawing the troops like he promised, Obama cost the US 84 billion dollars AT LEAST.

Think about that when Social Security is cut.

[KarmakazeNZ]

159. Fox is entitled by law to lie.

It is even entitled to fire reporters who refuse to lie.

Apparently the media in Venezuela is no different, it's just that the government doesn't let them get away with it.

[MADem]

97. VOTE--with your remote.

Keep watching, and they assume you like what you see.

[totodeinhere]

125. Of course it bothers me, but any remedy against it would do more harm than good IMO.

And by the way, if we shut down every news outlet that tells lies, there would be none left.

[totodeinhere]

124. Sorry for the typo. I usually spell check but I must have forgotten to. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

32. +a number that is too big to have a name

[kelly1mm]

34. You mean like saying Social Security checks might not go out on Aug. 3rd? nt

[joshcryer]

64. You'd need to amend the constitution for that, and dramatically modify the first amendment.

[bvar22]

20. I fully support the 1st Ammendment,

...but I wish we had laws against spreading outright LIES through Media Outlets.
There should be some way to hold them accountable.

In some cases, the spreading of these types of LIES ("They found the WMD", etc) IS like
yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

I WILL have to know more about what happened in Venezuela
before I form an opinion.
For all his megalomania, Chavez has been good for Venezuela,
freeing them from the Neo-Liberal clutches of their absentee Corporate Landlords and the IMF.

I KNOW.
I worked and lived in Venezuela before Chavez.
Chavez is a vast improvement,
but the displaced Venezuelan Aristocracy,
and the Neo-Liberal politicians of BOTH political Parties in the US,
don't like him very much.
IMAGINE: Using Profits from the Mineral Extraction Corporations to fund Social Programs!!! Heresy!!!
This kind iof thinking MUST be STOMPED OUT before it spreads!!!

AFAIC, Predatory Venezuelan Plutocrats were lucky to escape with their heads still attached.
Chavez has been much more reasonable than I would have been.

Besides, Venezuela belongs to the Venezuelan People.
It is none of our business.
When they are tired of Chavez,
they will elect somebody else.
Venezuela still has Free, Transparent, Verifiable Elections,
something we no longer have in the USA.

VIVA Democracy!
I pray we get some here soon!

[bitchkitty]

21. +1

Thanks for the post. It's nice to get the opinions of people who actually lived there, and who don't have an agenda to smear.

[UTUSN]

25. K&R #4 for, of *course*!1 n/t

[bahrbearian]

33. I wish we could do that to FOX news, every time they lie.

[ChangoLoa]

37. US progressives support such law? 2 years of prison for saying those words?

Really?

[rayofreason]

40. Progressives don't support such law...

...fascists do.

[sabo_tabby]

41. The only thing the fat cats and bosses understand is naked force

Look what it took to get social justice for the Venezuelans. Maybe we could use a little of that around here - the Rebugs won't go away on their own and they won't listen to reason or the cries of the People.

[naaman fletcher]

47. So what exactly are you advocating?

That we just jail everyone who disagrees with us? What happens if they win back the white house, should we expect them to do the same?

[sabo_tabby]

48. That presumes they get the white house back...

Look at how violently the oligarchs resisted the wave of social justice in Venezuela. Look how much it cost the People to restore the means of national production to their rightful owners. The struggle for justice is still going on!

With our numbers and our organization and our ability to reach out, the only reason ANY Rebug would find himself in office is either outright lying or election fraud. No normal human being, in possession of the facts, can possibly agree with anything a Rebug says. You don't, for example. I suspect you don't know anyone else who does either. I don't.

It follows that those who vote for Rebugs are either mentally challenged or duped by the fat-cats. Those who collude with them, either for their own selfish interests or out of race hatred or homophobia, deserve no better than the criminal liars, homophobes and racists they fall in behind.

And besides, in most cases, jail isn't necessary - only for the puppet-masters, fat-cats and oligarchs. Those lower in the hierarchy will benefit from simply being shown the facts and allowed to discover the error of their ways for themselves.

[naaman fletcher]

50. Sure but,

We have legit reasons to put these guys in Jail (Why Obama is not doing it is a legit question):

1. We have all the evidence needed to put the war criminals in jail.
2. We have all the evidence needed to put 75% of the senior bank officers from 2005-2011 in jail.
3. We will hopefully have all the evidence needed to put Murdoch in jail, certainly the brits will have enough.


We have everything we need to break up the big banks.

There is no need to do what Chavez is doing here, which is trampling basic human rights in order to put people in jail.

This is why I took issue with your post. Too often I think progressives simply say "fuck em, let's put them in jail" because it is seen as the easy way when in reality with a little work it gone be done honestly and openly based on people's criminal actions.

[sabo_tabby]

86. We could put all of your 1 thru 3 in jail but that's like an Eskimo Roll....

In kayaking, an eskimo roll is how one self-recovers from being capsized. The trouble with the Eskimo Roll is that it puts you in the same place you were that got you swamped and capsized.

We could jail every one of the people you mention above but it wouldn't solve the problem. There'd still be Rebugs out there, and dupes/morons ready and willing to believe them.

We both agree that normal, intelligent people find the homophobic, racist, anti-woman program of the Rebugs offensive. We both agree that virtually every problem in the US that isn't an Act of Nature can be rightfully laid at their feet (and even the acts of nature since they are largely to blame for AGW). Every war, every economic downturn, every act of racial oppression, homophobia and woman-hatred is the direct result of the acts and beliefs of the American Republican Party.

They are illegitemate and criminal. Everything they say and do produces results that would be illegal for any citizen. It is time to start opening our eyes and seeing that our open-mindedness has put us in bed with monsters. And we are to blame to the extent we permit them to exist as a force in American politics.

We lost our last, best chance between 2008 and 2010. We had the opportunity to finish the Rebugs for keeps and begin the process of healing and reconciliation. But we were too naiive - we thought the Rebugs would realize there was no more place for them in America (presuming there ever was) and go away. We shouldn't have expected them to give up that easily. Now, it will be far more painful. But they still have to go - it's the only way to bring the real change we started on in Jan 2009.

[boppers]

54. "Look what it took to get social justice for the Venezuelans."?

Well, since this story shows they still don't have it, I'll keep looking.

[sabo_tabby]

82. This was a step in the right direction...

It was a blow to the fat-cat lies that harm the poor and keep the oligarchs in power. When the poor in Venezuela rise up, they rise up with one voice, and it's not in favor of the bosses.

[boppers]

100. "they rise up with one voice"...

Because competing voices are being silenced.

[joshcryer]

69. What social justice are you talking about? Poverty reduction is more effective in social democracy.

Not in populist agenda that Venezuela is undertaking.

[sabo_tabby]

83. Still a long way to go...

They still need that fire-in-the-belly populism that has kept the struggle against the fat-cats going for this long. Don't think for a minute that they won't try to sneak in and take advantage of the People just when they think they can relax.

This decision just goes to show that the People can never take their eye off the ball. They have to be constantly ready to stand against the robbers and the crooks that have kept them down for so long.

[joshcryer]

89. No, they don't, studies have shown time and time again that non-populist regimes fare better.

Much better, in fact. What we're advocating here is a longer time suffering in poverty and only because of propaganda that they are a better system. They're not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[naaman fletcher]

46. They are not progressives.

They are totalitarians. Of course, we already knew that, but it was good today to see one out himself here.

[joshcryer]

68. Ministry of Truth.

Some progressives like the idea.

[MADem]

98. Well said. nt

[pampango]

51. Chavez-bots and Obama-bots vs. Chavez-bashers and Obama-bashers.

Does it seem that threads regarding Venezuela always devolve into "Chavez can do no wrong" vs. "Chavez can do no right."

Likewise, we hear complaints about Obama-bots who think he can do no wrong and Obama-bashers who think he does nothing right.

Depending on how you feel about Chavez or Obama (or Kucinich or Sanders or Krugman or Reich...), is it human nature to always defend (or always attack) given politicians? We all know that no one is perfect and even broken clocks are right twice a day. You would think we would spend more time discussing policies or proposals rather than always attacking or defending a politician. Is conceding that "your guy" might have erred the worst thing we can do here?

And the -bots (Obama, Chavez, Kucinich...) think that the -bashers (Obama, Chavez, Kucinich...) are everywhere and trolls in hiding, but the -bashers think the -bots are everywhere and suppress dissent. Is it just that the posts and posters that you don't agree with are easier to remember so they seem more numerous, even though there really were just as many on your side of an issue or your opinion of a politician?

[sabrina 1]

57. Well, I don't see too many OPs on Venezuela from 'Chavezbots'

lauding him as some kind of saint and hero. Mostly these OPs are posted by Chavez bashers and since so many of them have turned out to be misinformation, they have become suspect, especially when certain reporters' by-lines are attached to them. And as a matter of fact, most of the Western media. As Wikileaks cables have revealed, this is not in the imagination of 'Chavez bots', it is planned because he is seen as a threat to Global Capitalists. The man dares to run his country for the benefit of his people rather than Global Corps and for that he must be discredited.

So, it's not so much that anyone believes he is perfect, and in fact it's not even really about HIM, for many of what you describe as 'Chavez bots'. It's about not wanting this country interfering in the business of any more Oil Producing countries and paying attention to what is going on right here. Their focjus on Venezuela and the rest of Latin American is worrying to many Americans. We know what has happened in the past when an oil-producing country chooses to use its revenues from its resources for its own people. In fact we know what nearly happened to Chavez back in 2002 when a CIA backed coup tried to take away the will of the people there.

As I said, it isn't so much about Chavez, or Lulu et al. It's about US and our foreign policies which have been disastrous for millions of people, including in Latin America, for decades now. And we do not want to support those policies. We didn't under Bush. Now it seems some democrats have decided our Latin American policies are just fine, like supporting the Genocidal leader of Colombia, eg, when he was still there.

We prefer to know that what we are reading is fact, not propaganda. And when we know from Wikileaks that what were only suspicions regarding that propaganda are facts, we have to be extra careful not to be fooled again.

Edited to add, I don't know what the motives of the Chavez Bashers is. It seems odd that any democrat would support the kind of global terrorism that was inflicted on Latin America for so long by the Western powers. So you'd have to ask them why they promote anti Latin American propaganda.

[joshcryer]

72. What is anti-Latin America about pointing out Venezuela's speech laws are inadequate?

[sabrina 1]

84. Do a little research on our policies towards Latin America.

Their laws are not our business, are they? We have plenty of laws here that badly need to be changed, such as the ones that guarantee that poor African Americans will spend lots of time in jail while wealthy White Americans will never see the inside of a jail for doing the same thing.

Is that Obama's fault btw? Are presidents responsible for all the laws in their countries? I have to laugh each time a story like this is found, and they dig very deep to find them, and it's always Chavez' fault. But, if he were to interfere with bad laws and order them to be changed, he would be a 'dictator'.

It isn't about this story, it's about discrediting all the new, democratic leaders in Latin America who have succeeded in throwing off their Western supported dictators after decades of suffering under their brutal rule. Just like Arab nations are now trying to do.

Very soon, Egypt will be the new Venezuela unless they elect a leader that carries on similar policies to Mubarak, putting his alliance with Global Capitalists ahead of the interests of his own country. If they get a truly democratically elected leader who changes policies that the West does not want changed, we will see similar OPs about that leader also.

[joshcryer]

87. I am fully aware of our policies, and I don't like them any more than I like anti-speech laws.

And I can have whatever opinion I please, thanks. I am not a nationalist who believes that one opinion is the opinion of a whole country.

[naaman fletcher]

105. "Their laws are not our business, are they?"

So, if I went through your posts on VZ and elsewhere, I would not find you commenting on foreign laws? Or, are you just being a hypocrite and you are deflecting from this trampling of human rights.

Which is it?

[KarmakazeNZ]

161. The people you are talking about...

Launched a coup, killed innocent civilians, and even encouraged an American invasion. They are lucky they weren't all executed for treason. Try overthrowing Obama (or Bush before him) and see how far you get.

You can't even get on a plane without being sexually assaulted, and you're complaining about Venezuela's abuse of "human rights"?

Comedy gold.

[naaman fletcher]

109. This OP specifically

is about democracy and the right to criticized a government on TV. You, however, are making it about a bunch of other things. I'm curious, how do you feel about VZ convicting someone of a crime for saying that VZ is a haven for drug traffickers?

[joshcryer]

70. The key difference being is that some of us recognize good things Chavez has done.

[saras]

58. Unrec for dishonest headline

Describing "publicly inciting crime" and "spreading false information" (both of which can get you fines and jail here in the USA, although not under those exact names) as "remarks" is dishonest and disingenuous.

[joshcryer]

71. What he did was equivalent to the remarks you hear every day on TV here.

So no, they're no the same, we have a bit of a higher standard for what is inciting crime. Here if we advocate violence we are committing a crime, however, we can talk all day long about how fucked up shit is without it being construed as "inciting violence."

[Bacchus39]

77. his remarks weren't even false in the first place and the charges brought were because of his

his remarks. spreading false information is the "crime" he was charged with over his remarks on TV.

[naaman fletcher]

104. LOL...

anything to stick up for your man hugo.

[joshcryer]

73. Just so we're clear, this law covers all media speech, including on the internet.

Some twitter people have been caught by this law, but they were doing stock manipulation on twitter, spreading false stock information to pump those stocks (this is illegal anywhere and doesn't require this anti-speech law).

Interestingly Noticiero Digital (the biggest opposition website in Venezuela) still exists and overall the law is not implemented as it should be. It's arbitrary, they are using the law to pick and chose those who are a threat to them, as opposed to implementing it as all laws should be, fairly and universally. This is a corrupt law, it can only be implemented with a corrupt system. The only way to do it fairly is to have a Ministry of Truth, and even then corruption is paramount.

You cannot have a law like this and say you respect free speech.

[Zorro]

80. Is the UN's World Drug Report 2010 a credible source about Venezuelan narcotrafficking?

<snip>

...The drug trafficking situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela appears to be deteriorating. In 2008, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was fourth in the world in annual cocaine seizures (34 mt), ahead of Peru and the Plurinational State of Bolivia. According to the new Maritime Analysis Operation Centre (MAOC-N), more than half of all intercepted shipments in the Atlantic (67 incidents between 2006 and 2008) started their journey in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Direct shipments from Colombia, in contrast, accounted for just 5%.7 In addition, many undocumented air flights leave the country, and all the clandestine air shipments of cocaine detected in West Africa appear to have originated in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The country also appears to be the source of cocaine flown to clandestine airstrips in Honduras, with devastating effects there (discussed below).

At the same time, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela seems to be experiencing a remarkable upturn in criminal violence. This trend is difficult to track because the Venezuelan Government stopped publishing official crime statistics after 2003, but some institutions continue to monitor the issue.

The murder rate in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has increased markedly since the end of the Cold War, but especially since the late 1990s. There may be many reasons for this, but it happens to have occurred just as Colombian illegal armed groups' involvement in the cocaine trade began to pick up. There was a brief drop after 2003, when Colombia began to reduce the size of the illegal armed groups, followed by a resurgence afterwards. Today, there are eight times as many murders as there were two decades ago, and the murder rate per 100,000 population appears to be in the low 60s, among the highest in the world. Kidnappings also appear to have greatly increased, with the areas bordering Colombia being among the worst affected.

There are other reasons to be concerned about the potential impact of cocaine trafficking on Venezuelan stability, including parallels to the Colombian situation. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has had insurgent groups, such as the Bolivarian Liberation Front, which are very similar to the FARC. These groups have effectively been co-opted by the Government, but maintain armed cells, including some along the borders with Colombia, Ecuador and Brazil. The Government has also begun arming and supporting civilian militias (the 'national reserve'). Experience in other countries has shown that such a move can fuel organized crime...

<snip>

Read more at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/World_Drug_...

[joshcryer]

90. Venezuela propaganda is akin to the Ministry of Truth, this guy was arrested so that he couldn't run

No other reason but that.

[MADem]

99. Whoever wrote that better stay the hell outta Venezuela!

Those evil, mendacious, conniving UN baastids will be jailed for two to five years for speaking untruths, according to the VZ Minister of Truth!!!

[Bacchus39]

103. Zorro will be arrested if he enters Venezuela n/t

s

[U4ikLefty]

131. If they cut off his penis, I'm sure you will be there making up excuses.

[MADem]

141. Whose penis? Chavez's?

The power would probably be off, owing to poor electrical infrastructure, so whoever threw it in the disposal couldn't flick the switch and grind it up.

You're one of those "non-readers," I see. I didn't make any excuses, but you follow the crowd -- don't think for yourself and actually do any contextual reading, it's tiring!

[Zorro]

143. I hope

he wasn't talking about my penis.

I'm rather attached to it.

[U4ikLefty]

146. You must be a unicyclist...with all that backpeddaling.

I'm sure Chavez would be a good target for your "garbage disposal" becuase he is a man...with that evil penis.

Enjoy the misandry.

[MADem]

147. Reading is fundamental. So's comprehension. Do try it.

Love the way you assume to know my gender. That's almost as funny as that assclown Hugo.

[joshcryer]

148. It gets better: Supreme Court prelim. hearing on impeachment of Capriles (another Pres. candidate):

Google translate:

By letter filed with the Secretariat of the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on September 2, 2009, the citizen GERSON RAFAEL PEREZ SUAREZ , holder of identity card No. 13,161,626, assisted by Itamar Materano lawyer, enrolled in the Social Welfare Institute of the Advocate under No. 114,087, applied for preliminary hearing on merits against the citizen Henrique Capriles Radonsky , Governor of the Bolivarian State of Miranda, for allegedly committing the "(...) crimes of fraud to the nation with the intention intentional administrative corruption (...) ".

edit, link: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/jstplen/Julio/12-14711...

This was yesterday.

Henrique Capriles Radonski had this happen to him before but he was cleared of all charges. We'll see what happens with this one and if the election board will use it to disqualify him from running in 2012 (he has already announced his candidacy and is likely the chosen candidate by the opposition).

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[KarmakazeNZ]

158. Considering the US has made it clear that any nation harbouring terrorists will be targetted...

It seems to me that a senior politician announcing on TV that Venezuela had become a "haven for terrorists" is endangering that country.

[Ash_F]

164. Yeah, odds are that if FOX news had took to that level against Obama(no they haven't),

Then the hand of the executive would come down on them pretty quickly. Maybe people wouldn't be put on house arrest immediately, but they would be positioned to get worse if they continued.

[spanza]

169. Globovision is a local news channel with like 5% of the ratings...

Why always use the lens of the American society to understand different countries?