Hugo Chavez killing democracy

in venezuala

He has asked the parliament for power to rule by decree. so much for this guy being any good. he is NG and is intent on killing democracy in that country. hopefully this will open a few eyes here to the truth. just because he gives oil away cheaply to people doesnt mean he is a good guy.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/486930p-409970c.html


snip <Chavez, who will be sworn in tomorrow to a third term that runs through 2013, said he wanted a constitutional amendment to eliminate the autonomy of the Central Bank and would soon ask the National Assembly, solidly controlled by his allies, to give him greater powers to legislate by presidential decree>

eliminating autonomy of central bank? legislating by decree? And they are stuck with him for 6 years.

im sure someone will put one of these :popcorn: at some point....

yawn

About chavez grabbing dictatorial powers?

you dotn think this is wrong?

How is it you Venezuela-challenged folks believe that BULLSHIT the MSM spoon feeds you about Chavez? Better pay some attention to what's going on in your own country and let the Venezuelans take care of theirs.

Government by Decree: From President to Dictator Through Executive Orders

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/1563841665.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

You haven't gotten your characters mixed up, have you?

is not Murdoch's paper. that would be the NY post.

They're everywhere... in Venezuela it's Bush pal Gustavos Cisneros

<clips>

By: Richard Gott - New Left Review
With a fortune of more than $4 billion, Gustavo Cisneros likes to promote the notion of himself as the wealthiest man in Latin America and the most powerful media baron of the continent, a Latino equivalent to Murdoch or Berlusconi. Since 1961 the Organización Cisneros has owned Venevisión, the main commercial tv channel in Venezuela—best known abroad for its rabid opposition to Chávez during the 2002 coup, and ceaseless denunciation of his supporters as ‘mobs’ and ‘monkeys’. From the 1980s he has extended his empire across Latin America to include Chile’s Chilevisión and Colombia’s Caracol tv, with a major stake in DirecTV Latin America, whose satellite beams a diet of sport, game-shows, telenovelas and predigested news to twenty Latin American countries. He also has a lucrative share in Univisión, the main Spanish-language channel for the United States, and a joint Latin American internet connection venture with aol-TimeWarner.

Like many wealthy Latin Americans, Cisneros is a chameleon when it comes to nationality. Nominally a Venezuelan—he was born in Caracas in 1945, to an entrepreneurial Cuban father and Venezuelan mother—he was educated and served his media apprenticeship in the us. But he is also a citizen of Spain, at the personal request of King Juan Carlos; an American in New York, a Cuban in Miami, and a Dominican in the Dominican Republic, where his pricipal base—the Casa Bonita, close to the La Ramona beach resort—is within a golfer’s swing of the retreats of other billionaires of Cuban extraction, grown rich on the profits of sugar, rum and real estate. Cisneros’s cosmopolitan lifestyle allows him to escape the limited horizons of a Latin American country that traditionally plays in a minor league. A Venezuelan, according to a long-standing and disrespectful Latin American joke, is a Panamanian who thinks he is an Argentinian. Like so many rich Spanish Americans, Cisneros has always found his own country too small for his talents and too insecure for his accumulated fortune. As one of the shadowy figures providing American capitalism with local muscle outside the United States, he is a striking illustration of why there is no national bourgeoisie in Venezuela. Cisneros is bound hand and foot to the empire, and has been handsomely repaid.

No slouch at self-promotion, Cisnero can now boast a glowing biography by Pablo Bachelet, replete with an introductory panegyric from the liberal Mexican novelist Carlos Fuentes. Bachelet’s motives in this project—he is a half-Chilean, Washington-based financial journalist, ex-Dow Jones, currently Reuters—can hardly be in doubt. Bachelet has had privileged access to the Cisneros family, and most of his account—an undemanding read—is drawn verbatim from the insights of Gustavo himself, who presumably also provided the smiling photographs of ‘the global empresario’ with the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Kissinger, Deng Xiaoping, Walesa, Mandela, Thatcher, Netanyahu, Agnelli and, of course, Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. Why Fuentes, once a pillar of progressive writing in Latin America and an early supporter of the Cuban Revolution, should choose to hitch his wagon to such a figure as Cisneros, when similar literary turncoats in the Anglophone or European spheres would baulk at playing such a role for Murdoch or Berlusconi, can only be explained by the Latin American context.

Gustavo was the fourth son of Diego Cisneros, already an important entrepreneur in Caracas. On the death of his Cuban father, young Diego had gone with his Venezuelan mother to Trinidad, and was educated there as a British-Dominion schoolboy. He moved to Caracas as a young man and soon, with considerable charm and fluent English, became a salesman for us auto firms, selling Chryslers and Studebakers to a burgeoning Venezuelan market in the 1930s, while running a bus service to Catia, a working-class hilltop suburb of Caracas, out of a fleet of converted trucks. The Cisneros fortunes took off at the beginning of the Second World War when the family acquired the rights to bottle and distribute Pepsi Cola. According to local legend (though Bachelet does not mention the episode), Diego’s men pushed Coca Cola’s lorries over a cliff, thereby depriving his rival of their unmistakeable skirt-shaped bottles, unobtainable until after peace was declared. Pepsi swiftly moved to Number One and—uniquely in Latin America—remained in that position in Venezuela for years to come. As Bachelet approvingly relates, Cisneros pére soon brought under his control every product involved in Pepsi’s production: glass, bottles, bottle tops, sugar, carbolic acid, crates and packaging. Later the company began operating in other countries in Latin America, first Colombia and then Brazil. In the 1950s, Diego moved into radio and the embryonic television industry, and in 1961 founded a new channel, Venevisión, which was to become Gustavo’s special preoccupation.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1747

or is he on another crying jag about his collapsing dynasty?

break down squalling with their giant puffy sons. It just tears at your heart strings!



It could be the photo with Cisneros shows them the moment they learned their coup in Caracas had been foiled.

Welcome to DU, malikstein!! :hi:

I read it before it got published in Venezuelanaysis, which reminds me, one loud honker around here has sounded time after time (before I put it on "ignore") concerning this source, trying to scare people away from the information it carries, leaving only those who chose to look into it, regardless, to discover it carries articles originally published elsewhere, and in many colors of opinion pieces. Those guys hate it because it doesn't echo the propaganda being pumped out of _Bush's administration. Gotta drown it out.

Here's some coup material from the Gott article you linked:

Cisneros was a central member of the group that planned the Chávez overthrow of April 2002. On the night of April 11th, after Chávez had been removed from the Miraflores Palace at gunpoint, the principal conspirators gathered in Cisneros’s suite at Venevisión (for Bachelet, who seeks to distance Cisneros from the us-approved coup, this was simply a place where ‘political leaders, business men, union leaders and intellectuals came in time of crisis’). Early the next morning Pedro Carmona, head of the employers’ confederation, announced on tv from Fuerte Tiuna, the principal military base in the capital, that he was the new President—much to the surprise of Cisneros, according to Bachelet, who also finds it unnecessary to mention that on the following day, April 13th, Cisneros went to the Miraflores, already surrounded by an angry crowd demanding Chávez’s return. Carmona had recently announced the closure of the Congress and Supreme Court, as well as the suppression of the Constitution. Cisneros, arriving with local media representatives, suggested that the new government’s communications strategy should be left in their hands. Carmona gratefully accepted. Within minutes of Cisneros’s delegation leaving the Palace, however, the soldiers of the Presidential Guard re-took it, detaining some of the coup leaders while Carmona escaped.

Again, unreported by Bachelet, Cisneros gave orders that his channels should carry no news of the counter-coup, or show pictures of the tens of thousands of people descending from the shanty-towns to ensure the return of ‘their’ President—described by Bachelet as ‘a few counterdemonstrations in favour of the deposed head of state’. For the rest of the day, Cisneros’s screens were filled with old movies and cartoons. News of the events in the capital was carried only by cnn. Chávez’s return to power on April 14th did not deter Cisneros and other opposition supporters from attempting a further coup, this time by organizing a stoppage of the country’s oil industry in December 2002. Chávez survived both the oil stoppage—which cost the country an estimated $6bn—and a subsequent recall referendum in August 2004.
(snip)

... the people control the central bank here. Oh, wait, they DON'T.

monitored election, just as elected Chavez, something Bush wouldn't tolerate or survive?

Would you call what Bush does with signing statements or what any presidents do with executive orders "presidential decree"?

Likewise, "eliminating the autonomy of the Central Bank" could mean changing it from a private institution to something subject to democratic oversight.

You guys seem to only like the consolidation of power when it benefits the already wealthy. How about letting the rest of us live a little better than stray dogs you can kick at your pleasure?

him grabbing dictatorial powers? you only yell and scream about bush and his signing statements?

you can trash Lieberman, and the DLC, and Carville, and Hillary Clinton, of course, and such a thread will get 15 votes of greatness within minutes.

But say something that is not flattering about Chavez and, at most, it will be ignored.

Do you have any other examples?

Hmmm..."asking for increased power" vs. "grabbing dictatorial powers"...

Are you resorting to hyperbole because your case is weak? Or because your understanding is shallow? One could make a reasoned argument that Chavez, like FDR, is concentrating too much power in the executive branch, and then go on to examine his motives and discuss the possible outcomes. But there is nothing reasoned about the dishonest premise of your post, nor your subsequent, alarmist replies. And there will consequently be no productive discussion in this thread. Nice job.

who is "you guys"?

i am against any dictatorial grab of power.

you should be in favor of the central bank being under elected government control, rather than being run by private banks, like the Fed is.

Private banks are part of the system, but private bankers do not run the federal reserve.

Aren't those the undemocratic things we don't like about our own government?

Chavez looks like a leftwing Bush to me.

small sums of money annually to the Native Americans who've been kept out of the power structure, from the oil revenues. It has even been practiced in a very cheap, stingy form in Alaska!

especially in regard to folks who used to live there and have moved on but manage to keep collecting.

It still would be a big boost to someone who really needs some money.

make a right?

Chavez was elected by the people of Venezuela...

:boring:

about someone killing democracy as long as it isnt in the US. people here yell and scream about * and his signing statements. this is even worse.

around the thread does nothing more than confirm how ignorant you are about Venezuela and how effectively the US propaganda machine works. C'mon, since when do you believe the MSM??

:rofl:

Don't tell me you had a problem with Clinton restoring funding to international family planning.

No way. Until I read it from more reputable Venezuelan media, I am not taking your rant seriously.

the daily news is NOT owned by murdoch.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)

WINEP's Board of Advisers includes: Warren Christopher, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, Max M. Kampelman, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Samuel W. Lewis, Edward Luttwak, Michael Mandelbaum, Robert McFarlane, Martin Peretz, Richard Perle, James Roche, George P. Shultz, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, and Mortimer Zuckerman. Wolfowitz and Roche resigned from the board when they entered the Bush administration in 2001, although WINEP still proudly lists them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zuckerman is a propaganda shill for the USA he owns U.S. News and World Report and New York Daily News

<clips>

U.S. News' Zuckerman: Charges that warrantless domestic spying is illegal "miss the point"

Summary: In his U.S. News & World Report column, Mortimer B. Zuckerman wrote that arguments that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program is illegal "miss the point."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602220003

Some people look at the fellow uncritically simply because he calls our Monkey "The Devil" and "Satan" and so forth. His tweaking of our own King George blinds folks to his faults. It's way more useful to separate out his good qualities (low cost heating oil for the poor, e.g.)from his bad (putting visiting Cuban doctors under house arrest so they can't contact people from democratic nations, for example), and that way one can get an honest, as opposed to rose-colored, view of the fellow.

Some of what he's doin is ominous, I'll grant you that. But here's the deal. This guy exists in a world where either you toe the line from Washington DC or you get deposed. The reason communist regimes are often repressive is because the whole world is against them. Even the Soviet Union, at the hieght of it's so called power, was barely hanging on because the world economy, even then, was capitalist. If the world economy was communist, let me tell you something, capitalists would be the most undemocratic people in the history of the world. Even under the best of circumstances capitalism turns into fascism.

Bush tried to kill this guy already. Castro has several documented attempts on his life. If either of these guys blink, their country will be right back where it was as if they never existed.

Hopefully Chavez doesn't become as brutal as Castro, but once these compromises set in, as they must, the regime gets worse and worse. It's really a lost cause, but who do you blame? Isn't it the US for ruthlessly choking the life out of any non-capitalist state entity?

for Venezuela. many previous presidents have been granted the same power. Chavez had it for a year in 2000-01. The assembly can revoke it at any time. Stop fear mongering against a country that is actually in a progressive revolution. Unlike our evil empire.

I'll take his word over Hugo's any day.

Brian, stop fear mongering...asshole.

so that makes it ok? this is a grab at dictatorial powers. whats to stop him from eliminating the assembly once he is granted rule by presidential decree?

progressive or not, a move to dictatorship is wrong. It was wrong of him in 2000-01 and it is wrong now.

no one here or in the press cared when right wingers have done it for the last 20 yrs. We give our president the power to send troops overseas and line item veoto. If Chavez did anythign the assembly didnt like, they would strip him of the power. I am not saying it is a law I would want here, I am simply saying it isnt some new move or power grab. It's a part of their democratic process. There are lots of things about lots of governments I dont like...that doesnt make them dictatorships.

here against more power to * .

the president is the commander in chief. he controls the armed forces by the constitution. it is up to the congress to provide proper oversight for that, ie thru the war powers act. this didnt happen when the repubs where in control of both houses. hopefully now with the democratic party in charge of both houses we will have the proper oversight.

what is to stop chavez from eliminating the assembly thru presidential decree?

rule by presidential decree is not democratic in any way shape or form.

They put him in power and they (and Hugo) know they can remove him if he doesn't fulfill his pledges.

Lot different than the U.S.

>>>"what is to stop chavez from eliminating the assembly thru presidential decree?">>>

This is not the first time this has been given to presidents in Venezuela and IF the NA votes in favor it will be for a one year period.

...B. Types of Legislation

...Enabling laws are those enacted by a three fifths vote of the members of the National Assembly to establish the guidelines, purposes and framework for matters that are being delegated to the President of the Republic, so that he may issue Decretos con Fuerza de Ley or D.F.L. (Delegated Laws or decrees with the rank and force of law). The Assembly may thus delegate to the President the power to set norms with the status of law on specific matters. They are issued by the President by means of that delegation of competence from the Assembly. The President (the delegate) would not normally have competence to sanction that law, but has acquired the power to do so. Most of these decrees deal with economic or fiscal regulation, support and control of enterprises, scarcity of natural resources, and politically related issues.

http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Venezuela.htm#_A._Legislative_Process

Are you saying you had no idea that the little demon the coup plotters installed as the new "President of Venezuela," Pedro Carmona Estanga, seen here in the arms of fellow coup plotter, Carlos Fernández, and speaking at right-wing heaven, Florida International University,



is the one who eliminated the National Assembly? and the Supreme Court? and the Constitution? and the officials at the central bank? ETC., ETC., ETC.,? All in one day?

That was SOME OTHER GUY, not Hugo Chavez. This guy had the blessings of the _Bush White House, as the coup plotters were flown to Washington in the months prior to the coup, to "have speaks" with the State Department.

You really need to start doing your homework, don't you? Time waits for no man.

nt

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

"The governor of Montana says he can turn the billions of tons of coal under his state into enough diesel fuel to greatly reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

And there's an added benefit, says Gov. Brian Schweitzer: the United States will be sticking it to the "rats and crooks" who run the countries that sell oil to us.

Schweitzer speaks to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl this Sunday, Feb. 26, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"Why wouldn’t we create an economic engine that will take us into the next century, and let those sheiks and dictators and rats and crooks from all over the world boil in their own oil!" the democratic governor tells Stahl. Who does he mean? "Hugo Chavez. The Saudi royal family … the leaders in Iran. How about the countries that end with 'stan'? Nigeria? You tell me. Sheiks, rats, crooks, dictators, sure."

-- oh, a catch --

"There is one drawback, however, ... "The process would entail carbon dioxide emissions that would be twice the green house emissions of other fuels."

------

NO vested interest there, eh?

Anyhoo, wyldfolf has fulfilled his purpose -- let no true progressive be unchallanged by his conservatism knee-jerkisms...

Number one, you set the reply up to read as though Schweitzer said the part about carbon dioxide emissions. He did not. It was said by Dr. Robert Williams who AGREED the fuel from coal burns cleaner and doesn’t require burning the coal to create it — a big plus.

You also neglected to quote the rest, where Schweitzer said the carbon dioxide emissions would be sold to oil producers who would send it 5000 feet underground.

But, hey! Let's talk about your hero, the court packing, media censoring, political killing Chavez.

ProudDad TRIED to fulfilled his purpose -- but let no true "progressive" get away with factually challenged posts.

without having to make shit up (I'm not saying you are but you might be misinformed by somebody else's accusations). I've got no problem with this Schweitzer guy either but I think he's wrong on this one.

Let me also remind you that our hero FDR was also accused of packing the courts.

... the truthiness of people here any day.

.. and FDR DID try to pack the courts.

Who is he censoring?

For 80 years the same people ran that country like some banana republic and installed one corrupt judge after another. As far as I'm concerned his administration is trying to get a level playing field. So was FDR a dictator, crook, rat or whatever too?

Who is he censoring?

See this, results on a totally objective uniform measure of press freedom, conducted by the most reputable source there is -- Freedom House.


A hostile political atmosphere under the government of President Hugo Chavez has continued to affect the largely pro-opposition private media. One result has been a steady decline in press freedom over the past several years-a trend that continued in 2005-reflected in the government's enactment of legislation prohibiting the broadcast of certain material, its intimidation toward and denial of access to private media, and the continued harassment of journalists, directed primarily at those employed by private media outlets.

The legal environment for the press deteriorated in 2005 owing to two new restrictive laws that have increased the severity of punishments for desacato (disrespect) and expanded the "social responsibility" constraints for radio and television. The Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, signed into law in December 2004, contains vaguely worded restrictions that could be applied to severely restrict freedom of expression. For example, the law forbids graphic depictions of violence between 5 am and 11 pm on both television and radio. Another worrying development occurred on March 16, when the so-called overhaul of the penal code took effect. The revised code makes insulting the president punishable by 6 to 30 months in prison and makes comments that could "expose another person to contempt or public hatred" subject to one to three years in prison on top of a severe fine. In July, the Office of the Attorney General invoked the new desacato provisions to investigate the Caracas?based daily El Universal for an article that allegedly criticized his office and the judiciary.

Government cadenas (announcements) require that broadcasters cease regular programming to transmit official messages; 171 such cadenas were issued in 2005, several during the December National Assembly elections. Journalists complained that a lack of access impeded their reporting, including denial of entry to the presidential palace and other official events. In 2005, journalists were barred from reporting on the military, hospitals and stadiums, and the judiciary. On November 1, David Ludovic, writer of the El Nacional newspaper column "A Las Puertas de Palacio" ("At the Palace's Door"), was pressured by the president's security personnel into handing over a tape of interviews done adjacent to the Palacio Blanco, a building in front of the Miraflores presidential palace in downtown Caracas.

Direct assaults against media declined compared with 2004, but journalists still decried authorities' efforts to prevent free reporting, including the forced closure of media outlets. On October 24, officials of the national customs and taxation office (SENIAT) temporarily shut down the operations of the daily El Impulso in the city of Barquisimeto, evicting the administrative and editorial staff. SENIAT also imposed a US$13,900 fine on El Impulso, reportedly in connection with "flaws in the paper's 2002 tax return." Several press freedom advocacy groups protested after a police raid on the home of Venezuelan journalist Patricia Poleo. Poleo's house was raided on January 28 in a search for information that could reveal the identity of her news sources for a story on alleged corruption involving public prosecutor Danilo Anderson, who was murdered in an explosion in November 2004.

The government controls two national television stations, a national radio network, and a wire service. The president has a weekly radio show and exercises his power to preempt programming to ensure extensive broadcasting of government announcements in private media. In July, the government launched Telesur, an international television network, in an attempt to "promote Latin American stories." But when Chavez appointed his minister of communications and information, Andres Izarra, as the network's president, the TV network was perceived as another tool for government propaganda. Izarra later resigned from the ministry to work full-time for the network. There are no government restrictions on the internet, which had 3 million users (12 percent of the population) by March 2005.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/modules/publications/pfs/modDisplayCountryDetail2.cfm?country=7088&year=2006

Political killings of Chavez opponents.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/02/19/venezu5323.htm

If so what was determined? If this happened in Caracas I believe the mayor there belonged to the opposition until a recent election (I could be wrong on that). What did the local authorities find out about these murders (they are the first ones that are supposed to investigate)? The article is pretty vague on details.

As far as the press goes, you and I would probably handle things differently if we were the leaders of that country. But at the same time how would we handle things if we were kidnapped at gun point by some of the military high command. Then witnessed how these same privately owned channels lied about the whole thing to the people. Not only did these so called journalists lie about his resignation they actually welcomed the short lived 24 hour dictatorship of Pedro Carmona. What happened during this period? He abolished the national assembly, the constitution, the ombudsman (protector del pueblo). Then they refused to cover how the metropolitan police (Caracas) were shooting protestors at random with live ammunition. Not only did these so called journalists welcome the military dictatorship. They had the balls to get on TV grab assign each other about how well their plan went. These people are on tape saying how everything went smoothly and how great their plans worked out after sitting down with the generals at some rich dudes house and hatching this little scheme. After all this happens and the legitimate president comes back to power these people remain on the air and no one gets fired or even made to apologize.

I can’t think of any US or European politician that would put up with this horseshit. A lot of the people that plotted with the military are still free to this day to work with the opposition and the people that were arrested were given their full constitutional rights. Now that doesn’t mean you don’t make some good points but the situation there is far from a dictatorship. None of my friends from there on either side of the political spectrum even remotely suggest that they live in some kind of dictatorship. Which is what some are suggesting here.

of Hugo Chavez. Easily determined in a search.

Freedom House is financed by the U.S. Government. Frank Calzon, a lunatic Cuban "exile" from Miami has been running it for ages. What a nasty, truculent, vicious little porkie.



Frank with his pal.

...or is it only bogus when it is written about faux socialists that the left adores?

And so what if the organization gets support from the US Government (source on that beyond, say Counterpunch?) When will you demonstrate that that is a bad thing?

Every social program in our country is supported by the US government.

only a short time ago. There are some excellent bits of information on this thread, starting with Say_What's post #29. We KNOW from "Freedom House."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3036333#3038607

Just like the right.

But, that aside, how does connections to the US government make their work null and void? You keep avoiding this question.

organization working for the very same President who involved his administration in the coup against Hugo Chavez is NOT a legitimate source of credible information about Venezuela.

Why on earth would you think it's appropriate to actually ask that question? Twice?

So they've worked for evil people like her, FDR, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, advisors to Martin Luther King...

And I guess everthing they've ever done is suspect:

Freedom House was an aggressive foe of McCarthyism. It was also an early supporter of the movement for racial equality. The organization was involved in the defense of Andrei Sakharov and other Soviet dissidents. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Freedom House established the Afghanistan Information Center, a clearinghouse for information on the conflict. It was among the earliest supporters of Poland's Solidarity trade union. Responding to growing strife in Africa, Freedom House sent study missions to Zimbabwe and South Africa led by Bayard Rustin.

All this.. and more.. bogus. Suspect.

Because they call Hugo Chavez for what he is.

They (Freedom House) are working for _{George Bush.}

So, everything Freedom House has done in the last 6 years has dark overtones because Bush is the president? Or just the things they said about Venezuela?

With respect to Chavez, while I am a socialist, I would say I am more of a libertarian socialist and disagree with his methodology, but in general, I agree with the notion of a central bank being controlled by the people as long as there are rules in place preventing its politicization. The monetary system should be stable and designed to promote economic activity for the wel.being of all instead of a few.

"Freedom House" is a right-wing front now...

Hell, they've even got P.J. O'Rourke on the board for christ's sakes...

But if you care to look at the work they've done and share your wisdom of which of it was "bogus" or not, I'm sure we'd find that the only ones who are being victimized are latin American leftist refimes. LOL! Socialism at all costs, eh?

which will be useful to you:

The decision to nullify the old ruling was made possible because of a law to reform the Supreme Court, passed by the parliament last year. Among other measures, the law increased the number of judges sitting on the Supreme Court from 20 to 32, and allowed for the appointment of a judge by a simple majority vote of the National Assembly, Venezuela's unicameral parliament. Prior to the adoption of this law, a two-thirds majority was required.

The new law also allows for the annulment of a judge's appointment to the court if he or she fails to uphold the law and the constitution.

This reform of the Supreme Court has prompted a lot of controversy both inside and outside of Venezuela. Venezuela's capitalist-backed opposition, as well as US officials and anti-Chavez commentators in the US media, have accused Chavez of violating “judicial independence” and of “packing the courts” with his supporters.

Not only is the claim fundamentally untrue — it is not the president but the National Assembly deputies who appoint the Supreme Court — but the hypocrisy of those making the claim is staggering. There was no serious judicial independence in the courts before Chavez's rise to power, and the Bush administration is renowned for wanting to pack the US Supreme Court with judges who share its neo-conservative ideology.

What the Venezuelan opposition is really afraid of is that the capitalist elite is losing control over the courts, and therefore their immunity from prosecution for the crimes they have committed to date in their campaign against Chavez.
(snip/...)

http://www.soaw.org/new/newswire_detail.php?id=797

...then look at mine:

What received less attention was the law he signed a week earlier that could give him a decisive advantage when it comes time to tally the votes.

The new law expands the number of Supreme Court justices from 20 to 32. It allows Chavez's governing coalition to use its slim majority in the legislature to obtain an overwhelming majority of seats on the Supreme Court. The law also allows his coalition to nullify the appointments of sitting justices. In short, Chavez's supporters can now both pack and purge the country's highest court.

It is this court that may ultimately determine the outcome of the referendum. It will have to decide whether Chavez, should he lose the recall, can run again for president in the subsequent election. And it will have to resolve any legal challenges that arise from the recall vote itself, which is expected to be hotly contested. Pro-Chavez legislators have already announced their intention to name the new justices by next month, in time for the referendum.

Such a political takeover of the Supreme Court would compound damage already being done to judicial independence by the court itself. The Supreme Court has summarily fired lower-court judges after they decided politically controversial cases. It has effectively shut down the country's second-highest court by failing to resolve the legal appeals of its dismissed judges. And it has failed to grant 80 percent of the country's judges security of tenure, which is an essential ingredient of judicial independence.

Chavez supporters justify the court-packing law largely as a response to pro-opposition rulings in a deeply divided court, such as a highly questionable decision that absolved military officers who participated in the 2002 coup. It may be true that some judges let opposition members off the hook after they sought to undermine the rule of law. But Chavez and his supporters should now be taking steps to strengthen the judiciary. Instead they are rigging the system to favor their own interests.

We have seen similar efforts in the region before. During the 1990s Argentina's president, Carlos Menem, severely undermined the rule of law by packing the country's Supreme Court with his allies. In Peru, Alberto Fujimori, as president, went even further in controlling the courts through mass firings and denial of tenure to judges. The subsequent meltdown of democracy in Peru helped inspire the 34 members of the Organization of American States -- including Venezuela and the United States -- to sign the Inter-American Democratic Charter in 2001.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/venezu9015.htm

... and:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20040621.html

He has a well-known bias against leftist governments, and he's especially hostile toward Chavez.

On April 11th, 2002, the head of Venezuela's chamber of commerce and self-proclaimed president Pedro Carmona Estanga abolished the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, and every other semblance of democracy. The next day, José Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch, released an official statement saying:

We call upon the transitional authorities in Venezuela to restore the country's democratic institutions as soon as possible and to guarantee that the human rights of Venezuelans will not be violated, regardless of their political beliefs or affiliations. (Emphasis added).

By referring to the illegal government of Pedro Carmona Estanga as "transitional authorities"Vivanco lends them legitimacy, completely ignoring the fact that this was a coup, and that there are no --authorities'. Particularly the word "transitional"suggests that Carmona's junta was actually --filling a vacuum of power' as they claimed, rather than creating that --vacuum of power' through a well-orchestrated coup. Furthermore, requesting that democratic institutions be restored "as soon as possible,"can hardly be characterized as forceful.
(snip/...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/girdin08142004.html

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

I've already seen both of your links in the past, thanks.

On edit, more:

The substance of the 24-page report (7 pages) is devoted to a detailed and mostly accurate critique of the failure of judicial reform, where most Venezuelan judges are appointed on either a temporary or provisional basis and thus lack any kind of independence. This problem is definitely not one of the issues that government representatives, such as Vice-President Rangel, are trying to hide from. As the report admits,

“Venezuelan justice officials, judges and jurists of all political stripes also acknowledge the problem. In interviews with Human Rights Watch, the Supreme Court president, other Supreme Court justices, the attorney general, the ombudsman, and current and former judges all conceded that the prevalence of provisional and temporary appointments undermines judicial independence.”

Also, the report implies that the situation was no better before Chavez came to power, since only 40% of judges held permanent appointments then. So why does the report’s title then say “Judicial Independence under Siege in Venezuela,” as if this were a recent development under Chavez? Also, the report does not have a single word of praise for the reform effort, even though it acknowledges, in a parenthesis, that “the judiciary has opened new courts in an effort to increase access to justice.” Blaming the Chavez government for problems that pre-date it and not giving credit where it is due are tactics one would expect from a partisan opposition attack, but not from a serious human rights organization.
(snip)

It turns out, what the report is really about, at least if one were to believe the report’s title, (hence the urgency) is the new Supreme Court Law, to which the second (and much shorter – 3 pages) part is devoted. Here the report raises the exact same criticisms that the opposition has raised of the new Supreme Court law. Also, the report uses quite pejorative language for a presumably objective report, giving the law a nick-name worthy of the opposition, calling it “the new court-packing law,” consistently throughout the report. Again, no one should be surprised if readers mistake such a report for an opposition document.

First, the new law was supposedly passed under questionable circumstances (the opposition’s role in these circumstances, of a minority attempting to block the functioning of the legislature at any cost is conveniently omitted from the report). Among the more serious accusations leveled here is that an “organic law,” which this is, requires a 2/3 majority to pass the legislature. However, the constitution’s article 203, which HRW cites, says quite clearly: “Any organic law project, except those that this constitution qualifies as such, will be previously admitted by the National Assembly by a two-thirds vote of the members present before beginning discussion of the respective law project.” (emphasis mine) Note, it does not say that a two-thirds majority of all Assembly members is required to pass the law. Only a two-thirds majority is required of those present to begin discussing the law.

Second, the Supreme Court law allows the Chavez government to “pack” the court by increasing its members from 20 to 32. Here it is important to note that the number of judges is slightly arbitrary. That is, the constitution does not specify how many judges should preside over the Supreme Court. The ability of the legislature to specify the number of judges is something that is completely within the realm of the legislative power, just as it is in the U.S.<1> While it certainly will tip the balance of power towards the government in terms of the judges’ sympathies, this, by itself, is not an undermining of judicial independence, as the report suggests. Criticizing this aspect of the Supreme Court law, places Human Rights Watch squarely in sympathy with Venezuela’s opposition, in its effort to make sure that the opposition does not lose its balance of power in the court.
(snip/...)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1200

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

Human Rights Botch: Vivanco & Venezuela
By Al Giordano,
Posted on Thu Jun 17th, 2004 at 03:04:21 PM EST

José Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch today launched a media-attention-seeking attack on the Venezuelan government for a new law providing a process for impeachment of Supreme Court justices in that country. He held a press conference in Caracas, barking highly charged words in a report titled Venezuela: Judicial Independence Under Siege.
Vivanco and Human Rights Watch are now on record opposing a U.S.-modeled impeachment process for Supreme Court justices in Venezuela. The timing - two months before the August 15 referendum in that country - is obviously a partisan attempt to meddle in electoral politics.

Perhaps Vivanco and his bureaucrats should have done a little bit of research on the United States Constitution and American History before demonstrating such ignorance about democratic principles.
(snip/...)

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/6/17/15422/6410

So you're saying that everyone with the exception of such "reliable" sources as Counterpunch are making it all up?

Interesting Counterpunch has a problem with Court Packing until it comes to Chavez:

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08032005.html

Saw your Counterpoint article. Could you explain what that article has to do with Hugo Chavez?

There's no connection. What's the point here?

On edit, have more for you, if you're interested in reading it:

Our Masters of Propaganda
by Stephen Gowans

Swans November 12, 2001 at http://www.swans.com
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca, 13 November 2001

~snip~
Who is Human Rights Watch, anyway? Take a look at the organization's web site and it becomes immediately clear that this isn't a group of financially struggling human rights advocates, camped out in a low-rent office in some crummy part of town, proudly maintaining its independence from government and corporate elites. On the contrary, it's well-funded, and it's well-connected. Its links snake through the foreign policy establishment of the United States, through the State Department, and through the government's propaganda arm, Radio Free Europe. How immensely bold then to claim that the Taliban are propaganda specialists. Please. With its PR firms, its polling, its PsyOps, it press offices, with CNN and the press yielding to the White House request not to disclose Osama bin Laden's remarks unedited, with Hollywood pledging to join the fight against terrorism, the real propaganda specialists are to be found in Washington, and New York, and L.A., not Kabul. Yes, the Taliban have an interest in inflating the number of civilian casualties. But, by the same token, Washington has an interest in minimizing, in obscuring, and in denying the true extent of the human misery it's responsible for creating. And it has infinitely more resources to do so. Decades ago, the old Nazi, Hermann Goering, leaned in to his microphone at the Nuremberg trials and held forth on war and propaganda. The Nazis, with their Reichstag fire, their humanitarian intervention into the Sudentenland, their stories of Germany under attack from within and without, were masters of propaganda. "Why of course the people don't want war," began Goering. "That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along." The Nazi leader paused, then continued. "All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." Sound familiar? Now, ask yourself this: Why is there so much Washington doesn't want you to know? And who are the real master propagandists?
(snip/...)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW111A.html

Maybe it's because he... violates human rights?

My counter article from Counterpunch was to show how they deplore court packing in THIS country but don't have a problem with it in Venezuela.

But let's take up "Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG)"

Who is Human Rights Watch, anyway? Take a look at the organization's web site and it becomes immediately clear that this isn't a group of financially struggling human rights advocates, camped out in a low-rent office in some crummy part of town, proudly maintaining its independence from government and corporate elites.

So to be credible, they have to be poor and eat raman noodles three times a day?

Again, your choice of sources are very suspect.

Centre for Research on Globalisation is run by Michel Chossudovsky, who is critical of all thing related to the US government. He and CRG have essentially denied bin Laden was responsible for 9/11! In fact, Chossudovsky subscribes to host of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

And I'm sure the folks in Kosovo who graciously thanked Wes Clark for saving them appreviated being Chossudovsky's sentiments on the Kosovo action. According to your looney-tunes source (Chossudovsky), Wes Clark sponsors terrorists.

Exposing Human Rights Watch and their motives for spreading misinformation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=332009

Knock yourself out repudiating these sources. Yeah, I'm sure they all are advancing lies. Your need to use them to attack Hugo Chavez precludes the possibility they may be fallible, or may be political. After all, they are pure as the driven snow, aren't they?

For the sake of argument and time, I won't dispute Human Rights Watch has the connections asserted, but what your source fails to do is demonstrate why those connections are bad or how they compromise their stated objections.

To discount what they contend about Chavez simply because you're gushing over someone who is setting up a faux socialist government is to discount everything they've done. There is simply no evidence to suggest they have a personal vendetta against Chavez and are cooking the facts to make him look bad.

It was symbolic that 2006 ended with a colonial hanging--- most of it (bar the last moments) shown on state television in occupied Iraq. It has been that sort of year in the Arab world. After a trial so blatantly rigged that even Human Rights Watch---the largest single unit of the US Human Rights industry--- had to condemn it as a total travesty.
(snip)

http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq12302006.html

Yeah, I know. The source isn't up to your standards. Yeah, isn't that true of all these sources?They're all, let's face it, inferior. Can't be trusted. Not "main stream," like the Washington Times!

Our Greatest President - Gerald Ford

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12272006.html

Howard Dean Backs The Occupation of Iraq

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese04222005.html

Howard Dean's Gay Bashing

http://www.counterpunch.org/wolf07102004.html

Scary Scary John Kerry

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank03272004.html

Wesley Clark for President? Another Neocon Con Job

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen09182003.html

Meet Senator Slither (Referencing Barack Obama)

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12092006.html

They publish articles by many authors.

What is your issue with the first one on your list?

Yes, many authors. One website. They won't publish what they disagree with.

Don't think it works that way. Sorry.

ANYTHING that is published there is endorsed by them. Therefore, anyone who believes the information YOU have posted from Counterpunch must also believe what I posted because it all came from the same approved source.

Settled.

...and just about anything else that is flaming leftwing.

Settled.

Ford was surrounded by bellicose advisors such as his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger; his vice president, Nelson Rockefeller; his chief of staff, and later secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld and his presidential assistant, Dick Cheney. The fact that this rabid crew were only able to persuade Ford to give the green light for Indonesia's invasion of East Timor--an appalling decision to be sure -- is tribute to Ford's pacific instincts and deft personnel management. Unlike George W. Bush, Ford was of humane temper and could mostly hold in check his bloodthirsty counselors.

I suspect that Cockburn is using hyperbole ("greatest president") to make a point about imperialism.

Ford may look good next to Bush, but that bar isn't too high to begin with.

But, no, I think Cockburn genuinly has affection for Ford for if only for the quoted passage above, "anti-imperialism" being the fashionable scale to measure someone by.

I'm not sure how fashionable that is, and I can certainly understand smart people thinking that that's the most important political issue there is today. Increasing the gap between a few powerful elite and the rest of the world isn't just a problem within America. It's a problem around the globe and the more that gap widens, the more we should all worry.

and Ford did the least to advance American imperialism, in Cockburn's mind.

Do you dispute the argument? Is there an American President who failed worse at imperialism? If you think so, let Cockburn know that he's wrong.

I don't dispute Cockburn believe's Ford did the least to advance American "Imperialism" (if there is really such a thing) but I do dispute Ford was the greatest American president and think Cockburn is a moran for thinking so.

Do YOU think Ford was the greatest American president? Greater than Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt? Greater than Lincoln, Jackson, Kennedy?

Cockburn needs to get real.

The argument in the article is plain as day. Cockburn's primary measure of the American presidency is whether it fails at imperialism (which is, arguably, the most important global political issue today). By that measure, he thinks Ford was a great president because he did almost nothing (only one attrocity in two years is a pretty good record for a US President) and he achieved such a low number even though people like Kissinger, Rumsfeld and Cheney were in his administration.

Where do you rank American imperialism in the list of issues threatening the well-being of the citizens of this planet?

If you rank it very low, then we know where you're coming from.

... elsewhere:

"Do you dispute the argument? Is there an American President who failed worse at imperialism?"

in this thread, and it would explain your desire to turn the tables here -- you're claiming that I'm diverting this thread from its true course, which is really your attempt to divert this thread from what it really is about, which is imperialism!

he really just likes being a shit-disturber. He's a "contrarian"...

You take any position to the left of Lieberman and good ole' 'wolfie' will track down some bogus "facts" (or make them up) or, if he can't do that, just insult you...anything to try to bug the "lefties".

He really doesn't bother me at all... Don't let his nonsense bother you...

good ol' proud papa likes to jump into conversations and never offer anything relevant to them, defines inconvenient truth as "bogus facts," hurl a few insults, then whine when he's insulted back.

And did I mention he purposely misquotes souces, then doesn't link to them hoping no one will check behind him? Sad.

seems to be all he has for a counterargument.

It's hard to be bothered by that.

He's not even willing to take his own arguments forward.

Even if you think they're funny, sad and frightening, that doesn't excuse you from having to explain why you think that and it doesn't excuse you from having to address their content.

you're not doing your kid proud, dad!

Forgive me if I don't trust your source. I'd like to see direct quotes of Chavez stating he plans to legislate by presidential decree rather than an anti-socialist interpretation, thank you.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/01/09/en_pol_art_09A822541.shtml

The International Press Institute (IPI) strongly condemned in Vienna the decision by President Hugo Chávez not to renew the broadcasting license of the private TV station Radio Caracas Television (RCTV).

IPI director Johann P. Fritz said in a communiqué, quoted by Efe, that the institute "believes that RCTV is being targeted for its critical reporting of events in Venezuela."

"Overthrow the government", appeared in El Universal, 20 March 2002. Andres Mata was one of several media owners who met with Dictator-for-a-Day Pedro Carmona during the failed coup in April 2002. Here's a clip from 2002 just after Chavez was kidnapped.

<clips>

...One step forward" was the triumphant headline in El Universal. Journalist Rafael Poleo, who had filed the account of the first meeting of the rebel leaders, took responsibility (with others) for the document setting up the new government. During the afternoon "President" Carmona offered Poleo's daughter, Patricia, the post of head of the central information bureau. The decree establishing a dictatorship was countersigned by the employers, the church and the representatives of a pseudo "civil society", and also by Miguel Angel Martínez, on behalf of the media. Daniel Romero, private secretary of the former social-democrat president Carlos Andrés Pérez, and an employee of the Cisneros group, read it out.

...In the late afternoon of 13 April, crowds gathered in front of RCTV (then Venevisión, Globovisión, Televen and CMT, as well as the offices of El Universal and El Nacional), throwing stones and compelling journalists to broadcast a message calling for "their" president to be restored. It was an intolerable attack on the press; terrified journalists broadcast an appeal for help on air - conveniently forgetting that they were supposed to be on the rebel side. "We too are part of the people; we too are Venezuelans and we are doing our duty. It is not possible that the supporters of Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chávez should consider us their enemies."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2321

that was intrumental in the abortive coup against Venezuela's elected government. Do you suppose that if CBS participated in a coup against the US government that it's licence would be renewed? Probably.

The Venezuelan people had to choose between exploitation of their labor and natural resources by outside international corporate interests (backed up the good ole' CIA/Bush) or socialism. The country was controlled by a very wealthy, small elite bought off by the corporations. Like pre-Castro Cuba, there was no significant middle class, but masses of illiterate poor. Socialism will most likely greatly raise the standard of living for a large majority of Venezuelans - that's why they keep re-electing Chavez. It is their country - and he was "democratically" elected, and the majority of Venezuelans chose socialism. Their country - their choice. What's your stake in the matter - work for one of those corporations? Have stock in one of those corporations?

Venezuela on road to socialism: Chavez
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
CARACAS - President Hugo Chavez announced plans yesterday to nationalize Venezuela's electrical and telecommunications companies, pledging to create a Socialist state in a bold move with echoes of Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution. "We're moving toward a Socialist republic of Venezuela, and that requires a deep reform of our national constitution," Chavez said in a televised address after swearing in his new cabinet.

"We are in an existential moment of Venezuelan life," he said. "We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it."

Chavez, who will be sworn in tomorrow to a third term that runs through 2013, said he wanted a constitutional amendment to eliminate the autonomy of the Central Bank and would soon ask the National Assembly, solidly controlled by his allies, to give him greater powers to legislate by presidential decree.

In the oil sector, it didn't appear Chavez was ruling out all private investment. Since last year, his government has sought to form state-controlled "mixed companies" with British Petroleum, ExxonMobil, Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Total and Statoil to upgrade heavy crude in the Orinoco River basin.

and part of the same quote. the key part which you have in your post


"Chavez, who will be sworn in tomorrow to a third term that runs through 2013, said he wanted a constitutional amendment to eliminate the autonomy of the Central Bank and would soon ask the National Assembly, solidly controlled by his allies, to give him greater powers to legislate by presidential decree."


anybody who thinks it ok to rule by presidential decree cannot be a progressive IMHO.

Yes, I know it was the same article. But you were selective in what you posted, and I thought it was better to let posters read the whole thing for themselves to see if they agreed with your subjective interpretation of it. And also, it's important to attribute it to the AP, rather than one newspaper where people get distracted over who owns the paper.

You implied that Chavez would rule entirely by presidential decree. That is not the case, and as other posters have pointed out, many presidents/chief political officers have various powers to rule by presidential decree. Socialism is more progressive than the quasi-slavery found in third world countries which call themselves democracies, but are actually run by a small ruling class elite paid off by corporate exploiters. Do you consider corporate exploitation to be "progressive"?

is wrong. as is ruling by decree, be the person on the left or the right.

Why don't you answer this? Is it a matter of your job, your investments, - do you have relatives there? Are you Cubano and you hate Chavez for his ties to Castro? Because your venom for Chavez sounds way beyond an academic interest.

Let me pose the question this way. If you had a choice between working in sweatshop conditions for some foreign corporation exploiting your national natural resources, and voting for socialism which provides you and your kids with education and health care, what would you choose?

That was the beginning of my interest. Since then I have also spent a lot of time in the Caribbean and Central America (where I spend time with people working hard to make a living), and have friends and relatives who do volunteer projects every year in Latin America - building health clinics, community centers, etc. and I follow the news. I know the widespread poverty in those countries, and I know the corporate exploitation that has raped them economically. I know the history of the CIA's activities to protect corporate interests in those countries. Pragmatically speaking the choice is not between corporate exploitation and your utopian ideal of perfect democracy. It is between corporate exploitation and Chavez's reforms through his form of socialism.

Now, I've answered your question. Will you have the courtesy to answer mine?

Don't be obtuse.

He never asked me that.

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

as you do. Just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't make him a disrupter.

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

other than not wanting to see any people under a dictatorship.

what would you choose dictatorship or democracy?

energy for the people under the fucking Dic-tator in the US and let the Venezuelans enjoy the man they actually VOTED(:think:) into office.

Why pretend elsewise?

You way would leave Venezuela reduced to watered-down social democracy at best.

It's not just expats and people with money there. I don't trust Chavez. I think he's a demagogue who's setting himself up for tyranny.

The funny thing is, any time I say something like that, people say, "Oh, but you think it's OK when Bush does it I guess?"

No. I see the two pretty much as mirror images of each other: power-hungry demagogues. They both kick each other around to energize their base. I don't want to play either of their games.

was consolidating power like he is doing, DU would be up in arms.

I guess...since he's "our" demagoguing tyrant, he gets a pass...and more.

Is it not fact that Bush already is a tyrant of sorts while the worst that even opponents of Chavez can say is that he might become a tyrant?

ie, people who have achieved power through extraconstitutional means

How many times has the National Assembly rewritten it? Just the one time?

Did you have a point to make?

...and let me get in on that action.

nt

sounds like a good idea.. considering how the word 'democracy' has been redefined in the last six years. Better to kill democracy than to kill all hope.

That quote is so vague. It could mean he wants more power to hire and fire his staff. You have given no evidence that he's seeking the powers of a dictator, as Bush has done.

The real reason for US opposition to Chavez is found elsewhere in the article:

"President Hugo Chavez announced plans yesterday to nationalize Venezuela's electrical and telecommunications companies"

that is evidence in itself.



that isnt talking about firing staffers, he already has that power. hells he just replaced his VP after firing the old one.

Every Governor of a state and the US President have the power to make some decisions by decree, or "executive order" if you prefer that term. The article doesn't state that he is seeking absolute power, as you are suggesting. The article says "greater" powers not absolute powers.

what is the difference between a "Presidential decree" and an "executive order"?

Defining these terms is absolutely critical for all participants to have any meaningful debate. Until then, the premise in the OP is vague. The more meaningful news is that he is nationalizing two more major sectors of the Venezuelan economy.

I know how executive orders work, and I certainly know how "signing statements" and "line-item vetos" work, but what is the extent of the power of a Presidential decree, and what form of Presidential decrees has Chavez made in the past when he had the power before?

My experience researching Chavez indicates that he is given a really bad rap in the U.S. in comparison with his actions. I have seen little evidence otherwise. I do concede that Chavez is paranoid, but I also concede he has a perfectly good reason to be. His people seem to love him, and he has improved conditions there and elsewhere. I have a 75% positive reaction to Chavez in general terms. Just so everyone knows where I stand.

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

have you held public office or ran for public office?

just because there is socialism does not mean it is automatically good. democracy and freedom need to go hand in hand with it, otherwise it is just as bad as facism.

You're throwing around all these terms and phrases very loosely. First you appear to totally condemn socialism - now you say that socialism is not automatically good (which implies that under some circumstances it could be good. "democracy and freedom need to go hand in hand with it"(socialism).

You and I have not had to live in a third world country where vast numbers of citizens lived in abject poverty. I have seen slums in the U.S. and they are often far better than the slums in Latin American countries. The U.S. has not exported "democracy" to these countries. We have exported the CIA and our govt. has gone to extreme lengths to protect corporate (exploitative) interests abroad.
How long were the mestizos of Venezuela to live their miserable, uneducated, unhealthy, short lives waiting for some angel of democracy to descend upon their countries, flap her wings and voila! Democracy!

condemn socialism. i condemned dictatorial powers. even if he wants to help his people the ends never justify the means.

Meanwhile, Chavez has already brought education and health care to the barrios.

capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

Some sage whose name I have forgotten once said:

"The greatest impediment to democracy in America is the fact that the poor have been convinced that they already have it and that the rich are terrified that they might achieve it."

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

if another coup attempt is on the way.

today, there ain't much difference. Same old US dirty tricks against democratically elected leaders.

I don't think the coup planning ever really stopped. The latest US tactic is that they're planning nice with Venezuela while funneling millions into the so-called opposition, just like they did with Allende. It's pretty scary if you ask me. Had El Mono Bush not been preoccupied with the MessinPotamia, who know what would have gone on in LatAm.
:scared:

and electric industries. He's also hinted at nationalizing other industries. No US President or Governor could exercise that sort of power through merely through an executive order - it would have to go through a legislative process - which Chavez is avoiding.

Nationalizing industries is a far cry from being a dictator, although I can understand why that upsets the Bush administration.

to do something as drastic as nationalizing private industries?

How, exactly, is that a "far cry from being a dictator"?


And your line about Bush is a red herring.

if he was elected with the understanding that he was going to do these things, and the legislature votes to give him those powers, then yes that is a far cry from being a dictator. Dictators aren't elected and don't ask permission.

The line about Bush is very relevant because it tells us why there is so much bad press coverage about Chavez when there are real dictators in Latin America doing much worse with Bush administration support. Why don't we read about them in the news like we read about Chavez? I'm not willing to let myself be manipulated by corporations who use their media outlets to advance their anti-democratic agenda in Latin America.

doesn't seem to have the checks and balances ours has. So, yes, you're right, if the legislature votes to give him those powers, then he's not going around a legislative process. I think it's a poor system, myself. I don't think Chavez is a dictator, per se. But I do think rule by decree, especially when it's used in the way this one will be (nationalizing industries) is a step down that path, whether that right is given by a legislature or not. It tramples on the rights of those who disagree, something our system, for all it's faults, still does a fairly good job of.

I don't know if Chavez campaigned on this issue. But if this causes foreign investment to dry up - and there are already signs that could happen, then the people of VZ might not be so happy with him. Especially if the price of oil drops, since that's really the only thing holding their economy up.

how about the fact that he is shutting a TV station down, one that does not toe the line his government puts forth. I may not agree with anything fox news has to say, but i will fight for their right to say it.

part of a functioning democracy is the ability for the opposition to say what they want when they want (as long as it doenst cause a riot etc) without being shut down by the government.

http://www.freemedia.at/cms/ipi/statements_detail.html?ctxid=CH0055&docid=CMS1168276126708

Congress passes bills that let the preznit do trade treaties pretty much at will.

Chavez is asking for similar authority with respect to control of natural monopolies in Venezuela.
:shrug:

industry in the country...

Do you really think a government takeover of that industry is the equivalent to fast track authority on trade agreements here in the USA?

...I do really think the two are comparable. Not equivalent, but comparable.

Especially insofar as both represent a direct and open ceding of power to the executive branch by the legislative, with broad economic scope.

I'll worry about Venezuela when GWB stops invoking executive priviledge all over the planet!

It seems to me that defending Chavez by equating his actions to those of our own Bush puts one on rather tenuous ground.

We need to clean up our own backyard for a change!

and yesterday and the day before, etc., about his new Vice President, and his statement about hating to make that choice and lose V.P. Rangel.

Gee, seems a little hasty. A Vice-President for only a day or two. Wow! Who'd have thought it?

This is not the same as sending the national assembly back home and ONLY ruling by decree, which is the insinuation being made by the OP.

George Bush rules by decree, as has every president we have had. Executive Orders are rule by decree. We do not have a pure parliamentary system and neither does Venezuela. Chavez has asked for 'greater powers to rule by decree'. That is it.

That sounds very like what Chavez has accomplished and continues to accomplish in Venezuela.
(My definition is from the Oxford English Reference Dictionary - which nowhere equates "progressive" with either "democracy" or any particular political party. Neither does it exclude socialism from its definition.)

to the government to use for social programs. As of last summer the bank had $29 billion in international reserves, the highest level of reserves of any Latin American country. It sounds to me like the bank is trying to tie up as much money as possible to undermine Chavez's social programs, and in hopes that the pro-industrialist elite will return to power and have all that money waiting for them.

Venezuela poised to seize bank's reserves
By Andy Webb-Vidal in Caracas

Published: July 7 2005 14:37 | Last updated: July 7 2005 14:37

Venezuela's central bank is bracing itself for a hostile takeover bid by an unlikely suitor: the government of President Hugo Chávez. Legislators loyal to Mr Chávez are close to approving a law that will allow the government to withdraw and spend at least $5bn (€4.2bn, £2.9bn) of the bank's international reserves, which currently stand at $29bn.


For more than a year, Mr Chávez has insisted that the level of reserves accumulated by the world's fifth-largest oil exporter is too high, and that the money would be better used for social programmes. Among Latin American economies, Venezuela has the highest level of reserves as measured by equivalent weeks' worth of imports. The central bank, says Mr Chávez, should belong to “the people”, and it must come under full control of his radical nationalistic “Bolivarian revolution”.

Government-aligned deputies, who maintain a narrow but effective majority in the National Assembly, began the final debate on the law on Thursday and they predict its passage next week. But the move is leaving some economists aghast at what they see as the demise of the bank's role as guardian of the bolvar, Venezuela's national currency. The bank has tried to resist the law.

if the price of oil drops, what will then happen to Chavez's social programs. how will they be paid for? he relies almost solely on oil revenues for his programs.


i am against his grab at power. but i think what he wants to do to help the poor of his country admirable. however he should be careful not to do it at the expense of the longterm economic health of his country. if the oil revenues go down, the poor might wind up in a worse place than they are already.

And especially how much they might suffer if the price of oil goes down. But, uh, the price of oil ain't going down any time soon and Chavez will take care of his people with or without large oil revenues. That's why they elected him again. :hi:

PB

misfortune to befall the stomped-nearly-flat-by-the-oligarchy poor in Venezuela.

You'll see there is very little chance of a significant drop in the price of oil, now or ten years from now.

Generally, I like Chavez a lot more than I like his detractors. Chavez is fighting his own upper class and the US government in a country where the oil industry has typically had more power than the government. I can't prove it, but believe that he is most likely the target of a concerted disinformation campaign funded by BushCo and the oil companies. It would explain the way most stories about him are slanted to the right.

Every move Chavez makes is under a microscope and anything at all that might be negative is blown out of proportion.

It kind of reminds me of the way our press covered the Gore campaign in 2000.

care pay for themselves.

Isn't allowing government control of a central bank more democratic? Calling it undemocratic makes absolutely no sense. It would be like saying the US Congress can control the Federal Reserve is undemocratic. Right now the US Federal Reserve is a quango (quasi-non-governmental organization), many books of which have been written on by the tin-foil set. I don't disagree with them that the Federal Reserve should be brought more under government control.

See: Japanese economy, 1985-2000+

is not a good thing.

As Stiglitz says, it is an obligation of democracy to regulate the marketplace.

Market fundamentalism is very bad for democracy.

Chavez is taking one extreme and replacing it with another. But as far as I'm concerned, that's for him and the people of Venezuela to decide.

Chavez is not implementing an extreme; it is a mixed market economy with govt. regulated private entrepreneurship and state controlled utilities. Much as was in Europe not to long ago before the wave of privatization and corporate self-regulation - which arguably was in many ways better then how it is now.

The models that work to create growth and also educate and keep the population healthy and happy are out there. They're not extremes.

Work (both by Stiglitz).

There isn't much to salvage from Market Fundamentalism and Washington Consensus politics.

Even the IMF is slowly accepting that Stiglitz is right and -- guess what -- they now accept the idea that unfettered flows of speculative capital are risky (that info is right up front in the intro of the second book, so you don't even need to spend more than five minutes to learn that).

So, if you want to make an argument about what parts of market fundamentalism are great for your average citizen in the developing world, let's hear it. And if you want to make an argument about the "extremes" Chavez is taking that jeopardize the benefits of market fundamentalism, let's hear that too.

I'm advocating altneratives to solving the problems of market fundamentalism that don't involve nationalizing every industry that is run by people you don't like.

What he should do is break up the cartels and force competition. Frankly I'd like to see us do a lot more of that in this country as well.

What makes you think Chavez's motivation is to nationalize industries based on how much he dislikes the people who run them?

All the evidence suggests that he's nationalizing industries where having a huge profit motive undermines other aspects of the functioning of society.

I saw a Caracas window washer on the news explaining how Chavez was right because these industries essentially ship the wealth of the country overseas and that it's important at this stage of the country's development for wealth to circulate within Venezuela a lot before a piece of it goes to foreign investors.

Pretty good economic analysis for a window washer, eh? And he probably doesn't have the resources that you have with internet and discussion boards to inform his opinions. Actually, living in Caracas and engaging in the political debate that Chavez is driving is probably a much better route to an informed opinion than you're experiencing here at DU.

"Anti-Market fundamentalism is also bad for Democracy"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3048094&mesg_id=3051314

Chavez does not "nationalize every industry that is run by people he doesn't like".

The Venezuelan state oil company has always been a state oil company, but before Chavez it was run by people who used their position to enrich themselves at the expense of the Venezuelan people.

Venezuelan commercial media are run my people who don't like Chavez and who were complicit in the 2002 coup against Chavez - yet those are not being nationalized.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xKLtJIRmjxE

What is being nationalized are the same utilities that once were nationalized and were privatized by the pre-Chavez RW government - same utilities that were state-run in most European countries until not so long ago.

Besides that there's as much of mixed market economy in Venezuela as there still is (though ever less) in many European countries. Only RW market-fundamentalists would have us believe there's something wrong with that.

These countries where the top 10% own and control everything and everyone else is an economic slave -- they're not Democracies in my book anyhow. Especially with the land ownership...how are you supposed to fix that, when the vast majority of the people will never own anything?

that Chavez won election in the first place shows that they do have a working democracy. along with the fact that his allies were voted in to the majority of the assembly. it fits the definition of democracy.

you do not solve problems thru dictatorship.

because, without knowing that much about him, they thought he'd be easy to manipulate (as, apparently, many in the military were) and they thought he might not be so smart.

The oligarch turned on him after they realized what he was up to. And his reforms ensured, later, that it wouldn't be the oligarch that got to pick future presidents.

So, Venezuela's democracy actually wasn't working so well until they got lucky with Chavez.

Have that poor majority vote for you and then live up to your promises. As Chavez is doing.

besides nations?

These banks hold nations accountable, profit from nations. These banks in a sense are like nations. I think it'd be better if a nation's currency would be under control of that nation instead of under control of some "autonomous" extra-national corporate entity.

Besides that i think the article in the OP is just the usual RW/corporate hit-piece.

I'm not sure they should have so much power that they get to control the fate of the nation.

Let's let it play out. If there are enemies of Chavez who can do what most Latin American countries do when they change governments like most people change underwear, then let them do it.

I'm not a huge fan of Chavez for basically setting himself up as a dictator. He certainly does have blood on his hands. But if the US wants to attack him, I'm firmly against that as well. It all comes down to money in the end and Chavez will keep the oil flowing...

But I agree.

:headbang:

You'd be doing a service for those of us who are interested in Latin American history.

Why is it that Americans always believe that everyone , everywhere wants to live as we do?

And yet Mexicans are considered "free" and "living in a democracy" bullSHIT! They're serfs -- wage slaves to the top 10% and that's never going to change without pissing some people off. How do you change a situation like Mexico, where there is enormous wealth that is monopolized by only a few people? GWB will have us in that same spot in a blink of an eye...BELIEVE IT!

that dictatorship is ok as long as the people know what they are getting? i think the people in germany in the 30's did the same thing, no? ( i am NOT comparing chavez to hitler, merely saying that dictatorships are wrong no matter what)

Thanks....

Again, Viva Chavez for at least trying a different course.

We have yet another RW slanted trash piece against a leader who actually has the audacity to use the power of his government to help his countries poorest residents. You can pretty much count on our corporate media demonizing anyone who dares challenge the Capitalist status quo. Now of course my only question is, Why would we post this trash on DU? We should applaud Chavez, and his attempts to right historic wrongs. He might be paranoid about some things, but I would be too if I had a target on my back as big as his. Most likely we won't have him around much longer.

He has fought historic wrongs. But fighting wrongs does not make one right. The distrust of Chavez on DU stems from people who are suspicious of anyone who wants power as badly as Chavez. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. And the benevolence tends to wear off pretty quickly.

years after taking power. To have absolute authority means one can get a lot done quickly, either for good or ill. Mussolini made the \"trains run on time\" and made many other improvements that quickly benefited the average Italian, but ultimately the price was the price always paid by when authoritarian leaders grasp at so much power: the loss of one\'s liberty.

It wouldn't take long to get some real police attention in the States with one of these babies, and _Bush's face on it. It just wouldn't be allowed.

Here is a much more detailed and honest assessment of what Chavez is asking for:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2187

Why is it more honest? Because it is more specific and a doesn't truncate the issue to a scary quote like " greater powers to rule by presidential decree".

So here's your so called legislating by decree from the article:



From the article it is clear that Chavez is asking for the right of presidential decree regarding only specific issues. From the 1st section we see that he is asking for the right to nationalize key industries that formally been nationalized. Also from the 1st section we learn that we have no fucking clue at this time what the details are of the enabling law.

But that doesn't stop the U.S. and anti-Chavez Venezuelan press from reporting as if we do.

This is also important for our anti-Chavez friends to hear:

"Venezuela has received widespread international criticism for the plan not to renew the RCTV concession, but Chavez has said that he does not care about such reactions and that his decision was irreversible and completely within the scope of Venezuelan law, which gives the executive discretionary power over the renewal of broadcast licenses. Venezuela’s communications minister Willian Lara has suggested that RCTV does not need to close once its license runs out because it sells programs throughout the continent and it could also opt offer its programming on cable."

He's not "CLOSING" the station, just not renewing its license to broadcast on the people's airwaves. Imagine what bush would have done if a major TV network had called for his violent ousting on 9/12/01??? I don't think bush would have waited for license renewal time and just let the license lapse... Do you?

Too bad we couldn't do the same for Faux News...

but i damn well support their right to say what they want to say. its called freedom of speech.

a free press and freedom of speech are the cornerstones of a true free society and democracy.

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

Thanks for posting some facts. Sadly I fear many DUers won't let facts distract them from their beliefs.

Julie

I'm not too worried

FYI a number of countries including

France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree)

Greece (http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/labour_law//directive9445/9445elen.htm)

The Philippines (http://www.ntc.gov.ph/laws/pd-1986.html)

Venezuela prior to Chavez (http://www.law.nyu.edu/centralbankscenter/texts/Venezuela-Presidential%20Decree.html)

Indonesia (http://www.kbri-canberra.org.au/regulasi/keppres432003e.htm)

The Palestinian Authority (http://www.elections.ps/template.aspx?id=112)

Egypt (http://www.bibalex.org/English/aboutus/orgnization/decree.htm)

Mozambique (http://www.ine.gov.mz/Ingles/o_ine/legislation/decree)

USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States), but we call them executive Orders

exercise the option of presidential decree.

Of course, many other countries with a presidential system use them, too. I just skimmed a few examples to put the practice into perspective using a google search on the term "presidential decree".

The concept itself is not inimical to democracy. You have to see what it is used for in order to decide whether democratic practice is being abused.