Anti-Chavez TV channel owner arrested in Venezuela

[hack89]

Source: Houston Chronicle

Guillermo Zuloaga, owner of Globovision, was arrested on a warrant for remarks that were deemed "offensive" to the president, Attorney General Luisa Ortega said.

Ortega said prosecutors are investigating Zuloaga for remarks he made during a recent Inter American Press Association meeting on the Dutch Caribbean island of Aruba, where he joined other media executives in criticizing Chavez's government for limiting free speech and cracking down on critics.

Pro-Chavez lawmaker Manuel Villalba urged prosecutors on Wednesday to investigate Zuloaga for allegedly saying that Venezuela's government is cracking down on its critics and purportedly commenting that it was a shame a short-lived 2002 coup against Chavez failed.

"He must assume his responsibility," Villalba told state-run Radio Nacional.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6930457.html

---

Bush would have loved powers like this

[bluestateguy]

1. The great "progressive" leader Chavez

A fat thug, who may have been democratically elected, but like GW Bush, has complete contempt for dissenters.

[protocol rv]

2. I'm watching it on TV right now

That guy is, as you say in the USA, toast. He spoke too much about the government. I suppose they will do the same thing to me eventually, although I am really a supporter of the revolution. I don't like their incompetence, that is all.

[Bacchus39]

3. arrested for saying Chavez is limiting free speech and cracking down on critics

Chavez proving him right.

[DissedByBush]

4. I believe he's the last one

Chavez now has pretty much total control over the media. There are no critical channels left. The rest are either scared or run by his allies.

And people doubted me when I said he was a wannabe-dictator.

[Wilms]

5. Where did you get those ideas?

[rabs]

6. Some wannabe-dictator

Zuloaga was released TWO hours after he was picked up.




Meantime, what do you think of U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy getting his butt hauled into the Foreign Ministry today and handed a letter of protest because of the remarks by a U.S. State Department flack earlier today in which the flack criticized Venezuela's judicial system?

[protocol rv]

9. They want to silence criticism, that is all

He was picked up to scare the living daylights out of him.

And there was a huge international uproar, including prompt complaints by Insulza, the OAS Secretary General, so the government backed off. It was the same when they announced they would cut electricity in Caracas, the first day they did it, the barrios began an uprising within an hour of the power cut, Chavez reversed the order to cut power, fired the electricity minister, and to this date the power isn't being rationed in Caracas. They like to probe to see how far they can push things, push a bit, if they see a lot of resistance, they back off for a while, then they push again. It's a slow erosion of the legal framework, probably being guided by the Castro strategists.

Venezuela's new communist regime has to be implanted in Venezuela for the Cuban regime to survive, they depend too much on Venezuelan cash flow now. This means they have a keen interest in propping up Chavez, and the only way the Cuban ruling elite knows how to do it is to use repressive tactics - eliminate freedom of expression, threaten, jail or expel the opposition, and devise an electoral system where the communist party reigns supreme no matter what the popular will really wishes.

I suspect that, given the communists' historical record of ruthlessnees and high intensity focus on repression to gain permanent power, Venezuela is doomed. The economy is already crashing, with all indicators headed in the wrong direction - we have very high inflation and a shrinking economy, and rising unemployment. The problem is compounded by capital flight, brain drain (all the smart and educated who can are packing up and leaving), a crumbling infrastructure (including a serious electric power shortage), a crime wave, a health system crisis, and pervasive corruption and lack of transparency in government. This leads to the evolving consensus amongst foreign investors that Venezuela is becoming too much of a basket case to risk investing real equity in the country. And as the economy shrinks and the government loses popularity, they realize their chances to win in fair elections are evaporating, therefore they have to clamp down, and the first clamps are to be applied to those who openly dissent and criticize the government. And I'm fairly certain they will win - for now. Eventually, like all communist regimes, they will crumble and will be forced out, as they were in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. But the Venezuela which comes after that will be a wreck.

[DissedByBush]

11. I believe he got the intended message

"We can get you anytime we want. Consider yourself lucky. Fall into line behind Chavez or else."

Instead of calling the person who criticized the judicial system a flak, how about calling him insightful.

There is no independent judicial system there. Chavez owns it.

[rabs]

13. How disappointing

So, you agree that any State Dept. flak (sic) can thrust the United States as a political actor into internal judicial affairs in Venezuelan, despite international laws and conventions to that effect?

When was the last time Venezuela interfered in internal U.S. judicial or legislative decisons? Yep, you got it, NEVER.

As for U.S. Amb. Fuddy Duddy, you may (or not) recall that Chavez has already booted him out of the country once before. :rofl:

----------------------------

In Washington today:

Caracas, Mar 26. ABN.- Through a press release, the Ambassador of Venezuela to the United States Bernardo Alvarez ratified on Friday Venezuela's demand that U.S. must stop meddling in Venezuelan domestic affairs.

Following the full text:

Venezuela’s Ambassador to the U.S. Bernardo Álvarez today ratified Venezuelan demands that U.S. officials not interfere in the country’s internal matters. He made the point during a meeting with Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela.

During the meeting, Ambassador Álvarez noted, “Relations between the U.S. and Venezuela would only improve if the U.S. show respect for Venezuela’s internal democratic process and judicial decisions, and argued that the U.S. cannot become a political actor in internal Venezuelan matters.” He added, “International law and numerous conventions clearly mandate that states refrain from interfering in the internal matters of other states.”

Ambassador Álvarez’s comments follow a meeting between Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro and U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela Patrick Duddy, which took place in Caracas on March 25. During the meeting, Minister Maduro registered an official protest with Ambassador Duddy over comments made by a U.S. State Department official regarding an internal judicial matter in Venezuela.

Both Minister Maduro and Ambassador Álvarez said that Venezuela remains open to discussing and debating with the U.S. government issues of regional and global importance. Regardless, Venezuela does not insert itself into U.S. internal affairs, including decisions made by the different branches of government. “It is up to the U.S. to accept a policy of mutual respect with Venezuela and not take actions against the country’s sovereignty, self-determination and internal affairs,” highlighted Ambassador Álvarez.

[DissedByBush]

29. I didn't say we can interfere

But we are allowed to express our disappointment.

"Relations between the U.S. and Venezuela would only improve if the U.S. show respect for Venezuela’s internal democratic process and judicial decisions"

Kind of hard to do that when they're just Chavez puppets.

[EFerrari]

33. Your ungrounded accusations reflect on you, not on Venezuela. n/t

[DissedByBush]

35. You must really love Chavez

In order to be so blind to his dictatorial aspirations.

He could have all opposition shot tomorrow and you'd find some way to excuse it.

[Wilms]

36. "...blind to his dictatorial aspirations"?

How about we don't share your paranoid fantasies about what the future holds? :shrug:

[DissedByBush]

39. I see the evidence

I see him cracking down on opposition media.

I see him trying to stay in office permanently.

I see him making various moves to consolidate his power.

These are all signs of the dictator.

[Judi Lynn]

40. If you see it, publish your honest links to your trustworthy information.

Help educated those of us suffering in ignorance. n/t

[DissedByBush]

46. It has been published right here

This is one of them.

As usual you refuse to see the evidence for what it is.

At each event you say "show me the pattern," never looking at all the events together to see the pattern.

[Bacchus39]

52. yep, its right there in the OP. n/t

s

[EFerrari]

54. Exhibit A. Thank you. This from someone who defended the murderous coupsters in Honduras.

Nice.

[EFerrari]

7. You "believe" he is the last one because you've been repeatedly told that in the media.

Have you ever checked it out on your own?

I think not. No wonder people doubt you.

[protocol rv]

10. There is critical media left

But they are being picked off one by one. There's a lot of fear, and people are being arrested. But I know it is worse in other countries, such as China, Iran, Belarus, Cuba, Myanmar, and of course Saudi Arabia. We're not yet where they want us to be.

[DissedByBush]

12. Checked it out

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_bi_ge/lt_venezuela_news_media

"Globovision has been the only stridently anti-Chavez channel on the air since another opposition-aligned channel, RCTV, was forced off cable and satellite TV in January. RCTV was booted off the open airwaves in 2007."

Other articles say about the same.

Chavez continues his suppression of the opposition. A clear sign of a dictator.

[EFerrari]

32. Reading a RW meme in multiple outlets is not checking anything.

Go look at newspapers in Venezuela. Go look and see if you can find a counter example on the air. That's checking.

[DissedByBush]

34. The newspapers in Venezuela

That would be all the publishers afraid of Chavez, right?

Chavez just made a small example of this guy. You think they're going to stray too far out of line?

[Wilms]

37. Do you insist we share your bigotry and incuriosity?

[Judi Lynn]

38. What a shame when people don't lower themselves to do the necessary work

to have any sense of what they're trying to discuss.

Those of us who DO our homework, take the time, have the humility and discipline to sit and study, and THINK about it, know the vast majority of Venezuelan media has ALWAYS been anti-Chavez from the day he was inaugurated in February, 1999.

Venezuela’s press power

Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chávez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force.

More:
http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

~~~~~~~~
It's mentioned closing this article commenting on the total lack of censure by Latin American publishers of the Honduran brutal coup:

.... the Venezuelan “dictatorship” — which has closed not one media outlet and where the large majority of the media are vehemently anti-government.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/803/41344

~~~~~~~~

Media In Venezuela: Facts and Fiction
Written by Caitlin McNulty and Liz Migliorelli
Monday, 17 August 2009 09:36

~snip~
For several decades, commercial television in Venezuela has belonged to an oligopoly of two families, the Cisneros and the Bottome & Granier Group. The tremendous influence of these parties reaches beyond broadcast networks into advertising and public relations agencies that operate for the welfare of the stations, as well as record labels and other societal industries that produce material to be promoted on the stations. Not only does the Cisneros family own Venevisión, the largest station in Venezuela, they own over seventy media outlets in 39 countries, including DirecTV Latin America, AOL Latin America, Caracol Television (Colombia), the Univisión Network in the United States, Galavisión, Playboy Latin America as well as beverage and food distribution such as Coca Cola bottling, Regional Beer and Pizza Hut in Venezuela. They also own entities such as Los Leones baseball team of Caracas and the Miss Venezuela Pageant.3 The reach of the Cisneros power is massive; the media monopoly broadcasts to more than four million television screens in Venezuela, giving it tremendous power and influence.

Globovisión, a channel that is widely broadcast in major metropolitan centers such as Caracas, Carabobo and Zulia and is also available on satellite on DirecTV, and CNN en Español are both private stations that have a harsh anti-Chávez rhetoric. President of CNN en Español Christopher Cromwell has said that Chávez may not like the programming on his network, but this meant that CNN was doing its job correctly. Another station, Valores Educativos Televisión (Vale TV) is a major regional network that is neither state-run nor commercially aimed, run by the Asociación Civil, which is managed by the Catholic Church.4 These smaller, regional networks are never mentioned in reports of media in Venezuela. Five major private television networks control at least 90% of the market and smaller private stations control another 5%. This 95% of the broadcast market was quick to express its opposition to President Chávez's administration as early as 1999, soon after Chávez first took office.5 There are three public and state-controlled television channels that exist on the same national electromagnetic spectrum, including Venezolana de Televisión (VTV, established in 1964, a state-owned television network); Visión Venezuela (ViVe TV, established in 2003, a cultural network funded by the government that is not yet broadcasted nationally); and Televisora Venezolana Social (TVes, established in 2007 as RCTV's substitute).6 These channels cannot compete with the privately owned, commercial media that serve as the dominant source of television news media in Venezuela.

Print media in Venezuela is diverse, but it depicts a greater opposition presence than seen in television networks. Many publications are corporate-owned and extremely critical of the Chávez administration. In comparison to the United States, where New York, the largest city, has only four daily papers (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Daily News), two of which are markedly sympathetic to the Bush administration, Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, has twenty-one daily papers. Whereas the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Washington Post are the only nationally distributed daily papers in the United States, Venezuela circulates eight daily papers nationally. A Washington D.C. based think-tank Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) has described the print media situation in simple terms: "nine out of ten newspapers, including El Nacional and El Universal, are staunchly anti-Chávez." 7

More:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/venezuela-archives-35/2059--media-in-venezuela-facts-and-fiction

[DissedByBush]

41. Evidence for you

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022401884.html?hpid=moreheadlines">Organization of American States report rebukes Venezuela on human rights

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,FREEHOU,,VEN,4562d94e2,4871f63fc,0.html">Freedom of the Press 2008 - Venezuela

Sorry, but when the president has the penal code revised to make "insulting the president" a crime, he is only looking to silence the opposition.

Chavez fans will of course just say they're biased and ignore Chavez' abuses.

[Wilms]

43. Freedom House? Did reagan name them?

LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House#U.S._Government_Role

[Judi Lynn]

45. Embarrassing, isn't it? Reagan absolutely controlled "Freedom" House:

03/01/07
The Freedom House Files
by Diana Barahona

~snip~
During the 1980s, the organization began to receive a majority of its grant income from the newly created NED (founded by Congress in 1983), and contracts for Latin America far surpassed those for Eastern Europe.5 Under the Reagan-Bush administrations, Freedom House continued to promote the foreign policy objectives of the United States in Central America, "supporting the death squad-linked ARENA party in El Salvador while attacking the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, championing Contra leaders like Arturo Cruz, and serving as a conduit for funds from the National Endowment for Democracy."6 Considered "neoconservative" even at that time, the group's trustees and associates were affiliated with the State Department, the National Security Council (Jeane Kirkpatrick), the CIA (through front groups), the U.S. Information Agency, the Trilateral Commission (Zbigniew Brzezinski), the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Committee on the Present Danger, Accuracy in Media, the American Enterprise Institute, Crisis, The New Republic and PRODEMCA, a group that raised funds and lobbied for the Contras. During the 1980s, Freedom House also formed the Afghanistan Information Center, one of several NED-funded groups supporting the mujahedin. This was to complement the government's US $3,000 million covert funding program for the anti-Soviet groups.7

According to Freedom House's IRS Form 990, prior to 1997 its government funding was in the form of "government fees and contracts," presumably for work performed on behalf of the State Department. After that year, however, the funding was qualified as "grants." But with neoconservatives such as Kenneth Adelman, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Otto Reich, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Malcolm Forbes Jr. on the board of trustees, there was no danger the organization would change its ideological course.8

Freedom House's government-linked trustees have traditionally seats in the boardroom with corrupt, right-wing union bosses. In the 1980s and 1990s there were cold warriors Lane Kirkland, William Doherty, Albert Shanker, and Sol C. Chaikin. Doherty, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, was executive director of the CIA-linked AIFLD. Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, was also on the board of the Committee on the Present Danger, the NED and the NED-funded Free Trade Union Institute. He served on a private-sector committee which advised the U.S. Information Agency on labor, "help the USIA enhance its programming through increased use of the 'international activities' of U.S. labor organizations."9

Sol Chaikin was president of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, and he followed the lead of his predecessor, 30-year president David Dubinsky, who eventually embraced "piece-rate wages, no-strike pledges, five-year contracts, opposition to the minimum wage, and opposition to government aid" in an attempt to keep the garment industry in New York City.10 He also embraced corruption and racketeering. By 1997, "New York City's mostly unionized garment industry, with about 35,000 workers, had become a mob-dominated racket that made a mockery of collective bargaining while pushing wages down and hours up to the limits of human endurance."11 Chaikin never tried to clean up the racketeering or better the third-world working conditions of the union's largely immigrant garment workers, but he was a crusader against communism in other countries, joining the Committee on the Present Danger and the board of the Free Trade Union Institute. Chaikin was succeeded as ILGWU president by Jay Mazur, who served from 1986-1995. Mazur is president emeritus of UNITE, the ILGWU's successor, where he banked over half a million dollars in his last year in office while representing New York sweatshop workers who earned an average of $7,000 annually.12 Mazur likewise succeeded Chaikin on Freedom House's board of trustees. Like Chaikin, Mazur allowed high levels of corruption in his union but took a hard line on international communism, chairing the AFL-CIO's International Affairs Committee from 1996 to 2001 and overseeing the Solidarity Center during that time. As of 2004 Mazur was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, according to the Wilson Center.13

Trustees Terence O'Sullivan Sr. and Jr. come out of labor's "mob monolith," the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA). In 1975 Sullivan Sr., who was secretary-treasurer, "was forced into early retirement as punishment for disrupting" a mobster's funeral "with his importunate demands for higher office."14 His son had better manners: as top assistant to Genovese mob puppet Arthur Coia Jr., he was next in line to become the union's president when Coia was removed by the Justice Department in 2000.

Adrian Karatnycky has been a prominent fixture at Freedom House since 1993, when he served as executive director. He served as president from 1996 to 2003, and then became a senior scholar. Karatnycky's links to labor seem to stem from his political work with the AFL-CIO, which in the 1980s and early 1990s continued its implacable decline in the United States but was eager to exercise its influence abroad in the fight against communism. Karatnycky supervised AFL-CIO's programs of assistance to the Polish union confederation, Solidarity, as well as to independent labor unions in Russia, Ukraine, and other Eastern-bloc countries. From 1991 to 1993 he was assistant to the president of the AFL-CIO. He is listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has contributed to its magazine, Foreign Affairs, as well as the New York Times,The Washington Post, and the Washington Times.15

Freedom House has also traditionally had journalists on its board of trustees. Currently these include Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, P.J. O'Rourke of Rolling Stone, and former Reagan aide and Bush Sr. speechwriter Peggy Noonan, now a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. NPR Vice President for Communications Andi Sporkin said in an email to the author on June 22, 2006, that Liasson, NPR's national political correspondent since 1985, is no longer a Freedom House trustee; however, she is listed as one from at least 1997 to the present.16

Target Cuba

In 1995, at the same time Miami exiles and their friends in government were predicting the rapid fall of the Cuban revolution, Freedom House began its USAID and State Department-funded Cuba Program to "provide assistance to Cuba's civil society" and to "raise awareness among international audiences regarding the need for a peaceful transition process in Cuba." From 1995-1997 this program was run by Frank Calzon, a Freedom House principal since 1989.17 It is currently run by Xavier Utset in Washington, DC. Journalist Walter Lippmann says Freedom House was granted US$2.1 million for its Cuba program in 2004.18

On May 11, 2001, the Permanent Representative of Cuba to the UN lodged a complaint with the NGO Committee, alleging that Freedom House engaged in activities that violated its consultative status, objecting to "those NGOs that were being used as agents by certain governments to violate the sovereignty of other States."19 The organization was "a machinery of subversion, closer to an intelligence service than an NGO," he said. "Documents showed receipt of money by illegal groups in Cuba and evidence of clandestine activities. The current Cuba programme of Freedom House involved the recruitment and training of journalists from Eastern Europe and sending them to Cuba for subversive activities."20

Cuba said that during the 57th session of the Commission on Human Rights, "the NGO had accredited as its representatives members of terrorist organizations. Also, accredited Freedom House representatives had lent their badges to non-accredited persons of Cuban origin in order to enter the Palais de Nations, which was not only illegal but put diplomats at risk."

New York librarian, Robert Kent, expelled from Cuba in 1999for espionage, told the New York Times that Freedom House paid for "some of his 10 trips" to Cuba21 and he dropped Frank Calzon's name while he was there meeting with paid "dissidents."22 But Amanda Abrams, press officer for the organization, says that nobody at Freedom House knows Kent.

Haiti and Venezuela in the Sights

The State Department and Freedom House have also targeted Haiti and Venezuela for regime change. The organization reacted favorably when President Hugo Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002,23 claiming on its website that "in Venezuela, it worked with those seeking to stem the authoritarian direction of the Chavez government." But Abrams claims that Freedom House has only been supporting opposition groups in Venezuela since 2004, funded by USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives.24

On March 17, 2004, days after the coup against Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, The Washington Post published an editorial by Adrian Karatnycky, titled, "Fall of a Pseudo-Democrat,"25 which rationalized Aristide's ouster. Karatnycky called Haiti and Venezuela "pseudo-democracies" to justify the overthrow of democratic governments that were not to Washington's liking. This stratagem -- saying that the target government wasn't a true democracy -- was used previously by Dr. Jennifer McCoy of the Carter Center, who told a U.S. subcommittee on March 15, 2000, that the Chavez government was an example of "new, subtler forms of authoritarianism through the electoral option."26 McCoy invented the term, "hybrid democracies," to describe democracies that produced results the United States disagreed with.

In "Fall of a Pseudo-Democrat," Karatnycky charged that President Aristide had "squandered his democratic mandate by tampering with elections, intimidating the opposition and tolerating widespread corruption." If in fact any of these charges were true -- though there is no evidence that they are -- as the spokesman of an organization which claims that its mission is to promote democracy, Karatnycky should know that the democratic way to change the government is not through a military coup, but through elections. This is true especially, as in the case of Haiti, when the leaders of the coup are known human rights violators. The coup was predictably followed by a bloodbath and widespread persecution of supporters of the elected government, who were imprisoned without charges or executed with their hands tied behind their backs. According to a study published by the medical journal, Lancet, under the interim government installed with the coup, 8,000 people were murdered and 35,000 women and children were raped in the greater Port Au Prince area alone.

Using a fallacious comparison, Dr. McCoy likened the Chavez government to the dictatorship of Alberto Fujimori in Peru in her testimony before Congress. Karatnycky put both Aristide and Chavez in the category of undemocratic leaders: "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, having survived a coup attempt in 2002, faces mass discontent and intense growing civic pressure because he has strayed from the democratic path." An even more outrageous attack on Chavez by Freedom House was published in the Miami Herald in August 2006.27

Today, Freedom House continues to serve as both a think tank and a "civil society" funder as part of the State Department's modern "democracy promotion" complex. Frequently cited in the press and academic works, the reports and studies produced by Freedom House and its affiliates promote the neoconservative ideology of its trustees and government sponsors. Although some names and affiliations have changed, the group is still dominated by neocons. Brzezinski, Kirkpatrick, and Forbes are still on the trustees list, as well as Liasson, O'Rourke, and Noonan. Trustee Ken Adelman is a contributor to the Project for a New American Century, along with former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who joined Freedom House in 2000. Adelman was an assistant to Rumsfeld from 1975-1977, U.N. ambassador and arms control director under Reagan, and is currently a member of the Defense Policy Board. He wrote an article for The Washington Post in 2002 titled, "Cakewalk in Iraq"28 in which he said: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Another trustee, Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington, is the U.S. author of the Trilateral Commission report, The Crisis of Democracy and The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order (1996).

More:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2007/barahona030107.html

~~~~~~
No one anywhere is dirtier than former head of Freedom House, Frank Calzon. He's a legend in social perversion: dishonest, vicious, corrupt, combative, congenitally unable/unwilling to be truthful.

Researching Frank Calzon can have you rolling on the floor after looking far enough. What a disaster of a person.

http://www.ciaramc.org.nyud.net:8090/ciar/imagenes/imgBoletines/bol187/img21.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com.nyud.net:8090/vi/-N5xdqOuTWo/0.jpg

Walking out on a TV debate he was losing with former Cuban American National Foundation spokesman Joe Garcia.

http://cache.daylife.com.nyud.net:8090/imageserve/07LV0tGekW3ph/610x.jpg

Sucking up to Grassley.

[DissedByBush]

47. Wow, my prediction came true

You attack the source, probably didn't even read the content.

You don't notice that was published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

And, no, Reagan didn't name them.

Eleanor Roosevelt founded them.

And they can't be all bad since one of my pro-freedom heroes, Lawrence Lessig, is on their board.

Now go ahead, call the OAS's IACHR biased too so you can make sure you've completely dismissed both sources of evidence.

[Wilms]

48. I noticed and I read. Did you?

Notice all the second hand reporting in the IACHR report???

[DissedByBush]

51. As opposed to first-hand reporting from Chavez

And his supporters and those scared of him?

[protocol rv]

53. Venezuela forbids the IACHR from entering the country

The second hand reporting is due to their inability to visit the country. Venezuela is one of the few countries in the world which stops human rights oversight organizations from visiting. The IACHR has requested over and over they be allowed to enter Venezuela, visit places, and carry out interviews. They have been denied.

Furthermore, the second hand sources they have are reliable. How do I know? I live in Venezuela, I see it happen every day. I have to deal with the high crime rate, I see the corruption go on. The corruption has become so bad, they're bringing Cubans in to try to police our government offices. But it's still going on. And how can we call ourselves a free country when it's increasingly being run by Cubans?

[struggle4progress]

8. Globovision’s Zuloaga Released, Can’t Leave Venezuela (Update2) (Business Week)

March 26, 2010, 5:07 AM EDT
By Jose Orozco

... Zuloaga said last week in Aruba during a meeting of the Inter American Press Association that Venezuela would be a different place if the failed 2002 coup had succeeded ...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/globovision-s-zuloaga-released-can-t-leave-venezuela-update2-.html

[bemildred]

14. Being "stridently anti-Chavez" does not give you are right to do whatever you like.

All this moron has to do is obey the law. Try advocating violent overthrow of the US government here and see what happens.

[Bacchus39]

15. when did he advocate the overthrow of Chavez? n/t

d

[bemildred]

16. When he wished for the success of the 2002 coup.

Is this some sort of trick question? Or are you going to try to assert that was not an attempt at violent overthrow of the government?

[Bacchus39]

17. yes, I would definitely assert that wishing for the success of the (edit)

2002 coup is NOT an attempt at violent overthrow. it doesn't mean he is advocating another coup attempt. however, the one quote I saw here says he said Ven would be different if the coup had succeeded. an entirely accurate statement.

however, he is being charged with slander, and not trying to overthrow the goverment. that's what the Ven prosecuters are charging him with so if you disagree with that and believe he should be charged with violent overthrow then take it up with them.

and the story you posted below makes no mention of charges of attempting to overthrow the government, rather for insulting poor Hugo.

[bemildred]

19. I have no dispute with them, thus nothing to "take up".

Slander is fine too, we didn't used to allow the news media to lie their ass off here either, and it was a bad thing when that was changed to the present "anything goes" situation. If you do not enforce some protections for the integrity of public political debate, then it becomes useless. Propaganda wars may be fun, but they are not responsible politics.

One ought not confuse the legal charges brought against someone with the motive of the cops and the prosecutors for bringing the charge. I believe that if this weasel would refrain from egregious lying and advocating violent overthrow of the government, then the government would leave him alone, just like here in the USA. You can say what you like as long as you don't lie or make threats.

[Bacchus39]

20. he is NOT advocating violent overthrow

I edited my response above. for one he didn't say what you said, or maybe you can provide the evidence. and two, he is not being charged with that. he is being charged with spreading false information and insulting the president. awwwwwww poor Hugo.

saying that Venezuela is a haven for drug trafficking is like saying Colombia is. what is false about it?

[bemildred]

21. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

He clearly is advocating violent overthrow of the government, but you don't have to think so if you prefer not to.

[Bacchus39]

23. and some getting arrested for them.

I definitely don't think he was advocating violent overthrow. and I repeat that he is not being charged with that, so its a non issue in this matter.

from the article you posted, this appears to be the comment that you and at least one other believe is advocating violent overthrow for which he is NOT being charged.

The Inter American Press Association said Zuloaga spoke in response to a group of pro-Chavez journalists who accused him of backing a failed coup against Chavez in 2002. He denied the charge and recounted his version of events, according to a transcript of the appearance.

"We are also against what happened back then because if it had been done right perhaps we would have a different Venezuela today," Zuloaga said.

[bemildred]

24. So he is "adjusting" his stance, as are you.

Please see post #21. I have no further comments.

[Bacchus39]

25. not at all, you provided the story with the quote in question

and I made a quick edit of my one post and noted it as such in the title. I forgot the word "NOT". and I would say that even he did support the coup in 2002, he says he didn't, it in no way means he is advocating it now. do you believe all Venezuelans who supported the coup philosphically should be jailed???

but again, he is being prosecuted for spreading false info and insulting Huguito. not for advocating violent overthrow. if you are such a great Chavista why not simply defend the government on those charges instead of making up a justification?

[bemildred]

26. LOL.

:popcorn:

[hack89]

30. So why isn't he being prosecuted for that?

instead of hurting St Hugo's feelings? Do you think Obama should have the right to arrest anyone who insults him?

[EFerrari]

55. Obama, by US law, can pick anyone up for any reason, remember?

[hack89]

56. I don't think so. nt

[EFerrari]

59. Military Commissions Act 2006. Gonzales asserted it can be used

against US citizens and Holder has not rolled that back.

[Bacchus39]

60. not "any reason". applies to active support or material support and was modified in 2009

and signed by President Obama. I am sure you are glad to hear that.

it doesn't allow Obama to pick up someone for "any reason" as stated by you.

[Bacchus39]

61. p.s. better be careful Obama is going to pick you up for slander n/t

s

[hack89]

62. And the Supreme Court ruled that the MCA was an unconsitutional suspension

of habeas corpus.

On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

More importantly, the MCA does not apply to US citizens.

While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-US citizens including all legal aliens. <9> CBS legal commentator Andrew Cohen, commenting on this question, writes that the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus—the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted."<10>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#cite_note-8

From Human Rights Watch FAQ on the MCA:

3. Who can be tried by a military commission?

Any non-U.S. citizen – even a green card holder who has lived in the United States for decades – who is determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant” can be tried by a military commission.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/usa/qna1006/2.htm#_Toc148852442
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/usa/qna1006/

There is a lot wrong with the MCA but it is not as clear cut as you seem to think.

More to the point, Obama is not using these powers - Chavez is.

[EFerrari]

63. There have been severel rulings but no roll back for American citizens.

HRW doesn't make the law here, remember? And these, Venezuela has its own set of laws, remember? They are not a colony of the United States.

[hack89]

64. So you support the MCA or similar open ended laws

if it is good enough for Venezuela it is good enough for you?

There are such things as bad laws you know - it is hard to think of any despot that doesn't use the law to suppress dissent.

[Bacchus39]

57. nope, not aware of that one

p.s. LOL

[protocol rv]

58. What does pick up mean?

If you mean pick up as in arrest: I did some research on this matter - federal authorities can arrest a person using a judge's warrant. The person is entitled to a hearing, and is usually released under bail unless they are deemed dangerous or a flight risk. But it would be unthinkable in any nation to have a person arrested for "insulting the President", or for "scaring the population". Nor would a Congressman be arrested and jailed, for pounding the table at a police station and pushing a policewoman - which is the claim made by the state, without a judge's warrant.

The Bush administration did make the claim they had the ability to hold US citizens as "enemy combatants" and hold them in military prisons. A case of this nature was taken in the court system, but the Bushites realized they were likely to lose the case, and cut deals with the individuals involved (ie Walker, Mossaui, et al).

What we see in Venezuela is somewhat different, there is a campaign to arrest and silence government opponents, politicians, members of the press, who are speaking inside and outside Venezuela against the government. We also see the government reacting with extreme prejudice against human rights organizations (such as the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights), with the President going to the extreme of calling the commission's chairman "excrement". I would say the human rights situation is deteriorating rapidly, but it's not nearly as bad as say Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Cuba.

The government also seems to push the limit to see what the reaction may be, but they do seem to be headed towards muzzling the free press. They use the term "destabilizing the government" whenever they are attacked. There is also a serious focus on making sure that, under no circumstance, they may lose power. This we see in the constant references to "Fatherland, Socialism or Death", and the comments made by them and their supporters that Venezuela can't have any other form of government. In other words, they are willing to have a democracy as long as they win the elections.

We vote for the wrong people all the time, and our politicians usually turn out to be corrupt and not very intelligent. but this government is exceptionally bad, they are openly advocating marxism, don't seem to get anything done right, and we continue to see the usual list of problems getting even worse every day - we are becoming more and more like Cuba every day. And please don't start quoting me the vaccination rate in Cuba or the number of doctors they send to Haiti. That's baloney statistics to cover up the fact that in a communist country people live hopeless lives, they struggle every day to get food, have endless power cuts, can't even own a small plot of land with a house on it, are treated like serfs by the damend communist party members, and even worse, aren't free to advocate changing those communist oligarchs who entrench themselves in power and are like ticks on a dog's ear, they just won't let go.

[protocol rv]

27. Did he wish for the success of the 2002 coup?

I haven't seen a quote. Could you post a text of his speech?

[Bacchus39]

28. post 18 by bemildered actually appears to have the quote in question

where in reference to the coup, he states that we wee against that and if it had been done differently, Ven would be a different place today.

that is my paraphrasing but you can see that is pretty close to the original, as opposed to stating he was advocating the overthrow of the government as some are suggesting.

[protocol rv]

44. OK, so let me recap what seems to have happened

Zuloaga was arrested for slander. Apparently he claimed during a discussion with pro-Chavez journalists that Chavez ordered shots fired into the demonstration.

What do we know about the event in question? We know there were shots fired, and a pro-Chavez individual was shown on TV shooting at the crowd, re-loading, and shooting again. I saw that with my own eyes. The man in question isn't in jail.

I can't say who, if anybody, gave orders to shoot at the crowd. I do know several people died. Maybe Zuloaga feels Chavez himself did give the orders. I have a tendency to doubt it, because Chavez was hiding at the Presidential palace, and it's more likely the acts were carried out by pro-Chavez supporters acting on their own.

As Zuloaga said, the actions which followed the shooting, including the coup, were downright stupid, and illegal.

But I don't know under which law the man can be prosecuted if he said the president gave the orders to shoot into the crowd during an argument with pro-Chavez journalists. That's taking speech control into a very harsh realm.

Mildred, why are you defending the government, when it's such a simple issue from a human rights standpoint?

[bemildred]

49. I'm not interested in refuting your misleading babble.

I have no illusions about changing your views. I will point out that you do not in fact know what the political views of the shooter were, anyone can wear red. It is not a new thing for persons wanting to seize power to provoke a bit of violence as a pretext for that. It is not a new thing either for governments to engage in the same sorts of actions.

My point was that in the USA similar actions to what Mr Zuloaga is accused of will bring you to the attention of the FBI and other federal agencies, and rightly so. Mr Zuloaga is entitled to his feelings and opinions, but he is not entitled to assert those are facts, and if he is going to accuse Mr Chavez or the government of crimes in public, he needs to have concrete evidence to back it up.

[Judi Lynn]

50. As we all know those images were manipulated by the anti-Chavez media,

and it has been known almost immediately after the media tried to lie to the world about what happened. I can't believe you're attempting to lie to people here all over again, when we were completely aware of what happened very soon after it happened.

A D.U. member was IN Caracas at the time, with his wife, and he was sending us constant information throughout that coup, from beginiing to end. The people here were reading his material, and were looking everywhere for more information as well.

You aren't fooling anyone.

Here's a very quick reference from a source, one of MANY available:

One of the channels had a camera opposite the palace that captured images of people shooting from the bridge. It looks like they are shooting at the opposition march below, but you can see them, they themselves are ducking. They are clearly being shot at, but the shots of them ducking were never shown. The Chavez supporters were blamed. The images were manipulated and shown over and over again to say that Chavez supporters had assassinated innocent marchers.

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/11/6/the_revolution_will_not_be_televised

~~~~~~

~snip~
Who started the fight, which involved mostly stones and tear gas, is, as is so often the case in such situations, nearly impossible to tell. A little later, shots were fired into the crowds and I clearly saw that there were three parties involved in the shooting, the city police, Chavez supporters, and snipers from buildings above. Again, who shot first has become a moot and probably impossible to resolve question. At least ten people were killed and nearly 100 wounded in this gun battle�almost all of them demonstrators.

One of the Television stations managed to film one of the three sides in this battle and broadcast the footage over and over again, making it look like the only ones shooting were Chavez supporters from within the demonstration at people beyond the view of the camera. The media over and over again showed the footage of the Chavez supporters and implied that they were shooting at an unarmed crowd. As it turns out, and as will probably never be reported by the media, most of the dead are Chavez supporters. Also, as will probably never be told, the snipers were members of an extreme opposition party, known as Bandera Roja.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0412-08.htm

~~~~~~
If you came here to try to lie to D.U.'ers, you'll be wasting your time. We learned the truth about the coup years ago.

[bemildred]

18. Chavez criticizes US as arrests stir concern

QUITO, Ecuador — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday defended the arrest of a major TV channel owner, calling him a criminal and denying the government is carrying out an assault on press freedom.

The back-to-back arrests this week of two government opponents — including the owner of Venezuela's only remaining anti-Chavez TV channel — have drawn accusations that Chavez is growing increasingly intolerant and authoritarian as his popular support has slipped.

Opposition leaders and human rights groups condemned Thursday's arrest of Globovision's owner Guillermo Zuloaga, who was detained at an airport and released hours later after a judge issued an order barring him from leaving the country.

Zuloaga is accused of spreading false information and insulting the president at an Inter American Press Association meeting in Aruba last weekend, Attorney General Luisa Ortega said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ineO86qjg0ALoP2esPQbJjn1J5tgD9EMM3EG1

Now he has gone over the top, he compared Hillary to Condi.

[EFerrari]

31. From the perspective of a Latin American leader, the change in

personnel at State would be imperceptible, unfortunately.

[Mika]

22. I'm scared. Hugo is coming to take our guns away. :(

[protocol rv]

42. We do need gun control in Venezuela

To honest citizens like me, this isn't a laughing matter, the crime wave we suffer is really horrible. They should take everybody's guns away, period. I don't see why we can't copy the legislation used in European countries, and start confiscating all weapons.

There's a serious need in Venezuela for a thorough reform of the criminal system, the courts, the jails, and the police. This has been a very low priority for the boligarchs who rule today - but it's not a joke for those of us who are locked in our homes after dark, because the streets are absolute bedlam in a city with one of the highest murder rates in the world.