NationStates Jolt Archive

The BBC is reporting, that, hours after criticizing the democratic retractions the Chavez regime has forced on Venezuela, two major human rights activists from the highly credible Human Rights Watch, were expelled from the country. These sorts of behaviors are not the positive actions one would expect out of a progressive political regime, rather, one would expect this from a country where Democracy is slowly retreating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7625629.stm

Oil, and comedy, aside, why does anyone pay attention to Chavez?

Oil, and comedy, aside, why does anyone pay attention to Chavez?

because he's loud?

because he's loud?

He's like a misbehaving parakeet, you throw a towel over his head and he shuts up eventually. You don't go on acknowledging him. It only encourages it!

No one really does, any more. He's managed to isolate himself from most of the rest of the rest of the Latin American left, and from (obviously) the Latin American right as well. He still manages to drag in a few supporters in the North, but that's not surprising. White people from rich countries like to fall in love with folks like Chavez because it's the hip thing to do.

He's like a misbehaving parakeet, you throw a towel over his head and he shuts up eventually. You don't go on acknowledging him. It only encourages it!

but I like the Comedy! :(

Watching the entire political career of Hugo Chavez from the very beginning on is like watching a remake of Network.

Hey, everybody knows they're just pawns for the imperialist American pigdogs...

Besides, human rights are for the decadent, manipulative capitalists and you wouldn't want the Bolivarian revolution to turn in to that, would you? Building a new era of socialism requires the elimination of certain enemies of the people, in particular those who support democracy and human rights. This has been proven.

Hey, everybody knows they're just pawns for the imperialist American pigdogs...

Besides, human rights are for the decadent, manipulative capitalists and you wouldn't want the Bolivarian revolution to turn in to that, would you? Building a new era of socialism requires the elimination of certain enemies of the people, in particular those who support democracy and human rights. This has been proven.

Human rights are a construct of the bourgeois pigs to keep the proletariat oppressed!

Human rights are a construct of the bourgeois pigs to keep the proletariat oppressed!

Quick, someone call an economist! He's been possessed by Angry Internet Stalinist and needs an exorcism!

Quick, someone call an economist! He's been possessed by Angry Internet Stalinist and needs an exorcism!

I wonder where our little Stalinist went.

Chavez is an RL troll. Just ignore him.

Human rights are a construct of the bourgeois pigs to keep the proletariat oppressed!

Oh shit, Andaras is back from the grave! We need 50 pages of Thomas Friedman, stat!

I wonder where our little Stalinist went.

Perma-banned.

Oil, and comedy, aside, why does anyone pay attention to Chavez?

No other reason really, is there?

We need to attack Chavez with fire and acid.

We need to attack Chavez with fire and acid.

I say we drop acid on Hugo. God knows what he'll see and hear hopped up, but it'll certainly be a riot to hear his rants while he's tripping.

:D

You have to knock Hugo down first and cast an acid arrow before he gets up. Don't ignore him for too long either, he regenerates :D

But seriously, where are the Hugo defenders from one year ago now? I'm still amazed at how many people bought his crap.

I wonder how long it will be before the Chavez apologists descend upon this thread?

Chavez can go stick his head in a pig.

I wonder how long it will be before the Chavez apologists descend upon this thread?

Chavez can go stick his head in a pig.

You know there is a problem when Im not defending (and am activally attacking) a leftist "socialist" leader who talks smack about America.

You know there is a problem when Im not defending (and am activally attacking) a leftist "socialist" leader who talks smack about America.

Yep. I don't have a problem with a guy looking out for his country's interests, but Chavez crossed the line into "asshole" territory a long time ago.

The BBC is reporting, that, hours after criticizing the democratic retractions the Chavez regime has forced on Venezuela, two major human rights activists from the highly credible Human Rights Watch, were expelled from the country. These sorts of behaviors are not the positive actions one would expect out of a progressive political regime, rather, one would expect this from a country where Democracy is slowly retreating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7625629.stm

On the other hand, if they'd been criticising the regime in the US, there's a chance they'd have ended up in a secret prison somewhere in Eastern Europe for an indefinite stay, with no charges pressed.

On the other hand, if they'd been criticising the regime in the US, there's a chance they'd have ended up in a secret prison somewhere in Eastern Europe for an indefinite stay, with no charges pressed.

:rolleyes:

Really? Is that so? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that despite the many injustices committed by the current regime, Freedom of speech is still here. Of course, if you prefer a world of complete fantasy, be my guest, who am I to judge? What is insanity to one may be happiness to another.

On the other hand, if they'd been criticising the regime in the US, there's a chance they'd have ended up in a secret prison somewhere in Eastern Europe for an indefinite stay, with no charges pressed.

And if and when people find out they've been imprisoned, the Bush Administration will charge them with "providing material support for terrorists".

He's trying to do a Simon Bolivar - only Simon targetted the Spanish.

Like Castro, he has managed to survive.

Maybe a Latin American leader who doesn't particularly like the US survives by not being too nice. (Salvadore Allende was too nice!)

:rolleyes:

Really? Is that so? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that despite the many injustices committed by the current regime, Freedom of speech is still here. Of course, if you prefer a world of complete fantasy, be my guest, who am I to judge? What is insanity to one may be happiness to another.

Since one of the big worries under this regime, has been the fact that it has taken upon itself the 'right' to imprison without charge, and to do so indefinitely without trial or sentence... whether 'free speech' is still protected is academic.

If the government can (and has) been 'detaining' people with no charges levelled, and they're still detained - how do you know why theyw ere detained?

If we stick only to what can be shown, we know that 'free speech' now has clearly defined geographical perimeters.. and that speaking out against the government is a bad idea if your spouse is a spy.


Which one of us is preferring a world of fantasy?

If the government can (and has) been 'detaining' people with no charges levelled, and they're still detained - how do you know why theyw ere detained?
We can be reasonably certain that they weren't detained for questioning human rights in the US. The ones we know have been, or are, in these prisons, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are in there because they've taken it several steps further, for questionable reasons.

That's not an excuse for locking them in jail and throwing away the keys, but you have to admit there's a difference between flying planes into buildings and criticising human rights violations.

We can be reasonably certain that they weren't detained for questioning human rights in the US. The ones we know have been, or are, in these prisons, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are in there because they've taken it several steps further, for questionable reasons.

That's not an excuse for locking them in jail and throwing away the keys, but you have to admit there's a difference between flying planes into buildings and criticising human rights violations.

Ah - so there's only one detainee, then?

Chavez is a crazy dictator. In other news, the US government is corrupt, the EU is full of bickering lunatics, Africa is plagued withviolence, and the Chinese are selling garbage to everyone.

Ah - so there's only one detainee, then?
No, but if people suddenly disappeared from the US after criticising its human rights record, you'd hear about it. Instead people who do that publish bestselling books.

I really don't know what you're trying to do here by equivocating the two.

No, but if people suddenly disappeared from the US after criticising its human rights record, you'd hear about it. Instead people who do that publish bestselling books.


Since, off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you all the names of all the people who are 'openly' held, much less those who are squirreled away in secret prisons (and that alone fails to inspire confidence in the system)... I really don't feel confident to claim who has done what, how it was received, and what we'd hear about.

Which HRW activists are you talking about, that criticised the government and went on to publish bestsellers?


I really don't know what you're trying to do here by equivocating the two.

Which 'two' are being equivocated?

Are you asking why I mentioned the US treatment of dissidence, when the OP is talking about Venezuela? That one should be self-evident - the OP practically falls over itself to talk about how 'well respected' the activists are, and draw conclusions about the political motivation.

The OP is unbalanced. It ignores the fact that there is an ongoing diplomatic situation where the US recently expelled a couple of people, itself. It then goes ahead to make a slight about how this is evidence of less-than-progressive democracy.

Are you asking why I mentioned the US treatment of dissidence, when the OP is talking about Venezuela? That one should be self-evident - the OP practically falls over itself to talk about how 'well respected' the activists are, and draw conclusions about the political motivation.

As it stands, these folks have severely criticized what the US government has done at Guantanamo. You merely need to go to the HRW website to see that. Meanwhile, to see the record on how the US has treated people who have questioned the democratic process in the US, look at RFK Jr., or the British journalist. As it stands, using the "secret prisons we don't know of" argument is a fallacy. A negative cannot be proven. You cannot merely allege, that, because there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary, that it must be true.

The Bush admin did that in 2003, after all.

On the other hand, it can be shown that, when dissidents dissapear, people know about it. It gets talked about, rumors spread, missing person reports become common. If domestic or foreign political activists were disappearing, we'd hear about it throgh the copious amounts of backchannels that exist.

The OP is unbalanced. It ignores the fact that there is an ongoing diplomatic situation where the US recently expelled a couple of people, itself. It then goes ahead to make a slight about how this is evidence of less-than-progressive democracy.

Meanwhile, what does this have to do with the US? Vivanco is Chilean.

Next, remind me, who expelled who's ambassador first? Who started expelling anyone's non-governmental civilians first?

Which HRW activists are you talking about, that criticised the government and went on to publish bestsellers?

http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/usa/

And, finally, read the first paragraph.

I've shown that you've done nothing but sought to create an army of strawmen to defend the awful Chavez regime, in regards to what they've done here. The only way you can continue on your course is if you blindly ignore (as always) any evidence that contradicts your opinions.

First: HRW is not a US government puppet.
Second: HRW has criticized, (with good reason) the Chavez government
Third: There is no evidence, of any sort, that the US is detaining, or is planning to detain, dissidents. Very, simply, the case cannot be argued that the US is.
Fourth: Al Qaeda does not, under any circumstances = Al Qaeda

Fourth: Al Qaeda does not, under any circumstances = Al Qaeda

So what exactly is Al Qaeda then?

So what exactly is Al Qaeda then?

Well, modern Al Qaeda is something significantly different from what Al Qaeda had been previously. Now, it's largely an information distribtuion network, with a significant program of what I'll call "motivational speakers," whose primary goal is to convince the local yokels to kill people in the name of "AAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". It doesn't really have the operational capability it once had, even within its positions in Pakistan.

Previously, it was more akin to a traditional terrorist group, such as Baader Meinhof or the Contras. It had significant capabilities to, largely, control the Afghan state. One of their most potent capabilities was that they were capable of orchestrating large scale, mega-attacks. But, the group, because it has lost so much of its operational capacity, has redeveloped itself, into something that seeks to inspire individual cells to do stuff on their own. Stuff like the attack on the embassy in Yemen, not too long ago.

from the highly credible Human Rights Watch,

Funny...I've seen any number of people here absolutely dismiss Human Rights Watch when it comes to them saying anything unpleasant about the US. Not to mention those who diss Amnesty International. So...highly credible to whom?

I wonder where our little Stalinist went.

Siberia

Funny...I've seen any number of people here absolutely dismiss Human Rights Watch when it comes to them saying anything unpleasant about the US. Not to mention those who diss Amnesty International. So...highly credible to whom?

To anyone who actually gives two shakes about human rights and democracy.

Oil, and comedy, aside, why does anyone pay attention to Chavez?
Spiffy hats.

As it stands, these folks have severely criticized what the US government has done at Guantanamo. You merely need to go to the HRW website to see that. Meanwhile, to see the record on how the US has treated people who have questioned the democratic process in the US, look at RFK Jr., or the British journalist. As it stands, using the "secret prisons we don't know of" argument is a fallacy.


I didn't use that argument. We DO know about the 'secret prisons', now - so it's not a fallacy to admit their existence.


A negative cannot be proven. You cannot merely allege,


Yes, I totally can. Allege. Allege. Allege. I can allege all I like.


...that, because there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary, that it must be true.


No, but by the same token - you can no more strongly suggest that, ject because YOU don't know that x,y or z DID happen, that it MUST not have.


The Bush admin did that in 2003, after all.


So... that would be evidence that it can be done?


On the other hand, it can be shown that, when dissidents dissapear, people know about it. It gets talked about, rumors spread, missing person reports become common. If domestic or foreign political activists were disappearing, we'd hear about it throgh the copious amounts of backchannels that exist.

Cute. I like your rosy world view. By your logic there, were no Black Ops prisons, because we'd have known about anyone that was in them.

To anyone who actually gives two shakes about human rights and democracy.

Except when it's about the US.

Meanwhile, what does this have to do with the US? Vivanco is Chilean.


What does this have to do with the US? You're not paying attantion? This is an ongoing international dispute.

If you really don't know anything about it, you'd possibly be better served simply not talking. Better to be thought a fool, and all that.


Next, remind me, who expelled who's ambassador first? Who started expelling anyone's non-governmental civilians first?

Missing the point? No one is claiming that there is a direct comparison - Venezuela aren't going to necessarily make sure they exchange dismissing a black lesbian for the same courtesy.

I've shown that you've done nothing but sought to create an army of strawmen to defend the awful Chavez regime,


I haven't defended the Chavez regime.

So... I call bullshit.


First: HRW is not a US government puppet.


And? Both irrelevent to the argument, and to what I've said.


Second: HRW has criticized, (with good reason) the Chavez government


The 'with good reason' part is opinion, I'm guessing.

The rest of it, is irrelevent.

No one is saying they haven't. But, the fact that they criticised the regime doesn't necessarily equate the actual REASON why they were given the boot. Although, I'm more than willing to assume it helped make them the choice, when someone had to go.


Third: There is no evidence, of any sort, that the US is detaining, or is planning to detain, dissidents. Very, simply, the case cannot be argued that the US is.


Very simply, of course that argument can be made. We know that people are being held on some pretty nebulous assertions. Where does 'assisting terrorists' end, and 'criticising the government' begin?


Fourth: Al Qaeda does not, under any circumstances = Al Qaeda

Thanks, Bill.

I didn't use that argument. We DO know about the 'secret prisons', now - so it's not a fallacy to admit their existence.

Who was detained in these places, though?

Yes, I totally can. Allege. Allege. Allege. I can allege all I like.

And be as ridiculous and irrelevant as you'd like, as well.



No, but by the same token - you can no more strongly suggest that, ject because YOU don't know that x,y or z DID happen, that it MUST not have.

I'm unwilling to say that something happened without actually being presented with some positive evidence on the matter.

So... that would be evidence that it can be done?

Nooooo...that like with most things, imitating the Bush administrations actions is a horrible idea. You should not do it.



Cute. I like your rosy world view. By your logic there, were no Black Ops prisons, because we'd have known about anyone that was in them.

No, I'm not saying there are no secret prisons, I'm saying they're not being used to detain human rights activists. That doesn't make them any less wrong, but, there goes.

What does this have to do with the US? You're not paying attantion? This is an ongoing international dispute.

Read your own post, you little shit. You said "This is part of an ongoing international dispute, where the US expelled a couple of people". How, then, does this not involve the US? You're the one who linked this back to the expulsion of the Venezuelan ambassador to the US, which was done in response to the Venezuelan expulsion of the US ambassador.

As it stands, I don't see how expelling a Chilean HRW worker has anything to do with that.

If you really don't know anything about it, you'd possibly be better served simply not talking. Better to be thought a fool, and all that.

Missing the point? No one is claiming that there is a direct comparison - Venezuela aren't going to necessarily make sure they exchange dismissing a black lesbian for the same courtesy.

This has nothing to do with the US-Venezuela/Bolivia spat. Nothing at all. Do you have any evidence that it does?

Except when it's about the US.

Huh? I do care about HRW's criticisms of the US. In fact, people should pay attention to what they have to say.

I haven't defended the Chavez regime.

So... I call bullshit.

Read your posts. Stop being duplicitous.



No one is saying they haven't. But, the fact that they criticised the regime doesn't necessarily equate the actual REASON why they were given the boot. Although, I'm more than willing to assume it helped make them the choice, when someone had to go.

There is a strong correlation between their criticism of the regime, and their expulsion, though. Given that their results of their report were made public mere hours before they were expelled.



Very simply, of course that argument can be made. We know that people are being held on some pretty nebulous assertions. Where does 'assisting terrorists' end, and 'criticising the government' begin?

What, exactly, does this have to do with Chavez, again?

Thanks, Bill.

Oh, I'm sorry, I made a typo. Fuck you very much.

Who was detained in these places, though?


Good question.


No, I'm not saying there are no secret prisons, I'm saying they're not being used to detain human rights activists.

And you know this because...

Read your own post, you little shit.

Reported.

And if and when people find out they've been imprisoned, the Bush Administration will charge them with "providing material support for terrorists".

As long as the waterboarding continues, the USA is safe.

As long as the waterboarding continues, the USA is safe.

From the Salem Witch Trials, to the "War on Terror," America continues the tradition of protecting its people... by dunking people in water.

:tongue:

From the Salem Witch Trials, to the "War on Terror," America continues the tradition of protecting its people... by dunking people in water.

:tongue:

I just realized, water parks are water immunity camps to help Americans fight against the waterboard toture! It's a conspiracy I tell you!

From the Salem Witch Trials, to the "War on Terror," America continues the tradition of protecting its people... by dunking people in water.

:tongue:

Maybe we should make future enemies go bobbing for apples.

Maybe we should make future enemies go bobbing for apples.

Maybe we should stop making enemies?

Boys! Boys! "Keep this party clean, or I'll pull myt pants up and go home!"

I had an early tape of Bob Dylan (was it Bob Dylan's dream or something?) where he angered the rednecks by yelling "I like Fidel Castro and his beard!"

A lot of people don't like Castro's politics but they admire his strength in outlasting numerous US regimes that wanted to crush him and the Cuban economy. What the US State Department doesn't like is that Chavez is doing a Castro.

One day, maybe, the State Department might try changing its strategt. I wonder if they have heard of the phrase,"You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"?
Maybe it needs "Change we can believe in".

Fuck you very much.

Read your own post, you little shit.

'Fraid you've exceeded the speed limit, sir. Gonna have to write you a (yellow) ticket.

Reported.

You'd like that, wouldn't you? Did my drunken posts hurt your feelings?

Any thing to say, other than continuing to obfuscate by claiming that this is, in any way, related to the US-Venezuela Diplomatic row? I mean, seriously, if robust democracies booted every foreigner who said something not nice about their government, then this wouldn't seem to be such an absurd action. But, in the case of Venezuela, the Chavez government is unwilling to tolerate criticism.

You'd like that, wouldn't you? Did my drunken posts hurt your feelings?

Any thing to say, other than continuing to obfuscate by claiming that this is, in any way, related to the US-Venezuela Diplomatic row? I mean, seriously, if robust democracies booted every foreigner who said something not nice about their government, then this wouldn't seem to be such an absurd action. But, in the case of Venezuela, the Chavez government is unwilling to tolerate criticism.

I'm not going to respond to any inflammatory content. Moderation will do what Moderation will do, and I don't want to be involved in some flame war.

In order to explain the comment I made earlier - the diplomatic row doesn't have to be 'two American diplomats kicked in exchange for two Venezuelans', or any such formal arrangement. There has been an ongoing 'incident', and the current expulsions fit right into that framework

I'm not going to respond to any inflammatory content. Moderation will do what Moderation will do, and I don't want to be involved in some flame war.

In order to explain the comment I made earlier - the diplomatic row doesn't have to be 'two American diplomats kicked in exchange for two Venezuelans', or any such formal arrangement. There has been an ongoing 'incident', and the current expulsions fit right into that framework

Oh, the mods absolutely did the right thing. They responded within the rules. I, personally, would not have reported it, had the same thing been said to me, but I guess I've got thick skin.

As far as any linkage, I fail to see any evidence that this expulsion has anything to do with the ongoing diplomatic row. Would you like to provide any testimonial evidence?

According to the Venezuelan government, the HRW folks (who are not linked to the US government) were expelled because of their report. You can read it in this article from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/19/venezuela.critics/index.html

...I, personally, would not have reported it, had the same thing been said to me, but I guess I've got thick skin.


Okay. So, you'd somehow like to make the fault mine. Feel free - I'm not responding. This thread can continue, or not, in my absence because I choose to no longer interact with you, in it.

Okay. So, you'd somehow like to make the fault mine. Feel free - I'm not responding. This thread can continue, or not, in my absence because I choose to no longer interact with you, in it.

Oh, no, that's hardly the case. The fault is, quite clearly, mine. I was one the one swore. That should stand as quite obvious.

But, I take that as you are unwilling to link this event to the expulsion of diplomats, other than, of course, the use of the word expelled.

Of course, school systems also use expulsion as a punishment. A school district near where I grew up expelled several kids, because despite the districts attempt at prior restraint, they proceeded to publish an issue of the school newspaper that was highly critical of the district administration. Fortunately for free speech, the kids won in court, received restitution, and had their tuition paid for a top-notch private school.