home

Chavez closes nation's one private TV station

Venezuala's President Hugo Chavez has closed his country's one private television station because it continually was too critical for him.

This led to protests in Caracas:

Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets Monday into a crowd of thousands protesting a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a television station critical of his leftist government off the air.

Police fired toward the crowd of up to 5,000 protesters from a raised highway, and protesters fled amid clouds of tear gas. They later regrouped in Caracas' Plaza Brion chanting "freedom!" Some tossed rocks and bottles at police, prompting authorities to scatter demonstrators by firing more gas.

Not everybody is opposed:

Thousands of government supporters reveled in the streets as they watched the midnight changeover on large TV screens, seeing RCTV's signal go black and then be replaced by a TVES logo. Others launched fireworks and danced in the streets.

Every President has his or her detractors.

For those of us who quit buying gas from price gouging U.S. suppliers making record profits as prices shoot up, we're in a quandry: Do we support a country that denies free speech by buying their gasoline?

< Foreign Policy = War | Good Journalism From The Boston Globe >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    A little simplistic... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Babson on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:27:20 AM EST
    Technically, Chavez did not shut down RCTV, the government declined to renew the station's broadcast licence.

    RCTV has been one of the most consistent opponents of the Chavez government and in the 2002 coup attempt it was one of the main protaganists in terms of organising and executing aspects of the coup. RCTV reported (falsely) that Chavez supporters had fired at demonstrators which allowed disgruntled generals to walk away from the government.

    I'm surprised it wasn't immediately shut down after the 2004 recall, not sure I would have had the same patience.

    I don't necessarily condone the decision, but the situation is certainly more complex than forcing "...a television station critical of his leftist government off the air".

    If CBS were continually promoting the armed overthrow of the Bush government - what do you thihk would happen?

    Babosn (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:40:38 AM EST
    I'm surprised it wasn't immediately shut down after the 2004 recall, not sure I would have had the same patience.

    I don't necessarily condone the decision

    Freedom if speech is only for those who agree with you?

    Right???

    The station has been shut down. Look. You either condemn it, or you do not. There is no middle position.

    [ Parent ]

    but, but ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:54:39 AM EST
    ... ppj is always lecturing us that freedom of speech has its limits, that bumper stickers are cause for ejection from public events, that being corraled into chainlink camps away from public events is OK, that propaganda is good, that the news media are traitors for reporting the truth about the war ... I think he's just jealous that bush didn't think of it first.

    [ Parent ]
    Dishonest Response ppj (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:21:42 AM EST

    If CBS were continually promoting the armed overthrow of the Bush government - what do you thihk would happen?

    Answer the question ppj.

    Oh, there is a line. Glad that you agree.

    [ Parent ]

    Pfft (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:40:54 AM EST
    I don't necessarily condone the decision, but the situation is certainly more complex than forcing "...a television station critical of his leftist government off the air".

    No it isn't. It is that simple. That lies are stated in support of the oppression is of course natural. That you repeat them may be natural too. I do not know. But the idea that the station promoted an armed uprising is ridiculous.

    Chavez now claims GloboTV is promoting assasination of him. Another lie.

    If CBS were continually promoting the armed overthrow of the Bush government - what do you thihk would happen?

    How about just the ovethrow? I take it you consider your self a liberal right? You justifications for the unacceptable make me shudder.

    [ Parent ]

    it is not that simple, (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by gollo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    to get a better understanding of what this TV station did you can watch "The Revolution will not be televised"

    here

    Nick Fraser, Storyville Series Editor for BBC - UK, on his Commissioner's Comment over The Revolution Will Not Be Televised said:

    The result is a brilliant piece of journalism but it is also an astonishing portrait of the balance of forces in Venezuela. On one side stand the Versace wearing classes, rich from many decades of oil revenues, and on the other the poor in their barrios and those within the armed forces who support Chávez. The media, who ought to be merely reporting the conflict splitting the country down the middle, are in fact adjuncts of the coup-makers. Watch this film and you may truly for the first time in your life understand the term media bias.

    Big Tent Democrat said:

    But the idea that the station promoted an armed uprising is ridiculous

    After reviewing the evidence, the idea that the station did not promote an armed uprising is rediculous.

    [ Parent ]

    What evidence is that? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:24:44 PM EST
    Could you link to something that actually cites what was said that supported an armed uprising?

    Honestly, these apologias for fascist behavior are disgusting.

    [ Parent ]

    Good point (none / 0) (#13)
    by eric on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:34:48 AM EST
    If CBS were continually promoting the armed overthrow of the Bush government - what do you thihk would happen?

    Exactly.  CBS won't even show ads that are critical of Bush.

    [ Parent ]

    CBS poor actions (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    or selfcensorship because of fear of retribution from the Bush Administration is no excuse for Chavez's oppression.

    This is ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    Not an excuse (none / 0) (#16)
    by eric on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:38:47 AM EST
    I don't think it is an excuse.  It is just an interesting commentary.

    [ Parent ]
    Not an excuse? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    Certainly not a condemnation either ay?

    [ Parent ]
    CBS doesn't crticise Bush? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Slado on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:32:06 AM EST
    CBS put forth a forged document as evidence that Bush avoided national guard service.  If putting forth fake news to criticize the sitting president in an election year isn't crticism I don't know what is.

    Stop ingnoring real bad governments and obbsessing on Bush.  

    Bush isn't what liberals want in a president.  I understand that but he will be gone in 2 years and a dem could sit in his place.

    Is that going to happen to Chavez?  You know the answer.

    Chavez like Putin and several other governments around the world is trying to run a quasi democracy that continualy elects him and that some liberals are willing to look the other way because they like what he has to say about Bush is appalling.  


    [ Parent ]

    bad analogy (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:38:54 PM EST
    saying cbs was responsible for the actions of a producer is like saying all American soldiers are murderers and rapists because a few of them have done so. Why do you hate our troops?

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Slado on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:17:58 PM EST
    A claim was made that CBS would never criticize the president and I pointed out an instance when they had.

    If the statement was true then the brass at CBS would have pulled the story then not lamely defended it after it had obviously been shown that it wasnt' true and then even more lamely issued a weak apology after a even more lame investigation.

    But I digress.

    It was only one of several examples of the press rightly trying to crtiticize the president and I only used an extreme example to show what a ridiculous statement had been made about CBS.

    The press is critical of our president.  Maybe not as much as some would like but to deny so is silly.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#90)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:13:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:39:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, he was in the guard (none / 0) (#93)
    by eric on Wed May 30, 2007 at 12:46:27 AM EST
    CBS put forth a forged document as evidence that Bush avoided national guard service.

    No, as I understand it, Bush joined the national gaurd to avoid service in Vietnam.  The story was true.  Regardless of the questionable document, the facts are clear.

    Did Bush go to Vietnam?  No.  Why?  He was in the guard.  

    Bah.

    [ Parent ]

    Good post (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:45:21 AM EST


    It's time to Freedomize! (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:36:16 AM EST
    Send in the Marines. Let's roll!

    Any words on what Chavez did? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:58:42 AM EST
    Or are you cool with it?

    [ Parent ]
    Left wing tyranny or anti-imperialism? (none / 0) (#3)
    by eric on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:42:36 AM EST
    I suppose that Chavez's excuse is that the private channel was just right wing propaganda.  I still don't really care for this type of thing.  But corporate capitalists are very powerful and would do the same thing to public or left-wing privates.  It's all about extremes.

    It's too bad that he couldn't develop more of a social-democracy there.  But, there is oil involved...

    You suppose? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:57:54 AM EST
    I suppose that Chavez's excuse is that the private channel was just right wing propaganda.

    Actually, the Chavez government said:

    The socialist president accused the network of helping to incite a failed coup in 2002, violating broadcast laws and ''poisoning'' Venezuelans with programming that promoted capitalism.

    But everbody does it:

    But corporate capitalists are very powerful and would do the same thing to public or left-wing privates.

    Is it NOT condemnable WHOMEVER does it? BTW, this is what Chavez replaced it with:

    The new public channel, TVES, launched its transmissions early Monday with artists singing pro-Chavez music, then carried an exercise program and a talk show, interspersed with government ads proclaiming, ''Now Venezuela belongs to everyone.''

    Venezuela belongs to everyone who supports Chavez apparently.

    But everyone does it so what's the big deal?

    Sheesh.

    [ Parent ]

    hmm (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by liljamie on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    Actually, the Chavez government said:

        The socialist president accused the network of helping to incite a failed coup in 2002, violating broadcast laws and ''poisoning'' Venezuelans with programming that promoted capitalism

    .

    i have no actual opinion on chavez (im not informed enough to really decide anyything) but after seeing that "the revolution will not be televised" documentary, i do have to admit that that television station seems to have been instrumental in the coup attempt against his government.

    that said, i do think this is sort of the 'classic' dicatorial" oppression of dissent; the telling part is that the license wasnt given to sa y another channel, but to a new propaganda outlet.

    i do want to ask to what extent the freedom of speech extends to broadcasting (cause i really dont know), i mean does any station have a 'right' to broadcast? should the government support and promote private broadcasting?

    [ Parent ]

    How so? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    By breeding discontent with chavez? Seriously, this is a freaking joke.

    You now how many newspapers and media outlets can be shut down on this nonsense.

    Liberals, either be liberals or stop calling yourselves ones.

    If you believe in Marxism-Lenism then say so.

    The comments here could come from Lenin.

    [ Parent ]

    Sounds Terrible (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    And incredibly boring. Not that tv is so great here, although I gave up watching years ago and am not up to speed with tv now.

    Should there be a line?

    In America if someone so much as utters something about taking out the president they are sent to jail.

    [ Parent ]

    Assasination (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    Find the words uttered.

    Why this kneejerk defense of the indefensible?

    [ Parent ]

    No Defense (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:58:42 PM EST
    I am no fan of TV and assume that the station was

    Separately, Information Minister Willian Lara accused the private Globovision TV channel of encouraging an attempt on Chavez's life by broadcasting the chorus of a salsa tune -- ''Have faith, this doesn't end here'' -- along with footage of the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II in St. Peter's Square.

    ''They incite the assassination of Venezuela's president,'' he said.

    Globovision director Alberto Federico Ravell denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations ''ridiculous.'' He also accused U.S. network CNN of coverage biased against Chavez.

    Regardless of the above allegations, which I do not know anything about, It seems like Chavez made a big mistake. If laws were broken they should be addressed in a case by case manner. Shutting down the whole network makes Chavez look afraid and weak.

    I do not know why anyone would watch commercial TV anyway. Personally this sort of thing would be no loss, although in principal I would scream bloody murder, even if it was Faux news that was shut down by our Gov.

    [ Parent ]

    If your cause is just, (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:19:15 AM EST
    the critics don't matter.  Silencing voices is never the answer.

    Shame on Chavez...I used to think he was one of the good guys, looks like I was fooled by just another tyrant.

    There are legitimate arguments for what he did (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:33:25 AM EST
    Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill Venezuelans every day? You inspire and report the enemy's objective every day. You are the enemy's greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us in the voting booth so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the Venezuelan public and Venezuelan government.


    Tell me this is sarcasm (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:34:48 AM EST
    A BushBot could write this.

    [ Parent ]
    Bullseye! (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:19:55 PM EST
    I took the liberty of lightly re-writing something that a social liberal posted on another thread a day or two ago.

    [ Parent ]
    good work DA! (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:37:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Just stopped by (none / 0) (#15)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:37:29 AM EST
    and noticed LNILR's (and TL's) propagandous lie. How long would Fuks news last if they openly advocated overthrowing Bush? And do you folks get your news primarily from NBC news? ALL cable and satellite channels are availabel to the Venezuelan public (and your precious RCTV), which the government is trying to IMPROVE. You are the victims of more US propaganda. No surprise at this site.

    You should  vet your "facts" before you deceive people.

    Are you nuts? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    They closed down the one privately owned over the air station, the one with the most reach.

    Sheesh.

    [ Parent ]

    Nowhere in there is a defense of the shut-down (none / 0) (#22)
    by roy on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    I see claims that A) maybe America would do the something similar, and B) the stifling is dissent is not complete.

    How does any of that make it right?

    And, tangentially, do you know how widely poor Venezuelans have access to cable and satellite TV?  According to this random web page, about who's credibility I make no claims, only 20% of households have cable, and 5.5% satellite.  If only the relatively wealthy -- who already tend to oppose Chavez -- have access to news which is critical of him, then point B) is even less relevant.

    [ Parent ]

    I overreach (none / 0) (#23)
    by roy on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:18:40 AM EST
    There are still private radio stations and newspapers, some of which don't support Chavez.  I'm not optimistic about that remaining the case, since they're a function of capitalism and Chavez means to stamp capitalism out, but they're still there now.

    [ Parent ]
    Hah! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:51:09 AM EST
    Che, I wonder how you would feel if the U.S. government shut down CNN to "improve" it. Actually, I don't wonder. I know how you'd feel. Which is why I'm genuinely curious to know why you think it's okay for Chavez to do it, but not for Bush or Clinton or, well, any American government.

    What's the difference between the two? Are you actually saying that it would be okay to shut down Fox news if it advocated overthrowing the president?

    [ Parent ]

    Gabe, I wonder how you would feel ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:37:41 PM EST
    Two wrongs, sailor... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    I'm not sure what your point is.

    Let's assume that the US intentionally targetted reporters, as you seem to believe. Are you saying that it is therefore okay for Chavez to do the same?

    Or is it wrong in both cases? Or are you really far-out and think it's okay when Chavez does it, but not when anyone else does?

    [ Parent ]

    the US has intentionally targetd reporters and (none / 0) (#61)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:07:23 PM EST
    TV stations. And some here have thought that was a good idea.

    I was pointing out that silencing dissent is as American as apple pie and when folks clutch their pearls when chavez does it it sounds hypocritical to me.

    Of course it's wrong whenever it's done, but it is not unique to chavez, if that is indeed what chavez has done.

    [ Parent ]

    If (none / 0) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:55:50 AM EST
     a  broadcaster advocated "overthrowing" Bush by  constitutional means  (electorally or by impeachment and conviction) it would be blatantly unconstitutional for the government  to act against it for that reason.

     That people here actually defend what Chavez has done is not surprising. If it was a right-wing government which shut down a broadcaster and claimed it was "saving  lives" or "improving" communications these same folks would be foaming at the mouth with outrage and no doubt hypothesizing that the CIA was behind it.

      It's this type of blind devotion to ideology with no respect for higher pronciples that is so frightening abiout much of what gets written here. The justification of naked repression when it is done by those with similar views is still the justification of naked repression.

      Too many people here ARE for repression-- we saw it last week with the diatribes against Christian schools and we see it again here. People who advocate or justify  repression of opposing views are the foot soldiers of authoritarianism and the enmeies of freedom.

     

    Written at this community (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:58:05 AM EST
    A lot of things get written here.

    I ask for more precision in your rebuke.

    The post itself condemns Chavez as do I.

    You mean some commenters, at least in this instance.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:02:24 AM EST
     I meant some of the commentators not you. I understand you to agree with me on this.

    [ Parent ]
    How many times (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:52:18 AM EST
    has the U.S had the exercise of it's sovereignty, including the results of it's elections effectivly overturned as the result of a much more powerful nation's direct or covert military intervention, or through the less direct means of economic sabotage, "destablization", or the continual threat of all three?

    I have to laugh at the pompous, bourgeouis conceit of folks in our "beacon of freedom" with it's elections that hinge on brand name recognition and $ 50 mil warchests, compulsivly redirecting our attention to what Hugo Chavez does.

    [ Parent ]

    Families (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:55:28 AM EST
    foraging for food in garbage dumps in Venezuala isnt news; Chavez outraging our sense of "freedom" (especially close to Memorial Day!), is.

    [ Parent ]
    Btw (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:01:05 PM EST
    A "diatribe" and "advocating repression" aren't the same thing, so give it up you insufferably self righteous clown.

    [ Parent ]
    Say what now? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    I have to laugh at the pompous, bourgeouis conceit of folks in our "beacon of freedom" with it's elections that hinge on brand name recognition and $ 50 mil warchests, compulsivly redirecting our attention to what Hugo Chavez does.

    This is especially rich considering that only in someone's deranged fantasies could it be claimed that the posters here at TalkLeft "compulsively" redirect the conversation to Hugo Chavez.

    I'm also amused by your discovery of "pompous, bourgeois" conceit, just before you change the subject to Venezuelans having to dig through garbage. Is there no reason we cannot discuss both problems: starvation conditions and the shutting down of dissenting speech?

    [ Parent ]

    whose deflecting anything? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:10:13 PM EST
      Other than YOU?

      The topic here is Chavez's decision to shutdown a television outlet that he considers a dissenting voice.

      Opinions on THAT should be reached independcently of any views about our media and politics. We could have  a totalitarian government that rigidly controlled all expression or we could be a perfectly open society with absolute free expression and it should not change your view of Chavez's action.

      The attempt to argue that the "MSM" is not as vigilant in exposing government malfeasance as it should be justifies police-state tactics by a regime elsewhere is foolish.

      The argument that because the USA has exerted influence on foreign governments to undermine sovereignty and the expression of the popular will in other nations it is acceptable for their governments  to DO PRECISELY THAT if the government is not friendly to the USA is beyond foolish.

      Here's a thought. It's wrong for any side to do it-- AND-- when one regime is oppressive it makes it far more likely that the next will be repressive too. If one considers, the possibility that the NEXT regime might just be a "puppet" it probably won't be  helpful to the cause of freedom  for that government to inherit a society with a closed press and little existing outlet for dissent. Doing this today will make it easier for a right-wing regime to be oppressive in the future.

      Freedom is good. Enemeies of freedom are bad and they feed off of each other -- usually at the expense of those who want to be free. The elites change with some frequency but the tactics much less so.

       If you truly want "free and sovereign" people you must support that without different standards for regimes with ideologies you like. Otherwise you are are being dishonest (or fooling yourself) and actually place  ideology above freedom and liberty.

    No Line? (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    Child porn ok with you? 24/7 in color? Snuf films?

    Abstract thinking has its limits. Context is not irrelevant.

    [ Parent ]

    and the context (none / 0) (#38)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:25:02 PM EST
    in Venezuela is analgous to statutes against child porn or snuff films how?

       If you cannot distinguish between silencing political opposition through executive acts of media censorship and  representative governments enacting legislation outlawing activities exploiting and/or killing the weak and helpless, I don't know what to tell you.

      I would suggest that telling others they need to understand "context" is something from which you should refrain until you buy a clue.

    [ Parent ]

    Laws (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:37:34 PM EST
    Do you think that child porn that uses no children but virtual is ok then? Have you seen the show on how to build a nuclear bomb, shoe bomb or any of the various ways to protect yourself against bad guys.

    Are there laws that draw the line?  Do you believe that is based on abstract principals or actual context?

    I do not have personal experience regarding the latest Chavez power play, and neither do you.

    Some were cheering and some were booing. YOu on the other hand believe that you are arguing for abstract principals while making believe that those principals are not grounded in your own miserable context.

    What do you think you are a computer?

    Hilarious.

    [ Parent ]

    some were cheering? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:52:09 PM EST
     hmmm

      Some here would no doubt cheer if a right-wing President were elected and shut down any organizations that published opposing views criticizing his policies.

      Would you then rationalize such action because some people thought those outlets were "enemies of America?" Or, would the "booers" not include you?

      Lines must be drawn,  but when the lines are drawn at repressing opposing political beliefs by a dictator acting by decree, one would hope that people who might disagree about the "virtual porn" issue would still stand in on the side against naked political repression.

      It may just be your problems with language, but as far as I can tell you you favor "virtual child porn" here but oppose dissenting  political expression in Venezuela -- that's one twisted  line you've got going  there.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Heres (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:17:30 PM EST
    another thought: if Venezuala played better ball, paricularly with it's oil, it would be relegated to the kind of human rights media-oblivian reserved for China, Saudi Arabia, Mynamar etc

    so? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:26:59 PM EST
      If you are saying not enough people get outraged about repression elsewhere, I'll agree.

      If you are trying to suggest that because the world is not perfect its OK for it to become worse, you've lost any sense.

    [ Parent ]

    As if! (none / 0) (#42)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    More fantasy: the media ignores the human rights violations of China, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, etc.

    In fact, there are three articles in today's New York Times alone which mention China's human rights problem.

    Also in the NY Times, Saudi Arabia's human rights problems are mentioned in this article as well as receiving an indepth treatment by Thomas Friedman last month.

    Myanmar is also listed for its human rights abuses in the linked article.

    And that's just in the NY Times, alone, and covering a period of only a few months.

    "Media-oblivion" indeed.

    [ Parent ]

    And don't forget (none / 0) (#48)
    by gollo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    That Venezuela is a democracy that holds free and fair elections.

    This whole story is a complete non-story being whipped up for propaganda purposes.

    A TV station BROKE THE LAW,(That law guarantees freedom of expression without censorship but prohibits, as it should, transmission of messages illegally promoting, apologizing for, or inciting disobedience to the law that includes enlisting public support for the overthrow of a democratically elected president and his government.)
     calling for a coup against a democratically elected leader, and the government decides not to renew the licence for the TV station.

    The highest court in the land, (democratically elected by the National Assembly) agrees that this a legal and constitutionally supported course of action.

    What did this TV station do?

    On the afternoon of April 11, 2002, RCTV interrupted a speech made by Chávez to broadcast a shooting that was taking place at an opposition march. Over the next couple of days, the private networks supported Pedro Carmona's interim government, which dissolved the National Assembly and suspended the Constitution. As the coup began to collapse due to popular pressure to restore the democratically elected president to power, RCTV conducted a news blackout.
    (Wikipedia)

    Why does the US oppose this democratically elected leader?

    But wait, there's more, a lot more. Palast reports a US Energy Department expert believes Venezuela holds 90% of the world's super-heavy tar oil reserves - an estimated total of 1,360,000,000,000 (1.36 trillion) barrels. Let me repeat that - 1.36 trillion barrels. That alone is more oil than Hubbert believed 50 years ago lay under the entire planet.

    Again, back to the key issue. Whatever the true highest estimate of reserves is from all varieties of oil, those reserves are only available at a price. If it ever gets too low again, which looks unlikely, those heavy reserves and tar sands oil will again go off the charts and be uncounted. However, with today's heavy demand and the likelihood of it continuing to grow in the future, the price of oil may continue to rise and all reserves from all sources may be needed and used to supply the market.

    So with a report like this coming from an apparent credible source (according to Palast) in the US Energy Department, it takes little imagination for VHeadline readers to understand more than ever that Venezuela is likely viewed by any US administration as the world's most important source of future oil supply. And to readers who understand US imperial intentions, it takes even less insight to realize the Bush administration intends to go all out to get its hands on it even if it takes a war to do it. The US goal isn't access to the oil. It's control of the supply and its price, what countries get it and how much and which ones don't, what companies profit from it, and overall how this ocean of oil can be used as a strategic resource and weapon. Beyond question, the stakes are enormous, and the battle lines are now drawn more clearly than ever.



    [ Parent ]

    Wow! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    Just wow! Supporting suppression of speech. Please never complain about Bush again.

    What did this TV station do?

    On the afternoon of April 11, 2002, RCTV interrupted a speech made by Chávez to broadcast a shooting that was taking place at an opposition march

    God forbid! Interrupting the speech! Excuse me, why in blazes did they have to cover the speech at all. Are you saying you can not oppose Chavez and have free speech rights? Some effing liberal you are. Disgraceful.

    Over the next couple of days, the private networks supported Pedro Carmona's interim government, which dissolved the National Assembly and suspended the Constitution. As the coup began to collapse due to popular pressure to restore the democratically elected president to power, RCTV conducted a news blackout.

    Suppose this is true. Is it an exercise of FREE SPEECH? Or is it only free speech for views you support?

    You people are a disgrace.

    [ Parent ]

    just hold your horses (none / 0) (#58)
    by gollo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:47:46 PM EST
    Firstly, I am not an 'effing liberal' or a liberal at all. For transparency I am not a conservative either.

    Secondly, I am not a supporter of fascism as you intimated earlier.

    Do you know why the TV station interupted the Chavez speech?

    Do you know what they showed instead?

    Do you know why they showed what they did?

    Do you know what the Venezualan Constitution says about what they did?

    Are you aware of the rights and responsabilities in regard to TV stations and free speech in Venezuela?

    Are you aware that the TV station owners could have been arrested for what they did, but Chavez publicly announced that he would not do so?

    Are you aware of the NY Times biased reporting regarding Chavez, and would you rely on them to report on any event involving him with impartiality?

    Do you support instigators and supporters of a coup over a democratically elected president of a sovereign nation?

    Is the president and his government allowed to follow the law of his country or not?

    If Chavez was against the free speech of this TV station, why did he wait 5 years to 'close it down'? If it really upset him, why did he allow it access to the public airwaves for 5 more years and then, and only then decide not to automatically renew its licence?

    Again, I point you towards the documentary "The Revolution will not be Televised", and also towards the words of fair.org

    The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.

    If you can find an instance where I am

    saying you can not oppose Chavez and have free speech rights?

    I will retract it, all I am saying is that the TV station broke the law, after participating in illegal activities, and its licence was not renewed due to these activities.

    The NY Times is publishing propaganda and I am trying to present the other side, a side populated with intimate knowledge of the situation, and a side that was not represented in the NY Times piece.

    How this makes me a fascist and a subject to be ridiculed, I fail to understand, but then I support your free speech to do so, despite what you believe.

    [ Parent ]

    This is interesting (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:00:45 PM EST
    The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States.
    Could you elaborate on that? Is there some support for that contention?

    [ Parent ]
    sorry if it is unclear (none / 0) (#63)
    by gollo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:31:31 PM EST
    that is a quote from the fair.org article I linked to.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes the article (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:46:49 PM EST
    does state that, though it doesn't support the statement, which makes me wonder how true the statement is.

    Regardless, whether any other Democracy - the US included - would deny them license does not make Chavez' denying it any more defensible.

    As an aside, I've always had this weird thought that the "airwaves" naturally exist just like the air we breath and the sun that warms our shoulders, and that they should not be licensed or controlled by the gvt at all, but that's just me I'm sure...

    [ Parent ]

    Oh for crissakes (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    To take this to its absurd extremes, are you familiar with the Nuremberg Laws?

    Free speech is a pretty universal concept.

    If you are saying Chavez's actions are "legal" under Venezuelan law, which is entirely likely, it does not make it any less oppression and censorship of political speech.

    Who care why they broke away from his speech. Are you seriously arguing it is ok for Chavez to dictate coverage?

    You may not a lot about Venezuelan law, I have no idea, but the concept of liberty and free speech seems to have entirely escaped you.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, (none / 0) (#64)
    by gollo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:41:54 PM EST
    If you are saying Chavez's actions are "legal" under Venezuelan law, which is entirely likely, it does not make it any less oppression and censorship of political speech.

    Please provide evidence that this was a unilateral decision by Chavez, and also how it is oppression and censorship of political speech.

    Who care why they broke away from his speech. Are you seriously arguing it is ok for Chavez to dictate coverage?

    Where have I said that it is O.K. for Chavez to dictate coverage?  

    I care very much why they broke away from his speech, (hint: it was to break the law and the Constitution)

    There is one side who are for oppression and censorship of political speech, and that is not Chavez, but then you would have to review the available evidence, instead of resorting to illogical attacks on me.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha! (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:46:56 PM EST
    Oh it was not a uniltateral decision? There was some "nuetral" panel that decided it?

    Are you nuts?

    Did you see what Chavez said today?

    Stop it. If you support oppression, that's your business. But don't fob it off on me.


    [ Parent ]

    gollo (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:08:21 PM EST
    Are you aware of the rights and responsabilities in regard to TV stations and free speech in Venezuela?

    Then you agree that Military Tribunals is all we need give those in Gitmo.

    There is one side who are for oppression and censorship of political speech, and that is not Chavez, but then you would have to review the available evidence, instead of resorting to illogical attacks on me.

    Uh, are you saying the opposition shut the station down? I guess I missed where Chavez was demanding it  be left alone....

    BTW - Do you know the difference between Chavez's Venezuela and Eastern Europe?

    There are no communists left in Eastern Europe.

    Let's face it. We are witnessing the Castroization of a previously free country.

    [ Parent ]

    "Freedom and Liberty" (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:28:09 PM EST
    is an ideology and on it's on sale. This week only.

    and your point is? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:42:27 PM EST
      If you  think its OK to close TV stations that are broadcasting things the the government doesn't like then just say so and tell us why you think that.

      If you think that's not OK, but this is not an example of that. Then say so and tell us why you think that.

      If you just unthinkingly leap to rationalize any action by a dictator who has mouthed some socialist platitudes and opposition to U.S. foreign policy, I'd suggest that it's quite easy to favor a socialist economy and oppose U.S. foreign policy without being a tyrant who represses dissent.

         

    [ Parent ]

    The truth? (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:31:03 PM EST
    Beats me what the real truth is...for all I know this station could be a CIA front, or it could be a legitimate voice of dissent in Venezuela.

    I guess when I'm in doubt I side against the people with the guns, badges, and power... and that puts me at odds with Chavez on this one.

    One less tool for us... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:59:14 PM EST
    To help overthrow a democratically elected government (again).

    I guess we gotta go back to the poison cigars.

    Not a good development (none / 0) (#62)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:07:31 PM EST
    But not, I think, for the reason you imply.

    Chavez:

    "I'm going to warn them before the nation... I recommend they take a tranquilizer, that they slow down, because if not, I'm going to slow them down." ...

    Chavez did not elaborate, but also warned that radio stations should not be inciting violence by "manipulating feelings" among the populace.

    Perhaps RCTV broke the law, called for assassination. Who knows - the "facts" are slippery here. What's worrisome is the "I" - the rule of the man, the caudillo, not the rule of law.

    About the rest, the question is By what right does RCTV or any other privately held entity hold its licence to broadcast over the natural public resource of the public airwaves? You'll note RCTV hasn't been silenced, they still are on cable, just their use of the public airwaves has been taken away.

    There's no inherent right for them to hold that licence, and taking it away isn't suppression of free speech. Could just anyone off the street go into their TV studios previously and have their words broadcast freely? If they couldn't, their free speech was being suppressed. Only in that same sense is it suppression of free speech to not renew their broadcast licence.

    Complete absurdity (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:49:12 PM EST
    and utterly bereft of legal sense.

    I do not want to berate but when you write this:

    There's no inherent right for them to hold that licence, and taking it away isn't suppression of free speech.

    you betray a deep ignorance and free speech, the First Amendment and fascism.

    Conditioning the continuation of a broadcast license on the type of coverage Chavez gets is a blatant act of oppression, censorship, free speeech and liberty.

    It shocks me that you do not understand this.

    Frankly, I expected better from you.

    As it is, I am retiring from this diary as I am now convinced there is no purpose discussing the matter here.

    Frankly, I am appalled.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#67)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:05:00 PM EST
    Conditioning the continuation of a broadcast license on the type of coverage Chavez gets is a blatant act of oppression, censorship, free speeech and liberty.

    I didn't argue that, and you know it.

    Frankly, your being shocked is no argument to what I DID say.

    Perhaps I'm less appalled at this because I live in a country (Canada) that regularly and openly discusses how broadcast licences are doled out on the basis of the public good vs purely private mercenary interests. The airwaves are a rationed public resource that needs to be managed for the public good. I'm NOT saying that's what Chavez did here. In fact, I say he did the opposite, so no need to berate me for that, at least, in case you really didn't understand my argument.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:43:26 PM EST
    I quoted you and your quote is ignorant of First Amendment law in the United States.

    Perhaps Canada permits governments to pull or not renew licenses when the government does not like what the media outlet says, in the United States, that is verboten.

    I must reiterate, you speak from ignorance.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (none / 0) (#74)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:16:19 PM EST
    That's not what I said at all. I didn't say "Conditioning the continuation of a broadcast license on the type of coverage Chavez gets" - that's purely YOUR coloration of it. Very disingenuous of you. What I said was that inasmuch as this appears to be a case of Chavez imposing his will as Leader, not the result of a true impartial ruling, it's an alarming development and not one I approve of by any means.

    But that's a different issue from not renewing the licence of a private broadcaster legitimately deemed to be acting in ways harmful to the public interest. The question in this instance turns on how legitimately the matter was handled. It seems it wasn't fairly handled if what SUO says below is accurate.

    Calling this is a free speech matter - you're not seriously arguing that the right to free speech is the same as the right to exclusive use of a particular frequency of the public airwaves to the exclusion of all others, are you? If the spectrum were allocated as an infinite resource the way the Internet is, it would be a different matter, but it's not.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:57:56 PM EST
    We are not discussing hypotheticals here. We are talking about what Chavez did.

    Please deal with the subject at hand.

    I have no interest in castles in the sand that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

    Chavez and his government said why the pulled the license.

    Do you have an opinion about THAT? No? Then have a good night.

    [ Parent ]

    No I don't excuse you (none / 0) (#84)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:02:38 PM EST
    You misunderstood my initial comment and excoriated me on the basis of your misunderstanding. Not an unusual performance from you.

    The subject at hand is narrowly whether Chavez silenced an opposition TV station illegitimately. If the details we're hearing are accurate, then boo hiss, he did a bad thing. If not (somehow to be discerned through the propaganda from all sides these days with regard to Venezuela), then different issues arise.

    What if in fact it is true that the station was inciting violence and social unrest and advocating the assassination of the president - this by a station that supported the previous coup against him. You seem to very much want to dismiss and derail consideration of that point out of hand. I don't.

    I'd say it brings up at the very least issues of free speech vs the public good. Not to mention the slippery relativism involved in the fact that one person's "socialization of communication" is another person's fascist restriction of free speech.

    If you can't see those relevant issues, or don't wish to see them discussed, or they aren't of interest to you, then good night to you too.

    [ Parent ]

    The issues are not relevant to this discussion (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:36:08 PM EST
    For your edification, I suggest you read my discussion with Al Giordano, in my latest post.

    Your discussion was, imo, off topic here.

    It sounded very much like rationalizing.

    I think my misinterpretation was not solely my fault. But have it your way.  

    [ Parent ]

    Utterly on-topic IMO (none / 0) (#94)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed May 30, 2007 at 01:28:02 AM EST
    I think my misinterpretation was not solely my fault. But have it your way.

    lol

    Extraordinarily gracious of you, I must say.

    [ Parent ]

    frankly, I'm appalled that you don't know (none / 0) (#68)
    by gollo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    what on earth you are talking about.

    A private company used a public utility to openly break the law.

    Because of this, the lawmakers decided that the private company should not continue to use the public utility to do so and an opportunity was given to a public company to use the public utility instead.

    Despite openly breaking the law the owners of the public company were not disappeared, incarcerated or tortured, but merely stopped 5 years after the crime from using the public utility when their license to do so expired.  

    The private company are not stopped from using private means to keep disseminating their product and are not jailed for breaking the law.

    Despite of all this you seem to hold that this is wrong because a close neighbouring country that propagandizes that the democratic leader is a 'dictator' and a 'tyrant' and an 'oppressor of free speech' merely because he does not conform to their ideal, tells you so.

    Without knowing all the facts, you then launch ad hominem attacks on people using the BBC, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, RTE in Ireland and Greg Palast as sources as supporters of either fascism, marxism and/or haters of free speech.

    When it is suggested (in a polite way despite the attacks) that the ideas you hold may be wrong, you do not seem to re-examine these ideas to see if they are well founded in reason and logic. (They might be they, they might not be.)

    Instead you attack someone who agreed with you, (which might suggest that your emotions are ruling your intellect) and declare that you will no longer engage in the practice of debate.

    To quote Bertrand Russell

    When there are rational grounds for an opinion, people are content to set them forth and wait for them to operate. In such cases, people do not hold their opinions with passion; they hold them calmly, and set forth their reasons quietly. The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately

    I sincerely hope that you meditate on this sentiment, as a good ground for common sense and ration inquiry, and civilized discourse, and one offered in good faith and respect.

    [ Parent ]

    Read some cases (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:41:39 PM EST
    at least in the United States, the concept ios well understood.

    I suggest you go to another site where we do not know these things where you can pawn off your falsehoods.

    See, e.g, El Dia, Inc. v. Rossello, First Amendment case RIGHT ON POINT.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD (none / 0) (#81)
    by gollo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:31:24 PM EST
    I suggest you go to another site where we do not know these things where you can pawn off your falsehoods.

    I politely(something you seem incapable of) suggest to you that if you have authority over me you should not exercise it in an authoritarian manner.

    I believe that I have not resorted to name calling, and have not attacked you despite provocation.  You are acting in the same manner that you accuse Chavez of.

    Venezuela is not the US.  There is no relevancy in pointing out cases in which the US constition is involved as it does not apply to Venezuela.  I am well aware of what free speech is, but different countries decide what limits if any they wish to place on free speech.  

    The Venezuelan Constitution was approved by popular referendum by a majority of nearly 72%.  Therefore it can be deduced that it is how the majority wanted it to be.  If the limits that it has on free speech (including in this case treason) were so against popular opinion surely I can also deduce that they would not have voted in favour of it.

    The same constitution gives the right for the citizens to petition for a change in the law if they so want.

    [ Parent ]

    You attack reason (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:57:46 PM EST
    For example, the word "suggest" means just that.

    I am exercising no authority over you.

    [ Parent ]

    Suggest (none / 0) (#87)
    by gollo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:25:43 PM EST
    is a loaded word.

    I was not aware if you had authority over me or not.  I assumed that because you start threads you would have authority which is a reasonable assumption.

    In good faith I was taking part in a discussion on a website that I both enjoy and donate to.  If I had broken any rules or was trolling, I would not have taken exception to being called a fascist or it being 'suggested' that I leave and take my views elsewhere, and would not have been upset about the reaction to my views.

    If anyone thinks that I am unreasonable, fascist or a troll please pm me (or ask someone else to do so) and I promise I will leave and present information so that my address can be permantly blocked if you wish to do so.  I will not look upon it as censorship, but as a request to leave a community which does not enjoy my company.

    Yours faithfully
    gollo

    [ Parent ]

    RCTV (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    was a privately-owned network broadcast over the airwaves on Ch 2. As such, I think defining it as "using a public utility" is fundamentally inaccurate.

    Examples of utilities are:

    -An electric utility, which in some instances can be electric power transmission or electricity distribution organizations.
    -Drinking water purification and distribution
    -Sewage treatment and disposal
    -Other waste disposal
    -Natural gas distribution
    -District heat generation and distribution
    -Public transport
    -Telecomunications, such as cable television and telephone lines
    -Roads, including tollways

    RCTV's license was given to a state-sponsored station called TVes which now broadcasts on ch 2. TVes is not a public company, in the sense that Microsoft is a public company.

    TVes is broadcasting using RCTV's privately-owned broadcast assets that had been seized by the gvt after the gvt refused to renew RCTV's license.

    If RCTV's actions broke the law then those laws are not defensible, and the gvt seizure of RCTV's assets and non-renewal of its broadcast license are not defensible.

    how (none / 0) (#77)
    by gollo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:03:20 PM EST
    are the airwaves and the state owned antennae not public utilites?

    If RCTV's actions broke the law then those laws are not defensible, and the gvt seizure of RCTV's assets and non-renewal of its broadcast license are not defensible.

    The Supreme Tribunal of Justice does not agree with you.

    If the citizens of Venezuela are not happy with the law they are entitled to petition the government for a change in the law.

    Why would those laws be not defensible?  A state should be able to proscrible treason in any way in which its citizens will it to.

    Again I would like to point out that RCTV is still able to broadcast either by satelite or cable.

    [ Parent ]

    You are arguing (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:20:10 PM EST
    whether the actions are defensible under Venezuelan law, I am arguing whether the actions are defensible as a matter of what should be fundamental Venezuelan rights.

    I am not interested in your argument and apparently you are not interested in mine.

    So be it.

    [ Parent ]

    My arguement (none / 0) (#82)
    by gollo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:43:14 PM EST
    supposes that it is up to the Venezuela people to decide what they want as fundemental rights, and it also supposes that when they voted for the constitution, they knew what they were doing and what they were voting for.  

    If you have evidence to the contrary I would be pleased to examine it, but the evidence that I have seen, (which is in no way comprehensive) seems to support my arguement.  I am not as entrenched in my viewpoint as I may seem, (I don't think this is a good move on Chavez's part), but until I see evidence that disputes my arguement it would not be logical for me to alter my arguement.

    I am interested in your arguement but you seem to be saying that the Venezuelans do not know what they want as rights, whereas you do know.

    If they want as a fundemental right to walk backwards every second tuesday, and vote this right in, I do not believe it is up to me to tell them they are wrong and that they do not know what rights are 'right' for them.

    [ Parent ]

    Verboten (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:12:53 PM EST
    is it? Are you claiming that there have never been any limits on speech in the U.S media, B.T?

    Ever hear of the (heartily supported by latter day Big Tenters) Espionage Act and HUAC?

    Are black ops and C.I.A sponsored coups in Latin America a form of dictatorial oppression, or do we have to defer to Pravda (NYT) as the final arbiter on that question, too?

    What did I say was verboten? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    What Chavez diod. Pull alicense because the government did not like being criticzied by the license holder.

    Look, maybe this legal topic is hard for some of you to understand.

    It is the most charitable explanation.

    [ Parent ]

    Big Tent (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:19:06 PM EST
    No. They understand what you are saying.

    They are just trying to find a way  to justify what the dictator du jour has done.

    [ Parent ]

    Chavez troops are shooting students. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:04:24 PM EST
    Chilean TV has reports and video on shooting and gas attacks on students. Go here.

    A bit (translated):

    Four are wounded by bullets after incidents in Venezuela.
    ...
    The student march continued normally during the better part of the morning and the midday hours, but this afternoon, police officers on motorcyle began to disolve the protest with tear gas and rubber bullets.

    More links and video of shooting and gas attacks available:
    Link.

    I'm sure... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Slado on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:33:15 PM EST
    that they are violating some sort of law that doesn't allow peaceful demonstarations on government ground.

    Go ahead and defend your boy!   Tony K.

    [ Parent ]