Newshoggers Comments
The problem with Chavez is that he has not done a single thing that does not amass more power to himself. But hey, no matter. We'll just look past the increasingly dictatorial acts and reduced freedoms because he's redistributing wealth. He should count his lucky stars that he sits on a huge pile of oil and that oil prices are pushing $100/barrel. Without it, his regime would look more like Mugabe's, and it may still.
Charles, like I said, I don't want to debate whether or not he's a good leader or his policies. My only point is he is a democratically elected president who enjoys the support of his own people. I don't think it's up to us to second guess what Venzuelans want for themselves and they're free to reject his reforms if they want to.
It strikes me that all this talk about his tyranny is more than a little misplaced considering Venezuelans have more of a voice in their government than we do under Bush.
Of all the scary things you say in your post this is, beyond doubt, the scariest of them all. I just can't believe you believe the hype...Chimpy McBusHitler, the World's Dumbest Dictator...bet you've said that or something like it.
I think Bugs Bunny said it best:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/ d...erm=ultramaroon
I'm always amazed when the most rabid supporters of middle eastern democratization become the loudest voices against it in Venezuela and elsewhere. And you are entirely correct Libby when you say the protests against Venezuela's democratic process are editorialized so that we, us here in America, are left with the impression that Chavez is opposed by a popular uprising. No...that is a total fabrication of the owning class. The regime change argument concerning both Venezuela and Iraq has never been about democracy for the people, it has always been about camouflaging a pernicious agenda with a useful patina of democratic pretense. To see the situation clearly one has only to understand that those who control the money and power infrastructure see an opportunity to grab more money and power...
So it goes...
They have more of a voice than we do under Bush? Such an utterly stupid claim.
Actually, I'm sure you do love Chavez, despite your denials. You love him because he hates President Bush, as do you. Chavez is in league with the Axis of Evil, which is not so evil for your radical set. The real evil is in the “neocon” policy cabal in Washington that got us into this "disaster" of a war, I've no doubt.
Your disclaimer at the end is odd; perhaps Cernig didn't like his blog being used as a nihilist propaganda outlet for caudillo anti-Americanism.
I might add that your knowledge of Chavez is lacking: Check, for starters, Jorge Castaneda, who puts Venezuela in the "bad" category of South American regimes:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20...-left-
turn.html
It strikes me that all this talk about his tyranny is more than a little misplaced considering Venezuelans have more of a voice in their government than we do under Bush.
In the strictest of senses, this is true--i.e., there is no national referendum ability in US politics.
However, one suspects that if Bush offered 6 hour work weeks and a number of other goodies to the populace in exchange for more power for himself, he might get it.
The fact that a move in and of itself can be defined as democratic does not mean that the long term effects of that move will be good for democracy in the given country.
While I can understand a great deal of the criticism aimed at Bush, in point of fact in 2, 4, 8 or 12 years from now US democracy will be relatively healthy (warts and all), while I would now place bets on the quality of Venezuelan democracy at that point in time.
There can be no doubt that Chavez's moves are primarily about consolidation of power, not social justice or democracy.
Regardless of what one thinks about Bush, he will leave power in January of 2009, while Hugo Chavez will be president of Venezuela of the foreseeable future (or, at least, as long as oil revenues allow him to fuel--no pun intended--his populistic politics).
"I don't follow Venezuelan politics like I used to.."
And it shows...
You claim that pro-Chavez demonstration are better attended than those from the opposition. Do you know what happens to government employees in Venezuela who don't attend those demonstrations? They risk losing their jobs and being branded an enemies of the "bolivarian revolution"?
I do understand why you are so blind to that reality. You probably think that living in Venezuela or your typical Latin American republic is like living in the U.S.A. (you know, the rule of law, respect for institutions and that kind of stuff you surely take for granted).
Well, is not. You cannot talk about democracy in Venezuela and the will of the people being implemented by the government when those that oppose then are persecuted.
The government owns or control with intimidation the main media outlets, so the opposition don't even have a chance to present their ideas or defending themselves against charges that they want to overthrow the democratically elected government and put the "former ruling class" back in power.
I'm just wondering what happened to the old left, those who used to fight for social justice and who are those who call themselves "progressives" nowadays...
Ulises Jorge
San Juan, PR
I think Libby's updates clarify her position satisfactorily. However, doubtless those who wish to cherrypick in support of their own demonizations of the left will continue to do so.
Thanks to Steven Taylor for his comment and for giving me renewed hope that moderate conservatives - i.e. those who really are moderate rather than just appropriating the label as a shield against critics - still exist and can still read with insightful comprehension.
Regards, C
"However, one suspects that if Bush offered 6 hour work weeks and a number of other goodies to the populace in exchange for more power for himself, he might get it.
I don't understand your point here Steven. Bush offers us nothing in exchange for his power. He akready unilaterally declared himself all powerful. He takes away from our poor to finance his war and pad the pockets of 'his base.' How is what Chavez doing worse? At least he's giving something back to the people.
Which is not be read as an endorsement of his policies. I've addressed that in the updates. I'm not comfortable with Hugo or the way he's operating, and maybe I'm missing something, but I still fail to see how what he is doing, no matter how bad, is worse than what our president is doing to us. It's at least as bad.
I'm afraid I don't have the same faith as you that a new administration will be able to repair the damage Bush has done and will still do. He has over a year yet to exact his toll. And that's not BDS, it's just a pragmatic assessment.
Bush offers us nothing in exchange for his power. He akready unilaterally declared himself all powerful. He takes away from our poor to finance his war and pad the pockets of 'his base.' How is what Chavez doing worse? At least he's giving something back to the people.
My point is that the pending referendum is a mix of policies clearly designed to appeal to the poor in a way that they will exchange expanded power for Chavez for those policies.
Chavez will then use those powers to gain yet more power--a pattern that he has followed for years now.
Again--Bush will be gone in just over 1 year and while some of the damage he has done will linger, there will also be reversals and changes. There will be something of a "reset" button pushed. Now, the scope of such changes will depend on who is elected, to be sure.
And really, Bush simply isn't "all powerful". As much I think he has abused executive power, this is simply an indefensible assertion.
And as far as funding the war is concerned, you are forgetting the fact that Congress is one that authorizes spending. Bush has not governed by fiat. There is that whole democratically-elected Congress that also are culpable for the policies in question.
Look, forget partisanship--this has nothing to do with partisanship. I study democracy and Latin America for a living and there is little doubt in my mind that what has been happening in Venezuela since Chavez was first elected is a slow motion move towards authoritarianism. I do not deny that there have been democratic moments in that evolution, but that does not mitigate against the direction that that state is headed.
One can criticize Bush all one likes, and much of the criticism would be quite fair, but it is really rather difficult (indeed, I would argue impossible) to make the case that what Bush is doing is consolidating power to himself for long-term governance.
There is little doubt that that is exactly what Chavez is doing. As such, comparisons are rather problematic.
If Bush cancels the elections and stays in power in late January 2009, you can tell me I was wrong, but the truth of the matter is, he will leave power altogether and we'll move on to the next administration.
That alone derails any argument that Bush has made himself "all powerful."
I'm not going to get into your substantive points about Chavez' relative popularity, which is beyond my realm of expertise. To a large extent, I suppose you're probably right that he is quite popular.
But if these "reforms" pass, then the episode shows the inherent danger in a pure democracy in terms of a complete lack of respect for minority rights. In essence, pure democracy means that whatever the majority says, goes- no matter what that means for the minority.
Of course, as we have seen here, our (small r) republican government has plenty of flaws of its own when it comes to protecting minority rights. But, if I had a gun to my head and had to choose which system is more prone to true tyranny, I'd say that the Venezuelan potential for tyranny of the majority is scarier than anything Bush has been able to pull off here.
This libertarian's solution? Minimize the opportunities for government to act tyrannically by keeping government weak.
Let's stipulate that I agree Chavez is actively consolidating power and his policies are terrible for the country. I don't mean to be obtuse, but here's the problem. Bush also has used his powers to gain more power. He's declared himself above the law of the land. What is that if not all powerful? And this is not a partisan complaint. I'm not so certain that the next administration will repair it rather than exploit the precendents. It's rare to see a politican willingly give back power.
I think I've made my case on how this administration has destroyed the foundation of our own system of government and I think my analogy is valid. As I just said at my own little place, I'm always surprised that people don't see how a tin horn despot like Chavez is acting less criminally than our own president. I keep waiting for horrified realization, but I get indignation. Go figure.
Oh, and thanks to all for your thoughtful comments.
Libby, you don't need to defend your comments, which were perfectly alright. The kind of people who go around in a dither about Chavez were the same geniuses who accused those who opposed occupying Iraq of supporting Saddam.
In other words, complete idiots.
Much as my critics would like to spin as such, I'm not saying Venezuela is better than America. I am saying our president is just as much a tyrant as Chavez could hope to be.
Amen, to that!
Libby,
Don't you think you weaken your argument by asserting things like Bush has become "all powerful" and the like?
the problem is that direct comparisons of Chavez and Bush are simply not as useful for your argument as you appear to think that they are.
And really, as problematic as things this administration has done, it is really rather difficult to make the argument that "our president is just as much a tyrant as Chavez could hope to be" when it is clear that Bush will leave office in January of 2009 and the Chavez is likely to be in power for the foreseeable future.
That is not an insignificant distinction.
Further, while Bush has abused executive authority, he hasn't re-written the constitution to personally serve his interests, nor has he been able to sideline all serious political opposition and therefore fill all of the legislature with compliant allies who will literally give him whatever he wants.
There simply isn't a good comparison here, and I can say that very easily without even trying to defend one thing that Bush has done.
As I noted above, if Bush tried to overstay his office in 2009, then we can talk definitively about him being a tyrant. Yet, there is no reason to think that that is going to happen.
Steven, I appreciate your patience and your time in engaging in this conversation but I'm afraid I see nothing in the definition of tyrant that suggests it doesn't apply until a certain time frame has been met. Bush has openly stated he is above the law and has surrepitiously issued hundreds of signing statements declaring the same. That alone qualifies him in my mind. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point and I only hope that at some point in the future I'll be able to say that you were right and my concerns are misplaced.
Meanwhile, thanks to all who commented in support of my position and again thanks to everyone who weighed in on either side of the issue. It's been an interesting debate.
Steven Taylor, Bush has broken a wide assortment of laws, both domestic and international. You may choose to believe that he will step down at the end of his term, but there is no basis for criticizing Libby for believing otherwise. A man who will incarcerate a human being without due process, subject that person to universally-recognized torture-- all on the basis of illegally-obtained information-- will leave an American city to be wrecked by disaster, and will betray not one but several American covert agents to reprisal by America's enemies can only be trusted to break whatever additional laws are necessary to avoid punishment.
The people whose credibility is diminished are those who do not take the law-breaking and criminality of this Administration with appropriate gravity.
Here in Canada, there are no term limits on the Prime Minister position. We continue, however, to sell our oil for dollars -- so I suppose that we're safe.
Libby,
Yes, we have to agree to disagree, but I will have to say that ultimately there is a substantial difference between establishing an authoritarian regime (i.e., Chavez) and engaging in specific actions that can be deemed to be authoritarian (i.e., Bush). That is not an inconsiderable difference.
You also discount the actions of Congress in these policies, which further damages your claims of tyranny in the US.
Also, there is a difference between Bush's view of signing statement (which I vehemently oppose, btw) which to date are nothing more than statements (but not actual actions) and Chavez, who has actually done things like close down major opposition media outlets.
Again, the issue here for me is more about the comparability of the cases. If what you really want is people to see the problems of this president, then you need to be accurate in your critiques. Stating that Bush has made himself "all powerful" or that Chavez ought to be seen as a less tyrannical figure weakens your position and allows your critics to easily dismiss over criticisms of the Bush administration that you have.
Charles II,
I am not certain that Libby is arguing that Bush will stay in office. In all honesty, there is no way that he will not leave office. If he actually perpetrates a coup, I will be amongst the first to decry the move.
Of course, if Bush really was worse than Chavez, we could expect to see Lilly's obituary tomorrow.
Libby Said:
"Our president has and much more. I mean, he ignores the will of the people. He's abolished habeas corpus and posse comitatus, the pillars of our own democracy."
First of all if you're going to speak of the above constitutional rights you may want to preface it with US Constitutional Rights of habeas corpus and posse comitatus.
This is where some people (like yourself) get it wrong, but then again it doesn't take much thought to parrot the usual talking points now does it? Saying the above is like claiming Bush is taking away the rights of an enemy soldier captured on the battlefield because the enemy soldier wasn’t read his Miranda rights!
Seriously, when you speak of habeas corpus I assume you are speaking of the prisoners being held at Gitmo, am I right? I believe I am right and the reason why I'm confident I'm right is because I have yet to hear of ANY American citizen being held in prison without being given their right to habeas corpus and I challenge you to name just ONE example where an American citizen was denied this right under the US constitution! You can't, because its never happened and it never will provided you are an American citizen and the last time I checked the prisoners (enemy combatants) being held at Gitmo are not American citizens!
The detainees being held at Gitmo are "enemy combatants" that were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, they were not captured in the USA, and they are not American citizens, so why on earth should they be protected by the US CONSTITUTION, in particular habeas corpus? Answer that one if you can as I’d sure like to hear your reasoning on that point, but I doubt you will be able to justify why foreign (non-US citizens) enemy combatants would have a right to habeas corpus under the US constitution!
That makes about as much sense as an American getting arrested in Venezuela then complaining to the judge that he wasn't read his Miranda rights when arrested and demands the judge throw out the case and set them free!
We don't take our constitutional rights with us when we go to a foreign country Libby! Also, since the enemy combatants being held in Gitmo don't wear a uniform or represent a nation technically they aren't even entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention, yet they have been treated just as well if not better then if they were protected under the Geneva Convention.
Libby Said:
"I am saying our president is just as much a tyrant as Chavez could hope to be."
To equate Bush as being a tyrannical despot worse than Chavez only goes to prove your BDS.
Libby said:
"The point is, these reforms will be not be enacted by presidential edict or government controlled courts. In just a few more days they will be put to a referendum and decided by the people themselves. Just as he submitted to a recall election engineered by his critics that failed to unseat him by popular vote."
As you mentioned in your earlie
LorD - habeas is enshrined in more than one nation's legal system and is part of the international framework that the US has agreed to extend even to non-citizens by treaty. There's a US law that says treaties the US enters into are to be treated as having the full force of US domestic law.
Regards, C
Cernig Said:
"habeas is enshrined in more than one nation's legal system and is part of the international framework that the US has agreed to extend even to non-citizens by treaty. There's a US law that says treaties the US enters into are to be treated as having the full force of US domestic law."
Such treaties apply only to those countries that are signators of the treaty, if they are then yes we must abide by those treaties, however since the US does not have such a treaty with Afghanistan or Iraq then it is a moot point.
In addition, since groups such as OBL and his murdering band of nut jobs that comprise AQ are not affiliated with a recognized nation (e.g. they don't wear a uniform, carry a nations flag, etc.) they are not covered under ANY treaty as they are not fighting for any recognized nation, unless of course you consider their murdering ideology as constituting a "nation."
Therefore again, your point is moot. This is a war, it's not a police action and we need to stop treating it as such. Also, this is not my fathers war (WWII and Korea) where you knew who the enemy was because of their uniform, etc. and therefore needs to be approached and conducted in a different manner.
Here's the remainder of my earlier post that was cut off:
Libby said:
"The point is, these reforms will be not be enacted by presidential edict or government controlled courts. In just a few more days they will be put to a referendum and decided by the people themselves. Just as he submitted to a recall election engineered by his critics that failed to unseat him by popular vote."
As you mentioned in your earlier post "I don't follow Venezuelan politics like I used to" well then you might want to freshen up on your Venezuelan politics, especially before you make such statements!
Just within the last several weeks Chavez sacked several key government officials that are against his referendum, you know, the referendum that you hold up in such high esteem as proof that the Venezuelan people will be the ones to decide if the referendum is approved or not.
You may also want to learn more about and consider Chavez's recent actions of shutting down the free press in Venezuela, you know, the very actions that started the recent riots and resulted in the Venezuelan military shooting its own civilians! Of course it's easy to push through a referendum (that gives Chavez more control and power) when you sack your elected government, shut down the free press (and only allow government run press) and intimidate your people or anyone that disagrees with a referendum that allows Chavez to stay in power indefinitely!
Chavez's actions (undermining his country's constitution) will not lead to democracy and freedom, but instead to totalitarianism and tyranny! So tell me again how our president "is just as much a tyrant as Chavez could hope to be" because I fail to see our president and his administration doing what Chavez is doi
Continued post from earlier Liberty or Death post:
Chavez's actions (undermining his country's constitution) will not lead to democracy and freedom, but instead to totalitarianism and tyranny! So tell me again how our president "is just as much a tyrant as Chavez could hope to be" because I fail to see our president and his administration doing what Chavez is doing to Venezuela and its people! Instead Chavez will be leading his country to a civil war. I call it like it is Libby, if it quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, then it must be a damn duck, and Chavez is acting more tyrannical and autocratic everyday, Chavez is the tyrant, not Bush and I can say that with the utmost confidence, why? Well come next November will be the "proof in the pudding" that Bush isn't a tyrant taking away our rights as you say, and that proof will become evident with the peaceful transfer of power from Bush to the next freely elected president, a president elected by we the people, and this is the difference between Bush and Chavez and what makes Chavez the tyrant, not Bush!
I will also make another prediction that proves Chavez is the tyrannical despot and not Bush, watch the next transfer of power in Venezuela as it will not be peaceful because if Chavez gets his way with his referendum the only way the people of Venezuela will ever see a freely elected government is through a civil war because Chavez is a socialist autocrat, he doesn't believe in democracy, he despises democracy, just ask his best friend Fidel Castro!
LorD,
I think you'll find that the US and other signatories to the Conventions of Geneva, on Human Rights and on Torture agreed to extend habeas to all, regardless of country of origin, and not just reciprocally between the signator nations.
Regards, C
Oh, I didn't realize this thread had reactiviated.
LoD, I have two words for you. Jose Padilla. And you haven't addressed the abolition of posse comitatus. That affects Americans, not so-called enemy combatants.
Cernig Said:
"I think you'll find that the US and other signatories to the Conventions of Geneva, on Human Rights and on Torture agreed to extend habeas to all, regardless of country of origin, and not just reciprocally between the signator nations.
Regards, C"
This is precisely why the enemy combatants being held at Gitmo are not covered under habeas corpus, they have no official affiliation with a recognized nation, yet they are still being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention despite the fact there is no requirement to do so under the Geneva Convention since they are not affiliated with any recognized nation.
Just goes to prove Bush and our administration are not as evil as some make them out to be.
Also, there are provisions for the suspension of habeas corpus and I quote from Wikipedia, "In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency."
I think a time of war constitutes a time of national emergency, unless of course you subscribe to the V for Vendetta fantasy that the WOT is all a smoke screen designed by our evil and tyrannical government to enslave us ala prison-planet BS!
Part 1
Libby said:
"LoD, I have two words for you. Jose Padilla. And you haven't addressed the abolition of posse comitatus. That affects Americans, not so-called enemy combatants."
Here's what those two words "Jose Padilla" mean to me. First of all the WOT has created new territory we as a nation and our government have not had to deal with before, something that presents numerous challenges that our nation and its laws have never had to deal with, and the case of Jose Padilla is one of those examples.
Jose's case doesn't alarm me in the least, the fact that our courts overruled the administrations designation of Padilla as an enemy combatant and therefore not covered under habeas corpus only goes to prove that our justice system works.
Further proof of our system working is the fact Padilla was eventually tried in our regular court system as a US citizen and not in a military court as an enemy combatant.
Again to reiterate, our government and its laws are treading new territory when it comes to executing the WOT to safeguard the republic from our enemies (an enemy that attacked and declared war on us) while at the same time complying with our laws and constitution that protect our civil liberties, and that's a difficult balancing act.
Some people subscribe to the “civil liberties at all costs” mentality, which brings up a good argument, do we protect civil liberties at all costs even if it gives our enemies the advantage and places the very liberties and republic we cherish at risk?
I say no, and the reason being is our civil liberties and republic will be meaningless if our enemy defeats us and they install their non-secular fascist religious Sharia ideology. If you think you don’t have civil liberties now, just how much freedom and civil liberties do you think you’ll have under a strict Islamic caliphate based on Sharia law, especially if you're a women or a non-Muslim?
Part 2 (in response to Libby regarding Jose Padilla):
Our governments original argument for designating Padilla an enemy combatant was based on previous precedence in the law dating back to the outbreak of WWII, in particular this:
"The order "legally justified" the detention using the AUMF, which authorized the President to "use all necessary force against . . . such nations, organizations, or persons" and by opining that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified an enemy combatant. (This opinion is based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of ex parte Quirin, a case involving the detention of a group of German-Americans in the United States working for Nazi Germany)"
However our court system didn't agree and Padilla was eventually tried before a court of his peers as a US citizen (not as an enemy combatant) where he was found guilty, and justice was served.
Again, our system of checks and balances worked, despite Bushitler and Darth Cheney. In fact our system works better than it ever has and I feel more secure in my rights under the constitution today than I have ever been. Why? Well let’s put the Padilla case into perspective, had Padilla committed this crime say back during the American revolutionary or civil war (or WWI or WWII for that matter) he wouldn't have been afforded near the due process he received and most certainly would have been tried in a military court (not a civilian court) and already been summarily shot dead by firing squad for his treason immediately upon his conviction.
Bottom line in regard to Padilla, the justice system worked, he was given due process, he was convicted, and now he will pay for his crime, a crime that had he been successful in carrying out would have resulted in the deaths of many in the immediate blast area and many more others later of radiation poisoning, not to mention the blast area and a good distance from it would be uninhabitable for some time to come due to the radioactive substances he planned to use!
I believe in due process, civil liberties, and I cherish the sanctity of our constitution, as I’m certain you do to Libby, but try to remember that our system is doing the best it can under very unique and trying circumstances. Also keep in mind that if we fail to protect our nation from the enemies that attacked us, have declared war on us, and to this day chant “death to America” our civil liberties and our republic will not be worth the paper our great constitution was written on!
Wow. Essays in comments. Don't get me wrong - I do appreciate the effort involved in making a detailled case and thanks for your contributions.
However, think, since I've got posts to write, rather than rewrite essays I've already written as part of a comment thread which is now several days old, I'll just refer you to our searchable archives for details of my replies to all these points, none of which are new in any way. We've all talked about them before.
Try "torture", "rule of law", "Padilla" and a bunch of other obvious keywords.
Regards, C
Commenting by HaloScan
