OW--Maria M. is the hero for the middle class opposition, especially women.
Here she is in the photo, shaking hands with a man that manufactured a pretext to invade Iraq.
As a result of that action, many children are maimed for life, or have lost their lives.
GW Bush is a war criminal--yet they smile at the master and assure us all that he (Bush) is the world's guarrantor of 'democracy & liberty'.
This really is demented--this is a Pinochet-type delusion that allows for a worldview where Iraqi (third world/brown) children are just so much cannon-fodder--easily sacrificed for the greater glory of empire's version of 'democracy', where the wealthy capitalists rule, where the world is their play ground.
Simply grotesque.
Jim, check out Forero's article in the NYT today. Chavez is adored by crowds of South Americans; Machado is adored by Bush. Which would you prefer?
Perhaps they were discussing plan B.
They probably were (although I think they are on plan H by now).
To bad they didn't get a photo of the handover of the check 
Btw, OW
Comandante Pulpo has a crush on Maria.
We will not hold that against him--but we will require Maria to wear a GW Bush mask if they ever 'hook-up'.
Yes Comandante--this is the price that must be paid when you want to play with the oligarch's toys.
About the above signature: Maria M. claims that she did not sign the declaration.
Are you sure that that signature is part of the declaration as opposed to just signing a 'guest book' of some type?
I am sorry OW, though I buy NYT when I have time to read in a leisurely fashion (just scanning that rag is a two hour ordeal), I am not a daily recipient of the paper--nor am I hooked into the on-line addition.
Juan F. is an enigmatic journalist--he vacillates between engaging in non-critical propaganda and then throwing a few bones to the popular currents sweeping the Americas. I will say that he is some degrees better than Larry Rother and others on the LA beat from the last decade.
The opposition hates his guts because he is not totally obsequious.
I believe that he walks a fine line between being a journalist for a rouge empire and...well, being simply a journalist.
My opinion of most 'journalists' in the capitalist world is very, very low.
Too many readings of Chomsky has disabused me of any notions that a capitalist press will provide consistently valuable and pertinent information that will allow a citizenry to cast off the fetters of ideological indoctrination.
Indeed, my reaction is so visceral as of late that I fantasize about making these oligarchs and their lackies engage in years of socially productive physical labor to atone for their myriad sins.
What is the saying?--"if wishes were unicorns than dreamers would fly"?
Well I am an image of a unicorn and GW Bush that it would just not do to mention on this blog--as this blog is 'family friendly' LOL
Jim:
I'll post on the Times later. On A12 after the Carmona decree was read they asked people to sign to show support for it. That is what she signed. So many signed it was a huge line and they ran out of forms which is why they started signing on regular paper. But all the people who signed have been listed many times and she is one.
"Comandante Pulpo has a crush on Maria."
How dare you General!, exposing my weaknesses!
Actually Id love to see her in an orange jumpsuit (wink) with pumps of coarse.
Someone once got angry at me for asking what the rules were for conjugal visits in Venezuelan jails.
It was an honest question.
OW and others.
Check out the thread in noticierodigital!
http://www.noticierodigital.com/...pic.php?
t=10875
Its stunning. The oppo kidz are in heaven nr seven!
Corina was given a photo session with God Almighty himself!
They are so so proud and happy.
Someone once got angry at me for asking what the rules were for conjugal visits in Venezuelan jails.
LOL Pulpo thats crazy!
Yes Corina is no doubt good looking.
Thanks OW for "balancing up" the Corina picture with the Carmona decree in the post. It helped.
Elliv--the fact that the persona of Bush is symbolic of the rouge nature of US imperial power and state terrorism just points up the morally craven nature of the Venezuelan elite.
They look to the US as a savior of sorts. I know, it's really sick--they have to shunt aside so many obvious contradictions to figure-up Bush and the US as being protectors of 'freedom and democracy'. This is especially funny/sad given the documented US record in the Americas--not just the criminality of the US regieme with respect to Afganistan and Iraq today.
Yes, Elliv, they are so joyous that Maria M. had a fifteen minute audience with a man that was declared by Amnesty International as an international criminal.
Thinking people will see Maria M. and her crowd in Venezuela for what they are: simply put, they are 'whores for empire and state terrorism'.
God forbid that the worst case senerio actually plays out--a US invasion.
U.S. Lawmakers Visit Venezuela
May 31, 10:52 PM (ET)
By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Five U.S. lawmakers met Venezuela's justice minister Tuesday, briefly discussing the case of a Cuban exile held by U.S. authorities and wanted in Venezuela for trial in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban jet.
The legislators' visit came as supporters of President Hugo Chavez condemned a meeting in Washington between President Bush and a prominent opponent of Chavez's government.
Venezuelan congresswoman Cilia Flores said Bush's meeting Tuesday with Maria Corina Machado, director of the nonprofit group Sumate, showed she was seeking money for "destabilization campaigns."
The five U.S. lawmakers visited as part of a regional tour. They included Republican Reps. Tom Davis and Frank Wolf of Virginia, and Candice Miller of Michigan, and Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney of New York and C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland.
They left talks with Justice and Interior Minister Jesse Chacon without making any public comments.
Chacon said afterward that the meeting briefly touched up the case of Luis Posada Carriles, the detained Cuban exile Venezuela is seeking to try in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban plane that killed 73 people.
"We told them that we are close to presenting the extradition request ... we hope that once they have the file in their hands, the extradition proceeds," Chacon said.
During a speech, Chavez called Posada "the No. 1 terrorist in this world of the Americas, (and) for the moment the government in Washington is protecting him."
Posada, a naturalized Venezuelan and former CIA operative, allegedly plotted the bombing in Caracas. He was acquitted twice and escaped from prison in 1985 while his case was on appeal.
The 77-year-old Posada, who had denied wrongdoing, is due to have an immigration hearing in the United States on June 13.
"persona of Bush is symbolic of the ROUGE nature of US imperial power"
I thought the lipstick went out of the US government with J. Edgar Hoover! Freudian slip? :D
Jim R. I agree that a US invasion would be a terrible scenario. However, the worst case scenario would be the assassination of Chavez.
"We were invited by Bush because he is interested in hearing civil society's perspective on democracy" , said Machado."
I guess that leaves the majority of the population that sees things a bit differently than Ms. Machado as uncivil. Yes those savages that represent 60% of the voting population, they dont know what democracy is.
Really this woman should be in jail. Along with the rest of them that signed be it, decree, guest book, welcome letter, wash cloth, toilet paper, what ever! You were there? You signed? off you go. A person does not go to the crowning of the next Venezuelan dictator, who has just overthrown a democracy, as non participant. If it werent such an exclusive event why then were the crowds that marched and made all possible not in there sharing the bubbly with the rest of the oligarch's wives? No this was a close knit group and she was one of them.
Does anyone really believe that Bush even knew her name? Or for that matter would remember it? He might remember the skirt maybe. No these names are the ones for Noriega and Reich to remember.
Wouldnt it be great if Condeleeza rice started dating Dick Cheney's daughter?
How do you know that they don't already.
Hmm good point. Top secret Gop jungle fever.
Jim R, I see you can read, almost, Spanish. Asistencia does mean Assistance. The signing was done when entering, not when leaving.
By the way, a group of Vzlan Assembly (Congress) members left for the US today to discuss the extradition of Posada with US Congress members. Of course, Congress took a vacation on 26 May and will be returning on June 6th. I wonder if they are going to check to see if their bank account is one of the 100 frozen by the FBI and DEA. Need I explain why the DEA is involved?
Let me see, Posada should be extradited to Vzla because he PLANNED THE BOMBING IN VENEZUELA? Good heavens, maybe Vzla should extradite all of you for "planning" in your country.
Jim R, US invasion? Not necessary. The Chavista parties are canabalizing each other. All the US has to do is wait.
"You were there? You signed? off you go." Wow, Pulpo, a real democracy!!!!!
La Reina Pícara, yes, democracy means not participating in a coup, it means not accepting money from hostile foriegn governments that have a history of backing oligarch dictatorships, death squads, illegal invasions, gulags, and general thuggery.
What part of the word 'd-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y' don't you understand vendepatria?
Yeah, Picara, make me laugh--Chavez' government is loosing support? LOL
That is a good one.
It seems that you are deluded by the same illogical, fanatical thinking that most of the Venezuelan vendepatrias are consumed by--just keep telling yourself that Maria M. and GW Bush are seen by most Venezuelans as staunch supporters of the democratic ideal and human freedom and social justice.
Your side's best thinking has brought you Pinochet and GW Bush.
The rest of us--the sane people of the world, we see Chavez as having far, far more credibility than the washed-up, mall-rat spoiled opposition that will someday end up bitter, defeated and decaying in Miami.
Hah, hah, hah--keep'em coming Picara, we need a few oppos like you to keep us all laughing.
Invite your oligarch-loving freinds over here from those 'other blogs'. You know which ones I speak of, the ones that censor ideas and opinions that call into question their insular logic.
Ok, as requested by some I updated the post to provide links to where it indicates she signed the actual proclamation of Carmona. I'm sure there are lots of places to find this but these are a couple.
The links you just provided are quite interesting, especially since neither of them has a single name from the 12 listed as "ASISTENTES." What does that mean to you?
The Quinto Dia link has some interesting quotes, such as "muchos de quienes fueron señalados de firmar el acto...niegan haber concurrido a Miraflores" and "no era ningún delito. Sencillamente, estaban contra Chávez y eso tampoco es delito."
Really this woman should be in jail. Along with the rest of them that signed be it, decree, guest book, welcome letter, wash cloth, toilet paper, what ever! You were there? You signed? off you go. A person does not go to the crowning of the next Venezuelan dictator, who has just overthrown a democracy, as non participant.
No Pulpo! Didnt you watch "The Revolution will not be.." ?
Did you miss the outrage from the crowd when the Daniel Romero presented Carmonas decree? Didnt u hear the booing?
Luckely Carmona had some well trained body guards with him in Miraflores, otherwise the crowd would have give him a good beating.
After the cermony the upset but determinded crowd immidiatly began to collect signatures where they demanded
the return of the only legal government, the Chavez administration.
And now some some people have the nerve to use these signatures as proof for Carmona-support! Surreal..
I mean these people only went Miraflores to make sure that the constitution was respected.
Some of them actually believed that Chavez had resigned and but they couldent understand why the rest of the Chavez-government wasent present.
They immidiatly orded the metropolian police to find the legal members of the cabinet so that they could re-instate the democraticly elected government. Unfortunatly some of the ministers missinterpreted the work of the police and actually thought they were being arrested. What an irony!
C'mon Pulpo, I mean most of the people in Miraflores that day might not have been supporters of Chavez and his government, but they sure knew to respect the constitution and democracy.
"The links you just provided are quite interesting, especially since neither of them has a single name from the 12 listed as "ASISTENTES." What does that mean to you?"
Please do explain what it means to you - it doesn't mean anyting to me.
"The Quinto Dia link has some interesting quotes, such as "muchos de quienes fueron señalados de firmar el acto...niegan haber concurrido a Miraflores" and "no era ningún delito. Sencillamente, estaban contra Chávez y eso tampoco es delito.""
Yeah and the reporter was listing the names that he saw, first hand, to contradict the lies from people who after the fact want to pretend they didn't sign. Is it a crime? The courts will decide that but no-one on that list is getting any democrat of the year from me or most anyone for that matter (except Bush and Condi maybe )
"OW and others.
Check out the thread in noticierodigital!
http://www.noticierodigital.com/....com/
...pic.php? t=10875
Its stunning. The oppo kidz are in heaven nr seven!
Corina was given a photo session with God Almighty himself!"
I took a peak and it is indeed something. It shows how week and desperate they are that they get excited over something like this. Considering they've screwed up everything they've done over the past 4 or 5 years and are only polling single digits let them have their moment of joy.
It is quite sad the state the opposition leadership is in, but this silly event attracts traffic so we might as well disect it.
Winners:
-Sumate: by gaining audience with Mr Bush they have secured more funding and personal inmunity, to some degree.
-Whitehouse: Well they finally scored a diplomatic victory, mostly because it was unexpected and it threw the Chavistas off balance. However the fact this is the only diplomatic victory the world's superpower has scored in months certainly tarnishes its luster.
-Chavez: Well what can I say, it is as if Kerry had gone and visited Chirac on the eve of his election. Might as well wear a shirt saying 'I am with puppet'.
Losers
-Opposition leadership: They really don't need money, they need a dose of leftism.
-Opposition rank and file: They only care about toppling Chavez so why would they applaud this?
-MVR: They really should keep quiet when they are going to be quoted for the world to read.
-The people: Well they are always the loser.
Flanker:
Insightful and well said save maybe the last one.
I am an cynical optimist by nature.
Elliv:
LOL good satire my friend.
here is my favorite:
"I mean these people only went Miraflores to make sure that the constitution was respected."
So true! They were there to defend all that is democracy in the face of receiving monies to do the opposite, and signed to make sure of it, as if a receipt were necessary. Don’t worry the signatures are there and all are accounted, inclusive of Bushes new pet, whose name he knows not. Photo op is the term that comes to mind and it has been circulated effectively I might add. Publicity is neither negative or positive it just is.
Some have claimed victory over arguments had, but still questions remain unanswered. Why were the lay people not allowed in? those that made it all so? Can we consider MCM a lay person? If handing a letter with intent to rob a bank to teller signed by all bank robbers at the scene of the crime is purposefully misinterpreted to ensnare only those who hold guns, then does that exclude those who facilitated the act? Are they not equally responsible for actions taken as a result of their involvement, and the kicker is that they are at the scene of the crime! With signature and cedula to account for it! Not much watching of CSI I suppose among Venezuelan viewers. Are we to believe that those present on the day of Carmonas decree were not of the privileged few who were complicit with the actions taken on that fateful day? Hence when I state that if anyone signed anything (sans cameramen who will be questioned at a later date im sure) inclusive of toilet paper, were there for a specific reason, that would exclude the general population? So sorry she arrived late in time to sign the actual decree, but sign she did and the proof is in the pudding as Cosby would say. Do pseudo oppos like pudding? I for one am not one for sweets, but I will however take some blood pudding, morcilla to be exact, and to stray from the anglo definition of the delicacy. Shall we gut some oppos and make some morcilla? Easy pickens on this one ill wait for a better pig.
http://www.recipeland.com/encycl...p/
Black_pudding
For those inclined please remember to suffer.
And when I say "suffer" I mean suffer adequately. None of this Ill suffer when it suits me and then ill party and not go to rallies. I mean suffer in all its meaning. You diminish the sentiment of the word when only two old ladies aptly and figuratively personified by my former enemies, brought to light by the good general, hold placards exemplifying the level of non suffering going on. Please folks, you would do me a great service by suffering to the fullest of extent of suffering. Thanks in advance for your cooperation
You you what Pulpo, I would have more respect for the Carmona signers if they would have stand up for what they did.
The lame excuses and blaim-game we have seen just shows their lack of character.
I'm with you on that Elliv. And in fact so are most people. It really does hurt the oppositions credibility that they always deny responsibility for what they did, be it the coup, the strike, whatever. They would actually help themselves if they took some responsibility. But they are too cowardly for that. And that probably has a lot to do with why their credibiltiy and popularity are on the floor.
"Please do explain what it means to you - it doesn't mean anyting to me"
It means that there is some sort of discretionality that has been used to select which signers to charge. The question is based on what criteria.
Since the 12 in question signed a sheet that says "ASISTENTES," it would be difficult to argue that their signature meant approval of Carmona/decree. Fine. But why is it that those who signed a blank page are considered to have done the worst thing possible? Isn't it just possible that they ran out of pre-printed sheets and put blank ones out for more asistentes to sign?
Reasonable doubt, at the very least. Or show me another court of law where signing a blank page equals treason.
not sure I'm following you. The point I was making was that Machado signed the Carmona decree or a paper that was meant to indicate approval of it and she did. To me that means she doesn't repect the democratic systems. Is it treasones and is it fair who has been charged and who not? I don't know, I suppose that is another discusion. But for purposes of this post and discussion her signature and what it indicates it clear.
U.S. Congressman Concerned About Venezuela
By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
Associated Press Writer
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- A U.S. congressman expressed concern over the health of Venezuela's democracy and condemned charges of conspiracy brought against a leading government opponent.
------
The U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, said the National Endowment for Democracy would continue funding pro-democracy organizations in Venezuela, including Sumate.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic...-06-02-01-16-
52
Whats the prison population of Venezuela and is it time for a few more?
Thanks for the link.
It is good to see congress people are concerned. Although with another 78 US soldiers dead in Iraq last month you would think they would have other things to worry about.
"The point I was making was that Machado signed the Carmona decree or a paper that was meant to indicate approval of it and she did"
And the point I was making was, if she signed a blank piece of paper, how do you (or the prosecutors) have any idea what was meant?
Those who signed "asistentes" appear not be charged, from which I deduce that simple attendance was not enough to be considered a crime. (If you have another deduction, by all means share it.)
So what is it that puts the other signers in the other category? After all, they signed a blank paper. The sheets could have been to attest to the Decreto (as you say), or they could have been extra sheets to record asistencia. Since the sheets were blank, there is nothing there to prove it. There is the doubt.
"And the point I was making was, if she signed a blank piece of paper, how do you (or the prosecutors) have any idea what was meant?"
Ah, maybe because Globovision and RCTV videotaped the whole thing?
You're going to have to do better. Please note, I'm not the OJ jury and you're not Johnny Cochran.
"maybe because Globovision and RCTV videotaped the whole thing?"
Maybe? That's the best reason you've got? Wow, NO room for doubt there!
The whole public argument against her is that SHE SIGNED. If she signed a blank piece of paper, then so what? What makes her signature different from the asistentes who apparently face no charges? Were they escorted into a separate room with no cameras?
JN:
You must be hanging out with "Visitor" on the Posada thread too much. You seem to have the same reading comprehension problems. If you read the post you would know this is about did she supported the overthrow of a democratic government. You could also know that from this above:
"not sure I'm following you. The point I was making was that Machado signed the Carmona decree or a paper that was meant to indicate approval of it and she did. To me that means she doesn't repect the democratic systems. Is it treasones and is it fair who has been charged and who not? I don't know, I suppose that is another discusion. But for purposes of this post and discussion her signature and what it indicates it clear."
As already mentioned to you in the above reply what she is charged with or if she is charged with anything in this case or any other has nothing to do with did she support the overthrow of the government. She is charged with lots of things which I'm sure could constitute their own discussion but why that is brought into a discussion upon which is has no bearing is beyond me - except for possible reading comprehension problems.
"She is charged with lots of things which I'm sure could constitute their own discussion but why that is brought into a discussion upon which is has no bearing is beyond me"
Why you think my point goes beyond this thread makes me question YOUR reading comprehension. (Please don't compare me with anyone else, as I don't assess your intellectual abilities based on some other poster's comments.) After all, I'm only discussing her signature, not "lots of things" that you mention, and didn't bring any of them in. (To explain: when I say "public argument," I mean the argument circulating in public about what her signature means, as expounded by you and others, not any other issues.)
There's really just one question: how can you be sure what a signature on a blank piece of paper means? What makes it different from asistentes who are not charged? What it COULD mean is not enough to send someone to jail - at least in a country where justice exists. Things have to be proven, and that blank means no proof of intent.
I'm not comparing you to others - only to yourself.
The meaning of her signature is obvious from when she signed and what was said before she signed.
And nothing makes it different from other signatories. They all signed the same document.
Anyways, hope you enjoyed your trolling!!!
From this day forward I Pulpo Ceaser declare that the person called Maria Corina Machado or MCM, shall be known as 1900. That is all.
"The meaning of her signature is obvious from when she signed and what was said before she signed"
Were you there, and therefore know exactly when she signed? Were there synchorized video cameras, each with individual time stamps, rolling on each sheet of paper there to be signed?
"And nothing makes it different from other signatories"
The fact that some signers are imputados and others are not makes them different.
I think you're the one bringing in other information, though you may not realize it. You have already inferred her evil intent based on other activities. So be it. Let's leave her out of this and simply ask why the other 351 people deserve 16 years in jail - for signing a blank sheet of paper.
"Were you there, and therefore know exactly when she signed? Were there synchorized video cameras, each with individual time stamps, rolling on each sheet of paper there to be signed?"
I guess you haven't even watched the video. Let me know when you have.
"The fact that some signers are imputados and others are not makes them different."
Not for purposes of this post. They all supported the overthrow of the government.
"simply ask why the other 351 people deserve 16 years in jail - for signing a blank sheet of paper."
why would I speak to that - I didn't pose the question.
OW:
It appears that JN's issue of contention is the equal distribution of justice whereby all that signed, if guilty, should all be prosecuted as "1900" has. The issue however is more complex than equally prosecuting all that signed. The issue however is much more complez than that and spreading justice equally across the board would in turn be inequitable to those who have not taken money in attempts to subvert the Venezuelan democratic process.
The issue that JN raises about signing a blank sheet and not knowing her true intentions is an obvious attempt at distorting the realities of the events. For what reason did she sign her name along with what I assume is her cedula number? When I sign guest book at say a wedding or a funeral (oddly enough both happened to Carmona within a matter days) I dont follow the signature with my social security number. Anyone who was there knew full well the reasons why they were there. No one can claim ignorance. If unsure about signing supposed blank piece of paper then shame on you for not checking into its purpose. Shows the level of ignorance involved here - and this is who Bush gives money to. Who in their right mind signs a blank piece of paper with cedula number without knowledge of its intended purpose?
“I guess you haven't even watched the video. Let me know when you have”
No, I haven’t (don’t know where to find it), and don’t really care. We know from other videos how easy it is to alter/cleverly edit footage, and even so, signing a blank page (after others signed their attendance only) doesn’t prove any intent of anything.
“They all supported the overthrow of the government”
“why would I speak to that - I didn't pose the question”
You want Machado in jail because she signed, but you don’t care if anyone else who signed goes to jail – even if they “supported the overthrow”?
“spreading justice equally across the board would in turn be inequitable to those who have not taken money”
Ever hear of multiple charges, separate charges for separate acts?
“When I sign guest book at say a wedding or a funeral…I dont follow the signature with my social security number”
EP, you can’t compare a Cedula to an SSN. They’re both ID numbers, but how they are used is very different. Remember, in this country it’s a crime to make a purchase and leave the store without a receipt bearing your name, Cedula (passport# for foreigners) and more. (And the business can be shut down if they fail to do so, even if they collected the tax.) When was the last time you gave your social to a store clerk or a waiter?
Not only that, but every time I go visit someone at a business place, I have to give my number to get in the building – private or government. I’ve also seen sign-in sheets (registering attendance, by chance) that don’t ask for Cedulas where people start writing them down anyway. It’s a habit – they’re so used to providing them for all sorts of required purposes that it’s common to put them down even when they’re not required.
“Who in their right mind signs a blank piece of paper with cedula number without knowledge of its intended purpose?”
Fair question, but not enough to presume such an act criminal.
ow, I notice that you erased your last post here. Was there a problem? Your traffic ticket analogy didn’t hold up – perhaps you realized that.
"No, I haven’t (don’t know where to find it), and don’t really care. We know from other videos how easy it is to alter/cleverly edit footage, and even so, signing a blank page (after others signed their attendance only) doesn’t prove any intent of anything."
So what is an acceptable level of evidence for you? You won't take video because it could be faked. Witnesses could be lying. DNA tests could be doctored and there is always a 1 in a billion chance they are wrong. So do you think anyone in the world should ever be found guilty of anything? Why are there millions of people all over the world in prison if we can never really be sure they are guilty? Hmmm. I guess this is a really deep question. Or maybe not. Maybe you will just choose to believe what goes along with your pre-concieved notions and what you want to believe and disregard everything else. That is looking like your M.O.
"So what is an acceptable level of evidence for you?"
I think the important question is the other way around. I'm just saying that you have very little evidence that her signature on a blank piece of paper was "supporting the overthrow of the President and the abolition of the Assembly, Supreme Court, Electoral Council, etc, etc. in April 2002".
You're completely convinced of her guilt, yet the evidence you provide doesn't prove it.
I don't claim to provide any proof that her intent was any different. It may have been. My point is that, since it's a blank piece of paper, there is reasonable doubt.
"Maybe you will just choose to believe what goes along with your pre-concieved notions"
Like you? No - I don't claim to know what she intended, as you do. (You're the one "filling in the blanks" - literally!) I only point out the uncertainty, which would be enough to keep her out of prison - no, out of court - in any country where justice is reasonable.
I like the way whenever confronted with a question that you can't answer you just it isn't important and pose a different one yourself. Nice trick!
Why are you talking about guilt? I have been discussing is she a supporter of the democratic process or not (Hint: read the post). She showed up to where a coup was taking place and according to a significant body of evidence (more evidence then you average murderer gets convicted on) she was there to show support for the coup. Strongly suggests to me she doesn't believe much in the democratic process.
BTW, since we can pose any question we want why didn't she condem the coup? I never saw any video of her condemming it or saw any press release by Sumate requesting the restoration of the constitutional and democraticaly elected government. If she gets money from the US to supposedly support and streanghen democracy then why didn't she speak out in when democracy was threatened and in fact destroyed?
Don't worry, given your track record I won't hold my breath awaiting your answers. But your evasions are interesting
JN:
“Ever hear of multiple charges, separate charges for separate acts?”
Ever here of, gravity of offense? While the rest of those who have signed are in the same category as she is, she is in a special position where she has worked effectively prior to the decree to undermine the democratic government. The rest can wait for their day in court.
When was the last time you gave your social to a store clerk or a waiter?
Actually you’d be surprised at how many corporate institutions require that information. The local produce vendor cant do much with that info, but give it to a banking system and then you have reason for concern. But back to the point – I don’t think there was anyone there demanding that she put her cedula # beside her signature on a blank piece of paper. This was done freely and willfully. It’s a habit you say? So what, does that exonerate her I suppose all those that sign were habitually handicapped since they all placed their numbers too.
Me: “Who in their right mind signs a blank piece of paper with cedula number without knowledge of its intended purpose?”
JN: Fair question, but not enough to presume such an act criminal.
The act of signing is an implicit support for the illegal overthrow of a democratic government. She knew good and damn well what the purpose of the sheet was, AND included cedula # with her signature to emphasize her willingness much like an over exaggerated exclamation point. This act in support of the overthrow by those in attendance is criminal in nature. To counter your remarks: Ill state that those who made the storming of the palace possible (the opposition marchers) are not being prosecuted. Why? Because they were not at the presidential palace codifying new laws and abolishing constitutions over bubbly. Why are you not being prosecuted and she is? Therein lies the answer.
“I like the way whenever confronted with a question that you can't answer you just it isn't important and pose a different one yourself”
The only “question” I avoided in your last post was your broad assumption of how I view the criminal justice system in general. I only attempted to focus on the theme of your original post. Is there some reason you wish to deviate from that?
“Why are you talking about guilt?”
Because you say she was “supporting the overthrow of the President”, which is a crime, which means you consider her guilty.
“more evidence then you average murderer gets convicted on”
Ah, yes, please provide statistics.
“Strongly suggests”
Which is definitely less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” – which is precisely why she shouldn’t go to jail for 16 years.
“since we can pose any question we want why didn't she condem the coup?”
Good question – I have no answer, and would be interested to hear hers. Absent a confession, this lack doesn’t prove intent.
“If she gets money from the US to supposedly support and streanghen democracy then why didn't she speak out in when democracy was threatened and in fact destroyed?”
You’re putting the cart before the horse. The NED money was long after the event in question here.
http://www.ned.org/grants/
venezu...zuelaFacts.html
“Ever here of, gravity of offense?”
Like manslaughter vs murder, when the circumstances of the act – killing a person – are either aggravating or mitigating. The NED money is a separate issue, and can be either an aggravating factor or a separate charge – not both.
“you’d be surprised at how many corporate institutions require that information. The local produce vendor cant do much with that info”
Corporate institutions are different, aren’t they? Like you indicate. As for the local vendor, ever hear of identity theft?
“The act of signing is an implicit support for the illegal overthrow of a democratic government”
Implicit, not explicit – reasonable doubt. Note also that those before her put their cedulas in place. That makes her a follower, rather than a leader – not the model of someone trying to overthrow a government.
Marchers have nothing to do with my question, which still remains: why are some of those who signed facing charges, while others who signed are not?
It seems that you two are both going about this backwards. You’re convinced that she wants to overthrow the government because of the NED money, so you’re using that to “prove” her intent with the signature. Flawed logic.
If you want to argue that she’s guilty about NED, and use the signature to call her motives there into question, that makes perfect sense as a legal procedure. The signature came before and potentially led to the NED stuff. But not the other way around, because that’s circular logic.
Her signature alone proves nothing, and is therefore not a crime.
BTW, ow, here is a list of my questions that you’ve “evaded”:
“there is some sort of discretionality that has been used to select which signers to charge. The question is based on what criteria”
“why is it that those who signed a blank page are considered to have done the worst thing possible? Isn't it just possible that they ran out of pre-printed sheets and put blank ones out for more asistentes to sign?”
“So what is it that puts the other signers in the other category?”
“If she signed a blank piece of paper, then so what? What makes her signature different from the asistentes who apparently face no charges?”
“You want Machado in jail because she signed, but you don’t care if anyone else who signed goes to jail – even if they “supported the overthrow”?”
I’ll even answer them for you! (Except #2 – you’re on your own, as well as why some signers not named Machado were charged but others not.) The difference is the NED money. But as I said above, if that makes her “more guilty” than the others in your mind (and that of government officials), it’s logically wrong. Something that took place 18 months later can’t separate her from others who performed exactly the same act. Nor can 351 others be proven guilty because of what she did later.
JN,
Care to indicate who you are posing what question/comment to. Most of what you are talking about are things I have never sais or brought up. I have mentioned numerous times that my point is about her support of democracy or lack thereof. That has nothing to do with any legal charges or proof of "guilt". This switcharoo by you is starting to wear thin.
JN: You’ve really mixed up the issues between me and OW. Ill try to sift through and select the ones that pertain to my posts.
Me: “Ever here of, gravity of offense?”
Like manslaughter vs murder, when the circumstances of the act – killing a person – are either aggravating or mitigating. The NED money is a separate issue, and can be either an aggravating factor or a separate charge – not both.
You’re putting the cart before the horse. The NED money was long after the event in question here.
You state that the NED happenings came after the fiasco at Miraflores. Correct – You cite as illogical, using the NED info as a means to prosecute for signing the decree. I don’t see it quite that way. In an investigation where there are many people who are known to involved; would not the introduction of new evidence provide cause for singling out of those, which the new information further implicates? The new information thus adds to the already established evidence, separating those (in this case those from SUMATE) vs. others (those who signed). I don’t see where one could not be used in conjunction with the other to build a stronger case. Nor do I see where one could negate the other due to time and space, particularly since the charges brought upon her were initiated after both events had taken place.
It seems that you two are both going about this backwards. You’re convinced that she wants to overthrow the government because of the NED money, so you’re using that to “prove” her intent with the signature. Flawed logic.
To solidify my position on this: It was the signature and subsequent NED money that separates her from the others who signed and shows intent and knowledge of what she signed.
This post should serve as answer to questions posed to me. If I have not addressed any particular one, repost with special attention to me.
ow: "Care to indicate who you are posing what question/comment to"
I thought you were smart enough to figure it out. EP is.
ow: "Most of what you are talking about are things I have never sais or brought up"
I put 9 quotes in that last post - three were from EP (and the other 6 from "ow"). 1/3 is not most in my dictionary.
ow: "I have mentioned numerous times that my point is about her support of democracy or lack thereof"
And my argument is that a signature on a blank page proves nothing about her belief in democracy. The word "guilt" is not the center of my argument, it's about how the signature is weak evidence of your claim.
EP, nice sifting.
EP: "I don’t see where one could not be used in conjunction with the other to build a stronger case"
I suggested the same. The problem is using both to justify each other, and you end up building evidence upon itself.
EP: "Nor do I see where one could negate the other due to time and space"
What I'm saying here is that people, and their thinking, change over time. What she was thinking in April 2002 may have been different from what she was thinking in late 2003. What she was thinking later did not evolve into the earlier, and therefore cannot be presumed to explain it. Come on, you watch court shows - they're always using old actions to explain a defendant's recent ones, but not the other way around. Same idea.
"And my argument is that a signature on a blank page proves nothing about her belief in democracy. The word "guilt" is not the center of my argument, it's about how the signature is weak evidence of your claim"
So showing up to be in the middle of a coup, signing a supporting document, and not denouncing the coup as a pro-democracy NGO would presumeably do doesn't say anything about the persons beleive in democracy? LOL. Ok maybe this line of arguement says more about your intellect than anything abmout MCM. Just curious, have you ever managed to convince anyone with this claptrap?
JN:
"What I'm saying here is that people, and their thinking, change over time. What she was thinking in April 2002 may have been different from what she was thinking in late 2003. What she was thinking later did not evolve into the earlier, and therefore cannot be presumed to explain it."
You may be right, IF SHE SHOWED A DEVIATION FROM THE LATER THAN FROM THE EARLIER! The actions taken are linear without deviation. Which is why I keep asking you why she was at the decree signing and you werent?
they're always using old actions to explain a defendant's recent ones, but not the other way around. Same idea.
Hypothetical court room Situation
- Oh You mean the defendent has recently been diagnosed to be Bi-Polar and has been all of his life and has never been properly diagnosed by a physician, Then that explains why he is a serial killer.
Voila! New actions explaining old results.
That would be an old CONDITION, newly discovered, not a new action, and supports my statement.
"You may be right, IF SHE SHOWED A DEVIATION"
My point is that there is not enough evidence to show her commitment - or lack of it - to democracy at the time, therefore one cannot determine if there was a deviation later or not.
"Which is why I keep asking you why she was at the decree signing and you werent?"
I wasn't around. Sure would have been interesting, though! 
"So showing up to be in the middle of a coup, signing a supporting document, and not denouncing the coup as a pro-democracy NGO would presumeably do doesn't say anything about the persons beleive in democracy?"
It raises questions, but doesn't SAY anything. Well, signing a "supporting document" would, but she signed a blank page, remember?
"Just curious, have you ever managed to convince anyone with this claptrap?"
Haven't really tried before, at least on this one. And just who have you convinced, in between all the question dodging?
That would be an old CONDITION, newly discovered, not a new action, and supports my statement.
Old condition newly discovered! The evidence providing the structure that has been in place all along.
My point is that there is not enough evidence to show her commitment - or lack of it - to democracy at the time, therefore one cannot determine if there was a deviation later or not.
Shw was at the formal function at Miraflores as were approximately 399 of her cohorts. Subsequently she surpasses them by recieing monies to undermine the democratic process. At every "time" she has shown a willingness to participate in illegal actions that seek to destablize the governemnt. This shows a direct and clear path against and in opposition to the governemnt, which in itslef is not illegal but measures taken by her are.
"I wasn't around. Sure would have been interesting, though!
Do not mistake the figurative "you" as meaning "JN" but rather the lay oppo, the one who was not partaking of the bubbly and the one whose signature was not recorded.
Hold on to your comments to me from this point forward. El Pulpo will be on assignment until further notice.
"And just who have you convinced, in between all the question dodging?"
Sorry, giving you answers you don't like doesn't consitute question dodging. And as far as who I've convinced - don't know. Maybe no one. But I don't know how many people there are to convince anyways. People saw what happened for themselves so I don't think they need any convincing.
BTW, best quote on the subject:
"Never having been in the friendly company of a Venezuelan dictator, I didn’t realize that signing blank papers was a commonplace occurrence in such an environment. "
http://fuego.net/article.php?
sto...005060120594460
Maybe JN knew that though. He might be a lot more up on his dictator etiquit than the rest of us.
"The evidence providing the structure that has been in place all along"
Exactly my point: the "structure" (or what has happened or existed before, like bi-polarity or MCM's signature) are what potentially explains what happened later.
"Shw was at the formal function at Miraflores as were approximately 399 of her cohorts"
Some of whom have never been charged - because the act they committed was not illegal.
ow: "giving you answers you don't like doesn't consitute question dodging"
I've been unable to find any answers at all to the questions I repeated. Please indulge my ignorance and direct me to them. (And while you're at it, you could highlight all the questions that inspired this: "I like the way whenever confronted with a question that you can't answer you just it isn't important and pose a different one yourself".)
"He might be a lot more up on his dictator etiquit than the rest of us"
Certainly more up on etiquette (and spelling), since I can get this far in an argument without numerous insults and unfounded accusations.
Maybe that's why there's no one to convince - here. (I've seen plenty of others on other blogs.) Instead, just people sucking up to one another for the amazing feat of thinking alike. Maybe that's why you like Hugo so much - you're very similar in that regard.
EP, I hope your "assignment" is more fruitful than your time here. You deserve better.
""So what is an acceptable level of evidence for you?"
I think the important question is the other way around. I'm just saying that you have very little evidence that her signature on a blank piece of paper was "supporting the overthrow of the President and the abolition of the Assembly, Supreme Court, Electoral Council, etc, etc. in April 2002"."
But JN that evasion was hard to find. No wonder you coulnd't find it in only 5 days.
"Why are you talking about guilt? I have been discussing is she a supporter of the democratic process or not (Hint: read the post). She showed up to where a coup was taking place and according to a significant body of evidence (more evidence then you average murderer gets convicted on) she was there to show support for the coup. Strongly suggests to me she doesn't believe much in the democratic process."
And I guess you missed that to, which has already been repeated on numerous occasions, which is why I am not entertaining your questions on her criminal case in spite of your comments such as:
"Because you say she was “supporting the overthrow of the President”, which is a crime, which means you consider her guilty.
I don't discuss her criminal case because I am not familiar with the 1) the law 2) the charges and 3) the evidence against her. It appears you aren't either.
Actually, from what I've seen of opposition blogs it is pretty much group think. And those who aren't part of the group think are quickly banned. True to the repressive and undemocratic nature of the opposition. Opposition people are free to come here anytime. That they are feeble minded and can't make rational arguements, and hence quickly scurry away, is not my problem.
First point, on acceptable evidence:
I replied "The only “question” I avoided in your last post was your broad assumption of how I view the criminal justice system in general." That theme would have turned the discussion away from the topic at hand, which I went back to. (And please recall that I posed it to you in return, but you didn’t answer.) If I had answered the general question, you might have accused me of evading the original subject! Actually, it seems here that you were the one evading, by trying to lead me away from MCM, though I chose only to move back rather than make an unproveable accusation.
2nd point, guilt: semantics, nothing more substantive.
As I said, "The word "guilt" is not the center of my argument, it's about how the signature is weak evidence of YOUR CLAIM." (Emphasis since you seem to have overlooked that for 6 days.)
You say "doesn't believe much in the democratic process," I use guilty to mean is that charge true - fewer words. Hardly an evasion.
I don't care if you are talking about her criminal case or your personal accusation. Either way, it doesn't address the question of evidence - or lack thereof based on the blank sheet - for your charge. It all goes back to "her signature the document supporting the overthrow of the President and the abolition of the Assembly, Supreme Court, Electoral Council, etc, etc. in April 2002."
So there's two "evasions" which weren't, while you still neglect to answer some of mine.
"Actually, from what I've seen of opposition blogs it is pretty much group think"
And what makes this blog different? Better?
"they are feeble minded and can't make rational arguements"
This from the guy who claims to know the average amount of evidence in murder trials, and makes contradictions like
"according to a significant body of evidence...she was there to show support for the coup" and
"I am not familiar with...the evidence against her."
Interesting how adaptable the “facts” are. No, your problem is definitely NOT how soon anyone scurries away.
"I replied "The only “question” I avoided in your last post was your broad assumption of how I view the criminal justice system in general." That theme would have turned the discussion away from the topic at hand, which I went back to."
Oh yeah right. You refuse to accept video tape (that you dont' bother to watch) as showing that she signed the Carmona decreee. As this is to me an upsurd arguement as that is about the most compelling evidence one could have I pose the question what evidence would be something you would accept. It was a perfectly reasonble question as it appears you will accept no evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. And again you seem to prefer circular arguements where you get to avoid the facts at hand.
And you seem to not even be sure what you are discussing. Just now:
"I don't care if you are talking about her criminal case or your personal accusation."
Previously in this thread:
"Reasonable doubt, at the very least. Or show me another court of law where signing a blank page equals treason."
" What makes her signature different from the asistentes who apparently face no charges?"
Again, you seem like a dog chasing your tale sometimes saying the discussion is about one thing and other times saying to is about something else. Hmm, looks like maybe just an attempt to obfuscate and waste time.
"This from the guy who claims to know the average amount of evidence in murder trials, and makes contradictions like
"according to a significant body of evidence...she was there to show support for the coup" and
"I am not familiar with...the evidence against her.""
What is public evidence that which is what I have based my statements on and what is legal evidence that will be used in an actual trial are not the same thing. One example, may they have witnesses who will testify against her? Quite possibly but I don't know that. Do you know what the prosecutors office has? Heck, you have yet to state how you even know she signed a blank document which you keep repeating.
So hard to see what your doing here besides obfuscating and wasting time. Certainly not addressing the points raised in the post.
"Certainly not addressing the points raised in the post"
Last first, because this really is the most important (since it was what was in the original post). I keep coming back to "her signature the document supporting the overthrow of the President" and asking you to show how a signature proves she did support that. How is that evasion?
As for the blank page, no, I haven't shown that, but I don't have insider access to those sheets. But then you, as the accuser, have to show that the sheet was not blank, otherwise we have to assume it was. Shall I hold my breath?
If it was indeed blank (as opposed to "I, the undersigned, do solemnly swear to detest democracy in any form that includes Hugo Chavez, etc etc"), then you're left with the video. I haven't watched it, but I'll explain why.
What does it show - MCM signing? We've got her signature already, so what does that add? Nothing - unless Carmona or Romero is standing there beside her table asking for support, then she appears and signs. Otherwise the video won't show whether she signed before or after, if there may have been sheets of "ASISTENTES" (like in the post, which is the photo I referred to in another comment section) next to her sheet on the table, or whether she was coming or going.
You're also focusing on the fact that I use criminal terms sometimes, but ignore that I've already pointed out that I'm only questioning the evidence which led you to make your conclusion. It's all circumstantial. Your assumption (for that's what it is) may be right - I've said before I can't prove otherwise - but it's also unprovable.
"What does it show - MCM signing? We've got her signature already, so what does that add? Nothing - unless Carmona or Romero is standing there beside her table asking for support, then she appears and signs. Otherwise the video won't show whether she signed before or after, if there may have been sheets of "ASISTENTES" (like in the post, which is the photo I referred to in another comment section) next to her sheet on the table, or whether she was coming or going."
It shows Romero asking for people to sign in support of the just read decreee, it then shows one big line forming to sign the document, and it shows her on the line and signing the document. So it shows exactly what needs to be shown to know what she was signing and why she was signing it based on what was publically said at on the video. Just that alone is compelling prove.
Plus, I linked to people who said they saw the document signed in support of the decree and her name was on it. You tried to disqualify that by saying the reporter also said signing in support of the decree doesn't constitute a crime. But I don't care about that - I only need to know that she did sign to show that she is a supporter of undemocratic actions which is what my contention is.
"It shows Romero asking for people to sign in support of the just read decreee, it then shows one big line forming to sign the document, and it shows her on the line and signing the document"
And did she sign before or after the speech? Was the order of the shots unaltered? Was there a sheet on the table like the first one you posted, and a blank sheet next to it, implying that signing meant noting attendance only?
"But I don't care about that - I only need to know that she did sign to show that she is a supporter of undemocratic actions which is what my contention is."
And it all goes back to what the paper said. Why don't you have a picture with the top of that sheet? If there was any reason to think she was only registering attendance, then there simply is not enough proof.
Reasonable doubt, but you are apparently not a reasonable person. Possibility simply isn't enough for me, not when actual intent the very essence of the question. I can't believe all 352 signers intended precisely the same thing, so I refuse to make that assumption for any individual. If you come to that conclusion for her, you must do the same for all.
"And did she sign before or after the speech?"
You mean the decrees being read? After. And after people were called on to sign in support.
"Was the order of the shots unaltered?"
Yes, the whole thing was shown live on TV. And not by VTV - remember the opposition put them out of business (for two whole days :lol
"Was there a sheet on the table like the first one you posted, and a blank sheet next to it, implying that signing meant noting attendance only?"
There was one sheet and one line. She signed the same one that the others signed.
"Why don't you have a picture with the top of that sheet? "
I don't personall have the sheets. But unfortunatley for MCM I'm confident the prosecutors do. Plus you keep evading the testimony of the Quinto Dia reporter who confirms she signed in support of the Carmona Decree (never mind his opinions of whether that is a crime or not - he is simply a witness to a fact, what she signed).
"you are apparently not a reasonable person"
Reasonable or unreasonable? I think it is more a matter of you, for political reasons, not wanting to go were the facts and evidence take you.
Commenting by HaloScan
