Posted by
Libertybob on Monday, May 28, 2007 12:09:43 PM
From the Human Rights Watch website: Usually I eschew websites that serve as liberal bastions of thought such as this, (you'll notice in their list that they say nothing about the "nationalization" of private property in Venezuela, a long standing first step towards communism), but they do have something here. Perhaps you've heard in recent days about the NEWS from Venezuela. Chavez has repeatedly implemented policies that restrict inherent freedoms, such as freedom of speech. The latest example is only his latest step. He long ago made it a crime to speak out against the president, and now he has essentially stifled the last independent news organization in the country. This doesn't bode well for a country with rampant ignorance. Here is a list from the HRW website of happenings that Chavez has done to Venezuela. Remember, if his rhetoric on his weekly (sometimes daily) television shows that lasts for hours a day is accurate, he isn't even halfway done. Americans send billions to Venezuela in oil money. Imagine the repression of a society like Cuba, with the crime and corruption of Columbia, and the hatred of the US like Saudi Arabia, and the proximity of South America. The war in Iraq and the immigration fiasco are our top foreign policy issues right now, but another is quickly rising to the south. We discount him at our own risk.Ask yourself what would happen if the same thing happened here in the United States. Venezuela
After repeatedly winning elections and referendums, and surviving a
coup d'etat in 2002, President Chavez and his supporters have sought to
consolidate power by undermining the independence of the judiciary and
the press, institutions that are essential for promoting the protection
of human rights.
Independence of the Judiciary
The
Venezuelan National Assembly dealt a severe blow to judicial
independence in December 2004 by packing the country's Supreme Court
with twelve new justices. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated
by President Chavez's party, named the justices to fill new seats
created by a law passed earlier that year that expanded the court from
20 to 32 members. At that time, 80 percent of lower–court judges had
provisional appointments and could be summarily dismissed by the
Supreme Court's Judicial Commission.
During 2005 and 2006 the court granted tenure to hundreds
of the provisional judges. By October 2006 only about 20 percent of the
country's judges had provisional appointments, according to a Supreme
Court spokesman. However, the judges who gained tenure during this
period were not required to win public competitions as prescribed in
the Constitution.
The judges on the First and Second Administrative Courts,
which have jurisdiction over challenges to administrative actions by
the government, continue to be provisional appointees. In September
2005 the judicial commission fired all six judges of both courts and
their six substitutes, and once more replaced them with temporary
appointees. The official reason given was that they failed to pass
performance tests. The lack of guarantees to ensure that these key
judges may make decisions free of government pressure remains a
problem.
The 2004 court–packing law also gave the majority party in
the National Assembly the power to remove judges from the Supreme Court
without the two-thirds majority vote required under the constitution.
In May 2006 Justice Luis Velazquez Alvaray, who had been a leading
proponent of the law as a congressman in 2004, was himself suspended
from the Supreme Court for allegedly mismanaging the construction of a
court complex. After his appointment to the Court, Velazquez had
chaired the Judicial Commission charged with appointing and dismissing
lower court judges. He claimed that he had been targeted for
impeachment because he resisted the efforts of the Chavez
administration to control the selection of judges. In June the National
Assembly impeached Velazquez with a two–thirds majority vote after he
failed to appear at a hearing on the charges.
Freedom of Expression
Laws passed
since late 2004 have created onerous restrictions on the media that
pose a serious threat to freedom of expression. The Law of Social
Responsibility in Radio and Television establishes detailed regulations
for the content of television and radio programs. For example, stations
deemed to condone or incite public disturbances or publish messages contrary to the security of the nation are subject to heavy fines,
and can be ordered to suspend broadcasting for seventy two hours. Upon
a second offense, they may be stripped of their broadcasting licenses
for up to five years. Key terms in the law, such as those quoted above,
are left ill-defined, inviting politically motivated application. The
National Commission of Telecommunications (CONATEL) may issue precautionary measures prohibiting the transmission of outlawed
content.
The radio and television law has not led to a clampdown
on the audiovisual media. At moments of political tension, however,
CONATEL officials warn media directors about punishments they face for
coverage that infringes the law. For instance, in April 2006 the
president of Globovision, Venezuela's 24 hour cable news channel,
received a letter from the director of CONATEL warning him that the
station could be suspended for seventy two hours if it resorted to sensationalist techniques (tecnicas amarillistas) in reporting on
street protests about rising levels of criminal violence.
In one instance, a court banned reporting about a
controversial criminal investigation. In January 2006 the attorney
general obtained an injunction to prevent the media from discussing the
credibility of a key prosecution witness who had testified about the
car bomb assassination of Danilo Anderson, the prosecutor who had been
leading the probe into the aborted 2002 coup against President Chavez.
The witness's testimony implicated two opposition figures in the crime.
The newspaper El Nacional had published evidence that the witness, who
claimed to be a psychiatrist, was an impostor. The ban on any further
stories about the witness remained in force until August, during which
time CONATEL closely monitored media coverage of the case.
In March 2005 amendments to the Criminal Code came into
force which extended the scope of Venezuela's desacato (disrespect)
laws, and increased penalties for desacato, criminal defamation, and
libel. In February 2006 television journalist and well-known Chavez
critic, Jose Ovidio Rodriguez Cuesta (known in Venezuela as Napoleon
Bravo), was prosecuted under the desacato provision of the criminal
code for insulting the Supreme Court. Bravo had publicly criticized the
alleged inefficiency of the court and suggested that it should be
replaced by a brothel. A judge rejected the charges, but a Caracas
appeals court overruled the judge and the case remained open at this
writing.
Police Killings
Thousands of
extrajudicial executions by police officers have been reported over the
past several years, although the problem long predates the current
administration. In August 2006, 24 soldiers and policemen were
sentenced to up to 30 years in prison for the murder of three
university students in June 2005. The agents had opened fire on the
student's car and then summarily executed two of the occupants when the
car stopped. Such rapid prosecutions for police and army abuses are
exceptional, however. In April 2006 Attorney General Isaias Rodriguez
reported that 6,110 officials were implicated in alleged killings
between 2000 and 2005, yet only 760 had been charged, and only 113
convicted.
Political Violence in Rural Areas
Land
reform measures introduced by the Chavez administration have brought a
wave of violence against peasant leaders and beneficiaries of the
reform. According to a report by the national human rights ombudsman in
May 2006, 54 peasants were killed and 21 were wounded between 1999 and
2006 because of their activities in defense of land claims,
particularly after the Land and Agricultural Development Act entered
into force in 2001. According to the ombudsman, contract killers hired
by landowners appear to have been responsible for most of the killings.
The nongovernmental human rights organization PROVEA (Program of
Education and Action on Human Rights) reached similar conclusions,
although it found that military and police units were also responsible
for some abuses against peasants.
Kidnappings and contract killings are common in the states
of Zulia, Tachira, and Apure, where there are frequent cross border
incursions by Colombian guerrillas and paramilitaries. Impunity for
these crimes has been the rule. According to the ombudsman's report, 72
percent of the investigations conducted by prosecutors have not
progressed beyond the preliminary stage. However, in October 2006 the
attorney general announced that 56 individuals had been charged for
killing peasants.
Prison Conditions
Conditions in
Venezuela's prisons are notoriously abusive. Overcrowding is chronic
and armed gangs maintain effective control within the prison walls.
Prison riots and inmate violence claim hundreds of lives every year.
Venezuelan Prison Watch (Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones), a
Caracas based group, reported that 194 prisoners were killed and 407
were wounded in violent incidents over the first six months of 2006.
Human Rights Defenders
In June 2006
the National Assembly began considering legislation on a Law of
International Cooperation, which seeks to regulate the activities of
both national and international NGOs in Venezuela. If enacted, the law
would require all such organizations to register in order to be able to
receive funds from abroad. The bill allows the president to determine
by decree the requirements for registration, raising concern that if
the restrictions are onerous they could seriously obstruct
non-governmental activities in the country. As of October 2006, the
bill remained under review with a legislative committee.
Key International Actors
Venezuela
abstained in the United Nations General Assembly vote on the creation
of the Human Rights Council (HRC) in March 2006. At the time of the
vote, the Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations offered reservations on 10 of the 14 operative paragraphs of the resolution
setting up the council. The ambassador asserted that Venezuela would
not be bound by resolution language establishing the Council's most
basic functions, such as promoting universal respect for the
protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all and address[ing] situations of violations of human rights, including gross
and systematic violations, and mak[ing] recommendations thereon.
Venezuela subsequently sought a seat on the Human Rights Council but
failed to obtain the necessary votes.
Venezuela has stalled in setting a date for a mission by
the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, which has not visited
the country since 2002. In 2006, the Inter American Court of Human
Rights issued provisional measures to protect the lives and physical
integrity of prisoners held at Yare and La Pica prisons, where scores
of prisoners have died as a result of violence in recent years.