Devil Bush?

[Couture]

Nevermind. Not title, but right to work or live on the land. Hmmmm - some never learn from history.

 

[cantdog]

The CIA or someone they hire will kill Chavez shortly, of course.

They always do. like with Ecuador's president. Plane bomb, there. They fail at that, then they send in the Marines and the naval air support. Like with Noriega.

Don't look to have Chavez to vilify much longer.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Look folks, it's all well and good to question the wisdom and propriety of GWB's policies, but take a deep breath and try not to lose your balance and perspective here. Bush has been reacting to a massive attack on the U.S. homeland that killed 3,000 innocent Americans. The number one function of any government is to protect its citizens from attack, and there is no reason to believe that GWB has been primarily motivated by anything other than that goal, in the face of an implacable enemy who is ready, williing and potentially capable of inflicting massive casualties. Potentially millions of casualties. This is serious stuff. Save your howls, they'll just roll off me - I don't really care, especially when so many of the howlers have shown themselves to be utterly unwilling or unable to retain any sense of balance and perspective.

Now as I say, you can criticize the wisdom and propriety of GWB's policies until the cows come home, and odds are I'll even join you for most of it. But in two years GWB will be out and new president elected. There is no serious threat that the rule of law will die in the U.S., and to the extent is has been dinged up a bit, this is a byproduct of policies aimed at fulfilling the state's primary function, which again is protecting citizens from being blown up in their cities.

That is not the case in Venezuela. The rule of law is all but dead there, and the cause has nothing to do with an external threat. It has been deliberately destroyed by a dictator whose purpose is to consolidate his own power. "Presidente for Life" Chavez. Really - is this the kind of character who those on the left really want to climb into bed with? He's an outright fascist, for God's sake! Open your eyes and get serious.

 

[Pure]

Rocks,

R:If anyone should be be furious at Bush it's my people - limited government libertarians

P Oh, the ones that vote to *increase* the power of the fed. Perhaps their powers of analysis were lacking-- and their 'objective' perceptions. They bought the *stated goals* of capitalism and freedom. They got 'crony capitalism' with lots of pigs at the government trough (Halliburton, Bechtel, BlackWater).

Those who truly want a maximum of liberty and work for it are as scarce as hen's teeth.

===
As for the future of ms rocks and the repblicans:

RThe number one function of any government is to protect its citizens from attack, and there is no reason to believe that GWB has been primarily motivated by anything other than that goal,

P "He just wants to make us safe. He has made us safe." The Republican November campaign slogan of the Republicans. Doesn't sound like the alleged 'anger' at Bush goes very deep, does it?

R the state's primary function, which again is protecting citizens from being blown up in their cities.

P: Protection from the bad guys. Elimination of evil. Does this sound like libertarian government to you? Sounds more like ....

whatever happened to 'secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.' i have met only three on the right at lit (AH), who actually favor liberty--Colly, Weird Harold, and Sev.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I am in the ACLU, you know, Roxanne. I see this administration's constant attempts, in this country, to dismantle the rule of law and render impotent the constitution. As a libertarian, you should have noted the same.

Their demonizing reports about Chavez, like Lula and Aristide and any other whom they have decided won't play the game, are predictible in their thrust if less so in their details. But they are lies.

On your first point, Cant, see my previous post. There is a context for what has happened, and if you fail to take it into account your criticisms will lack credibility, however just and correct they may be.

On the demonizing reports, skepticism is indeed warranted, but I think there is good reason in this case to suspect that Chavez is the real deal, fascism-wise. First though, Aristide and Lula.

I don't focus a lot on this area, but my take is that Aristide is a thuggish third-world kleptocrat on the African model, as opposed to a ruthless, disciplined dictator seeking absolute power. Lula has the potential to become that, but so far has been unwilling to completely throw over the rule of law, although he's taken bites out of it.

Chavez, on the other hand, appears the real thing - a ruthless, disciplined dictator whose goal is to concentrate all power into his own hands, for life. The reason I think it's not just demonizing by cynical interests whose own corrupt ends are threatened is because too many reports from actual small-d democrats have come out documenting genuine Brownshirt tactics, organized and orchestrated from the center, by El Presidente himself. Those making the reports are not the usual suspects - former colonels, scions of the landed gentry, etc. Like I say, they appear to be real democrats - Walesa and Havel types. Not the kind of people you want to later find that you have undercut.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

R:If anyone should be be furious at Bush it's my people - limited government libertarians

P Oh, the ones that vote to *increase* the power of the fed. Perhaps their powers of analysis were lacking-- and their 'objective' perceptions. They bought the *stated goals* of capitalism and freedom. They got 'crony capitalism' with lots of pigs at the government trough (Halliburton, Bechtel, BlackWater).

Those who truly want a maximum of liberty and work for it are as scarce as hen's teeth.

===
As for the future of ms rocks and the repblicans:

RThe number one function of any government is to protect its citizens from attack, and there is no reason to believe that GWB has been primarily motivated by anything other than that goal,

P "He just wants to make us safe. He has made us safe." The Republican November campaign slogan of the Republicans. Doesn't sound like the alleged 'anger' at Bush goes very deep, does it?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No substance, just slurs. Next!


Edited to add: BTW - are you defending Chavez, Pure, or just grabbing another opportunity to slur me? I'm tempted to say something snide about the possibility that you are defending him, but I'l wait until you show your colors on that.

 

[cantdog]

On your first point, Cant, see my previous post. There is a context for what has happened, and if you fail to take it into account your criticisms will lack credibility, however just and correct they may be.

The context in which these attacks on liberty are occurring is the Project for A New American Century. It's not hard to find this stuff, and it spells out what they are doing and why. Bush is not even a major player, really. It is an ideology. They are true believers in it, and acting as such men always do, ruthlessly. You should step back and look at terrorism, from a historical standpoint. Reagan told us Bin Laden and his mujahideen were the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers. His words, those are. He stood them up behind the podium and introduced them to us in those terms. Now, of course, Bin Laden is the primary demon in the pantheon. Quite a descent. And yet, Bin Laden hasn't changed all that much, only our own description of him.

On the demonizing reports, skepticism is indeed warranted, but I think there is good reason in this case to suspect that Chavez is the real deal, fascism-wise. First though, Aristide and Lula.

I don't focus a lot on this area, but my take is that Aristide is a thuggish third-world kleptocrat on the African model, as opposed to a ruthless, disciplined dictator seeking absolute power. Lula has the potential to become that, but so far has been unwilling to completely throw over the rule of law, although he's taken bites out of it.

The difference you see in those reports only reflects the intensity of the opposition to them by the ones making up the reports. Lula is not liked, but he is not in the hot focus of their hatred. When they find they have to take him down, his status will deteriorate, and the reports will make him sound as bad as any of them.

Chavez, on the other hand, appears the real thing - a ruthless, disciplined dictator whose goal is to concentrate all power into his own hands, for life. The reason I think it's not just demonizing by cynical interests whose own corrupt ends are threatened is because too many reports from actual small-d democrats have come out documenting genuine Brownshirt tactics, organized and orchestrated from the center, by El Presidente himself. Those making the reports are not the usual suspects - former colonels, scions of the landed gentry, etc. Like I say, they appear to be real democrats - Walesa and Havel types. Not the kind of people you want to later find that you have undercut.

I don't think it will serve us to debate Chavez. Sinner or demon, he'll be dead soon. Some other fellow will go in and dismantle all he's done. Empire will be served. All this will be moot.

 

[Pure]

i've been watching a lot of the Sopranos lately.

isn't "we will protect you" the Mafia's slogan?

 

[cantdog]

Jaime Roldos is one of those figures much like Chavez.

http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/roldos.htm

 

[shereads]

Look folks, it's all well and good to question the wisdom and propriety of GWB's policies, but take a deep breath and try not to lose your balance and perspective here. Bush has been reacting to a massive attack on the U.S. homeland that killed 3,000 innocent Americans. The number one function of any government is to protect its citizens from attack, and there is no reason to believe that GWB has been primarily motivated by anything other than that goal, in the face of an implacable enemy who is ready, williing and potentially capable of inflicting massive casualties. Potentially millions of casualties. This is serious stuff. Save your howls, they'll just roll off me - I don't really care, especially when so many of the howlers have shown themselves to be utterly unwilling or unable to retain any sense of balance and perspective.

Now as I say, you can criticize the wisdom and propriety of GWB's policies until the cows come home, and odds are I'll even join you for most of it. But in two years GWB will be out and new president elected. There is no serious threat that the rule of law will die in the U.S., and to the extent is has been dinged up a bit, this is a byproduct of policies aimed at fulfilling the state's primary function, which again is protecting citizens from being blown up in their cities.

That is not the case in Venezuela. The rule of law is all but dead there, and the cause has nothing to do with an external threat. It has been deliberately destroyed by a dictator whose purpose is to consolidate his own power. "Presidente for Life" Chavez. Really - is this the kind of character who those on the left really want to climb into bed with? He's an outright fascist, for God's sake! Open your eyes and get serious.

Oh please. There's so much evidence that Bush/Cheney used 9/11 as an excuse for an invasion that was already on the agenda, it's history. Perspective? He invaded the wrong country, for God's sake, based on 'faith-based intelligence' provided by a convicted con artist whose overtures to the previous administration were rejected for obvious reasons, ignoring the advice of his own Secretary of State, and fulfilling the predictions of those of us who said before Bush was elected that he'd invade Iraq. If I knew it, and Osama Bin Laden knew it, and the writers of Saturday Night Live knew it, why didn't you know Bush and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq and just needed an excuse? Lack of perspective?

Balance: Before the Iraq invasion, Al Queda had an estimated 2,000 members, an enemy in Saddam Hussein, and few friends among Islamic moderates. In Iran, of all places, there were pro-American demonstrations after 9/11 and when we went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan - early evidence that Osama would be the loser in the war for hearts and minds, provided we didn't do something incredibly stupid.

Oops.

Only an idiot, a zealot jonesing for the Apolocalypse, or a follower of Dick Cheney's 'Project for the New American Century' (a group that favored using America's military power to bring about regime change in Iraq and other uncooperative third-world countries, fyi) would have reacted to 9/11 the way this crew did. They began substituting Saddam's name for Osama's in speeches, expressed horror over practices that were ignored and even abetted during a previous administration of which Cheney was a part; they left Afghanistan without finishing the job, borrowed upwards of $280 billlion from your grandchildren's children to remove Bin Laden's enemy from power, and replaced a secular dictatorship with the likelihood of two or three religious dictatorships after a bloody civil war.

Only willful ignorance and Ahmad Chalabi could have convinced any primate more evolved than rhesus monkeys that it was possible to deliver democracy to Iraq like a large pizza, hold some parades, award some no-bid contracts and walk away.

Instead of turning Iraq into a recruitment poster for terrorists and Bin Laden into a folk hero, we might have spent some of that $280 billion to secure our ports, airports and coastlines.

Perspective. Yeah, that works.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I thought Chavez gave title to land that formerly belonged to the government to the people who were actually living on it.

That may be, but when the rule of law is gone, your tenancy lasts only until the dictator's favor shifts to another - and you never know when that day will come. As you might imagine, not many are willing to build and improve their property in such an environment. Those with savings will try to get them out of the country, and outside capital will stay out. Some may sneer at "greedy captalists" and hint at dark conspiracies, but if you had $10,000 to invest, would you risk it to the whims of a dictator? It doesn't take any dark conspiracy to explain why when the rule of law goes, so does the economy and people's livelihoods.

Venezuela may well be another victim of "the curse of oil."

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

That may be, but when the rule of law is gone, your tenancy lasts only until the dictator's favor shifts to another - and you never know when that day will come. As you might imagine, not many are willing to build and improve their property in such an environment. Those with savings will try to get them out of the country, and outside capital will stay out. Some may sneer at "greedy captalists" and hint at dark conspiracies, but if you had $10,000 to invest, would you risk it to the whims of a dictator? It doesn't take any dark conspiracy to explain why when the rule of law goes, so does the economy and people's livelihoods.

Venezuela may well be another victim of "the curse of oil."

That's just the thing. People have a hard time realizing that Chavez IS a dictator. Being elected doesn't keep you from being a dictator. Just look at Juan Peron. Or Robert Mugabe (another nasty character, as my good friend Christopher Maxwell likes to harp).

 

[cantdog]

Oh please. There's so much evidence that Bush/Cheney used 9/11 as an excuse for an invasion that was already on the agenda, it's history. Perspective? He invaded the wrong country, for God's sake, based on 'faith-based intelligence' provided by a convicted con artist whose overtures to the previous administration were rejected for obvious reasons. Perspective? Before the Iraq invasion, Al Queda had an estimated 2,000 members, an enemy in Saddam Hussein, and few friends among Islamic moderates. In Iran, of all places, there were pro-American demonstrations after 9/11 and when we went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Only an idiot, a zealot jonesing for the Apocalypse, or a follower of Dick Cheney's 'Project for the New American Century,' (a group that favored using America's military power to bring about regime change in Iraq and other uncooperative third-world countries) would have left Afghanistan without finishing the job and borrowed upwards of $280 billlion from your grandchildren's children to remove Bin Laden's enemy from power and replace secular tyranny with the extreme likelihood of religious tyranny.

We might have spent some of that $280 billion to secure our ports, airports and coastlines. That would have been smart, but it wouldn't have advanced the agenda.

Perspective. Yeah, that works.

Quite so. To characterize the Iraq invasion as a reaction to 9/11 is to attempt to hoodwink. Roxanne knows better, of course. I don't see hating Chavez as a reaction to 9/11 either, but there must be some balanced idea here which I've missed.

When we were all supposed to hate Nicaragua, the movie Red Dawn was produced. Rinkydinkaraguans invaded and took control of a good proportion of the country, in that movie. With Cuban advisers. It was laughable. Dare we cast Venezuela in the Oily Dawn movie of this decade? Chavez isn't blowing up our cities, for heaven's sake, Roxanne, he's only thwarting the policies of globalization and interfering with the plans of multinational oil companies.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Oh please. There's so much evidence that Bush/Cheney used 9/11 as an excuse for an invasion that was already on the agenda, it's history. Perspective? He invaded the wrong country, for God's sake, based on 'faith-based intelligence' provided by a convicted con artist whose overtures to the previous administration were rejected for obvious reasons. Perspective? Before the Iraq invasion, Al Queda had an estimated 2,000 members, an enemy in Saddam Hussein, and few friends among Islamic moderates. In Iran, of all places, there were pro-American demonstrations after 9/11 and when we went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Only an idiot, a zealot jonesing for the Apocalypse, or a follower of Dick Cheney's 'Project for the New American Century,' (a group that favored using America's military power to bring about regime change in Iraq and other uncooperative third-world countries) would have left Afghanistan without finishing the job and borrowed upwards of $280 billlion from your grandchildren's children to remove Bin Laden's enemy from power and replace secular tyranny with the extreme likelihood of religious tyranny.

We might have spent some of that $280 billion to secure our ports, airports and coastlines. That would have been smart, but it wouldn't have advanced the agenda.

Perspective. Yeah, that works.

Hey, doll, you're exhibiting perspective right here. I think you may believe a bit too much of what you read about the pre-Iraq maneuverings in the Daily Kos*, but otherwise you make a logical, sensible case, and propose alternative public policies that are are reasonable. This is not the kind of Manichean fever swamp ranting that makes the eyes roll of reasonable people who are not themselves unbalanced by unhinged partisanship.

*The problem with conspiracy threories like those you cite is that you have to believe that fairly large groups of people kept their mouths shut for a long time. That does not fit with any informed knowledge of human nature. Think about it.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I don't see hating Chavez as a reaction to 9/11 either, but there must be some balanced idea here which I've missed . . .


When we were all supposed to hate Nicaragua, the movie Red Dawn was produced. Rinkydinkaraguans invaded and took control of a good proportion of the country, in that movie. With Cuban advisers. It was laughable. Dare we cast Venezuela in the Oily Dawn movie of this decade? Chavez isn't blowing up our cities, for heaven's sake, Roxanne, he's only thwarting the policies of globalization and interfering with the plans of multinational oil companies.

"there must be some balanced idea here which I've missed"

Huh? What, you can't believe there are nasty things like ruthless, disciplined men who do anything for personal power? What, they must be "just misunderstood," or all have some inner-child, warm and fuzzy side that would come out if we just stopped saying mean things about them?

I'm teasing, Cant, because I know you know better, and hopefully will realize what a damned foolish statement that is. I mean, the history of the world is to a large extent a chronicle of one such character after another mucking things up for the rest of the people.

There is no Red Dawn-ish "hatred" of Venezuela in any of this. The dynamic is very different from the Cold War, and you need to update your thinking. All I see and feel is sadness for Venezuela, that its people are suffering this misfortune. Really, open your eyes! Like I said earlier, there appear to be Václav Havel and Lech Walesa types who are telling a very different story - don't put yourself in a position where you are undercutting them, or in the position of the useful idiots who said, "Stalin is a reasonable man, he wishes well, we can do business with him . . ."

 

[izabella]

or in the position of the useful idiots who said, "Stalin is a reasonable man, he wishes well, we can do business with him . . ."

You mean like the US is doing with the Saudis?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You mean like the US is doing with the Saudis?

I don't get it? Are you saying there are "small-d" democrats resisting the Saudi autocracy? All I've ever heard of are nut-case medievalist Wahabis, but if there are closet Jeffersonians there and we're undercutting them, then yeah, like the US is doing with the Saudis.



(There may be a huge pool of voiceless, powerless resisters in Saudi Arabia - women. Funny that those on the Left are so silent about the plight of women in Islam. That moral struggle may be the 21st century equivalent of slavery in the ante-bellum U.S. Why are those on the Left silent? I've actually seen some make the 21st century equivalent of "They're dancing behind the slave quarters, so they must like their status." )

 

[shereads]

Hey, doll, you're exhibiting perspective right here. I think you may believe a bit too much of what you read about the pre-Iraq maneuverings in the Daily Kos*, but otherwise you make a logical, sensible case, and propose alternative public policies that are are reasonable. This is not the kind of Manichean fever swamp ranting that makes the eyes roll of reasonable people who are not themselves unbalanced by unhinged partisanship.

*The problem with conspiracy threories like those you cite is that you have to believe that fairly large groups of people kept their mouths shut for a long time. That does not fit with any informed knowledge of human nature. Think about it.

Dear, I used to laugh at conspiracy theorists myself. Then I read Richard Clark's book, Paul O'Neill's book (he's not exactly a Marxist, you know), Cheney/Wolfowitz & co's very own website, and some basic background info on Ahmad Chalabi, who was still on our payroll as an informant nearly a year after the failure to find WMD - and was appointed OIl Minister in the interim Iraqi government, following CIA accusations that he was a double agent for Iran; I put together a collection of directly contradictory quotes ("lies") by members of the administration before and after the invasion, which demonstrate in nobody's words but their own that the reason we invaded was anything that hadn't been disproven that week. Bioweapons, nukes, 45 minutes from launch; hosting terrorist training camps (that one never quite gelled, because Saddam had his own reasons to fear Islamic extremism).

No WMD? Okay, forget that. We're here to spread democracy. We happened to choose a secular country whose most hated enemy is more in line with Bin Laden's ideology than Saddam's; but we have to start somewhere.

Bringing down a secular dictator is the key to winniing the war against terrorism by Islamic extremists..."Or is it? I forget. It made sense when Dick explained it to Condi and me."

When Bush was cornered during his first press conference after the non-discovery of WMD, he ran out of reasons why we invaded Iraq and fell silent for several long, forehead-wiping seconds. Then he fell back on the Motive of Last Resort: "I'm Doing God's Will."

Rox, I no longer believe that you need a network of smart, secretive people to carry out a conspiracy. You just need good marketing and a public that doesn't read much.

We've got that in spades. As evidence, an NBC poll just over a week ago showed that nearly half of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. (Bush insists he never said that; he hasn't denied implyng it.) The percentage of believers goes down as the level of education goes up.

 

[izabella]

I don't get it? Are you saying there are "small-d" democrats resisting the Saudi autocracy? All I've ever heard of are nut-case medievalist Wahabis, but if there are closet Jeffersonians there and we're undercutting them, then yeah, like the US is doing with the Saudis.

I was referring to the part where you warn us not to be like those useful idiots who said Stalin was a reasonable man, someone to do business with. I'm saying the US has taken on the idiots' role - specifically under this administration - and is more than willing to lay down with the devil when it suits them to do business such as with the Saudis. I'm saying they even turn a blind eye to certain facts, such as who the actual 9/11 hijackers were in order to continue the lucrative deal-making with them.

I'm saying, we've eroded our moral high ground, so now we sound like hypocrites and aren't believable when we pick and choose whom we don't like today. I'm saying we'd be good pals with Hugo if he were more amenable to doing business with us.

 

[Pure]

he's a dictator!

R:
The rule of law is all but dead there [Ven], and the cause has nothing to do with an external threat. It has been deliberately destroyed by a dictator whose purpose is to consolidate his own power. "Presidente for Life" Chavez. Really - is this the kind of character who those on the left really want to climb into bed with? He's an outright fascist, for God's sake! Open your eyes and get serious.

Hmm. A dictator, a fascist, wanting to consolidate his power.

Perhaps someone can remind Rox of a little history; post a list of dictators the US has installed or supported in the last 60 years, esp. dictators the Republicans have voted to fund (Dems are no slackers, here, either).

 

[cantdog]

Huh? What, you can't believe there are nasty things like ruthless, disciplined men who do anything for personal power? What, they must be "just misunderstood," or all have some inner-child, warm and fuzzy side that would come out if we just stopped saying mean things about them?

I'm teasing, Cant, because I know you know better, and hopefully will realize what a damned foolish statement that is. I mean, the history of the world is to a large extent a chronicle of one such character after another mucking things up for the rest of the people.

Okay, so I guess I don't follow this. His being or not being a dictator is completely beside the point, as far as US policy is concerned. That, as Pure remarked, and as the history of Iran, for instance (or Chile, or Haiti, or any number of other places), will show, is borne out by history time and again. After WW II, it has increasingly been clear that the important factor is business.

It's multinationals and their satellite companies which determine who the enemies are, for this country. Papa Doc was a fine fellow, from that point of view, where Roldos was not. Cedras was great, Aristide was not. Saddam was great, then, later, he was not. Each time we heard terrible tales about all the ones on the outs, who were, legitimately, the enemies only of oil companies, sugar companies, fruit companies, copper companies. There is no effective standard, else, for determining what an "American interest" is, when policy is formulated to advance American interests. Not in the absence of the Global Communist Conspiracy.

So who gives a shit, really, whether he's a fascist or a democrat? The fact is, he's opposing oil interests and resisting globalization, which in practical terms from the point of view of Venezuela, is the same as resisting economic slavery to the multinationals.

Didn't you hear the reports? Before Chavez, the oil riches of the country went to the multinatinals, 82% to the companies. Now, it's 82% to the state of Venezuela and 18% to the companies. The companies hate that, not too surprisingly, but it doesn't hurt America, only some companies, most of whom are headquartered elsewhere to avoid paying American taxes. They won't support our government, but they expect our armies and hatchet men to support them, and by god we do it.

Now what does Bush wanting to do a good job, being an average guy, and protecting our cities from being blown up have to do with hating Chavez? Not one blessed thing. The reason anyone is discussing how terrible a man Chavez is? Because he is going down. That's all it is. Expect a lot of bad press before the car bomb.

 

[Couture]

That may be, but when the rule of law is gone, your tenancy lasts only until the dictator's favor shifts to another - and you never know when that day will come. As you might imagine, not many are willing to build and improve their property in such an environment. Those with savings will try to get them out of the country, and outside capital will stay out. Some may sneer at "greedy captalists" and hint at dark conspiracies, but if you had $10,000 to invest, would you risk it to the whims of a dictator? It doesn't take any dark conspiracy to explain why when the rule of law goes, so does the economy and people's livelihoods.

Venezuela may well be another victim of "the curse of oil."

Well, call me crazy, but I happen to have a little distrust of the media reports about Chavez. There's just been too many other times people have cried "wolf" or "dictator" or "despot", when the real problem is that the person doesn't want to roll over and play dead for the US.

Then the US backs a coup on the guy. That would make anyone a little upset.

However, more and more I've been finding myself agreeing with the detractors. First of all, the company the guy has been keeping. Cuba, Iran etc. Why doesn't he call Al Queda and offer them some money? And then the things he's been doing. Re-writing the constitution. Packing the courts.

There does seem to be an awful lot of smoke there for there to be no fire.

But, I'm also not giving Bushie a free pass which you seem to be doing here. When Bush signs a law, he writes a little paragraph saying it doesn't apply to him. He's also packing the courts. They have virtually re-written the law so that the minority party can't filibuster the nominees. That is certainly a new development. And now we have our own gulags. Surely, that would be what our own overseas prisons should be considered. Military tribunals sound familiar? They were placed overseas for the very reason that the "rule of law" not apply. And now Bush is attempting to re-write the Geneva conventions. So long "rule of law"....even Chavez hasn't stooped so far as to do this. Say goodbye to nuclear non-proliferation treaty - say hello to nuclear bunker busters. And Bush's "white-shirts" tossed democracy on it's head during the 2000 election.

But you say he has reasons to do these things. Well, so does Chavez. That doesn't make either of them right. And say what you want, but the evil that Bush has done is going to live on long after him.

 

[cantdog]

(There may be a huge pool of voiceless, powerless resisters in Saudi Arabia - women. Funny that those on the Left are so silent about the plight of women in Islam. That moral struggle may be the 21st century equivalent of slavery in the ante-bellum U.S. Why are those on the Left silent? I've actually seen some make the 21st century equivalent of "They're dancing behind the slave quarters, so they must like their status." )

It would be nice to believe that the motivation for US intervention abroad had any link to the status of women or the state of human rights in any sense. You seem to think it makes some kind of difference, and I envy you that dream. I'm afraid that isn't so.

The left supported MAWA in Afghanistan, right along, which is the same thing. Feminists today, whether left or not, oppose the degradation of women worldwide. But if you expect the US to take any step against the Kingdom more authoritative that the occasional 'tut-tut,' you will have to wait until their co-operation is less valuable to us or less forthcoming. They are funding Islamist groups in their area of the world, even. They have been funding any country which will try to build a muslim nuclear bomb. Saddam received that subsidy, for that reason, for instance. Saudis actually carried out the 9-11 attacks. But they are a strong ally, says the state department. They can behead people and cut the hands off them, sequester and repress women. They can do all that shit they want, so long as they kick in when we need them to kick in. And they do.

Business is happy with them, especially Bechtel, Brown & Root, arms manufacturers. There's a deal making many many millions whereby these companies have contracts to build infrastructure in Arabia, and the Saudis are overpaying very compliantly. Consider that. If indeed we have any real moral objection to their civil society, paying us money seems to have quelled it.

 

[Pure]

dictators,

i just wondered about the degree to which ms. roxanne supports US support and aid to Musharref, a dictator who's rewritten the constitution and whose regime carries out or condones torture, rape, etc. as stated in the US State department report on Human Rights. The US State Department has a human rights report on each country, each year, see the following portions of its Pakistan article

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61710.htm

Pakistan

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005

Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
March 8, 2006

Pakistan is a federal republic with a population of approximately 163 million. The head of state is President and Chief of Army Staff Pervez Musharraf who assumed power after overthrowing the civilian government in 1999. The head of government is Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, whom the national assembly elected over opposition parties' objections in 2004.

Domestic and international observers found the 2002 national assembly elections, the most recent national elections, deeply flawed. The civilian authorities maintained control of the security forces; however, there were instances when local police acted independently of government authority.

The government's human rights record was poor, and serious problems remained. The following human rights problems were reported: \

· restrictions on citizens' right to change their government
· extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape
· poor prison conditions, arbitrary arrest, and lengthy pretrial detention

· violations of due process and privacy rights
· lack of judicial independence
· harassment, intimidation, and arrest of journalists
· limits on freedom of association, religion, and movement
· imprisonment of political leaders

· corruption
· legal and societal discrimination against women
· child abuse

· trafficking in women and children, and child prostitution

· discrimination against persons with disabilities
· indentured, bonded, and child labor
· restriction of worker rights

The government took significant steps to combat trafficking in persons. Its Anti-Trafficking Unit (ATU) was fully functional and resulted in increased arrests and prosecutions of human traffickers. Cooperative efforts between the military, ATU, and international organizations prevented any increase in human trafficking resulting from the October 8 earthquake. Training efforts within the security forces greatly improved treatment of trafficking victims.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
Security forces extrajudicially killed individuals associated with criminal and political groups in staged encounters and during abuse in custody. Human rights monitors reported 189 instances of encounter killings. […]


Arrest and Detention
A First Information Report (FIR) is the legal basis for all arrests. Police may issue FIRs provided complainants offer reasonable proof that a crime was committed. A FIR allows police to detain a named suspect for 24 hours, after which only a magistrate can order detention for an additional 14 days, and then only if police show such detention is material to the investigation.

In practice the authorities did not fully observe these limits on detention. FIRs were frequently issued without supporting evidence as part of harassment or intimidation. Police routinely did not seek magistrate approval for investigative detention and often held detainees without charge until a court challenged them. Incommunicado detention occurred (see section 1.c.).

When asked, magistrates usually approved investigative detention without reference to its necessity. In cases of insufficient evidence, police and magistrates colluded to continue detention beyond the 14-day period provided in the law through the issuance of new FIRs. The police sometimes detained individuals arbitrarily without charge or on false charges to extort payment for their release. Some women continued to be detained arbitrarily and were sexually abused (see sections 1.c. and 5). [...]

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The law prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; however, security forces tortured and abused persons. Under provisions of the Anti-Terrorist Act, coerced confessions are admissible in special courts, although police did not used this provision to obtain convictions.


Security force personnel continued to torture persons in custody throughout the country. Human rights organizations reported that methods included beating; burning with cigarettes, whipping the soles of the feet, prolonged isolation, electric shock, denial of food or sleep, hanging upside down, and forced spreading of the legs with bar fetters. Security force personnel reportedly raped women and children during interrogations.

The nongovernmental organization (NGO) Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid recorded 1,356 cases of torture during the year. Torture occasionally resulted in death or serious injury (see section 1.a.). In April Shabbir Hussain, Zafar Abass, and Muhammad Sadiq claimed that police detained and tortured them on false charges of theft. During their detention in Hafizabad, Punjab, police allegedly beat them in front of their accuser, forced them to drink their own urine and eat mud, and hung them upside down. The Lahore High Court ordered the police to register cases against the officer involved.

On June 23, police in Vehari severely beat and stitched together the lips of prisoner Mohammad Hussain after he argued with a police officer. At year's end authorities suspended seven policemen for their involvement. […]

Freedom of Religion […]

Complaints under the blasphemy laws, which prohibit derogatory statements or action against Islam, the Koran, or the prophets, were used to settle business or personal disputes and harass religious minorities or reform-minded Muslims. Most complaints were filed against the majority Sunni Muslim community. Most blasphemy cases were ultimately dismissed at the appellate level; however, the accused often remained in jail for years awaiting a final verdict.

Trial courts were reluctant to release on bail or acquit blasphemy defendants for fear of violence from religious extremist groups. On January 4, President Musharraf signed a bill into law revising the complaint process and requiring senior police officials to review such cases in an effort to eliminate spurious charges. During the year there were 3 persons convicted and 5 acquitted under the blasphemy laws and another 67 ongoing cases.

Women

[…]
Rape, other than by one's spouse, is a criminal offense. One cannot be prosecuted for marital rape or for rape in cases where a marriage between the perpetrator and victim has been contracted but not solemnized. Although rape was widespread, prosecutions were rare. It is estimated that rape victims reported less than one-third of rape cases to the police. Police were at times implicated in the crime.

On May 3, police allegedly abducted Sonia Naz and detained her for 10 to 12 days, during which time she claimed that the SHO, Jamshed Chishti, raped her on the orders of Abdullah Khalid, Faisalabad Superintendent of Police for Investigation. On April 21, the speaker of the national assembly ordered the arrest of Naz for illegally appearing on the floor of the house to seek assistance for her husband, who the same police officials had allegedly harassed in connection with an investigation into stolen vehicles. The Speaker ultimately withdrew his complaint on October 7. Police originally refused to file rape charges against the accused, but following a Supreme Court order, on October 12, they arrested the officers for rape.

After an initial investigation into the rape incident resulted in conflicting conclusions, including one accusing Naz of falsifying the rape claim, the Supreme Court established a new investigation team of more senior officials that began its work on October 26. Courts cancelled initial bail for Abdullah and Chishti, and the two men surrendered to police on October 18 and 19 respectively. In September the Punjab chief minister suspended both from the police force.

Many rape victims were pressured to drop charges. Police and prosecutors often threatened to charge a victim with adultery or fornication if she could not prove the absence of consent, and there were cases in which rape victims were jailed on such charges. The standard of proof for rape set out in the Hudood Ordinances is based on whether the accused is to be subjected to Koranic or secular punishment. In cases of Koranic punishment, which can result in public flogging or stoning, the victim must produce four adult male Muslim witnesses to the rape or a confession from the accused. No Koranic punishment has ever been applied for rape.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm trying not to post today because it's taking too much time for my work, but I just want to say that I'm glad everyone here is keeping an open mind and not jumping onto some "Yay Hugo" bandwagon because he's the enemy of your enemy (Bush). It's fine to whack the U.S. with its human rights failings of the past, and we're not going to settle the "Bush Lied" debate here*, but on the issue of one sad country being made the victim of one ruthless man who is crushing the rule of law, it's good to see that we liberals (classical sense) can have some unanimity that, "Oppression is bad, M'kay?"



*My take on that one is here, if anyone's interested.