A blog about surviving the Chavez and heirs neo-dictatorship
Gracias por el link Daniel.
Gracias por tu oportuno artículo Alek. Gold
It is true that many critics of the Paraguayan impeachment are hypocrites. But the charge itself is simply a way of changing the subject to the institutional personality of the attacker. You don't like Castro? So why are you silent about US practices at Guantanamo, hypocrite? The subject has been successfukky changed!I myself don't know whether the coup/impeachmnt in Paraguay was justified. But the best arguments in its favour have nothing to do with hypocrites. They have to do with the need for excessive speed, given that Maduro was telling the Army to revolt while the Congress was in session.
The day the human rights establishment and assorted supporters criticise what goes on in Castro's gulags with a tenth of the vehemence employed when levelling charges against 'US practices at Guantanamo' that will be the day their criticism -and their position- will be credible. In the meanwhile, so long as human rights are seen from a moral relativistic position, such stances -about violations in Guantanamo- are as valid as claims of Maduro, the Castros or Chavez about democracy. For there's no such thing as right and left about human rights, but right or wrong. It's one of those very few issues that are black and white, you're either for or not. And being for means that all the world's tinpot dictators -whether right or leftwing- are guilty of rights abuses. Certainly, Chavez-like putschists and communist dictators would do well in not even daring to touch upon the subject, given their credentials.So yes, they are a bunch of hypocrites. As per what took place in Paraguay, the law and the constitution were observed and upheld. The trial, was a political one, not a civil/judicial one. Ergo none of the "due process has been violated" arguments apply. End of discussion.
A morally and twisted situation in Latin America in which Cuba itself is an example for countries to follow and which enjoys high prestige.Even in the Western media Cuba has become " old news".Readers get bored and immune to reading about their human rights violations which seem routine while they are sometimes given credits for their supposed help to their poor.I agree with you on the Paraguayan issue.It is important to distinguish between political and judicial proceedings.firepigette
AB tells us that we should ignore "the human rights establishment and assorted supporters" because they have not been "vehement" enough in their criticism of Cuba. Thus, they, like Chavez, are "hypocrites." Their crtiicism of Paraguay is not "credible" for this reason, he says.But it doesn't matter who makes a criticism. Either, as AB later says, it is correct, or it isn't, based on the facts. Not on who makes the criticism, on the facts.My point about the Paraguayan interview was its ad hominem nature. Rather than explain why such a hurry was necessary--a point seldom made concretely--the interview attacks the bona fides of the critics. That leaves the "international human rights establishment" with the conclusion that the votes of millions of Paraguayans were rendered a nullity by a separately-elected Congress, on a purely political basis. Were they entitled to do it? Yes. Was it democratic? No. A Presidential election means something. Is my conclusion affected by the allegation that Chavez or Castro are using this for their own purposes? Not at all.
I don't know whether you can read and understand Spanish properly. If you do, you obviously missed one of the links in the interview that goes into further details as per the time frame of the whole process. I don't know whether you are a legal expert either. But obviously your point, from a strictly constitutional viewpoint, is moot: Lugo's removal was done following the letter of the constitution. Ergo, your argument about whether or not was democratic -which you wrongly think it wasn't- is entirely irrelevant. A presidential election means something. The constitution also means something. Following constitutional mandates and upholding the law of the land also means something. Deal with it. When those criticising lack credentials and -on top of that- misinterpret the law / facts to advance their warped understanding of democracy their criticism is, erm, hypocrite, devoid of credibility, risible as Javier well said.
J house,It is a political manipulation for criminals like chavez and castro to stand judgment on a possible infraction much less serious than their own.this kind of thinking leads to situations where countries like n. Korea and Iran take charge of the human rights commission of the united nations.Firepigette
AB,Very well said.Even is some people insist on quibbling about the finer points of the law in this case, even though the legality of the situation is obvious, it is highly absurd to excuse the lack of moral authority of Chavez and or Castro here.I can only wonder about the purpose of this kind of thinking.We have to remember that we are dealing with the Paraguayan constitution, according to which the measures taken were legal, which is the only thing relevant in this case.
Comments policy:1) Comments are moderated after the fourth day of publication. It may take up to a day or two for your note to appear then.2) Your post will appear if you follow the basic rules. I will be ruthless in erasing, as well as those who replied to any off rule comment.3) COMMENT RULES: Do not be repetitive. Do not bring grudges and fights from other blogs here (this is the strictest rule). This is an anti Chavez/chavismo blog, Readers have made up their minds long ago. Trying to prove us wrong is considered a troll. Still, you are welcome as a chavista to post if you want to explain us coherently as to why chavismo does this or that. We are still waiting for that to happen.Insults and put downs are frowned upon and I will be sole judge on whether to publish them.