When in Doubt… Shoot to Kill

0
Charming fellow
Charming fellow

Making decisions can be tough, especially if you’re expected to solve the worst economic crisis in our petrostate’s memory on a 22% approval rating, and don’t have the first clue what you’re doing.

Leave it to a psychopath like the Defense Minister to show you how it’s done.

While Maduro dithers like a paralyzed hamster at the mere thought of announcing an economic reform, General Vladimir Padrino López is a proponent of the shock-and-awe approach to violating Human Rights.

Case in point: Resolution 8610, sanctioned on Jan. 27, through which the Ministry of Defence authorizes the use of “potentially lethal force, be it with a firearm or with another potentially lethal weapon” as a last recourse […], “to avoid public disorder, to support the legitimate authority, and to immediately reject aggression using any necessary means.”

Naturally, this innovation in military protocol is meant to “regulate the Armed Forces when guaranteeing public order, social peace, civil coexistence during public meetings and demonstrations, within the context of a Democratic State, the Rule of Law and the Protection of Human Rights.”

So basically, the military can now shoot protesters. How’s that for short and sweet?

Let´s first get all the legal and ethical what-have-you´s out of the way. Yes, this resolution is unconstitutional: it violates Art. 68 which explicitly prohibits the use of firearms and toxic substances as a means of containing public protests. Yes, it is also procedurally unsound since the Ministry cannot, um… legislate. Yes, it violates Human Rights by establishing rules of engagement against civilians. And yes, it recklessly endangers the public by entrusting civilian safety to untrained military officers. But worry not: in a cute afterthought, the resolution mandates the Ministry to develop some guidelines to ensure soldiers don’t go too far with that sort of thing. You know, eventually.

So why would such an objectionable, Mubarakesque measure be rolled out so casually, and so much more quickly, than the economic reforms we so urgently need to stave off total collapse? ¿Is the government not the least bit concerned about how Human Rights organizations, regional bodies and…gasp…the international community will perceive this? ¿Why, unlike the hike in gas prices, is there no cadena speech to justify Res. 8610, no accompanying radio ad to render it palatable, no PR campaign to blame it on the opposition?

Because they just don’t give a shit anymore, that’s why.

And this should hardly come as a surprise. It´s not as if the authorization to use deadly force weren´t already in place. As Quico put it, the doctrine seems to be “shoot first, work out your human rights trainings later.”

You might be tempted to imagine Res. 8610 as a device formulated for covering the government´s ass in the event of a tragedy (“I was just following orders, sir.”). But that would presume that this government fears international condemnation, or worse yet, reprisal, over its acts of brutality. Far from obscuring them, the regime relishes in its Human Rights violations.

A few days ago, former Presidents Pastrana, Piñera and Calderón attempted to visit Leopoldo López in his military prison. After denying them entry to the facility, Vice President Jorge Arreaza helpfully explained that they had not requested the proper authorization for visiting “political prisoners.” Three days later, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) cheerfully reaffirmed Venezuela´s commitment to respecting Human Rights.

The Venezuelan government’s legalization of lethal repression is both an admission of failure and a preemptive declaration of war. Faced with a crisis of their own making, and unwilling to take the necessary steps to fix it, they’ll use all the firepower at their disposal to delay what they know is inevitable. Its much easier to make decisions that you don’t have to, in order to postpone making the ones you don’t want to.

Last year, mass protests were shamelessly quashed by fierce repression, tear gas, beatings, jailings and torture pretty much out in the open, for the whole world to see. This year, they´ll be repressed before they even happen.

There’s a grim kind of tradeoff at play here: the government’s relaxed brutality when it comes to Human Rights affords them the time to hesititate over the economic shitstorm that’s creating the protests they will need to repress in the first place.

And, really, who’s to argue against expediency for the sake of peace?

NO COMMENTS

  1. Sure, lots of people might die if they attend a demonstration, but at least Venezuela outlawed the death penalty! So if they try you rather than shoot you, you are safe! It’s just that they don’t have the money to try everyone. Because of imperialism.

  2. … did the admit to having political prisoners?

    Also, kinda telling they seem to be reading up for a new Caracazo and want to be prepared, instead of CAP that took several days to go basically to the same decision.

    Of course, nowadays a Caracazo seems more likely to come out not due to protests for gas prices, but by people fighting to get a chicken, but anyway, in a perverse way, this is the first time I see them to take preemptive measures before a crisis develop… of course, it had to be violence what they plan ahead.

  3. Quote from New York Times Article 1/30/15
    “I’ve always been a Chavista,” said Ms. N, using a term for a loyal Chávez supporter. But “the other day, I found a Chávez T-shirt I’d kept, and I threw it on the ground and stamped on it, and then I used it to clean the floor. I was so angry. I don’t know if this is his fault or not, but he died and left us here, and things have been going from bad to worse.”
    http://nyti.ms/18CmShH

  4. If I remember correctly, Venezuela is signatory of the Rome Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Penal Court agreement.

    Although you can violate rights locally under “orders from higher command” and justify it by “due obedience to superiors”, the violators are still bound by these international agreements and liable to be punished.

    That GN that hit Marvinia, she is ok for now because the current government protects her, but she can be very well processed criminally under all those agreements she is bound to respect. Specially if she travels abroad and is identified. Yeah, she isn’t the kind of person you would say travels abroad, but still, knowing you are liable of indiction at any moment is a sentence into itself.

    Of course, paralegal executions and other forms of individual (as opposed to collective) repression are now covered by this directive, since “potentially lethal” means anything that can kill.

    Venezuela lives its darkest period since Boves destroyed the first Republic.

    On the other hand, Padrino López just signed his own sentence. As Truman said, the buck stops in his desk, he will not be able to run for cover under any higher command. He is the higher command.

    As powerful as he is now, he just foolishly booked an open ticket for himself to The Hague without any need.

  5. Oh my god!!! You mean they made it legal to do what every other major democracy in the world does??? Use violent force when protesters become violent? Unbelievable!!!

    • What the hell are you talking about? what major democracy authorises lethal force against public protesters?

      Betty, sorry, but you are full of shit. Not even Venezuela allows it (art 68 of the constitution)

      • Every country in the world authorizes lethal force as a last recourse. In the US they often use it as a FIRST recourse. Mike Brown anyone?

        Do you think if the Unites States saw violent protests that resulted in people being killed and vowed to overthrow the US government they would not use deadly force? Give me a fucking break you naive idiots.

        • Betty, you are just lying. Whether you do it because you are ignorant or wilful it’s your problem, but no democracy authorises its military to use lethal force against its own population.

          You are just full of shit. You are a living container brimming with excrement.

          • Alejandro, either you are extremely ignorant, or extremely stupid, or both. But the authorities in the United States can use lethal force against civilians whenever they deem it is necessary.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

            Shit, Barak Obama himself can just fucking kill you with a drone whenever he feels like it:

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html

          • Betty, the Venezuelan constitution forbids the use of lethal weapons against protesters. Full stop.

            What Obama does or doesn’t do is not here nor there.

            If you think a ministry of defence has the right to violate the constitution and give soldiers free way to shoot civilians… well, you are mental case, a pathologic liar and you need professional help.

          • “Betty, the Venezuelan constitution forbids the use of lethal weapons against protesters. Full stop.”

            Wrong. The constitution forbids lethal weapons against PEACEFUL protesters. Full stop.

          • You can be sure that Betty here, who is making these comparisons, would denounce the U.S. if it used lethal force on demonstrating citizens. But when it comes to Venezuela, her double standard becomes obvious.

            Here’s the truth; decent people oppose armies firing on civilians, wherever it happens.

          • And decent people oppose violent groups killing innocent people, wherever it happens, and they support the police efforts to prevent it from happening again.

          • So, if a student take a rock from the ground, is that violent enough to kill them Ms. señora psicopata Betty?
            WTF?

            Qué loca esta gente, no tienen remedio.

        • Your characterization of Mike Brown is appallingly incorrect. Ample testimony from black bystanders established that Mike attempted to take the policeman weapon by reaching into the patrol car while using his 300lb body to keep the policeman trapped inside the vehicle, Mikes blood and DNA was found inside the vehicle. Further testimony again including testimony from black witnesses testified that Mike charged the police officer when he was able to get out of the police vehicle. Perhaps you are not from the U.S. but please
          Don’t offer up the leftist propaganda line without learning the facts. And let me say one more thing, American citizens would never show the amazing fortitude demonstrated by Venezuelans. They would revolt and resort to violence under similar circumstances.

          • Actually William, the testimony is conflicting, and there is no proof what happened. The point is that lethal force is justified in the United States even when the suspect is unarmed, as in this case.

            In Venezuela, the violent protesters are not unarmed. They have shot and killed numerous police officers and national guardsmen. In that case, lethal case is justified, as it would be in ANY country on the planet.

          • Any protester that has a gun is fair game to be shot. I don’t think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

            We are talking about giving MILITARY the right to use lethal force on nonviolent protesters to ‘avoid public disorder’.

          • Yes, and you all are just making that up. The decree clearly says that in that case lethal force will not be used:

            “los funcionarios policiales no portarán ni usarán armas de fuego en el control de reuniones públicas y manifestaciones pacíficas, a menos que, por la necesidad y proporcionalidad de los medios empleados para contrarrestarla sea necesario su porte y uso”

          • No Betty, a grand jury heard the evidence and decided there was not probable cause to go to trial, a very low evidentiary standard. It is unusual for a grand jury not to issue an indictment requiring a trial.. The disputed evidence you refer to was offered by witnesses who were unreliable either because their testimony was inherently in conflict with their prior statements or because they admitted under examination that they had not witnessed the shooting. I agree a policeman in the US can use lethal force but only when he reasonably fears that he is subject to great bodily harm. What concerns me about Venezuela are statements that acts that undermine the revolution may be punished implying that any change in the government is unlawful. That is nothing less than a dictatorship.

          • “American citizens would never show the amazing fortitude demonstrated by Venezuelans. They would revolt and resort to violence under similar circumstances.”

            And what do you think would happen William? Do the think the US government would just lay down and allow its citizens to use violence in an attempt to overthrow them?

            You and I both know that the level of violence against civilians would be 100 times what it was in Venezuela if protesters resorted to violence and began killing police officers, etc.

      • Alejandro, have you been living under a rock? Democracies have been shooting protesters (with real bullets) for a very long time.

    • There is a BIG difference between “violent force” and “lethal force”. For example, a cop might hit me with his nightstick if I were to assault him violently during a manifestation. It would be violent force, it would certainly hurt me, but it would effectively put an end to my aggression. Now, on the other hand, a military man (not a cop, who has been actually trained to handle protests) can simply fire a bullet from his rifle right between my eyes, effectively putting an end to my life (that’s what “lethal” means), and also to any semblance of protection of Human Rights that this government could still have.

      • And a cop is entirely justified in shooting you dead if you assault him with a deadly weapon, or are even suspected of having a deadly weapon. Shit, in the US they will kill you even if you are unarmed!!! Mike Brown, Steven Garner, and a whole long list of others in just recent months.

        In Venezuela, the opposition protesters have been known to shoot firearms at the police, killing several policemen and national guard members in the guarimbas last year alone. If they do that, police have every right to shoot them dead.

        • You missed my point. I said there is a difference between violent force and lethal force. No need to explain it again, just read my previous post if you remain unclear about that.

          If I assault a cop with a deadly weapon, I should very well expect to be shot at, or be received with some sort of lethal shot. That’s not the case I’m discussing, I’m talking about protests where you are unarmed or have a non-lethal weapon, during which a soldier can now just shoot you and kill you right there, because it’s justified by this absurd and unconstitutional piece of “legislation” (I’m using quotation marks because technically, a Ministery cannot legislate. But oh, well, who cares about those tiny details anyway).

          I won’t enter into an argument about what did or did not happen in the US concerning those cases you mention. But I will say that I don’t care if they do it in the US, in Europe, in Afghanistan, in Russia or whichever country you like the most/the least; this is a resolution that violates Humans Rights and I will be against it always, no matter who is behind it. I have always found this argument, which seems to be “some other people I believe you consider to be good do it, so you can’t criticize this”, or “somebody did this before, so it’s OK if it’s done now” very weak. If it’s bad, it doesn’t matter who does it, it’s still bad. And if it was bad before, it still is bad now.

          • “I’m talking about protests where you are unarmed or have a non-lethal weapon, during which a soldier can now just shoot you and kill you right there, because it’s justified by this absurd and unconstitutional piece of “legislation” ”

            And that’s a complete lie that opposition politicians are spreading, but which are not supported by the very resolution that they are citing. Here’s what the actual resolution says:

            “No portarán ni usarán armas de fuego en el control de reuniones públicas y manifestaciones pacíficas, a menos que, por la necesidad y proporcionalidad de los medios empleados para contrarrestarla sea necesario su porte y uso.”

      • But this happens all the time. My grandmother was terrified of letting her 5 kids out of the house in Betancourt’s time–he did say “disparen primero y averiguen despues”–shoot first, and maybe we’ll investigate later. Nothing really new.

        • Which was a violation to Human Rights and unconstitutional. And remains to be so to this day.

          People who promoted this before (in your example, Bethancourt et al.) should have been brought to justice for it. People promoting it now, too.

    • Name a democracy that uses its military against protesters. That is what the police and, in extremis, the national guard are for, not the army and navy. Use of the regular military on one’s own citizens is generally frowned upon in most countries. Certainly not a terribly good election tactic.

      When you use the military, it leads to nasty little “mistakes” that usually are referred to as massacres.

      • Oh….just this.

        101. The Commission’s concern over this situation, which occurs in various countries of the region, also is linked to the functioning of the democratic system of government, since

        in a democratic system it is essential to make a clear and precise distinction between internal security as a function for the police and national defense as a function for the armed forces, since they are two substantively different institutions, insofar as the purposes for which they were created and their training and preparation are concerned. The history of the Hemisphere shows that, broadly speaking, the intervention of the armed forces in internal security matters is accompanied by violations of human rights in violent circumstances.

        Therefore, practice teaches us that it is advisable to avoid the intervention of the armed forces in matters of internal security since it carries a risk of human rights violations.

        That’s probably not relevant though, even if it is from the IACHR’s “Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela”.

        • So….you are backing off your claim that democracies use their regular military against protesters? Cuz…..you didn’t name one. You just misdirected.

          Iceland? Norway? Australia? Canada? France? Germany? Italy? Costa Rica?

          Can’t do it, can you?

          • Can you name a single one of those countries that confronted a situation in which large scale violent protests with the goal of overthrowing the government lasted several months and killed dozens of people???

            Can’t do it, can you?

          • Oh my god!!! You mean they made it legal to do what every other major democracy in the world does??? Use violent force when protesters become violent? Unbelievable!!!

            “Name a democracy that uses its military against protesters.”

            I’m still waiting for you to validate your claim. You know, the one you made about major democracies using violent force when protesters become violent vis-à-vis the Venezuelan DM authorizing the military to become involved in internal security. You cannot do it, can you?

            This isn’t about what I said. Instead, you try to change the subject. Respond to the query, retract the statement, or say nothing.

          • By the way, I never said they use the military. I said they use violent force. Now, can you make an intelligible argument, or will you keep repeating the same question about something I never said over and over again?

          • I’m sorry. I thought from your own comments, that Ferguson was a police issue.

            Yes, the national guard was brought in, after there were concerns regarding the response from the police to the initial protests, the complete breakdown of trust between the civilian protesters and the civilian security apparatus.

            However, the national guard is, when all is said and done, a civilian militia organized at the state level to be used as a reserve force (yet they are not the inactive/active military reserves, that’s an entirely different branch) in times of emergency; it is not the national military/armed forces despite its associations. Do you happen to remember who called in the national guard as Ferguson erupted? The guardies are typically from the state and communities in which they operate and work normal jobs just like everyone else. They are also called “weekend warriors”, since they train on some weekends.

            The U.S. has some pretty strict rules about the use of the military on its own citizens and territory. Or have you forgotten that?

            Now, I request you again, name me a major democracy that uses its military against protesters.

            Can’t do it, can you?

          • “Now, I request you again, name me a major democracy that uses its military against protesters.”

            I didn’t make that claim. You did. Do you enjoy arguing with yourself?

          • And, by the way, the resolution you are referring makes it clear that lethal force will not be used against protesters.

            “No portarán ni usarán armas de fuego en el control de reuniones públicas y manifestaciones pacíficas, a menos que, por la necesidad y proporcionalidad de los medios empleados para contrarrestarla sea necesario su porte y uso.”

            Do you have a brain of your own? Or do you just believe whatever Capriles tell you?

          • While you never said the word “military” you are commenting on a resolution issued by the defense minister that establish, for all intents and purposes, the rules of engagement against the citizens of the country, despite contravening the higher national law established by his government some years past…the constitution thingy. Is there some other Padrino Lopez that, say, works for a police department and is issuing some such resolution? This applies to the military and there’s no dancing around it.

            15.9 says something that shouldn’t ever have to be said, let alone in a resolution from the MoD (you know, the body that oversees the military). Why was this ever necessary? Oh, yeah, San Remo. Something major democracies find abhorrent and abjure as regards their own citizenry. Why is Venezuela different?

            You did say every major democracy does this. I asked you several times to name one. I believe you cannot do so, so instead you seek to walk back your position rather than admit being wrong. Moreover you attempt to cover yourself with insults, which frankly, accomplish nothing aside underlining the weakness of your argument.

            The fact that you cite the government’s position almost verbatim is telling despite persistent declamations that you do not support the government.

            In any event, I am done responding to you. I know you will almost certainly feel compelled to reply, but I have nothing more to say to you on the matter as you seem unable or unwilling to respond civilly.

          • No, that is not what the resolution we are discussing says. It says that lethal force can be used to protect the legally constituted authority from threats against it. This is true for any legally constituted government on the planet. Try to grow a brain and then use it before commenting again.

    • Jesus, Betty, you manipulative shill and apologist for a thugocracy, it’s bad enough that you proved your incompetence in dealing with basic maths and statistics. Now you don’t get the difference between violent force and permission to kill unarmed protesters???

    • Mira Betty, deja de hablar paja.
      Donde yo vivo, una de las democracias mas solidas del mundo, los militares no reprimen protestas, y la policia no le dispara a la gente que protesta pacificamente.
      Por ley, por cada BALA que un policia dispare en cumplimiento de sus funciones, asi haya sido en contra de un perro que lo ataque, se abre una investigacion. Entendiste eso imbecil? Por CADA BALA disparada.
      Ese discursito de mentiras no tiene cabida entre gente que lee. Metete eso en esa cabecita hueca.

      • ” y la policia no le dispara a la gente que protesta pacificamente.”

        Y la oposición no suele a tener protestas pacificas. Cuando son pacificas, la policia no tiene necesidad de usar fuerza letal.

        • Right. They’ve done a heckuva job so far at being judge, jury and executioner, so why not bring in the big guns as well?

      • Mira Carolina, y donde vives tu? Claramente un sitio donde no es costumbre tratar a la gente con amabilidad y respeto. Te puedo decir que vivo en el “primer mundo” y la policia si reprime y dispara a matar, y mata a inocentes, y no paga por ello…hay de todo…en todas partes.

    • I’m just curious Betty: if you look back on the tragectory of your intellectual and political development, was there some point at which you decided that the use of lethal force against protesters as a matter of public policy was defensible? Or have you always been a Tiananmen Square sort of guy on the issue of public order?

      • We aren’t talking about lethal force against peaceful protesters. We are talking about lethal force against violent protesters who killed dozens of people in the guarimbas last year. Go try that in any country in the world and see if the police don’t respond with lethal force.

        • Betty:

          You are either frightfully obtuse, blindly defending the indefensible, or just plain immature. Or maybe all three.

          1. Please name one person that has been found guilty, been arrested or otherwise wanted by “justice” for KILLING people at last years guarimbas. So far, the only ones found guilty of murder belong to SEBIN, the intelligence and political police.

          2. POLICE, definitely are the ones that should control demonstrations and protests.
          THE MILITARY, are neither trained, nor is it their mission to enforce the law during a march, or protest or demonstration.

          3. The Minister of Defence is not legally capable of emitting laws, or decrees, or of changing the Constitution.

          4. The decree authorizes the use of force, in an escalating fashion up to and including deadly force. The last time “lethal” (THAT MEANS DEADLY) force was authorized against the civilian population in Venezuela it led to the Joint Chiefs of Venz, military to ask Hugo Chavez to resign. Which he did.

          5. Most opposition protests are peaceful, until you, Betty La Fea, and your “friends” show up to sabotage them and induce a violent reaction from the police. Or do you think we don’t know what you’re up to?

          • “Please name one person that has been found guilty, been arrested or otherwise wanted by “justice” for KILLING people at last years guarimbas. So far, the only ones found guilty of murder belong to SEBIN, the intelligence and political police.”

            Oh, so if they weren’t found guilty then that means they didn’t kill anyone? I wonder how all those policemen and national guards were killed last year then? And you call me obtuse???

            “2. POLICE, definitely are the ones that should control demonstrations and protests.
            THE MILITARY, are neither trained, nor is it their mission to enforce the law during a march, or protest or demonstration.”

            The police do control demonstrations, unless they become too violent for them to handle. This is the same thing that happens in any country.

            “3. The Minister of Defence is not legally capable of emitting laws, or decrees, or of changing the Constitution.”

            He didn’t. The constitution explicitly says “peaceful protests”. We aren’t talking about that here.

            “The last time “lethal” (THAT MEANS DEADLY) force was authorized against the civilian population in Venezuela it led to the Joint Chiefs of Venz, military to ask Hugo Chavez to resign. Which he did.”

            HAHAHA!!! You still believe this old story? I suppose you think it wasn’t actually a coup too huh?

            “5. Most opposition protests are peaceful, until you, Betty La Fea, and your “friends” show up to sabotage them and induce a violent reaction from the police. Or do you think we don’t know what you’re up to?”

            Yes, last year’s protests started out VERY peaceful with the destruction of the governor’s palace in San Cristobal and throwing rocks at the police.

    • Jesus! Betty (or whoever you are) will you also be cheering when the government starts rounding up dissidents and putting them in “work camps”? Do you really want to see a repeat of the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia here in Venezuela? If that happens, you and others like you will have blood on your hands exactly as if you had pulled the triggers yourselves.

    • Betty didn’t learn the difference between “violent force” and “lethal force” in her school days, Colegios Bolivarianos be damned.

      • And James Hunt apparently doesn’t understand why police in most democracies carry lethal weapons on them. Could it be that they aren’t authorized to use them when necessary??? No, it must just be for show.

    • See, the way sarcasm works -especially if you’re trying to use it to make a point- is that your point has to be painfully obvious and more importantly, not utterly stupid.
      By trying to justify this law through failed sarcasm as something that is universally accepted and practiced in other democracies, you’re displaying a spectacular amount of ignorance and/or insanity.

  6. Venezuela should be expelled of Mercosur because of this, as it’s blatantly violating the democratic clauses that all members should obey to be part of the bloc:

    http://www.mercosur.int/innovaportal/file/2485/1/ushuaia_ii.pdf

    “CONSIDERANDO que la plena vigencia de las instituciones democráticas y el
    respeto de los derechos humanos y de las libertades fundamentales son
    condiciones esenciales para la vigencia y evolución del proceso de integración
    entre las Partes.

    REITERANDO el compromiso con la promoción, defensa y protección del
    orden democrático, del estado de derecho y sus instituciones, de los derechos
    humanos y las libertades fundamentales, como condiciones esenciales e
    indispensables para el desarrollo del proceso de integración y para la
    participación en el MERCOSUR.

    RECORDANDO lo expresado por la Asamblea General y por el Consejo de
    Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas en el sentido que el respeto de los
    derechos humanos y de las libertades fundamentales son elementos
    esenciales de la democracia.”

    • If Mercosur still were (or if it ever was) a credible institution that we should give two shits about, I’d agree with you.

      • What about Mujica? Isn’t him Nobel Peace prize material according to the world left?

        Uruguay is a founding member of Mercosur. Does Mujica, the saint of our times, approve Resolution 8610?

        We must keep the pressure on these folks. To let them get stuck in their hypocrisy trying to explain their reasons to ignore what’s going on in Venezuela.

        At best, they are accomplices in the crime and have blood in their hands.

        • Ah, well, pressuring the current presidents is another matter. I’ll be pleased with the next president we have after chavismo if he makes a constant point of uncomfortably reminding current leaders of everything that happened under chavismo and how all the while everyone was conveniently looking the other way.

    • No, no… dejen a mas gente sacarse la visa del Mercosur para largarse de Venezuela. Para muchos es la única vía de salida legal 🙁

  7. It is hard to see the trees through the forest here- is Generalissimo formally pushing aside Maduro et al? This Directive/Declaracion is coming straight from the Baracks; last spring the government announcements y gobierno portavoz was Maduro/Cabello etc.

      • Sounds like pseudo martial law, yep. You know, the kind of thing a goverment do in extreme cases of chaos and unrest and is supposed to be done for a short time, well, they just moved in that direction before the disorder happening yet and without any plan for it to be temporary.

        • Yes, and it shows some sort of despair too. Because they are saying that they will take the genocide path.

          Emiliana is right that “they just don’t give a shit anymore”, but I believe that countries like the US and the others in the region won’t sit and watch while the military mass murder people.

          It’s a very, very risky choice they are making.

          • That wont occur, because most people will be too afraid to protest much.This is the easiest way for the government to control.Threaten…and people will still be looking for the democratic solution in a country where Democracy at this point in time is impossible.Thinkers needed to be ahead of the game.The opposition has been self destructive from the onset.

          • “Thinkers needed to be ahead of the game.”

            Oh, the advice sounds just wonderful. Maybe you’d like to actually share with us some of your strategic ideas? Even just one will do.

          • i have so many times, i tire…it is tiring to oppose the herd…..and it is useless as long as the majority believe Venezuela is a Democracy or even a potential one as long as this government is in power.And no, I am not speaking of opposition resorting to physical violence…because they are unarmed. If they were armed, I might.I am not against physical violence in moments where it can work and it is necessary but this is not one.

          • I have absolutely no clue what you’re saying and cannot find a thread to your earlier gossamer wrapping. D’you think you could be a little more direct? Just one example will do. Or do you just throw out platitudes, hoping one will apply to the actual situation?

  8. Conspiracy theory behind this Resolution ? Colectivos. Maybe this has to do with future actions by Colectivos, which have said they will not stop demonstrators although they have not said they will support them, So, who knows if armed Colectivos start showing up at demonstrations on demonstrators side and start shooting at government forces , then these will be legally authorized to shoot back. Consequence of chavismo arming the people and now the people going against their ex lod.
    Javier

    • Bingo. This is what I think: this isn’t a message to the ‘Opposition’ but to the “new opposition”. They’re scared of the amount of guns out there, most in the hands of gangs that used to support and do the dirty work; if the money flowing to the colectivos dries up guess who they’ll come after?

    • Amidst all the troll baiting finally an interesting comment!

      Certainly the decree sends a message with multiple destinataries. It presages lots of violence, the lethal kind.

      Having the Colectivos on the side of the protesters would be such a poisonous gift, one that must be rejected, not embraced. With friends like that … it is better to run for the safety of home.

    • “We socialists are the superior race, that’s why we are enabled to do as we please, while you are the slaves that are condemned to squirm under our heels forever until we decide to kill you.”

  9. The truth of the matter is that in the fog of battle violent situations create their own momemtum and cause violence to become uncontrollable so that all rules are forgotten .!! At a point in the confrontation guns are fired in the heat of the moment and neither the law nor any formal superior authority has real control over what happens . The laws that regulate these situations are important but they dont stop people from firing guns or using force which those laws disallow .

    In any event the Ministers attempt at legislating these things is pathetic in that he lacks legal competence to issue rules governing these issues , these guys are so ignorant and so full of self importance that they think thay can do anything regardless of the legal order that govern these things . Its a sign of the country’s institutional breakdown . !!

  10. May El Senor y La Virgencita bless and keep the spirit of true freedom and democracy in Venezuela alive and well in the weeks to come. May those imprisoned for this cause be strengthened and blessed as well.

    For those of you who aren’t religious reading this, I like any better suggestions at this point, on who to request intervention from, to save Venezuela from its sad present self.

    • There are no Gods. No Virgins. No prophets, etc. There is us here, that’s it.

      If you think the lack of people saying “amen” to religious nonsense is the problem, then you are trouble, as in, you are not intellectually above Maduro.

      My suggestion to improve our country is to vote responsibly and stop believing in earthly or heavenly Messiahs. No intervention necessary, just us.

      • Trust me Venezuela needs all the prayers it can get-I spend slot of time in the Caribbean Basin and next to Haiti, Vz is the darkest place there is in the moral ” flow” of things. Life is scary cheap in both places. The only lines longer in Haiti than Vz are for selling your kidney but i am sure Vz will catch up.

        A simple prayer for God’s Graces for Vz doesn’t merit being labeled intellectually below “Maduro” level-I find this a bit insulting. BTW- I am pretty sure there is a very special warm corner downstairs reserved especially for hypocrites like Maduro, Chavez and Castro et al.

        “No intervention necessary, just us.” How’s that been working out so far? I have enjoyed my brief chats here on your blog but some of these religion slams sort of surprise me. Later y’all.

    • Marisol..I am most definitely not religious.I find prayer irresponsible,like using God as a tool..
      To me it is arrogant…unless it is prayer for greater understanding.

      Consciousness and prevention…clarity and determination work better in my opinion….

      you asked

  11. 1. The fact that Arreaza used the term Political Prisoner is one hell of a self inflicted gunshot wound. Why the MUD is not jumping on this is another proof they have no clue how to oppose these jerks.

    2. Plan Avila, which among other things authorizes the Armed Forces to use LETHAL FORCE ( for shills like Betty this means KILL YOU DEAD) is very similar to this resolution. It is the same plan that caused the Generals to “ask” Chavez to resign on that fateful day 11 April. I wonder if some of the same currents are running underneath this resolution.

    Someone posited earlier in the comments whether or not this could be used for cover to fire upon colectivos when the fit hits the shan. It could also simply be that they are worried about a Caracazo type event and want folks to think before they take to the streets.

    The news certainly circulated quickly; I’m sure that it has more than one person thinking about protesting in the near future.

    It also raises the question that if the Minister of Defence does not have the legal authority to emit decrees, and if it then is not considered legal, then what legal “cover” does anyone who shoots a protester with a gun have?

    • I believe this Resolution is not to authorize firing on the Colectivos, which are simply para-military arms of the Govt., but to try and quell the probably inevitable public uprising(s) due to even worse food/consumer staples shortages in the future, possibly even to justify the suspension of upcoming parliamentary elections.

    • “Why the MUD is not jumping on this is another proof they have no clue how to oppose these jerks.”

      They have no *plan to* oppose these jerks.

      Fixed.

  12. Emiliana, I assume that at least implicitly the relatively-untrained “Reservas”, “Milicias”, and “Guardia Del Pueblo” are also allowed to use lethal force under this Resolution, which makes it even more deadly? At the very least, students will now receive real shotgun buckshot on a normal basis (vs. only sporadically up to now), instead of the more usual rubber pellets/marbles. It is far past time that the decent nations of the world, including the US, roundly condemn this Rogue Regime violator of human rights and aider/abettor of a large percentage of the world’s drug trafficking

      • Yes, but are the Reservas, Milicias, and Guardias Del Pueblo included, at least by being under the umbrella, or is this probably still not clear? Anyway, I’m sure the Defensoria, Fiscalia, TSJ if necessary, will uphold the letter of the law, as in, “I shot him as he reached for his cell phone,” or, “He desecrated the name/image/memory of our Great Liberator (HCF),” or, “He/She posted defamatory/seditious comments on an IN Blog”, or….

      • Continue writing fantasy bullshit just prejudices your ilimited credibility Emiliana. The worst scenario is that the security forces will shoot people commiting terrorist acts………….. not peaceful protesters. Is that Ok with you?

      • God, if he exists (I dont think so, but to each his own), may start to get pissed to be bandied about by both sides as a cheap Deus Ex Machina that will fix things, somehow, at some point in time, dont ask me the details…

  13. Well, it was Romulo Betancourt who invented the “disparen primero y averiguen despues”, so really nothing new under the sun other than the sheer lunacy of making it official and publicly endorsed.

  14. remember, almost all of Hitler’s worst, were acts similarly “legalized”.

    They are resorting to the written legullella authority, to bamboozle junior ranks into confusion and hoping to achieve their support when the time comes, and it will, that they have to shoot protesters in the street.

    I think the deterrent effect of potential protesters is a by product of the main intent above.

    Venezuela se aproxima a su Rubicon chavista!

  15. Typically immature inflamtory piece from adolescent Emiliana.

    Phrases such as “declaration of war”; torture in the streets” and so on undermine this peice which is totally misrepresentative of Resolution 8610.

    A balanket statement such as “the military can now shoot protesters” is completely misleading for readers and Emilaina does this with shameless hypocricy.

    Protests are legal in Venezuela and permission to hpld marches needs to be obtained from the local mayor. If the protests are peaceful, then no porblem. If they get out of control then the security forces PNB and GNB – can use rubber bullets and tear gas in line with internationally recognized perameters. No case has been brought against Venezuela for using these methods of control as all countries do the same.

    However, what about ilegal protests; burning tires; destroying property, burning buses; burning health centers, buring universities and murders commited by snipers during the guarimbas? All these things happened and of the 30 people still waiting trial 14 are security or military personnel for overstepping the mark.

    In my book burning vehicles and trying to set public buildings on fire are terrorist acts. Remember when some “students” tried to set a pre-school alight with over 80 minors inside in the Ministry of Housing on the Av. Francisco de Miranda last year? This is TERRORISM dear Emiliana – there is no other word for it. In these cases the GNB shoud use live bullets – that is my opinión – to combat terrorism. But here that will not happen and public force will be limited to gas and perdigones.

    Just to give you a concrete example of what happens in other countries – probably countries that you admire to combat terrorism.

    Operation Flavius (also referred to as the “Gibraltar killings”)[1][2] was a controversial military operation in which three members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) were shot dead by the British Special Air Service (SAS) in Gibraltar on 6 March 1988. The three—Seán Savage, Daniel McCann, and Mairéad Farrell—were believed to be mounting a bombing attack on British military personnel in Gibraltar. SAS soldiers challenged them in the forecourt of a petrol station, then opened fire, killing them. All three were found to be unarmed, and no bomb was discovered in Savage’s car, leading to accusations that the British government had conspired to murder them. An inquest in Gibraltar ruled that the SAS had acted lawfully, while the European Court of Human Rights held that, although there had been no conspiracy, the planning and control of the operation was so flawed as to make the use of lethal force almost inevitable.

    This is how to deal with potential terrorists – no matter who they are, Emiliana and no matter what their cause.

    Best not to meddle in terrorist acts in Venezuela in the future.

    • Arturo, you pompous little toad, you do realise that this decree is a warning shot across the bows of any disgruntled Chavistas maybe planning on venting their spleens? They already have the opposition tagged and bagged. Lets see your sniggering little jabs on this forum when they are mowing down your kith and kin in the streets.

    • Arturo, I´m really curious: when signing up to be an intransigent defender of Chavismo, do you get to pick and choose which topics you’re supposed to dogmatically vindicate, or is it an all-or-nothing kinda deal? Cause being an apologist of repression must be pretty low on the list of available causes. (I think its right down there alongside “informant” and “testaferro´s assistant”.) Kudos for taking one for your team, I guess.. its a shit job, but SOMEONE´S gotta do it, right? I´m sure you´d have no problem spewing your rhetoric to Robert Redman´s mom or Bassil DaCosta´s dad.

      • What about being an apologist for violent protests that have killed dozens of innocent people Emiliana? Someone’s gotta do it right?

        I’m sure you’d have no problem spewing your rhetoric to the families of Gisella Rubilar, José Gregorio Amaris Cantillo, Acner Isaac López Lyón, Giovanni Pantoja, Antonio José Valbuena Morales, Arturo Alexis Martínez, Ramzor Ernesto Bracho Bravo, José Guillén Araque, Adriana Urquiola, Miguel Antonio Parra.

        Or how about the parents of Luis Gutierrez, Deivis Durán, Eduardo Anzola, Elvis Rafael Durán De La Rosa, Doris Elena Lobo, Julio González.

        Who ARE these people Emiliana??? Oh, right, you don’t know any of the names of the people killed by the opposition last year, because you don’t care.

        • Oh no! all these people died because of the opposition!

          My blood is boiling. Please show me the trials that demonstrated the opposition (yes, the opposition!), armed opposition barbarians, killed them. I want to see revolutionary justice punishing these bastards!

          • There are links to news articles about nearly every single victim. Go read for yourself.

            Just because there were not trials convicting people doesn’t mean they weren’t killed by opposition violence. I’m not sure how anyone can be stupid enough to make that argument.

          • “Just because there were not trials convicting people doesn’t mean they weren’t killed by opposition violence. I’m not sure how anyone can be stupid enough to make that argument.”

            The same stupid argument to defend disociado “capo pimentón”.

        • No, Betty, “Not caring” is to use people´s tragic deaths as talking points for argument´s sake. “Not caring” is to assign importance to these victims according to what side they belonged to. “Not caring” is to justify the murder of any citizen at the hands of law enforcement in order to contradict me on principle, or for sport, never mind defending a government that has allowed hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans to be shot dead by common criminals who thrive in this State-sponsored impunity. Human Rights violations are indefensible, period. And if you must know, I know Adriana´s mother. She is still grief stricken. Ever since her daughter and unborn child were shot dead by a man who is still on the lose, every month, she has written letters to the government pleading, begging for justice. Her letter was finally received almost a year later. Because the government does´t care. Just stop, Betty. Seriously, just stop.

          • ‘Not caring’ is to mount a defense of abysmal (and not unusual) practices normally engaged in by rogue states such as Cuba. ‘Not caring’ is to deflect responsibility that the Vz government has for ordering the shootings into unarmed protesting crowds, and if the shootings can take place discretely by motorized goons, so much the better. ‘Not caring’ is to demand sources from others without providing the same courtesy to those wanting verification of irresponsible accusations.

            Finally, ‘not caring’ is to have a strongly perceived mental disorder and not do anything about it.

            Get help, Betty. You come across as a sociopath.

          • “No, Betty, “Not caring” is to use people´s tragic deaths as talking points for argument´s sake. ”

            Uh, is that not precisely what you did when you brought up the deaths of these people in the first place? And, of course, you showed that you “care” by choosing two people from the opposition camp, while ignoring all the other many victims of opposition violence.

            ““Not caring” is to justify the murder of any citizen at the hands of law enforcement ”

            I, along with most of the world, justify the use of lethal force by the government when dealing with violent groups that are a threat to the lives of those around them. You defend the very groups that caused the deaths of dozens of people last year, and think the government should have no right to use lethal force to prevent that.

            “Human Rights violations are indefensible, period. ”

            I agree, but apparently you only see the human rights violations of the other side. When your side kills people you look the other way.

            “Just stop, Betty. Seriously, just stop.”

            Yes, you would be better off if I stopped pointing out your utterly pathetic contradictions, wouldn’t you?

    • If three Venezeulans, open members of an organization whose stated goals was armed struggled against the government and who had committed mass bombings, were planning on bombing a military changing of the guard ceremony, they should be stopped.

      As you well know, this couldn’t be farther from the situation in Venezuela. The typical victim of regime violence, of violence sanctioned by these decrees, is someone like Marvinia Jiménez, a poor seamstress beaten savagely by a GNB member just for taking pictures of others protesting while on her way home. The beating was captured on video, and the GNB member openly bragged about it and how nothing would be done to her. Jimenez was further abused and also humiliated in jail, where she was charged with all kinds of nonsense. Her attackers never faced any charges.

      This is the reality of the regime you work so hard to promote and defend, Jimenez is the kind of person you call a ‘terrorist’.

    • “In my book burning vehicles and trying to set public buildings on fire are terrorist acts.”

      *Note: don’t read this book 27 Feb 1989, 4 Feb 1992, or on dates TBA.

      • Heh, I still remember how the same malandros (or bienandros) who came from the 23 de enero to pluder, burn and destroy everything on their path, used to shoot people in the lines that were formed in the days after the 27 of february.

        But hey, socialist people is all love and all that bullshit.

    • Arturo,

      I am curious to know how do you interpret that resolution. As it doesn’t mention terrorism. It mentions restoring the order.

      I understand there could be a debate over the precedence of the right for free circulation vs the right to protest, but I don’t think there is a debate between the right to live vs any other. The use of lethal weaponry in protest, as it is explicitly said, seems to indicate that “order” takes precedence over “life”.

      I agree with you that burning building (government of otherwise) maybe called terrorism (if it intends to instil terror) or vandalism. Both crimes punishable by law. I don’t think we digress here. But killing people over it, or over burning tires seems excessive.

  16. Every controversial political website is always assigned a government watchdog to monitor and refute comments and exchanges. Usually the watchdog does a much better job of remaining somewhat neutral or almost incognito. Not here. Anyone who could be an apologist for 99% of the Vz government’s behavior in the past year is clearly on someone’s payroll.

  17. Remember the defunct? he promised never to order government forces to shoot civilians.

    He failed to respect his own promise and now these guys do the same.

    Man, I wish there was a hell so could be there.

      • Oh I am so sorry- I wasn’t aware there was censure policy on Caracas Chronicles regarding references to own’s faith or religion. I will try to be more careful next revolution. While I am home stateside for my monthly two weeks, I have enjoyed spending these last two days on this blog, while i file my tax returns,with some truly brilliant people who know and care a lot about Vz. Those of us who used to do business there wish her well, and hope there will be a return to properity someday. Suerte to y’all as we say here in the South-even Companeros Antonio y Alejandro.

  18. You know, all things considered, Latin America is a pretty shitty continent.

    Look at Argentina, it’s pathetic how the Argentines have let themselves been fooled by Peronismo for more than half a century.

    Mexico is being defeated by drug pushers.

    Brazil, the supposed leader of the pack, it’s only to eager to lend a hand to help dictators, if they buy Brazilian.

    In Venezuela life is so abnormal, I truly think brains are evolving backwards.

    The continent establishes a common market and a diplomatic organisation, both end up as clubs to keep presidents in power as long as possible.

    No science, dismal education, violence, crime, corruption. It’s bloody pathetic.

    And the people always happy, ready to vote for the next arsehole.

    • Somebody once said that idiots were the most dangerous group in any democracy, because they were allowed to vote.

      Latin America’s education has been plagued with worship for dictators and megalomaniacs for a long time, that helped a lot on the rise of all sorts of bloody dictatorships from time to time, while also seeking to keep the education level of the people as low as possible to manipulate potential voters easily.

      kirchner, the wax doll, Nicaragua’s pedo rapist and peña nieto are proof that a turd can be sold to anybody here if you know how to sell it.

  19. I’ll tell you all what I see. This Betty is pretty smart, and has valid points. The oppo folks lost their temper way before she did, and not because they were morally shocked or anything like that, or because she was saying anything atrocious. She was sustaining a good conversation and wasn’t falling into traps. For example, she never said that other democracies call for military intervention to suppress protesters. Yet the oppo folks are demanding that she provide examples of something she never said. I mean, read the whole thread. Betty’s line of thought is at its weakest when she tries to validate the use of lethal force if the protests are violent. She wants to make a very straightforward differentiation between “pacific” and “violent” when in reality it’s all gray. So she loses that part of the argument. But, oppo folks, drink some tea and calm down, and nail her down on that, stop it with the self righteous talk.

    • Yeah, Betty was brilliant. Now I am totally convinced a government is right to kill its own citizens.

      I mean, Betty explained why CAP was right to massacre people on 1989, and she also (finally) clarified that is was totally right for Betancourt to repress at will. That is what democracies do!

      Nothing more natural than a defence minister to decree lethal force is actually ok… That IS democracy.

      The constitution? Betty should be magistrate, she understands it better than anyone here, except you Nelly, you are so brilliant my Ipad is overheating.

      Have you ever heard of multiple personality disorder?

      • “Now I am totally convinced a government is right to kill its own citizens.”

        Uh, every government on the planet has this right. Are you not aware why it is that police officers carry lethal weapons with them???

        “Nothing more natural than a defence minister to decree lethal force is actually ok… That IS democracy.”

        It is ok under certain circumstances. Everyone with any sized brain knows this.

        “The constitution? Betty should be magistrate, she understands it better than anyone here, except you Nelly, you are so brilliant my Ipad is overheating.”

        The constitution places restrictions on force against PEACEFUL protests. It says nothing about violent protests.

        “Have you ever heard of multiple personality disorder?”

        Have you ever thought about growing a brain and making a coherent argument?

  20. Betty, you are so correct. EVERY government has the right to kill its own citizens. That is actually the reason, the very reason, police has guns. To kill civilians.

    Everybody knows that, duh!

    yeah, its reasonable to decree lethal force is ok. I would even say it’s the thing to do in case of doubt. My brain is telling me lethal force is the intelligent solution.

    The use of lethal force against civilians is squarely the legal prerogative of an army general to decree in a solid democracy. Generals do it everywhere, that is well known.

    The constitution totally suggests what you say: you throw a rock, the government MUST kill you. You burn a tyre? death penalty. Otherwise it would be chaos, CHAOS I say.

    Betty my dear, the University I work for is recruiting political science professors. Send me your CV, because they will be dying to hire you.

    • Everyone should take note of this epic response. THIS is how you respond to stupid asshats like Arturo and Betty. I would buy tickets to see a live debate with those two morons pitted against anyone and see their faces as they are humiliated. “Every govnt has the right to kill its own citizens”. Lord almighty, someone get her a ward at Arkham pronto…

      • Well if the event were to take place en Vz , we could stand on a long line to buy the tickets. Probably even overnite if we were lucky.

        I am really going to miss this when my taxes are done.

      • “Every govnt has the right to kill its own citizens”

        Of course they do, if those citizens are a threat to the lives of others. Why did you think the police carry firearms?

    • Pssst, Alejandro, please make sure Betty’s CV gets channeled to a sub-department that thrives on combativeness (or as “Nelly” puts it: “sustaining a good conversation”), on ad hominems (or as “Nelly” puts it: the “self-righteous talk” of the opposition), and on a ban that forbids numbers or statistics for which Betty has proven to have no training. Perhaps Continuing Education through the Student Union?

      Also, would you please share with us Betty’s alma mater? She’s so “pretty smart” that I want to recommend to others the skool from which she graduated.

    • “That is actually the reason, the very reason, police has guns. To kill civilians.”

      Uhhh, what did you think those guns were for? For cleaning their teeth? They are used to kill people who are a threat to others. If violent protesters are a threat to others (like last year when they killed 42 people) then the police has every right to use force to kill those who are a threat to the lives of others. This is extremely basic common knowledge.

      “The use of lethal force against civilians is squarely the legal prerogative of an army general to decree in a solid democracy.”

      If those civilians are using violent force in an attempt to overthrow the government, that is entirely within the bounds of a democracy. Do you think the United States government would allow a violent group to overthrow the government without using lethal force to stop them? Are you a complete idiot?

      “The constitution totally suggests what you say: you throw a rock, the government MUST kill you. You burn a tyre? death penalty. Otherwise it would be chaos, CHAOS I say.”

      No, that is not what it says, nor is that what the resolution we are discussing says. It says that lethal force can be used to protect the legally constituted authority from threats against it. Try to grow a brain and then use it before commenting again.

  21. The main reason why any government panics is the thought of politicians and bureaucrats losing their salaries, pensions, other benefits, perquisites and access to the public trough. The military and the police are bureaucrats with guns. Any regime hangs on to power till the entire system fails and the sustaining structure collapses. Power changes hands peacefully in the USA, the UK and some other democracies because the different political parties all feed at the same public trough: in actuality, they agree behind the scenes to stage partisan battles in order to make the great unwashed think democracy is real.

    Right now, all nation states are heading toward economic collapse. Their solution is to steal private savings, which they do in different ways, whether by hiking taxes, by seizing private property, by regulating the marketplace to death or by running up governmental deficits that lead to continual borrowing and continually growing sovereign debt. No government intends to repay its sovereign debt, specially as under the worldwide fiat monetary regime budgetary deficits entail the creation of new money in the form of debt that grows at interest and thus outpaces any government’s ability to collect enough taxes without thwarting the private sector’s capacity to generate taxable income.

    No government is going to tell the great unwashed that the system is bound to fail. Venezuela happens to be at the sharp edge of the worldwide blow-up, and the desperation of its leaders is clearer than in other nation states, but it’s a matter of competence and style. Venezuela’s parasitic leaders are less competent than, say, the military bureaucrats who rule Thailand and are frightened to death of what will happen when the king buys the farm. At least Thailand’s thugs haven’t yet destroyed the economy. In Europe, things keep getting worse. The new leaders of Greece are fools if they cling to the euro and agree to repay more than a tiny fraction of sovereign debt. Next comes Italy, then Spain. In general the European welfare state is dead.

  22. It’s humorous how all the communists come on here and justify the military using lethal force on protestors while worrying about mobs burning tires and throwing rocks. How very burgeois of them.

  23. “¡Prohibido asesinar, el chavismo no acepta competencia!” “Killing is forbidden, chavismo accepts no competition!”

    “Esto está bien porque NOSOTROS LO HACEMOS” “This is fine because WE ARE DOING IT”
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qzxi0Y2oYgA/SdaYpGmE-AI/AAAAAAAALfs/xo3-fSZOdgY/s400/puente+llaguno.jpg

    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQobeml6Xt31o7V2t2yaLP5nNW_UyUJ61j4j_B3a4nyY1grVdyBQ

    “¡Pero sí podemos usar a cualquier muerto para hacer chow político del más manipulador y barriobajero!” “But WE CAN use any corpse to make a politic show, the most manipulating and brainless way!”
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/By9Ttd0IMAAhSWE.jpg

    • This stuff I just posted is but a tiny figment of the nausea-inducing hypocrisy the chavistas have, they think they have the right to kill every non-chavista person, while condemning and endlessly whinking about anything done to them decades ago (They even go as far as to make up stuff).

      Trolls like beto, artrucho and the other one remind me a lot of that guy who had some IQ-killing show in vtv which was a lot like disociado’s current difamation platform.

      • I’m strongly in favour of this new policy, personally. Traitors and threats to public order need to be wiped out, just like you’d wipe out the cockroaches in your house.

Leave a Reply