PDA

View Full Version : Chavez to propose constitutional reforms


Achilles
08-15-2007, 07:40 PM
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_constitutional_reform)
CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez was presenting his blueprint Wednesday for sweeping constitutional changes expected to allow him to be re-elected indefinitely, a move his critics call a threat to democracy. Oh goodness. Watch out.

Totenkopf
08-16-2007, 01:22 AM
Well, the question is now whether he can pull it off w/o some type of fraud. Either way, if he succeeds, the only pertinent question will be what he plans to do about "his" oil. I already saw that he's predicting $150/bl in the near future. Makes you wonder what he might be planning.....

Jae Onasi
08-16-2007, 01:52 AM
Well, he's pretty much a dictator already. He takes whatever he wants and suppresses anyone who disagrees with him.

Totenkopf
08-16-2007, 02:04 AM
So...anyone want to place bets on when/if the Roosevelt Corollary kicks in...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary

Arcesious
08-16-2007, 02:06 AM
Why hasn't the U.s sent some nice little assassins to kill that power-hungry idiot yet?! uggg... tha guy is so annoying. hopefully someone will put him in his place.

Jae Onasi
08-16-2007, 02:25 AM
Because it's against US law to assassinate world leaders.

Totenkopf
08-16-2007, 02:45 AM
At least "officially".....can't leave a paper trail that would be incriminating. Blackwater to the rescue, perhaps?

Web Rider
08-16-2007, 03:30 AM
Not that this was really surprising or anything. Still, it's kinda sad. it would have been nice if at least ONE leader who tried to establish that sort of setup actually had good intentions behind it.

Allronix
08-16-2007, 04:02 AM
Well, the CIA tried to out him once. Unfortunately for them, he not only got restored in a counter-coup, but came out looking like a martyr. Look, even I'll say he's nuts, but it's frankly not our damn business to go topping other people's government. Look at Iraq

Achilles
08-16-2007, 06:44 AM
Because it's against US law to assassinate world leaders. "Executive order" is not the same thing as "law".
In order to understand the nature and scope of the U.S. Federal ban on assassinations and the degree to which it restricts the military options of the President, it is necessary to examine the circumstances of its origin. Reading the language of the rule—now in effect as Executive Order 12333—one could easily conclude that it prevents the United States from employing deadly force against foreign leaders. However, a legal and historical analysis of this document suggests that it is far less prohibitive than it might at first appear. It fails to actually bar state-sponsored assassination for two major reasons. First, in recent years the Order has been interpreted to allow the types of attacks against foreign leaders that the United States has typically favored. Second, an executive order does not have the force and immutability of law, and is subject to change by the President. As a result, Executive Order 12333 is not an effective legal obstacle to assassination, but rather is only a visible symbol of policy and a mechanism to ensure that the authority to initiate an assassination attempt resides with the President alone.

Source:AMERICAN LAW AND POLICY ON ASSASSINATIONS OF FOREIGN LEADERS: THE PRACTICALITY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO (http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_FMS.htm) Emphasis mine.

More (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333) On Executive Order 12333.

Pho3nix
08-16-2007, 09:16 AM
Why hasn't the U.s sent some nice little assassins to kill that power-hungry idiot yet?!

Name one politician who isn't a power hungry idiot.

Jae Onasi
08-16-2007, 12:28 PM
"Executive order" is not the same thing as "law".


My mistake.

SilentScope001
08-16-2007, 01:39 PM
Name one politician who isn't a power hungry idiot.

Sulla, the first Roman "Consul For Life", who took the job to rebuild Rome after its destruction by Marius, and resigned his position after 2 years once he reformed the Senate to make sure people like Sulla don't seize power via military coups.

He was neither power-hungry, nor was he an idiot.

*runs*

Web Rider
08-16-2007, 01:52 PM
Name one politician who isn't a power hungry idiot.

I give credit to quite a few politicians who aren't power hungry, and you average power-hungry person is NOT an idiot, it's contrary to the goal of being power hungry.

Arcesious
08-16-2007, 02:40 PM
If the Russians, Europeans, and Americans would all ally together as one single governement, then no one would have to worry about any of the other 'rogue countries' that threaten the world's 3 most powerful nations. With russian and American weaponry together, and Europe's technological advnacement, those three countries would make an excellent new world superpower, and could put people like Huge Chavez back in line.

Edit: it would be nice to have Japan's thriving technological boosts on our side too now that i thinmk about it. maybe a few other countries too.)

Achilles
08-16-2007, 04:35 PM
If the Russians, Europeans, and Americans would all ally together as one single governement, then no one would have to worry about any of the other 'rogue countries' that threaten the world's 3 most powerful nations. With russian and American weaponry together, and Europe's technological advnacement, those three countries would make an excellent new world superpower, and could put people like Huge Chavez back in line.

Edit: it would be nice to have Japan's thriving technological boosts on our side too now that i thinmk about it. maybe a few other countries too.)Maybe we could call it "United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)" or something like that :xp:

Arcesious
08-16-2007, 05:14 PM
I mwean tto say could ally together- not would ally together.

But the united nations already exists in europe- the U.N.

Maybe it could be called the International Union

Achilles
08-16-2007, 05:19 PM
I mwean tto say could ally together- not would ally together. Not sure I follow.

But the united nations already exists in europe- the U.N. Actually, the U.N. has over 190 member nations (not just in Europe :)). Are you thinking of the E.U. (European Union)?

Maybe it could be called the International Union I've heard "League of Nations" is hip again :xp:

Arcesious
08-16-2007, 05:23 PM
All i really care about is when somebody will finally decide to assinate hugo chavez.

mimartin
08-16-2007, 05:24 PM
I've heard "League of Nations" is hip again :xp:

As you know the League of Nations did a real good job of preserving the peace. ;)

I think I'd rather go with the “Justice League”.

Achilles
08-16-2007, 05:27 PM
So that he can achieve martyrdom amongst his radical followers? So that we can further bolster our international image as imperialist bullies? So that we can finally deplete any shred of international goodwill that might extend to the U.S.?

Surely there are better alternatives.

Arcesious
08-16-2007, 05:27 PM
Oh no... you guys haven't been watching those superhero cartoons again have you...? :smash:

But then again, an international Union sort of thing could cause humanity to destroy itself if you really think of the problems it would cause...

Achilles
08-16-2007, 05:30 PM
But then again, an international Union sort of thing could cause humanity to destroy itself if you really think of the problems it would cause... Err...it already exists, man.

What sort of self-destructive problems do you foresee?

Arcesious
08-16-2007, 07:14 PM
I meant a union of all nations accross th entire world being one, single nation.

Problems i forsee:

Trade disputes due to the fac t that if all nations ar eone, there ar eno befits for gaining incoem from the trade to the people trading.

Many 'we need this' and 'we need you to support this' problems amount everyone. a single government controlling the world would be a great economic stress.

and many more problems... such as rewriting laws and treaties and constitutional rights... etc, etc. the world would be huge a mess for about a decade or half a century before it gets organized with this sort of setup.

Fore xample:
world hunger would be hard for one government to fix.
Religious confilictions due to changing of laws that would be put into effect everywhere.
Civil war over exchanging of territory between countries originally hostile to each other in the past...
military funding would get sooooo mixed up.
Medical funding from one governement to the entire world problems...
Scientific advnacement would likely be halted dramtically to resort economic complete reconstructing...
and numerous other problems...

The onyl way to fix the world economy under a single world governemtnet would be to recall all courrecn accross the globe, instill a time when all currency transaction is frozen, and to print or crete a brand new internatioanl currency, and also, complete restarting from day one for every buisness accross th entire world, including free enterprises. Also, ther would need to be comeplete reestimation of currecny use to equalize economy for everyone. All that would take forever.

Achilles
08-16-2007, 07:35 PM
I meant a union of all nations accross th entire world being one, single nation. Oh, well we're a long ways off from that.

Trade disputes due to the fac t that if all nations ar eone, there ar eno befits for gaining incoem from the trade to the people trading. Actually free trade would be a good thing. Tariffs usually go to the government anyways, so maintaining them would be pointless in this scenario.

Many 'we need this' and 'we need you to support this' problems amount everyone. a single government controlling the world would be a great economic stress. Again, not really. A single, standardized system of trade would eliminate problems, not increase them.

and many more problems... such as rewriting laws and treaties and constitutional rights... etc, etc. the world would be huge a mess for about a decade or half a century before it gets organized with this sort of setup. Well yeah, but the U.N. has already paved the way in many respects. Nations that don't recognize human rights are going to balk at having to revise their policies, but I don't think that this is strictly a "unified govenment" issue.

world hunger would be hard for one government to fix. Why? My understanding is that most famine is exacerbated by differences between governments, not eliminated.
Religious confilictions due to changing of laws that would be put into effect everywhere. Clearly sectarian states will not want to become secular and vice versa. This isn't any different that what we see around us today or have seen for the last 1000+ years.
Civil war over exchanging of territory between countries originally hostile to each other in the past... Yep, in-fighting to resovle old feuds would probably be an issue. Don't see much getting around that one...unless we could negotiate a solution before hand.
military funding would get sooooo mixed up. Please explain.
Medical funding from one governement to the entire world problems... Too ambiguous. This would depend a great deal on what kind of medical system was adopted. No doubt a problem, but I don't see how isolated resources via separate governments is a better scenario.
Scientific advnacement would likely be halted dramtically to resort economic complete reconstructing... Why?

The onyl way to fix the world economy under a single world governemtnet would be to recall all courrecn accross the globe, instill a time when all currency transaction is frozen, and to print or crete a brand new internatioanl currency, and also, complete restarting from day one for every buisness accross th entire world, including free enterprises. Also, ther would need to be comeplete reestimation of currecny use to equalize economy for everyone. All that would take forever. Hmm...the colonies did it when the federal treasury was formed. Europe was able to do it with the euro. Difficult sure, but not impossible. Besides, cost of living is cost of living no matter what currency you use.

Darth InSidious
08-16-2007, 08:30 PM
@SS: You gotta be kidding. Sulla was responsible for massed murders of any and all political opponents.

@topic: Interestingly, this comes just a couple of weeks after Chavez called Honduran Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga an 'imperialist clown' for criticising what he perceived to be increasing authoritarianism in Chavez' government...it seems the Cardinal was right. A pity, but not surprising news.

Achilles
08-16-2007, 08:36 PM
A pity, but not surprising news. Indeed. I doubt there are very many that didn't see something like this coming.

Totenkopf
08-17-2007, 04:39 AM
Well, what can anyone expect from a man who's trying to become the next Castro? It would only be a surprise if he actually liberalized his government and loosened his grip on the reins of power.

Maybe we could call it "United Nations" or something like that :xp:

Dunno, maybe the UN should even have to give up it's claim to that name in the interests of "truth in advertising". perhaps the Disunited Nations or the Selectively United Nations.... :xp:

Darth InSidious
08-17-2007, 01:57 PM
Perhaps an appropriate name might be 'Look, America is paying the most for this enormous white elephant, now fall into line or we stop paying for your pointless-but-immensely-lucrative sinecures'? :xp:

Totenkopf
08-17-2007, 02:26 PM
Well, we did w/hold $$ once, but it doesn't seemed to have done much good in the long run. Perhaps they could move the UN to Davos or Brussels. If America actually left the UN, I doubt it would take long for it to fall apart. Wouldn't take too much to make it more irrelevant than it already is anyway.

SilentScope001
08-17-2007, 03:19 PM
@SS: You gotta be kidding. Sulla was responsible for massed murders of any and all political opponents.

DI: But he did it all for the Roman Senate! He may be a bad violator of Human Rights (as, say, the rest of the Roman Republic), but he did not do it for Power, and he was not an idiot. He did it all to safeguard Rome.

Hey, at least I like arguing about the state of the Roman Senate than I do about Veneuzala. ;)

Darth InSidious
08-17-2007, 07:15 PM
@SS: He did kill a lot of people he simply didn't like or opposed him. He also didn't give much of a damn about international relations, and Chrysogonus, who was bound up in the case of Sextus Roscius (excellent speech by Cicero - much better than his later waffle) was one of his henchmen. He appropriate property, IIRC, for no good reason, and held Rome in a grip of terror. Please understand, this is all from (rather dusty) memory...

Also, wasn't Marius a dictator? Or did he draw the line at seven (eight?) consulates?

SilentScope001
08-18-2007, 01:34 AM
@SS: He did kill a lot of people he simply didn't like or opposed him. He also didn't give much of a damn about international relations, and Chrysogonus, who was bound up in the case of Sextus Roscius (excellent speech by Cicero - much better than his later waffle) was one of his henchmen. He appropriate property, IIRC, for no good reason, and held Rome in a grip of terror. Please understand, this is all from (rather dusty) memory...

Also, wasn't Marius a dictator? Or did he draw the line at seven (eight?) consulates?

Ah, I can see. Now that my memory is getting, ahem, not that dusty, I can understand that Sulla was alleged to do stuff that wasn't that...um...savoury.

However, Sulla did all that because of Marius, who was probraly much more a dictator. Mostly Sulla wanted to protect the power of the traditional Roman Senate, because it offers a sort of stability, rather than Marius and his armed forces, who could easily seize control over Rome just by marching inside and taking over. It's quite understandable to decide not to go and fight a war against an barbarian king when the Roman Senate, taken over by Marius' goons, declared Sulla a traitor and called for his execution.

Sulla's actions did cause a regin of terror, but I personally believe that it was all done to crack down on Marius' followers, and to protect the Roman Senate's Oligarch faction. The main argument I have that Sulla is not that evil is the fact that after 2 years of gaining the Consul for Life title, he resigned to his estate and gave up all power. That's not something a power-hungry person would do.

To each their own though. This is what I love about history.

Darth InSidious
08-20-2007, 06:43 PM
That is a difficult supposition to prove. It does not take a ten-year reign of terror in which no-one was safe to purge one man's cronies. And anyone who put their head above the parapet got dealt with in a terminal manner...

Fredi
08-20-2007, 06:56 PM
Yeah yeah talk bad about him but the thing is that dude really knows how to govern, military tactics (he is a general) and how to control their economy.... the only thing I don’t like is that he is messing too much with Colombia. He thinks that he is Bolivar, he wants to unite Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador together again like Bolivar did.

Darth InSidious
08-20-2007, 07:25 PM
Other leaders in the past century have had similar accolades granted them while they acquired power for themselves, too...

SilentScope001
08-20-2007, 10:50 PM
That is a difficult supposition to prove. It does not take a ten-year reign of terror in which no-one was safe to purge one man's cronies. And anyone who put their head above the parapet got dealt with in a terminal manner...

Sulla stayed as dictator for 3 years, so his regin of terror was in fact 3 years. The regin of terror he did might be condemned, but it is also noted that his opponent, Marius, also pulled off a reign of terror, killing off all his enemies as well.

Sulla did do the proscriptions for one reason, to pay the troops. Once the person is killed off, the property can be seized and used to pay the troops. Many people in the Roman army were poor volunteers who joined up in order to get paid and get a job. If they don't have any money, they'll dessert, or worse, betray their commanders. So, the proscriptions were necessary to keep Sulla in power.

Please note that Marius also used the same idea too...recruiting poor men and promising them lots of money to do so, and also purged his own enemies of the state. It is a civil war, where people kill off other people. So, in the end, Sulla wanted to peserve the Republic, and protect it from what he saw as those who wish to undermine the Republic and threaten the traditional order.

And to showcase his reforms that Sulla did, here's a quote from this website: http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/sulla.html

After the damaging conflicts with the Gracchi brothers and their infamous use of other assemblies, the senate was now reaffirmed as the highest body, entitled to veto any decision reached by another assembly.The power held by the Tribunes of the People was virtually abolished, as they now no longer possessed the power to challenge the senate.
Membership to the senate was roughly doubled, many equestrians and magistrates of other cities being added to their ranks.
Further he introduced a law by which any new member to be admitted to the senate had at least to have held the position of quaestor beforehand. This was no doubt to assure the senate remained a body of political and administrative experience.
Also, in order to prevent the re-emergence of serial office holders like the Gracchi, Sulla restored the ten year waiting period before one could hold the same public office a second time.
Additional to this, perhaps to prevent any meteoric rise to power by people like the Gracchi brothers, he introduced a rule by which anyone holding office would have to wait at least two years before he could be nominated for the next higher office.

Sulla also instituted legal reforms, which created new courts for particular types of crime. Also his reforms highlighted between civil and criminal legal procedures. Here, too, the senate found its authority strengthened, as Sulla's reforms allowed only senior senators to sit as judges.

Darth InSidious
08-21-2007, 05:47 PM
I could have sworn it was ten years...my memory is playing tricks on me, evidently. Fair enough, I bow to your more recent investigation of the subject.