home

Freedom of Speech? Depends What You Say

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 03:32:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In the new apple of the Left leaning eye, Bolivia, a black mark is given to left wing Bolivian President Evo Morales' professed commitment to progressive views. A Cuban dissident's criticism of Bolivia's close ties to Castro is met with a deportation order by the Bolivian government:

The Bolivian government has announced plans to deport a prominent Cuban dissident who publicly criticized President Evo Morales' close ties to Havana. Dr. Amauris Samartino, a Cuban who holds permanent residence status in Bolivia, will be expelled under a 1996 law forbidding immigrants to ''intervene in any form in internal politics or incite by any means the alteration of the social and political order,'' according to a government statement on Sunday. Samartino was arrested Saturday in the eastern city of Santa Cruz, a center of anti-Morales opposition, and later transferred to the Bolivian capital of La Paz. He will be flown home to Cuba once his case has been processed, the statement said.

Flown back to Cuba? Well, so much for the freedom loving Bolivian government. This is disgraceful.

< Christmas in Prison | "One DOJ" : Another Wall Crumbles >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Freedom of Speech? Depends What You Say | 69 comments (69 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#1)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 03:56:50 PM EST
    Since Morales took office a year ago Castro has sent more than 1,500 Cuban doctors to provide urgently needed medical services in South America's poorest country.

    Samartino has helped some of those doctors flee to neighboring Brazil or the United States.

    Sounds like a bit more than speaking out. Sounds like he was actively undermining a government program.

    Who pays him?

    Say what? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 04:45:55 PM EST
    You mean he helps doctors escape from political repression? Who does he work for is your question?

    Are you for real?

    I love it, proving my point, there is always a ready excuse for LEFT wing repression in some circles.  

    Parent

    Right on (none / 0) (#29)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 10:02:46 PM EST
    BTD, you are right on target.

    First, this type of retaliation for what should be protected speech should be pointed out and criticized. There is no circumstance in which such a broad prohibition on speech would be justified. I don't know whether Bolivia is supposed to be something special or not, but I do know that such actions should be criticized wherever they are found.

    Second, those who think that US citizens shouldn't point out human rights violations when we see them suffer from some really screwed up logic. A human rights violation is a human rights violation no matter who points it out. In other words, it doesn't stop being a human rights violation when Republicans are looking at it. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a refresher in basic logic and probably in ethics, too.

    Third, what's this about TalkLeft practicing a "particularly odd version of" free speech? Setting aside the fact that, as Jeralyn's space and property, commenters have no right to free speech here at all, I haven't noticed Jeralyn or any of the other frontpage posters going around with a banning stick. So, what gives?

    Parent

    well then gabriel, you're oblivious (none / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 10:59:01 PM EST
    note that i wasn't castigating jeralyn. i pointed out that it's her site, to do with as she pleases, or not. nothing like missing the flagrantly obvious.

    that said, she does delete posts, and ban posters, who don't conform. geez, it's right in her notes. also, i'm not sure if anyone other than she can delete/ban.

    does she have a right to do so? absof*inglutely she does, it's her playpen. to her credit, she uses a stilleto, vs a cudgel. in many cases, the deleted items/banned posters contribute nothing to the discussion; they fail the "germaine" test. nonetheless, it would be considered a repression of "free speech".

    there, does that make it clearer for you?

    btw, merry christmas! :)

    Parent

    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#38)
    by LarryE on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 04:27:36 AM EST
    does she have a right to do so? ... it's her playpen. ... nonetheless, it would be considered a repression of "free speech".

    Okay, but you did put "champions of free speech" in quotes and describe the site as holding to a version of free speech that is "odd," "a tad hypocritical," and "repression of critical speech." You shouldn't have trouble understanding the reaction.

    As for me, I wrote some time ago in a different context that "I have no patience with those who wave the banner of 'free speech' as an excuse to be freed from all restraints of common courtesy and rational argument." I still think that way.

    Parent

    Yeah, that's better. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:08:23 AM EST
    I see where I got confused before. I originally took you to be saying these two things which seem to be mutually exclusive:

    (1) TL has a right to ban whatever speech she wants in her online space.
    (2) TL represses the right to free speech.

    But that's not what you were saying at all. You were agreeing with (1) and then noting that:
    (2) TL represses speech, something that a free speech advocate should probably not do.

    My mistake was assuming that free speech does not exist where there is no right to it. What I didn't realize was that you are asking TL to create a "free speech zone" (if you will) even though she doesn't have to.

    Parent

    Oh, yeah, (none / 0) (#48)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:12:02 AM EST
    And Merry Christmas, cpinva.

    Er, just to keep this comment sorta on topic: how ironic would it be were I to be chastized for this comment in this particular thread because it is not really on topic?

    Parent

    funny thing (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 04:02:17 PM EST
    about how many people are "champions of free speech", anywhere but where they happen to be. i note many web sites, this one included, who practice that particularly odd version of it.

    yes, it is their site/country/tv/radio station, but it does strike me as just a tad hypocritical to decry other's repression of critical speech, while doing the very same at home.

    just an observation. :)

    When I am President of a country (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 04:44:42 PM EST
    and repress free speeech, your pointwill be well taken.

    You see, it is MY criticism here, not anyone else's.

    But your point is delivered, it is ok for Bolivia because someone else does the same thing right?

    I have heard this song before. The defense of Castro is premised on this "logic."

    Parent

    it was clear to at least one person (none / 0) (#35)
    by Stewieeeee on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 03:56:54 AM EST
    the point was that it's not ok in either venue.


    Parent
    Good point cpinva (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    I tried to say that also but it would have involved too many asterisks.

    Stop the infighting right now kids (none / 0) (#6)
    by koshembos on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 05:20:12 PM EST
    Bolivia is wrong to expel someone for free speech. Note the expulsion isn't due to aiding fleeing physicians.

    Big Tent is wrong for hindering free speech. "You see, it is MY criticism here, not anyone else's," is wrong. We either are for free speech or we are not; no half pregnancy is possible.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 05:21:09 PM EST
    I hindered free speech how?

    Parent
    Big Tent - Well, you see, it works like this. (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:08:45 PM EST
    When Germany was aiding the Right in Spain, Stalin's fans were fighting the Right. When Stalin and Hitler signed a treaty....

    Well, things haven't changed much in 70 years, have they??

    Leftist governments can never stand criticism. Their actions are always for the "greater good."

    BTW - I take it back. You may actually be a Liberal Democrat.

    Sad (none / 0) (#9)
    by roger on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:26:29 PM EST
    That people only care about THEIR "free speech".

    Agreed (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:40:47 PM EST
    Bolivia is wrong to expel someone for free speech.

    Somehow I just don't feel we are getting the full story. That's a side effect of blogging.

    You see, it is MY criticism here, not anyone else's.

    I grok that.  But IMHO it seems rather hypocritical for US citizens to criticize another country for rights violations while our government is systematically stripping us of those same rights.

    Could we have a factual example??? (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:58:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 07:16:58 PM EST
    You've been given factual examples hundreds of times. Or more. Need more to ignore? Read the archives.

    Parent
    Come on squeaky. (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 07:24:02 PM EST
    Help an old man out. Just give me a name of a man who has been expelled for speaking against the government??

    Parent
    How about? (none / 0) (#14)
    by cjkinsey on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 07:35:45 PM EST
    Lennon, Padilla, and Khaled El-Masri. Here is the link in case you say, who?
    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/01/1456214&mode=thread&tid=25

    http://iamnotsosure.blogspot.com/

    Parent

    Who knew (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 08:13:55 PM EST
    Lennon was expelled??

    Who knew? I thought he was shot in NY.

    Padilla was expelled? I thought he is waiting trial.

    Who knew?

    el-Masri was expelled? From where? And was he a US citizen? And he was in the US, legally?

    Who knew?

    Parent

    Samartino from Bolivia. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 08:19:39 PM EST
    You know, Jim. The subject of the topic of this thread. Try to concentrate. Rub your temple. Squint like dubya. Frown and pretend you're thinking. You can get this.

    Can't you?

    Parent

    Brace up and get in the game. (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 08:33:00 PM EST
    Well, it appears that you don't know.

    The subject is the guy getting kicked out from Boliva for what he has said.

    Big Tent thought that wrong. I do too.  Several members of the audience wanted a strawman to prop uo their defense of this dictatorship of the Left.

    Won't work, as I pointed out in my comments re the Spainish Civil War (you may have heard of it) and how the Left switched sides.

    When squeaky tried to change the subject, I asked for examples. He refused because he couldn't.

    Then we had more strawmen... Lennon was never expelled. In fact he was rich and famous, and lived a life of luxury despite what the government may have thought of him. You understand the difference between "thought of" and "expelled" don't you?

    Padilla was arrested and detained for what he supposedly did. Not what he said. You understand the difference don't you??

    The German guy supposedly was ill treated by the CIA. If true, he has my sympathies. But he wasn't in the US and he wasn't a citizen and he wasn't expelled.

    You do understand the difference, don't you?

    You know, when the Left is caught out they squeal like a pig under the gate. Brace up, buckeroo and admit you have a dictator in Boliva, Cuba and Venezula.

    And get in the game.

    Parent

    Thanks.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 08:43:59 PM EST
    Help an old man out here. Give us a link to squeakys' comment.

    Parent
    Gasp (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 09:13:01 PM EST
    I have insulted both of you??

    Double dip!!

    ;-)

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 09:24:45 PM EST
    Careful you don't fall yourself backpedaling that fast. You have no net.

    Parent
    It's a win win when a mistake works! (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 09:29:51 PM EST
    Besides, I can't tell you apart.

    Parent
    Yeah, well... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 09:35:55 PM EST
    I'm not surprised...

    Parent
    Hold on (none / 0) (#34)
    by LarryE on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 03:54:02 AM EST
    The subject is the guy getting kicked out from Boliva for what he has said.

    Uh, no, it's not or at least it shouldn't be. The article does not actually say what the charge is. AP cites the law being used, but while it does its best to imply it, the item doesn't actually say that it's what Samartino said that resulted in the expulsion order. Maybe it was, but maybe it wasn't: The "oh, yeah, he also helped Cubans flee to other countries," which AP tosses in as an after-the-fact closer, may have had something to do with it, considering that the Spanish language press has noted that the government moved to strip Samartino of his permanent resident status back in September, not long after he admitted helping two of those Cuban doctors hide out until they could get asylum.

    I don't know if that would make any difference to people here, even though many governments put restrictions on the political activities of non-citizens and regard evading or helping others to evade travel restrictions as a crime. (The US has arrested people on precisely that basis in the past.) But let's keep the facts - including the details - straight.

    And cool your keyboards, kiddies: There's not a word in there that can be taken as approving of Samartino's expulsion. Hell, even if I did approve of the expulsion itself, deporting him to Cuba, where he doubtless faces a, let's just call it, less than welcoming reception, would remain an outrage.

    It should not have been necessary to say that, but it was, because of things like this:

    Several members of the audience wanted a strawman to prop uo their defense of this dictatorship of the Left.

    What "several" are you talking about? I saw one person who said "I just don't feel we are getting the full story" and argued, in effect, that it was the pot calling the kettle black, and one other who named three people who have been abused one way or another by the US government. Since you're the one who wants everyone else to cross every T and dot every I in their arguments, you should be able to specify exactly where either of them actually defended the order.

    But that's the kind of logic we've gotten here: Someone suggests there was more involved in Samartino's expulsion than "speaking out." That, apparently, "proves" they are supporting "LEFT wing oppression." Someone criticizes Jeralyn for deleting posts. That means "it is ok for Bolivia because someone else does the same thing" and is a defense of Castro. Besides that, just consider the Spanish civil war! Really! Think about it!

    I'll tell you what I'm thinking about: A couple of people here seem actually happy about Samartino's plight, happy because it gives them a chance to bash - speaking of strawmen - some vaguely defined "left." They exhibit less outrage than triumphalism and I can't help but wonder if it's a concern for human rights or a concern for ideological advantage that's on display here.

    And one last thing: the word "dictator" being thrown around like confetti at a New Year's party. A "dictator" in Bolivia - who has been heading a legal political party and competing in elections since 1995 and who won the presidency in December 2005 with 54% of the vote in a three-way race. A "dictator" in Venezuela who has been elected three times as well as surviving a recall and a US-endorsed coup. His most recent re-election was earlier this month, after which even many of his staunchest opponents admitted he won fair and square. Rather strange political bios for "dictators."

    Neither man is without controversy or free of questionable actions - but ultimately, it seems to come down to the difference between "dictator" and "freely elected leader" in some minds is whose interests you serve while in office.

    Parent

    A few thoughts (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 09:48:43 AM EST
    You make a good point re the lack of the exact reason. My guess would be his past statements and now his helping the doctors.

    From one of the examples, John Lennon was very politically active and very involved. The US government wanted to expell him, yet they could not.

    This is not the case in Boliva.

    If being elected is a qualification for not being a dictator, then you must say that Saddam wasn't, nor was Castro or now Hugo. Will you argue that? Wait. You do with Hugo. Surely you do not belief that election was fair.

    As for strawmen, edger, Che and cjkinsey all raised points that were strawmen. Edger and cj tried the old US bad trick.

    Knocking off the rough edges, it becomes simple. Bolivia has taken steps that show that they are not the liberal democracy the Left wants to make them out to be. The Leftward members in the thread attempted to defend that.

    Parent

    Last here (none / 0) (#66)
    by LarryE on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    The US government wanted to expell [Lennon], yet they could not. This is not the case in Boliva.

    Wrong. The next sentence of the linked article read "Opposition leaders on Santa Cruz have decried Samartino's arrest and say they will ask Bolivia's public defender's office to block the expulsion."

    That doesn't mean they will succeed, but it does mean you can't say "it's not the case." There is a legal means of blocking the government's move. Maybe it will fail. But maybe it won't - and in either case denies your clear implication that it wasn't possible.

    If being elected is a qualification for not being a dictator, then you must say that Saddam wasn't, nor was Castro or now Hugo.

    Saddam came to power in a bloodless coup, Castro in a revolution. Morales and Chavez came to office through free elections; the latter has since won three more, counting the recall. Hardly the same.

    Surely you do not belief that election was fair.

    As I already said, even some of Chavez's strongest opponents admitted he won fair and square. Since you apparently need a clue, here's one: Fairness does not depend on your side winning.

    strawmen ... US bad trick

    I'm not going to dispute or defend the remarks of third parties; I'm sure they can speak for themselves. I will note that the so-called "strawmen" were raised in response to a demand from you. Related to those, however, a question re: John Lennon. You admit the US tried to expel him but dismiss it as a "strawman" because the attempt failed. IF the Bolivian public defender does block Samartino's deportation, will you then say the attempt to kick him out was likewise irrelevant, unworthy of criticism? Or IF the US had succeeded in deporting Lennon, which was altogether possible and at one point looked inevitable, would the action have proved we are not a "liberal democracy?" Remember, acknowledging the attempt necessarily means acknowledging the law that allowed for it, the type of law you elsewhere insisted a "liberal democracy" would revoke.

    The Leftward members in the thread attempted to defend that.

    I asked you to specify where anyone actually defended the expulsion, noting you're the one who usually demands others provide specific examples of specific types of cases to prove contentions you dispute. You did not so specify despite ample opportunity; I can only assume now, as you routinely do in the case of others, that you have not because you cannot.

    Parent

    what dictatorship? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    Several members of the audience wanted a strawman to prop uo their defense of this dictatorship of the Left.
    Morales was elected, what's more
    Polls show the former llama herder and coca-leaf farmer is maintaining a positive rating of more than 60% in opinion polls

    Also, ppj moved the goalposts when he commented on Che's comment:" But IMHO it seems rather hypocritical for US citizens to criticize another country for rights violations while our government is systematically stripping us of those same rights."
    ppj first wrote: Could we have a factual example???Then wrote later:Just give me a name of a man who has been expelled for speaking against the government??

    Those are different questions and yet another attempt by this commenter (who advocates murder of Americans) to hijack a thread.

    Can't ppj ever stay on topic?

    Parent

    sailor... I plead guilty to assuming that (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 09:57:09 AM EST
    since we were talking about speech, Edger would answer in that context. He broadened the response, going off subject. I just returned to the subject while answering cj's three examples.

    So Ta Ta, dear sailor. I answered the question and, acording to LarryE's point, we were all on subject. Even edger.

    Now. Given that the subject was the actions of the Bolivian government, what does the popularity of its President, or whether or not he was elected, have to do with anything.

    I mean, staying on subject and all that.

    Parent

    still don't understand elections? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 11:09:00 AM EST
    Brace up, buckeroo and admit you have a dictator in Boliva, Cuba and Venezula.
    Bolivia and Venezuela are democracies with by far the majority of the people voting for their current leaders., there for your whole premise and screed are specious.

    brace up ppj and admit you advocate murder for our gov't officials and can't tell what a democracy is ... tho since you love bush and torture so much I don't doubt that you have a hard time telling what a democracy is.

    Parent

    On Subject (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 01:22:51 PM EST
    sailor, you are always the one concerned about staying on subject.

    Morales popularity and his election has nothing to do with evicting this guy.

    Parent

    don't obfuscate the fact ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    ... that you lied about the country being a dictatorship.

    Parent
    Just remember (none / 0) (#37)
    by LarryE on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 04:14:44 AM EST
    it seems rather hypocritical for US citizens to criticize another country for rights violations while our government is systematically stripping us of those same rights

    There may well be a certain amount of "the pot calling the kettle black" here, but it's wise to remember that just because it's the pot that's calling the kettle black, that doesn't mean the kettle isn't black.

    Parent

    Apology for Big Tent (none / 0) (#16)
    by koshembos on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 08:17:14 PM EST
    Just used your own words, might have misconstrued your intention and for that I apologies.

    Though it took some time (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 08:25:56 PM EST
    Lennon sucessfully fought his order for deportation.

    Although Lennon was eventually ordered deported, his lawyer Leon Wildes appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. After four appearances in federal court, Wildes prevailed. The Lennon case had dragged on for five years

    So I guess the system prevailed. Not that Nixon didn't try.

    This is SOME law.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 09:19:31 PM EST
    a 1996 law forbidding immigrants to "intervene in any form in internal politics or incite by any means the alteration of the social and political order,"

    This is a licence for almost any kind of fascist repression of immigrants with the flimsiest of excuses they could think up. It seems pretty close to what bush and his supporters seem to want for America.

    Who dreamt this one up? Morales? He a friend of George?

    The law (none / 0) (#36)
    by LarryE on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 04:07:28 AM EST
    Who dreamt this one up? Morales?

    Nope. It was enacted in 1996 during the presidency of Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, a moderate with a distinctly conservative economics bent.

    Morales' political party was only formed the year before, in 1995.

    Which means, incidentally, that this law was not the project of some "left wing dictatorship" but had been on the books for some time. Apparently Morales was neither the first nor the only one to be interested in limiting the political activities of non-citizens.

    (At the same time, it's possible that Morales was the first to actually use the law; that I don't know.)

    Parent

    "moderate"??? You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 09:07:25 AM EST
    Sánchez de Lozada, 73, a millionaire businessman closely aligned with the Bush administration, was forced out of office by a massive popular rebellion against his "free trade" policies. He had pushed for the building of pipeline that would have shipped trillions of cubic feet of Bolivian natural gas to the United States with little or no economic benefit to the Bolivian people. Strikes and roadblocks in opposition to his policies resulted in the country's paralysis for nearly a month.

    After brutally repressing the protests against him - resulting in at least 70 deaths and thousands of injured - Sánchez de Lozada finally offered some token concessions. He then defiantly vowed to never step down. The protests continued, and on Oct. 17 the former president packed his bags and fled to Miami.



    Parent
    Context matters (none / 0) (#67)
    by LarryE on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 05:31:45 PM EST
    He also decentralized authority, introduced bilingual education and health care reforms, and got Bolivia called a "multicultural" nation, opening the door to the later success of Morales, the nation's first indigenous president. So a "moderate?" In the context of his nation and his time, yes. As well as, again, being "distinctly conservative" on the economy, the effects of which - such as those you note - are what lead to his downfall.

    Parent
    LarryE - Edger's comment was sarcasm. (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    He hates George (Bush).

    BTW - No matter who put it on the books, it is Morales that is using it.

    I would think a liberal democracy would be taking the law off the books.

    So your backhanded defense of Morales doesn't cover his backside.

    Parent

    You must be off your meds again (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    if you've deluded yourself into thinking I have defended Morales.

    Parent
    You're making progress again? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:59:23 AM EST
    I would think a liberal democracy would be taking the law off the books.

    It is rather like the spirit of the Patriot Act, right Jim?

    Parent

    Sorry Jim (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    Asking hard questions is so unfair, isn't it?

    Parent
    One more (none / 0) (#70)
    by LarryE on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 11:34:58 PM EST
    Actually, Edger, I believe it was aimed at me, so I'll give an answer.

    No matter who put it on the books, it is Morales that is using it.

    Which is 1)an admission that this is not some "demon left" law and 2)others, including your favored conservatives, were prepared to use it (else why pass it). By the way, I said I didn't know if Morales was the first to try to use this law or not. Are you saying he is the first? Do you know?

    I would think a liberal democracy would be taking the law off the books.

    Until I think it was 1958, a US citizen could be denied a passport if the State Department thought they were going to "advocate communism" abroad. Up into the 1960s you could be denied public employment and access to certain public assistance (such as public housing) for failing to sign a "loyalty oath." As recently as the Reagan administration, foreigners were denied entry to the US based on their political views. In the wake of 9/11, hundreds of Muslims in the US were seized and imprisoned, often held incommunicado, for months based on nothing more than the fact they were Muslims - and ultimately released without charges except for a relative handful of minor-league immigration violations. Some of them were held for months after officials had determined they were guilty of nothing. By your own argument, then, at least until 1958 and perhaps right up through today, the US was/is not a "liberal democracy."

    If you want to criticize Morales for trying to rid himself of a troublesome political opponent, by all means do so. But do it realizing the full meaning of your words.

    So your backhanded defense of Morales doesn't cover his backside.

    A perfect example of the kind of illogic I earlier said we'd been subjected to here. Anything that doesn't consist of "Oh! Oh! Look at the evil left defending the evil leftist!" is read as defending Morales. In this case, a straightforward factual answer to when this law was instituted, despite being attached to the possibility that Morales is the first to use it, despite my earlier statement that "even if I did approve of the expulsion ... deporting him to Cuba ... would remain an outrage," becomes a "backhanded defense."

    Clearly, such a claim has gone so far beyond the bounds of logical argument that continuing this discussion is pointless.

    Parent

    Uh, in case your on the sauce tonight, (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 09:24:52 PM EST
    you might note that comment was regarding the Left's love of the Spanish Left until Hitler and Stalin made kissy kissy. Conflated, risible or homogenized, the Left's attempt to defend the flip was recognized as a major problem and caused many US Communists to leave the party.

    Just as Boliva's actions are causing you problems.

    The comment had nothing to do with the dictaorship that lasted for about 50 (?) years, and in fact, provided no background information.

    But I am sure we all appreciated your learned summation. well, almost all.  ;-)

    Ta! Ta!

    Since I think you are serious, (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 09:28:10 PM EST
    I'm laughing out loud.

    A Cuban dissident's criticism of Bolivia's close ties to Castro is met with a deportation order by the Bolivian government:
    A Humanitarian Gesture (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 11:34:03 PM EST
    Cuba sent some doctors to Bolivia, and now Bolivia is returning the gesture. What could be more fair?

    Double standards (none / 0) (#32)
    by Al on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 01:03:41 AM EST
    PPJ and others, when you disavow the military dictatorships in Latin America that tortured, murdered, and disappeared dissenters, aided and abetted by the United States, then I will take your grandstanding about freedom a little more seriously.

    Al. Provide me a link where I defended subject (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    governments.

    Parent
    Y ou excuse our support of dictators... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 05:04:14 PM EST
    ...And do it all the time, claiming the geopolitical realities required it, that it was for strategic purposes, blah blah blah.  Then you want to pretend that, somehow, our decades long support of tyrants, which retarded societies around the world, has no bearing on the reality we see today.  That's it's all just terrorists and commies and whatever.  Your inability to understand or admit that everyday people all over the world have good reason to despise our policies and to act against them is just mind-boggling in its state of denial.

    Parent
    Sanity Alert! (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    Well said sir.

    Parent
    Who is Samartino? (none / 0) (#39)
    by bernarda on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 06:11:46 AM EST
    From one short article in the English language press, you seem to be drawing a hasty conclusion. Who is Samartino and what is he really doing in Santa Cruz Bolivia, which is the center of the rightwing opposition to the President?

    I think more information is needed on this subject. The only things I was able to find were Spanish language comments by seemingly anti-cuban sites.

    Maybe Morales doesn't want to have the situation we find in the U.S. where the Cuban mafia "dissident" immigrants have enough influence to pervert American foreign policy on one-issue that is damaging to overall American interests.

    Why should Morales allow a similar potential 5th column to develop in his country?

    Then the Morales should have him tried (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    in open court.

    As for why he is there, I understand he is there because Castro will put him prison, or worse.

    Parent

    suddenly ppj believes ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 11:07:18 AM EST
    ... in trials for non-citizens of countries who the gov't alleges tried to "intervene in any form in internal politics or incite by any means the alteration of the social and political order", yet ppj insists bush has exactly this power.

    How hypocritical ... hypocritical but SOP for this commenter.

    Parent

    You confuse easily. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    The actions of Morales in his country has nothing to do with what I would do in his place, or in this country.

    My advice for a trial in open court was to insure no questions of fairness.. I don't think we have that problem here.

    We have given trials to several non-citizens accused of terrorism acts/plots, one just recently who now lives in Colorado. I would have given him a tribunal.

    And your defense of a Left wing government is usual.

    Parent

    point out where i defended any of the actions. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 02:05:35 PM EST
    I don't think we have that problem here.
    yeah, good one coming from a guy who advocates torture, kidnapping, secret trials (if any) and death to Americans.

    Parent
    No defense? LOL (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 02:17:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Man, PPJ (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 06:09:33 PM EST
    Were you ever busted on that one...HAHAHAHA

    Hey, let's all complain about some CIA asset getting sent from Bolivia to an island that WE ARE TORTURING PEOPLE ON. Yeah, that's the ticket!

    Parent

    Why would anyone ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 06:34:17 PM EST
    ... need a defense against a terrorist who advocates the killing of the American Iraq study Group!?

    ppj has said that the IRG should be exterminated with extreme prejudice.

    If he didn't agree with bush that would be a federal crime. Apparently that's OK with bush (and TL.)

    Parent

    pp (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 02:06:07 PM EST
    Btw, The Spanish Republicans were not Stalinists, and history isnt so much Silly Putty for you to   filter through your Faux funnel. Quit embarrassing yourself, particularly when you're on record as turning a blind eye to any black-op  or terrorist action that supports whatever fascism supports "our" interests.

    Also Jjim, lets see your evidence that the Venzualan elections weren't "fair".

    Get your facts straihht, (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    Nobody said they were. I merely pointed out that the USSR supported one side, the Germans the other.
    Of that there is no doubt. The problem came when Staling and Hitler cut a deal, which was a real gut wrencher for many people on both sides as they tried to justify the loss of life, etc.

    Actions of this type by the Left is not untypical, nor are they undefended.

    See this thread.

    Parent

    Hypocrisy (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 02:18:24 PM EST
    Anybody remember Jim, during his defense of tail-tucker Joe, ever condemning the blacklisting, or  remember Mr. Freedom and Democracy utter a word of condemnation over the harrassment of polititical dissidents in the sixties?

    oh yeah, all the time... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 04:03:35 PM EST
    ...not only that, i remember him going purple with rage over the patriot act, just about having a stroke over the iraq invasion, screaming bloody murder about wiretapping, wanting to hang bush after a quick fair (well, sort of) trial over the MCA, and talking of storming the WH over the torture of Gitmo prisoners..... huh? wha???... oh, sorry....

    I was daydreaming there for a second.

    Parent

    Slight difference (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    But, it's obvious nuance aint your forte: Germany intervened directly and militarily, the S.U didnt.

    Freedom of Speech? Depends What You Say (none / 0) (#71)
    by EveryoneMoveAlong on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 02:29:22 PM EST
    Boliva sounds a lot like Columbia University.

    Freedom of Speech? Depends What You Say | 69 comments (69 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment