<a href=www.southamericadaily.com>South America daily AI Index: AMR 53/006/2003 (Public) News Service No: 087 10 April 2003

A year on from the failed Coup d'Etat of 11 - 14 April 2002, when more than 50 people lost their lives and scores of others were wounded, Venezuela's government and opposition have failed to face up to their part in the tragedy and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice, Amnesty International said today.

"It is time that both the government and opposition stop attempting to use the events of April 11 to serve their political agendas and instead create the climate in which the facts can be established, justice can be secured and the victims can receive reparations."

"The recent dismissal of murder charges against those accused of shooting from the Puente Llaguno, and the failure to charge Metropolitan Police implicated in the deaths and injuries suffered on 11 April, demonstrate the weakness of the official investigation. It also raises serious concerns about the capacity of the state to effectively prosecute all those responsible," the organization continued.

Alixis Gustavo Bornones Soteldo and César Mattías Ochoa were two of the victims who were shot and killed in Avenida Beralt on 11 April. Their families, and many others, are still waiting for justice. Important investigations in order to identify those responsible have already been carried out, but Amnesty International remains concerned that establishing individual criminal responsibility for the crimes remains a long way off. Furthermore, while there has been a degree of progress in the investigations regarding events of April 11, the organization fears that the violations committed on 12, 13, and 14 April have received less attention and risk being ignored by investigators and public alike.

"The investigation and judicial process must lead to justice for the victims and their relatives, in order to avoid the pattern of impunity of other notorious cases of serious human rights violations which haunt Venezuela's recent history," said Amnesty International.

"Impunity for human rights violations leaves the victims and their families without redress and encourages further violations. This can only fuel the climate of violence undermining the rule of law and human rights in Venezuela."

To ensure the success of the investigations, Amnesty International urges the authorities to guarantee that all agencies, including all police forces and the National Guard, cooperate fully with the investigation and ensure there is transparent and effective coordination between the Attorney General's Office (Fiscalía General de la República) and the Scientific and Criminal Investigation Force Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalisticas (CICPC).

"It is vital that both these agencies receive the support and resources necessary to make their work timely and effective. The judiciary must also play a fundamental role by ensuring its timely, impartial and effective handling of these highly politicised cases; the executive and the legislature must ensure support for the investigation while avoiding any implication of undue influence on the results, " said Amnesty International.

"If the responsibility, both criminal and moral, for violence of April 2002 is to be established it is vital that the opposition, including the media, contribute to the clarification of the facts, even if these do not coincide with their immediate political interests."

A proposed commission of enquiry, to establish the truth surrounding the human rights violations committed in April 2002, has not been set up due to the failure of the opposition and government to guarantee its independence, impartiality and effectiveness. Amnesty International believes that another possible means of ensuring an impartial and credible enquiry could involve the participation of independent international experts, under the auspices of the international community, to visit Venezuela to evaluate the investigation and make binding recommendations. These mechanisms would be a step toward creating space and credibility for the facts of April to emerge from the political polarization affecting the country. "One of the challenges to any such investigation is to clarify what led to the violence and the responsibility for it. Since April 2002, the political crisis destabilising Venezuela has repeatedly led to violence, with the police and National Guard employing excessive force against pro and anti-government demonstrators."

" An outcome of these investigations must be the urgent reform to policing practices and structures to ensure impartial law enforcement and prevent excessive or indiscriminate use of force in police operations with strict adherence to international human rights standards."

"Impartial and effective investigations into human rights violations committed in April 2002 and subsequent incidents are the only means of rebuilding confidence in the police and criminal justice system and ending the climate of impunity," Amnesty International concluded.

Background Economic, social and political tensions led to an indefinite strike on 9 April by supporters of the opposition, an alliance built around the business sector, the principal trade union and private media interests, who demanded the immediate resignation of President Chávez. On 11 April, a mass opposition demonstration met pro-government protesters in the vicinity of the presidential palace. As demonstrators, Metropolitan Police, National Guard clashed, 20 people died as a result of gunshot wounds, and over 60 others were injured. In the ensuing crisis, senior military officials forced President Chávez from power and placed him in detention. Following the Coup d'Etat, a de facto joint civilian-military administration was established under the opposition leader Pedro Carmona, head of the Employers Association, FEDECAMARAS. The de facto government issued draconian decrees, inclusing the closure of the National Assembly, and the summary dismissal of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the Human Rights Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo). Police carried out raids on a number of homes of supporters of President Chávez. Amongst those arbitrarily detained were a Minister and a National Assembly deputy. There was widespread condemnation of the unconstitutional and summary removal of President Chávez, the illegal detention of his supporters, and the arbitrary powers assumed by the de facto government. This, coupled with the increasingly determined efforts of President Chávez's followers to secure his release and return to power, led to the resignation of the new government and reinstatement of President Chávez on 14 April. The civil disturbance during these four days left at least 50 people dead and many more wounded. The government and opposition have continually accused each other of masterminding the violence for political advantage over the last year.

Political violence has also continued throughout the last year, resulting in the deaths of a number of pro and anti-government demonstrators and has repeatedly threatened further disintegration in the rule of law and human rights protection. In December 2002 the opposition called a second indefinite national stoppage which continued to February 2003. Social tension and political violence escalated in the context of the strike, which had a dramatic impact on the economy. Negotiations between government and opposition have continued throughout the year under the stewardship of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, César Gaviria. A group of "friendly counties" was also established to facilitate this process and help find a negotiated solution to the political crisis.

To refer to other materials produced by Amnesty International on Venezuela, including a "Human Rights Agenda for the Current Crisis" published in January 2003, visit our website at

Public Document

For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web:

For latest human rights news view

AI INDEX: AMR 53/006/2003     10 April 2003

<a href=web.amnesty.org>AI INDEX: AMR 53/001/2003     21 January 2003

The seriousness of the situation currently faced by Venezuela requires a concerted response from all sectors of society. They will have to decide whether to continue along the path of confrontation, perpetuating the cycle of violence, harassment and polarization, or whether to commit themselves to seeking peaceful negotiated solutions within the constitutional framework and in accordance with international human rights standards.

Faced with the imminent danger of a breakdown in the constitutional order and the violation of fundamental human rights, it is essential that the international community takes concrete measures to avoid such a breakdown and help find a negotiated solution, based on the full protection of human rights.

Since the beginning of the current crisis, Amnesty International has alerted the Venezuelan government and the international community of the need to take immediate measures to avoid a breakdown in the rule of law. The most serious symptoms of this situation include the events that led to the break with constitutional order in April, serious violations of the right to life, the partiality of the judicial system and the engagement of the security forces in the political life of the country.

Amnesty International has urged the government to speed up the investigation into the events of April, avoid the excessive use of force by state agents and ensure a halt to attacks against and harassment of the press and human rights defenders. It has also directed its appeals to opposition sectors, urging them not to use protest measures and "civil disobedience" that are not in keeping with fundamental constitutional provisions. It has also encouraged the media to be impartial and assume co-responsibility for guaranteeing the right to information.

Considering that disrespect for human rights is one of the roots of the crisis, the national and international standards that enshrine these rights offer a framework to promote the resolution of the crisis, as affirmed by non-governmental human rights organizations in Venezuela. However, the parties to the conflict have only referred to the issue of human rights to attack and discredit each other. The government, the opposition and the media have appropriated, manipulated and distorted the issue of human rights, converting it into one more weapon for polarization and confrontation.

So far, the negotiations facilitated by the General Secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS), César Gaviria, have been undermined by the intransigence of both parties, and the agenda seems to have been limited to the electoral issue. A sustainable and lasting solution to the crisis requires all parties to pay attention to human rights issues, which are key to solving the problem.

At this crucial moment for the future of the country, Amnesty International appeals to all sectors of Venezuelan society to avoid using human rights issues to polarize the situation and to use them as a basis for building peace and restoring the rule of law.

In a press release issued on 19 December (AMR 53/018/2002 ) Amnesty International proposed a series of basic and immediate measures to avoid a deterioration in the extremely polarized climate and to prevent a breakdown in the constitutional order.

Below, we propose a more long term human rights agenda, aimed at restoring full respect for Human Rights. Although the government has the main responsibility in this, all political and social actors must accept responsibility for contributing to the achievement of these objectives.

At the same time, the international community, and especially the regional and international human rights organizations, must redouble their efforts to facilitate a peaceful resolution of the crisis, and to provide adequate mechanisms and resources to monitor the human rights situation in the country and stop the situation from deteriorating.

HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDA FOR THE CRISIS

Strengthen justice and eradicate impunity

The Venezuelan judicial system's failure to prosecute and sentence those responsible for human rights violations and compensate the victims has been a feature of the country's history and continues to be the fundamental factor that weakens the Rule of Law and denies credibility to the institution. The lack of independence and capacity of key institutions such as the Judiciary, the Public Prosecutor, the Police and Ombudsperson poses an urgent need to build the credibility of the judicial system.

• Society and its representatives must identify and agree on a process that will end uncertainty and strengthen the legitimacy, credibility, independence, capacity and autonomy of the powers and institutions that guarantee the Rule of Law, in accordance with the rules set out in the Constitution and international standards on the independence of judges and prosecutors(1). The credibility of these institutions also depends on society's commitment to recognizing their authority and respecting their decisions.

• Clarify, in an impartial, speedy and exhaustive way, the human rights violations committed during the events of April 2002 and since then, and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. To this end, Amnesty International recommends that an international delegation of experts analyses and evaluates the steps already taken by the authorities and makes recommendations for the more effective conduct of the investigations, in accordance with the appropriate international standards(2). This commission should make its conclusions public.

• Investigate and punish the police officers who are responsible for the many executions that are being committed in various states of the country under the guise of "clashes with criminals resisting the police". This is not a new kind of human rights violations, but the total impunity that police officers have enjoyed for years weakens the rule of law and increases the cycle of violence.

• Comply with the human rights measures and recommendations issued by mechanisms of the United Nations, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Depoliticise the armed and security forces

• To ensure that the armed forces and the security forces do not play a political role, remain subordinated to the civilian authorities and act impartially; and it is essential to avoid the armed forces being used to maintain public order, so as to restore their credibility and guarantee citizens' rights.

• The security forces should act with scrupulous regard for the standards that regulate the use of force against demonstrations and mobilizations. Since the tragic events of April 2002, Amnesty International has, on many occasions, denounced the excessive use of force by the police and the National Guard, which has resulted in many deaths and injuries. Any action ignoring these standards should be rigorously investigated and punished.

Guarantee freedom of expression and the right to information

• Attacks on journalists and other press workers should cease immediately. Likewise, the indispensable work carried out by human rights defenders should not be restricted and they should be able to count on the impartial protection of the law. The State must comply with the precautionary and provisional measures issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Any threat or attack against journalists or human rights defenders must be rigorously investigated and those responsible punished;

• When exercising their legitimate right to the freedom of assembly, association and expression, opposition sectors should take responsibility for choosing protest methods and tactics that do not undermine constitutional guarantees. Without these guarantees, the rights of all are prejudiced.

Comply with international obligations regarding economic, social and cultural rights

• Considering that social exclusion is one of the basic structural problems that have contributed to the extreme political polarization of the country, we remind the government of its obligation to comply with the recommendations of the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee. In its 2001 report on the state of these rights in Venezuela, the Committee recommended the government to take advice from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and adopt concrete measures to further economic, social and cultural rights as part of the 1997 National Human Rights Action Plan. A sustainable and lasting solution to the crisis requires the implementation of concrete and effective policies to combat the extreme poverty and inequality prevailing in the country. It also requires all political actors to be more sensitive to the socio-economic roots of the crisis and the consequences that a prolongation of the crisis could have on these rights.

(1) Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary

(Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Milan between 26 August and 6 September 1985, and confirmed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985).

Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors

(Approved by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held in Havana (Cuba) between 27 August and 7 September 1990).

(2) Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Recommended by Economic and Social Council Resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989).

Back to Top ^^ AI INDEX: AMR 53/001/2003     21 January 2003

<a href=www.estrelladigital.es>E.D. / Efe Caracas     
El I Encuentro Mundial de Solidaridad con la revolución bolivariana reúne desde ayer en Caracas a representantes adversos a la globalización y al neoliberalismo, en apoyo al presidente Hugo Chávez. El encuentro, que finalizará el 13 de abril, fue inaugurado con la intervención del director del periódico francés "Le Monde Diplomatique", Ignacio Ramonet, quien habló sobre "la guerra en Iraq y el nuevo orden mundial".

El programa de actos conmemora el primer aniversario del regreso de Chávez a la presidencia, luego de haber sido derrocado durante 48 horas el 11 de abril de 2002, por un golpe de Estado cívico-militar encabezado por el empresario Pedro Carmona, actualmente exiliado en Colombia. Antes de exponer sus críticas a la invasión de Iraq por parte de Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña, Ramonet expresó su solidaridad con la "democrática revolución bolivariana" y con Chávez, a quien se refirió como un "gobernante democrático". La única referencia a Venezuela que hizo en su exposición se refirió a la "implicación" de EEUU en el "atentado criminal contra la democracia venezolana" del 11 de abril del año pasado y al riesgo de que, eventualmente, Venezuela podría ser un objetivo de la nueva política exterior estadounidense, sustentada en su supremacía militar. Ramonet señaló que el dominio que EEUU ejercerá a partir de ahora en Iraq podría tener repercusiones en la Organización de Países Exportadores de Petróleo (OPEP), a la que considera su "adversaria", y también en Venezuela, que forma parte de esa alianza. Ramonet planteó que es posible que sea privatizada la industria petrolera iraquí, que ese país salga de la OPEP y que se promueva una política de bajos precios petroleros. En cuanto a la invasión de Iraq, Ramonet reiteró su carácter "colonial e ilegal" y consideró que no tiene nada que ver con la defensa de la democracia o la libertad, sino con el concepto de "control global" que tiene el sector más "reaccionario e influyente" de la actual administración estadounidense. "No hay que tener lástima porque desaparezca una dictadura pero sí por las circunstancias en que se ha producido, con tantas víctimas civiles inocentes", dijo el director de "Le Monde". Durante su intervención fue interrumpido por sectores del auditorio que corearon "Iraq, aguanta, el mundo se levanta". Ramonet añadió que la invasión "abre una profunda crisis en el derecho internacional" y advirtió que es difícil predecir las consecuencias que tendrá en el futuro de organizaciones como la Unión Europea y la OTAN. También dijo que es "indispensable que los ciudadanos del mundo se movilicen" contra esta nueva concepción de las relaciones internacionales, que ha convertido en "forajido" al gobierno del presidente estadounidense, George W.Bush. Entre los asistentes al Encuentro figuran el sociólogo estadounidense James Petras; el líder campesino francés José Bové, y el ambientalista filipino Walden Bello. Además participan Hebe de Bonafini, representante de las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo; el historiador británico Perry Anderson; el economista húngaro István Mészaros, y el ex candidato presidencial y líder indígena de Bolivia, Evo Morales. Los participantes debatirán en conferencias y mesas de trabajo sobre la actualidad del pensamiento de Simón Bolívar, la Constitución Bolivariana de 1999, el neoliberalismo y sus alternativas y la unidad cívico-militar frente a las corrientes golpistas, entre otros. Héctor Navarro, ministro venezolano de Educación Superior, dijo a los periodistas que el Encuentro celebra "el triunfo de la democracia sobre la dictadura, de la libertad sobre la tiranía, de la vida sobre la muerte y de la paz sobre la violencia". Ana Osorio, ministra del Ambiente, declaró que la revolución venezolana "es un proceso que se ha convertido en la esperanza de muchos pueblos del mundo para alcanzar un futuro mejor". La inauguración se realizó en el Teatro Teresa Carreño de Caracas con la asistencia de Chávez y numerosas delegaciones de América Latina y Europa principalmente.

<a href=www.indymedia.org>Jens Klinker and Peter Nowak 7:04am Wed Apr 9 '03 (Modified on 5:16pm Thu Apr 10 '03) jens.berlin@gmx.net article#310096

24 hours in the country of unlimited opportunities 2 German journalists were held and kidnapped by US-authorities.

You can also read this article in german by clicking the following link. Der Artikel ist auch in deutsch verfügbar: de.indymedia.org

To visit and to report about information meetings about the put down overthrow against the left-reformistic Chavez-government in Caracas/Venezuela one year ago, we (two journalists from Berlin/Germany) wanted to fly to Caracas on Monday, April 7th 2003. Because the flight Berlin-Milano was canceled, the airline provided another route Berlin-London-Miami-Caracas. Until the arrival in Miami there hadn´t been any problems. In Miami all passengers had to show their passports some meters after leaving the plane. When we were controlled, the policeman saw that there was an Iraq-Visa marked in one of our passports.

Because of this we were brought to the immigrant-office. We informed the police about our activities as journalists and about the fact that we didn´t want to travel to the USA but to transit via Miami to Caracas. Nevertheless the police took photos and stored fingerprints from us like from criminals. And we have been interrogated for 8 hours (about the Iraq; the Red Army Fraction, a "marxist-leninist" city-guerilla of the german past and about political things like the relationship to the USA or activities). Additional the police created extensive files. The police claimed that they have information about left activities about one of us. There is the question how the exchange between german and US-american offices had been.

The police refused to contact a lawyer and a translator and to get a law-help. To phone with the german consulate was first consciously allowed when the consulate was closed, so that no contact was possible. The interrogation was made without directly torture, but the police threated with further consequences like prison if there would be a lack of coorperation.

Because the immigration-area is on neutral territority, it is a law-free room (for immigrants), and the US-autorities took skillfully advantage of this. The last 16 hours we were prisoned together with refugees of Latinoamerica in a strong lighted, windowless prison without beds. The food was highcalory und unhealthy plastic food.

In a phone call with the german consulate, the consulate told us that the US-authorities do what they want and that they have "another law-understanding than we in germany". Afterwards we were deported back to London.

Not till London we got some of our documents back and one of us got a paper which said that he would be "prohibited from entering, attempting to enter or being in the United States for a period of 5 years..." We got handwritten entries into our passports without signatures or stamps. Some tickets to fly to Caracas and to fly back from Caracas to Berlin had been stolen by the US-police. Also one of us got not his interrogation-protocoll.

Fazit: This incident shows clearly that the US-ruling-system is the enemy of all free humen of the world inclusive the progressive humen in the USA. During US-soldiers attacked the Iraq with tanks and rockets, a legal Iraq-delegation-travel is treated in Miami like a crime. When we were arrested in the immigration prison, we watched in the tv that two independent journalists were killed in the Iraq by the US-army and numerous other were injured. The war outside against the Iraq and the repression inside like the attack against the freedom of press and information are two sides of the same medal. Opinions which are critical to the policy of the USA or other countries are not desinable.

No border, no nation - fight deportation!

You can contact us via email: jens.berlin@gmx.net and peter_nowak@web.de add your own comments

I have a question! (english) john lenon 1:23pm Wed Apr 9 '03 comment#310336

I have a question! Is this liberty and democraty? Are you kidding me? (english) Head_in_the_sand 5:32am Thu Apr 10 '03 (Modified on 7:58am Thu Apr 10 '03) comment#310645

What an amazing story. This is much more news worthy on April 9 than the overthrow of the Iraqi regime. The editors of this news site are truly dishonest intellectual creatures. The only reason this pathetic site did not report on the tremendous events in Baghdad yesterday is because it did not fit the picture all the deluded radicals were sure existed.

It is quite interesting when reality smacks you in the face. Interestingly, why don't we see pictures of "Thank you Bush" on your site. That's right, we want to serve our own agenda. We really aren't interested in the truth. We report "passionately" as the main page states when it suits our own ideological purposes. Then, when we watch the corporate news station we have the OBLIGATION to point out how they are just governmental puppets pushing their agenda. We, however, are so far more intelligent because we can never be "brainwashed" so easily. Instead, only we see the truth. Those 80% who don't fit in with our ideology are just idiots who can't think for themselves. Thank God they have us. Thank the Lord ... oops I may have offended some atheists ... thank Gaia that we are gifted with such superior insight into the way the world works. All those dolts in the military and government are clearly incapable of any rational thought. In fact, our whole government is a sham. Those founding fathers, authors of the "Federalist Papers" and Constitution, they were sell outs -- what did they know?

I have an idea. Why don't we all get on a plane, go to Baghdad, and protest the war. The Iraqi people will thank us. All the civilians will hoist us on their shoulders and thank us for being so pure of heart and mind. We will warn them of the evil our country is intending. Afterward, we should get rid of our military, our administration. After all, history tells us ... well, never mind history, we are too special, too smart. We are the "chosen" generation that knows much better than all the previous -- historical precendences doesn't really apply to us anyway.

Most importantly, we must ensure that we are NEVER open to accepting any idea which does not fit into our world view. The last thing we need is critical analysis. Reply to Head in the Sand (english) Inquisitive Citizen 7:53am Thu Apr 10 '03 comment#310677

Mr. Head-In-The-Sand,

I suggest you read The Pentagon Papers, by Daniel Ellsberg. Just do it. It sounds like you're an intelligent person who just hasn't done enough investigative research about the culture of lies and deception in our government. This book is a good starter. Hopefully it will lead you to other books, articles and tapes (and I have read many). Then go and read things like "Rebuilding America's Defenses" put out by the Project for a New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org. )I have no doubt that you'll see things in a different light, maybe radically so.

No one ever said that this news organization does not have a particular mission and mandate: to seek out and expose the dark side of our purported "free" democracy, so that we can keep comprehensively informed, and hopefully have the guts to take action to keep abuses of power in check. You are blind if you believe that our political system was constucted so perfectly, so pure that we, the citizenry, can just sit back and our system of checks and balances will prevent those in power from abusing it. It works well, but not well enough, as this article attests. Lest we forget that there are human beings at the helm of our government, and human beings are prone to greed, power and meglomania. Do you think that if Bush and Cheney rose to power in Iraq they would install democracy?

We are constantly bombarded with pretty much the same theme, with little variation, from the mainstream media: it ranges from condoning the war to outright, guns ablazin', flags a wavin', support for the war. News sites like this one are a breath of fresh air, a different perspective that, yes, have their own idealogical bent, but also just happen to uncover many of the anti-democratic, anti-humanitarian acts that, if I may be so bold to speak the truth, are too often committed by those in power (to which I principally refer to decision makers in our government and large corporations). You can EASILY find the latest watered-down newscast about our invasion of Iraq through any number of media outlets. What's so wrong about reporting about other newsworthy events like this one?

What's the use of feeling so proud that you are living in "the world's greatest nation" if you allow internal and external abuses to accrue incognito until our cherished democracy begins to lose legitimacy and fall to pieces?

I could go on about the specious reasoning publicly espoused by the Administration and the Pentagon for our "need" to invade Iraq (like fooling the American people into thinking there is a link between Al-Queda and Saddam or it is to "liberate" the Iraqi people while we continue to support and give aid to other just-as-horrendous regimes like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Nigeria), but I will not. Just read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" to know EXACTLY why we are doing this-- Pax Americana, modern day imperialism. Ashamed and outraged (english) Jordan 9:36am Thu Apr 10 '03 jazsmutt@hotmail.com comment#310709

that is, i am ashamed and outraged at the treatment Jens Klinker and Peter Nowak received at the hands of my government. my tax dollars, earned in the teaching profession, seem to be hard at work infringing on the rights of others. gentlemen, the U.S. is apparently not safe for those, such as yourselves, trying do important work. nor as, recent events in the U.S. Oakland show, is it safe for our own citizens engaged in peaceful demonstrations. i commend you and encourage your investigative reporting on Venezuela. please bear in mind that the people of the U.S. are far from united in its support of these clumsy, unethical, and illegal actions.

in response to "head in the sand:" the reason i check indymedia sites is specifically so that i can read news like the story i comment upon above. if i want to see made-for-tv footage in Iraq i can, and do, check corporate sites. any educated person in this country is well advised to come to one's own conclusions by getting as much information as possible. for an indy site to report what the corporate media is already bombarding me with would be REDUNDANT and a waste of precious independent resources.

your insinuation that all of us opposing the war share the same analysis and arrogant views is baseless. at demonstrations against this war one can encounter fellow citizens of all ages, creeds, and walks of life. many of them stand with their children at their sides. some are against the war for spiritual reasons (strong in their conviction that we can resolve conflicts without bombs), some base their actions on historical analysis of the destructive affects of U.S. policy, and others point out the folly of these conflicts for economic reasons (having realized that empires, sooner or later, spend more trying to creat situation wherein they can expatriate capital from other countries than these powers actually get out of it). all of these approaches to situation are valid, based on ethics and reason rather than arrogance, and are not reflected in your commentary.

yes many Iraqis are glad to be free of saddam. world-wide, there is little dissent over the repressive nature of his regime! when we watch images of Iraqis today we must bear in mind that anyone who has been starved by the western world for over a decade and then bombed into submission is likely to greet occupying soldiers promising food and water with open arms. one must also ask, if a free and SELF-DETERMINED Iraqi state were truly desired by the U.S. powere elites, why didn't we support the massive popular uprisings against him, called for by Bush Sr., that occured shortly after the first gulf war? why did we let them get slaughtered at that time? why didn't the U.S. want the people of Iraq to win their freedom themselves?

the best answer seems to be that, in such a situation, the U.S. and the U.K. would not be able to install western corporate personel into interim government positions that will guarantee a brokering of Iraqi oil interests that favor our corporations and, through them, our short-sighted and hysterically militaristic "strategic interests." though we are likely to depend of Venezuela for most of our oil here in the U.S, we wish to be in control of these reserves so that other nations like China will have to deal with us, not the people of Iraq, to tap into them. And of course, we wish to free Israel from the need to secure its oil from countries like Russia.

when we look the images such as those being paraded across the spectacle of the corporate media today, we must be aware that there is more to consider than meets the eye. surely we can agree, at least, on this? Point taken (english) Head_in_the_sand 10:06am Thu Apr 10 '03 comment#310721

To the poster of the previous message: you made some cogent points with which I agree. Do not take me for some simpleton who believes governments are morally sound playgrounds of the national polity. I will look into your references in order to understand your "radical" perspective (if it is indeed such).

In fact, I am the first to say that governments are INTRINSICALLY corrupt -- unless measures are taken within itself to prevent its degradation. That, by the way, is one reason this country IS so wonderful -- the founders expected and counted on the failure of human nature to properly execute the task of governing. Does that mean the government is never at fault because there are safeguards? Of course not. And when the administration or elements of the polity deceive us or abuse power, I agree it is the people's responsibility to voice their concerns and frustrations -- lest the abuse augments to dangerous levels. Vietnam, naturally, is the classic example.

Further, I am not one to get agitated with anti-war citizens (or non-citizens) so long as they are peaceful. I do not agree with them, but dissenting voices do not intimidate nor frighten me. What does frighten me is the lack of rationale used in these articles. I do not pretend to have the greatest sources of information. One of your points was correct in questioning what information the government gives us -- and I offer that questioning the information and articles that pass through this site is just as important. Additionally, almost all the articles are more interested in heresy and "opinion" based reporting than the major media outlets. Examples of this are the recent police brutality claims (where only testimonial information was given -- quite possibly correct, but I would like a more thorough investigation by government AND media agencies), civilian casualties during the war (news crews were shown what Iraqi regime personnel would allow -- further, not trusting our government and trusting theirs to get accurate reporting is simply to absurd to even comment), public sentiment claims concerning the war (always I am reading how the number is increasing yet all polls show support constant if not increasing support). Some of these articles are just plain lies -- as much as they purport to be correcting the big media's lies. There is a very specific phenomenon of which the big news media is guilty -- selective reporting. There are certainly instances where something is ommitted or ignored or not even further investigated. However, overall accuracy at what is reported is much higher than these radical sites. Here, both accuracy and information are at times sacrificed.

There should be a standard of journalism. If you want to just push an agenda, don't call it a media site. I would claim that the people so convinced that the major media sources are governmental propaganda agencies are as brainwashed as the populace they accuse.

It is equally naive to think that the radicals or liberals on this site have pure motives. Ultimately, it is about power. Right now, this country has become more conservative since 9/11 and as a result the loss of power to the left has caused a backlash.

I have known many radical thinkers (many brilliant people) and they all possess this unfortunate quality of self-pity. Many feel as if the government or people have dissapointed and harmed them depending on whether they are liberal or conservative, respectively. Instead of employing any pragmatism in their approach, they form opinions and views which become so rigid that it becomes impossible to penetrate their mind at all. I am certainly willing to listen to a claim -- but I want hard evidence to support it, not just one radical reporter making claims that support his/her's preconceived notions on the matter.

At the end of the day, I realize that radicals will always exist. They are essential to our society, and I do not wish them to be gone or shut up. I do strive for a critical society -- one which is skeptical yet flexible in thought. The religion of logic is the only one that should matter, and it would make for a well informed, reasonable, and rational public. Errata to my previous message (english) Head_in_the_sand 10:08am Thu Apr 10 '03 comment#310722

My last message is to Inquisitive_citizen, sorry for any confusion. Critical reporting and Indymedia (english) dubravko 11:59am Thu Apr 10 '03 dubravko@kakarigi.net comment#310775

I understand the frustration of the head_in_the_sand poster with apparent one-sided reporting on this (and other) Indymedia web site(s). Indymedia web sites are based on the principle and mechanism of open publishing and follow minimal editorial standards. Consequently, nothing prevents "the other side" to also post news which, due to very minimal editorial control, have a very good chance to remain published. I would therefore suggest to either start reporting yourself (I read your comments with great interest, although, I must admit, that negative, at times very sarcastic slant repulsed me) or recruit someone else to write. It is good and almost imperative to receive news from multiple sources in order to make an informed judgement of what the reality out there really is. It is only reponsible to do so.

INFORMATION + KNOWLEDGE = DECISION MAKING

tallyimc.org/ I HAVE AN IDEA. (english) BC 12:54pm Thu Apr 10 '03 comment#310802

I HAVE AN IDEA. IF YOU DONT LIKE INDYMEDIA.ORG OR THE STORIES THAT GET POSTED HERE, DONT VISIT THE WEBSITE. ITS THAT SIMPLE. I Have An Idea also (english) jjy_ucf 1:43pm Thu Apr 10 '03 jjy_ucf comment#310822

I have an idea also: If he doesn't like this site and should stay off, then the same rationale applies to you goofballs about the news channels; don't watch.

I HAVE AN IDEA TOO (english) johnway 1:50pm Thu Apr 10 '03 comment#310828

Hey, ive got an idea, if you dont like the US or what it does, boycott all its shit or leave the US if you live in it.

This is in response to the post that states if you dont like Indymedia dont come.

I think that it is good to have a little debate here and there. If everyone at Indymedia agreed than this site would be little more than a pulpit for its views. One thing that I love about this site is that anyone can say anything, and its usually respected if deserving. to US customs/immigration: STOP THE MADNESS!! (english) J Black 5:16pm Thu Apr 10 '03 pleasestaycalm@hotmail.com comment#310904

Wow, there are a whole lot of postings chastising the indymedia movement and site(s) for being biased and unbalanced lately... I see your point, but - indymedia is not meant to be all things to all people - indymedia serves very effectively as a counterpoint to the very obviously biased and unbalanced mainstream reporting. If you want to see pictures of 'liberated' Iraqis, then hit CNN. It's all there.

If you want to be well informed, you've got to refer to a variety of sources and consider a range of viewpoints. You're never going to get a 'real' picture - a view-point is all you can reasonably expect. Indymedia lets pretty much anyone publish their viewpoint (including flame-war-inciting little trolls), and allows anyone who wants to take the time a chance to comment on those viewpoints. As a whole, indymedia presents a collective point of view that is desperately needed in our current corporate mediatainment-dominated environment. Most of all, indymedia creates the POSSIBILITY for a real all-things-considered offering-up of the truth... it's not there yet, but unlike the corporate-whores and pentagon/DoD-briefing-regurgitators, it has at least the POTENTIAL to get there.

Some seem to think that indymedia is organized to represent some specific viewpoint or range of tactics, and that it is supposed to be representative of a certain group or groups and that it does, or should, censure and regulate itself as-such.... but indymedia doesn't 'represent' anyone, and there is NO editorial control to enforce the service of any exclusive agenda. It's a clearing-house for independently written journalism and viewpoint, period. It doesn't advocate anything in particular - it provides a FORUM for independent people to publish news and express their own viewpoints (which may range from 'nuke Iraq', to 'let's pie-plaster Dan Rather's rented-out face', to 'bring me G.W.'s head on a platter!').

In the case of most (indymedia) sites, the editorial control is basically deciding which articles get 'front-page' (main column) posting, and which get left to the side column. There aren't (or certainly shouldn't be) any mechanisms or contols in place to enforce a 'left-wing' or any other kind of bias. If you want to post some George-the-liberator/support-the-troops/I-love-cops stuff then that's your deal - just don't expect much praise for it.

Moreover, if you want to post some genuine critical analysis of indymedia, PLEASE DO!!! I think it would be very well received by the vast majority of those who rely on this site to help them maintain some shreds of hope, dignity, and sanity.

<a href=news.ft.com>Financial times By Toby Shelley

Published: April 10 2003 8:53 | Last Updated: April 10 2003 8:53 The oil market has weathered the storms of conflict in Iraq, communal violence in Nigeria, and the winter strikes against the government in Venezuela, according to the International Energy Agency.

Reinforcing a tone of cautious confidence first expressed by the OECD's energy watchdog as fighting commenced in Iraq, the IEA's widely-watched monthly market report said, "the system is working - producers are increasing production, oil is arriving in consuming regions and prices are easing".

After speaking with Ali Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, and Abdullah al-Attiyah, president of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, at the start of the war in Iraq, Claude Mandel, executive director of the IEA, said he had been given assurances that large volumes of crude were "on the water". This, combined with the faster than expected recovery of Venezuelan output and imminent seasonal demand falls, led the IEA away from earlier dire warnings.

Indeed, the IEA pays its respects to its sparring partner, saying, "There is little doubt that Opec has done much to calm an otherwise jittery market".

The April market report confirms that Opec producers have been as good as their word in making up for shortfalls. "Clearly, producers have been pre-positioning crude in key consuming regions to mitigate the potential impact of a prolonged supply disruption, thereby assuming the financial risk and burden of transforming long haul into short haul supply", it says.

Of the additional world oil production in March of 740,000 barrels a day, 500,000 came from Opec members despite the war in Iraq and despite almost 40 per cent of Nigerian production being lost at times. The so-called Opec-10 - that is, excluding Iraq - produced 25.86m b/d in March, 1.4m above their target as circumstances made quotas notional. Opec is to meet later this month to decide whether to try to cut production to prevent a feared further collapse in prices. The IEA acknowledges the force of the argument for cuts - its own estimate for 2003 call on Opec crude is only 24.8m b/d. Nonetheless, it says the "real question mark remains over the timing, extent, distribution and duration of any cut".

The IEA's forecast for world oil demand remains roughly unchanged at 78m b/d for 2003.