Impartial judiciary?
One of the things that gets lost in the international press' coverage of the crisis in Venezuela is just how compromised the judiciary has become under Chavez. Take, for example the Fernandez/Ortega arrest warrants. Here's how Reuters reported the story:
A judge ordered Fernandez and union boss Carlos Ortega, who led a crippling two-month shutdown to oust Chavez, detained for rebellion against the state, sabotage and other charges.
Seems pretty straightforward - especially to readers here in the US who presume an impartial judiciary, at least on procedural issues like arrest warrants. We expect that if a warrant is issued, certain legal requirements must have been met. We also presume that if a judge does swear out an improper warrant, there are checks and oversights that will catch the mistake.
Now let's take a more detailed look at the circumstances surrounding the Fernandez/Ortega warrants - specifically, the judge who issued them. Miguel Octavio has posted an illuminating resume for Judge Maikel Moreno at his site. The run-down:
1987- As a member of the intelligence police he is found guilty of homicide and sent to jail.
1990- Released from jail
1990- Weeks after being released, he finds a position in a Court.
2002- Is seen with Chavista Deputies during the disturbances of April 11th.
May 2002- The Head of Chavez MVR in Caracas says the party will provide defense for the gunmen filmed shooting from Puente El Llaguno at the peaceful opposition march. Among the gunmen were an MVR City Councilman and two workers of the same municipality. Then lawyer Maikel Moreno is put in charge of their defense.
September 2002- He is appointed provisional Judge by a Government panel and ratified by the Supreme Court to the position. The law says to become a judge you need to have some form of postgraduate work which Judge Moreno does not have.
February 2003- He orders the two opposition leaders detained despite of the fact that one of the charges is not even in the criminal code. The charges are brought by a prosecutor who is the niece of the Attorney General (Chavez' first Vice-President) whose area of expertise is not even criminal law.
This information certainly puts the warrant process into question, though the Reuters story doesn't even hint at this. I've heard the international media criticized as being biased against Chavez and I've also heard it being accused of being pro-Chavez. It seems to me, neither characterization is true. The problem with the international media, especially the newswires, is two-fold: first, they lack the time and resources to research their stories in depth; and second, far from being biased one way or the other, they strive to be as apolitical as possible, whenever possible, in order to project the appearance of impartial reporting. Doesn't work - they still get criticized by both sides - but they have to try.
I've received some email criticizing me for using Francisco Toro and Miguel Ocatavio - two supporters of the anti-Chavez opposition - as sources for my posts on Venezuela. There's not much I can say in response to this: I do read the pro-Chavez stuff at Narco News and ZNET, too, but I don't find it compelling. Francisco Toro, in particular, is often critical of opposition leadership and strategy; I haven't read anything on Narco News or ZNET that is critical of Chavez - even in regards to his proposed "content" laws for media coverage, something you'd expect the Chomsky-ites at ZNET and free speech defenders at Narco News to jump on and throttle. But their silence on this and other issues is conspicuous. And I have to conclude that, unlike the newswires, lack of information, and the code of journalistic ethics, isn't to blame. posted by Robert Griffin at 1:57 PM