Chavez to Get Unlimited Powers to Remake Venezuela

**Logan13** · 01-31-2007, 02:29 PM

Chavez to Get Unlimited Powers to Remake Venezuela
01/31/07
AP

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez is set to assume unbridled powers to remake Venezuelan society as the National Assembly prepares to grant him authority to enact sweeping measures by presidential decree.

The assembly, which is completely controlled by Chavez supporters, is scheduled to meet Wednesday in a Caracas plaza to approve a so-called "enabling law" that will give Chavez special powers for 18 months to transform 11 broadly defined areas, including the economy, energy and defense.

Chavez, who is beginning a fresh six-year term, says the legislation will be the start of a new era of "maximum revolution" during which he will consolidate Venezuela's transformation into a socialist society. His critics, however, are calling it a radical lurch toward authoritarianism by a leader with unchecked power.

The former paratroop commander has already said he will use the law to decree nationalizations of Venezuela's largest telecommunications company and the electricity sector, slap new taxes on the rich and impose greater state control over the oil and natural gas industries.

A final draft of the law shows Chavez will also be allowed to dictate unspecified measures to transform state institutions; reform banking, tax, insurance and financial regulations; decide on security and defense matters such as gun regulations and military organization; and "adapt" legislation to ensure "the equal distribution of wealth" as part of a new "social and economic model."

Chavez also plans to reorganize regional territories and carry out reforms aimed at bringing "power to the people" through thousands of newly formed Communal Councils, in which Venezuelans will have a say on spending an increasing flow of state money on neighborhood projects from public housing to road repaving.

Lawmakers were scheduled to formally approve the law Wednesday in an outdoor session in Caracas' Plaza Bolivar, next to the National Assembly.

Chavez's supporters deny the law constitutes an abuse of power and argue radical steps are necessary to accelerate the creation of a more egalitarian society.

National Assembly President Cilia Flores said the special powers will enable Chavez to enact new laws that "will benefit the people, those who were excluded their whole lives. They are laws for inclusion and social justice."

Others say the enabling law is dangerously concentrating power in the hands of single man.

Historian Ines Quintero said that with the new powers, Chavez will achieve a level of "hegemony" that is unprecedented in Venezuela's nearly five decades of democratic history.

She said the effects will be "exponential" because Chavez will wield "extraordinary powers" in a context where state institutions are weakening and the division of powers is not being respected.

Chavez has requested special powers twice before.

In 1999, shortly after he was first elected, he was only able to push through two new taxes and a revision of the income tax law after facing fierce opposition in congress. In 2001, by invoking an "enabling law" for the second time, he decreed 49 laws including controversial agrarian reform measures and a law that sharply raised taxes on foreign oil companies operating in Venezuela.

This time, the law will give Chavez a free hand to bring under state control some oil and natural gas projects that are still run by private companies - the latest in a series of nationalist energy policies in Venezuela, a top oil supplier to the United States and home to South America's largest gas reserves.

Chavez has said oil companies upgrading heavy oil in the Orinoco River basin - British Petroleum PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), Chevron Corp. (CVX), ConocoPhillips (COP) Co., Total SA (TOT) and Statoil ASA (STO) - must submit to state-controlled joint ventures, as companies have already done elsewhere in the country.

The law gives Chavez the authority to intervene and "regulate" the transition to joint ventures if companies do not adapt to the new framework within an unspecified "peremptory period."

**spywizard** · 01-31-2007, 02:33 PM

yep, watch the gas prices go through the roof again.. $4.00 per gal here we come..

**BgMc31** · 01-31-2007, 02:39 PM

absolute power corrupts absolutely

**J.S.N.** · 01-31-2007, 04:10 PM

unlimited? why does the headline say unlimited when the text indicates a consolidation? bush's powers were more unlimited under his own presidental miltary order from 2001-2004 until the hamdi v. rumsfeld ruling .

**Logan13** · 01-31-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by J.S.N.

unlimited? why does the headline say unlimited when the text indicates a consolidation? bush's powers were more unlimited under his own presidental miltary order from 2001-2004 until the hamdi v. rumsfeld ruling .

presidential decree = dictator
No matter how you try to spin it, Bush never had these types of powers my friend: this goes beyond any wartime powers, that every president has had, I might add.
"A final draft of the law shows Chavez will also be allowed to dictate unspecified measures to transform state institutions; reform banking, tax, insurance and financial regulations; decide on security and defense matters such as gun regulations and military organization; and "adapt" legislation to ensure "the equal distribution of wealth" as part of a new "social and economic model."
"The law will give Chavez a free hand to bring under state control some oil and natural gas projects that are still run by private companies - the latest in a series of nationalist energy policies in Venezuela, a top oil supplier to the United States and home to South America's largest gas reserves.

Chavez has said oil companies upgrading heavy oil in the Orinoco River basin - British Petroleum PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), Chevron Corp. (CVX), ConocoPhillips (COP) Co., Total SA (TOT) and Statoil ASA (STO) - must submit to state-controlled joint ventures, as companies have already done elsewhere in the country.

The law gives Chavez the authority to intervene and "regulate" the transition to joint ventures if companies do not adapt to the new framework within an unspecified "peremptory period."

**J.S.N.** · 01-31-2007, 04:37 PM

you're arguing under the framework of our ridiculous legislation that equates corporations with people. under bush's decree (yes dictator), he could detain anyone he wanted for any time he wanted for any reason he wanted. i don't particularily like chavez, but to paint him his stalin reincarnated and support bush is meh.

**Logan13** · 01-31-2007, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by J.S.N.

you're arguing under the framework of our ridiculous legislation that equates corporations with people. under bush's decree (yes dictator), he could detain anyone he wanted for any time he wanted for any reason he wanted. i don't particularily like chavez, but to paint him his stalin reincarnated and support bush is meh.

This does not apply to US citizens, as you well know. Can you give an example of someone who is a US citizen that is being kept for no reason? You are only looking at military powers here, if Bush were to get unbridled power to take over corporations and take control over all banking, you'd be bitching about it. So why are you OK with Chavez getting such powers?

**Red Ketchup** · 01-31-2007, 04:57 PM

I'll admit that seeing whats going on in Venezuella is pretty darn scary...

But Chavez IS popular with the people. He brought in an ultra-socialist government to serve the poor, and is seizing the assets he needs to pay for this socialism.

As in many countries, poors are the majority so they don't really care about seeing the ultra rich minority taxed or seized.

His gig is working fine now, but I doubt his regime is sustainable in the long run. Socialism only works when it's well balanced with capitalism (like the UK, Canada and most EU countries), when socialism goes unbalanced and unchecked, you get a disaster.

just my 2¢

Red

**J.S.N.** · 01-31-2007, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

This does not apply to US citizens, as you well know. Can you give an example of someone who is a US citizen that is being kept for no reason? You are only looking at military powers here, if Bush were to get unbridled power to take over corporations and take control over all banking, you'd be bitching about it. So why are you OK with Chavez getting such powers?

first off, i'm not okay with it because planned economies usually don't work well and i think breaking them up would work better, second off with so many poor people in venezuela things couldn't get much worse so whatever he does couldn't really **** things up that bad anyways, third bush did repeal habeas corpus from 2001-2004 hamdi v. rumsfeld, and fourth just because he has refused to respect the rights of non-citizens doesn't make it okay for several reasons, first and foremost his ability to arbitrarily arrest anyone, legally, torture them to give any testimony, then legally use that testimony to justify any actions he makes.

**Logan13** · 01-31-2007, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Red Ketchup

I'll admit that seeing whats going on in Venezuella is pretty darn scary...

But Chavez IS popular with the people. He brought in an ultra-socialist government to serve the poor, and is seizing the assets he needs to pay for this socialism.

As in many countries, poors are the majority so they don't really care about seeing the ultra rich minority taxed or seized.

His gig is working fine now, but I doubt his regime is sustainable in the long run. Socialism only works when it's well balanced with capitalism (like the UK, Canada and most EU countries), when socialism goes unbalanced and unchecked, you get a disaster.

just my 2¢

Red

Honestly, if I were a poor uneducated person from Venezuella who lived in my straw hut, Chavez would appear to be the second coming to me as well. I just hope, for these peoples' sakes, that they do not end up with another kim jong il in the end..........

**Logan13** · 01-31-2007, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by J.S.N.

first off, i'm not okay with it because planned economies usually don't work well and i think breaking them up would work better, second off with so many poor people in venezuela things couldn't get much worse so whatever he does couldn't really **** things up that bad anyways, third bush did repeal habeas corpus from 2001-2004 hamdi v. rumsfeld, and fourth just because he has refused to respect the rights of non-citizens doesn't make it okay for several reasons, first and foremost his ability to arbitrarily arrest anyone, legally, torture them to give any testimony, then legally use that testimony to justify any actions he makes.

He repealed habeas corpus for non US citizens. The writ of habeas corpus is only legally denied from any unlawful military combatant. First, you have to be declared an illegal combatant, which requires a Combat Status Review Tribunal, where you have the right to have someone speak in your defense. If you are found to be an illegal combatant, then your case is sent to the military tribunal.
Second, American citizens cannot be declared illegal combatants, period. Since American citizens can not be declared illegal combatants, they can not be subject to a military tribunal.
Third, you are confusing military court with civilian court.
As far as Hamdi is concerned, you do realize that he had Saudi citizenship as well. If caught in Saudi Arabia with a US passport, while a citizen of Saudi, one does face criminal prosecution. Hamdi was extradited back to Saudi Arabia. But, IMO, he should have been tried in Federal court for treason!

Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR all suspended habeas corpus.

**J.S.N.** · 02-01-2007, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR all suspended habeas corpus.

and all 3 were pricks.

btw keep referring to the military commissions act. his old decree did allow him ot retain citizens, and besides detentions, aren't you aware of his wiretapping program he just (semi) buckled on? that was in clear violation of fisa. in fact, illegal wiretapping was one of the things nixon was to be impeached for.

**mcpeepants** · 02-01-2007, 06:52 PM

the military commision acts of 2006 act basically washes the administration hands of the war crimes. The Hamdi vs Rumsfeld decision said that the administration violated the Geneva accord. The War Crimes Act of 1996 said that any violation of the Geneva accord is a war crime.

I don't see what prevents the president from calling an american citizen an enemy combatant. He gets to make the decision and the Combat Status Review Tribunal is even less of a check than the FISA court. I don't care whether the person is a citizen or not. Being able to challenge your detention is one of fundmental things to a just government.

**BgMc31** · 02-01-2007, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by J.S.N.

and all 3 were pricks.

.

Please expound...

**Kärnfysikern** · 02-02-2007, 07:07 AM

The people of Venezuela are getting what they wanted. Lets se if they think they made a good descision in a few years.

**3Vandoo** · 02-02-2007, 06:32 PM

the rationalisation of OIL actually does the happiness of the US administration,
Because it is a known fact that Venezuela signed major deals with the US with Chavez at the head of them. What will happen is cheaper production and less mediums between venezuela oil and the US consummers.

both are winning, except some oil companies, the nationalization was the way to go for the CIA.