As someone who hopes to become an international human rights lawyer, I was dismayed to learn that Hugo Chavez's government was investigating a well-known human rights lawyer, Ayala Corao. However, further digging revealed some interesting facts about Mr. Corao.
Mr. Corao's clients may once have been downtrodden peasants brutalized by Latin American dictators and death squads. But of late Mr. Corao has been working for Baumeister & Brewer, a firm with an impressive clientele of large corporations. Among these are Venezuelan companies who openly oppose the Chavez government, including PDVSA, alleged to be among the chief plotters of the 2002 coup.
Mr. Corao's employers are quite proud of their privatization philosophy, listing privatization 'processes' the firm has 'participated in' on its website.

For more information, please see:

http://www.brewercarias.com/baumeister/english.shtml

http://www.ralounews.com/


Do you think this is enough of a connection that Venezuela's judiciary is justified in investigating Mr. Corao?


And why hasn't this information been made available in the press?

VHeadline picked up my article, here:

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=30911


And it's linked in to another story on this here:

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=30944

Very well, but what is that we're supposed to be debating here?


You say that as though there were something wrong with being for privatization and opposing the Chavez government. That information, assuming it's true and I'll stipulate it for purposes of discussion, just makes me sympathize with him all the more.

Well, let's debate this way: Why didn't the media report the fact that this person may have had something to do with the coup (which resulted in the deaths of several people), that briefly overthrew Venezuela's democratically elected leader? Was it oversight? Sure, if it had simply been this buried bit of news. But independent sources reported other information that was not in the mainstream. So why wasn't it?

And it's one thing to sympathize with opposition and privatization, but are you for sympathizing with coup leaders who oust any democratically elected leader you don't like?

Is it okay even when they kill people to achieve their goal?

The small detail here is: The people who were killed at the time were people from the opposition who wanted to go to protest in Miraflores (equivalent to the White House). The people who did the kill are identified (several videos were shown) and were government people. When the first videos were shown began what some people consider a coup and others a "power vacuum"? (vacio de poder).

The point is: Whatever happened at the time (Coup or no Coup), people were killed before the ousting of Chavez and not after, as you say....as a matter of fact, Those deaths were the beginning of everything. Chavez was "invited" to leave the presidency after it was made known that a pacific protest was stopped with bullets when they wanted to go to the president's house.

By the way, many of the victims are trying to obtain justice in International courts since up to this day, Those people who shot at the protest are free and considered by the government as some kind of "heroes of the revolution".

THIS is not to defend Corao, by the way, I don't know him and he could be involved in the stupidity that caused Chavez to come back, but I wanted to comment on the deaths.

Links, please. I don't believe this information is correct.

More information on this:

It seems some media did report anti-Chavez protestors were killed. But it was incorrect/sloppy reporting/a lie (take your pick):

One of the Television stations managed to film one of the three sides in this battle and broadcast the footage over and over again, making it look like the only ones shooting were Chavez supporters from within the demonstration at people beyond the view of the camera. The media over and over again showed the footage of the Chavez supporters and implied that they were shooting at an unarmed crowd. As it turns out, and as will probably never be reported by the media, most of the dead are Chavez supporters. Also, as will probably never be told, the snipers were members of an extreme opposition party, known as Bandera Roja.

http://www.lossless-audio.com/usa/index0.p...e=741615498.htm


Since then, who has been murdered? The prosecutor who was investigating the coup plotters. If Chavez was a dictator, there wouldn't be a prosecutor. There would only be dead and disappeared coup leaders. Unlike Bush, I haven't heard a single credible report that Chavez is holding any of his citizens in secret detentions.


More on the prosecutor:

A leading Venezuelan prosecutor investigating the 2002 coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez has been killed in a car bomb attack in Caracas, raising fears of renewed unrest in the country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/...1355776,00.html



More on Bush policy:

The FBI arrested two of the Letelier-Moffitt killers, years after the murder. They pled guilty, got twelve years, served seven and got paroled. The INS then re-arrested them as undesirables, but in August 2001 George W. Bush insisted ­ over strong objection from the INS and FBI -- that these "Cuban patriots" deserved to return to civilian life in Florida.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1336


US involvement in the Venezuelan coup:

Mr Chavez said he was fascinated by the presence of a plane with US markings on the Venezuelan Caribbean island of Orchila where he was held after Friday's coup. At the time the military were trying to persuade him to resign and fly into foreign exile.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,685189,00.html


Sounds like what happened in Haiti to me. And the last thing Venezuelans need is to end up like the people of Haiti:

The United States has quietly given thousands of guns to the Haitian National Police and is moving to approve the sale of thousands more despite a 14-year arms embargo and allegations the force is corrupt, brutal and responsible for unjustified killings, U.S., U.N. and Haitian officials said this week.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...333/1002/NEWS01


So, that's the info. Now let me ask a slightly different type of question:


Why is the mainstream media misinforming Americans?

Is it because they're being lied to?

If so, by whom?

Are there liars in their staff?

If so, why are they there, and for whom?

Do the owners force reporters and staff to lie or not cover certain stories or to slant stories a certain way?

If so, why?








Now, I also have nothing against this Mr. Corao, other than that, if he is guilty of plotting the overthrow of his democratically elected president, I hope justice is served (in accordance with international law, which Venezuela recognizes).

I have a big issue with a media that misinforms, however.