Vemezuela – USA Gov Policy

Yesterday, the U.S. State Department stated that:

“The United States remains deeply concerned by the gross human rights abuses and violations detailed in the UN Human Rights report. This report on Venezuela illustrates the depth of the despair and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. It confirms that Nicolás Maduro and his thugs are committing gross violations of the human rights of the Venezuelan people and depriving them of their basic rights and freedoms through systemic repression, torture, and intimidation.

“One of the most unsettling statistics is that the former Maduro regime’s Special Action Forces killed at least 5,287 people in 2018 and, at minimum, another 1,569 by mid-May, 2019.

“This report follows the alleged torture and killing of Capitán de Corbeta Rafael Acosta Arévalo, a Venezuelan Naval Officer, who died while in the custody of Maduro’s thugs and their Cuban minders. We renew our deepest condolences to his family and loved ones.

“No dictatorship lasts forever. Venezuela will soon be free, and those responsible for abuses and violations of human rights in Venezuela will be held accountable. The international community should condemn the illegitimate Maduro regime and stand together to fight against its willful disregard for human rights and impunity.

“We appeal to the countries that have not yet formally recognized Interim President Guaido to do so as soon as possible, and withdraw any lingering support for the former Maduro regime’s de facto hold on power.”

July 5 was Venezuela’s national day. The State Department sent greetings to Juan Guaido, whom Washington considers the legitimate interim president. Maduro, of course, disagrees and clings to power, supported to some extent by foreign militaries. Washington’s greetings to Guaido noted:

“Once again, the Venezuelan people are besieged by dictatorship, undesired foreign presence, and profiteers. As in the time of Bolivar, Venezuela’s path to democracy is not easy, but you inspire the world with the strength of your voices and tremendous courage. We are with you in your struggle to reclaim your democratic self-governance and free it from those who have betrayed, oppressed, and robbed the Venezuelan people of the wealth of your great nation. The United States is unwavering in our commitment to realizing the restoration of your democratic future and the establishment of a government chosen by the Venezuelan people through free and fair elections. You will have our support until then — and beyond as your recovery begins.”

A U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) report issued on July 5 https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/07/1041902 disclosed that 66 deaths occurred during protests between January and May 2019, of which 52 were attributable to Government security forces, or pro-Government armed civilian groups known as “colectivos.” OHCHR maintains that, as of 31 May 2019, 793 people remained in arbitrary detention, including 58 women.

“They contributed to the deteriorating situation by exercising social control and helping repress demonstrations,” the OHCHR report says of the paramilitary groups.

Allegations of extrajudicial killings by security forces have been “shockingly high”, the report continues, citing the involvement of Government so-called Special Action Forces (FAES).

In 2018, the Government registered 5,287 killings, purportedly for “resistance to authority” during operations, the report continues, adding that between 1 January and 19 May this year, another 1,569 people were killed, according to Government figures.

The report also noted that, so far this year, 22 deputies of the National Assembly have been stripped of their parliamentary immunity, as well as to the forum’s leader, Mr. Guaido.

The U.N. also found that:

The muscles so get lots of blood that is rich in nutrients and oxygen), Electrical Stimulation (can ease pain due to irregular muscle tightness), Soft Tissue Massage (reduces pain and spasms by helping muscles relax – by bringing in a fresh supply of oxygen and nutrient-rich blood and by flushing the area of chemical irritants that come from inflammation), Joint Mobilization (changing pressure and movements to the joints to help lubricate. canadian viagra professional Believe it buying cialis in canada try these guys or not, butthese are far reaching. Extenze is an excellent male enhancement levitra price browse to find out more supplement, plus it helps alleviate erectile dysfunction and sexual problems. Nowadays it’s possible to buy any prescription or generic drug, being at home or anywhere else where purchase viagra in australia internet connection is available.

People ‘have to queue 10 hours per day for food.’

On the plight of ordinary Venezuelans, OHCHR insists that “large sections of the population have no access to food distribution.”

Women are particularly hard-hit, it continues, amid a “progressive scarcity and unaffordability of food” and reports that some are “spending an average of 10 hours per day queuing for food”.

Health provision is also described as “dire, with hospitals lacking staff, supplies, medicines and electricity to keep vital machinery running”.

Between November 2018 and February 2019, 1,557 people died because of lack of supplies in hospitals, the report notes, citing a national hospital survey.

Minorities lost land to military, armed groups

Indigenous peoples are also shown to have been disproportionately impacted, amid a loss of control of their land to military forces, organised criminal gangs and armed groups.

“Mining, particularly in Amazonas and Bolivar…has resulted in violations of various collective rights, including rights to maintain customs, traditional ways of life, and a spiritual relationship with their land,” the report adds.

Despite the many violations detailed within her report, the UN human rights chief declared that she was “hopeful”, that the access she had been granted during her trip, as well as the willingness of the Venezuelan authorities to accept the presence of two human rights officers on the ground, marked the beginning of “positive engagement” on the country’s many human rights issues.

The situation is complex, she said, but “the report contains clear, concrete recommendations for the way forward. I sincerely hope the authorities will take these recommendations in the constructive spirit in which they are made.”

in response to the High Commissioner’s comments, the Venezuelan representative to the Human Rights council dismissed her Office’s report, calling its contents “incomprehensible”, lacking in “scientific rigour” and omitting to mention the “immoral blockade” facing the country.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]