What's Going On By The Congress Now?

[Bajo_cero2]

Having written that, and having presumably seen the action today... your silence, your deafening silence, is shameful.

I didn’t see the action. I saw some videos today where police was attacking elders, a woman who was leaving her work on the way home and I also saw how police was crashing people with motorbikes and vans.

However, my comments at FB was that even we disagree with the use of non letal force, it was good that the most violent day was GN the force there because they are profesionals. GN use commandos so, they do not have guns and this is why there were no deaths. I do not inow if you saw the picture of the local cop who lost his gun. It was laying on the floor.

However the lack of leadership or self leaderships created the Chaos because they were hunting people up to Corrientes instead of just having the passive rol law states for them. Sorry but getting attack with stones is part of the job description.

I was worry about the local police. You don’t know but I was part of the dream team that investigated the massive riot of the 12/20th of 2001 where 36 people was killed. So, this is why I do not see tv about this. That time I found out that a friend of mine was murdered by police when I read the autopsy. An autopsy includes a lot of pictures that are reserved because they are too strong/hard.
So, as usual, you are out of place.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

My comments were also about that i was happy that police had enought non lethal ammo because at the 20th of dezember of 2001 people started to be killed when they ran out of non lethal ammo and started to use lead.

But the first victim of a gun shoot was the early morning when common police was overwheamed and surrounded without shields neither helmets at the stairs of the Congress so, of course they start shooting with 9 mm.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Has anyone come across a somewhat objective article explaining the details of this bill? All I can find is Macri and the Pro say this and FPV say that.

Simple: they had an automatic rise of [minimum] 14% per year of the pention and now is about 5%. If you have inflation over 20% it is a serious issue.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

From what I understand...

The gov't is changing the way pensions will be calculated. This change in calculation is going to cause a decrease in pension payouts to address the budget deficit. In order to cover the difference pensioners will receive a payment from the government who is issuing a bond.

I'm trying to eliminate all ideology from my mind, but I'm more sympathetic to Marci than the previous government. I believe his team is more competent and less corrupt than the Kirchner administration.

I understand he was left with a precarious financial situation, but it seems the people paying the price to get out of this hole are the most vulnerable. I just wonder if there is a more creative way to address the deficit.

He was left with no deficit.
Deficit began when you cut 100% taxes to mining (gold and lithium) and cut taxes to soy. Then he also cut taxes to employers (that are used to finance pentions). And meanwhile he took over 100 billion usd in loans to cover the deficit and the capital flight.

The tax self pardon also was a disaster for finances.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

The highly organized and deliberate show of violence was intended not to protect pensioners, but CFK and her son, Maximo, who are due to appear in court soon.

Judge Lopez Vergara, a devout Kirchnerist, issued a ruling forbidding the Metropolitan police to carry weapons. All they had was their shields to protect them from the mob. No wonder 88 policemen ended up in the hospital.

Argentina signed an UN protocol about the use of force by police that states that anti disturb police cannot wear guns (this is an ultra simplification).

GN that is a profesional police with military training didn’t wear guns on Friday but they use commandos that have the psichological preparation to face that kind of situations without taking it personal, loosing control or being afraid . They understand that receiving stones is part of the job description and they have the proper gear for that.

If they did what they did is because they followed orders.

Police had guns on Dezember 20th of 2001 and 36 people died.

So, seems that the judge just enforced the law

http://www.ohchr.org/SP/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/UseOfForceAndFirearms.aspx

 

[ben]

So as often happens, your links are good, your quoting of those same links is not as good.
(EDIT: Adding a line calling it an ultra-simplification doesn't cut it: it's plain inaccurate).

Here's the relevant text from the UN convention you linked:

14. In the dispersal of violent assemblies, law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary. Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms in such cases, except under the conditions stipulated in principle 9.​

Note the 2 important caveats:

1. It says "shall not use", not "shall not carry" or "shall not wear";
2. Such non-use subject to "the conditions stipulated in principle 9".

What are the conditions stipulated in principle 9?

9. Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.​

These are common-sense rules, which obviously understand that police are sometimes in vulnerable positions - as they most certainly were yesterday - and does not tie their hands as the honorable(?) judge did.

"Police had guns... and people died", ergo whenever police have firearms people will die, is a logical fallacy and an obvious one. More on that later.
That no police were killed (before GN was called in) is very nearly a miracle, and that 100 officers were injured is inexcusable.

==========

To say, as you do, that "Sorry but getting attack with stones is part of the job description" is remarkably cynical and hypocritical. Yes, police need to deal with criminals and that is their job... it does not follow that criminals are justified in committing crime. And what we witnessed yesterday was crime, encouraged and abetted by political entities towards the objective of achieving their political goals. You may agree with those political goals, but that they were complicit in yesterday's events is indisputable.

You casually gloss over the fact that the violence at the plaza was unconscionable, inexcusable, and most definitely planned and premeditated. People came to protest a government law, with clear intent to turn the area where the Congress operates into a war zone. They brought enough material to hurl at police for hours on end, to put 100 police in hospital, and enough tools to destroy monuments, concrete benches, etc and turn them into more projectiles to hurl at said police.

They were not there against the police. They were there ostensibly, to protest a law - but came prepared to injure and maim police against whom they had no grievance. That is properly called subversion or insurrection.

In a democracy, people elect their representatives and then let them work - and if they are unhappy with the results, wait till the new elections. In this "democracy", the losing side pulls every trick in the book, including encouragement of unconscionable violence, and then speaking of the police brutality outside - which was a lie, but which they clearly hoped would be true. How many politicians who clearly tried to exploit this situation, denounced the violence in forceful terms? Crickets.

I was not here in 2001, but heard enough about the incidents and the amount of times they were mentioned today, to understand that even without the judge's ruling, and even if he didn't actually care, it was a clear imperative for Macri to get through the day without any stories at all of police brutality. The government succeeded at that, but at an absurd cost.

Given what took place yesterday, and the clear complicity of the political entities that stood to gain from it, to discuss 2001 and blaming the chaos on the police, is very delusional or very dishonest. To place not one word of blame where it belongs, is shameful.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Ben, you imagine in your very special mind that there are common sense rules but this shows that you are clueless about how does the legal system in this country works.

While you imaging what does it means and how does it works in your fantasy world, i explained you from inside how does this really works and how the Chief of the Federal Police and the Minister of Internals Affairs were sent to trial and found guilty. We had to appeal before Supreme Court twice and win to make this happends:

https://www.google.com.ar/amp/www.lanacion.com.ar/1901796-tras-15-anos-condenaron-a-mathov-y-a-santos-por-la-represion-de-2001/amp/1901796

I use the a concept you might understand (ultra simplification) because it takes about 20 pages to explain to a Federal Judge how does it works and I m not going to disclosure it neither to waste my time because I just quote you only one soft law protocol and there are many others that complements it.

I do not understand why you are not a Supreme Court of the Universe judge.

Of course I didn’t read your reply, just a couple of words were far too much.

Stay in ignorance, it is a bliss.

By the way, how are good and bad laws doing today at kindergarden?

 

[ben]

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

You are so busy explaining what the law is, that right/wrong takes a back seat.

Not sure what the snide line re good/bad laws was supposed to mean, it is still true today that the law (as you stated it in the other thread) is irrational and unfair. Somebody whose life is in danger, had done nothing illegal, and is/was threatening nobody, should not have to choose between death and jail. That that is beyond you is amazing.

Your response is "well that's the law" (yes, we get that, that's the point) and to mock - but to mock what?
That people have a conscience and opinions beyond Argentine law, and dare express it?

I'd love to read your commentary on Kafka's works.
Where "love" means "shudder".

Anyways, back to the point: not a single word of reproach for the people who, ostensibly protesting a law in a democratic society, descended on the city to execute a well-planned riot. And sent a hundred police officers to hospital. Not a word of reproach for those politicians complicit in this thuggery. Shame on you.

Not a word of reproach for people willing to cause untold injury and damage, for no reason other than in the hope of provoking a police response that would be helpful politically. Shame on you.

P.S. People who can't bear reading someone, usually do not deign to respond.
To keep responding, all the while saying "I didn't even read you!" is just weird.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I just read the news I quoted and I realized that Belloni was found guilty but only for 3 years.

He was on a free day that day and he went there just because he wanted to shoot people and he brought his own lead shotgun ammo. 11 people were wounded and 3 killed where he was shooting but as far as there were another 5 shotguns there, seems that it couldn’t be proven that he was responsible for the 3 deaths and the other 10 wounded.

For sure he was sentence for the shoot in a leg that was filmed by a cameraman of Channel 13. He filmed him in the precisely moment of the shooting, it was possible to see that the empty cartridge was red (lethal), he turned back fast and filmed one guy who felt with the leg full of blood.

I remember when he showed up at the Court for the interrogation that he was haughty and arrogant until he saw the video we found. He colapsed and he was like one week at the hospital. For the next interrogation the paramedics were with him full time.

I do not follow cases when i stop working them. This is why I didn’t followed the “action” these days.

Here you can see the investigation I made and the facts I related:
https://youtu.be/Xz5AoVG-CW0

We decided to make it public through Punto Doc because I had too much information and my life was in a huge risk. The Prosecutor was not happy about knowing so much through TV but it helped to acchieve Belloni’s preventive inprisonment and the threats (shootings) ceased immediately.

 

[gracielle]

ben - [background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]From what I saw yesterday live, the ratio did NOT appear to be 0.001%. Not even close. More than enough to bring a massive stigma at the very least to those people present at the Congreso. It's like being in Charlottesville when people next to you start chanting "Jews will not replace us" - if you're a decent person, you leave.[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]The Congreso riot, again, was planned, organized and executed in tandem with the activity on the Congress floor, same as Thursday. There was more than enough violence to make one's continued presence there repugnant.[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]And as for the other protests, again - and as semigoodlookin puts it well - a) they are completely within their rights; b ) I am completely within [/background]my[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] rights to question their competence, if not their sincerity. People here (everywhere really, but even more here) lend themselves rather easily to following party lines. [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]julian63 - [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]To argue that skin color is inferred in the use of the word "thugs" is to lose credibility. Of course, that doesn't mean that someone can't delude themselves into attaching such an inapposite connotation. I'll be sure to remember this when I see other such posts. [/background]

Agree with both posts. "Thug" is an appropriate term. I prefer to use the term "mercenary".