Treasure Targets Venezuelan - Washington DC

The US government is doing the right thing here. These Venezuelans were helping FARC that is a Colombian terrorist group. Actually where are the OAS - Organization of American States? Why they NEVER say something important, on favor of Justice, Human Rights violations, corruption, narcotraffics, etc. Sad.........

vdebate reporter

Treasury Targets Venezuelan Government Officials Supporting the FARC

Washington, DC

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of ForeignAssets Control (OFAC) today designated two senior Venezuelan governmentofficials, Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios and Henry de Jesus Rangel Silva, andone former official, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, for materially assisting thenarcotics trafficking activities of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia(FARC), a narco-terrorist organization.

"Today's designation exposes two senior Venezuelan government officials and one former official who armed, abetted, and funded the FARC, even as itterrorized and kidnapped innocents," said Adam J. Szubin, Director of OFAC."

This is OFAC's sixth action in the last ten months against the FARC.

We will continue to target and isolate those individuals and entities that aid the FARC's deadly narco-terrorist activities in the Americas."

Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios is the Director of Venezuela's MilitaryIntelligence Directorate (DGIM). His assistance to the FARC includes protecting drug shipments from seizure by Venezuelan anti-narcotics authorities and providing weapons to the FARC, allowing them to maintain their strong hold of the coveted Arauca Department.

Arauca, which is located on theColombia/Venezuela border, is known for coca cultivation and cocaine production.

Carvajal Barrios also provides the FARC with official Venezuelan government identification documents that allow FARC members to travel to and from Venezuela with ease.

Henry de Jesus Rangel Silva, the Director of Venezuela's Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services or DISIP, is in charge of intelligence and counter intelligence activities for the Venezuelan government.

Rangel Silva has materially assisted the narcotics trafficking activities of the FARC. He has also pushed for greater cooperation between the Venezuelan government and theFARC.

Ramon Emilio Rodriguez Chacin, who was Venezuela's Minister of Interior andJustice until September 8, is the Venezuelan government's main weapons contact for the FARC. The FARC uses its proceeds from narcotics sales to purchase weapons from the Venezuelan government. Rodriguez Chacin has held numerous meetings with senior FARC members, one of which occurred atthe Venezuelan government's Miraflores Palace in late 2007.

Rodriguez Chacin has also assisted the FARC by trying to facilitate a $250 million dollar loan from the Venezuelan government to the FARC in late 2007.

We cannot confirmwhether the loan materialized.

On May 29, 2003, President George W. Bush identified the FARC as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker, or drug kingpin, pursuant to the KingpinAct.

In 2001, the State Department designated the FARC as a SpeciallyDesignated Global Terrorist pursuant to Executive Order 13224, and in 1997 asa Foreign Terrorist Organization.

This OFAC action continues ongoing efforts under the Kingpin Act to apply financial measures against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations worldwide.

In addition to the 75 drug kingpins that have been designated by the President, 460 businesses and individuals have been designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act since June 2000.

Today's action freezes any assets the designated entities and individuals may have under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibits U.S. persons from conducting financial or commercial transactions involving those assets.

Penalties for violations ofthe Kingpin Act range from civil penalties of up to $1,075,000 per violation tomore severe criminal penalties.

Criminal penalties for corporate officers mayinclude up to 30 years in prison and fines of up to $5,000,000. Criminal fines forcorporations may reach $10,000,000.

Other individuals face up to 10 years inprison for criminal violations of the Kingpin Act and fines pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code.For a complete list of the individuals and entities designated today, please visit:

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/actions/index.shtml

To view previous OFAC actions directed against the FARC, please visit:

Treasury Action against the FARC on July 31, 2008

(link:http://www.treas/.gov/press/ releases/ hp1096.htm)

Treasury Action against the FARC on May 7, 2008

(link:http://www.treas/. gov/press/ releases/ hp966.htm)

Treasury Action against the FARC on April 22, 2008

(link:http://www.treas/. gov/press/ releases/ hp938.htm)

Treasury Action against the FARC on January 15, 2008

(link:http://www.treas/. gov/press/ releases/ hp762.htm)

Treasury Action against the FARC on November 1, 2007

(link:http://www.treas/. gov/press/ releases/ hp661.htm)

Treasury Action against the FARC on September 28, 2006

(link:http://www.treas/. gov/press/ releases/ hp119.htm)

Treasury Action against the FARC on February 19, 2004

(link:http://www.ustreas/. gov/press/ releases/ js1181.htm)

Silencing RCTV and Danny Glover

Debunking the Bunk
by Alexandra Beech

They keep coming. Emails and articles loaded with arguments justifying the silencing of a major television network in Venezuela. The arguments, published on websites funded by the Venezuelan government in Washington and else where, have been regurgitated throughout the country through viral email campaigns mimicking grassroots efforts. Here are a few, and my response.

ARGUMENT #1

The government's decision was "legal and legitimate one based on their constitution which guarantees and regulates the access and use of airwaves for the benefit of the general public." Legal and legitimate are loaded words, right?

To keep it simple, let's say that "legal" is following the law. Here's a little legal information, just for kicks: in May, 1987, the government published a decree numbered 1577. This degree was published in an "official gaceta", a document which contains all government decrees. That document was numbered 33,796, in case anyone is interested in reading the law. Included inside that decree is an article which states that licences (or concessions) shall be automatically renewed for a period of twenty years, when "always and when all regulations have been met." Automatically is a pretty straightforward word, but for those out there scratching your heads, "automatic" means, "Acting or operating in a manner essentially independent of external influence or control."Call me crazy, but if the regulations were met, the law is pretty clear. The licence should have "automatically been renewed."

Oh, says Glover and the Venezuela Information Office. But the regulations weren't met. What regulations?

Under what legal system was the evidence of a breach presented?

In what court were the "regulations" described? I

n what court did RCTV exercise its legal right to defend itself?

There was no court case. There was no legal proceeding. No one notified RCTV. It just happened. Legal and legitimate what?

(By the way, a legal notification doesn't take place on television. Yes, Chavez's threats don't count.)

ARGUMENT #2

RCTV "has not been silenced, for it can continue broadcasting by cable, satellite and Internet!"

With a 20% inflation rate, asking the poor to subscribe to cable, and/or buy a satellite dish, and/or buy a computer and subscribe to an Internet service smacks of...discrimination?

RCTV's position on channel two (Very High Frequency), combined with its transmission equipment, guaranteed that anyone with a TV and an antennae could see it. Around 35% of Venezuelans tuned in every day, making it the most watched network in the country.

Where is RCTV today?

Can any Venezuelan with a television watch it? No. That, my friends, is SILENCING.

ARGUMENT #3

The RCTV "programming has been sexist, racist and pejorative.

"Was it "sexist" when Caracas Metropolitan Mayor Juan Barreto - a member of Chavez's (most) inner circle - said, "You can't trust an animal that bleeds every month when it hasn't been injured, the woman."

Or when Chavez said on national television to the former First Lady on Valentine's Day in 2000, "Prepare yourself, Marisabel, because tonight you're getting what's yours."

Or when Chavez addressed US Secretary of State Rice by saying, "How are you? You've forgotten me, missy ..."

Or, when in another speech, Chavez said Secretary Rice, "continues to show she is a total illiterate. It seems she dreams of me. I could invite her meet with me to see what happens. First she said she was angry. The next day she said that she felt sad and depressed because of Chavez. Oh daddy! Forget about me. That lady has such bad luck! I won’t make that sacrifice for the country. Let someone else do it. Cristobal Jimenez, Nicolas Maduro or Juan Barreto, who is single”.

I can't imagine how those statements would be interpreted as anything other than sexist and vulgar, and yet these two men are televised on every network, and no one has accused them of "sexism."

Concerning RCTV's purported racism, could there be more diversity on television?

Yes, in Venezuela and everywhere, including the US.

Is anyone protesting in front of Univision, BET, Bravo, CBS, NBC, UPN, ABC and Telemundo?

Not the last time I checked. And since when is race an excuse to silence a television network?

Finally, the word "pejorative", which means "having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force."Never in the history of Venezuela has a president belittled his own people as Chavez has. No, he hasn't belittled his supporters, (I know what you were going to say, Glover!) I mean, those who don't agree with him, who signed against him, who voted against him - all constitutional rights.

He has called them, "squalids, coup-plotters, CIA agents, brain-washed"...and the list goes on. He called Bush and OAS Secretary General Insulza "pendejo" - which literally means pubic hair, and figuratively means asshole or idiot. We may not like either men - but we may not, as presidents, go around calling others "pubic hair" without being "pejorative." And yet no one has insisted that Chavez be removed from television.

ARGUMENT #4

RCTV "actively participated in the 2002 coup against President Chavez" because it "prohibited its reporters to broadcast Chavez's reinstatement in office."

To actively participate in a military coup, don't you have to call the military to take up arms against a president?

Did RCTV call on the military to take up arms against Chavez?

Has any Venezuelan court determined that those events were, in fact, a "coup"? (I'll publish any court decision you send me stating that the events were a "coup.") The other privately owned networks also failed to report the re-instatement of Chavez.

Why were their licenses renewed?

Could it be because they changed their editorial stance to favor the government?

As government special envoy Roy Chaderton recently said to Dow Jones in Madrid, "with the other stations, we took a political decision. They have rectified and the government considered it positive for democracy."

Does that sound like the government was upset over a coup, or over an editorial stance? Chaderton's words were repeated in New York by Consul General Leonor Osorio, who said, "The renter has behaved badly. His contract wasn't renewed." This folks, is censorship and persecution.According to one RCTV insider, there was a reason that reporters didn't venture into the streets on April 13th and 14th. After the shooting and killing of demonstrators by snipers on April 11th 2002, the country was in chaos, and many editors chose to ask network news reporters to stay home until further notice.

To date, the government hasn't created a "Truth Commission" to determine what exactly took place April 11-13, despite an accord reached between the government and the opposition under the mediation of the Carter Center and the Organization of American States which called for a thorough investigation of the sad events.

Finally, let's get real here. The government run and controlled media doesn't cover opposition events, including the student protests that recently roiled the nation. Any time hundreds of thousands of protestors crowd the streets, the government media uses the image of one empty street or avenue to "depict" the protest.

Reporters from banned networks (Globovision, and until recently RCTV) aren't allowed to enter many government functions. Government leaders, including Chavez, insult reporters who question them in any way. Chavez takes over the airwaves whenever he feels like it by forcing networks to broadcast his speeches. This revolution has been televised and televised and televised and televised and televised. Ad nauseum.

ARGUMENT #5"

The FCC in the US would have immediately shut down a television network if it broadcast statements calling for the removal of Bush."Let's envision that scenario. Rosie O'Donnell goes on National Television and starts saying that Bush needs to be removed from office. Oh wait! That probably already happened. Let's use another example. A prominent general says that Bush needs to be removed from office. He states, "I call on all soldiers to attack the White House." Would the government go after the network or after the general?

And if, by chance, Catie Couric joined the general in calling for the removal of Bush, wouldn't the FCC investigate, and possibly fine her network?

And wouldn't Congress call for hearings?

And would there be lawyers and yes, DUE PROCESS?

Please stop saying that the FCC would automatically shut down a television network. It's simply false.

Conclusion

In an interview with the Philadephia Inquirer on May 17, actor/producer Danny Glover said that "a foundation of democracy is due process."

Clearly, there was no due process in the RCTV case, and therefore the government's decision was both illegal and illegitimate.

In the same article, Glover states "In a democracy, it is important that all sides of a situation are heard not just the side that's coercively fashioned for us to hear."

Unfortunately, by Mr. Glover's criteria, Venezuela is no longer a democracy. Every VHF channel in Venezuela now only airs one side, and that is Chavez's side. Fortunately for Mr. Glover and Chavez's apologists in the United States, it is the side that they ardently defend.

Latin America and the New Age of Mediocrity

A recent travesty in Latin American history was the failure of the Organization of American States to address Venezuela's media crisis when it assembled in Panama.

If, as an Afghan saying goes, a river is muddy from its source, it is clear that a lack of leadership, both at the OAS and in its member countries, contributed to this oversight, leaving Venezuela, if not the region, vulnerable to a further erosion of press freedoms.

Condoning the closure of a major television network in Venezuela, the OAS sent two signals: one, that Chavez will get away with illegal and unconstitutional measures; and two, that member nations will not punish each other for violating the democratic principles which purportedly underlie the OAS Charter.

For instance, Article 17 in Chapter IV of the Charter states that

"Each State has the right to develop its cultural, political, and economic life freely and naturally. In this free development, the State shall respect the rights of the individual and the principles of universal morality."

By failing to provide any legal procedure or justification for its refusal to renew RCTV's broadcast license, the Venezuelan government clearly violated the rights of Venezuelans to access information. The government's decision was purely political, and not "administrative" as claimed by Insulza. During an interview with Dow Jones that took place on May 31, Venezuela's special envoy Roy Chaderton said that the reason the government had renewed the licenses of other private networks was that they had amended their editorial stances to suit the government. "With (other stations) we took a political decision. They have rectified and the government considered it positive for democracy." His claim was corroborated in New York by Consul General Leonor Osorio during an interview with NY1Noticias en Espanol, during which she repeated Chaderton's stance in Madrid: "The renter has behaved badly, so we didn't renew his contract." To claim that the decision was administrative is a misguided attempt to cover the important fact that the Venezuelan government violated "the principles of universal morality", for which it must be investigated.

By failing to take any action regarding Venezuela, the Organization of American States has lost its mandate to ensure that nations in the Western Hemisphere adhere to democratic principles. The OAS, for all intents and purposes, has plenty of intent but no purpose.

Perhaps the leaders of member countries took this decision out of self preservation. Chavez, after all, has proven he has the political will and financial might to fight his woes, and he finds allies everywhere: Joe Kennedy helped him poke his finger in Bush's eye by facilitating cheap heating oil to poor communities in the US, Rafael Correa poked two fingers in Alvaro Noboa's eyes in Ecuador, Ollanta Humala made a mockery of Peru's sovereignty, and in Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador missed Felipe Calderon's eyes by one or two inches.

Chavez's candidates have won or nearly won everywhere. In fact, Chavez today sways more power over Latin nations than any other president.

His sole opponent, the US, is still scraping the egg off its face, as Condoleeza Rice's plea for an investigation of Venezuela's government blew through Panama like a breeze.

The mediocrity of the OAS leadership was well demonstrated in a recent interview conducted by El Pais, a leading Spanish newspaper, with OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, who said the OAS wouldn't take measures against Venezuela for removing the most popular television network from a prominent VHF placement, exiling RCTV to satellite and cable, where opposition voices will never be heard again.

In the interview, it becomes eerily apparent that Insulza and other member nations disagreed with the measure against RCTV, but plan to do nothing to investigate it.

Meanwhile, Insulza, trying to save face or whatever reputation he can salvage among the civilized, has been pedaling like a storm-caught duck trying to justify the unjustifiable. Not only has he said in private meetings in Washington that he disagrees with the measure "in his heart", but he has expressed his observations in the media. In the disturbing interview with El Pais, titled "Latin America Avoids Confronting Chavez," he claims he was "displeased" by the government's decision, but could do nothing about it because Chavez's hadn't invited the OAS to Venezuela.

He ends by saying, "I hope Venezuela continues to be a democratic country." Clearly, a country with no dissenting voices on any VHF (Very High Frequency) channel - and where the only UHF channel courageous enough to question the government is under threat - can no longer be labeled "democratic".

Perhaps defining "democratic" is where Secretary General Insulza's ignorance lies.

Please review the article below, and draw your own conclusions. Ask yourself what greater men, such as Churchill would do. It seems the age of courage, wisdom, and might may have come to an end, at least in Latin America.

El Pais

Latin America Avoids Confronting Chavez

June 10, 2007

Despite the street protests in Caracas and political pressure emerging from the United States, the Organization of American States (OAS) is not going to take measures against Venezuela for the closure of the opposition channel Radio Caracas TV ( RCTV), according to an announcement by the secretary general of that multinational organization, José Miguel Insulza.

This decision, which means a victory for the Hugo Chávez government, reflects the will of the regional group of countries to avoid any conflict with the controversial Venezuelan president.

"The suspension of the Radio Caracas TV's concession is a measure not liked by member countries, but nobody has asked for a condemnation of something that constitutes an administrative decision by a government in whose governance we cannot interfere," thus affirms Insulza at an interview granted to EL PAÍS at his Washington office.

None of the OAS members requested measures against the Venezuelan government at the organization's General Assembly, held at the beginning of this week in Panama. Most of the countries, according to Latin American diplomatic sources, consider the closing down of RCTV to be an abusive measure by Hugo Chávez, but is not reason enough for provoking a confrontation with Venezuela, at the moment one of the most economically active counties on the continent thanks to the oil boom.

The leading Latin American governments fear, furthermore, that action by the OAS in answer to a decision they all make routinely-the concession and suspension of television licenses-would have set a very dangerous precedent.

Up until now the United States Executive Branch has not taken sides in the conflict with Chávez despite his continuous provocations. Nevertheless, its representative arrived at the OAS Assembly under pressure from a resolution by the US Senate approved unanimously a few days prior which condemned the closure of RCTV as an act "against freedom of expression" and petitioned the OAS for action.

Consequently, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, at the Panama meeting petitioned the secretary general of the OAS to use his good offices to study the conditions under which RCTV was closed.

Insulza nevertheless explains in the interview that an action of this nature requires, according to the OAS Charter, the approval of the rest of the countries and the acceptance of the country being affected, none of which conditions were present.

On the one hand, at the Assembly none of the countries called out to condemn Venezuela. On the other hand, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro had already warned in Panama that he would not give his consent to any kind of investigation by Insulza.

The Secretary General of the OAS is therefore disempowered from taking personal action in the matter. "I stand among those who were displeased by the RCTV decision, but nobody believes that this is reason for provoking a break-up within the institution," thus affirms Insulza.

Although he shares in the criterion that the closure of Radio Caracas TV constitutes "an administrative action," he believes that this measure "turned into a political sanction the moment the Venezuelan government adduced political reasons for taking such action."

Insulza recalls that the withdrawal of RCTV's license-officially was not renewed upon expiration of its term of issuance-took place after Chávez himself accused the channel of having supported the attempted coup d'état of 2002 and of habitually maintaining "fascist" points of view.

The Secretary General of the OAS expects, despite everything, to maintain contact with the member nations in order to study what other measures can be taken with respect to Venezuela. Nor does he discard the possibility of sometime traveling to that country in order to analyze the situation more closely, although he points out that that will not be soon.

"I hope Venezuela continues to be a democratic country. My mission is not going to be that of exacerbating the process of a break-up, because what this continent needs is unity," thus assured Insulza .

© Diario EL PAÍS S.L. - Miguel Yuste 40 - 28037 Madrid [España] - Tel. 91 337 8200