MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, June 27th 2019 - 08:19 UTC



Brazilian Judge reinstates top ally of President Temer to a ministerial post

Wednesday, February 15th 2017 - 09:34 UTC
Full article 45 comments

A Brazilian judge reinstated the nomination of a top ally of President Michel Temer to a ministerial post, but ruled he could not receive the legal protections other high-ranking politicians enjoy. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • :o))

    REF: “ruled he could not receive the legal protections other high-ranking politicians enjoy”: Well, at least THAT [although, there MUST be “some” loophole, as always!!
    - But will it REALLY happen, just in case......? OR:
    - Why not just remove these benefits/protection of ALL?

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    Yeah, it seems like it's about time to remove that protection from all of them. If for no other reason, then because if they keep barring anyone named in the scandal there will soon be no one running the country at all!

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • :o))

    Be assured that there WILL be some kind of a loophole - an escape hatch - for the highly privileged.

    Secondly, there is hardly anyone at the helm now, to run the show and everyone [including the president] is making desperate attempts at holding-on to their seats - at least as long as they can.

    Finally, although ALL the “heads” deserve “rolling”, some are better qualified than the others.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    While being named in a plea-bargain is not proof of corruption, it is highly indicative, as where there's smoke, there's (usually) fire....anyhow, reacting to (part of) the public's perception, that this was just a manoeuvre to protect Moreira Franco, at least Temer made a public commitment to fire any high-ranking politician (in his ministry) who becomes a defendant in a corruption case (linked to the “lavajato”). As all politicians, ministers or not, have privileged forum, it would then depend on Congress to kick them out, making it possible for Moro to decide their fate. It could be far worse, but on the good side, Dilma and Lula are goners.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • :o))

    Well, let's see! So far it's too dark at the end of the tunnel! :)

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Is there anything to force Temer to stick to his public commitment?

    @Mr Smileyface
    Have any of the politicians actually gone to jail yet?And whose heads do you think are better qualified for rolling?

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Although not enforceable by Law, in the manner in which he announced his decision, his credibility is riding on it....and surprisingly enough, he does pass on the impression that he actually cares about his credibility, something the great majority (of politicians) don't.
    What triggered this polemic issue was the fact that just before Dilma was impeached, she tried to empower Lula as a minister, with the sole, and obvious intention - as proved by a recorded phone conversation with Lula - to give him privileged forum and to keep him beyond Moro's clutch. The main difference between then and now, is that besides not being in government, Lula was already a defendant in 3 federal cases, for corruption and money laundering, and now, Moreira Franco was already working as Temer's aide, and is not a defendant....(yet...).

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    Yes, I remember reading about Dilma trying to make Lula a minister, and the courts blocking it. Do you think it would be a good idea to remove the immunity from ministers so this would no longer be a problem?

    I hope you are right about Temer, but since he appears to be just as involved in the corruption as all the other politicians, how long before he has to fire himself?

    Oh, and this is not related, but there were more would-be terrorists in the papers here today:

    The main guy mentioned got 9 years for trying to travel to Syria and distributing terrorist material. Do you think they should have been jailed for longer? I'm sure they would have been if they were caught planning some specific attack, I guess planning to fight for IS in Syria isn't considered the same thing.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))



    Feb 15th, 2017 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    It does sound like you should get rid of the immunity - and like your corrupt politicians will never vote to do so.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Hepatia

    An illegitimate president leading a low credibility administration.

    Feb 16th, 2017 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • :o))

    Political Tricks & Business as Usual:

    Corruption charges

    Investigations against the President of the CCJ, Edison Lobão (PMDB-MA), are currently pending in the Supreme Court. Operation Car Wash also holds accusations against the rapporteur, senator Eduardo Braga (PMDB-AM).

    Other committee members under investigation are listed below.

    Jader Barbalho (PMDB-PA)

    Valdir Raupp (PMDB-RO)

    Benedito de Lira (PP-AL)

    Lindbergh Farias (PT-RJ)

    Fernando Collor (PTC-AL)

    Renan Calheiros (PMDB-AL)

    Romero Jucá (PMDB-RR)

    Gleisi Hoffmann (PT-PR)

    Humberto Costa (PT-PE)

    In addition, CCJ member Aécio Neves (PSDB-MG) also faces corruption investigations. However, the charges are separate from Operation Car Wash.

    Feb 16th, 2017 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • golfcronie

    Hepatia, The FALKLANDS will remain a BOT for the next 200 yrs.

    Feb 16th, 2017 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    The removal of politicians' immunity would definitely be a move in the right direction, as currently the Supreme Court claims to have a backlog of 10 years, so by the time they get around to it, most crimes will have prescribed...Allowing 1st instance federal courts to deal with them, would speed up the process no end, and moralize the system...
    A year ago, the chance of removing immunity was nihil, but today, it is starting to look like a possibility - besides society in general, Supreme Court justices and some prominent members of Congress have expressed their support for such a measure. The fact that the subject is no longer taboo, is a good sign....but they'll only do it if public pressure is overwhelming...
    To me, there is little doubt that Temer received undeclared contributions for his campaign as VP, but considering that the candidate for VP has little influence in who wins the presidency, his crimes are 'minor' if compared to the other politicians (even Dilma's) who really needed to 'sell' themselves to get elected...and based on that, there probably isn't one single politician who isn't guilty of this...therefore, besides the time it will take to reach Temer - if at all - it is not a very present concern.
    Regarding your home-grown terrorists, I think they got off lightly....first, besides their intention to fight against the UK in Syria, what's the probability that their actions, if not stopped before, would have escalated into a full blown attack on UK soil ? and second, when they're released, do you really think they will have learned their lesson ? I doubt it....the only guarantee is if they had been imprisoned for life.

    Please educate yourself, or shut-up....

    Feb 16th, 2017 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I hope people keep pushing to remove the immunity then, so the politicians can be held to account. And even more importantly, show that they can't get away with it, so future ones won't give in to temptation.

    And you think they are all guilty, basically? I guess as long as Temer's crimes don't catch up with him until the end of his term, it's good enough for you - he did promise not to stand again (and isn't popular enough to do so anyway). What happens when the politicians retire, do they lose their immunity? If so that's a big incentive to cling on to power as long as possible!

    Anyway, if the system doesn't change, what are the chances this will all happen again?

    About the terrorists, if they had got to Syria it's possible they would later come back and attack the UK, who knows? But even in jail they can still cause problems by trying to convert the other prisoners, and I don't suppose they will learn the kind of lesson we want them to. The most we can hope is that the war will be over by the time they get out, making their plans pointless.

    Feb 16th, 2017 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    REF: “it could not be ignored that Moreira Franco had reportedly been named in plea bargain testimony”:

    As far as the famous “plea bargains” are concerned; although they stink and suggest a “Possible Suspect”, without concrete proofs; they are just a hearsay! Hence; the “plea bargains” maybe are acceptable, only if they accompany concrete proofs. Only then they can be more “respectable/feared” than being “sensational”.

    It is not only shameful & illogical to indicate a seasoned crook [maybe] to an important post; it also is an indirect acceptance - an “endorsement” - of a corrupt individual & an insult to the Brazilians. Besides; whichever band recommends such a crook; are obviously knee-deep in the same or similar scams!


    Feb 17th, 2017 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Dilma's impeachment and all the corruption that has surfaced over the last 10 years (starting with the 'mensalão', engineered by the PT), have made society wake up to the fact that they are being screwed by the politicians. Until then, politicians felt they could get away with anything, and they did....back then, to think that one day their special immunity might be waived, was ludicrous. A Supreme Court justice, during an interview held yesterday, said he was in favour of maintaining immunity only to guarantee the right to freedom of speech...any other crime, such as bribery, corruption, prevarication, murder etc, would be tried in courts of 1st instance.
    Elected politicians, and/or appointees to ministerial positions only have this special immunity while in office, therefore, it sure is an incentive to hang on to power...once out, they are ordinary citizens, without any privileges - except for ridiculously high pensions.

    “Anyway, if the system doesn't change, what are the chances this will all happen again?”

    The chances are very big...therefore, since their rotten mentality will take years to change, the only solution is to change the system to a point where they realize they won't get away with it....and as they are loathe to pass laws which might endanger their dirty plans, the only things that will eventually change the system is to not re-elect them, and to exert public pressure on them 24/7.

    “About the terrorists, if they had got to Syria it's possible they would later come back and attack the UK, who knows?”

    Well, the other side of the coin is, do you want to run the risk ? If while in jail, they are allowed to mingle with other prisoners, and to encourage their 'holy war', they can either be kept in solitary, or even better, shot as traitors. Being lenient with them, trusting in their “recuperation”, will get you nowhere.

    @:o)) the reason for the plea-bargains, is to find clues that lead to proof.

    Feb 17th, 2017 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    Hi, Jack!

    The plea-bargains ARE important as a tool and DO play significant roles. But publicizing the “news” about them - as “sensations” - and that too prematurely; may have a few undesirable side-effects; such as the probable destruction of some concrete evidence - clues which were previously undiscovered.

    EXAMPLE: Perhaps it was premature to publicize who is under investigation, is likely to be investigated or who could be suspect, To name just a few such are:
    - Jader Barbalho (PMDB-PA)
    - Valdir Raupp (PMDB-RO)
    - Benedito de Lira (PP-AL)
    - Lindbergh Farias (PT-RJ)
    - Fernando Collor (PTC-AL)
    - Renan Calheiros (PMDB-AL)
    - Romero Jucá (PMDB-RR)
    - Gleisi Hoffmann (PT-PR)
    - Humberto Costa (PT-PE)
    - Aécio Neves (PSDB-MG)
    - and MANY others; who simply laughed it off, had time to cover-up their acts WELL IN ADVANCE - and hence, till today, they are in power to enjoy the fruits of their nefarious deeds.

    Feb 17th, 2017 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Agreed....why tip off the suspects so that they can destroy evidence ? as in the case of Paulo Roberto Costa, whose plea-bargain agreement will probably be anulled due to his daughters removing evidence after learning that a warrant had been issued to search his home and office....then lying about it.

    Feb 17th, 2017 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    Hi, Jack!

    The news agencies are obliged by the advertisers that they MUST ensure the highest audience - at ALL costs!

    Hence, their eagerness & struggles to remain ahead of the other competitors by “sensationalism”! This, and the other reasons such as the “leakages”; which warn the culprits BEFORE the law actually knocks at their doors.

    Feb 17th, 2017 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I guess although it looks bad, it's actually a really good thing that all this has come to light, as now things can change if you keep up the pressure. It does sound like a good idea to keep the immunity for freedom of speech, too. We have something similar in the UK.

    I suppose the politicians will be exempt from the pension reforms like the army? It's always a problem when people get to set their own salary and conditions, I hope the press and people can keep the scrutiny up for long enough to bring real changes.

    As for the terrorists, I don't really want to run the risk, but keeping them in jail is expensive, especially if they have to be segregated. Ordinary criminals mostly do not get very long sentences either. And they wouldn't be shot anyway; Britain used hanging before we got rid of the death penalty. In general it would be better to reform criminals, as then they can contribute to society rather than being a drain on it, but I kind of doubt it's possible with the terrorists.

    When did Brazil get rid of capital punishment, by the way?

    Feb 18th, 2017 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    The sad thing about all this finally coming to light, is that while it's alawys been common knowledge amongst the more educated, something is only being done about it now....
    Regarding the social security system, the people who work in the private sector are so disgusted with the benefits of the public sector, that I believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel towards putting an end to the politicians' privileges.....people have finally become aware of the unfair and unjustified differences, so I don't see things carrying-on as they are for too long.
    It comes down to choosing whether you want to reduce the chances of terrorist attacks, or bite the bullet to put them away for good....anyway, what's the cost of an attack, not to mention the lives ? If capital punishment makes people squeamish, I've nothing against solitary confinement, for life.

    The last time the death sentence was applied in Brazil was in 1876 (to a slave who had murdered his 'master'). The same year, D.Pedro II decided to abolish it, but in 1937 it was brought back for a short period (under Getulio Vargas) , then in 1946 it was abolished for good, only being maintained for treason, during time of war.

    Feb 19th, 2017 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hepatia


    Feb 20th, 2017 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    The “Tipping Off” [by the media or by any other means] the culprits may NOT necessarily be just an innocent, unintentional, irresponsible or negligent “act”! THAT's my point! On the contrary; it is a well calculated strategic “move”; to benefit the “Privileged-Few”!

    Feb 20th, 2017 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    If it was always common knowledge, why wasn't it reported in the papers before, why did no one investigate and try to find evidence? Were they bribed too? What has changed now, anyway?

    And wow, Brazil was way ahead of the UK or most European countries in abolishing the death penalty. But that's only for 'official' killings, the military government executed people illegally and in secret did they not? And then there are all the vigilante murders... having an official death sentence would surely be preferable to that.

    Feb 20th, 2017 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    The leaders don't really have serious intentions. There is plenty of scope for the “Non-Stop Monkey-Business”: Para procurador, 'foro privilegiado é armadilha para o Supremo' :

    Feb 20th, 2017 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Before the military regime, after it and until recently, politicians were 'untouchables', and despite a sporadic 'scandal' every now and again, after a lot of fanfare, the cases were dismissed for 'lack of evidence' accusation ever stuck....the whole system was corrupt, and the justice system (lower courts as well as the supreme court) seemed to either be OK with it, or were incapable of doing, or even reluctant to do their due diligence. With that environment, most corruption became almost the natural order of things, and was ignored by the great majority of the not particularly well-informed citizens....and the press, probably realizing it was a waste of time to follow-up, didn't insist.....but when the 'mensalão' occurred, it was a turning point as it was too big to just sweep under the carpet. A new class of prosecutors, which appeared a few years ago, and having been trained in the US in modern investigation techniques, started to change the way things were done.

    Sure the military killed many of those that rose up in arms against them, and were caught...that's the risk they took. Funny, no one talks about the crimes committed by the pseudo 'freedom-fighters', nor about the military who were killed in the line of duty, not to mention innocent bystanders caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I quite frankly , am fed up with people choosing to see only one side of the conflict.

    But getting back to capital punishment, no matter what anyone says, there are hundreds of criminals who have rap sheets as long as here to next week, filled with all sorts of heinous crimes, and which, as far as I'm concerned, should be executed. If it doesn't work to deter potential hard-core criminals, it will at least guarantee that those who are executed won't commit any more crimes.

    Feb 20th, 2017 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hepatia


    Feb 21st, 2017 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    REF: “capital punishment in BRAZIL”:
    - as the rest of laws; it will also be misused; particularly for getting rid of those who are really unwanted politically
    - the Brazilian Crime Syndicate will NEVER permit it. REF:

    Feb 21st, 2017 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    change the are boring...y-a-w-n !

    Feb 21st, 2017 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    So things really have changed, that's good anyway - as long as people can keep up the momentum and the pressure. If not I suppose the guilty will just pardon themselves as they've tried to do already.

    I suppose people find governments committing crimes worse than 'freedom-fighters' or criminals. But since some of those people are now in power in Brazil - or were - maybe we should all care more. What sort of crimes did they commit anyway?

    And as for capital punishment, I think Mr Smileyface has a point; combining it with Brazil's level of corruption could be a big disaster. The real question is, how do they get such long rap sheets? Why aren't people who have committed serious crimes kept in jail for longer so they can't commit more?

    Feb 21st, 2017 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    Please check:

    “Indenização a preso é uma irresponsabilidade fiscal do Supremo”

    Uma semana após STF criar indenização a preso por falta de conforto, conheçam esta história de miséria Jovem Pan @portaljovempan 3 dia s #Opinião #3em1 | @veramagalhaes

    Feb 22nd, 2017 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hepatia


    Feb 22nd, 2017 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    REF: “Why aren't people who have committed serious crimes kept in jail for longer so they can't commit more?”:

    The LONGER they stay behind bars;
    - the more “candidates” are enrolled into their gangs
    - the prisons become their HQs for all kinds of crimes
    - they are able to command/control the govt. officials
    - with time, they get SAFER, more powerful AND richer

    The ONLY way out for Brazil is to have some kind of treaty with a few countries [similar to that of the USA]; to imprison the Hard-Boiled Criminals, in these countries [on behalf of Brazil]; where Amnesty Int'l, Human Rights, UNO, etc. have ZERO influence and the prisoners have NO rights AT ALL!

    Feb 22nd, 2017 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    “I suppose people find governments committing crimes worse than 'freedom-fighters' or criminals.”……
    Quite probably, but, considering that the ‘freedom-fighters’ went up against government - not vice-versa - and the criminals were who broke the law first, causing the government / police to respond accordingly, I find that people who think like that, are either lacking in the upper story, poorly informed, or have something to gain by it.
    The ‘freedom-fighters’ only became part of government under the PT, as many were founding members of the party (1980) and later ‘claimed’, many falsely, that they had suffered hardship in the hands of the military…all with the intention of reaping huge compensation from the (PT) government, a good part of which was funneled back to the party. They've all been kicked out now, and their crimes ranged fm bombing of public buildings / army barracks, the murder of members of the military and civilians, bank robberies, kidnapping for ransom, to assassination….crimes that shouldn't prescribe, nor be granted amnesty for.
    The reason the rap sheets are miles long is because the laws are too lenient and prison sentences nearly never play out in their entirety. A criminal condemned for murder, faces a maximum sentence of 30 years...after only 1/6 of the sentence, or 5 years, he can be up for parole if he’s behaved himself (not tried to escape – very common, nor killed again while in prison), so he’s released, and like the great majority, returns to crime, usually worse that before. Sentences for smaller crimes, up to 4 years, are normally converted to community services, or go unpunished (due to overcrowding), so it’s a constant in and out of jail, or not at all, while their crimes go mounting up. Only the leaders of the criminal factions usually serve their full terms and are segregated from the rest of the prison population. Other than that, it’s a crime-fest, in which HR plays a significant (negative) role.

    Feb 22nd, 2017 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @ :o))
    The US doesn't actually send their own criminals off to other countries to deal with. Instead they build a lot of jails and keep a lot of people locked up for a long time.

    I think what Brazil needs is a colony where you can dump all your criminals. Then the ones who survive the poisonous snakes and spiders, and the drop-bears, will magically turn into model citizens. ;)

    But more seriously, the problem isn't prisoners rights as such. They don't have a right to a mobile phone, or to drugs, or to cut off rival gang member's heads, do they? No one is fighting for a prisoner's right to bribe politicians. The big problem is the amount of money they have compared to the honest people, which allows them to bribe the guards to get whatever they want, and the fact the state cannot afford to build enough prisons or to guard them sufficiently, so they don't give long enough sentences and they can't do anything about the gangs.

    The various groups were fighting against the military government were they not, which had taken power in a coup? Such undemocratic governments must be repressive if they wish to remain in power, as they have to silence and remove the opposition. Fighting against a dictatorship is very different to fighting against a democratically elected government. I daresay the government did adopt worse measures as a result of the freedom fighters' actions, but they were already repressive.

    The difference between criminals killing people, and the government doing the same, is that when criminals do it, everyone agrees that it is wrong and they should be punished. There is no controversy so no one talks about it much. But there is always a debate over what powers the government and police should have, and whether they are abusing them.

    The freedom fighters are somewhere in between, because at least some people think they are justified. As for those in the PT, I guess it would depend on what they did and whether they had already paid for their crimes.

    Feb 22nd, 2017 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hepatia


    Feb 23rd, 2017 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    REF: “The US doesn't actually send their own criminals off to other countries to deal with”: True.

    Not criminals but they do send the suspected terrorists. A similar “arrangements” can be possible with other countries, to “accept” the Brazilian Hard-Boiled Crooks. A few countries in the Middle East may even be VERY “anxious” to finalize such a deal with Brazil!

    Keeping them behind bars for a very long time will have a contradictory & undesirable effect as mentioned earlier - besides costing a hell of a lot. In short; getting rid of the crooks - for good AND asap; is the ONLY option. REF:

    Oh, yes! Freedom-Fighters and that too in Brazil? Brazilians are incapable of fighting even for their own “Basic Rights”! Everything is OK in Brazil; as long as they can watch the soap operas, football, and carnival! In fact, the politicians are BANKING on this!

    Slowly, gradually, and surreptitiously; they are taking steps towards getting rid of the investigations & the dramatic “operations” - without the Brazilians perceiving it! Believe it or NOT!

    Feb 23rd, 2017 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    The military takeover in '64's a long story, and usually provokes mixed emotions, depending where you are situated in the political spectrum - either far-left (extreme socialism), or centre-right (more conservative). But to put in a nutshell - based on personal experience - it was basically because when nutcase J.Quadros suddenly resigned in 1961 (reasons unknown), his communist VP, Jango took over. He became over friendly with the USSR, to the point of suggesting they establish a naval base in the NE, and true to Brazilian style, he probably believed he would become an almighty dictator, backed by the USSR, without having to sell his soul to the devil). Besides this, you had the first apparition of the pseudo ‘freedom-fighters’, returning from guerrilla-training in Cuba (1961-62), and whose objective was to topple the govt through armed resistance, and establish a Cuban-style commie state. People became concerned, and to manifest their profound dissatisfaction with events, staged several massive demonstrations, mainly in São Paulo. With only one, accidental shot, having been fired, we woke up on the 31st Marchwith a new government. The military had no real inclination for power, but they took whatever measures necessary to curb the armed resistance. I was studying at the time, and I and my family, as well as friends, were never bothered, far less harassed by any strong-arm tactics by the govt, but obviously, those who chose to fight it (committing crimes to either intimidate the government and/or to arrange funds for their fight), got their deserts. Lula, already a trouble-maker in the early 70’s) was only too glad to absorb the remaining communist scum when he founded the PT in 1980.
    “The freedom fighters are somewhere in between, because at least some people think they are justified”..most of those who do, funnily enough, hadn't been born yet, and they see events through a distorted, romantic lens. Like the idiots who wear 'Che Guevarra' T-shirts.

    Feb 23rd, 2017 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I see the twitter fairy has appeared again. Does Temer really mean 'fear' in Portuguese? That's quite funny. Also, Hepatia, you do realise the lawyer you linked to is British, right?

    For all I know you may be right that the military had no real inclination for power, but they held on to it for more than 20 years anyway. They didn't allow free elections and they didn't allow free speech, so there was no legitimate way for people to oppose them.

    And I suppose that most of those who agreed with the Cuban government, or were simply content to go on with their lives, were not harassed by the state either. That doesn't make it okay. People should be able to express different political views and campaign for them without being harassed or persecuted. If the military government had done things you objected to, there was nothing you could do about it.

    Rousseff was one of those who fought against the dictatorship, and she was elected president twice, so apparently a lot of people in Brazil today do think they were justified. And didn't the military government eventually screw up the economy, just like what has happened today?

    Yes, they have sent suspected terrorists to other countries to be tortured, and probably will again now Trump is president. I think it's an immoral and cowardly policy, but regardless, the US is a rich and powerful country. Why would any country be willing to take Brazil's worst criminals?

    Keeping them in jail seems to work in the US, but they can afford it. You are right that it is very expensive. Perhaps instead of legalising corruption and kickbacks, you need to legalise the sale and transport of drugs, and start taxing these gang leaders instead of jailing them.

    Do you fight for your basic rights? Or are you happy with soaps, football and carnival?

    Feb 23rd, 2017 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hepatia


    Feb 23rd, 2017 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Only 2 retweets and 2 likes. What are the chances that is Hepatia's own twitter account?

    Feb 23rd, 2017 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    REF: “You need to legalize the sale and transport of drugs, and start taxing these gang leaders instead of jailing them.”:

    Excellent idea but which crook will like to pay taxes?

    The EASIEST is legalizing corruption. That way, the time & money need not be wasted for the expensive and time-consuming investigations & the “operations” which ultimately are most likely to end-up in the garbage - at least that's what is the main intention of the corrupt politicians. Their lobby is getting stronger by the day; so they are likely to be “successful, sooner or later”!

    Feb 24th, 2017 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    The military presidents predicted, before they left power, that the civilians would screw it up when they returned. Looking at the current situation, I’d say they hit the nail on the head. Also, the military invested heavily in infrastructure, something which the civilians, to a large extent, ignored…The PT, taking advantage of this, launched two ambitious investment programmes – the infamous ‘PAC’s’ (programmes for acceleration of growth), to which were destined over R$ 2 trillion (US$ 600 billion)….in 10 years (2007-17) this ‘should have’ brought Brazil’s infrastructure, to a level whereby it would attend Brazil’s needs for years to come, but the sad truth is that the reason behind them, was to steal…this has long become obvious, considering less than 25% of the projects have been completed, many abandoned half-done, and no-one knows where the money has gone…
    But back to the military – Congressional elections occurred, but politicians had limited power…only the president and other high-ranking officials weren’t elected. As to free-speech, this was relative….if you went blowing your mouth off, criticizing the military, or encouraging subversion, then yes, you could get screwed…but how many idiots did this ? a few hundred; and what they were fighting for, a Cuban-style dictatorship, was no better.
    The problem today, is that most people, especially those who didn’t live it, have no real idea what it was like, but when the military took over, the population as a whole, was relieved.
    Don’t kid yourself - the majority of Dilma’s voters are too young, or too ignorant to know the real story of the 60’s, which has been romanticized by the leftist media. Dilma's election platform was populism - which could only be and has been a disaster ; Despite the little that can be said in her defense, her incompetence is without parallel in Brazilan history. Better off without her and the PT.
    Please inform when and how the military screwed the economy.

    Feb 24th, 2017 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Back when you were a student, if the revolutionaries had managed to create a Cuban style dictatorship in Brazil, would you have criticised it, or demonstrated, or done anything to try and change it? The BBC says over 400 people were killed and thousands tortured; they can't all have been violent communists.

    And I think free speech is pretty damn important. Without it, no new ideas can spread, nothing ever improves. The government can lie to you and feed you propaganda, tell you everything is fine, and no one can contradict them. The communist countries all banned free speech and for good reason.

    As for the economy, Wikipedia says that at the end of the 70s high oil prices caused the government to increase borrowing to unsustainable levels, and in the early 80s inflation exploded and the economy stagnated. It describes the 80s as a lost decade; the dictatorship ended in 85. Is this not correct?

    No crook wants to pay taxes, but on the other hand there would be less bribes to pay, no inconvenient spells in jail, so perhaps some would see the advantage. Or get legitimate businesses to take over and squeeze out the crooks.

    I expect legalising corruption is the easiest way, but surely not the best. Even if you can't get back what was stolen before, stopping the thievery would be very beneficial for the future.

    Feb 24th, 2017 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!