MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentine military will be involved in domestic security issues, announces Macri
In a radical reform of Argentina's defense doctrine, President Mauricio Macri said on Monday he is removing a ban on military involvement in fighting crime, terrorist threats and other internal security issues. Macri said he will modify a 2006 decree that limited the armed forces to defense against attacks by another country. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“Argentine military will be involved in domestic security issues”
Jul 24th, 2018 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We all know how splendidly well that worked out last time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
Yes, what the hell is he thinking? You can't just ignore history and pretend it never happened.
Jul 24th, 2018 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course, in Argentina no politician may imagine applying an extreme adjustment of the economy without people taking it down to the streets.
Jul 26th, 2018 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0President Macri knows well he will probably need more riot control than what the provincial and federal police forces, the border police, the airports police, the ports police can ensure. So on top of rubber and lead bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, batons and other devices, he knows he needs to have the tanks.
Don’t see much prospect of Tanks on the streets, just yet.
Jul 26th, 2018 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can see how, in a country the size of Argentina with such varying conditions, from mountains to desert to pampas to Jungle, a military capable of deploying in support of Local/Border police would be useful, even if they could only provide logistics.
Probably wouldn’t raise many eyebrows in some parts of the world, in Argentina however they have a relatively recent history that is bound to make people wary.
@DT
Jul 26th, 2018 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Using this space to post comment on : “Lula the only hope for...”
“innocent of what”? corruption, prevarication…ok, if I’m reading you correctly, you don’t really believe he’s innocent. “I'd say major parties have certainly taken illegal campaign contributions” - Correct, but only those in govt have access to multi-billion contracts. Am not excusing govts prior to PT / PMDB, just saying only these 2 actually created a crime org with intent to steal. Temer was Lula’s successor in a way, as it was Lula who put Temer on Dilma’s ticket in 2010. Just be wary of who wrote the account of the trial in English.
The “other” politicians whose cases “don't seem to going anywhere”, still have immunity/ can only be tried by the STF…'n we know the STF is painfully slow ; B4 you say it wasn’t slow for Lula, pls note his case moved ‘quickly’ only because his expensive lawyers (one of them an ex-prez of STF) wangled a quick definition due to his presidential ambitions. Accusations against other ex-prez are slow because investigations haven’t yet found enough evidence to charge them. Agree the Temer/ Dilma trial (irregular campaign financing) was a farce ; short of impeachment by Congress, even a guilty verdict by TSE wouldn’t get rid of Temer…the PT didn’t PT complain. Why ? ‘cause it benefited Dilma as well. Other HC candidates are small fish compared to Lula, so not surprising little info on them.
PB was semi-privatized by FHC in 2001 (workers could invest up to 50% of their FGTS a/c’s - special retirement fund), ‘n with professional management, took off : 2007 mkt value : R$ 700 billion ; end 2007, after Lula nationalized it (again, thru a dirty accounting gimmick), its value fell gradually to less than R$ 100 billion. Wonder why ?
@TH
Marisa signed the flat contract w/ Bancoop (construction consortium for fed. public servants) in 2005, ‘n it would indeed be a shitty apartment…but in 2014, she made sure it was upgraded (by OAS) to support her “nouveau-riche” style.
I don't know if Lula is innocent in general, or in the triplex case in particular. Seems unlikely with so much money flowing around that he didn't help himself to some, but you can't send someone to prison based on suspicion. And the evidence in the triplex case seems pretty debatable, while the advantage (to other parties in congress) of sending him to jail now instead of later is obvious.
Aug 01st, 2018 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The account of the trial is here, dunno who translated and published it:
http://lulatrial.com/arquivos/noticias/TRIPLEX-sentenca-Moro-12-07-17-ingles.pdf
Re the other politicians, many have resigned their posts in order to campaign, meaning they can be tried by ordinary courts, yet still nothing seems to be happening. And the other accusations against Lula aren't going anywhere fast either; there's no need for urgency now, is there?
As for the Temer/Dilma trial, would have been better for the integrity of the courts if they had found him guilty, and left it to Congress to impeach him or not. Congress already showed their lack of it by impeaching Dilma but refusing several times to allow Temer to be indited for more serious crimes. Agree the PT didn't make a fuss about the verdict because it benefited Dilma too, just shows they're no better.
So PB was sort of half state owned before Lula? How many times has it cycled back and forth between state and private ownership?
@DT
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...but you can't send someone to prison based on suspicion”....agree.
“...And the evidence in the triplex case seems pretty debatable”....Why ? can only tell you to read more about it...(and not fm left-wing sources, but impartial/reliable ones)...how abt the testimony, docs to back it up, contracts, photos etc, presented to the courts ?
”...while the advantage (to other parties) sending him to jail now instead of later is obvious“....why d'you insist on that theory - advantage - instead of admitting the possibility that the proceedings - fm accusation to conviction, 'n imprisonment - followed what the law dictates ? the idea his opposition ”hurried“ things up to get rid of him is senseless ..1st, it wasn't the opposition judging him/the evidence ; 2nd, 3 1/2 years from start to end is not unusual for decisions in lower courts...only in the STF, where he no longer had the right to defend himself ; 3rd, even if you don't agree with the above, the fact remains that he's not innocent. And, the ”rush“, if any, was due to his defense's insistence.
Regarding the trial account, see Chapter ”Background”, items 12, 34, 55...I know it's a bit boring to go through it all, especially after having accompanied most of it as it was happening.
Those who resigned their posts have been charged, and are defending themselves, but until (and if) convicted, life goes on as normal. The other charges against Lula were formalized only less than 1 year ago...quite likely to be decided within next 2 years...and remember, those under Moro, only one at a a time.
The Temer/Dilma trial is another story, with which I've already agreed was a farce....but it benefited both defendants. I've said before, Temer could've been impeached but “while in office”, he cannot be indicted.
PB was State owned 'til 2001, when FHC semi-privatized it by allowing workers to buy shares. Lula nationalized it again in 2007 (by increasing the capital, 'n buying shares until workers had less than 50%).
Guess I'll have to read more. But when so many people who are better qualified than me to judge, think the evidence was insufficient, it doesn't make me confident in the verdict. And also I don't feel too confident in Brazil's justice system in general. If politicians can be bought then so can judges. Plus, why would his defence be in such a hurry unless they thought there was a decent chance of getting him off?
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Those who resigned their posts have been charged, and are defending themselves”
None of them are going on trial though, and I haven't heard of any progress on their cases. Has there been any?
RE PB, selling shares to workers sounds like a good idea, much better than letting speculators pick it up for cheap. Why did Lula want to nationalise it again? Should think that with one big shareholder (the government), and many small ones, the government would still be able to make the decisions. Or had the shares been sold off to some other company/person en mass already?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!