From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua (II)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:29:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.182535.23746@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.170435.29032@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>>ACtually, the Sandinista's themselves were widely supported because they
>>were the ones who won the war.  
>
>We don't know that. What we do know is that the Sandinsitas felt they needed
>several years to allow elections. During that time they enacted a wide
>variety of laws to suppress dissent and jailed thousands of political
>prisoners.
>
>If in fact, they where as popular as you claim why all the repression? Surely
>they could have held quick elections to draw up a new constitution and
>elect a government. The US did it under far more severe conditions.
>
>>This support was demonstrated by the majority they won in the 1984 elections.
>
>Sorry, when somebody jails opponents without charge, threatens opposition
>activists, violently disrupts opposition rallies, censors the press, and
>uses extrajudicial procedures to jail thousands of dissidents and then turns
>around and claims to be popular I jsut don't buy it.

Most censorship ended prior to the campaign.  La Prensa was censored some but
opposition radio wasn't.  More Nicaraguans listen to the radio than read the
paper and the radio was free and strident during the election.  Most of
the disrupted rallies were Cruz's, after he withdrew from the election,
but well before the election.  Opposition rallies for participating
parties weren't bothered much.  Remember that Cruz supported the contras.
The other things you mention didn't happen near the election.
>
>>America's Watch says:
>
>>	The November 1984 Nicaraguan elections,though deficient,
>>	represented an advance over past Nicarguan experience and
>>	a positive step toward pluralism, resulting in significant
>>	representation of opposition parties in the Constituent
>>	Assembly.  Nicaragua should be prodded to take additional
>>	steps to advance a democratic process.
>
>
>Well I don't find this a ringing endorsement. It's more like damning them
>with faint praise. I'll accept that it was an advancement over the past
>but that isn't saying much.

Nor does it say they were rigged. I would call it cautious optimism.
A "positive step towards pluralism" is not a trivial achievement.
You previously said the elections were
no better than anything during Somoza's time.  Change your mind?
>
>So has your research uncovered what America's whatch said about
>the tribunals and other abuses? How can YOU call the elections fair (which
>I note AW didn't)?
>
The worst abuses happened years before the election and started right after
contra activity got organized.  It ended long before the election.  There
were some serious abuses in 1981 and 1982, but they stopped by 1983.

As I said before, I will make a detailed post later when I get it all
organized.  I'm still waiting on some AI documents from NY.
>   Allen
>-- 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>+----------------------228 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)