While the concerns over some of the policies enacted by this government are legitimate, I think one has to acknowledge that they have been effective at combating the gangs, which had largely held the entire nation and its government hostage through terrorism. My question is: what should that government have done instead? If the humanitarian critics want to be taken seriously, we have to be able to suggest plans and policies that will achieve the same or similar ends without the drawbacks of rolling back fundamental human rights. The people of El Salvador were in a desperate situation and so elected a president who took desperate measures. If we want to prevent those desperate measures from gaining popular support, liberal politicians need to provide effective solutions for these desperate problems that work without the need of said desperate measures.
I live in Nicaragua (I’m American) and can say that while yes he does have his critics in Central America, he’s overwhelmingly supported in El Salvador and the people are actually safe, which is not normal for the last several decades.
Sometimes extreme measures are needed. It’s like he said when this started, (paraphrasing) “Where were all these countries when we needed help. Where was their training, money, equipment, etc.? Our people are dying and we’ve had enough! So the world ignored us before and now they want to criticize us. We don’t care.”
I’m from El Salvador and I’m looking forward to those anti gang laws to be used against regular people in the future. Cause they will be. Just like when political opponents and people who were a bit too red started being vanished during the civil war
I hoped the /s was obvious. I hate that they had to do it, because it will bite them in the ass for sure. So will this president who gambles on crypto and who is pro Putin.
I was wondering about this because I understood (perhaps incorrectly) that these powers only exist during the state of emergency. Once it’s declared over, it’s no longer possible?
Of course you’re right, there is already overreaching happening. Since you live there, let me ask you, how do you feel safety wise?
For instance here in Nicaragua, it’s extremely safe. Violence is basically non-existent (especially coming from Los Angeles where violence is rampant). But of course the government is what it is. So is the trade off worth it?
I won’t criticize them for taking much of the steps they did. However I hope that as things are stabilizing that the rights which were stripped away to achieve this will eventually be restored.
While the concerns over some of the policies enacted by this government are legitimate, I think one has to acknowledge that they have been effective at combating the gangs, which had largely held the entire nation and its government hostage through terrorism. My question is: what should that government have done instead? If the humanitarian critics want to be taken seriously, we have to be able to suggest plans and policies that will achieve the same or similar ends without the drawbacks of rolling back fundamental human rights. The people of El Salvador were in a desperate situation and so elected a president who took desperate measures. If we want to prevent those desperate measures from gaining popular support, liberal politicians need to provide effective solutions for these desperate problems that work without the need of said desperate measures.
I live in Nicaragua (I’m American) and can say that while yes he does have his critics in Central America, he’s overwhelmingly supported in El Salvador and the people are actually safe, which is not normal for the last several decades.
Sometimes extreme measures are needed. It’s like he said when this started, (paraphrasing) “Where were all these countries when we needed help. Where was their training, money, equipment, etc.? Our people are dying and we’ve had enough! So the world ignored us before and now they want to criticize us. We don’t care.”
I’m from El Salvador and I’m looking forward to those anti gang laws to be used against regular people in the future. Cause they will be. Just like when political opponents and people who were a bit too red started being vanished during the civil war
You’re looking forward to human rights violations committed by your gouvernment against your people?
I hoped the /s was obvious. I hate that they had to do it, because it will bite them in the ass for sure. So will this president who gambles on crypto and who is pro Putin.
I caught the /s.
I was wondering about this because I understood (perhaps incorrectly) that these powers only exist during the state of emergency. Once it’s declared over, it’s no longer possible?
Of course you’re right, there is already overreaching happening. Since you live there, let me ask you, how do you feel safety wise?
For instance here in Nicaragua, it’s extremely safe. Violence is basically non-existent (especially coming from Los Angeles where violence is rampant). But of course the government is what it is. So is the trade off worth it?
I won’t criticize them for taking much of the steps they did. However I hope that as things are stabilizing that the rights which were stripped away to achieve this will eventually be restored.
As do I.