Odessa slaughter: How vicious mob burnt anti-govt activists alive

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Vovin

Actually this has been explained to you already and its just your opinion alone. It wasnt a coup. the president was voted out by the previosly approved(by RUSSIA itselfin 2012)government. Then according to their constitution they scheduled elections to reset the entire government. If you want to keep power forever you do not do that do you?

Also a junta is a military take over which at the time was not the military tossing out the president. he left on his own to avoid prosecution for crimes against ukraine that he was being investigated for prior as well.

SO no totally your biased opinion and not fact. its been debunked.

I really don't care about your opinion, so stop shoving it down my throat.

In other words, I have my opinion and you have your's. There's a difference in elaborating on your opinion, or just attacking the other person for theirs.

Junta is an accurate term. I spent many years of my life studying exactly this stuff in university and I earned my degrees. I don't need to be lectured by some random person on the Internet for having my own opinion.

a reply to: Vovin

Whether you care or not is neither here nor there - he is right. There was no coup, there is no junta and there isn;t a "Nazi" controlled Government in Kiev.

originally posted by: Vovin
An interim government is when other parties vote out the party running the government and form a coalition until a new election can be held.

Funny, because that is what happened. Yukanovich was impeached by the elected Parliament under the 2004 Constitution and then decided to flee - as a result, an interim Government was formed.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Vovin
An interim government is when other parties vote out the party running the government and form a coalition until a new election can be held.

Funny, because that is what happened. Yukanovich was impeached by the elected Parliament under the 2004 Constitution and then decided to flee - as a result, an interim Government was formed.

And you missed the point of my words entirely, while also proving my point.

I provided two descriptions of the events that happened. You people only accept the first description because it is convenient, while totally ignoring the events of the second description which set the situation that allowed the events of the first description to take place.

a reply to: Vovin

In this case, when Yanukovych was impeached Parliament, per the Ukrainian Constitution, assumes some of the functions of the President (The speaker of Parliament and not all). The constitution then requires a presidential election within 90 days.

Parliament assigns mp's to the various government agencies on an interim basis until the elections. once the President is elected, the acting heads of the govt agencies are done and are replaced by the President when he chooses his government.

Its like the US Constitution. Should something happen to the President the VP takes over. If they are both taken out then the Speaker of the House of representatives assumes the President and then work out elections. The term is continuity of government, which is exactly what we see in Kiev.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Where is the decision of Constitutional Court (before voting)? Your thoughts are not the Ukrainian Constitution...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Let's help you a little about the impeachment procedure what is in question.

It was here:

chapter five

I hope you understand the ukrainian democratic (blood-red) "404" message.

I find it. Success:

static.rada.gov.ua...

It is only coincidence, that it was moved to page static.rada.gov.ua. Maybe they know something...

From 108 to 116 you see the word "Відхилено", it translates as "rejected".

This is only chapter five, half of the paragraphs are "rejected". How?

What is the job of any country's Constitutional Court?

^Any idea when section V was 404'd? It was working a couple of days after the Crimea annexation as I was using it for some articles.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Vovin

Actually this has been explained to you already and its just your opinion alone. It wasn't a coup. the president was voted out by the previosly approved(by RUSSIA itselfin 2012)government. Then according to their constitution they scheduled elections to reset the entire government. If you want to keep power forever you do not do that do you?

Also a junta is a military take over which at the time was not the military tossing out the president. he left on his own to avoid prosecution for crimes against ukraine that he was being investigated for prior as well.

SO no totally your biased opinion and not fact. its been debunked.

You're wrong. The legal removal process of the Ukranian president is clearly written in the constitution - none of it was followed.

Here's the Ukranian constitution stating 75% of MPs need to vote to remove the President and Rada impeachment process. www.president.gov.ua... in section V.

Here's the results of the impeachment vote www.bbc.co.uk...

328 out of 450 MPs on the Rada voted for impeachment, which is nine short of the 75% required by the constitution.

Hence the 'interim government' are illegal under the Ukranian constitution.

---

a reply to: bastion


I saw that page too when the junta was "shooted' to power with killing one hundred of own puppets, but the new democratic governmet maybe was warned of unusual traffic from "terrorists" (21th century definition of source-checking or thinking), so they destroyed the available online evidence.

a reply to: bastion

72.888 percent
or 73%

and did u factor in abstains???

cause majic # is 75%.

originally posted by: maghun
a reply to: bastion


I saw that page too when the junta was "shooted' to power with killing one hundred of own puppets, but the new democratic governmet maybe was warned of unusual traffic from "terrorists" (21th century definition of source-checking or thinking), so they destroyed the available online evidence.

Thanks - it was widely posted on UK newspaper messageboards on 1st March (the date I did the first draft copy of an article and other news reported on it being unconstitutional) so will be interesting to see if there's any way of finding out when the site went down.

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: bastion

72.888 percent
or 73%

and did u factor in abstains???

cause majic # is 75%.

That's the point I was making, sorry if it wasn't clear (should have stated nine votes to avoid confusion)

They were just short of the 75% required for a President to be impeached under the Ukranian constitution. The vote was 328 - 0 in favour of impeachment, but the 75% cutoff means all MPs, not just those who voted.

The pro-Yakuvonich MPs had mostly fled the country by then and many reports allege the rest were beaten and tied up to make them vote against. However the latter claims are impossible to verify due to the misinfo coming from both sides.

There's no doubt the majority of Parliament (and Ukranians) wanted rid of him - the problem was it was done illegally.

a reply to: bastion

The vote apparently is legal BECAUSE the MP's had fled and could not be found. INTENTIONALLY ditching your responsibility sometimes means a yes vote.

a reply to: sosobad

Have one back, the sad fact in all this back and forth is that people are dead and died in some of the most horrific ways posdible, this needs to be investigated thoroughly and whoever responsible held to account.

Well according to the new police chief in Odessa he says everybody responsible will held accountable for their actions and, I am guessing he means it doesn't matter if your Pro Kiev or Pro Russian.



I guess time will tell.

Well let's take a look at how Mr. Yakuvonich was living while being part of the gov't.



And here is a good little article discussing what he did while he was in the Ukraine gov't...

www.opendemocracy.net...

Now It becomes even clearer as to why they wanted him out.

So if he had actually not stolen from the Ukraine people all of this could have been avoided, but he didn't and here we are.

The whole coup was murky and smells and was pre planned by inside groups and outside forces... I mean you can put lip stick on a pig and put it in a mini skirt, but its still a pig.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Well let's take a look at how Mr. Yakuvonich was living while being part of the gov't.

And here is a good little article discussing what he did while he was in the Ukraine gov't...

www.opendemocracy.net...

Now It becomes even clearer as to why they wanted him out.

So if he had actually not stolen from the Ukraine people all of this could have been avoided, but he didn't and here we are.

And this makes Yanukovich different from any other typical leader of a country, how?

originally posted by: Reinmax
The whole coup was murky and smells and was pre planned by inside groups and outside forces... I mean you can put lip stick on a pig and put it in a mini skirt, but its still a pig.

You mean the coup in Crimea. Putin has admitted his role in it. Russian troops seized Ukrainian assets in what was then still a part of Ukraine. That the stink you smell.

So several years of the EU and US lobbying for Ukraine to join TITP/TAFTA, arming and training opposition groups had no role in it? Both sides are guilty of a power struggle to control the country.

This whole thing goes back to 2007 onwards, with actions on both sides. It's not the simplistic sudden uprising the gutter press are trying to portray it as.

This is what it's really about

The purpose of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is to remove the regulatory differences between the US and European nations. I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago. But I left out the most important issue: the remarkable ability it would grant big business to sue the living daylights out of governments which try to defend their citizens. It would allow a secretive panel of corporate lawyers to overrule the will of parliament and destroy our legal protections. Yet the defenders of our sovereignty say nothing.
....
A document published last year by two huge industrial lobby groups – the US Chamber of Commerce and BusinessEurope – explains the partnership’s aims(10). It will have a “proactive requirement”, directing governments to change their laws. The partnership should “put stakeholders at the table with regulators to essentially co-write regulation.” Stakeholder is a euphemism for corporation.

a reply to: yuppa

www.theguardian.com...

It states total MPs meaning the full 450 to avoid MPs holding 'mini bills' where only a couple of MPs could vote on a subject and overthrow the government.

The only way for their vote not to be included is for them to have stepped down from office and called a by-election, which hadn't happened.

It is a very corrupt constitution by Western standards though as the President is effectively immune from all prosecution for 99% of crimes and grants them the power to embezzle money - as Yakuvonich did. Even the Kremlin were denouncing him as corrupt and calling for him to step down before he fled, which is rich by Putin's standards.

originally posted by: maghun
a reply to: Xcathdra

Where is the decision of Constitutional Court (before voting)? Your thoughts are not the Ukrainian Constitution...

Parliament actually removed judges from the Constitutional court prior to this event occurring. The reason for that was some of their rulings actually violated the constitution. Parliament was in the process of restoring that when this stuff broke out.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ukrainian voting procedure: