Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez wants self-ordained television evangelist Pat Robertson to face conspiracy charges and maybe face extradition for publicly calling for his assassination on Robertson's Christian television show The 700 Club on Aug. 22.
I'm not even going to try and defend Chavez because he's a fruitcake in his own right, but the guy does have a point here.
"I announce that my government is going to take legal action in the United States... to call for the assassination of a head of state is an act of terrorism," Mr Chavez said in a televised speech.
"If the US government does not take action that it must take, we will go to the United Nations and the Organization of American States to denounce the US government," Mr Chavez said.
Calling for the murder of a foreign leader is indeed a terrorist statement, even if you are an American and claim to be led by God; sorry but that doesn't exempt anyone.
I think it's time for Bush to denounce such speech. Nearly every conservative organization, along with a number of Christian organizations have publicly denounced Robertson's comments. Why hasn't Bush? It would be different if Robertson was just a private citizen, but he's not. He's a public figure, a staunch supporter of the presidents and a frequent speaker at GOP national conventions.
For some more really good info about Robertson check out the Wikipedia entry for the evangelical.
8.29.2005
Chavez Wants Extradition
Posted by Chris at 9:05 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Seriously this is kind of funny. I mean I take it all seriously to a point but is there never an ending to the craziness of it all. Bush is either one of the densest Presidents of all time or his arrogance is seriously out of control. I am beginning to think he is more out of touch with reality than I thought therefore more dangerous to us. ( If that is possible)
Now Chavez has Jesse Jackson giving him his full support he( Chavez) will be like the Michael Jackson of South America, crazy yet supported by thousands even millions.
Bush is letting this slide.
Is it to not anger certain factions?
Are those factions so large that angering them would harm his party?
I don’t know.
Tell me.
While I agree Chavez is indeed a fruitcake, he's got a point here. I think he should take it to the UN. It won't amount to anything because nobody can afford right now to sanction the US but maybe they'll pass one of them feel good we hate America and the Israeli's resolutions.
In the meantime, if you think Bush is going to do anything to upset his evangelical base you are on Meth my friend. Waiting for Bush to denounce Robertson is like waiting for a CEO to denounce profit. It ain't never gonna happen.
Organizations themselves go and denounce whomever they like. The president cannot afford to offend an entire one issue constituency. They'll remember this at the polls and in todays Washington, that's all that matters.
In other news, I got a piece on Greenspan and the housing bubble you might like.
Yep I think it's a little comical as well. Alice I think Mark hit it square on the head. Bush is remaining silent so not to anger his base which is the far right neocons. Bush is hoping that if he ignores it long enough then eventually people will forget. Then in '06 Bush and Rove can tap into that Christian right wing nutjob for their base, which they will desparetly need.
Of course having Jesse Jackson on his side will do nothing for his cause in America, but I'm not concerned with that, and neither is Chavez. I'm not defending Chavez at all, I'm calling for the president to do a little work. He's obviously not busy with the war in Iraq or fixing gas prices, I just thought maybe he could take a stand against inciting terrorism. But I'm probably wrong, like usual.
Mark, I will check out your post. You and Heretic have awesome sites. If the GOP can distance itself from Robertson then their leader Bush can do the same.
I actually look for Robertson to call some prayer vigils together and make this whole mess go away. Surely God is tired of it all too.
Oh god, this is funny. I have total Schadenfreude about this for Pat Robertson.
I mean, it should be a lesson for extremists on both sides of the platform, that they need to be a little more responsible about what they say, and can't just jump behind the "freedom of speech" right.
I really hope that the White House does take a stance on this.
As someone pointed out to me once, If they called for the assasination of Tony Blair they would be in jail or Gitmo by now.
The White House now has a diversion from this by way of the hurricane. I don't see them addressing this is any signifiacnt way soon.
Maybe I'm wrong and I hope so for the sake of our country. I agree wholeheartedly mj in that it is time that Bush denounce this nonsense but the fact that he did not do it immediately does not lead me to believe he will. This man is nothing if not obstinate.
Let me just get this out there first: Robertson is an idiot.
However, he is exercising what liberals loooove to talk about - that First Amendment thing. Extradition? Yeah right...
What strikes me as equally ridiculous is that Jesse Jackson (who is about as disingenuous and transparent as Robertson), is supposed to be a Civil Rights Leader - so while he is rushing off to Caracas to show his concern to Chavez, maybe he should try to live up to his supposed calling and ASK CHAVEZ about last year's brutal executions on his orders. How about his involvement with cartels and organized crime?
Lastly, I would like to think that any American President should not have to comment on every idiotic thing every idiot says...from Sheehan on down to Robertson, in this case.
Did I mention that Robertson is an idiot? Ah well...bears repeating.
I must agree and disagree with Timmer. To the extent that he (a) calls Pat Robertson an "idiot" and (b) still defends his right to say what he wants I must agree with him. Free speech is not confined to theses, essays, or intellectual debates. Idiotic comments like those expressed by Mr. Robertson may be genuine expressions of his thoughts, however repulsive they are.
I nevertheless must dissent from Timmer in so far as he does not insist upon a disavowel and condemnation from the president himself. President Bush must do everything he can to disassociate himself from these remarks, for as I noted on my own blog, terrorists will do everything they can to link Pat Robertson and his remarks to the president's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The president failed to locate the weapons of mass destruction he used to justify his invasion of Iraq. Combine Pat Robertson's idiotic comments and the president's failure to locate those weapons and you have a conspiracy theory that anti-American haters will no doubt believe in to justify their hatred and further terrorist attacks.
Mr. Timmer is right. Presidents do not have to respond to every idiotic statement that is made but this is one example where our president must.
CVG, I agree.
businessman, I agree.
Timmer, I could careless about Jesse Jackson as well. But the focus here can't be shifted towards Jackson. The focus here is Robertson. What he said was a terrorist statement. He cannot be allowed to broadcast such statements openly on the public airwaves. I do not think his speech is protected by the First Amendment. He's a public figure with a huge following. He also has a non-profit ogranization that he makes millions from. And during a war on terrorism, or any war, the Supreme Court has already ruled that speech can be limited. Not to mention the fact that it does border hate-speech, which is illegal and not protected by the First Amendment. I agree that Bush cannot possibly denounce every idiotic statement. But he can this one. Robertson speeks at GOP national conventions. If any idiot deserves to be denounced by the president it's this one. If Bush can denounce Sheehan, then surely he can denounce Robertson.
Heretic, it appears we agree on the president denouncing such. You do a much better job of explaining why. I think where we disagree is I believe the FCC should step in.
You guys are good. Much better than me.
Thanks to all for reading.
Would it be any different if, instead of suggesting to Mr. Bush and the Special Forces that they "take him [Chavez] out," Mr. Robertson urged them to go to war?
Leaving aside the merits of that action (which of course I believe there to be no such merit) or the harm which this may have done to the war on terrorism, what would be the difference between authorizing the assissination of one leader and that of many (the army that perhaps would be charged with defending him and his country)?
What is the difference between recommending war (or peace) and that of an assasination of a political leader whom we might depose through a war?
To me, it seems as if the free speech principle applies to both. If we say we cannot stand for or against a war, how could we deprive ourselves of saying we are for or against the political assassination of a nation we would otherwise go to war with?
What limiting constitutional principle would you impose on the American public that would give us and yet limit our free speech right in such matters?
Heretic, unlike political assasinations, war is not entirely illegal.
But, and respectively, calling for war is not what Robertson did. Many hypotheticals can be brought up but my focus here is what Robertson said. He called for the murder of a foreign leader, which is a terrorist action according to international law. If the US refuses to do anything about such terrorist inciting then Chavez has every right to take it to the international world body, which I'm sure will do nothing as well.
Yet, though, even calling for war is entirely in the realm of terrorism. If I do recall, bin Laden did not call for assassinations but for war. His call for jihad is nonetheless a movement for war. So even to reason between the difference of war and assassination is very thin. If bin Laden's call for war is terrorism then so would be Robertson's, or anyone elses.
Indeed it is a very thin line, maybe even an artificial one with no limiting principle upon which to distinguish between the two.
Mr. Osama bin Laden did call for war which involved assassinations and while the former is internationally tolerated if not accepted the latter is condemned.
and Mr. Robertson did indeed call for assassinations but he within the limited context of official state action in order to prevent a more costly (humanitarian and financial) war.
But the issue is not what Mr. Osama bin laden or Robertson said but whether what they said can also be interpreted as an action.
Which leads me back to the question of whom they were addressing.
Mr. bin Laden was addressing his disciples - those bound by an oath of loyalty to follow the voice of God (in their delusional minds of course) and kill on his behalf. What he in fact said can only be interpreted as an order because they were his subordinates and he spoke from a conviction that suggests an urgent need to fulfill that request.
Mr. Robertson was not addressing his followers. He specifically said it would behoove the president if the special forces took Mr. Chavez out. He said our president should, as a matter of state policy, kill him. The soldiers are not bound to Mr. Robertson; they are bound to the president who serves as their Commander-in-Chief and to the Congress that votes to send them into battle. The soldiers are ordered to render unto ceasar what is ceasar, not give to God what is ceasar's. They are trained to follow the comnands of their superiors and ignore everybody else's suggestions that conflict with them.
He then compared the pros and cons of war and political assassination as if this was no some urgent call for a holy war but rather a matter between what is the best public policy.
This may not seem like an important distinction to leaders and people from around the world (which is why the statements were nevertheless irresponsible) but it is very important. A public policy suggestion can be debated. It cannot be interpreted as an order which must be followed immediately. Mr. Robertson said it might be reasonable for us to kill Mr. Chavez and spare us from war. Is it?
No. Not in this case. Mr. Chavez has not done enough to harm us enough to justify his overthrow one way or the other, but that can be debated
Your point about intenational legitimacy is well taken but opens for us another debate - the extent to which we are or should be bound to international law.
One can say political assassinations as a general policy should be refuted without conceding to international law but once we bind ourselves to it because there is very little room to ignore it elsewhere.
Say we believe each ethnic or religious group is given, by international law, the right to secede. What could we then do if the South, thinking the feds are uprooting their cultural (reilgious and moral) way of life, could declare their independence?
Say international law one day included bans on free speech or the right to bear arms. Must we lose those rights promised under our Constitution?
I don't think we should be curtailing the rights we have under the Constitution merely because internatinonal law requires it.
So we are again back to where we started. What limiting principle allows us to punish Mr. Roberts for his comments concerning political assassination but allow him to urge for a pre-emptive war against Columbia that would lead to the same result in Chavez' ouster?
Well, first I would go back to my comment a few days ago that political speech at the pulpit is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution whatsoever. The 700 Club is Robertson's pulpit. So, and accordingly, the Constitutional principle that you so question is not the issue.
I would also take your argument to curtail that bin Laden is bound by international law, whereas Robertson is bound by a constitution. Both men would interpret either to their liking.
I would also argue that Mr. Robertson was indeed addressing his followers just like you argue for bin Laden. People do not tune into the 700 Club like they do their local news channel. His audience is his following. Not to mention that those who do watch Robertson also heed his words to be that of God's just like those who watch bin Laden's videos. And to add that they (the following) also believe Bush to be led by God.
I don't know about you, but I was raised in a home where Pat Robertson was on the TV every day, and the words he spoke were indeed believed to be guided by God.
International law or Constitution, both are below God Almighty, which will judge accordingly on the day of judgment. That is what bin Laden and Robertson both preach.
We might be arguing law and policy, but those who believe what bin Laden and Robertson say do not care about man-made documents. That is the issue.
Bush should denounce such.
Bush has to denounce both. I think we agree on that point but we do seriously disagree as to Mr. Robertson's free speech rights.
If political speech, be it at a pulpit or not, is not a guaranteed right in our Constitution I do not know what is.
The fact that he was addressing his disciples when he suggested that our president use the special forces to "take him [Chavez] out" is inconsequential. What is of importance is the manner in which he spoke to them and what he required from him.
Mr. Robertson did not order his disciples to take Mr. Chavez out; he merely suggested that our president and his "special forces" do so. His words, to the extent he was addressing his religious adherents, was consulting with them or revealing to them his thoughts about how we as a nation should procede.
Mr. Robertson might have, at worst, hopd that his followers would call their congresman or woman's office or write a letter supporting a government-led political assissination.
But that was all he did. Mr. Robertson at worst might have convinced some of those who watch his show to engage in political activism and those who disagree and find what he has to say deplorable to did the same.
And that's how it should be. That's the American way.
Post a Comment