Televangelist calls for assassination of Chavez



This is the same kindly, smiling, pro-life Pat Robertson who ran as a Republican presidential wannabe in the primaries so many years ago.

So what do we think, folks?

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

Who is to say that some other country won't decide to do that to our President. You set a dangerous precident when you start murdering people who don't agree with your country. We are supposed to be the good guys.

Communist infiltration? Other than Cuba, even Communists aren't communists anymore. And the only reason that Cuba is still communist is that we have that stupid embargo.


And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

We should esteem Robertson for being a nutball whacko.


JW

I suppose, under very, very extreme circumstances, it would be less evil to kill one person than to allow that one person to kill many, many others. The situation would have to be almost unimaginably dangerous to justify this -- think of Adolph Hitler with his finger on the button that launches nuclear weapons.

This situation doesn't come anywhere near to such a thing. Robertson is simply a kook. Like others of his ilk, he is an insult to all good Christians and all good conservatives.

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

I'm pretty sure that assassination is still illegal in this country and internationally. It ought to stay that way.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?



You're kidding, right? The part of the American public that esteem Robertson is also the part of the American public that the poppy cock sales folks depend upon for making their incomes. Ah well, fools and their money, eh?

Sure, they ought to be smarter. But they are not, and so onward we go . . .

Kind of funny that this is just now sparking people's attention. This is a rerun, stock footage episode of the 700 Club that I have seen on no less than three other occasions prior to this.


1.) I do not think so, call me whatever but I do not sanction America whining about France and Germany and the United Nations telling us simply how to run a country. How bad would the slander, and possibly military action be, if we took up arms and assassinated the leader of a sovereign, independent state. Chavez can posture and preen in front of his cameras all he wants to, but no matter what the case he will not make military moves against the United States- for one we are their countries leading source of income due to their oil production (if I still remember the facts).

2.) Robertson has held shares in African Blood Diamond mines, he's said things that cross the very threshold of Christian dogma and has never once been criticized, except maybe by those with watchful eyes on Debate sites.

The fact is that the only thing that will strip Robertson of his title as an evangelist is death.

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?
Of course not.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?
Of course not.

The greatest significance of these statements is that they will go into the scrapbook collections of Muslims who seek to prove that Christian civilization is barbaric, murderous, and out to destroy Islam. And it will further the paranoia and anti-Americanism of Mr. Chavez. America helped create the confrontation between itself and Cuba; now it seems we are busily doing the same with Venezuela.

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

The way the question is phrased, no. Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who have proven themselves dangerous and violent and pose a threat to this country? Maybe yes. As is usually the answer for any political debate, it depends. I do not think we should have a blanket policy either way. We shoul judge each situation on its own facts. If it won't cause more problems then it solves, it may be a viable option.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

Who in the American public has been esteeming Robertson as an evangelist lately? I'm not a Christian and disagree with almost everything he says, but the guy is one man and is not looked up to by many except the very religious, certainly not the American public. Furthermore, I don't think we should set our foreign policy by what this man says. However, in this case, I somewhat agree with him in a general sense, as discussed above.

EDIT:


One has to wonder how big the scrapbook must be of Christian collections of Muslim leaders' barbaric and murderous statements out to destroy the infadels. The point? This type of rhetoric from these types of individuals doesn't sway anyone.

Sorry, I was making an obscure reference to those Westerners who seem obsessed with what they consider to be the fundamentally evil nature of Islamic civilization, and have assembled large scrapbooks of bloodcurdling quotes for various Islamic authorities in their effort to prove the intrinsically evil nature of the entire civilization. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I think you hit on an important point here Erasmussimo. While most American's dismiss the comments from people like Robertson and Falwell, they are precieved as real threats to Muslims due to the fac that their societal frame of reference is one in which there is no separation of church and state. Such words of little political consequence in U.S. politics are heard and remembered in the Islamic world as threats and blasphemy, earning America increased Muslim hatred. Perception is reality and I think the government is in enough of a PR crisis right now that they would do well to try and keep such comments out of the main stream media.

This is probably a whole different debate, but how would the government do this? People are free to say whatever they want and the media is free to report whatever they want.

what evidence do you have the bush supports the separation fo church and state? please recall people that dubya announced his candidacy for president on the 700 club to none other than pat robertson.

the christian evagelicals and religious fascists in our own backyard are more of a threat to my personal liberty and freedom than any group of islamic fascists.

perhaps rummy should redirect his new "war against extremism" into the red states....

Considering that Hugo Chavez is not Muslim, how can this be true?

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

Not in this case. Chavez is a two bit dictator, although he is in a very important position in a very strategic country. Venezuela is going to hell in a handbasket under his rule while he squashes rebellions, coups, and democracy.

It is not in the interest of the US to assassinate anyone. It just leads to bad feelings against us even if it is only rumored that we were involved. Chavez's disdain for America is not a death sentence, although we should have dealt with his anti-Americanism long ago instead of ignoring it.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

Considering the fact that the US is in the business of promoting democracy, as much as my personal feelings say yes, the US shouldn't assasinate any foreign leaders that do not pose a threat to US security. The Cold War is over, and the threat of nuclear missle installation in close proximity is all but over. I personally believe that there are plenty of ways the NSC and the CIA could handle such matters without actually firing a shot, and would never publicly advocate assasination.

Pat Robertson's comments, as "cowboy sheik" as they may seem, are not the teachings of Jesus Christ in any manner, and I believe that he should never promote such actions while holding a bible in his right hand (so to speak). Frankly, being an evangelist and preacher, he should be held to a different moral esteem. I'm of the opinion that had it been a former military leader, a fortune 500 CEO, or an actor, the reaction would've been far different (and so it should be).

Because the original quote inexplicably included a reference to Muslims:

"Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

A fine point, to be sure, but one that Muslims would certainly latch onto.

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

What about obnoxious religious "leaders" who aspire to be president mouthing off about things that don't concern them? Should the US be in the business of assassinating them?

Snarkiness aside, no, absolutely not. Gerald Ford made political assassination against the law in the 70's - as it should be in a "civilized" world. A better question would be what business does political assassination have as a subject in a so-called religious sermon?

I can't help seeing this image going through my mind tho...Bush slapping his forehead and muttering "Pat, that was supposed to be a secret!"

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

No. I'm sure there are staunch 700 Clubbers that think he can do no wrong, but it looks like Pat's gone 'round the bend...again.

Practice witchcraft...heh.

Editted to remove comments directed at moderator.

1) it is against INTERNATIONAL LAW and, based upon the treaties we have signed, against AMERICAN LAW to advocate the assasination of foreign leaders. as robertson is not an official agent of the state, he may be exempt. once a treaty is signed however, it become the law of the land.

hint: geneva convention.

however, he may have committed a crime if one considers our own doctrine of "clear and present danger." his comments would be quite "inciteful" to chavez, and thus could be a threat to our national security and us citizens who live and do busniess in venezuela..

we also do not recognize the ICC...

2) robertson is an ideal representative of the evangelical community. this is "red state" logic in all its beautiful simplcity.

the only thing separating robertson from OBL and al-Qaeda is that the Christian Coalition has not gone on its crusade yet.

so, if one consider the Dubya rhetoric of "saddam is a bad man" "saddam is part of the axis of evil"...

whats the real difference?

i guess if someone says "regime change" is just sounds better...

robertson was dead right about one thing, this is a cheaper way to take out a foreign leader than a 200 billion dollar war. bush probally got a chuckle out that tasty little cost-benefit morsel.

Methinks that won't happen anytime soon DaffyGrl. Apparently the Donald (a.k.a: Rummy) has come out to a non-committal defence and condemnation of Robertson:




The rest of the article is pretty much copied and pasted from other news items floating around on this topic. But if you ask me it seems that the U.S. is not now or will it be in the business to assassinate opposing world leaders... and we never should be there in the first place, it's just too messy.


Article

its also against an Exective Order, apparently.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html#2.11


perhaps Pat should do his own "good deeds"? what is faith without works?

Why is it news every time Robertson or Ward Churchill speak? Neither Robertson or Churchill represents the Left or the Right. They represent a portion of the Left and the Right. Churchill does not speak for liberals and Robertson does not speak for conservatives.

I guess this answers my first question. I do not let stuff like this bug me because I choose to ignore people like Robertson and Churchill.

First, Chavez will reach the end of his term in 2007. It’s just around the corner, and he is very unpopular.

Second, per the title, it isn’t the “USA encouraging covert violence”. It’s Pat Robertson. An individual who happens to be a famous US citizen. Similarly, I’m sure it would be VERY easy to find hundreds of references, throughout the internet, of private individuals advocating the assassination of Robertson. This is a man who said that Federal judges are more dangerous than Al Qaeda, so I’d imagine his hit list (from his comments) would be Federal judges first, followed be Al Qaeda, and then Chavez (and likely others). Placing it in that perspective, his words about Chavez are relatively mild.

We only limit speech when there is a compelling justification for doing so. Robertson can say nearly anything he likes. Remember his conversation with Falwell following 911, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen." So, Robertson (and Falwell) pretty much agree with bin Laden and his followers. He is a nutcase.

The subject of assassination is an interesting one to me. Not in respect to Chavez, but speaking of urgent threats to our security. It seems to me we kind of have a paradoxical view of this issue. We fully condoned the attempted assassination of bin Laden by Clinton. In fact, he has been criticized for failing in the assassination attempt, rather than criticized FOR the attempt. Surely, if it had been successful, it would have likely saved many lives. What if bin Laden were elected to public office? So, it seems to me we accept the idea of assassination on security grounds, but at the same time publicly admonish it and don’t really wish to know. Would the assassination of Hitler early on have been a bad thing? I'd say assassination as a foreign policy tool to eliminate officials we disagree with is always wrong, but assassination to combat severe threats isn't. I can't rationalize that invading and bombing a country to get to one evil leader is the better course of action if there is an alternative.

Gee, I didn't know that I was supposed to take Pat Robertson so seriously...No, no we should not. Most sane Americans agree with me and by proxy, disagree with the Good Reverend.

Still? Heh, I haven't esteemed him as anything other than a hypocritical wind-bag since I became aware of his meager existance. But that's just me. No, I don't think Americans should hold him in any regard. He doesn't matter. His opinion is that of one extremist. We don't have to appologize for him, we don't have to make excuses for him, because frankly, he doesn't matter. Former members of have made more offensive statements than what Pat said, and no big deal was made out of it. What makes Pat so important?

CP

His viewership. This man supposedly is a man of God. I find it utterly outrageous that his flock (the 700 Club membership) would continue to listen to him. How can a man continue to invite people to come to Jesus when he would advocate the violent death of another created in God's image?

Of course I did not mean that the U.S. should, at Robertson's behest or anyone else's, go about covertly assassinating officials, foreign or domestic. But I most certainly did mean for his comments to be out in the open, where Robertson's supporters can attempt to defend the man's pronouncements.

After all, Robertson has performed a "valuable service." How else would we know Who Would Jesus Assassinate?

I am saying that in this land of ours, we have a wealth of our own fanatics, who have their own bully pulpits and audiences to play to. Pat Robertson seems to be playing for attention to bolster a dwindling audience, or perhaps he's getting a little senile. The man should not be on the airwaves; he gives Christianity a bad name.

The United States has a bad enough reputation abroad without our so-called religious leaders making it worse.

Well, he can do so conscience-free because he's a hypocrite. And that's how they roll.

Okay, but how do we get him "off the airways"? His listenership is sheep like and they all flock to him and won't stop watching, so there is no way to get him off the air. The best way to combat him is ignore him. What else can we do?

CP

Pat Robertson is old and needs to retire:
Your point is well taken "BUT what if we had removed Osama bin Laden,
Clinton had the opportuney but was worred what , people would say,
would the world be a better place? How about Hitler?

1. No. Karma has a way of coming back on you and doesn't and haven't we killed or deposed enough foreign leaders who did not agree with us and wouldn't keep their mouths shut?

2. Pat Robertson is the same idiot who said feminism led women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." If he were a Muslim cleric we'd call such talk "terrorism." Why should Robertson get a pass? He is an American Ayatollah and so far out of the mainstream that only other babbling imbeciles could seriously take his imbecilic babbling as the words of a man speaking the word of God.

The God who told Moses, "Thou shall not kill" didn't add, "Unless our national interest is at stake."

Robertson should either be ignored like a psycho on the street predicting the apocalypse or institutionalized as the looney tune he is.

If it is always wrong as a foreign policy tool, then how could it be used to combat severe threats? Who has the right to say that a person is so utterly dangerous that it is right to go against the law and ethics upon which our policies are based to eradicate a dangerous individual?

And what if it is not a government official but a private citizen who believes that a person is too dangerous to live, and then directs his time and energies to eradicate that individual? What about someone like, say, Eric Robert Rudolph who decides to bomb an abortion clinic or blow a few folks up at the Olympics?

If the person who did it can manage to prove that the person assassinated was dangerous enough to be offed, should the perpetrator be exonerated? Isn't this still that old question of whether the end justifies the means?

Perhaps John Wilkes Booth would have something to say about this...

Everyone outside of the 700 club knows not to take this man seriously, but we need to get away from our perceptions. It’s how this will be taken in the Muslim world that matters, this in one fine piece of terrorist recruiting material. And we scratch our heads when we see how much foreigners hate us.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

He’s a wife who wears eight pounds of makeup and being caught with a hooker away from hitting the TV Evangelist cycle.

For all it’s greatness, does not have the massive audience of the 700 Club. Neither does anyone here pose as a “man of god” and have followers who view them as such.

Edited to add:

Wertz, for example, was recently voted best overall debater on this board. Yet I doubt anyone, "friend" or "foe" alike, would accuse Wertz of speaking for god.

The tragedy here isn’t that Robertson has exercised his freedom of speech, but that there are people who take every word of it seriously, including as F&D pointed out, the Muslim world.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

I have never had any esteem for Robertson, his bopsy twin Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker or any of the TV preachers who form an endless parade across the small screen or air waves. It’s an absolute shame Robertson didn’t say this a year ago. Bush might have tapped him for U.N. Ambassador instead of John Bolton if he had.

I agree with nite. why should robertson be given a free pass. He is trying--whether in vain or not--to use his bully pulpit for wrong--and I think as Observer shows with his response that it is not a long stretch for some to try and rationalize such speech as common sense.

Isn't it ironic that these T.V. preachers who severely condemn others for not taking responsibility for programming feel they can make statements such as these with impunity! By virtue of his position, the Reverend Pat Robertson should be held to a higher standard, if he claims that he speaks for God in any way.

It is exactly right that a Muslim could and would take very seriously what an American cleric would say over the airwaves.

This Robertson is one of the guys who thinks that the Harry Potter books are going to corrupt youth so much, and yet his talk of assassination is supposed to be excused or ignored?

(EDIT: The estimated viewership of The 700 Club is one million people.
Robertson is pilloried for assassination call)

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

I suppose my post will merely be an echo of most people sentiments, except I'll leave out the gratuitous Bush bashing, that seems to not have a place here or other topic specific threads, yet always finds it way in.

Pat Robertson is a pimple on the hindquarters of religion and bears no more relevance in my world on the matters of national policy than a squeegee-meister in downtown NYC. But his statements are ultimately no different than what is preached from the mosques.....
The sad thing is, what he says, like other incendiary speech, only highlights the freedoms that we usually take for granted in America. Osama bin Wierdbeard and his myrmidons or any other two bit America hater will use this as another reason to preach to the Ummah the evils of the US.
I'm not sure if the American public at large holds him in esteem at all, rather his tele-minions are really the only Americans who listen to him. The effect on the homefront will be minimal.
As to the question posed, Pat Robertson and the United States are two different entities; I don't specifically endorse assassination, but I don't think our reluctance, or the Executive Order would ever be any deterrent to another government or group to do the same to us.
It does beg the age old question, if we had the chance to take out Hitler in 1940-41 or so, should we have taken it.

Absolutely. My point in saying what I said is that Pat Robertson is one man. His opinion is insignificant, he isn't an elected leader, he doesn't enact laws or change our policy...He's just some nut with a popular TV show. Additionally, if other people are ignorant enough to believe that Robertson speaks for most Americans, or even most Christians, that's fine...But he doesn't, and therefore, I don't see this as anything Earth shaking.


No, I like to think of Wertz more like he is the medium that God uses to speak to us.


CP

I am having a hard time understanding what makes a man like Pat Robertson tick. This is a man that says he has 1 million listeners on his 700 club.

This is a man that says he is a Christian, but I challenge him or anyone to tell me how he can justify his actions. I don't recall anywhere in the bible that Jesus advocated killing anyone(good or bad person).

Most of all how can his uninformed listeners even swallow this idiotic talk and believe it hook,line and sinker. I didn't realize that we had that many kool-aid drinkersin the United States.

I keep reaching for a word that would describe him. Snake comes to mind, but I really hate to tarnish the snake's reputation.

Was it against our laws of ethics to attempt to kill bin Laden in the late 90s, after he was linked to terrorist attacks on our embassies? I think it's fair to say we were targeting Saddam when we bombed his residences repeatedly....even down to specific rooms which he often occupied. We put a missile through the bedroom of one of his sons. We did the same thing when we bombed Qaddafi's tent in Libya. I see a difference between that and assassinating Castro (which we also tried).

Edited to add: I almost missed this: I am unaware of such an international law. Would you please cite it for me?

For the record (not that it is really that important), it would be viewers, not listeners as the 700 Club is a TV show, though technically, they would also have to listen while watching (though I wonder how many really do ).

Not all of the viewers are kool-aid drinkers. Some of them watch because they have always watched, some watch because they like the angle the 700 club takes on current events and still others watch for other reasons.



I know the number looks bad, but the number alone doesn't tell the whole story. For example, I am a frequent viewer of the 700 club. My reason is simple, there is a lack of good comedy on TV these days.

Seriously, I do watch it when I can catch it. I do this because I want to see how the RR is spinning current events. I like to try to get my news from multiple partisan prospectives because I believe that whatever is the same in all the versions of the story is the most likely to be true.

I am not a follower, a donator or a believer in Pat and the RR in anyway, I certainly think his comments on this are laughable, I could not possibly take them seriously, and to me, they are an excellent example of the similarity that can be found in all religious extremists, regardless of the faith they follow.

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?


Generally no. And certainly not when limited to a political disagreement. However, I am open to the possibility that this might be the best option in some situation or another in the future(like Dontreadonme's Hitler 1940-41 reference (though you could ask the same question using 1937-38)). But there would have to be one heck of a case made with multiple dead forests worth of corroborated evidence to get me on board with such an action.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

I am not all that sure he has been in some time. I don't know anyone who looks on this man in a positive light and I live in Missouri, the actual buckle of the Bible belt.

If 85% of Americans consider themselves Christian, and there are 300 million Americans, and the 700 club has a viewership of about 1 million, that translates into at most 1/255 (or 0.004%) of all American Christians. Why is this headline news? Must be a slow news day. Reporters are actually asking U.S. officials if they are going to heed Robertson's advice. I think if the Pope was calling for targeted assassinations that it would warrant the kind of news coverage this is getting.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist? The few Americans who do should be free to continue esteeming him as such. If they have a change of heart over this, they can switch to another source of spiritual enlightenment.

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign
leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

That seems to be the overall idea behind his words. Even if he was speaking
hypothetically or tongue-in-cheek, it's very telling of the man's true nature.
He is not a peace-seeking man.


And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

Definitely not. He loses all credibility, as a Christian leader, with such a
statement. If there is one virtue to be learned from Christianity it would be
one of peace. How can such a statement be justified by a man who advocates
the teachings of Jesus Christ. He should resign from televangelism.

you know, its hard to link to the geneva conventions....

the more important thing is to recognize the differnce between a "political" versus military exercize. once force is authorized, the command and control is fair game if not expressly and exclusively singled out.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html#2.11


and that actually led to me to disocver something i did not know. it is in violation of later geneva conventions [i believe they are hague protocols, to be specific], but this particular variation of geneva accords WAS NOT RATIFIED by the congress. so, its not a valid law as far as us "interests" are concerned. so that fact that it is against iinternational law may be moot. which then goes to explain the EO above.

anyways, looking for good links led me to this amaizing essay/thesis paper.

http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/m...26_1/01_FMS.htm

what is most interesting [to me] is the section that discusses the concept of a just war. its a long read, but worth it.

There are certainely consequences for such extreme advocacy from a well known religious leader with close ties to the Admin, to publicly announce the benefits and hopeful intention of murdering a President of a neighboring country. This does not speak well for what is already suspect by most of the world about american interests and morals (or lack of) when it comes to oil.

The legality should be in question, because Chavez is not an enemy of the US by any declaration, such as Saddam Hussein (which they did not even suggest assasination upon capture) or Osama bin Laden (which has been, but as a terrorist). There is a difference.
I doubt just anyone could go around publicly and especially on national television suggesting murdering world leaders and not be charged with 'something' relating to hate crimes, inciting or advocating the murder of notable officials. I suppose the international community will have something to say about it. Yes, Robertson is just a citizen, but can any citizen speak of assasination of Presidents on television in the US? Is this now acceptable? Its is no better than clerics, who we admonish as hate mongers in other parts of the world.

Problems could stem from this in that Chavez has often said that the US was trying to assasinate him and Bush clumsily rushed to welcome a coup that was brief and unsuccessful in 2002. The US buys about 11.8 percent of its usage from Venezuela. Chavez has already been trying to decrease dependancy on the US by selling to China, accusing the US of "robbing Venezuela of tax revenue" in their US Citgo markets, thats what is behind all the anger (and actual worry) about him, NOT that he is impoverishing his people, a commie or other such ridiculous spin. Noone cares about this, they are worried about him cutting the US out of oil contracts and selling off V. -US interests.

I wonder though WHY Pat Robertson is talking to the 700 Club about Chavez. Its not as if they can do a damn thing about it or even know whats going on, nor can it be digested by them in effect to their daily lives. Perhaps 700 Club members may start writing their congresspeople backing assasination of Chavez, leading to a sense of support for this action? Is he sensitizing his viewers as an experimental base for the religious right to take up a new cause?

Im with ya Daffy on the 'supposed to be a secret' thing. Its that chilling feeling you get when you suspect an idea is being slated for a new US public enemy.
Robertson blew it bigtime and now he should be relegated to wacko status, at least as a Christian Leader. (however I dont think he was not without reasons for doing so, this idea did not come in an abyss)

It's a good thing George Stephanopoulos is not an evangelist.



BTW I am not making excuses for Pat Robertson, I am just pointing out that assassinating foreign leaders is not an extreme position. I am against it whole-heartedly, but I fail to see why people continue to get so outraged by comments by Robertson, Jackson, Falwell, and Sharpton. Just look at them, is there any doubt they’re not blind ideologues?

It was a very interesting link, thanks. But, I still didn't find the variation of the geneva accords you are speaking of. From your article: Although the indications are overwhelming that international law condemns the practice of assassination in principle, beyond the domestic criminalization of murder, there is little concrete international law that specifically forbids it. Only the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Charter outlaws assassination by name,74 while the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents (New York Convention) protects against it under limited circumstances.75 This [*PG13]Convention, which was ratified by nearly half the world’s nations and most major powers, criminalizes “the international commission of . . . murder, kidnapping, or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person.”76 However, it only accords protection to figures traveling abroad, and not in their home states.

For what it's worth, we did ratify the Protected person's convention, referenced above. This isn't really a sticking point with me, but I like to make sure I have my facts straight. At this point, I still don't see anything that indicates what you said above...that it is against INTERNATIONAL LAW to advocate the assasination of foreign leaders. From what I've read the matter is more self-imposed via executive order.
I agree.
I'm not sure. Though it certainly reflects badly on us, I don't believe there is much we can do about it...with the exception of boycott, or something. I think the only thing stopping the KKK from being on the cable networks is the networks themselves, not laws that forbid hate speech. For that matter, there are works of art depicting Bush with a gun to his head, and the artist was free to do so and show it (after being investigated by the Secret service to make sure it wasn't a "true" death threat). Should we offer more protections for foreign officials regarding hate speech than we do our own?

Although many of my conservative ilk may not agree with me in this instance. If we are going to talk about deporting those fundamentalist muslims who preach violence I think the same discussion should be brought to the table regarding Pat Robertson. Is he not inciting violence just like the fundamentalist clerics?

Just something to chew on...

After reading further in the thread, I wanted to offer a clarification on my previous post. Assassination has been declared illegal in the US (by Gerald Ford in 1976) by Executive Order.

As for the Geneva Convention, how weird is it that every source I found is in regards to the Israel/Palestine issue? I can't vouch for the veractiy of this source, but...
(emphasis mine)

Another Geneva Convention source, if you're really determined to find something: Global Issues Group

@ pigpen


again, hague protocols. it had to do with the post Khaddafi bombings, and the specific variation of accords were not ratified by the us. this happened under clinton, so he modifed the EO i have already posted [which was ironically created by Reagan, not Ford afaik] to "correct" that aspect of it.

the problem was these same protocols also expanded the role of the ICC, which the US will probably never submit to. simply, we did want to have a "policy" of assasination, nor did we want to lose the option based upon what is defined as "actionable" nor have to comply with the specific determinations of "state" war. and also consider what pretty boy george said above in '97.

so, OBL is not a head of state, according to this line of thinking. i agree. the geneva variations, as illustrated by the "israeli logic" above, suggest this same problem.

as does GITMO and camp delta... anyways....

many in the international community think our attack on Kaddafi's palace was immoral AND illegal. and then there is the story of Chile.....

anyways, i fail to see the relevance of an unrecognized Int'l law when the EO is in place.

Updates


Robertson: Chavez remarks misinterpreted

Since when?! "Take him out" means kill him - has for as long as the term has been around...unless you're talking a dating situation, in which case Robertson would be advocating gay dating. Talk about a tap dance. Pretty lame.

Regardless of what Robertson "meant" why is he even talking about foreign policy? Other people have advocated assassinations (see George Stephanopoulos), but they were at least pundits. Robertson just comes off as a hypocrite.

I would also note that this is a good example of how this is a slow time for news. I can’t believe we’re on our second day of talking about this story.

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

Perhaps I will be the lone voice to espouse a view that will come as a suprise to many....or none at all!

To answer the question: Officially? No. Should we be involved in aiding other foreign nationals to topple their own dictators without having to get involved personally? Why not?

The popular response would be the "disturbing precedent" that this would establish, making it open season on our President and elected officials.

Unfortunately, we've already hit that slope.


The Executive Order that is being thrown around was Ford's EO 11905 (Sec 5. sub (g).) which states:



...which has only been around for about thirty years. Before that, we actively engaged on occassion, the assassination of foreign political and military leaders including, but not limited to Japanese Admiral Isaroku Yamamoto in 1943 and President Ngo Dien Diem of South Vietnam in 1963.

We were just as vulnrable then, one would imagine, as we are now. Yet, the republic still stands....

In fact, attempts by foreign governments and other public figures to assassinate
American leaders have not subsided as a result of Ford's order (and Carter and Reagan's subsuquent reaafirmation of said order). which includes plots by the Khadafi regime to assassinate numerous American diplomats and politicians, including then President Reagan, and the 9-11 attacks by OBL and Al-Qaeda.

The idea that our official policy on state-sponsored assassination of foreign political or military leaders somehow has kept us safe and has kept us from sliding down that slope in retaliation (or in a preemptive action) is an illusion.

It would be naieve to think that there aren't elements in hostile governments, like Iran, that would consider the assassination of President Bush as an option.

Now does that mean we should go trigger happy on foreign leaders and diplomats that disagree with us? Of course not. But what strikes me with such frustration is people believing in the illusion of security that policy represents. Now I may be wrong, but I think I see other people viewing politics as having strict Black and White boundaries with a sliver of Grey area in which operations like these are carried out. This is completely false.

Only the players and the playing fields have changed since the Senators' were in Rome and the de Medici's ruled France. The rules of the game remain the same.

Politics were just as brutal and ugly then as they are now. White House counsels have found ways around their bosses' own Exectutive Orders and other ambiguous international laws regarding the subject. To think that still having the paper there will somehow sheild the President from an assassin's bullet (or passenger filled, fuel loaded commercial jet) is foolish.

So if keeping the papers will help most of the leaders of the civilized world sleep at night, aleiving nightmares of their CIA-trained citizens (or our own folks) using piano wire and cyanide, then fine, keep it. But in the end, it won't make us or those who wish us harm any more or less safer.

I’ve believed for a long time that Hugo Chavez should be taken out, as in having him start keeping his blood on the outside, not as in dated, but among one of the many difference between me and Pat I don’t have CNN using me as a supposed voice for conservatives in order to make conservatives look like Pat Robertson. I’ve never been able to decide which is more dishonest, CNN presenting Robertson’s views as representative of the views of the right in general or Robertson claiming they are. My suggestion on how to handle this is to have Robertson taken out, out of the public view, off of CNN, and exiled to Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez would certainly show him what “taken out” means.