Pat Robertson said, "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him [democratically elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] , I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Suppose there is an internationally known mullah in the United States, who has a TV show watched every week by millions of faithful Muslims. He is as fundamentalist in his faith as Pat Robertson is in his and equally extreme in his politics. One day this mullah puts out a call on his TV show for Prime Minister Tony Blair to be assassinated. I have little doubt that this person would be branded a terrorist or someone inciting terrorism and arrested. By the definitions laid out by the United States, Robertson is calling for an act of international terrorism.
Given the preacher's ties to Bush's christian supporters, should legal action be taken against Pat Robertson? The Venezuelan government said, "This public call to assassinate a head of state, considered a crime by all modern legislation, is prosecutable by its very nature. That is what the civilized would is expecting of the U.S. authorities." Are the Venezuelans right?
Pat Robertson
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
I agree, a person making such a call is supporting terrorism.
Should Robertson be arrested? I frankly wouldn't mind if he was, but I doubt that will happen. I honestly don't listen to the rantings of the fundamentalist Islamic types to know exactly what action has been taken with respect to particular pronouncements they have made. I would want to confirm what precedents have been set and then proceed. My guess is the Venzuelans would have a good case.
I believe Britain has taken to expelling people who make calls for terrorist action, including those of British citizenship (correct me if I'm wrong!
). Maybe we could expel Robertson or deport him to some country that doesn't have any qualms about using methods that we are supposedly not supposed to use, like we have done with others accused of terrorism?
Just one other point. The ties Robertson has to BUsh and supporters are (or should be
) irrelevant to whether or not he get's arrested. However, as our head of state and because of his association with Robertson, Bush should quickly, forcefully, and repeatedly repudiate Robertson's statement. He should also explicitly draw the parallels you have drawn in order to make it clear that we will stand against terrorism of all stripes, and not hypocritically excuse some because of political or other considerations. To do less only further erodes our nation's justifiably poor reputation abroad.
Should Robertson be arrested? I frankly wouldn't mind if he was, but I doubt that will happen. I honestly don't listen to the rantings of the fundamentalist Islamic types to know exactly what action has been taken with respect to particular pronouncements they have made. I would want to confirm what precedents have been set and then proceed. My guess is the Venzuelans would have a good case.
I believe Britain has taken to expelling people who make calls for terrorist action, including those of British citizenship (correct me if I'm wrong!
). Maybe we could expel Robertson or deport him to some country that doesn't have any qualms about using methods that we are supposedly not supposed to use, like we have done with others accused of terrorism?Just one other point. The ties Robertson has to BUsh and supporters are (or should be
) irrelevant to whether or not he get's arrested. However, as our head of state and because of his association with Robertson, Bush should quickly, forcefully, and repeatedly repudiate Robertson's statement. He should also explicitly draw the parallels you have drawn in order to make it clear that we will stand against terrorism of all stripes, and not hypocritically excuse some because of political or other considerations. To do less only further erodes our nation's justifiably poor reputation abroad.-
youngborean
- Sage
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm
Post #3
I would say that Robertson should face charges.... and so would Chavez in a perfect world. Chavez's charges should be more severe since he has engaged in direct warfare against a soverign nation. He is a violent and scary man in my mind. Especially considering this gem of an idea to consolidate power:
In the effort of fairness, we should look at detaining Chavez as well if we are to seriously go after Robertson. Both incite hatred and are obstacles to real diplomacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vezIn August 1999, the assembly set up a "judicial emergency committee" with the power to remove judges without consulting other branches of government. In the same month, the assembly declared a "legislative emergency". A seven-member committee was created to perform congressional functions, including law-making. The Constitutional Assembly prohibited the Congress from holding meetings of any sort.
In the effort of fairness, we should look at detaining Chavez as well if we are to seriously go after Robertson. Both incite hatred and are obstacles to real diplomacy.
Post #4
We could certainly consider the actions of Chavez. However, my understanding is he is the legitimate ruler of Venezuela, and it is unclear to me exactly how the actions you cite are against Venezuelan law. They do not seem to be any sort of 'terrorism.'
Then, if we are to consider whether his actions are against the law in Venezuela or against international law, we should, to be fair, consider the many accusations that have been made against the Bush administration along these lines, including the incarceration and treatment of prisoners at Guantanomo Bay and elsewhere, not to mention the act of invading Iraq, which many people argued was clearly against international law.
. . . and let's not forget the abuse of power that lead to Bush getting to be be President in the first place.
I'm not sure if we really want to do all this in this thread, or if it would be better to stick to the actions of Robertson and other religious leaders or private citizens in general. Like it or not, heads of state are usually given much greater latitude in their actions and statements than ordinary citizens, and this seems to be recognized in both domestic and international law (eg. the power to make or declare war).
Then, if we are to consider whether his actions are against the law in Venezuela or against international law, we should, to be fair, consider the many accusations that have been made against the Bush administration along these lines, including the incarceration and treatment of prisoners at Guantanomo Bay and elsewhere, not to mention the act of invading Iraq, which many people argued was clearly against international law.
. . . and let's not forget the abuse of power that lead to Bush getting to be be President in the first place.
I'm not sure if we really want to do all this in this thread, or if it would be better to stick to the actions of Robertson and other religious leaders or private citizens in general. Like it or not, heads of state are usually given much greater latitude in their actions and statements than ordinary citizens, and this seems to be recognized in both domestic and international law (eg. the power to make or declare war).
-
youngborean
- Sage
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm
Post #5
He was not a head of state when he lead a coup in 92. That was attacking a soverign nation, by millitary means. I believe any nation would call this treason and/or terrorism. He was elected and immediately incapacitated the structure that elected him. I think all leaders could or would be looked at. And legal rulings about incitement will cause all leaders to face potential crime. It turns into a big riddle of name calling and such. My real feeling about it is that Robertson should be considered more of an idiot and less of a criminal for saying what he did.
Post #6
I agree. Idiot, yes. Criminal, no. Should the FCC pull his broadcasting license? YES!youngborean wrote:My real feeling about it is that Robertson should be considered more of an idiot and less of a criminal for saying what he did.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
Post #7
I called a leftist/liberal radio program Monday morning to say that Robertson should apologize and repent. I am a "Born Again Fundamentalist."
He (Robertson) has apologized. He was wrong.
Now I would like to see the same consistency from you all on the thousands and thousands of Muslim's that are OK with kill people every day. AND, their religious leaders that give them the bombs and buildings to carry out those murders. All in the name of allah. (the merciful).
Cup of hypocrisy anyone?
Very much like the anti-Americans that will protest Bush but keep silent on the real atrocities of the world. That mother protesting Bush in the name of her dead son wouldn't be allowed to speak in any Muslim or communist country.
Where are the postings on that?
He (Robertson) has apologized. He was wrong.
Now I would like to see the same consistency from you all on the thousands and thousands of Muslim's that are OK with kill people every day. AND, their religious leaders that give them the bombs and buildings to carry out those murders. All in the name of allah. (the merciful).
Cup of hypocrisy anyone?
Very much like the anti-Americans that will protest Bush but keep silent on the real atrocities of the world. That mother protesting Bush in the name of her dead son wouldn't be allowed to speak in any Muslim or communist country.
Where are the postings on that?
-
juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #8
Which Bush-critics do you imagine are keeping silent about all the other atrocities in the world?Very much like the anti-Americans that will protest Bush but keep silent on the real atrocities of the world.
Who do you think staffs and supports Amnesty International? And Human Rights Watch? And the countless other liberal, anti-Bush, groups that try to highlight the various crises around the world?
Re: Robertson, I don't think he violated any US law.
DanZ
Post #9
Shouldn't we get our own house in order before condemning somone
else's house?
How is protest anti-American? Wasn't the Boston tea party a protest?
Silencing lawful dissent is anti-American.
It's obvious Pat Robertson knew the nature of his remarks..since he
first denied having said them and accused the media of distortion. Then
he had to apologize ( which was a strange one, since he compared Chavez
to Hitler in his apology ) after being accurately quoted in the media.
They should just fine him and move on.
else's house?
How is protest anti-American? Wasn't the Boston tea party a protest?
Silencing lawful dissent is anti-American.
It's obvious Pat Robertson knew the nature of his remarks..since he
first denied having said them and accused the media of distortion. Then
he had to apologize ( which was a strange one, since he compared Chavez
to Hitler in his apology ) after being accurately quoted in the media.
They should just fine him and move on.
Post #10
Pat might be violating the Patriot Act...
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(5) the term domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
Additionally, it falls under the aegis of a terroristic threat, which is against
the law. His suggestion that Special Forces get involved elevates it to
domestic terrorism.
Having said that I doubt he will face any form of punishment, either legal
or monetary.
Sadly, a flash of nipple generated more of a maelstrom than this will.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(5) the term domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
Additionally, it falls under the aegis of a terroristic threat, which is against
the law. His suggestion that Special Forces get involved elevates it to
domestic terrorism.
Having said that I doubt he will face any form of punishment, either legal
or monetary.
Sadly, a flash of nipple generated more of a maelstrom than this will.
