Televangelist Pat Robertson believes U.S. operatives should ace Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Should they? Are there situations that warrant politically-ordered assassinations? Does this situation fit the bill? Do other governments retain the right to similarly act on their moral judgments? Or, is killing world leaders the prerogative of one nation's leaders?

Why does anyone listen to this idiot anymore. Where's his belief in the sanctity of human life.
Disgusting.

J

Robertson is a nut job. I wish he'd stop talking.

My comments here.

Interesting piece, AC. I encourage the readership to check out AC's thought's on the Robertson controversy. It's worth reading.

Thanks for the kind words, Mr. Flynn!

Great comments AC!! There is only one thing I would respectfully disagree with. Even if Pat Robertson called George W. Bush, he probably would not take the call. I agree to endorse assaination of Hugo Chavez is wrong. That being said I have warned on this blog and countless others that Hugo Chavez is a very dangerous enemy and we need to keep a close eye on him. Btw, Pat Robertson is irrelevant to the Republican party. The only contribution the so called religous right makes to the Republican Party is to participate in the get out the vote campaign. The religous right gets very little from the Republican Party, as such no one in authority within the Republican party takes him seriously.

Wouldn’t life be wonderful if we could just eliminate our all of enemies?

Pat Robertson has finally outed himself.
For a supposed man of God to advocate murder indicates what a charlatan he has always been.

Why does the Right hate America?

A great video that shows Robertson as he is behind the scenes is Spin. It has satellite feed clips of him from the 96 campaign when he didn't realize he was on camera. Great to watch, but hard to find. Try downloading it online, various places have it.

I don't think that Robertson's comments are that exceptional. I remember a few years ago (pre-911) Chuck Robb endorsed lifting the sanction of assassinating state leaders to scare Sadaam.

Frankly, while I don't see how the hell having one unfriendly leader in South America is a threat to our interests, plenty on the right see no problem with engineering a coup or even going to war to oust him. I would never support it, but if I could choose b/w killing one leftist or thousands of innocent civillians as a war would inevitably do, I'd choose the former.

While I don't think our situation in Iraq would be any better had we just assassinated Sadaam, I don't see how invading the having 1800 (and counting) Americans plus upwards to 100 thousand (and counting) Iraqis killed, and then putting up a Show Trial for Sadaam is any more moral or prudent.

The problem with assassinating foreign leaders is that, America assumes that all we have to do is get rid of the bad guy and a [insert Serbian, Hatian, Venezuelan, Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi, Yugoslavian etc.etc.] George Washington (or more accurately, George Bush/Bill Clinton) will emerge. Of course it's not that simple, and chances are you'll just end up with civil war and/or an equally intolerable despot.

However, the root of the problem isn't in Assassinating politicians, it's the assumption that America has the god given right to initiate regime change in every corner of the globe.

RC-- what are you talking about, "Why does the Right hate America?" It seems that the right has been rather condemnatory of this jerk, both about this and about his stupid comments re 9-11. Moreover, it's not like Robertson advocated the assassination of an AMERICAN leader, as some leftist figures have done over the last 40 years or so. So, what's you're evidence for your flip comment that the Right hates America?

Pat Robertson represents the Conservative Right. He is casting the image of America as assassins and murderers. If America feels justified murdering their political opponents or enemies why shouldn’t any other country take the same point of view regarding our leaders or even our citizens? Where is the rule of law? Are we hypocrites?
America is the most powerful nation in the world. How must we look to the rest of the world that we would need to resort to murder to achieve our goals?
Robertson’s comments put us all at risk.
For the Right to support this point of view must mean they have little regard or love for the America way of life.

I appreciate the self-interested approach (thinking like a Prince, a la Machiavelli): that state assassination endangers one's own head of state and that there's no guarantee of the leadership to follow.

This question also begs what, if any, laws (written or unwritten) nations are obliged to respect in their relations. If you *categorically* oppose the UN -- i.e. any attempt at international govt -- then what standard of conduct shoulds nations observe? Does it project from "Biblical law", as the Constitution Party might suggest? And if so, wouldn't other nations feel entitled to project their version of, say, Koranic or Talmudic law?

Leaving aside Robertson, I guess Venezuela is of concern to the US because of its oil production and Chavez's rapport w/ Castro and (probably) his animosity to CAFTA.

Returning to this self-interested approach, I believe assassination could be in order, under extreme circumstances. Like killing in self-defense. Like if the country in question were threatening immense and irreparable harm to your country (or an ally of yours). Like if No Korea were about to launch a nuke. Even then, it might be most expedient if the deed were carried out by local leadership with only covert outside assistance.

Don't be such a wimp RC. Robertson's comments don't put us at risk. If anything, it might make a foreign tyrant or two think.

I really don't think because Roberston said this we'll be sending hit squads down there soon.

Jeesh.

By the way, I bet you generally support free speech. When it suits you.

RC: Robertson represents the religious right? Well, obviously to you he does. But the fact of the matter is that when he says this type of crap I don't here other people on the right defend him; in fact I here denunciations or dismay, as you have seen here. So far your inference runs as follows:

Premise: Robertson says someone should assassinate a leftist South American dictator.
Conclusion: The Right hates America.

Correct me if I'm wrong: to bridge the gap between the premise and the conclusion you are assuming (1) that advocating the assassination of a leftist South American dictator indicates a hatred of America, AND (2) that what applies to Pat Robertson applies generally to "the Right" in America. I think that the only person who could buy this implied reasoning would be a complete partisan looking to score points with no concern for the truth.

First, Scully is right in dissing RC for uttering the generalization that Pat Robertson "represents" the Conservative Right; unless of course by the "Conservative Right" you mean Pat and his immediate family, which is also more than likely a gross overstatement.

Second, playing Devil's advocate, assuming for a moment we were ever to initiate the elimination of certain foreign leaders, why would anyone conclude it would necessarily lead to an increased threat to our leaders and citizens from foreign powers? Let's look at this logically (all Liberals can now go to another website!): it's like gun control! Law abiding citizens don't commit crimes to begin with, thus passing laws that further restrict the activities of the law-abiding will in no way impact those bent on criminal activity, 'cause,....THEY'RE CRIMINALS, and don't obey laws by definition. Now, as law-abiding, legitimate governments would not act against our leaders and citizens in the first place, and rogue regimes and terrorists historically don't need any excuse to kidnap/torture/murder Americans anyway, how would instituting such a policy of elimination truly make things worse?

As to the morality or wisdom of instituting such a policy, if I were President and elected to do so, I sure wouldn't publicize it!

I am all for free speech. Mr Robertson should
certainly have his say. I am commenting on the content not trying to censor him.

Why does the right hate America?
It is quite amazing that conservatives would take offensive being painted with such a broad brush. But isn't that what is so often done on this blog and other places to liberals. The extremist of views are said to reflect liberalism. Many on the right give the left no credit at all as if there isn't another point of view but the conservsative one? Can't reasonable people disagree without one of them being dead wrong?
I obviously am aware that Pat Robertson is a kook and doesn't represent any conservative who thinks.
But Robertson is not a criminal. He ran for President not long ago. Many people send him money. He has influence. We shouln't be only worried about criminals who will break the law anyway. The rest of the world sees our reflection. This can't help us.

RC: what's your arguement again? Flynn ARGUED in his book that leftists (not liberals) hate America. I really think this is a no-brainer, with lots of evidence. (e.g., the ideas that define the left are ideas that should and generally do make them veiw America as the world's #1 bad guy. Read a leftist version of American history, or a leftist list of the problems that America causes for the world.) What's your evidence that the right hates America? Zilch.

You are just being flip. I destroyed your argument, and repeating the conclusion doesn't make the belief any more probable.