The politics of assassination

According to NewsMax, apparently assassination of foreign leaders isn't so out of the question in the minds of some political thinkers, including military men and George Stephanopoulos (in 1997 concerning Saddam), as the hue and cry against Pat Robertson would lead us to believe. Could it be just the fact that he's a prominent Christian leader that brings all this down on his head? Crossed my mind that assassination of a Hitler or other tyrant or thug *could* have some merit as a foreign policy under certain circumstances.http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/25/131236.shtmlhttp://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/24/122804.shtml edited to change title This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 06:24 PM

I think Pat Robertson should be assassinated, so the whole shebang is cool with me.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Robertson is a Christian preacher who advocates murder.That's all there is to it.And under UK's new laws, Robertson would be deported or banned:http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../08/24/AR2005082401284.html

quote:

---

Clarke said a list of "unacceptable behaviors" includes the use of Web sites, writing, preaching, publishing or distributing materials that "seek to provoke others to terrorist acts" or "foster hatred."

​

"Individuals who seek to create fear, distrust and division in order to stir up terrorist activity will not be tolerated by the government or by our communities," Clarke said.

---

Ok, so over the years Pat Robertson has:1. called for the State Dept to be nuked
2. made threats against supreme court justices
3. called for the assasination of a foreign president
4. fostered hatred for decades through his "preaching"This message has been edited by gnojek, 08-25-2005 06:47 PM

Interesting. The consensus so far is "lynch Robertson," period. Not a word about Stephanopoulos or military leaders having the same view of political assassinations and saying so publically. Hm.And a political recommendation, that happens to be shared by these other worthies, is taken as equivalent to "fostering hatred" or "terrorist activity." And his Christian views as such are also condemned.Though Pat is not a particular favorite of mine I'm beginning to think he will get a nice welcome from Jesus for suffering persecution for His name.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 06:56 PM

However, if we have irrefutable evidence that the foreign official in question is a direct threat to our national security or that of our allies, then we are duty bound to take the appropriate measures to defend ourselves and/or our allies. In the case of General Noriega, we captured him, took him into custody, brought him to the United States & tried & convicted him on drug trafficking, money laundering & racketeering charges in April of 1992. He was sentenced to 40 years in federal prison. That is how we should handle removing from power the leader of a foreign country who is a direct threat to the USA. If President Hugo Chavez is a threat of the same magnitude as Noreiga was, & I think that is what Rev. Robertson was implying, then he should have said something to that effect, not advocating that we take him out.This is a link to a CIA report regarding the assassination of Chilean President Salvador Allende & all the other activities surrounding it. This was not a proud time in American history & led to the regulations outlawing our government assassinating foreign leaders.http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/#14

What he called for, although he has apologized for it, as well as, retracted his statement, should have serious consequences in my view. You cannot "un-punch" a guy's nose, once you've already punched him in it, now can you?As for Step-in-it-on-top-of-it, he was & remains nothing more than a rank amateur. I wouldn't pay him any attention whatsoever. I'm not giving him a pass, I'm saying nobody would be inspired by him to do anything. Rev. Robertson is a different matter entirely.

Thanks, Faith! That's the funniest thing I've read so far this week! Imagine - poor Pat, all "persecuted" clear down to the bank.....And I don't think the buffoon is worth a bullet, nor would I ever wish one on him. He deserves complete inattention from all of the media.As to the OT: assassination is just as morally repugnant as waging war. Someone like Hitler, Pol Pot, or Idi Amin might have justified the economy of assassination. Chavez, because he is left of center? Because a rabid reactionary TV huckster "doesn't like him?" No.

Well, what was Stephanopoulos' quote?As for military leaders, it's one thing for a general to advocate/discuss assassination when dealing with a country we are at war with or about to be at war with.PR wanted us to assassinate the leader of a country that we not only are at peace with, but with which we have hearty trade.If you can't tell the difference...

And wasn't in under the "U.S. friendly" Pinochet, after Allende, that the Chilean Secret Police ran live, starved rats up into prisoners' colons?

Character assassination is a form of persecution.

Anyone who says the things Robertson said after 9/11 has shown he has no character to assassinate. He's a jerk, wealthy from living off the poor that are too mentally captive to "religion" to see through his BS.

Hi faith,I don't think many people were suprised to find that a right wing Christian thug like Robertson would want to murder his opponents. I think what upset so many people was that his target was a person who is generally grudgingly considered to have actually done some good things. He's one of the few Latin American leaders to have treated indigenous people with respect, and he has ploughed oil money into projects that aid the poor.I think what surprised people was Robertson's target, rather than his sentiments.Mick

Assissination is something the US does, imo, but not to heads of state for fear of retaliation against the president, whoever it is.Pat's mistake though is more that he said this on-air. It was inflammatory, not helpful, and just not something with his caliber of influence should state openly.Plus, it's probably not right. Chavez was elected, and we have a bad track record in Latin America so it's not that likely that the people we would back to replace him would be that much better.Best to stay out of it, unless there is a definite threat of spreading armed communist rebels in other nations.If we want to do some good killing a head of state, we should take out Castro, not Chavez.This message has been edited by randman, 08-25-2005 07:37 PM

I will read your link about the Allende assassination eventually, but meanwhile I don't have much of an opinion on the political ins and outs of the question of assassination. I'm glad to see the thread has attracted interest though, and maybe I'll learn something.As for Pat Robertson, I think he might do a better job of anticipating the public reaction to things he says so he wouldn't put himself in the foolish position of stumbling around lying about what he said and then retracting it, but otherwise I'm not sure he committed this heinous offense so many think he did. Seems to me he expressed a political opinion. He does so frequently I believe. He apparently thought it a reasonable opinion from a political point of view, judging by the tone of his delivery. Perhaps he was wrong, perhaps he was advocating something illegal and he should apologize for that and for his unawareness of the fact if so, but not for anything else that I can see.He's not in any position to act on his opinions, nor are any of his listeners, and he certainly has no influence over those who would have the power to assassinate a foreign leader so I don't know what you mean about his inspiring people.I also disagree with you about your opinion of his view of God's judgments, as I said on the other thread. We can agree to disagree about that of course, but overall I end up much more positive toward him than you do, and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt where others apparently would rather see him strung from the nearest tree. edit for grammar This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 07:37 PM

I gave the link to the Stephanopoulos quote in the OP. I'm not up on the politics of the situation so it's not a matter of telling the difference, but I haven't seen people criticizing Robertson with that emphasis, but then maybe I haven't been following it closely enough. Seems to me the attitude has been predominantly along the broad lines expressed by gnoiek above, that he's just an evil man who advocates murder and hatred, and Mark24 who didn't bother to give a reason but just said he should be assassinated. Heard a lot of that, haven't heard much about the actual situation.I would expect Robertson to have known about it though since he presents himself as politically astute, so now I'm wondering how he could have advocated something so obviously against the current of things at the moment.But I'm glad to see so many interested in the topic and maybe I will find out the answer to that question.