Support NeoGAF

[Tommie Hu$tle]

President Hugo Chavez has warned that he may lodge a complaint against the US at the United Nations and other international bodies if the US fails to act against Pat Robertson, who called for Chavez's assassination.

"If the US government does not take action that it must take, we will go to the United Nations and Organisation of American States to denounce the US government," the Venezuelan leader said on Sunday as he addressed participants at talks on a social charter for the Americas.

He added he believed that by failing to act against Robertson, the United States was "giving protection to a terrorist, who is demanding the assassination of a legitimate president".

Robertson caused a diplomatic stir last Monday when he said on the air that if Chavez believed the United States was trying to kill him, "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it".

Robertson apologised on Wednesday, but then went on to compare Chavez to Saddam Hussein and to suggest the US could one day be at war with his oil-rich country.

Extradition threat

Twice-elected Chavez, a close ally of Cuban President Fidel Castro, has often said Washington would like to assassinate him, and accuses the Bush administration of involvement in a coup d'etat that toppled him for 47 hours in April 2002.

The Venezuelan president said he had already instructed his foreign minister and the country's ambassador in Washington to begin the process in the international bodies.

He said Venezuela could use international treaties and conventions to demand the extradition of the television preacher.

Chavez said Robertson "should be sent to prison to serve as an example for the entire world".

Jesse Jackson support

Meanwhile, visiting US civil rights leader Jesse Jackson lent his support to Chavez, saying Robertson's remarks were "repugnant, immoral, illegal".

Addressing the Venezuelan National Assembly, Jackson called for the US Justice Department to investigate the statement.

Jackson, on a three-day visit to Venezuela to meet Chavez, politicians and community leaders, also called on US President George Bush to issue "a swift rejection" of Robertson's statement.

"It must be unequivocally clear that such a heinous act is not desirable nor designed nor planned. We must use power to reduce tensions, reduce the rhetoric of our threats," Jackson said.

The US State Department sought to distance itself from Robertson last week, calling his remarks "inappropriate" but pointing out that the evangelist spoke as a "private citizen".

The department also said that US ambassador in Caracas William Brownfield had been in contact with a Venezuelan government official over the remarks.

The idea of Robertson getting sent to an Venezuelan jail make me laugh. Is it just me or it is splitting hair from the State Department by saying Robertson was speaking as a private citizen. That rings hollow to me when the man is on live televsion being broadcast all over the world as the figurehead of a religious orgnization. That's not a private citizen that's someone using their postion to spout hatred.

LINKY

 

[DDayton]

The idea of Robertson getting sent to an Venezuelan jail make me laugh. Is it just me or it is splitting hair from the State Department by saying Robertson was speaking as a private citizen. That rings hollow to me when the man is on live televsion being broadcast all over the world as the figurehead of a religious orgnization. That's not a private citizen that's someone using their postion to spout hatred.

While it was an incredibly _____ thing to say, it wasn't an order to kill someone... and even incredibly ______ things are backed by our right to free speech.

 

[Boogie]

And this is why, although Robertson is a mega-douche, Chavez is a douche as well.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

While it was an incredibly _____ thing to say, it wasn't an order to kill someone... and even incredibly ______ things are backed by our right to free speech.

You do know that if I said to you that I want you assissinated I would go to jail. Freedom of speech doesn't protect us from threats against our lives. I can't go around saying I want to kill you or I want you dead and then claim that it's freedom of speech.

Need I remind you that Roberson has the manpower, resources, and influence to make a reasonable attempt at making that a reality. Who's to say that some nut wouldn't try and attempt that becasue Pat Roberson speaks for God?

And this is why, although Robertson is a mega-douche, Chavez is a douche as well.

With this I agree, I don't look at Chavez as some saint, I see him for what he is an opportunist. That being said we can't have people on national TV asking for the murder of other individuals (I like my hyprocracy hidden thank you very much). Especially when they are close associates of our own President. That sends out a bad message.

 

[DCharlie]

well, the US better hope he Chavez doesn't get assasinated , because if he did it's going to look reaaaaaaaal bad.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

well, the US better hope he Chavez doesn't get assasinated , because if he did it's going to look reaaaaaaaal bad.

I bet you right now there are CIA para-military opertives in Venezuela covertly protecting the guy! If there were any plans Roberson clearly fucked that up.

 

[Macam]

I'm with Chavez on this one. If anything's been made clear with this administration, is the rule of law only applies to everyone else and, as Tommy noted, Chavez is an opportunist, and he's capitalizing on the administration's continued blatant hypocrisy. There was an interesting point made on KCRW's Left, Right, and Center podcast this weekened asking why Chavez isn't considered a Christian by these outspoken religious groups (the other major religious groups claimed to be "too busy too comment" on Robertson's comments). That is, in the context of what he's doing, aiding the poor, redistributing the country's wealth and how that effectively contradicts the situation with the Middle Eastern countries' weal distribution, and so on. I don't agree with Chavez's action in terms of the long-term stability of Venezuela and so on, but he does raise valid points on occasion, and I think this is one of those occasions.

 

[capslock]

Chavez doesn't seriously expect to get Robertson in a Venezueland prison or even be reprimanded by the US Govt. He's just trying to milk the situation for maximum embarrassement for Bush.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Chavez doesn't seriously expect to get Robertson in a Venezueland prison or even be reprimanded by the US Govt. He's just trying to milk the situation for maximum embarrassement for Bush.

That's exactly why Bush should sell the guy out, then everyone would say, "Fuck, I didn't see that one coming."

The whole what you are doing is bad, that is unless we do it then it's not bad is what is fucking us up. I mean sure have conviction and have drive and have goals but be consistent with it. If it's not good for us it's not good for them.

 

[xabre]

If a prominent religious leader in Venezuela called for Bush's assassination the Americans would be screaming bloody murder so it's really all relative.

 

[michael000]

As shady as Chavez is it's going to be ironic as hell when Robertson ends up on the receiving end of a Venezuelan bullet. He can play the exact same card that the American govt. is playing only he's better off since he's never said anything near as stupid as Robertson did.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Is it just me or it is splitting hair from the State Department by saying Robertson was speaking as a private citizen.

No.

You do know that if I said to you that I want you assissinated I would go to jail.

No, you wouldn't.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

..Hrmm yeah I know Patterson has his right to freedom of speech but that doesnt cover threats that can actually be carried out. I wonder if this applies to people that are not US citizens tho thats outside our laws jurisdiction is it not? Either way a stupid thing to say, but at the same time it was said about saddam, noreaga , arafat...

 

[Squirrel Killer]

The standards you guys are looking for are...

The fighting words exemption, which is: "personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reactions."

The incitement to crime exemption, which is: speech intended to produce "imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Potentially, maybe you guys are thinking of the sedition exemption, even though it only applies to speech against the US government. There the standard is: "clear and present danger."

Robertson's comments, as idiotic and retarded as they were, meets none of those standards. Short of a landmark Supreme Court decision, Robertson's comments were protected under the First Amendment, and as a private citizen, the UN has as much jurisdiction over him and his comments as they do over Joe Bob and his exhortations that someone kill Queen Elizabeth because she's a part of the Trilateral Commission.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

No, you wouldn't.

Yes I would, are you seriously trying to tell me if I told you I wanted you dead that you or if I said I think someone should just kill you couldn't press charges The threat of harm is a crime, now then if you didn't press charges that is one thing but, threating to end someone's life is a crime. I just can't send letters to your house saying I want to kill you and claim that's my way of expressing my freedom of speech.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Yes I would, are you seriously trying to tell me if I told you I wanted you dead that you or if I said I think someone should just kill you couldn't press charges The threat of harm is a crime, now then if you didn't press charges that is one thing but, threating to end someone's life is a crime. I just can't send letters to your house saying I want to kill you and claim that's my way of expressing my freedom of speech.

Yes, I am seriously saying that if you said "I think someone should just kill you." I couldn't press charges. Well, I probably could press charges, but nothing would happen because that's protected speech. If, however, you said, "I am going to kill you." And said it in such a way that a reasonable person would believe you intended to carry out your threat, that is not protected speech. The difference in that one is said without any ability or intent to carry it out, and the other is.

Here, if you don't believe me, we have the ability to take Tommie Hu$tle out - and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. Now, have fun getting a police department to arrest me. I'll even PM you my real life name and address if you want.

 

[Triumph]

Viva la jailed shithead!

 

[McLesterolBeast]

Yes I would, are you seriously trying to tell me if I told you I wanted you dead that you or if I said I think someone should just kill you couldn't press charges The threat of harm is a crime, now then if you didn't press charges that is one thing but, threating to end someone's life is a crime. I just can't send letters to your house saying I want to kill you and claim that's my way of expressing my freedom of speech.

Saying that you want something to happen isn't issuing a command, or even threatening.

What robertson said, though, is basically a borderline case between saying that he wants it to happen and making a command. The quote is, "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do".

The main issue is that when he said "we really ought to go ahead", he's referring to the US government and not private citizens. If you said we should invade a given country, you're not issuing a threat on that countries citizens. "We means the american government, and you can't really command the army to do your bidding, nor does he expect that his comments would inspire them to.

I dont think that he should reasonably expect citizens to go out of their way and kill hugo chavez because he said on national TV that the US government should do as much. At worst, he should be punished by the FCC and removed from the air for a given length of time (im not sure if there are any regulations that would justify that, and i doubt it would ever happen even if there was).

Or, it'd be fun if someone went out and assassinated him. I think that we really ought to go ahead and do that.

 

[Shinobi]

While it was an incredibly _____ thing to say, it wasn't an order to kill someone... and even incredibly ______ things are backed by our right to free speech.

Of course if someone said the exact same thing about President Bush, they'd be doing time in Guantanamo Bay. Why it's against the law to even joke about threatening the US president, but okay for a man who owns his own network to say the exact same thing about the leader of another nation is beyond me.

 

[Ark-AMN]

Of course if someone said the exact same thing about President Bush, they'd be doing time in Guantanamo Bay. Why it's against the law to even joke about threatening the US president, but okay for a man who owns his own network to say the exact same thing about the leader of another nation is beyond me.

Half of GAF should be locked up by now then with this stupid line of thinking.

 

[dskillzhtown]

Jesse is the biggest publicity hound on the face of the earth.

 

[Boogie]

Half of GAF should be locked up by now then with this stupid line of thinking.

:lol beat me to it

 

[whytemyke]

Christ. Talk about Chavez being a pussy about this shit. I was jsut as angry at Robertson as everyone else, maybe even more angry, but the fact of the matter is that he's a private citizen who simply suggested that Chavez be assassinated. He didn't engage in plans to do so, and he didn't (I believe) know of any plans for him to be assassinated.

The idea that he wants the US to extradite Robertson is a fucking joke in itself, partly because he didn't break any laws, and mostly because the US simply doesn't extradite people. And let's not forget that Bush has pretty much broken the UN... does Chavez think that anybody actually gives a shit if he files a complaint with the US in the UN?

 

[Instigator]

Half of GAF should be locked up by now then with this stupid line of thinking.

'Stupidity' should either be ignored or confronted with a well-thought-out rebuttal that highlights the stupidity of the original statement.

Since you have done neither, the latter in particular, then this thread should certainly not be locked just because you find one particular comment stupid. This is a forum where different views are shared. Deal with it.

 

[WedgeX]

The standards you guys are looking for are...

The fighting words exemption, which is: "personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reactions."

The incitement to crime exemption, which is: speech intended to produce "imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Potentially, maybe you guys are thinking of the sedition exemption, even though it only applies to speech against the US government. There the standard is: "clear and present danger."

Robertson's comments, as idiotic and retarded as they were, meets none of those standards. Short of a landmark Supreme Court decision, Robertson's comments were protected under the First Amendment, and as a private citizen, the UN has as much jurisdiction over him and his comments as they do over Joe Bob and his exhortations that someone kill Queen Elizabeth because she's a part of the Trilateral Commission.

Well, there is the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (to which we are a signatory).

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/inprotectedpersons.html

1. The intentional commission of:
1. a murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person;
2. a violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodation or the means of transport of an internationally protected person likely to endanger his person or liberty;
3. a threat to commit any such attack;
4. an attempt to commit any such attack; and
5. an act constituting participation as an accomplice in any such attack shall be made by each State Party a crime under its internal law.
2. Each State Party shall make these crimes punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article in no way derogate from the obligations of States Parties under international law to take all appropriate measures to prevent other attacks on the person, freedom or dignity of an internationally protected person.

I can't say if it qualifies, but it's international law...

 

[Tamanon]

'Stupidity' should either be ignored or confronted with a well-thought-out rebuttal that highlights the stupidity of the original statement.

Since you have done neither, the latter in particular, then this thread should certainly not be locked just because you find one particular comment stupid. This is a forum where different views are shared. Deal with it.

Er....but apparently reading is optional here?

He's talking about the sentiment of killing the president which a lot of posters have expressed here. Going by that logic, they would be locked up, not the thread.

Or are you a flame-bot and saw the word "locked" and Ctrl + V'd your way in?

 

[DDayton]

Of course if someone said the exact same thing about President Bush, they'd be doing time in Guantanamo Bay. Why it's against the law to even joke about threatening the US president, but okay for a man who owns his own network to say the exact same thing about the leader of another nation is beyond me.

Possibly because having four presidents assassinated makes us a little jumpy. Actively threatening to kill the president is a crime (not Guantanamo Bay though, although I do see the association you're trying to make); saying that someone should kill the president is not, as far as I know. If our buddy had said "Go kill the president!", he'd be in trouble... if he had said "I think the president should be shot", he'd have our friends in the Secret Service pay him a visit, but he couldn't be charged with a crime directly (I believe).

 

[DarienA]

I think President Bush should be ki<ding dong>... damn that was fast...

 

[fse]

Robertson should be in jail.

 

[Triumph]

Christ. Talk about Chavez being a pussy about this shit. I was jsut as angry at Robertson as everyone else, maybe even more angry, but the fact of the matter is that he's a private citizen who simply suggested that Chavez be assassinated. He didn't engage in plans to do so, and he didn't (I believe) know of any plans for him to be assassinated.

The idea that he wants the US to extradite Robertson is a fucking joke in itself, partly because he didn't break any laws, and mostly because the US simply doesn't extradite people. And let's not forget that Bush has pretty much broken the UN... does Chavez think that anybody actually gives a shit if he files a complaint with the US in the UN?

You know, if you had survived a coup already and a country had a record of needless "regime change" in South America didn't like you, you might be a tad paranoid too.

But yeah, that Chavez is a brutal dictator. He's taken money from the nationalized oil that Venezuela sells and used it to provide medical care and after school programs for the country, and repossesed land from wealthy fucktards that weren't using it and given it back to small subsistence farmers who would have had to work for practically nothing or starve. A VICIOUS BEAST, THAT ONE.

Fucking hero, if you ask me.

 

[darkiguana]

Robertson should be in jail.

For what crime?

 

[Ulairi]

You know, if you had survived a coup already and a country had a record of needless "regime change" in South America didn't like you, you might be a tad paranoid too.

But yeah, that Chavez is a brutal dictator. He's taken money from the nationalized oil that Venezuela sells and used it to provide medical care and after school programs for the country, and repossesed land from wealthy fucktards that weren't using it and given it back to small subsistence farmers who would have had to work for practically nothing or starve. A VICIOUS BEAST, THAT ONE.

Fucking hero, if you ask me.

And he's used that money to fund terrorists groups but that's ok since the left has never met a leftwing dicataor they haven't liked.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Well, there is the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (to which we are a signatory).

I can't say if it qualifies, but it's international law...

As repugnant as Robertson's comments were, they hardly rose to the level of an actual threat.

 

[Azih]

And he's used that money to fund terrorists groups but that's ok since the left has never met a leftwing dicataor they haven't liked.

Jeez, you know Raoul's praise of Chavez can be backed up, can you provide proof of Chavez funding terrorists?

As for Robertson's comments. The man isn't a private citizen when he's making comments on the 700 club. If he had said to his buddies at the local bar that Chavez should be assassinated then that would be different.

 

[whytemyke]

And he's used that money to fund terrorists groups but that's ok since the left has never met a leftwing dicataor they haven't liked.

:lol :lol
Are you retarded? I mean, really, are you? The guy was democratically elected twice, each time receiving more and more of the vote, while the vote was under inspectors from the UN in the first place. And what terror groups are you thinking of?

And in case you didn't figure it out, it's always the left that's supportive of sovereign leaders (which even Castro was, people)... it's the right that's always petrified of letting people into power whom they can't control. Bah... can't believe I'm even paying attention to this shit.

 

[whytemyke]

Jeez, you know Raoul's praise of Chavez can be backed up, can you provide proof of Chavez funding terrorists?

As for Robertson's comments. The man isn't a private citizen when he's making comments on the 700 club. If he had said to his buddies at the local bar that Chavez should be assassinated then that would be different.

Ok. Fine. Then we should also prosecute Rush Limbaugh for racial intimidation against Donovan McNabb for his stuff he said on the air a couple years ago. He wasn't speaking for the government and it wasn't in a manner which would endanger Chavez. His speech is protected under our first amendment, and I'm sick of all these people (both right AND left) thinking they can trample the constitution because somebody says something that they disagree with.

So Robertson is an idiot with a TV show. Big deal. So does O'Reilly and any number of pundits. What happened to people being allowed to say their opinions and people relying on the viewers to discern what they think is smart and what is bullshit? It wasn't in a forum that was said to be fact, such as the NY Times. It was on the god damn 700 Club, a network by and for christian fundamentalists. I can't believe so many people are ready to deny the man his right to speech. And no, I don't buy this "well its different cuz he was on TV" bullshit. Whether on TV or not, you should have just as much right to state your opinion as anyone else.

 

[Azih]

The more power a person has the more responsibility must be demanded. It doesn't have to be by law but it must be done in some form or another. I'm mostly satisified with the wave of public disapproval that forced Robertson to backtrack (backhanded as the withdrawal was), I am dissapointed however that Roberson's peers didn't join in.

Plus Robertson isn't just a media personality he's a religious icon. A religous icon to the more extreme side of the spectrum no less. Those people are less adept at discrening between something insane and something reasonable than average. Trust me on this. *Especially* since Roberston claims that God talks to him a whole lot.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

As for Robertson's comments. The man isn't a private citizen when he's making comments on the 700 club.

What the hell is he then?

The more power a person has the more responsibility must be demanded. It doesn't have to be by law but it must be done in some form or another.

Agreed. Even though his comments are protected under the First Amendment, he should still be publicly ridiculed.

 

[whytemyke]

The more power a person has the more responsibility must be demanded. It doesn't have to be by law but it must be done in some form or another. I'm mostly satisified with the wave of public disapproval that forced Robertson to backtrack (backhanded as the withdrawal was), I am dissapointed however that Roberson's peers didn't join in.

Plus Robertson isn't just a media personality he's a religious icon. A religous icon to the more extreme side of the spectrum no less. Those people are less adept at discrening between something insane and something reasonable than average. Trust me on this. *Especially* since Roberston claims that God talks to him a whole lot.

I know what you're saying, and I know that he should be forced to backtrack, and he did. I'm saying that the government has no place in telling him whether or not he should or should not backtrack what he said, and if you're going to sit and say (or anyone for this matter) that he should be punished for what he said, then it makes you no different than conservatives trying to keep Michael Moore from being in the media, or conservatives saying that we're not allowed to burn flags.

 

[MIMIC]

That Robertson guy is a retard, but you can't seriously expect the U.S. to do anything about that.

 

[Triumph]

And he's used that money to fund terrorists groups but that's ok since the left has never met a leftwing dicataor they haven't liked.

I want links to back up such claims. And how can someone be a "dictator" if they're elected(twice!) with an overwhelming majority of the vote? How can someone be a "dictator" if the people rise up when a coup is attempted and demand their justly elected President back?

So it's put up or shut up time, Junior. Cough up those links or maybe you should take a vacation.

 

[Hitokage]

Should Robertson get the book thrown at him? Yes, and for a great many things. Should it be the state throwing the book? Not really.

 

[Shinobi]

Half of GAF should be locked up by now then with this stupid line of thinking.

The point here is consistency...there is none. Which at the end of the day is probably Chavez's point.

And BTW, I don't think Robertson should be charged...I believe in true free speech, not the watered down bullshit that currently exists in North America. But do I understand where Chavez is coming from? Absolutely. Let's not forget that Robertson is pretty cozy with the Republican party, which makes the things he says of this nature a bit more dangerous then Joe Six Pack in Daytona Florida.

Possibly because having four presidents assassinated makes us a little jumpy. Actively threatening to kill the president is a crime (not Guantanamo Bay though, although I do see the association you're trying to make); saying that someone should kill the president is not, as far as I know. If our buddy had said "Go kill the president!", he'd be in trouble... if he had said "I think the president should be shot", he'd have our friends in the Secret Service pay him a visit, but he couldn't be charged with a crime directly (I believe).

I don't know...I've heard even joking about it would get you in some legal trouble. Of course you'd have to be heard by anyone in a position to do anything about it first, and I doubt the FBI pays much attention to these forums...

"I've got my eye on you."

...shit.

 

[Shompola]

And he's used that money to fund terrorists groups but that's ok since the left has never met a leftwing dicataor they haven't liked.

stfu.. you have no idea of who he is... I hate people like you.

 

[fortified_concept]

And he's used that money to fund terrorists groups but that's ok since the left has never met a leftwing dicataor they haven't liked.

Have you seen the first episode of Animaniacs where the doctor was tearing a handful of his hair every time yakko wakko and dot were saying something reeeeeeealy stupid? Well congrats I just did that all at once.