I've not poured through all of the commentary on several threads on this topic yet, but I've yet to read any sensible, informed commentary. Invective, sarcasm, and ridicule rule the day! ("Oh we're much to morally superior to even countenance the thought!") Of course, we know that Robertson was ridiculed into retracting his statement. And as an atheist and libertarian, I'm not normally inclined to defend this smirking man of God. However, many here are seriously ill-informed about Hugo Chavez, president of Vernezuela. Therefore, let me offer this modest defense: the idea of a US policy which includes the assasination of heads of state is at least worth public debate (although I ultimately concur with our rabble who reject it) - with the possible objective of including Hugo as its target. Consider four points of information before you respond. First, no less a presidential advisor than Clinton's George Stephanopoulos advocated the same policy towards Saddam Hussein. He wrote a Newsweek column in 1997, entltled "Why We Should Kill Saddam." "Assassination may be Clinton's best option," the future "This Week" host urged. "If we can kill Saddam, we should." But there was no hue and cry from the media then. Convenient double standards, anyone? Second, Hugo is most likely guilty of election fraud in order to secure his rule. Not the phony stuff 2000 gave us here, but real subversion of democracy. Hugo is a nose tweaking radical akin to Ward Churchill - but while the latter is practically a harmless academic, the former wields real power as a head of state. We know he continually persecutes and oppresses political dissent; see photographs of his recent, bloodiest work here http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2005/08/27.html#a2437 Spanish lanuage version here http://www.eluniversal.com/2005/08/27/pol_ava_27A605245.shtml AND here http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=7593 Unfortunately, the media bias that infects coverage of the US led GWOT also infects coverage of Hugo's reign http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200508281002 All of this means that honest debate about Pat Robertson's remarks is sabotoged - and our open, democratic culture is dimminished, just as a fragile popular government in Latin America is imperiled. This confusion has been made worse by "do-gooders" like Jimmy Carter who gave his wholly injudicious imprimatur to the 2004 election. Not even the EU was willing to sully itself by participating in these rigged elections. "Two observers working on behalf of the Organization of American States, writing in Canada's Globe and Mail, on Tuesday tried to answer the question of whether the outcome reflects the will of the people. 'Yes,' write Ken Frankel and John Graham, 'if the focus is on the election-day process. International observers have not uncovered evidence of significant manipulation or voter harassment during voting day or the post-election audits.' But 'No,' they say, 'if the focus includes Mr. Chávez's pre-election maneuvers that tilted the table in his favor through control of the electoral apparatus and indirect intimidation.' "By now, the Chávez intimidation factor is legendary and Mr. Carter's practice of ignoring it, as he did in his letter to the [wall Street] Journal, is baffling. Messrs. Frankel and Graham do not ignore it: 'Thousands of citizens who had signed the petition that triggered the referendum lost jobs, pensions or suffered harassment. Many feared that their choice would be known to the government, and the ubiquitous presence of machine-gun-toting soldiers inside and outside the polling stations reinforced this concern.' [THIS originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110005509] Most people believe last years referendum was legitimate because our newspaper headlines said so. (Mind you, the subsequent election audit was conducted without opposition participation; it was in protest.) But has a legitimate election ever been run where exit polls were at 40% variance with the outcome? No. So how did Chavez steal Venezuala form the poeple? Two "economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard and Roberto Rigobon of MIT" give their brief answer here http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005586 Three, the US has vital interests at stake in Venezuela. Our importation of oil from them ranked third behind Canada and Saudi Arabia until this tin-horned potentates mismanagement dropped their production behind Mexicos. In an age of $70/bbl oil, more of US national security is at stake here than anywhere else after Iraq. As Robertson rightly asks, should we spend $200 billion in war on this problem or take the miscreant Chavez out? Fourth, Hugo Chavez is a thug speading terror. "Thor Halvorssen, president of the Human Rights Foundation, wrote in the August 8 Weekly Standard: "The antidote to [Chavez'] despotism, he suggested 'is persistent public exposure of Chavez’s increasing militarism, assaults on democracy, human rights abuses, and free speech violations, as well as his involvement with terrorist groups in South America and terror sponsors in the Middle East.' Such public exposure has been absent from network morning shows, which save their ire for religious conservatives like Pat Robertson." http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20050823.asp In addition to subsidizing Castro's gulag to the tuine of $2 billion, "In 2001, Chavez paid state visits to and signed 'cooperation agreements' with [known terror states] Libya, Iraq and Iran. In October 2001, he condemned America's Afghanistan campaign as 'fighting terrorism with terrorism.' Chavez' comment prompted the White House to recall U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela Donna Hrinak. "Chavez has publicly expressed sympathy for Marxist terrorist Ilich Ramirez Sanchez. Sanchez, known as 'Carlos the Jackal,' is a vicious killer born in Venezuela who has been imprisoned in France since 1994 for terrorism and murder. [He ultimately died under Sddam's protection in Iraq.] The infamous 'Carlos' conducted high-profile terror attacks, skyjackings and bombings throughout the 1970s and 1980s in Europe, Africa and elsewhere. Chavez corresponded with him shortly after being elected president in 1999, addressing the terrorist as 'distinguished compatriot.' http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=265102 According to a Venezuelan military defector in 2003, Chavez gave Al Qaida one-million dollars to assis in the organizations relocation from Afghanistan. According to former air force General Pedro Pereira: "With 9-11, bin Laden showed the whole world that he was a force to be reckoned with. This impressed Hugo to no end," the general remembered, according to MilitaresDemoraticos.com. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30350 Said the defector above: "He is a danger, not just to his own people but to the whole region." Last February, even Democrat Mortimor Zucker, publisher of US News & World Report, wrote "A danger to democracy is brewing right here in our backyard." That danger is Chavez. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/15/144227.shtml In conclusion, informed and empathetic observers owe Pat Robertson's scandalous remarks more than dismissive catcalls and calous shrugs. Intelligent people ought to be able to reasonably disagree about this, but no debate is possible if the messenger is summarily assasinated instead. Thoughtful responses are not only invited but necessary if you care about people and our future. -orson
Orson - I think you've made a tactical error by not stepping back from the Chavez issues a few paces and including the whole capital punishment theme. It is "state sponsored murder", no? It takes away that whole moral invective that tends to shadow the idea of asssassination. After all, if we can execute people why not assassinate people as well? Hmmm. It seems to me that it might have something to do with some dusty old ideas related to...wait, wait! Don't tell me! It's on the tip of my whatever (brain, tongue, fingers). Maybe Nosborne could help me out here...could it have something to do with "due process?" Jack (sarcasm is all this idea deserves)
Wouldn't You Murder Hitler in 1939? Jack, I like sarcasm too - especially when it's in the defense of an American ideal like self-government. But on the basis of the facts, it isn't so clear-cut that that's best served by a policy of stepping aside and doing nothing about Hugo. Robertson's argument as I've defended it consists of a cost-benefit calculation backing up the same ideal - defending a peoples' right to self-government because of political and general security concerns. I like an analogy with Ward Churchill's rhetoric. Churchill advocates rebellion against the US, including terrorism against civilians, almost to the point of endorsing specific plans and actions. He dances right up to the criminal line and draws back, or else claims he's "misunderstood." Because Hugo Chavez does the same dance with the "imperialist" US, the fringe left loves him for the same reasons they love Churchill. He's seen as a friendly agent provocatuer, despite the fact that he's an evil thug immiserating "his" people and persecuting dissent. Two years ago I made friend who had just immigrated from Venezuela to go to grad school here - effectively, he's another Chavez refugee. At some point it's possible that the benefits of "state sponsored murder" will be greater than its costs to us and their people. That's why I think Roberton's position deserves a serious engagement rather than simple sarcasm. Fortunately, although my friend embodied the frustration behind Robertson's words, I don't think we're anywhere near embracing such a morally compromised policy. It would do far more damage to our ideals than good and it is something we should hate. But is it always immoral? Wouldn't the murder of Hitler in 1939 have been the moral way to release the world from future horrors? It's really one of the Great Moral Dilemma's of history! Many agree that Hugo Chavez is a delusional paranoid like Hitler. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1920888004/qid=1125539793/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-6940230-0400825?v=glance&s=books Thus he and Robertson provide a good instance to make us confront such historically horrifying choices today - a true "teachable moment." As Saddam and Kim Jung il show us, there is human evil in the world today and hard decisions to be made. By dismissing Robertson we miss that opportunity. -Orson
I hate it when I end up agreeing, or at least not disagreeing, with orson. Hugo Chavez really IS a scab and a wart on the body politic. He really IS an awful human being, though whether his government actually presents a threat to American security (as opposed to American PROFITS) is more problematic. I don't like political assassination. I don't like our LONG history of violent intervention in Latin American affairs. I don't like our history of support for military dictators from Pinochet to Noriega. Yes, we do "turn" on our creatures; we occasionally see the light. But on the whole, we are not seen as liberators in Latin America but as overwhelmingly powerful, profit motivated oppressors. Hugo Chavez may well have rigged his election. In the context of his society, such a thing is not as surprising as maybe it should be. The point is, Hugo Chavez DOES enjoy widespread popular support in large part, I'd bet, because of his consistent anti-norteamericano stance. To SOME extent, HE is the result of OUR history just as Castro is. (I am NOT saying that these people are somehow OUR FAULT. I am saying, though, that our policies helped prepare the ground for them.) We didn't help our image by immediately recognizing the junta, BTW. To large numbers of Central and South Americans, that action looked a lot like "business as usual" from the United States.
Orson: It is this type of casuistry that has resulted in the type of US involvements, and anti-American perceptions, that Nosborne is talking about. If it is okay for us to assassinate foreign leaders we don't like, it presumably must be okay for other countries to do so as well. What if their perceptions of who is a candidate for assassination are not ours? Do we really want to sanction or encourage this type of international behavior? Is this the world we want? marilynd
