Latin Nations Call for Punishment of Pat Robertson

[IChing]

Monday 29th August 2005
Source: La Jornada (Mexico)
sent & translated by Luis Martin

Foreign Ministers of the Latin American countries belonging to the Rio Group expressed confidence that U.S. authorities will set in motion the "appropiate legal processes" to punish the call of evangelical telepreacher Pat Robertson to assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

The declaration, signed by diplomats of 19 Latin American and Caribbean nations meeting in Bariloche, Argentina states, in relevant part: "We are amazed at the declarations of Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, an organization linked to the Republican Party of the USA, urging the assassination of the democratically-elected president of Venezuela." The declaration described the telepreacher’s remarks as "a clear call, to commit a crime.">>>>>snip

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7928

[wli]

1. Are any Democratic organizations signing on?

Obviously not the DLC, but anyone?

[IChing]

2. The RIO group is an internatioal democratic orgnization

The Rio Group

The Permanent Mechanism of Political Consultation and Coordination - the Rio Group (GRIO) - was created in 1986 in Rio de Janeiro. The members of this group include Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, Uruguay and a representative from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). As of the Cartagena summit (in June, 2000) Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua will participate in GRIO as full and individual members, and no longer as rotational representatives which had been the practice up to that time.

The Mechanism is the result of the fusion of the Contadora Group (Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and Panama) and the Support Group (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Peru) which met previously to analyze and propose solutions to the political crises in Central America.

As it participates actively in the discussions on the major topics on the international agenda, the Rio Group has been recognized as a legitimate and trustworthy interlocutor by other countries, including Canada, Japan and India, and by other country associations, such as the European Union.

The major objectives of this Mechanism were established in the Declaration of Rio de Janeiro in 1986:

to expand and systematize political cooperation among the member states.
to examine international issues which may be of interest and coordinate common positions on these issues.
to promote more efficient operation and coordination of Latin American cooperation and integration organizations.
to present appropriate solutions to the problems and conflicts affecting the region.
to provide momentum, through dialogue and cooperation, to the initiatives and actions undertaken to improve inter-American relations.
to explore jointly new fields of cooperation which enhance economic, social, scientific and technological development.

http://www.mre.gov.br/cdbrasil/itamaraty/web/ingles/relext/mre/orgreg/gruporio/apresent.htm

[wli]

3. I was hoping for something involving the US Democratic Party

Maybe RIO is as good as it gets, esp. given the DLC.

[IChing]

4. that's why it's called leadership council

It's an orwellian term.

[dansolo]

58. I'm not

Let Latin America speak for itself. The Democratic Party should find their own way to denounce Pat Robertson.

[political_invader]

6. Those Who Harbor Terrorists

I really dont like posting articles however this could not have been said any better:Those Who Harbor Terrorists

August 25, 2005
By Bucky Rea

The GW Bush doctrine of preventive war provides all the reasons that Hugo Chavez and Venezuela need to attack, invade, and occupy Virginia. (Note: I specify the "GW Bush doctrine" to distinguish it from the prior GHW Bush doctrine, the one that states it would be insane to get bogged down in a military occupation of Iraq.)

For, although Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has denounced the Reverend Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez at least as vociferously as the Taliban government denounced the attacks of 9/11, it's pretty clear to me that the United States would not be willing to turn Robertson over to Venezuelan authorities.

But, you may be thinking, Pat Robertson has only made a terroristic threat against the sovereign government of Venezuela by advocating the murder of Hugo Chavez - he didn't actually carry out those threats.


Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson caused heartburn in Washington and consternation in Latin America on Tuesday in calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

"I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war," Robertson said during Monday evening's broadcast of "The 700 Club," his Christian news-talk television show. "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

But why should Venezuela sit around and wait to respond only after the terrorists have struck? That would be madness. Any sane application of President Bush's doctrine of preventive wars against states that harbor potential terrorists would thoroughly justify Venezuela attacking Virginia.

I mean, shoot, for all we know, Robertson could be harboring weapons of mass destruction right now. You can be damn sure he's not gonna allow any U.N. weapons inspectors onto his 700 Club compound. And just because there's no evidence that Robertson has an active WMD program, doesn't mean you can prove he hasn't got them.

He certainly has a history both of consorting with brutal dictators (such as Liberia's Charles Taylor) and of threatening to bring massive destruction on his neighbors with secret weapons - like that time he tried to pray a hurricane into destroying Massachusetts.

Robertson represents a truly unique and dangerous threat to world peace. If Venezuela's allies will not stand by her in this darkest hour, that country still has every right to go it alone and secure its democracy from this threat.

Someone please prove me wrong in this. I personally don't have a lot of regard for Mr. Chavez - he's a screwloose egomaniac tanking his country's economy in the guise of social reform. He actively undermines his own country's democratic traditions while playing economic footsie with the Saudis. Hmmm, why does this all sound so familiar?

Still, like him or not, Chavez is a duly elected president of a sovereign country. When you issue threats against his life, you've got to be breaking some law. By any standard, it is an act of terrorism that Robertson is openly inciting.

At the very least, Chavez would be fully justified in dispatching his armed forces to take this religious extremist, terror-mongering, dictator-coddling, international bandit out of the picture. Mr Bush provided the precedent for this in 2003. And now freedom's on the march.

[political_invader]

7. Im SORRY FOR POSTING THAT ENTIRE STORY:

THAT WAS EMAILED TO ME AND I HAVE NO LINK

[moggie]

9. Er, that was a DU article!

Here's that link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/08/25_harbor.html

Google has no trouble finding it.

[political_invader]

11. THANK YOU

EOM .. >>

[ShockediSay]

13. A link -

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050828/w082878.html

Jackson says call for Venezuelan leader's assassination was a criminal act

"... Rev. Jesse Jackson offered support for President Hugo Chavez on Sunday, saying a call for his assassination by a U.S. religious broadcaster was a criminal act and that Washington and Venezuela should work out their differences through diplomacy.

The U.S. civil rights leader condemned last week's suggestion by Pat Robertson that American agents should kill the leftist Venezuelan leader, calling the conservative commentator's statements "immoral" and "illegal."

[ShockediSay]

14. US Christian Talibansky complete w/ fahtwa

How is Robertson different here from the Ayatollah Talibanskys over there?

If we truly are "at war with terror" it's time to arrest Robertson, ship him off to Gitmo, torture him, hold him incommunicado, until everyone forgets who he was, and it will all be in complete compliance with the "Patriot Act."

[political_invader]

17. "US Christian Talibansky complete w/ fahtwa"

<<If we truly are "at war with terror" it's time to arrest Robertson, ship him off to Gitmo, torture him, hold him incommunicado, until everyone forgets who he was, and it will all be in complete compliance with the "Patriot Act.">>


Just might be 1 of the only things the "Patriot Act" is good for. I aree ship him off and take Jerry " Fartwell" with him.

[Charles19]

59. Robertson was clearly trying to encite violence from

extremists and he should be prosecuted for it.

Now if Chavez or some other leader was committing crimes, or opression then advocating confrontation may be appropriate. The reason however that Robertson said these things is because Chavez tries to help poor people and this doesn't fit their agenda.

If the U.S. starts helping poor people that much, then the right might not have enough money left to buy more advanced weapons systems. They won't allow that. They have such an ego problem that the only way they think people who are poor can be helped is to make the subjects in their colonies, and to provide their natural resources to their masters.

Robertson knows this all to well because he owns diamond mines in Africa. That system is working quite well for him.

[calimary]

26. Welcome to DU!

Great story - I hadn't seen that one either.

Glad you're here. Now roll up your sleeves...

[political_invader]

41. Thank You

<< Glad you're here. Now roll up your sleeves...>>


Well ill tell ya, I am so glad I found this site Thank You for your Welcome.

My sleeves are rolled up, coffee in my cup,and my pencils are sharpened so lets kick some NEO-CON Butt in 2006!!

Hoo Ra Ra lol

[donheld]

12. Welcome to DU political_invader

:hi:

[political_invader]

15. Thank You this seems to be a real nice place to hang and vent

Lots of nice people here

as well a lot of great info

[ninkasi]

46. Welcome

Yes, it is a great place to hang out and vent. It's also a great place to become involved by writing letters to editors, members of Congress, and to spread the truth to people we see and talk to in everyday life.

You have begun by providing an excellent analogy to the "Bush Doctrine" of doing whatever the hell we please, just because we think we can get away with it. Keep on posting!

[President Kerry]

55. heck yeah! welcome bro.. n/t

[tuvor]

5. Kick & rec'd. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

8. Found a terrific photo at your article's source.

He always seems so comfortable around people, so unlike most of our politicians, most certainly MEpublicans.

It seems to gall the Venezuelan opposition that he doesn't treat the poor like dirt, the way they do.

[IdaBriggs]

10. Loving It! Nominated! Kick! nt

[Xithras]

16. Like it or not, what he said was legal.

First amendment, freedom of speech, and all that BS. I've read the transcript of what he actually said, and heard it repeated ad nauseum on CNN, and what he said doesn't rise to the level of a terrorist threat. He clearly said that Chavez should be killed, and that the United States should do it. He did NOT call on his followers to kill him, did not say that he was going to have Chavez killed, and did not offer any kind of bounty or reward for killing Chavez. He simply said that the world would be better off if someone offed the guy.

There are people here on DU who have made the exact same comments about people in our own government. We may not like Robertson or what he says, but we need to remember that the 1st amendment was drafted to protect UNpopular speech, not the speech we all agree with. If we start imprisoning people for expressing political views we don't agree with, we'll be forging a political sword that could easily be turned back against us.

Robertson is an @55hole, a bigot, and a bright and shining example of everything that's wrong with America today, but our Constitution guarantees us the right to be bigoted idiotic assholes if we want.

[MsMagnificent]

21. Even to exhort one to commit an illegal act?

Isn't 'inciting to riot' illegal because it advocates citizens to break the law?
...I'm with you on the freedom of speech, but when it involves advocating an illegal act, I don't know what the law is...

[IChing]

29. This is the exact federal law he violated

From John Dean:http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050826.html
Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: "Whoever willfully -- (1) … threatens … a foreign official …, (2) attempts to… threaten … a foreign official … shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson "attempted" to threaten President Chavez.

[Igel]

32. I do.

I think he was speaking to his 'flock', not to Chavez.

If I say something threatening about you to my wife, in public, and you hear about it later, is it a threat intended to intimidate you?

There must be case law on that one.

In any event, nothing in the state is to imply or be applied to infringe on one's freedom of speech or other constitutional rights; and, at best, the US *may* decide to assume jurisdiction. It need not do so. Esp. since this is about the lowest level of applicability of the statute imaginable: a verbal threat not directed at the person, who is in another country, and in which the threatener is basically saying what his government should do.

By that token, many, many DUers (myself included) are culpable under this statute.

[IChing]

33. Your wife is not a foreign head of state is she?

Not the same legal analogy now, is it?

[Igel]

51. No, she's not.

But it doesn't matter: any threat would be illegal under some other statute.

I'm not saying it's not a threat: People seem so sure the language applies, but I'm still wondering what judges have interpreted the language of the statute to mean: do utterances issued to third parties, with the third parties being the final recipients of the utterance, constitute "attempts to intimidate"? And if they are threats, and are vacuous, do they count under the statute?

Consider the following. "IChing, I think China should nuke Ham Lini." Gee. Have I threatened Mr. Lini in order to intimidate him? No, I've just written something silly.

[Xithras]

34. But that's just it, he didn't DO that.

Look up his exact quote, and you'll see that his statement basically boils down to "someone should kill Chavez". Legally, that does NOT meet the definition of a threat or incitement. People have been saying the same thing about Mugabe and Saddam for years, and it's a perfectly legal opinion to hold.

We are perfectly free to believe that the world would be a better place if certain people were deleted from it, and 99% of DUers would agree with that if you inserted the proper person and phrased it correctly. Holding, and stating, that opinion is NOT illegal unless it's phrased as a direct threat, or is stated to a group as a command to do it.

Distasteful as it may be, what Robertson said was legal.

[CanonRay]

23. No, you're dead wrong.

I found at least three Federal statutes he violated. There are specific statutes against threatening "protected" individuals, which includes foreign heads of state.

[Xithras]

35. Look up the definition of "threatened".

Wow, I can't believe I'm being put into the position of defending Robertson. This must be how the ACLU felt when they had to defend the KKK a few years back :scared:

Anyway, it is against the law to threaten a protected individual, but let's look up the definition of threaten:

"To express a threat"

and the definition of threat:

"An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment. An indication of impending danger or harm. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace."

While Robertson may indeed be a menace, the fact is that he fails this definition. He did not express any intention to do it himself, he was not exhorting citizens to do it, and the one entity that he felt SHOULD take action was one that he had no real power over. His statement created no harm, and doesn't meet the legal requirement for a threat.

The world would be better off without a LOT of powerful people. Stating as much is NOT a crime.

[getmeouttahere]

38. How is he NOT exhorting citizens?

anyone who would be involved in an assassination attempt is a citizen of this country, right?

[Xithras]

40. Should have read "private citizens"

He was exhorting the government to do it, not private citizens.

[nothometoday]

60. I get your drift...

Still, It was an Assh*le thing for a man with millions of impressionable followers to say.

[onenote]

39. no, xithras is exactly right

And section 112 absolutely doesn't apply, even if you could (and you really can't) conclude that Robertson's statement was a threat. Section 112 only applies when the foreign official is in the US. You can look it up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1734005&mesg_id=1734981

onenote

[mopinko]

25. people on du not licensed by the fcc

pat robertson's show is.

[MellowOne]

28. Robertson is a "Christian" leader

Supposedly, he sets an example of Christian behavior. In my Bible, Jesus was a peaceful man who said killing was one of the ten commandments and a sin. Robertson's behavior is giving a very bad reputation to people who sincerely follow the teachings of Jesus.

[Igel]

31. Yes.

But we treat Xians no differently under the law.

[Xithras]

36. I don't disagree with that

But what does that have to do with whether he broke any laws or not?

[chomskysright]

53. ...but was it MORAL my friend?

[TankLV]

67. Really?

"There are people here on DU who have made the exact same comments about people in our own government?"

Prove it.

[autorank]

18. I was #5 Recommend. This is great. How will Bolton deal with these

diplomats. Mein Got! 19 nations, 19 presidents and legislative bodies all in accord, 19 separate nations populations' -- this sounds like a band wagon! Will the Republicans come up with a theory that the supporters of Robertson were reluctant to respond (rRs-reluctant Robertson supporters)? Will they say, who cares?

This is a diplomatic embarassment of proportions unimaginable.

This has never happened before -- all of Latin America is saying NO to our government...NEVER BEFORE.

[political_invader]

19. Robertson was the Bushnics messenger

of course they will come to his defense like Rove they are waiting to see what there best action to take is (circling the wagons if you will). Our job as americans is to keep the pressure on and demand JUSTICE.

Can you just imagine if the ball was in the other court what the NEO-CONS would be saying? Just makes me laugh like hell to see them quite as a church mouse.

[autorank]

43. You're absolutely right. 19 Latin American nations called for

extradition. That's never happened before, a criticism of us by all or almost all of our neighbors. Strange times.

[political_invader]

50. wait, you might want to put these on before you read this:

http://www.swiftys-fishing-tackle.co.uk/catalog/largeimages/RTClassicProHipWader s.JPG

OK - here.

WASHINGTON - Conservative U.S. evangelist Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said on Wednesday he was misinterpreted and there were a number of ways to "take him out" including kidnapping. "I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping," Robertson said on his "The 700 Club" television program. "There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted," Robertson added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050823/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_robertson_assassination_6; _ylt=AmoE2C2xVqB5I4m8byE4U6xjhuIA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


Note what Rummy Dummy is quoted on saying?

Is he out of his mind I knew this Admin. would defend this loud mouth.

Revoke Robertson's FCC license at the least, we cant just let him get away with what was said.

[autorank]

62. Thanks for the great reply. The solution. Pat R wears a WWJD bracelet!

"WWJD" bracelet: "What Would Jesus Do" - to remind you to behave in a moral fashion though out the day.

Robertson is sitting there thinking all these vile thoughts about killing Chavez. He stops and ways "Would Jesus arsenate Hugo Chavez?" Now he knows he'll go to Hell if he lies. He says, "Na, can't say it can't do it." Who on earth would think Jesus would sanction such an act. Oh, about the 2.0 million regular viewers.

Seriously, these are good points. Rummy should have said Robertson was a wack job, in diplomatic language. I liked the comment about US Plans to assassinate Chavez: "Not to my knowledge and I would think I would have knowledge," -- brilliant he doesn't know but it could be but he should know but he isn't certain...why can't they just talk this way.

Strange times.

[political_invader]

68. I hear ya this admin. cant even keep up with there own lies

and who they have told them too.

Each passing day its something differant.

[autorank]

71. Agree on the lies...too many, none make sense.

[political_invader]

73. Here's the TRUTH...

If you look around the world and perceive all the great wonders of architechial genius like the pyramids in all cultures that were created, before there was money to pay wages for workers, ask yourself, How do you think they got those ancient people to slave away and build them?

Ask yourself, before there was money to pay wages for armies, how do you think they motivated the workers?

They had to promise them something. They wasn't all slaves.

They invented religions and promised them a wonderful afterlife with God, that was to be their reward. Then they invented AVATARS, also called Jesus's in some cultures, who were said to be God's Son, or Representative on planet earth. Seventh Son's. To give out the orders and keep everybody in line.

So from gnostic scriptures we learn Jesus said, I didn't come to bring peace, I came with a sword, to conquer and divide.

Then the knights temple of ancient europe, the forerunners of the masonic secret society and skull and bones, the status quo, when they wrote the constitution and bill of rights to the united states, they also wrote america's manifest destiny doctrine. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16321.htm

This gives all american's the right to use Jesus as a shield for their desires, cus old Jesus, did he not die for your scarlet sins and wash them white as snow? That's what it says.

So scalp that in-jun, steal his lands, it's gold for you, and souls for God...Let him sort em out....

And now, you know why Pat Robertson said what he did. And why the Republicans ain't dissing him. Pat Robertson was ordered by Bush, to send a Godly Veiled Message To Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

That's my opinion of what just went down. Peace !!

[Blaq Dem]

20. Pre-emptive Strike?

Oh, that would be something Bush would do if other leaders were to make threats against him or his Daddy.

[CanonRay]

22. Don't Hold Your Breath

I haven't heard one word from Federal Law Enforcement

[Witchy_Dem]

42. My thoughts as well. *sigh*

[goforit]

24. LOL!!.Pat Robertson just UNIFIED all of South America!!!Bush should be

so happy now.

What a brilliant move!!!

[me b zola]

45. lol. Yeah, looks like little georgie is a uniter after all

He is uniting the entire world against the US.

[NVMojo]

27. Good, how can we help see this happens?

[getmeouttahere]

30. If nothing else, I love seeing the Latin American countries...

united in their rejection of BushCo!

www.handsoffvenezuela.org

[chomskysright]

54. united IN A BLOCK....

[VegasWolf]

37. Funny. They should know that Bush will not tolerate accountability! nt

[tom_paine]

44. Pat Robertson FREQUENTLY advocates commission of crimes

though not usually so directly as his assassination call.

If one looks at the hive of corruption American "Voting" has become, I GUATRANTEE you will find Robertson-zealots committing much of the criminality.

The evangelical (partiocularly the Bushist brand of evangel) mindset is that it's OK to do evil against the emissaries of Satan and it is excused "for being in a good cause".

Robertson has said "Zealots force their way in," meaning it is provident and perhaps GOOD to break the rules in order to found Christian Theocracy in America.

And, as a Friend of Caesar, he is immune from punishment...like Limabugh or Rove or any of the MANY felons among the Bush henchmen.

[Nothing Without Hope]

47. They also need to prosecute FOX NEWS - what Hannity did was even worse

And it is part of an ongoing policy at Fox - it is no accident, and it is ILLEGAL.

I urge you to read through this thread and take action.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2039206
Thread title: FOX VIDEO- Hannity eggs on guest who wants multiple world leaders murdered

It's not just that FOX needs to be slapped down. It's that this is the most blatant fearmongering and promotion of violence - and the man maintained that Bush can and should order the murder of multiple world leaders in order to "protect" our country. He compared Chavez to Hitler and Mussolini - quite amazing when they were fascists and Chavez is at the other end of the spectrum. Hannity encouraged all this and gave no indication of disagreement or concern about legal issues. (Colmes did, but this was swept aside.) Hannity also effectively denied that Robertson called for Chavez' assassination by saying that "some say" that he did so - clearly a message to the Fox audience that this was a false rumor.

The huge Fox News audience was fed this evil, violence-mongering propaganda, and it was ILLEGAL as well as wrong. We MUST fight this. They are so blatantly trying to set up the last-ditch defense of the neocons - that their murders and invasions around the world are all to "protect" the US and should be continued and expanded.

Late in the thread you will read about how the interview with nutjob Fox News regular Wayne Simmons was only part of it. After the program, Fox moved on to even WORSE with another interviewee. This is clearly part of a deliberate policy of fomenting violence and suppressing dissent. How far a step is it to some nutjob "protecting the country" by assassinating Cindy Sheehan or shooting protesters or anyone who looks "Arabic" or like a Chavez supporter? This is NOT just disgusting, it is DANGEROUS.

Suits need to be brought. John Dean says there are two laws broken, including a federal felony statute. The public needs to see that Fox is breaking the law in their lies. We also need to contact the corporate sponsors of Fox News, write to the FCC, and do everything we can to STOP this incitement to violence and murder.

[Megahurtz]

52. Stupid Faux Fucks!

:grr:

[genius]

48. kick

[Skidmore]

49. Those countries need to cut off his access to their

peoples for missionary activities. That would hurt him in his pocket.

[The Blue Knight]

56. "Punish Robertson"?

For what, stating his opinion? I mean, granted, the dude is a fucking nutjob, but we still have free speach in this country. Sorry, Latin America, you lose.

[mbperrin]

57. Advocating murder is not free speech. It's a crime.

Try this. Go on TV in your local area and advocate killing the mayor of the town you live in for whatever reason you like, especially to do with creating problems for the rest of "us."

Then see what happens.

Thanks.

[onenote]

64. please provide a link

to the criminal code provision that makes it illegal to state "I think someone should kill someone."

Thanks

onenote

[physioex]

61. Free Speech Doesn't Mean.....

You Can Yell "Fire" in a Crowded Theater. Or call for the murder of an individual......


On Edit: The Least the US Government Should do is Take Away His Tax Exempt Status......

[onenote]

63. he didn't cry fire

he stated a dumbass, amoral opinion. There really is a difference.
If someone stands up in a theater and says, I think someone ought to set fire to this theater...guess what...it isn't a crime.

And its rather disheartening to see progressives advocating that the government retaliate against someone for their speech.

onenote

[physioex]

65. Let's just assume that I do agree with you on the "free speech"....

Part of the argument (eventhough I don't). Where is the goverment when it comes to taking away his tax exempt status? I think that would be a great place to start...

On Edit: Since when is calling for the murder of a person a "opinion"?? If for example a person called for the opinion of a President, that would not be considered "free speech" in this country.

[political_invader]

74. He'll just get Tammy to pray for him..

because he needs more $money$ <<LMAO>> From all those "VOTE CHRISTIAN" types.

[loudsue]

66. Ok. Let's just see how far this "free speech" thingy goes....

So, who is going to be the first DUer to say the EXACT SAME WORDS that Pat Robertson used concerning Chavez, except replace it with the name Bush. How 'bout the name Tony Blair? How 'bout replacing the exact same words with the name Aerial Sharon?

How long do you think it would take for the black helicopters to start flying over your house? How long before DU got shut down, if it was said on here?

If that is "free speech", how come one of our other citizens, whose name is NOT Pat Robertson, would not be allowed to say the same words against the other leaders' names suggested?

And WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY IT! And we all know it here. So, is "freedom of speech" ok for some Americans, and not for others?

What judge could possibly rule a DUer "guilty" (for saying the same thing, but substituting the above names) if Pat Robertson's words were used in the same context and find him "not guilty", simply for the NAME he chose for his assassination remarks.

If Pat Robertson had used George Bush's name, (or Blair or Sharon) do you really think we'd even be having this debate?

:kick::kick::kick:

[onenote]

69. yep, we'd be having this debate

If Michael Moore was to say on a website, or on national tv, "I think the US govt should take out Ariel Sharon" Moore would be vilified (rightly), condemned (rightly), and ostracized (rightly). But would there be "black helicopters" and prosecutions? Not a chance.

onenote

[loudsue]

70. What country do you live in?

Have you heard of george bush or the patriot act? Have you heard of the republican taliban?

If Moore said we needed to assassinate Sharon or Blair or Bush, he'd be in jail so fast his head would swim.

:kick:

[onenote]

76. I live in the real world

The world where Eminem put out a song that talked about killing the president, where a college professor had his students send emails that said "kill the president", where Morrisey, in the UK, wished that it had been Bush, not Reagan that had died. People got upset. In a couple of cases the FBI was called. Did anyone get prosecuted? Did anyone go to jail? Nope. The Patriot Act sucks. But we actually do have free speech rights in this country still and, at least until all of the judges appointed by Clinton (and those appointed by Carter that are still on the bench) are gone, no one is going to jail for stating their opinion.

Caveat: if Moore said he wanted to kill Bush, he might well end up in jail, not because of the Patriot Act,but because US law has prohibited "threats" against the President for years.

onenote

[political_invader]

72. Are you kidding...

We would be having a debate? If michael Moore was to say the US govt. should take out Ariel Sharon the Neo-Con-artists would Hang him, But not before JERRY FARTWELL put him in chains and RUSH LIMBAUGH drove him away in a PADDIE WAGON!!!

[Seabiscuit]

75. GO, LATINOS, LATINAS!

[genieroze]

77. I wonder how many people have said this about Bush, I don't mean

silently wishing it would happen, or a nobody saying sarcastically I wish he would drop dead. I'm talking prominent people of influence saying Bush should be taken out physically. Is there any? If there was any, what happened to them? I only hear many people saying he should be taken out of office, not assassinated. If Robertson said this about Bush, you better believe he would at least been detained.