NEWS: Chavez: Taking Legal Action Against Robertson, Will Involve UN

The Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, has stated that he is going to pursue the "terrorist" remarks of American T.V evangelist, Pat Robertson. Speaking on a T.V broadcast Chavez said "to call for the assassination of a head of state is an act of terrorism" and that he will try to extradite Robertson for his crime. If the United States government doesnt cooperate he said he will involve the U.N and the Organisation Of American States.



This is going to escalate further. Bush's core demographic is the American Christian, if Bush moves against Robertson he will lose some of that support. If he doesnt sanction Robertson for his obvious terroristic rhetoric then he will risk being dragged to the U.N to explain it all, again.

Chavez is a political genius here. He knows he's on a winner with this Robertson slur and he will milk it for all its worth. He also has some clout with being the Head of State for the World's 5th largest oil-producing nation.

If he was to meddle with the United States oil supply at this moment he could devestate the American economy. Oil is hovering around the $70/barrel mark. If he shut off the oil supply to the United States it would surge again.

He is unlikely to do that, however, as he is in this to demonize the Bush administration and that kind of behaviour would see him easily portrayed as a despot. I would even believe that it could see Venezuela invaded for it.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
OP/ED: Pat Robertson does it Again
NEWS: Chavez Turns the other Cheek: Offers Oil to the Poor of the US

I guess Jesse Jackson's 'smoothing' over of things in Venezuela didn't go so smoothly after all. Then again, maybe it was Jackson himself that suggested this was the best approach to take?

This is turning out to be very interesting. I think it's a smart move for Chavez - why should Bush puppets like Robertson be allowed to call for the assassination of anyone? Not when they are portraying themselves as the good guys fighting world terrrorism.

Robertson's statements were stupid, but certainly not illegal nor terrorist since he was calling on the government to assassinate someone, not individuals...I think this will go nowhere.

Well Jackson was preaching the diplomatic sollution as opposed to the violent solution, I guess. This legal action fits in with that. I dont think Chavez should just sit down, shut up and take this kind of rhetoric from a prominent American. Would the Bush administration tollerate calls from prominent Venezuelans to assassinate President Bush?

Jackson did go to discuss diplomacy. While he was over that he also got in a few digs on Robertson calling his actions, 'illegal, criminal and immoral."

I don't think Chavez is being paranoid, I think this is a good move on his part. Nothing may come of it, but he's not a man who will cower when idiots like Robertson get to bask in the limelight with stupid comments like these.

This is nothing, but a stupid move. I wonder what would happen if Bush started to take "legal actions" against everyone who said Bush should be assasinated?
How many people are out there (and many of them famous) who said this and that guy should be assasinated? Chavez is making it look like Robertson was the first one in history to say something like that. Not that I agree with Robertson or Bush about Chavez. He's not dictator (yet), just another pathetic populist.
And stop talking how smart Chavez is, in every post. Almost no one (at least between american people) actually cares about him and his annoucements.

Well maybe this sort of non caring attitude opens you up to complete gullibility when your government spouts off whatever agenda it wants to get you to agree to go to war.

Ignorance is not something to feel smug about.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by nikelbee]

Originally posted by nikelbee
Well maybe this sort of non caring attitude opens you up to complete gullibility when your government spouts off whatever agenda it wants to get you to agree to go to war.

Ignorance is not something to feel smug about.

There is a difference between ignoring all and ignoring pointless things and persons. Why should anyone care that some right wing christian idiot (and private person) says some head of state should be taken off? Things like this happen daily as I said. Chavez will achieve nothing, I never heard about anyone who was punished for samething like this in OSN. Arafat was claiming things like this every day directly in OSN. And he was a head of state not just some individual. The "legal action" would lead to nowhere, it will not even be undertaken.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by longbow]

Longbow

I think this is a little different because of the context it is in. Chavez is wildly unpopular in the US right now and with oil featuring prominently in the news the last few weeks, it has fueled (pardon the pun) relations between the two countries.

Chavez is already paranoid the US wants him dead. And for a prominant christian like Robertson, close friend to Bush, to say that a 'covert' team should take Chavez out, can be seen by some to be a thinly vieled threat. Also a very public one. It isn't like Robertson was whispering or making it into a joke or anything.

Public figures have to be more careful than ordinary people like you and I, who don't have any influence on large groups of people and feel remarkably free to say the things we do. For Robertson who hosts a show and leads people in God, this is a grave matter - more so than an anonymous 'nobody'. Aside from that, condoning the death of a person should never be taken lightly.

One more thing. If this was such a STUPID pointless thing to get worked up about, do you think the powers that be would have rushed to distance themselves from Robertson so quickly and to make remarks to the contrary? Politics is a lot more than what you say - it is also about when and how you say it.


[edit on 29-8-2005 by nikelbee]

Originally posted by longbow
This is nothing, but a stupid move. I wonder what would happen if Bush started to take "legal actions" against everyone who said Bush should be assasinated?

Actually the government does take very severe legal action against anyone who threatens the president. I think it's a great idea, what better way to make these right wing blowhards like robertson wake up and realize the what the reprocussions of their blathering at the mouth is...a good old fashioned lawsuit. Also it helps protect Chavez because if anything does happen to him, Bush and company will be the first suspects even if (God forbid) they are actually innocent of something for once.

I will bet that if any one of the people responding on this thread went on nationwide television and called for the assasination of George Bush that they would not see the light of day for a long time. It should be the same way with Pat Robertson calling for Chavez's assasination.

Originally posted by groingrinder
I will bet that if any one of the people responding on this thread went on nationwide television and called for the assasination of George Bush that they would not see the light of day for a long time. It should be the same way with Pat Robertson calling for Chavez's assasination.

So if the top religious leaders in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Arabia, Russia, or China, etc. (if the latter two have that?) called for the assassination of Pres. Bush through covert operations (maybe a bombing at an embassy), and was done through a government sanction, it wouldn't be a crime, and no one would blink an eye?

I think that answers itself. People need to think before the hit the 'Post Reply' button.

Vulgarity edited out by T.C. Yes. People DO need to think before posting!

edit: wait, I just picked up that you meant they'd be taken out...then my post is for longbow and the rest!

[edit on 29/8/2005 by FallenOne]

[edit on 29-8-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

Originally posted by grover
Actually the government does take very severe legal action against anyone who threatens the president. I think it's a great idea, what better way to make these right wing blowhards like robertson wake up and realize the what the reprocussions of their blathering at the mouth is...a good old fashioned lawsuit. Also it helps protect Chavez because if anything does happen to him, Bush and company will be the first suspects even if (God forbid) they are actually innocent of something for once.

The goverment takes very severe action against those who threaten US president not some foreign one. In US you can say you someone should take off canadian PM or British queen and as long as you don't mean it seriously (that means you start to make preparations etc.) noone in US says a word. Similar thing happens in other countries l threats to domestical head of state are usually prosecuted, but those against the foreign ones are usually ignored. No one would punish the person who says the foreign politician should die. I really don't understand why it should be different now in US. This really isn't a case for UN, it's just Chavez propaganda.

And wake up there are many people who say someone should take off Bush and they see daylight and have no problems believe me. (BTW I am not Bush lover)

On the other side I really don't understand how could someone who marks himself "christian" call to assasinate someone it just shows the true nature of christian right.

Originally posted by longbow
On the other side I really don't understand how could someone who marks himself "christian" call to assasinate someone it just shows the true nature of christian right.

How do you figure that? In this case it is only one man not a group of fanitics, hardly representative of the whole christian faith/religion.

Hugo 'Castro minime' Chavez is continuing to blow hot air over this matter.
Venezuela nor Chavez will be allowed to extradite Robertson, no matter if he takes this to the UN. No crime was committed.

Robertson has apologized, and as a good lil' Catholic that Chavez professes to be, he should simply take it or not and move on. He is acting like a pampered hurt lil' child. Chavez is giving all the appearances of being a hypocritical christian, himself....

Chavez has ignored all overtures and has simply decided, probably with the advice of liberal Jesse Jackson, that he can use this matter to simply political grandstand a bit more against Bush via the Robertson matter.
How quaint.....






seekerof

[edit on 29-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by longbow
On the other side I really don't understand how could someone who marks himself "christian" call to assasinate someone it just shows the true nature of christian right.

How do you figure that? In this case it is only one man not a group of fanitics, hardly representative of the whole christian faith/religion.

I said "christian right", not whole religion. And it's not only because of Robertson.

"The Constitution gives every American the inalienable right to make a damn fool of himself."
John Ciardi 1916-1986, American Teacher, Poet, Writer

Much as I appreciate how much Mr. Chavez is doing to keep the scenario of the "economic hit man," from stealing 95 percent of the Venezuelan oil and its water supply, rather than the current 70 per cent of the oil, Americans have the above right.

What difference does it make if Chavez sells the oil to China, the profit margin remains the same, as it is a political illusion. Besides it can only raise prices even more as oil is displaced from thirsty America. So our corporations acting globally should not be too distressed. As one could know, since when in recent history has the interest of many U.S. people had any even a similar gravitas in government?

Is the real quest of the CIA is to make sure American "interests," get their monster cut of the profits? There is a larger perspective here. Too often our "interests," inadvertantly create poverty disease and death for people around the world. Does socialism only temporarily ease the margins, while later becoming a total sell out to global financiers continuing hegomony? To get the picture, it trends to a false hope creating and seeding a police state corporations later activate. Did the CIA put Chavez there, most likely as a clay pigeon? Notice also how he is on the "Pentagon's New Map."

It is too bad from this perspective how he is objectively right about so many things but also desperately foolish in embracing communist leaders who are also sell outs and always have been to globalists.

On this whole angle think of Stalin, Mao, and all the other tyrants as Pinkertons busting Unions, while substituting their managers a nomanclatura who are for all practical purposes the same as the capitalists they deride. The more things change the more they stay the same. Although peanuts looks better than the usual a negative quantity of entrenched royalty and capitalism, the newer tyranny starts with little bribes but does little or nothing to alleviate general suffering of many people. Chavez just gives bigger bribes to the poor, but does history show such things to be temporary? I am not even sure he qualifies for all the above stereotypes, as he addresses some valid issues. He has not nationalized the oil, he has only brought a larger cut into practice.

Well before I confirm the above John Ciardi quotation too much, here's to signing off on this blog.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Robertson has apologized, and as a good lil' Catholic that Chavez professes to be, he should simply take it or not and move on. He is acting like a pampered hurt lil' child. Chavez is giving all the appearances of being a hypocritical christian, himself....

You know, I don't think it's possible to be a successful politician and a good christian. I'm sure Chavez' moves are making Robertson piss his pants, and that's probably all Chavez wanted. He's doing a good job at playing the victim here, it's helping him, like it or not!

[edit on 29-8-2005 by Jamuhn]

Interesting way this is playing out...

BUSH has renamed the war we are in as the "struggle against extremism"

extremists= religious zealots who call for the death of people who don't beleive the same.

Wouldn't Pat Robertson fit that description?
Saying he should be taken out for being a communist (non religious) is cutting that line rather close...

but either way... he has called for the death of not only a citizen of another country, he has called for the death of the PRESIDENT of that country...

Bush needs to follow his own direction and OPPOSE THE EXTREMISTS...
and turn the guy over, or prosecute him in country...

Sorry Pat, but this aint one you can just apologize for...

If an islamic leader called for the assasination of Bush, then the US would be using every option to get the guy extradited or prosecuted. An apology would not suffice...

[edit on 29-8-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

It seems rather obvious doesn't it? Even if only for appearence sake the US should remove Robertson for putting hypocrites in a position to have to show or hide their hypocriticness(Is that even a word?).

The US will either have to go with the international laws, or ignore them. Should they ignore them, then what does that really say about how far they actually beleive the tripe they have been feeding the populace.

That said when 50% of been brainwashed to think it is either because of jealousy or hatred, instead of this obvious double standard that the US(and generally the West) tries to hide, but all ME countries have complained about it, that causes the distrust and dislike for American agenda I fear there isn't much reason for the leaders to have right actions.

Too bad.