It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Well why would Bush care anymore? He stole one election, won the next one, several state by less then 80,000 votes, but thats it. He can't run again so why would he care anymore? He is a Lame Duck already, he isn't even waiting until the last few months to make decisions that would have gotten Bill CLinton Impeached again, and again, and again...... But he knows he is safe for his bosses control the Senate and the SC and the House.

Anyways still funny, what kind of trial/judge system do they have? I know it is a democratic state, and not like Iraq with one name on the ballot, but what about the court systems?




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Yeah Chavez. Turnabout IS fair play.

I hope this gets to court. The US bombed Iraq, appropriated that nation's assets, and destroyed its people on FAR less substantial evidence.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
It's been hijacked because I disagree with nikelbee and won't shut up


nikelbee, I can say "leave my country" all I'd like using your own justification. I'm happy to read that I was clear, though.

Pat Robertson doesn't speak for me. From what I've heard about the guy, he's a bit of a loon...But then I only get the soundbites the media presents. I don't watch the 700 club, and I don't financially support Robertson. You're assuming that, because I'm defending his Constitutional rights, I must agree with him. I don't; I think he gives the majority of Christians a bad name. That doesn't mean I think he should be silenced.

Why on earth would I start an anti-Chavez thread? I care about that guy about as much as I do a guppy at the local pet store. I care about censorship of ideas, and I have started many threads about that. My own personal favorite was You better agree with me, because if you don't everyone will hate you.. I believe in protecting freedom of speach under all circumstances. I believe that is one of the primary reasons America is so great.

This is my country just as much as it is yours. We disagree, and can debate the point because we're free to do so, in this case by the moderators. If you think I only take up this torch whenever someone I agree with is silenced and not when people I disagree with, you have no idea where I stand. Since you have no idea where I stand, how can you make those assumptions about me (legitimately)? Please, point out where I have been hypocritical and said the government should silence someone that I disagree with. There are times where I, personally, want someone to stop saying whatever, but never have I wanted them censored by the government, on this site or in my day to day life.

EDIT: Passer By, if you think that every Christian thinks alike and, when a prominant Christian speaks, we all jump, I can only assume you don't know many Christians. Why do you think there are so many denominations?

[edit on 8-29-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
JUNGLE:

You missed my point I beleive. My point is that while you do not, many others do. It is those others, and no one man, that effects political change. So from a political stand point what you said about Robertson not effecting change, or being Bush's boss, is somewhat false, as Roberston and those that give millions of dollars to his organisation are the same pool as Bush's political power, and while you personally do not give him money, those many others that do listen to him and effect the presidents decisions.

As for the rational that because one man speaks something doesn't mean that the followers all tow the line, I am aware of that and I didn't mean to imply that Christians solely did this - I was trying to use juxtiposition to show that because a muslem feels one way that they followers of Islam don't neccassirily tow the line either. This sadly seems to have been missed by many, not implying you personally, but many in the christian community.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
From a freedom of speech perspective...
Pats gone.

He shouted "kill" in a crowded/stressed political theatre...

is that a simple enough analogy?

so freedom of speech doesn't count... now was it illegal?

IMO that yes, as he is a religious leader in the same right as Mullahs...
that he should be subject to the same laws as other extremists...

and since we are at war with extremists... why ain't he in Jail?



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com...



The so-called "unacceptable behaviours" include those which:

-- foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence

-- seek to provoke others to terrorist acts

-- foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to commit serious criminal acts, or

-- foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in Britain.


Well, I just hope he gets barred from travelling to the U.K.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
It's been hijacked because I disagree with nikelbee and won't shut up


There are times where I, personally, want someone to stop saying whatever, but never have I wanted them censored by the government, on this site or in my day to day life.



But we aren't arguing censorship Junglejake, we are arguing over Chavez' recourse to legal action over Robertson's death threat.

You can disagree with me all you want. I'm a grown person and not afraid to state my opinions.

I don't think anyone on here (but you) said anything about censoring anyone. I don't see it as censoring in the least to say that Robertson should not threaten the life of another person. We aren't calling for the end of his opinions or ideas - i'm sure if he had said Chavez was a corrupt, dicator and the US had to be careful with him, it would have been something, but to say that some covert branch should take him out is a different matter. It seems we are not distinguishing between the two. A threat is a threat.

You can argue and flag wave all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that Robertson is up sh** creep on this one and all of us (including you) will have to wait to see what will be done to him (if anything at all). It isn't just some of us on this thread. A few senators are up in arms about this as well. Even Rumsfeld had something to say about it.

I don't believe that our opinions on this point will matter in the end - no democratic vote will be taken to decide what action the US government will take, if any, against Robertson. But I believe if they let it go, it will show the world that the US is hypocritical regarding terrorism.

And btw - I was not saying YOU were hijacking the thread . While I don't agree with your arguments, at least you make it a point to explain your views so I know where you are coming from. I was not refering to you or your posts, but to others who simpy write a line filled with pointed sarcasm and then expect that to count as an intelligent reply.

I think you are making this about freedom of speech, when in reality it is a about a man threatening the life of the president of another country. How can we expect other countries to respect the US if we treat their leaders in this way?



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I think it is a free speach issue. He wasn't demanding Chavez's assassination, he was discussing US policy. US policy is to not assassinate world leaders. It's an executive order. He said this:


We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.


He was discussing why he believes US policy should be different and that we should assassinate someone who could potentially, in his mind, be a threat to America. His reasoning was money, which is sad, but he was excersizing his freedom of speach. He didn't demand Chavez's death. He explained that he thought it would be a good idea. He was expressing political dissent, which, in this country, is extremely legal.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
But Robertson also said this:



You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
The acceptable.. and unacceptable of American Culture..





posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nikelbee
But Robertson also said this:



You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly.


And if I had that when I typed my response, I'd have included it in my quote. It just supports what I was saying: he was discussing a political policy. I wish I had that quote when I wrote my last reply; he directly addresses American politics (doctrine of assassination). He was not demanding it. He was saying why he believed it would be a good idea.

EDIT: Pulled a reverse Dan Quayle and forgot the "e" at the end of doctrine


[edit on 8-29-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
It isn't like the man is versed in gifted rhetoric or anything - despite his profession. Even the begining of his quote says, 'I don't know about this doctrine thingy mabob...'

It doesn't seem like he is discussing a hypothetical scenario - To me it still looks like a bold naked threat. But this just may be his loophole out.

A few more points and then I'm done for the night.

1. Robertson apologized (probably forced to)
2. Some of his debating skills make some of us on here look like geniuses.
3. That 'take him out' part that he added, where did that come from? Not the original quote...



"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement," Robertson said. "I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted.




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
He definitely backpedaled, which is another reason not to respect the guy. Personally, I don't apologize for remarks when "forced" to; I only do when I realize I'm in the wrong and sincerely mean it. Drove my mom nuts when my sister and I would fight


As to his "take them out" remark, it really depends on his mind. He may have, after everyone freaked out at what he said, skewed in his mind what his comments were and really believes he meant take them out, though he did say assassinate. The human brain is a strange place.

If he really means what he says in apologizing, kudos to him, he did the right thing. If he did not, and that qualification he threw in there after his apology tells me he didn't, he should have stuck to his guns. That's just my own personal belief, though. I won't back down unless I think I'm in the wrong, and if I am in the wrong, I come out and say it. I would rather pay the consequences society holds me to for saying the wrong thing than compromise my integrity by lying and apologizing.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I don't see a clouded issue here. If anyone said, "My wife is a pain, someone should off her", man, you'ld be in jail so fast you'ld have carpet burns on your butt.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Asking the gov't to assassinate someone is no different than calling for the execution of a serial killer...I really see nothing illegal here, although it was in bad taste, especially for someone who calls himself a Christian minister.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Asking the gov't to assassinate someone is no different than calling for the execution of a serial killer...I really see nothing illegal here, although it was in bad taste, especially for someone who calls himself a Christian minister.


You've got to be joking? And I'm all for Capital Punishment. I don't understand this convolluted thinking. A serial killer, on American soil, isn't innocent. Fry em. Advocating the death of someone that hasn't committed a crime against The State is murder, plain and simple.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I haven't seen anyone discuss the effect Robertson's statements could have on his viewers/listeners. Does anyone think his popularity will decrease as a result? Or that other "religious" pundits will turn on him? The man obviously shot himself in the foot (or mouth), but how badly did he get wounded?



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
The man obviously shot himself in the foot (or mouth), but how badly did he get wounded?


You know what's sad about this? His popularity will probably go up.

The nature of the climate in some parts of America.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
If he (Bush) doesnt sanction Robertson for his obvious terroristic rhetoric then he will risk being dragged to the U.N to explain it all, again.

You've got to be kidding!?
No one is "dragging" Bush before the UN over some moron citizen's call for someone to be assasinated by the state.
Two points here:
Mr. Robertson did not call on his followers to assasinate Chavez nor did he put a bounty on Chavez's head... that would have been illegal. Suggesting that the US have Chavez knocked off my be stupid, but it is not illegal.
Also, you've got to realize that no head of state of any nation on the security council has to answer for anything before the UN if the do not desire to.


Originally posted by subz
He (Chavez) is unlikely to (meddle with the United States oil supply at this moment) in an attempt to (devestate the American economy), 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.

Your last sentence is dead on - Chavez attempting to ruin the US economy would in turn be devastating to Venezuela. Remember, this IS Bush we are talking about...



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
intelgurl, I see what you're saying BUT it's international, not domestic. The free speech ammendment, does it apply here? He said it in the States BUT it is effective in an area that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution do NOT apply?

BTW, what do you think of my previous points?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join