Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson apologized for saying we should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez in a statement today, while later saying on his show that he had said “take him out” and never said we should assassinate him. I’m going to let the NY Times take this one:
“I said our special forces should ‘take him out.’ ‘Take him out’ could be a number of things, including kidnapping,” Mr. Robertson told his audience on the show “The 700 Club” today.
The video from Monday’s telecast, easily available on the internet, shows Mr. Robertson saying of the Venezuelan president: “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.” Mr. Robertson went on at length about Mr. Chávez, suggesting that “covert operatives” could “do the job and then get it over with.”
So - you’re a blogger - you’re supposed to have opinions - what is your opinion on political assassinations?
Comment by ZacharyRD — August 29, 2005 @ 1:03 am
To rephrase that (sorry Zac) -
I think that Robertson is being lambasted for giving an opinion that is in this case “Pro-political assassination”. (He likes the idea of killing Chavez).
This makes me think of the question:
Are political assassinations always wrong for governments to conduct? When can they be justified? (And similar questions).
Comment by ZacharyRD — August 29, 2005 @ 1:21 am
I don’t believe in moral absolutes. I think that we could kill a foreign leader justifiably. I think we have and we will. The president does have a duty to protect Americans, and if that means murder, than it is little different than waging war. However, since the Roman certain figures and political leaders have been protected. However, in an era when leaders could be funding or organizing terrorists whose goals is not war so much as it is civilian causalities, I think it could be justified.
Having thought that through, I think that Pat Robertson has a place to be coming from on his comments, but as a man of peace and religion it perhaps isn’t his place to being calling for the overt murder of a man who isn’t doing American’s conclusive harm.
Comment by Zac — August 29, 2005 @ 1:49 am
I agree is is not at all Robertson’s place as a religious leader to preach this, but I think that political assassinations are a useful tool for governments to have as a last resort.
I would justify them this way:
War is bad. If killing one evil dictatator stops one, and you can do it cleanly, with it not having negative repurcussions, it seems right. For example, if you are either going to invade a dictator to try him for war crimes and then kill him or just kill him - I think you probably should just kill him.
The only problem is the classic “Who decides?”
Comment by ZacharyRD — August 29, 2005 @ 2:15 am
The trick then is avoding those negative repurcussions. And let’s be fair, if Robertson had his way, I’d be dead right now since he wanted to put a nuke down in Foggy Bottom. I personally look at it quite simply, he’s a radical cleric, and if I were a supporter of him or my faith was I’d want him to step down so that we can get on with ministry instead of calling for violence.
Comment by Gary — August 31, 2005 @ 12:19 pm