Did Robertson's Advocacy for Violence Contradict His Christian Teachings?

[The Smoking Man]

Damn. Venture into this stupid thread and goof up like that. Last time I put my browser in places it doesn't belong.

Happens to us all. I made a mistake with some stats I was quoting to Russ. Hey, we ain't perfect.

 

[The Smoking Man]

And last time I checked, neither did "Al Qieda." It was Al-Qaeda.

Just Kidding.

Edit: What a waste of my hundredth post...

One thing though ... since it is normally written in Arabic, who knows what the true spelling is ... It's kind of like the leader of Libya ... Col. What's-his-name.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why do you think so many people get away with calling for President Bush's assassination

Name one.
Extra text added to satisfy a ridiculous criterion.

 

[Smurf]

When I get that old and if I have any power, I am going to say anything and everything! Intelligent design is scientific! 9/11 was a conspiracy! Canada is respectable!

Oh don't stop there peng, you mind as well just go completely crazy and claim yanks have brains.

 

[Smurf]

Name one.
Extra text added to satisfy a ridiculous criterion.

Me... except you meant American right? Hmmm... that's tougher.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Me... except you meant American right? Hmmm... that's tougher.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you are not a U.S. citizen. If you were, perhaps you would be aware that the FBI takes such statements very seriously and investigates them very thoroughly. I asked you to name one because I assumed you would be unwilling to finger someone for such treatment.

I modify my question:
This case seems like incitement to violence. Isn't there a principal of U.S. law that such speech is not protected?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I doubt it, if so, then the KKK would certainly have to be taken down.

I'm not talking about hate speech here, but rather incitement to violence.

 

[Burnsys]

And I find it absolutely hilarious that people compare this to the Taliban. Last I checked, this guy didn't mastermind any aircraft hijackings... I guess sensationalism is the only way some people can get their shots in

Maybe not the current administration, but do you remember the departent of defence plans in 1962 to hijack civilian airlines, blow them up and then blame it on fidel castro so they can justify an invasion.

Operation Northwood

Page 10-11 of File (page 7-8 of Joint Chiefs report)

A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in Government/Northwood Documents/northwood_8.jpg

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in Government/Northwood Documents/northwood_10.jpg
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base: start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base.
(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires – naphthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims.

We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington

Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday.

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At the designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual aircraft would be converted to a drone.

The drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.

 

[Burnsys]

If you want to see a coup from the inside, if you want to see how is it that the cia overtrow democraticaly elected goverments. Then you have to see: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised", it's an hour length documentary about the failed coup in venezuela, it has action, drama, and it's very informative., I highly recommend it, it's a must see...

Try "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" in some p2p program (Kazza, emule)
Try this link for bittorrent:
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2407/Chavez - The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.vcd-mpg(1

http://www.chavezthefilm.com/index_ex.htm

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The consensus at work here is that Robertson caught wind of a covert government plan to eliminate Chavez and made this announcement in order to warn Chavez and scuttle the plan.

 

[BobG]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you are not a U.S. citizen. If you were, perhaps you would be aware that the FBI takes such statements very seriously and investigates them very thoroughly. I asked you to name one because I assumed you would be unwilling to finger someone for such treatment.

I modify my question:
This case seems like incitement to violence. Isn't there a principal of U.S. law that such speech is not protected?

It's kind of a grey area. Threatening a person with violence is a criminal offense (I think it's something like 3rd degree assault or similar). On the other hand, the threat has to have some kind of credibility.

Your kid makes a horrible mess and you make the comment to a neighbor "I could just kill him", it would be an extreme long shot that you could be convicted of assault.

A senile old man saying something like that isn't a credible threat. A senile religious leader saying that on TV to millions of fundamental Christians is about on a par with Osama Bin Laden's calls to incite other Islamic fundamentalists against Europe and the US. Incredibly enough, Pat Robertson has managed to cross the line from respected religious leader and former Presidential candidate to international terrorist!

Of course, senile is the key word. He's never going to actually be charged with a crime. However, he ought to be taken off the air, both for his own good and the good of the public.

 

[loseyourname]

Maybe not the current administration, but do you remember the departent of defence plans in 1962 to hijack civilian airlines, blow them up and then blame it on fidel castro so they can justify an invasion.

How exactly is Pat Robertson responsible for actions taken by the DOD?

By the way, the only scenario in which Robertson could be found guilty of a crime here is if he had any pull whatsoever in what the US does on the world stage. His calling for the assassination of a foreign leader is vacuous because he has no power to order, or even to influence the order, of such an action. If being an idiot and making stupid, nonsensical statements were illegal, Robertson would have been put away a long time ago. As it stands, he's made a fortune out of being such a dolt.

One last thing: If one could really be prosecuted for the advocating the assassination of a foreign leader, imagine how many people would have to be prosecuted. Everyone that advocated the assassination of Saddam rather than military invasion would be locked up. We could never have an open discussion on whether or not assassination should be legal, as those calling for its legalization could be construed as advocating violent action. Heck, what about the millions of people out there that think we should be going to war with Iran or North Korea? Should we lock them up for incitement of violence? Don't be so quick to want to put someone away for simply being an idiot. It is their right.

 

[Skyhunter]

People can always be counted on to assert, with vigor, their God-given right to be stupid.

I don't know who said it, but I thought it apropos.

 

[faust9]

[sarcasm]

Here's the problem people, everyone simply misunderstood the meaning of "take hime out". Good'ol Pat didn't mean assassinate, he meant to 'take him out' for tea and crumpets or an ice cream float. He mean 'take him out' shopping buy him a broach because a float and a broach would cost less than the 200+ billion being used in Iraq. See, Pat just wanted to be nice to Mr. Chavez like any good christian. Mr. Robertson was simply advocating a cheap date...

[/sarcasm]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html

 

[Smurf]

he meant...
[sing]
Take him out to the ball game... take him out with the crowd...
[/sing]

 

[faust9]

See link in post #49 for updated cnn story.

Good'ol Pat has now changed his story again. He has apologizes for calling for assassination. Hmmmmm how is it that in the morning Pat says we misunderstood him, but in the afternoon he apologizes for calling for assassination? Sounds kind of fishy---I'd almost go so far as say Pat lied this morning... Ahhh got to love'em.

 

[BobG]

See link in post #49 for updated cnn story.

Good'ol Pat has now changed his story again. He has apologizes for calling for assassination. Hmmmmm how is it that in the morning Pat says we misunderstood him, but in the afternoon he apologizes for calling for assassination? Sounds kind of fishy---I'd almost go so far as say Pat lied this morning... Ahhh got to love'em.

His first 'apology' was that he was misunderstood. He didn't mean assasinating Chavez was the only option - we could kidnap him instead.

I think his second apology was him finally realizing that that sounded as dumb as his first comment.

I'm almost disappointed. After the first comment and his first explanation, I was kind of expecting something along the lines of "No, I don't mean to limit our options, at all. We don't have to kill him or kidnap him. We'll hire Jeff Gillooly to take out his knee."

 

[TRCSF]

His first 'apology' was that he was misunderstood. He didn't mean assasinating Chavez was the only option - we could kidnap him instead.
"

Yeah, he made the same kind of phony apology after getting in hot water for saying that 9-11 was God's punishment for lesbians and feminists.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yeah, he made the same kind of phony apology after getting in hot water for saying that 9-11 was God's punishment for lesbians and feminists.

Ben Sargent comes through again with http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20050825/cx_bs_uc/bs20050825 .

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ah, the irony.

This happens at the same time as http://uk.news.yahoo.com/25082005/140/clarke-crackdown-hate-preachers.html.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It's kind of a grey area.

Sorry, BobG. The issue I was discussing in the message that you quoted me on was in response to Smurf's statement about threats against Bush, not in response to Robertson's threat against Chavez.

You are probably right that Robertson himself is not a credible threat to go and kill Chavez. But the issue I was concerned with was incitement to violence. That is encouraging others to kill. Was there never a mobster who went to prison for musing "Won't someone rid me of this troublesome bootlegger?" Maybe just in the movies.

Did Robertson lie in his apology. My recollection was that he did say assasinate the first time around. In the apology he said that he did not do so. What's he going for next? Dishonoring his parents?

 

[Skyhunter]

Hilarious TSM.

I got a document not found when I checked your second link.

 

[HiPPiE]

Someone said the number of people that threatened Bush should be treated the same way. I'd be surprised if there were ever a person of political influence who said something along those lines, even jokingly, about Bush.

Robertson, as others have pointed out, did a great deal of campaigning for Bush and I think helped fund the campaign. He's clearly a person of influence and, being in close cahoots with the administration, I'm not surprised they disavowed his statements. We can't and shouldn't take him off the air, we should simply, as is being done, be outraged and point out the parallel that people have made--religious leader calling for terrorism--until perhaps other Christian groups are 'forced' to reject his statements.

Smoking Man, my god, I looove the picture.

Second link didn't work for me either.

Really interesting stuff Burnsys.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Hilarious TSM.

I got a document not found when I checked your second link.

That's what pisses me off about linking to news articles.

It was basically an announcement that the UK was going to deport religious leaders who advocated violence.

 

[Skyhunter]

I just read the whole evolution of the story.

First he said:

''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.''

Then he said:

"I didn't say assassination. I said our special forces should take him out. '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."

I guess finally when confronted with his own words he did finally apologize, so let us all forgive him.

 

[Skyhunter]

I can forgive him for mis-speaking but not for deliberatly lying.

 

[loseyourname]

I can forgive him for making an idiotic statement, but not for being an idiot.

 

[BobG]

How exactly is Pat Robertson responsible for actions taken by the DOD?

By the way, the only scenario in which Robertson could be found guilty of a crime here is if he had any pull whatsoever in what the US does on the world stage. His calling for the assassination of a foreign leader is vacuous because he has no power to order, or even to influence the order, of such an action. If being an idiot and making stupid, nonsensical statements were illegal, Robertson would have been put away a long time ago. As it stands, he's made a fortune out of being such a dolt.

One last thing: If one could really be prosecuted for the advocating the assassination of a foreign leader, imagine how many people would have to be prosecuted. Everyone that advocated the assassination of Saddam rather than military invasion would be locked up. We could never have an open discussion on whether or not assassination should be legal, as those calling for its legalization could be construed as advocating violent action. Heck, what about the millions of people out there that think we should be going to war with Iran or North Korea? Should we lock them up for incitement of violence? Don't be so quick to want to put someone away for simply being an idiot. It is their right.

Actually, there's another way he could be found guilty of a crime.

Osama Bin Laden had no pull with any government capable of attacking the US. Bin Laden did have money and followers loyal enough to him to die for him.

Ultimately, it's the planning and funding of terrorist acts that makes Bin Laden guilty. Had he just had fanatical followers that would plan, fund, and carry out their own individual terrorist acts, it would be much harder to hold him personally responsible, legally. But, if he was able to achieve the same ends just by inspirational speeches alone - if local groups listened to him and were inspired to fly airplanes into buildings on their own (the idea didn't come from Bin Laden, although he funded it once the idea was brought to his attention), build and plant subway bombs on their own, and on a frequent and persistent enough basis, wouldn't we still have to act?

To be fair, Robertson never called on his followers to suddenly infiltrate Venezuela and start trying to assasinate Chavez - it was pretty clear that he meant the US military or CIA should. This particular incident falls way short of being a criminal act.

Still, Robertson, Fallwell, et al, do influence the behavior of a sizable group of people. There's things Robertson could say that shouldn't be protected as 'free speech' even if the average person could say the exact same thing with no consequences. It would fall under the exact same category as if some 250 lb guy in a black leather jacket and body piercings tells all the old people on the street "If you want to walk down my street without being in constant fear of being beaten and sodomized, the best thing you could do is pay me $50 a month -- in my opinion, of course".

 

[edward]

Jesus stopped Roberson's California refinery plans

During the california energy crisis Robertson purchased a non operating oil refinery. (With funds from his supporters) He also proposed building a power plant next to the refinery.

The plans came to a halt after successful protests by an local environmental group.
The leader of the environmetal activist group was JESUS Torres.

CBE Fact Sheet - Pat Robertson's Proposed Power Plant


Update on Pat Robertson's Power Plant in Los Angeles
Televangelist Pat Robertson has proposed a power plant be built on the site of a shut down refinery owned by CENCO Refining Company in Santa Fe Springs. The power plant would supply energy to the CENCO refinery. Robertson has served as president of CENCO and his charitable trust has been funding the company. Robertson recently met with City officials and is in discussions with the California Energy Commission about the idea.

http://www.cbecal.org/alerts/power/pPR070601.shtml

I doubt Robertson had any plans on giving the refined gasoline to the poor. I post this primarily as an example of how many pies this man has had his fingers in.