You see, I think Pat Robertson is right, we really ought to assassinate Hugo Chavez. He said what a lot of us think all the time.
What makes Robertsons statememt foolish is not that it's a bad idea, but that Pat Robertson is a public figure. Since I don't really qualify as a public figure, I'll go ahead and second Robertsons motion. Hugo Chavez must die. While we're at it, I hope the CIA saves a bullet for Fidel Castro. No, I don't think the CIA will actually kill the pair, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
Why is political assassination such a bad idea? Only those who view the world from an international law paradigm could make such a case. Political assassinations, it is argued, destabilize the international legal system. Besides, they say, if you begin to justify the political assassination of that two-bit dictator, what is to stop our enemies from justifying assassinating our President?
Good point. But
a) There is no such thing as an international legal system. International law is a fiction slightly less believable than the notion that Sasqatch communicates with a woman in a double-wide trailor on the edges of Boggy Creek, LA. Where there is no force there is no law. When the U.N. can begin to enforce its will, come back and then we'll talk. Just because you wish there was such a thing as international law does not make it so.
b) If you believe all nations are essentially equal, then you and I have a major disagreement. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. What is the difference, for instance, between the U.S. having a nuclear warhead and Iran? If you cannot see the difference between the U.S. and Iran than you are an idiot. Just because many in the world are blind to these differences, does not make the differences any less real.
All nations are not equal and neither are their leaders. If you wish to put your faith in an international system which equivocates between the King of Denmark and the King of Saudi Arabia, be my guest. I don't buy it.
c) I am an American. Ultimately, what is good for America's national interest is the highest moral metric that I am interested in. This may not be a popular position to hold these days, but it is one that I believe in wholeheartedly. This does not mean that I wish national interest to trump moral concerns whenever the two are at odds, but some times what is in our interests must trump what is good. If you wish our leaders to always do the moral thing rather than the right thing, I suggest electing a slate of Buddhist monks to Congress.
Fortunately, I believe that what is usually in America's national interests is also what is usually moral. The spread of democracy, captalism, and liberalism are both moral and in our national interest.
I certainly don't wish to set aside America's national interests for the sake of some false sense of morality which rests upon the baseless equivocation the U.N. makes between nations and their leaders. If the U.S. could have taken out Saddam Hussein with a single bullet, breaking international law in the process, I would lose no sleep.
In the shootout at the O.K. Corral, which is the international stage, I, for one, root for Wyatt Earp to win. I really could care less that the Clantons and McLaurys were deputized: they were the bad guys. When the law begins to equivocate between the good and the bad, then that law has no legitimacy in my eyes.
So, if any policy makers are reading this post, and I doubt if they are, then do us all a favor and take out a few of our enemies. Only, if you do it right, make sure that it looks like another one of our enemies did it. If there's anything The Godfather taught me about life, it is that it is always a good thing to make one enemy look bad while taking out another one.
Oh, but keep your traps shut. Thinking, planning, and executing the political assassinations of America's enemies is not necessarily bad. Talking about it, though, is.
1
I'm sure they've got the "keeping your traps shut" part worked out already.
And you can never be quite sure who's reading, unless you're paying close attention. Someone in the DOJ drops in and reads my blog from time to time, I've learned from the server logs. Someone in the NSA dropped by once. I also have regular readers all over the armed forces, including in the Pentagon.
You just never know, when you put your words out on the net, who's going to run across them.
Posted by: IO ERROR at August 23, 2005 07:25 PM (HaVXj)
2
Good. Follow my recommendations and then find some sort of plausible deniability.
Posted by: Rusty at August 23, 2005 07:37 PM (JQjhA)
3
This may sound simplistic, but we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. I want the good guys to prevail.
This instantly shuts the moral equivocators up. Their jaw drops and they don't even know what to say. They actually think everybody believes we should treat America and Iran the same and that we should be "consistent". Morons.
Yes you assholes, America and Israel can have nukes-- Iran can't. End of discussion.
Posted by: Carlos at August 23, 2005 08:22 PM (8e/V4)
4
Good to see you are back up and running.
Posted by: Jay at August 24, 2005 01:27 PM (2FcUc)
5
Some people just need killin.
Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 01:29 PM (sknEY)
6
Carlos, sometimes you just make me feel redundant.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 24, 2005 01:30 PM (0yYS2)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 24, 2005 01:40 PM (0yYS2)
8
While I have no problem with seeing Hugo leave office in a pine box, I'm not convinced it's somehting the government could do without severe domestic repercussions, given the current political climate.
Having said that, I wish the people, including my fellow conservative bloggers, who are screaming about "Religious Intolerance" just because this came out of Robertson's mouth would just shut up. Robertson wears two hats, one as a religious figure and one as a political pundit. You'd do well to pay attention to which one's on his head when he's talking.
Furthermore, there's a world of difference between espousing the view that the assassination of a brutal dictator is in the strategic best interest of the United States, and calling for Jihad against all unbelievers. Hyperventillating about "Fatwahs" just make you sound like a n overreacting schoolgirl.
Posted by: Brian B at August 24, 2005 02:12 PM (CouWh)
9
Rusty, for some reason, with regard to Pat Robertson, I can't help but remember your recent comment that the right has its crazies under control.
Regarding the substance of your post:
a) There
is such a thing as international law, it just only applies when the U.S. desides it should, which means it is more show than substance. Exactly the recipe for draining American moral authority (soft power) around the world. International law
could exist in a real way if the leading superpower in world history got behind it by supporting the UN (similarly to the way the states legitimized a central power by supporting the Constitution - the prominent states were crucial in gaining legitimacy), joining the International Criminal Court, and lending objective support to the Declaration of Human rights and other established international codes.
This is the project we should be involved in.
b) You're suggesting that the U.S. be allowed to employ any means, including the use of nuclear weapons and assassination, to enforce its will. This is precisely the sort of arrogance that has spawned radical Islamic terrorism. And, it is precisely the course of action that Osama bin Laden would love for us to (continue to) take.
c) The problem is, your do not leave any room for the idea that your definition of the American national interest
might be profoundly wrong. I would
think that the history of how radical Islam rose in the first place would suggest that military options do far more short term and long term harm than good. It also suggests that you think that American institutions
always justify an anything goes approach (since it makes us the good guys), which is extremely dangerous.
You are simplifying the way the world works to the extreme and your Saddam assassination suggestion is really quite telling; the result of such an act would have resulted in either a) another strong man similar to Saddam taking power, or b) a civil war, not unlike what we see right now happening in Iraq (capturing Saddam has not lessened this in the least).
Your Godfather reference is far more appropriate. As long as we can all see very clearly that your aspirations for American foreign policy amount to little more than thuggery, then we can dispense with all the rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 24, 2005 02:22 PM (BueBw)
10
Oh, come now. Without leaders like Chavez, Castro, Jong Il, and the Ayatollah, life would be very boring for neocons.
Posted by: Venom at August 24, 2005 02:24 PM (dbxVM)
11
lol...and now Robertson's apologizing for his remark.
Posted by: Venom at August 24, 2005 03:00 PM (dbxVM)
12
Is it a crime to threaten a foreign nation? For example, if someone went to the Chinese embassy website and threatened a Chinese interest would that be a crime under American law?
Posted by: Hedgy at August 24, 2005 03:20 PM (A8rF5)
13
Peter,
Sorry, but I'm a realist at heart. I'm not sure you know the history of radical Islam, which has been around since, er, Muhammed's day. We did nothing to cause it, it has always been there.
Posted by: Rusty at August 24, 2005 03:59 PM (JQjhA)
14
I'm afraid I'm with Feisty Republican Whore on this one. (See the post that got her fatwa'd.) Even if we were to bump off Chavez, that would probably just hand the reins of power over to one of his lackeys, and who's to say he won't turn out just as bad, or worse, than Hugo himself?
No, we really would need a full-scale invasion to get rid of him and the mess he's made of Venezuela. Trouble is, of course, the U.S. military is just a tad preoccupied at the moment. Bigger fish to fry, don'tcha know.
Posted by: Joshua at August 24, 2005 04:32 PM (XPnN/)
15
duh.
we can't
do assassinations. the Clinton adminstration passed a law against it.
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 24, 2005 06:56 PM (DsETa)
16
Rusty, "I did not call for the assassination of that man."
Posted by: IO ERROR at August 24, 2005 08:06 PM (HaVXj)
17
Robertson has been around for a long time. If you note the first sentence of his statement. He did it on purpose. He has a history of making, well wild statements. He knew exactly what he was doing he needed/wanted attention for Pat just as much as he wanted attention for the Chavez issue. He won on all fronts no better publicity than bad.
Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 08:50 PM (D3+20)
18
They can shout death to America. They can kill Americans. They can scream death to our President. (By they, I mean Chavez and his friends, Castro, Irans leaders and such). But when one over zealous American says the same its a big deal. Liberal crybaby assholes. If you're on the other side move there.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2005 08:53 PM (CBNGy)
19
Rusty, I don't think you're a realist at heart. I think you're a neocon at heart, which is really something quite different, unless you want to make the argument that neoconservatism is a radical form of realism.
Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela, so it is pretty strange (not to mention counter to much of your rhetoric on this site) that you'd agree with Robertson on this. Or do you join him in apologizing today? Also, I do not see how eliminating Chavez would serve U.S. national interests. Could you explain that to me? If you do take this up, I think it will become clear that the "U.S. national interest" you favor actually benefits a small minority of American citizens and corporations (i.e. very few of the readers of The Jawa Report).
Regarding radical Islam: You are correct to note that it has been around since the early days of the religion, but this is a minor point (The U.S. government might as well base its entire approach towards Mormonism on the fact that there are still radical Mormons marrying 13 year olds by the dozen in Utah and northern Arizona).
You should know that I was referring to the rise of radical Islam as a political force significant enough to support 9/11 style terrorist attacks and garner sympathy from those otherwise moderate Muslims upset with U.S. policy. If you don't see the U.S./European role in prodding the development of that sort of radical Islamic terrorism I really don't know what to tell you other than that you should read Mark LeVine's excellent new book
Why They Don't Hate Us.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 24, 2005 09:00 PM (BueBw)
20
IM: you're indispensable.
Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:03 PM (D3+20)
21
Oh one other thought. If Robertson really approved of this policy and thought it was possible he just made it about as improbable as it can possibly get.
Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:17 PM (D3+20)
22
Sigh.... I miss my trolls....
Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:23 PM (D3+20)
23
Professor Von Nostrand:
Is international law positive or natural?
If positive, what is the legislative body?
If natural, what ethical theory does it derive?
Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue at August 24, 2005 09:51 PM (SNKfY)
24
Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela,..."
hahahaha. Sure he is. Jimmah said so.
Posted by: Oyster at August 24, 2005 10:06 PM (YudAC)
25
I don't necessarily disagree with points A and B... but I do think that there is a sense of "if the U.S. does it, it is okay."
If we do it and are caught doing it...it gives other nations carte blanche.
So, we can't give the U.S. the power to assassinate with impunity if we don't also trust, oh, say, Iran with the same power.
Unfortunately, the US has to play by the same (or at least similar) rules as which it would like others to play.
Finally, maybe you trust the current administration with this power... but how do you know you'll trust future administrations with this power.
No, we'll just have to do it the old fashioned way. Have operatives pose as locals and foment a coup. ;-)
Posted by: ArmyArtilleryWife at August 25, 2005 09:39 AM (14kpv)
26
I don't necessarily disagree with points A and B... but I do think that there is a sense of "if the U.S. does it, it is okay."
If we do it and are caught doing it...it gives other nations carte blanche.
The problem with this logic is that it assumes that other countries never have, are not, and never will attempt to use assassination, and that it's only some code of ethics that stands in their way. The only problem is, we KNOW that other countries have and are and will try it.
So, we can't give the U.S. the power to assassinate with impunity if we don't also trust, oh, say, Iran with the same power.
Depends on who you mean by "we". If you mean "We, the People", my response is, why not? It's not like Iran is waiting for our permission anyway.
Unfortunately, the US has to play by the same (or at least similar) rules as which it would like others to play.
No, the US is expected to play by a set of rules much much stricter than that by which everyone else DOES play. And while the rest of the world commits the most egregious of offenses, even the most minor of infractions by Americans is greeted with howls of indignation. Let's face it -- nothing we do, no matter how far we bend over, no matter how much we could grovel and prostrate ourselves, would make a dent in the demonization of the US. So I am left wondering why we keep worrying about international opinion when it's obvious that it's prejudiced to begin with. We're the Great satan? Fine. Just don't be surprised when we actually start wielding that pitchfork.
Finally, maybe you trust the current administration with this power... but how do you know you'll trust future administrations with this power.
I don't trust ANY administration with ANY power unless there's some sort of checks and balances. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Posted by: Brian B at August 25, 2005 10:58 AM (CouWh)
27
Professor Von Nostrand, I really must question your grip on history as well as reality.
1. There is no international law. Period. Law without an enforcement mechanism is merely a suggestion. The UN has shown repeatedly that it cannot and will not enforce anything. See, e.g. Saddam Hussein's Iraq. What the UN does do is allow murderous and undemocratic regimes (Iran, Syria, China, etc.) a forum to bash us accusing us of violating "international law" as they define it, setting up a moral equivalency between us and them, which is unacceptable in theory as well as practice. The US "throwing its weight" behind international law has no effect if the real violators of it continue to define it and prevent its enforcement against themselves.
2. Radical Islam, in its present strains, dates from at least the 19th century, with the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, well before the US or even Western Europe was involved in any meaningful way in the Middle East. If you want someone to "blame" for that aside from the supremecist elements within Islam itself, take it up with the Ottoman Turks.
3. Hugo Chavez was indeed elected democratically -- for the first election. The recall election last August, however, was rife with fraud noted by nearly every single independent international observer (including the OAS) except for Jimmy Carter. The fraud was perpetrated by the election officials picked by Chavistas who counted the votes and may have just reversed the percentages. If you think Hugo Chavez was democratically elected last August, you must also think that Saddam Hussein was democratically elected, not to mention the thug in charge of Iran right now.
Posted by: ProCynic at August 25, 2005 11:45 AM (bfkgE)
28
Uh... news flash... "our enemies" are "justifying assassinating our President" and "justifying" targeting women and children.
Posted by: DANEgerus at August 25, 2005 12:35 PM (J8yxJ)
29
Pat helped point out what the Washington Post and all other media ignores: Hugo must go. He is a thief and a liar, hum sounds like the devil.
Posted by: John Morrison at August 25, 2005 02:25 PM (ZETBb)
30
To equate Hugo Chavez to Saddam, or to any of the other tyrants we've supported around the world is just assinine. Chavez is a democraticly elected leader who enjoys widespread support among the populous of Venezuela (59% according to last year's recall vote endorsed by the Carter Center and the OAS as fair). Chavez may be less than perfect, but to see Rusty call for his assassination only demonstrates the degree to which any ethical standards he ever had have been flushed down the toilet.
And to hear what I can only assume to be a bunch of Bush Republicans suggest that Chavez' victory in the recall election were tainted is beyond hypocritical. When you want to deal with Florida 2000, or Ohio 2004 then I'll listen to your complaints. Otherwise, you have no moral standing at all.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 25, 2005 08:33 PM (BueBw)
31
If we allow the murders of political leaders all over the world it would bite us in the behind. The markets of the world would become so unstable that it would wreck our economy.
Posted by: social rob at August 25, 2005 10:23 PM (tXv5y)
32
Oh, Professor, your comments sound like those of a "useful idiot" in the failed Marxist-Leninist tradition, of which the last bastions are Castro's Cuba, Chavista Venezuela and, not surprisingly given your opinion, American university campuses. But I'll play
If you actually think that last year's recall "election" was fair, perhaps you should visit Daniel's blog (http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/) can tell you how much of a sham last year's election was, how Jimmy Carter sold out the people of Venezuela just to hurt the US in the true Carter anti-American tradition. Msybe he can give you an idea of the hell Chavez has created, the dictatorial power he has assumed, the aid he has given to murderous narco-rebels in Colombia, the mullahs in Iran and, yes, al Qaida; and the threat he represents to the US. That is, the people here who read this blog who don't want to be killed or made to suffer just so you can maintain your sense of moral superiority. Maybe, if you're willing to listen. But your kool-aid comments suggest you are not.
Now, I could say that on a practical level, you are correct in that the Venezuelan recall "election" last year was comparable to Ohio and Florida, the chief difference being that the attempts of the leftists to cheat in Venezuela to "elect" Chavez were successful, while the leftists' attempts to cheat in Ohio and Florida to get the traitorous John Kerry elected failed.
And I could go one step further and suggest that if you want election fraud in the US, you have far better places to look than Florida and Ohio. May I suggest Washington state's gubernatorial race? How 'bout the presidential race in Milwaukee? How 'bout other races in East St. Louis and East Chicago?
But I'll just settle for stating the obvious that anyone who insists that Hugo Chavez runs an election more fair and honest than the US surrenders all moral and intellectual legitimacy.
I'd tell you to book your trip to Jonestown, but you're already there. Your academic institution and your students have my sympathies, but we've come to expect that from our universities today. Please say "Hi!" to Ward Churchill for me.
Posted by: ProCynic at August 25, 2005 10:32 PM (6krEN)
33
Why stop with hugo chevez lets include fidel castro in that list as well
Posted by: sandpiper at August 27, 2005 05:37 PM (qMAo+)
34
Pat Robertson apologizing for a remark against an enemy of America and the moonbat liberals think it a big deal.
Clinton apology for getting blow jobs in the White House and lying to the American public on television is small deal?
Von Nostril, Vemon how one sided and stupid can you get? You two are beginning to remind me of the Sheehan bitch.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 27, 2005 11:04 PM (CBNGy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
