David, What you are saying is that if I officially said that CIA should kill Bush, before he get US in irreversible trouble, then I am not doing anything illegal. I do not personally belive that this should be done or that anyone seriously should suggest this, but I wonder what happened if I said so.
I know that emails are screened and scrutinized, so this one might end up with CIA/FBI anyway and I sincerely hope that they dot not take it seriously or belive that I in any way would do a serious suggestion like the one Robertson did. Such suggestions are illegal and despicable, as the Robertson's one. I do think that when it comes to Chaves, the law will not be pursued and if it would be Bush he suggested, Robertson would now face serious interrogations. The fact is that US has a law, which prohibits any targeted killing of foreign leaders. This law was introduced during the Carter administration, I belive. This was frequently discussed during the bombings of Baghdad. But if they would have killed Saddam by accident, it was ok, but to target him personally was not. I remember when the Iranian Mullahs suggested the a true Muslim should kill a certain author, for insulting the Koran, and how all western leaders was upset by this kind of barbaric behavior and how it would not be allowed in the civilized western world. Robertson, a US religious leader, is doing exactly the same and now the same leaders are full of excuses for him. I do think that if Robertson suggested that Bush should have sex with Madonna, then he would have been history by now. This even if it would have been legal. LOL Hakan At 04:33 27/08/2005, you wrote: >Keith Addison wrote: > > >Hello David > > > > > >Hi Keith:) > > >>I expect that's covered under free speech. > >> > >>I'd personally rate Robertsons comments as up there with any number > >>of people who advocate the death of Bush for crimes against humanity > >>or somesuch. If Bush were assasinated would these people really be > >>responsible? > >> > >> > > > >Maybe I didn't notice but I have not heard of anyone calling for the > >death of Bush. Excepting some of the victims of course, but not > >anybody in the US, which I think is what you're talking about. > > > > > >Surely you could imagine such a thing? Perhaps around a coffee table? > >Offering your opinion that <X> should be assasinated either is or is not >a crime; whether it's done on national TV or around the neighborhood >watering hole is really irrelevent. > > > >>>What if Chavez is murdered is murdered and CIA is behind it, will he > >>>not be pursued for suggesting it? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>I don't believe so. The idea that the CIA would do something > >>because this nut thought it was a good idea is laughable. > >> > >>Take a step back and listen to yourself. Does anyone on this list > >>thing anyone at the CIA is going to wake up and say "HEY! Robertson > >>thinks we should assasinate a foreign head of state! Guess we'd > >>better start laying plans" > >> > >>C'mon, that's just silly. > >> > >> > > > >I'd be surprised if there weren't at least elements within the CIA > >who're thinking the same way as Robertson. I think the administration > >thinks the same way as Robertson. A lot of people think that. I think > >Chavez thinks that too. Have a look at this: > > > > > >Either I'm losing my debating touch or you're taking my arguments a long >ways away from where they were aimed. > >I responded to Hakan Falk who seemed to think that Robertson had already >broken the law and wondered why he hasn't been already arrested. > >My central point is that expressing your opinion that the CIA ought to >assasinate someone isn't breaking any laws. > >Period. That's it. That is the answer to Hakans question. > >I don't doubt for a second that there are people within the current >administration and all the various arms of intelligence and defense who >would like to assasinate Chavez because he's not sufficiently pro-American. > >I am not one of them. I do not support Robertson. I did not support >the current administration in their drive to war in Iraq. I do not >support all the meddling we have done in the affairs of foreign states. > >But that does not make Robertsons statement illegal. > > > > >>He's expressing a moronic, immoral opinion, not calling people to > >>action. I'm not trying to support Robertson, just trying to defend > >>free speech. You see if you want to be able to speak freely you > >>have to let others do so too, even if you don't like what they say. > >> > >> > > > >There is no society that doesn't put restrictions on free speech, of > >necessity, and it's a very difficult line to draw. Inciting to > >violence is a case in point - it's obvious? Maybe, but it's a > >restriction of free speech just the same, and there are many others, > >along with a constantly shifting grey area. > > > > > >You'd best watch what you wish for, IMHO. The US government over the >last few administrations, and this administration in particular, seems >very interested in quashing dissent. Imagine the effect on dissent if >we were to stifle the kind of hateful speech which may be the way the >administration is already thinking. > > > > > > >>And I'd suggest that people here think along those lines. > >> > >> > > > >Nothing new to us David. But it's more than just a label, or maybe > >less. You're making a mistake in writing off much of this discussion > >as "rhetoric", as you did. If you took a less blinkered look you'd > >see that a great deal of information has been provided, the list > >archives is now a good resource on Pat Robertson. Any future > >discussion here of Pat Robertson or of any similar event will be > >better informed from the start, as with many other subjects. And > >that's what's needed as a true basis for free speech - free > >information. The true enemy of free speech and all freedom is spin as > >much as fascism, IMHO, and Pat Robertson has provided us with yet > >another example of that too. Several. > > > > > >I agree with you about the spin. But the topic at hand was whether >Robertson should have already been arrested for his comments. > >Are you really agreeing with Hakan that he should have been? > > >>If expressing the opinion that a criminal act would have a > >>desirable outcome becomes a crime then free speech no longer exists. > >>IE, if someone suggests that the world would be a better place > >>without Bush are you calling for a crime to be committed and subject > >>to arrest? In the US we call that dissent, > >> > >> > > > >These days you (pl) call it treason as much as anything else. What's > >the punishment for treason in the US? > > > > >See, here's where I think you blow it. If anyone who doesn't think >Robertson should be arrested for his comments is one of "them" then >there's not much hope left IMHO. > >I don't agree with Robertson. I think he's an arrogant fool. I hold a >very low opinion of those who use religion for political gain. I >clearly don't agree with the policies of the current administration. > >He could be the scum of the earth, could be stealing his audience blind, >could have friends within the CIA and more friends within the >whitehouse. He has a very unpopular image here, and it's well deserved. > >But that doesn't mean he should be arrested for his comments. > > >Peace, > > >--- David > > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
