Chavez calls for the extradition of Pat Robertson

[communist mercy]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0829-02.htm

[Commandante_Ant]

Good. He deserves this...his apology was too little too late. You cant call for someone to be killed and then say "oh i was only kiddin...I LOVE THIS GUY!" :huh:

Hope this goes through but what are the chances? Knowing Dubya, he'll give Robertson a job in his party! :angry:

[Fidelbrand]

Good move. Hope this news is broadcasted round the globe.

[TalMarsh]

Chavez, yet again, nails the imperialists at their own game.

:)

[Des]

he'll never get extradited tho .. sadly...

[Intifada]

He is white, right-wing and Christian.

He will never be extradited.

[Kez]

It doesnt matter if he is or isnt extradited, its more ammo to be used in discussions though, highlighting the hypocrisy of US capitalism, much like world capitalism.

[patria grande]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 06:33 PM
It doesnt matter if he is or isnt extradited, its more ammo to be used in discussions though, highlighting the hypocrisy of US capitalism, much like world capitalism.
True, the idea is to let the whole world know how U.S changes their definition of terrorism according to their own imperialistic interests.
As I said before, when terrorism is against a nation or a person considered a threat by the White House it´s called patriotism instead of terrorism.
I believe it´s important to face the empire with dignity and moral authority.

¡La revolución pa ´lante, y al que no le guste que se joda y que se aguante!!!

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh. It's a brillitant stunt though. It shows chavez not gonna take shit form the U$ as well.

[genius]

Aye, I like this post too much. It is pure genius what Chavez is doing turning the table on rotten Uncle Sam.

[TheReadMenace]

Haha, that's hilarious.

Fuck right-wing Christians. They're so stupid.


Andrew

[JokingClown]

Sequence of events:

- Pat Robertson, aka, Son of God, pure of evil calls for the assination of Hugo Chavez, AKA Spawn of Satan.
- Before we go on, we should have a little bit of background info on both the son of God, and the Spawn of Satan. The Son of God (Pat) teaches his followers that Gambling is evil, and yet he owns race horses. The Son of God teaches his followers that murdering is wrong, and yet call says the US government should kill someone. not just kill, but do it when they are not looking. This is called murder. The Son of God's Father, God himself, tells HIS followers to NOT murder.

Hugo Chavez, AKA, the Spawn of Satan, is a democratically elected leader of Venuzela, which is also known as Hell. I believe his approval rating is/was like 76%? I could be wrong on that. If its right, thats a higher rate than Bush has.

- After Pat's comment, Hugo ignores Pat more or less.

- The son of God breaks yet another commandment, thou shalt not lie like a little *****. Which he did, saying he never actually said the word assasinate, which was a blatant lie.

.... Blah, im just gonna post this, even though its crap. Im gonna edit it later, and post it on a site. anyone know what hugos approval rate is?

[patria grande]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:17 PM
anyone know what hugos approval rate is?
Poll: Chávez enjoys 71.8% approval rating.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1702

[Organic Revolution]

excellent! i hope it happens!

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by organic [email protected] 31 2005, 02:03 AM
excellent! i hope it happens!
Amen, it's was of those "Wouldn't it be great if..." things.

Hopefully he'll be given to a firing squad too! I'd be pretty damn giddy if that becomes the case! :D

[Anarchist Freedom]

Wow hes on the ball with this stuff.

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:11 PM
Good move. Hope this news is broadcasted round the globe.
nope...most people in Europe dont even know about Chavez or anything that is going on in Venezuela...only that when the "masses" rebel against Chavez :unsure:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What? I didn't understand that last part.

[rachstev]

It would be good if some of the people who commented here knew something about what they write about. Come on, is everyone that ignortant of national and international law?!?

In order to be extadited to Ven, Robertson:

1. There would have to be an extradition treaty between the U.S. and Ven. (For the sake of this discussion, let's presume there is one.)

2. Robertson would have to break Ven. law, AND not be protected by U.S. law. The current interpretation of the First Amendment protects Robertson, and no one should complain, as it also protects "Revolutionary Left. com"

3. Here's the biggie: Inciting terrorism requires an independent organization to do an act. All of Robertson's speach talked on Robertson suggesting the U.S. government kill Chavez. There is nothing illegal about this, as the U.S. government is the final authority of its own decisions.

From my point of view, Robertson is an unimportant comedy relief. Who cares what he said. He is on the same level as any other private person. And what he said is entirely legal. Chavex probably knows this, and is just having fun at Robertson's idiotic comments. But he dosen't think for a moment any crime has been committed. Niether should anyone here. There's just no crime or tort that Robertson committed.

Rachstev

[praxis1966]

Except that it's not protected under the First Ammendment, dipshit. The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that speech which is a threat to the public good (ie shouting fire in a crowded theater) or may incite someone else to violent acts (as in this case) is not protected under the First Ammendment.

Take a constitutional law class (as I have) and get back to us.

[rachstev]

Dear praxis1966,

You are an idiot.

Or you are just very ignorant of the scope of the First Amendment and what is protected and what is not protected by its scope.

The crowded theatre comment of O.W. Holmes, Jr., while very well put, is not the contorlling authority of interpreting incitement vis-a-vis First Amendment protection.

I’m glad you’ve taken a course in constitutional law.

Now, if you had your JD, and were a member of two state bar associations, it is possible you would have learned the following along the way:


Unless Venezuela has some unusual laws, I don't see how Chavez can sue.

There is no theory of tort against suggesting that it would be "better to kill a head of state." There are First Amendment considerations that would block suit in the U.S. It was also political speech, which has the highest protection of the Frist Amendment.

Can he complain about the statement in its relation to the FCC? Perhaps there is a rule against such a statement over airwaves. However (I don't know how the law is written) there may be two problems:

1) the law may not be written to allow an individual to sue, but only the FCC to sue and fine;

2) Chavez, living outside of the zone of the airwave, might not have standing to sue in any federal court.

Again, I am trying to determine a theory of tort for Chavez, and I am at a loss.

Any U.S. citizen has the right to suggest or encourage something happen (otherwise no legeslation could ever be enacted), and, under the current case law, where the speaker does not have the power to do the violent action himself, there is no violaiton.

This part has to do with another legal concept, causation. Robertson can suggest the government do anything he wishes, but even were the government to act on it (let's say President Bush DOES order a CIA operative to kill Chavez), it would be the hight of ludicrousy to think that after the killing, Robertson would be liable for the government conduct because he gave them the idea.

The First Amendment only involves government/state action, GOVERNMENT ACTION ONLY.

Now, to return to the tort theory:

The first rule of making any Prima Facie Case is that one must show damages suffered by the defendant's conduct, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens have the highest protection when talking about political figures.

So, What is Chavez's case?

Regarding incitement and theatres and yelling fire, etc...

Neither 9/11 nor the Patriot Act have reversed Brandenburg v. Ohio, No. 492 Supreme Court of The United States 395 U.S. 444; 89 S. Ct. 1827; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1367; 23 L. Ed. 2d 430; 48 Ohio Op. 2d 320, June 9, 1969, Decided.

It is the LAST WORD in speech of the kind that Roberston made.

Here is an excerpt from the decision:

The guaranties of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation, except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action. Any statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The First and Fourteenth Amendments' guaranties of free speech and free press preclude a conviction for violation of a state criminal syndicalism statute which punishes persons who advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety of violence as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform, or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy, or who justify the commission of violent acts with intent to exemplify, spread, or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism, or who voluntarily assemble with a group formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.

The First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments’ guaranty the right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.

-----------------------------------------

What this means, and I’ll break it down for you Praxis, is that one can advocate nearly ANY violent action where they do not have the IMMEDIATE means to act on that action. The Court has been VERY express on this matter.

Now, how does post 9/11 fit into all of this?

Simple. Some freak getting on TV on a talk show and saying, "America should be attacked again" can probably do so, even though they'd be an asshole to do it. But the same person saying, "I have access to X amount of guns, and we should immediately use them to do Y is probably not protected and that person could be prosecuted.

Robertson's comment was SO far removed from violence it can barely be challenged. He merely suggested what Presdident Bush should do. He didn't even state that he himself would want to do it.


But, Praxis, one of the more obvious issues raised is that Robertson can not be extradited to Ven. for violating U.S. law, you ninny. He can only be extradited to Ven. for violating Venezuelan law, which I admit I do not know. But, how a U.S. citizen speaking in State X can violate Ven. law, is beyond me. I’m sure it’s beyon you, also. But then Tony the Tiger is probably beyond you as well.

Rachstev