Chavez accepts apology from Robertson

[Des]

CARACAS (AFP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that he accepted a letter of apology from US televangelist Pat Robertson, who called two weeks ago for Chavez' assassination.
ADVERTISEMENT

But Chavez, speaking in his weekly television show "Hello, President," said he would reserve the right to sue Robertson.

On August 22 Robertson said on his televised religious program in the United States that the US government should assassinate Chavez.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," said the conservative Christian leader.

"We don't need another 200 billion dollar war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Chavez said Sunday that Robertson had apologized to him in a letter, and that he accepted the apology "wholeheartedly, as the good Christian that I am."

"But my government and I reserve the right to take legal action on the case," said Chavez.

[patria grande]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:22 AM


Chavez said Sunday that Robertson had apologized to him in a letter, and that he accepted the apology "wholeheartedly, as the good Christian that I am."

"But my government and I reserve the right to take legal action on the case," said Chavez.
HAHAHAHA!!! :lol: :lol: This is why I love this man!!!

[Warren Peace]

This is why I love this man!!!

That, and he lead the revolution against a fascist regime and brought freedom and social democracy to Venezuela.

Viva Chavez! :hammer:

[Commandante_Ant]

Certainly seems like quite a character...and quite the revolutionary as well.

[risky.riot]

Personally, I love the way Chavez does things! I mean, a few months earlier I remember reading in the newspaper about a protest in Venezuala where the protesters (prostesting America) stomped on the US flag! I mean, think of how clever that is? Rather than having to waste lots of money on buying new flags, just reuse the same one and stomp on it :P It's so simple and so cost-effective!
Sorry, that was off topic, but just something I wanted to bring up...
Yeah, I love the things that Chavez has been doing for his country and the way he acts is just so incredibly unique! He is such an amazing individual!

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, he is a carasmatic revolutionary, but lets nto forget he's the head of a movement. Not a one man army.

[OleMarxco]

I'd rather prefer a 'kick-ass'-rampage in return of this insult. I wouldn't have easily accepted such apologizes for threathenin' to KILL....! ;)
He deserves to be shot himself for such ridicolous call's...although I think "Pat" here didn't realize the consequences of assasination and of what it really involve's...someone dying, and he know it really. That is why he should die by Chavez' hand's. Disemboweled trough the heart muscle :P

Al'tho he's still an authi-torian...it's more than that. Obviously, the people stand behind him, unlike other "despot"'s. Another nation doesn't warrant to "take care" of him. Only the people 'opressed' (?) can have right to overthrow'im.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I'd ,
wouldn't
threathenin',
didn't,
Al'tho,
he's,
it's,
doesn't ,
overthrow'im.

Jesus, why do you keep on writing like that?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I love how Chavez, when threatened by a Christian evangelical then apologized to, says "I accept his apology like the good Christian I am" hahahahahaha oh man I love Chavez, that guy is hilarious, the best thing to happen to Socialism in quite a while in my opinion.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes Chavez is demonstrating that he is quite smart and cunning when dealing with the US government.
Remember Castro did this as well, and had numerous attempts on his life.

Yes Chavez deserves our whole-hearted support. But we certainly should not advocate a violent reprisal on behalf of Chavez towards Robertson, that would be the end of Venezuala and what little support it has in the US.

-- August

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 01:34 PM

I'd ,
wouldn't
threathenin',
didn't,
Al'tho,
he's,
it's,
doesn't ,
overthrow'im.

Jesus, why do you keep on writing like that?
stop typing with an accent, you look rediculus/

[Colombia]

I didn't even know you could sue a person for calling for your assasination. Although how would such a case work?

[Clarksist]

Chavez said Sunday that Robertson had apologized to him in a letter, and that he accepted the apology "wholeheartedly, as the good Christian that I am."


Good line, but how unfortunate that he is a Christian.

Its so funny that Robertson backed down from his earlier statements.

Goes to show you he is just as weak as us "infidels".

[rachstev]

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

There is no theory of tort 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 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 am at a loss. Any U.S. citizen has the right to suggest or encourage something happen, and, under the current case law, where the speaker does not have the power to do the violent action himself, there is no violaiton.

But the First Amendment only involves government action, and cannot be used by Robertson to prevent a suit. So, one has to look at tort laws.

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?

[viva le revolution]

Preaching hatred and inciting violence. That's why muslim clerics are being deported from britain nowadays. Advocating assasination etc.
If the case does not go through, can Chavez call for assasinating Robertson? see the shit hit the fan then, with thousands of born-again christians beating their chests and rabidly calling for blood!
Quite ironic, don't ya think?

[Amusing Scrotum]

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.

Couldn't it be construed as inciting violence. I think America brought in laws against incitement after 9/11. Britain certainly did and technically someone from Britain on this board, asking people to rise up and violently revolt. Could be imprisoned.
Aren't Police States fun. :(

[rachstev]

Wow. Your passion is wonderful but you really need to visit a police state before dreaming the U.S. is one. The U.S. remains the most protective of individual rights v. state power in history.

More to your point, 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. 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 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. 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 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.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Wow. Your passion is wonderful but you really need to visit a police state before dreaming the U.S. is one. The U.S. remains the most protective of individual rights v. state power in history.

My sarcasm seems to be continualy misunderstood by the Americans, in particular, on this board. I think perhaps British people are in general more grumpy, sarcastic and dry witted than our comrades across the pond.

Thanks for posting Brandenburg v. Ohio, is that the case with the guy from the KKK?

Been as you have a greater understanding of American law, could you answer a few queries I have.


except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Robertson said -


It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and get it over with."

Now if someone did kill Chavez and was doing it in response to Robertson's speech, could Robinson then be prosecuted. If a covert operative did kill Chavez would this equate to your definition of -


"I have access to X amount of guns, and we should immediately use them to do Y is probably not protected and could be prosecuted.

Or is there no way Robertson could be prosecuted?

[rachstev]

Most of our tort law comes in fact from English Common Law (yes, I'm one of those Americans who knows England and Britain are not the same...I even know that James Bond is not English).

A large issue in tort law is causation. This is of paramount concern in your scenario. Even if an opperative does kill Chavez, the link between Robertson's speech and President Bush ordering the operative to do it is intervened by the President's action. Otherwise, any person suggesting anything to Congress would be liable for a suit.

Causation becomes a broken chain when it reaches Bush's ears, and any action on his part could not come back to haunt Robertson. Follow me?

ALL of Robertson's comments were directed at state action, so even if a private citizen tried to kill Chavez, Robertson has clean hands there, as he never stated he wished for that to happen.

"Operatives" work for the CIA, and are field intelligence officers. They are tools of the state.


P.S. Enjoy your dry wit. Sorry if I was tetchy. But too many people around here need a real police state to let them know what's up.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I understand your statement but,


Causation becomes a broken chain when it reaches Bush's ears, and any action on his part could not come back to haunt Robertson. Follow me?

What if Robertson, was say Bushes spiritual advisor. As a person who would advise Bush would there be causation then?


Most of our tort law comes in fact from English Common Law

Nearly everything in America has its roots in Europe. It always amuses me when Americans say they dislike Old Europe; because, just about everything in American history was either done by or inspired by Europeans. From slavery to religion. America invented none of it. ;)


Enjoy your dry wit. Sorry if I was tetchy. But too many people around here need a real police state to let them know what's up.

:P

Seriously though, you posted somewhere about being a legal expert and from your statement about English Common Law. I assume you know a bit about the history of law and the types of laws passed in actual "Police States". So I was wondering if you think the kind of laws being passed in Britain and America right now, in regards to terrorism. Lay the foundations for a possible Police State?

[rachstev]

Well, let's dael with both of your issues with one answer:

The United States of America invented nothing original and how can one determine whether there is a police state.

The United States has a long and honorable tradition of judicial review. Ironically, it's not part of our constitution, it's just that one day in 1803, the Supreme Court said WE will interpret the laws, and those contra to the Constitution will be declared unconstitutional.

This is THE BIGGIE. this is where we, politically speaking, beat the world. With the exception of one instance in the 1830's ALL of our presidents, governors, mayors and their various flunkies have ALWAYS accepted the rule of law laid out by the independant judicial branch.

When President Nixon in 1974 was ordered by the district court in Washington, D.C. to turn over audio tapes (I won't bore you with details), we appealed to the Supremem Court, which said, "Do it!"

He (as the story goes) turned to his aid Erlichman, and asked what he had to do now. Erlichman supposedly said, "Well, there's always the army."

But even President Nixon accepted the will of the Court, ultimately buying him a bill of impeachment and his resignation.

A police state DOESN'T have a court with judicial review. Period. A police state says that the Fourth Amendment, dealing with seaches and seizures, will be interpreted by itself. A non-police state allows an independent group (our Suprme Court) make this decision.

I'm drunk right now on Vodka.

Rachstev

[Amusing Scrotum]

Thanks for taking the time out to answer my questions.


A police state DOESN'T have a court with judicial review. Period. A police state says that the Fourth Amendment, dealing with seaches and seizures, will be interpreted by itself. A non-police state allows an independent group (our Suprme Court) make this decision.

Thats very interesting, because, recently the Government here in Britain passed laws which give the Home Secretary powers to decide who gets arrested and to grant warrants etc. I don't know the exact details and I doubt I would understand it fully anyway.
However this legislation takes away power from the judiciary and give it to politicians. Although Tony Blair is many things, hes not a repressive dictator. However with this kind of power an elected Government could become very authoriterean. Or am I reading to much into something that really isn't all that dangerous?


I'm drunk right now on Vodka.

Your typings not slurred. ;)

[rachstev]

Well, your country has a long history of PMs accepting votes of No confidence and stepping down. It would be nearly impossible for Tony Blair or any Brit to become a dictator.

Yes, your system does allow the govt to change the view of how search and seizure, and habius corpus (what happens to a suspect) as it wishes.

Our government does not allow for this, as the congress and executive can not interpret the 4th Amendment as they so choose.