What’s the Spanish word for ‘extradition’?

August 29, 2005

Last week, I had entirely too much fun with the story about TV preacher Pat Robertson calling for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s assassination. Robertson sort of apologized last Wednesday, which in turn satiated the American media outlets that were enjoying the story about as much as I was.

But Chavez, hoping to push the story into a second week, has a new angle: he wants the Bush administration to turn over Robertson to Venezuela.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his government would take legal action against Pat Robertson and potentially seek his extradition after the U.S. evangelist called for Washington to assassinate the South American leader.

Robertson, who later apologized for the remark, said he was expressing his frustration with Chavez’s constant accusations against the administration of President George W. Bush.

“I announce that my government is going to take legal action in the United States … to call for the assassination of a head of state is an act of terrorism.” Chavez said in a televised speech.

The fiery left-wing critic of Bush’s foreign policy who frequently charges the U.S. government is plotting to kill him, called Robertson “crazy” and a “public menace.”

He said Venezuela could seek Robertson’s extradition under international treaties and take its claim to the United Nations if the Bush administration did not act.

Well, this would solve all kinds of problems, wouldn’t it? ABC/Disney would be happy because Robertson’s 700 Club would finally be off the air; the Bush gang would be happy because Robertson would stop being a distraction that interferes with their news cycles; the Christian community in the U.S. would be happy because Robertson would stop giving people of faith a bad name; and the left would be happy because Robertson would be held accountable for his actions.

Forget pressuring ABC/Disney with complaints about Robertson’s show, this is the effort we should get behind.

John Dean recently explained that Robertson appears to have committed a crime. Time to pay the piper, Pat.

I’m sure he’ll be treated very well in a Venezuelan prison.

And the freepers can wear “Free Pat!” tee shirts

  • I think God set Robertson up. I betcha Robertson’s got the same kind of deal with God as he does with The Family Channel, and God can’t get the guy to shutup. And so He plants the assassination idea in Robertson’s head, so as to get him out of the picture.

    God may work in mysterious ways, but even He makes sense every now and again.

  • As much as I’d like to see it happen, formal requests for extradition only plays into the hands of the fear mongering isolationists and their extensive use of propoganda to convicne independents/moderates that Dems can’t be trusted.

    “Now Democrats want to hand over a US citizen, a God-Fearing Christian minister and US CITIZEN, to a foreign government, just because he spoke his mind. Democrats say they believe in freedom of Speech. Just not for Christians. Don’t let Democrats hand our citizens over to foreign governments. Vote GOP”

    Tell me you can’t see this coming?

    We need to get out in front of that if extradition does gain momentum.

  • Just as one is not allowed to yell, “Fire!”, in a crowded theater, I suspect one should not be allowed to advocate – in a serious manner – a terrorist act against a foreign head of state on a cable television program being broadcast to millions of people. Christian or non-Christian. Republican or Democrat.

    Perhaps he can plead insanity? I might even buy into that one!

  • “ABC/Disney would be happy because Robertson’s 700 Club would finally be off the air…”

    I just don’t like this line of thought.
    It seems flimsy to me.
    Phony baloney.

    If ABC didn’t really want to air Robertson’s 700 Club surely they could cut him off and go to court for breach of contract.

    In other words…. the contract that exists between these two parties can’t possible allow Robertson to go on the air and spew venom willy-nilly forever.

    Suppose Robertson really totally ape and started calling for the nuking of Caracas? Would ABC still have to keep venting his venon? Forever and ever?

    I think not.

    No– I susect he is on the air because they want him on the air. They are afraid of the blowback if they do what they know is the right thing to do: pull his power cord and then win in court for breach of contract.

    The moral of the story:

    The fear of the loss of money is a major reason why Corporate America has so many cowards.

  • Repubs might be able to score points over Democrats with some of their base, as Edo noted, but Chavez sure knows the Republican playbook and how to politically checkmate people. No matter what the GOP does, Chavez wins. That a person of such visibility as Robertson walked right into this is an amazing stroke of luck for Chavez.

    Robertson’s this year’s Ward Churchill.

  • We will always have Santorum. And DeLay. Coburn would work in a pinch. Cornyn, any day of the week. Frist on a bad day. John Bolton. Jerry Falwell, of course, and the lovable scamps at Bob Jones University. Sun Yung Moon and his minions. Gary Bauer if he ever crawls out of that rabbit hole that he’s been living in. Ralph Reed would make a nice stand-in since the Abramoff thing broke. Can’t forget Karl Rove.

    That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure that we’ll do just fine without Pat.

  • Koreyel,

    I’m with you up to the point at which you suggest that ABC/Disney could “pull his power cord and then win in court for breach of contract.” Having not seen the actual contract between Robertson and ABC, of course, I can only speculate, but I imagine that Robertson could in fact with a lawsuit should ABC breach the contract by pulling the 700 Club off the air. That doesn’t really change the analysis of what should be done, though. It’s doubtful, given the balance of interests at stake, that Robertson could win an order for specific performance, i.e., a court order compelling ABC to reinstate the show, rather than money damages for the breach. Even if ABC expects to lose the case, then, it’s really fear of financial repercussions that prevents it from yanking Robertson off the air. That said, I think it’s quite unlikely that Robertson would settle out of court for any amount of money; he would go the distance as a matter of principle and cost ABC quite a bit in the process. That has to figure into their cost-benefit analysis of keeping a raving lunatic on the airwaves.

    I can’t agree with the consensus that Robertson either has committed a crime, or should face criminal charges either here or in Venezuela for his reprehensible comments, though. The First Amendment protects even direct advocacy of criminal activity in most circumstances. (See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444). However deplorable Robertson’s comments may have been, it’s better, in my view, that U.S. citizens retain the liberty to encourage the government to act in defiance of international law when they feel that such action is warranted. In this instance, Robertson was rightly shouted down by more reasonable voices, and his credibility has been perhaps permanently undermined by that embarrassment. This is not, and should not be, a matter to be addressed by the criminal law.

  • President Chavez has the potential to become the biggest headache for the Bush administration to come along yet. He’s the head of state of an important trading partner with a whole bunch of oil that we can’t take by force, unlike Iraq. He’s under no obligation to toe the Republican party line, and his status as a national leader gives him legal options that no ordinary citizen could hope to obtain.

    Plus the fact that his complaint is backed up by publicly witnessed facts that can’t be denied, spun or covered up. He’s beyond the reach of the Republican attack machine and the more they try to smear him the more stature he gains with his own people and the world.

    Please, Mr. Chavez, take this to the United Nations. I’d pay money to sit in the gallery and watch John Bolton’s face turn purple trying to deal with this one.

  • Repubs might be able to score points over Democrats with some of their base, as Edo noted, but Chavez sure knows the Republican playbook and how to politically checkmate people. No matter what the GOP does, Chavez wins. That a person of such visibility as Robertson walked right into this is an amazing stroke of luck for Chavez.

    Sure. And with supposedly 80% voting for Chavez, he should be a shoe-in to win in his next election. In Venezuala. I don’t know about you, but frankly I’m much less concerned about Chavez winning and much more concerned with Democrats in the USA winning. And thus stopping the reign of terror the GOP is forcing on the entire world.

    Chavez may benefit from this. I fear the GOP may benefit as well, electorally. The latter is what concerns me and the former provides scant comfort.

  • And quick note,

    Repubs might be able to score points over Democrats with some of their base

    Its not the GOP base I’m concerned about. its the security moms and whatever the other fancy names are for the swing voters that respond very well to the scare tactics that are used with such deadly effectiveness by the GOP.

    “Vote DEM and your pastor could be sent to jail in South America”

    It doesn’t have to be accurate, true or even very credible. Just scary. And a lengthy nuanced answer will not alleviate that fear. Just imagine the he-said/she-said reporting of the above hypothetical GOP talking point, versus Drew’s very-DEM like response:

    “Just as one is not allowed to yell, “Fire!”, in a crowded theater, I suspect one should not be allowed to advocate – in a serious manner – a terrorist act against a foreign head of state on a cable television program being broadcast to millions of people. Christian or non-Christian. Republican or Democrat.”

    Go ahead, imagine what the “swing” voter will remember and how they are likely to vote.

    For the record, Drew is 100% accurate and sadly is very likely to have put it more eloquently than any given Dem candidate. The problem is that millions of people who voted GOP in 2004 firmly believed that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Truth alone is not enough. We need something more potent than plain truth to overcome the fear instilled by the GOP.

    Given that love, albeit the strongest of emotions, is beyond my ability to promote, I suggest that invoking Patriotism to overcome Fear may be our best approach.

  • “reign of terror”

    Good one, Edo. Yours? Works so well against
    all this “war on terror” crap we have to put up
    with.

    Damn! Wish I’d thought of it. Getting time
    for monthly letter to The Idaho Statesman.

  • Mine or one of my friends as we were a few too many glasses of wine into a collaborative rant on the GOP. Hence, I claim no credit nor need for attribution!

  • Edo,
    Your concern is on the mark. But the Democrats have an easy out–they have no power to bind or loose in the federal government; it’s the GOP that’s in charge, and who must reap the consequences of what they do. All the Democrats need do is point out that the GOP made its bed and must sleep in it. So every win by Chavez is a clear signal of the impotence of the Bush administration and sign to voters that our country needs a change. Assuming the Democrats can play their cards right, they can make gains here.

    I like the term “reign of terror,” too. But didn’t someone somewhere call the Bush presidency the “reign of error”?

  • “Reign of error”

    AWESOME! oh man oh man I can’t wait to use that.

    Assuming the Democrats can play their cards right, they can make gains here.

    Right. Exactly right. And I don’t think jumping on an “extradite Robertson” hand is a winning hand. Nor is playing a nuance or “above the fray” gambit advisable. Personally, I like to get void in one suit and cross trump all day long. In this case, I’d go void on Chavez and what he is doing and trump with “DEMs don’t believe in assassination.”

    Whatever card they slough (e.g. DEMs want to hand over a Christian to another country), we respond with a trump card “Assassination is against the law. DEMs don’t protect lawbreakers”. Rinse and repeat. AND DO NOT BREAK RANKS (call in all the trump cards, to keep with the analogy).

    By the time we finish collecting the remaining tricks, we’ll have our baby grand slam.

  • I think Chavez is beating the wrong drum here.

    Robertson apologized for calling for Chavez’ assassination, but said nothing about his suggestion that Chavez be kidnapped. That’s just as illegal.

    • Comments are closed.