Robertson Violated U.S. Anti-Terrorism Law Title 18, Section 2331

By calling for the assasination of Chavez, Robertson words fits the definition of Terrorism under U.S. Law Title 18 Section 2331:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html



Robertson has broken the U.S. Law of International Terrorism and should be arrested immediately. His words do not qualify for Freedom of Speech.

Edited to correct spelling of Robertson's name.

Give him a vacation in the tropics! He's earned it.

We, the American People, MUST Demand Justice!

Even the RW Nuts are saying Robertson was over the line. Let's send a clear and understandable message.

and demanded that the 700 Club be pulled immediately. Compare this to the Super Bowl boob showing....

that jenky-assed, faux-preacher, hypocrite against whom charges should be filed and tax-exempt status pulled ASAP! ;-)

Pat Roberts is the asshole that runs the Senate Intelligence committee. Don't get yer scumbags mixed up :P.

Thanks for the laugh... and I'm sorry I confused the two!

PEACE!

Wasn't it Pat Robertson who made the statement?

"(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"

His statement was made while "INSIDE" the U.S. I guess he gets a pass.

The message was actually delivered worldwide (broadcast).

Furthermore, the terrorism OCCURRED in Venezuela, not in the U.S. (people here were not terrified, but they were in Venezuela).

"Necessarily".

Robertson is advocating that someone else commit an act that qualifies as international terrorism. From the context of his remarks it is clear he's not speaking hypothetically, but advocating it as a concrete matter.

That's called Misprision of a Felony, and it is in itself a crime.

he's broken several crimes!!!

I wonder if BushCo won't actually *like* this little SNAFU... it will unleash them from the whip of the religious right...

The Patriot Act:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of
the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

it applies to acts inside the us

I read the statute, and it is pretty clear to me that he violated it. He should be investigated and indicted in the jurisdiction where the 700 Club broadcasts originate.

I agree with what you said. :thumbsup:

Given the current political climate?...

Slim and none.

And just where are "our" democratic leaders who would dare suggest such an overdue course of action?

Hey holy joe!

Hey sellout!

Hey dicky durbin! - no not you - you'll just apologize quickly again!

Uhh, Sir!

I think we all need to demand that charges are filed against him. This is an outrage that any citizen would advocate the violent overthrow of a democratically elected leader, no less the religious leader of millions of people.

Is that town big enough for both him and Falwell?

Welcome to DU! :hi: :toast:

Calling for the killing of a leader of a sovereign nation is no different than OBL calling for the killing of Americans.

I'm hearing the right making the following excuses for him. "He's an old man and has had his own show for a long time. He doesn't speak for evangelicals"

Bullshit! he's a man who has great influence over "christians" in this country. The man is a terrorist!

it's not protected by freedom of speech

:patriot:

Muder gays, Jews, muslims, gypsies, Socialists, or anyone directly opposed to the institution of a right-wing government....Sounds just like something a weird little guy with a funny mustache did back in Germany oh about 70 years ago.

The only reason the aforementioned people have not been rounded up and executed, detained, or deported is because "for now" Robertson would have to be jailed for his crimes. RULE OF LAW still keeps the radical clerics like Pat in line, but...

If they could somehow redo the constitution to their liking and thus usher in their theocracy then anyone remotely progressive in either life or thought should be very scared.

The bridge between the Nazi/Fascist right wing and the modern day Republican establishment (of which Robertson is a part of) gets more narrow by the day. True Republicans and principled thinking Conservatives damn well better get a grip on their hate-mongers and push them out the door lest they be exposed as the radical Jihadists they are.

is his organization Operation Blessing International a terrorist organization? Do they need to return the $500,000 in Faith Based Initiative funds they received from the Department of Health & Human Services?

Say the word, Skinner, and we're on this thing like Limbaugh on OxyContin.

Go Evan Dorkin!

still got his confidence.

:sarcasm:

now thats the kind of double standard i'd expect from this administration.-

knee deep in bushit

grounds for impeachment?

.

:thumbsup:

troopers on video tape and posted on the web while he screams for Tammy Faye!" This just spoken right in my very own living room by a little known political analyst! :o

he's the "CNN analyst" who defended Tenet on their Saturday "expose"

they're discussing Gerald Ford's executive order banning any govermnent employee calling for assassination

they are, so far, ignoring the statute to which you're referring

amazing....looks like they're not going to mention it

EDIT....they did NOT mention your statute...off to another topic

fundies. I love it!

How does that sound?

:)

And for anyone who thinks this guy is representative of Christianity in any way, shape or form, read this:

Pat Robertson is Not a Christian
by Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler

Pat Robertson suggested this past Monday that the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, be assassinated by operatives of the United States government! Though his comments are newsworthy because of his following in the 700 Club and his political stature and role in the political religious right, his comments however are out of synch with everything that has been handed down to us from the teachings of Jesus Christ. What I am suggesting here is that Pat Robertson and individuals of his ilk are not practicing or preaching Christ but have become adherents of a political movement in this nation that attempts to use Christianity towards their own narrow political ends. I believe that there is a role for Christianity in the events of the world, but the teachings of Christ leads us to love one another, strain and stretch to understand each other, and dare to know each other enough that we come to an understanding of one another and from that create a world that is not built on might and winning but on understanding and unity. Clearly the comments of Robertson defy the framework we find in the gospels of Jesus Christ.
Some may argue that Christ existed in another time and did not have an understanding of the kind of world we exist in today. But any follower of Jesus knows that as he was human and he was also fully God, and therefore his understanding of the world, humankind and our needs were not captive to a time but applies to all time! Knowing this I do not see anywhere in the gospels of Christ that he condones, suggests or advocates murder or political assassination! Instead Jesus reminds us to beware of Pharisees, and Robertson, Dobson and others have become the Pharisees of our contemporary world!

What do we find in the Good News of Christ? We find love is expressed continually and unceasingly. The gospels admonish us to do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. We finds words in the gospels that define the mission of Christians as the elevation of the poor, freedom for those who are oppressed, salvation for the lost, and hope for the hopeless. Jesus says come unto me all of you who are weak and heavy laden and I will give you rest. He does not say come to me those who are looking for political expediency and I will show you who to and how to assassinate!

Sure there has been trouble in Venezuela, and some will suggest that it is communism struggling to raise it head. Others will suggest that the poor of Venezuela have been poor too long in a nation that is the 5th largest oil producer in the world. Some will suggest that too much of the resources have been in the hands of too few, and that the poor of the land have found hope in a political leader, Hugo Chavez. I would not suggest that Chavez is a saint, for no person is perfect, but I do know that Chavez was elected even while the greatest power in the world, the United States government, did everything possible to thwart his election. This is hardly the neighborliness that Jesus Christ calls us to emulate.


more...

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0823-32.htm

A suitably disposed authority could certainly apply 1-B-ii with ease....

Robertson was stupid, irresponsible, an asshole...you name it. But he didn't commit "international terrorism" (or "domestic terrorism") for that matter. Read the damn law. Th whole law, not the edited version at the top of the thread. It says:

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; AND
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

The OP left out paragraph (A) and ignored the word "AND" -- you have to satisfy all three paragraphs, which means to engage in terrorism you have to engage in activities that involve "acts of violence". Robertson didn't engage in an act of violence. He engaged in act of speech. Stupid speech advocating violence, but speech nonetheless. And it isn't, thank goodness, illegal to speak in this country.

onenote

It's the crime thing, I'm sure. I think a pre-emptive war is persued on poorly forged intel whilst at best simply ignoring refutation by other vetted intel, thus perpetrating a fraud, is a crime dangerous to Human life.

-Hoot

Just saying...

And the AND only applies to parts B AND C

I DID read the law, I only quoted the relevant parts; his actions and words definitely satisfy part A.

Last time I checked, it was ILLEGAL to call for someone's ASSASSINATION in the U.S.

Paragraphs (A), (B) and (C) are all relevant and should all be read in the conjuntive. Its how statutes are written (I know, I do it for a living). The reason it was drafted that way was specfically so that it would not apply to mere speech -- only to violent acts. And please provide a link to the statute that makes it illegal for someone to suggest that a foreign leader should be assisinated.

onenote

The poster is correct. Robertson IS a terrorist by that definition. It says so. We can all read it for ourselves. We don't need your editorializing.

You disagree. You think I'm wrong. Fine. Doesn't make you right. The statute is clear on its face. And we should be thankful for that, since criminalizing speech is a very dangerous precedent.

onenote

Seems pretty clear to everyone but the apologists here.

Maybe you should learn to READ his statements.

It is pretty clear.

He is calling for the assassination of Chavez.

It is not "editorializing" it is stating a FACT.

You are the only one here doing the editorializing.

Every other poster agrees with me.

First of all, I have condemned Robertson's statements and have called in various threads for DUers to contact the stations that carry his programming and the sponsors that support those stations and demand that his programming be dropped, so I don't particularly appreciate your implying that I'm an "apologist" for Robertson. Second, I thought the issue we were discussing was whether Robertson's statements violated US law. You argue, based on your reading of the law that it does. I read the law differently, and thus disagree. Third,the "fact" of what Robertson said is as follows, according to a transcript on media matters:

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion 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."

As I read this, Robertson expressed his opinion that the government should "take out" (i.e., kill) Chavez. Thats deplorable and should be condemned. However, if I'm an apologist, its for the First Amendment and I just don't see where expressing the opinion that it would be a good thing for the US government to illegally assassinate a foreign leader is itself a crime given the free speech rights accorded under the Constitution. Robertson did not harm Chavez nor did he threaten to harm Chavez; rather, he expressed his opinion that someone else should. And, of course, to top it off, Chavez himself has shrugged it off, which makes it hard to claim there was a "threat" since the target has publicly indicated that he doesn't feel threatened.

onenote

And it doesn't matter what Chavez says/does... it only matters if it could reasonably be interpreted that way.

The determination of guilt I believe comes down to a jury decision. I believe there is enough to arrest him on.

Makes what he said, communicated in the way that it was, completely ILLEGAL.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000875----000-.html

Here is the exact section of law he violated:



He only has to break ONE of these 4 conditions (here's a case where a man was convicted on just one of them: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/johnson.htm )

The violation of Section 875 combined with Section 2331 makes Robertson GUILTY of TERRORISM.

He didn't make a demand or request for ransom or reward for the release of a kidnapped person, so that one is out.
And he did didn't do anything with "intnent to extort" something of value. So your're left with a " threat to injure". Only one problem, he didn't "threaten" anyone. He offered his opinion that the government should "take out" Chavez. Like I've said, that is an amoral, asinine, reprehensible statement. But a threat? Don't think so. If it is, free speech is in big trouble.

onenote

If someone close to the President, in an open statement to the world, asked the U.S. governement to assassinate you?

I would be.

I guess that decision is best left to the jury.

The courts have ruled that in order pass First Amendment scrutiny, a prosecution based on section 875 has to involve a "true threat". TO be a "true threat" it must be a statement that has "a reasonable tendency to create apprehension that ITS ORIGINATOR will act in accordance with its tenor." US v. Cox, 9557 F2d 264 (1992) (emphasis added). Moreover, the courts have distinguished "threats" from "political hyperbole". Id.

Robertson, the originator of the statement, didn't indicate that he was going to take out Chavez (which would be a threat). Rather, he expressed his opinion that the government should do so. It was classic political hyperbole. Alarming? Maybe. Unsettling? Probably. Repugnant, repulsive, inappropriate, amoral? You bet. A good reason for people to demand that the station's that carry his programming (and the sponsors that support those stations) cease such support -- absolutely. But a criminal threat? No way.

onenote

US v. Cox wasn't a political threat AND its conviction was upheld by the Court, not dismissed (see: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Baker/arg1.html)



If you just sited that to see if I would give up, I'm not giving up. Robertson broke U.S. Terrorism Law, especially now that it's been augmented by the Patriot Act. This is the "Post 9/11 Era" after all.

From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=970036p




I think Robertson call for assassination passes this test. Again, I think a jury would need to decide this.

He didn't indicate that he intended to inflict bodily harm on Chavez. He expressed the opinion that the government should. That's why its not a threat.

onenote

and see if Secret Service agrees with you

That's what the entire discussion I linked to above about this case law covers.

Robertson openly suggested the U.S. Government should assassinate Chavez.

Under section 875, if you suggest that terrorists should bomb a city and know that it won't happen, it doesn't matter, you've still violated the law. The recipients of the message can interpret it as a threat, and if they believe you have the ability to influence the outcome, then that satisfies the requirement.

Here you have Robertson, the spiritual leader of millions, someone who has a massive media network and very strong political connections straight on up to the president suggesting that our government assassinate a democratically elected head of state.

It's reasonable that the recipients of the message could interpret that as a threat and believe that Roberston has the connections to directly influence the outcome.

And I am enjoying the discourse!

:-)

PEACE!

While we disagree in our interpretation of the law, I appreciate the fact that our back and forth has been, I believe, intelligent and informed on both sides (which sadly isn't always the case). I still am not convinced that expressing the wish that someone else commit a violent, illegal act is itself criminal...for example, if someone posted on DU that they "thought" Cindy Sheehan should kick some of the counter-protesters in the nuts to send them a message, I don't think the person posting that message could be indicted for making a threat.

In any case, according to news reports, Chavez has shrugged off Robertson's statements, which would undercut any attempt to prosecute Robertson for making a threat since Chavez's public statements indicate that he doesn't feel threatened.

Keep the faith....

onenote

Chavez ought to be assassinated did have an "intnent to extort" something of value. and I think he stated it clearly. That we need Venezuela's oil. That was the reason he gave. And he went further to say that it (Chavez' murder) would be 'cheaper than war'.

I'm sorry, but free speech does NOT include threatening language towards another individual. Especially when it come from someone who is a public figure, a political figure, he ran for president of this country, and who has influence over at least one million people, and who is close to the administration of this country whose own policies on how to deal with Chavez seem to be in line with Robertson's.

Besides, he may not have violated any law here, but how about Venezuela's? If a Muslim cleric were to make such a statement regarding our president, would he not end up on our terrorist list? The VP of Venezuela has condemned this radical cleric's statements. Does Venezuela not now have the right to place him on a criminal list in their country?

Has Bush condemned his statement and assured the world that we do not kill duly elected presidents of sovereign states, despite what some our radical clerics may say?

See post # 29 above.

Think he might be arrested? :shrug:

BTW: That's a paraphrase of a comment by Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, from DemocracyNow this morning.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/24/1343225

18. Terrorism. The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

remarks concerning Chavez. He made a pretty good argument for that on CNN's Lou Dobbs.

And call our congresspeople while we are at it!

No one in the media is jumping all over it like they would if a liberal had said it

all over him for this statement, but last night on CNN (which lately seems to be the Christian Nat.Network) Paula Zahn asked the question 'was it wrong for PR to advocate the assassination of Chavez, or (GET THIS) is he ON to something?' She then went on to tell the public how Chavez has consistently disrespected Bush and how he COULD in the future be a problem for the US etc etc.

She had three guests on, two of whom condemned the statement, one a CIA agent, and Bob Barr, who defended it!! So no, the media is giving 'both sides' of the issue.

What is with this two sides to everything? There two sides to murder now? To killing an elected leader of another country?? No wonder there is such confusion in this country as to what is right and what is wrong!!

I say next time that Robertson takes an overseas trip, when he tries to come back in the country, we treat him like customs treated Cat Stevens! Send the plane along with Robertson back to where it came from! He's as much of a potential terrorist as Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) was.

after all, 700 club membership = GOP support base

Nothing will ever happen to the guy. Dammit.

kick

for benign comments about Bush during classroom discussions, it seems to me that a political leader with majority influence and a communications network to assist in dispersing his message should not be getting a pass on his 'remarks'.

I listened to the president of the New Life church organization try and "explain" Robertson was speaking as a 'political pundit' (not a religious leader) during a portion of the show designed for 'kicking around ideas' regarding politics. :rolleyes: Now, by that reasoning, I have to wonder how much the 700 Club pays in taxes.