|
WASHINGTON - How would the Bush Administration respond if, say, Rev. Jesse Jackson, encouraged the assassination of a foreign leader? This week, when Rev. Pat Robertson said "we really ought to go ahead" and assassinate President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, all Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had to say was that "our department doesn't do that type of thing."
Rumsfeld went so far as to trivialize Robertson's incitement to murder of a foreign president saying, "Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
The Administration's tepid response to Robertson's outrageous statement may be explained by the fact that Robertson is no ordinary private citizen, but the politically powerful leader of the Christian Coalition, one of Bush's principle support groups in the Christian conservative movement. Standing by a friend who incites the commission of murder may be good politics for Bush, but it embraces a man of God who advocates the violation of the greatest commandment: Thou shall not kill.
In recommending the assassination of the Venezuelan President, Robertson argued that it would be far less costly to take him out singly than to attack his country. Saying "We don't need another $200 billion dollar war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator" is as close as Robertson has come to criticizing the war in Iraq, which he fervently supports.
I commend the church leaders who have condemned Robertson's statements, including the National Council of Churches and the National Association of Evangelicals. It's too bad, but not surprising, that other religious groups, particularly those in the conservative church movement, have remained silent, just as they have ignored the deaths of more 1,800 Americans in Iraq for a cause based on lies and unworthy of their sacrifice.
Robertson, who has attacked Muslims, feminists, gays, the United Nations, the State Department, liberal judges, and even blamed civil libertarians for 9/11 could be dismissed as a celebrity-seeking kook. But that would be unwise considering our own history. President Ford's 1976 executive order prohibiting assassination of foreign leaders is in place for good reasons.
Ford acted in response to strong criticism of the U.S. from abroad and, ironically, from American church leaders for its alleged involvement in violence against foreign leaders, including numerous unsuccessful attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro. U.S. complicity had also been alleged in the deaths of President Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, President Allende of Chile, and others. Foreign leaders are mindful of that history even if we aren't.
Venezuela is a particularly sensitive case in point. The U.S. is already widely believed to have been involved in the April 2002 coup that temporarily overthrew Chavez who was restored days later by popular support. A State Department investigation concluding there was no U.S. complicity, did little to overcome the suspicions after the U.S. applauded the coup and suggested that Chavez had brought it on himself.
If President Chavez had been visiting the U.S. when Robertson made his inflammatory remarks, the Reverend could have been prosecuted under a law prohibiting willful intimidation or threats against visiting foreign leaders and subject to a fine of $5,000 and 6 months in jail.
In the face of widespread criticism, Robertson has issued a weak apology, with the caveat that his words had focused the nation's attention on the terrorist threat posed by Venezuela. He has certainly gotten the publicity he seems to crave while making the Bush Administration and religious leaders of his stripe look bad in the eyes of man and, maybe, God.
### |
