Did Pat Robertson Break The Law? Before you Decide, Read this:

[berni_mccoy]

Poll question: Did Pat Robertson Break The Law? Before you Decide, Read this:

Read this first, then decide:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4436022

[BikeWriter]

1. Yes, he did.

[AllyCat]

2. Yes. He intended this and it crossed international boundaries

It was meant to rally his people in support of this idea in an effort to intimidate the Venezuelans for not supporting the Bush* regime.

[hiley]

3. yes

Pat Robertson is shameful and disgusting.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Guilty!

Lock him up in solitary confinement or better yet...send him to Gitmo. Seems to me his remarks are propaganda for terrorists (and I'm NOT joking). Wouldn't that make him an enemy combatant?

[whatever4]

7. I'm with you on that

Can't see how it doesn't violate, and he sure as heck could use a "cooling off" period in a secure facility. Where he can't do any more damage. Maybe answer some questions.

[Up2Late]

5. Hell Yeah!

He's no different than an Old bearded Islamic cleric calling for the assignation of a U.S. President, except that he's "Christian" and he doesn't have a Beard.

LOCK 'EM Up!

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

6. Ship Robertson and Rove off to Gitmo...

Put them in the same cell, and let them rot their sorry selves into oblivion.

[TankLV]

8. It's quite clear. He support assassinations. He said it.

He now denys it of course.

He actually denys he said the word "assassination" now!

Just like pig boy.

Damn these pesky recording machines!

[Desertrose]

9. Just take his *voice* off the airwaves.

No more "700 club" for you bucko.

No more getting to shoot your mouth off like your word is gospel (pun intended)

:evilgrin:

Write ABC family and tell them we want this lawbreaker off the air!!!

Terrorism under U.S. Law Title 18 Section 2331:

[berni_mccoy]

10. Wow, we've got 1 vote no...

Must be mechanical error.

[0007]

11. Would like to hear the reasoning from this "NO" vote poster.

[DerBeppo]

12. i voted no.

because i don't believe it is illegal to express an opinion, which is what Robertson did. i don't see the difference in saying "someone should assassinate Chavez" and all the re-evaluation of the government's no assassination policy in the lead up to the Iraq war when many analysts and commentators gave their opinion that assassinating Saddam would be a good idea.

well, the one difference is that no one was as eager to defend Saddam as they are Chavez.

[0007]

13. The difference between Saddam Hussein & Hugo Chavez

is as different as night and day. Chavez is an elected Democratic President as Saddam was a propped up dictator by the U.S. that wouldn't take any more shit from the U.S. and had out lived our purpose. So that logic is not quite right!

[DerBeppo]

15. really?

so because of their different paths to power, it is within the bounds of free speech to give an opinion about the assassination of one, but not the other?

that's exactly the problem with all of this "throw him in jail" hyperbole.

[0007]

16. hmmmm LOL!!



[applegrove]

14. Perhaps this is all to take the heat of Bush in Crawford. I hope it dies.

We already know Robertson is a bad christian. He loves power. And that makes him a bad conduit between "God" and people who rely on their deity.