August 23, 2005

Pat Robertson is Right, Let's Kill Hugo Chavez

When I heard that Pat Robertson said that maybe we might want to assassinate Hugo Chavez, my first reaction was, Wow, did he say that out loud? You see, I think Pat Robertson is right, we really ought to assassinate Hugo Chavez. He said what a lot of us think all the time.

What makes Robertsons statememt foolish is not that it's a bad idea, but that Pat Robertson is a public figure. Since I don't really qualify as a public figure, I'll go ahead and second Robertsons motion. Hugo Chavez must die. While we're at it, I hope the CIA saves a bullet for Fidel Castro. No, I don't think the CIA will actually kill the pair, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Why is political assassination such a bad idea? Only those who view the world from an international law paradigm could make such a case. Political assassinations, it is argued, destabilize the international legal system. Besides, they say, if you begin to justify the political assassination of that two-bit dictator, what is to stop our enemies from justifying assassinating our President?

Good point. But

a) There is no such thing as an international legal system. International law is a fiction slightly less believable than the notion that Sasqatch communicates with a woman in a double-wide trailor on the edges of Boggy Creek, LA. Where there is no force there is no law. When the U.N. can begin to enforce its will, come back and then we'll talk. Just because you wish there was such a thing as international law does not make it so.

b) If you believe all nations are essentially equal, then you and I have a major disagreement. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. What is the difference, for instance, between the U.S. having a nuclear warhead and Iran? If you cannot see the difference between the U.S. and Iran than you are an idiot. Just because many in the world are blind to these differences, does not make the differences any less real.

This may sound simplistic, but we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. I want the good guys to prevail.

All nations are not equal and neither are their leaders. If you wish to put your faith in an international system which equivocates between the King of Denmark and the King of Saudi Arabia, be my guest. I don't buy it.

c) I am an American. Ultimately, what is good for America's national interest is the highest moral metric that I am interested in. This may not be a popular position to hold these days, but it is one that I believe in wholeheartedly. This does not mean that I wish national interest to trump moral concerns whenever the two are at odds, but some times what is in our interests must trump what is good. If you wish our leaders to always do the moral thing rather than the right thing, I suggest electing a slate of Buddhist monks to Congress.

Fortunately, I believe that what is usually in America's national interests is also what is usually moral. The spread of democracy, captalism, and liberalism are both moral and in our national interest.

I certainly don't wish to set aside America's national interests for the sake of some false sense of morality which rests upon the baseless equivocation the U.N. makes between nations and their leaders. If the U.S. could have taken out Saddam Hussein with a single bullet, breaking international law in the process, I would lose no sleep.

In the shootout at the O.K. Corral, which is the international stage, I, for one, root for Wyatt Earp to win. I really could care less that the Clantons and McLaurys were deputized: they were the bad guys. When the law begins to equivocate between the good and the bad, then that law has no legitimacy in my eyes.

So, if any policy makers are reading this post, and I doubt if they are, then do us all a favor and take out a few of our enemies. Only, if you do it right, make sure that it looks like another one of our enemies did it. If there's anything The Godfather taught me about life, it is that it is always a good thing to make one enemy look bad while taking out another one.

Oh, but keep your traps shut. Thinking, planning, and executing the political assassinations of America's enemies is not necessarily bad. Talking about it, though, is.

UPDATE: Jeff from The Shape of Days agrees. Check out his post in which he recounts the crimes of Hugo Chavez. Even though Jeff makes the claim to fame that he was first since he wrote his post eight ago, I'm going to have to remind you that my server was down. I thought this post up nine hours ago. I swear. No I can't prove it.......

UPDATE II: Brian B. makes an excellent point here.