James Taranto yesterday lambasted Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, but did so by creating a rather tenuous moral connection between assassination and abortion.
We agree that Chavez is a menace, but give us a break. Religious conservatives argue (to take an example) that embryonic stem-cell research is wrong because the sanctity of nascent life is absolute and thus outweighs any possible benefits. But Robertson is willing to countenance assassination because it is "easier" and "cheaper" than other ways of bringing about a desired outcome? It goes to show that one can be religious without being morally serious.
That's basically the same non sequitur used to try to link abortion with the death penalty. Despite Mr. Taranto's assumption, most religious conservatives make clear distinctions between killing the innocent, killing the guilty, and killing the dangerous or threatening. I'm not saying I think we should assassinate anyone in particular, but if war against Venezuela were justified (which I have no opinion on, being uninformed about the matter), then assassinating Hugo Chavez, if his death alone would resolve the matter, would be a far better solution than ground combat. If we can kill soldiers, why should the lives of leaders be sacrosanct? Presidents aren't civilians in the traditional sense, because they have ultimate command authority over the military.
Update:
Francis W. Porretto says Chavez has earned a dirt nap:
Someone should thoroughly ventilate Hugo Chavez, without delay. Indeed, when I was young and hale, I would have volunteered to do it. The Venezuelan people are among the best folk in Latin America; they deserve to be free.
I agree. Robertson's statement should be bashed because it's insane, not because it's un-Christian.
The usual argument against assassinating hostile heads of state is that if a great power such as the U.S. declares it in play, then the potentates of our nation and others we generally approve of would no longer be safe. But they're not safe today, so I don't think the argument has much force.
If 'twere to be done at all, 'twere best done quickly.
X: I don't really know much about Venezuela. Is the idea of assassinating Chavez insane because V isn't really an enemy, or because killing him wouldn't accomplish anything, or because we couldn't do it, or why? Larry Kudlow thinks Venezuela is a danger, for whatever his opinion is worth.
FWP: Updated my post to link to yours.
Chavez is definitely no good guy; the question is whether he's enough of a threat to the U.S. to be worth taking out. I don't think he is, and even if I did think he was, it would still have been stooopid for Pat Robertson to make such a suggestion on national TV. Denying he made the statement two days later wasn't terribly bright, either.
This little kerfluffle over Roberts strikes me as odd. Most of those condemning him don't seem to know much about Venezuela or Chavez, so why are they so confident in announcing that Roberts is an idiot?
I'm with Michael: To have an interesting opinion on the merits of killing Chavez, you need to gather lots of facts and think through lots of questions. Most of the commentary on this story has nothing to do with Chavez. The only story here is that lots of ignorant people still enjoy beating up on someone who they know won't or can't fight back. But that hardly qualifies as news.