Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day11

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Letting the Pat Out of the Bag

The Politics of Death: Assassination

by DIANE CHRISTIAN

The Politics of Death by assassination just got a boost from preacher Pat Robertson. He announced on August 22rd that the US should assassinate the duly-elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Speaking on his televangelical show which reportedly draws 3.4 million viewers, Robertson counseled that Chavez deserved assassination because Chavez had accused us of trying to topple and assassinate him. Robertson continued: "We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator." Robertson said Chavez was "a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil" in our sphere of influence, and was "leading his country into Communism and Muslim extremism," He noted: " we have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

Candor is Robertson’s single virtue here. Assassination has usually been a covert operation, publically denied. It has been a forbidden operation in the US for thirty years, requiring special Presidential permission. Many we’ve openly set out to assassinate, with presidents signing orders-Castro, Khadafi, bin Ladin-we’ve not killed. We smoked Hussein out of his hole alive but didn’t kill him. Though we murdered his sons and splayed them for the world to see, we just handled Hussein, fingering his cavities and hair and impounding his pistol to be given to President Bush as a war trophy. But Robertson blithely uttered the assassination politics which have driven much US policy, not just in the obvious parallel in Iraq, but in the Americas-making us bitterly hated as supporters of dictators, torturers, police squads, and murderers.

Several Christian preachers abjured Robertson’s call as unChristian. Chavez characterized it as terrorism. Our State Department called the remarks "inappropriate." Many suddenly saw extremist Muslim fatwahs in a new light. What exactly is the difference between Ayatollah Khomeni pronouncing assassination penalty on Salmon Rushdie for insulting Islam and Reverend Pat Robertson pronouncing assassination penalty on Hugo Chavez for criticizing the US?

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld dismissed the call, saying "Certainly it’s against the law. Our department doesn’t do that type of thing." (In this case he’s presumably not sending out for legal opinion that it’s all right for the commander-in-chief to assassinate at will in the war on terror-the tactic we took on international law, the Geneva conventions, torture and murder in the service of the war against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Robertson recanted. He first said he didn’t say what he said, then he said he just said our special forces should ‘take him out’ which ‘might mean many things including kidnapping.’ Then he retracted the call to assassination as wrong. Even the New York Times, characterizing him as a crackpot with friends in high places, wondered what would happen if a mullah called for the assassination of our President.

Robertson is a very dangerous crackpot-inciting hate and parlaying powerfully the political-religious base that currently influences US policy. But he seems to me a very useful crackpot too, because he reveals the cracked, crass, illegal, presumption of much American policy. To many he doesn’t seem an extremist fanatic but a kind of cowboy-mobster-vigilante ethic which passes for American toughness-one often rationalized in a skewed and vicious apocalyptic Christianity.

Assassination takes its name from a medieval Muslim secret terrorist sect which killed its political enemies as a religious duty. Assassination is still justified as a religious or nationalistic duty and it is currently used openly, justified in Israel and in many countries as war against terrorism or state threat. The move from violence to civil government is often embodied in leaders who abandon terrorist tactics to take legitimized political power. People often pointed to Rabin and Arafat as terrorists who became Prime Ministers.

Robertson reminds us that the urge to kill a political opponent flourishes and justifies itself. The remedy is not religious refinement (as in trying to get Christians and Muslims to follow peaceful ideals of their religions). It is in abandoning the tactic that permits or authorizes politics by death.

We and the world need to embrace a civil legal ethic which forswears killing. Politicians and preachers and people of all places need to bridle their lust to take people out, to be Dirty Harry, or God.

DIANE CHRISTIAN is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at University at Buffalo and author of the new book Blood Sacrifice. She can be reached at: engdc@acsu.buffalo.edu

CLARIFICATION

ALEXANDER COCKBURN, JEFFREY ST CLAIR, BECKY GRANT AND THE INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF JOURNALISTIC CLARITY, COUNTERPUNCH

We published an article entitled "A Saudiless Arabia" by Wayne Madsen dated October 22, 2002 (the "Article"), on the website of the Institute for the Advancement of Journalistic Clarity, CounterPunch, www.counterpunch.org (the "Website").

Although it was not our intention, counsel for Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi has advised us the Article suggests, or could be read as suggesting, that Mr Al Amoudi has funded, supported, or is in some way associated with, the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

We do not have any evidence connecting Mr Al Amoudi with terrorism.

As a result of an exchange of communications with Mr Al Amoudi’s lawyers, we have removed the Article from the Website.

We are pleased to clarify the position.

August 17, 2005