I’m not entirely sure what all this hub-bub is with Pat Robertson’s comments regarding “killing” Chavez. He explicitly said that he was opposed to the Ford-era Executive Order prohibiting assassinations. He then compared the assassination of Chavez to the costs of a military action in Venezuela. It seems pretty clear when he said “We have the ability to take him out” he was referring to the US Government and not the 700 Club rent-a-cops.

You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he [Chavez] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. … We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

I have long been a proponent of assassination over military intervention in cases where it makes sense. Robert Mugabe is a prime case of a foreign leader I’d love to see the US “take out”. And by take out I mean kill. His violation of property rights is about to cause a massive famine in Zimbabwe, which will lead to many more deaths.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050826.html