Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

Under US law, treason is defined as such:Treason-Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (1)For this debate, I seek to sufficiently prove that 40th POTUS Ronal Reagan was indeed guilty of treason following the Iran-Contra affair. This is to assume that the decision reached by the courts over the matter, were wrong in not convicting Reagan himself for the scandal. The Con may not say "Because the court found him innocent, he is innocent! " but rather may say, "For these reasons the court found him innocent, so he is innocent! " if he so chooses. The ScandalFrom '85 to '87"The Iran–Contra affair, also referred to as Irangate, Contragate or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that came to light in November 1986. During the Reagan administration, senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo. Some U. S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of several hostages and allow U. S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress. The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by a group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U. S. hostages. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages" (2)Summary-Iran was subject of an arms embargo-Further funding of Nicaraguan contras was banned by Boland Amendment-The Reagan Administration violated the arms embargo by providing iranians with arms, and violated the Boland Amendment by funding the ContrasReagan's Involvement"I want you to do whatever you have to do to help these people keep body and soul together. " - Ronald Reagan to National Security Advisor on Hostages"In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran. McFarlane explained that the sale of arms would not only improve U. S. relations with Iran, but might in turn lead to improved relations with Lebanon, increasing U. S. influence in the troubled Middle East. "(3)The actions that spurred the scandal were indeed approved by Reagan, even though he acted mostly with the safety of those hostages in mind. Reagan's approval of this action makes him a co-conspirator to commit treason, as he did knowlingly approve operations that violated an arms embargo, us law, and even his own campaign promises ( to never negotiate with terrorists). "Reagan, McFarlane and CIA director William Casey supported it. With the backing of the president, the plan progressed. By the time the sales were discovered, more than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released, only to be replaced with three more, in what Secretary of State George Shultz called "a hostage bazaar. "(3)With both the support and approval of Reagan, Iranian terrorists were being prompted to take more and more hostages to acquire thousands of missiles and other weaponry. The Coverup"When the Lebanese newspaper "Al-Shiraa" printed an exposé on the clandestine activities in November 1986, Reagan went on television and vehemently denied that any such operation had occurred. He retracted the statement a week later, insisting that the sale of weapons had not been an arms-for-hostages deal. "(3)Not only did he knowingly commit these treasonous acts, he then went on to knowlingly lie about them. First, he denied the operations existance, then he denied the truth of the matter. This is similar to Nixon's involvement with the watergate scandal (except Nixon didn't order the covert actions, only covered them up). Nixon was in the process of impeachment and conviction when he resigned as president and was later pardoned. Reagan is in a very similar situation to this, except he took the extra step further and actually aided in the premeditation and execution of the actions. (4)The Treasonous Actions of ReaganThe actions that Reagan took are treasonous because he, The President of the United States, knowingly approved and supported a foreign policy that A) Violated US law B) Violated an arms embargo against an enemy of America C) assissted terrorists that were taking US citizens as hostages. These are all acts that knowlingly gave aid to enemies of the United States, and therefore are acts of treason. Crime and Punishment Just because one who commits a crime is well known and loved does not mean that they are any less guilty of their crime. Just because one commits a crime with good intentions makes them no less guilty of that crime. For justice to be upheld, Reagan ought to have been convicted of treason and impeached, then, if his successor found his crimes forgivible due to his past actions and good intentions, he could be pardoned. Sources1. . http://www.law.cornell.edu...2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...3. . http://www.pbs.org...4. . http://www.history.com...;