HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      human animal?
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:30:21 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <9212211406.AA12592@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,         
Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes:

> "Homosexuality" is not. I cannot accept this. I accept that such people
> exist, but do *NOT* want to one as a friend, mate, employee, employer.
> 
> Do you catch my point of view?

Other than not wanting a homosexual as a mate, no I don't catch your point of
view.  Why don't you want one as a friend, employee, or employer?  Why do you
care?
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: ERICCA
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:58:40 -0500
From:         "ERICCA@rcnvms.rcn.mass.edu" <ERICCA@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Queens contorversey yet again...
Comments: To: politics%ucf1vm.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

In a previous article, Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>Message sent: 22 Dec 1992 15:33:31 -0800.

[some stuff deleted]
>>Just to add some fuel to the fire, an attracive person comes into the
>>dealership and the dealer, on the spot offers them a price reduction;
>>should the dealer be able to deny you the right to purchase a
>>Ferrari at the customary price? Should someone who sells/rents
>>housing be allowed to deny you the right/charge you a significantly
>>higher price based upon your appearance?

>
>Sure.  After all, I'm using similar criteria when deciding to buy that
>Ferrari.  I'm using similar criteria when I'm deciding what housing to
>buy/rent.  So does EVERYONE.  It isn't a problem, yet it has exactly
>the same effects as the "evil" discrimination that offends O'Andy.
>Sauce for the goose....

        Not exactly. I don't think the house or the car
        (even if it *is* a Ferrari :-) ) care too much
        that they are being passed over. People tend
        to be more sensative to these kind of slights. It
        can affect their quality of life. Hell, it could
        affect the "discriminators" quality of life, too.
        They could miss living near someone very special and
        as for the car salesperson, I would say they are
        gambling with a hefty commission.

>>O'Andy
>-andy
        -other ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:23:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the spirit of xmas
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

 Sometime fred said :

>The real meaning of christmas, to those of us not affiliated with an
>organized religion, is to help out those less fortunate then ourselves.

>It seems to me that private organizations do a much better job of
>distributing items to the needy than the government does. How about if
>we dump all of our welfare programs and make helping those less
>fortunate strictly a matter of conscience?

        Same old tired wish... Try to read some history. Try to look at
places like the Philippines, El Salvador, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Almost 3/4ths of humanity are "less fortunate than ourselves". Why do you
think the welfare program in a rich nation was necessary in the first
place?

  -Ramon
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Pardon me. No, pardon me!
Date: 31 Dec 1992 14:16 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GSYWWHJFOY001J1X@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>,        
 The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU> writes...
>        Bush could always resign and let President Quayle :D pardon him.  Boy
>would that mess up the people who have already engraved 42nd President on the
>Clinton collector's plates.
>:)
> 
>        Then Quayle could resign and let President Baker pardon him and....
> 
>        The Republicans could then claim a string of N+1 presidents in a row
>:D.

Flaw in your logic:  Foley is next in line, not Baker.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:44:36 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
>         Clinton gave Gennifer Flowers a post that a black woman (who had been
> working in that organization for years) was supposed to get.
>         Of course, since his affair(s) are "no big deal", the press didn't
 give
> that any coverage.
>
> Brett'
>
How did you find out about it?

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:12:13 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      why gold - creative government
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Jimbo tries to help Caius and explains:

>But the government is creative.  And so long as they regulate (for
>example) the reserve requirement, they can still control the money
>supply.  And I'll bet that they could think up mechanisms other than
>that to manipulate the money supply, even if gold were used as money.

I always considered gold standard to be first step      to abolishing
reserve requirements. Otherwise it wouldn't be worth the effort.

Yes the government is creative, but the less place it have to use it
creative function, the less harm to the economy.

Do we have give up, just because gov't is creative?


>The gold standard would not achieve the effects intended by those
>who advocate it.  And there are some serious drawbacks to the whole
>idea.

What are they? Could you explain? The gold standard is not the best solution
possible, but it is virtually free from governmaent interference.

>The idea goes as follows: no one really understands very well what
>the overall effects of messing around with the money supply are
>over the long haul,

I think, Hayek (and the Austrian school) understood that. I don't,
but he is convincing.


Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:01:52 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Marrou
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>In article <9212181802.AA13880@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,
>   Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>>What is the political and economical program of Marrou? I've heard he had
>taken
>>part in all 50 states elections and had been ignored by the media.
>
>He was the Libertarian candidate, and that pretty much sums up his platform.
>If I had a copy of the Oregon voter's guide, I'd upload his statement.
>
>The reason Libertarians aren't taken seriously is that just about the only
>place they attract a large constituency is Alaska, and they don't have $3
>billion like Perot.

        The Libs strongest showings are in New Hampshire, where 4 state Reps
are Libertarians.

        Lib candidates received strong showings in various states, including
the western ones.  A libertarian candiate may also be seated in Nevada if she
can prove the local Dem. rigged the election.

        The presidential candidate, however, only got 3/10 of a percent of the
total vote, the main reason why the press ignores the presidential campaign.
In 1980, the Lib. candidate got 1% (or a million) votes.  So far that's the
high point of the Lib. presidential runs.

        It's not surprising that Libs get there strongest support in a state
with a motto like "Live Free or Die".  They are currently battling Mass.
transplants who want to impose state and sales taxes on the populace :).

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 09:42:02 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech
              23 Dec 1992 14:35:54 GMT from <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>

On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:35:54 GMT james p mcbride said:
>On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:40:44 CST rufus t. firefly said:
>>
>>> I am in favor of freedom of speech for Nazis, Stalinists, cat-torturers,
>>> Rush Limbaugh, fast food restaurants, Freudians, Libertarians,
>>> Alabamans, and every other odious ideologue I can think of.
>>>
>>> Wow. Controversial, huh?
>>>
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>
>>  i'm in favor of freedom of speech for all of the above, plus nambla,
>>holocaust revisionists, and straight white republican males. so there.
>>
>>rtf
>
>I'm in favour of freedom of spelling for all of those, plus people who
>spell color, favor, etc, with a 'u', ie, colour, favour, labour, etc.
>
>top that

What is this:  King of the Mountain?

>james

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:35:30 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

CCHILD,

     So, I presume you are going to be fervent in your support of
freedom of speech and assembly, and support the right of the PRO-LIFE
groups to assemble around abortion clinics and verbally SAY whatever
they want to to the people going in for an abortion.  It would seem
that they have the right to such forms of protest.  As for your analogy
to picketing churches, you obviously haven't been paying attention to
the news.  These AIDS radical activists have been disrupting services
and protesting INSIDE St. patrick's Cathedral throughout the past year.
 In fact, that would be the legal equivalent of pro-life activists
protesting INSIDE abortion clinics, and disrupting the performance of
the abortions themselves.  Lets be a little consistent sir.

Make up your mind.  Does Howard Stern have freedom of speech because
you like him?  And pro-life groups do not because you do not like their
speech?  Do AIDS activists have the right to disrupt church services
INSIDE a church? and Pro-Life activists do not have the right to
assemble and protest OUTSIDE a clinic???  Please try to be consistent.
It really isn't asking too much.

Doctor Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:25:57 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: what makes a good parent?

Could we get real here? What's the authority for the statement that
heterosexual couples do, in general, make better parents?
(Personal to Uncle Ernie: don't stay in the kitchen if you
can't stand the heat)
MWM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:56:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      freedom of speech poker
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Jamie:
>Let's have a contest.
>Who can be MORE in favor of freedom of speech for those with whom
>you disagree?
>I'll go first. (oops, too late for that.)
>I am in favor of freedom of speech for Nazis, Stalinists, cat-torturers,
>Rush Limbaugh, fast food restaurants, Freudians, Libertarians,
>Alabamans, and every other odious ideologue I can think of.

Oh yeah?  Well, I'll see your ideologues, and favor speech for any
other organism I don't like, even ones without any sort of vocal
apparatus whatsoever!  Ha ha!

>Jamie

BTW: Tim..."dooooh!"  Whine list, indeed...:)  Not a very good year, if
I do say so myself...

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:19:36 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: gay cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Gays are the only minority that a president can ignore without getting
> into trouble. I think it's disgusting.
>
> Sam.
>
It could also be that there aren't any or maybe very few openly gay
people who are qualified for cabinet positions.

Do you know of any?

Jonathan
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,soc.culture.usa
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:59:19 GMT

In article <92322.1411262893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu bit.listserv.politics:20765 soc.culture.usa:9756
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!2893684
>Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
>Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:11:26 EST
>From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
>Message-ID: <92322.1411262893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,soc.culture.usa
>Subject: Reagan dodged the draft!
>Lines: 7
>   There has been talk of whether Clinton is compotent to lead the Armed Forces
> as he is a "draft dodger". Clinton used legal loopholes to avoid fighting in
>a war he opposed. Dan Quayle used legal loopholes to avoid fighting in a war
>he supported. Ronald Reagan used a legal loophole (acting in war movies, an
>"essential service") to avoid the draft in World War II yet the people
> complaining about Clinton had no objection to Reagan's fitness to lead the
>military or send people into battle. How odd.

Possible because the Hollywood studios managed to get thier entire industry 
declared a defense industry. Most of them did war work.

Slick Willie just hid.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:43:25 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Original Intent

>From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

>Jamie,
>
>Could you please explain what you mean up there.

Yes, but not on the list.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:13:03 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: why gold
              21 Dec 1992 15:08:11 GMT from <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>

On Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:08:11 GMT Dunstan_Vavasour said:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:52:31 GMT Dunstan_Vavasour said:
>>>
>>>
>>>BTW, if I was to take up the Bank of England on their statement "I
>>>promise to pay Bearer on demand the sum of five pounds", what would
>>>they give me ?
>>
>>
>>
>>Umm.....five pounds, I think.
>>
>>james
>
>What, just a different five pound note which says the same thing ?
>

Yup.  It was a question on 'How' (British Childrens tv programme from the
1970s) once, and I for one would never doubt Fred Dinage's word.

>D

james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: ERICCA
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 10:02:03 -0500
From:         "ERICCA@rcnvms.rcn.mass.edu" <ERICCA@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: politics%ucf1vm.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

In a previous article, BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG wrote:
>Message sent: 24 Dec 1992 12:51:29 +0100.
>
>other Ellen:
>>Correct me if I'm wrong (you seem to have more
>>information on this group than some others)
[stuff deleted]
>
>Please don't suggest that I have something to do with that group.
>I know about it only though american newspapers and magazines that
>I can get here in Germany. I came out a bit too forcefully in
[stuff deleted]

        I wasn't suggesting that and I'm sorry that
        you interpreted it that way. I know some things
        about the KKK but that hardly means that I'm a
        member or even that I agree with their views.
        You know some things about NAMBLA. In my mind
        at least, that doesn't have to mean that you
        are member and/or agree with their philosphy.

>
>Sam.

        -other Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:08:28 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5

>Maybe Reagan kept him in the dark, but if you aren't talking to your
>defense secretary about arms shipments....

What?  Is keeping your defense secretary in the dark about arms
shipments a crime?  (Are they necessarily relevant to defense?)

>But that's what the independent prosecutor was supposed to find out.

Really?  I thought he was supposed to investigate criminal activity.
What's the crime here?  (I've asked that before.)

>I guess that I am just ticked that in actual fact no justice was done.

Yet, we don't seem to have any illegal acts requiring "justice".

>I hope that Clinton and his people can find these files, declassify
>them and at least embarrass the Reagan/Bush people.

The rule of law is generally considered a good thing, although we see
that "revolutionary law" also has its fans.

Note that embarrassing someone is rarely illegal, but it sure opens up
the tit for tat game....  Maybe I'll remember this comment when the
passport file investigation gets going.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:31:55 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      defense of toleration, ad nauseum

From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>

>Jamie,

>I hardly think that people defending free speech is "nauseating."

That's interesting. I do. In some contexts.
But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps LISTS.POLITICS is a mutual
backpatting society.

I think James McB takes the prize, by the way. Honorable mention
for both Rufus and Gary. Colour. Advertize. Thppppp.

>Would some charts and graphs make you happy?

Oh, heavens, no. You mean facts? No, let's not let any
facts intervene in our comfortable consensus.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 12:43:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      well, pardon me!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hey ho, everyone.  Lots of new developments over the weekend.  Fred touched on
the downing of the Iraqi jet fighter, Bush has increased the volume of saber-
rattling against Serbia, and, in a striking Iran-Contra development, pardoned
six officials, including Caspar Weinberger, Alan Fiers, and Clair George.

The pardons strike me as a very interesting move.  Clearly, the intention was
to lay the Iran-Contra scandal to rest, and Bush was willing to take some flak
to do that, now that he doesn't have to worry about polls and elections.  The
revelation that Bush himself took careful notes on Iran Contra, dating from
when it went public, combined with the pardons, has focused attention on
Bush's role again.  The late revealing of the notes will no doubt breathe new
life into the investigation, and Bush's reluctance to hand over the notes
gives a certain deja vu feeling (burn the tapes, george! burn the tapes!).

Thoughts, comments, snide attacks on the special prosecutor?

Gary W. Olson
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:04:58 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

andy asks, (tongue in cheek, I'll bet!),

> I forget - what exactly is the "crime" we're dealing with here?
Here are my ideas on the laws which were broken:
Arms Export Control Act.  This law, I believe, says that the US cannot
send arms to nations identified as terrorist nations.  I believe that
the President is not exempt from this law as andy states below.
Borland Act.  I think that I have the name wrong.  This law states that
the US is not to fund the contras.  Money from the arms sales went to
the Contras.  Money solicited by high-level US officials from other
countries went to the contras.  I believe both to be illegal.
There are probably others, which I don't know.
>
> We don't appoint special prosecutors to go after people who accept
> improper gifts.  We don't appoint special prosecutors to go after
> people who lie to congress.  Therefore, Walsh was obviously tasked
> with searching out some other activity?  What was that activity?
Officially, I don't know.  But Walsh was appointed by the Attorney General
to investigate specific actions relating to selling arms to Iran and
sending monies to the contras.  If he came across other illegalities,
relating to the above crimes, in the meantime, I am sure that he was within
his powers to prosecute.
>
> Was "arms for hostages" illegal?  I've loaned out my copy of the arms
> export laws, but I "remember" that they let the president authorize
> "guns" for anyone for any reason he sees fit.  If there's US money
> involved, then Congress comes in, but if they aren't our "guns" to
> begin with, then the only liable party is a foreign govt which may, or
> may not, be breaking a "you won't ship these things to someone else"
> agreement.  I suppose we might have a suborning perjury/contract
> violation case, but ....
I'm not a lawyer.  I'm not an expert on the laws relating to this
"problem".  However, based on experts that I have heard, the president
was not exempt for the above named law.  Further, even though it was
an ally that actually sent the arms to Iran, it was at our behest.
Since the arms were sold for an outrageous amount, the extra monies
should have been deposited into our treasury, not in various peoples
pockets.
>
> I note that Weinburger says his notes say that he disagreed with
> improving the relationship with Iran, that he didn't make an arms for
> hostage connection at the time.  Later, when he did, he objected to
> it, but claims that it wasn't illegal, just bad policy.
>
This contradicts a widely-publized note which Weinberger wrote after
a meeting with the president, which I detailed in a previous post.
To summarize it, Weinberger told the president that selling arms
to Iran was illegal and the president said that he realized this
but he wanted to get out the hostages.

> -andy
> --
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU