From: michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:54:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.131123.16469@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>>
>>The money from the legal sales, moreover, belonged to the US government,
>>since it was government property that was being sold.  Sending this
>>money to the contras was illegal.  Furthermore, the Boland amendment
>>forbid all government departments or agencies from helping to fund the
>>contras.  The NSC, by any rational definition, was included in that ban.
>>
>>And you don't think that when the same group of people sell arms to one
>>country, then use the proceeds for another purpose, that the two things
>>are related?
>
>If I had $10,000 in a bank account that I was going to buy a car with, and
>I won $10,000 in the lottery and deposited it in the same bank account,
>and then bought the car, did I buy the car with the lottery winning?

Ah, according to the Justice Department you did.  If you deposit
10,000$ of drug money in a bank account, they can seize the entire
account, likewise any purchases made with money withdrawn from
the bank.  Scary, isn't it.  (How does that saying go, "A Civil
Libertarian is a Conservative who has been Indicted/had his
property seized...")
>Not really, since I was going to buy the car anyway.
>
>Same with the profits from the sale of arms to Iran. There was an account
>of funds going to the Contras already in existance. This account was used
>for a lot of other things as well. Did the funds from the arms sales go
>to the Contras? It can be argued both ways.

>Maybe Congress did not want funds going to the Contras, but the Executive
>did. Who decides foreign policy, anyway?

It sure as _HELL_ isn't some low level political appointee.  It isn't
"criminalizing policy difference", that oh so popular conservative
catch phrase, when _unauthorized_ executive branch officials secretly
set policy, conceal the existence of that policy, and spend money
in pursuit of that policy in direct contravention of Congress, which
has, in the Constitution, control over the purse.


Or maybe you'd like to defend them by saying such policy
usurption was *authorized*!  Who can authorize such a thing?
_ONLY_ the president.  Do you think the president would
authorize an unConstitutional executive usurption of Congressional
authority?  If this case were taken to the Supreme Court, not
even the Reagan-Bush toadies would get him off.

>Americans did not find this incident nearly as scandalous as the liberal media
>did. The constant barrage of the media has shaped public opinion somewhat (just
>as it has made Anita Hill a martyr when the real martyr is Judge Thomas) but
>Americans still don't think it is that much of a scandal.
>--
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
>
>


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"I resolve to make no non-tautological New Year's Resolutions!"