X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 11:33:23 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

andy says,

> >> I didn't say that the president was exempt from the law.  I said that
> >> the president had approval authority.  For example, suppose that the
> >> law says that arms can't be sent to terrorist nations, but the
> >> president defines "terrorist nations".
> >And he defined Iran as a terrorist nation.  He never recinded it and it
> >still is defined as a terrorist nation.  Further, even though he wrote a
> >"Finding" at a later time, allowing him to sell arms to Iran, that doesn't
> >cut it, IMHO.
>
> I must have missed the "Ask Fisher his opinion" section of the Export
> Control Act.
Obviously you did. :-)
>
> Lots of things are authorized by presidential findings.  (No, they
> aren't the result of a court proceeding.)  Arguably delegating that
> authority to the president is as bad as Congress' other habit of
> delegating of authority to write regulations, but it is the law.
But is it? This finding happened _after_ the illegal activity.  Does that
make it legal?  Shouldn't that be something that the special prosecutor
looks into?
>
> >If they weren't owned by Israel, then obviously
> >we were involved in the shipping of the arms.
>
> It isn't obvious; shipping requires on physical possession, not legal
> ownership.
So if we own arms that are in stored in Israel, we tell Israel to
load them onto one of our transport planes and our people (McFarlane et al.)
get onto the plane and fly into a terrorist nation to sell them the
arms, this isn't shipping of arms?
>
> >Israel, they need express permission from us to sell them to anyone.
>
> That's seems to be SOP for US arms sold, but if the Israelis don't
> bother to get that permission, they're on the hook, not some US
> official.  (Now, if they think they have permission but they don't,
> things turn on why they think it.)
right.
>
> >My understanding is that by having a government official beg people
> >for money for the contras, the law has been violated.
>
> We'll have to see the text of the law.  I would be very surprised if
> it covered lobbying.
OK.  But don't you think that that is what the special prosecutor was
going to find out?
>
> >> And, he came up with squat.
> >As I stated before, (in versions 1 - 4), the reason that he came up with
> >'squat' (good word BTW!) was because the Reagan/Bush administrations did
> >all that they could to inhibit his investigations.
>
> All they could do?  (I can think of several things they could have
> done, and didn't do.)  Do we have evidence of illegal activity to
> inhibit investigations or are we just assuming that it happened.
That's what the special prosecutor was doing.  He had already convicted
a couple (more?) of people for "obstruction of justice".  Since Bush has
just announced that he had notes and Walsh has been asking him for notes
for years, I think that Bush should be put on trial for
"obstruction of justice".
>
> >> Were they related in any useful sense?  I'll bet that North speeds; if
> >> we're going with the "the same people" theory, shouldn't Walsh be out
> >> there with a radar gun too?  (Aren't detectors are illegal in VA?)
> >And was North charged with speeding?  No.  He was convicted with crimes
> >relating to the Iran/Contra mess/scandal.
>
> Where in the charge to the special prosecutor did it mention security
> systems or even gifts?  Remember - Walsh was supposedly looking for
> arms for hostages stuff.  We don't appoint special prosecutors to look
> into gift receipt.
No, that's true.  And if North's security system wasn't related to Iran/Contra,
Walsh wouldn't have worried about it.  The security system illustrated how
North profited by the transactions.
>
> The connection between North's conviction and the special prosecutor's
> charge is that North was involved.
>
> >> Where is this "our behest" law written down?
The question is what does violating the Arms Export Control Act mean?
That was for the special prosecutor to find out.

>
> >> >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.
>
> If they weren't our arms, why are we necessarily entitled to any
> profit on the deal?  (Sure, we may choose to make that a condition of
> permission, but where's the law that says that we have to do so?)
>
> >The president of the United States
> >calls you up and says "send these arms there.  You will be compensated".
> >What would you do?
>
> I ask "how much?"  If I don't like the answer, I don't do it.
>
> What law says that a president can't ask?
Could be the Arms Export Control Act?
That was what the special prosector was to find out.

> >Israel believed
> >that Iran was less dangerous than Iraq.  So they wanted to tilt the war
> >towards Iran.  They didn't need a lot of help to sell arms to Iran.
>
> In other words, they wanted to do it.  That makes them easy to convince.
> Is it against the law to try to convince them?
Let me more clear.  Apparently, according to stuff that I have read, Israel
was doing it's own selling of arms to Iran, in violation to our law. This
had nothing to do with Iran/Contra.

>
> >they did need our express permission and we forbade the selling of arms
> >to Iran and to Iraq.
>
> Except, we didn't actually forbid it.  It appears that the relevant
> law, the Export Arms Control Act, was obeyed.  Fisher thinks we should
> have forbidden it, but his opinion lacks standing.
I'm sure that it does.  But the opinion that doesn't lack standing were the
judges and juries that Walsh was going to bring people in front of, if
he had been allowed to do so.
>
> >> However, it agrees with what Weinburger says that that note actually
> >> says, as opposed to Walsh's interpretations.
> >The note is pretty clear.  You don't need to depend on interpretations
> >to understand it.
>
> I agree that it is pretty clear, which is why I think Walsh is
> stretching things quite a bit.
Which why I disagree with you.

>
> >This could be true.  But the note says, that Reagan said that given a
> >choice between doing something illegal and getting the hostages back and
> >not getting the hostages back, he would choose the illegal choice and he
> >believed that selling arms for hostages was illegal.
>
> So?  Is that a crime?
Is the fact that the president believed what he was doing was illegal a crime?
There's an interesting question.  I guess that it doesn't matter what the
president believed, if what he was doing wasn't a crime.  Although, maybe you
like your president to be doing illegal stuff, I don't.  But to answer the
question, is that a crime?
That's what the special prosecutor was to find out.
>
> -andy
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU