From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Switching to LtCol. North (was Carter & BCCI)
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 15:20:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.230007.28422@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jul27.220259.25180@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
> 

[unimportant areas deleted]

> 	Please. $30M is a lot of money, but there is no need to exagerate.
> As I said, you may question the value of the investigation (many do), but
> at least there are some guilty parties. Even North, who finally managed
> to get his case overturned, was clearly guilty, it was congresses bungling
> of the investigation (by offering him immunity) that kept him out of jail.
> Norths boss was guilty enough that he killed himself over it, which says
> a whole lot.
> 
> 	There are very few accusations against Bush, and they are as 
> ungrounded as your accusations against Carter. That does not help your
> argument, it just reduces you to the leve of the people you critisize.
> 
> 					Alex Crain
>

No, it doesn't.  It shows how shallow the Democrats are by making a big stink
about Bush's alleged involvement in Iran-Contra/October Surprise while they
quickly go hush-hush about Clifford's real involvement and Carter's links to
BCCI.  Can you say "hypocrisy"?  I knew you could.  ;-) ;-)
 

Now, for something completely different.  Since you mention LtCol North (ret.)
I would like to bring up a couple of points concerning his involvement in 
Iran-Contra that has never recieved any (if at all) press.  REMEMBER, these
are my opinions and not the US Navy's, US Marine Corps, or any other
government agency or individuals.  It is also one of the few and biggest items
I disagree with Rush Limbaugh on.

First, I feel that Iran-Contra was one of the slickest political maneuvers
since FDR's Lense-Lend laws which allowed the US to be at war with Germany
but not actually declaring war.  It help get acouple hostages out of Labanon,
had the Iranians pay through the nose for spare parts & weapons that wasn't
going to affect the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, and help the Contras fight
Communism in Central America.

Second, LtCol North had no business as a military officer of being even
remotely connected to this operation.  Why?  Because as a military officer
we (and I am an officer in the Naval Reserves) take an oath of office to
defend the Constitution of the U.S. from all enemies, foriegn _or_ domestic.
Also, there is instituted civilian control of the military.  This should 
not be new to any of you on this net (I hope).  

With the passage of the Bolland Admendment (I believe this was the law passed 
by Congress which prohibited direct US aid to the Contras), it was clear that 
there was a foriegn policy dispute between Congress and the President.  The 
plan for the diversion of funds from the sales of weapons to Iran to the 
Contras was clearly developed to bypass the Bolland Admendment.  Whether the 
Bolland Admendment or the bypassing of it was each legal was not known by each
party (Congress and the President).  Thus, there definitely was a grey legal 
area dealing with the Contras.  Also, the violation of a US law is against the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Now, LtCol North is asked to run this 
diversion of funds through third parties so as not to supposidly violate the 
Bolland Admendment.  But, the operation COULD be in violation of US law.  The 
one thing I was taught in my officer training, if an order by a superior 
officer COULD BE ILLEGAL, you state your objections and refuse the order!!!!  

IMO, LtCol North knew that his following the President's order could be in
violation of the Bolland Admendment, but he was _such a patriot_ that he 
_knew_ that Congress was wrong!  He also knew that it was not the job of the
NSC to run a covert operation.  Thus, North became the judge and jury
and decided that the President's policy of aid to the Contras was more 
important than any law Congress could pass to prevent aid to the Contras.
He decided that it was more important to potentially violate a US law 
AND THIS IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND THE UCMJ!!!!!!  To 
me, this is a very, very dangerous predicent for a military officer to set.
 
In conclusion, to me LtCol North is not a hero, but a dangerous man to have
wearing the uniform of an US Military Officer.  North should have been 
prosecuted for violation of the UCMJ by bring discredit to the armed forces 
of the United States.  His lack of sound judgement during this affair is the 
main reason I believe he "retired" (i.e. the Marine Corps told him he better 
get out or else).

I am sure some interesting comments will follow from Mr. Crain and others.

Yours truly,
Don Palmrose







========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh