From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush pardons....
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:44:41 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Dec30.164842.11415@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes: 
> In article <1992Dec29.100820.404@hsh.com> , paul@hsh.com writes:

>>What laws had those six men been accused of breaking?
> 
> Lying to the congressional commitees, violating a congressional mandate,
> ....
> 
>>Hint: some of them aren't crimes at all. 
> 
> The last time I heard, perjury was a crime.

Come now, Norman.  I said *some* of them aren't crimes.  And, as you seem to 
be better informed than most here, do you know the difference between 
"withholding information" (the actual charge) with "lying to Congress" (the 
liberal interpretation)?  The former is *not* a crime; if you think about it, 
you'll see it cannot be, unless you are willing to scrap the First and Fifth
Amendments. 

>>Were ANY of the six accused of doing ANYthing illegal in connection with
>>the arms sales to Iran, or with getting that money to the Contras?
> 
> Yes, they are accused of selling arms to a country for which we had
> national policies forbiding such a sale. They did so without any kind
> of congressional approval.

WRONG.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  No wonder the noise level in this thread is so
high; nobody knows what the hell is actually going on.  Look up the _actual_
charges against the six men, then get back to me.  Hint: you'll find NO
charges against the six regarding the Arms Export Control Act or the Boland
Amendments -- NONE. 

>>But, to hear Walsh (and others) foaming at the mouth, that obviously 
>>doesn't matter at this point. Heads must be taken, hides must be
>>displayed on the wall. 
> 
> Oh, you mean Walsh the conservative Republican.... The next thing you'll
> be telling me he was a liberal infiltrator.

Let us scrap this myth once and for all.  Leaving aside the insidious 
inference that a Rep cannot possibly investigate a fellow Rep (may we thus
assume the same about Dems?), let us get this clear: Walsh is NOT running the
show; he's a figurehead, a mouthpiece.  His second-in-command, James
Brosnahan, is running the show -- and he is a devout, liberal, Democrat. 

>>The "message" being heard loud & clear is the one Congress is
>>sending to any foolish (Republican) mortal who dares oppose them.
> 
> The message is that Congress will not allow the Executive branch to
> violate the constitution. You know, that little document that defines
> a system of checks and balances to keep arrogant individuals like
> Ronald Reagan from doing anything he pleases....

In light of the ACTUAL charges leveled -- and unfortunately for your argument
-- this is not about upholding the Constitution.  It's about criminalizing
policy differences, about persecuting the opposition party instead of openly
debating their differences. 

>>Their message is, don't cross us.  If you dare to disagree with our way 
>>of running foreign policy, we will bury you.  Somewhere, sometime, 
>>you must have committed SOME crime we can bury you with.
> 
> You don't get it do you....  Congress is 1/3 of our ELECTED federal
> government
> and has well defined responsibilities. One of them is to act as a check on
> executive actions. Reagan had been arrogantly circumventing his
> responsibility to inform Congress on many matters. With this particular
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> action he crossed the line.

Yes, I "get it" -- I fear that you do not.  Neither the Arms Export Control 
Act nor the Boland Amendments (any of several) were _criminal_ laws, a fact 
which the partisans conveniently overlook.  The Boland Acts may well be
unconstitutional intrusions into Executive powers.  And Reagan's
"responsibility to inform Congress" was mandated by a law which -- if Reagan
had had the guts to fight it -- would very likely have been found
unconstitutional.  Never mind the fact that Congress has never been known to 
keep a secret for more than the time it takes to leak one.

> Chew on this one Paul... If these guys were innocent, why were they
> pardoned?

To prevent them from being ruined by an obsessive persecutor, who would 
cheerfully have bankrupted them in his search for "justice."  Chew on this 
one, Norm:  if they were guilty of the major charges -- selling arms to Iran, 
or sending money to the Contras -- WHY WEREN'T THEY CHARGED with these 
crimes?  With unlimited time and unlimited power, surely Walsh & Co should 
have been able to convict them.  

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann (paul@hsh.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush