Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:27:52 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5

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

Nope - I'm quite serious.

>> 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.

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".

Note that if the arms sent were Israel's, they're the ones violating
the law if the president doesn't have the requisite authority.

>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.

Boland amendment.  It states that certain agencies can't send money.
It is silent about other agencies and doesn't bind people outside the
govt.  How does it apply to govt officials who say "I'd really like
you to send some money there?"

>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.

And, he came up with squat.

>If he came across other illegalities, relating to the above crimes,

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?)

>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

I've found that lawyers are just like the rest of us.  If they don't
know the specific details, they'll fill them in and tell us how things
would work given their details.  When the actual details differ, their
opinion isn't all that relevant.

That's why I read laws when I have the time/interest.  It helps ferret
out "experts" who didn't do their homework.

>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.

Where is this "our behest" law written down?

Note that they weren't our arms.  If they had been, then we're
entitled to the profits.  If we're unwilling to sell, we don't have
much of a beef when someone else does.  We can whine about the
Israelis' diverting arms, but that's not a crime committed by our
govt.

>> 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.

However, it agrees with what Weinburger says that that note actually
says, as opposed to Walsh's interpretations.

Weinburger claims that he didn't understand the details of the arms
export act at the time anyway.  (His "I think that's illegal"
statements have as much legal weight as mine.)  He says that his
"illegal" interpretation was based on his misunderstanding of the arms
control act and the president's authority.  (Remember what I wrote
about "experts" who don't know the details.  Weinburger's job wasn't
figuring out how to do things legally - it was figuring out what to
do.  They have underlings for the details.)  Maybe I'll dig up the
relevant sections.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics