From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: THE OCTOBER SUPRISE: "Probes and Possibilities" (1)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:29:50 GMT

THE OCTOBER SUPRISE: "Probes and Possibilities" (1)


    "I am appalled at the lack of interest in Congress. You would 
    think they would immediately convene an investigation, or at least 
    name a commission. This issue should bring down the Bush 
    presidency." 

    "Part of the beauty of this is that none of the key players were 
    in government at the time" says Weinglass. "So George Bush could 
    be compelled to testify under oath, because these alleged crimes 
    occurred at a time when he held no office." 

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

                    ============================= 
                    T H E   F I R S T   S T O N E 
                    ============================= 
                           By Joel Bleifuss 
                [In These Times, May 1-7, 1991, page 4] 


=============================================== 
P r o b e s   a n d   p o s s i b i l i t i e s  
=============================================== 

The 1984 Reagan-Bush campaign's arms-for-hostages deal with 
Iran is still in the news. But as the scandal smolders, what next? 
Will it be smothered by the calculated indifference of a national 
media that is most in its element quantifying the frequent-flyer 
miles of Chief of Staff John Sununu? (He is, after all, a smoking 
top gun.) Or will this decade-old tale of treason ignite a wildfire 
of righteous indignation, ensuring that Bush's will be a one-term 
presidency? At the moment, that may seem farfetched, but two 
weeks ago, when the Frontline special titled "An Election Held 
Hostage" aired, 5 percent of all U.S. TVs were tuned in to 
Frontline. Millions now know of the deal. 

SPECIALLY PROSECUTED: Clearly, Iran-contra Independent Coun- 
sel Lawrence Walsh could look into the matter. In December 1986 
the Washington, D.C., circuit court instructed Walsh "to investi- 
gate and, if warranted, to prosecute alleged violations of federal 
criminal laws by lt. Col. Oliver L. North, other U.S. government 
officials, or other individuals acting in concert with lt. Col. North 
or with other U.S. government officials, from in or around January 
1985 (the exact date being unknown) to the present, in connec- 
tion with the sale or shipment of military arms to Iran and the 
transfer or diversion of funds realized in connection with such 
sale or shipment." The court's use of the temporal preposition "in 
or around" and the inclusion of the subsequent parenthetical 
clause, indicate that U.S. arms illegally traded to Iran in 1981 
would fall under Walsh's purview. 

Will Walsh investigate? Sam Witucki, deputy press officer at the 
independent counsel's office, said: "We can neither confirm nor 
deny that." She did say that the office had received a lot of ques- 
tions on the subject, and she faxed me the documents that laid 
out Walsh's mandate. (If you have an opinion on the matter, the 
independent counsel's phone number is (202) 383-8940.) 

But wouldn't it be more appropriate for Congress to open up a 
full-scale investigation? Despite the flaws of its Iran-contra in- 
quiry, those hearings exposed more of that scandal than the 
lackluster non-partisan Tower Commission. 

AN INQUIRING CONGRESS: Frank Askin, a Rutgers law professor, 
is counsel to the House subcommittee on criminal justice chaired 
by Rep. John Conyers (D - MI,). In 1988, Askin, in his work with the 
committee, investigated charges that such a deal was made. In 
the fall of that year, he told me, "My personal opinion? Things 
were going on in high places. I think there is a significant amount 
of circumstantial evidence that indicates some representatives of 
the Reagan-Bush 1980 campaign were having secret negotiations 
with Iranian officials regarding the hostages. There is enough 
circumstantial evidence and [the alleged deal] is so important 
that it is certainly worthy of investigation. Who should do that in- 
vestigation? At least the historians and journalists." 

Well, journalists have investigated. It is now time for Congress 
to take up the matter. But will it ? Last week Askin said, "The 
issue [of he 1980 deal] has been mentioned but there is nothing 
formally going on at this moment." (If you think Congress should 
investigate the alleged deal, the House Judiciary Committee can 
be reached at (202) 225-3951.) 

LEGAL OPTIONS: In the fall of 188, New York attorney Leonard 
Weinglass also talked with former hostages about bringing suit 
against those Americans who allegedly made the deal with Iran. 

"The lawsuit never went ahead," says Weinglass.."But I won't 
say the issue is dead. And now with the renewed interest, there 
may be a second look at litigation." 

According to Weinglass, the ideal forum to air the issue would   
be congressional hearings. But he is not sure Congress has either 
the nerve or the verve. "I am appalled at the lack of interest in 
Congress. You would think they would immediately convene an       
investigation, or at least name a commission. This issue should   
bring down the Bush presidency. But there isn't a spark of in-    
terest in the moribund Democratic Party, which lost the presi-    
dency as a result of this conspiracy." he says. "For all of its weak-  
nesses, the only viable vehicle for getting at this and to educate     
the country is a congressional hearing. Granted, Congress              
dropped the ball in Iran-contra, but you have to remember that         
Congress was limited by the North prosecution. I would prefer to       
think in terms of the Watergate hearings that were more open-          
ended." 
                     
Even if Congress fails to pick up the issue, the layers won't 
"Part of the beauty of this is that none of the key players were in    
government at the time" says Weinglass. "So George Bush could 
be compelled to testify under oath, because these alleged crimes 
occurred at a time when he held no office." 


                        ===================== 
                        ( C o n t i n u e d ) 
                        ===================== 


Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive