From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Greatest President Since Teddy Roosevelt
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:39:19 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul23.202237.8997@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]>]is you point being that reagan and his crew could cover-up things better
]>]than nixon? or is that the "i don't remember" excuse is more effective
]>]than having tapes?
]
]>My point is that Reagan and his crew did not violate the laws
]>(except for a couple of guys who covered something up). My point
]
]that is the stuff that really bothers me.  i don't like covering
]up.  be honest and say the buck stop here AND i remember, so what?
I don't like it either, but every administration has done it.
]
]>is that the business of laying minefields of laws for the administration,
]>some of which are contradictory, and then sending out prosecutors with
]
]hey, then why keep all the secrets?

(A) Political
(B) National Security. I believe that Iran Contra was a bad policy,
but the loud and furious disclosure made it worse.... it may be one
of the reasons that Saddam misjudged us, for example.

]
]>infinite budgets is wrong. Could YOUR life stand that kind of
]sure, but that's irrelavent.
No, it's terribly relevant. Turning loose a special prosecutor with
an infinite budget is just plain destructive.
]
]>scrutiny? Furthermore, the prosecution of people for political reasons
]>(and let's face it, that's what Iran Contra is all about), when those
]
]true, but that is just the wrong motivation for a proper investigation.
]things would be a lot clearer if casey hadn't died.
Huh?
]
]>people probably didn't violate any laws and were trying to do their
]>best for the country, is a recipe for disaster. I, for one, do not want
]>our executive branch peopled only by those who are so power hungry that
]>they are willing to risk prosecution, financial ruin, and public
]>ridicule in order to serve. I hope you are not so naive as to believe
]>that it is easy, or even possible, for an administration official to
]>obey all of the laws.
]
]if they didn't know it was wrong, why did they keep it secret?  because
]they didn't want everyone trying to trade arms for hostages?
Yes, that is probably one reason. Another is they probably didn't want
Saddam to know that they were helping the Iranians. Another is that
they probably didn't want to endanger their intelligence sources and
their Iranian contacts. There are lots of GOOD reasons to keep
covert operations covert - even misguided ones.


]>Oh, yeah, he really hid them. IN an exhibit in the library of congress.
]>Obviously a clever way to cover things up!
]
]they are there today and he has NOW given permission for the special 
]prosecuter to look at them.  but he still denied their existence to 
]the congressional investigation committee.  without his cover-up
]there may have been more convictions.
Right. They have been there quite a while. The special prosecutor
finally thought to ask for them, and Cap told him where to find them. Some
coverup.

]>]so much for the spirit of law:(  would you say that Al Capone just had 
]>]a little tax accounting problem?
]>What WAS the spirit of the Boland Amendments? Some versions allowed
]>aid to contras, others prohibited it under some circumstances. If
]>congress had wanted to prohibit the activities of North and others,
]>why didn't they write it down.
]
]do you mean expliticly say his name or the NSC or something else?
No, explicitely say what the limits wer.
]
]>The spirit of the Boland Amendment was to write a law that was murky
]>enough that it could be interpreted many different ways, and then
]>to use that as a snare to catch the administration with a different
]>interpretation. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that
]>those amendments were unconstitutional.
]
]maybe they should have tried that before subverting the law?
Tried what? The only way to deal with unconstitutional laws is to 
create a test case by violating them.

]>There is no evidence of that at all. Nixon was run out of office BEFORE
]>the special prosecutor law was written. Don't forget that congress has
]true, but only because he had those tapes and there was a high
]level informant.

So what? If Reagan hadn't blown the whistle on Iran Contra, there might
never have been a special prosecutor either.

]>the power to investigate the executive branch, and to bring impeachment
]at what level can they investigate?  i am ignorant on their powers.  
]can they do more than suppeona?  can they bust into offices and take
]records and tap phones and...

They can investigate. They can suppoena. They can demand records, and they
can hold in contempt those that don't provide them. They have a tremendous
amount of power. Furthermore, they can impeach with no investigation
whatsoever, and in fact with no valid charges.

]political pressure can only come to bear, when a "scandal" is made 
]public.  what citizens know what the CIA, FBI, NSC, or ??? are 
]doing?  someone has to be able to investigate the investigators.
And someone needs to hold the reins on the investigators of the
investigators, which is not being done with special prosecutors. Besides,
we shouldn't know everything those agencies are doing.
]
]>But the republicans did NOT hide Iran contra. When Reagan found out
]>what was going on, he immediately ordered a full disclosure. Ollie North's
]>shredding, etc, had taken place before that. Iran Contra was a stupid
]Ollie isn't a republican?  what ron knew and when he knew it aren't 
]even known to him (he says).  everyone involved was a republican.  it
]may not have been a party platform to carry out the policy, but the
]party members were a lot less determined to bring the facts to light. 

Oh good grief. A few operatives screwed up, so all of us republicans are
to blame. Give me a break.
] 
]>operation (ie, trading arms for hostages) but it was hardly what I
]>would consider a scandal. It pales in comparison with Lyndon Johnson's
]>many  misdeeds and JFK's election fraud. It pales in comparison with
]>Watergate, which ended the bipartisan practice of dirty tricks during
]>elections.
]then maybe some reform of office will come of the investigation.  

It would help to start by reforming congress so that they pass clear
laws rather than an elaborate snarl. I doubt much reform of office
will come of the investigation, since what basically happened was a 
couple of guys went out to lunch. These things happen. The only
way to prevent it would be to so hobble that government that it couldn't
do anything. We have come close to that already with covert operations
and HUMINT.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics