X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:39:12 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject: Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >> 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".
And he defined Iran as a terrorist nation.  He never recinded it and it
still is defined as a terrorist nation.  Further, even though he wrote a
"Finding" at a later time, allowing him to sell arms to Iran, that doesn't
cut it, IMHO.
>
> 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.
My understanding is that these were US arms which may or may not have
been owned by Israel.  If they weren't owned by Israel, then obviously
we were involved in the shipping of the arms.  If they were owned by
Israel, they need express permission from us to sell them to anyone.
I think that they were our arms that were stored in Israel.
>
> >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?"
Have you read it?  (I don't ask that as a flame, I'm curious)
My understanding is that by having a government official beg people
for money for the contras, the law has been violated.
>
> >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.
As I stated before, (in versions 1 - 4), the reason that he came up with
'squat' (good word BTW!) was because the Reagan/Bush administrations did
all that they could to inhibit his investigations.
>
> >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?)
And was North charged with speeding?  No.  He was convicted with crimes
relating to the Iran/Contra mess/scandal.
>
> That's why I read laws when I have the time/interest.  It helps ferret
> out "experts" who didn't do their homework.
I think that that is admirable and I wish that I had the time to the
same thing.
>
> >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?
Who said that it had to be a law?  The president of the United States
calls you up and says "send these arms there.  You will be compensated".
What would you do?
>
> 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 think that to believe that you have to close you eyes.  Israel believed
that Iran was less dangerous than Iraq.  So they wanted to tilt the war
towards Iran.  They didn't need a lot of help to sell arms to Iran.  But
they did need our express permission and we forbade the selling of arms
to Iran and to Iraq.  Of course both countries were sold arms by us.
>
> >> 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.
The note is pretty clear.  You don't need to depend on interpretations
to understand it.
>
> 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.
This could be true.  But the note says, that Reagan said that given a
choice between doing something illegal and getting the hostages back and
not getting the hostages back, he would choose the illegal choice and he
believed that selling arms for hostages was illegal.
>
> -andy
> --
>

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU