From: mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us (Matthew Staben)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:23:38 GMT
Organization: Waffle BBS at CompuTech Spokane, Washington

csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

[Wiretapping digression deleted]
> >>And what was so feloneous about the "Iran-Contra" affair (as if one
> >>hand some direct connection with the other. NOT).
> >
> >The first shipment of arms to Iran came before Reagan signed the finding
> >authorizing it.  That was illegal, because Iran was officially on the
> >terrorist nation list and sending weapons to them was illegal.
> >
> >The money from the legal sales, moreover, belonged to the US government,
> >since it was government property that was being sold.  Sending this
> >money to the contras was illegal.  Furthermore, the Boland amendment
> >forbid all government departments or agencies from helping to fund the
> >contras.  The NSC, by any rational definition, was included in that ban.
> >
> >And you don't think that when the same group of people sell arms to one
> >country, then use the proceeds for another purpose, that the two things
> >are related?
> 
> If I had $10,000 in a bank account that I was going to buy a car with, and
> I won $10,000 in the lottery and deposited it in the same bank account,
> and then bought the car, did I buy the car with the lottery winning?
> 
> Not really, since I was going to buy the car anyway.
> 
> Same with the profits from the sale of arms to Iran. There was an account
> of funds going to the Contras already in existance. This account was used
> for a lot of other things as well. Did the funds from the arms sales go
> to the Contras? It can be argued both ways.
> 
> Maybe selling arms to Iran was bad policy. But was it criminal? Did nothing
> good come from it?
> 
> Maybe Congress did not want funds going to the Contras, but the Executive
> did. Who decides foreign policy, anyway?
> 
> Americans did not find this incident nearly as scandalous as the liberal medi
> did. The constant barrage of the media has shaped public opinion somewhat (ju
> as it has made Anita Hill a martyr when the real martyr is Judge Thomas) but
> Americans still don't think it is that much of a scandal.
 
Craig, 
 
Its fools such as yourself who ~allow~ this behind-the-scenes bullshit to 
occur - after all - if a 18-wheeler is bearing down on you - better get 
the hell out of the way!  Naturally, the public inertia is required to 
counter the behemoth which we call our government.  
 
To put it into perspective; Reagan was a Hollywood Jerk, who got to play 
the biggest role of all time - and by god - he didn't let the opportunity 
to pass him by.  Who else in this world obtains as much power as the 
President; an office which commands respect derived from the 
"red-button-access."  Reagan - with all this new-found power, used it to 
conduct illegal, covert operations, spending ~my~ money to finance death 
squads killing hundreds of "communist civilians."  ** And you support it! 
It really isn't all that bad! **  
 
Witch hunters such as yourself (along with Nixon, Reagan) should be 
placed in a holding-cell with your hero, Leonid Brehznev.
 
> Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)


mstaben@comtch.spk.wa.us
 
[Made in America]
Newsgroups: misc.legal