From: bill@bcserv.wustl.edu (Eldridge (Bill))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:55:12 GMT
Organization: Washington University in Saint Louis, MO USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bcserv.wustl.edu

jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>> reasons.  There was no Natl security at stake here.  

>I disagree.  National security was as stake here, to some degree.
>Certainly those involved thought so.  I don't think Weinberger
>refused to tell all to Congress for personal reasons, but
>because he felt that national security was involved. We may
>disagree with whether it really was in this case, but I think
>Weinberger certainly thought so.

I would agree.  It was over national security, and whether
one's own view of that security should be imposed against
the rules and the opposition according to your conscience.
If these people wanted to make money or get more power, they
surely had better methods than this.


>The problem many of these folks face is that they are torn
>by conflicting requirements: on one side, they are sworn to
>secrecy involving various national policy issues, on the other
>they are asked by Congress to testify publicly involving those
>same matters they swore under oath NOT to discuss.

Granted Congress is often a security hole, but the only reason
these issues were secret when reporting to congress (long after
the trade) is because laws were violated.  Weinberger lied about
his notes to protect Reagan and Bush from charges of ordering
an illegal transfer, not to protect key secrets from leaking
to foreign powers.  The Iranians and the Contras (and the 
Sandinistas) knew everything.  It was only the American public
which was kept stupid.

>I don't know that there is an easy solution to this, but certainly
>it is NOT to do things the way we do them now.  Perhaps what we
>need is a small, bipartisan committee that can first hold 
>closed hearings and interveiw folks like Weinberger; then, they
>can together make a statement on what happened after deciding if
>it should be secret or not.  A major problem with the current
>system is the folks involved are asked to divulge secret information
>in front of TV cameras: there is no chance to talk it out
>first to see if it really is appropriate to talk about in such
>a public forum.

Just as Reagan wouldn't allow secret documents to be used at
North's trial, I don't think there's such difficulty in saying
"that information is classified, and I am unable to divulge
it except through proper channels for classified information."
No court would find this as contempt, unless it was blatantly
false.  The point is that the Reagan Administration denied that
any of this happened with approval, not that it happened, and
everyone knew that Reagan had ordered it, but he successfully
stalled the investigators for seven years. 

And it looks like Bush is off the hook now too, since it appears
Walsh failed to make a formal legally binding request for all
his notes.

If this is true, then Iran-contra is finished, and we should just
learn from the mistakes for next time.

If Bush is prosecutable, Walsh should follow it to the end.

>I disagree.  Watergate involved Nixon and crew trying to enhance
>their own personal power.  Irangate involved group of
>officials trying to further foreign policy.

But they were trying to enhance their own political power,
which for politicians is often close to personal power.
Reagan was fighting for a free hand to invoke his political
will as he deemed fit, and when the opposition countered 
legally, he went underground instead of countering legally.

That he got away with it is not so removed from politics
as normal, but it's certainly not something to be overproud
of either.  A good battle of legislation, or taking it to the
people to get their approval would inspire more appreciation
from my end.  

One thing funny.  Weinberger found it outrageous that Walsh
wanted to bargain with him on his charges to get him to
cooperate.  Where has Weinberger lived all his life?  Doesn't
he know that that's how half of prosecution evidence comes
about?  Does he think this implies innocence on his part?
Do we think he would have cooperated without coercion, despite
seven years of stonewalling?  Weinberger is a smart-ass who
got lucky.
-- 
William M. Eldridge			bill@bcserv.wustl.edu
Biochemistry Department Box 8231	(314) 362-3436
Washington Univ. School of Medicine	(314) 362-7183 (fax)
660 S. Euclid, St. Louis, MO 63110
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy