Oliver North

[Taylor]

Oliver North is back in Iraq. I think this is his 6th or 7th trip back there since the war started. I'm not surprised to see him hanging out with the troops. I can always tell he's having fun when I see him over there. I hope he comes home soon. I know how much he loves hanging out with the troops.
:gar:

[THEBIRD]

Oliver North is a great American hero and a brother in Christ.


Click below to hear his testimony, stories from iraq, and intriguing story about his testimony in the Iran Contra hearings.

A wonderful man all around. It was my pleasure to meet him at this event.

FAST LOADING FOR DIAL UP USERS....(Warlady)

http://www.parkwaybaptist.org/Oliver_North%20Video.html

http://www.parkwaybaptist.org/images/1016.jpg (http://www.parkwaybaptist.org/Oliver_North%20Video.html)

[UnkHiram]

I had the great honor of meeting Colonel North once while I was stationed at the Pentagon in the mid 80's. He is as dynamic and charismatic in person as he seemed in those long ago Senate Hearings.

[Taylor]

Cool. I know he's controversial but I think North is a great American. I think he was made to be a scapegoat for the Reagan administration during Iran Contra.

:gar: :prolife:

[Large_Al]

Ollie is the man. As the Bird said "A true American Hero."

[Large_Al]

Bird what a wonderful Speech. If you have a spare hour you will happy you listened.

[cerberus]

Ugh. I know for a 100% certainty that this will get me despised on this board, but I really do not like Oliver North.
The man is, IMHO, disgraced the Corps. One takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. In his zeal to serve civilian policymakers he breeched that oath, circumvented lawful congressional acts (namely the Boland Amendment) and obstructed justice. His motives may have been "good" and "the Enterprise" may have been "neat" but making his own little foreign policy with Poindexter or determining what Congressional rules to follow and which not to were beyond his pay-grade.

You do not get to break the law at your own whim. Ever. Period.

[DesertFox]

Well, cerberus, the Boland Amendment was a bullshit patchwork of a bunch of corrupt senators who wanted to ensure that no Republican president (read "Nixon") could in any way help the South Vietnamese to stand up against the North Vietnamese. These senators didn't give a shit about our ally, South Vietnam; they were just out to get Nixon come hell or high water.

The law isn't always right, and this is an instance thereof.

[cerberus]

Perhaps Fox, but Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen don't get to make that judgement on their own. If they did it would open-season and anarchy within the armed forces and the chain of command would mean nothing. The oath does not allow for picking and choosing.
Those that serve in uniform are the ARM of policy, not the policymaker. They are bound to obey all constitutional laws passed by the Congress.

[DesertFox]

To a point, and in most conditions, you're certainly right, cerberus. But when liberals play politics with the Constitution, some bets are off. A soldier's oath is not to specific laws, but to obey the president and the officers appointed over him.

[cerberus]

To a point, and in most conditions, you're certainly right, cerberus. But when liberals play politics with the Constitution, some bets are off. A soldier's oath is not to specific laws, but to obey the president and the officers appointed over him.
WRONG!!!

ALL US servicemen, DO NOT take an oath to obey the president and officers over them! The oath is to the CONSTITUTION of the United States and to protect it from ALL enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. That means if your superior has given you an order that contradicts the constitution, not only should you not obey that order, you are required not to.

That's what makes our oath so unique from all others in the world. It's specifically NOT to a person, be they King or President, nor to a Party, nor even to a parcel of land. That is why the military does not take sides in politics or endorse one party or candidate. It only ends in disaster. IMO, and those of a judge and jury that conviced him, I might add, North violated that oath to serve himself and the illegal dictates (no matter how well intentioned) of others.

[DesertFox]

Enlisted (soldier's) oath:

"'I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.''

Officer's oath:

''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''

Source (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-ethx.htm#army)

North was an officer, so you're right as far as you go with it. But officers are bound by the chain of command, with the president as Commander in Chief. They are also bound by that same oath to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies, and a strong case can be (and has been) made that the liberals were subverting the Constitution with the Boland Amendment by subverting the president's Constitutional responsibility to conduct foreign policy.

This issue can be argued both the way you're arguing and the way I'm arguing. But I reiterate that supporting and defending the Constitution doesn't mean some particular law.

[MrVirginia]

That's awesome. Once when I was younger at our old church he came and spoke, I don't remember much though.

[cerberus]

You are correct, I should have been more specific when I said officer. However, the idea that the Boland Amendment subverted the Constitution is complete balderdash. Congress has every legal right, and duty IMO, to be involved in the foreign policy arena. This is why both houses have Foreign Affairs committees. Let's also note that the Boland Amendment passed in 1982 (where did you come up with Vietnam and Nixon?) and subsequent years during the Defense Appropriations acts and was initally ratified by a Republican Senate that wasn't pleased with CIA carrying out sabatoge against Nicaragua without Congressional oversight. Congressional control is how at least in THEORY we stop Presidents from conducting their own personal little wars.

The law was completely constitutional in both its passage and content. The fact that the Reagan Admin and Poindexter and North in particular didn't LIKE it is beside the point. He had a duty to not break the law and certainly a duty NOT to lie to Congress. He did both.

[DesertFox]

I have never defended North lying to Congress.

Article 2 of the Constitution gives the president alone power to conduct foreign policy.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Well, cerberus, the Boland Amendment was a bullshit patchwork of a bunch of corrupt senators who wanted to ensure that no Republican president (read "Nixon") could in any way help the South Vietnamese to stand up against the North Vietnamese. These senators didn't give a shit about our ally, South Vietnam; they were just out to get Nixon come hell or high water.

The law isn't always right, and this is an instance thereof.
Correction: The Boland Amendments (there were 3 different Boland Amendments) were bullshit patchwork amendments from a bunch of corrupt senators who wanted to ensure that no Republican president (read "Reagan") could in any way help the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters to stand up against the murderous Communist dicator of Nicaragua that Jimmy Carter helped install.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ugh. I know for a 100% certainty that this will get me despised on this board, but I really do not like Oliver North.
The man is, IMHO, disgraced the Corps. One takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. In his zeal to serve civilian policymakers he breeched that oath, circumvented lawful congressional acts (namely the Boland Amendment) and obstructed justice. His motives may have been "good" and "the Enterprise" may have been "neat" but making his own little foreign policy with Poindexter or determining what Congressional rules to follow and which not to were beyond his pay-grade.

You do not get to break the law at your own whim. Ever. Period.
Let’s look at the history of Iran/Contra (I mean the <b>real</b> history, not the liberal revisionist history you find in academia or the New York Times):

In Nicaragua, there was a murderous Communist dictator who took over the country with the help of military and financial aid from Jimmy Carter. Opposed to that dictatorship were the Nicaraguan freedom fighters (the Contras) who were trying to overthrow the government and replace it with a democratic government.

In the US, the Congressional Democrats were determined to keep the murderous Communist dictatorship in power in Nicaragua. The Reagan Administration wanted to send military and financial aid to the Contras to help them overthrow the Communist dictatorship. In successive years Congress attached three different non-binding resolutions, commonly known as the Boland Amendments, to bills it passed. The Reagan Administration correctly decided that those resolutions were unconstitutional and, in essence, decided to ignore them. (I think that Reagan made a big mistake in not challenging the resolutions in the courts. If he had, I am positive that the courts would have ruled those resolutions unconstitutional.) So, all we have here are policy differences.

Anyhow, Oliver North and others in the Administration got an idea to supply the Contras with aid without using any tax money and Iran/Contra was born. By not using any tax money, they believed that they were not violating the Boland Amendments even though those amendments were not binding.

Then along came the Iran/Contra hearings, which uncovered no criminal activity. How could they? There were no laws against what North and company did. The Democrats demanded and got a special prosecutor - Walsh.

Walsh spent $57 million and all he had to show for it were three misdemeanor convictions and two minor felony convictions. All of the other cases resulted in either not guilty verdicts or convictions that were overturned by a higher court because the indictments were illegally obtained. The indictment of Caspar Weinberger, that ensured Clinton’s election, was thrown out two weeks after the 1992 election. The misdemeanor convictions were obtained because the accused pleaded guilty rather than be rendered paupers because of their legal expenses. Elliot Abrams was one of these and he wrote a book about his persecution, Undue Process: A Story of How Policy Differences Are Turned into Crimes. Everyone should read it.

[cerberus]

I have never defended North lying to Congress.

Article 2 of the Constitution gives the president alone power to conduct foreign policy.
Well his lying to Congress alone should be enough, even though I still maintain he violated other laws.

Congress clearly has a role to play in foreign affairs. That's why the founders not only gave it the power of the purse, but Congress the power to declare war and ratify treaties. Yes POTUS is the primary on foreign policy, but he can't conduct it in flagrent violation to the wishes of the legislature.

[cerberus]

Well, NT, your "real" version is just as one-sided and "revisionist" as anything the Lefties put out, just on the other side.
First of all, lets not romanticize the Contras. They were brutal rebels who engaged in their own atrocities. They also engaged in narcotics trafficking to which the CIA turned a blind-eye if not provide help.
And the Sandanistas, while one may dislike them (and I do) came to power because prior to them the Somoza regime, supported by the US was just as brutal and repressive to the Nicaraguan people. So don't start putting the contras up as some mythic Washington-esque heros.

The congress, which as I recall had a Republican Senate, was determined not to have the Administration engaging in any more covert shenannigans in Central America. Reagan did want to send aid. Congress said "no" as is its perogative (like it or not) and the Boland Amendments, attached to spending bills were binding. You are correct that Reagan SHOULD have challenged the Amendment(s) in court. That was the proper place to do so and if the Admin had done so, there wouldn't have been a problem. Instead, Poindexter, North, & Co decided to subvert the wishes of Congress and do what they pleased anyway.

The idea to circumvent the Boland Amendments by selling Hawk missiles to Iran (an avowed US enemy and to which the Reagan Administration said, rightly, were terrorists) for cash (and hostages) clearly shows they viewed the Boland Amendments as lawful. Beyond that, the Adminstration deliberatly kept Congress in the dark, thereby not allowing Congress to carry out its necessary oversight. Selling arms to Iranians did not sit well with Congress or the American people, and for very good reasons!

When North was called to testify before Congress, he lied. Even IF, and that's a HUGE if, the Boland Amendments were not constitutional, lying to Congress IS a crime.
North's behavior was at worst criminal and at LEAST unethical and not in holding with the high standards of a Marine Corps officer. As such, I hold him in low regard. He is without honor or ethics even IF he just barely skirted the law.

[DesertFox]

cerberus, you might wanna talk to some Nicaraguans in Nicaragua before talking about how bad Somoza or the contras were and (therefore) how good the Sandinistas must have been by comparison. I've traveled all over Nicaragua and have yet to find anyone who speaks well of the Sandinista (frente) govt except a college girl I met on the bus whose wealthy parents were fervent Sandinista supporters.

The Nicaraguan circles I move in include professional people and men on the street but exclude union (sindicalistas) people and the very rich. I don't know any contras anymore but did meet one of their leaders in the Eighties. He struck me as just another fat cat.

But the man on the street today has nothing good to say about the Sandinistas. A physician friend told me health care was better for everybody under Somoza. I had my doubts and, on my own, wandered the streets both in Managua and in Chinandega. People are no longer afraid to talk. To my surprise, they supported what the doctor said.

The Sandinistas, in the view I encountered almost everywhere, were thugs. They took what they wanted and didn't give two hoots about anyone else. The military got whatever it wanted and the working man just did as he was told. Fear dominated the country. It was never that way, they told me, under Somoza. The past always looks better in hindsight than it was, but it was clear that people weren't as afraid under Somoza as under the Sandinistas. And if the past looks better in hindsight, why wouldn't the Sandinistas also look better than they were? I'm thinking Nicaraguans on the whole remember things pretty-much as they were under both systems. People the world over who have lived under Communism hate it, and Nicaragua is no exception.

Somoza was nobody's idea of a good guy, but his was standard-issue, petty latin corruption. In classic latin style, the rich had a patronizing, paternalistic relationship with the working man. That's why health care, the specific thing I tracked, even existed, and it was surprisingly good. Somoza's govt was indeed involved, but not because of Somoza; it was good because the culture existed in which it could happen. That speaks better of it than the culture the Sandinistas brought in where health care was pretty-much nonexistent. Somoza was corrupt, but people did have ways to take care of themselves.

The Sandinistas' corruption was much worse because far more organized and extensive -- and controlling. Block coordinators throughout the country spied on everyone else, just as the Nazis and the Communists used to do. If you'd been a businessman before, you were marked out for constant harassment and trouble. Most left when they saw how it was going to be. I'm saying the Sandinistas were just as brutal as Somoza's gang had been, but on a much broader and deeper scale.

No need to glorify Somoza. He was indeed a thug -- but a petty thug. The Sandinistas were big league thugs.

To be sure, you were speaking specifically about the contras. I've not spoken about them with anyone yet.

I may have misread where you're coming from, but I think this contribution may still be useful.

[cerberus]

Fox. I am in no way seeking to glorify the Sandinistas. Not at all. I'm simply saying that the contras and Somoza prior were not the 'freedom fighters' and angels often claimed. Both were bad. We supported a tyrant in Somoza and when we lost him to new tyrants, Reagan sought to oust him.
My point is that Congress wanted the US taking no part in it.
Anyway, its all only tangential to my main point anyway.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Well, NT, your "real" version is just as one-sided and "revisionist" as anything the Lefties put out, just on the other side.
You wouldn't recognize the truth even if it jumped up and bit you on the nose.

First of all, lets not romanticize the Contras. They were brutal rebels who engaged in their own atrocities. They also engaged in narcotics trafficking to which the CIA turned a blind-eye if not provide help.
That is a bald-faced lie.

The "story" about CIA/Contra drug running was fabricated in 1989 by the staff of Sen. John Kerry as part of his campaign to discredit the CIA for the purpose of abolishing it. The San Jose Mercury-News picked up this story and published it, but they soon had to retract it and admit that it was a lie after the entire liberal media dismissed it.

And the Sandanistas, while one may dislike them (and I do) came to power because prior to them the Somoza regime, supported by the US was just as brutal and repressive to the Nicaraguan people. So don't start putting the contras up as some mythic Washington-esque hero[e]s.
I never said that the Contras were angels, but they were far more civilized than the murderous Communist dictator of Nicaragua. More importantly, the support of the Contras by the Reagan Administration was directly responsible for the free elections that defeated the murderous Communist dictator. In that election, millions of Nicaraguans braved being fired on by Communist snipers to stand in line to vote the Communists out of power.

I'll never forget how depressed and on the verge of tears Jimmy Carter was when he had to announce to the world that the vicious Communist dictatorship he had helped impose on the people of Nicaragua had lost in a free and honest election. Carter and his fellow leftists had gathered to celebrate a "glorious" Communist victory, but ended up drowning their sorrows.

The congress, which as I recall had a Republican Senate, was determined not to have the Administration engaging in any more covert shenannigans in Central America. Reagan did want to send aid. Congress said "no" as is its perogative (like it or not) and the Boland Amendments, attached to spending bills were binding. You are correct that Reagan SHOULD have challenged the Amendment(s) in court. That was the proper place to do so and if the Admin had done so, there wouldn't have been a problem. Instead, Poindexter, North, & Co decided to subvert the wishes of Congress and do what they pleased anyway.
The Boland Amendments were nothing more than non-binding, sense-of-Congress resolutions with no force of law and prescribing no penalties for not following those resolutions. That's why there was nothing illegal about Iran-Contra.

The idea to circumvent the Boland Amendments by selling Hawk missiles to Iran (an avowed US enemy and to which the Reagan Administration said, rightly, were terrorists) for cash (and hostages) clearly shows they viewed the Boland Amendments as lawful. Beyond that, the Adminstration deliberatly kept Congress in the dark, thereby not allowing Congress to carry out its necessary oversight. Selling arms to Iranians did not sit well with Congress or the American people, and for very good reasons!
The missiles were actually old TOW anti-tank missiles that were exchanged to free 5 hostages being held in Lebanon.

Please note the quote from Weinberger's notes beow:

Here is a quote from Weinberger's notes about the meeting to sell arms to Iran as part Iran-Contra:<p><I>"Met with president, Shultz, Poindexter, Bill Casey, Ed Meese in Oval Office. President decided to go with Israeli-Iranian offer to release our 5 hostages in return for sale of 4,000 TOWs to Iran by Israel - George Shultz & I opposed - Bill Casey, Ed Meese & VP favored - as did Poindexter."</I><p>Those hostages were the 5 newspaper people, including Terry Anderson, who were caught in Beirut in 1985 and were held hostage. That exchange sounds reasonable...and it was legal.

When North was called to testify before Congress, he lied. Even IF, and that's a HUGE if, the Boland Amendments were not constitutional, lying to Congress IS a crime.
North's behavior was at worst criminal and at LEAST unethical and not in holding with the high standards of a Marine Corps officer. As such, I hold him in low regard. He is without honor or ethics even IF he just barely skirted the law.
That had nothing to do with whether Iran-Contra was legal or illegal (it was entirely legal). The indictment of Oliver North WAS illegal because he was given immunity from prosecution for his testimony. That's why his conviction was thrown out.

[Taylor]

North did not lie to Congress when he testified at the Iran Contra hearings. The only time he lied to Congress was when he met with several members of Congress in the White House situation room.

:gar: :prolife: