|
|
SHADOWS
& LESSONS OF IRAN-CONTRA
Lisa Thomas (page 1)
07/16/01
Be prepared. We might get lucky.
Some things are moving our way, most notably toward the possibility
of being able to present evidence that something was very stinky in
Florida last November. We might get some "minor" witnesses. In fact,
that would be in the expected flow of events. If matters start to develop,
it is probably wise to read Lawrence Walsh's "Final Report of the Independent
Counsel for Iran-Contra Matters," available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/
I read the following and stand slack-jawed at all the talk of a Reagan
monument in D.C., the re-naming of bridges and buildings. Quoting the
Independent Counsel, Part 11, Concluding Observations:
"The underlying facts of Iran/contra are that, regardless of criminality,
President Reagan, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense,
and the director of central intelligence and their necessary assistants
committed themselves, however reluctantly, to two programs contrary
to congressional policy and contrary to national policy. They skirted
the law, some of them broke the law, and almost all of them tried to
cover up the President's willful activities.
"What protection do the people of the United States have against such
a concerted action by such powerful officers? The Constitution provides
for congressional oversight and congressional control of appropriations,
but if false information is given to Congress, these checks and balances
are of lessened value."
We must note and remember that the effectiveness of congressional oversight
is affected greatly "if false information is given to Congress" (as
was, of course, the situation in the Iran-Contra matter). From there
the plot really does thicken. Because the URL is provided for anyone
wanting details, I will summarize by saying only that what happened
in Iran-Contra was that immunity was given to lower-level players in
exchange for information. The immunity came back to bite, and as we
all know, the criminals at the top of the pyramid plan that slaughtered
thousands of Nicaraguans (including children) found a safe haven when
that immunity prevented prosecution of the guiltiest. In short, we learned
that in highly publicized cases of the future, immunity would likely
rule out criminal prosecution.
Straight from the Final Report:
"Congressional action that precludes, or makes it impossible to sustain,
a prosecution has more serious consequences than simply one less conviction.
There is a significant inequity when more peripheral players are convicted
while central figures in a criminal enterprise escape punishment. And
perhaps more fundamentally, the failure to punish governmental lawbreakers
feeds the perception that public officials are not wholly accountable
for their actions. In Iran/contra, it was President Reagan who first
asked that North and Poindexter be given immunity so that they could
exculpate him from responsibility for the diversion. A few months later,
the Select Committees did that -- granting immunity without any proffer
to ensure honest testimony."
Bad stuff happens and we learn. These protections are now in place as
we see the possibility of Jeb Bush making more newspaper front pages than
he has in the past. When he, or his brother, or ANY high-ranking members
of this corrupt administration start talking about immunity for lower-level
people, get ready to march.
As with most of life, ignorance is the horned enemy. Oliver North is paid
highly to appear and represent the right to this day. Half the country
thinks Reagan was a hero. The rightwing THRIVES on ignorance. If only
people will make themselves familiar with what's happened in the past,
we WILL NOT LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN.
Lisa
If you are interested in joining the majority
fringe, please click on the 'join the fringe' button for more information.
|
