Let's dial the way back machine to 1989...

First off, Baddboy will be back on the Coast Thursday. His phase two training will be done out of Keesler, so that's nice. I'm sure he'll get a kick out of my new apartment.

Secondly, Ryan's gushing love fest concerning Oliver North made me think. I didn't recall Ollie being a convicted felon of the same cut as G. Gordon Liddy, (who is a turd no matter what your political views or affiliations are, a crook who makes a name for himself from the ashes of the darkest moments in United States Executive Office history.)

So I loaded up Mr. Peabody and we dialed the Way Back Machine to 1989.

Oliver North was part of a twenty-three count indictment along with Admiral Poindexter, Mag. General Richard Secord and Albert Hakim. Ryan's grandfather's contribution allowed Ollie to artfully separate his case from the others (they were all tried separately eventually) and due to classified testimony and national security issues, eleven charges were dropped. Of the twelve he was tried for in February 1989, he was convicted of three. They were:

1) Obstruction and misleading Congress.
2) Shredding and altering official documents.
3) Accepting illegal gratuities from Richard Secord.

In closing Judge Gessel said,

"The indictment involves your participation in particular covert events. I do not think that in this area you were a leader at all, but really a low-ranking subordinate working to carry out initiatives of a few cynical superiors. You came to be the point man in a very complex power play developed by higher-ups. Whether it was because of the excitement and the challenge or because of conviction, you responded certainly willingly and sometimes even excessively to their requirements. And along the way you came to accept, it seems to me, the mistaken view that Congress couldn't be trusted and that the fate of the country was better left to a small inside group, not elected by the people, who were free to act as they chose while publicly professing to act differently. Thus you became and by a series of circumstances in fact and I believe in your mind part of a scheme that reflected a total distrust in some constitutional values.
Now, a trial is a very extraordinary thing. As you stand there now you're not the fall guy for this tragic breach of the public trust. The jury composed of everyday citizens your supporters mocked and mocked throughout the trial understood what was taking place."[ 66]

"Observing that many others involved in the events were escaping without censor or with prosecutorial promises of leniency or immunities they used their common sense. And they gave you the benefit of a reasonable doubt." 66

Judge Gesell was referring to media opinion pieces and public statements by North supporters expressing the view that the jury was too ill-informed about current affairs to pass judgment on North. They argued this based on the fact that none of the jurors claimed to be knowledgeable of or interested in North or the Iran/contra matter before being sworn in. It was North's attorneys, however, (good job, Granddad Ryan!) who insisted on selecting a jury virtually unaware of their client's widely publicized congressional testimony. In pre-trial hearings regarding jury selection and possible problems stemming from the publicity that had surrounded the Iran/contra matter, Judge Gesell said it was his experience in presiding over high-profile cases, including some of the Watergate cases, that ordinary citizens pay little attention to the national news events occurring around them in Washington. Because of this, he said, it was possible to pick a fair-minded jury even in the most publicized cases.

"You're here now because of your own conduct when the truth was coming out. Apparently you could not face disclosure and decided to protect yourself and others. You destroyed evidence, altered and removed official documents, created false papers after the events to keep Congress and others from finding out what was happening. Now, I believe that you knew this was morally wrong. It was against your bringing up. It was against your faith. It was against all of your training. Under the stress of the moment it was easier to choose the role of a martyr but that wasn't a heroic, patriotic act nor was it in the public interest."67

Now, that being said, I wish I could link the freaking page I got this from, but I can't.

It is important to remember what Oliver North did was illegal. Viewing his actions through the rose tinted glasses of our victory in the Cold War, it nevertheless was the will of a freely elected Congress to deny funding of the Contras. It was the publicly stated (and I can't overstate that, as can anyone else who remembers Reagan's weekly addresses, regular as church on Sunday) that the United States never has, will not nor ever will negotiate with terrorists by our President. There was no record of any Executive Order clearing North for the actions he took. His original sentence was $150,000 and two years community service and probation.

In July 1990 the Court of Appeals dismissed the charges because it was deemed the witnesses were impermissably affected by immunized congressional testimony. So, in fact, North is not a convicted felon of the same cloth as Liddy. Had Congress been more in tuned to prosecuting law breakers and not witch hunting the most popular President of the last half of the century, North would have done hard time. Congress gave him immunity to get to the Administration.

In the end, what does history show us?

1) The Contras failed. Ortega was removed from power due to the financial collapse of his sponsor state, the USSR. Communism did not spread to El Salvador or the neighboring Central American states.

2) Negotiating with terrorists failed. In fact, it prolonged the hostages' internment by as many as five years. All the hostages were released within two and a half years of George Sr.'s election because George DIDN'T negotiate.

3) The policy, as admitted by Reagan on national TV in 1987, was a failure. It seemed like a good idea at the time but it wasn't. It became the one black eye on an otherwise top five executive era.

4) It set the stage for the underming of the Legislative Branch of the government that has been prevelant over the last eight years.

Opinion now.

I don't know why "conservatives" have such an issue with following rules when it comes to policy. Why is it we look to almost mythicly powerful executives and think, "That's it! That's what we need!" when the Framers NEVER intended for that to be the case. Our greatest President, Washington, abhorred that kind of executive power. Andrew Jackson, Jefferson, Madison, Wilson (as much as I can't stand the bastard), Teddy, all of them either toed the line or got slapped. Even FDR, as much a king as we've ever had, got his hands slapped repeatedly. So when Reagan circumvents Congress and allows members of his staff to fall under prosecution for HIS failed policy, why do we see heroism in that? What is "cool" or admirable about that?