harelb@cabot.dartmouth.edu (Harel Barzilai) (06/10/91)
"I am appalled at the lack of interest in Congress. You would
think they would immediately convene an investigation, or at least
name a commission. This issue should bring down the Bush
presidency."
"Part of the beauty of this is that none of the key players were
in government at the time" says Weinglass. "So George Bush could
be compelled to testify under oath, because these alleged crimes
occurred at a time when he held no office."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
=============================
T H E F I R S T S T O N E
=============================
By Joel Bleifuss
[In These Times, May 1-7, 1991, page 4]
===============================================
P r o b e s a n d p o s s i b i l i t i e s
===============================================
The 1984 Reagan-Bush campaign's arms-for-hostages deal with
Iran is still in the news. But as the scandal smolders, what next?
Will it be smothered by the calculated indifference of a national
media that is most in its element quantifying the frequent-flyer
miles of Chief of Staff John Sununu? (He is, after all, a smoking
top gun.) Or will this decade-old tale of treason ignite a wildfire
of righteous indignation, ensuring that Bush's will be a one-term
presidency? At the moment, that may seem farfetched, but two
weeks ago, when the Frontline special titled "An Election Held
Hostage" aired, 5 percent of all U.S. TVs were tuned in to
Frontline. Millions now know of the deal.
SPECIALLY PROSECUTED: Clearly, Iran-contra Independent Coun-
sel Lawrence Walsh could look into the matter. In December 1986
the Washington, D.C., circuit court instructed Walsh "to investi-
gate and, if warranted, to prosecute alleged violations of federal
criminal laws by lt. Col. Oliver L. North, other U.S. government
officials, or other individuals acting in concert with lt. Col. North
or with other U.S. government officials, from in or around January
1985 (the exact date being unknown) to the present, in connec-
tion with the sale or shipment of military arms to Iran and the
transfer or diversion of funds realized in connection with such
sale or shipment." The court's use of the temporal preposition "in
or around" and the inclusion of the subsequent parenthetical
clause, indicate that U.S. arms illegally traded to Iran in 1981
would fall under Walsh's purview.
Will Walsh investigate? Sam Witucki, deputy press officer at the
independent counsel's office, said: "We can neither confirm nor
deny that." She did say that the office had received a lot of ques-
tions on the subject, and she faxed me the documents that laid
out Walsh's mandate. (If you have an opinion on the matter, the
independent counsel's phone number is (202) 383-8940.)
But wouldn't it be more appropriate for Congress to open up a
full-scale investigation? Despite the flaws of its Iran-contra in-
quiry, those hearings exposed more of that scandal than the
lackluster non-partisan Tower Commission.
AN INQUIRING CONGRESS: Frank Askin, a Rutgers law professor,
is counsel to the House subcommittee on criminal justice chaired
by Rep. John Conyers (D - MI,). In 1988, Askin, in his work with the
committee, investigated charges that such a deal was made. In
the fall of that year, he told me, "My personal opinion? Things
were going on in high places. I think there is a significant amount
of circumstantial evidence that indicates some representatives of
the Reagan-Bush 1980 campaign were having secret negotiations
with Iranian officials regarding the hostages. There is enough
circumstantial evidence and [the alleged deal] is so important
that it is certainly worthy of investigation. Who should do that in-
vestigation? At least the historians and journalists."
Well, journalists have investigated. It is now time for Congress
to take up the matter. But will it ? Last week Askin said, "The
issue [of he 1980 deal] has been mentioned but there is nothing
formally going on at this moment." (If you think Congress should
investigate the alleged deal, the House Judiciary Committee can
be reached at (202) 225-3951.)
LEGAL OPTIONS: In the fall of 188, New York attorney Leonard
Weinglass also talked with former hostages about bringing suit
against those Americans who allegedly made the deal with Iran.
"The lawsuit never went ahead," says Weinglass.."But I won't
say the issue is dead. And now with the renewed interest, there
may be a second look at litigation."
According to Weinglass, the ideal forum to air the issue would
be congressional hearings. But he is not sure Congress has either
the nerve or the verve. "I am appalled at the lack of interest in
Congress. You would think they would immediately convene an
investigation, or at least name a commission. This issue should
bring down the Bush presidency. But there isn't a spark of in-
terest in the moribund Democratic Party, which lost the presi-
dency as a result of this conspiracy." he says. "For all of its weak-
nesses, the only viable vehicle for getting at this and to educate
the country is a congressional hearing. Granted, Congress
dropped the ball in Iran-contra, but you have to remember that
Congress was limited by the North prosecution. I would prefer to
think in terms of the Watergate hearings that were more open-
ended."
Even if Congress fails to pick up the issue, the layers won't
"Part of the beauty of this is that none of the key players were in
government at the time" says Weinglass. "So George Bush could
be compelled to testify under oath, because these alleged crimes
occurred at a time when he held no office."
=====================
( C o n t i n u e d )
=====================