THE IRAN-CONTRA HEARINGS : EXCERPTS: ‘No Laws . . . Broken’

Following are excerpts from testimony Thursday by retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord to the congressional committees investigating the Iran-contra affair:

Arms Sale Profits

(Senate committee counsel Arthur L. Liman, referring to records showing $8 million in Iran arms sale profits now in Swiss bank accounts, questioned Secord repeatedly about whether any of the money was profit for Secord and his companies . )

Q. The money is the money of ‘the enterprise,’ and who owns the enterprise?

A. Mr. (Albert A.) Hakim (Secord’s partner) is the technical owner.

Q. And yet you said a moment ago that Hakim was not to get any of the profits of the arms sale. . . . So that the $8 million that is out there now is just being kept, but it isn’t profit?

A. . . . I don’t know how much is going to be left after these bills are paid, and I’m not focusing on it right now. I’ve got bigger problems to focus on than that. I’ve got a special prosecutor over here across the street (who) is trying to throw all of us in jail for performing our duty as we saw it. I haven’t focused on some technical issue like you’re bringing up here. This is crazy.

Q. Mr. Secord, did there come a time when the U.S. government requested the Swiss to provide the full records of the Swiss bank accounts?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you, notwithstanding your testimony that you had no interest in those accounts, interpose an objection?

A. Correct.

Q. And you successfully opposed that request in court, is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And you paid . . . (lawyers’) fees to oppose the request for inspection of records in which you had no interest, correct?

A. Well, I wish I’d been able to pay fees, but since I don’t have any money to pay these fees, my lawyer has not gotten any funds for that action in court.

Q. Well, you owe it, don’t you?

A. I owe it, yes.

Q. And am I correct that you answered yesterday that you haven’t yet decided whether you’re prepared (to reveal the records)?

A. . . . I probably will sign the waiver, I’m inclined to do so. I have to consult with my counsel on this matter just as soon as these hearings are over.

Q. But you’ve had four months to consult, am I correct?

A. Not on this particular request. We didn’t know we were going to be asked to do this. I didn’t know that I was coming up here voluntarily to appear before you. I didn’t come here voluntarily to be badgered by these questions that I have answered already repeatedly.

Q. Have you not had this request before you since January?

A. I relied on the advice of my counsel. Let’s get off the subject.

Q. You making the rulings?

A. No sir, but I did not come here to be badgered.

Boland Amendment

Q. Did you consider it consistent as an implementation of the Boland Amendment for Col. (Oliver L.) North to fly down to Florida to meet with you and (contra leader Adolfo) Calero and urge you to start an airlift and to help open up the southern front?

A. He wasn’t spending any appropriated funds, so I did not see anything wrong with it.

Q. And the use of the plane was not appropriated funds?

A. It’s incidental.

Q. It was implementation of the Boland Amendment for him to do all of these things?

A. My comments about implementation of the Boland Amendment were general comments. I believed that these men were doing the President’s bidding, and try to do the best job they could to live within Boland. I’m on the record with that. That’s what I believe.

Q. Now, you testified that you considered what was happening lawful, and that Col. North considered it lawful. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is it a fact that Col. North told you that if the facts ever came out about what he was doing, he would get a pardon?

A. He joked about that. . . . When that came up, I laughed at him, and I said: “That’s ridiculous. What are you talking about?” I mean, just everything we’ve discussed repeatedly, that no laws are being broken, we’re doing everything we can to live within the law. So it’s a non sequitur.

Buying a Ship

(A January, 1985, presidential finding authorized covert arms sales to Iran.)

Q. Was there anything communicated to you about that finding that authorized you to use any of the proceeds of the sale to purchase a ship?

A. No, sir. And nothing to the contrary either . . . .

Q. You understood, sir, that the purpose of the finding was to authorize the sale by the United States to Iran, of arms through you as an intermediary?

A. As a commercial cut-out, as I’ve testified.

Q. You did not understand the purpose of the finding was to provide support for the contras?

A. No.

Q. Or to enable anyone to get rich?

A. No.

Q. Now, you said that one of the reasons that you waived your interests in these Swiss accounts was that you wanted to return to government someday?

A. Correct.

Q. And, was the position that you hoped to return to as head of covert operations at the CIA?

A. That was one of my ambitions at one time, yes.

(Secord told Rep. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio) how he reacted when Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III announced last Nov. 25 that $10 million to $30 million in Iran arms sale profits had been diverted to the contras.)

“It was my belief that the President of the United States was well aware of what we were doing, Congressman Stokes. And as a consequence, the attorney general, it seemed to me, had a responsibility to get more than just an incidental dose of the facts before going public with such a startling story. Could have at least accorded us the opportunity within my organization to brace ourselves. I mean, we were totally stunned and shocked. And that is why all of us felt betrayed.”