THE IRAN--CONTRA HEARINGS : Excerpts: Possible to Disagree and Still Love God and Country

Following are excerpts from testimony Monday by Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and remarks by members of the Senate and House committees investigating the Iran-contra affair:

Covert Operations

(Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) questioned North on the legality of covert operations to aid the Nicaraguan rebels.)

Question: Now, under the law, for any agency of government, other than the Central Intelligence Agency, to conduct a covert operation, three things must occur. First is that the President must specifically designate that agency to conduct operations. The second is that the President must make a finding authorizing this particular covert operation and finding it in the national interest. . . . And the third thing that the law requires is that Congress be notified, and, as you’ve testified that did not occur.

Answer: . . . But the law, as I understand it, requires that the President notify the Congress in a timely manner. . . . And, second of all, it is in regards to operations involving the use of appropriated funds. And I think these are important omissions that have not been entered in the record.

Q: So, all right then, let me go back to the first two. . . . Since you’ve testified that you conducted a covert operation, and since you’ve further testified that the President neither designated the National Security Council to conduct covert operations, nor did he make a finding authorizing this covert operation, what was the legal basis for your activities with respect to this covert operation?

A: The fact is that the President can do what he wants with his own staff. The National Security Council staff is not included within the constraints that are depicted in either the executive order or the NSDD (National Security Decision Directive) as an intelligence agency. And thus, in neither case does the law provide that the President had to do what you are saying he had to do.

Q: You have testified that as a member of the National Security Council staff, you conducted a covert operation. And my question is did the President specifically designate the National Security Council staff for that purpose?

A: . . . I think what I have said consistently is that I believed the President has the authority to do what he wants with his own staff, and that I was a member of that staff . . . and that in pursuing the President’s foreign policy goals of support for the Nicaraguan resistance, he was fully within his rights to send us off to talk to foreign heads of state, to seek the assistance of those foreign heads of state, to use other than U.S. government monies, and to do so without a finding. I would also point out again that that language right here in paragraph two of the NSDD extract that you have, is taken directly from the executive order. . . . If the President chooses to waive his own executive orders, or chooses to waive the provisions of his own NSDDs, which do not have the force of law, it is fully within his rights to do so.

Q: But the President told the Tower board, and I quote: “The President told the board on Jan. 26, 1987, that he did not know the NSC staff was engaged in helping the contras.” And therefore, the President could not have waived the provisions of the orders as you’ve described and could not have designated the NSC if, as he said it, he did not know the NSC staff was engaged in helping the contras, could he?

A: . . . The President has since said, I believe publicly, that he was aware of what was being done, and that, in fact, it was at least partially his idea. There is no doubt the President wanted the policy of support for the Nicaraguan resistance pursued, and I did so to the very best of my abilities.

God and Patriotism

MITCHELL: Now, you’ve addressed several pleas to this committee, very eloquently, none more eloquent than last Friday, when in response to a question from Rep. Dick Cheney, you asked that Congress not cut off aid to the contras “for the love of God and for the love of country.” I now address a plea to you. Of all the qualities which the American people find compelling about you, none is more impressing than your obvious deep devotion to country. Please remember that others share that devotion, and recognize it is possible for an American to disagree with you on aid to the contras and still love God and still love his country just as much as you do.

Although he is regularly asked to do so, God does not take sides in American politics, and in America disagreement with the policies of the government is not evidence of lack of patriotism. I want to repeat that. In America, disagreement with the policies of the government is not evidence of lack of patriotism. Indeed, it is the very fact Americans can criticize their government openly and without fear of reprisal that is the essence of our freedom and that will keep us free.

Secrecy in Government

(Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) argues that the conduct of the Iran-contra policies was neither unprecedented nor without merit, though he says that damage has been done as a result of those policies.)

HYDE: Now, we’ve heard that a free nation cannot operate in a shroud of secrecy. That is one of the great testaments that we’ve heard from these hearings. . . . Our Constitution was fashioned in secrecy. It was shrouded in secrecy. Nobody was permitted to the debates. And the Bill of Rights was born in secrecy.

And the greatest triumph in diplomacy since I’ve served in Congress was Camp David--was Jimmy Carter bringing Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat together, putting them in a room, locking the door. Secrecy. Secrecy.

So secrecy has its uses. I’m told the Senate met in secret its first 10 years. Maybe it was the first six. I’m trying to research it. But, somehow or other, they met in secret--a plan I wouldn’t recommend today.

. . . Now, why was this different? Why didn’t you--why did you have to lie to Congress? Why was this different from other covert actions? Well, you know, it’s very simple when you have a covert action that everybody agrees with, isn’t that correct? When you got a controversial one, then you have a whole different problem. . . . In other words, when you have a liberal Democratic Congress . . . and you have a conservative Republican President, you’ve got a recipe for gridlock, don’t you?

. . . Nothing will happen. And those are the problems that we have to deal with here in our Central American policy. Now, the consequences, Col. North, of what happened has damaged the Administration, hopefully not terminally, but seriously damaged it. Our policy in Central America has been damaged. We have embarrassed 10 countries, at least 10 countries who helped to keep the Nicaraguan resistance alive while Congress played Hamlet over what to do, to support or not to support.

Historical Reminder

(Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) closes his questions of North with a harshly critical statement of the Iran-contra operations.)

BROOKS: This week, Mr. Chairman, we are celebrating . . . the biennial of the Constitution with a historic session of the Congress in Philadelphia on Thursday, and I look forward to going down there. It should serve as an occasion to remind us all that Article I of the Constitution provides for a bicameral U.S. Congress, gives it great powers to set the policies of this nation, domestic and foreign, including the decision of when to conduct war.

President Reagan said on April 27th of 1983 in an address to the House and Senate that the Congress shares both the power and the responsibility of our foreign policy. Then, again on Dec. 6th of 1986 . . . the President said . . . “We live in a country that requires that we operate within the rules and laws. All of us. Just cause and deep concern and noble ends can never be reasons enough to justify improper actions or excessive means.”

. . . That lofty principle appears to have gotten lost in somebody’s shredder. Instead of operating within rules and law, we have been supplying lethal weapons to terrorist nations; trading arms for hostages; involving the U.S. government in military operations in direct contravention of the law; diverting public funds into private pockets . . . selling access to the President for thousands of dollars; dispensing cash and foreign money orders out of a White House safe; accepting gifts and falsifying papers to cover it up; altering and shredding national security documents; lying to the Congress. Now, I believe the American people understand that democracy cannot survive that kind of abuse. . . .

Dangers of Secrecy

(Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) closed his questioning by warning of the dangers of excessive secrecy.)

You know, we put up in the Capitol and in other places quotes from our respected leaders to draw lessons and morals from. There’s one in the Capitol of the United States quoting Justice (Louis D.) Brandeis, and it says: “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.”

And I think the understanding that Justice Brandeis was talking about is that in a democracy, reasonable people can differ on the substance of policy. In fact that’s the essence of democracy. The thing we fault in the totalitarian regimes to which we are opposed is the fact that they don’t permit those differences and establish a system for resolving them peacefully.

It’s part of our system that you have a respect and tolerance for the views of others, no matter how deeply your own policy views may be held, and that a civility ought to exist between us. Others may equally hold strong policy views. In fact, they may even agree with your goals but disagree with the methods or tactics by which you hope to achieve them.

Many of the goals about which you have spoken before this committee are goals that are ascribed to by members of the committee and by the American people. Some members agreed with the tactics you wanted to use, others disagreed with it.

In countries where they don’t have a process for resolving those sharp differences, they resort to violence. Here we have a constitutional system that established procedures for resolving those differences and we make our policy through an interaction between the Congress and the President.

If one loses in that process, the constitutional system guarantees you the right to come back and to seek to make your policy views prevail. We protect people’s right to do that, we recognize they may feel deeply, and they may not prevail as the process works. The other side may prevail. But we guarantee their right to come back.

But, if we have a system where policy makers are seeking to implement their views regardless of the decisions that have been made constitutionally, then we are undermining the integrity of the political process.

That’s the concern about these private networks that go outside the established way of reaching a decision. (There are) decisions that are very controversial, in which there are very sharp differences, but once we start going down the path of people saying we’re not going to respect that decision that has been made through the constituted channels, we’re going to go outside of it, shrouded in secrecy, then, I think, we’re facing very deep difficulties. And that’s why I simply close by making the point that the depth of one’s convictions and the well-meaning aspect to it is not enough, in and of itself. . . . The substantive goal does not justify compromising the means we have put into place.

Mistakes

(Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) asked North about the lying to Congress and about possible links between the contras and drug smuggling.)

Q: I think that trading arms for hostages is wrong, and to the extent that the Iran initiative became strictly an arms-for-hostages deal, which it was not, but nevertheless has been portrayed by certain people in the media to be, I think it was wrong. I also don’t feel that misleading or lying to Congress can ever be condoned; you need to know that.

As a general proposition, Col. North, would you agree that we have got to come up with a workable system where the executive branch does not feel that it has to mislead the Congress? Do you agree with that?

A: I do.

Q: What about drug smuggling? There have been a lot of allegations thrown around that the contra resupply operation was involved in cocaine trafficking.

A: Absolutely false.

Q: I don’t think the NSC should ever operate covert operations. I just don’t think they should. And, frankly, I don’t think we should have had a diversion of funds here, even though I have to confess, I kind of think it’s a neat idea, too, to take the monies from the Ayatollah (Ruhollah Khomeini) and then send them over to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. What a nice use of those funds, except you have to be--I don’t think it was right. I think it points out the difficulties of the private--It’s still a neat idea, I’ve got to admit, and I don’t care who laughs. And I think you were right, at least well-motivated in your desire to help them. Because we weren’t helping them the way we should up here. . . . I think this--these hearings point up the difficulties with privatization of our foreign policy.

Bipartisanship

(Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.) talks about the need for Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the executive branch to work together.)

When people talk to me, when my constituents talk to me, they say: ‘You know, we don’t understand, aren’t you all working for the same people? Aren’t the people in the White House, the people in the Congress, all trying to work for the American people?’ When are people going to stop being Democrats and Republicans or members of Congress and members of the executive branch and get together and work together as Americans for the same country? Then, we’ll have continuity in American policy. . . . The President has to understand the role of Congress. He has to be willing to meet the Congress half way. Congress has to understand the role of the President. . . . But I think the fact that you’re here, that we’re in these circumstances, that we’re having to have these kinds of hearings is a reflection, basically of the breakdown of that concept of partnership, constructive partnership, all of us working together as Americans to try to serve this country. . . .

I happen to believe very strongly that we have to have covert operations sometimes. We have to be able to operate in secret. We have to be able to keep those secrets.

. . . So we have to have covert actions, but we have to have accountability. And we also have to have a sharing of information between at least the leaders of the Congress and the White House, if we are going to rebuild this kind of bipartisan unified approach.

The Polls

(Sen. Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.) talks about Americans’ doubts about the contras.)

Col. North, . . . I have some difference of opinion with you. . . , and it’s your statement that you delivered here last Thursday morning. You said about the Congress: “I suggest to you it is the Congress which must accept the blame on the Nicaraguan freedom-fighting matter. Plain and simple, you are to blame because of the fickle, vacillating, unpredictable on-again off-again policy toward the resistance.” You’re entitled to your view, but I want to share some of my views with you.

It’s interesting that national polling data over the course of the last three years have shown that--in the latest Harris Poll in June, 74% to 22%, people in this country oppose aid to the contras.

. . . And I can tell you myself, Col. North, from campaigning in New Hampshire, a fairly conservative state, in the fall of last year, as one who has voted with reluctance on occasion for that aid to the contras. The people in this country just don’t think that’s a very good idea. And that’s why this Congress has been fickle and vacillating.

Now, you may suggest that some of us voted anyway, even though it’s against what our constituents believe. But, I want to point out to you, Col. North, that the Constitution starts with the words: “We the people.” There is no way you can carry out a consistent policy if we the people disagree with it, because this Congress represents the people.

The President of the United States, the greatest communicator probably we have seen in the White House in years, has tried for eight years and failed. You have tried and I think probably failed in that--we’ll see what the polls show in two or three weeks. And this relatively obscure senator from New Hampshire has tried with no success at all.

You know, Col. North, I go back to Korea in 1951. We won and then we lost, and were in a position to win again. And Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, who recognized that although it was a crime to leave the North Korean people to the subjugation of North Korea, we walked away. We could have won that war. . . . We could have liberated the north. And many of us who were there wanted to. But the people didn’t. They’d had enough of killing--550,000 casualties. Lyndon Johnson wrecked his presidency on the shoals of Vietnam.

I guess the last thing I want to say to you, Col. North, is that the American people have the constitutional right to be wrong. And what Ronald Reagan thinks or what Oliver North thinks or what I think or what anybody else thinks, makes not a wit if the American people say ‘enough.’ And that’s why this Congress has been fickle and vacillating--that is correct. But not necessarily because the people here believe differently than you do. But, there comes a point that the views of the American people have to be heard.