THE IRAN--CONTRA HEARINGS : Hamilton Calls North’s Activity ‘Series of Lies’

The chairmen of the House and Senate investigating committees Tuesday accused Lt. Col. Oliver L. North of putting his loyalty and the policies of his commander in chief above the principles of democracy, as the former White House aide concluded six days of emotion-charged testimony that transformed the dynamics of the Iran- contra hearings.

Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), the low-key House committee chairman who remained silent through North’s testimony, said in a stern statement that the means employed by the former National Security Council staff member “were a profound threat to the democratic process. . . . And when that democratic process is subverted, we risk all that we cherish.”

Aid Banned by Congress

In particular, Hamilton criticized what he characterized as “a series of lies” that underlay both the Administration’s secret arms sales to Iran and North’s diversion of profits from those deals to Nicaragua’s rebels. The diversion occurred during a two-year period when U.S. aid to the contras had been banned by Congress.

As Hamilton and Senate committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) dismissed North from the witness table, they sought to draw a distinction between the sincere motives that drove the Marine and the possibly illegal methods that he used in trying to reach his goals. It was a theme that lawmakers had begun to sound on Monday, in an effort to prevent the wave of public support for North from sweeping national attention away from the basic issues raised by the scandal.

It was a formidable undertaking, however, in light of the powerful impression made by the earnest and charismatic North, whose Marine uniform is decorated with six rows of ribbons.

“Why don’t you listen to the American people and what they’ve said as a result of the last week!” North’s attorney, Brendan V. Sullivan Jr., demanded. “There are 20,000 telegrams in our room outside the corridor here that came in this morning. The American people have spoken.”

Political Offensive

North’s appeal--gauged in part by a torrent of telephone calls and mail that has hit congressional offices--has at least temporarily allowed President Reagan’s supporters to take the political offensive in the hearings.

Indeed, North’s hold over the committee was so powerful that the hearings were disrupted for more than an hour as members were caught in partisan haggling over allowing him to re-create the sales pitch that he had given potential donors to the contra cause. In the end, North made the presentation, but security considerations prevented dimming the lights to allow him to show the slides that accompanied it.

Earlier witnesses had steadily undermined North’s credibility. Some characterized him as a blind zealot, or uncontrollable rogue. Others had raised questions about whether he had personally profited from the sale of U.S. government property to the Iranians.

‘New American Hero’

But before he left the ornate Russell Caucus Room on Tuesday afternoon, North had turned away most of the criticisms regarding his character--to the point that Inouye said: “We have participated in creating and developing very likely a new American hero.”

Where some of North’s shadowy activities had once made him the subject of national jokes, Rep. Jim Courter (R-N.J.) noted, “The laughter has now stopped. The jokes have as well. People are treating your testimony with a great deal of seriousness.”

But the reformation of North’s own image, some committee members insisted, did not lessen their concerns about the story he told--a story that included admissions that he had lied to Congress, destroyed evidence that could have aided the Iran-contra investigation and possibly broken several U.S. laws. North, who testified under a congressional grant of limited immunity from prosecution, insisted that he believes all his actions were legal.

“As one who has participated in the making of this new American hero,” Inouye said, “I’ve found certain aspects of your testimony most troubling.”

Rep. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio) said North had lived up to his often-repeated promise “to tell the truth--the good, the bad and the ugly.”

Stokes, who now is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee--a panel that North has acknowledged lying to in the past--added: “I suppose what has been most disturbing to me about your testimony is the ugly part. In fact, it has been more than ugly. It has been chilling, and in fact, frightening.”

Stokes, a cleaning woman’s son who fought in a segregated Army during World War II, contrasted North’s end run around Congress with the civil rights movement’s straightforward approach to its challenge.

“We had to abide by the slow and arduous process of abiding by law until we could change the law through the judicial process,” Stokes said.

Hamilton noted that North had started with noble motives: “to free hostages, to seek democracy in Nicaragua, to fight communism and to advance the best interests of the nation.” But his unconventional tactics, Hamilton said, had instead backfired.

“Despite your very good intentions, you were a participant in actions which catapulted a President into the most serious crisis of his presidency, drove the Congress of the United States to launch an unprecedented investigation and I think probably damaged the cause or the causes you sought to promote,” Hamilton said.

Lawmakers were especially riled by North’s repeated assertions that Congress cannot be trusted with the nation’s most sensitive secrets. In his testimony Tuesday, North indirectly blamed leaks by two senators for the deaths of two U.S. airmen shot down during the bombing raid last year on Libya.

North said that President Reagan briefed key congressmen that the attack was about to occur and warned “that the lives of Americans were at risk.”

“Nevertheless, when the briefing concluded” several hours before the bombing, he said, “two members of Congress . . . (told reporters) that the President was going to make a heretofore unannounced address to the nation on Libya.

“I would tell you that the volume of fire over the Libyan capital was immense that evening,” North added. “Two American airmen died as a consequence of that anti-aircraft fire as best we can determine. And I will also tell you that in my military experience, nobody keeps that volume of ammunition sitting around in their guns. They need a half-hour or an hour to break it out, get it ready.”

Inouye disputed North’s version, noting that there had been more than a dozen stories in major newspapers speculating about the attack in the week preceding it--and most were attributed to sources within the Administration.

He said North had been “grossly unfair” in trying to blame the deaths of the servicemen on lawmakers.

Hits Justification

Inouye also attacked North’s primary justification for his actions--that he had acted only with the authority of his superiors.

The Senate committee chairman noted that the Uniform Code of Military Justice “makes it abundantly clear that orders of a superior officer must be obeyed by a subordinate member--but it (must be) lawful orders. . . . In fact, it says, members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.”

He also noted that North had taken an oath as a Naval Academy midshipman in 1964 that included a promise not to lie.

“I’m certain it must have been painful for you, as you stated, to testify that you lied to senior officials of our government, that you lied and misled our Congress,” Inouye said. “And believe me, it was painful for all of us to sit here and listen to that testimony.”