Reagan’s Ban on North Evidence

I cannot imagine why there is no public outcry against the continuing practice of politicians shielding themselves and their cronies by declaring possibly pertinent items of evidence for or against them “military secrets.”

Did Watergate teach us nothing about allowing one of the players in the game to call balls and strikes? Once again, in President Reagan’s refusal to allow access to data that retired Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North declares essential to his defense, we approach the near certainty that justice will be thwarted by those sworn to uphold it (Part I, Dec. 2).

How does the court know that this evidence would benefit North, if it cannot see it? How does the court know the material is justifiably classified? Could any felon be exempted from trial by asserting that his vindication lay in “secret” information? Or only those felons who have friends in high places? North will now be allowed to hide behind the sanctity of secret documents similar to those which he cynically shredded.

There is no need to abandon justice in order to maintain security. Practical problems have practical solutions: One possibility might be the use of some of the thousands of Americans who are retired from service in the armed forces who possess security clearances. These candidates could serve on a jury to weigh matters involving national defense with no added risk to the government and no bias to the defendant.

It is not a perfect system, but it would serve to call a bluff that is long overdue. For too long administrations have been able to pull in the pots without showing any cards. Americans are entitled to a fairer shake.

BRUCE LOWRY

North Hollywood