Lesson of the Ollie North Case

The case against Oliver L. North, who was convicted on three felony counts including aiding in the obstruction of Congress, has been dismissed in federal court. Independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh concedes that under the circumstances it would be pointless to pursue further prosecution of the former Reagan Administration White House aide, a key figure in the Iran-Contra arms scandal.

Last year a three-judge appeals panel set aside North’s convictions, saying the trial judge must show that North’s testimony to Congress in 1987--compelled under a grant of immunity--had not been used against him in his criminal trial. The appeals court set not just a rigorous but a perhaps impossible test, requiring that the trial judge examine all witnesses to determine whether their testimony had been influenced in any way by North’s appearance before Congress.

The dismissal of the case against North does not, of course, alter by an iota the ugly facts of what occurred in the mid-1980s as various members of the Reagan Administration sought to thwart the will and scrutiny of Congress in regard to U.S. aid to Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

North was accused of managing a covert operation, run out of the White House, to buy and transport weapons to the rebels after Congress had sought to limit and control aid to the anti-Sandinista forces. Money for the arms was drawn from profits on another surreptitious deal, involving weapons sales to Iran in hoped-for exchange for the release of hostages in Lebanon. It was a contemptible business all around, the worst legal and moral aspect of which was its effort to circumvent the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers. If we are not a nation whose officials uphold the Constitution, we are nothing.

The dismissal of the North case redirects attention to the inherent difficulty in all such prosecutions. Congress has essential investigatory powers, and immunized testimony can be important in forcing the timely disclosure of hidden facts affecting the nation’s well-being. But if an immunity grant makes subsequent prosecution and punishment of wrongdoers impossible, are the interests of justice truly being served? There is no automatic answer; indeed, the answer could vary from case to case. But best to ponder the question now, before some future prosecution is held to be tainted.