• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran contra.

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Could someone explain or give a timeline?
General discussion of Iran contra
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Iran

The scandal began as an operation to free seven American hostages being held by a group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the U.S. hostages. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages.[2][3] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[4][5]

  • Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on June 16, 1992. [1]. Weinberger received a pardon from George H. W. Bush on December 24, 1992 before he was tried.[SUP][70][/SUP]
  • William Casey, Head of the CIA. Thought to have conceived the plan, was stricken ill hours before he would testify. Reporter Bob Woodward reported Casey knew of and approved the plan.[SUP][71][/SUP]
  • Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Adviser, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only 2 years probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush[SUP][72][/SUP]
  • Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only 2 years probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush[SUP][73][/SUP]Walsh Iran / Contra Report - Summary of Prosecutions.
  • Alan D. Fiers Chief of the CIA's Central American Task Force, convicted of withholding evidence and sentenced to one year probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush
  • Clair George Chief of Covert Ops-CIA, convicted on 2 charges of perjury, but pardoned by President George H. W. Bush before sentencing.[SUP][74][/SUP]
  • Oliver North, member of the National Security Council convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents, but the ruling was overturned since he had been granted immunity.[SUP][75][/SUP]
  • Fawn Hall, Oliver North's secretary was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for her testimony.[SUP][76][/SUP]
  • Jonathan Scott Royster Liaison to Oliver North was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for his testimony.[SUP][77][/SUP]
  • John Poindexter National Security Advisor, convicted of 5 counts of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that overturned these convictions.[SUP][78][/SUP]
  • Duane Clarridge An ex-CIA senior official, he was indicted in November 1991 on 7 counts of perjury and false statements relating to a November 1985 shipment to Iran. Pardoned before trial by President George H. W. Bush.[SUP][79][/SUP][SUP][80][/SUP]
  • Richard V. Secord Ex-major general in the Air Force who organized the Iran arms sales and Contra aid. He pleaded guilty in November 1989 to making false statements to Congress. Sentenced to two years of probation.[SUP][81][/SUP][SUP][82][/SUP]
  • Albert Hakim A businessman, he pleaded guilty in November 1989 to supplementing the salary of North by buying a $13,800 fence for North with money from "the Enterprise", which was a set of foreign companies Hakim used in Iran-Contra. In addition, Swiss company Lake Resources Inc., used for storing money from arms sales to Iran to give to the Contras, plead guilty to stealing government property.[SUP][83][/SUP] Hakim was given two years of probation and a $5,000 fine, while Lake Resources Inc. was ordered to dissolve.[SUP][81][/SUP][SUP][84][/SUP]

..
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So why was this a big deal? I don't remember. Look at all the crazy **** we've done since then and right up to this minute.

Giving arms to terrorists....no biggie!

Rewarding people who took americans hostage...no biggie!
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
41,627
Reaction score
48,041
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So why was this a big deal? I don't remember. Look at all the crazy **** we've done since then and right up to this minute.

Well....this was going on in 1985-1988 (roughly) and just 5 years earlier we had 44 hostages in Iran so a lot of folks were rather unhappy that we'd be helping the Ayatollah. There was also some concern that we were facilitating the drug trade in Central America while putting all these anti-communist pieces together. For what it's worth, we definitely were doing that.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Easy to say if you're not a hostage. I notice we survived it.


Giving arms to terrorists....no biggie!

Rewarding people who took americans hostage...no biggie!
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
They say the CIA is the biggest drug dealer in the world. Is it true? My memories of Vietnam, Thailand and Laos indicate we certainly were. Now, they can just print money so I don't know...




Well....this was going on in 1985-1988 (roughly) and just 5 years earlier we had 44 hostages in Iran so a lot of folks were rather unhappy that we'd be helping the Ayatollah. There was also some concern that we were facilitating the drug trade in Central America while putting all these anti-communist pieces together. For what it's worth, we definitely were doing that.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
41,627
Reaction score
48,041
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Easy to say if you're not a hostage. I notice we survived it.

You want to have some fun with this? See what you can find out about stuff that went on at the Mena Municipal Airport in Arkansas.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Interesting. Our Presidential dope dealers at work.....
A number of allegations have been written about and several local, state, and federal investigations have taken place related to the notion of the Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport as a CIA drop point in large scale cocaine trafficking beginning in the latter part of the 1980s. The topic has received some press coverage that has included allegations of awareness, participation and/or coverup involvement of figures such as future presidents Bill Clinton,[6][7][8][9] George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, as well future Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Saline County prosecutor Dan Harmon (who was convicted of numerous felonies including drug and racketeering charges in 1997[10]). The Mena airport was also associated with Adler Berriman (Barry) Seal, an American drug smuggler and aircraft pilot who flew covert flights for the CIA and the Medellín Cartel.[11





You want to have some fun with this? See what you can find out about stuff that went on at the Mena Municipal Airport in Arkansas.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
32,152
Reaction score
15,364
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Over 30 years after Reagan took office, the left still sees him as a threat... Wow
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
65,947
Reaction score
32,579
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Well....this was going on in 1985-1988 (roughly) and just 5 years earlier we had 44 hostages in Iran so a lot of folks were rather unhappy that we'd be helping the Ayatollah. There was also some concern that we were facilitating the drug trade in Central America while putting all these anti-communist pieces together. For what it's worth, we definitely were doing that.


Also Reagan asked congress for money and authorization to fund a war in central America and congress said hell no. Then Reagan did it anyway in a way he thought was hush hush.
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
65,947
Reaction score
32,579
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Over 30 years after Reagan took office, the left still sees him as a threat... Wow

this thread is specifically about Iran/contra. how do you propose discussing it without mentioning Reagan?
 

Geoist

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
20,721
Reaction score
11,265
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Giving arms to terrorists....no biggie!

Rewarding people who took americans hostage...no biggie!

And today good ol' Oli North is revered as a 'hero.'
 

Geoist

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
20,721
Reaction score
11,265
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Easy to say if you're not a hostage. I notice we survived it.

I think it illustrates a lot of hypocrisy when Republicans say, "we don't negotiate with terrorists!" and then see what Oliver North did as noble.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,519
Reaction score
52,739
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
So why was this a big deal? I don't remember. Look at all the crazy **** we've done since then and right up to this minute.

Selling arms to Iran for hostages was a big deal politically, but legal. It was the Contra part of the equation that created the biggest issue legally. Congress had passed a law prohibiting further funding for the Contras. The White House violated that ban under the basic idea that, well, they wouldn't get caught doing it. That is a big deal.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,519
Reaction score
52,739
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Over 30 years after Reagan took office, the left still sees him as a threat... Wow

Reagan is the entire point of this thread.

Do you figure if you just make **** up people will believe it? The OP does not even mention Reagan, and Iran-Contra has been somewhat in the news recently via comparison. Just because you do not like it being mentioned, and if you had made a thread like this it would have ulterior motives, does not really effect any one but you.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Ah, yeah, you're bringing back my memories now. The Contra aspect of government acting independent of oversight. That made the paying for hostages look even worse.

So, besides SF, I read a lot of crime fiction. Much of this incorporates either crooked government or secret government as part of the story. So, I'm curious how people here feel about that (plus staying on topic).

Do you think that there are all sorts of hidden things going on. Do we have assassins? Do we have super-secret agencies with James Bondish resources? Do you think so many things are classified because nobody has permission to oversee this? Do you think the government breaks a lot of laws "for our own good"?

So, you could argue (for arguments sake) that this was just logic and business as usual. After all, how many hostages are there? Couldn't we afford to buy them back for as infrequent as it happens? If we did, would that become a new business enterprise of taking hostages? Should we have just left them to rot?

And for Contra, well, we used to believe "communist bad" but that's very pre-Y2K now. So weren't we supposed to do stuff like that? Arm people I mean? Like Libya and soon Syria? Seems like the WH doesn't need permission all the time. Is this "for our own good"?

Can we please skip the partisanship and look at the concept? This is or isn't regardless of who is in charge.


(I've heard enough ant-Obama rants to fulfill my lifetime needs so thanks)


I think it illustrates a lot of hypocrisy when Republicans say, "we don't negotiate with terrorists!" and then see what Oliver North did as noble.

Selling arms to Iran for hostages was a big deal politically, but legal. It was the Contra part of the equation that created the biggest issue legally. Congress had passed a law prohibiting further funding for the Contras. The White House violated that ban under the basic idea that, well, they wouldn't get caught doing it. That is a big deal.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,519
Reaction score
52,739
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ah, yeah, you're bringing back my memories now. The Contra aspect of government acting independent of oversight. That made the paying for hostages look even worse.

So, besides SF, I read a lot of crime fiction. Much of this incorporates either crooked government or secret government as part of the story. So, I'm curious how people here feel about that (plus staying on topic).

Do you think that there are all sorts of hidden things going on. Do we have assassins? Do we have super-secret agencies with James Bondish resources? Do you think so many things are classified because nobody has permission to oversee this? Do you think the government breaks a lot of laws "for our own good"?

Two part question, so a two part answer. I dunno if we have programs like that, but I certainly do not rule out the possibility. I think we need to come up with a form of oversight for secret programs that is not there. Wether a program is good or bad, well, who knows, but we need more oversight into whether a program is legal or not.

So, you could argue (for arguments sake) that this was just logic and business as usual. After all, how many hostages are there? Couldn't we afford to buy them back for as infrequent as it happens? If we did, would that become a new business enterprise of taking hostages? Should we have just left them to rot?

Buying hostages sends exactly the wrong message. We want to discourage people from terrorism, not reward them for it. If rescue is not an option, then yes, we should "let them rot". You cannot get rid of all the risks in this world, and choices are sometimes hard, but paying off terrorists is something I think we should not do.

And for Contra, well, we used to believe "communist bad" but that's very pre-Y2K now. So weren't we supposed to do stuff like that? Arm people I mean? Like Libya and soon Syria? Seems like the WH doesn't need permission all the time. Is this "for our own good"?

Whether arming the Contras was good or not is irrelevant to the scandal. Separation of power and checks and balances are an integral part of our government system. Even if congress was wrong(and to be clear, I do not think they where), the white house cannot just say "so what" and do whatever they want.

Can we please skip the partisanship and look at the concept? This is or isn't regardless of who is in charge.


(I've heard enough ant-Obama rants to fulfill my lifetime needs so thanks)

I actually have looked at the concept. I was one of the people who made the Tower report a bestseller(it wasn't that good, kinda dry actually, but I did make it through it). The fact it was a republican administration is irrelevant to my views. If Clinton had done this, I would have criticized him for it too.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,519
Reaction score
52,739
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Oh. and for completeness and fairness: the Iran portion of this, a major aspect was that the US was trying to buy influence with moderates within Iran, and IIRC, there was some success there.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I dunno if we have programs like that, but I certainly do not rule out the possibility. I think we need to come up with a form of oversight for secret programs that is not there. Wether a program is good or bad, well, who knows, but we need more oversight into whether a program is legal or not.
••Oversight by whom? Have you seen what morons most politician are? They're in position because of bombast, not because of brains. So, who will watch the watchman?

Buying hostages sends exactly the wrong message. We want to discourage people from terrorism, not reward them for it. If rescue is not an option, then yes, we should "let them rot". You cannot get rid of all the risks in this world, and choices are sometimes hard, but paying off terrorists is something I think we should not do.
••Of course they should be left to rot unless they are connected to you somehow. Like your father or sister or brother-in-law or you best friends brother-in-laws cousin Marty who feeds the feral cats.

Whether arming the Contras was good or not is irrelevant to the scandal. Separation of power and checks and balances are an integral part of our government system. Even if congress was wrong(and to be clear, I do not think they where), the white house cannot just say "so what" and do whatever they want.
••That was the point of my post. Don't they constantly do stuff like this? Don't they sort of have to?

I actually have looked at the concept. I was one of the people who made the Tower report a bestseller(it wasn't that good, kinda dry actually, but I did make it through it). The fact it was a republican administration is irrelevant to my views. If Clinton had done this, I would have criticized him for it too.
••Yes, thank you for not being partisan.





Two part question, so a two part answer. I dunno if we have programs like that, but I certainly do not rule out the possibility. I think we need to come up with a form of oversight for secret programs that is not there. Wether a program is good or bad, well, who knows, but we need more oversight into whether a program is legal or not.



Buying hostages sends exactly the wrong message. We want to discourage people from terrorism, not reward them for it. If rescue is not an option, then yes, we should "let them rot". You cannot get rid of all the risks in this world, and choices are sometimes hard, but paying off terrorists is something I think we should not do.



Whether arming the Contras was good or not is irrelevant to the scandal. Separation of power and checks and balances are an integral part of our government system. Even if congress was wrong(and to be clear, I do not think they where), the white house cannot just say "so what" and do whatever they want.



I actually have looked at the concept. I was one of the people who made the Tower report a bestseller(it wasn't that good, kinda dry actually, but I did make it through it). The fact it was a republican administration is irrelevant to my views. If Clinton had done this, I would have criticized him for it too.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Whether arming the Contras was good or not is irrelevant to the scandal. Separation of power and checks and balances are an integral part of our government system. Even if congress was wrong(and to be clear, I do not think they where), the white house cannot just say "so what" and do whatever they want.

There is a line of thought that because of the separation of powers, POTUS's position as CIC of the military, and the fact that the President has a lot of leeway when conducting foreign policy, that Congress doesn't have the power to prohibit the executive branch from giving military aid to other nations, making the Boland Act an unconstitutional overeach of legislative power.
 
Top Bottom