Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: iandiareii who wrote (37578)	3/10/1999 9:53:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Your adherence to the rule of law is admirable. Here is a view of the boland amendment: The Boland Amendment Initially passed on December 8, 1982, this amendment to the War Powers Act of 1973, states that U.S. Agencies are prohibited from providing military equipment, training or support to anyone "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua." The literal purpose was to prevent any CIA funds or support to go to the Sadinista (rebels fighting against the communist Nicaraguan government). Congress felt this was necessary because the Reagan administration had pledged to support the Contras in their battle for freedom for their country. Unfortunately a very left leaning Democratic Congress prohibited the administration from continuing funding to support the Contras at a critical time. As it became evident this was a mistake, Congress repealed the Amendment and re-instituted the funding. ContraEventually the U.S. and Contra pressure resulted in democratic elections in Nicaragua. The actual wording of the Amendment was interpreted to disallow only U.S. Intelligence Agencies, thus allowing members of the staff of the NSC (which is not an Intelligence Agency of the U.S. government) to route funds to the Contras. A angry democratic Congress responded by attempting to prosecute Col. Oliver North, Adm. John Poindexter and others in a set of public hearings. North was convicted on a number of charges but finally exonerated of all but a minor infraction, Adm. John Poindextor (ret'd) was convicted of lieing to Congress. (My note): So you see, not only did the Congress resume funding, but the National Security Staff did not break the letter of the law. By the premises you have laid out, then, since the operation was legal, there was no murder. Not only that, but the round-about funding came during a mere lull in Congressional support, thus ratifying the democratic nature of the operation. It was conceded at the time, by the way, that the letter of the law had not been broken, with much harrumphing about violating its spirit. The Congressional decision to rescind the measure preempted litigation.

To: iandiareii who wrote (37578)	3/10/1999 10:08:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>Remind me, which Supreme Court ruling found the Boland Amendment unconstitutional, and when? Which Boland? There were so many. None of which could Constitutionally tie a president's hands in the conduct of foreign policy. It's called "separation of powers". Congress can say anything it wants in areas of presidential prerogatives, but the president is not bound. Congress's only recourse would have been impeachment, hardly something they could pull off. Reagan calculated that and won. >>Presidential "leeway" in foreign policy ends precisely where Americans say it does. The American people made clear their wishes -- no further aid to the Contras. The congress enshrined this wish in law. The Reagan administration continued to fund the Contras in direct violation of both of those settled facts. Ridiculous. Congress cannot dictate foreign policy through acts other than declaring war and indirectly by defunding initiatives. They tried the latter and Reagan went around them for good reason. Reagan had the power and authority under various Cold War executive orders to do what he did and the American people trusted Reagan, not the Dem loons in Congress, to make foreign policy. That was determined in two landslide elections. >>Extra legal killings are devoid of the recognized justification that wars, for instance, allow, and become strictly murder. And Clinton is clearly guilty of that when he bombed the Sudan pharm plant and killed all those innocents when he was trying to drive Monica off the news. >>The Reagan administration's continued, illegal arming of the Contras bore no valid governmental imprimatur -- neither democratic nor republican, lowercase -- and the killing that this enabled cannot be thus justified. It was not illegal. And it worked, saving many many more lives in the process.