============================= T H E F I R S T S T O N E ============================= By Joel Bleifuss [In These Times, May 1-7, 1991, page 4] P r o b e s a n d p o s s i b i l i t i e s =============================================== The 1984 Reagan-Bush campaign's arms-for-hostages deal with Iran is still in the news. But as the scandal smolders, what next? Will it be smothered by the calculated indifference of a national media that is most in its element quantifying the frequent-flyer miles of Chief of Staff John Sununu? (He is, after all, a smoking top gun.) Or will this decade-old tale of treason ignite a wildfire of righteous indignation, ensuring that Bush's will be a one-term presidency? At the moment, that may seem farfetched, but two weeks ago, when the Frontline special titled "An Election Held Hostage" aired, 5 percent of all U.S. TVs were tuned in to Frontline. Millions now know of the deal. SPECIALLY PROSECUTED: Clearly, Iran-contra Independent Coun- sel Lawrence Walsh could look into the matter. In December 1986 the Washington, D.C., circuit court instructed Walsh "to investi- gate and, if warranted, to prosecute alleged violations of federal criminal laws by lt. Col. Oliver L. North, other U.S. government officials, or other individuals acting in concert with lt. Col. North or with other U.S. government officials, from in or around January 1985 (the exact date being unknown) to the present, in connec- tion with the sale or shipment of military arms to Iran and the transfer or diversion of funds realized in connection with such sale or shipment." The court's use of the temporal preposition "in or around" and the inclusion of the subsequent parenthetical clause, indicate that U.S. arms illegally traded to Iran in 1981 would fall under Walsh's purview. Will Walsh investigate? Sam Witucki, deputy press officer at the independent counsel's office, said: "We can neither confirm nor deny that." She did say that the office had received a lot of ques- tions on the subject, and she faxed me the documents that laid out Walsh's mandate. (If you have an opinion on the matter, the independent counsel's phone number is (202) 383-8940.) But wouldn't it be more appropriate for Congress to open up a full-scale investigation? Despite the flaws of its Iran-contra in- quiry, those hearings exposed more of that scandal than the lackluster non-partisan Tower Commission. AN INQUIRING CONGRESS: Frank Askin, a Rutgers law professor, is counsel to the House subcommittee on criminal justice chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D - MI,). In 1988, Askin, in his work with the committee, investigated charges that such a deal was made. In the fall of that year, he told me, "My personal opinion? Things were going on in high places. I think there is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence that indicates some representatives of the Reagan-Bush 1980 campaign were having secret negotiations with Iranian officials regarding the hostages. There is enough circumstantial evidence and [the alleged deal] is so important that it is certainly worthy of investigation. Who should do that in- vestigation? At least the historians and journalists." Well, journalists have investigated. It is now time for Congress to take up the matter. But will it ? Last week Askin said, "The issue [of he 1980 deal] has been mentioned but there is nothing formally going on at this moment." (If you think Congress should investigate the alleged deal, the House Judiciary Committee can be reached at (202) 225-3951.) LEGAL OPTIONS: In the fall of 188, New York attorney Leonard Weinglass also talked with former hostages about bringing suit against those Americans who allegedly made the deal with Iran. "The lawsuit never went ahead," says Weinglass.."But I won't say the issue is dead. And now with the renewed interest, there may be a second look at litigation." According to Weinglass, the ideal forum to air the issue would be congressional hearings. But he is not sure Congress has either the nerve or the verve. "I am appalled at the lack of interest in Congress. You would think they would immediately convene an investigation, or at least name a commission. This issue should bring down the Bush presidency. But there isn't a spark of in- terest in the moribund Democratic Party, which lost the presi- dency as a result of this conspiracy." he says. "For all of its weak- nesses, the only viable vehicle for getting at this and to educate the country is a congressional hearing. Granted, Congress dropped the ball in Iran-contra, but you have to remember that Congress was limited by the North prosecution. I would prefer to think in terms of the Watergate hearings that were more open- ended." Even if Congress fails to pick up the issue, the layers won't "Part of the beauty of this is that none of the key players were in government at the time" says Weinglass. "So George Bush could be compelled to testify under oath, because these alleged crimes occurred at a time when he held no office." According to former hostage Moorehead Kennedy, there are two legal grounds on which to bring suit. Kennedy, who graduated from Harvard Law School but chose a career with the foreign service, explains, "Number one, this is kidnapping, and an accessory or a co-conspirator to a kidnapping has the same guilt as one who has been involved since the beginning. Two, there is an old-fashioned tort called false imprisonment." Kennedy is hopeful that the hostages and their attorneys can all "pull to- gether on this." Besides Weinglass, two other lawyers may be possible counsels to the former hostages -- Los Angeles attorney Jim Davis, who represented 13 hostages in a 1981 suit that contested the U.S. government's negotiated settlement with Iran, and Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law School professor who represented Claus von Bulow and who now has been consulted by some hos- tages. ON ALL FRONTS: Kennedy is the director of the Moorehead Ken- nedy Institute, an educational organization that gives seminars on political ethics. He is also an Episcopal lay minister and the Re- publican Party's deputy district leader in Lower Manhattan, an area of the city that he claims is home to some yuppies who are closet Republicans. In addition to legal recourse by former hostages, Kennedy ad- vocates a probe by a non-partisan citizens' committee, as well as the formation of a hostages' committee. This committee, as he envisions it, would publicize the issue by raising money and put- ting ads in newspapers and on TV. Further, he says, pressure should be put on Congress. "There has to be signals sent to members of Congress who are coming up for re-election that they want to be on the right side of the issue. People are outraged. This is going to spread. It doesn't have sex in it, but it has morality, human suffering, wrongdoing in high places and an issue people are going to be concerned about -- the future of our democracy. What we have here are men who were willing to sacrifice the liberty and health of their fellow Americans to win an election. This is a very basic moral issue. "Some people are concerned that, with the pressures that the Bush administration are under, anybody who is critical is going to pay for it," he continues. "But this just shows the state of our democracy that people would express such an idea." "I have good old-fashioned Christian faith. I believe in original sin. I'm not surprised and it doesn't bother me when people do bad things. But I am Bothered when they end up in high places and nobody dares to criticize them,' says Kennedy "We've got to purge this." SERVANT OF POWER? One news organization that has recently covered the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign is the Washington Post. On April 21 it featured an opinion piece in its "Outlook" section by Mark Hosenball, the same journalist who in October 1988 deemed the 1980 arms-for-hostages story "a rumor that just won't die," one that was being spread by "aficionados of intrigue" and "rumor mongers." (See In These Times, Oct. 19,1988.) Picking up where he left off two and a half years ago, Hosenball wrote on April 21. "The allegations have knocked around in fash- ionable publications and among the chattering classes in New York, Washington and Hollywood for years, but last week they hit the big time. The New York Times article by former Carter admin- istration official Gary Sick, and the subsequent PBS [Frontline] broadcast gave a new lease on life .... to a story which has ob- sessed a small brigade of conspiracy theorists and journalistic gadflies for years ... a mischevous interpretation of highly cir- cumstantial evidence." As a result of these and other articles, a new verb has entered the Washington lexicon -- "Hosenballed." Can't they find a new person?" wonders Robert Parry, the former Newsweek journalist who reported the Frontline expose. It became sort of a pattern. Any journalist who would quote or investigate these charges is attacked by Hosenball. The effect of having Hosenball in the 'Outlook' section is to delegitimize the story. When reporters feel they are going to be ridiculed in Washington in this snotty, sophomoric way, they pull away from following leads. "As the psy-ops [psychological operations] people always tell you, the best way to neutralize your opponent is to make them an object of ridicule. The effect of such ridicule has kept this story from being seriously treated for years, and right now Hosenball is working overtime being sure it goes back to the fringes." Parry believes that someone miscalculated when they assigned Hosenball the story. "I think this is a rear-guard action," says Parry "There are now millions of Americans who think the elec- tion was interfered with and that they were denied the use of their franchise. And a democracy can't let that continue." ################################################################## ############################################################### # Harel Barzilai for Activists Mailing List (AML) # ################################################################ { For more info about ACTIV-L or PeaceNet's brochure send } { inquiries to harel@dartmouth.edu / mathrich@umcvmb.bitnet } To join AML, just send the 1-line message "SUB ACTIV-L " to: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET; you should receive a confirmation message within 2 days. Alternate address: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU Qs/problems: Rich Winkel, MATHRICH@UMCVMB.["MISSOURI.EDU" or "BITNET"] ################################################################## For a free issue of the national weekly newspaper In These Times, just cut and mail their card, which is reproduced below... The address to put on the back of this "postcard" is: In These Times 1912 Debs Avenue Mt. Morris, IL 61054 Or call In These Times Customer Service at... 1-800-435-0715 SEND ME A FREE COPY OF I N T H E S E T I M E S If I like the newspaper I will pay you $18.95 (a 31% saving off the regular price) for six months -- 21 more issues. If I decide not to subscribe for any reason, I'll just write "cancel" across the invoice and that's it -- no further obligation. ( ) $18.95 six months ( ) Payment enclosed ( ) $34.95 one year ( ) $24.95 Student/retired (One year) Name_______________________________________________ Address____________________________________________ City, State, Zip___________________________________