Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine) questions North.
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
People settle into their seats in the hearing room Senator Daniel Inouye (D - Hawaii) The hearing will begin. The Chair recognizes Senator Mitchell. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). Good Morning Colonel North. Colonel Oliver North. Good Morning Senator. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). Good Morning Mr. Silverman. Colonel this should be the last day of your appearance and I am sure you are relieved at that. Colonel Oliver North. I am Sir. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). Questions last week were mostly about the facts. They re important, but it s also important to consider some of the broader policy and legal issues. One of the purposes of the committee is to consider the relevant laws and see how they worked or didn t work in this case and recommend changes in those laws if appropriate. The other is to try and find out how and why these important policy decisions were made and whether we ought to change the manner in which decisions are made. And I d like to try and do that to some extent this morning. So perhaps out of all of this we could all learn something.
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). Now, you ve said last week that you ve obeyed the law. You haven t claimed and I understand you don t now claim that you are in any way above or exempt from the requirements of the law, is that correct? Colonel Oliver North. That is correct sir. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). And you agree don t you, that every American, whatever his or her position, must obey the law. Colonel Oliver North. I do. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). And that s true even if that person doesn t agree with a particular law? Colonel Oliver North. Yes Sir. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). Now if a law is properly enacted and is Constitutional, but that law is in conflict with the President s policy - domestic or foreign - which is controlling? The law or the President s policy? Colonel Oliver North. Well certainly, as I have indicated in my earlier testimony, the law is the law. And as you have also indicated in my testimony, I do not believe that any of us are above the law. And certainly in this case while I am not a lawyer and do not profess to be able to play the various issues pro and con, I continue to believe that the President s policy was within the law, that what we did was Constitutional in its essence, that the President s decisions to continue to support the Nicaraguan democratic opposition in the way that they were carried out from 1984 through my departure in 1986, fully fit within the strictures within the particular statutory constraint that were contained in Bolan. And so, I don t see, Senator, that there is a distance at all between what was passed and what we did. Certainly there are folks who can argue the Constitutionality of Bolan - as to whether or not the Congress has the authority to tell a President he can or cannot ask a head of state or send his agents, in this case myself, out to talk to foreign leaders. It is my understanding of the Constitution and the laws, that there is no separation between what we did and the Bolan constraints. In my going out to talk with foreign heads of state or foreign leaders or to arrange for non-US government monies to be used that met the rigorous constraints imposed by Bolan.
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). Right and I of course have not suggested that. I ve only asked, and I believe you ve agreed, that if a properly constituted law has been enacted it s Constitutional even though it conflicts with the President s policy the president I ve only asked that - and I think it s rather an unremarkable question - that when a law of the United States is properly enacted and is Constitutional, even though it conflicts with the President s policy, the President or members of the Executive Branch and indeed all Americans, must obey that law. Colonel Oliver North. I have no debate with that whatsoever, Senator. But I would not want to leave the record lacking on is the fact that I think there are many people who debate whether or not the issue of Bolan as it s interpreted by a number of different people apply Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). I m not debating that. I m not debating that. And I think the record is very clear on your view of that.
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). Now as I ve said one of the purposes of this committee is to find out how and why these important policy decisions were made. And I speak now particularly with respect to the sale of arms to Iran. And so I d like to ask you a few questions about that. You ve testified that the Iranians, with whom you dealt, in both would have been called the first and second channels, included officials of government of Iran. Am I correct in that? Colonel Oliver North. Yes. (Mrs. North listening.)
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). Now you and the other persons meeting with the President on this matter were aware, weren t you, that the President had been highly critical of the Iranian government? In a widely reported speech in July of 1985, just a month before the first shipment of arms from Israel to Iran, which the President agreed to, the President described Iran as an outlaw state run by the strangest collection of misfits, Looney tunes and squalled criminals since the advent of the Third Reich. To your recollection during the meetings you attended with President, with others, did anyone in your presence specifically point out to him that his representatives were dealing with officials of that same government of Iran - point out that statement to him and point out, at least the apparent, inconsistency in the two and the problems that might cause for it? Colonel Oliver North. That particular issue was not addressed in the meetings that I attended with the President on this matter. But what I think is important is that we clearly attempted to establish contact and ultimately the objective of a strategic dialogue with pragmatic, or moderate or less unreasonable elements, of the Iranian government; and even if we could have, people who were willing to bring about a sensation of terrorism, a more pro-western view of the world, an end of Sheea-sponsored revolutionary fundamentalism and ultimately secure the relationship between the United States and Iran to the point where we could bring about an end to the Iran- Iraq war. The characterization of the Iranian government I don t take any issue with, but the fact is that there are people in their government of different political philosophies who see the long term benefit to their country as well as to the rest of the world in achieving the kinds of things that we set out to ultimately achieve. The problem that is created is matching one set of words with another set of policy goals that were not publically stated. And yet I see nothing inconsistent with the fact that the characterization of the Iranian government as the President made it vividly clear, does not in any way prevent trying to establish contact with a more reasonable channel within it.
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). Well, in fact the President s publically stated policy at that time was not to provide arms to Iran and to work actively to keep other nations from doing so. As you ll recall, in 1984 the Secretary of State had branded Iran a country which has repeatedly provided support or acts of international terrorism and by his action, he placed Iran on a list of countries to which American arms could not be shipped. And the President s publically stated policy on terrorism was that there would be no negation, no payments, and no ransom of any kind to obtain the release of terrorists. In fact I think at about that same time as he made the speech on Iran the President said and I quote America will never make concessions to terrorists, to do so would only invite more terrorism. Once we head down that path there will be no end to it. Now my question is, am I correct that every person dealing directly with the President on this matter was a member of the executive branch and therefore subordinate to and totally dependent upon the President? Colonel Oliver North. When you say this matter you re referring too? Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). The Iran and advising him on the issue of sale of arms to Iran. Colonel Oliver North. To my knowledge that is correct. I do not know of any others that specifically talked to the President regarding our Iran initiative, but in the records I turned over to the committee and in some of the documents that were removed from my office and provided by the White House to this committee, it is very clear that there were a number of other initiatives ongoing - some by members of Congress, both houses, both sides of the aisle - who had an interest in some kind of dialogue with the Iranian government for the purposes that were identical to the ones that we pursued, perhaps more vigorously than some would agree, nonetheless there were a number of initiatives undertaken by private Americans, by Senators, by Congressmen, to get to a faction within Iran that would be more moderate. I would also take issue Senator with one of your comments. To my knowledge we have never said nor should we say that we will not negotiate. We have a policy of no concessions. We have a policy that is very clear and I still do not to this day believe that we made concessions to terrorists. We were dealing again in hopes of establishing a dialogue, a strategic dialogue with elements within Iran that could bring about a more pro-American, pro-western, anti-terrorist philosophy within that country. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). And I understand and appreciate your point of view as I m sure you understand and appreciate there are others who would characterize these events different than you do. But the point is that every person advising the President is subordinate and when the finding authorizing the sale of arms was signed by the President it specifically directed that no one in the Congress be notified of the covert action. We recall that going into effect. Colonel Oliver North. I do. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). And you said that the reason for that was the concern over leaks and the problem that because it might be leaked it would jeopardize the action. And you ve over the course in the last several days, expressed very forcefully that point of view. I raise that because there s another point of view on that same issue that hasn t been expressed and I d like to do that now, because I think we ought to have the benefit of all points of view on this as we consider what we should do about this law, which is very difficult.