Scotth
Verified Military
Oliver North SOF Book Out Now
- Thread starter Smurf
- Start date
So anybody read the book yet?
He might of been convicted but it does not mean he is guilty
By definition it does.
You know, the legal system and all that.
Unless you're talking about innocence, which is something altogether different.
You know, the legal system and all that.
Unless you're talking about innocence, which is something altogether different.
Scotth
Verified Military
North was convicted of three minor charges but it was over-turned on appeal. Basically the appeals court said the case against him were indirectly built on the testimony he gave to congress while he was under immunity. He was guilty as hell and admitted to it all because he had immunity. There is no doubt of his wrong doing.
From the Independent Council Report:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_02.htm
Not to mention he admitted shredding documents and he took classified document as well among the many other things he did.
From the Independent Council Report:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_02.htm
Not to mention he admitted shredding documents and he took classified document as well among the many other things he did.
HOLLiS
Verified Military
I guess the term clandestine is elusive to you. There is a reason for clandestine operations. The mob can not handle it and partisan political opponents will use it again a person, even if it jeopardizes national security.
1) Iran needed the aid
2) Sandanistas needed to be gone
3) cold war, well we found out a few years later, We Won!
4) and the political environment in the US would have none of it.
Were mistakes made, "To er is to human" Or " Even the best laid plans of mice and men often goes astray" (or something like that)
Still even better, "I voted for the war before I voted against the war" JK.
1) Iran needed the aid
2) Sandanistas needed to be gone
3) cold war, well we found out a few years later, We Won!
4) and the political environment in the US would have none of it.
Were mistakes made, "To er is to human" Or " Even the best laid plans of mice and men often goes astray" (or something like that)
Still even better, "I voted for the war before I voted against the war" JK.
Scotth
Verified Military
Clandestine op's doesn't make it ok to break laws. It's not ok to be running clandestine op's out of the White House to avoid congressional oversight. It's actually a very serious power grab by the Executive Branch and a serious blow to our countries shared powers principles that was setup in the constitution and circumvents the checks and balances that were built into our system by our founding fathers. Clandestine op's doesn't make it ok to destroy documents and emails to hide your crimes. By the very nature of a cover up your admitting what you did was wrong.
Could Clinton have said the hummer he got was a clandestine op and it was ok to lie about it?
Could Clinton have said the hummer he got was a clandestine op and it was ok to lie about it?
HOLLiS
Verified Military
Where you ever in the military? What laws? Do you know that the jurisdiction of US Laws are limited and only enforceable in those jurisdictions? BTW what law school did you graduate from? Clinton jerking off or using a aid a sexual toy is not clandestine operation, let's not play with words.
People say it is illegal to use a Drone to take out a enemy combatant (AKA terrorist) They call it assassination, murder and other terms that imply illegality, IMHO it is damn good shooting. They say the same about snipers too. I also say, "damn good shooting."
Shared powers, seem as you mention congress and E branch did not care, obviously the third branch the SCOTUS does not care either, but you care? Are you the self defender of the balance of power? when the E-branch, Congress and SCOTUS chose not to do anything?
Cover up only means a cover up, what you attribute to it, is your call. IMHO, partisan political dia-tripe is just that. We have plenty of politicians who would sacrifice this country, the men and women who honorably serve it to advance their careers.
I would have been honored to have been the criminal (your accusation) that Lt. Col North was.
People say it is illegal to use a Drone to take out a enemy combatant (AKA terrorist) They call it assassination, murder and other terms that imply illegality, IMHO it is damn good shooting. They say the same about snipers too. I also say, "damn good shooting."
Shared powers, seem as you mention congress and E branch did not care, obviously the third branch the SCOTUS does not care either, but you care? Are you the self defender of the balance of power? when the E-branch, Congress and SCOTUS chose not to do anything?
Cover up only means a cover up, what you attribute to it, is your call. IMHO, partisan political dia-tripe is just that. We have plenty of politicians who would sacrifice this country, the men and women who honorably serve it to advance their careers.
I would have been honored to have been the criminal (your accusation) that Lt. Col North was.
Scotth
Verified Military
Your right I am no lawyer but I can read. I have linked the independent counsel's report on the matter several time in this thread. He is a lawyer and he did get a lot of convictions for what happened during Iran/Contra and his report does out-line much of what happened, as far as he could prove. It's not my opinion that North was a criminal it's the historical record that says he is and much of it by his own words. Because of the grant of immunity he avoided jail time but it doesn't change the legality of his actions.
You can say Iran/Contra was partisan just like impeaching Clinton was partisan. At the end of the day Clinton was guilty of lying and North and a bunch of other people were guilty for doing what they did. Partisanship in the process doesn't change the facts of what they did.
You can say Iran/Contra was partisan just like impeaching Clinton was partisan. At the end of the day Clinton was guilty of lying and North and a bunch of other people were guilty for doing what they did. Partisanship in the process doesn't change the facts of what they did.
HOLLiS
Verified Military
One can say anything. BTW why do you think lawyers will tell you, "This is my opinion" they do not state it as fact. No it is your interpretation of the So called historical record. Just like the same historical record that people claimed we supported Saddam. We never did.
Look at POTUS, prior the election all the slamming of Bush about Gitmo. "Elect me" and Gitmo will be closed. He is elected and say," "Wwe will review Gitmo for a year." That means the reality of Gitmo and the partisan political BS just collided. I told people then, "Gitmo is not going to be closed". So where is all the excitement for the past TWO years on closing Gitmo?
So is POTUS a war criminal for keeping Gitmo open, like Bush was? No, reality, those tangos are something no body wants. Outside of exiting out a C130 at 20,000 ft over the Atlantic, Gitmo is where they will say. None of the opponents to Gitmo wants them either. Same with North a political football.
Believe as you want. North served his country and did what most people would not do. Needed to be done. Just like most Viet-Nam vets, the "so called historical records" paint them as evil too.
Look at POTUS, prior the election all the slamming of Bush about Gitmo. "Elect me" and Gitmo will be closed. He is elected and say," "Wwe will review Gitmo for a year." That means the reality of Gitmo and the partisan political BS just collided. I told people then, "Gitmo is not going to be closed". So where is all the excitement for the past TWO years on closing Gitmo?
So is POTUS a war criminal for keeping Gitmo open, like Bush was? No, reality, those tangos are something no body wants. Outside of exiting out a C130 at 20,000 ft over the Atlantic, Gitmo is where they will say. None of the opponents to Gitmo wants them either. Same with North a political football.
Believe as you want. North served his country and did what most people would not do. Needed to be done. Just like most Viet-Nam vets, the "so called historical records" paint them as evil too.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,297
HOLLiS, Scott is making the point that what he did was illegal. Just because it is illegal does not always make it wrong. To me if a father of a raped and murdered little girl kills the murderer/rapist, it is not wrong. But it is illegal right? I think you are confusing right and legal. What Oliver North did might have been "right" but it was most certainly illegal.
HOLLiS
Verified Military
I understand that. But... it takes a court to determine if a crime was committed and by whom. Being accused is insufficient. Maybe a legal technicality, but if the law is the law, then that is the way it is.
needed to add:
I think the correct term would be he is alleged. Unless his was conviction was never vacated he is not quilty:
"Relief from judgment in the United States district courts is governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted that a vacated judgment "place
Scotth
Verified Military
Do you understand why North wasn't charged with the destroying government records and all the other things? Even the three minor charges he was convicted of were all over-turned for one reason. They gave him a Grant of Immunity to testify at the congressional hearings. He couldn't be charged with a crime for anything he said then.
What I can't understand is the denial that what he did was illegal. It's not opinion and speculation it's fact if you spend a little time reading Walsh's report. I can understand if you think North did the things that needed be done and that makes him a hero in your book but you can't white wash away the facts of what happened and that laws were broken.
HOLLiS
Verified Military
Scotth, I'll let you discuss this with a lawyer. Seems you have a personal issue with North. Clinton also lied to congress. Judgment was vacated not over turned. Also seems the law/courts don't share your same opinion. You can post illegal all you want, but without a judgment, it is only meaningless to slander.
This is as I understand the issue.
A legal search found this;
This is as I understand the issue.
A legal search found this;
Who's law? Us? Whatever
Getting back to the topic of the actual book, I just picked it up after seeing this thread. So far it's good but thats as I expected, like the book Shadow Warriors, just with more current information and the like.
Kraut783
SOF Support
On the fence issue....he mentioned he was scared for his family due to AQ and named UBL as a threat.
RetPara
SOF Support
Abu Nidal.... AQ didn't come on the scene till after DS/DS.... damn kids....
I don't know the law and don't know the Iran Contra truth. What I do know is as a Lt he received Silver Star, Bronze Star, two purple hearts. For those that have been to the pentagon a LT COL is pretty common and does not carry a lot of authority in a world of senior officers. At this time the Commandant of the Corps didn't even have an office at the pentagon he was located off sight. I will never believe North was anything but a trusted man who did what he was told and loyal to a fault by protecting those he served.
If you lay down with dogs you are apt to get fleas.
Respectfully,
Bill
If you lay down with dogs you are apt to get fleas.
Respectfully,
Bill
Similar threads
