(4 of 4)
-- In a March 1985 memo to Robert McFarlane, then National Security Adviser, North described proposed deliveries of $8 million worth of weapons and ammunition to a Central American country, known to be Guatemala. He enclosed "end-user certificates" attesting that the weapons would be used in that country. Actually, the memo made clear, "all shipments will be . . . turned over to" the contras. This plan seems to violate the Arms Export Control Act.
-- North told Congress last June, under oath, that he barely knew Owen. In fact, as Owen's testimony to the congressional Iran-contra investigators establishes, the two had been working together closely for two years. At the end of his testimony, Owen read a paean canonizing his mentor. Sample line: ". . . at crude altars in the jungle, candles burn for you."
-- Contra Leader Adolfo Calero testified that he gave North $90,000 in traveler's checks in 1985, supposedly to assist in the rescue of U.S. hostages held in Lebanon. Investigators, however, disclosed last week that North had cashed $2,000 worth and spent some in stores near his home. He bought, among other things, two snow tires for $100. Senator Rudman, using sarcasm to make the point that the money was not spent for any public purpose, asked Calero "when was the last time it snowed in Nicaragua." The contra leader allowed that it does not snow in Nicaragua. It would be a crime for North to accept compensation from a non-Government source.
This week the congressional committee will hear from Albert Hakim, an Iranian-born businessman who worked on both the Iran arms deal and the contra- arms network. Meanwhile, David Kimche, a former official of the Israeli Foreign Ministry who has been identified as the originator of a plan to sell U.S.-made weapons to Iran, successfully resisted an attempt by Walsh to compel him to testify before a grand jury.
But the question regarding the President's duties under the law is sure to remain the major focus. Underlying the dispute over Boland's technicalities is a far more sweeping provision. Article I of the Constitution obliges the President to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." At the very least, that would seem to have required Reagan to launch a careful study of what was forbidden by Congress under the Boland amendment and to insist that his aides abide by the results. So far there is no evidence that any such review was ever undertaken.
Legally, that failure is probably not punishable. But the moral point remains. The Boland amendment may be foolish or even disastrous policy. Nonetheless, for all the ambiguities of its changing versions, it is the law, and the Constitution gives the President no latitude to choose which laws he will honor.