Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,949
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 17:
Line 32: − +
typo
:Yes, that's how I remember it. Ted Kennedy was involved in the legislation too, I think. And it was all related to the dispute over whether the [[Contras]] were morally or ethically better than the [[Sandinistas]] of Nicaragua or the "death squads" of [[El Salvador]]. Since a friend of mine actually filmed a documentary on the topic, I may be a bit biased. I'm one of those pro-freedom, anti-murder partisans you're always reading about. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, that's how I remember it. Ted Kennedy was involved in the legislation too, I think. And it was all related to the dispute over whether the [[Contras]] were morally or ethically better than the [[Sandinistas]] of Nicaragua or the "death squads" of [[El Salvador]]. Since a friend of mine actually filmed a documentary on the topic, I may be a bit biased. I'm one of those pro-freedom, anti-murder partisans you're always reading about. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::: A lot of the impetus for the Boland Amendment was the discovery that the CIA was involved in helping the Contras mine Nicaragua's harbors, and that this operation had begun without Congressional approval. This revelation caused a backlash even among Congressmen that were generally sympathetic to the Contras.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 17:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: That should be in the article then. We're trying to figure out the relationship between (1) Nicaragua, (2) the Contras, (3) the Reagan administration, (4) the Boland amendemnt, (5) Israel & Iran and everything else. I like connections and relationships, because I'm a software engineer and I like to draw diagrams. Drives everyone else around me batty. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The Boland Amendment is one of those left-over reforms from the Vietnam and Watergate era intended to castrate the foreign policy prerogatives of the President. Like the debacle after the collapse of South Vietnam, the Boland Amendment targets funding in support of a regime ally of the Untied States.
:::::In the case of South Vietnam, Nixon & Kissinger won a negotiated settlement at the Paris Peace Talks with North Vietnam that would allow for the withdrawal of active duty US troops. Once that was completed, and after Nixon resigned, the US Congress undermined the negotiated settlement by cutting off all Congressional Appropriations for the Government of South Vietnam. Soon thereafter came the Communist reeducation camps, Cambodian genocide, etc.
:::::It is the Congress exercising the power of the purse and impinging upon the Executive's role as US foreign policy promulgator and Commander-in-Chief. It is a Constitutional question, simply because Congress refuses to provide funding for what the Executive finds necessary for national security does not stop the President from fulfilling his Constitutionally mandated role and upholding his oath of office. The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on this, or related issues, such as the [[War Powers Act]].
:::::We are faced again with the exact same issues regarding the current Congress & Executive; this news item today, [http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070403a.html] "Pelosi's Syria Trip Undermines US Policy, Says Expert" is ''deja vu'' in regards to the famous "Dr. Commandante Letter" to Daniel Ortega from Congressional Democrats in the early 1980s. Here's an excerpt from the above news item,
:::::::''"Pelosi's visit is likely to undermine the Bush administration's foreign policy and help the Syrians go back to business as usual - much to the dismay of our Lebanese, Iraqi, and Israeli friends, all of whom want the United States to take a tougher stand against Syria... trip to Syria is likely to encourage Syria's dictatorship to think it can get away with murder - literally-in Lebanon."'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:37, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thers is actually nothing wrong with this language,
::Thers is actually nothing wrong with this language,
Well, the problem I had with the language is that the US didn't "provide arms" to the Contras, for the most part. They provided funds (to the extent that the funds got to the Contras. Mr. Schlafly is right that a lot of the money didn't go to the Contras). Here's the Walsh report...the document by the Independent Counsel laying out his findings.[http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/]--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, the problem I had with the language is that the US didn't "provide arms" to the Contras, for the most part. They provided funds (to the extent that the funds got to the Contras. Mr. Schlafly is right that a lot of the money didn't go to the Contras). Here's the Walsh report...the document by the Independent Counsel laying out his findings.[http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/]--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:There's a discussion on my talk page right now about this; from memory, I thought it was private arms dealers Khashoggi & Ghorbanifar involved on the Iraeli/Iranian end, with Gen Secord then involved in procuring Contra's needs on the Central American end; bu now somebody alleges Secord bought from the Pentagon directly. Needs to be looked into closer. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:There's a discussion on my talk page right now about this; from memory, I thought it was private arms dealers Khashoggi & Ghorbanifar involved on the Israeli/Iranian end, with Gen Secord then involved in procuring Contra's needs on the Central American end; but now somebody alleges Secord bought from the Pentagon directly. Needs to be looked into closer. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)