1. North was given immunity on the basis of his willingness to tell the truth; this willingness to testify truthfully is the basis of any immunity deal, so technically he violated his agreement and could have been prosecuted for that alone;
2. The "aiding and abetting" charge did cover his perjury since his actions (perjury) did aid and abett. Also consider the well known legal concept that perjury is very difficult to prove in a court of law, particularly in front of a jury. The law may not get you specifically on perjury, but in can use your perjury as a facet of a greater crime. Of course, North could have done a "Reagan" and just plain said he "forgot" all about what happened. Instead he went out of his way, flaunting the truth and other evidence to place obtacles to the investigation and prosecution of possible guilty parties and derail his conviction;
3. The overturn of the conviction, as you noted, was due to the legal technicality, not testimony or evidence that in any way exonerated him of his crimes for which he was convicted in a proper court of law. The overturn was in now way a vindication of his innocence or a finding of not guilty. The evidence was the evidence, a verdict was reached, and nothing in the overturn frees him of guilt;
4. There is nothing wrong with the participation of the ACLU. I just find it interesting those on the far right who vilify and denigrate the ACLU as an "extreme" left organization seem to have no qualms when they aid their less than ethical or honest "poster boys". To defend the rights of those who need defending is the purpose of the ACLU and they have labored long and well to maintain their integrity, even when those whose political or social philosophies are thwarted seek to shout them down. I don't always agree with some of the ACLU's cases, but I respect their consistency of purpose;
5. North escaped futher prosectution or even a retrial not because there was no evidence to support the charges, but because he, along several other Iran-Contra figures, were given Presidential pardons by G. H. W. Bush on December 24, 1992 as one of Bush's final acts as President. This, like the Ford pardon of Nixon, stopped any further legal action against North. The pardon neither decalred him "not guilty" or "innocent": it only rendered him "untouchable" (like Nixon) to the long arm of the law;
6. Evading conviction on a "technicality" is not the absolute proof of innocence or lack of guilt: it is rather like a guy who get royally soused in a bar, leaves, gets into his car and is stopped, arrested and convicted for DUI and then has his conviction overturned on a "technicality". Overturning the verdict does not mean he did not drive while drunk, it does not mean he is not responsible for his hazardous actions, and it does not mean he is morally or ethically "pure". All it usually means is he got legal counsel smart enough to find the "loophole" through which the worm could squirm;
North was, is, and always will be a "skater" who, threough smarm, guile, prevarication, and duplicity has skated through life, much like others such as O. J. Simpson (also not guilty?).
<O>
__________________
__________________________________________________ __
|