>> you're watching american history tv, all weekend every weekend on c-span3. to join the conversation, like us on facebook at c-span history. marks 30 years since lieutenant colonel oliver north testified before the house and senate committees investigating affair.-contra on railamerica from july 13, 1987, in a 60 minute portion of a day-long hearing, colonel north is questioned by orrin hatch and paul trible. he defends armed rebel groups

opposing the nicaraguan government. something that had been prohibited by congress. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, senator tribble. mr. trible: thank you. >> let me thank you for your testimony over than last week. there are many of us on this panel that support ronald reagan and believe in the contra cause. beenuld know there has absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of our president. you, believe the essence of the american experience is the pursuit of freedom at home and around the world. the is why we must oppose marxist tyranny in nicaragua. that is why we must help young nicaraguans fight for their freedom, as well.

week has not been an easy one for any of us. it has been a time of probing questions and honest answers on your part. you have done well. you captured the imagination of the american people. you have done that i think because you tell the truth fully and candidly. because you are a man who is obviously doing his duty as he saw it. because you are acting with the knowledge and authority of your superiors. and you also demonstrated an amazing ability to get results in a city so often tied in not -- knots. i know it has been a difficult time for your family. i believe these hearings are necessary. anyone who values truth, the constitution, the rule of law, must be troubled by what we have heard over the last 10 weeks.

but when public policy is taken private, and government attempts to operate outside established channels, there are no checks and balances, no accountable oversight. as a consequence, people, good policy, can get into trouble. that is what we have seen. president kennedy used to tell a story i believe captures the spirit of these hearings. there was a780, total eclipse of the sun. at noon it was as dark as at midnight. people attributed this kind of happening to the day of judgment, the coming of the lord. connecticut legislature was meeting in hartford. the members were thrown into chaos, there were motions to adjourn. speaker of the house, colonel davenport, silenced those

motions with his gavel and spoke these words -- "gentlemen, i do not know if the world is coming to an end or not. if it is not, there is no reason to a joran. but if it is, i want the lord to come and see me doing my duty. so therefore, i will entertain a motion that candles be brought into this chamber so we may enlighten this hall of democracy." duty is to light a candle so the american people can see and judge what has gone on. it is not an easy job or a happy one. but it is one that must be done. an obvious problem when public policy goes private is that the distinction between the public good and private ends are often blurred.

private citizens may be motivated by profit to pursue interests that are inconsistent with the goals of the united states. it is clear to me and the american people, that you are motivated by ideals, love of country. not pursuit of profit. you have spoken eloquently and powerfully about that before us. but i'm not sure everything can be said of the people involved in your activities. what i would like to do, with your help, is asked questions about the financial aspects of by enterprise, directed others. last wednesday you testified how you knew they would be compensated in a just, fair, and reasonable compensation. is that correct? i will take your word, senator that that is what i said, when i said it. that is what i felt when we had talked.

evidence establishes that over $8 million in the think accounts. did you know those huge sums of money were stopped away? my recollection is that i did not know the magnitude of the funds that were remaining in whatever accounts, i do not know the names or one, and that but was the lake account, which i provided to the state department for use and i provided it to for the money as were providing to support the resistance. actso testified that i had -- asked on a number of occasions to general secord who demanded eyeing gauge in this activity at the approval of my

superiors, but i had asked on a number of occasions that general secord said funds aside for other activities. i testified in executive session as to what some of those would be. say thatt gone back to if i had added up all of those other activities it would have come out to be 20 million i had asked to set aside. i do not know what the final tally would be. the important thing is, i did not know there was that sum remaining. i do not know the purposes for sum was set aside. i do not know the accounts are names, and never considered that a penny of that was mine. i have also testified that were i to be the adjudicator of where that money went, after all the bills were paid and liabilities were covered, i would send that

money, every nickel of it, to the nicaraguan resistance. that was the original purpose for setting up those non-us government entities. >> when you testified about this of money, you said you were shocked. is that a fair characterization? col. north: i was, and i would point out, i did not know until these hearings began that there set aside.sum i have not communicated with these people for these many months. i do not know the purposes for which they had established these accounts or even that the accounts existed. >> i absolutely believe that mr. north. let me ask you another question. these moneys came from several sources, the sales of arms to iran and from solicitations to countries and individuals, is that correct? col. north: that is my

understanding, yes. mr.s it true that neither hakim nor mr. secord contributed to this enterprise? col. north: i do not know. >> was it to be used for governmental purposes? col. north: i beg to differ with that particular description. we go all the way back to 1984 when this activity was initiated. the purpose was for these outside, non-u.s. government entities to assist in prosecuting the foreign-policy goals of the united states. it was never intended anybody get rich or that anybody do anything with the money other than support those foreign policy goals. unfortunately, there seems to be an idea that developed as a consequence of my testimony,

that there was a government within a government or a cia within a cia. somehow, these moneys belonged to the u.s. government. way, i amiew it that not a financial expert or legal authority on those kinds of activities. i saw those foreign entities, the network of companies set up as being there to support the prosecution of foreign-policy goals. it was never envisioned in my mind this would be hidden from the president. i know there is some debate raised while i was away this weekend. thankfully, blissfully unaware of the media coverage, but now apprised of it. that somehow we will use these for things the president would not know about. understandingmy that it was a short-term project , not something that would go on ad infinitum.

that partially is a question raised by representative jenkins last week. it was a fix for short-term problem. i described to you in executive session some of the activities that were to be supported by these non-us government entities. >> thank you. all my question contemplated was, these moneys were to be used to advance foreign-policy goals of the united states. col. north: yes. >> thank you. now, you've talked about other initiatives that were contemplated. it is my understanding they were contemplated but not undertaken. is that true? i told the as committee's executive session, we actually started on a number of them. for example, the purchase of the ship was undertaken to pursue a particular activity. moneys were indeed expended on that and the ship was used for a

number of different purposes, as i indicated the other night. asidewere also moneys set for the purchase of a particular weapons system, -- >> those moneys were not expended. col. north: i cannot speak to that. >> i understand. let's talk about prices and accountability. did you are general secord establish the prices for the arms sold? col. north: i established no prices whatsoever. as i think i testified and certainly as is well known, it was a very competitive marketplace, if you will, to which the nicaraguan exhibit -- resistance could turn. the only thing i did was to intervene at the direction -- at the suggestion of director casey. that two particular arms purveyors not be used until the

agency was able to determine one, the source of funding for one of them. i believe i talked to that in executive session, and whether or not a certain european who provided arms was involved in reverse technology transfer to the east bloc. he asked me to intervene to prevent arms from being sold to those two individuals. i establish no prices or levels or amounts of any kind. >> i am not suggesting you did. the answer to the question is, general secord did that. col. north: i do not know if general secord did that. but i think it took place between general secord and people you was dealing with. toward establishing the southern front, munitions were provided without cost. it was flown down and airdropped to the southern front, for example. has testified it

was secord. col. north: i do not know the substance of his testimony. >> is it fair to say it was or someone else to have the responsibility to decide what was fair and just compensation? col. north: yes. >> did mr. secord or mr. hakim sit down with you to give you accounting of their profits? col. north: no. >> did they ever sit down with contra leaders over their activities? col. north: i do not know. >> what you are telling us, if there was no financial oversight by the u.s. government -- col. north: i have given the records i maintained, those that remain, anyway. au also have from my files number of the messages which refer in gross terms to funds remaining in various overseas entities.

that is about the level i had specific knowledge on. i did not do any accounting, i do not hire an accounting firm to do it. i am not trying to be lighthearted about it. it was simply a matter of, things were moving quickly. and that kind of accounting was not done. obviously, you are a busy man, relying on them for these matters, is that correct? col. north: yes. mr. trible: under established channels, covert matters taken by cia or cia operatives, isn't there strict financial oversight and accountability? col. north: generally, yes. mr. trible: i am not intimately familiar with the comptroller's office. it is well enough known they do rigorous accounting for the expenditures of funds. , would point out, however there is still a debate ongoing within the congress and the gao

and state department over the accounting of $27 million in humanitarian assistance funds. it has been widely reported in various media accounts that i was somehow engaged in siphoning money off from those activities. those reports are untrue. it is a difficult thing to do. even under the best of circumstances, trying to account the $27 million, is a difficult task. i am confident that after the review of nicaraguan humanitarian assistance monies, be people toill debate whether accurate or sufficient accounting has been done. sen. trible: is it fair to say that under normal procedures, when covert operations are undertaken by the government, there is always strict accounting of those activities, and that here, there was not? col. north: given my knowledge,

i think that is a fair statement. sen. trible: let's talk about the relationship between mr. hakim and mr. secord. colonel north, i know you have known general secord for many years and have great respect for him. col. north: i am sorry, senator. sen. trible: no problem. i know you have known general secord for many years and had great respect for him. is an entry you do not know mr. hakim, and still do not know much about the business relationship between secord and hakim? col. north: i first met mr. hakim i believe in january of 1984. i came to recognize this was a man who wanted to assist the u.s. government in the restoration of a relationship with his native land. correction, i first met him in february of 1986.

i do not know the nature of the financial relationship with the general secord, the business relationship he had. i do not consider that a prerequisite of using them as an interpreter for one of our meetings, or a series of meetings which occurred in europe. nor did i see it inconsistent he would be engaged after i found out about it in establishing the european entities and foreign entities. not all in europe, some in latin america, that supported this mission. col. north: mr. secord said the money come the residuals, belong to the enterprise and it was going by mr. hakim. did you know that? col. north: no. but what i knew was that a series of -- a network, of overseas networks had been established to oversee the activities. different overseas companies would carry out discrete

activities to avoid the crossover of knowledge between various operations. thus, one would carry out the in a centraland american country for the purpose of building an airstrip. they would fund for that airstrip and do the construction . whereas another company would be engaged in the delivery of munitions. that network, as i understood forwas basically laid out these activities by general secord. and now obviously, with the assistance of mr. hakim. but i do not know the details of that relationship. sen. trible: the point that want to make here is, the money was controlled not by mr. secord, a man you knew and trusted, but rather by mr. hakim, a man you admitted you hardly knew. that must come as a surprise. col. north: it does, it is one

of the reasons i said i was shocked. the magnitude of the money remaining in the various accounts, i am not entirely sure we are all speaking from the same sheet of music. but that has been serious. profit, hakim describes and i'm talking about what director casey referred to as self-sustaining entities, i am not so sure those are inconsistent. i look forward with the day -- to the day i consider down and talk about where those remaining moneys go to the people that control them. sen. trible: i wish you could spend 10 minutes with mr. hakim. you could be of great help to the committee. let's talk about the future of these enterprises. did you and build pc or general poindexter establish plans for

the future in the events that bill casey left of this cia or became disabled or died? col. north: no. sen. trible: what about your reassignment in the marine corps , where their contingency plans for that? col. north: one thing director casey was looking to -- he was talking about the use of outside entities, to support limited foreign policy goals. i described some of those to the midi the other evening. it was not the kind of thing director casey had in mind for outliving even his 10 year -- director of central intelligence. but we never got to that point. we were not able to establish in the longer term, where is it all

going from here. i regarded this as an imaginative solution to some short-term problems. a number of the initiatives undertaken that i briefed the committees on the other night immediate,se were short-term, once you conducted that activity you could put the company back on the shelf or do away with it. that is how i saw it being pursued. it was not a matter, as representative jenkins and i discussed, i do not think as a matter of what happened after bill casey goes and ollie north goes, who is the successor that would carry those activities out. sen. trible: but it is an important question, isn't not? marine colonels are reassigned, directors of the cia died. mr. secord could have suffered a disability or loss of life. who was going to control this operation in the future? was there any plan in place? col. north: we never got to the

point where a plan such as that was developed. sen. trible: what was going to happen when the reagan administration came to an end? we looked to the fact that these operations would shut down. it was not something we wanted to go on in perpetuity. you weren't going to turn it over to the democrats, then? col. north: you said that, senator. with a smilei did, on my face. that does not deserve an answer. volunteered in his testimony he was trying to pass money to you in your family. earlier, a lawyer named david lewis called the committee and volunteered that william zucker had asked him to find a way to get money to your wife, betsy. at first we did not follow that up because it was inconsistent with our image of you. a man that says that he loves you, testified he

asked zucker to try to pass money to you and nothing came of those efforts. we know you are not in this for profit, and you have spoken powerfully and convincingly about that. but my question is this -- doesn't it appear that mr. hakim and zucker were trying to compromise your set you up to gain influence or leverage? col. north: senator, i did not hear that testimony. i guess my concern is that this committee not have any reservations whatsoever. i was unaware of any activities beyond what i described. sen. trible: i absolutely understand that. col. north: number two, even if

that was known to me, there were other attempts. does not mean that it works. i do not know the motivation of in hakim or his lawyer, trying to pursue various initiatives. i do know, that having reviewed certain testimony before this committee, that an indication of calls being made or arrangements being made to meet with my wife after the one meeting that i described to you and the one telephone call in june, are patently untrue. and thus, the characterization of motivations by mr. lewis or others, or events by mr. lewis and others, are, to my knowledge and that of my wife, totally untrue. i cannot speak to the medivation's of those people who described other events. i appreciate your

reluctance to do so. the record demonstrates you acted most appropriately under this situation. however, i asked those questions because i really can conceive of no other reason for those initiatives. if they were really trying to help you, they would have gone to you directly, it seems to me. they surely would not have volunteered this information as they did. but i thank you for your answer there. we just have to sit back and judge as best we can as the pieces of the puzzle come together. let's talk about profits. there is been testimony that mr. hakim and secord were reaping large profits by marking up the arms being sold to the contracts. -- contras. testifiede, mr. hakim before us that during august of mr. secord agreed to a 1986, suggestion of tom klein's that they maximize the profits from the last sale of arms to the contras. were you aware of that? col. north: no.

testifiede: mr. hakim from his records at a profit of $861,000 was made on that $2.1 million transaction. at that as a markup of 41%. when you aware that kind of profit was being made? col. north: no, i do not. sen. trible: do believe that kind of profit is fair or just? col. north: i would have to go over these issues with general secord and mr. hakim. i do not know what their expenses were. know what their activities were planned for the use of those moneys. i did not know there was anything of that magnitude in that transaction. sen. trible: were you aware that the $861,000 profit wasdivided -- profit was divided equally between hakim, secord and kleins? col. north: no, i was unaware throughout that these accounts even existed. sen. trible: isn't it true that they're taking of such

outlandish profits is inconsistent with your goal of helping the contras keep their body and soul together? col. north: i had no indication it was done for personal gain, as indicated in my testimony, i never set out to make anybody rich. i did not know of these transactions when they occurred. i did not know the magnitude of any of the use of those in terms of compensation. the only thing i specified at the very beginning was that it that fair,ood good just, reasonable compensation would be derived, that includes the pilot separate themselves at in day-to-day business would in some way be compensated. that was the sole level of my understanding on it. sen. trible: i have no questions about your motives here, colonel

north. but it seems to me that this kind of profit, $861,000 from the $2.1 million transaction -- cannot be categorized by anyone as fair or just or appropriate. you do not disagree with that? col. north: i didn't try to characterize it. sen. trible: i understand. was anyone else in the government of the united states aware of these profit margins? col. north: the my knowledge, no one was aware of the details of these activities at all. sen. trible: so you were the only person, and you were not aware? col. north: i was not. sen. trible: let's move it beyond that and talk about investment of these funds for private purposes. the testimony also reveals mr. secord and hakim invested huge sums of your residuals and private business ventures.

for example, did they inform you they invested $150,000 in tri-american arms? col. north: i do not think i american arms tri- until these trials started. sen. trible: also, residuals were invested in washington cumberland from when -- from which they expected to make millions. and there was a purchase price of $1.5 million. did you know about that? col. north: sen. trible: is that an appropriate use of these funds, in your judgment?

lt. col: north: again, i don't even know that those are those funds. what i am saying to you, senator, is that i was totally unaware of these transactions. sen. trible: i understand, and i'm not suggesting you knewabout it, the record is very clear. i'm representing to you thatthe record establishes that that's how the money was used, and i'm asking you, colonel, is that an appropriate use of those funds? lt. col: north: i do not believe that this -- these funds, anyof them, should be or should have been used to make anybody

rich. you're asking me to make judgments on certain transactions, the source of which i have absolutely no knowledge, and i don't think itwould be fair for me to characterize anybody's decisions based on lack of that kind of knowledge. what i am saying, and i will repeatit again, i did not engage in this to make anybody -- not myself,not general secord, not mr. hakim, or any of their other people,rich in the process, no one. sen. trible: the problem is here they were getting rich, andthey were investing huge sums of these monies to advance their own self interest, the record establishes that, and that's the point ofthis line of questioning. certainly these kinds of private investments have no governmental purpose, do they? lt. col: north: none that i know of. sen. trible: all right, sir, thank you. now let's move toanother area, colonel north,

and that's one that's of importance to both of us, and that is the democratic resistance in nicaragua,their fortunes, their hopes, and their future. is it fair to saythat you were doing everything humanly possible to help the contras,the democratic resistance in their fight for freedom? lt. col: north: senator, without going overboard on thestatement, i don't think that there's anyone else in the unitedstates of america that worked as hard as i did to ensure; a) ademocratic outcome, and b) the survival of the nicaraguan resistance from 1984 to 1986. sen. trible: colonel, there's no question about it. now, thisis a peasant army, is it not? lt. col: north: it is indeed a peasant army, but it alsoincludes people of the middle class, and even the intelligencia, ifyou will, of nicaragua. but it is predmoninately a campesino army. sen. trible: colonel, i visited those camps, as you have. iremember walking down the long line of these young nicaraguans,looking in their faces and every once in a while stopping andasking, "what is your name? where are you from? why are youhere?" you know the answers were different, and yet the theme wasthe same. they said, "well i've left because my family farm wastaken away by the sandinistas." or they'll say, "my church wasclosed," or "my priest sent away." or, "my

brother was taken by thesandinistas and made to serve in the army." and then he saidsimply, "the sandinistas haven't given us the freedom theypromised."these are young men who are laying their lives on the line forfreedom. and you care about them, i care about them, a lot ofpeople care about them.i read with special interest one of your prof notes. it's exhibit #5, where i think far more eloquently than i, you laid out their needs, and your concerns about their plight. would youreach for exhibit #5, and would you read that for me, please. i have a copy of it here, if it might -- if you would accept myrepresentation that that's exhibit #5, and it is your prof note,col. north. i think you will -- would you just read it from the start to the finish for me, please? and, tell

us the date that you wrote that, and perhaps to whom it went, if you can decipher that aswell? lt. col: north: this appears to be a note from myself to donfortier, with copy on to admiral poindexter, i believe. the subject is special meeting on central america. "will" -- that's wilma hall, mother of my secretary --"please pass to don." -- don fortier was at the time the principaldeputy assistant to the president for national security affairs,who has since died. "this weekend's trip to honduras and el salvador was the

most depressing venture in my four years of working the central american issue. there is great anxiety that the congress will not act in time to stave off a major defeat for the resistance. this sense exists in the government's of honduras and el salvador, but mostalarmingly is now evident in the resistance itself. the lack of aviable source of resupply has not only affected combat operations;it is now beginning to affect the political viability of the unifiednicaraguan opposition leadership as well."colonel bermudez in front of the southern front commanders elnegro chomorro questioned the need for uno and the drain of scarceresources to support the atlantic and southern fronts. while hecommitted to send six to

eight thousand troops in in the next few days, he openly admitted in front of -- that they would haveto come back out in 15 to 20 days if there is no resupply." as know, their most pressing need if for anti-aircraft, butthe other things are now running short as well. the entire force isback to one meal per day and no more boots, uniforms, packs,ponchos, or weapons are available for the new recruits. newtrainees will be turned away, effective today. all hospitalizationfor wounded in action will cease at the end of the week."troops returning to nicaragua this week will carry only 70 to100 rounds of ammunition, instead of the 500 that they had beencarrying. no new radio batteries are

available, so there is no wayto pass commands or intelligence."the picture is, in short, very dismal, unless a new source ofbridge funding can be identified. while we should not raisespecific sources with * * * * at all, we need to explore thisproblem urgently, or there won't be a force to help when thecongress finally acts."warm regards - north" sen. trible: col. north, on the very day you wrote that noteof despair, there was over $4.8 million dollars in the accountscontrolled by mr. hakim and mr. secord. you couldn't have knownthat, could you? lt. col: north: i did not, but as i testified earlier,senator, i do not know to this day whether or not those funds wereset aside for the other activities that i briefed this committee on. sen. trible: how many boots could have been purchased,colonel? how many lives could have been saved, if just a portion ofthose monies had been sent to the nicaraguan resistance?from where they are purchased. ammunition, as you know from thecharts and information you have, varies in cost. the aviationresupply costs considerably. certainly the more money that wasavailable to the resistance, the better their fortunes would be.there is no doubt about that.certainly, throughout all this time, a matter ofthe very highest priority in your mind was helping the contras stayalive to fight their battle. lt. col: north: it was. sen. trible: chairman, i have no more questions for colonelnorth. i want to thank you, colonel for your testimony. i dobelieve you testified truthfully and you certainly have helped usput the pieces of this puzzle together. but i would, mr. chairman,like to make one personal

observation. in the activities of mr.hakim and secord we have seen private interest riding roughshod over public motives. a cause compromised as individuals reaped enormous profits. and in my judgment, the trust of colonel north betrayed.all this demonstrates to me the shear folly of conducting thepeople's business without checks and balances. i thank you, mr.chairman, and i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. chairman inouye: thank you very much, senator tribble. mr.hamilton? chairman hamilton: we are serving (?) under the 15-minuterule, now. the chair recognizes the vice-chairman of the houseselect committee, mr. fascell. rep. fascell: thank you mr. chairman. colonel north, i wish it were under different circumstances i saw you again. it has been, now, about six months or more before you first appeared before the foreign affairs committee ofthe house of representatives, and it is stated that at that timethat no one wanted to tell the story more than you did. and we gaveyou the opportunity then to take advantage of your constitutionalrights, which you have every right to do, and in my judgment youshould have done. now, the congress has provided

you thisopportunity in the last several days. your testimony has beenremarkable. you, as a colonel in the white house, were largelyinstrumental in implementing the president's policy. you wereexercising executive authority, clearly. you conducted a majorcovert operation. ordinarily it would have probably kept theoperations division of the cia pretty busy. you planned anddirected major military operations.can get you gentlemen in front of me to move one way and the otherway, so the witness can see me, and i can see the witness? thankyou very much. as i was saying, you planned and directed major military operations, and acquitted yourself in a fashion that would dojustice to the joint chiefs of staff. you arranged for the sale oflethal weapons out of the department of defense, a matter which isnormally undertaken by a whole division of international

security in the department of defense. you conducted secret, sensitive,important diplomatic negotiations, which under normal circumstances would have used up a pretty big chunk of the state department.millions of dollars were raised to support and implement thepresident's policies. arms were sold. funds were received from government. many patriotic, private citizens in the united statesand elsewhere provided funds. and so, there had to be an effort,some way, to keep track of these millions of dollars, and make surethat in some way they went to serve the president's policy.in addition to that, there was an enormous effort undertaken,in which you played a very important part, to influence the americanpeople in support of the president's policy, to lobby the congress,to make sure the votes were there for contra aid. and in theprocess, colonel, you probably produced and disposed of moregovernment paper than anybody i ever heard of in my

life. >> we may yet understand the chance of understanding the broader initiative. i would like to say something from the memo, which i might add says very little about devotion. it is interesting the memorandum does not get much attention while the lands -- lines retaining to the -- pertaining to the diversion. and that memorandum you make the following statement "the u.s. side made an effort to refocus iranian attention on the threat posed by the soviet union and the need to establish more of a union. "he hostage issue was a "hurdle which must be crossed before this improved relationship can prosper." does that properly reflect?

lieutenant colonel north: it does and i wrote them. >> correct. you said to admiral poindexter, a half-year later, you wrote that your talks with the iranians were going well and that "they need to move quickly beyond the obstacle" of the hostages. sincerely believe we can be instrumental in bringing an end to the iran-iraq war. donald north, if you had , iteved that objective would've probably been feet,ered a great correct? lieutenant colonel north: correct. >> educating the american public that the goals were stated in your diversion memorandum. in addition, it was the protection of the northern states such as pakistan, afghanistan, india.

are tryingwhat you to do? lieutenant colonel north: yes sir. of israel,protection kuwait, saudi arabia, jordan, egypt, was that part of your -- >> by opening up a second ?hannel lieutenant colonel north: yes, and for 18 months it worked, sir. >> was it a significant part of ?his plan lieutenant colonel north: yes it was. >> was the arms supply one of the girls? lieutenant colonel north: soviet bloc, yes sir. >> sandinistas, one of your goals?

lieutenant colonel north: yes, sir. >> and it appears toward the and to have consumed part of the girls. that still would have been an exec for result? >> you were afraid the organ of the killed, isn't that right? in fact, the memorandum you forth that is part of the stack of documents that have indicated -- >> that was one of the reasons you are so frenetic? a lot of travel? you weren't the only one concerned either, were you? lieutenant colonel north: no, sir. >> do you believe this results in a better understanding of congress, and media that sometimes covert operations are necessary.

they have to be kept secret. >> certainly would. i do think they would've achieved some success and i must admit i may be on a moonchild with them, but that these hearings might achieve some success that might result in congress recognizing they need to be given some latitude to carry out foreign policies of justice without 535 members of congress second-guessing everything. >> yes, sir. >> you leave that to you? >> guesser. ides i do too. toolieve congress has been much. do you agree? >> that is a role to carry out the policy, sir. >> we can determine if it is good or bad but it should not because the micromanaging, should it? rx not at all. do you think it would be a good thing if we finally learn the --

>> to think it would be a good thing if we finally learn the lesson that if we say we're going to help a neighbor such as the freedom fighters in the nicaragua is that we better go in for the long haul rather than cutting and running. do you agree that is a good thing? register. >> at is what you had to face, wasn't it? everything -- time you thought you had something on track congress would come up with another? >> yes. >> it affected different messages. >> were you afraid the united states might be considered and the unreliable partner in world affairs because of what they were doing in congress? >> yes or. we are considered unreliable by some nations of the world, is a correct? i guess. >> it is precisely because of this is in it? >> do so. i'd hand is a true as a result of these hearings we started to provide consistent support so

that if they effectively seek to democratic solution to the situation in nicaragua, we won't have to bring them to the troubled region. to think that would be a good result question mark >> yes sir, it would. >> understood. if we don't support the existence and ignore the threat in central america, what is your opinion. happen you think might in the next 20 years and maybe throughout the world? >> it won't take 20 years, it will take a lot less. the regime will spread as they have advocated. you will see democracy parish in central america. a flood of refugees at american borders and potentially the destruction of a berlin hype --

the construction of a berlin-type wall. they took over one million refugees last year. lastly, we authorize 200,000 nicaraguans to stand this country. that is the tip of the iceberg. you're talking about something in the neighborhood of 10 million refugees. the potential of drying down on nato support to defend our own southern border. the commitment of american troops, the very thing we sought to prevent. >> i don't think we've heard too much about that. i am glad to hear you articulate some of those things. do you feel these hearings may be important? that they cause us to stand behind to give assistance to the freedom fighters in cambodia and afghanistan? most of the people are really committed to pushing out the communist aggressors.

>> they jeopardize lives the national security, as all right? lieutenant colonel north: yes. >> you said you were worried about lives. you were worried about sources and methods and ambassadors and representatives of other nations and our own people as well, zac correct #lieutenant colonel north: yes, sir. >> a pretty to choice in telling the truth. the misdirection of some of our most important foreign policies. >> i have to admit it is a tough choice. to not think it is wrong tell the truth to congress but i understand. do you think it would be a good thing of the nest time a senate

intelligence committee does a 100-page secret report like last december, voted by the members tothe committee not to leak the press. just one segment of the press rather than the whole press, do you think we ought to -- that would be a good thing if we got that across? lieutenant colonel north, i do. >> do think it would be a good thing if they would reconsider these kinds of public media shows where we disclose in great details where our international friends and enemies, our methods, our secret plans, our details? lieutenant colonel north: i testified that. i would have to say to you i think these hearings are very important in spite of that but i think it is something to be concerned about. >> in that regards, would you agree these guys should not be

-- especially those under investigation by the council? or prematurely judged? >> i would've been nice. >> i saw a lot of premature judging in the process and i kind of reason to the then and i resented today. >> along those lines -- wondering how these can be guaranteed a fair trial. would you agree with that? reince at the very least. >> would you also agree with the author when he says if the investigative powers of congress is unlimited the separation of powers must break down. as i correct? >> it is the position i've taken throughout. >> this is entitled limited government and unlimited investigation.

i know he is going to appreciate this. [laughter] inlet me tell you, it was partial fulfillment. requirement for the bachelors degree at harvard university 1954 shortly after the mccarthy hearings and i am personally happy to say regardless of what arthur linmanne, has, for the most part, conducted him selfin accordance with what he wrote 33 years ago. now, let me just say this to you, and mr. chairman, i'll finish with these remarks. i've been a little tough on our committee, buti do respect these people up here and i have terrific respect forevery member

of this -- of this panel, and for the attorneys. but i also have a great deal of respect for you. it isn't easy to sit there five days and go through what you've gone through and admitwhat you've had to admit and express some of the mistakes that have been made. let me just say this, based upon what i've seen andheard in these hearings, there are mistakes here.

to the extent that this was a purely an arms transfer for hostages, i have todisagree with that if that's all that it was. but i think youranswers have shown that it's more.i don't think the nsc should ever operate covert operations. ijust don't think they should. and frankly, i don't think we shouldhave had a diversion of funds here, even though i have to confess, ikind of think it's a neat idea, too, to take monies from theayatollah and send them over to the freedom fighters in nicaragua.what a nice use of those funds, except you have to be -- i don'tthink it was right. i think it points out the difficulties -- of the private -- it's still a neat idea, i got

to admit (chuckle), and i don't care wholaughs. and i think you were right, at least, well motivated inyour desires to help them. because we weren't helping them like weshould up here. we weren't supporting this policy in our ownhemisphere. fourthy, i think this -- these hearings point up thedifficulties with privatization of our foreign policy.i'm not saying you should never do it, but they point up thedifficulties of privatization, and last but not least, and let meend with this. i think these hearings should not let the congressescape. by gosh, i think if there's anything that ought to come outof these hearings, it ought to be that we beat our breasts and act very sanctimonious and act like we just would never have made any of these mistakes when we've never had really the responsibility of day-to-day carrying them out. now mistakes were made here. i think good people can acknowledge that,and we can all agree, whether we supported the policies or didn't,mistakes have been made. but, by gosh, we don't have to beat ourcountry into submission or people like you just because mistakeshave been made. i want you to know that it's hard for us to believe it up here, but congress makes mistakes too. and it's been making mistakes for most of this iran/contra and

most of the contra affair that we've had and going on in this hemisphere. now, whether you believe in supporting the contras, we ought to come up with a consistent policy of support and non-support in the congress. everybody knows that america stands in a matter of integrity for certain things. now i'll just be honest with you. based on whati've heard thus far, with your admission of mistakes, with youradmission that some of the things you did you feel are -- >> up next, we look at this more. this 50-minute of a four-hour and with the senators made closing statements regarding colonel north's