PDA

View Full Version : Ollie North is coming to my church


job
Aug 12, 2003, 11:49 PM
Yep.

Can you believe it? They invited him as a guest speaker. I think it's in the next week, so I'll have to update this thread after it happens. I wonder what he'll talk about. Iran...? Nahhhh... :p

Sayhey
Aug 13, 2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by job
Yep.

Can you believe it? They invited him as a guest speaker. I think it's in the next week, so I'll have to update this thread after it happens. I wonder what he'll talk about. Iran...? Nahhhh... :p

Why anyone wants to hear what that slippery old felon has to say is beyond me. But it is a church and confession is said to be good for the soul ....;)

zimv20
Aug 13, 2003, 12:27 AM
yeah, definitely update us on that. any idea what the inviters are expecting of him?

sparkleytone
Aug 13, 2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Why anyone wants to hear what that slippery old felon has to say is beyond me. But it is a church and confession is said to be good for the soul ....;)

you know, for the life of me i cannot understand why people love this man. a criminal and a pathological liar, this man still seems to enslave peoples minds into thinking he is a great and honorable man.

mactastic
Aug 13, 2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by sparkleytone
you know, for the life of me i cannot understand why people love this man. a criminal and a pathological liar, this man still seems to enslave peoples minds into thinking he is a great and honorable man.

Probably 'cuz he "took one for the team" and protected his superiors. Not a plus in my book, but whatever. Somehow G. Gordon Liddy has similiar status. G. Go Figure.

job
Aug 13, 2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
any idea what the inviters are expecting of him?

No idea. I don't even know why they invited him.

IJ Reilly
Aug 13, 2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Probably 'cuz he "took one for the team" and protected his superiors. Not a plus in my book, but whatever. Somehow G. Gordon Liddy has similiar status. G. Go Figure.

Radicals always have their favorite bomb-throwers. Same goes for the far left and right wings.

macphoria
Aug 14, 2003, 11:58 PM
you know, for the life of me i cannot understand why people love this man. a criminal and a pathological liar, this man still seems to enslave peoples minds into thinking he is a great and honorable man.
The whole Iran-Contra scandal was huge controversy and as mactastic mentioned, he took one for the team. I read little bit about this and apparently when Col. North travelled overseas making secret deals, he carried poison or some means to kill himself in case he was kidnapped and tortured. It is debatable whether he is good or bad, but he is definately a consummate soldier.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by macphoria
The whole Iran-Contra scandal was huge controversy and as mactastic mentioned, he took one for the team. I read little bit about this and apparently when Col. North travelled overseas making secret deals, he carried poison or some means to kill himself in case he was kidnapped and tortured. It is debatable whether he is good or bad, but he is definately a consummate soldier.

I would respectfully suggest that "consummate" soldiers recognize the supremacy of the law. North knowingly went about subverting the law of the land. It doesn't matter that his superiors ordered him to do it, because soldiers aren't suppose to follow unlawful orders.

macphoria
Aug 15, 2003, 12:36 AM
I don't think soldiers are meant to question whether an order is lawful or unlawful. We went to war with Iraq without UN resolution. Some countries supported us, while majority of the world did not. To some extent this could be considered unlawful.

My point is, soldiers follow given orders. Whether his/her action was right or wrong is debatable. But carrying out his/her duty being part of consummate soldier is not debatable.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by macphoria
I don't think soldiers are meant to question whether an order is lawful or unlawful.

The Nuremburg trials of Nazi soldiers after WWII made it very clear that soldiers have a responsibility to not follow unlawful orders.

I should also point out that North has never stated he only broke the law because of orders from superiors - he was an active willing participant.

macphoria
Aug 15, 2003, 01:01 AM
The Nuremburg trials of Nazi soldiers after WWII made it very clear that soldiers have a responsibility to not follow unlawful orders.

I should also point out that North has never stated he only broke the law because of orders from superiors - he was an active willing participant.
First, North did not participate in a genocide. It was arms deal and money channeling. Second, he was willing participant because he willingly followed orders, very fact that I pointed out earlier about soldiers carrying out duties. Idea that he carried means to end his own life as contingency plan for getting captured just because he wanted to participate in said covert mission, which seems to be the context of your "willing participant", does not make sense.

Obviously, we differ in our views on this matter. Lets just say we agree to disagree.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by macphoria
First, North did not participate in a genocide. It was arms deal and money channeling. Second, he was willing participant because he willingly followed orders, very fact that I pointed out earlier about soldiers carrying out duties. Idea that he carried means to end his own life as contingency plan for getting captured just because he wanted to participate in said covert mission, which seems to be the context of your "willing participant", does not make sense.

Obviously, we differ in our views on this matter. Lets just say we agree to disagree.

The principles established at Nuremburg are in no way limited to charges of genocide. He was a willing participant because he was and is a "true believer" that what the Reagan/Bush administration did in circumventing the law of the land was right. Regardless of whether he was willing to take one for the "team" (including taking poison) does not change the fact that his military oath mandated he not follow what he knew were illegal orders. Indeed, we will disagree.

zimv20
Aug 15, 2003, 02:31 AM
north considered secrectly bypassing congressional decree and oversight "neat."

i think it's "neat" that he got caught. seems he never caught on that what he did was wrong, though.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 02:48 AM
The whole Iran/Contra affair was, IMO, the most dangerous abuse of power I've seen in my lifetime watching some eight administrations (I was too small to pay much attention to Ike & JFK). North and Poindexter were the principal architects of a scheme to basically fund and authorize a war without the consent or knowledge of either Congress or the American people. Very "neat" indeed, Ollie. :eek: :mad:

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 09:44 AM
"I was just following orders" is not an acceptable defense for a soldier anymore. Nuremburg made that quite clear.

IJ Reilly
Aug 15, 2003, 01:24 PM
Was North "just following orders" when he lied to Congress?

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Was North "just following orders" when he lied to Congress?

That's probably what he's going to church to confess.

FriarTuck
Aug 15, 2003, 03:44 PM
Ollie would have been better off with sudden complete memory loss, like the smartest woman in the world.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by FriarTuck
Ollie would have been better off with sudden complete memory loss, like the smartest woman in the world.

North's lawyer did much better. They got a immunity agreement for his testimony before Congress and then convinced a judge that the special prosecutor couldn't have convicted him without information from his testimony. If Congress hadn't been so stupid Ollie would still be behind bars today.

jefhatfield
Aug 25, 2003, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by macphoria
I don't think soldiers are meant to question whether an order is lawful or unlawful. We went to war with Iraq without UN resolution. Some countries supported us, while majority of the world did not. To some extent this could be considered unlawful.

My point is, soldiers follow given orders. Whether his/her action was right or wrong is debatable. But carrying out his/her duty being part of consummate soldier is not debatable.

when he lied to congress, he crossed the line

at that point the military base where i live had its marines get ordered to shun him and not talk about him...marines are not trained to be felons and lie to american authorities...he really gave the marine corps a black eye...the good thing is that people realize that lt. col. north is not your average marine

i had a friend who once lied in court in a divorce case and many years later when he was a marine, he got disqualified for work similar to what north was doing because of that...the corps holds to the highest standards in the military and always have...we are in a country where the authority of the civilian government is above that of the highest officers in the military...general macarthur tried to breach that line and as well liked as he was, he got fired

job
Aug 25, 2003, 06:05 PM
Alright, here's what I've found out so far:

1) He's coming on Sept. 7th, so that's roughly two weeks from yesterday.

2) He's coming for a Sept. 11th rememberance service. I can't understand why they would invite him to something like that, but I guess they have their reasons.

Sayhey
Aug 26, 2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
when he lied to congress, he crossed the line

at that point the military base where i live had its marines get ordered to shun him and not talk about him...marines are not trained to be felons and lie to american authorities...he really gave the marine corps a black eye...the good thing is that people realize that lt. col. north is not your average marine


Your point that most marines would not take the course North took is well taken. He crossed the line not only when he lied to congress, but also when he orchestrated the circumvention of the Borland amendment. It was the law of the land that funds could not go to support the Contras, but North and his buddies figured they knew better and didn't need to worry about such silly things as laws.

jefhatfield
Aug 26, 2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Your point that most marines would not take the course North took is well taken. He crossed the line not only when he lied to congress, but also when he orchestrated the circumvention of the Borland amendment. It was the law of the land that funds could not go to support the Contras, but North and his buddies figured they knew better and didn't need to worry about such silly things as laws.

and he shoveled at least 40k in taxpayers money for improvements into his own house

wait...i wonder if i can get ollie to get me some of the california recall monies to help me get double glass windows for my house...or should i try and track down any marine lt. colonel:p :p

ollie should get a business card that says, "officer, gentleman, and procurer of government slush funds for personal use and getting sexy secretaries to shred your papers and give you hummers in your hummer"

Sayhey
Aug 26, 2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
and he shoveled at least 40k in taxpayers money for improvements into his own house

wait...i wonder if i can get ollie to get me some of the california recall monies to help me get double glass windows for my house...or should i try and track down any marine lt. colonel:p :p

ollie should get a business card that says, "officer, gentleman, and procurer of government slush funds for personal use and getting sexy secretaries to shred your papers and give you hummers in your hummer"

I'd forgotten all about his secretary! Wasn't her name Fawn Hall? I think she was the first republican woman in the public eye who didn't remind me of Margaret Mitchell or Phyllis Schlafly.

I think you need to talk directly to Ollie about those windows - it seemed to be a pretty specialized order. ;)

Desertrat
Aug 26, 2003, 01:09 PM
Whether or not anybody agrees with their views, North and Liddy followed orders that they thought were morally righteous, and in full knowledge of the possible consequences.

How are they any different from the draft protesters who went to Canada?

The law is the law, and North/Liddy shouldn't have questioned it, right?

:), 'Rat

mactastic
Aug 26, 2003, 01:37 PM
Umm... draft dodgers were private citizens who took their chances, while North was a government official. Last I checked, we were holding our government officials to higher moral standards than private citizens anyway.

Edit:
This is just another aspect that makes what Justice Moore is doing so wrong. If he was a private citizen this would not be as bad. Of course if he was a private citizen he never would have gotten that monument put there.

jefhatfield
Aug 26, 2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Whether or not anybody agrees with their views, North and Liddy followed orders that they thought were morally righteous, and in full knowledge of the possible consequences.

How are they any different from the draft protesters who went to Canada?

The law is the law, and North/Liddy shouldn't have questioned it, right?

:), 'Rat

but taking cash kickbacks???

what's that about...fixing your house???

i worked for the cia as a college student and when i was a grad student, i worked for the department of defense...sure, i saw waste and there were a lot of redundancies...so much to be criminal, but nobody i know of got government money put into their personal bank accounts

to be fair, it's really not much different from congresspeople of both parties writing bad checks and the government picking up the tab for fees and penalties

hey, besides ollie fixing my windows, i wonder if i could be a congressperson and get some nice italian suits with my checking account...you know it hides my gut;) :p :p

Desertrat
Aug 26, 2003, 02:20 PM
Except as possibly specified in a particular law, do laws in general set different standards, as between private individuals and public officials?

We supposedly hold public officials to a higher standard by virtue of definitions of what is a crime, and the punishments therefor. A private citizen can avoid loss of job, fine, or imprisonment for acts that are forbidden to public officials.

But the law is the law, Boland Amendment or SSS. Our personal agreements or disagreements as to the actions of lawbreakers have to do with our personal view of a law, or with how that law is administered.

'Rat

jefhatfield
Aug 26, 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Except as possibly specified in a particular law, do laws in general set different standards, as between private individuals and public officials?

We supposedly hold public officials to a higher standard by virtue of definitions of what is a crime, and the punishments therefor. A private citizen can avoid loss of job, fine, or imprisonment for acts that are forbidden to public officials.

But the law is the law, Boland Amendment or SSS. Our personal agreements or disagreements as to the actions of lawbreakers have to do with our personal view of a law, or with how that law is administered.

'Rat

i think america holds our officials to a higher standard, but in the end the politician gets away with more

take clinton...if he were a ceo and fooled around with an intern in the company, the board of directors would fire him

take nixon and watergate...if you or i were involved in an illegal break in and theft, we would have served a prison term

so both clinton and nixon got off easily...nixon got off...clinton got off then he got off:p

Desertrat
Aug 27, 2003, 04:27 AM
I've never had a problem with obeying laws concerning crimes against person (assault, robbery) or crimes against property (burglary, vandalism), but things seem to have changed a lot as we've gotten more into a Big Nanny state.

Now, we have crimes against government: Seat-belt and helmet laws, drug laws, travel laws ("Cuber"), tax laws, business license laws, conspiracy laws...

Then you have stuff which offends your own sense of actual right and wrong. For some, it's the Draft. For others, it was the Boland Amendment.

I remember a corporation court judge commenting that even he, with his knowledge of traffic laws, probably couldn't drive from the north edge of Austin, Texas, to the south edge without breaking some law. That was in 1964.

As you look at the proliferation of laws in the last forty years, how in heck are "just folks" supposed to know what they're "allowed" to do?

Reminds me somewhat of a segment in "Atlas Shrugged": Pass enough laws, and everybody will be guilty of something. The honest people will have guilty consciences, and thus can be controlled...

'Rat

Phil Of Mac
Aug 28, 2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by macphoria
I don't think soldiers are meant to question whether an order is lawful or unlawful. We went to war with Iraq without UN resolution. Some countries supported us, while majority of the world did not. To some extent this could be considered unlawful.

The US has no legal obligation to obey UN resolutions.

Originally posted by jefhatfield
and he shoveled at least 40k in taxpayers money for improvements into his own house

That was a security system to protect him from terrorists. The US government tends to protect its agents from terrorist assassination.

That said, Ollie North openly defied Congress, but in the end, he freed hostages and helped free Nicaragua. I don't know what to think of the man either, but maybe the law was wrong, and Ollie was right.

zimv20
Aug 30, 2003, 12:22 AM
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/story/7357112p-8279099c.html


Oliver North speaking on Sept. 11? What were the sponsors thinking?

By Brad Barker
Published: August 28, 2003, 06:30:17 AM PDT

Oliver North is coming to Modesto.

(more)

job
Aug 31, 2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/story/7357112p-8279099c.html

Interesting, but I'm not in Modesto.

I'm in the Woodlands, TX, a encorporated city just north of Houston. The Church is called Fellowship of the Woodlands and has almost 10,000 active members.

http://www.fotw.org/oliver_north.asp

zimv20
Aug 31, 2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by job

I'm in the Woodlands, TX

looks like north is in for a busy 9/11, then.