An interesting choice for a speaker

[eisely 13]

I like the question posed at the end of this story.

_______________________

 

Posted on Wed, Feb. 04, 2004

 

OLIVER NORTH

Scouts' pick as speaker is patriot and partisan

Oliver North was a Boy Scout. But some ask if the war hero and player in the Iran-contra scandal is the right choice to speak at Scouts fundraiser.

BY DANIEL de VISE

ddevise@herald.com

 

Four years ago, the Boy Scouts lost much of their local financial support by upholding a nationwide ban against gay Scouts. The avowedly apolitical group found itself widely shunned by liberals and embraced by conservatives.

 

Now, regrouping with the largest single fund-raising event in its history, the Scouts' South Florida Council is turning to Oliver North.

 

The keynote speaker planned for Thursday's fundraiser at the Signature Grand in Davie is a polarizing figure: retired Marine lieutenant colonel, decorated war hero, right-leaning radio host and central figure in the Iran contra arms-for-hostages scandal of the 1980s.

 

To some Democrats and veterans of the gay-rights battle, this is a fresh outrage. But Scout leaders say they chose North for his drawing power, not his politics. They're a long way toward raising $600,000 Thursday night. Five hundred donors have already pledged $150 a plate and up.

 

''The Boy Scouts of America does not have a political agenda,'' said Norman Silber, president of the South Florida Council of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

Most Scouts are too young to know much about North, who was convicted and later cleared in a Reagan-administration scheme to fund right-wing Nicaraguan guerrillas with secret weapon sales to Iran. The Miami Herald first disclosed his role in the caper and later won a Pulitzer Prize for its efforts.

 

''I would certainly find him a provocative choice,'' said Mitch Ceasar, chairman of the Broward County Democratic Party.

 

Scout leaders prefer to focus on his military record -- the Silver Star, the Bronze Star for valor and two Purple Hearts -- and his record as author and commentator. The alleged arms dealings, they say, are part of a pardonable past.

 

''Who among us has not had mistakes in our lives, made mistakes in judgment?'' Silber said. ``He is, like most people, imperfect. It doesn't change the fact that he has spent the better part of his life working and fighting for our country.''

 

North comes to South Florida as part of a larger campaign to recoup dollars lost in the gay-Scouting backlash of four years ago. The local Scouts have lost more than $1.5 million in total funds since then, chiefly from United Way chapters in Broward and Miami-Dade, according to Jeff Herrmann, Scout executive for the South Florida Council.

 

Herrmann said the local Scouts governing board chose North because he is popular, reflects Scouting values and supports the organization. He has appeared at Scout fund-raisers around the nation. Local officials didn't disclose his speaking fee but hinted he is giving them a break. His usual price is $30,000, according to the website of Premiere Speakers Bureau.

 

Some of North's appearances have passed with little or no controversy. But elsewhere, Democrats have accused the Scouts of violating a nonpartisan tradition. In northeast Georgia, for example, North appeared with conservative columnist Ann Coulter. Critics have said her latest book, Treason, equates liberalism to disloyalty.

 

''This is like a Fox News show,'' a local Democratic official told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. ``Couldn't they find an athlete with an inspirational story?''

 

Gregg Shields, national Boy Scouts spokesman, said affiliates chose North ``for a very simple reason: he is a draw.''

 

Both Herrmann and Silber said they would not have considered bringing someone like Coulter to a Scout event in South Florida, a notion Silber dismissed as ``a little over the top.''

 

They said North, himself a Scout, exemplifies Scout Law, a military-inspired code that stresses loyalty and bravery. Calls and e-mails to local Scout headquarters, they said, suggest North's supporters outnumber detractors 20 to 1.

 

''Clearly there is a point of view about him that is somewhat polarized,'' said Bay Proby, a Scout spokesman. ``Some people can't stand him and some people think he's great.''

 

Some ethics scholars wonder how parents will explain North and his nebulous Iran-contra dealings to young Scouts.

 

Despite North's heroism as a soldier, ''he knowingly and deliberately and unapologetically engaged in covert actions that undermined our constitutional democracy, and has to date failed to either express contrition or remorse for those actions,'' said Tony Alfieri, law professor and director of the Center for Ethics and Public Service at the University of Miami.

 

Be that as it may, Patti Trick of Coconut Creek, whose 10-year-old son Joseph is a Scout, said she'd much rather have him look to Oliver North than ``some of the other role models out there.

 

''Who do you want your son to be more like?'' Trick asked. ``Oliver North or Justin Timberlake?''

 

For more information on the Boy Scout fundraiser, call 305-364-0020.

 

 

[scoutingagain 20]

While this event may be successful as a fundraiser I fail to see how having a controversial figure, from either end of the political spectrum, helps promote scouting as a non-politial organization.

 

 

 

SA

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Wasn't there a thread awhile back, maybe more than a year ago, that had a very similar story about Oliver North speaking at a Boy Scout function? I think we had the same discussion about whether he is an appropriate role model.

 

As for the question at the end:

 

''Who do you want your son to be more like?'' Trick asked. ``Oliver North or Justin Timberlake?''

 

It's very "cute" but it's a false choice. We can do a lot better than either when providing role models for the boys. If the day ever comes when the only choice is between a celebrity known for a "wardrobe malfunction" and a former government official who participated in the hijacking of the government to serve an ideological crusade, and escaped a criminal conviction purely on what many of his fans would otherwise ridicule as a "technicality," we are all in big trouble.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OK, my memory was slightly fuzzy, it was a lot less than a year ago, but it did involve Oliver North (and another speaker, Ann Coulter, and both of them made partisan political remarks at a Boy Scout event.) The thread is named "BSA as a right wing organization?" and the last post was 10/22/03. If I said anything in that thread, that's what I think now, too.

[Twocubdad 665]

Neither.

 

But using Gregg Shields rationale, either would be a good choice.

[Achilleez 10]

I fail to see how a speaker's past political stances directly affect the outcome of the fundraiser. The purpose is to raise money, and so having the speaker that will draw the most income is the right speaker to choose. So long as he does not promote a right-wing polical platform, or at least refrain from attacking another, his political views seem trivial. If I go to a comedic performance, a concert or even a religious seminar, I don't care what political views they have, so long as it doesn't interfere with providing a good performance.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Achileez, I don't think North's "past political stances" are really the point, although the writer of this article chose to present this controversy as being mostly about partisan politics. I don't think that's what it is about. Inviting an "avowed" Republican or Democrat to a Scouting event is fine, in fact inviting prominent office-holders to Scouting events, and seeking letters from politicians at Eagle Courts of Honor, and things like that, are entirely appropriate. My objection to Oliver North at a Scouting event is that he is a role model for the attitude that if you don't like what the law says and you feel your cause is just, you can break the law. Now, as far as I am concerned, that is an ok attitude for someone who is protesting a government action and decides to commit "civil disobediance" by sitting in at an embassy or something, as long as they realize that the consequence of their action may be a few hours spent in the criminal justice system before they are freed to picket again. (And anyway, I doubt that that person is going to be invited to speak at any Scouting dinners.)

 

But this is not an ok attitude for a government official who actually has the power to take the government (and hence all of us) along on his illegal or semi-legal crusade, especially when he follows through and actually does it, as North did. Then there is the issue of lying. Oliver North said, under oath, that Ronald Reagan knew of the Iran-Contra connection in advance and thought it was a great idea. Ronald Reagan said he didn't know. One of them was lying, but the "Republican line" is that Reagan was telling the truth, so that would leave the lt. colonel with some "trustworthiness issues."

 

That is the issue.

 

By the way, I re-read this article, and noticed that it refers directly to the event I referred to earlier, which was the subject of an earlier thread. (The event where North and Ann Coulter spoke. The issue there was not a "past political stance," but the really nasty ideological and partisan statements made by Coulter at the Scouting event itself.)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

TwoCubDad, if what Greg Shields said is taken literally, I can think of several people much more scary and inappropriate than Justin Timberlake or Oliver North who he would also regard as a good choice, because they would be a "draw." Maybe Janet Jackson's most famous brother would be available. He would be a good "draw," right Mr. Shields?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I find it interesting that BSA officials are saying that someone who conducted illegal arms deals "refects Scouting values" and "exemplifies Scout Law".

[ScouterPaul 11]

If my feeble memory serves me correct Oliver North is a convicted felon. This, regardless of his polictal stance, is not someone I want as a role model for my sons.

 

Paul

[eisely 13]

Oliver North may or may not be the best choice for a speaker, but he is not a convicted felon. He was tried and convicted on charges related to the Iran-Contra scandal, and the conviction was overturned on appeal. To label North as a convicted felon is simply inaccurate.

 

As with most people, there is more to North than just his public image. What follows is a story about North that I read several years ago in a reputable publication. I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but I find it credible.

 

North was a very junior officer at the time he served in Viet Nam. I don't know if he did multiple tours of duty in Viet Nam or not. After he returned to the states after a tour, he learned that a young sergeant who had served under him was being court martialed in Viet Nam by the marines under questionable circumstances. Against the advice of his superiors and friends, North used his own leave time and returned to Viet Nam at his own expense to assist in the defense of this sergeant. The sergeant was acquited and North's assistance was credited for that result.

 

That shows an extraordinary loyalty to a subordinate that is worthy of emulation.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

ScouterPaul, Oliver North's conviction was reversed on appeal. (Vacated, nullified, wiped off the books.) As I recall the prosecutor decided it would be too difficult to re-prosecute him based on the conditions that the Court of Appeals imposed. That was the "technicality" I was talking about. The reversal had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. The Congressional committee that was formed to investigate this had done something that ultimately proved to be not a good idea, and subsequent Congressional investigative committees have learned from their mistake. In order to get North to testify and not "take the Fifth," Congress granted him immunity from prosecution based on what he testified to (which is called "use immunity" as opposed to "transactional immunity" which prevents any prosecution at all, which Congress does not have the power to give.) The "use immunity" given to North basically prevented prosecutors NOT ONLY from using his actual words against him, but also from using what he said as leads to other information that could be used to prosecute him. After he was convicted, the Court of Appeals decided that the government had indeed taken what North said and used it to figure out who to ask questions, what to ask them, what kind of documents to look for, and all other kinds of investigative techniques, which violated his use immunity. He could have been prosecuted again, but that would have meant untangling the different sources of information and separating what they knew as a derivative of his testimony, and what they discovered independently. This is not an easy thing to do, because once you "know" something, if you ask a question, did you ask it because of what you knew, or would you have thought of it anyway. This is really impossible to do with any certainty after the fact.

[acco40 95]

If the sole purpose was to raise money, may I suggest Pamela Anderson, Eminem, Bill Clinton or numerous other controversial figures.

[LovetoCamp 9]

North's mission got the hostages freed from Iran and eventually the people of Nicaragua freed from their communist oppressors.

 

Mission accomplished. Freedom Fighter.

 

If President Carter would have got reelected the hostages may still be tied up in that embassy.

 

 

[LovetoCamp 9]

red states blue states