European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - January 8, 1989, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Page 10 the stars and stripes James Rowley apparent North Victory May become liability a powerful weapon in Oliver l. North s defense Arsenal May be silenced by the prosecution s decision to drop the two Central charges against him in the Iran Contra Case. The sex Marine s continued demand to include National secrets in the Case was delaying the trial while Independent counsel Lawrence e. Walsh fought a rear guard action with intelligence Agen cies Over the release of classified information demanded by the court. Faced with the Reagan administration s refusal to allow More disclosures of secret information in his own Evi Dence Walsh streamlined the Case thursday by asking the court to dismiss the two charges most Laden with National Security problems. If As expected . District judge Ger hard a. Gesell Grants Walsh s motion the prosecutor will surrender the most Politi Cally explosive charges which allege a criminal conspiracy to divert .-Iran arms Sale profits to the nicaraguan rebels. But Laurence tribe a constitutional scholar at Harvard University Law school who has done some Legal work for Walsh says what s left is a lean and mean set of allegations that North shredded documents lied to Congress and obstructed a presidential investigation of the Iran Contra affair. Walsh can proceed without the Cloud of National Security hanging Over the remaining charges against the former nation Al Security Council aide tribe said. The move May also defuse the difficult Legal Issue raised by North s issuance of subpoenas for president Reagan and president elect George Bush to testify in court. That question unresolved by the courts could have delayed the trial for months while White House lawyers fought the summonses All the Way to the supreme court. Without charges he conspired to corrupt Reagan s legitimate Effort to sell arms to free american hostages North will have a harder time justifying the need to subpoena Reagan and Bush. When those issues Are removed both the need for presidential testimony and the need for the great bulk of the Doc William f. Buckley Zuments that allegedly might Compromise National Security Are radically reduced tribe said. North can no longer claim that he thought he was acting with presidential authority when he secretly helped finance the nicaraguan rebel cause with Money from the arms for hostages deals. Therefore he has no need to use Classi fied documents to support a Contention that his modes Operand in other authorized Covert operations was no different from the role he played overseeing the secret arms network for the contras. It is unlikely Gesell would let North claim he thought he was acting with presidential authority when he shredded National Security Council documents and lied to attorney general Edwin Meese Iii during the november 1986 presidential investigation of the Iran Contra affair. The 12 remaining charges Are All Felo Nies that carry penalties ranging from two to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000. It s a sad Day when we think charges of lying to Congress obstructing a presidential inquiry. And destroying documents Are somehow relatively unimportant tribe said. In the broader scheme of things those charges should be taken very  some of those charges May still pose some secrecy problems for Walsh and he May have to Jettison a few other counts of the indictment. But it greatly increases the likelihood that the Case will go to trial in the near future. Tribe said it also reduced the possibility that Reagan would reverse his Oft stated position and Issue a Pardon. The need to use a Pardon As a Means of preserving the alleged confidentiality of executive information is a greatly reduced  another Harvard University Law pro Fessor Alan Dershowitz said he thought dismissal of the two major charges against the retired Marine colonel will make it a lot easier. For North to defend himself at  he won this Battle Dershowitz said. It remains to be seen whether he s Gonna win the  associated press staffer James Rowley covers the Justice department and has written about the Iran con tra Case for two years. What Thatcher did not say about Reagan the tribute paid by Margaret Thatcher to Ron Ald Reagan in the year end Issue of National review repays intensive scrutiny by those who continue to wonder who was right who wrong in reporting the views of european leaders on the inf treaty. A Stark division of opinion became evident in Houston in november when All six of the Republican presidential candidates were asked to comment on the pending treaty and Only George Bush flatly endorsed it. Robert Dole was ambiguous. The others Pete Dupont Pat Robertson Jack Kemp and Alexander Haig flatly opposed it. But it became More interesting than merely a division of opinion on a proposed treaty. Alexander Haig said that he knew from personal experience that european leaders actually opposed the treaty but did not dare to do so publicly because of the endemic obsession with the superstition that the fewer nuclear weapons there Are the safer we All Are. It is the Haig thesis Well Call it that Thatcher and also Mitterrand and Kohl supported inf not because they thought it strategically sound but because they thought it politically inevitable. Thatcher Speaks glowingly about the accomplishments of president Reagan in the Domestic theater. In respect of foreign policy she cites with approval his influence on the withdrawal of soviet forces from Afghanistan on the promised cuban withdrawal from South Africa and on the promised vietnamese withdrawal from Cambodia. She compliments his policies in the persian Gulf arid his strike against Qadhafi s Libya which has resulted in a marked reduction of libyan sponsored  she is silent on the matter of Grenada because too Many people Are aware that she not Only opposed the Grenada strikeout was angry for not having been consulted about it ahead of time. On the matter of inf Thatcher appears to approve Reagan s having negotiated the first arms control agreement that actually reduced the nuclear  she engaged then in the kind of generality that slips by the mind like greased lightning. It is not the easiest thing in the world to understand How one can maintain sure defences while constantly reducing weapons and forces if we continue with the formula enshrined in the inf treaty which leaves us without effective theater missiles but leaves the soviet Union with a superabundance of missiles that become theater missiles by Mere manipulation of nomenclature the ss-24 can become an ss-20 by the simple expedient of mounting a different missile on it. At this Point Thatcher sounds a warning. Nothing could be More shortsighted for the West today than to run Down its defense unilaterally at the first sign of More peaceful and stable relations Between East and  one wonders whom is she addressing the Gorbachev Sally at the United nations offering to reduce his army by 500,000 men and his tanks by 10,000, was greeted in Europe with huge enthusiasm and no doubt the parties of the left will Call for commensurate decreases in Western military strength. No Thatcher is addressing primarily her own part of the world which after All has been satisfied for a generation with inferior conventional military resources. A but those resources were backed after Reagan s successful deployment of the Pershing and cruise missiles in 1982-83, by eloquent instruments of deterrence Retalia Tion. These Are gone now and they need to be replaced by something else. Nothing would be More Likely to convince those with whom we negotiate that they would not need to make any concessions because we could Cut our defences anyway. Britain will not do that. We will maintain and update our  what Are we to conclude about Thatcher s Persona opinion of the inf treaty what she wrote in her eloquent testimonial to Ronald Reagan could be read either Way. On the one hand she seems to be saying in the abstract that the reduction in the nuclear stockpile is to Piso a Good idea. On the other hand she is definitely saying that the West must continue to sustain powerful and convincing deterrent Force. What she did not Tell us in her piece was whether she is convinced that at this moment such a conclusive deterrent Force is in fact left in Europe. C Universal press Syndicate