European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - May 19, 1989, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Page 10 columns Martin Gottlieb the stars and stripes Friday. May 19,1989 Fer prefab on of North verdict still being debated a psychiatrist tells his croup therapy session a Story about a former Marine officer who is serving a Republican president and is put on trial for lying to Congress and about his efforts to Aid anti communist forces abroad. In the Story the sex Marine is convicted on three of 12 charges. The shrink asks the group what the Story Means. One member says. The Liberal judge would t let the jury get out of there without convicting the sex Marine of something but the jurors let him off As easy As they could because they could Sec he s an american  the shrink nods and resigns himself to further ses Sions with this fellow. A second member says. The jurors were appalled at what the Marine and his colleagues were doing in the White House but they saw the Marine As a minor cog who did nothing without his superiors knowledge. So they decided to find him guilty but to treat him  urn hmm says the shrink Mak ing a note in his Book that this member is not making great Progress either. A third member says gee i Don know. 1 mean i know i should have an opinion about this because everybody else docs and i Don t know what s wrong with me. But. To Tell you the truth i just not sure what the verdict  at last thinks the shrink somebody who s confronting reality. The conviction of retired it. Col. Oliver North is a Rorschach test for the nation s political argue cars. What any one of them sees in it tells you More about the arguer than about the verdict. A systematic study just might reveal that Reagan its Are prominent Amon those who know for certain that the jury really loves North and everything he stands for and that Dukakis voters arc disproportionately represented among those who arc morally certain that the Only qualm the jury had about frying North was that he was a fall Guy. Bill Mcallister Unin Picter Ogogor Kiors not that the Reagan people arc United on this. Some Sec the verdict As vindication of North but others Are furious Over the malfunctioning of the system. These of course arc the Only two possible re actions for committed conservatives. Due to poor staff work in the conserva Tive movement no consensus position was reached before the verdict was announced. The conservatives will no doubt be better prepared when the poin Dix tar trial comes around. Some argues Sec the North trial As having been about a Power struggle Between the executive Branch and con Gress. For others the Basic question was simply who s responsible the person who commits an act or his Superior some observers Sec the prosecutors As losers because the prosecution was monumentally expensive and Long yet resulted in Only three convictions among the score of original charges. Others see the prosecutors As successful servants of the cause of Law and order be cause they brought to Justice a Man who when they were getting started was widely seen As an untouchable Public hero a Man whom no jury would convict. Some argue cars see North As the one who manipulated the technicalities of the Legal situation successfully because he avoided trial on the main charge against him the diversion. Others Sec the technicalities As victimizing North because they robbed him of his Chance to make his big anti communist pitch and caused the trial to focus on technicalities. Whats fascinating is that the oped pages news columns and airwaves were full of argue cars who were absolutely cer Tain about each one of these questions however moot complicated or Una sol Valc it might be. For some the Public Post trial analysis was the heart of the entire undertaking. Winning the trial would be Nice but win Ning the analysis is the main thing. For others however the Post trial analysis suggested that maybe the British have a Point when they ban press Dis Cussion of a trial that s pending but that they get it backward. Maybe once a Tri Al s Over All discussion of it should be banned As the moot and pointless acting out of psycho political hang . C coi news service agent Orange decision represented High risk the decision by veterans affairs Secretary Edward i. Derwinski last week to Stop fighting with the nation s Vietnam veterans Over whether agent Orange had become one of their War s silent killers Shook one of the Federal government s largest and most tradition bound bureaucracies. It was a Triumph of politics Over science and of symbolism Over custom. It was also a High risk ploy Bya Junior Cabinet member one that could place him at Odds with other members of the administration and boost the costs of caring for the nation s veterans when president Bush is pleading for budgetary restraint. Derwinski who Learned Washington s ways in 24 years As a congressman from South Chicago and in six m the state department decided not to Appeal a Feder Al judge s ruling that his department had ignored its rules and Congress intent with its bitter two year court fight Over agent Orange. The Agency disputed claims that the widely used defoliant in Vietnam has caused cancer birth defect and other ailments among the 3.1 million americans who served in Southeast Asia during the War. Some of the department s lawyers told Derwinski in a strategy session that the judge s 48-Page ruling had left them with a Good Chance for winning on Appeal. But Derwinski also knew the value of timing and he also introduced a relatively new Factor in the Agency to decision making concern about the department s Public image. The Veteran politician knew that his decision would be seen As a symbolic action that would Telegraph his style both to the department s massive bureaucracy and to the Many veterans organizations. I knew the perception of the a would be seriously damaged if we appealed he said. If we appealed we would obviously be the  since the late 1970s, Vietnam veterans with increasing anger have been pressing the Federal government to compensate them for the damage they say was caused by the use of millions of Gallons of the herbicide be cause of dioxin a cancer causing component. In 1984, the seven chemical companies that made the herbicide and sold it to the government in barrels painted with Orange stripes agreed to pay $180 million to veterans to Settle a class action suit. But the Federal government inspired some veterans said by successive administrations More interested in frugality than humanity refused to yield. Despite a 1984law urging recognition of agent Orange related illnesses the department fought a lawsuit filed by in 1987 by the tiny but vocal Vietnam veterans of America Over the Issue. The question of How much damage exposure to agent Orange did to . Troops has been a nightmarish one for Federal researchers because every link in the Chain of evidence is obscured. The department using a scientific panel created by the 1984 Law had taken the cautious approach. A administrator Thomas k. Turnage. A retired army general who was Derwinski s predecessor said the Agency had to establish a direct cause and effect link Between a chemical and All its effects on human health. That is a notoriously difficult problem and on that scientists say can consume decades of study. What the chemical docs to humans is not Clear. In workers exposed to Large amounts of agent Orange a severe skin condition called Chato Ranc Nas been documented. In a study of Kansas Farmers who used the Herbi cide a cancer called non-1 Hodgkin s Lymphoma was found to be higher than expected. In one study some marines who were in Vietnam appeared to have More cancers than would be expected both the non Hodgkins Lymphoma and a lung cancer. But no link was made to agent Orange. The largest study was done by the centers for Dis ease control one of the Federal government s major research organizations. Researchers there attempted to study soldiers heavily exposed to dioxin. When 694 of696 of the most heavily exposed soldiers were found with extremely Low Levels of dioxin in their blood the cd concluded it would be useless to try to link High exposure with health problems. At least by the direct medical evidence there was Little sign of exposure. For Derwinski and . District court judge Thilton e. Henderson of san Francisco who rejected the Agency s handling of the Issue the key Points were not so much scientific As political. Henderson said he was not qualified to Rule on whether Turnage and the scientific panel had consid ered All the research. He ruled instead on what he said was Congress intent and its previous treatment of the nation s 27 million veterans. The department he said had rejected its Well established practice of giving veterans the Benefit of the doubt a requirement written into Law and had unfairly demanded a causal Urcla Manship Between the aliments and dioxin rather than a less rigorous statistical relationship. Derwinski who had first heard Vietnam veterans grouse about the a while he was in the House said he did not look for any scientific advice. I did look at it from the Public perception of the Agency. The intense feeling of the veterans and the veterans organizations he said. A Wishin Lwi Pom