An overnight hero

Because other things are happening, other lives being lived, I didn't intend to talk this time about the continuing Iran-Contra hearings, but the testimony of three key witnesses begins to reveal a complete breakdown in the constitutional relations between the president's men and the Congress, or the evident intention of one or more of those witnesses to ignore the requirements of the constitution.

Now the word 'constitution' has been brandished in the hearings, has been used with all the reverence of an appeal to holy scripture, but I must say I am astounded that in all the thousands, I should guess hundreds of thousands, of words recorded in these hearings and the dense fogs of legal and bureaucratic jargon through which the questioners and the witnesses have groped, I'm astounded that, so far as I've heard or read, no member of the select committees, no senator, no congressman or their council, has read aloud as a reminder to the witnesses the actual positive clauses in the Constitution of the United States that define exactly where, when it comes to making war or running a war, the president's power ends and the power of the Congress is exclusive.

Colonel North talked all the time as if the president's power to help the Contras, even during the time it was sanctioned by Congress, was unlimited, that the president could do what he wanted, give any orders to his staff, without telling anybody, including Congress.

So, let me briefly read out what could have been read to Colonel North at the beginning, the clauses in the very first article of the constitution that don't just touch on, but declare, powers that do not belong to the president.

Article One under Section 8 defines 18 specific powers of Congress and clauses 11 through 16 say: 'Congress shall have power to declare war, to grant letters of mark and reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and water. (How about the Achille Lauro?).12 – To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years. 13 – To provide and maintain a navy.14 – To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.15 – To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.16 – To provide for, organising, arming and disciplining the militia and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers and the authority of training to the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.'

So, from the start, the convention that wrote the constitution decided to reject the power which, in the late eighteenth century, rested with every chief executive, every king, tyrant, tribal chief, whatever, in every civilised country – and, I suppose, most uncivilised – on earth. To have given the war-making power to the president would have put them back in the condition against which they revolted. Or, as one senator put is, we should be replacing George III with George I.

If these clauses had been read aloud – I should think, most appropriately by the chairmen of the select committees – then the senators and congressmen and the witnesses could have known what violations of the constitution were being argued about and the onlooking millions of Americans might have had an elementary lesson in which part of holy writ everybody kept praising and invoking and appealing to. I honestly doubt whether one American in ten, riveted to the tube, could have told you where, under the constitution, the war-making power of the president ends.

Plainly Colonel North talked as if he had never read that section and it refers, of course, to a war legally declared and conducted. You'll notice a glaring omission from the constitution. It says nothing about covert operations, secret diplomatic moves involving army factions or nations, or other moves designed to weaken the governments that the president might think threaten the security of the United States, or weaken revolutionary forces whose success might similarly threaten American security.

But Congress has passed laws to sanction such covert acts by the president when it's convinced he's right. However, the root provision of those laws says that the president must reveal such an intended covert operation to eight, picked, top members of Congress – four from the Senate, four from the House. They constitute a so-called 'oversight committee' – oversight, not having the English sense of something you forgot to notice, though from the Nicaraguan goings-on you might think so, but meaning the power to oversee, to supervise, to approve of and be kept informed about.

In this case, the whole secret operation which Colonel North says he ran always with the knowledge and permission of his bosses in the National Security Council, the congressional oversight committee was never told.

Several members of the select committee, senators and congressmen, Republicans and Democrats, commented at the end of Colonel North's testimony, that this vast secret operation, even if the president was not involved, represented a branch of the executive run amok – an outlaw government that, if continued here or in other operations, constituted a recipe for defying the constitution and dismantling democracy.

Well, since we've got going on topic A, I must end by saying something about the phenomenon of Colonel North, of the sudden enormous surge of his popularity around the country. He brought into the committee room every day stacks of thousands of telegrams from ordinary people praising him, proclaiming him to be an all-American hero. And there's no question that he's an appealing, forthright, small-boy handsome, very articulate young man, with a gift for patriotic rhetoric in the vibrant style of Frank Capra's movie heroes, especially of James Stewart in 'Mr Smith Goes to Washington'.

The colonel did give abundant evidence of courage, risk taking, inexhaustible energy, in the service of a cause that he took to be essential to the security of the country – a patriot, but one who, in the process, lied and cheated and covered up and, in effect, transferred his oath to uphold the constitution to an oath which no president, no member of Congress, no judge, no member of the armed services ever takes, to uphold and defend the President of the United States.

He was eloquently told, at the end, with a gentleness that took account of this alarming surge of popularity, that people of equal patriotism could radically disagree with his views and his behaviour. In truth the country, accurately reflected by its representatives in Congress, is deeply divided about aid to the Contras and the majority is still against it. That, the colonel was constantly told, like it or not, is democracy – ironically, the system the colonel hoped to bring about in Central America.

It seems to me that the present glorification of the colonel is a sign of something that happens from time to time in American life – the explosion of a yearning among people who are bewildered or bored by the complexity of life and the complications of government, a yearning for a simple, no-nonsense hero, somebody as glamorous and uncomplicated as the old Western heroes, Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill Hickok, as played by Gary Cooper. Never mind that these people were, in life, vigilantes and as such very attractive, but dangerous, threats to a democratic society.

Thirty-six years ago I was on holiday down in the big bend of Texas chasing white-tailed deer, breathing in the dry, exhilarating air and admiring the mountains, when my friend, the district attorney, and I rested one day at a forest ranger station. We turned on the radio and heard to our astonishment that President Truman had relieved General Douglas MacArthur of all his commands for deciding to fight the war in Korea his way, overriding the authority of the President of the United States and his United Nations' command.

We rushed back to Alpine, Texas, where I found a cable from my old, wry Manchester editor – a man of few, eloquent words. The cable said, 'Please go San Francisco soonest and watch him wade in'. I did so. I saw the lighted plane wing in on the very murky night and the splendid reception at the airport by the military and by packed thousands of hoarse fans. And, subsequently, I saw him appear before Congress and make his most resonant and defiant speech. He was not a Daniel, but a Caesar come to judgement. It was all on television and the general was practically buried under the blizzard of telegrams and mail that showered in.

At the time, a distinguished senator confided to me, 'This scares me. If this goes on, he could seize the presidency'. The general then went on a triumphal tour of the big cities and everywhere, it seemed, there were very few who dared say, wherefore rejoice, what conquest brings he home?

President Truman was privately urged to go on television and make plain that this new hero, however sincere, had violated his command, rejected his orders and was insubordinate. President Truman said, 'No, give him his head!' And the president kept mum.

The general was so puffed up by this new dose of fame and glory that he ran for president, but that was a year later and at the Republican convention, after only one roll call, one ballot, the tally stood, Eisenhower 845 votes, Taft 280, Governor Warren 77, General MacArthur four.

A year is an age in the lifetime of overnight heroes.

This transcript was typed from a recording of the original BBC broadcast (© BBC) and not copied from an original script. Because of the risk of mishearing, the BBC cannot vouch for its complete accuracy.

Letter from America audio recordings of broadcasts ©BBC

Letter from America scripts © Cooke Americas, RLLP. All rights reserved.