Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Executive power of president in usa
Powers of executive branch essay
Iran-contra affair
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Executive power of president in usa
The Iran-Contra affair survives as one of the most dramatic political scandals in American history. Approximately a decade after Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal both shocked and captivated the public. The affair began in Beirut, 1984, when Hezbollah, a militant Islamic group sympathetic to the Iranian government, kidnapped three American citizens. Four more hostages were taken in 1985. The conservative Reagan administration hurriedly sought freedom for the Americans. Despite a 1979 trade embargo prohibiting the sale of weapons between the U.S. and Iran, members of Ronald Reagan’s staff arranged an arms-for-hostages deal with Iran in an attempt to free the American hostages in Lebanon. Meanwhile, back in the Americas, Reagan was pursuing an aggressive foreign policy in response to the Cold War. The Reagan administration was doing its best to curb Communist influence in Central and Latin America. In Nicaragua, Reagan wanted to support the democratic rebel Contras against the Marxist Sandinista regime, despite legislation passed in the early 1980s, the Boland Amendment, that made federal aid to the Contras illegal. In 1985, Oliver North, a staff member in the National Security Council, devised the scheme to divert surplus funds from weapons sales with Iran to the Contra cause in Nicaragua, violating the Boland Amendment. Following public exposure of the scandal, Oliver North and many other members of Reagan’s staff were put on trial; however not a single one of them was appropriately punished. Each person involved was either pardoned, granted immunity or had convictions overturned. The Iran-Contra scandal and its aftermath exposed both the executive branch’s lack of accountability to the American people and the other branches of g...
... middle of paper ...
...in the cover-up; several people shredded documents, lied under oath and obstructed justice. At least if the participants in the scandal had been effectively punished, perhaps it would have curbed some of the power held by the executive branch. But the lack of consequence sends a dangerous message: if staff members of the executive branch are able to accomplish so much behind America’s back and are not held responsible for their actions, pardoned by the president, part of the executive branch itself, then the executive branch is far more powerful than Americans realize. What the government tells us it is doing may not actually be true, and at the end of the day there is nobody to enforce the laws on the members of the executive branch. In this regard, the Iran-Contra affair exposed the true, relentless power of the executive branch – and how little we know about it.
The 1980s saw great political and military action throughout the world. However, one particular event that took place began in the early 1980s which was the Iran-Contra Affair. The Iran-Contra scandal is said to be the result of President Ronald Reagan’s attempt to accomplish two things. The first being his desire to see that the Americans which were being held as hostages by Iran, to be freed and the second was that he wanted to provide assistance to the contras in Nicaragua by going around congress. As obvious and as famous as the previously mentioned appears to be, the key states or countries involved are a matter of investigation. The heavy hitters in the Iran-Contra scandal aside from the United States, were Nicaragua, Iran, and Israel, which possess the question; how did several countries from various places around the world become so entangled in one of the world’s most memorable, multinational, scandals of all time?
In reality, he and his security advisor, Admiral John Poindexter, had lied to Congress, shredded evidence, and refused to inform the President of details in order to guarantee his “plausible deniability”. Ultimately, the Iran-Contra investigation raised more questions than it answered. Reagan held fast to his plea of ignorance, the full role of the CIA director remained murky, and the role of Vice President Bush remained mysterious as well. The Iran-Contra affair revealed how secretive government officials undermine the Constitution and compromise Presidential authority under the facade of patriotism.
It is clear that while political scandal, primarily the 1974 Watergate scandal, played a large role in the rapidly declining confidence in government between 1968 and 1980, it is not the sole or even the dominant factor. The Watergate scandal only impacted on the Nixon era, and subsequently lead to measures that should have prevented further distrust in the government. Instead, the role played by the four presidents who held office in those years was the main reason behind the decline in confidence. The role of the presidents and their White House administrations encompassed political scandals, and also clearly influenced other factors such as the role
Between the years of 1983 and 1986, the United States was involved in a series of covert operations, collectively known as the Iran-Contra Affair. These operations were at best controversial, and at worst blatantly illegal.The Iran-Contra Affair (or the Iran Contra-Scandal) revolved around the issue of foreign policy, specifically with regards to Iran and Nicaragua. In 1979, revolution in Iran resulted in a complete change in the countries relationship with the United States. Having previously been an ally of the U.S., Iran, under its new regime, had become decidedly anti-American. These changes caused a time period of unrest that lasted into the mid 1980’s between the U.S. and Iran. Stabilizing the situation in Iran was one of the key objectives that motivated many of the authorities who were ultimately responsible for the Iran-Contra Affair. In 1985, seven hostages were taken by a terrorist group in Lebanon. This terrorist group had ties with Iran. Therefore, when Iran requested that the United States sell arms to them, President Reagan saw it as a potential way of getting the hostages returned. President Reagan wanted to see them returned safely, and hoped to restore good relations between the U.S. and Iran in the process. Many members of Congress were strongly against the idea. To go through with the arms deal was in direct violation of several laws, including policies against selling arms to entities on lists of terrorists countries, or terrorist-friendly countries, (Iran was included on such lists). Additionally, in negotiating with Iran, the Reagan administration would be dealing with known “terrorists,” something Reagan was openly very against. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration granted the Iranian’s request, in spit...
The Iran-Contra Affair involved the United States, Iran, and Lebanon. The affair coincided with the Iranian hostage crisis, which promoted the United States’ actions in sending weapons to Iran. The Reagan administration decided to trade arms for hostages in hopes of successfully retrieving American hostages from Iran. Iran was at the time under the power of Ayatollah Khomeini, who had put his full support behind the hostage crisis and believed there was nothing that the United States could do to Iran. America’s only chance of rescuing the hostages was to put their support behind Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, which involved the shipment of weapons to Iran f...
“From Watergate we learned what generations before us have known; our Constitution works. And during Watergate years it was interpreted again so as to reaffirm that no one - absolutely no one - is above the law.” -Leon Jaworski, special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal.
The Nicaraguan revolution of 1979 is an event that many American citizens may not know about. What is likely less understood is the United States’ role in the cause of this revolution. The US actually played a very important role in causing the Nicaraguan revolution. The US did three major things that strongly influenced the revolutionaries to revolt against the government. The US helped create the National Guard of Nicaragua, a group that abused citizens and blatantly disregarded for human rights. The US was also complicit in the assassination of Augusto Cesar Sandino, a citizen who fought against US Marine occupation in the 1930’s. Finally, the US supported the Somoza family, a series of three dictators who held Nicaragua from 1939 until 1979 when the revolution occurred. The United States involvement is not limited to these three occurrences, but these three examples are important causes of the revolution. To provide a better understanding of the revolution and the United States’ involvement in Nicaragua, the historic setting is necessary.
The CIA’s 50-year history of smuggling drugs into America is generating hatred for the United States throughout the world. Like Pontius Pilate, CIA washes their hands of the human tragedies and the corruption of government offices. They do this by remaining and by refusing to recognize the evidence, supporting corruption. For the past 50 years, the CIA has abused its power by deliberately drugging and corrupting America; and therefore should be prosecuted.
Iran-contra affair is the name of a major United States foreign policy scandal in the 1980's. It involved two secret operations by the executive branch of the government. The operations were (1) the sale of military equipment to Iran, an enemy of the United States; and (2) the provision of military aid to contra rebels in Nicaragua, which Congress had banned. The two operations were connected by the use of profits from the Iranian arms sales to aid the rebels. Background.
“Just as the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and Chinese leader Mao reinforced armed revolutions against colonial or U.S.-aligned states, American power would now reassure and upkeep rebels against communist states” (“The Reagan Doctrine”, and for some of the rebels who were rendering efforts, with the aid of the U.S., to banish the Soviet supported regimes in their individual nations. The practical implementation of some of the policies of the doctrine prompted confusion in the U.S. political dominion itself. If one would examine, to turn the doctrine’s theory into practice Reagan allowed the sale of weapons to Iran, and the profit of such trade was meant to provide monetary aid to the contras – the anti-Sandinista rebels who were secretly trained by the U.S. Special Forces (“The Reagan Doctrine”, n.d.). Additionally, as the contras were both supported and tactically developed by the U.S. and were used against the Soviet supported regimes, the “Exposure of the Iran-Contra affair in late 1986 provoked a chief congressional examination. The scandal seriously weakened the influence of the president” (“The Reagan Doctrine”, n.d.).
White collar crime is a term created by Edwin Sutherland in 1939 that refers to crimes committed by people of higher social status, companies, and the government according to the book “White-Collar Crime in a Nutshell” by Ellen Podgor and Jerold Israel. White collar crimes are usually non-violent crimes committed in order to have a financial-gain (Podgor and Israel 3). A very well known white collar crime that has even been taught in many history classes is the Watergate scandal. This is a white collar crime that was committed by government authorities. Watergate was a crime that shocked the nation.
Everyday citizens often live unaware of their government’s inner workings. The knowing of political espionage is often too heavy of a subject to be inducted in conversation. True, prima facie, modest twists and turns of information may not be considered substantial, but this inconsideration leaves much to be uncontrolled. It is easy for political leaders to become power crazed, to not realize the massive implications that come of their actions. Only after all is said and done do the people actually realize their government is an opaque mask of deception. The Watergate Scandal substantially impacted Americans’ trust in their government.
Political leaders of the United States were, at one time, thought of as crucial members of our society. Ideally, their main goal was to represent and satisfy the needs of the American people. Unfortunately, over the last fifty years, our trust in our administrative representatives has drastically declined. Beginning with the great conspiracy theory that President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 was actually planned by political leaders, America had, for the first time in history, begun to question its faith in its very own government. Consequently, the American people became extremely hesitant when it came to electing officials into office. Despite his loss to JFK in the 1960 presidential election, in 1968, Richard M. Nixon was elected as the thirty-seventh president of the United States. He was praised by many for his comeback after previously losing an election and seemed to be an admirable man. While in office, Nixon made many achievements and followed through with all of his promises made during his campaign. For the first time in what seemed like forever, the American people had finally elected a leader who seemed unquestionably trustworthy – or so they thought. Unfortunately, shortly after Nixon was elected to his second term of presidency in 1972, the Watergate Scandal changed America forever by creating a sense of mistrust toward the government for the American people because of The Nixon Administration’s actions.
The "Iran-Contra Affair. " The Encyclopedia of the Cold War: Political, Social, and Military History. Ed. Spencer C. Tucker, b. 1875.
Executive privilege has been around since Washington’s first term in office as the first official president of the United States. During Washington’s presidency he set the stage for the use of executive privilege that will evolve over time into something far greater than its initial purpose. Clinton and Nixon utilized executive privilege in a greater sense than Washington, and later Jefferson. They used executive privilege to cover up their wrongdoings and illegal activities. The outcome of the Nixon trial led to the official acknowledgment of executive privilege as a power allotted to the president and other executive officials, but it also noted that the power of executive privilege does not override the need of key information in a criminal investigation.