I was reading a Frederick Forsyth novel this morning.
The Fourth Protocol. An excellent read, it is. Perhaps the closest to parity with the classic
Day of the Jackal. Forsyth's greatest talent lies in his ability to probe the fatuous psyches of every actor in the intelligence business and to expose them for their cynicism and their authentic loyalties to inauthentic masters. In my mind the only characters in Forsyth's novels that can rightfully qualify as "authentic" human beings are the assassins. They are the only free-thinking souls without any allegiance to flaccid leaders and institutions. Even Major Petrofsky, the antagonist of
The Fourth Protocol, despite his fierce loyalty to the Soviet Union comes off as a man of genuine individual passion.
There was a passage of the story that caught my eye. There is a scene midway into the story where a top British intelligence officer Sir Nigel Irvine confronts a low-level bureaucrat with right-wing sympathies, whom he has discovered has been duped into a "false-flag" operation. That is, Soviet agents have conned the turncoat bureaucrat into passing them top secret NATO papers under the ruse that he is passing them to South Africa, whose anticommunist apartheid regime he sympathizes with. Sir Nigel is presenting the quisling with evidence of his role in espionage, not yet revealing to the anticommunist fanatic that it was Moscow all along, to whom he was passing his information:
"Now comes the defiance, thought Irvine, the attempt at self-justification. Funny how they all run to pattern. Berenson met his gaze. The defiance was there." (196)The text continues,
"The vanity, thought Sir Nigel, always the vanity, the monumental self-esteem of inadequate men. Nunn May, Pontecorvo, Fuchs, Prime—the self-arrogated right to play God, the conviction that the traitor alone is right and all his colleagues fools, coupled with the druglike love of power derived from what he sees as the manipulation of policy, through the transfer of secrets, to the ends in which he believes and to the confusion of his supposed opponents in his own government, those who have passed him over for promotion or honors." (197)The pathetic fate of the character Berenson aside, I find myself asking the following question: What unwritten rule declares that the "traitor" be the exhibitor of such a clichéd predictability, yet casts the "patriot" in a light of sheer authenticity? Is one not seized to find the "patriot" a paradigm of the same sense of "self-arrogated right to play God," and "conviction that he alone is right?"
After all, it is the "patriot" that puts his own sense of duty ahead of constitutional safeguards and any regard for "international" human rights. He sees these as an impediment, a stumbling block in the way of what he considers his ultimate mission for god and country. He is willing to engage in the most vile criminal actions to achieve his goal. The blood of innocents is to the "patriot" nothing more than collateral damage.
The late great Anarchist legend Emma Goldman
had this to say in her landmark essay, Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty:"Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others."So to the fictional Sir Nigel Irvine, the "traitor" suffers
"vanity," possesses
"a self-arrogated right to play God," a
"conviction that the traitor alone is right and all his colleagues fools."
Yet to Emma Goldman, the "patriot" suffers from
"conceit, arrogance, and egotism," and the undying belief in
"the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others." Do we see a connection here?
The character of the "patriot" Irvine smirks at his own moral superiority, just as he silent accuses the "traitor" Berenson of doing. He objectifies the man as just another clichéd scoundrel. Certainly there is no sympathy in the readers' heart for this particular traitor, unless one reader happens to belong to the small remaining pocket of fools that still hold some affinity for the reviled extinct apartheid regime of South Africa, (most of whom are likely only to be found in the bowels of the online right-wing chat room FreeRepublic.com).
The real question we are left with is, if we are to accept that neither the "patriot" nor the "traitor" are themselves authentic in their convictions, that they both share in the paradigm of deluded self-righteousness, how can history be allowed to vindicate the actions of any individual that acts under his own moral authority. The prevailing attitude of authority is to trivialize the the character of such individuals, and the most common way today is to examine them under the lens of bourgeois criminal psychology. Revolutionaries and freedom fighters today can no longer be viewed as revolutionaries and freedom fighters, but instead as disturbed psychopaths, or worse, egotists looking to compensate for their own inadequacies by latching on to some "radical chic." John Brown is one such freedom fighter that has stood the cruel treatment of history.
Former anti-imperialist political prisoner Raymond Luc Levasseur observes: "PRIOR TO MY EARLY 20’s, my knowledge of American history was minimal and distorted. I barely knew of John Brown and what he was about. I was told he was badly in need of a psychiatrist." 
Brother Ray knows what it means to have ones motivations so mercilessly trivialized as he and his comrades in the
Ohio 7 have been the targets of a relentless propaganda assault through "true-crime" novels, cheesy TV docudramas and law enforcement specials, all that have sought to reduce their character to cardboard lowlifes.
The "patriot" Irvine contradicts his own country's history in his personal conviction regarding the criminality of all traitors. Irvine has made clear that traitors are each "inadequate men" taking it upon themselves to oppose their government. They are thus all dilettantes who place their own sophomoric moral superiority above everyone else. Under Irvine's logic, nothing should grant him authority to violently oppose the established regime?
If we continue the practice of psychoanalyzing every rebel and revolutionary, then there is no such thing as higher moral authority anymore. Everyone is just a psychopath.
Last year I decided to take a play from the "psychoanalysis" practice of the "Irvine" school of thought so that I may profile one of the more notorious of "patriots," the man I consider so depraved, Oliver North.
I broke so many rules of scholarly objectivity with this paper through my reckless injection of my own passion and inflammatory rhetoric such as, "Oliver North is a bastard, and there truly no justice in this society. One day the souls of 2.5 million dead Nicaraguans will try him. Death will be his ultimate prison cell," and my baseless allegation of "genocide." And yet, despite what I see as a lack of professionalism in these areas I still managed an A. What mattered most to me was the catharsis the paper's conclusion provided me.
The Final Judgment on Oliver North:
A Case of Government Violence
Joseph Lehman
SO410.02. Criminology
Professor Levine
May 3, 2006
There is no type of violent crime more insidious than a government’s violence against either its own people, or toward the people of weaker nations. Government violence can be defined as acts of commission or omission. Government’s omission of violence is in its disregard of the welfare of its people through cutting their healthcare and educational programs in favor of wasteful expenditures. Government’s commission of violence is in its rampant exploitative military campaigns abroad, fomenting genocide, disease, and famine
(Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2004: 491). It cannot be denied that in order to explain violence in the collective terms of an entire government, one would have to consider a multitude of social-structural and institutional roots. However, it must also be taken into account that Government exists as a consensus of the individual personalities of the men and women that hold positions of power. If there is one such individual whose personality best represents the pathology of government violence it is Oliver North. If there is one incident that best represents the full capacity of the American government’s heinous violence against the sovereign people of another country it is Iran-Contra. Although the extent of the corrupt Iran-Contra affair reached the highest levels of the government, Oliver North provides the most appropriate entity to symbolize its most egregious excesses. It is the thesis of this paper that North’s behavior can be explained through two basic theories of criminology. The evidence suggests North is at best, a consummate example of an antisocial personality, and that he displays classic techniques of neutralization.
The Iran-Contra affair was a campaign of crimes of the greatest magnitude, with Oliver North smack in the middle of it. The context of it was that the United States Government could not stand the progressive regime of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, which had taken power after revolution had toppled the evil U.S.-backed dictator Somoza. Because they did not cow to U.S. corporate interests as Somoza did, the Sandinistas were thereby vilified as godless communists. Oliver North was a key organizer in the U.S. covert aid in arms and money to the Contras, mercenary dissidents waging a bloody terrorist crusade against Nicaragua, but touted by the Reagan administration as freedom fighters. Never minding of course, that the Sandinista government had the majority electoral support of the Nicaraguan people
(Chomsky, 2003: 86; 96-98; 105). Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill once called the Contras, "marauders, murderers, and rapists" (Shannon, 1989: 173). This label seems quite adequate considering the Contra’s loathsome human rights record. By the end of the chaos Nicaragua was left with a death toll of 2.25 million and a crippled economy and infrastructure
(Chomsky, 2003: 98). This does not even count the more widely covered aspects of North’s arms dealing, money laundering, shredding of documents and perjury.
It may seem as something of a stretch to declare outright that Oliver North, decorated Marine colonel, is a psychopath, but his criminal actions and his narcissistic personality traits are consistent with the psychopath’s textbook definition. The general traits of a psychopath are written as, narcissism, "experiencing little or no guilt when inflicting harm," and behavior "marked by ‘glibness and superficial charm,’" a proficient ability to lie and con their way through situations
(Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2004: 491). There are striking parallels to these traits in legendary military commander David Hackworth’s
(1994) assessment of North: "He’s smarmy, a flatterer, a brownnoser. He’s also a twisted impostor, a drugstore Marine with an apparent compulsion to bullshit just about all the time"
(¶1). The descriptions are practically identical. One way of spotting a psychopath is that not only may he lie about the most important things, he may be prone to lie about every inconsequential detail. Hackworth
(1994) issues a lengthy report exposing North for having, among many things, inflated his military combat record and the importance of his National Security Counsel job at the Reagan White House, taken credit for the accomplishments of others and reaped illicit profits. He also skirted the constitution. Yet North has been adamant in his denials. He is so effective at weasling his way out of answering for his actions, that he even cites ‘national security’ reasons as a dodge. This is all in line with a psychopath’s use of deceit and manipulation to avoid punishment.
The behavior of a psychopath extends all conduct pursuant to his criminal actions, including conduct that is not exactly criminal, but possibly unethical. North not only has committed actions that break many ethics, he has also repeatedly found angles to lie about them afterward. For example—and several agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration confirm this—prior to his convoluted plan to divert funds from illegal arms deals to the Iranians to the savage Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, North sought to exploit drug informant Barry Seal’s alleged dealings with a few low-level Sandinista officials in an attempt to paint the entire Sandinista government as being involved in drug trafficking. He had virtually no interest in the DEA’s objective of bringing down the Colombian Drug Cartel. One plan of his was to supply the Contras with profits from Seal’s drug transactions; never minding that such a course of action would jeopardize the entire case. When the DEA refused to play along, North leaked the Seal story to the Washington Times effectively blowing Seal’s cover and exposing him to his eventual assassination
(Shannon, 1989: 176-177). North derailed a vital investigation and cost a man his life for his own political ends. The greatest obscenity though, is the spin North personally put on the whole affair. In his self-serving autobiography, North
(1991) presents Seals exploits matter-of-factly, omitting any mention of his plan to divert the drug funds to the Contras. He claims, "we had hoped to use Seal to run this operation long enough to capture Pablo Escobar, the infamous Colombian drug lord," "but this plan had to be terminated when a story about the operation and Sandinista involvement with Colombian drug dealers appeared in the Washington Times"
(266-267). This is never minding the obvious fact that North was in all probability the one responsible for the leak. Not only that, but he is setting himself up for direct credit for the manhunt for the Colombian drug lords, in total contrast to the fact that according to the DEA, he never had any real interest in the Colombians at all. This suggests he is a truly narcissistic liar, quite possibly a psychopath.
There is much more evidence to support the theory that North routinely exhibits techniques of neutralization. As Sykes and Matza originally defined it, the first technique is denial of responsibility
(Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2004: 356). That is the offender cannot take much blame because he fell victim to factors beyond his control. One of North’s excuses for selling arms to Iran in order to finance the Contra effort went like this in his testimony before Congress: "I think it is very important for the American people to understand that this is a dangerous world; that we live at risk and that this nation is at risk in a dangerous world"
(Bradlee, 1988: 499). In other words, he cannot be blamed for acting in America’s "defense." The dangerous world made him do it. Another technique is denial of the victim
(Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2004: 357). The offender cannot be blamed because it was the victims’ fault. They were to blame. They deserved what happened to them. In his autobiography North
(1991) writes contemptuous portraits of the Sandinista officials. He calls Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega "Danny Boy," and a "dull and humorless little clerk"
(230). He saw the Sandinistas as communists and Soviet puppets ready to attack the United States. Another technique is condemnation of the condemners
(Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2004: 358). In order to evade responsibility the offender blames the people prosecuting them. They are corrupt. They are hounding and persecuting him. This is all a show trial. As Ben Bradlee Jr.
(1988) writes, "Ollie spoke contemptuously of ‘heroes’ who had come forward in November of 1986 to blow the whistle on false cover stories that he and others were putting out"
(502). To him, they were all just opportunists with axes to grind. "He made clear his disgust with Congress." He baited House members with accusations that they were bureaucratic and ineffectual, that they were soft on communism, and that they were tying his hands behind his back
(503). These tactics are effective methods at tapping into base populist sympathies.
Condemnation of the condemners plays a significant role in the whole phony image North crafted to win the hearts of the American public. Just as a psychopath is said to create an illusory mask of sanity, North cultivated his image as a hero. Amy Fried
(1997) examines North’s use of the media to sell his image. North appealed to treasured American institutions of patriotism, nationalism, and religious piety. He embodied the symbol of the patriotic American soldier, the rugged individualist cutting through bureaucratic red tape and politics, enforcing Jeffersonian republican family values. He was a warrior fighting evil. He was a man of righteous Christian zeal
(77-80). And the public consumed it all. But according to Hackworth
(1994) it is all a lie. North claimed to live in a simple farm. In actuality he lives in a mansion, with all his profiteering to thank for it. He decked himself out in full Marine regalia during the congressional hearings, wearing a "fruit salad" of ribbons he did not rightfully earn. He was no warrior; save for his unremarkable stint in Vietnam, he was basically a desk jockey and a paper pusher. His excuse for illegally accepting the gift of a security system as a political donation was false; he made up the story about Arab terrorists sending hit squads to kill him. He enabled ruthless arms merchants around the world. But instead of prison, he has been rewarded with a successful career as a political commentator and gadfly, Senate hopeful, and businessman. According to Bradlee
(1988) he participated in the illegal monitoring of American groups that opposed the administrations policies in Central America
(431-432). North’s final technique was appealing to higher loyalties
(Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2004: 358). He did it for the sake of someone above him. North passed the buck to President Reagan, claiming he was just following orders
(Hackworth, 1994: ¶17-18). These are not the actions of a hero; they are of a liar and a criminal.
It is amazing that North has been able to skate accountability for his crimes in spite of such damning evidence against him. The evidence, however tenuous some of it may be, paints a very convincing case of North’s complicity in drug trafficking to finance the contras. North
(1991), in his autobiography vigorously asserts that he or the Contras had nothing to do with drugs: "very little in life has angered me as much as the allegations that I or anyone else involved in the resistance had a drug connection"
(267). The evidence tells another story. Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall
(1991) devote their book Cocaine Politics to extensive investigation of drug connections between North, the Contras, the CIA, the NSC, and various mercenaries and Central American governments. Their findings are voluminous. Bradlee
(1988) reveals the most incontrovertible piece of evidence when he cites passages in North’s diary that was brought to light in John Kerry’s Senate committee. These entries make direct references to Contra drug dealing, including one that says simply, "$14 million to finance supermarket came from drugs." The supermarket was a Honduran arms depot
(405). North’s own words contradict his denials. If diaries don’t seal his fate, then apparently nothing will.
So lies the case against Oliver North in the charges of meeting to theories of criminology. He is the supreme symbol of government violence. A man who excuses his arms dealing, drug trafficking, financing of death squads, under the banner of patriotism is truly a psychopath. As is a man who lies about his own lies in every situation. A man who evades responsibility with such aptitude displays the techniques of neutralization. Only in America can a man who sponsors a genocide capture the hearts of the American public and be called a hero. Only in America can he assume successful careers in the media and run for the senate. What happened in Nicaragua was genocide, not simply government violence, but only God can cast him to the fate he deserves. Oliver North is a bastard, and there truly no justice in this society. One day the souls of 2.5 million dead Nicaraguans will try him. Death will be his ultimate prison cell.
References
Bradlee, B. (1988). Guts and glory: the rise and fall of Oliver North. New York: Donald I. Fine, Inc.
Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (Eds.). (2004). Criminology: Explaining Crime and its Context. (5th ed.). Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
Chomsky, N. (2003). Hegemony or survival: America’s quest for global dominance. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Fried, A. (1997). Muffled echoes: Oliver North and the politics of public opinion. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hackworth, D. (1994, June). Drugstore Marine (Oliver North). Playboy, 6, 90-94.
North, O. (1991). Under fire: an American story. New York: Harper Collins.
Scott, P.D., and Marshall, J. (1991). Cocaine politics: drugs, armies, and the CIA in Central America. Berkley, University of California Press.
Shannon, E. (1989). Desparados: Latin drug lords, U.S. lawmen, and the war America can’t win. Penguin Books.
