Poindexter, North Again Invoke 5th : Refuse to Answer Questions From House Panel on Roles in Iran Deal

WASHINGTON — At an emotion-charged hearing on the Iran- contras scandal Tuesday, former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter and his former aide, Oliver L. North, invoked the Fifth Amendment right against possible self-incrimination and refused to answer questions from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

His voice cracking, North said: “I don’t think there’s another person in America who wants to tell this story as much as I do,” but he cited his lawyer’s advice to remain silent.

The refusals to testify highlighted another frustrating day for congressional investigators as they tried to learn more about the secret operation in which arms were sold to Iran and some of the profits were diverted for use by Nicaraguan rebels.

North, who was fired for allegedly arranging the diversion of $10 million to $30 million in profits to the contras, repeated his Fifth Amendment statement when he appeared Tuesday afternoon at a closed hearing of the House Intelligence Committee.

And retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord, who is emerging as a potentially key figure in the scandal, told the Intelligence panel that he too would answer no questions.

Both North and Poindexter earlier had refused to testify in closed congressional hearings. But their appearance Tuesday at the nationally televised Foreign Affairs hearing marked the first time that the military men had relied on the constitutional privilege to remain silent in public hearings.

While sympathetic to North’s apparent anguish at delivering his somber refusal, congressmen voiced concern over active-duty military officers taking the Fifth Amendment.

Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) said that “it distresses me a great deal” to see Vice Adm. Poindexter, “an exceedingly honorable man,” cite the amendment.

He said that a quick check by the Library of Congress had shown that “at no time in history has an active-duty admiral taken the Fifth Amendment before a congressional committee.”

In his appearance, North, a Marine lieutenant colonel, sat at the witness table in a uniform bristling with decorations, including the Silver Star and Purple Heart.

‘Appropriate’ Time

Both men said they wanted to testify at an “appropriate” time, but their lawyers refused to estimate when that might be, saying it is up to Congress and the independent counsel, whose appointment to investigate the sensitive case is now being weighed by a special court.

Poindexter, who Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III has said “knew generally” about the link between the arms sale and the contras, unsuccessfully sought a postponement of his appearance before refusing to answer questions.

Although stymied by the lack of answers, most committee members seemed to take pains to appreciate the “circumstances” in which the military officers found themselves. This tone contrasted markedly with the sometimes hostile questioning of Robert C. McFarlane, Poindexter’s predecessor as national security adviser, when he testified in a public session Monday.

McFarlane has acknowledged helping to negotiate the secret sale of arms to Iran but said he had only vague knowledge of the diversion of funds to the contras.

Rep. Dante B. Fascell (D-Fla.), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, repeatedly thanked Poindexter and North for appearing voluntarily before the panel and said that their reliance on the Fifth Amendment should not call into question the presumption that they are innocent unless proven guilty of wrongdoing in the affair.

Both witnesses Tuesday turned aside questions that touched in any way on the Iran-contra matter. Poindexter, for example, declined to say whether North and McFarlane operated under his direction in making a secret flight to Tehran in connection with the arms sales.

Sharp Protest

And North declined to answer a question on whether he actually was fired or resigned his national security post. That refusal drew a sharp protest from Rep. George W. Crockett Jr. (D-Mich.), a former judge.

“How does that incriminate you?” Crockett demanded.

“That’s an improper question,” snapped Brendan Sullivan, North’s lawyer.

Crockett appealed to Fascell, who noted that “it was never my intention to conduct a trial or a criminal investigation” and ruled in favor of the witness’s refusal to answer.

Sullivan and Richard W. Beckler, Poindexter’s lawyer, said that their clients were not seeking immunity from prosecution in return for testimony at this point.

Investigators are exploring whether the deal violated a U.S. embargo against arms sales to Iran and whether the secret fund diversion breached a previous congressional ban against military aid to the contras.

Legal ‘Mine Field’

Beckler attempted to explain the legal “mine field” he feared his client was treading on.

Saying he was “extremely concerned” by the request for the appointment of an independent counsel to consider possible criminal charges, Beckler said he wants to ensure that Poindexter “does not waive any of his constitutional rights” in appearing before the panel.

Fascell noted the legal theory that if a witness begins to testify, his answers can be interpreted as waiving his right to remain silent.

“We don’t want it said he’s waived his rights,” Beckler said. In summoning Secord, who reportedly has been active in assisting the contras since he retired from the military, Intelligence Committee members hoped to learn whether he was involved in secret Swiss bank accounts allegedly used to funnel arms-sale proceeds to the rebels.

Reagan May Respond

At the White House, spokesman Larry Speakes indicated that at some time President Reagan himself may respond to investigators’ questions on the arms operation.

“He wants to respond to questions. He wants to be able to get the facts out for the American people, as quickly as possible,” Speakes said. “I think when he has had ample opportunity to review the facts and to ascertain that his recollections are correct . . . he will respond to the proper people who are involved in this.”

Reagan has acknowledged approving the arms sales in an attempt to cultivate relations with “moderates” in Iran but has denied any knowledge of the diversion of profits.

However, McFarlane, in his testimony Monday, challenged White House statements that Reagan did not approve in advance an August, 1985, shipment of anti-tank missiles to Iran by Israel, an event that seemed to pique the Administration’s interest in selling arms to Iran itself.

‘Condoned’ by Reagan

McFarlane said Reagan himself gave U.S. authorization for that Israeli shipment, but the White House has said that officials there recollect only that Reagan “condoned” it after the fact.

Speakes, in dealing with questions about McFarlane’s testimony, said he did not review the matter with the President to determine what Reagan recalled of the decision.

But, he said, “I’ve checked with many people and they don’t recall it.”

When asked whether Reagan would submit to questioning by an independent counsel or congressional committees--highly unusual steps--Speakes said:

“I think what we would have to do is to take these . . . requests, when and if they come, and consider them, and the President will certainly do the appropriate, proper and right thing.”

Staff writers Maura Dolan and Karen Tumulty contributed to this article.

Related stories, Pages 20-25.