To the Editors of The Crimson:

In an editorial on March 5, The Crimson calls for the impeachment of President Reagan. The argument is irresponsible. The editorial offers little reason to take such an extreme action. It implies that the President has failed in his "obligation to act within the law." However, inadequate analysis is presented.

There are two problems with the argument that the President acted illegally and therefore should be impeached. First, there is no proof yet that any of the President's actions actually violated the law. The aspect of the Iran-contra affair most likely to be found illegal is the diversion of funds to the contras without Congressional approval. However, the Tower investigation was unable to find any evidence proving that this in fact had occurred. In calling so eagerly for the President's removal from office, The Crimson does nothing to further the process of fact-finding.

The second flaw in the argument is that all convictions require two basic criteria to be satisfied--criminal action and criminal intent. Even if it is proven that the Administration did divert the funds, it appears that President Reagan had no intent to do so. Now this, admitedly, is a problem in itself. The failure of North and Poindexter to consult the President on a decision of this magnitude is inexcusable. However, this does not mean that the President's management style of letting subordinates pursue policy objective without requireing White House approval of every detail should be completely discarded. This sort of the management has allowed officials in other government departments to surge ahead with important programs. In contrast, President Carter was excessively concerned with detail. This bogged his cabinet down and, to a degree, contributed to the failure of desirable initiatives.

The editorial suggests another basis for impeachment: "The President forfeited his claim to the people's trust." Although the Constitution nowhere mentions betrayal of trust as one of the conditions on which a President may be impeached, the editorial seems satisfied that this is a reason.

If we are to accept the editorial's assumption that any betrayal of public trust is reason enough for impeachment, then we should have impeached President Kennedy after the Cuban Missile Crisis. During those 13 days in October 1962, President Kennedy reassured the American public that under no circumstances would we trade American missiles for the Soviet missiles in Cuba. Yet, he sent his brother Robert to the then Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin to offer just such a trade. Kennedy offered to remove our Jupiter missiles from Turkey if the Soviets would take their IL-28s out of Cuba. The deal was concluded, and a year later the Jupiter missiles were removed as quietly and inconspicuously as possible. In his later memoirs, Robert Kennedy wrote that the missiles in Turkey had become "hostages of the Soviet Union." Meanwhile, President Kennedy was unabashedly lying to the public that no "hostage" trading would be considered. The parallel is clear. To impeach Reagan now would be just as ridiculous as impeaching Kennedy then. It is difficult, if not impossible, to conduct foreign policy with all of the cards on the table all of the time.

The point is that similar Presidential foreign policy blunders have occured in the past. If we had impeached Kennedy, all national confidence would have been destroyed. Instead, we rebounded and moved on. The same should be done in the present case. President Reagan has admitted the mistakes, is willing to punish or replace those who have overstepped their bounds and has set changes in motion to restrict the power of the NSC. It is time now to begin to move on. Wallowing in the political mud of impeachment proceedings for the next 23 months would bring the nation to a standstill. Republicans and Democratics like realize that there are many problems that must be trackled--welfare reform, the deficit, and arms control to name a few. The editorial asks us to "endure the pain." Why, if there's no gain? Kris W. Kobach '88   President, Harvard Republican Club