stop it in fact 14 months ago-and he has not stopped it, it is the Congress who stopped it said he had ended the war with honor, and nothing could have been more devoid of honor than the continued bombing of Cambodia concealed from the American people, the saturation bombing of North Veitnam, and the complete violations by our administration of the ceasefire provisions which were drafted about 14 months ago. So the whole thing was dishonorable from start to finish, and continues to be dishonorable. And if the Congress has the guts to put an end to this policy, which is both very costly physically and in matters of morality, by which we continue to subsidize these crooked dictators like Nguyen Thieu and Lon Nol and continue the killing-in other words, Richard Nixon is now trying to do with money, with dollars, and with civilians, what Congress has forbidden him to do with military men. And it is a disgrace. And this goes back to the whole issue. As I said, these draft resisters or deserters were not people who had a lack of conscience. They were not trying to evade a responsibility. They felt they had a higher responsibility. And that was the responsibility not to engage in an utterly indecent, immoral, unjustified, and undeclared war.

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much, Senator Gruening.

I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Senator, I just wanted to say thank you for coming here and giving us your statement today. Thank you very much. Mr. GRUENING. It is a pleasure to be here.

I think this is one of the many causes which the Congress has got to concern itself with. There are many changes we have got to make in consequence of the betrayal that has taken place in our great heritage in the last 5 years. And this is certainly one of them.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much, Senator Gruening.

Our next witness is a speaker who represents the American Legion. I now call upon Mr. Herald D. Stringer, the director of the National Legislative Commission, the American Legion, to introduce the people. who will be our next witnesses.

Mr. Stringer.

TESTIMONY OF HERALD E. STRINGER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. STRINGER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the American Legion is here today at the committee's invitation to present its views on the subject of amnesty. Our membership is deeply concerned with this problem, and we appreciate the opportunity of testifying in accordance with our mandate.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Mr. James R. Wilson at the end of the table, the director of our national security commission. This is the program commission within the Legion having jurisdiction over this subject.

Our witness this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. James F. O'Neil, a past national commander of the American Legion, and the publisher of our Legion magazine. Mr. O'Neil is qualified to speak on the subject of amnesty, having been a member of the Amnesty Board appointed by President Truman following World War II. He is here at the table with me and prepared to present our formal statement. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. O'Neil, you may proceed as you like. It is nice to have you here. TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. O'NEIL, PAST NATIONAL COMMANDER, THE AMERICAN LEGION; ACCOMPANIED BY HERALD E. STRINGER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION, AND JAMES R. WILSON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. O'NEIL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I deeply appreciate the opportunity and the invitation to present the views of the American Legion on the question of Executive elemency for those who have failed to comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Selective Service Act and those who deserted from military service during the Vietnam war.

For the record, our current membership approximates 2.700,000 honorably discharged former servicemen and women of World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. With the exception of World War II, the largest segment of our current membership base their eligibility on Vietnam-era service.

While the reasons for belonging to our organization are many and varied, all of our members have a concern for our Nation's well-being, particularly in the area of national defense. This concern has, from the Legion's beginning in 1919 following World War I, manifested itself in the resolutions annually adopted at its national conventions. Today my appearance and the position I take on amnesty are based upon resolution 41 adopted at our 1973 national convention. A copy of this resolution is appended to this statement and I respect fully suggest that it be made a part of the official records of these hearings. Mr. DRINAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[The resolution follows:]

55TH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION HELD IN HONOLULU, HAWAII, AUGUST 21-23, 1973

Resolution No. 41.

Committee: National Security.

Subject: Draft evaders and/or deserters.

Whereas, the majority of young men called to military service through the Selective Service process accepted their responsibility and served their country in time of need; and

Whereas, a minority of young men chose not to accept their responsibility and through defiance of the law and disregard of the manpower needs of their country, dodged their obligation by leaving the United States to seek sanctuary in other countries; and

Whereas, many of these men and others who deserted from the military are residing in other countries but desire to return to the United States if prosecution and punishment can be avoided as they avoided their citizen's duty; and Whereas, some politicians, some members of the judiciary, news media, clergy and other organizations and agencies are advocating general amnesty or a "second chance" program for these expatriates; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, by The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Honolulu, Hawaii, August 21-23, 1973, that we go on record as opposing any attempt to grant amnesty or freedom from prosecution to those men who, either by illegally avoiding the draft or deserting from the armed forces, failed to fulfill their military obligation to the United States and that each case should be reviewed under existing procedures available to the courts and the President; and be it further

Resolved, that The American Legion request prosecution to the full extent of the law anyone guilty of either of the aforementioned violations.

Mr. O'NEIL. The delegates who unanimously adopted resolution 41 represented every one of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. They were all honorably discharged veterans of wartime service and represented a cross section of American ethnic, cultural, political, and economic life. Resolution 41 also has the unanimous support of the American Legion Auxiliary whose nearly 1 million members are the wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters of men who served their Nation. Like you, we Legionnaires continue to be concerned over the complex problems presented by the issue of amnesty. It has some emotional aspects with overtones of justice tempered with mercy and understanding.

Let us hope that as a result of these hearings, earnest and full consideration will be given to all facets of the issue of executive clemency so that we shall be able to discover and follow that difficult line between the dictates of the law and the charity our moral heritage demands.

The American Legion has an intense and direct interest in amnesty because our members all were subject to the laws, regulations, pressures, and responsibilities of military service in defense of the United States and most also were subject to the operation of the Selective Service System.

We believe that we have a real and vital stake in this issue since it concerns basically the rights and responsibilities of the citizen to bear arms in the defense of his Nation. In 1783, Gen. George Washington expressed clearly the responsibility of citizenship which I believe goes to the heart of the proposition under discussion. Washington said:

It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a portion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it.

Proponents of amnesty at the present time fall into two categories. One group advocates unconditional amnesty for all military deserters and draft evaders. This group reasons that the Vietnam conflict was an immoral war for the United States; that those who recognized this and followed their conscience ought not suffer any legal penalties for being right while their country was wrong; and, therefore, amnesty should be a blanket recognition of this.

Some spokesmen for this view go so far as to advocate full veterans rights and pensions for deserters and draft evaders from their sufferings in Canada, Sweden and elsewhere. The second group of proponents offer amnesty to draft evaders but not to military deserters, provided that draft evaders prove their sincerity by performing alternate service for their country.

The American Legion believes that most draft evaders and deserters consciously decided to refuse to accept their responsibilities as citizens under the law; that they evaded their responsibilities by flouting our laws and legal remedies rather than by going through the available, legal channels of redress; that their actions in declining to obey certain laws distasteful to them is contrary to sound legal and moral standards; and that the obligations of citizenship cannot be applied to some and evaded by others.

The amnesty question is clouded with a vast amount of printed material, which, if true, suggests that everyone is groping in the dark on this subject and that almost anything except referring it to our normal system of justice would be a risk. There have been reports

in the press of a considerable amount of law-breaking and crime among expatriate draft evaders or deserters in Sweden. I am not an expert on the subject, but these reports seem to be consistent with the experience of the Amnesty Board that considered the 15,805 violators of the Selective Service law in World War II. It is a further warning that no one policy except to hear every case may be a wise one.

As I told a Senate hearing on this same subject about 2 years ago, "It is unfortunate that I am the only surviving member of the Amnesty Board appointed by President Truman." The other members were Chairman Owen J. Roberts, then a recently retired Justice of the Supreme Court, and Willis Smith, then president of the American Bar Association and later a U.S. Senator.

Because of what I believe to be important to these proceedings, I cite two experiences. At the very outset, the question of a general or blanket amnesty was raised by Justice Roberts, who indicated some support. After some discussion it was resolved unanimously to proceed with an examination of each case and determine our recommendations on merit.

In submitting the report 1 year later, Chairman Roberts referred to this situation by explaining to the President he was glad that such a decision was made, adding that "I never realized there were so many who were not entitled to amnesty."

The American Legion resolved that:

We go on record as opposing any attempt to grant amnesty or freedom from prosecution to those men who, either by illegally avoiding the draft or deserting from the armed forces, failed to fulfill their military obligation to the United States and that each case should be reviewed under existing procedures available to the courts and the President; furthermore, The American Legion requests prosecution to the full extent of the law anyone guilty of either of the aforementioned violations.

In other words, we of the American Legion firmly believe that giving any wholesale amnesty-whether conditional or unconditional-would make a mockery of the sacrifices of those men who did their duty, assumed their responsibilities in time of conflict and—in some cases were killed or seriously wounded.

Furthermore, what would be the effect on the morale of our Armed Forces if amnesty were granted to those who have violated the law and their oath of service by turning their backs and fleeing their country? In our opinion, it could only badly undermine that morale and cheapen the value of honorable service to one's country-at the very moment these values are most in need of strengthening.

It is clear from the Legion's resolution that our official opposition to amnesty is not a total opposition to it, but an opposition to any sort of amnesty (with or without conditions) to all draft evaders as a class. Our resolution asks that all draft evaders be prosecuted. This means that we would like each case to be heard in court, and tried on its merits. The courts can deal with the particulars of each case, and exercise leniency or sternness, based on the actual facts brought out in hearings about each particular draft evader. Surely the courts will find some who are innocent, and some who should be excused without any further conditions.

It is also implicit in our resolution that those found guilty would still have open to them the right of appeal. Should appeal fail, they would have recourse to the President's pardoning power if, on review

of the facts in each case, he wishes to extend additional leniency beyond what the courts may extend. This is implicit in our resolutions because any request for prosecution implies not only the possible findings of guilt but the finding of innocence, and the avenues for redress, appeal and pardon are available to all persons who are prosecuted.

Our request that draft evaders be prosecuted does not deny to them their full rights under the law, or the opportunity for Executive clemency. Our resolution, in effect, opposes any form of blanket amnesty, and asks that each case be considered on its merits. The only other example in or history of amnesty for wartime draft evaders certainly bears out the wisdom of this approach-and, of course, it is consistent with the whole American system of justice which is based on hearing the charges and the facts of each case.

There are some in this country who would create the illusion that every Vietnam draft evader was acting on high principle out of deepseated convictions against the war. When all cases were judged individually after World War II, nearly half were found to have been men wanted for murder, robbery, desertion of their families and other serious crimes.

On the other hand, others were found to have been legally exempt from military service, or they fell afoul of the law through ignorance or illiteracy. President Truman gave a complete pardon to 1,523 and a conditional one to 1,518, while more than 12,000 did not merit such treatment.

If the Vietnam draft evaders are all prosecuted, courts will be able to judge each case on its merits. They will again find a mixture, in my opinion, of victims of error, deliberate conspirators, and professional criminals. The President could then have them screened and consider recommendations for clemency in each case.

An act of Congress to provide an across-the-board stint of Government service in exchange for amnesty would offer that penance to some for whom it is too heavy a penalty and to others for whom it is too mild a punishment. The most flagrant offenders will get the best break and the least offenders the worst.

This is hardly equal justice under the law. At least 10 Presidents, from Washington to Truman, have handled the amnesty question under existing machinery. An act of Congress that decides all cases without a hearing is neither necessary nor desirable.

I do draw the conclusion from them that the whole amnesty question movement is groping in such darkness that for Congress to rush into an amnesty enactment would be inadvisable on the general principle that acts of Congress should be based on sound conclusions drawn from sound information.

The number of draft evaders affected is often set in the press at 70,000. But the Defense and Justice Department reports repeatedly put it at a much lower figure, if we are talking about men who might face prosecution in the normal run of things.

Numbers are not important to justice, but the figure of 70,000 is often cited in support of a need to grant a general amnesty to "reunite the Nation." That reasoning seems to be that such a large number of people is significant, purely on the basis of numbers and without regard to their individual acts.