with napalm, the saturation bombing which destroyed homes, hospitals and whole families, making homeless refugees of those that were not killed, turned loose in a defoliated and craterized wasteland-these nonresistant drafters could no longer stomach those atrocities, would no longer participate in this massive butchery, and deserted. They do honor to an America shamelessly misled and betrayed by its leadership. Their deserting was infinitely preferable to continuing as killers and maimers of a people against whom the United States has no grievance whatever.

My convictions in this matter, early formed when I viewed this war and United States participation in it as wholly different from our entry into World Wars I and II which I then considered and now consider fully justified, were crystallized by a scenario of horrors at the third American War Crimes hearings in Copenhagen in 1972. Among them was a 24 year old school teacher. Her right arm was gone. Fragments of the bomb that hit her school had torn it off. The same bomb killed six of the children outright and crippled ten others for life. They are typical of the U.S. legacy in Southeast Asia, armless, legless children or children paralyzed by fragments striking their brain or piercing their spinal cord. Some of them cannot even use crutches but must crawl on hands and knees. The men who refused to participate any longer in these atrocities should be granted immediate amnesty and with it a declaration of appreciation for their decency and humanitarianism. How shameful that they should be headed for imprisonment with the approval of an administration that has harbored more convicted criminals than ever before constituted a President's entourage. Most of these had been associated with President Nixon for years and had had the opportunity to profit by his example and guidance.

How shameful when men in high places who have committed felonies in their responsible posts escape with a slap on the wrist-a fine, instead of the multiple prison terms they deserve. The United States must unfortunately forever bear the shame and stigma of a totally unjustified war of aggression into which our leadership tricked us and would have continued the slaughter but for Congressional action which stopped the war last August 15 and forbade further use of our miiltary in Southeast Asia. But we can make partial amends by freeing those who knew right from wrong and refused to continue to participate in a monstrous and criminal folly.

So I am hopeful and strongly urge that the Congress promptly pass legislation granting unconditional amnesty to both the war resisters and deserters. Let them follow Abraham Lincoln's example when he pardoned both deserters from the Union cause and the Confederates who had been captured.

Mr. DRINAN. Before I yield to Congressman Smith of New York, I would like to ask whether you would have any suggestions as to the carrying out or the implementation of your recommendations in legislation. Many bills are before us, as you know. I wonder if you have any thoughts on that to complete your statement.

Mr. GRUENING. I notice numerous bills that are slightly different. I believe that unconditional amnesty should be granted by the Congress. I do not believe in compensatory service. I think these men followed their consciences. And I think history will increasingly prove them right, and those who plunged into this inexcusable war, wrong. I think public sentiment is growing. But prejudice can easily be aroused by referring to them as draft dodgers and slackers and using phrases of that kind.

I think it took real courage for a man to refuse to go. He realized that he was risking imprisonment, and I think it took just as much courage, if not more courage, when a man had gone and saw what he saw and said, I cannot stomach this any more, this is nauseating, and got out. And I feel very definitely that there is a chance for the United States to redeem its own policy by recognizing that following one's conscience is perhaps the highest law.

And when you see what is happening down there now, and how this war which Richard Nixon promised he would stop-said he would

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 clemency 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 uncondi tional-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