We are a divided, corrupted, and bloodstained nation. A universal and unconditional amnesty for men who refused to fight in the war-the ghastly symbol of all that is wrong-might just be the very element that could help to heal us. At the very least, it could reconcile parents and sons. It could also restore our pride in ourselves as a compassionate people. It could revive our vision of devotion to social justice and renew our self-confidence by recognizing freedom of conscience for all.

Let us, therefore, join hands-rich and poor, black and white, parents and children-united in our faith in the healing power of amnesty, and determined to achieve it.

If somehow all the sorrow, and all the tears, and the killing can help us to become a better people, perhaps then, and only then, can we say that these deaths-these sacrifices-have been redeemed and will have had a positive meaning for us as Americans-the only true honor.

A CASE FOR AMNESTY

(By the Amnesty Committee of the Center for the Pursuit of Peace)

(A) Definition

PART I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Greek word, "amnestia" meant to forget or intentionally overlook. Today, the legal term amnesty is defined as a general determination that whole classes of offenses and offenders will not be prosecuted. The Supreme Court, in two separate cases, defined amnesty as the abolition, oblivion or forgetfulness of an offense.

(B) Who needs it?

It is difficult to estimate the number of men in need of amnesty. It is agreed, however, that amnesty would benefit four groups: resisters, those incarcerated, deserters and the discharged.

Resisters are those who have violated the selective service law in some way. Opposition to war or the Indochina war specifically are the main reasons for resistance. Some individuals might also refuse induction because they do not recognize the authority of the State to draft them. This category does not include the men who have gone to prison or any who have received a legal conscientious objector status.

Those incarcerated are persons who refused a CO status or did not receive it and chose to serve prison sentences rather than flee the country. At present, there are about 300 such men in federal prisons, while another 6,000 face possible prosecution. About ten thousand men have been convicted for evasion since 1947. A deserter is one who is absent for more than 30 days without military authorization. In 1968, the Pentagon reported more than 53,000 deserters. During the first ten months of fiscal year 1971, the Army alone reported 68,449 deserters. The Pentagon has reported that 354,427 men deserted from the armed forces over the four year period from 1967 to 1971. Some of these individuals, from their experience in the military, and others specifically in Vietnam, increased their opposition to the war to a point where they finally left. Admittedly, some men deserted out of personal fear, while a number of Blacks and other minorities left for racial reasons. Today, these men are in Canada, Sweden or remain underground in the United States.

The final group considered for amnesty are those who receive a less than honorable discharge, especially an "undesirable" discharge. The armed services rid themselves of men they believe to be undesirable. Since 1962, approximately 300,000 men have received less than honorable discharges. This category includes not only men who are objecting to war, but also men who have committed other criminal acts. Such a discharge effects negatively civilian job opportunities.

As was said above, it is difficult to estimate the number of men in need of amnesty. Canadian officials claim there are 50,000 to 70,000 American draft resisters and deserters in Canada. Others place the figure higher. John M. Swomley, Jr., Ph. D., a member of the National Committee of Clergy and Laity Concerned and of the National Board of the American Civil Liberties Union states: "More than 100,000 young Americans are either in exile or have otherwise refused to comply with draft laws.

(C) History of amnesty in the United States

(The following outlines the history of American amnesty as drawn up by Dr. Henry Steele Commager of Amherst College)

Those who supported the British Crown during the revolutionary war were dealt with harshly. During and after the war, 80,000 fled to Canada and only a few returned. Desertion was wide-spread in Washington's army but after the war no attempt was made to punish deserters.

President Washington granted amnesty to participants in the Wiskey Rebellion saying, "I shall always think it is my sacred duty to exercise with firmness and energy the constitutional power with which I am vested. Yet my personal feeling is to mingle in the operations of the government every degree of moderation and tenderness where justice, dignity and safety permit."

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson, and later Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, pardoned all deserters on condition that they return to the military. In 1830, President Jackson pardoned all deserters on condition that they never again attempt to join the military.

At the end of the Civil War no legal action was taken against the deserters or draft evaders in the North. After the war, Lincoln and President Andrew Johnson granted total amnesty to citizens and soldiers of the Confederate army who were legally guilty of treason for having taken up arms against the government of the United States.

There was no amnesty after W.W. I. Many war protesters, including Eugene Debs, remained in jail after the war for the duration of President Wilson's ten years. President Harding freed Debs and others. Later, Calvin Coolidge released most of those remaining in prison.

After WW II, a three man board was established by President Truman to review 15,000 cases of draft evaders and violaters of military laws. About 10% were given amnesty.

PART II: A CASE FOR AMNESTY

(A) Moral directives of the churches

Within the past few years, many religious bodies and organizations have spoken out in favor of granting amnesty. Excerpts of some of their statements follow:

United Church of Christ: "In the interests of reconciliation and binding up of wounds, for the sake of our freedoms and to allow our high respect for conscience, in the best traditions of a strong and secure democracy, in the name of Christian love, we urge the President of the U.S. to grant, at the earliest possible opportunity, amnesty and pardon for those who for actions witnessing to their beliefs have been incarcerated, deprived of their rights of citizenship, or led by their conscience into exile during the course of the nation's great agony in the Vietnam war". (Seventh General Synod, Boston, June, 1969)

United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.: “. . . asks the Congress, the President, and other public officials, and our fellow citizens for a reconsideration of the plight of those young men who, in good conscience, have found that they cannot participate in a particular war but have no redress or relief under existing laws. We urge retroactive recognition of their claims and reduction of punitive sentences, together with appropriate amnesty as soon and as systematically as possible." (181st General Assembly, 1969)

"We specifically urge Presidential amnesty for those who are imprisoned or expatriated for conscientous dissent to this war." (Report of the Standing Committee on Church and Society to the 183rd General Assembly, 1971)

U.S. Catholic Conference: "We urge civil officials, in revising the law, to consider granting amnesty to those who have been imprisoned as selective conscientous objectors, and giving those who have emigrated an opportunity to return to the country to show responsibility for their conduct and to be ready to serve in other ways to show that they are sincere objectors". (Statement, Oct. 21, 1971) American Baptist Convention: "Therefore, consistent with our concept of freedom and conscience, and recognizing that man of our ancestors came to this country to avoid conscription in Europe, we call upon the President of the U.S. to grant amnesty . . ." (Resolution on Conscience, Freedom and Responsibility, 1969.)

Lutheran Council in the U.S.A.: “We urge loving concern also for those who refused to participate for reasons of conscience, including those who chose to face prosecution or to leave our land and seek refuge in another. We express our approval of new initiative from both government and private agencies to resolve

the question of amnesty and to provide services, in order to facilitate re-entry into the life of the nation." (Statement, Febr. 29, 1972)

Other instances which might be cited: The Ecumenical Witness, K.C., Missouri, January, 1972: the Board of Directors of the Natl. Council of Churches meeting in Dallas, Texas, December, 1972 and Rabbi Abraham Heschel's statement on the "Theological, Biblical and Ethical Considerations of Amnesty", presented at the Interreligious Conference on Amnesty, Washington, D.C., March, 1972.

(B) Preserve freedom to dissent

Our democratic system of government in the U.S. is based on two fundamental principles that men make government and that there are limits to the authority of government. It is therefore a system of limited government based on majority rule, not on dictatorship of the majority. Our Constitution is careful to prescribe a limited government in order that the sacredness of the individual's rights, rooted in our liberal Western philosophy of natural rights and set forth in the Bill of Rights, may be safeguarded. The basic problem inherent in democracy lies in the fact that these two elements of majority rule and the individuals' rights may often clash. The result is dissent.

Since a democratic state is dependent on the willingness of its citizens to commit themselves to its political values and to act accordingly, a democratic state must necessarily be based on a pluralism where dissenting opinions are as respected as the majority's decisions. In fact, it is this disent, both within and without the sphere of recognized party competition, that most contributes to the quality of democratic governance. Therefore, broad guarantees of protection, which also extend to political dissent for its free expression, are what makes government functional and responsive. A democracy's viability rests upon its ability to effect the fine balance between this dissent and majority opinion. In practice, however, political dissent seems to be more vulnerable to suppression because many think it constitutes a greater threat to governmental stability than the exercise of other freedoms. A crucial question for U.S. democracy today is whether or not free expression of political dissent is to be permitted or suppressed.

Political dissent from the Selective Service Law is grounded in the inviolability and dignity in which the individual's conscience s held in our democracy. Our liberal-democratic theory of governing centers around the protection of the individual as an autonomous moral agent. While some subordination to governmental authority is necessary in our society, when this authority overrules the citizen's conscience, then it is also overstepipng the constitutional restraints so essential to our democracy. Therefore, not only is the individual demeaned, but the democratic state likewise suffers whenever conscience is coerced, whether the coercion is successful or not. Genuine demoratic pluralism is betrayed when dissent is punished and moral autonomy is subordinated to the collective will. In his Essays on Civil Disobedience, Thoreau expresses these principles well:

"A government in which the majority rules in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. . . Must the citizen even for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a right and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.”

The test of how democratic any government is depends upon the number of political prisoners it puts or keeps behind bars.

Unfortunately, thousands of young men who conscientiously objected to military service because' of moral reservations during the Vietnam conflict have been forced into positions of civil disobedience. When a significant number of citizens disagree with a statute intensely enough to identify themselves publicly as lawbreakers, with the attendant risks of arrest and punishment, it reveals that democratic procedures have broken down or are not available: it is a demand for responsiveness. When a society is driven to prosecute thousands of dissenters who have been alienated to the point of civil disobedience, then that society is in danger.

(C) Prison not effective for war resisters

Selective Service violators are subject to felony convictions and may receive maximum sentences of five years in a federal prison or a $10,000 fine or both.

Dr. Willard Gaylin, a New York psychiatrist, has conducted a study of Vietnam war resisters in prison and has published it in his book, In the Service of

Their Country, (1970). He examines these individuals and the prisons which contain them. On the type of individual serving a Selective Service violation term, Dr. Gaylin writes:

"Some of the most truculent, exhausting, and threatening prisoners were the political draft resisters of World War II. This turned out not to be the case with this group. The different nature of the conflict generated a different population of resister, different sociologically and psychologically . . . The current resisters are not completely, not even preponderantly, political protesters. They are a heterogeneous group which . . . is composed primarily of what would be considered moral or religious objectors . . . They are contemplative and tolerant people who are individual rather than group oriented . . .”

Gaylin concludes that most of them come from a personal sense of moral outrage with the war and with a strong conscience, which would not permit them to participate in it or to avoid the confrontation.

Dr. Gaylin also discusses the question of whether prisons have facilities to deal with war resisters. He points out:

"In their case no pretense at rehabilitation is offered, for the most part they don't require it, and no opportunities for education are available, because of their high level. They are there purely to be punished . . . It is evident in such things as their exclusion from the work release program. When I first asked one of the correctional officers at the prison why COs were not permitted on work release, I was told it was because work release was for the purpose of rehabilitation to the normal community, and these were people who did not need rehabilitation."

Selective Service violators have received prejudicial treatment and have been refused parole. Dr. Gaylin comments:

"At the time I began this research, all Jehovah's Witnesses were routinely granted parole at fifteen to seventeen months. This was certainly reasonable and understandable since they adequately satisfied the conditions for parole. What was not understandable was why the other Selective Service violators were routinely denied parole."

Imprisonment as a means of punishment can produce harmful effects. Not only may a person be hardened by the prison experience and find difficulty adjusting to the community once released, but the community may actually suffer. The cost of maintaining these resisters in prison, e.g., food, shelter, medical attention, clothing, etc., must be borne by society.

The image of the United States suffers through the imprisonment of these individuals:

"Once the country to which people turned for refuge and exile and hope, ours is now the land from which men flee for refuge. Once a nation that held out the hope of fresh starts for dissidents abroad, we now imprison our own political objectors." (Thomas Hayes, American Deserters in Sweden, 1971)

Another question yet to be answered is whether jailing is an effective deterrent. The Military Law Review points out:

"When faced with the choice of obeying military law and compromising strongly held principle-or-obeying his conscience and thereby violating military law, the writer's experience indicates that the sincere objector will generally take the latter course of action. The threat of punishment by court martial is no deterrent." (Dept. of the Army Pamphlet, Mil. Law Rev. Vol. 47, Jan., 1970)

CONCLUSION

In light of the above, the Amnesty Committee of the Center for the Pursuit of Peace believes that there is a strong case for the granting of amnesty. Amnesty should be seriously considered by the Congress and by the Administration.

In granting amnesty we would be following clear moral guidance originating in our own religious bodies. We would preserve the vital tradition of tolerating dissent. We would admit the futility of punishing political dissent by prosecution and incarceration.

Before one can discuss various "degrees" of amnesty, the American people must decide whether they do indeed wish to heal the wounds caused by the war. If they wish to "write off" and forget their fellow citizens who were alienated by the war, they can hardly expect Congress or the Administration to reverse their current "do-nothing" stance. When the people show a desire to alleviate the plight of all who are suffering hardship because of the war, then the necessary machinery will be set up by the Congress and the Administration.

It is hoped that this pamphlet will help more Nebraskans to see a case for amnesty and that they will do their part to "make it happen" for their fellow Americans.

CLERGY AND LAITY CONCERNED

My name is Ronald Freund. I am the Midwest Regional Coordinator for Clergy and Laity Concerned (CALC), the interfaith peace organization.

In my work, I have spoken with and counselled many people directly affected by the War in Indochina. They have included veterans with less-than-honorable discharges, men in exile in Canada, parents of exiles and parents who lost their sons, POWs, and people who committed civilian acts of resistance to the War, a category in which I myself fall. All of these people are victims of the War in Indochina. All Americans will suffer with them until there is a just and humane resolution of their problems. A universal and unconditional amnesty would be such a resolution.

The issue of Amnesty is one of the most burning questions facing the American people. We are living in an era following the longest direct military involvement of our nation in history-the War in Indochina. We are also living in an era where the highest officials of our government are accused of committing serious crimes against society. It is an era where Americans are confused about the standards of justice and the requirements of conscience.

We pray that from this confusion will emerge a nation re-dedicated to a tradition which places the values of "higher moral law" and reconcilation of a divided people above those of punishment and vindictiveness. It is in this spirit that we ask the following:

"For all those whose opposition to the War in Indochina brought them into conflict with the laws of the Government, we ask amnesty. Let all those who are convicted be set free and all those facing prosecution be immunized from further jeopardy and all records wiped clean. For all deserters, draft violators, and those accused of civilian acts of resistance, let there be a new beginning. For the half million veterans who are now being punished for life by other-than-honorable discharges, let their records be corrected to make them eligible for benefits that would facilitate a more hopeful future.

Religious tradition teaches that 'you should not hate your brother in your heart but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance against the sons of your own people . . .'

We cannot restore to life our dead soldiers, nor undo the wounds of others. We cannot undo the devastation of the land and people of Indochina. We can repent and work for post-war healing. An unconditional and universal amnesty would free us for a responsible and serious effort to rebuild our divided people." Thank you.

Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER,

House Committee on the Judiciary,

RONALD FREUND, Midwest Regional Coordinator.

BERKELEY, CALIF., February 22, 1974.

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

SIR: I am writing to you to express my views on amnesty. I returned to this country on the 15th of March 1973 after spending five years and two months as a prisoner of war in Viet Nam. I went to South Viet Nam in Jan. of 1967 as a crewchief for Army UH-1 helicopters. In November of that same year I extended my tour of duty but on Feb. the 8th 1968 my helicopter was shot down and I became a prisoner.

My experience in South Viet Nam both before and after capture and my experience in North Viet Nam has convinced me that American involvement in that country was against the best interests of the Vietnamese as well as the American people. Our involvement in the internal affairs of that country has caused years of suffering to its people and even today our tax money goes to support a dictatorship of the worst order, headed by Nguyen Van Thieu who imprisons thousands of his own people only because they do not share his views or will not submit to his tyranny.

When I returned to this country less than a year ago I heard our President say that to grant amnesty to those who resisted the war would be letting down