to the protection of individual rights and liberties. For this reason the delegates to our last Biennial Convention held in Miami Beach, Florida in March 1973, expressed their support for amnesty and adopted the following resolution:

"I. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

"The National Council of Jewish Women believes that the freedom, dignity and security of the individual are basic to American democracy, that individual liberty and rights guaranteed by the Constitution are keystones of a free society and that any erosion of these liberties or discrimination against any person undermines that society.

"It therefore resolves:

"11. To work for and support measures which will in a spirit of reconciliation, provide amnesty for all who have been put in legal jeopardy by their resistance to the war in Indochina."

The National Council of Jewish Women is aware of the concerns raised by thoughtful people sensitive to the deep emotional impact of the Vietnam war and wish to recognize their legitimate reservations; however, we feel that a spirit of reconciliation will do much to bind up the wounds caused by the years of this war. In that vein we wish to quote from a petition submitted in 1971 to the President of the United States and the Congress by a group of college professors and others who work closely with young people.

"These men are still young, many of them still in their teens; most have probably never voted in a federal election. Their lives have been deeply affected by a war which was not of their making. One which-we feel sure the overwhelming majority of this nation wish we had never begun and pray may quickly end. So deeply felt is the revulsion against this war, that the air is full of charges and countercharges as to who was to blame for it. . . But let there be no legal recriminations among ourselves for the fighting or the refusing to fight this war. The healing and reconciliation of the nation, its re-direction toward peace with itself, will be difficult enough. It will be folly to make it even hearder by exacting heavy legal penalties from these young men."

It is now a year since the official close of the Vietnam War. It is termed by some as one of the most divisive wars in the history of this nation and one which created wounds that must be healed because it affects large numbers of people in our population. It has been variously estimated that tens of thousands or even several hundreds of thousands of young men will benefit from this amnesty. This does not include members of their families, who are suffering separation and grief because of the plight of their sons.

We agree with former Secretary of the Army, the Honorable Robert E. Froehlke, who was convinced amnesty was needed to "begin mending in every possible way the heartbreak and wounds left" by the war in Vietnam. He further elaborated "I am not prepared to say Vietnam was right or wrong, Vietnam deeply hurt America.'

Since ancient times amnesty has been granted to heal wounds created by military conflicts. History records that Julius Ceasar again and again granted amnesty to his political and military foes. European countries have a record of grainting amnesty, and United States Presidents, beginning with George Washington, have granted some form of amnesty, after every military conflict.

Amnesty is necessary to heal the wounds and divisions of the Vietnam war and to restore to useful citizenship those who are now barred by legal restrictions. History indicates that Congress has exercised the authority to "amnesty" war resisters, as was demonstrated in 1898 when Congress authorized universal amnesty following the Spanish American War. We, therefore, urge that Congress enact without much delay a broadly framed amnesty bill.

LIBERTY LOBBY STATEMENT ON AMNESTY SUBMITTED TO HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Liberty Lobby appreciates this opportunity to present the views of its 20,000-member Board of Policy, and also the approximately quarter million readers of its monthly legislation report, Liberty Letter.

Liberty Lobby is an institution of American citizens, often called the people's lobby, who have joined together to promote their patriotic and constitutionalist

convictions for good government. Liberty Lobby's position is different from those of special interest pressure groups, and approaches these issues solely for the best interests of all the people in our country.

In addition to our publications, a million and a half listeners hear our daily radio program, "This Is Liberty Lobby," on 125 stations from coast to coast. As a result of this wide, representative contact with citizens across the country, Liberty Lobby is in a position to transmit the feelings of a large cross section of the American public which has no vested interests other than the welfare of the people as a whole.

As indicated in the enclosed Liberty Lowdown 102, "Liberty Lobby and War," which we ask be included in the record as part of this statement, Liberty Lobby has from the very beginning opposed the Vietnam war "from a profound adherence to nationalism and hostility to internationalism." We consider that the U.S. should never have become involved militarily on the mainland of Asia, 9,000 miles from our shores, just as Gen. Douglas MacArthur said. However, once we had, through incredible ineptitude, become so involved, then the only course for the U.S. was to win and get out, as we consistently advocated over the years. Liberty Lobby opposes blanket amnesty to those who in our time of need dodged the draft or deserted the armed forces in recent years. Whether they were motivated by cowardice or desire to protest the war has no bearing on the granting of amnesty.

There should be no question about prosecuting those who deserted the armed forces. These people committed illegal acts and should be prosecuted because they were well aware at the time they were committing illegal acts.

Another group requests amnesty. They are the ones who fled this country to avoid presecution and took up residence in a foreign land. They did so under their freedom to choose. They were free to return to the U.S. and accept the draft call, or refuse the draft and pledge their allegiance to some other country. They have placed their judgment above loyalty to America, and we see no reason for this group even to request consideration of anmesty.

A third group refused the draft to make a personal protest against the war and carried their case against the war by following the true course of civil disobedience and standing trial for their act. This group has no need to request amnesty because they have followed to the end their objections to the draft.

Some 3 million men served honorably in the armed forces in Vietnam. About 9,000-10,000 draft dodgers and deserters are under indictment or have been charged in criminal complaints, according to the Department of Justice. The great bulk of deserters and draft dodgers, 30,000, are fugitives who can turn themselves in and follow the procedure used by many others. Why change the law now to satisfy other fugitives from justice?

Many men would have preferred not to serve in the armed forces when called to duty under the draft, but they recognized their moral duty and did serve their country. They further knew that if they refused to accept the draft or fled to a foreign hideaway, they were violating the law and would be subject to punishment as prescribed by law. Liberty Lobby feels that those who violated the law should be tried-each case individually. Perhaps the jury of peers should include returning POW's and wounded servicemen.

Another group deserves mention: the more than 50,000 Americans who died in uniform to protect those 40,000 deserters now sulking in bitterness and frustration. They would love to be able to return to this country.

As a final point, if President Nixon is found guilty of treason or any other crime, would this body consider granting him amnesty? We certainly believe this should not take place.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit our statement for the record.

[From Liberty Lowdown, No. 102, August 1971]

LIBERTY LOBBY AND WAR

Liberty Lobby's consistent opposition to the commitment of American ground troops to the mainland of Asia, and hence the institution's opposition to the Vietnam war since the beginning, has arisen from a profound adherence to nationalism and hostility to inter-nationalism.

Contrary to the politicians and the liberals, the position of Liberty Lobby has not been based on political considerations which vaporize anew with the advent of every dawn. On the contrary, history now vindicates Liberty Lobby, because

its position has been rooted in the deepest wellsprings of the American experience, as well as a general political philosophy which is absolutely stable and valid for all time.

Merely pointing out that the U.S. should never have gotten intertwined in the insoluble problems of Indochina is not enough. There is a lesson to be learned that is permanently valid. If the death of 54,998 Americans in Vietnam has taught their countrymen the lesson that departing from nationalism and venturing into the quicksands of international meddling is disastrous, then their death has not been in vain. If America learns to mind its own business, and recognizes that the solution of misunderstood problems within America is infinitely more important to Americans than knowledge of the incomprehensible problems of aliens, then that simple lesson in sanity may put into motion a process that will in the end save America.

Liberty Lowdown expressed this pholosophy in its very first issue. (Feb., 1963). Speaking of De Gaulle's unexpected rejection of Britain as a Common Market partner, Liberty Lowdown observed:

"Let us get our bearings and understand a central fact. From the point of view of an alert patriot, America has no real friends overseas, only interests. A nature view of foreign affairs demands a completely objective view of overseas personalities. America for too long has been victimized by the venal propagandists who demand that every foreigner be made into either a devil or a saint by the press. Sane foreign policy categorically demands that the value for Americans at all times is American national interest, not the welfare of a supposed "friend," or revenge upon a supposed enemy.

Out of the hypocrisy, greed, stupidity, and political chicanery that combine to form an internationalist foreign policy has come total ruin-ruin in the political, economic, and cultural spheres. As is pointed out in Liberty Lobby's new booklet, America First, this Nation's foreign adventuring was the diseased child of criminal parents, not the noble crusade for perpetual peace and brotherhood it was touted to be. Exploiting the natural gullibility of an unsophisticated American public unfamiliar with the complexities of the internatuional jungle, the backroom conspirators and international war criminals have aggresively raped and plundered the world, using the wealth and manpower of America to do it, and masking their criminality and their guilt with a tinsel facade of altruism created by mendacious newspapers, corrupt preachers, bloated, tax-free foundations, and-yes, most certainly yes-hired politicians.

THE FRAUD OF THE PRESENT

Today, liberal media make much of the Pentagon Papers, and work overtime to exploit these revelations to escalate the activities of those who aim to tear down the whole American society. These documents show that America was shanghaied into Vietnam by professional political tricksters. They throw a great suspicion on the credibility of the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident." They show that the brutal murder of Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother by Kennedy's CIA (which these same liberals praised at the time) was the fatal blow to national Vietnam, and was the very event which "de-Vietnamized" the war.

These revelations are new only to the gullible victims who have any faith in the so-called "free press" of America. Any reader of Liberty Letter and Liberty Lowdown should be prepared for them, because since 1963 LIBERTY LOBBY has-again and again-exposed the treasonous fraud of internationalism, and specifically our misbegotten Vietnam adventure.

TONKIN GULF

In Sept., 1964, Liberty Lowdown No. 19 said:

"To the casual observer the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin was merely a case of Uncle Sam finally getting 'fed up' and putting the Reds in their place. A more mature observer would note that this came at a very useful hour for President Johnson

NGO DINH DIEM

Liberty Letter No. 54 (June, 1965):

"WHY CHOOSE BETWEEN EVILS?

"The recent dispatch of Marines to the Dominican Republic is but another proof of the incompetence of our policy-makers.

"It is not that we are opposed to the action-under the circumstances, we support it but more than one authority has stated that the assassination of anti-Communist pro-American General Trujillo, which is the cause of all of the unrest there, was carried out by the State Department and the CIA, and we see no reason to doubt it.

"Likewise, the military action in Vietnam is the direct result of the assassination of the heroic Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother. Suzanne Labin and other experts claim that this assassination too, was carried out by the paid agents of the last Administration. We remember well, and with a sick feeling, how the liberals chortled with ill-concealed, sadistic glee at the grief of Madame Nhu at the timeand if you doubt it, go back and read the papers of the day.

"The truth is, the Left has gotten us into the mess we are in overseas, as well as at home. Every foreign problem we have, without exception, is because of the policies of disaster followed by the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy administrations, and we aren't kidding ourselves to imagine that there will be any difference under the new 'anti-communist' pose of Lyndon Johnson. In fact, there won't be any difference until the voters clean house in Washington. We fail to see how fighting Communism in Vietnam can be as effective as fighting it in Cuba, or in Washington, D.C., or Selma, Ala. We can't start in Vietnam."

DEFEAT WAS THE AIM FROM THE START

It takes real will power for the observer to conclude anything else but that American defeat was the aim of our intervention in Vietnam right from the start. Added to the record of pure treason of the State Department for the past 38 years since the recognition of the U.S.S.R., any other conclusion is a mark of mental incompetence. But those who guide our destiny are not mental incompetents; on the contrary. With billions of dollars to spend on expert advice, intelligence and "think factories," why is it that they always do the wrong thing? This question is even more intriguing when it is recognized that Liberty Lobby, operating on a budget of pennies as compared with the U.S. government, and without the huge international network of spies, agents, and experts purchased by the tax dollars of the suckers who pay for this treason, has been right and the government has been wrong all along. Here are some more quotes from previous issues of Liberty Lowdown:

"[Liberty Lowdown, No. 30 (Aug., 1965)]

"The American people are in a mess in Vietnam, and their President is getting them in deeper every day. * * *Not once has President Johnson stated that the American policy in Vietnam is to defeat communism. Not once has President Johnson stated or outlined a strategy for victory. And while escalating the warhe repeatedly assures our enemies that we will negotiate "with any country—at any time."

"It is time for the American people to demand answers to questions, not tamely submit to an irresponsible policy which can lead only to disaster. The people have allowed the State Department to give away Eastern Europe to the Reds. They have sat back and believed State Department apologists when they gave China to the Reds. They have wondered about the State Department's partnership with the communist assassin, Castro. They have puzzled over the State Department's hostility to anticommunist coups in Latin America. They have even accepted the murder of Trujillo and Ngo Dinh Diem because the State Department assured them it was 'best' for the people of the Dominican Republic and Vietnam. After such a record it seems foolish to believe the promises and the statements of this same State Department.

"The strategy of the Johnson Administration in Vietnam is to fight a land war. The French tried this same tactic and brought in 400,000 men. They left Vietnam after suffering casualties of nearly 200,000. General MacArthur and other military experts have highly criticized the strategy of fighting such a war in Asia. . . . "U.S. leadership will not listen to the men who know how to win-the military experts. They persist in neo-Korean policies that will not allow military actions necessary for victory. They will not allow weapons to be employed that could insure victory with negligible manpower loss. They will, however, sacrifice thousands of American fighting men as cannon fodder in their escalating 'fight for peace.' While our sons die in battle, the Johnson Administration allows our 'friends and allies' to feed and supply the enemy. Rep. H. R. Gross (R-Iowa) says, 'It is not widely known, but in 1964 more than 400 "free world" ships landed supplies at the port of Haiphong in North Vietnam, and it is predicted that the figure for 1965 will be even higher ***.

[Liberty Lowdown No. 40 (June, 1966)]

"A war, as Chesly Manly suggests, brings on a process of social disintegration and cultural crisis and tends to break up existing political balances and create an entirely new status quo. This has the effect of stabilizing the existing regime and strengthening its totalitarian tendencies. In other words, during a war, including a fake one, fought for no valid reason (such as World Wars I and II) the voters will tend to accept the permanent militarizing of society, even demand it; freedom and individual rights vanish to a dim memory and the power of the central government grows. War is the biggest single cause of socialism. In the present case, a growing war will totally eradicate the presently-hopeful prospects for a resurgent American conservatism and make any thought of saving America hopeless. Finally, a war serves to add incident to the constant warnings we have heard from our propaganda ministers about the 'need' for world government lest we are all blown to atomic dust.

"Besides the Democrats, the Kremlin also gains by America's involvement in Vietnam. The central fact of world history since Roosevelt's election in 1932 is that the 'American' government will, at all times and at all costs, support the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. The war in Vietnam is part of that pattern ***"

There is something radically wrong with a system which can spawn and feed and tolerate an engine of treason and national dissolution within itself. How much longer America can exist even as a nominal nation under these circumstances is a dismal but necessary question.

LAWYERS COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN POLICY TOWARD VIETNAM-THE CASE FOR AMNESTY

It is not surprising that the Vietnam War, one of the most divisive in American history, has an aftermath of continuing divisive controversy. Among these controversies is the issue of amnesty for those young men who unlawfully evaded or deserted military service.

The issue is raised by amnesty bills in Congress which have been the subject of heated debate. The fact that the presidential candidates were forced to address themselves to the issue early in 1972 indicates the extent of public interest. The public interest must necessarily have arisen from the existence of a large body of public opinion favoring amnesty. Thus, a Gallup Poll in June 1972 showed 36% of the persons surveyed favoring amnesty for those who left the country to avoid the draft, and 60% opposing it. Among those in the same age group as the draft evaders, the opinion was evenly divided. On February 29, 1972 Senator Edward Kennedy, whose Senate sub-committee was holding amnesty hearings, said, “On every college campus, the question of amnesty is one of the first a political leader must answer."

But the wisdom of amnesty cannot be determined by a Gallup Poll. The strength of democracy lies in its ability to protect the rights of minorities and to tolerate dissent. Unfortunately, much that we hear from the administration in opposition to amnesty is based on emotion rather than reason or fact. War resisters, draft dodgers and de erbers who are lumped together and classified as criminals, can more convincingly be ridiculed for their "h gher morality" if they are presented as a tin group of cowardly traitors as President Nixon did when he referred to them as "those few hundreds" who fled the country. The problem could not be dismissed so cavalierly if the public were told that the actual number is more nearly 100,000 than a few hundred and that many millions of Americans sympathize with them in their opposition to the war.

Charles W. Colson, a former Presidential Counsel and spokesman for the Nixon administration on amnesty said:

"While the deserters cite conscience as their motive, a closer analysis would reveal that they were simply lazy, or resentful of their country as dictated by the trendy opinionmakers, or that they were cowards or that they were simply incapable of maintaining the grade-point averages sufficient to qualify them for draft deferment. * * *

"To grant amnesty to these people would be to vindicate the moral position they pretend to. *** We shall never vindicate those who deserted their country, for to do so would be to dishonor the two-and-a-half millions who served their country with honor" (The Boston Globe, February 19, 1973, p. 13).

A more rational solution to the problem would result if it were approached with the widom expressed by Professor Henry Steele Commager in his statement before a Senate Subcommittee hearing on amnesty on March 1, 1972. He said: