the rich or well educated could win CO status, one of those two men dropped out of high school and was by no means an intellectual. However, his objections to war-all war-were formed many years ago, not at the moment he received his draft notice. By their own admissions, most of the draft evaders made no attempt to gain CO status. Those who made no attempt to work within the system have no right to criticize it. The fact is that most of these men ran for reasons of convenience rather than conviction. Now that the war is over, they want to return as if nothing had happened. To let them back, on their terms, would not only be a mockery of the two and a half million who served in Vietnam, but also of those who had the courage to stay within the system and honor their beliefs.

Thus far we have not mentioned deserters. VVJP is totally opposed to any form of amnesty for deserters. They are part of the military and must be handled by the military. We believe that desertion is a serious crime. Historically, deserters have ranked below only murderers and child molesters as undesirables. The deserter took an oath, then violated that oath and turned his back on his comrades. It is argued that deserters were from the "lower" classes-poor, minority, etc. Unfortunately, there has been no proof to back up this claim, only empty rhetoric. It is argued that, being lower class individuals, the deserters were not able to formulate their anti-war views until after they were inducted. We find it almost inconceivable that in view of the saturation coverage of the war by all segments of the media, that there could be people who had not formed some kind of opinion by the time they reached 17 or 18. One would have to be an illiterate hermit not to have been exposed to the war and all its supposed horrors. Even those of us who are opposed to amnesty for deserters give them credit for at least a minimum of intelligence.

As with draft evaders, it is claimed that the only reason the deserters ran away is for that of sincere objection to the war. This is the least acceptable argument of all. The Defense Department has issued figures showing only a small percentage of deserters were motivated by opposition to the war. Proponents of amnesty make a lot of noise saying these figures are incorrect, but here again they fail to produce any evidence to back up their claim. After I returned from Vietnam, I served for 16 months as a Basic Training Company Commander. Every eight weeks we received 200-250 trainees for their initial military training. Each cycle there would be a handful (1-5) who went AWOL and remained absent for 30 days, thereby becoming deserters. Not a single one deserted for any anti-war reason at all. They left because their girl friends were pregnant, their wives were sick or running around, they were homesick, they couldn't maintain their narcotics habit, or they were in trouble with the military (assault, theft, selling narcotics, etc.). It is interesting to note that over 95% of these men who deserted were volunteers, not men who had been drafted.

An illustration of why we don't believe the sincerity of the deserters, was the Army Captain, a West Point graduate, who served 3 years in Germany but deserted to Sweden when he received orders to Vietnam. Isn't it strange how rapidly he developed "sincere objections" to this particular war? We believe this case is typical of many deserters-as long as they were relatively safe and secure they went along with the system. Only when their orders for Vietnam arrived did they suddenly become conscientious objectors. This selective objection has never been recognized by the United States and we don't believe we should start to do

so now.

As we stated, America is not a nation without compassion. Some of the exiles were motivated by sincere and honorable reasons. For these few, Vietnam Veterans For a Just Peace supports the concept of a conditional, case-by-case amnesty. We would endorse the principles offered by Representative Robison-set up an amnesty board similar to the one set up by President Truman after World War II. It might be feasible to set up such boards in each state and have the national board act as a Court of Appeals.

We believe that the board (s) should be guided by the most recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the granting of conscientious objector status. This would insure fairness to those who might have won CO status if the more liberal Court decisions had been in effect at the time of their cases.

Those who wish to apply for amnesty and present their case (with counsel if they desire) should be allowed to re-enter the country to make their presentations without fear of apprehension. (Note: This applies only to draft evaders, not deserters.) If the board rules against them, they may either return to their place of exile or remain to face whatever legal proceedings may occur.

Recipients of amnesty must agree to and perform a specified alternative service for a designated period of time we suggest 6 months to 2 years which would

correspond to the military terms of enlistment. Upon completion of this service, their records will be cleared and full rights of citizenship will be restored. The service must not be of a political nature such as organizing strikes and demonstrations, but rather must be non-political and non-ideological.

For those currently serving prison sentences for violations of the draft laws or who have completed such sentences, the time already served would be credited towards the service requirement. Here again, their records will be cleared and full citizenship restored.

Lastly, we wish to comment on proposals that those who received less than honorable discharges be given a blanket amnesty-that their discharges be upgraded to honorable. We oppose this idea most strongly. Of the more than 6 million Vietnam-era veterans, more than 90% completed their military obligation in an honorable fashion. These men earned their honorable discharges and the benefits which go along with that service. Those who received less than honorable discharges were all warned from their first day in the military of the dangers of not earning an honorable discharge. Most of these men were discharged for obvious reasons-theft, AWOL, narcotics, etc. To attempt to equate their service with ours would be the ultimate insult to millions of men who served honorably and proudly. We earned our rights to VA benefits the hard way. Any kind of upgrading of these less than honorable discharges would be a disservice to all veterans-past, present and future.

In conclusion, Vietnam Veterans For a Just Peace rejects the idea of a blanket or unconditional amnesty. We do support a case-by-case review to enable those few who deserve amnesty to return home again. Our position is not one of vindictiveness towards those who fled their responsibilities. We believe that in return for the many benefits bestowed merely by the privilege of being born in this country, it is not asking too much for some form of service in return. Those who were not and are not willing to perform this obligation of citizenship can become permanent residents of some country which won't ask anything of them.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE DRAFT, THE WAR, AND THE NATION

(By Gerald Ciarpelli, Vietnam veteran)

One year after the end of hostilities between the United States and North Vietnam the question of amnesty has resurfaced, this time within the halls of Congress. It is not an issue that has lain dormant. Even during the peak years of the war the question of amnesty for those who either refused to serve or deserted became a topic that eventually would have to be settled. The decision-making process must now move forward quickly. Americans are suffering from a selfimposed exile which demands a policy decision to terminate this war related matter. Regardless of the final outcome these Americans must know what the future may hold for them within the United States.

Can the nation now demand punishment for those who refused to partiscipat in the war, when American public opinion forced an end to United States involvee ment? If government policy was in error, then we must now question who waactually guilty of violating the laws of humanity. Is it the Executive Branch, which through deceit and the falsification of documents increased troop commitments and gained Congressional approval? Are not Mssrs. McNamara, Bundy, Rusk, Laird, Richardson, Kissinger and President Nixon guilty of conspiracy, in their attempts to withhold facts and information? Was the secret bombing and invasion of Cambodia legal? These questions must be answered before determining what laws or provisions are needed to settle the amnesty issue. We cannot punish those who refused to participate in illegal activities, on the contrary, they should be awarded for their vision and moral commitment to the preservation of human life. A nation in search of a scapegoat must look inward when placing blame or fault, not outward toward those who had less to do with a misguided policy than any other group of citizens.

The executive branch must initiate a policy which will deal as fairly with evaders and deserters as it has promised to deal with Lt. Calley and in the manner it has dealt with Gen. Lavelle. The first step should be allowing those outside the country to return without the threat of imprisonment. Can a nation, where an individual who has been convicted of murdering twenty-two men, women, and children, declared to be no threat to society and ultimately released on bail, be fearful of individuals who refused to kill? While the decision to grant amnesty

31-658 0-74—50

is debated, should not the walls keeping these Americans out of their country be removed.

The military question of effectiveness with such individuals must be appraised in terms of combat readiness. Were the Armed Forces better off without those who would question orders and refuse to kill? Surely an effective fighting machine has neither the time nor the cadre to explain policy and its implementation. Those who deserted the Services were potential risks to a unified strength. The motivation for desertion, militarily, is of little importance; however, the consequences to the unit and the individuals opposed to the war is of utmost importance. The psychological effects of forced military participation would have reduced effectiveness and increased mental disorientation. This would have been a danger to all who served, not just the individual questioning his participation.

The agrument is often raised that to grant amnesty to those who refused to serve their country would be an insult to those who fought and died. The real insult is inflicted upon the individual who must listen to these abberations of logic. None of the men who deserted or evaded the draft were responsible for any wounds or fatal injuries received by American servicemen. The agrument could be reversed, that if more had listened to the resistors more men would be alive today. The time for brow-beating has passed. Those who fought and died did so either through convictions of righteousness, ingnorance or fear of prosecution. Can we prosecute others whose convictions led them to an opposite position? There is no judicial method, yet devised, that can compensate for lives lost via prison sentences. If evasion and desertion are punishable then so should faulty advise and policy, if the latter is legal then so should the former.

Selective Service argues that general amnesty may induce other young men in the future to evade military service, but there is no historical precedent for such an assertion. From the Revolutionary War to the Civil War amnesty had been a policy designed to reunify the tattered segments of the populace. President Jackson deviated slightly from other presidents, he wanted the assurance that evaders of military service would never serve. Twentieth century policy has consistently demanded imprisonment for deserters and draft evaders. However, the wars which the United States found itself engaged in were considerably more popular. World War II took on the dimensions of a modern Crusade, Vietnam was a crusade for all the wrong reasons. Finally, with regard to Selective Service, how easy it is for old men to decide which young men shall live and die, who shall serve and who shall receive deferments. Is not a medical deferment, created by an overdose of sugar cubes or a fingerprick of blood dropped in a urine sample, a form of draft evasion? This is the worst type of evasion because it has no moral conviction attached to it most of the time, it is simply an act of cowardice. It is these same old men who handed down educational deferments while poorer citizens who could not afford college costs or meet entrance requirements were drafted. It was these men who made boys into My Lai murderers. They changed boys, with their thoughts of life, into mechanics of death. But worst of all they stole two years of life and created veterans. Veterans who now are unemployed, hospitalized with inadequate services, or receiving benefit checks that purchase less goods and services each year. If the future is laden with draft evaders or deserters it will be due to their reviewing the status of todays veteran.

With the end of the war a period of rebuilding American society must begin. The time has come to set-aside the patriotism to replenish the wounds of the American conscience. The test of freedom is upon us. Can we graciously accept those who left the country? If the answer is no, then perhaps we have lost sight of our purpose. Freedom is accompanied by the alternatives to serve or not to serve, to say yes or no, to be free in action, which penalizes no other individual rights, with the knowledge that judicial punishment for the action shall not be forthcoming.

Consideration must also be given to the families whose sons have either evaded the draft or deserted. They are suffering a fate worse than that of convicted prisoners family. The convict can have visitors and in most instances freedom within a specified period. Those who left the country have no possibility of parole from the scrutinizing eye of the Customs Service. No agent will turn his or her head from the fugitive list regardless of the years in exile. For some it has been over eight years and still there is no hope in sight.

Rather than waste funds on prosecutions or service projects for deserters or evaders, the funds would be better spent to bolster aid to those who did serve. Blanket amnesty is necessary, for those who deserted or evaded the draft, to reunify a country ripped by war, torn by scandal, and tattered by a lack of confidence in public officials. No greater task faces the nation than the reunification of an already segmented society, let that task begin now!

A CATHOLIC WORKER on AMNESTY

If we are to hope that one day we will turn from the works of war toward the works of peace, there must be an amnesty.

The Catholic Worker embraces nonviolence as a way of life. It actively opposes all war and the preparation for wars in any form. It attempts to live the Gospel message of simplicity and personal responsibility through the daily practice of the works of mercy. From this basis the Catholic Worker opposed the Vietnam was and encouraged those who refused to participate in it. Similarly, the Catholic Worker calls for amnesty as a work of mercy and a means of reconciliation. It supports universal, unconditional amnesty for those imprisoned, in exile, or in other ways suffering hardship as a result of opposition to the war in Indochina. In a literal sense, amnesty does not mean forgiving but forgetting. Those who in conscience resisted this war do not need to be forgiven for any wrong deed. Their conduct serves as an example to the community of the primacy of conscience. In another sense, however, mutual forgiveness is an essential element of reconciliation. At the heart of the matter, we are all responsible for this war. Besides, the enormous human suffering in Indochina, this war has produced a division in our own society unparalleled since the American Civil War. Amnesty is an indispensable step towards the healing of these wounds and the restoring of a common unity. To apportion various degrees of guilt now would violate the spirit of amnesty and only widen the divisions wrought by this war.

While we call for an unconditional amnesty (without any mandatory requirements for alternative service), we remind individuals of their responsibility to the whole community to "walk the extra mile" by performing the works of mercy as a service to this community.

Literally and historically, amnesty is an official forgetting of those legal offenses in opposition to war. In urging that these actions be intentionally overlooked, we do not intend that this war and its consequences be forgotten. While calling for an amnesty we acknowledge that there is still no peace in Indochina.

This war continues to violate a basic premise of our religious faith: that, as children of God, we are all one, our humanity is indivisible. As one person suffers, is imprisoned or exiled-we are all the less. Amnesty is a small but necessary beginning to the building of peace and a re-cognition of our oneness.

MICHAEL DE GREGORY.

A STATEMENT IN FAVOR OF UNCONDITIONAL AMNESTY TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL HEARING MARCH 7, 8, 1974

For more than twenty years, the war in Southeast Asia has divided the world and divided this country. Officially, the war has ended and yet the division within this country remains.

We made a moral judgment in that war-a judgment that all peoples should be free to determine their own destiny-and yet today-much to our shamewe punish some of our own countrymen, who, out of conscience, acted upon that basic right.

Today there are certain young men, living in exile, who some years ago, for reasons of conscience chose to resist or dissent from involvement in the Southeast Asia War. They acted with resolve and commitment-the same resolve and commitment which have so many times in the past, made this country a singular champion of human rights.

Officially, the conflict has ended in Southeast Asia. It is time for the conflict to end in this country-time for us to act as we have always acted in the past-to forget our grievances, to forget our differences, to be compassionate truly to be a nation where all men are free and entitled to live according to their conscience, without fear of punishment or recrimination.

I call upon the Congress, as representative of the true American spirit, to proclaim unconditional amnesty to all those in foreign and domestic exile who chose, out of their conscience, to resist or dissent from involvement in the war in Southeast Asia. As a Christian citizen, I believe unconditional amnesty is a necessary and initial step toward binding up the wounds that afflict our people and county.

JOHN M. BURGESS,
Bishop of Massachusetts.

TESTIMONY ON AMNESTY SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

(Presented by William P. Thompson, Stated Clerk, on behalf of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America) My name is William P. Thompson. I am a lawyer and was engaged in private practice for 20 years. In 1966, I was elected Stated Clerk, which is the permanent executive officer of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. I am submitting this written testimony on behalf of the General Assembly which is the highest governing body of the denomination, a judicatory of approximately 750 commissioners, half laypersons and half clergy, elected by 162 Presbyteries in fifty states, within whose bounds are 2,916,757 members. I recognize that within the total membership of the church there are individuals holding differing and sometimes conflicting views. I do not presume therefore to speak on behalf of each and every member of the church.

My testimony is based on actions taken by several General Assemblies by substantial majorities, in a representative domocratic process. The General Assembly does function in a representative capacity. Its pronouncements on social issues, to which the church has an obligation to speak, arising out of the historic tenets of the faith, are understood to be for guidance of and not as binding upon the consciences of the constituent members who remain free to address themselves responsibly to these issues as Christians and citizens.

In the course of my testimony, I will make reference to a statement on War, Peace and Conscience adopted by the 181st General Assembly (1969), a statement on The Moral Crisis of the United States in Indochina adopted by the 183rd General Assembly (1971) and a statement on Amnesty adopted by the 185th General Assembly (1973). The relevant portions of these documents are attached hereto, and I request that they be incorporated as part of my testimony.

Recognizing that "God alone is Lord of the conscience," the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church has repeatedly urged that individuals be allowed by law to choose the right of couscientious objection to participation in war. Moreover, it has recognized the superior claims of conscience even in the absence of such legislation. In doing so, the General Assembly does not differentiate between the various motivations which lead individuals to adopt such a position, but has sought rather to preserve freedom of conscience for those whose consciences forbid them to engage in military service.

Many young men, having relied upon this official position of our Church and having further relied upon the instruction and nurture which has informed their own understanding, have conscientiously objected to participation in the war in Indochina. Such persons have chosen various courses of action, informed by their conscientious objection to the war, and as a result of such action they are now in various degrees of legal jeopardy.

The United Presbyterian Church, consistent with its former advocacy of the right of individual conscientious objection to war, has felt that it must continue its ministry to persons who have adopted such a position, particularly those who as a result discover themselves to be in violation of criminal statutes. During the Indochina conflict, the UPCUSA received an unprecedented number of requests for assistance and counseling regarding the war-peace issue. In order to meet these requests a special office, with staff, was established, known as the Emergency Ministry on Conscience and War.

In a statement related to this decision, the 181st General Assembly (1969) made a clear declaration with regard to amnesty and the war in Indochina. In the statement on "War, Peace and Conscience" the General Assembly said:

"Available evidence indicates that the present administration of the Selective Service law has led to miscarriage of justice in some individual cases; and furthermore, the law itself does not provide relief for those who are morally and conscientiously opposed to a particular war. It is imperative that steps be taken to redress whatever miscarriages of justice have occurred under these conditions as soon and as systematically as possible. Moreover, amnesty for those whose violations of law are based upon higher loyalties is a cherished possibility within the American tradition and compatible with the understanding of God as a God of mercy. Therefore, redress of grievances should include consideration of amnesty in appropriate cases" (Minutes (1969), Part I, Journal, Pi 699). In 1971 the 183rd General Assembly called upon the Congress, the President, other officials and our fellow citizens for reconsideration of the plight