whom entered the service as a result of draft pressures, or were draft motivated, even in their enlistment.

I think we would have to agree that large numbers of them would rather be someplace else. Our principal concern, and it is not something we can quantify, Mr. Chairman, it is a value judgment-but, if amnesty were to be granted while the war is still going on, I think it is only natural that many young men who enter the service under duress, if you will, of the Selective Service, would see that amnesty were granted for those who desert and it would be human and understandable that they would feel, well, there is no penalty attached, then the stigma can't be so bad.

I would like to think that they would still be a relatively small part of our force, but it could still be significant to us.

Senator KENNEDY. Let me ask this, General.

Since you're moving toward the volunteer army, let's take the next point of departure which would be considering amnesty at the time that they draft the last American.

Doesn't you argument fail a bit then? I agree with you about the draft motivation, but once you eliminate that and move to a volunteer army, which is the objective of the administration

General BENADE. I think the problem would be diminished with an all volunteer army, but I think the principal factor that would make this problem diminish would be the cessation of hostilities in Vietnam, more than the all volunteer aspect.

Your second question asks whether deserters should be considered differently from draft evaders. If amnesty is to be extended to any individuals, we believe a distinction should be made between draft evaders and deserters.

The draft evader's absence has an indirect impact on the Armed Forces. His absence requires that his military obligations be borne by another citizen. The deserter's absence has a direct impact on the Armed Forces, and under certain circumstances such as combat, perhaps a critical impact.

While the draft evader's absence involves an avoidance of his civic responsibilities and a violation of the law, the deserter by his absence not only avoids his military obligations, he also violates the oath he took upon entry into military service, and he violates military law. If military obligations, oaths and laws, are to have any continued meaning and effect, they must not be rendered inoperative by any untimely extension of amnesty.

You also ask for the impact on military justice of any conditional or unconditional amnesty. If any amnesty were granted, the number of desertion cases presently in our military justice system undoubtedly would be reduced. However, I can say with assurance that our justice system has been, and will continue to be, able to process all deserter cases in a fair and expeditious manner.

Finally, you ask about the timing of any amnesty. As I have stated earlier, any grant of amnesty at this time would have a most serious adverse impact on our Armed Forces. We think it is wise that consideration of any amnesty for deserters be deferred until some future time when the requirements of Vietnam have passed.

Gentlemen, that concludes my statement. I will be glad to try to answer any questions you may have.

Senator KENNEDY. Just in that last paragraph-is there anything wrong in considering now a later grant of amnesty?

General BENADE. No, sir; I'm heartily in favor of this subcommittee's exploring this complex problem, and I agree it should be looked at in advance.

Senator KENNEDY. General, can you come back this afternoon? I just had one area I wanted to explore.

Senator HART. I just have one question.

The profile that you gave us shows that between 4 percent and 5 percent of the deserters overseas as being politically motivatedwhat percentage of the total deserters are reffected by the men overseas?

General BENADE. First I would like to clarify, if I may, Senator Hart, that that number indicates those who have deserted to other countries. These are the 2,000 plus, who have gone to Sweden, Canada, Mexico.

Now, the total at-large figure, sir, is 29,892, and that includes the figures I have just given you.

These are men who have been absent for varying periods of time. Senator HART. Maybe we'll have to ask you to come back.

Senator KENNEDY. We have a vote now, and we're going to have another in 45 minutes, so can we do it at 2:30?

(Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator KENNEDY. The subcommittee will come to order.

General, you used the figure of 4 percent for men who deserted because of Vietnam, and as I indicated this morning, that sounds unbelievably low.

Isn't that figure really on the basis of some six or so hundred of those who actually returned?

General BENADE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify that. I would like to make it clear that of those who have deserted to another country-and I'm referring to the period of 1 July 1966 through 1 January 1972-there were a total of 3,293 of those individuals. Now, of those individuals, 944 have returned to military control; 17 have been discharged in absentia, and nine have died in a foreign country.

Now, of those who returned to military control, an analysis was made of 640 of them. Of the 640, only 4.1 percent gave as their reason for deserting an anti-Vietnam war belief.

Senator KENNEDY. Because that is quite a bit different than making the generalization in terms of the number of people who actually deserted because of the Vietnam war because I would think that those who deserted because of the war would be, you know, the last to come back, I would expect. It seems that if their reasons for returning would be that they desert the war for that reason, that there would be a much much greater reluctance as the war continued for them to come back, rather than those who have taken the jeep out of the motor pool.

General BENADE. It is possible, Mr. Chairman. I have no way of verifying that.

80-620-72- -18

Senator KENNEDY. You also said, 2,323 who deserted are abroad. Isn't it true that all you're really saying is that you have the addresses abroad for that number and that a substantial number of the other 27,000 could also be in foreign countries.

General BENADE. It is possible, Mr. Chairman.

The 2,323 that I referred to are those that have been identified as being in foreign countries. It is possible that there are others who have not been identified.

Senator KENNEDY. Do you make any kind of an evaluation as to those who had the Vietnam war as a sort of a secondary reason for or secondary cause for desertion?

General BENADE. I believe that it is, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to amplify on that a little bit.

I have before me and I would be very happy to submit it for inclusion in the record-a typical absentee-deserter profile. Very briefly, it indicates that the typical absentee-deserter profile for the Army is 21 years of age grade or rank is E-4 or below, they are single, non-high school graduate. He averages about 20 months in

service.

For the Navy, he is essentially the same. His average age is 21 to 22. His pay grade is E-3 or below, single, non-high school graduate, and usually in his first enlistment.

For the Marine Corps, average age is 19 or 20, rank is E-4 or below. Marital status, single. Educational level, nonhigh school graduate. He averages about 10 to 11 years of schooling, and time in service averaged 12 to 18 months.

In the Air Force, age runs just a little bit higher, 20 to 22, with the pay grade E-4 or below. Marital status, single, educational level is a high school graduate. Time in service is 24 months or less.

Now, as I indicated this morning, Mr. Chairman, there are certain didn't submit to induction and fled the country. It is a rather differabsentee profile, the characteristics that have been associated with them are immaturity with a history of previous personal failures, the product of an unstable home, either a broken home or a home plagued by some type of social-psychological maladjustment. Another finding, the individuals have a low frustration threshold.

Fourth Is a repeat AWOL offender and a history, one out of three, of disciplinary and administrative action.

Senator KENNEDY. That would certainly indicate that those who are involved in the desertions are rather different from those who didn't submit to induction and fled the country. It is a rather different profile, as I understand, for those two different classes of individuals.

As I understand, the deserters, primarily, are of a lower economic, education, and perhaps social level than the other group. They might be slower in realizing or recognizing, perhaps, a higher responsibility to conscience than those who have been more fortunate in terms of either education or religious connection.

Just very briefly, now, on page 6, you talked about differentiating the evader from the deserter, and you mentioned that if military obligations and laws are to have any continued meaning, they must not be rendered inoperative by an untimely extension of the amnesty.

You say that the deserter who violates not only avoids his military, he also violates the oath he took in military service. Why is the military law any more important than civil law?'

General BENADE. I think they are both important, Mr. Chairman. I think the added significance of the violation of military law is that once the individual enters the Armed Forces and takes the oath, he thereby subjects himself or is subjected to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, still being responsible under civil and criminal laws. The importance of desertion in the Armed Forces, Mr. Chairman, would be difficult to exaggerate. We are only authorized certain strength levels, and when men desert or are otherwise absent without leave, that can have a serious effect on the operation or effectiveness of their units.

Obviously, a unit that is in a combat zone is in a different position, and the presence of every man at his duty station is more vital to the unit than perhaps a unit, say, in the United States.

But there is a direct correlation, Mr. Chairman, between the operating capability of a unit, particularly the smaller units, and the presence for duty of the assigned complement. It is for that reason, that traditionally in our military history, the man who deserts his unit in combat or who absents himself in the face of the enemy has always been treated much more severely than the man who deserts under other circumstances, or absents himself under other circumstances.

Senator KENNEDY. That is more understandable, I think, than someone who deserted in this country, particularly given the sort of profile which you have raised here in terms of those that are actually deserting.

General, you have been very kind and terribly patient with us today.

I'd like to just submit some written questions to you, and I want to thank you very much for our being here.

(See app. 2 below.)

Senator KENNEDY. Our next witness is Kevin T. Maroney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice, is here in place of Mr. Mardian.

Mr. Maroney, I understand, has been in the Justice Department for some 20 years, and I assume Mr. Maroney will be using a letter we have received from Mr. Mardian as the text.

And perhaps you can summarize briefly the Department's position, and then we will ask some questions.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN T. MARONEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN H. DAVITT, CHIEF OF THE CRIMINAL SECTION, INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION; AND ROBERT W. VAYDA, ATTORNEY, SELECTIVE SERVICE UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. MARONEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear here today on behalf of the Department of Justice, in response to the committee's request of February 10, 1972.

I am accompanied here today by Mr. John Davitt on my right, Chief of the Criminal Section of our Division, which has the immediate supervisory responsibility of the handling of selective service matters. I am also accompanied on my left by Mr. Robert W. Vayda, an attorney in our Selective Service Unit.

In your letter, Mr. Chairman, you requested testimony from the Department on the Policy considerations in granting amnesty, particularly as it affects pardon and paroles. You also requested that the Department provide the subcommittee with data on the numbers of individuals believed to be in exile abroad, the number of individuals avoiding prosecution for selective service violations in the United States, the numbers of complaints now pending, and the recent experience of the Department in the prosecution of selective service law violators.

The Internal Security Division responded to your letter under date of February 23, 1972, and if the Chair will permit, I propose to use the body of that statement as the basis for a formal opening today.

I shall endeavor to answer in order the specific inquiries which were raised in the chairman's letter of February 10th.

First, with respect to clemency. Any provision for clemency at this time would be in contravention of the executive policy recently enunciated by President Nixon on two specific occasions. The President clearly rejected any consideration of amnesty at this time, while hostilities continue and American soldiers remain as prisoners of war in North Vietnam.

Historically, a grant of amnesty to males who have refused to serve their country during a period of time when the country was engaged in actual hostilities, is without precedent. The President's policy is in consonance with the acts of past presidents. Only twice in our history has a President accorded clemency to persons who refused to comply with the draft laws and serve their country. On both occasions clemency was granted only after cessation of hostilities, and it was granted only to those draft resisters who had been convicted for their offenses. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt granted pardons and restored citizenship to about 1,500 persons who had been convicted of violating the draft and espionage acts during World War I. In 1947, President Harry S. Truman granted pardons which restored civil and political rights to 1,523 individuals who had been convicted of draft evasion and sentenced under the Selective Service Act during World War II.

With respect to the question of parole, it should be observed that in situations where an individual has been convicted of refusing induction or performance of civilian work as a conscientious objector and has been remanded to the custody of the Attorney General, he has the right under existing selective service regulations to apply for release from such custody on parole for service in the Armed Forces or to perform alternative civilian work. Although the present regulations contain no provision for the pardoning of such paroled individuals who served in the Armed Forces or performed alternative civilian work, nevertheless, the right to seek a Presidential pardon is, of course, available to them.