(The following additional statements and correspondence were submitted for inclusion in the hearing record:) RESOLUTION OF PAST COMMANDERS OF THE AMERICAN LEGION RESOLUTION Whereas, a growing variety of organizations, including the National Council of Churches, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the radical War Resisters League, are pressing for amnesty for the young American fugitives from the war, and Whereas, bills have been proposed in Congress to clear draft dodgers, slackers and cowards who have fled to Canada, Sweden or to other Countries around the world to escape their duty to their country, and WHEREAS, a few statesmen on the national level are urging that the slate be wiped clean, and that there should begin a task of national reconciliation which would permit more than 75,000 of these draft dodgers and deserters to return to the United States and to resume their respective peace time courses in civilian life; Now, therefore, be it Resolved That this Association of American Legion Past Commanders, in regular meeiing assembled at Rancho Bernardo San Diego, California on this, the twenty-first day of January, A. D., 1972, protest the granting of any amnesty, under any circumstances, to any or all of these draft dodgers or deserters, each of whom made his own choice when he elected to abandon this country in time of peril. Be it further Resolved That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, to the Department of Justice of the United States, and to all members of Congress who are presently representing California in Washington, D. C. Done at Rancho Bernardo, California, on January 21, 1972. ALFRED W. STELLE, Secretary. ROY ROSENBERG, Chairman. STATEMENT OF GORDON D. LAPIDES, CHAIRMAN, BAY AREA SELECTIVE SERVICE LAWYERS PANEL The Bay Area Selective Service Lawyers Panel is a group of over 100 lawyers who have represented literally thousands of young men before the Federal courts, military tribunals and Selective Service System. San Francisco and the Bay Area have been the center of the movement of resistance to the draft and the Viet Nam war since that conflict began to leave its searing mark on the American conscience. Many of my colleagues on the Panel have taken time from busy law practices to give counsel and defense to young men who have chosen the difficult road of resistance to that tragic conflict. The young men that we have seen pass through our offices and before the courts have varied in their education, their ability to express their views, their religious belief or lack thereof, as well as their political sophistication. They have come from all strata of society. Some were strongly confirmed in their belief, others were very confused. All held in common, however, the conviction that they would not abet the senseless slaughter in Viet Nam and all had the courage as well to stand by that conviction. Again and again, one would hear articulated the dilemma of a young man placed in a position of transgressing a "law" no matter what he did. On the one hand, complicity in the Viet Nam conflict was variously pictured as a violation of the precedent of Nuremburg, of the Geneva accords, or simply of that (316) private law of conscience of "natural law" which lies at the very heart of the American ideal. On the other hand, the written law of the country seemed to require otherwise. In the eyes of these young men, the human and moral consequences of their actions demanded that they refuse to participate. The choice these young men had to make was a hard and lonely one. At first, few found support among their friends or parents for their stand. Their choice often meant not only a break with the law but a break with their family as well. Few, if any, allowed themselves to think about the possibility of amnesty from a Government which was so ardently pursuing what they perceived to be a morally disastrous course. Some escaped the clutches of the law, some did not, and some fled the country. But all of these young men, and many more like them throughout the country, were marked by this conflict in a way that will remain with them all their lives. It is argued that provision was made in the law for young men of conscience to qualify for a conscientious objector deferment. But in reality such deferments were often refused to men who clearly qualified for them. Others could not obtain them because their objection was a selective one, directed only to the conflict in Viet Nam. Many more, often of the lower and least educated classes, and perhaps the largest group, could not even articulate why they could not serve, but could only struggle to make that choice with which they could most easily live. The time has now come to meet the question of amnesty for the young men made criminals, outlaws and refugees by this horrible conflict. As the country comes to it's senses regarding Viet Nam the Government must move to heal the breach created by this horrible conflict by extending the hand of amnesty. LETTER WITH ENCLOSURES FROM MICHAEL C. BROPHY AND MARC DEAR MR. SCHNEIDER: We have just learned from Joe Tuchinsky of M.C.D.C. that you have requested information relevant to the appearance of Curtis Tarr before Senator Kennedy's subcommittee on February 28, 1972. The following information which we hope will be relevant to the hearing is based upon four years of experience in Military Service and Selective Service (Draft) Counseling. The purpose of the Office of the UWM Military Service and Selective Service Counselor is to collect, understand, and disseminate all lawful information with regard to the programs and opportunities in the armed forces as well as the policies and procedures of the Selective Service System toward the end of helping men to reach an affirmative decision with regard to the national service obligation. During the past four years between 6,000 and 8,000 men have been counseled in this office individually, and multiples of that number have been provided with accurate information concerning the national service obligation. The UWM Military Service and Selective Service Counselor is an ex-police officer and a veteran with anhonorable discharge. Information which may be relevant to Senator Kennedy is included under three headings. Enclosures referred to in the context are included with this document. Documentation and citations for conclusions implied may be lacking due to the lack of time necessitated by the short notice of the hearing. It is available if you wish to call or write. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FOR REGISTRANTS OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM Negligence on the part of the SSS effectively denies registrants access to accurate information needed to make intelligent and affirmative decisions concerning the national service obligation. Under the new regulations men are forced to turn to local board clerks, who are hired under civil service for their clerical skills rather than their knowledge of selective service law. There is no official training program in spite of the fact that they are expected by registrants to have detailed knowledge concerning an extremely complex body of law. In the absence of accurate information from an official source, many men turn to irresponsible draft advising operations. These organizations are less interested in helping a man to reach an affirmative decision, consistent with his conscience than in haranguing him with rhetoric intended to coerce him into a position of resistance or emigration. This last statement is in no way intended to serve as an indictment of the vast majority of draft counseling centers in the United States. However, there are some irresponsible individuals who prac tice ulterior motives behind the screen of providing draft information. This is made possible by the void left in this area by the federal agency responsible for originating the information. The psychological damage done to so many men by this practice is made possible from the criminal negligence of the Selective Service System in this area of providing accurate information. For the vast majority of male citizens of the United States, the Selective Service System is the first agency of the federal government with which they come into direct personal contact. A negative experience with this institution generalizes to include the whole structure of government. If one were to define the organization which was most responsible for alienation of young people from the political process during the 1960's it would come closer to a definition of the SSS rather than SDS. Ready availability of accurate information is the first rule of due process. Without due process democracy does not exist. At best one can expect benevolent despotism from such a system, at worst tyranny. The SSS represents a tendency toward tyranny. If the Internal Revenue Service gave out as little accurate information as does the Selective Service System, there would be a revolution in this country within a month. Even if accurate information were made available by the SSS it is likely that the vast majority of registrants would be unable to understand it. The system by which liability for national service is determined is at the present time so complex in its ramifications for registrants in virtually every situation that it defies a concise and meaningful explanation. The draft lottery method for establishing draft liability, which was plugged in 1969 and 1970 by Dr. Tarr and others as a simplification of the draft process, is a nightmare of confusion. It lends itself to explanation only through an articulation of a myriad of very specific hypothetical situations. It might be interesting to ask Dr. Tarr to explain the draft lottery without using examples. This inability to put the selective service law in concise meaningful language effectively discriminates against economically disadvantaged registrants. The system of justice in these United States is one in which the accused must pay the penalty before the verdict is rendered. The initial penalty is accessed when one discovers that to obtain equity one must hire an advocate. Most draft age males are economically unable to do this. No economically disadvantaged males are able to do this. The quasi-judicial structure of the SSS demands that a registrant who wishes to effect the decision making process have substantial skills. Skills which are associated with the educational background of the economically advantaged. This is inconsistent with the "fair and just" intent of the law as ar ticulated by Congress in the Military Selective Service Act of 1971. The effective and proposed revisions of the regulations under the new draft law limit the sources of information available to the registrant even more severely than under the old law. A more objective and complete analysis of official sources of information for registrants is appended to this letter. FORMS The language in the forms used by the SSS is not understandable to most registrants. This is especially true for the registrant who comes from an economically disadvantaged background. During November of 1971, Dr. Tarr released for comment a draft revision of the Special Form for Conscientious Objector (SSS Form 150). On November 16, 1971, one of the authors of this letter pointed out to Dr. Tarr that a high level of reading skill was needed to understand the word content of the form. On November 19, 1971, Dr. Tarr replied that the SSS would take comments "into account as we wish to work on what can be a form helpful to the members of our local boards and to registrants alike." (See enclosure.) Subsequently this proposed revision was withdrawn from consideration. On January 12, 1972, a second proposed revision of SSS From 150 was pub lished in the Federal Register for comments prior to promulgation. Applying the same two readability formulas used to evaluate the first proposed form, wê determined that at least college level reading skill would be necessary to understand the content of the form. This information was sent to the National Headquarters of the SSS. A reply has not yet been received. The second study also shows the grade equivalent reading level for the pamphlet "CO" and the Special Application for Conscientious Objector Presently in use. The results for these documents are barely congruent with the reading level of the majority or registrants. Evaluating the public information materials of the SSS according to readability formulas is particularly important at the present time. Officials of both the SSS and the Department of Defense have indicated the desirability of attracting younger men for service in the armed forces. This undoubtedly means that the draft will be focused on younger men in such a way as to increase the percentage of draft motivated volunteers from a younger age group than in the past. As this emphasis progresses the significance of an increasingly complex quasi-judicial system, complemented by forms and informational materials which are difficult to understand will compound the inequity of the selection method to an even greater extent than at present. A good standrd for readability of Selective Service materials might be taken from a random sampling of Army recruitment pamphlets for enlisted personnel. Putting this standard into law with appropriate safeguards would be one method of insuring the readability of Selective Service materials. AMNESTY Experience leads us to the conclusion that upwards of 90% of all of the men who are in Canada as the result of an effort to avoid the draft are there because they were unable to obtain accurate information and competent and responsible counseling. Many, if not most, are there because they misunderstood the alternatives which were open to them under the law. The Selective Service System is directly responsible for this lack of information. The proof for this allegation is explicit in the materials distributed by the SSS during the Vietnam era. Out of the thousands of men whom we have worked with, only one has emigrated in the four years this office has been open. Emigration has been represented as a live option to all of the men have worked through this office. The other five options in the forced choice context defined by the selective service law have also been represented. Most men who were considering emigration chose resistance or civilian alternative service when educated as to the facts concerning those alternatives. Some who chose civilian alternative service discovered that they were entitled to a deferment or exemption classification. Men who have emigrated to avoid the draft are not draft evaders. To evade is to avoid something by deceitful means. The draft evaders are in the Reserves and the National Guard, seminaries, and other educational institutions, in the teaching field, and some have disability deferments. A man who emigrates may do so to avoid the draft but he is not deceiving anyone by emigrating. Many men presently in Canada are under the false assumption that they can be successfully prosecuted if they return. A file search by individuals competent to discover procedural error will discover a large number of men who are extremely unlikely to be prosecuted. The Selective Service System and the Department of Justice could facilitate this process by indicating publically that they will cooperate with Military Service and Selective Service or Draft Counselors in these file searches. A correlation of lists kept by the various investigatory agencies involved, with those of the Justice Department, which indicate those emigrants who have already been charged together with a stipulation of the charges would also be helpful. We hope that this letter and the enclosures are helpful to you. Sincerely, Enclosures. MICHAEL C. BROPHY, UWM Military Service and M.S. Educational Psychology Counseling. MARC MAYERHOFF, UWM Assistant Military Service and Selective Service Counselor. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FOR REGISTRANTS OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM At section 1641.1 of the selective service regulations (regs.) it is indicated that every person (including registrants) "shall be deemed" to know the selec tive service law. Hence, under the regulations promulgating the Act it is solely the registrant's responsibility to know the law. This regulation has not been edited to reflect the intent of Congress as indicated at Section 13 (b) of the new draft law. Although the Conference Report on the new act is not clear on the intent of Congress in requiring the thirty day lead time on promulgation of new regulations, it would appear likely that the goal of this new section of the act is to give the registrant some advanced notice of changes in the law. Information is presently provided by the SSS to registrants as a result of the following official mechanisms of the Selective Service System: 1. Press Releases-The public information policy of the SSS is stated at 1606.61 of the regulations. It states that the "Selective Service System has a positive public information policy." Unfortunately, to consider this policy a guarantee of accurate information reaching the registrant is to assume that 1) the press releases from National Headquarters accurately represent the law and 2) the newspapers and other media will accurately represent the press releases. Both assumptions are highly suspect. A cursory review of current releases from the SSS leads one to the conclusion that the "Office of Public Information" at National Headquarters might be more appropriately named the Office of Public Relations. 2. Forms.-Under the current regulations the content of all forms is part of the selective service law (1606.51). Under the proposed regulations issued January 12, 1972, but not yet in effect, 1606.51 is revoked. Does this mean that forms no longer constitute part of the law? If so, does it also mean that they do not have to accurately reflect the law? These are important questions, as most registrants do not read the draft law except as it appears on the forms. The issue of the high level of reading skill required to understand the forms is covered in the two documents enclosed with this statement. 3. Local Board Clerks.-The State Director has the authority to determine the number and duties of local board clerks (1605.31). Presently they attempt to answer questions of registrants. Our experience, with this policy, as a result of feedback from registrants, leads us to the conclusion that accuracy of information, which must be impeccable if there is to be equity, would better be served if local board clerks were directed not to answer the questions of registrants. Their day-to-day duties are primarily clerical and not such as to make them expert in selective service law. 4. Executive Secretaries.-Same as local board clerks. 5. Medical Advisors to Local Boards-About the time some of them began to take their jobs seriously under 1628 of the regulations, they were effectively hamstrung by Local Board Memorandum No. 78 (as amended August 10, 1970). Like the few Government Appeal Agents who took an interest in the inequities inherent in the decision-making process of local boards, they too began to react to the procedures at pre-induction physicals. 6. Pamphlets Distributed by the Selective Service System.-The new pamphlets distributed by the National Headquarters in 1971 were poorly thought out and poorly written. They were at best confusing and ambiguous, and at worst misleading to the point of containing factual error. Also the content of these pamphlets requires an advanced educational background to understand them (see enclosure dated February 10, 1972). 7. Advisors to Registrants.-Under the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, two functionaries were provided to aid the registrant in his understanding of the law. One was the Advisor to Registrants whose duty it was "to advise and assist registrants in the preparation of questionnaires and other selec tive service forms and to advise registrants on other matters relating to their liabilities under the selective service law (1604.51)." The second functionary was the Government Appeal Agent and his Assistant (s) who had a number of responsibilities. In our experience few of these responsibilities were carried out by anyone with those titles. Primary among those duties and responsibil ities was to advise registrants and make recommendations to the local board, keep the local board informed of the changes in the law, and appeal on behalf of registrants when necessary. |