rica, the Seattle Eight, the Chicago Eight, the Berrigan Brothers, and many other forms of repression are some of the problems that present a case for anınesty. By decree of the President of the United States, and also by act of Congress, amnesty is both political and legal.

To grant amnesty in our time in history will present a strong argument not only against the draft, the Vietnam War, and all wars, but will also present a strong argument for the beginning of decisive action toward freedom, peace, and a peace-time economy.

Those persons who were against the war, even before the publishing of the Pentagon Papers, are some of the best minds America has produced. But because of their action, they have been jailed, forced in exile, walked away from the Armee Services, or inhibited by lost of jobs or arrest for demonstration against the war, or other repressive action. There are more than a half of a million of people involved in one way or another. Of the 500,000 persons penalized there are at least 140,000 AWOL soldiers and "so-called deserters," at least 100,000 men who failed to register for the draft or went to Canada and Sweden and other countries, 35,000 convicted in draft cases, an untold number of soldiers disciplined for anti-war activity, 200,000 people, young and old, arrested and imprisoned or fined for marches, demonstrations, and mobilizations against the war, and hundreds indicted or convicted for civil disobedience.

Many people believe that ther is no precedent for such an amnesty; but there are several parallels which we can refer to in which the United States was involved. The State of Utah, being a polygamous people and charged with many violations, was granted an unconditional amnesty when it wished to be annexed to the United States. The German Amnesty after WW II, one million Germans under the age of 27 were granted amnesty by General Clay, the High Command in that part of the world. Also in WW II. the Japanese Amnesty, one million Japanese were granted amnesty by General Douglas MacArthur, the high command in that part of the world. Then there is the Amnesty of the Confederacy. As a result of war hysteria the country was polarized into two definite factions-Union States, and States in Rebellion. Persons were charged with crimes ranging from murder and rape all the way up to and including, treason. Yet they were granted amnesty, both by decree of President Andrew Johnson of Knoxville, Tennessee, and also by act of Congress. If they could be granted amnesty, fighting against the United States, fighting to maintain slavery, fighting to preserve the Confederacy, then certainly, persons fighting for the rights of man, fighting for direction of change that is inevitable in our time, should and must be granted amnesty.

Amnesty does not mean crawling on your knees and asking forgiveness from the government. It means that the government is willing to wipe the slate clean, without any taint remaining against those granted amnesty. Angela Davis, Walter Collins, the Republic of New Africa, All Political Prisonersthey must be freed from jail and returned from exile, so they can help us build a society free of poverty, racism, and war.

LETTER FROM THOMAS J. CONNERS, WALTHAM, MASS, (MAR. 8, 1972) DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: I am a registered voter in Massachusetts and am adressing the body of this note to you as the chairman of the appropriate committee and as a senator from my state. I am also sending copies of the body of the letter to Senator Brooke, Congressman Drinan, the Herald Traveler, and the Globe. I also expect to read it into the minutes at the monthly meeting of the Paralysed Veterans of America. New England Chapter on March 8, 1972. I am writing this note to let you know my feelings on the subject of amnesty for those individuals who left the United States rather than serve in the armed forces or face possible conviction for refusing induction.

I am a combat veteran of the Viet Nam Conflict, having served in the fall of 1966 as a member of "C" Company, 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry, 2nd Brigade, 25th Division. I feel that no amnesty should be granted to anyone who left this country for the purpose of avoiding service in the military. These individ uals' motives may be many and varied but their actions were only self-serving Their self chosen extile may have meant that someone else would be chosen to take their place in order to attain a set quota of men for a specified draft call. Their replacements were then subjected to the rigors of the military, and

possibly combat, injury, or death, as the substitutes for those resting securely in their newly chosen homeland.

If, as is now being expounded, these exiles in their wisdom knew the unjustness of the war and were really concerned with those who were being killed and mutilated in Southeast Asia, they did nothing but serve themselves by silently slipping out of the country. Their protest of the war by refusing induction, going to trial, and then to prison and appeals court and so on, would have been a worthy sacrifice for a worthy cause. If 100,000 (a figure sometimes quoted) is the number of exiles, imagine how 100,000 case of evasion would have brought notice to their cause especially if such notable attorneys as Mr. Clark, and Mr. Goldberg had lent their weight to this cause as they have to others.

No, it is my opinion that these individuals made a decision and the choice, whether it was well thought out or not, was their to make and therefore to live with. Just as the choice that was made by those who chose to serve was theirs to make and theirs to live or die by-as many have.

It would only be fair to grant amnesty if all the individuals who were offered the option to serve or flee, were given the chance to change their decision but this can not be done, unless congress can restore limbs, body functions, and life itself. It is unfair to require men to die for a decision they made in keeping good faith with their government's dictates, and their belief that laws are and must be obeyed if a society is to continue to function properly; and on the other hand grant amnesty to individuals who broke the law and whose major hardship may only have been difficulty in making a living or buying beer brewed in the United States.

Much of the social unrest that exists in the United States is a result of inequities in laws and in practices, in privileges and restrictions, in the fact that who or what you are determines how you shall be treated and what privileges or duties you shall be entitled to or required to perform. There is no need to create another similar situation where one group is exempted from the consequences of their decisions while another is buried for the required duty they accepted, only because they were standing in for some others who chose to break the law and flee-and one is too many.

So as I have stated I am against amnesty and as far as a national apology is concerned, there need be no comment. If an apology is in order it should be directed to those who have served and suffered, we can only pray for the dead. Yours truly,

THOMAS J. CONNERS.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD M. DAVIS, FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. GENTLEMEN: I am a veteran, 25 years of age, and have been out of the service for three years. My total active duty with the Marine Crops was from Feb. 3. 1966 to Jan, 19, 1969. During my active tour of duty with the Marine Corps, I spent nineteen months in the Republic of Viet Nam (Jan. 67-Aug. 68). As a Combined Action Platoon Commander, I lived and worked closely with American and Vietnamese forces and the Vietnamese people. Rather than go into detail about my duties in Viet Nam, please feel free to check with Headquarters Marine Corps as to what the Combined Action Platoon's job was.

Since my return to the United States from Viet Nam, I have heard nothing but discenting opinions on the war in Asia. I have listened to good and bad arguments on both sides. I, for one, have always believed in our motives for becoming involved in this "police action".

Now, though, I discover that certain groups in our country are trying to persuade the American public and Congress to grant Congressional Amnesty to those who deserted the military or dodged the draft because they did not believe in the Viet Nam War. I do not deny them their opinions, as this is a right given by the First Ammendment regarding the freedom of speech. The thoughts of individuals is also a right and immune to restraint as brought out first by Blackstone in Commentaries (1876) and confirmed by the Supreme Court in Robertson vs. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1899). The mere fact that they have a right to their opinion does not warrant their being forgiven for failure to comply to the laws of the United States.

These people who ran from our land and our laws left of their own accord and in complete denial of the American system. Why then would the American public want to allow these ungrateful individuals back into a society that believes in our government? I believe that changes are needed in our society today, but I've never believed in running from a fair fight.

To grant amnesty to these malcontents would be saying to those of us who are proud of the fact that we served our country, that we need not do anything our government tells us to do again. If this amnesty is granted, the Government of the United States will no longer be a just and equal legislative power.

There are several organizations across this country who try to help the Federal Government by explaining to the public the reasons behind our legislative decision. How can they explain forgiveness for people who denied our government and our laws?

Will these "forgiven" men be accepted by the majority of the American publec, or will Congress shave to pass another equal rights law for deserters? If they are not accepted we will have more bums and revolutionaries than ever before in our country's history. Can we afford this? I think not.

Amnesty defined means-"a general pardon for offenses against a government". How many people whose sons, brothers, uncles, fathers, cousins, or nephews died, can also grant this pardon? I lost many friends, and I cannot find the forgiveness in my heart or soul. I beseech you to deny this amnesty in the name of the American people.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. HUBER, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: The Disabled American Veterans wishes to express our appreciation for the opportunity to present our views on pending legislation which would offer amnesty to persons who have failed or refused to register for the Draft, or who have refused induction into the Armed Forces of the United States.

Before discussing the subject, we believe it would be helpful to give you a brief summary of the eligibility and history of the Disabled American Veterans. The DAV is a federal corporation whose charter was granted by the United States Congress by Public Law 72-186 on June 17, 1932. The organization was originally formed in 1920 by a group of disabled veterans of World War I. This was the predecessor of the present federal corporation. Membership in the Disabled American Veterans is composed only of those who have been wounded, disabled or injured while serving honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States in time of National emergency or war. The Disabled American Veterans is a patriotic, non-competitive, service-giving veterans' organization dedicated to the important objective of extending much needed service to, for, and by, America's disabled defenders.

Bills pending before your Committee would provide amnesty for draft resisters within this country and outside, on condition that they undertake three years of service in the Armed Forces, or elect to serve in alternate service, which would include Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), Veterans Administration hospitals, Public Health Service hospitals, and other federal serv ice provided by appropriate legislation.

The National Executive Committee of the Disabled American Veterans has recently approved a resolution opposing amnesty which would permit draft resisters and deserters to return to the United States with relief from penalty of law for their acts. Our opposition is based on the fact that there are over 28.500.000 living veterans who have honorably served their country: over 5.000.000 servicemen and veterans have honorably served during the Vietnam era. Of this number over 55,000 have been killed, and several hundred thou sand others have been maimed or disabled as a result of their active military service in Vietnam.

We can not agree with the concept of granting amnesty by permitting these draft evaders and dodgers to perform "equivalent service" in public service. It is our contention that this so-called "equivalent service"--a safe public service job that is free and secure from harm-certainly is not equal to the risking,

or giving, of one's life on the battlefield. The Disabled American Veterans would be opposed to this type of person being given a job in a Veterans Administration hospital to care for those who served honorably and well. No special consideration for government employment should be considered for these resisters upon their return to the United States.

We feel that there is a legitimate means for registering dissent, and that the cziiten cannot take illegitimate means to decide for himself which laws he will obey and which laws he will disobey. How could the United States ever field an army with draftees again if it is determined that draft evasion will be forgiven? And what effect would amnesty have on the morale of those currently serving in our Armed Forces? Are our Armed Forces members to be subject to additional ridicule by the very same people who have done so much harm to our country by leaving it and thereby giving aid and assistance to our enemies?

Intellectual, political or socioiogical convictions against the war can not be accepted as excuses for amnesty to those who set themselves up as wiser and more competent than society to determine their duty to the nation. The draft evader knowingly chose to put his conscience above the constitutional processes of our country. We believe that in a democratic society violations of the law should not be overlooked.

It is our considered opinion that amnesty should not now be granted, but instead the merits of each individual case should be decided separately, and only after the end of the conflict when all of those who saw fit to serve under the banner of the nation are home.

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our views.

Attached is a copy of a resolution approved by our National Executive Committee on March 2, 1972.

RESOLUTION

Whereas, there is legislation pending before the Congress of the United States to grant amnesty to draft dodgers and deserters from the armed forces of the United States who have sought sanctuary in foreign lands; and

Whereas, these men, upon return to the United States, would be granted full amnesty and relief from penalty of law for their acts; and

Whereas, the Disabled American Veterans, a congressionally chartered organization composed of men and women who have completed honorable service in the armed forces of the United States during time of war or national emergency and who have given much of their physical well-being in the defense of our country, protests a concept that would provide amnesty for such despicable, unpatriotic conduct; and

Whereas, the Congress of the United States should consider the effect of this bill upon the morale of those serving on active military duty, paraplegics, amputees and all of the other thousands of severely disabled veterans who acquired their disability in combat with the enemies of this nation and have always heretofore taken pride in that service and in their honorable discharge; Now therefore, be it

Resolved That the National Executive Committee of the Disabled American Veterans opposes the pending legislation granting amnesty, and urges all members of the United States Congress to reject this legislation as being unworthy and unpatriotic and contrary to the traditional values of honorable military service in time of emergency or war.

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER JACOBS, ROBERT MACEK, AND PAUL POST, Draft COUNSELING CENTER OF BUFFALO, N.Y.

As one of the groups most active in the repatriation of American draft exiles, we are concerned with the condition of men who have no need of amnesty by statute or executive order because the induction orders, under which they felt forced to exile themselves, were issued illegally or have since been made invalid due to later court decisions. From our experience, we estimate that a large minority of these men have an unequivocal legal right to have their induction orders cancelled. Most of these men are unaware of this right.

In many such cases, we feel, these men's orders have not been cancelled only because they are known to be in Canada. Profably in most cases, however, these orders remain outstanding due to totally inadequate review of the man's file prior to its being forwarded to the U.S. attorney's office for prosecution. Currently, such review is in most cases, accomplished by an official in the State director's office working with what is called the "General Counsel's Checklist." That this cheklist is unofficial and unpublished, and the actions taken pursuant to review under its questionnable standards are merely conclusory in nature-to proceed with or to decline prosecution—without comment included in the registrant's file, would seem to be a serious deprivation of due process of law. Lack of publication prevents informed comment by those knowledgable about selective service law, prevents revision to reflect recent changes in the law, and, most seriously, forecloses to the registrant the possibility of ascertaining the standards used by those officials who decide whether or not to indict. After this initial review, the file is forwarded to the U.S. Attorney's office where it is usually only with the help of defense counsel that a man's invalid order is officially cancelled. Most young men in Canada are unaware even of the possibility of such cancellation at either of these two levels or with an attorney's aid short of trial. So they never contact an attorney, mistakenly believing only a trial is possible: the result is that many men are under prosecution who should not be, due to a combination of their fear to return to face trial and the failure of government agencies to drop charges unless facing an attorney representing the man. We feel the government should do more for these men.

To release such men from their unfounded exile, we strongly urge the drafting of legislation which would require a full review and careful scrutiny of the files of men currently facing prosecution-some 25,000 cases in numberand that this review also be extended to all future cases and those files of hundreds of men that have yet to receive any review to date. Such a review we feel should be conducted according to publicly revealed standards published in advance and that these standards and review be accomplished in the light of court decisions which have been handed down since the time of the issuance of the original order to report for induction by the local board. And we suggest these measures be taken with the serious purpose of cancelling unenforceable induction orders issued as a result of erroneous processing by the selective service system. We ask that the government be compelled by Congress to be much more diligent in giving up obviously untendable prosecutions and thus end these unnecessary exiles of American citizens.

That a significant percentage of all induction orders are invalidly issued is confirmed by the statistics for selective service prosecutions in the Federal courts. For instance, in fiscal 1971, only 35-0/0 of selective service indictments terminated by court decision have resulted in convictions. And these, indictments which reach court represent a small percentage of the total number of alleged selective service violations referred by slective service state headquarters to the U.S. Attorney's offices. And, as noted earlier, the "Unofficial Checklist" eliminates yet more cases from reaching the U.S. attorney. The conclusion that is obvious is that huge numbers of illegal induction orders are issued by slipshod local board processing. But it is from the original issuance of an induction order that men are moved to leave for Canada. More careful processing and more energetic efforts by government are required in redressing these wrongs of due process and notifying men of the needlessness of their exile. Amnesty, in these cases, is neither required nor appropriate, as these men are not "fugitives from Justice," but fugitives from injustice-victims of Governmental error and governmental indefference to the exiles that their errors have caused. While we have helped many men to repriate, the sheer volume of such cases requires a legislated response. Private groups such as ours, with extremely small financial and human resources, can never effectively meet the massive need for corrective measures which properly fall upon the respective governmental agencies which have caused these injustices. We feel that such legislation is a compelling social necessity.

We would further urge that legislation require fuller notification of the cancellation of an invalid order than the simple mailing of a new 1-A Card, 15 days after which a new, probably valid order could be issued in most cases. We would suggest a minimum requirement of 60 days advance notice prior to