new reclassification, after a determination is made that the original order is invalid. This time will insure to a much greater degree that a man in Canada will receive this "good News" in time to advantage himself of it. As the government's mishandling caused his original flight to Canada, its admitted error mandates the extension of this additional time ofr the man to receive notice and reestablish contact with his local board. His are unusual circumstances requiring an unusual courtesy.

We would also urge that you insert these remarks in the official record of your hearings. We will be submitting a fuller statement of these views by letter within a few days, and would ask that its proposals, accompanied by fuller argument also be inserted in the record and receive your consideration, perhaps in renewed hearings dealing more specifically with such legally justified repatriation.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH FRED EMERICK, CLARION STATE. COLLEGE, PA.

In recent months we have heard "amnesty" for war resisters discussed time and again.1 Despite the obvious fact that the majority of these resisters are now in foreign lands, we have made almost no attempt to discover who these men are. We know very little about their families or their backgrounds. What is more, we discuss amnesty while we overlook the views and attitudes of those most directly concerned-the resisters themselves.

What is worst of all, we generally have badly distorted notions of why these men have become refugees and exiles. We have assumed that either the draft or the Indo-Chinese war were the causes-and the only causes-when indeed they were not.

Until we know who these men are, recognize their backgrounds, comprehend their views and thoughts, discover why they chose to leave, and determine what their wishes are, we can only proceed in ignorance toward some new and unforeseen error. Hopefully my testimony might redirect that course.

The basis for my conclusions comes from two years of research and writing on the 60,000-100,000 resisters in Canada. These conclusions, and the justification for them, will be published in book form in late April as War Resisters Canada; The World of the American Military-Political Refugees (Knox, Pennsylvania Free Press, Knox, Pa.).

As preparation I talked to hundreds of resisters, along with their wives, associates, friends, ministers, etc. I also talked to dozens of people who have operated the "freedom train" in Canada. Thirty-three of these resisters completed a long questionnaire which was followed by a personal interview of several hours. In addition, I studied most of the material which has been published on the subject over the years.

For obvious reasons there is little one can do here, except to briefly note some of my conclusions as they relate to amnesty.

However, it seems appropriate to indicate why we lack so much knowledge about the resister. The chief reason, it seems to me, is that we are kings who choose not to hear the bad news. Or as Monsignor Charles Owen Rice of Pittsburgh says in his foreword to War Resisters Canada, "We will these men, who are so close to us and are of us, to be all but invisible because their existence in such considerable numbers is a reproach and an embarrassment to us and to our institutions." Otherwise, we would find the experiences, the hopes, aspirations, fears, and acommplishments of these men fascinating. They closely parallel the experiences of our forebears who first settled North America itself. My personal experiences only confirm that view. At least twenty periodicals have totally ignored my offer to write an in-depth article on why these men actually decided to live elsewhere.

What is even worse is that the American people have been literally brainwashed regarding the resisters in other lands. Even the most sophisticated people have been led to view the resister as a bum, misfit, drug freak, revolutionary, coward, or misguided fool-part of a small group numbering in the

1 However, this talk has never involved actual amnesty, but watered-down versions that require the resister to legitimize the very system he has rejected, to accept a penalty he has already refused, or requires him to ask "forgiveness" for a "sin" that he feels was committed by his country.

hundreds or a few thousand at most-waiting in near desperation to come home. Although there are morsels of truth in such attitudes, the reality is quite different. In fact, if these notions were entirely reversed, truth would be more accurately served.

To consider amnesty in any meaningful way, we must know why the resister is in the North Country Fair, Sweden, or England. It took me only a week among the Canadian exiles to realize that the overwhelming majority regard the draft and the war as only partial causes for resistance, and often those factors are acknowledged to be mere symptoms of an American malaise. While a majority of Americans now regard Vietnam as a "mistake," most resisters think of it as more than that-as a manifestation of "what America is all about," as they would put it.

A great many of these men are not leaving the Army or refusing induction so much, as they are rejecting the values of our society and the direction it is taking. And I have to agree with the resister who told me that "I think many Americans sense this."

Almost without exception, the resister suffered despair and disillusionment with the nation and American life. Let me quote a few brief statements from typical resisters:

Dennis, in referring to his hospital conversations with returned wounded veterans from Vietnam, told me, "They talked about atrocities, shooting people, and throwing people out of helicopters and stuff like that. Things that you know went on, but when people sat and talked about it as though it were baseball, it's a little too much. It opens your eyes more and more. At my first opportunity I was going to get out. There was no way I could walk down the street wearing that uniform. I was definitely dissatisfied with the United States, and I would eventually have gone somewhere."

Joe, a mature man with two children, who had unsuccessfully sought a hardship discharge, related, ". . . there were other dissatisfactions. We were just getting sicker and sicker of every possible aspect-pollution-racial discrimination-the expenditures in the name of science for God's sake-sending men to the moon while people are dying of starvation here in our own country. This kind of thing makes me sick to think about."

Don, a quiet and reflective library worker who really felt sad at having to leave the country, remarked: "When I was in high school, John Kennedy was President, and I was really a solid liberal Democrat. The think that shook me out of it was the assassination of Robert Kennedy. After he was shot, I decided there wasn't any use in trying to work within a country that was so morally corrupt. It wasn't just that he was killed, but that even his death didn't do any good. It was just like a poker game-he died and they divided him up-Humphrey took most of him and McCarthy took a little. I was deeply dissatisfied with the war, the Black situation, and the moral corruption in government."

Guy, a Chicagoan who traveled alone in Europe and Africa in 1968, told me how he felt when he was drafted. "I was completely disenchanted with the United States and the American dream. I saw through the whole thing-it wasn't what it was made out to be-Black people were really being put down-justice is kind of ridiculous when you hear what happens in the courts and capital punishment. . . . In 1968 I spent three days at the Convention in Chicago and got beat up a few times and thrown in the lagoon once. That really cut the cake after I got back from Europe.

Tobey, a young man who went into the service and tried to accept and live within the system, commented, "America is like that-you can live forever in the United States in this sickness and not really have it hurt you, influence you, or step on you, but it does to Black people, to some people who are drafted, to minority groups. I couldn't do it, and didn't be lieve in it, and I decided to come to Canada and become a Canaidan citizen. There are an awful lot of people coming up here who are sick of it." This despair, coupled with individual moral principle, once confronted with an outright demand that he become an instrument of policies that were repugnant to him, triggered the resister's decision. A significant percentage, possibly as high as twenty percent, of these men would have left the United States eventually, even without an involvement with the military.

The resister had largely concluded that American democracy no longer functioned; he found little freedom for his own views or moral choices; he saw minorities exploited and repressed; he observed no tolerance or understanding as he was taught to expect; and he noted that technology and the dollar were god, rather than the human values he craved. His choice, like that of the European immigrants who settled North America, was to leave and seek a better and a more hopeful land.

In the light of the last few paragraphs it seems apparent that a large portion of the resisters in Canada will not be as anxious for amnesty as we would like to believe. Many resisters would ask, "Should we grant amnesty to the United States," or as Bob Lanning put it:

"The question is who is giving amnesty and who should get it. Should it be the young Americans who have dropped out of that obscene society and gone to another place, or should we resisters take a vote and decide whether to grant America an amnesty for being so cruel and obscene and being the massive destructive force that it is? If amnesty is granted, there won't be as many people flocking back across the border as Americans anticipate. A lot of them will be established here and not want to uproot themselves again, but to me it's not worth waiting for them to grant amnesty. It's going to be them waiting there for us to grant them amnesty."

Typical of the responses to my questions about a desire for amnesty were these:

"Yes, to travel, or if an emergency came up for my family. I would like to be able to go and see them and not get busted."

"I wouldn't want it-not even to visit. What am I going to do-visit the Lincoln Memorial or the Washington monument?”

"Basically it's not a consideration of mine to think about amnesty, although it would be a very welcome thing because I could go back and see my family." "The only reason I desire to go back is to see my family, and that's on pretty shaky ground too as far as I'm concerned. I'm indifferent to it."

Only one resister of 33 really desired amnesty in order to return permanently to the United States, but he had only been in Canada two and a half months. Even then, he acknowledged that "a murderer will have a better chance than a deserter or dodger for a job in the United States." However, twenty resisters desired amnesty, but only to travel and visit. Six resisters said amnesty made no difference to them. DJ said, "The only reason some people regret coming is that they can't visit their folks."

My own conclusion does not support the hopes of some and the vast numbers of Americans who would like to believe that the resister in Canada is waiting impatiently to return to their society-a society which resisters have little hope for, and one they have rejected in the recent past. These hopes are naive, although in some cases they may be innocently based on the false assumption that the war and the draft alone drove Americans across the Great Lakes.

The vast majority of resisters, from their deepest feelings, seemed to be saying, "We prefer and respect a land which provided an alternative when it was desperately needed--a nation of people who gave some understanding, some acceptance, when our own showed contempt. We could never renounce that part of our soul that brought us here, nor ever feel at home among those who besmirched that soul and persecuted us. There is no way to erase that."

We have all heard the notion propsoed that maybe draft resisters might be permitted to return, but not deserters. Such proposals, it seems to me, are again the result of a lack of information.

There are no vast or significant differences between these two groups, except that deserters were somewhat less critical, and arrived at their decision somewhat later than others a late-blooming awareness quite common to many members of the House and Senate-indeed to the body politic as a whole.

Many deserters were strongly opposed to participation before induction, but they leaned over backwards in an attempt to comply with the nation's will, eventhough they often knew in their hearts that ultimately they would reach a point beyond which they could not go.

Furthermore, it is estimated that 10-15 percent of the deserters in Canada are survivors or graduates of the war in Indo-China. The percentage in Sweden is higher.

Of the 21 deserters who endured my study, five had served their full course in Vietnam and had been returned to the United States. One had only 137

80-620-72- -22

days of easy state-side duty to serve, only 125 miles from his home and his wife, where he spent every weekend.

One had received a Bronze Star. Two others had been wounded, one very seriously. One was the son of a career militlary officer who had served in three wars, including Vietnam; his life's ambition had been to be a solider.

These were essentially very conservative men who finally changed their views about the United States once they witnessed Vietnam. Even though each was relatively near discharge, they were unable to continue their own lives in what they had once believed was "the greatest country on earth"

It seems inconceivable to me, and to most of the men in Canada, that a distinction, in terms of amnesty, could be made between these two groups.

I have also heard opponetts charge that amnesty would insult those who died or served in Vietnam. But the fact is that many survivors of Vietnam now feel that they too should have said NO. Surely it is not reasonable to argue that the very victims of Vietnam-the men who served or died thereshould be USED to victimize still others. Hopefully, our society is less sick than that.

At this point, I shall try to speak for the resister and indicate his desires and note how he is likely to react.

First, most resisters, but not all, would like the freedom to travel and visit in the States. There is no reason why this cannot be arranged soon and without great difficulty. They are in effect on the way to becoming Canadians, and there is no logical reason not to treat them as such. I would hope, however, that visitation privileges will not be used as a cop-out, or a substitute for amnesty.

A small percentage of resisters have returned to visit, but obviously the danger of apprehension has limited these visits, particularly in relation to the family. As time passes this trickel will become a flood, and an unmanageable one because:

(1) few Americans will have the heart for enforcement

(2) too many families and friends will be antagonized by strict enforcement

(3) bureaucracy will be unable to cope with the vast numbers

(4) travel between the two countries would be too badly hindered

(5) relations between Canada and the United States might become intolerable if new Canadians were seized in any number

Secondly, the resister desired a better America. He still does, and in fact many hope that their decision will contribute to that cause. In terms of resister thought, as I read it, this would include:

an understanding and acceptance of youth

a change in emphasis from law and order, to law, justice, and dialogue

a recognition that individual rights must come before the needs of the state

an emphasis on diplomacy and cooperation rather than on military power and world policemanship

a rejection of the military's domination of American society and policymaking

a drastic lessening of the economic domination of other lands recognition that American intervention in Vietnam was evil

Few resister desire an amnesty, or will utilize one, except to travel or visit. unless, of course, the nation does indeed change its course in the ways I have just noted. He has little desire to return to a way of life that he has already rejected with a deep personal commitment. He has no desire to be uprooted again, or to return to jeers, discrimination, and employment difficulties. After all. most resisters regard Canadians as friendlier and more open; they see Canada as more hopeful than the society they left.

To devise some pseudo-amnesty may fool some of those here at home. But except for the resister who returns because of extreme family difficulty or tragedy, no resister is coming home to go to jail, which he vetoed long ago. He did not make a personal commitment, which he views as an affirmative act, to return home either as an indentured servant or to legitimize the evils he saw by taking some oath.

My own hopes, dim as they often are, call upon me to suggest that we offer

visitation privileges at once, not only to those in other lands, but to the imprisoned as well.

Let us also undertake a new course and re-orient our priorities by turning away from militarism, foreign adventure, repression, discrimination, and materialism. Surely only a fool would regard all those voices out there in our own land, or in Canada, as mere cries in the wilderness.

And lastly, let us summon up the maturity, the understanding, and the wisdom to grant a real amnesty, without strings, to all those-in jail, overseas, or underground—who had the wisdom and the moral courage to arrive at conclusions long before many of us dared. National reconciliation and healing demand no less.

A well known Lutheran minister, Richard John Neuhaus, has said: "Hundreds of thousands of immigrants came to America in the 18th and 19th centuries to ecape military conscription in Europe. Americans welcomed tyranny's rejects and erected a Statue of Liberty as a beacon for dissidents throughout the world. If the streams of magnanimity have now dried up in our national life, if we vindictively refuse to grant pardon and amnesty in search of national healing, then perhaps it is time to take Senator Eugene McCarthy's suggestion and turn the Statue of Liberty around-recognizing that an era has closed in this once hopeful land." 2

I hope that I have been able to reflect the resister in Canada accurately, but I can only suggest that members of this Committee talk at length with many of these men where they are now. They can speak far better for themselves than anyone else.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF MRS. DORIS GORDON, SILVER SPRING, MD.

I have followed wherever I could the debate on amnesty in the newspapers and the radio and would like to submit the following statement which I hope you will add to the record of the Judiciary Sub-committee's study of the question.

I am a middle aged, middle class housewife and I feel I can claim a certain amount of objectivity and unbiased point of view because I have no dear friends or relatives but only casual acquaintances serving in the armed forces and none evading service. However, I believe I can understand and empathize with those on both sides of the debate who have been made to suffer in any manner by the unconstitutional draft and our involvement in an immoral war. To those who are afraid that our system of laws will be undermined because some were courageous enough to act according to morality in defiance of an evil law, I say-Our country is like a body which, when it gets sick, needs to rid itself of the disease and poisons that afflict it inorder to get well. Bad laws are a scourage on society and will only serve to kill our country. We should be thankful for those who, having diagnosed the illness correctly are courageous enough to administer the necessary medicine and provide the right treatments even though the patient foolishly objects due to the painful treatment he will have to undergo. Let's eliminate the virus, rid this country of the draft law once and for all, set up safeguards against future unthinking involvements in immoral war and ill-advised alliances that drain this country of its people, goods and sanity, or we are sure to have a relapse. Bad laws, just create a disrepect for all laws. Let's keep only wise and just laws so we can love and obey them.

To those who say that it is unfair to the ones who served and suffered and died if we let the others go unmolested. I say-Why do you want to impose an unearned retribution on them? They did not cause the harm to you or your loved ones. How will it help you if you join your torturers by torturing them? Does 'equal justice under law' mean mistreating everyone the same?

To those who are worried that our armies will be demoralized if amnesty is granted, I say-The whole country has been demoralized already. Taking positive steps to remedy the evils and correct what wrongs can be righted, can only serve to act as a soothing medicine that can help to make our country healthy again.

* Richard John Neuhaus, "The Good Sense of Amnesty," The Nation, Feb. 9, 1970, D. 148.