COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JOHN V. TUNNEY, California ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska STROM THURMOND, South Carolina CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman PHILIP A. HART, Michigan QUENTIN V. BURDICK, North Dakota STROM THURMOND, South Carolina CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida JAMES F. FLUG, Chief Counsel THOMAS M. SUSMAN, Assistant Counsel (II) CONTENTS Benade, Maj. Gen. Leo, Defense Department Assistant Secretary. Brunk, Conrad, National Interreligious Service Board for Con- Carson, Everett Brown, 1st Lt., Marine Corps.- Commager, Henry Steele, professor of history, Amherst University---- Flanagan, The Very Reverend Bernard, Roman Catholic Bishop, Diocese of Worcester, Mass.- - Gaylin, Dr. Willard, professor of psychiatry and law, Columbia Geiger, John H., National Commander, American Legion, accom- 237 Lord, The Very Reverend John Wesley, Methodist Bishop of Wash- 277 Maroney, Keivn T., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, accompanied by John H. Davitt, Chief of the Criminal Section, Internal Security Division, and Rovert W. Vayda, Attor- ney, Selective Service Unit, Department of Justice.. O'Neill, James, Truman Amnesty Review Board Porter, Charles O., attorney, former Member of Congress, former White House staff member, Major (Air Force, Retired), and Chair- Schulz, John, Editor, Selective Service Law Reporter.. 79 301 104 165 Tarr, Curtis W., Director, Selective Service System, accompanied by 5 Tatum, Arlo, Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors - 169 Tuchinsky, Joseph, Midwest Committee for Draft Counseling- 131 Wilson, Rev. Alexander C., pastor, Westminister United Presbyterian Church, Burgettstown, Pa.. 222 Wilson, William K.. 152 Disabled American Veterans, Charles L. Huber.. Draft Counseling Center, Buffalo, N. Y Emerick, Kenneth-Clarion State College- Gordon, Mrs. Doris-Silver Spring, Md. Celia E. Kaplan-New York, N. Y.. Klein, Julius, Jewish War Veterans. MacArthur, John H.-Clarksburg, Md.. Magney, Richard A.-Spokane, Wash.. 1. Selective Service System Responses to Questions from Subcommittee__ 2. Defense Department Responses to Questions from Subcommittee___ 3. Justice Department Responses to Questions from Subcommittee... 4. Justice Department Correspondence with Subcommittee Chairman__. 5. American Ethical Union on Conscientious Objection: Selected Public 11. Lusky, Louis, "Amnesty: What Sort Will Bind Our Wounds". SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCEDURES AND ADMINISTRA TIVE POSSIBILITIES FOR AMNESTY MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1972 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:55 a.m., in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Kennedy (presiding), Hart, Thurmond, and Gurney. Also present: James Flug, chief counsel; Thomas Susman, assistant counsel; Henry Herlong, minority counsel; and Mark L. Schneider. Senator KENNEDY. The subcommittee will come to order. First of all, I want to apologize to our witnesses for being late starting the meeting. I was testifying in the House Foreign Affairs Committee which started at 9:30 this morning. I wish to express my regrets to our witnesses this morning, and also to the members of the press. Senator GURNEY. How about the members of the subcommittee? Senator KENNEDY. And to the members of the subcommittee. I did not see you there, Ed. I saw Phil. It is nice to have you here. The Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedures begins its inquiry this morning with a two-fold purpose: first, to examine the current administration of the Selective Service System in the light of the recommendations of this subcommittee 2 years ago and the procedural implications of the Military Selective Service Act of 1971; and second, to explore the administrative possibilities and problems of granting executive amnesty or other forms of clemency to men who have chosen exile, to men who have chosen prison, or to men who have chosen "to go underground" rather than fulfill the obligation that the military selective service law has imposed on them. The two issues are related in a most basic way. The draft is the driving force in the acquisition of military manpower, and the use of American military forces in Vietnam has for the first time in history turned us from a haven for political exiles into a creator of political exiles. While the number of American troops in Vietnam has decreased substantially, the war goes on. Each week, new bombing records are set. Each week, there are more refugees and more civilian casualties. Each week we add to the toll of American deaths, and each week, American flyers are added to the prisoner-of-war list. (1) So here at home, the war continues to hang over the lives of young men like a storm cloud, forcing another generation to continue to make life and career decisions with one eye on the draft lottery and the other on Selective Service regulations. At this morning's session, we shall seek to meet our responsibility to these men to insure that the system which decides "who shall serve when not all serve" operates equitably and evenly. We will also get Mr. Tarr's views on the impact of an amnesty policy on the administration of the draft. However, tomorrow and Wednesday we will concentrate entirely on the history and philosophy of amnesty, on the alternative ways to provide it, and on the implications for this nation both of granting amnesty and of denying amnesty. Our major focus will be on the administrative avenues of relief, which have in the past been the Nation's primary response to the question of reconciliation. Even if we cannot answer all the difficult questions about amnesty, we hope to foster a dialog which will illuminate the complexities of this issue for all of us. The issue of amnesty generates strong emotions across the country. How, some ask, can amnesty be offered to those who fled when others fought? But, others assert, how can amnesty not be offered to those who were right about the war before the rest of us? We shall hear from those who have administered and studied amnesty in the past, and those who are most concerned now-from parents, from veterans, from exiles, and from men who have served in prison rather than participate in a war they considered immoral. Before moving on to our first witnesses I want to stress that this subcommittee as always acknowledges and recognizes that the primary legislative responsibility for the Selective Service Act is with the Armed Services Committee, and recognizes as well the jurisdiction of the Criminal Laws Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, to which Senator Taft and others have made legislative recommendations in terms of amnesty. Our committee is primarily interested in the administrative procedures that can be followed to achieve the amnesty. I am going to ask that the rest of the statement be included in its entirety in the record at this time. (The full statement of Senator Kennedy follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY, OF MASSACHUSETTS, FEBRUARY 28, 1972 The Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure begins its inquiry this morning with a two-fold purpose: first, to examine the current administration of the Selective Service System in the light of the recommendations of this Subcommittee two years ago and the procedural implications of the Military Selective Service Act of 1971; and second, to explore administrative possibilities and problems of granting executive amnesty or other forms of clemency to men who have chosen exile, to men who have chosen prison, or to men who have chosen "to go underground" rather than fulfill the obligation that the Military Selective Service Law has imposed on them. The two issues are related in a most basic way. The draft is the driving force in the acquisition of military manpower, and the use of American military forces in Vietnam has for the first time in history turned us from a haven for political exiles into a creator of political exiles. While the number of American troops in Vietnam has decreased substantially, the war goes on. Each week, new bombing records are set. Each week, there |
