Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box 1, folder "Amnesty - General" of the Charles E.
Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 1 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
A statement on AMNESTY by Robert F. Froehlke, President - The Sentry
Corporation and former Secretary of the Army (1971-1973), given at
10 AM on March 11, 1974 to the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties
and the Administration of Justice: House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
R.
GERALD
FORD
DORARY
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I appreciate your
invitation to appear today and give my opinion on amnesty. At the outset
I should state that the subject of amnesty like so many other issues I have
faced in both government and business defies a categorical rightness or
wrongness. Amnesty is much like the issue of United States involvement
in and departure from Southeast Asia. Only those who are absolutely positive
of the rightness of their position are wrong.
The fact that he is not sure of his position will not, and I
believe should not, deter anyone from testifying before your committee.
It has not deterred me. We must rely on our personal values, experience
and just plain instinct. Obviously, to refuse to take any position until
one is absolutely sure he is right is at best naive and at worst cowardly.
My own values and experience - but mostly my instinct - tell me
now is the time to begin to discuss and then act on amnesty. At the same
time - and in an unconfident way - I hastily add that my position could
be dead wrong.
But, then, it is not for me but for you Congressmen to decide
who is right or wrong.
And, that is why, I presume, Congressmen hold hearings.
Permit me to begin by giving my views as to what amnesty is not.
2
Amnesty is not a liberal rallying point. I am a moderate, as
are most Americans who must ask for amnesty before it becomes reality.
Putting a liberal tag on amnesty might glamorize the issue but it will
most certainly dim its political future.
Amnesty is not an "anti-military" issue. I was, am and will
continue to be pro-military, as are most Americans. Most Americans respect
the military and desire that their country remain militarily strong. To
categorize amnesty as anti-military does the military a disservice and
again hurts the cause of amnesty in the political arena.
Amnesty is not "anti-administration." Admittedly, many thought-
ful and well-meaning individuals in this administration oppose amnesty.
Conversely, others, like myself were members of the administration, are
proud of it, and favor amnesty. The same difference of opinion on this
issue can be found in previous administrations.
*
*
*
Amnesty is an act that only a strong, confident and just nation
can bestow. You cannot demand amnesty. You cannot threaten amnesty.
Amnesty is given.
The insecure, the mean, the confused cannot ever grant amnesty.
Therefore, the fact that amnesty is being discussed augers well for America.
The number of people involved with amnesty is subject to wide
variance. Some say 5,000; others 30,000 or 100,000. I suggest over
200 million could and should beinvolved. 200 million Americans doing a
3
proud, generous and kindly act of bestowing amnesty.
*
*
*
Why amnesty and why now?
When serving as Secretary of the Army I opposed amnesty. Then
most of our young men were obeying the law and reporting for the draft.
Some were being drafted and were fighting and dying in Vietnam.
At that time we could not say to those disobeying that draft law
and fleeing from America, "Come home, all is forgiven".
But, why now amnesty for them? Amnesty now because the draft
and the killing is over.
Amnesty now because we need to begin mending in every way possible
the heartbreak and wounds left by that war. I am not prepared to say
Vietnam was right or wrong. I will let the historians do that. However, it
is clear that right or wrong, Vietnam deeply hurt America.
Amensty now because it is America's youth who are involved and
America has always shown mercy and restraint with its young people.
*
*
*
There are two primary considerations which will dictate the
parameters of any workable amnesty. On the one hand this country will someday
again be facing a draft. In developing an amnesty program nothing should
be done which would make a future draft unworkable. I suppose it could
be argued that even talking about any amnesty imposes some burden on a future
draft. I think not but if the burden is slight I would still accept because
the higher priority is the opportunity to heal the hurt.
4
On the other hand we must constantly bear in mind that all those
potentially involved in amnesty have one thing in common - they were young.
They have made a mistake, a serious mistake, but they are young. Therefore
any amnesty program must not be approached from vindictiveness. But rather
from the standpoint of a just and generous nation dealing mercifully with
a relatively small number of young people who made a serious error.
*
*
*
Those potentially eligible for amnesty can be divided into two
distinct groups - those who did not enter military service and evaded the
draft and those who entered military service and deserted. The two groups
must be treated separately.
I have concluded that all draft evaders should be given blanket
conditional amnesty. I readily concede that it would be "nice" if we would
only grant amnesty to those who fled for moral reasons and not to those who
fled for selfish reasons. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine
intent. Therefore the amnesty for draft evaders must be blanket.
The amnesty must be conditional. Not necessarily because we want
to punish those who ran. Rather because those who ran have not as yet had
an opportunity to serve their country like those who stayed and served.
Therefore it is only just and reasonable that the first act upon returning
to their country should be service to that country - as an obligation and
privilege not punishment. (I really see very little reason to argue about
the merits of a conditional vs. an unconditional amnesty. Pragmatically it
5
is my opinion that the American people would under no circumstance allow
amnesty of an unconditional variety to ever be enacted by Congress.)
Service to the country should not be limited to the military.
It should certainly include the military but should be as broad as service
to fellow man can possibly allow. It certainly would include projects like
VISTA, Peace Corps, hospitals and churches.
The length of term to be served would have to be determined by
Congress. I think the key onsideration should be how long is it necessary
to serve in order to perform a useful service. Vindictiveness should not
enter into the consideration. (In the past I have indicated that I would
be satisfied with three months service if some duties could be found where
useful service could be performed in that length of time. I chose this
relatively short period of time in an attempt to indicate that vindictiveness
should not be influencing. I confess that the only possible area where I
can come up with useful service in that short a period of time would be in
volunteering for medical experiments at great personal risk.)
Perhaps the least controversial group eligible for amnesty is the
draft evader who was sentenced and is serving in prison. Clearly these
should be granted a full pardon and their service in prison should be
considered service to country.
*
*
*
The deserter is a far more complicated problem and I have not been
able to come up with a solution that completely satisfies me. These facts
6
dictate that it is a different situation than the civilian who evaded the
draft:
1. The deserter is subject to the uniform code of military
justice.
2. It was not uncommon for the desertion to occur after
committing a criminal act.
For the time being I have concluded that the deserter must be
treated on a case by case basis. A board must be created that would look
at the deserter's total record in a non-vindictive, generous manner. However
amnesty should be applied only to an act of desertion and no prior or
subsequent criminal acts.
*
*
*
Is amnesty really possible?
It is, and there are several encouraging signs pointing the way.
The first sign, of course, is that the dialogue has begun. Amnesty
is being considered here in the Congress and at various other forums across
the land. This must continue.
Another sign is America's history of forgiveness. In less than
30 years we have forgiven our former enemies - Germany and Japan. We are
now expending untold political energy and material resources striving to
maintain a semblance of detente with China and Russia. If we will forgive
entire nations and hundreds of millions of "enemies", then can't we consider
forgiveness, rehabilitation and reinstatement of only a few thousand of our
brothers?
7
But, of the greatest encouragement is that America is a strong
nation of strong, confident and just people who have long demonstrated a
capacity to forgive and forget. These people would consider amnesty.
The meek, the mean, the insecure cannot forgive and forget.
Instead, they would demand recrimination, indulge in devisiveness, wallow
in self-flaggelation. Theirs is to counterattack against those who turned
and ran when the nation needed them. Theirs is to punish, and punish again,
the men who wronged them. These people would not consider amnesty, but
they are not America's people. So, I am encouraged.
*
*
*
Yes, America can grant amnesty. But should America forgive and
forget?
We should not forgive and forget if our reason for doing so is to
cleanse our soul from immoral acts.
We should not forgive and forget if our reason for doing so is
an attempt to return to this country "the best who left".
But, we should forgive and forget if amnesty will help heal the
hurt this nation has suffered. America has been badly hurt this last decade.
That is fact and no amount of blame-placing on individuals or groups will
help heal that hurt.
(As a matter of fact, any attempt to combine determination of
guilt for the hurt with the cause of amnesty can only doom amnesty. There
are just too many candidates responsible for the damage who would feel an
obligation to oppose the guilt-placing.)
8
Unquestionably Vietnam has compoundedthis nation's sorrows over
the last decade. Thus, isn't it a unique opportunity before us today that
we may use amnesty as an agent to heal the hurt?
An unwelcome alternative would be for America instead to indulge
in vindictiveness. But, that could only punish America more than America
has already been punished. Already I see a direct correlation between the
continuing turmoil within the nation and our present hardline stand on amnesty.
The president said long ago "We need a renewal of the spirit to meet the
crisis of the spirit in our country". Is not forgiveness a vital function
of the spirit?
Is there a more noble deed than for a strong, forgiving America to
say to those who left, come home now? I think not.
Has there been a time when America needed more a profusion of
noble deeds? I think not.
In conclusion, gentlemen, let me share with you an observation
from my scores of conversations and debates on the issue. It is that it
might well be impossible for those most directly involved in Vietnam to
approach amnesty with objectivity and without allowing emotion to influence
their position. The draft avoiders and deserters on one hand and the
bereaved mothers and widows, veterans or professional soldiers on the other
hand might well, and very understandably, look at amnesty from a very
personal perspective.
I understand and respect this fact. From their personal perspective,
as each views the issue, their individual conclusions are right and just.
9
I suggest, however, that most Americans can and should look at
amnesty from a much broader perspective. Those who have been less affected
by Vietnam can and should approach amnesty from the broader perspective of
what long lasting effect could it have on America; what long lasting effect
will it have on America.
I compliment you for holding these hearings now. Thank you for
the privilege of appearing before you. Hopefully what has transpired will
inspire some of the dispassionate and the disinterested among us to judge
amnesty. But, not because there is a wrong to be righted. But because
amnesty is the opportunity to begin healing the hurt that goes far beyond
Vietnam itself.
America today needs its unifying and healing cause.
Perhaps it may be found in the prophet Micah's admonition to his
people, Chapter 6, Verse 8 of the Phillips Translation:
You know well enough, 0 People, what is good!
For what does the Lord require from you,
But to be just, to love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?
Thank you.
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
22 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(212) 725-1222
Project on Amnesty
March 14, 1974
Henry Schwarzschild, Director
Charles Goodell, Esq.
Heideman, Mason & Goodell
914-948-4787
1225 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Re: Amnesty
Dear Charles:
Thank you again for meeting with Dr. SterlingCary, the President
of the National Council of Churches, and with Carl Rogers and me
to chat about the possible usefulness of laying our concerns before
Vice President Ford. At the very least, it would be very important
for him to not lock himself into the present Administration position
on this issue.
and
I enclose statements by Melvin Laird former Army Secretary
Froehlke on amnesty. Mr. Froehlke testified at the House Judiciary
Committee amnesty hearings, and quite helpfully, I thought. That
Mr. Laird goes even as far as he does may give the Vice President
some confidence that he will not be seen as allying himself with
the likes of us
Please let me know whether there is anything I can do to help. We
shall all be grateful for your efforts.
Cordially,
Henry Jenoy Schwarzschild
CRALD BERALDR. FORD
HS:c
Encs.
Edward J. Ennis, President
Aryeh Neier, Executive Vice President
David Isbell, Harriet Pilpel, George Slaff, Vice Presi-
dents
Winthrop Wadleigh, Treasurer
Norman Dorsen, Osmond K. Fraenkel, Marvin M. Karpatkin, General Counsel
Melvin L. Wulf, Legal Director
Ben Clark, Foundation Coordinator
Contributions to the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation are deductible for income-tax purposes.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 29, 1974
p10-12
234
PRESS CONFERENCE
MELVIN LAIRD
COUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT
10:30 A.M. EST
ROOSEVELT ROOM
Q
Mr. Laird, do you want to make any
opening statement since this is your, shall we say,
farewell press conference at the White House, or are
there to be future press: conferences with you at the
White House?
MR. LAIRD: Well, I hope that I can attend
some press conferences at the White House in my new
role with the Reader's Digest Association, but I think
I will be in a little different position. I will be
back to the position of asking questions. I had that
very pleasant responsibility of being a question-
asker in the State Senate in Wisconsin, and then for
a good many years in the Congress. So perhaps I
will be attending some White House press conferences
in a different role.
&
FORD
Q
You are going to get a White House
press pass?
GERALD
LIBRARY
MR. LAIRD: Gee, you know, I haven't really
made that hurdle yet.
Q
How would you get in otherwise?
MR. LAIRD: Well, it might be difficult,
but I think they would let me in.
- 10 -
Q
Was that expected, that kind of a
ratio?
MR. LAIRD: Well, the Vietnamization
program was based upon the possibility of fighting
continuing, and giving to the South Vietnamese the
capability to withstand that kind of fighting. They
have that capability.
Now, Helen, by telling you that, I am not
putting my approval on the killing that is going on
in South Vietnam, or in North Vietnam, or in
Camboida, or in Thailand, or any other place in the
world. I think it is disastrous, and I would like it
stopped, but the problem I think when people get to
the Vietnamiza program, the Vietnamization program
was set up so that these people could handle that and
not have to rely upon United States Air Force, Navy,
and ground forces as they did during the Kennedy and
Johnson Administrations. We tried to change that
movement, and I think we did.
Q Along that line, I think that the
United States of America has another great problem
out of the Vietnam War. I would like to know the
position of the Administration on amnesty, and has
it changed since the President said he would never
grant amnesty, and he didn't consider a sojourn in
the Peace Corps as adequate penalty? What is the
position on that?
MR. LAIRD: Well, I have written a letter
to the Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
As a matter of fact, I talked to him yesterday. He
was down in Atlanta and he wrote a letter to the
President condemning my position on this question
of amnesty. When I was Secretary of Defense I felt
we should not be considering the question of amnesty
either blanket, general, or conditional. I think
that the situation now that there are no Americans
being shot at and killed anyplace in the world, that
this is a matter that should be considered by our
country.
- 11 -
My position is still against blanket or
general amnesty for violators of the Selective
Service Act. We have always, in this country, however,
tempered our justice with mercy and with understanding.
We have always felt that there were conditions under
which justice was handed out in an equal fashion, and
that those conditions and motivations of the time should
be given some consideration in the Administration of
justice.
At the present time very few, a very, very
small percentage of our violators of the Selective
Service Act are actually being prosecuted. The
penalties which are being handed out to these young
men are different by jurisdiction. Some are very,
very tough, some are very, very meager in the terms of
the relationship of the penalties, all the way from
mowing the lawn on Saturdays for a year at the Courthouse
to some people getting very strong prison sentences.
I have written a letter to the Commander
of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and I would be glad
to make that letter available to you. I delivered
it to, him yesterday, and after this meeting, I will
see that that letter is made available.
Now, my position may be a little different
than the President's, but I would like to think that
there would be some movement here. I am against a
general or blanket, but I think some sort of conditional
approach towards equity in this area needs to be
considered and this letter to the Commander of the VFW
-- and I visited with him yesterday on it, the letter
was delivered to him yesterday -- I see no reason you
should not have a copy of it, and we will make it
available to you after this meeting.
Q
Have you talked to the President about
this, Mr. Laird?
MR. LAIRD: About this question?
Q
Yes, recently?
- 12 - -
MR. LAIRD: No, I have not. I have not
talked to the President about it recently. I talked
to the President about the question back when I was
over in the Defense Department, but I have not had a
visit with the President about this particular question,
and I think that my views are put forth fairly well
in this letter.
Q
Were they solicited on the basis of
your personal feelings, or the White House?
MR. LAIRD: Well, they were solicited by
a very tough attack that the Commander of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars -- and I am a member of
that organization -- made upon me for suggesting that
we had to consider the question of equity at this
particular time, and he interpreted my remarks I
thought, a little unfairly, and so I wrote him a
letter. He did not write to me, he wrote to the
President condemning my position.
Q
Mr. Laird, going back to the continued
fighting in Vietnam, because of all the killing that
has gone on for years, do you think it was perhaps
premature to have proclaimed a year ago that we now
have a generation of peace there?
or
MR. LAIRD: I think you have to interpret
the statement, I think, that most of the people who
were talking about that were talking about the United
States involvement. I have always talked about the
United States involvement. I don't know whether you
were present at my press conference as I left the
Pentagon, but anyone that was, I don't think they could
misinterpret what I was talking about.
Q
Mr. Laird, on the basis of an article
that you wrote for Readers' Digest, I believe, in
which you said that the Russians ---
MR. LAIRD: Have you bought that edition?
Caucht
(Laughter)
Q
I have got to buy it since you are writing
it.
-23-
d Mr. Laird, do you think it would be
possible for the President to attract new staff members
with you leaving and Bryce Harlow leaving? You were
brought in as a bright hope to save the Administration
and now even though you have reasons for it, the two
of you and others are leaving. Can he actually attract
people for the next three years?
MR. LAIRD: Yes, I think he can. I think it
should be understood that Bryce Harlow -- and I am not
sure just when Bryce Harlow is leaving. You will have
to talk to Bryce about that. But Bryce Harlow and I
came here to the White House not as a permanent sort
of an arrangement. We came here on a more or less
temporary basis.
I explained at a meeting down in the press room
the other day that ever since I had known Bryce Harlow
and each time he came to the White House, the next day
he was talking about when he was going to leave. That
wasn't meant as a mean crack about Bryce Harlow. As
a matter of fact, I had met with Bryce before I went
down to the press room that day and Bryce said that
is the way I should answer that question.
So I noticed that John Osborne took me on that
I was sort of knifing my friend, Bryce Harlow, in the back,
by answering it that way, but I hope John reads this
transcript because I answered it in the manner in which
Bryce wanted me to answer it, and if that is knifing
anybody in the back, I don't understand what that is
all about.
So we did come here temporarily. I think there
has been a great addition in Vice President Ford coming here
to the White House and being a member of this team, and
I think he can do a better job in the areas that I had
responsibility then I can. And I think he will do a better
job.
Q
Mr. Laird, I want to ask you something and
that is about the large number of men and women, particularly
blacks, who went into the service, were drafted, during the
- 24 -
Vietnamese war who had some infraction of the rules or an
inability to collaborate and they got dishonorable
discharges and now we have those people back in this
country look for jobs and they can't get jobs and we have
a big problem. There must be thousands of them.
What are you going to do about them? Are
you going to give them amnesty?
MR. LAIRD: I have discussed this. I discussed
this in the letter which --
Q These are the boys who didn't go to
foreign countries.
MR. LAIRD: -- I want you to look at and to
consider. The question of justice in this country, I
feel, in some cases is not being treated on an equitable
basis, and I raised this question in this letter.
I am not for a general statement or a blanket
statement in this particular area at all, and I would
never be for that, but there are cases that do need to be
studied.
Q
Mr. Laird, do you still believe that the
President will not either be impeached or resign? The
last time you spoke to this you had been to the Hill and
made a head count. How do you feel now?
MR. LAIRD: Now, this business of head count,
I want to be a little careful on that head count business.
I do believe that I can count votes fairly well. I used
to be able to do that, but in this particular case, on
the question of indictment -- and I refer to it as indictment
because there are people who think impeachment means that
the President is somehow taken out of office, and impeachment
does not do that, so I use the term indictment.
After I returned from Wisconsin last time,
talking to people up and down the street, I found that
they did not have a clear understanding of the term
impeachment. They do understand indictment much better,
so I use that term. That is the only reason I use that
term. I think it is more understandable.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 28, 1974
Dear Commander:
I received a copy of your letter to the President on
amnesty and would like to comment.
As a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I share
with you, Commander, a great pride in our nation's
strength and freedom. As part of our heritage of
freedom, we have always cherished the redemptive
quality of our system of justice.
As you know, during my tenure as Secretary of Defense,
I felt strongly that it was completely inappropriate,
unwise and unjust to consider granting any form of
amnesty. I felt that while brave Americans were
fighting and dying in battle any consideration of
granting amnesty was unwarranted and would have had
an adverse effect on the morale of our Armed Forces.
My feelings at that time were identical whether the
amnesty being discussed by some was "conditional" or
"general." I did make known, however, that looking
beyond Vietnam we were studying various reports and
studies on the complex question of amnesty.
On my departure from the Department of Defense, cir-
cumstances had changed markedly. No longer were
American troops fighting and dying in combat anywhere
in the world. As a result of changed conditions, my
views with respect to considering the question of
amnesty have also changed.
Throughout my career of public service, I have learned
to avoid absolute, dogmatic positions. Neither the
political system nor the judicial system of the United
States works on "blanket" and arbitrary approaches.
Both recognize the vital roles of (1) circumstances
and (2) motivation in determining political or judicial
solutions to our problems. As I have said, we pride
ourselves on administering justice with mercy and
understanding.
With respect to the question of a "blanket" or
"general" amnesty, let me emphasize that I am now
and always have been opposed to a sweeping general
grant of amnesty. However, there are individual
cases where the circumstances require that justice
provide for what some have termed "conditional
amnesty. I do not like this term and only use it
for lack of a better description of an equitable
approach to this difficult problem. It is my view
that circumstance and motivation on a case-by-case
basis, under our concept of justice, must be taken
into account today when dealing with violators of
our selective service laws. It is noteworthy that
only a small percentage of these men have thus far
been prosecuted by the Department of Justice, and in
these cases widely differing penalties have been
assigned to individuals varying by jurisdiction.
I hope these comments will allay some of your
understandable concerns. As you know, I have nothing
but a profound sense of respect and gratitude to the
men and women who served in Vietnam, 56,244 of whom
gave their lives in the service of our country.
It is a lasting source of pride to me that I had the
opportunity and privilege to associate with such
fine Americans and their families. I have never
committed any act, nor would I, which would be a
"breach of faith" with these men and women.
Finally, I am grateful to the Veterans of Foreign
Wars and to the Ladies Auxiliary for their steadfast
support of our defense effort, and especially for
your steadfast support during my service as Secretary
of Defense. I trust, and am sure, that you will
continue to extend that support to the President and
to his defense policy in the cause of strength and
peace.
Sincerely,
Melvin R. Laird
Counsellor to the President
for Domestic Affairs
Commander Ray R. Soden
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
Washington Memorial Building
200 Maryland Avenue, N. E.
Washington, D. C. 20002
2
A statement on AMNESTY by Robert F. Froehlke, President - The Sentry
Corporation and former Secretary of the Army (1971-1973), given at
10 AM on March 11, 1974 to the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties
and the Administration of Justice: House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I appreciate your
invitation to appear today and give my opinion on amnesty. At the outset
I should state that the subject of amnesty like so many other issues I have
faced in both government and business defies a categorical rightness or
wrongness. Amnesty is much like the issue of United States involvement
in and departure from Southeast Asia. Only those who are absolutely positive
of the rightness of their position are wrong.
The fact that he is not sure of his position will not, and I
believe should not, deter anyone from testifying before your committee.
It has not deterred me. We must rely on our personal values, experience
and just plain instinct. Obviously, to refuse to take any position until
one is absolutely sure he is right is at best naive and at worst cowardly.
My own values and experience - but mostly my instinct - tell me
now is the time to begin to discuss and then act on amnesty. At the same
time - and in an unconfident way - I hastily add that my position could
be dead wrong.
But, then, it is not for me but for you Congressmen to decide
who is right or wrong.
And, that is why, I presume, Congressmen hold hearings.
Permit me to begin by giving my views as to what amnesty is not.
2
Amnesty is not a liberal rallying point. I am a moderate, as
are most Americans who must ask for amnesty before it becomes reality.
Putting a liberal tag on amnesty might glamorize the issue but it will
most certainly dim its political future.
Amnesty is not an "anti-military" issue. I was, am and will
continue to be pro-military, as are most Americans. Most Americans respect
the military and desire that their country remain militarily strong. To
categorize amnesty as anti-military does the military a disservice and
again hurts the cause of amnesty in the political arena.
Amnesty is not "anti-administration." Admittedly, many thought-
ful and well-meaning individuals in this administration oppose amnesty.
Conversely, others, like myself were members of the administration, are
proud of it, and favor amnesty. The same difference of opinion on this
issue can be found in previous administrations.
*
*
*
Amnesty is an act that only a strong, confident and just nation
can bestow. You cannot demand amnesty. You cannot threaten amnesty.
Amnesty is given.
The insecure, the mean, the confused cannot ever grant amnesty.
Therefore, the fact that amnesty is being discussed augers well for America.
The number of people involved with amnesty is subject to wide
variance. Some say 5,000; others 30,000 or 100,000. I suggest over
200 million could and should beinvolved. 200 million Americans doing a
3
proud, generous and kindly act of bestowing amnesty.
*
*
*
Why amnesty and why now?
When serving as Secretary of the Army I opposed amnesty. Then
most of our young men were obeying the law and reporting for the draft.
Some were being drafted and were fighting and dying in Vietnam.
At that time we could not say to those disobeying that draft law
and fleeing from America, "Come home, all is forgiven".
But, why now amnesty for them? Amnesty now because the draft
and the killing is over.
Amnesty now because we need to begin mending in every way possible
the heartbreak and wounds left by that war. I am not prepared to say
Vietnam was right or wrong. I will let the historians do that. However, it
is clear that right or wrong, Vietnam deeply hurt America.
Amensty now because it is America's youth who are involved and
America has always shown mercy and restraint with its young people.
*
*
*
There are two primary considerations which will dictate the
parameters of any workable amnesty. On the one hand this country will someday
again be facing a draft. In developing an amnesty program nothing should
be done which would make a future draft unworkable. I suppose it could
be argued that even talking about any amnesty imposes some burden on a future
draft. I think not but if the burden is slight I would still accept because
the higher priority is the opportunity to heal the hurt.
4
On the other hand we must constantly bear in mind that all those
potentially involved in amnesty have one thing in common - they were young.
They have made a mistake, a serious mistake, but they are young. Therefore
any amnesty program must not be approached from vindictiveness. But rather
from the standpoint of a just and generous nation dealing mercifully with
a relatively small number of young people who made a serious error.
*
*
*
Those potentially eligible for amnesty can be divided into two
distinct groups - those who did not enter military service and evaded the
draft and those who entered military service and deserted. The two groups
must be treated separately.
I have concluded that all draft evaders should be given blanket
conditional amnesty. I readily concede that it would be "nice" if we would
only grant amnesty to those who fled for moral reasons and not to those who
fled for selfish reasons. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine
intent. Therefore the amnesty for draft evaders must be blanket.
The amnesty must be conditional. Not necessarily because we want
to punish those who ran. Rather because those who ran have not as yet had
an opportunity to serve their country like those who stayed and served.
Therefore it is only just and reasonable that the first act upon returning
to their country should be service to that country - as an obligation and
privilege not punishment. (I really see very little reason to argue about
the merits of a conditional vs. an unconditional amnesty. Pragmatically it
5
is my opinion that the American people would under no circumstance allow
amnesty of an unconditional variety to ever be enacted by Congress.)
Service to the country should not be limited to the military.
It should certainly include the military but should be as broad as service
to fellow man can possibly allow. It certainly would include projects like
VISTA, Peace Corps, hospitals and churches.
The length of term to be served would have to be determined by
Congress. I think the key onsideration should be how long is it necessary
to serve in order to perform a useful service. Vindictiveness should not
enter into the consideration. (In the past I have indicated that I would
be satisfied with three months service if some duties could be found where
useful service could be performed in that length of time. I chose this
relatively short period of time in an attempt to indicate that vindictiveness
should not be influencing. I confess that the only possible area where I
can come up with useful service in that short a period of time would be in
volunteering for medical experiments at great personal risk.)
Perhaps the least controversial group eligible for amnesty is the
draft evader who was sentenced and is serving in prison. Clearly these
should be granted a full pardon and their service in prison should be
considered service to country.
*
*
*
The deserter is a far more complicated problem and I have not been
able to come up with a solution that completely satisfies me. These facts
6
dictate that it is a different situation than the civilian who evaded the
draft:
1. The deserter is subject to the uniform code of military
justice.
2. It was not uncommon for the desertion to occur after
committing a criminal act.
For the time being I have concluded that the deserter must be
treated on a case by case basis. A board must be created that would look
at the deserter's total record in a non-vindictive, generous manner. However
amnesty should be applied only to an act of desertion and no prior or
subsequent criminal acts.
*
*
*
Is amnesty really possible?
It is, and there are several encouraging signs pointing the way.
The first sign, of course, is that the dialogue has begun. Amnesty
is being considered here in the Congress and at various other forums across
the land. This must continue.
Another sign is America's history of forgiveness. In less than
30 years we have forgiven our former enemies - Germany and Japan. We are
now expending untold political energy and material resources striving to
maintain a semblance of detente with China and Russia. If we will forgive
entire nations and hundreds of millions of "enemies", then can't we consider
forgiveness, rehabilitation and reinstatement of only a few thousand of our
brothers?
7
But, of the greatest encouragement is that America is a strong
nation of strong, confident and just people who have long demonstrated a
capacity to forgive and forget. These people would consider amnesty.
The meek, the mean, the insecure cannot forgive and forget.
Instead, they would demand recrimination, indulge in devisiveness, wallow
in self-flaggelation. Theirs is to counterattack against those who turned
and ran when the nation needed them. Theirs is to punish, and punish again,
the men who wronged them. These people would not consider amnesty, but
they are not America's people. So, I am encouraged.
*
*
*
Yes, America can grant amnesty. But should America forgive and
forget?
We should not forgive and forget if our reason for doing so is to
cleanse our soul from immoral acts.
We should not forgive and forget if our reason for doing so is
an attempt to return to this country "the best who left".
But, we should forgive and forget if amnesty will help heal the
hurt this nation has suffered. America has been badly hurt this last decade.
That is fact and no amount of blame-placing on individuals or groups will
help heal that hurt.
(As a matter of fact, any attempt to combine determination of
guilt for the hurt with the cause of amnesty can only doom amnesty. There
are just too many candidates responsible for the damage who would feel an
obligation to oppose the guilt-placing.)
8
Unquestionably Vietnam has compoundedthis nation's sorrows over
the last decade. Thus, isn't it a unique opportunity before us today that
we may use amnesty as an agent to heal the hurt?
An unwelcome alternative would be for America instead to indulge
in vindictiveness. But, that could only punish America more than America
has already been punished. Already I see a direct correlation between the
continuing turmoil within the nation and our present hardline stand on amnesty.
The president said long ago "We need a renewal of the spirit to meet the
crisis of the spirit in our country". Is not forgiveness a vital function
of the spirit?
Is there a more noble deed than for a strong, forgiving America to
say to those who left, come home now? I think not.
Has there been a time when America needed more a profusion of
noble deeds? I think not.
In conclusion, gentlemen, let me share with you an observation
from my scores of conversations and debates on the issue. It is that it
might well be impossible for those most directly involved in Vietnam to
approach amnesty with objectivity and without allowing emotion to influence
their position. The draft avoiders and deserters on one hand and the
bereaved mothers and widows, veterans or professional soldiers on the other
hand might well, and very understandably, look at amnesty from a very
personal perspective.
I understand and respect this fact. From their personal perspective,
as each views the issue, their individual conclusions are right and just.
EXCERPTS
FROM REMARKS OF ROBERT F. FROEHLKE
PRESIDENT OF SENTRY INSURANCE
FORMER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
BEFORE
TOWN HALL OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
JANUARY 22, 1974
Today there are three areas I wish to cover:
1. My view as to why I believe a U.S. armed force is
important.
2. Why the army is the most important part of that
armed force.
3. My opinions as to the kind of an army necessary in the 70's.
Before we cover these areas, however, I have two other observations.
Many people have commented that it was unusual for someone from the insurance
industry to be running the U.S. Army. Others have thought it even more incon-
sistent that I returned in 1973 to the same insurance company I had left in 1969
rather than join a firm associated with the military-industrial complex.
I believe the move from Army to insurance business is most consistent
because of the parallels between the two. In both institutions I heard carping
occasionally about premiums being too high. (But never did I hear those remarks
from anyone when their home was burning or when their car was involved in an
accident.)
From 1969 through September, 1973, there was considerable criticism of
the high cost of defense. It was a major 1972 campaign issue. But suddenly,
as of October, 1973, and the Mid-East hostilities the criticism ceased and Congress
rushed to ADD two billion to defense budgeting for aid to Israel rather than
further paring of the budget as Congress had been debating.
2
The insurance-Army parallel continues as I look back on four and one
half years in Defense and Army. For those years I was insuring peace.
My second point in this prologue involves Watergate and all the
word stands for. It is not that I enjoy discussing Watergate for I do
not. But, I have learned in talking with varied audiences that if I
don't bring Watergate up half of you believe I am involved and the
other half think that I am ashamed even to mention it.
How do I fee 1 about Watergate? I have mixed emotions - all
bad. One, I am terribly embarrassed. I am embarrassed because I was
a part of the Nixon administration. I truly do not know who did what
to whom, but obviously some high ranking members of this administration
did something illegal, probably immoral and without question, very stupid.
As a part of this administration I cannot wash my hands completely,
and I am embarrassed. I am also angry because I am success oriented. I
went to Washington proud to be a part of this administration and I left
Washington in May proud of what the administration had done the first
four years.
Particularly in international affairs the administration was
extremely successful. From Southeast Asia we extricated our troops and
reclaimed our prisoners of war. We have renewed conversations with the
Peoples' Republic of China and with the USSR. We have kept the peace in
Western Europe for 28 years, the longest peace period there in over 200 years!
This is the description of a successful administration. I would
enjoy having people occasionally volunteer, "Oh, you're a part of the
3
Nixon administration which was successful." But, I haven't heard that said
since I left government.
Instead, I am a part of the administration that perpetrated Watergate.
That makes me angry.
But, perhaps my key emotion is that of concern, concern for three reasons.
First, I am a lawyer who is concerned about trial by press rather than trial by
law. Yet, what is happening in the press must happen in a free society. I also
believe the judicial process under Leon Jaworski and the Justice Department must
go on to determine whether illegal acts were committed, and if they were, by
whom.
Concurrently, I agree that the Ervin Committee had to conduct hearings
to determine what occurred and whether legislation should be enacted to avoid
a recurrence in the future. Yet, while those hearings continued certain indi-
viduals appearing before the Ervin Committee were being tried by the press.
For the dilemma I have no remedy. I do hope that every American cries
a bit fully knowing that people who should be presumed innocent until proven
guilty by the judicial process are being tried in the press and are assumed
guilty by the vast majority of Americans. That causes me immense concern.
A second cause for concern deals with people like myself leaving
successful business careers to serve their government in Washington. I had
gone there in 1969 somewhat reluctantly, believing I was interrupting that career
for myself. But, also, I went proudly and eagerly, the good feeling of serving
one's country.
4
I fear there are few U. S. businessmen today proudly and eagerly
going to Washington to become a part of this administration. Today, more
than ever, we need good people in Washington and it is difficult attracting
them there. That should concern all of us.
My third concern for Watergate deals with the trust and credibility
our government has to its stockholders - the American people. In a democracy,
if our government is to be successful, it must be creditable to its con-
stituents. Because of Watergate, far too many people and certainly the majority
of our young people, just don't believe what government leaders tell them.
This attitude I believe is unfair. It is unfair because, with one
exception, there appears to be only one professional politician involved
in Watergate. The many others are amateur zealots in the profession of
politics. Why, then, should most Americans blame Watergate on the poli-
ticians? Not only is such an accusation grossly unfair; it is also
unfortunate in destroying government's credibility.
Having addressed Watergate, I now wish to discuss "Why an Army?"
The bald heads here in this audience - like myself - and the white-haired
chaps wherever I go scoff at that question. Their attitude - don't waste
your time, mister, telling ME why we need an Army. I know why.
Not so with our young people who will be helping mold public opinion
for the next 40 -50 years. Especially on our college campuses, I would
find among students and faculty far more opposition to an army than approval.
"Why an Army?" is a good question too because of the nature of an
Army. An Army uses resources, it doesn't create them. In an energy conscious
5
society, if we can exist without an army we should try to do so.
My pragmatic answer has been then the U. S. needs an army because
a world power has never existed without an armed force. The reply on
campuses would then be, how do you know a world power can't exist without
an army until we try it.
Most college students realize their life style is, indeed, affluent,
dramatized by the fact alone that they are on a college campus. Only world
powers can achieve the affluence of America in 1973. Give up our world
power status and you give up your affluence, I have pointed out.
Another point of fact I describe to our young people is that of
the three world powers - USSR, The People's Republic of China and the USA,
only in America does individual freedom reign today. Do we give up our
military strength today, leaving power with two totalitarian nations,
neither of which has respect for the freedoms we cherish?
One pragmatic answer to "Why an Army?" which was not accepted by
the young was to point out that wars have paralleled history. If there
will always be wars, then shouldn't we have an army to fight those wars?
The campus people, in their idealism, will not buy the belief that wars
are inevitable.
I do tell them that armies do not create wars. Often they would
try and blame the U. S. Army for Vietnam. Absolutely false. Civilian
political leadership led us down the Vietnam path from Day One. Also,
civilian political leadership made and properly sold all the decisions as
to how the war should be fought in Vietnam.
6
That fact alone depicts the terrible unfairness for the men and
women in uniform being the target of the criticism from the unthinking
throughout the Vietnam era. Our military people were only following
orders as the U. S. Constitution declares they must.
An Army, why? To help achieve for this world its prized goal -
world peace. We realize now, after the trauma of Vietnam, that all else
we desire is risked if peace is not at hand. There is no reason for an Armed
Force greater than that it gives us a chance to achieve peace.
Military strength does not cause wars. But, strength matched against
weakness does. A possible exception is the Middle East today where
presumably near equal strength is being exhibited on both sides. But, I
assure you there would have been a Middle East war long before October,
1973, if that balance of power had not been maintained.
Strength plus weakness causes war, even in a period of detente.
Political scientists agree that at anytime, Detente without Defense is
Delusion. It is utter delusion for the U. S. to talk with the USSR and
the People's Republic of China while we are slashing our military defenses.
Only through talking from strength can detente accomplish what we hope and
pray is possible.
Some ask, "Do you think then that this arms race should continue?"
No, I answer. To whatever extent we can, I feel this nation should
disarm. But, I think it is naive for anyone to believe disarmament should
come about unilaterally. If we disarm, and again, I hope and pray we will,
we should do so bilaterally or multilaterally. It would be foolish to
7
enter the mutual and balance force reduction. talks in Vienna, or SALT
talks in Helsinki with an introductory statement that regardless of the
talks' outcome we will be withdrawing our forces from Europe. Or, to
state at SALT talks that we are about to reduce our nuclear weapons.
Such a posture can only assume curtailing disarmament on the part of the
Soviets.
What is their motivation in bargaining disarmament when we're DOING
unilaterally what you'rè TALKING about doing on a bilateral and multilateral
basis? I am pro-disarmament; I am anti a senseless, naive approach which
assumes only one side disarms.
Then, too, the United States has 42 international commitments which
the U.S. Senate has approved. Without exception, NATO, SEATO, SENTO armed
forces play a valuable role in enforcing those agreements. If we are to
remain a part of the international community, then our armed forces must
be equal to the tasks undertaken. To talk about the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and pretend that we don't have an Army in Western Europe
doesn't make sense because that Army is the cement holding NATO together.
Those are the major reasons I believe that we must have an
armed force.
Now, what kind of an Army? The nuclear age in which we live tells
some people that if there is to be a war, then it's going to be a nuclear
war. Then all which is needed is the ability to deliver nuclear weapons.
False. First, because in my opinion there will be no nuclear war.
The reason - because today the USSR and USA have parody of nuclear weapons.
One side may be five percent ahead or five percent behind, but we're playing
8
in the same ballpark.
But, that does not assure us we will not have another war. There
will always be disagreements among nations. If a powerful nation has only
nuclear weaponry, then the President will have only one option in an
international emergency: The ultimate weapon - the nuclear warhead.
It would be a terrible mistake for this nation's people to give
their President as Commander-in-Chief of the military forces only one
option - that which begins a nuclear exchange.
Then, too, nuclear weapons cannot replace the need for the foot
soldier. It's a fact, the Air Force is more glamorous than the Army;
the Navy life is cleaner than Army life. Yet, it is equally true that
there hasn't been a war fought where the foot soldier hasn't taken and
held the ground. It may not be clean nor pleasant, but someone to win a
war other than a nuclear holocaust must do the ground-taking and holding.
What kind of an army is it going to be? To begin with, it's going
to be a volunteer army. I am often asked, do you support the volunteer
army? If I hadn't, I assure you once the Selective Service law was
abolished I would have handed my resignation to the President.
Of course I supported the volunteer army concept, but with very
mixed emotions.
(A digression if you will permit. The volunteer army, as I will
demonstrate, invites honest, reasonable men to disagree honestly. So it
is with most critical issues today.)
Before campus audiences I would raise this point, usually to the
9
same response from students. How can you possibly have mixed emotions
or see two sides to such a simple issue? There is a right way and a wrong
way to meet this issue, and here is the right way.
Confession. In four years at the Pentagon not one major issue ever
came across my desk for decision where I could confidently sit back and
say that we're going to do it this way and I am absolutely confident it's
the right decision. I'd make the decision thinking it was right, but never
really being sure.
Perhaps that is a sign of maturity, realizing there are very few easy
decisions. I realize we cannot expect maturity from college students; I have
been disappointed on several campuses in not finding it in their teachers.
The volunteer army was one of those tough decisions where I may well
have been wrong. I THINK it's the right decision for this time. We must
acknowledge that the decision to go the volunteer route now was not a
military decision. It was a political decision made by civilian political
leadership.
Obviously, from a military point of view, the easiest, cheapest and best
way of getting people to serve their country is through the draft. The draft
permits military leadership to get the exact amount of people needed at any
time. The political climate during the 1968 campaign dictated that Pres-
ident Nixon come out for the volunteer force.
Let's look closer at the politics of the situation. We had an unfair
draft, one where your children and mine were going to college. Not necessar-
ily because of their intense hunger for a college education, but college
10
did provide a sure way to avoid serving one's country.
The poor, of course, were drafted and THEY served their country in
Vietnam.
That comparison is, of course, an oversimplification, but one with too
much truth in it. There just was no good way to defend the draft as equitable.
Then, add the political pressures of a vastly unpopular war and you
easily understand why a political leadership concerned with re-election had to stop the
draft. Note, however, the key question is not whether or not the Army will get
enough people. Obviously we can get enough people if we lower the standards to do so.
It won't, however, be an Army on which we can depend. The key question becomes,
can we get enough of the right kind. I believe we will. This was not achieved
in 1973 and that does concern me, although I am still not pessimistic.
The volunteer Army wrought a major change in the nation's thinking,
especially young America. It would have been naive to expect overnight we would
have made our task. We are chipping away at it, and I think, moving in the
right direction.
The prime question remains: Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer, are you willing to pay
the Volunteer Army price in tax dollars? We know that attracting ours sons and
daughters, born and raised in this affluent world, is going to demand a high
price.
For military life to appeal to them it must compete fairly with the
socio-economic world they have known. The young recruit should find he or
- she can earnabout as much in service as in a comparable job outside. The
11
soldier must now have privacy in the barracks; a varied, enticing menu.
Some of my WW II friends are quick to remember they survived
three or four years Army service without these luxuries and expect their
own children to do so today. Yet, they admit that like myself, they have
raised their children in the affluent manner and these kids haven't been
running down to the Army enlistment center on their 18th birthday.
To them the Army has looked like a step down in life style. This
attitude from your sons and daughters, and mine, is fraught with danger,
the danger of this nation developing an all poor, all uneducated and
possibly predominantly black army. What a tragedy for a nation defined
as a democracy.
Of course the U.S. Army must be a cross section of the U.S. pop-
ulation. The only way to achieve this is for the U.S. people to pay in
tax dollars for the kind of army which appeals to a cross section of
volunteers. There is, in my opinion, no short cut.
How long a volunteer army? Certainly not forever. But, it will
undoubtedly take into the late 70's before this nation will have largely
forgotten an unpopular war and will accept some form of universal con-
scription. Then, perhaps, we will steer our young people to 18 months or
two years of service to their fellowman via the military, VISTA, Peace Corps
or their counterparts at a substantially reduced salary from today's mili-
tary pay.
I feel this is necessary for sociological as well as military defense
reasons. Where else but in the army do you find an organizational melting
pot for all people? Where else are young people of all racial, social,
economic and educational backgrounds thrown together and told to learn
12
to live together, learn to understand one another, and learn to work
together?
Unfortunately, in today's America this phenomenon doesn't occur
in your neighborhood, your church, or your business.
Someday, these attributes of universal service may be remembered
and the politicians will react to it singing the praises again of our
young people serving their fellowman.
Another event will, of course, quickly end the volunteer army
concept. For there is no way we could or should fight a war with a
volunteer army. When a democracy goes to war, the risk of death must
be shared by all its citizenry, not only a few.
Selfishness on the part of the American taxpayer may well terminate
the volunteer army concept. With Vietnam only a dim memory that taxpayer
may note that if we again drafted young people we could cut taxes. The
opportunist politician will then see the draft as a vote-getter and support
its return for the wrong reason.
What will the new Army look like? It will depend greatly on the
reserve and the National Guard. In 1974, 45% of our army will be Reserve
and Guard. It is difficult in many parts of this nation for the guard
to appeal to our young people. There, employers are not supporting
reserve training and Guard duty as they should. I don't refer to vacation
time for two weeks' summer duty alone. I refer to simply acknowledging the
army youngster in your plant or your office. He deservesrecognition and
encouragement.
The new Army must be well-equipped. The Middle East war has
13
demonstrated that only money buys good equipment. Lots of money. Some
say to me, we are already spending more and more money on defense. My
answer - we are spending less and less real dollars on defense. Note these
statistics: When the Nixon Administration took office in 1969, 9.6% of the
gross national product went for defense. Last year it was less than 6%.
When I went to Washington, 42.6% of the total budget was defense. Last
year it was about 30%.
I've heard that talk of "reordering the nation's priorities".
And, we have done so! We have had a radical reshaping of our priorities.
But, responsible citizens and politicians who acknowledge that we
need an army, must also note that we need a well-equipped Army. Only
significant research and development monies will make it so.
I will predict a personnel breakthrough for the Army. There will
be a vastly increased utilization of the ladies in that Army. Just over a
year ago I announced we were going to double the number of WACS serving in the
Army. Big deal. From 12,500 to 25,000. I anticipate that in the 70's we will
quadruple that number for one simple reason: Quality! We can get a higher
quality individual from women than from men.
I should make it perfectly clear, as someone once said, that I do
not believe in women serving in the front lines. I don't want my wife or
daughters serving there unless they are defending the homeland.
But front line duty is less than 10% of total job opportunities
in the Army. There is little reason why good Army women cannot drive
trucks, work in office jobs, as medics and 1,000 other tasks. I predict
14
that the Army of the later 70's will be comprised of 20 to 30 percent women.
We will then have a better Army than the Army today.
As Secretary of the Army I saw my duty as to help end our involvement
in the Vietnam War and bring our troops home.
This was accomplished.
I also saw my duty was to help institute the volunteer army as a viable
replacement for the draft.
This, too, was accomplished.
Now, I believe as a citizen and former servant of my government I have
another duty: To help heal the hurt caused by the Vietnam War. Amnesty is a
giant step in that direction.
I want the American people, through the U.S. Congress, to devise a plan
for amnesty.
Some may accuse me of being inconsistent as I opposed amnesty during
the Vietnam War.
But, then young men were obeying the law and reporting for the draft,
some being drafted and fighting and dying in Vietnam.
To those disobeying that draft law and fleeing from America we could
not then say "Come home, all is forgiven."
But, why now amnesty for them? Amnesty now because the draft and the
killing is over.
Amnesty now because we need to begin mending in every way possible the
heartbreak and wounds left by that war. Vietnam deeply hurt America. Now is
the time to heal the hurt.
Amnesty now because it is America's youth who are involved and America
has always shown mercy and restraint with its young people.
15
Earlier I pointed out why we will probably again be drafting our
young people into the Army, perhaps withing four or five years. Therefore,
any plan for amnesty cannot work in conflict with a successful future draft
law.
There are those who plead for amnesty saying that the best of our
youth ran away. Let us then welcome them back with open arms, accepting them as
heroes, they ask.
But, others answer if we do that, come that next war the best will run
again, whether they judge it as a moral or immoral war.
I cannot accept those on one side who say "Let the long haired radicals
who ran away stay where they are. They are no good anyway."
Just as I refuse to accept those who claim the very best of our young
men ran away. Make no mistake about it; the very best served their country when
asked to do so.
The perimeters then run from the position of mercy and total lack of
vindictiveness to the hard liners opposed to any leniency.
Somewhere between those perimeters there can be a plan for forgiveness
which accomplishes the following:
1) It encourages those who left America to return.
2) It clearly states that those who left America disobeyed
the law of the land and must compensate in some manner.
3) It clearly states that we welcome back to America, as well,
those who refused to serve and chose jail instead. When we bring
back our young men who ran away we must at the same time pardon
those others who refused to run and chose instead a prison
sentence.
16
4) It clearly states that motives for those who left are
unimportant. It would be convenient, indeed, if one
could devise a plan whereby those who ran away for
selfish reasons were not welcomed back; those who ran
for high principles could return with honor.
But obviously, no such judgment is possible.
Therefore, I suggest for your consideration the following proposal.
I welcome your critique. I ask that if you concur that amnesty with such a plan is
possible today that here in Southern California you tell your congressman or either
Senator Cranston or Senator Tunney of your opinions.
My proposal is that -
- As citizens we all begin talking about amnesty and ways to
achieve that forgiveness.
- Any plan conceived must clearly state that those who fled instead
of serving their country made a mistake.
- The plan must not be vindictive, but those who ran away must now
serve some time in some form of national service.
- Those who serve this duty must serve long enough to perform some
useful service. The time involved could vary depending upon the
type of service chosen. Personally, I would settle for three
months if any worthwhile duties could be found where useful
service could be performed in this short of a time period.
- Those who refuse this compensatory service are not welcome to
return to their country. For, if they do not wish to serve for
so short and safe a term, I reluctantly conclude that their desire
17
to return to family and country is not strong enough.
There are perhaps over 4500 young Americans who fled the draft and
the war and are living in foreign lands. Most now want to come home.
Yes, we can get along without them.
But, we really don't want to. Do we?
And we do want to heal the hurt. Don't we?
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
WASHINGTON STAR-NEWS
A-3
WI
Washington, D.C., Saturday, January 5, 1974
DS
WH
Laird Airs Amnesty Plan
Discussed During War
Scripps Howard News Service
In an interview with Scripps-Howard newspapers.
Former Defense secretary Melvin R. Laird revealed
Laird said he had former Army Secretary Robert F.
today that he ordered a conditional amnesty plan for
Froehlke prepare a plan while American forces were
draft law violators prepared while Americans still
engaged in the Vietnam war.
were dying in the Vietnam war.
Reached in Stevens Point, Wis., where he now heads
Laird, now counselor to the President for domestic
an insurance company, Froehike said the move grew
affairs, said he belives "we have always felt in this
out of a series of 'friendly conversations" he and
country that justice must be administered with com-
Laird had on the amnesty issue while both served in
passion and mercy. Congress will deal with the
the Pentagon.
amnesty issue before the 1976 elections, he said:
We didn't go public with it," Laird said of the se-
"I FELT STRONGLY. and I know that Mel did too.
cret Pentagon amnesty discussions, "because we were
that it didn't make any sense to talk (publicly) about
in a position in which people still were being drafted
amnesty while you were drafting people and kids were
and people still were dying.
being killed," said Froehlke.
Now that American involvement in the fighting has
"Now, for the first time in a long time, Americans
ended, however, Froehlke said, he is afraid "99 per-
aren't dying in a war."
cent of the American people will just forget about the
problem.
"I THINK THERE can be some sort of service for
We should look at it. Now is the time," Froehike
these people," Laird said of Americans who fled from
said.
their country rather than serve in the military during
Young people make mistakes. We should to the best
the war.
of our ability forgive and forget. We can't go into this
"Whether that service should be in the military or in
with a vindictive attitude.'
hospitals or in other areas, and whether it should be
Froehlke said he would be willing to back "as little
for six months or two years, I'm not prepared to say.
as two or three months" of compensatory public serv
With these comments, Laird stepped into the amnes-
ice for draft law violators and military deserters. who
ty controversy hardened by President Nixon, who on
want to return home.
Jan. 31, 1973, said, "Amnesty means forgiveness. We
Congress will deal with the issue either in this ses
cannot provide forgiveness for them."
sion or in the next, Laird predicted.
was
reportedly
less
law
it
clearly
for
extensive than in past years, but
any public employe to accept any
apparently the main reason was
thing of value from persons he's
the rising cost of beef, not a
doing business with.
Avoid Arming Africa
A disturbing situation could be
made claims to Ethiopian territo-
in the making in East Africa, one
ry. The US, SO far, has declined on
reminiscent of the great power ri-
the grounds that the arms were
unneeded.
valries in Africa that marked the
late '50s and early '60s. That ear-
China has been making strong
efforts to increase its influence in
lier competition only brought
Third World African countries. It
grief to all concerned.
has done SO successfully in Tanza-
The focus now is on Ethiopia,
nia. The Russians also have been
ca
where the Chinese are said to
turning to East Africa as their in-
ur.
have offered to supply the Ethio-
terest in the Indian Ocean has
sta
on
pians with heavy arms. If the of-
grown.
th.
fer is accepted, it will bring Pe-
The danger is that any open ri-
ve
king in direct aid rivalry with the
valry between Russia and China
Soviet Union, which has been
here almost certainly will drag in
CO
supplying Ethiopia's adversary,
the US because of its ties to
ca
Somalia, with assistance and
fis
Ethiopia. If the recent past is any
arms.
measure, this could prove disas-
The potential introduction of
terous. The last big power clash in
Chinese influence in Ethiopia
Africa was in the Congo. It only
ironically comes as result of a ne-
promoted civil war and strained
gative US response to an Ethiopi-
great power relations with little
an arms request. Emperor Haili
tangible results for either side.
Selassie's government has wanted
The lesson then for both the US
FORD LIBRARY
US heavy tanks, Phantom jets
and Russia was a tacit agreement
and antiaircraft missiles to offset
to keep Africa free of such super-
what it said was an arms buildup
power entanglements. It is a les-
ne
in Somalia, a country which has
son still valid today.
ar
to
er
Move on Amnesty
W
As a leading businessman and a
sons: We are out of Vietnam; the
N
th
former secretary of the Army,
draft itself is over; America has
ti
Robert Froehlke is performing a
always shown mercy toward its
priceless service by speaking out
th
on amnesty for Vietnam War
young; the nation needs to mend
Ir
draft evaders.
its wound. He also notes that if
St
Now president of Sentry Insur-
the draft is needed again in four
Z
IT
ance, Froehlke proposes that am-
or five years, it might then be
d
human
nesty be linked to some form of
much more difficult to work out a
national service, an idea that an
simultaneous amnesty plan.
n
T
increasing number of Americans
Froehlke's compassionate, con-
W
finds reasonable. While the time
1/25/74
ciliatory tone is in marked con-
involved would depend on the
trast to the Nixon administra-
S
type of service, Froehlke says
tion's unbudging commitment to
P
that he would settle for three
S
criminal penalties. Frohlke shows
e
plo
months if worthwhile duties could
that amnety does not have to be
be performed in that short a peri-
unconditional, that it can involve
o
od.
atonement as well as forgiveness.
is
There are ways, as he says, "to
1
In any case, he urges movement
e
now, and for several sound rea-
heal the hurt."
a
Lots in a Name
N
Libya's Col. Moammar Khadafy
ties: 432. He doesn't do that well
may be accused of inconsistency,
on policies, but he has a good
but not of being in a rut. His last
start. Recently he announced
merger with Tunisia, since fallen
name alone can be spelled correct-
through. Before that he was after
ly in 432 ways. Using accepted
a Libya-Egypt combine, and be-
methods of transliteration, the
fore that, a union of Libya,
first letter can be G, Gu, K, Kh, Q
Egypt, Syria and The Sudan. Still
or Qu; the second letter can be a
looking for a partner, Khadafy
or e; the third can be d, dd, dh or
has other choices, but it's unlike-
th; the fourth must be a, but
ly he can match the spelling possi
T
the fifth can be f, ff or ph. The
bilities of his name. He's tryi'
last may be i, y or ey. Possibili-
though.
Wisconsin State Journal
Page of Opinion
PAGE 8, SECTION 1
THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1974
FORMER ARMY CHIEF SPEAKS
Froehlke's Amnesty Plan
Former Army Secretary Robert
Froehlke makes good sense with his
proposal for amnesty for the young
men who fled this country rather
than serve in the Armed Forces
during the Vietnam War.
Froehlke, now president of Sentry
Insurance, Stevens Point, has called
on the public to urge congressional
representatives to adopt a "plan for
forgiveness,' encouraging those
who left America to return.
The former secretary, who op-
posed amnesty during the war, said
the plan must clearly state that
those who fled instead of going to
war made a mistake.
Also, he said, it would require
Most of those who fled, rightly or
some time in some form of national
wrongly, followed the dictates of
their consciences.
service involving a long enough
term to accomplish something
One can argue, of course, that the
useful.
honorable way to have defied the
draft would have been to face the
Froehlke also proposed to grant
issue standing up and submit to
pardons to those who refused to run,
prison terms as many did.
choosing prison instead, when the
exiles are permitted to return.
One can also argue that those who
fled made their decisions and are
Froehlke said he opposed amnesty
now bound by them. But what pur-
during the war because others were
pose except revenge do these ar-
obeying the law and reporting for
guments propose?
the draft and fighting and dying and
that amnesty at such a time would
Another argument is that if we
have been inappropriate and morale
forgive the draft dodgers and
shattering.
deserters now, we will encourage
large scale draft dodging and
Now, he said, the national need is
desertion if a future war requires a
for forgiveness, compassion, and a
call to arms.
healing of the wounds left by that
most unpopular war in United
We have more faith in American
States history.
youth than that.
"Amnesty now because the draft
By all measures the Vietnam
and the killing is over," he said.
War was unlike any war this
"Amnesty now because we need to
country has ever been involved in. It
begin mending in every way possi-
was fought at the wrong time. in the
ble the heartbreak and wounds left
wrong place, and for the wrong
by that war. Vietnam deeply hurt
reasons. Once we were bogged down
America. Now is the time to heal
in it just about every thinking per-
that hurt.
son in this country wanted out of it.
"Amnesty now because it is
If this country finds itself in a
America's youth who are involved
justifiable war in the future, we are
and America has always shown
confident that the youth of
mercy and restraint with its young
America will do its duty as it has
people."
throughout the history of this
country, and as most of it did in
There are an estimated 4,500
Vietnam.
young Americans now living in a
self-imposed exile in foreign coun-
As Froehlke said, we can no doubt
tries, who face stiff prison sentences
get along without the exiles but do
if they return. Most of them want to
we really want to? We do want to
come home but not at that price.
heal the hurt of Vietnam. Don't we?
Post 2/1/74
Laird did a quiet burn after receiving
Evans and Novak
a carbon copy of the VFW's letter to
Nixon. An old Navy man who won a
Purple Heart and rose from the ranks
to become an officer during World War
II, VFW member Laird used Navy
NIXON vs. LAIRD
language to grumble that the VFW had
"put a comrade on report."
WASHINGTON.
with a Scripps-Howard reporter he sug-
On Monday, Jan. 28, beginning his
The astonishing disagreement between
gested amnesty for the exiles in return
last week at the White House, Laird
Richard Nixon and Melvin Laird over
for "some sort of service" to their
sent his own letter to Soden. "Neither
amnesty for Vietnam draft dodgers
country.
the political system nor the judicial
underscores as nothing else the Presi-
Reading that interview, the VFW
system of the United States works on
dent's dangerous isolation from the
hierarchy was outraged. On Jan. 7, Na-
'blanket' and arbitrary approaches," he
wrote.
"
shrewd politician who has just ended
tional Commander Ray R. Soden sent
We pride ourselves on ad-
eight frustrating months as domestic
Nixon a smoldering letter which reiter-
ministering justice with mercy and
counselor.
ated the VFW's "total and unremitting
understanding." While opposing general
Not only disagreement on one issue
opposition to any form of amnesty." He
amnesty, he proposed a case-by-case
but antithetical political philosophies
expressed "shock and a deep sense of
approach.
and noncommunication between two
betrayal" over Laird's new position,
old allies are glaringly revealed by their
adding that he considers Laird's "ac-
During Laird's White House tenure,
conflicting response to a Veterans of
tions and apparent sentiments" about
he never discussed this with the Presi-
Foreign Wars protest over Laird's
amnesty "to be unconscionable" and
dent. Neither has anybody else high
avowed interest in "conditional am-
"a break of faith both with you and
White House officials told us. Nixon is
nesty."
with the strong men and women who
not only isolated from the outer world
Without consulting or informing
served, suffered, and in 57,000 cases,
but sealed off from his own staff's un-
Laird, President Nixon told the VFW
died." Soden's request: "a personal re-
congenial advice. Knowing his revulsion
his opposition to amnesty remains to-
affirmation from your on this matter."
for advice contradicting his own axioms,
tally inflexible. Without consulting or
Rapid correspondence not being the
his aides protect themselves. by holding
informing the President, Laird told the
strong suit of the Nixon White House,
their tongues.
VFW that changing conditions have
no reply was sent the VFW until Jan.
Thus, President Nixon is probably
modified his own earlier opposition to
23. During those 16 days, Nixon did not
wholly unaware of bipartisan feeling in
amnesty.
seek out Laird, target of the VFW rage.
Congress that something eventually
Nor did he consult counselor Bryee
must be done about amnesty, a feeling
Nothing could better demonstrate the
Harlow or the Domestic Council's staff.
fully perceived not only by Laird but,
basic incompatibility of the two men.
Instead, staffers who routinely handle
more importantly, also by Vice Presi-
In telling the VFW that "throughout
correspondence checked the President
dent Ford. As Representative of Michi-
my career of public service, I have
to make certain he still opposed am-
gan's 5th Congressional District, Ford
learned to avoid absolute, dogmatic
nesty in any form.
answered mail by suggesting conditional
positions," Laird was implicitly con-
He did. His Jan. 23 letter to Soden,
amnesty-that is, for violators who put
trasting Nixon's rigidity. But beyond
not released to the press, reaffirmed
in substitute service for their country.
the contrast, the VFW correspondence
his stand. "The few who refused to
Laird, leaving the White House with
revealed the degree to which the Presi-
serve or deserted their country," he
his store of political wisdom sadly un-
dent had simply stopped talking to his
wrote, "must pay a penalty for their
tapped by the President, has said Ford
domestic counselor.
choice
We cannot provide forgiva-
will now assume many of his duties.
With U. S. forces no longer fighting
ness for them
The price is a criminal
Ford is also sensitive to political trends
in Vietnam, Laird has long felt some-
penalty." That, the President addet,
and the need for flexibility. But whether
thing must be done about 30,000 to
"still reflects my view." He shrugged
he will prove to be one small whit more
40,000 young men who fled this country
off "recent reports in the press which
successful than the unusually articulate
to escape the draft. He said nothing to
have been attributed to others," without
Laird in getting through to the Presi-
the President, but in a Jan. 5 interview
a gesture at defending Laird.
dent is extremely doubtful.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 68030c85578bb181
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 1505960
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "1505960",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505960",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Amnesty - General",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505960",
"collections": [
"Charles E. Goodell Papers",
"Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Amnesty"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505960.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505960.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505960.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "1505960",
"label": "Amnesty - General",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505960"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "1505960",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505960",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Amnesty - General",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505960",
"collections": [
"Charles E. Goodell Papers",
"Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Amnesty"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505960.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505960.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505960.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505960",
"naId": 1505960,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1974-03-31",
"month": 3,
"year": 1974
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1974-03-01",
"month": 3,
"year": 1974
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505960.pdf",
"mediaId": "68030c85578bb181",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 1, folder \"Amnesty - General\" of the Charles E.\nGoodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Charles Goodell donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 1 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nA statement on AMNESTY by Robert F. Froehlke, President - The Sentry\nCorporation and former Secretary of the Army (1971-1973), given at\n10 AM on March 11, 1974 to the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties\nand the Administration of Justice: House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.\nR.\nGERALD\nFORD\nDORARY\nMr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I appreciate your\ninvitation to appear today and give my opinion on amnesty. At the outset\nI should state that the subject of amnesty like so many other issues I have\nfaced in both government and business defies a categorical rightness or\nwrongness. Amnesty is much like the issue of United States involvement\nin and departure from Southeast Asia. Only those who are absolutely positive\nof the rightness of their position are wrong.\nThe fact that he is not sure of his position will not, and I\nbelieve should not, deter anyone from testifying before your committee.\nIt has not deterred me. We must rely on our personal values, experience\nand just plain instinct. Obviously, to refuse to take any position until\none is absolutely sure he is right is at best naive and at worst cowardly.\nMy own values and experience - but mostly my instinct - tell me\nnow is the time to begin to discuss and then act on amnesty. At the same\ntime - and in an unconfident way - I hastily add that my position could\nbe dead wrong.\nBut, then, it is not for me but for you Congressmen to decide\nwho is right or wrong.\nAnd, that is why, I presume, Congressmen hold hearings.\nPermit me to begin by giving my views as to what amnesty is not.\n2\nAmnesty is not a liberal rallying point. I am a moderate, as\nare most Americans who must ask for amnesty before it becomes reality.\nPutting a liberal tag on amnesty might glamorize the issue but it will\nmost certainly dim its political future.\nAmnesty is not an \"anti-military\" issue. I was, am and will\ncontinue to be pro-military, as are most Americans. Most Americans respect\nthe military and desire that their country remain militarily strong. To\ncategorize amnesty as anti-military does the military a disservice and\nagain hurts the cause of amnesty in the political arena.\nAmnesty is not \"anti-administration.\" Admittedly, many thought-\nful and well-meaning individuals in this administration oppose amnesty.\nConversely, others, like myself were members of the administration, are\nproud of it, and favor amnesty. The same difference of opinion on this\nissue can be found in previous administrations.\n*\n*\n*\nAmnesty is an act that only a strong, confident and just nation\ncan bestow. You cannot demand amnesty. You cannot threaten amnesty.\nAmnesty is given.\nThe insecure, the mean, the confused cannot ever grant amnesty.\nTherefore, the fact that amnesty is being discussed augers well for America.\nThe number of people involved with amnesty is subject to wide\nvariance. Some say 5,000; others 30,000 or 100,000. I suggest over\n200 million could and should beinvolved. 200 million Americans doing a\n3\nproud, generous and kindly act of bestowing amnesty.\n*\n*\n*\nWhy amnesty and why now?\nWhen serving as Secretary of the Army I opposed amnesty. Then\nmost of our young men were obeying the law and reporting for the draft.\nSome were being drafted and were fighting and dying in Vietnam.\nAt that time we could not say to those disobeying that draft law\nand fleeing from America, \"Come home, all is forgiven\".\nBut, why now amnesty for them? Amnesty now because the draft\nand the killing is over.\nAmnesty now because we need to begin mending in every way possible\nthe heartbreak and wounds left by that war. I am not prepared to say\nVietnam was right or wrong. I will let the historians do that. However, it\nis clear that right or wrong, Vietnam deeply hurt America.\nAmensty now because it is America's youth who are involved and\nAmerica has always shown mercy and restraint with its young people.\n*\n*\n*\nThere are two primary considerations which will dictate the\nparameters of any workable amnesty. On the one hand this country will someday\nagain be facing a draft. In developing an amnesty program nothing should\nbe done which would make a future draft unworkable. I suppose it could\nbe argued that even talking about any amnesty imposes some burden on a future\ndraft. I think not but if the burden is slight I would still accept because\nthe higher priority is the opportunity to heal the hurt.\n4\nOn the other hand we must constantly bear in mind that all those\npotentially involved in amnesty have one thing in common - they were young.\nThey have made a mistake, a serious mistake, but they are young. Therefore\nany amnesty program must not be approached from vindictiveness. But rather\nfrom the standpoint of a just and generous nation dealing mercifully with\na relatively small number of young people who made a serious error.\n*\n*\n*\nThose potentially eligible for amnesty can be divided into two\ndistinct groups - those who did not enter military service and evaded the\ndraft and those who entered military service and deserted. The two groups\nmust be treated separately.\nI have concluded that all draft evaders should be given blanket\nconditional amnesty. I readily concede that it would be \"nice\" if we would\nonly grant amnesty to those who fled for moral reasons and not to those who\nfled for selfish reasons. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine\nintent. Therefore the amnesty for draft evaders must be blanket.\nThe amnesty must be conditional. Not necessarily because we want\nto punish those who ran. Rather because those who ran have not as yet had\nan opportunity to serve their country like those who stayed and served.\nTherefore it is only just and reasonable that the first act upon returning\nto their country should be service to that country - as an obligation and\nprivilege not punishment. (I really see very little reason to argue about\nthe merits of a conditional vs. an unconditional amnesty. Pragmatically it\n5\nis my opinion that the American people would under no circumstance allow\namnesty of an unconditional variety to ever be enacted by Congress.)\nService to the country should not be limited to the military.\nIt should certainly include the military but should be as broad as service\nto fellow man can possibly allow. It certainly would include projects like\nVISTA, Peace Corps, hospitals and churches.\nThe length of term to be served would have to be determined by\nCongress. I think the key onsideration should be how long is it necessary\nto serve in order to perform a useful service. Vindictiveness should not\nenter into the consideration. (In the past I have indicated that I would\nbe satisfied with three months service if some duties could be found where\nuseful service could be performed in that length of time. I chose this\nrelatively short period of time in an attempt to indicate that vindictiveness\nshould not be influencing. I confess that the only possible area where I\ncan come up with useful service in that short a period of time would be in\nvolunteering for medical experiments at great personal risk.)\nPerhaps the least controversial group eligible for amnesty is the\ndraft evader who was sentenced and is serving in prison. Clearly these\nshould be granted a full pardon and their service in prison should be\nconsidered service to country.\n*\n*\n*\nThe deserter is a far more complicated problem and I have not been\nable to come up with a solution that completely satisfies me. These facts\n6\ndictate that it is a different situation than the civilian who evaded the\ndraft:\n1. The deserter is subject to the uniform code of military\njustice.\n2. It was not uncommon for the desertion to occur after\ncommitting a criminal act.\nFor the time being I have concluded that the deserter must be\ntreated on a case by case basis. A board must be created that would look\nat the deserter's total record in a non-vindictive, generous manner. However\namnesty should be applied only to an act of desertion and no prior or\nsubsequent criminal acts.\n*\n*\n*\nIs amnesty really possible?\nIt is, and there are several encouraging signs pointing the way.\nThe first sign, of course, is that the dialogue has begun. Amnesty\nis being considered here in the Congress and at various other forums across\nthe land. This must continue.\nAnother sign is America's history of forgiveness. In less than\n30 years we have forgiven our former enemies - Germany and Japan. We are\nnow expending untold political energy and material resources striving to\nmaintain a semblance of detente with China and Russia. If we will forgive\nentire nations and hundreds of millions of \"enemies\", then can't we consider\nforgiveness, rehabilitation and reinstatement of only a few thousand of our\nbrothers?\n7\nBut, of the greatest encouragement is that America is a strong\nnation of strong, confident and just people who have long demonstrated a\ncapacity to forgive and forget. These people would consider amnesty.\nThe meek, the mean, the insecure cannot forgive and forget.\nInstead, they would demand recrimination, indulge in devisiveness, wallow\nin self-flaggelation. Theirs is to counterattack against those who turned\nand ran when the nation needed them. Theirs is to punish, and punish again,\nthe men who wronged them. These people would not consider amnesty, but\nthey are not America's people. So, I am encouraged.\n*\n*\n*\nYes, America can grant amnesty. But should America forgive and\nforget?\nWe should not forgive and forget if our reason for doing so is to\ncleanse our soul from immoral acts.\nWe should not forgive and forget if our reason for doing so is\nan attempt to return to this country \"the best who left\".\nBut, we should forgive and forget if amnesty will help heal the\nhurt this nation has suffered. America has been badly hurt this last decade.\nThat is fact and no amount of blame-placing on individuals or groups will\nhelp heal that hurt.\n(As a matter of fact, any attempt to combine determination of\nguilt for the hurt with the cause of amnesty can only doom amnesty. There\nare just too many candidates responsible for the damage who would feel an\nobligation to oppose the guilt-placing.)\n8\nUnquestionably Vietnam has compoundedthis nation's sorrows over\nthe last decade. Thus, isn't it a unique opportunity before us today that\nwe may use amnesty as an agent to heal the hurt?\nAn unwelcome alternative would be for America instead to indulge\nin vindictiveness. But, that could only punish America more than America\nhas already been punished. Already I see a direct correlation between the\ncontinuing turmoil within the nation and our present hardline stand on amnesty.\nThe president said long ago \"We need a renewal of the spirit to meet the\ncrisis of the spirit in our country\". Is not forgiveness a vital function\nof the spirit?\nIs there a more noble deed than for a strong, forgiving America to\nsay to those who left, come home now? I think not.\nHas there been a time when America needed more a profusion of\nnoble deeds? I think not.\nIn conclusion, gentlemen, let me share with you an observation\nfrom my scores of conversations and debates on the issue. It is that it\nmight well be impossible for those most directly involved in Vietnam to\napproach amnesty with objectivity and without allowing emotion to influence\ntheir position. The draft avoiders and deserters on one hand and the\nbereaved mothers and widows, veterans or professional soldiers on the other\nhand might well, and very understandably, look at amnesty from a very\npersonal perspective.\nI understand and respect this fact. From their personal perspective,\nas each views the issue, their individual conclusions are right and just.\n9\nI suggest, however, that most Americans can and should look at\namnesty from a much broader perspective. Those who have been less affected\nby Vietnam can and should approach amnesty from the broader perspective of\nwhat long lasting effect could it have on America; what long lasting effect\nwill it have on America.\nI compliment you for holding these hearings now. Thank you for\nthe privilege of appearing before you. Hopefully what has transpired will\ninspire some of the dispassionate and the disinterested among us to judge\namnesty. But, not because there is a wrong to be righted. But because\namnesty is the opportunity to begin healing the hurt that goes far beyond\nVietnam itself.\nAmerica today needs its unifying and healing cause.\nPerhaps it may be found in the prophet Micah's admonition to his\npeople, Chapter 6, Verse 8 of the Phillips Translation:\nYou know well enough, 0 People, what is good!\nFor what does the Lord require from you,\nBut to be just, to love mercy,\nAnd to walk humbly with your God?\nThank you.\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union Foundation\n22 East 40th Street\nNew York, New York 10016\n(212) 725-1222\nProject on Amnesty\nMarch 14, 1974\nHenry Schwarzschild, Director\nCharles Goodell, Esq.\nHeideman, Mason & Goodell\n914-948-4787\n1225 19th Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C.\nRe: Amnesty\nDear Charles:\nThank you again for meeting with Dr. SterlingCary, the President\nof the National Council of Churches, and with Carl Rogers and me\nto chat about the possible usefulness of laying our concerns before\nVice President Ford. At the very least, it would be very important\nfor him to not lock himself into the present Administration position\non this issue.\nand\nI enclose statements by Melvin Laird former Army Secretary\nFroehlke on amnesty. Mr. Froehlke testified at the House Judiciary\nCommittee amnesty hearings, and quite helpfully, I thought. That\nMr. Laird goes even as far as he does may give the Vice President\nsome confidence that he will not be seen as allying himself with\nthe likes of us\nPlease let me know whether there is anything I can do to help. We\nshall all be grateful for your efforts.\nCordially,\nHenry Jenoy Schwarzschild\nCRALD BERALDR. FORD\nHS:c\nEncs.\nEdward J. Ennis, President\nAryeh Neier, Executive Vice President\nDavid Isbell, Harriet Pilpel, George Slaff, Vice Presi-\ndents\nWinthrop Wadleigh, Treasurer\nNorman Dorsen, Osmond K. Fraenkel, Marvin M. Karpatkin, General Counsel\nMelvin L. Wulf, Legal Director\nBen Clark, Foundation Coordinator\nContributions to the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation are deductible for income-tax purposes.\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nJANUARY 29, 1974\np10-12\n234\nPRESS CONFERENCE\nMELVIN LAIRD\nCOUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT\n10:30 A.M. EST\nROOSEVELT ROOM\nQ\nMr. Laird, do you want to make any\nopening statement since this is your, shall we say,\nfarewell press conference at the White House, or are\nthere to be future press: conferences with you at the\nWhite House?\nMR. LAIRD: Well, I hope that I can attend\nsome press conferences at the White House in my new\nrole with the Reader's Digest Association, but I think\nI will be in a little different position. I will be\nback to the position of asking questions. I had that\nvery pleasant responsibility of being a question-\nasker in the State Senate in Wisconsin, and then for\na good many years in the Congress. So perhaps I\nwill be attending some White House press conferences\nin a different role.\n&\nFORD\nQ\nYou are going to get a White House\npress pass?\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nMR. LAIRD: Gee, you know, I haven't really\nmade that hurdle yet.\nQ\nHow would you get in otherwise?\nMR. LAIRD: Well, it might be difficult,\nbut I think they would let me in.\n- 10 -\nQ\nWas that expected, that kind of a\nratio?\nMR. LAIRD: Well, the Vietnamization\nprogram was based upon the possibility of fighting\ncontinuing, and giving to the South Vietnamese the\ncapability to withstand that kind of fighting. They\nhave that capability.\nNow, Helen, by telling you that, I am not\nputting my approval on the killing that is going on\nin South Vietnam, or in North Vietnam, or in\nCamboida, or in Thailand, or any other place in the\nworld. I think it is disastrous, and I would like it\nstopped, but the problem I think when people get to\nthe Vietnamiza program, the Vietnamization program\nwas set up so that these people could handle that and\nnot have to rely upon United States Air Force, Navy,\nand ground forces as they did during the Kennedy and\nJohnson Administrations. We tried to change that\nmovement, and I think we did.\nQ Along that line, I think that the\nUnited States of America has another great problem\nout of the Vietnam War. I would like to know the\nposition of the Administration on amnesty, and has\nit changed since the President said he would never\ngrant amnesty, and he didn't consider a sojourn in\nthe Peace Corps as adequate penalty? What is the\nposition on that?\nMR. LAIRD: Well, I have written a letter\nto the Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.\nAs a matter of fact, I talked to him yesterday. He\nwas down in Atlanta and he wrote a letter to the\nPresident condemning my position on this question\nof amnesty. When I was Secretary of Defense I felt\nwe should not be considering the question of amnesty\neither blanket, general, or conditional. I think\nthat the situation now that there are no Americans\nbeing shot at and killed anyplace in the world, that\nthis is a matter that should be considered by our\ncountry.\n- 11 -\nMy position is still against blanket or\ngeneral amnesty for violators of the Selective\nService Act. We have always, in this country, however,\ntempered our justice with mercy and with understanding.\nWe have always felt that there were conditions under\nwhich justice was handed out in an equal fashion, and\nthat those conditions and motivations of the time should\nbe given some consideration in the Administration of\njustice.\nAt the present time very few, a very, very\nsmall percentage of our violators of the Selective\nService Act are actually being prosecuted. The\npenalties which are being handed out to these young\nmen are different by jurisdiction. Some are very,\nvery tough, some are very, very meager in the terms of\nthe relationship of the penalties, all the way from\nmowing the lawn on Saturdays for a year at the Courthouse\nto some people getting very strong prison sentences.\nI have written a letter to the Commander\nof the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and I would be glad\nto make that letter available to you. I delivered\nit to, him yesterday, and after this meeting, I will\nsee that that letter is made available.\nNow, my position may be a little different\nthan the President's, but I would like to think that\nthere would be some movement here. I am against a\ngeneral or blanket, but I think some sort of conditional\napproach towards equity in this area needs to be\nconsidered and this letter to the Commander of the VFW\n-- and I visited with him yesterday on it, the letter\nwas delivered to him yesterday -- I see no reason you\nshould not have a copy of it, and we will make it\navailable to you after this meeting.\nQ\nHave you talked to the President about\nthis, Mr. Laird?\nMR. LAIRD: About this question?\nQ\nYes, recently?\n- 12 - -\nMR. LAIRD: No, I have not. I have not\ntalked to the President about it recently. I talked\nto the President about the question back when I was\nover in the Defense Department, but I have not had a\nvisit with the President about this particular question,\nand I think that my views are put forth fairly well\nin this letter.\nQ\nWere they solicited on the basis of\nyour personal feelings, or the White House?\nMR. LAIRD: Well, they were solicited by\na very tough attack that the Commander of the\nVeterans of Foreign Wars -- and I am a member of\nthat organization -- made upon me for suggesting that\nwe had to consider the question of equity at this\nparticular time, and he interpreted my remarks I\nthought, a little unfairly, and so I wrote him a\nletter. He did not write to me, he wrote to the\nPresident condemning my position.\nQ\nMr. Laird, going back to the continued\nfighting in Vietnam, because of all the killing that\nhas gone on for years, do you think it was perhaps\npremature to have proclaimed a year ago that we now\nhave a generation of peace there?\nor\nMR. LAIRD: I think you have to interpret\nthe statement, I think, that most of the people who\nwere talking about that were talking about the United\nStates involvement. I have always talked about the\nUnited States involvement. I don't know whether you\nwere present at my press conference as I left the\nPentagon, but anyone that was, I don't think they could\nmisinterpret what I was talking about.\nQ\nMr. Laird, on the basis of an article\nthat you wrote for Readers' Digest, I believe, in\nwhich you said that the Russians ---\nMR. LAIRD: Have you bought that edition?\nCaucht\n(Laughter)\nQ\nI have got to buy it since you are writing\nit.\n-23-\nd Mr. Laird, do you think it would be\npossible for the President to attract new staff members\nwith you leaving and Bryce Harlow leaving? You were\nbrought in as a bright hope to save the Administration\nand now even though you have reasons for it, the two\nof you and others are leaving. Can he actually attract\npeople for the next three years?\nMR. LAIRD: Yes, I think he can. I think it\nshould be understood that Bryce Harlow -- and I am not\nsure just when Bryce Harlow is leaving. You will have\nto talk to Bryce about that. But Bryce Harlow and I\ncame here to the White House not as a permanent sort\nof an arrangement. We came here on a more or less\ntemporary basis.\nI explained at a meeting down in the press room\nthe other day that ever since I had known Bryce Harlow\nand each time he came to the White House, the next day\nhe was talking about when he was going to leave. That\nwasn't meant as a mean crack about Bryce Harlow. As\na matter of fact, I had met with Bryce before I went\ndown to the press room that day and Bryce said that\nis the way I should answer that question.\nSo I noticed that John Osborne took me on that\nI was sort of knifing my friend, Bryce Harlow, in the back,\nby answering it that way, but I hope John reads this\ntranscript because I answered it in the manner in which\nBryce wanted me to answer it, and if that is knifing\nanybody in the back, I don't understand what that is\nall about.\nSo we did come here temporarily. I think there\nhas been a great addition in Vice President Ford coming here\nto the White House and being a member of this team, and\nI think he can do a better job in the areas that I had\nresponsibility then I can. And I think he will do a better\njob.\nQ\nMr. Laird, I want to ask you something and\nthat is about the large number of men and women, particularly\nblacks, who went into the service, were drafted, during the\n- 24 -\nVietnamese war who had some infraction of the rules or an\ninability to collaborate and they got dishonorable\ndischarges and now we have those people back in this\ncountry look for jobs and they can't get jobs and we have\na big problem. There must be thousands of them.\nWhat are you going to do about them? Are\nyou going to give them amnesty?\nMR. LAIRD: I have discussed this. I discussed\nthis in the letter which --\nQ These are the boys who didn't go to\nforeign countries.\nMR. LAIRD: -- I want you to look at and to\nconsider. The question of justice in this country, I\nfeel, in some cases is not being treated on an equitable\nbasis, and I raised this question in this letter.\nI am not for a general statement or a blanket\nstatement in this particular area at all, and I would\nnever be for that, but there are cases that do need to be\nstudied.\nQ\nMr. Laird, do you still believe that the\nPresident will not either be impeached or resign? The\nlast time you spoke to this you had been to the Hill and\nmade a head count. How do you feel now?\nMR. LAIRD: Now, this business of head count,\nI want to be a little careful on that head count business.\nI do believe that I can count votes fairly well. I used\nto be able to do that, but in this particular case, on\nthe question of indictment -- and I refer to it as indictment\nbecause there are people who think impeachment means that\nthe President is somehow taken out of office, and impeachment\ndoes not do that, so I use the term indictment.\nAfter I returned from Wisconsin last time,\ntalking to people up and down the street, I found that\nthey did not have a clear understanding of the term\nimpeachment. They do understand indictment much better,\nso I use that term. That is the only reason I use that\nterm. I think it is more understandable.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJanuary 28, 1974\nDear Commander:\nI received a copy of your letter to the President on\namnesty and would like to comment.\nAs a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I share\nwith you, Commander, a great pride in our nation's\nstrength and freedom. As part of our heritage of\nfreedom, we have always cherished the redemptive\nquality of our system of justice.\nAs you know, during my tenure as Secretary of Defense,\nI felt strongly that it was completely inappropriate,\nunwise and unjust to consider granting any form of\namnesty. I felt that while brave Americans were\nfighting and dying in battle any consideration of\ngranting amnesty was unwarranted and would have had\nan adverse effect on the morale of our Armed Forces.\nMy feelings at that time were identical whether the\namnesty being discussed by some was \"conditional\" or\n\"general.\" I did make known, however, that looking\nbeyond Vietnam we were studying various reports and\nstudies on the complex question of amnesty.\nOn my departure from the Department of Defense, cir-\ncumstances had changed markedly. No longer were\nAmerican troops fighting and dying in combat anywhere\nin the world. As a result of changed conditions, my\nviews with respect to considering the question of\namnesty have also changed.\nThroughout my career of public service, I have learned\nto avoid absolute, dogmatic positions. Neither the\npolitical system nor the judicial system of the United\nStates works on \"blanket\" and arbitrary approaches.\nBoth recognize the vital roles of (1) circumstances\nand (2) motivation in determining political or judicial\nsolutions to our problems. As I have said, we pride\nourselves on administering justice with mercy and\nunderstanding.\nWith respect to the question of a \"blanket\" or\n\"general\" amnesty, let me emphasize that I am now\nand always have been opposed to a sweeping general\ngrant of amnesty. However, there are individual\ncases where the circumstances require that justice\nprovide for what some have termed \"conditional\namnesty. I do not like this term and only use it\nfor lack of a better description of an equitable\napproach to this difficult problem. It is my view\nthat circumstance and motivation on a case-by-case\nbasis, under our concept of justice, must be taken\ninto account today when dealing with violators of\nour selective service laws. It is noteworthy that\nonly a small percentage of these men have thus far\nbeen prosecuted by the Department of Justice, and in\nthese cases widely differing penalties have been\nassigned to individuals varying by jurisdiction.\nI hope these comments will allay some of your\nunderstandable concerns. As you know, I have nothing\nbut a profound sense of respect and gratitude to the\nmen and women who served in Vietnam, 56,244 of whom\ngave their lives in the service of our country.\nIt is a lasting source of pride to me that I had the\nopportunity and privilege to associate with such\nfine Americans and their families. I have never\ncommitted any act, nor would I, which would be a\n\"breach of faith\" with these men and women.\nFinally, I am grateful to the Veterans of Foreign\nWars and to the Ladies Auxiliary for their steadfast\nsupport of our defense effort, and especially for\nyour steadfast support during my service as Secretary\nof Defense. I trust, and am sure, that you will\ncontinue to extend that support to the President and\nto his defense policy in the cause of strength and\npeace.\nSincerely,\nMelvin R. Laird\nCounsellor to the President\nfor Domestic Affairs\nCommander Ray R. Soden\nVeterans of Foreign Wars of the United States\nWashington Memorial Building\n200 Maryland Avenue, N. E.\nWashington, D. C. 20002\n2\nA statement on AMNESTY by Robert F. Froehlke, President - The Sentry\nCorporation and former Secretary of the Army (1971-1973), given at\n10 AM on March 11, 1974 to the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties\nand the Administration of Justice: House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.\nMr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I appreciate your\ninvitation to appear today and give my opinion on amnesty. At the outset\nI should state that the subject of amnesty like so many other issues I have\nfaced in both government and business defies a categorical rightness or\nwrongness. Amnesty is much like the issue of United States involvement\nin and departure from Southeast Asia. Only those who are absolutely positive\nof the rightness of their position are wrong.\nThe fact that he is not sure of his position will not, and I\nbelieve should not, deter anyone from testifying before your committee.\nIt has not deterred me. We must rely on our personal values, experience\nand just plain instinct. Obviously, to refuse to take any position until\none is absolutely sure he is right is at best naive and at worst cowardly.\nMy own values and experience - but mostly my instinct - tell me\nnow is the time to begin to discuss and then act on amnesty. At the same\ntime - and in an unconfident way - I hastily add that my position could\nbe dead wrong.\nBut, then, it is not for me but for you Congressmen to decide\nwho is right or wrong.\nAnd, that is why, I presume, Congressmen hold hearings.\nPermit me to begin by giving my views as to what amnesty is not.\n2\nAmnesty is not a liberal rallying point. I am a moderate, as\nare most Americans who must ask for amnesty before it becomes reality.\nPutting a liberal tag on amnesty might glamorize the issue but it will\nmost certainly dim its political future.\nAmnesty is not an \"anti-military\" issue. I was, am and will\ncontinue to be pro-military, as are most Americans. Most Americans respect\nthe military and desire that their country remain militarily strong. To\ncategorize amnesty as anti-military does the military a disservice and\nagain hurts the cause of amnesty in the political arena.\nAmnesty is not \"anti-administration.\" Admittedly, many thought-\nful and well-meaning individuals in this administration oppose amnesty.\nConversely, others, like myself were members of the administration, are\nproud of it, and favor amnesty. The same difference of opinion on this\nissue can be found in previous administrations.\n*\n*\n*\nAmnesty is an act that only a strong, confident and just nation\ncan bestow. You cannot demand amnesty. You cannot threaten amnesty.\nAmnesty is given.\nThe insecure, the mean, the confused cannot ever grant amnesty.\nTherefore, the fact that amnesty is being discussed augers well for America.\nThe number of people involved with amnesty is subject to wide\nvariance. Some say 5,000; others 30,000 or 100,000. I suggest over\n200 million could and should beinvolved. 200 million Americans doing a\n3\nproud, generous and kindly act of bestowing amnesty.\n*\n*\n*\nWhy amnesty and why now?\nWhen serving as Secretary of the Army I opposed amnesty. Then\nmost of our young men were obeying the law and reporting for the draft.\nSome were being drafted and were fighting and dying in Vietnam.\nAt that time we could not say to those disobeying that draft law\nand fleeing from America, \"Come home, all is forgiven\".\nBut, why now amnesty for them? Amnesty now because the draft\nand the killing is over.\nAmnesty now because we need to begin mending in every way possible\nthe heartbreak and wounds left by that war. I am not prepared to say\nVietnam was right or wrong. I will let the historians do that. However, it\nis clear that right or wrong, Vietnam deeply hurt America.\nAmensty now because it is America's youth who are involved and\nAmerica has always shown mercy and restraint with its young people.\n*\n*\n*\nThere are two primary considerations which will dictate the\nparameters of any workable amnesty. On the one hand this country will someday\nagain be facing a draft. In developing an amnesty program nothing should\nbe done which would make a future draft unworkable. I suppose it could\nbe argued that even talking about any amnesty imposes some burden on a future\ndraft. I think not but if the burden is slight I would still accept because\nthe higher priority is the opportunity to heal the hurt.\n4\nOn the other hand we must constantly bear in mind that all those\npotentially involved in amnesty have one thing in common - they were young.\nThey have made a mistake, a serious mistake, but they are young. Therefore\nany amnesty program must not be approached from vindictiveness. But rather\nfrom the standpoint of a just and generous nation dealing mercifully with\na relatively small number of young people who made a serious error.\n*\n*\n*\nThose potentially eligible for amnesty can be divided into two\ndistinct groups - those who did not enter military service and evaded the\ndraft and those who entered military service and deserted. The two groups\nmust be treated separately.\nI have concluded that all draft evaders should be given blanket\nconditional amnesty. I readily concede that it would be \"nice\" if we would\nonly grant amnesty to those who fled for moral reasons and not to those who\nfled for selfish reasons. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine\nintent. Therefore the amnesty for draft evaders must be blanket.\nThe amnesty must be conditional. Not necessarily because we want\nto punish those who ran. Rather because those who ran have not as yet had\nan opportunity to serve their country like those who stayed and served.\nTherefore it is only just and reasonable that the first act upon returning\nto their country should be service to that country - as an obligation and\nprivilege not punishment. (I really see very little reason to argue about\nthe merits of a conditional vs. an unconditional amnesty. Pragmatically it\n5\nis my opinion that the American people would under no circumstance allow\namnesty of an unconditional variety to ever be enacted by Congress.)\nService to the country should not be limited to the military.\nIt should certainly include the military but should be as broad as service\nto fellow man can possibly allow. It certainly would include projects like\nVISTA, Peace Corps, hospitals and churches.\nThe length of term to be served would have to be determined by\nCongress. I think the key onsideration should be how long is it necessary\nto serve in order to perform a useful service. Vindictiveness should not\nenter into the consideration. (In the past I have indicated that I would\nbe satisfied with three months service if some duties could be found where\nuseful service could be performed in that length of time. I chose this\nrelatively short period of time in an attempt to indicate that vindictiveness\nshould not be influencing. I confess that the only possible area where I\ncan come up with useful service in that short a period of time would be in\nvolunteering for medical experiments at great personal risk.)\nPerhaps the least controversial group eligible for amnesty is the\ndraft evader who was sentenced and is serving in prison. Clearly these\nshould be granted a full pardon and their service in prison should be\nconsidered service to country.\n*\n*\n*\nThe deserter is a far more complicated problem and I have not been\nable to come up with a solution that completely satisfies me. These facts\n6\ndictate that it is a different situation than the civilian who evaded the\ndraft:\n1. The deserter is subject to the uniform code of military\njustice.\n2. It was not uncommon for the desertion to occur after\ncommitting a criminal act.\nFor the time being I have concluded that the deserter must be\ntreated on a case by case basis. A board must be created that would look\nat the deserter's total record in a non-vindictive, generous manner. However\namnesty should be applied only to an act of desertion and no prior or\nsubsequent criminal acts.\n*\n*\n*\nIs amnesty really possible?\nIt is, and there are several encouraging signs pointing the way.\nThe first sign, of course, is that the dialogue has begun. Amnesty\nis being considered here in the Congress and at various other forums across\nthe land. This must continue.\nAnother sign is America's history of forgiveness. In less than\n30 years we have forgiven our former enemies - Germany and Japan. We are\nnow expending untold political energy and material resources striving to\nmaintain a semblance of detente with China and Russia. If we will forgive\nentire nations and hundreds of millions of \"enemies\", then can't we consider\nforgiveness, rehabilitation and reinstatement of only a few thousand of our\nbrothers?\n7\nBut, of the greatest encouragement is that America is a strong\nnation of strong, confident and just people who have long demonstrated a\ncapacity to forgive and forget. These people would consider amnesty.\nThe meek, the mean, the insecure cannot forgive and forget.\nInstead, they would demand recrimination, indulge in devisiveness, wallow\nin self-flaggelation. Theirs is to counterattack against those who turned\nand ran when the nation needed them. Theirs is to punish, and punish again,\nthe men who wronged them. These people would not consider amnesty, but\nthey are not America's people. So, I am encouraged.\n*\n*\n*\nYes, America can grant amnesty. But should America forgive and\nforget?\nWe should not forgive and forget if our reason for doing so is to\ncleanse our soul from immoral acts.\nWe should not forgive and forget if our reason for doing so is\nan attempt to return to this country \"the best who left\".\nBut, we should forgive and forget if amnesty will help heal the\nhurt this nation has suffered. America has been badly hurt this last decade.\nThat is fact and no amount of blame-placing on individuals or groups will\nhelp heal that hurt.\n(As a matter of fact, any attempt to combine determination of\nguilt for the hurt with the cause of amnesty can only doom amnesty. There\nare just too many candidates responsible for the damage who would feel an\nobligation to oppose the guilt-placing.)\n8\nUnquestionably Vietnam has compoundedthis nation's sorrows over\nthe last decade. Thus, isn't it a unique opportunity before us today that\nwe may use amnesty as an agent to heal the hurt?\nAn unwelcome alternative would be for America instead to indulge\nin vindictiveness. But, that could only punish America more than America\nhas already been punished. Already I see a direct correlation between the\ncontinuing turmoil within the nation and our present hardline stand on amnesty.\nThe president said long ago \"We need a renewal of the spirit to meet the\ncrisis of the spirit in our country\". Is not forgiveness a vital function\nof the spirit?\nIs there a more noble deed than for a strong, forgiving America to\nsay to those who left, come home now? I think not.\nHas there been a time when America needed more a profusion of\nnoble deeds? I think not.\nIn conclusion, gentlemen, let me share with you an observation\nfrom my scores of conversations and debates on the issue. It is that it\nmight well be impossible for those most directly involved in Vietnam to\napproach amnesty with objectivity and without allowing emotion to influence\ntheir position. The draft avoiders and deserters on one hand and the\nbereaved mothers and widows, veterans or professional soldiers on the other\nhand might well, and very understandably, look at amnesty from a very\npersonal perspective.\nI understand and respect this fact. From their personal perspective,\nas each views the issue, their individual conclusions are right and just.\nEXCERPTS\nFROM REMARKS OF ROBERT F. FROEHLKE\nPRESIDENT OF SENTRY INSURANCE\nFORMER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY\nBEFORE\nTOWN HALL OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES\nJANUARY 22, 1974\nToday there are three areas I wish to cover:\n1. My view as to why I believe a U.S. armed force is\nimportant.\n2. Why the army is the most important part of that\narmed force.\n3. My opinions as to the kind of an army necessary in the 70's.\nBefore we cover these areas, however, I have two other observations.\nMany people have commented that it was unusual for someone from the insurance\nindustry to be running the U.S. Army. Others have thought it even more incon-\nsistent that I returned in 1973 to the same insurance company I had left in 1969\nrather than join a firm associated with the military-industrial complex.\nI believe the move from Army to insurance business is most consistent\nbecause of the parallels between the two. In both institutions I heard carping\noccasionally about premiums being too high. (But never did I hear those remarks\nfrom anyone when their home was burning or when their car was involved in an\naccident.)\nFrom 1969 through September, 1973, there was considerable criticism of\nthe high cost of defense. It was a major 1972 campaign issue. But suddenly,\nas of October, 1973, and the Mid-East hostilities the criticism ceased and Congress\nrushed to ADD two billion to defense budgeting for aid to Israel rather than\nfurther paring of the budget as Congress had been debating.\n2\nThe insurance-Army parallel continues as I look back on four and one\nhalf years in Defense and Army. For those years I was insuring peace.\nMy second point in this prologue involves Watergate and all the\nword stands for. It is not that I enjoy discussing Watergate for I do\nnot. But, I have learned in talking with varied audiences that if I\ndon't bring Watergate up half of you believe I am involved and the\nother half think that I am ashamed even to mention it.\nHow do I fee 1 about Watergate? I have mixed emotions - all\nbad. One, I am terribly embarrassed. I am embarrassed because I was\na part of the Nixon administration. I truly do not know who did what\nto whom, but obviously some high ranking members of this administration\ndid something illegal, probably immoral and without question, very stupid.\nAs a part of this administration I cannot wash my hands completely,\nand I am embarrassed. I am also angry because I am success oriented. I\nwent to Washington proud to be a part of this administration and I left\nWashington in May proud of what the administration had done the first\nfour years.\nParticularly in international affairs the administration was\nextremely successful. From Southeast Asia we extricated our troops and\nreclaimed our prisoners of war. We have renewed conversations with the\nPeoples' Republic of China and with the USSR. We have kept the peace in\nWestern Europe for 28 years, the longest peace period there in over 200 years!\nThis is the description of a successful administration. I would\nenjoy having people occasionally volunteer, \"Oh, you're a part of the\n3\nNixon administration which was successful.\" But, I haven't heard that said\nsince I left government.\nInstead, I am a part of the administration that perpetrated Watergate.\nThat makes me angry.\nBut, perhaps my key emotion is that of concern, concern for three reasons.\nFirst, I am a lawyer who is concerned about trial by press rather than trial by\nlaw. Yet, what is happening in the press must happen in a free society. I also\nbelieve the judicial process under Leon Jaworski and the Justice Department must\ngo on to determine whether illegal acts were committed, and if they were, by\nwhom.\nConcurrently, I agree that the Ervin Committee had to conduct hearings\nto determine what occurred and whether legislation should be enacted to avoid\na recurrence in the future. Yet, while those hearings continued certain indi-\nviduals appearing before the Ervin Committee were being tried by the press.\nFor the dilemma I have no remedy. I do hope that every American cries\na bit fully knowing that people who should be presumed innocent until proven\nguilty by the judicial process are being tried in the press and are assumed\nguilty by the vast majority of Americans. That causes me immense concern.\nA second cause for concern deals with people like myself leaving\nsuccessful business careers to serve their government in Washington. I had\ngone there in 1969 somewhat reluctantly, believing I was interrupting that career\nfor myself. But, also, I went proudly and eagerly, the good feeling of serving\none's country.\n4\nI fear there are few U. S. businessmen today proudly and eagerly\ngoing to Washington to become a part of this administration. Today, more\nthan ever, we need good people in Washington and it is difficult attracting\nthem there. That should concern all of us.\nMy third concern for Watergate deals with the trust and credibility\nour government has to its stockholders - the American people. In a democracy,\nif our government is to be successful, it must be creditable to its con-\nstituents. Because of Watergate, far too many people and certainly the majority\nof our young people, just don't believe what government leaders tell them.\nThis attitude I believe is unfair. It is unfair because, with one\nexception, there appears to be only one professional politician involved\nin Watergate. The many others are amateur zealots in the profession of\npolitics. Why, then, should most Americans blame Watergate on the poli-\nticians? Not only is such an accusation grossly unfair; it is also\nunfortunate in destroying government's credibility.\nHaving addressed Watergate, I now wish to discuss \"Why an Army?\"\nThe bald heads here in this audience - like myself - and the white-haired\nchaps wherever I go scoff at that question. Their attitude - don't waste\nyour time, mister, telling ME why we need an Army. I know why.\nNot so with our young people who will be helping mold public opinion\nfor the next 40 -50 years. Especially on our college campuses, I would\nfind among students and faculty far more opposition to an army than approval.\n\"Why an Army?\" is a good question too because of the nature of an\nArmy. An Army uses resources, it doesn't create them. In an energy conscious\n5\nsociety, if we can exist without an army we should try to do so.\nMy pragmatic answer has been then the U. S. needs an army because\na world power has never existed without an armed force. The reply on\ncampuses would then be, how do you know a world power can't exist without\nan army until we try it.\nMost college students realize their life style is, indeed, affluent,\ndramatized by the fact alone that they are on a college campus. Only world\npowers can achieve the affluence of America in 1973. Give up our world\npower status and you give up your affluence, I have pointed out.\nAnother point of fact I describe to our young people is that of\nthe three world powers - USSR, The People's Republic of China and the USA,\nonly in America does individual freedom reign today. Do we give up our\nmilitary strength today, leaving power with two totalitarian nations,\nneither of which has respect for the freedoms we cherish?\nOne pragmatic answer to \"Why an Army?\" which was not accepted by\nthe young was to point out that wars have paralleled history. If there\nwill always be wars, then shouldn't we have an army to fight those wars?\nThe campus people, in their idealism, will not buy the belief that wars\nare inevitable.\nI do tell them that armies do not create wars. Often they would\ntry and blame the U. S. Army for Vietnam. Absolutely false. Civilian\npolitical leadership led us down the Vietnam path from Day One. Also,\ncivilian political leadership made and properly sold all the decisions as\nto how the war should be fought in Vietnam.\n6\nThat fact alone depicts the terrible unfairness for the men and\nwomen in uniform being the target of the criticism from the unthinking\nthroughout the Vietnam era. Our military people were only following\norders as the U. S. Constitution declares they must.\nAn Army, why? To help achieve for this world its prized goal -\nworld peace. We realize now, after the trauma of Vietnam, that all else\nwe desire is risked if peace is not at hand. There is no reason for an Armed\nForce greater than that it gives us a chance to achieve peace.\nMilitary strength does not cause wars. But, strength matched against\nweakness does. A possible exception is the Middle East today where\npresumably near equal strength is being exhibited on both sides. But, I\nassure you there would have been a Middle East war long before October,\n1973, if that balance of power had not been maintained.\nStrength plus weakness causes war, even in a period of detente.\nPolitical scientists agree that at anytime, Detente without Defense is\nDelusion. It is utter delusion for the U. S. to talk with the USSR and\nthe People's Republic of China while we are slashing our military defenses.\nOnly through talking from strength can detente accomplish what we hope and\npray is possible.\nSome ask, \"Do you think then that this arms race should continue?\"\nNo, I answer. To whatever extent we can, I feel this nation should\ndisarm. But, I think it is naive for anyone to believe disarmament should\ncome about unilaterally. If we disarm, and again, I hope and pray we will,\nwe should do so bilaterally or multilaterally. It would be foolish to\n7\nenter the mutual and balance force reduction. talks in Vienna, or SALT\ntalks in Helsinki with an introductory statement that regardless of the\ntalks' outcome we will be withdrawing our forces from Europe. Or, to\nstate at SALT talks that we are about to reduce our nuclear weapons.\nSuch a posture can only assume curtailing disarmament on the part of the\nSoviets.\nWhat is their motivation in bargaining disarmament when we're DOING\nunilaterally what you'rè TALKING about doing on a bilateral and multilateral\nbasis? I am pro-disarmament; I am anti a senseless, naive approach which\nassumes only one side disarms.\nThen, too, the United States has 42 international commitments which\nthe U.S. Senate has approved. Without exception, NATO, SEATO, SENTO armed\nforces play a valuable role in enforcing those agreements. If we are to\nremain a part of the international community, then our armed forces must\nbe equal to the tasks undertaken. To talk about the North Atlantic Treaty\nOrganization and pretend that we don't have an Army in Western Europe\ndoesn't make sense because that Army is the cement holding NATO together.\nThose are the major reasons I believe that we must have an\narmed force.\nNow, what kind of an Army? The nuclear age in which we live tells\nsome people that if there is to be a war, then it's going to be a nuclear\nwar. Then all which is needed is the ability to deliver nuclear weapons.\nFalse. First, because in my opinion there will be no nuclear war.\nThe reason - because today the USSR and USA have parody of nuclear weapons.\nOne side may be five percent ahead or five percent behind, but we're playing\n8\nin the same ballpark.\nBut, that does not assure us we will not have another war. There\nwill always be disagreements among nations. If a powerful nation has only\nnuclear weaponry, then the President will have only one option in an\ninternational emergency: The ultimate weapon - the nuclear warhead.\nIt would be a terrible mistake for this nation's people to give\ntheir President as Commander-in-Chief of the military forces only one\noption - that which begins a nuclear exchange.\nThen, too, nuclear weapons cannot replace the need for the foot\nsoldier. It's a fact, the Air Force is more glamorous than the Army;\nthe Navy life is cleaner than Army life. Yet, it is equally true that\nthere hasn't been a war fought where the foot soldier hasn't taken and\nheld the ground. It may not be clean nor pleasant, but someone to win a\nwar other than a nuclear holocaust must do the ground-taking and holding.\nWhat kind of an army is it going to be? To begin with, it's going\nto be a volunteer army. I am often asked, do you support the volunteer\narmy? If I hadn't, I assure you once the Selective Service law was\nabolished I would have handed my resignation to the President.\nOf course I supported the volunteer army concept, but with very\nmixed emotions.\n(A digression if you will permit. The volunteer army, as I will\ndemonstrate, invites honest, reasonable men to disagree honestly. So it\nis with most critical issues today.)\nBefore campus audiences I would raise this point, usually to the\n9\nsame response from students. How can you possibly have mixed emotions\nor see two sides to such a simple issue? There is a right way and a wrong\nway to meet this issue, and here is the right way.\nConfession. In four years at the Pentagon not one major issue ever\ncame across my desk for decision where I could confidently sit back and\nsay that we're going to do it this way and I am absolutely confident it's\nthe right decision. I'd make the decision thinking it was right, but never\nreally being sure.\nPerhaps that is a sign of maturity, realizing there are very few easy\ndecisions. I realize we cannot expect maturity from college students; I have\nbeen disappointed on several campuses in not finding it in their teachers.\nThe volunteer army was one of those tough decisions where I may well\nhave been wrong. I THINK it's the right decision for this time. We must\nacknowledge that the decision to go the volunteer route now was not a\nmilitary decision. It was a political decision made by civilian political\nleadership.\nObviously, from a military point of view, the easiest, cheapest and best\nway of getting people to serve their country is through the draft. The draft\npermits military leadership to get the exact amount of people needed at any\ntime. The political climate during the 1968 campaign dictated that Pres-\nident Nixon come out for the volunteer force.\nLet's look closer at the politics of the situation. We had an unfair\ndraft, one where your children and mine were going to college. Not necessar-\nily because of their intense hunger for a college education, but college\n10\ndid provide a sure way to avoid serving one's country.\nThe poor, of course, were drafted and THEY served their country in\nVietnam.\nThat comparison is, of course, an oversimplification, but one with too\nmuch truth in it. There just was no good way to defend the draft as equitable.\nThen, add the political pressures of a vastly unpopular war and you\neasily understand why a political leadership concerned with re-election had to stop the\ndraft. Note, however, the key question is not whether or not the Army will get\nenough people. Obviously we can get enough people if we lower the standards to do so.\nIt won't, however, be an Army on which we can depend. The key question becomes,\ncan we get enough of the right kind. I believe we will. This was not achieved\nin 1973 and that does concern me, although I am still not pessimistic.\nThe volunteer Army wrought a major change in the nation's thinking,\nespecially young America. It would have been naive to expect overnight we would\nhave made our task. We are chipping away at it, and I think, moving in the\nright direction.\nThe prime question remains: Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer, are you willing to pay\nthe Volunteer Army price in tax dollars? We know that attracting ours sons and\ndaughters, born and raised in this affluent world, is going to demand a high\nprice.\nFor military life to appeal to them it must compete fairly with the\nsocio-economic world they have known. The young recruit should find he or\n- she can earnabout as much in service as in a comparable job outside. The\n11\nsoldier must now have privacy in the barracks; a varied, enticing menu.\nSome of my WW II friends are quick to remember they survived\nthree or four years Army service without these luxuries and expect their\nown children to do so today. Yet, they admit that like myself, they have\nraised their children in the affluent manner and these kids haven't been\nrunning down to the Army enlistment center on their 18th birthday.\nTo them the Army has looked like a step down in life style. This\nattitude from your sons and daughters, and mine, is fraught with danger,\nthe danger of this nation developing an all poor, all uneducated and\npossibly predominantly black army. What a tragedy for a nation defined\nas a democracy.\nOf course the U.S. Army must be a cross section of the U.S. pop-\nulation. The only way to achieve this is for the U.S. people to pay in\ntax dollars for the kind of army which appeals to a cross section of\nvolunteers. There is, in my opinion, no short cut.\nHow long a volunteer army? Certainly not forever. But, it will\nundoubtedly take into the late 70's before this nation will have largely\nforgotten an unpopular war and will accept some form of universal con-\nscription. Then, perhaps, we will steer our young people to 18 months or\ntwo years of service to their fellowman via the military, VISTA, Peace Corps\nor their counterparts at a substantially reduced salary from today's mili-\ntary pay.\nI feel this is necessary for sociological as well as military defense\nreasons. Where else but in the army do you find an organizational melting\npot for all people? Where else are young people of all racial, social,\neconomic and educational backgrounds thrown together and told to learn\n12\nto live together, learn to understand one another, and learn to work\ntogether?\nUnfortunately, in today's America this phenomenon doesn't occur\nin your neighborhood, your church, or your business.\nSomeday, these attributes of universal service may be remembered\nand the politicians will react to it singing the praises again of our\nyoung people serving their fellowman.\nAnother event will, of course, quickly end the volunteer army\nconcept. For there is no way we could or should fight a war with a\nvolunteer army. When a democracy goes to war, the risk of death must\nbe shared by all its citizenry, not only a few.\nSelfishness on the part of the American taxpayer may well terminate\nthe volunteer army concept. With Vietnam only a dim memory that taxpayer\nmay note that if we again drafted young people we could cut taxes. The\nopportunist politician will then see the draft as a vote-getter and support\nits return for the wrong reason.\nWhat will the new Army look like? It will depend greatly on the\nreserve and the National Guard. In 1974, 45% of our army will be Reserve\nand Guard. It is difficult in many parts of this nation for the guard\nto appeal to our young people. There, employers are not supporting\nreserve training and Guard duty as they should. I don't refer to vacation\ntime for two weeks' summer duty alone. I refer to simply acknowledging the\narmy youngster in your plant or your office. He deservesrecognition and\nencouragement.\nThe new Army must be well-equipped. The Middle East war has\n13\ndemonstrated that only money buys good equipment. Lots of money. Some\nsay to me, we are already spending more and more money on defense. My\nanswer - we are spending less and less real dollars on defense. Note these\nstatistics: When the Nixon Administration took office in 1969, 9.6% of the\ngross national product went for defense. Last year it was less than 6%.\nWhen I went to Washington, 42.6% of the total budget was defense. Last\nyear it was about 30%.\nI've heard that talk of \"reordering the nation's priorities\".\nAnd, we have done so! We have had a radical reshaping of our priorities.\nBut, responsible citizens and politicians who acknowledge that we\nneed an army, must also note that we need a well-equipped Army. Only\nsignificant research and development monies will make it so.\nI will predict a personnel breakthrough for the Army. There will\nbe a vastly increased utilization of the ladies in that Army. Just over a\nyear ago I announced we were going to double the number of WACS serving in the\nArmy. Big deal. From 12,500 to 25,000. I anticipate that in the 70's we will\nquadruple that number for one simple reason: Quality! We can get a higher\nquality individual from women than from men.\nI should make it perfectly clear, as someone once said, that I do\nnot believe in women serving in the front lines. I don't want my wife or\ndaughters serving there unless they are defending the homeland.\nBut front line duty is less than 10% of total job opportunities\nin the Army. There is little reason why good Army women cannot drive\ntrucks, work in office jobs, as medics and 1,000 other tasks. I predict\n14\nthat the Army of the later 70's will be comprised of 20 to 30 percent women.\nWe will then have a better Army than the Army today.\nAs Secretary of the Army I saw my duty as to help end our involvement\nin the Vietnam War and bring our troops home.\nThis was accomplished.\nI also saw my duty was to help institute the volunteer army as a viable\nreplacement for the draft.\nThis, too, was accomplished.\nNow, I believe as a citizen and former servant of my government I have\nanother duty: To help heal the hurt caused by the Vietnam War. Amnesty is a\ngiant step in that direction.\nI want the American people, through the U.S. Congress, to devise a plan\nfor amnesty.\nSome may accuse me of being inconsistent as I opposed amnesty during\nthe Vietnam War.\nBut, then young men were obeying the law and reporting for the draft,\nsome being drafted and fighting and dying in Vietnam.\nTo those disobeying that draft law and fleeing from America we could\nnot then say \"Come home, all is forgiven.\"\nBut, why now amnesty for them? Amnesty now because the draft and the\nkilling is over.\nAmnesty now because we need to begin mending in every way possible the\nheartbreak and wounds left by that war. Vietnam deeply hurt America. Now is\nthe time to heal the hurt.\nAmnesty now because it is America's youth who are involved and America\nhas always shown mercy and restraint with its young people.\n15\nEarlier I pointed out why we will probably again be drafting our\nyoung people into the Army, perhaps withing four or five years. Therefore,\nany plan for amnesty cannot work in conflict with a successful future draft\nlaw.\nThere are those who plead for amnesty saying that the best of our\nyouth ran away. Let us then welcome them back with open arms, accepting them as\nheroes, they ask.\nBut, others answer if we do that, come that next war the best will run\nagain, whether they judge it as a moral or immoral war.\nI cannot accept those on one side who say \"Let the long haired radicals\nwho ran away stay where they are. They are no good anyway.\"\nJust as I refuse to accept those who claim the very best of our young\nmen ran away. Make no mistake about it; the very best served their country when\nasked to do so.\nThe perimeters then run from the position of mercy and total lack of\nvindictiveness to the hard liners opposed to any leniency.\nSomewhere between those perimeters there can be a plan for forgiveness\nwhich accomplishes the following:\n1) It encourages those who left America to return.\n2) It clearly states that those who left America disobeyed\nthe law of the land and must compensate in some manner.\n3) It clearly states that we welcome back to America, as well,\nthose who refused to serve and chose jail instead. When we bring\nback our young men who ran away we must at the same time pardon\nthose others who refused to run and chose instead a prison\nsentence.\n16\n4) It clearly states that motives for those who left are\nunimportant. It would be convenient, indeed, if one\ncould devise a plan whereby those who ran away for\nselfish reasons were not welcomed back; those who ran\nfor high principles could return with honor.\nBut obviously, no such judgment is possible.\nTherefore, I suggest for your consideration the following proposal.\nI welcome your critique. I ask that if you concur that amnesty with such a plan is\npossible today that here in Southern California you tell your congressman or either\nSenator Cranston or Senator Tunney of your opinions.\nMy proposal is that -\n- As citizens we all begin talking about amnesty and ways to\nachieve that forgiveness.\n- Any plan conceived must clearly state that those who fled instead\nof serving their country made a mistake.\n- The plan must not be vindictive, but those who ran away must now\nserve some time in some form of national service.\n- Those who serve this duty must serve long enough to perform some\nuseful service. The time involved could vary depending upon the\ntype of service chosen. Personally, I would settle for three\nmonths if any worthwhile duties could be found where useful\nservice could be performed in this short of a time period.\n- Those who refuse this compensatory service are not welcome to\nreturn to their country. For, if they do not wish to serve for\nso short and safe a term, I reluctantly conclude that their desire\n17\nto return to family and country is not strong enough.\nThere are perhaps over 4500 young Americans who fled the draft and\nthe war and are living in foreign lands. Most now want to come home.\nYes, we can get along without them.\nBut, we really don't want to. Do we?\nAnd we do want to heal the hurt. Don't we?\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\nWASHINGTON STAR-NEWS\nA-3\nWI\nWashington, D.C., Saturday, January 5, 1974\nDS\nWH\nLaird Airs Amnesty Plan\nDiscussed During War\nScripps Howard News Service\nIn an interview with Scripps-Howard newspapers.\nFormer Defense secretary Melvin R. Laird revealed\nLaird said he had former Army Secretary Robert F.\ntoday that he ordered a conditional amnesty plan for\nFroehlke prepare a plan while American forces were\ndraft law violators prepared while Americans still\nengaged in the Vietnam war.\nwere dying in the Vietnam war.\nReached in Stevens Point, Wis., where he now heads\nLaird, now counselor to the President for domestic\nan insurance company, Froehike said the move grew\naffairs, said he belives \"we have always felt in this\nout of a series of 'friendly conversations\" he and\ncountry that justice must be administered with com-\nLaird had on the amnesty issue while both served in\npassion and mercy. Congress will deal with the\nthe Pentagon.\namnesty issue before the 1976 elections, he said:\nWe didn't go public with it,\" Laird said of the se-\n\"I FELT STRONGLY. and I know that Mel did too.\ncret Pentagon amnesty discussions, \"because we were\nthat it didn't make any sense to talk (publicly) about\nin a position in which people still were being drafted\namnesty while you were drafting people and kids were\nand people still were dying.\nbeing killed,\" said Froehlke.\nNow that American involvement in the fighting has\n\"Now, for the first time in a long time, Americans\nended, however, Froehlke said, he is afraid \"99 per-\naren't dying in a war.\"\ncent of the American people will just forget about the\nproblem.\n\"I THINK THERE can be some sort of service for\nWe should look at it. Now is the time,\" Froehike\nthese people,\" Laird said of Americans who fled from\nsaid.\ntheir country rather than serve in the military during\nYoung people make mistakes. We should to the best\nthe war.\nof our ability forgive and forget. We can't go into this\n\"Whether that service should be in the military or in\nwith a vindictive attitude.'\nhospitals or in other areas, and whether it should be\nFroehlke said he would be willing to back \"as little\nfor six months or two years, I'm not prepared to say.\nas two or three months\" of compensatory public serv\nWith these comments, Laird stepped into the amnes-\nice for draft law violators and military deserters. who\nty controversy hardened by President Nixon, who on\nwant to return home.\nJan. 31, 1973, said, \"Amnesty means forgiveness. We\nCongress will deal with the issue either in this ses\ncannot provide forgiveness for them.\"\nsion or in the next, Laird predicted.\nwas\nreportedly\nless\nlaw\nit\nclearly\nfor\nextensive than in past years, but\nany public employe to accept any\napparently the main reason was\nthing of value from persons he's\nthe rising cost of beef, not a\ndoing business with.\nAvoid Arming Africa\nA disturbing situation could be\nmade claims to Ethiopian territo-\nin the making in East Africa, one\nry. The US, SO far, has declined on\nreminiscent of the great power ri-\nthe grounds that the arms were\nunneeded.\nvalries in Africa that marked the\nlate '50s and early '60s. That ear-\nChina has been making strong\nefforts to increase its influence in\nlier competition only brought\nThird World African countries. It\ngrief to all concerned.\nhas done SO successfully in Tanza-\nThe focus now is on Ethiopia,\nnia. The Russians also have been\nca\nwhere the Chinese are said to\nturning to East Africa as their in-\nur.\nhave offered to supply the Ethio-\nterest in the Indian Ocean has\nsta\non\npians with heavy arms. If the of-\ngrown.\nth.\nfer is accepted, it will bring Pe-\nThe danger is that any open ri-\nve\nking in direct aid rivalry with the\nvalry between Russia and China\nSoviet Union, which has been\nhere almost certainly will drag in\nCO\nsupplying Ethiopia's adversary,\nthe US because of its ties to\nca\nSomalia, with assistance and\nfis\nEthiopia. If the recent past is any\narms.\nmeasure, this could prove disas-\nThe potential introduction of\nterous. The last big power clash in\nChinese influence in Ethiopia\nAfrica was in the Congo. It only\nironically comes as result of a ne-\npromoted civil war and strained\ngative US response to an Ethiopi-\ngreat power relations with little\nan arms request. Emperor Haili\ntangible results for either side.\nSelassie's government has wanted\nThe lesson then for both the US\nFORD LIBRARY\nUS heavy tanks, Phantom jets\nand Russia was a tacit agreement\nand antiaircraft missiles to offset\nto keep Africa free of such super-\nwhat it said was an arms buildup\npower entanglements. It is a les-\nne\nin Somalia, a country which has\nson still valid today.\nar\nto\ner\nMove on Amnesty\nW\nAs a leading businessman and a\nsons: We are out of Vietnam; the\nN\nth\nformer secretary of the Army,\ndraft itself is over; America has\nti\nRobert Froehlke is performing a\nalways shown mercy toward its\npriceless service by speaking out\nth\non amnesty for Vietnam War\nyoung; the nation needs to mend\nIr\ndraft evaders.\nits wound. He also notes that if\nSt\nNow president of Sentry Insur-\nthe draft is needed again in four\nZ\nIT\nance, Froehlke proposes that am-\nor five years, it might then be\nd\nhuman\nnesty be linked to some form of\nmuch more difficult to work out a\nnational service, an idea that an\nsimultaneous amnesty plan.\nn\nT\nincreasing number of Americans\nFroehlke's compassionate, con-\nW\nfinds reasonable. While the time\n1/25/74\nciliatory tone is in marked con-\ninvolved would depend on the\ntrast to the Nixon administra-\nS\ntype of service, Froehlke says\ntion's unbudging commitment to\nP\nthat he would settle for three\nS\ncriminal penalties. Frohlke shows\ne\nplo\nmonths if worthwhile duties could\nthat amnety does not have to be\nbe performed in that short a peri-\nunconditional, that it can involve\no\nod.\natonement as well as forgiveness.\nis\nThere are ways, as he says, \"to\n1\nIn any case, he urges movement\ne\nnow, and for several sound rea-\nheal the hurt.\"\na\nLots in a Name\nN\nLibya's Col. Moammar Khadafy\nties: 432. He doesn't do that well\nmay be accused of inconsistency,\non policies, but he has a good\nbut not of being in a rut. His last\nstart. Recently he announced\nmerger with Tunisia, since fallen\nname alone can be spelled correct-\nthrough. Before that he was after\nly in 432 ways. Using accepted\na Libya-Egypt combine, and be-\nmethods of transliteration, the\nfore that, a union of Libya,\nfirst letter can be G, Gu, K, Kh, Q\nEgypt, Syria and The Sudan. Still\nor Qu; the second letter can be a\nlooking for a partner, Khadafy\nor e; the third can be d, dd, dh or\nhas other choices, but it's unlike-\nth; the fourth must be a, but\nly he can match the spelling possi\nT\nthe fifth can be f, ff or ph. The\nbilities of his name. He's tryi'\nlast may be i, y or ey. Possibili-\nthough.\nWisconsin State Journal\nPage of Opinion\nPAGE 8, SECTION 1\nTHURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1974\nFORMER ARMY CHIEF SPEAKS\nFroehlke's Amnesty Plan\nFormer Army Secretary Robert\nFroehlke makes good sense with his\nproposal for amnesty for the young\nmen who fled this country rather\nthan serve in the Armed Forces\nduring the Vietnam War.\nFroehlke, now president of Sentry\nInsurance, Stevens Point, has called\non the public to urge congressional\nrepresentatives to adopt a \"plan for\nforgiveness,' encouraging those\nwho left America to return.\nThe former secretary, who op-\nposed amnesty during the war, said\nthe plan must clearly state that\nthose who fled instead of going to\nwar made a mistake.\nAlso, he said, it would require\nMost of those who fled, rightly or\nsome time in some form of national\nwrongly, followed the dictates of\ntheir consciences.\nservice involving a long enough\nterm to accomplish something\nOne can argue, of course, that the\nuseful.\nhonorable way to have defied the\ndraft would have been to face the\nFroehlke also proposed to grant\nissue standing up and submit to\npardons to those who refused to run,\nprison terms as many did.\nchoosing prison instead, when the\nexiles are permitted to return.\nOne can also argue that those who\nfled made their decisions and are\nFroehlke said he opposed amnesty\nnow bound by them. But what pur-\nduring the war because others were\npose except revenge do these ar-\nobeying the law and reporting for\nguments propose?\nthe draft and fighting and dying and\nthat amnesty at such a time would\nAnother argument is that if we\nhave been inappropriate and morale\nforgive the draft dodgers and\nshattering.\ndeserters now, we will encourage\nlarge scale draft dodging and\nNow, he said, the national need is\ndesertion if a future war requires a\nfor forgiveness, compassion, and a\ncall to arms.\nhealing of the wounds left by that\nmost unpopular war in United\nWe have more faith in American\nStates history.\nyouth than that.\n\"Amnesty now because the draft\nBy all measures the Vietnam\nand the killing is over,\" he said.\nWar was unlike any war this\n\"Amnesty now because we need to\ncountry has ever been involved in. It\nbegin mending in every way possi-\nwas fought at the wrong time. in the\nble the heartbreak and wounds left\nwrong place, and for the wrong\nby that war. Vietnam deeply hurt\nreasons. Once we were bogged down\nAmerica. Now is the time to heal\nin it just about every thinking per-\nthat hurt.\nson in this country wanted out of it.\n\"Amnesty now because it is\nIf this country finds itself in a\nAmerica's youth who are involved\njustifiable war in the future, we are\nand America has always shown\nconfident that the youth of\nmercy and restraint with its young\nAmerica will do its duty as it has\npeople.\"\nthroughout the history of this\ncountry, and as most of it did in\nThere are an estimated 4,500\nVietnam.\nyoung Americans now living in a\nself-imposed exile in foreign coun-\nAs Froehlke said, we can no doubt\ntries, who face stiff prison sentences\nget along without the exiles but do\nif they return. Most of them want to\nwe really want to? We do want to\ncome home but not at that price.\nheal the hurt of Vietnam. Don't we?\nPost 2/1/74\nLaird did a quiet burn after receiving\nEvans and Novak\na carbon copy of the VFW's letter to\nNixon. An old Navy man who won a\nPurple Heart and rose from the ranks\nto become an officer during World War\nII, VFW member Laird used Navy\nNIXON vs. LAIRD\nlanguage to grumble that the VFW had\n\"put a comrade on report.\"\nWASHINGTON.\nwith a Scripps-Howard reporter he sug-\nOn Monday, Jan. 28, beginning his\nThe astonishing disagreement between\ngested amnesty for the exiles in return\nlast week at the White House, Laird\nRichard Nixon and Melvin Laird over\nfor \"some sort of service\" to their\nsent his own letter to Soden. \"Neither\namnesty for Vietnam draft dodgers\ncountry.\nthe political system nor the judicial\nunderscores as nothing else the Presi-\nReading that interview, the VFW\nsystem of the United States works on\ndent's dangerous isolation from the\nhierarchy was outraged. On Jan. 7, Na-\n'blanket' and arbitrary approaches,\" he\nwrote.\n\"\nshrewd politician who has just ended\ntional Commander Ray R. Soden sent\nWe pride ourselves on ad-\neight frustrating months as domestic\nNixon a smoldering letter which reiter-\nministering justice with mercy and\ncounselor.\nated the VFW's \"total and unremitting\nunderstanding.\" While opposing general\nNot only disagreement on one issue\nopposition to any form of amnesty.\" He\namnesty, he proposed a case-by-case\nbut antithetical political philosophies\nexpressed \"shock and a deep sense of\napproach.\nand noncommunication between two\nbetrayal\" over Laird's new position,\nold allies are glaringly revealed by their\nadding that he considers Laird's \"ac-\nDuring Laird's White House tenure,\nconflicting response to a Veterans of\ntions and apparent sentiments\" about\nhe never discussed this with the Presi-\nForeign Wars protest over Laird's\namnesty \"to be unconscionable\" and\ndent. Neither has anybody else high\navowed interest in \"conditional am-\n\"a break of faith both with you and\nWhite House officials told us. Nixon is\nnesty.\"\nwith the strong men and women who\nnot only isolated from the outer world\nWithout consulting or informing\nserved, suffered, and in 57,000 cases,\nbut sealed off from his own staff's un-\nLaird, President Nixon told the VFW\ndied.\" Soden's request: \"a personal re-\ncongenial advice. Knowing his revulsion\nhis opposition to amnesty remains to-\naffirmation from your on this matter.\"\nfor advice contradicting his own axioms,\ntally inflexible. Without consulting or\nRapid correspondence not being the\nhis aides protect themselves. by holding\ninforming the President, Laird told the\nstrong suit of the Nixon White House,\ntheir tongues.\nVFW that changing conditions have\nno reply was sent the VFW until Jan.\nThus, President Nixon is probably\nmodified his own earlier opposition to\n23. During those 16 days, Nixon did not\nwholly unaware of bipartisan feeling in\namnesty.\nseek out Laird, target of the VFW rage.\nCongress that something eventually\nNor did he consult counselor Bryee\nmust be done about amnesty, a feeling\nNothing could better demonstrate the\nHarlow or the Domestic Council's staff.\nfully perceived not only by Laird but,\nbasic incompatibility of the two men.\nInstead, staffers who routinely handle\nmore importantly, also by Vice Presi-\nIn telling the VFW that \"throughout\ncorrespondence checked the President\ndent Ford. As Representative of Michi-\nmy career of public service, I have\nto make certain he still opposed am-\ngan's 5th Congressional District, Ford\nlearned to avoid absolute, dogmatic\nnesty in any form.\nanswered mail by suggesting conditional\npositions,\" Laird was implicitly con-\nHe did. His Jan. 23 letter to Soden,\namnesty-that is, for violators who put\ntrasting Nixon's rigidity. But beyond\nnot released to the press, reaffirmed\nin substitute service for their country.\nthe contrast, the VFW correspondence\nhis stand. \"The few who refused to\nLaird, leaving the White House with\nrevealed the degree to which the Presi-\nserve or deserted their country,\" he\nhis store of political wisdom sadly un-\ndent had simply stopped talking to his\nwrote, \"must pay a penalty for their\ntapped by the President, has said Ford\ndomestic counselor.\nchoice\nWe cannot provide forgiva-\nwill now assume many of his duties.\nWith U. S. forces no longer fighting\nness for them\nThe price is a criminal\nFord is also sensitive to political trends\nin Vietnam, Laird has long felt some-\npenalty.\" That, the President addet,\nand the need for flexibility. But whether\nthing must be done about 30,000 to\n\"still reflects my view.\" He shrugged\nhe will prove to be one small whit more\n40,000 young men who fled this country\noff \"recent reports in the press which\nsuccessful than the unusually articulate\nto escape the draft. He said nothing to\nhave been attributed to others,\" without\nLaird in getting through to the Presi-\nthe President, but in a Jan. 5 interview\na gesture at defending Laird.\ndent is extremely doubtful.\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY"
}