Museado / NARA Collection grf-0193 — Collection grf-0193
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (inglés) español magyar (húngaro) हिन्दी (hindi)

Survos folio page chat

Correspondence (4)

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

The original documents are located in Box 3, folder "Correspondence (4)" 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 Charles Goodell donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 3 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library CEG July 17, 1975 Fll Mr. Lawrence M. Baskir General Counsel Presidential Clemency Board The White House Washington, D. C. 20500 Dear Mr. Baskir: This is in reply to your letter to me dated July 15, 1975. In accordance with our discussion this afternnon with Senator Goodell, in the event it becomes necessary for me to write a memorandum for any Board member, I will first furnish copies of it to my immediate supervisor, Mrs. Handwerger, you, and the Senator before giving it to the Board member. I fully understand now that in my position as head of the records sention, I report directly to Mrs. Handwerger and that the chain of command goes from her to you, then to the Senator. I also understand that if any Board member discusses matters with me which concern the operation of the Board, that I will sall these to the attention of Mrs. Handwerger and make her aware of their concern. You have my assurance that I will henceforth strictly adhere to the chain of command in all matters pertaining to the operation of the Presidential Clemency Board. Sincerely, 0. G. Benson FORD i GERALD LIBRARY OGB:jz MEMO FROM 0187/21/75 MAURICE GOLDMAN D lar Senator Goodell T handyou very much for taking the time to write to me. much. I appreciate this vegeo GERALD d alto think that you should try to get the momination for Senator from N.T. again T handryou for sending my letters to you Briscoe of Tras. A hope you wereable to write a few Personal words. along with the letters to Dor Briscoe I don ? t think I'll hear from you Briscoe r but A appreciate your gesture and your kind remarks. Thanks again sincerely yours manice MEMO FROM MAURICE GOLDMAN at 1/15/75 D ear chairman Goodell Thankyou for your kind letter to me on the P ardons of the Draft Resisters who have served then sentences in the U.S.A., before the Presidential clemency Board was established lawyer for further comment. I'll. ask my as fan as it goes, you have been lement in these (m + of the decisions you speak of & A agree with them .H apart continues Thanks again sincerely your maurice AUG 15 1975 powd aug. 8, 1975 Gentlemen: just read Chas. E. Goodell article on annesty, published in Parade magazine. may agine. Thought you might be imprissed with two -f the mens answers, Brad Fountain is Correct! Bernard W ilson make Smart decision Mas Jenn A Fair,Jul. 982 Will We Ever Solv e Ampesty Proble jobs with those who didn't serve or deserted. At this point, I feel the country ought to say to those guys: "You let us down, and now we're going to let you down." In fact, unless they are willing to serve in the military like the rest of us did, I'd tell them to forget it: they don't deserve to live in America. III. Bernard Wil- son-27-year-old Navy deserter, currently doing alternate service in a Virginia hos- pital: Why did I de- cide to do alter- nate service? Be- cause, since 1969 when I deserted, I had been living underground with a false name. I hadn't seen my parents or my friends for six years. The clemency program was a chance to be me again. Cull Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to these materials. 6522 Quan View are Carlobad, Ca. 92008 POSTAL U.S. S. 12 PM AUG 920 CA SERVICE 10 STATES 975 Presidential Clemency Board Washington, D.C. Pocard AUG 18 1975 Harold A. Gregory P. O. BOX 1221 - WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS O1601 August 11, 1975 Mr. Charles E. Goodell Chairman Presidential Clemency Board Vietnam Amnesty Cases Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Goodell: According to a TV news program I watched, one problem faced by possible amnesty seekers is What kind of a job will they be assigned in order to work their way back What kind of work can they be given without arousing local resentment? Has anyone sent you the enclosed idea that I submitted to the White House some time ago? Sincerely, Harold Gregory Encs. Ltrs N. Y. Daily News / WBZ-TV 4 "Amnesty, Alaska" Anchorage Daily Times ltr May 5, 1975 FORD & LIBRARY 981 absolutely imperative that step. Paredes implies that KAKM Exec. Director Anchorage take immediate Second, begin an immediate will produce carbon copies of & General Manager action to improve our roads priority program to widen all the New York City local KAKM Television and streets. The adverse effec- major arterial streets and ts of the mile-long traffic jams roads to at least four-lane every morning and every capacity. These streets and evening include increased fuel roads will connect the Andy Warwick consumption (energy), upgraded intersections and increased air pollution must be completed within Dear Editor: showing whatsoever that War- (physical environment), to say three to five years if I have read with interest wick had the slightest intent of nothing of the shattered nerves Anchorage is to avoid total your recent editorials concer- benefiting himself when he and emotional upset which are strangulation of its streets. ning the Andy Warwick voted for the pay raise. But the caused by the constantly The steps outlined above appointment. You have argued pay raise for commissioners deteriorating situation. should have been undertaken that the Constitution of the and judges did not stand by Daily Times Regardless of one's position several years ago. They are State of Alaska "means what it itself! It passed together with a concerning the private certainly not final solutions to says" and since it says that general pay increase for all automobile versus mass tran- traffic or transit problems. but "during the term for which government employes (con- sit, there are at least two they should be mandatory first elected and for one year tained in a separate bill), both improvement programs that steps if Anchorage is to avoid thereafter, no legislator may of which were treated as a should be supported. further unnecessary be nominated, elected, or package:by the finance com- First. all major intersec- deterioration of its quality of appointed to any other office mittees. tions must be immediately life. We cannot afford any fur- the salary or emoluments of Accordingly, even were you upgraded to provide for ther delay without exhorbitant which have been increased to accept Legislative Affairs separate right and left-turn costs, both tangible and while he was a member," War- view of the question lanes with adequate stacking intangible, to all Anchorage wick cannot validly be appoin- requiring a general pay capacity, plus at least two residents. ted to the post of commissioner increase in order to avoid a through-traffic lanes with Eldon L. Young of administration since he ser- constitutional problem - that merging lanes back to 3236 Wesleyan Driv ved in the Eighth State condition was met and War- Legislature that raised the wick's appointment is legal salary for that post. While you and proper. Amnesty, Alaska seem to agree with Governor. The only way in which this Hammond that Andy Warwick question can be tested is if Dear Editor: their way back.' would be a fine commissioner, Warwick is confirmed and Can you picture a grand- "It became a space project you do not wish to see the con- then a suit is brought to test the father telling his grandchild at on earth, exciting the stitution violated by his constitutionality of the appoin- some future date how imagination of the whole world appointment. Both the gover- tment. We welcome that test so Amnesty. the beautiful capital and, after several difficulties, nor and I share that wish. that we may resolve this issue of Alaska, all began? it became this marvelous city It is my legal opinion that once and for all. The It was back in 1976 when the that you live in now. Warwick's appointment is not legislature is considering that construction work was begun The people of Alaska were in conflict with the constitution solution now. in earnest as part of the so impressed by the extraor- and I have sociadvised the It has been suggested that celebration of our nation's dinary and devoted work of the governor Warwick serve as deputy com- 200th anniversary. Army people, that they adop- I know of no attorney who missioner for a year and then "In 1974 we had voted to ted officially the nickname has reviewed this question and be appointed commissioner. build a new state capital that the returned objectors had concluded that a literal inter- However, the legal issue somewhere between Fair- given the site, 'Amnesty, pretation of the constitutional remains the same. Both banks and Anchorage: that's Alaska. provision was intended by the positions had their salaries how it began Today, just the tourist framers of that document. The raised by the legislature in Then the federal govern trade of people coming from Legislative Affairs Agency, which Warwick served. If he ment decided to help out with a all over the world to see this which believes the appoint- can serve as deputy com- public works program to build amazing and immaculate ment is invalid, suggests that a missioner - he can serve as a super, technologically capital, with its geodesic key issue is whether the salary commissioner. In my opinion, advanced, weather-controlled domes, monorails and advan- increase for the com- he can serve as either. capital, giving employment to ced construction, from reser- missioner's post was part of a 1 would be the first to recog- thousands of out-of-job voirs to recreational units, its general pay increase or a nize that an attorney generals' air-space technicians, college health and safety features and special pay increase. In opinions are not sacrosanct graduates, unemployed per- economic self-sufficiency, has Legislative Affairs' view the and may be overturned by sons from all over the states, made it one of the post bill which increased the salary courts. 1 believe that would not and thousands of army prosperous living areas in the for the commissioner of be the case with Warwick's amnesty personnel, those who country. administration was a bill appointment. However, even if fled to Canada and Sweden Harold Gregory which raised salaries for just that should come to pass. it will rather than to fight in Viet- Box 1221 commissioners and judges, not change the fact that the nam, and now were 'working Worcester, Mass. which was not enough of a appointment was made with a general salary increase to sincere belief that it is con- avoid a constitutional sistent with the requirements Liberalizing Marijuana problem. of the Alaska Constitution, and I am convinced that even if not out of a desire to avoid may the pay raise had been restric- those requirements. Dear Editor: not softer ones, and someone to ted to judges and top executive Avrum M. Gross It is hard for me to believe see that they are enforced. The officers, there has been no Attorney General that some of the legislators we good people of Alaska have got have sent to Juneau would to remember those who foster introduce and support such such laws and rid ourselves of Union Side bills as the liberalization of the them. marijuana drug law. It seems to appear that Sen. Dear Editor: wages. Is this liberalization sup- Miller and others were not Your column had a couple of The union man or woman posed to increase safety on the introducing legislation for the letters saying how the writers carries a large load of the road? Will it make us safer in majority but for the minority. were opposed to the unions. If taxes, from $70 to $200 per our homes? Does it improve Don't the legislators know that the people will just take the week, so, inflation falls right our health? Does it make us a person who habitually trouble to check, they will find back where it belongs. Without better citizens? I submit that breaks a small law would not that the non-union shops, gas unions we would be back to $1 its effects is just the opposite. hesitate to break a large one in stations and stores charge just perday. What we need is stress or trouble? as much as the union places. Herbert Bartlett improvement in our court R. C. Raymer They have only one thing 3805 Cope system We need Karder E August 30, 1974 To the Editor of the N. Y. Daily News: How about building a "Buck Rogers" type, technologically advanced, weather-controlled new capital for Alaska with federal aid, using unemployed technical personnel from all over the nation, including the Vietnam draft dodgers who want to "work their way back." They could call the super city, "Amnesty, Alaska." Harold Gregory 755-1856 GROUP WBZ-TV 4 WBZ RADIO 103 W Dear Mr. Gregory, Thanks for your comments and apologies for the delay in responding. We were working toward the enclosed editorial, and I held off to send on the printed copy to you. The Alaskas building project may make good sense. But we think it should be done by a general work force, possibly including some draft evaders and deserters, as part of 1. public works program to take up the growing slack in employment. hd Harold A. Gregory STOURL SERVICE AM P.O. BOX 1221 - WORCESTER, MASS. 01601 12 AUG . UNITED 10 STATES Mr. Charles E. Goodell Chairman Presidential Clemency Board Vietnam Amnesty Cases Washington, D. C. August 11, 1975 Dear Senator: Thank you for your recent letter with which you enclosed a copy of a letter from one of your constituents who is interested in obtaining information from the Presidential Clemency Board. I have referred this matter to the Chairman of the Board and you may be sure that your request will be given careful and thoughtful consideration. With warm regards, Sincerely, FORD & LIBRARY GERALD Patrick E. O'Donnell Special Assistant to the President The Honorable Barry Goldwater United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510 bcc: w/incoming to Charles Godell, Presidential Clemency] Board. POD:pd BARRY GOLDWATER COMMITTEES: ARIZONA AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES ARMED SERVICES PREPAREDNESS INVESTIGATING SUBCOMMITTEE United States Senate TACTICAL AIR POWER SUBCOMMITTEE INTELLIGENCE SUBCOMMITTEE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE August 5, 1975 Mr. Pat O'Donnell Special Assistant for Legislative Affairs The White House Washington, D.C. Dear Pat: It would be greatly appreciated if you would forward the enclosed letter from a constituent to the White House Amnesty Board for reply. Thanks very much. With best wishes, Bany Barry Goldwater July 23, 1975 440 old Jenate Building Mr. Barry Goldwater The capital Washington D.C. 20510 Dear Senator: It has been said that the men who chance of employment over the men were granted annesty have a better who have served in the Armed forces. Even though there has been so much this would matter. appreciate your viewpoints on controversy over the subject of Amnesty Thank you, Maucia D. Thousing THE FIELD FOUNDATION 100 EAST 85TH STREET . NEW YORK, N.Y. 10028 212/535-9915 August 12, 1975 The Hon. Charles Goodell 1225 19th Street, NW Washington, DC 20016 Dear Charles: You know my opinion about amnesty. It was reached without the benefit of case-by-case study, such as you and Vernon Jordan have had. I'm not surprised, however, that months of study and thought have now led Vernon to speak out for an unconditional amnesty and for the plight of jobless veterans. I have come to believe that amnesty is an issue singularly dependent for its resolution on political leadership, that the public -- both to its credit and discredit -- doesn't actively care. Had Mr. Ford extended a generous amnesty last year, instead of the course he took, the issue would, I am convinced, by now be over and largely forgotten by the public and the media. It is a case where justice and "domestic tranquility" are on the same side, and that is rare enough to be seized upon and enjoyed. Were you also to give, in your own effective way, support to an unconditional 07V83 amnesty you would contribute so much to, as Vernon put it, finally ending that war, which you in the tough years so brilliantly opposed. I wonder, there- fore, if your experience of the past several months may not have led you to conclusions similar to Vernon's. Sincerely;yours, Leslie W. Dunbar LWD/kjs ISERVIED COUNTRY 6 San Fran EAC Term Expires Sept. AUG 18 1975 1975 Clemency Board Starts To Wind Up Its Work Washington COWARD The Presidential Clemency Repair Work Board said yesterday it has acted on 12,000 cases and granted about On the Mars by 6000 unconditional pardons to per;ons who received punitive ALL military discharges or were con- Rocket victed of desertic draft dodg- Cape Canaveral ing in the Vit Engineers worked to replace OHLY backlog OF more than a faulty valve in the Atlas-Cen- cases remains to be processed taur rocket yesterday with the task to be completed before the aim of restarting the countdown LiFE board expires by law on Septem- for the launch of a Viking probe to ber j5, board chairman Mars. Charles odell. The faulty valve was discov- KNOW Some pers Monday just two hours be ver an cond al he sch la of ons asec me completing public service jobs of ng one of THAR three to 12 month the planet. The ilfunctioning valve cated in the steering sys The boar the first stage of the of clemency Pocket, forced engineers to cancel the Launch. It has been resched- About 21,000 persons applied uled for tomorrow. to the board, but several and were fou elig includ mitt Tenses in World War I 1776 Court ruled in 1970 that such an and World War II. application need not have a reli- gious basis, he said. About 100,000 personseligible RULED for clemency did not apply Goodell said the board recom- board because of bout mended outright pardons for the program or these who objected to war in THERE tion, Goodell said. era Vietnam specifical- The board dates not consider cases involving unconvicted questions, the OUT dodgers or deserters, or persons former New York Republican OF who fled the country avoid uld ike to see prosecuti the ogran or nu doubts at Of the 12,000 will acted ask Con roughly 25 per cent 'individu- als who served valia in Viet- Of the ersons na and bsequer go into LOUF who assigned to perform tr public service work in return for dell only 288 persons haVe About per cent of ur civilian appl Ints ey enced sub- System for processing, a Selective stantial con Lientic objection to Service spokesman said. the war b wer mal to tai proper The remaining cases are been con dea for atri waiting action by Mr. Ford, who pard mulst give final approval to all mency Board Commenda- Most were men who applied for CO status before the SuFreme LOUER3980 Associated Press BEFOR SiNCE 1776 SAN FRANCISCO I PM 1 CA Militany 13 AUG 94 ove 34009 1875 Paul Laurence Dunbar DEAD American poet 10 cents U.S. postage FACIL WOUNDED x pow's DIDNOT CHAIRMAN CHARLES GooneLL SERVE CLEMENCY BOARD To HONOR Whiter GTON, Color RDS OR TREASONER D. e. 205 <<<< TER AMERICAS TORE WHO ARE x2 HENOS Cowards. 11/14 Sam Nunn 110 SENATE OFFICE BUILDING TEL (202) 225-3521 GEORGIA United States Senate WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 August 13, 1975 Mr. Charles Goodell Presidential Clemency Board 3022 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Re: James J. Mullen Attached is a communication within the area of your authority. Because of my desire to be responsive to all in- quiries, your help is needed. I would appreciate your looking into this matter and providing me with a report so that 1 may further respond to my constituent. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, along with return of the enclosure, will be greatly appreciated. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely, Sam Mim FORD & LIBRARY GERALD JC Auc 4 12 08 PM 1975 2989 Kentucky Court East Point, Georgia 30344 July 31, 1975 Senator Sam Nunn 110 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Nunn: I voted for you. I am pleased with your performance as my Senator and intend to give you my further support. The inclosed letters reflect my views on their subject. I am out- raged that our President sees fit to pay no' attention to my concerns. I ask you, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to pursue this subject and hold some feet to the fire. Surely, there must be answers to the questions I have asked. As a professional soldier, I have a deep interest in the future Of our country which I am sure you share. It is my belief that the President is badly advised and needs to be shown why this is SO. Your inquiry, on my behalf, will be most appreciated. Dependent on the results you produce to this letter, I am willing to do what you might ask of me to see you re-elected. I hope to meet you personally on your next visit to Atlanta. Respectfully Janes Lieutenatn JAMES J. MULLEN Amullen Colonel U. S. Army (Retired) 2989 Kentucky Court East Point, Georgia 30344 September 24, 1974 The President The White House Washington, D. C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: Your announcement for amnesty for deserters and draft evaders has disturbed me. As a citizen, I have many questions concerning this matter. The first, and most important to me is WHY? I have read and heard many phrases such as: "Healing Wounds," "An Unique Act of Mercy," "An End to Divisiveness," "A Re-affirmation of Loyalty." None of these convince me. I would like to know what forces caused you to offer your Amnesty Program. I would like to know what results you expect. I would like to know how much money this will cost. Have you evaluated the effect this will have on citizens response in a future war? If we allow people to hide and then, when danger is past, to be accepted and forgiven, what will happen to the sense of civic duty and responsibility next time? Are you aware that you may be producing the climate in which an American is permitted to "choose" his war? Are you aware that you may be underwriting the disaster of our nation? How do you, as President, have the right to override our laws, both civil and military? Please explain to me your reasons for this program. I believe that it is my right, as a citizen, to know why you are doing this. I ask you to give me a detailed reply. Sincerely, James Amullen MULLEN Lieutenant Colonel U. S. Army (Retired) 2989 Kentucky Court East Point, Georgia 30344 25 October 1974 Dear Mr. President: On 24 September 1974, I sent you a letter containing a number of questions concerning your amnesty program. There has been no response. I prefer to believe, that due to the pressvof business, or a possible clerical error, my letter has been overlooked. Enclosed is a copy of my original letter to you. I will appreciate a prompt reply. Sincerely, Encl JAMES J. MULLEN as Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army (Retired) The President The White House Washington, D. C. 29500 2989 Kentucky Court East Point, Georgia 30344 January 10, 1975 The President The White House Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: On September 24, 1974, I sent you a letter containing questions on your amnesty program. The letter was not acknowledged. A second letter, including a copy of the first, was sent on October 25, 1974. No response. I draw the conclusion that my inquiries are simply being ignored. I hope I am mistaken and that a reply will be forthcoming within a reasonable time. Meanwhile, several other questions have occurred to me. When will the Clemency Board be disbanded? How much is the advertising campaign to bring in deserters and evaders costing us, to include toll free phone calls? Who pays travel, food and lodging expenses for deserters processed at Fort Benjamin Harrison? What is a typical "Public Service" job? What is the penalty, if any, should a person fail to perform his term of "Public Service"? Please reply to this, and my previous letters, as early as possible. Sincerely, JAMES J. MULLEN LTC, USA-RET 5 May 1975 2989 Kentucky Court East Point, GA 30344 The President The White House Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: On three previous occasions I have written you letters concerning your amnesty program for draft evaders and deserters. These letters are dated 24 Sept 1974, 25 Oct 1974 and 10 Jan 1975, respectively. In addition, while you were visiting Atlanta on 3 Feb 1975, I telephoned your headquarters at the Hyatt Regency Hotel. Mrs. Eleanor Elleness, who identified herself as a member of your staff, gave me profuse assurances that an immediate reply would be sent. It has not happened. The conditional amnesty program expired on 31 March 75. In his column in the Atlanta Journal, 4 May 1975, Mr. J. F. Terhorst reports that you have recently doubled the clemency staff to nearly 400 persons. It appears the expiration date of the program was meaningless. I am unable to understand why you persistently court these men after they have repeatedly rejected your offers and have arrogantly demanded unconditional amnesty. I am personally hostile to the program and would like to see the entire thing terminated. Unless I am mistaken there already exists a Court of Military Appeals and a Board for Cor- rection of Military Records which pertain directly to deserters. So far as draft evaders are concerned, are there not still laws on the books to handle these cases? Your reasons for the emphasis, effort and concern for these people I consider as undesirables, escapes me. I might see some merit in indivi- dual cases, but until and unless I can be convinced that your course is right, I will remain opposed. I have read and heard many complimentary comments about the "openness" of your administration. If this is so, then perhaps I can expect an answer to the many questions I have posed in my previous letters. Please help me understand what you are doing Land why. If my outlook is mistaken, surely you would wish to set me straight. James Sincerely, MULLEN Amullen Lt. Col., USA (Ret) 2804 Rudolph Road Richmond, Virginia 23229 August 13, 1975 Mr. Charles Goodell, Chairman The Presidential Clemency Board Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Goodell, The attached clipping is from today's Richmond paper. Of all the foolish and immoral things you have said and done since you became chairman of this clemency board, this one is probably the worst The program "has succeeded in closing the chapter on Vietnam," Charles Goodell said yesterday. May I assure you, Mr. Goodell, that the chapter on Vietnam is far from closed and I will continue to work for unconditional amnesty. We conducted ourselves like barbarians in Vietnam, Mr. Goodell, and you have joined a long and dishonorable group of liars and accomplices who have tried to conceal that fact. Your clemency board is just another attempt to put a thin coating of respectability on what was nothing less than murder. Those who opposed the Vietnam war deserve unconditional amnesty and there are many of us who will work toward that end. Very truly yours, Albert achut L. Reynolds L. Reynolds Clemency Board To Phase Out By Sept. 15 WASHINGTON (UPI) President Ford's Clemency Board, which has processed 75 per cent of the 16,000 eligible applications it releived the past year, will be out of business by Sept. 15, says its chairman. The program "has succeeded in closing the chapter on Vet nam." ChárlesGoodell said Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to these materials. Maid Avaust 13, 1975 THE HONORABLE CHARLES E. GOODELL, CHAIRMAN PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD FOR VIETNAM WAR SERVICEMEN, WHITE HOUSE, VIASHINGTON, DC,20000 Dear Sir: FORD & LIBRARY 077839 may I join all folks who know of this problem in thanking you for your jardons to so many honest U,S, Soldiers whose personal problems were mis understood as lax most Sincerely a Cordially, (m.) Joseph Klotz, (Volunteer most successfully RA VETERANS Hospital -PH ADELPHIA HOME ADDRESS PARKER HOTEL, 13th SPRUCE 573911 PHIL PENNA, 19107 pro-am. pro AUG18 19 United Press International Goodell reporting that the clemency board is winding up its work 6, 000Pardons Given By Clemency Board Associated Press 1,000 pardons that were either uncon- WASHINGTON The Presidential ditional or required a period of public Clemency Board for Vietnam war service work. servicemen reported yesterday that it had processed 12,000 of the 15,000 The board has been sending the to 16,000 eligible applicants and President a packet of 1,000 to 2,000 granted outright pardon to 50 per- cases on a regular basis, he said. AP. - in Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to these materials. SMINGION Hd w 1975 14 200 AM AUG de 3 USE ZIP CODE ANDREW JACKSON PA A 191 UNITED STATES 1975 THE HONSRABUE CHARLES E. GOODELL, CHAIRMAN PRESIDENTIAL CLEIGENCY. BOARD FOR VIFTNA M WAR SERVICE MIN, WHITEHOUSE, WASHINGTON, Di Cr 20000 Josi KLOTZ UNTEER UrS1 VETERANS Hospitals pocard AUG18 aug. 14, 1975. Dear mr. Goodell; BALD We are past due in granting unconditional amnesty to our Vietmam war resisters When a full grown man with a law degree like Richard nixon gets total amnesty why do you continue punishing our young men with principals in an undeclared, illegal war. Is there any justice! One of the reasons our country is in such a mess economically is because of the Vietnam war you would be surprized at how many feel as we do including Vietnam veterans, and as far as the amnesty program is concerned its a flap. President Ford asks us to show compassion to the Vietnamese refugees so how about the same for our own. enough. their Doesn't he think our boys He also said Richard nexon has suffered and families have suffered enough? hasn't got a chance while those with all we can say is the little guy wealth and power get away with breaking the law. What this Country needs is statesmen, not politicians. Mr. Sincerely, & Mrs. E. Kruger 630 no. Fig St979 Escandido, Calif 92025 E. C. KRUEGER 630 NORTH FIG ST. ESCONDIDO, CAL. 92025 14 AUG 1975 Bunker Hill 1775 by Trumbull US Bicentennial IO mr. Charles Goodell Clemency Board Chairman 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, n.w. Washing ton, D.C. 20500 ( AUG22 1975 17 Argust 1975 Subject: Clemency for deserters et dooft dodgers tabout the FORD came thing traitors) you and mm Ford must indeed feel grat pangs of Liberal joy on your resp- entire records of leviency to your sunshine traitors. The cartempt you and company have above pertaining to this country's was efforts is boundless. The contempt wr, the living veterans, hold you et company is bundless. This clemeny business will h all of the factor that will cost Fard his job How in hell you two can cleep atringlituith the panalpy y dead and mained prissing through is bynd me. Capt. HE Hess 1193 We hold these Truths. Жура PM SAN DIEGO 18 AUC 24 1975 UNITED STATES Oc Charles Goodell Bnsidential Clemency Board Hashington, D.C. dersonal ave K 5353 Baltimoro Dr, apt2 La mess M9 09. 8 As DUA 81 stell ... NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed August 18, 1975 FORD & LIBRARY GERALD Dear Mr. Pepitone: Thank you for your letter of August 12, 1975, with reference to the projection of reconsiliation of service dispositions by this Board and my remarks to the press on August 12. The 20 per cent referred to should have been clearly labeled as applicants who receive our average period of alternative service of 4 to 6 months. Another 20 per cent receive 3 months' alternative service. Put in a simpler way, it is our present projection that 20 per cent of our total applicants will receive 3 months' alternative service and another 20 per cent will receive 4 to 6 months. Since we are now projecting our final number of eligible applicants at about 15,000, about 3,000 of those applicants will require 3 months' alternative service and another 3,000, 4 to 6 months alternative service. We still project about 8,000 total cases referred to you to perform alternative service. I shall be in touch with you mery soon to discuss the recommendations of the Presidential Clemency Board, which you invited in our earlier meeting. You are the one in a position to assess the nature and uniqueness of Clemency Board referrals to you. I know we share a desire to have makimum participation in a program which fully carries out the President's intent. I am enclosing an updated projection of Board dispositions to this letter for your information. With kind regard, I am Sincerely, Charles E. Goodell Chairman Mr. Byron Pepitone, National Director Selective Service System Washington, D.C. 20435 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES GEORGE E. DANIELSON COMMITTEES: WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 30TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA JUDICIARY (202) 225-5464 VETERANS' AFFAIRS CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISTRICT OFFICE: Congress of the United States CEMETERIES AND BURIAL BENEFITS 879 SOUTH ATLANTIC BOULEVARD MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA 91754 (213) 570-8216 house of Representatives ASSISTANT MAJORITY WHIP DELEGATE Washington, D.C. 20515 NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY MEMBER: SPECIAL COMMISSION ON August 18, 1975 MODERNIZATION OF HOUSE GALLERY FACILITIES Honorable Charles E. Goodell, Jr. Chairman Presidential Clemency Board The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear-Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is a copy of my additional views to the report being issued by the House Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice on their oversight hearings regarding the Presidential Clemency program. 1 would appreciate having your answers and any additional comments concerning the areas of interest I have specified at the earliest possible date in light of the impending termination of the Board's activities. Very truly yours, GEORGE E. DANIELSON Member of Congress GED:ctn Enclosure FORDO & GTV AMERICAN REVOLUTION 1776-1976 THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS 94th Congress 1st Session } COMMITTEE PRINT REPORT ON THE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY PROGRAM SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION AUGUST 1975 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 50-634 WASHINGTON : 1975 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. GEORGE E. DANIELSON I would like to add some additional remarks. Regarding recom- mendation No. 4: I certainly desire that the Presidential Clemency Board complete its task by its original deadline of September 15, 1975. However, I would hope that there be no rush to judgment. Should the President decide, in fairness to those applicants whose cases are pending completion, that additional time is necessary to complete this task in an equitable manner, I would strongly reiterate that he seek such funds from Congress. At that point, I think Congress, and specifically this subcommittee; before authorizing any funds, would be remiss if we do not more closely scrutinize some of the policy decisions underpinning the existence of the Presidential Clemency Board. Before authorizing funds, I would like to know the following: (1) Did the Presidential Clemency Board give any special consider- tion to the cases of applicants who entered the service through Project 100,000¹ and if not, why not? (2) Has the Board established any procedures for determining which cases are ripe for review by the various Department of Defense Dis- charge Review Boards? If so, what are these procedures? In what manner, then, are applicants' cases channeled to the appropriate Discharge Review Board? (3) Does the Presidential Clemency Board take steps to insure that its mitigation factors are consistent with factors used by DOD Dis- charge Review Boards and consistent with the intent of theDepart- ment of Defense's own clemency-oriented policies; that is, Laird memorandum of 1972 regarding drug abuse and the ensuing alcohol abuse programs? (4) How many applicants submitted timely data and were granted de novo hearings pursuant to the notice filed in the June 13, 1975, Federal Register? This notice, changing the prior standard operating procedure of the Board, stated in effect that the Board, because of time considerations, would no longer allow the review of an appli- cant's comments on the content of his case summary prior to the presentation of applicant's case before the Board, as had been the prior procedure. Presently, the Board's procedure allows that if an applicant's case has been heard by the Board prior to the receipt of a timely submission amending, contradicting, or supplementing, a case summary, the case will be presented de novo to another panel of the Board, other than that which heard the case originally, if the submission contains relevant information which could have affected the disposition of the case. It is upon this change in procedure that this question (4) is premised. Regarding recommendation No. 5: I would think that because of the small number of applications submitted to the Presidential Clemency Board, this subcommittee (17). 1 McNamara Memorandum, Aug 23, 1966 "Broadening the Manpower Pool" 18 should make a close investigation of the policy behind the jurisdictional parameters of the military cases. Specifically: (1) Why is jurisdiction granted only .to those persons who went AWOL (or AWOL-related offenses UCMJ Articles 85, 86, and 87) and not extended to those persons who resisted the war be refusing to obey orders? (2) To what depth did the Presidential Clemency Board, before finding or denying jurisdiction, examine the administrative procedures and data which individual commanders used in determining which separation program number would be listed on the separatee's DD Form 214? Therefore, what, on its face, was the basis for the dis- charge may have only been the straw that broke the camel's back, and yet be the basis for denial of jurisdiction by the Board if one does not look behind the separation program number. (3) What were the standards which the Presidential Clemency Board used to determine that applications were clearly ineligible and thereby sent "no jurisdiction" letters when such a determination was done without any review of the applicant's records except a reading of applicant's original letter? Finally, regarding the program as a whole: Upon a favorable con- sideration of the Presidential clemency, and the grant of a pardon, what, in effect, is the value of a clemency discharge? Are there cases in which the Board is recommending upgrades for veterans' benefits? Upon the receipt of a pardon and a recommendation by the Presi- dential Clemency Board that the applicant have some or all veterans' benefits restored, what is the status of the applicant's veterans' benefits? BURTON H. JAFFE 3708 N. OAKLAND ST. ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22207 Dear Sen. Goodell aug. 19, 1975 Thank you for your kind letter of any. 15. I performed to the best of my ability and am fileosed to have can- - tributed, in the small way that 2 did, toward the healing processes to which this Program addressed itseep This work experience has been the mest profoundly fulfilling and meaningful of my 12 1/2 year federal Career, my have served under your leadership for primary regret is that 2 Could not a greater period of time my thanks and very best personal wishes to you for Continued success in the year ahead. GENAL B.FORD B. Sincerely, Burton H. J affe CLERGY AND LAITY CONCERNED 235 EAST 49th STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017 212-371-7188 August 21, 1975 The Honorable Charles E. Goodell Chairman Presidential Clemency Board The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. Goodell: The Office of International Justice and Peace of the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Southern Asia Office of the Division of Overseas Ministries of the National Council of Churches, the American Friends Service Committee, and Clergy and Laity Concerned are co-hosting a three day seminar on the ramifications of the Indochina war on both domestic and foreign policy of America. The seminar will be held September 8 through 11 at Pendle Hill Conference Center in Pennsylvania. The question of amnesty will be one of the questions discussed at the seminar. Duane Shank, a Board Member of the National Council for Universal Unconditional Amnesty, has prepared a paperfor the seminar; "Remembering the Past to Serve the Future." Since this question is of vital importance to you and the Presidential Clemency Board, it would seem important for the seminar members to receive a response from you to the paper. We will, of course, be glad to reproduce your response and send/ it to each eeminar member. We would also like to extend an invitation to you to come to the seminar to discuss the issue of amnesty with the seminar members. Sincerely yours, TIBRART FORD & Dor Live Don Luce Executive Director Clergy & Laity Concerned Remembering the Past to Serve the Future With the final end of the war in Indochina this spring, a new struggle begins for Americans who were involved in the anti-war movement. It is a struggle that promises to be as hard fought as the one just concluded, and perhaps equally as long. The goal is to interpret the history of the war and its meaning for America. The American opinion-molders have already been active with their analyses, which almost without exception see the war as a mistake in tactical policies or as a basically good 1 venture somehow turned sour. We who opposed and organized against the war must now turn our efforts to seeing that the American people hear and understand the true nature of the war and the resistance it created. One appropriate instrument for this process is the ongoing struggle for a universal, unconditional amnesty. At the present, however, much of the educational work around amnesty is still based on such concepts as reconciliation, healing of wounds, forgetting the past, etc. Without going into the relative merits of those arguments, they. clearly share one thing in common-all are based on the past. While a legal forgetting of past actions is the general definition of amnesty, the process of working toward a goal and its ultimate meaning are in many instances as important as the goal itself. In this case, the implications of amnesty are for the future, while the obvious effect remains for the past. One guideline that can be used in examining the implications 2 of amnesty is the judgement of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and the resulting principles of international law. It was the United States, more than any other country, which insisted on the prosecution of the Nazis and the use of broad, general principles in doing SO. It was also the United States which emphasized at the time the significance of those principles in judging future conduct of war. Justice Robert Jackson, the Chief Prosecutor for the United States at Nuremberg, specifically spoke to the future possibility of the judgement being used against the United States when he said: = we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be 2 willing to have invoked against us " The significance of the struggle for amnesty, in continuing to speak to the American people, is to invoke that rule of conduct against the governments that have ruled the United States for the past thirty years. Two of the most basic ideas embodied in the Nuremberg Principles are the fundamental illegality of waging a war of aggression, ie. the use of armed force against another nation in any context other than self-defense against attack; and the obligation of individuals to refuse to be a part of any such illegality by their governments. In the terms of our strategic consideration, both of these ideas contain the element of the past affecting the future. We shall first look at the past. Volume after volume has been written in documenting and analyzing the commission of war crimes by the United States in 3 Indochina and the effect of these crimes on the Indochinese people. This has been obvious enough that as early as 1966, Bertrand Russell could say to the American people: "[T]he United States is committing war crimes in Vietnam. These have been documented so frequently by Western observers that they 3 need no further cataloguing here. " I shall likewise not attempt to catalogue or conclusively prove that there were, in fact, war crimes committed in Vietnam. It is enough to say that the very nature of the war, a techno- logical war by the world's most powerful nation against a national liberation movement, was a crime. The entire people of Indochina were the enemy, and American war policies reflected that fact. Search and destroy missions, free fire zones, harassment and interdiction fire, massive bombardment of non- military targets, the defoliation of vast areas of the country- side--all of these were officially sanctioned policies of the U.S. 4 government and all of them are in violation of international laws. A conclusive proof could no doubt be constructed, but it is sufficient, in the words of Professor Richard Falk, to "maintain that anyone who believes or has reason to believe that a war is being waged in violation of minimal canons of law and morality has an obligation of conscience to resist participation 5 in and support of that war by every means at his disposal. " It is difficult, in fact, to see how any American could not have known of the legal and moral violations occurring in Indochina, as they were extensively covered by the American press. In 1968, what was then "Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam" published In the Name of America, a 420 page compilation of news 4 stories which documented American war crimes. Yet while much has been written on the existence of war crimes, until recently, not much has appeared which directly 6 relates those crimes to the need for an amnesty. Nearly one million men and women did, in one way or another, refuse to obey orders to participate in the crime that was the war in Indochina, yet most of them continue to suffer legal and social sanctions for that refusal. I assert that draft, military, and civilian resistance activities, although not always consciously articulated as such, were in fact individuals exercising their legal responsibility under the Nuremberg Principles to refuse orders of their government to participate in war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. The theme of individual responsi- bility for actions in time of war was stated by the International Law Commission in formulating the Nuremberg Principles as Principle IV: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, pro- vided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. " 7 It is that idea of making alternative moral choices, or, the right to resist, that is at the heart of the amnesty question. While governments in general, and their military services in particular, operate on a chain-of-command structure that demands obedience, Nuremberg established that an individual dare not lose sight of his own conscience, his own responsibility to resist if necessary. 5 Richard Falk points out that " the Nuremberg teaching [is] that human beings have obligations that may transcend their duty to obey the dictates of their own state. Indeed, the most important positive contribution of Nuremberg may have been to give citizens an argument to interpose between themselves 8 and the criminal conduct of their government II There were a number of persons over the course of the war in Indochina who attempted to use the Nuremberg principle as a defense in the criminal courts of the United States, usually in cases of induction refusal. The courts consistently refused to hear it, for various reasons. Some simply said that allegations of the illegality of the war did not constitute a defense to the charge of refusing to submit to induction; some said that since a potential inductee had not received orders to report to Vietnam, he did not have legal standing to challenge the legality of the operations there; others said that the power of the Congress to raise and support armies was not affected by international laws and treaties regarding the use of the armies that are raised. The most common response was for the courts to declare that the war was a "political question" charged exclusively to Congress and the President, and that the courts had no authority to interfere 9 with politics. The most blatant refusal, worth quoting at length, was the opinion of the district court for Connecticut, in the case of David Mitchell, a 1965 induction refuser. Mitchell had cited in his defense his belief that the United States was committing 6 crimes in Vietnam and that an individual must disassociate himself from the crimes of his government. The judge responded: "Leaving aside the sickening spectacle of a 22 year old citizen of the United States seizing the sanctuary of a nation dedicated to freedom of speech to assert such tommyrot, and leaving aside also the transparency of his motives for doing so, the decisive point is that such political or philosophical views, even if sincerely entertained, are utterly irrelevant as a defense to the charge of willful refusal to report for induction in the armed forces of the United States " 10 Although, as stated earlier, certainly not every act of resistance against the involvement of the U.S. in Indochina, or even against the military in general, can be related to a conscious articulation of the Nuremberg principle, some interesting facts may be observed. David Cortright, in his recently published book, Soldiers in Revolt, points to statistics which "suggest that the pattern of dissent within the services was directly related to their role 11 in the war effort. " He cites the rates of absence and desertion, the incidence of non-judicial punishments, rates of other- than-honorable discharges, and applications for discharge as a conscientious objector. In terms of discharge applications, Cortright notes specifically that objection in the ground forces declined quickly after a peak in 1971, while rates in the Navy and Air Force remained high well into 1972--the years of massive 12 bombings. Whether or not one could conclusively demonstrate anti-war feelings as the basis for all acts of resistance, the point remains that in every instance there was a person exercising his individual conscience, his responsibility to remove himself from something he knew to be wrong and wished no part of. This point 7 of individual responsibility is what must be emphasized and re-emphasized. The obligation of an individual to at times go against the orders of his government, in addition to being founded in international law, has its roots deep in our religious tradition. It has long been taught that if one's loyalty to a state comes at variance to one's loyalty to God, the loyalty to God must come first. This teaching is relevant to us here in the form of "just war" theories and selective conscientious objection to war. Many religious bodies, perhaps most notably the Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church, have taught that some wars can be morally justified and others cannot, depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the war. The conclusion which follows is that individuals, relying on their conscience and the guidance of their religious community, may find it possible to participate in some wars and not in others. This belief, based on the inseparability of moral ethics and political judgement, is held by persons who believe that conscience "requires the individual to judge the morality of whatever policy of government he may be under orders to implement 13 and where such a policy is clearly unjust, to refuse to obey. = This belief, however, is not legally recognized as conscientious objection in the present Selective Service law, which requires 14 persons to be opposed to "participation in war in any form.' " Numerous persons also attempted to use selective conscien- tious objection as a defense to criminal charges, arguing that the draft law's definition should be broadened. The Supreme 8 Court did broaden the definition of conscientious objection to include persons who did not believe in a Supreme Being, but who held a belief that occupied a parallel place in their lives (Seeger, 1965) ; and to say that deeply held moral or ethical beliefs qualified as "religious" under the law (Welsh, 1970). It rejected, however, a further broadening to include selective objection. The leading case decided in the Supreme Court, the Gillette case in 1971, held that Congress did have the right to draw a line between total pacifists and non-pacifist objectors. With this legal and moral justification for the idea of individual responsibility, let us look more specifically at the present--the people involved and the case for amnesty. Amnesty is generally defined as the legal forgetting of past criminal offenses or alleged offenses. Its effect would include an immunity from further or future prosecution, an expungement of records relating to the alleged offenses, and in general, as far as the law is concerned, considering the offense never to have happened. An amnesty must be universal, which is to say that all persons who come within the category of relevant offenses must be covered. In this situation, amnesty refers to the war in Indochina and must cover all acts of resistance to that war. This would include all violations of the draft law; military violations including absentee offenses, disobedience of orders, and all other offenses which did or could lead to an other-than- honorable discharge or other form of punishment; and, acts committed by civilians in opposition to the war. 9 A special emphasis here is necessary on the question of other-than-honorable discharges, which in the minds of some people are still questionable beneficiaries of an amnesty. Two general categories of discharges, administrative and punitive, are used by the armed forces. The major distinguishing feature between them is that a punitive discharge can be awarded only by sentence of a court-martial. Both types were commonly used, however, in quelling dissent within the military. The New York City Commission on Human Rights, after a series of hearings in 1973, concluded: "Administrative proceedings and punitive discharges were frequently utilized in dealing with soldiers who 15 were outspoken in their opposition to the war " Two of the better known incidents of military resistance resulting in bad discharges involved a young Navy seaman and an Army medical doctor. Seaman Apprentice Roger Priest began publishing an anti-war newspaper in 1970, off base and out of uniform. An article appeared in the paper which offended Mendel Rivers, powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and he requested that the Navy do something about it. Very shortly thereafter, Priest was charged with fourteen violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, ranging from solicitation of desertion to sedition. After a year of legal battles, he was convicted of promoting disloyalty and disaffection, and given a Bad Conduct Discharge. Captain Howard Levy, M.D., was an Army doctor assigned to train Green Beret medics for Vietnam. As he realized more of the political and military goals for which medical aid could 10 be used, he refused to continue training what he considered to be potential war criminals. After rejecting his defense contentions of the illegality of the Vietnam war and the necessity to not participate in it, the military court sen- tenced Dr. Levy to three years at Ft. Leavenworth and dismissal from the service (equivalent to a Dishonorable Discharge). He served twenty-six months of the prison sentence, but will retain the stigma of "Dishonorable" for the rest of his life. While both of these cases involved a court-martial sentence, over 90% of the other-than-honorable discharges are given administratively, usually at the recommendation of a commanding officer. The recipient of the bad discharge has not been con- victed of any crime, does not have the right to a hearing in the matter, yet the discharge affects his life in much the same manner as a felony conviction; making employment difficult, making him practically ineligible for veterans benefits, etc. The universality of amnesty considerations must, therefore, include an upgrading of all such bad discharges. An amnesty must also be unconditional, with no punitive or stigmatizing conditions attached. Such conditions could include a period of service to the government, loyalty oaths, completion of an unfinished term of military service, etc. Since any condition necessarily involves a consideration of punishment for wrongdoing, any conditions must be rejected. The point to emphasize here is that while stating that amnesty legally means forgetting, the context of the discussion of individual responsibility to refuse illegal orders clearly implies remembering. This is the consideration of having an 11 effect on the past and an implication for the future. The persons who refused to participate in or opposed in whatever manner the war in Indochina need to be legally freed from prosecution and punishment for their actions. But while the law forgets the act, we must not forget the reason for the act. If we do not remember, we are doomed to repeat the crimes of this war in a future one. The amnesty movement has just weathered the challenge of President Ford's "Earned re-entry" program, a program against which a world-wide boycott was undertaken. The boycott and educational work around it were successful, as less than 20% of those potentially eligible for the program actually responded to its lures. The reason for the opposition and boycott of the program relate to the Indochina war and the assumptions about it which were made. The President, in announcing his intentions, spoke of "the few citizens of our country who, in my judgement, committed the 16 supreme folly of shirking their duty " This assumption was embodied even more directly in the oath that was required of returning military absentees, "recognizing that my obligations 17 as a citizen remain unfulfilled " Persons accepting the program then had to pledge to complete up to two years of civilian "alternate service", ostensibly to fulfill their "obligation", but practically, as punishment. It was these assumptions that were categorically rejected. The persons who resisted the crimes in Indochina did not shirk their duty or fail to fulfill their obligations as citizens. Completely to the contrary, they fulfilled their duty and 12 obligation to exercise their legal and moral responsibility to refuse to participate in crimes against humanity. One effective rejection of the program was the speaking and organizing tour of the United States carried out by Gerry Condon, an ex-Green Beret. In 1968, after 16 months in Special Forces training, Condon publicly "resigned" from the Army and thereafter refused several orders for out-processing to Vietnam. As his court-martial approached, he planned as a defense the fact that he had the right and responsibility under the Nuremberg principle to refuse such orders, but when he discovered that such an argument had little chance of success in the military courts, he went to Canada. Looking back on his experience, Condon says that he had enlisted in the Special Forces to see what was really happening in Vietnam so he could form his own conclusions on it. The conclusion he formed came about because "my Green Beret training was long enough that I had a lot of time to think about the war, as well as the opportunity to meet many returned Vietnam veterans It became all too clear to me that insanity and war crimes were commonplace in Vietnam, that in fact, this was the 18 consciously encouraged policy of the U.S. military there " When the President's program was announced, Condon received a notice from the Army informing him that he had been tried and convicted in absentia in 1969 and sentenced to ten years in prison and a Dishonorable Discharge, which had been subsequently reduced to two years and a Bad Conduct Discharge. Challenging this conviction, Condon returned to the United States and engaged in a nation-wide speaking tour under the sponsorship 12 obligation to exercise their legal and moral responsibility to refuse to participate in crimes against humanity. One effective rejection of the program was the speaking and organizing tour of the United States carried out by Gerry Condon, an ex-Green Beret. In 1968, after 16 months in Special Forces training, Condon publicly "resigned" from the Army and thereafter refused several orders for out-processing to Vietnam. As his court-martial approached, he planned as a defense the fact that he had the right and responsibility under the Nuremberg principle to refuse such orders, but when he discovered that such an argument had little chance of success in the military courts, he went to Canada. Looking back on his experience, Condon says that he had enlisted in the Special Forces to see what was really happening in Vietnam so he could form his own conclusions on it. The conclusion he formed came about because "my Green Beret training was long enough that I had a lot of time to think about the war, as well as the opportunity to meet many returned Vietnam veterans It became all too clear to me that insanity and war crimes were commonplace in Vietnam, that in fact, this was the 18 consciously encouraged policy of the U.S. military there " When the President's program was announced, Condon received a notice from the Army informing him that he had been tried and convicted in absentia in 1969 and sentenced to ten years in prison and a Dishonorable Discharge, which had been subsequently reduced to two years and a Bad Conduct Discharge. Challenging this conviction, Condon returned to the United States and engaged in a nation-wide speaking tour under the sponsorship 13 of the National Council for Universal Unconditional Amnesty. His success in reaching people with the message of his resistance to the war and his rejection of the assumption that such resistance was incorrect is responsible in a large degree for the Army deciding to discharge him with the Bad Conduct Discharge and dropping the prison sentence. Another assumption relating to amnesty which is more widely held is that which excludes from consideration those persons whose resistance to the war took the form of violence, usually defined as damage or injury to persons or property. This exclusion is true of the statements and resolutions of religious bodies on amnesty, it is true of all the current legislative proposals, and it is true of the personal feelings of many who are actively involved in working for amnesty. This refusal to accept amnesty for acts of resistance which took a violent form seems to indicate that most people still do not see the war in Indochina as the type of crime which made resistance by any means possible a necessity. It immediately raises the general question of the official violence of the U.S. government in Indochina VS. the relatively small amount of violence by the anti-war movement. Official violence in Indochina involved massive programs of saturation bombing, anti-personnel weapons, torture and execution of prisoners, assassination programs, etc. Anti-war violence generally involved destruction of property which directly aided the war effort--draft files, RO TC buildings, etc. When this minimal violence is placed alongside the deliberate, official violence of the government, it pales in significance. 14 It was not the anti-war movement which was violent, it was the government. There is, however, a more fundamental point. At the sentencing hearing for Karl Armstrong, accused of bombing an Army research center in which a student working late was accidentally killed, Richard Falk spoke of " the individual's duty to do what he can to stop criminal acts from happening In light of the Nuremberg tradition, and the absence of constitu- tional redress, the sense of the right and duty of the individual to take the law into his own hands in reinforced To stop the commission of great crimes, one may have to commit 19 lesser crimes. " Armstrong himself spoke of having "acted out 20 of a feeling of moral responsibility " Again, we must emphasize that it is the moral responsibility to refuse to take part in a lawless war which is the essence of amnesty. In his article "War Criminals and War Resisters", referred to earlier, Herbert Kelman concludes by saying: "Unconditional amnesty offers the best oppor- tunity to reinforce the principle that the individual has not only the right, but the obligation to consult his conscience when the government asks him to partic- ipate in war. The war resisters were absolutely right in their judgement that American involvement in Indochina was immoral and illegal, that participation in the war would have constituted complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that by re- sisting they were acting in accordance with the Nuremberg principles. " 21 If raised in this context, the continuing campaign for universal, unconditional amnesty can be a powerful tool to make the American people aware of the character of a war that was waged in their name. If we do not uncover the nature and scope of the crimes committed in the war in Indochina, we run the grave risk of them happening again. 15 As the second component of this educational effort, we should work to have the principle of individual responsibility included in our domestic law. As pointed out earlier, the present draft law does not provide for selective conscientious objection to war. With the strong likelihood of inductions being reinstated, we must stress the rightness and the necessity for individuals to exercise their conscience when faced with government orders. This is an area of implication for the future that the campaign for amnesty would do well to include. Based on the legal principle of individual responsibility to make moral choices and the religious tradition of enlightened conscience, we should seek the broadening of the legal definition of conscientious objection to include all persons who sincerely and deeply object to all wars or to a particular war. Remembering the past to serve the future--a universal and unconditional amnesty for acts of resistance against the involvement of the United States in Indochina--would have its effect on the past in erasing the stigma the resisters continue to suffer and its implication for the future in preparing people to better face the next war. If built on this perspective, the campaign for amnesty will increasingly be seen as upholding the principles the United States put forth at Nuremberg. This growing awareness we seek was recently demonstrated in a speech delivered by Vernon Jordan, Jr. to the National Urban League's annual convention. In announcing a break with the Ford Administration's policy, Jordan, who was one of the original members of the Presidential Clemency 16 Board, said: "Among the mistakes of the past with which we have yet to come to grips is Vietnam. Whatever each of us may have felt about the war, in retrospect it is clear that there was no justification for the many crimes against decency and humanity that were committed there. "We cannot absorb the true lessons and mean- ing of the Vietnam experience into our history while continuing to punish the innocent victims of our war policy "That is why I call for complete, immediate, universal and unconditional amnesty." 22 # # # # Duane Shank 15 August 1975 Notes 1 For an excellent current discussion of this process, see "The Remaking of History", Noam Chomsky, Ramparts, August/September 1975. 2 Page 222, Crimes of War, ed. Richard Falk, Gabriel Kolko and Robert Lifton, Random House, 1971. 3 Page 101, "The Only Honourable Policy", Bertrand Russell, War Crimes in Vietnam, Monthly Review Press, 1967. 4 For a compilation of the relevant international laws and treaties relating to the conduct of war, see "The Law", pages 29-54, In the Name of America, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, Turnpike Press, 1968. 5 "Songmy--War Crimes and Individual Responsibility--A Legal Memorandum", Richard Falk, in Transaction, January 1970, as re- printed by the American Friends Service Committee. 6 For one of the best (and only) discussions of the connection between war crimes and amnesty, see "War Criminals and War Resisters", Herbert Kelman, Society, May/June 1975. 17 7 "Principles of International L aw Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgement of the Tribunal", as formulated by the International L aw Commission, June-July, 1950. Page 43, In the Name of America. 8 Page 7, Crimes of War 9 The legal and semantic maneuverings used by federal judges make quite interesting reading. For those who may be interested, the citations of some representative cases follow. --illegality of war is no defense: US V. Prince, 1 SSLR 3150, 398 F.2d 686 (2d. Cir) cert. denied 393 US 946 (1968) US V. Pratt, 2 SSLR 3407, 412 F.2d 426 (6th Cir, 1969) Rusk V. US, 2 SSLR 3428, 419 F.2d 133 (9th Cir, 1969) --potential inductee has no legal standing: Ashton V. US, 1 SSLR 3287, 404 F.2d 95 (8th Cir), cert. denied 394 US 960 (1969) Velvel V. Nixon, 3 SSLR 3273, 415 F.2d 236 (10th Cir, 1969), cert. denied 396 US 1042 (1970) --power to raise armies not affected by international law: US V. Owens, 2 SSLR 3310, 415 F.2d 1308 (6th Cir, 1969), cert. denied 397 US 997 (1970) US V. St. Clair, 1 SSLR 3184, 291 F. Supp. 122 (S.D. NY. 1968) US V. Hogans, 369 F.2d 359 (2d Cir, 1966) --war a non-justiciable political question: Luftig V. McNamara, 373 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir), cert. denied 387 US 945 (1967) US V. Berrigan, 1 SSLR 3150, 283 F. Supp 336 (D.MD. 1968) Simmons V. US, 1 SSLR 3304, 406 F.2d 456 (5th Cir), cert. denied 395 US 982 (1969) --for a good overall discussion of all these issues: US V. Sisson, 1 SSLR 3307, 294 F.Supp 520 (D.Mass. 1968) and 1 SSLR 3354, 297 F.Supp. 902 (D.Mass. 1969) 10 US V. Mitchell, 246 F.Supp. 874 (D.Ct. 1965), quoted from page 206, Crimes of War. 11 Page 16, Soldiers in Revolt, David Cortright, Anchor/Doubleday, 1975 18 12 ibid, see generally chapter 1, "The Machine Breaks Down" 13 Page 41, Conscience, War, and the Selective Objector, Richard J. Niebanck, Board of Social Ministry, Lutheran Church in America, 1972. 14 Military Selective Service Act of 1971, section 6(j), [50 U.S.C. App. 456(j)] 15 Page 16, Postwar Opportunity and the Vietnam Era Veteran, New York City Commission on Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union, 1975. 16 Speech to Veterans of Foreign Wars, Chicago IL, 19 August 1974. 17 "Pledge to Complete Alternate Service" and "Reaffirmation of Allegiance", Department of Defense, 17 September 1974 18 Speech to Convocation of Families for Amnesty, Washington DC, 2 February 1975. 19 "A Trapped Generation on Trial", Henry Schipper, The Progressive, January 1974. 20 "Karl Armstrong, A Case of Resistance", Karl Armstrong Defense Committee, Madison WI. 21 See note 5 above. 22 Keynote address at 65th National Urban League annual convention, Atlanta GA, 28 July 1975. Transcript from the Congressional Record, 1 August 1975. 19 Bibliography A. Books Army in Anguish, Haynes Johnson and George C. Wilson, "The Washington Post National Report", 0 ctober 1971; Pocket Books, 1972. Conscience and Command, ed. James Finn, Vintage Books, 1971. Conscience, War, and the Selective Objector, Richard J. Niebanck, Board of Social Ministry, Lutheran Church in America, 1972. Crimes of War, ed. Richard Falk, Gabriel Kolko and Robert Lifton, Random House, 1971. In the Name of America, Clergy and L aymen Concerned About Vietnam, Turnpike Press, 1968. Postwar Opportunity and the Vietnam Era Veteran, Report of the New York City Commission on Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union, 1975. Soldiers in Revolt, David Cortright, Anchor/Doubleday, 1975. The Destruction of Indochina, Stanford Biology Study Group, 1970. The Winter Soldier Investigation: An Inquiry into American War Crimes, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Beacon Press, 1972. War Crimes and the American Conscience, ed. Erwin Knoll and Judith Nies McFadden, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. War Crimes, Bibliography and Comment, ed. Mark Sacharoff, American Friends Service Committee. War Crimes in Vietnam, Bertrand Russell, Monthly Review Press, 1967. B. Miscellaneous "A Trapped Generation on Trial", Henry Schipper, The Progressive, January 1974. "Catholics and Conscientious Objection", James Forest, Catholic Peace Fellowship. "Conscientious Objection: A Guide for Lutherans", Office of Selective Service Information, Lutheran Council in the USA, 1971. "Ford and Indochina", Ad Hoc Coalition for a New Foreign Policy, 1975. "Karl Armstrong, A Case of Resistance", Karl Armstrong Defense Committee, Madison WI. 20 "Songmy--War Crimes and Individual Responsibility--1 Legal Memorandum", Richard Falk, Transaction, January 1970, reprinted by the American Friends Service Committee. "The CIA Scalpel Cut Deep", Kenneth Barton 0 sborn, Playboy, August 1975. "The Remaking of History", Noam Chomsky, Ramparts, August/September 1975. "War Criminals and War Resisters", Herbert Kelman, Society, May/June 1975. "Watershed Between the Decades", Daniel Schwartz, The Nation, 26 November 1973. "Wisconsin Bombing Case Evokes a Time of Anger", New York Times, 1 November 1973. C. Judicial Opinions [other than cited in Notes] US V. Seeger, 380 US 163 (1965) Welsh V. US, 3 SSLR 3001, 398 US 333 (1970) US V. Gillette, 3 SSLR 3741, 401 US 437 (1971) GC NE YORK.NY 21 M AUG We hold these Truths We hold these Truths We hold these Truths C CLERGY AND LAITY CONCERNED is 235 EAST 49th STREET NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017 UNITED STATES 10 UNITED STATES 10 UNITED STATES c The Honorable Charles E. Goodell Chairman Presidential Clemency Board The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 RECEPTION HOUSE SECURITY Processed AUG DVA 22 1975 SEP 5 1975 quil 16 Scould city la aug 24. No CARd m President Juny Lord. I wonder and you will to, what our offical of the Clemency board is so box to inforce your program. discharges is before they proved out. What in about, It a fact these men were given the world is our Official thinking These men who agreed of signed upto work should be prosecuted for draft worth, but the slacker will perflo out. evantion. a few will prove out there 2ALD it. FORD LIB yours Merbe Burris 1467 Deserters Quit Clemeney Jobs, Escape Punis hment VASHINGTON (AF Two-thirds of the Associated Press inquiries, said the 2,035. Presidential Clemency Board, and its part of with the board intend to perform jobs, although own time and is now a sheriff's deputy many ways over and above his responsibilities. deserters who joined President Ford's clemen- "were terminated for non-performance for the program is still unfinished. all agreed to do so which they applied. Another Vietnam veteran worked his term as Although his term is over he continues to spend cy job program have dropped out, been kicked lack of cooperation and because they chose not Of all three parts of the program, the The Justice Department portion of the a food service worker in a state hospital in the some time at Goodwill. ou, or processed out by the military without to fulfill their agreements in many cases. Clemency Board has had the most applicants program for draft dodgers has a low dropout west. His supervisor wrote the Selective Ser- A man in New York State, a wounded reporting for jobs, and will escape punishment Some with families dropped out because they - 21,000 in all. It has until Sept. 15 to complete rate; only 19 of the 722 who signed up. Those vice that he wanted more employes like this veteran, works with mentally retarded without compl their assigned work. couldn't make a go of it on the low pay. its work. So far it has found nearly 6,000 who don't complete their jobs still can be one, children and is considering taking further Of the 4,5 deserters who joined the Even though we didn't get the numbers we applicants ineligible, recommended outright prosecuted for draft evansitn. Some of the soldier who served in Vietnam is working training so as to be better equipped to help his program, 035 either dropped out or been anticipated, President Ford has attained more pardons for about 6,000 others, recommended dropouts have fled the country to avoid this. as a "jack of all trades" in a rest home for the wards even more, the report said. ticked out, the Selective Service says. Another of his initial goal than lots of people give him pardons conditioned on work period for about So far 52 of those in the Department of aged. 'He enjoys his work and plans to remain man processed out hv the military never credit for says draft Director Byron V. 6.000 more. and denied pardons to about 700 Defense portion of the program have on the lob after his service is finished a << Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to these materials. We hold these Truths Mr. & Mrs. Merle H. Burris Sr. 2018 S. Palmetto Street Sioux City, Iowa 51106 POSTAL s'n in -PM 15,5 Aim, SERVICE OF UNITED STATES President Jerry Hard Washington D.C.

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
4a98e3ab7a75d4ea
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
1505975
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "1505975",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505975",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Correspondence (4)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505975",
    "collections": [
        "Charles E. Goodell Papers",
        "Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Amnesty"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505975.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505975.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505975.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "1505975",
    "label": "Correspondence (4)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505975"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "1505975",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505975",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Correspondence (4)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505975",
    "collections": [
        "Charles E. Goodell Papers",
        "Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Amnesty"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505975.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505975.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0193/648291/1505975.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1505975",
    "naId": 1505975,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1977-12-31",
        "month": 12,
        "year": 1977
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-07-01",
        "month": 7,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "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-0193/648291/1505975.pdf",
    "mediaId": "4a98e3ab7a75d4ea",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 3, folder \"Correspondence (4)\" 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 3 of the Charles E. Goodell Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nCEG\nJuly 17, 1975\nFll\nMr. Lawrence M. Baskir\nGeneral Counsel\nPresidential Clemency Board\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C. 20500\nDear Mr. Baskir:\nThis is in reply to your letter to me dated July 15, 1975.\nIn accordance with our discussion this afternnon with Senator\nGoodell, in the event it becomes necessary for me to write a\nmemorandum for any Board member, I will first furnish copies of\nit to my immediate supervisor, Mrs. Handwerger, you, and the\nSenator before giving it to the Board member.\nI fully understand now that in my position as head of the records\nsention, I report directly to Mrs. Handwerger and that the chain\nof command goes from her to you, then to the Senator.\nI also understand that if any Board member discusses matters with\nme which concern the operation of the Board, that I will sall these\nto the attention of Mrs. Handwerger and make her aware of their\nconcern.\nYou have my assurance that I will henceforth strictly adhere to the\nchain of command in all matters pertaining to the operation of the\nPresidential Clemency Board.\nSincerely,\n0. G. Benson\nFORD i GERALD LIBRARY\nOGB:jz\nMEMO FROM\n0187/21/75\nMAURICE GOLDMAN\nD lar Senator Goodell\nT handyou very\nmuch for taking the\ntime to write to me.\nmuch. I appreciate this vegeo GERALD\nd alto think that\nyou should try to get\nthe momination for Senator\nfrom N.T. again\nT handryou for\nsending my letters to\nyou Briscoe of Tras.\nA hope you wereable\nto write a few Personal\nwords. along with\nthe letters to Dor Briscoe\nI don ? t think I'll hear\nfrom you Briscoe r but\nA appreciate your gesture\nand your kind\nremarks.\nThanks again\nsincerely yours\nmanice\nMEMO FROM\nMAURICE GOLDMAN\nat\n1/15/75\nD ear chairman Goodell\nThankyou for\nyour kind letter to me\non the P ardons of the\nDraft Resisters who have\nserved then sentences in\nthe U.S.A., before the\nPresidential clemency Board\nwas established\nlawyer for further comment.\nI'll. ask my\nas fan as it goes, you have\nbeen lement in these (m + of\nthe decisions you speak of & A\nagree with them .H apart continues\nThanks again\nsincerely your\nmaurice\nAUG 15 1975 powd\naug. 8, 1975\nGentlemen:\njust read Chas. E. Goodell\narticle on annesty, published in Parade\nmagazine. may agine.\nThought you might be imprissed\nwith two -f the mens answers,\nBrad Fountain is Correct!\nBernard W ilson make Smart decision\nMas Jenn A Fair,Jul.\n982\nWill We Ever Solv\ne Ampesty Proble\njobs with those who didn't serve or\ndeserted.\nAt this point, I feel the country\nought to say to those guys: \"You let\nus down, and now we're going to let\nyou down.\" In fact, unless they are\nwilling to serve in the military like the\nrest of us did, I'd tell them to forget it:\nthey don't deserve to live in America.\nIII. Bernard Wil-\nson-27-year-old\nNavy deserter,\ncurrently doing\nalternate service\nin a Virginia hos-\npital:\nWhy did I de-\ncide to do alter-\nnate service? Be-\ncause, since 1969\nwhen I deserted, I had been living\nunderground with a false name. I\nhadn't seen my parents or my friends\nfor six years. The clemency program\nwas a chance to be me again.\nCull\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\n6522 Quan View are\nCarlobad, Ca. 92008\nPOSTAL U.S. S. 12 PM AUG 920 CA\nSERVICE\n10\nSTATES\n975\nPresidential Clemency Board\nWashington, D.C.\nPocard\nAUG 18 1975\nHarold A. Gregory\nP. O. BOX 1221\n-\nWORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS O1601\nAugust 11, 1975\nMr. Charles E. Goodell\nChairman\nPresidential Clemency Board\nVietnam Amnesty Cases\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Mr. Goodell:\nAccording to a TV news program I watched, one problem faced by\npossible amnesty seekers is What kind of a job will they be assigned in\norder to work their way back What kind of work can they be given\nwithout arousing local resentment?\nHas anyone sent you the enclosed idea that I submitted to the\nWhite House some time ago?\nSincerely,\nHarold Gregory\nEncs.\nLtrs N. Y. Daily News / WBZ-TV 4\n\"Amnesty, Alaska\"\nAnchorage Daily Times ltr\nMay 5, 1975\nFORD & LIBRARY\n981\nabsolutely imperative that\nstep.\nParedes implies that KAKM\nExec. Director\nAnchorage take immediate\nSecond, begin an immediate\nwill produce carbon copies of\n& General Manager\naction to improve our roads\npriority program to widen all\nthe New York City local\nKAKM Television\nand streets. The adverse effec-\nmajor arterial streets and\nts of the mile-long traffic jams\nroads to at least four-lane\nevery morning and every\ncapacity. These streets and\nevening include increased fuel\nroads will connect the\nAndy Warwick\nconsumption\n(energy),\nupgraded intersections and\nincreased\nair\npollution\nmust be completed within\nDear Editor:\nshowing whatsoever that War-\n(physical environment), to say\nthree to five years if\nI have read with interest\nwick had the slightest intent of\nnothing of the shattered nerves\nAnchorage is to avoid total\nyour recent editorials concer-\nbenefiting himself when he\nand emotional upset which are\nstrangulation of its streets.\nning the Andy Warwick\nvoted for the pay raise. But the\ncaused by the constantly\nThe steps outlined above\nappointment. You have argued\npay raise for commissioners\ndeteriorating situation.\nshould have been undertaken\nthat the Constitution of the\nand judges did not stand by\nDaily Times\nRegardless of one's position\nseveral years ago. They are\nState of Alaska \"means what it\nitself! It passed together with a\nconcerning\nthe\nprivate\ncertainly not final solutions to\nsays\" and since it says that\ngeneral pay increase for all\nautomobile versus mass tran-\ntraffic or transit problems. but\n\"during the term for which\ngovernment employes (con-\nsit, there are at least two\nthey should be mandatory first\nelected and for one year\ntained in a separate bill), both\nimprovement programs that\nsteps if Anchorage is to avoid\nthereafter, no legislator may\nof which were treated as a\nshould be supported.\nfurther\nunnecessary\nbe nominated, elected, or\npackage:by the finance com-\nFirst. all major intersec-\ndeterioration of its quality of\nappointed to any other office\nmittees.\ntions must be immediately\nlife. We cannot afford any fur-\nthe salary or emoluments of\nAccordingly, even were you\nupgraded to provide for\nther delay without exhorbitant\nwhich have been increased\nto accept Legislative Affairs\nseparate right and left-turn\ncosts, both tangible and\nwhile he was a member,\" War-\nview of the question\nlanes with adequate stacking\nintangible, to all Anchorage\nwick cannot validly be appoin-\nrequiring a general pay\ncapacity, plus at least two\nresidents.\nted to the post of commissioner\nincrease in order to avoid a\nthrough-traffic lanes with\nEldon L. Young\nof administration since he ser-\nconstitutional problem - that\nmerging lanes back to\n3236 Wesleyan Driv\nved in the Eighth State\ncondition was met and War-\nLegislature that raised the\nwick's appointment is legal\nsalary for that post. While you\nand proper.\nAmnesty, Alaska\nseem to agree with Governor.\nThe only way in which this\nHammond that Andy Warwick\nquestion can be tested is if\nDear Editor:\ntheir way back.'\nwould be a fine commissioner,\nWarwick is confirmed and\nCan you picture a grand-\n\"It became a space project\nyou do not wish to see the con-\nthen a suit is brought to test the\nfather telling his grandchild at\non earth, exciting the\nstitution violated by his\nconstitutionality of the appoin-\nsome future date how\nimagination of the whole world\nappointment. Both the gover-\ntment. We welcome that test so\nAmnesty. the beautiful capital\nand, after several difficulties,\nnor and I share that wish.\nthat we may resolve this issue\nof Alaska, all began?\nit became this marvelous city\nIt is my legal opinion that\nonce and for all. The\nIt was back in 1976 when the\nthat you live in now.\nWarwick's appointment is not\nlegislature is considering that\nconstruction work was begun\nThe people of Alaska were\nin conflict with the constitution\nsolution now.\nin earnest as part of the\nso impressed by the extraor-\nand I have sociadvised the\nIt has been suggested that\ncelebration of our nation's\ndinary and devoted work of the\ngovernor\nWarwick serve as deputy com-\n200th anniversary.\nArmy people, that they adop-\nI know of no attorney who\nmissioner for a year and then\n\"In 1974 we had voted to\nted officially the nickname\nhas reviewed this question and\nbe appointed commissioner.\nbuild a new state capital\nthat the returned objectors had\nconcluded that a literal inter-\nHowever, the legal issue\nsomewhere between Fair-\ngiven the site, 'Amnesty,\npretation of the constitutional\nremains the same. Both\nbanks and Anchorage: that's\nAlaska.\nprovision was intended by the\npositions had their salaries\nhow it began\nToday,\njust\nthe\ntourist\nframers of that document. The\nraised by the legislature in\nThen the federal govern\ntrade of people coming from\nLegislative Affairs Agency,\nwhich Warwick served. If he\nment decided to help out with a\nall over the world to see this\nwhich believes the appoint-\ncan serve as deputy com-\npublic works program to build\namazing and immaculate\nment is invalid, suggests that a\nmissioner - he can serve as\na super, technologically\ncapital, with its geodesic\nkey issue is whether the salary\ncommissioner. In my opinion,\nadvanced, weather-controlled\ndomes, monorails and advan-\nincrease for the com-\nhe can serve as either.\ncapital, giving employment to\nced construction, from reser-\nmissioner's post was part of a\n1 would be the first to recog-\nthousands of out-of-job\nvoirs to recreational units, its\ngeneral pay increase or a\nnize that an attorney generals'\nair-space technicians, college\nhealth and safety features and\nspecial pay increase. In\nopinions are not sacrosanct\ngraduates, unemployed per-\neconomic self-sufficiency, has\nLegislative Affairs' view the\nand may be overturned by\nsons from all over the states,\nmade it one of the post\nbill which increased the salary\ncourts. 1 believe that would not\nand thousands of army\nprosperous living areas in the\nfor the commissioner of\nbe the case with Warwick's\namnesty personnel, those who\ncountry.\nadministration was a bill\nappointment. However, even if\nfled to Canada and Sweden\nHarold Gregory\nwhich raised salaries for just\nthat should come to pass. it will\nrather than to fight in Viet-\nBox 1221\ncommissioners and judges,\nnot change the fact that the\nnam, and now were 'working\nWorcester, Mass.\nwhich was not enough of a\nappointment was made with a\ngeneral salary increase to\nsincere belief that it is con-\navoid a constitutional\nsistent with the requirements\nLiberalizing Marijuana\nproblem.\nof the Alaska Constitution, and\nI am convinced that even if\nnot out of a desire to avoid\nmay\nthe pay raise had been restric-\nthose requirements.\nDear Editor:\nnot softer ones, and someone to\nted to judges and top executive\nAvrum M. Gross\nIt is hard for me to believe\nsee that they are enforced. The\nofficers, there has been no\nAttorney General\nthat some of the legislators we\ngood people of Alaska have got\nhave sent to Juneau would\nto remember those who foster\nintroduce and support such\nsuch laws and rid ourselves of\nUnion Side\nbills as the liberalization of the\nthem.\nmarijuana drug law.\nIt seems to appear that Sen.\nDear Editor:\nwages.\nIs this liberalization sup-\nMiller and others were not\nYour column had a couple of\nThe union man or woman\nposed to increase safety on the\nintroducing legislation for the\nletters saying how the writers\ncarries a large load of the\nroad? Will it make us safer in\nmajority but for the minority.\nwere opposed to the unions. If\ntaxes, from $70 to $200 per\nour homes? Does it improve\nDon't the legislators know that\nthe people will just take the\nweek, so, inflation falls right\nour health? Does it make us\na person who habitually\ntrouble to check, they will find\nback where it belongs. Without\nbetter citizens? I submit that\nbreaks a small law would not\nthat the non-union shops, gas\nunions we would be back to $1\nits effects is just the opposite.\nhesitate to break a large one in\nstations and stores charge just\nperday.\nWhat\nwe\nneed\nis\nstress or trouble?\nas much as the union places.\nHerbert Bartlett\nimprovement in our court\nR. C. Raymer\nThey have only one thing\n3805 Cope\nsystem We need Karder\nE\nAugust 30, 1974\nTo the Editor of the N. Y. Daily News:\nHow about building a \"Buck Rogers\" type, technologically advanced,\nweather-controlled new capital for Alaska with federal aid, using unemployed\ntechnical personnel from all over the nation, including the Vietnam draft\ndodgers who want to \"work their way back.\" They could call the super city,\n\"Amnesty, Alaska.\"\nHarold Gregory\n755-1856\nGROUP\nWBZ-TV 4 WBZ RADIO 103 W\nDear Mr. Gregory,\nThanks for your comments and apologies\nfor the delay in responding. We were working\ntoward the enclosed editorial, and I held off\nto send on the printed copy to you.\nThe Alaskas building project may make\ngood sense. But we think it should be done\nby a general work force, possibly including\nsome draft evaders and deserters, as part of 1.\npublic works program to take up the growing\nslack in employment.\nhd\nHarold A. Gregory\nSTOURL\nSERVICE\nAM\nP.O. BOX 1221 - WORCESTER, MASS. 01601\n12 AUG\n.\nUNITED 10 STATES\nMr. Charles E. Goodell\nChairman\nPresidential Clemency Board\nVietnam Amnesty Cases\nWashington, D. C.\nAugust 11, 1975\nDear Senator:\nThank you for your recent letter with which\nyou enclosed a copy of a letter from one of\nyour constituents who is interested in obtaining\ninformation from the Presidential Clemency\nBoard.\nI have referred this matter to the Chairman\nof the Board and you may be sure that your\nrequest will be given careful and thoughtful\nconsideration.\nWith warm regards,\nSincerely,\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nPatrick E. O'Donnell\nSpecial Assistant\nto the President\nThe Honorable Barry Goldwater\nUnited States Senate\nWashington, D. C. 20510\nbcc: w/incoming to Charles Godell, Presidential Clemency]\nBoard.\nPOD:pd\nBARRY GOLDWATER\nCOMMITTEES:\nARIZONA\nAERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES\nARMED SERVICES\nPREPAREDNESS INVESTIGATING SUBCOMMITTEE\nUnited States Senate\nTACTICAL AIR POWER SUBCOMMITTEE\nINTELLIGENCE SUBCOMMITTEE\nMILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20510\nRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE\nAugust 5, 1975\nMr. Pat O'Donnell\nSpecial Assistant for Legislative Affairs\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C.\nDear Pat:\nIt would be greatly appreciated if you would\nforward the enclosed letter from a constituent\nto the White House Amnesty Board for reply.\nThanks very much.\nWith best wishes,\nBany Barry Goldwater\nJuly 23, 1975\n440 old Jenate Building\nMr. Barry Goldwater\nThe capital\nWashington D.C. 20510\nDear Senator:\nIt has been said that the men who\nchance of employment over the men\nwere granted annesty have a better\nwho have served in the Armed forces.\nEven though there has been so much\nthis would matter. appreciate your viewpoints on\ncontroversy over the subject of Amnesty\nThank you,\nMaucia D. Thousing\nTHE FIELD FOUNDATION\n100 EAST 85TH STREET . NEW YORK, N.Y. 10028\n212/535-9915\nAugust 12, 1975\nThe Hon. Charles Goodell\n1225 19th Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20016\nDear Charles:\nYou know my opinion about amnesty. It was reached\nwithout the benefit of case-by-case study, such as\nyou and Vernon Jordan have had. I'm not surprised,\nhowever, that months of study and thought have now\nled Vernon to speak out for an unconditional amnesty\nand for the plight of jobless veterans.\nI have come to believe that amnesty is an issue\nsingularly dependent for its resolution on political\nleadership, that the public -- both to its credit and\ndiscredit -- doesn't actively care. Had Mr. Ford\nextended a generous amnesty last year, instead of the\ncourse he took, the issue would, I am convinced, by\nnow be over and largely forgotten by the public and\nthe media.\nIt is a case where justice and \"domestic tranquility\"\nare on the same side, and that is rare enough to be\nseized upon and enjoyed. Were you also to give, in\nyour own effective way, support to an unconditional\n07V83\namnesty you would contribute so much to, as Vernon\nput it, finally ending that war, which you in the\ntough years so brilliantly opposed. I wonder, there-\nfore, if your experience of the past several months\nmay not have led you to conclusions similar to\nVernon's.\nSincerely;yours,\nLeslie W. Dunbar\nLWD/kjs\nISERVIED COUNTRY\n6 San Fran\nEAC\nTerm Expires Sept.\nAUG 18 1975\n1975\nClemency Board Starts\nTo Wind Up Its Work\nWashington\nCOWARD\nThe Presidential Clemency\nRepair Work\nBoard said yesterday it has acted\non 12,000 cases and granted about\nOn the Mars\nby\n6000 unconditional pardons to\nper;ons who received punitive\nALL\nmilitary discharges or were con-\nRocket\nvicted of desertic\ndraft dodg-\nCape Canaveral\ning in the Vit\nEngineers worked to replace\nOHLY\nbacklog OF more than\na\nfaulty valve in the Atlas-Cen-\ncases remains to be processed\ntaur rocket yesterday with the\ntask to be completed before the\naim of restarting the countdown\nLiFE\nboard expires by law on Septem-\nfor the launch of a Viking probe to\nber j5, board chairman\nMars.\nCharles\nodell.\nThe faulty valve was discov-\nKNOW\nSome pers\nMonday just two hours be\nver\nan\ncond al\nhe sch\nla\nof\nons\nasec\nme\ncompleting public service jobs of\nng\none\nof\nTHAR\nthree to 12 month\nthe planet. The ilfunctioning\nvalve cated in the steering sys\nThe boar\nthe first stage of the\nof clemency\nPocket, forced engineers to cancel\nthe Launch. It has been resched-\nAbout 21,000 persons applied\nuled for tomorrow.\nto the board, but several\nand\nwere fou\nelig\ninclud\nmitt Tenses in World War I\n1776\nCourt ruled in 1970 that such an\nand World War II.\napplication need not have a reli-\ngious basis, he said.\nAbout 100,000 personseligible\nRULED\nfor clemency did not apply\nGoodell said the board recom-\nboard because of\nbout\nmended outright pardons for\nthe program or\nthese who objected to war in\nTHERE\ntion, Goodell said.\nera\nVietnam\nspecifical-\nThe board dates not consider\ncases involving unconvicted\nquestions, the\nOUT\ndodgers or deserters, or persons\nformer New York Republican\nOF\nwho fled the country\navoid\nuld ike to see\nprosecuti\nthe ogran or nu\ndoubts at\nOf the 12,000\nwill\nacted\nask Con\nroughly 25 per cent\n'individu-\nals who served valia in Viet-\nOf\nthe\nersons\nna\nand\nbsequer\ngo\ninto\nLOUF\nwho assigned to perform\ntr\npublic service work in return for\ndell\nonly 288 persons haVe\nAbout per cent of\nur\ncivilian appl Ints ey enced sub-\nSystem for processing, a Selective\nstantial con Lientic objection to\nService spokesman said.\nthe war b wer mal to tai\nproper\nThe remaining cases are\nbeen con\ndea\nfor\natri\nwaiting action by Mr. Ford, who\npard\nmulst give final approval to all\nmency Board Commenda-\nMost were men who applied\nfor CO status before the SuFreme\nLOUER3980 Associated Press\nBEFOR SiNCE\n1776\nSAN FRANCISCO I PM 1 CA\nMilitany\n13 AUG\n94 ove 34009\n1875\nPaul Laurence\nDunbar\nDEAD\nAmerican poet\n10 cents U.S. postage\nFACIL\nWOUNDED\nx pow's\nDIDNOT\nCHAIRMAN CHARLES GooneLL\nSERVE\nCLEMENCY BOARD\nTo\nHONOR\nWhiter GTON,\nColor RDS\nOR\nTREASONER\nD. e. 205\n<<<< TER AMERICAS TORE\nWHO\nARE x2 HENOS\nCowards.\n11/14\nSam Nunn\n110 SENATE OFFICE BUILDING\nTEL (202) 225-3521\nGEORGIA\nUnited States Senate\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20510\nAugust 13, 1975\nMr. Charles Goodell\nPresidential Clemency Board\n3022 M Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C.\n20036\nRe: James J. Mullen\nAttached is a communication within\nthe area of your authority. Because of\nmy desire to be responsive to all in-\nquiries, your help is needed. I would\nappreciate your looking into this matter\nand providing me with a report so that 1\nmay further respond to my constituent.\nYour findings and views, in duplicate\nform, along with return of the enclosure,\nwill be greatly appreciated.\nWith kindest regards, I am\nSincerely,\nSam Mim\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nJC\nAuc 4 12 08 PM 1975\n2989 Kentucky Court\nEast Point, Georgia 30344\nJuly 31, 1975\nSenator Sam Nunn\n110 Russell Senate Office Building\nWashington, D.C. 20510\nDear Senator Nunn:\nI voted for you. I am pleased with your performance as my Senator\nand intend to give you my further support.\nThe inclosed letters reflect my views on their subject. I am out-\nraged that our President sees fit to pay no' attention to my concerns.\nI ask you, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to\npursue this subject and hold some feet to the fire. Surely, there\nmust be answers to the questions I have asked.\nAs a professional soldier, I have a deep interest in the future Of\nour country which I am sure you share.\nIt is my belief that the President is badly advised and needs to be\nshown why this is SO.\nYour inquiry, on my behalf, will be most appreciated. Dependent on\nthe results you produce to this letter, I am willing to do what you\nmight ask of me to see you re-elected.\nI hope to meet you personally on your next visit to Atlanta.\nRespectfully\nJanes Lieutenatn JAMES J. MULLEN Amullen Colonel\nU. S. Army (Retired)\n2989 Kentucky Court\nEast Point, Georgia 30344\nSeptember 24, 1974\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C. 20500\nDear Mr. President:\nYour announcement for amnesty for deserters and draft evaders has disturbed\nme.\nAs a citizen, I have many questions concerning this matter. The first,\nand most important to me is WHY?\nI have read and heard many phrases such as: \"Healing Wounds,\" \"An Unique\nAct of Mercy,\" \"An End to Divisiveness,\" \"A Re-affirmation of Loyalty.\"\nNone of these convince me.\nI would like to know what forces caused you to offer your Amnesty Program.\nI would like to know what results you expect.\nI would like to know how much money this will cost.\nHave you evaluated the effect this will have on citizens response in a\nfuture war? If we allow people to hide and then, when danger is past, to\nbe accepted and forgiven, what will happen to the sense of civic duty and\nresponsibility next time?\nAre you aware that you may be producing the climate in which an American\nis permitted to \"choose\" his war?\nAre you aware that you may be underwriting the disaster of our nation?\nHow do you, as President, have the right to override our laws, both civil\nand military?\nPlease explain to me your reasons for this program.\nI believe that it is my right, as a citizen, to know why you are doing\nthis. I ask you to give me a detailed reply.\nSincerely,\nJames Amullen MULLEN\nLieutenant Colonel\nU. S. Army (Retired)\n2989 Kentucky Court\nEast Point, Georgia 30344\n25 October 1974\nDear Mr. President:\nOn 24 September 1974, I sent you a letter containing a number\nof questions concerning your amnesty program. There has been\nno response.\nI prefer to believe, that due to the pressvof business, or a\npossible clerical error, my letter has been overlooked.\nEnclosed is a copy of my original letter to you.\nI will appreciate a prompt reply.\nSincerely,\nEncl\nJAMES J. MULLEN\nas\nLieutenant Colonel\nU.S. Army (Retired)\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, D. C. 29500\n2989 Kentucky Court\nEast Point, Georgia 30344\nJanuary 10, 1975\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, DC 20500\nDear Mr. President:\nOn September 24, 1974, I sent you a letter containing questions on\nyour amnesty program. The letter was not acknowledged.\nA second letter, including a copy of the first, was sent on October\n25, 1974. No response.\nI draw the conclusion that my inquiries are simply being ignored. I\nhope I am mistaken and that a reply will be forthcoming within a\nreasonable time.\nMeanwhile, several other questions have occurred to me.\nWhen will the Clemency Board be disbanded?\nHow much is the advertising campaign to bring in deserters and evaders\ncosting us, to include toll free phone calls?\nWho pays travel, food and lodging expenses for deserters processed at\nFort Benjamin Harrison?\nWhat is a typical \"Public Service\" job? What is the penalty, if any,\nshould a person fail to perform his term of \"Public Service\"?\nPlease reply to this, and my previous letters, as early as possible.\nSincerely,\nJAMES J. MULLEN\nLTC, USA-RET\n5 May 1975\n2989 Kentucky Court\nEast Point, GA 30344\nThe President\nThe White House\nWashington, DC 20500\nDear Mr. President:\nOn three previous occasions I have written you letters concerning\nyour amnesty program for draft evaders and deserters. These letters\nare dated 24 Sept 1974, 25 Oct 1974 and 10 Jan 1975, respectively.\nIn addition, while you were visiting Atlanta on 3 Feb 1975, I telephoned\nyour headquarters at the Hyatt Regency Hotel. Mrs. Eleanor Elleness,\nwho identified herself as a member of your staff, gave me profuse\nassurances that an immediate reply would be sent. It has not happened.\nThe conditional amnesty program expired on 31 March 75. In his column\nin the Atlanta Journal, 4 May 1975, Mr. J. F. Terhorst reports that\nyou have recently doubled the clemency staff to nearly 400 persons. It\nappears the expiration date of the program was meaningless.\nI am unable to understand why you persistently court these men after\nthey have repeatedly rejected your offers and have arrogantly demanded\nunconditional amnesty. I am personally hostile to the program and\nwould like to see the entire thing terminated. Unless I am mistaken\nthere already exists a Court of Military Appeals and a Board for Cor-\nrection of Military Records which pertain directly to deserters. So far\nas draft evaders are concerned, are there not still laws on the books to\nhandle these cases?\nYour reasons for the emphasis, effort and concern for these people I\nconsider as undesirables, escapes me. I might see some merit in indivi-\ndual cases, but until and unless I can be convinced that your course is\nright, I will remain opposed.\nI have read and heard many complimentary comments about the \"openness\"\nof your administration. If this is so, then perhaps I can expect an\nanswer to the many questions I have posed in my previous letters.\nPlease help me understand what you are doing Land why. If my outlook is\nmistaken, surely you would wish to set me straight.\nJames Sincerely, MULLEN Amullen\nLt. Col., USA (Ret)\n2804 Rudolph Road\nRichmond, Virginia 23229\nAugust 13, 1975\nMr. Charles Goodell, Chairman\nThe Presidential Clemency Board\nWashington, D. C.\nDear Mr. Goodell,\nThe attached clipping is from today's Richmond paper.\nOf all the foolish and immoral things you have said and done\nsince you became chairman of this clemency board, this one is\nprobably the worst\nThe program \"has succeeded in closing the chapter on\nVietnam,\" Charles Goodell said yesterday.\nMay I assure you, Mr. Goodell, that the chapter on Vietnam\nis far from closed and I will continue to work for unconditional\namnesty.\nWe conducted ourselves like barbarians in Vietnam, Mr. Goodell,\nand you have joined a long and dishonorable group of liars and\naccomplices who have tried to conceal that fact. Your clemency\nboard is just another attempt to put a thin coating of respectability\non what was nothing less than murder.\nThose who opposed the Vietnam war deserve unconditional amnesty\nand there are many of us who will work toward that end.\nVery truly yours,\nAlbert achut L. Reynolds L. Reynolds\nClemency Board\nTo Phase Out\nBy Sept. 15\nWASHINGTON (UPI)\nPresident Ford's Clemency\nBoard, which has processed 75\nper cent of the 16,000 eligible\napplications it releived the past\nyear, will be out of business by\nSept. 15, says its chairman.\nThe program \"has succeeded\nin closing the chapter on Vet\nnam.\" ChárlesGoodell said\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nMaid\nAvaust 13, 1975\nTHE HONORABLE\nCHARLES E. GOODELL, CHAIRMAN\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY BOARD\nFOR VIETNAM WAR SERVICEMEN,\nWHITE HOUSE, VIASHINGTON, DC,20000\nDear Sir:\nFORD & LIBRARY 077839\nmay I join all folks who\nknow of this problem in\nthanking you for your jardons\nto so many honest U,S, Soldiers\nwhose personal problems were\nmis understood as lax\nmost Sincerely a Cordially,\n(m.) Joseph Klotz,\n(Volunteer most successfully RA\nVETERANS Hospital -PH ADELPHIA\nHOME\nADDRESS\nPARKER HOTEL, 13th SPRUCE 573911\nPHIL PENNA, 19107\npro-am.\npro\nAUG18 19\nUnited Press International\nGoodell reporting that the clemency board is winding up its work\n6, 000Pardons Given\nBy Clemency Board\nAssociated Press\n1,000 pardons that were either uncon-\nWASHINGTON The Presidential ditional or required a period of public\nClemency Board for Vietnam war\nservice work.\nservicemen reported yesterday that\nit had processed 12,000 of the 15,000\nThe board has been sending the\nto 16,000 eligible applicants and\nPresident a packet of 1,000 to 2,000\ngranted outright pardon to 50 per-\ncases on a regular basis, he said.\nAP. - in\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nSMINGION Hd w 1975 14 200 AM AUG de 3\nUSE ZIP\nCODE\nANDREW\nJACKSON\nPA A 191\nUNITED STATES\n1975\nTHE HONSRABUE\nCHARLES E. GOODELL, CHAIRMAN\nPRESIDENTIAL CLEIGENCY. BOARD\nFOR VIFTNA M WAR SERVICE MIN,\nWHITEHOUSE, WASHINGTON, Di Cr 20000\nJosi KLOTZ\nUNTEER UrS1 VETERANS Hospitals\npocard AUG18\naug. 14, 1975.\nDear mr. Goodell;\nBALD\nWe are past due in granting\nunconditional amnesty to our Vietmam\nwar resisters\nWhen a full grown man with a\nlaw degree like Richard nixon gets\ntotal amnesty why do you continue\npunishing our young men with\nprincipals in an undeclared, illegal\nwar.\nIs there any justice!\nOne of the reasons our country is in\nsuch a mess economically is because\nof the Vietnam war\nyou would be surprized at how many\nfeel as we do including Vietnam veterans,\nand as far as the amnesty program is\nconcerned its a flap.\nPresident Ford asks us to show\ncompassion to the Vietnamese refugees so\nhow about the same for our own.\nenough. their Doesn't he think our boys\nHe also said Richard nexon has suffered\nand families have suffered enough?\nhasn't got a chance while those with\nall we can say is the little guy\nwealth and power get away with\nbreaking the law.\nWhat this Country needs is statesmen,\nnot politicians.\nMr. Sincerely, & Mrs. E. Kruger\n630 no. Fig St979\nEscandido, Calif 92025\nE. C. KRUEGER\n630 NORTH FIG ST.\nESCONDIDO, CAL.\n92025\n14 AUG\n1975\nBunker Hill 1775 by Trumbull\nUS Bicentennial IO\nmr. Charles Goodell\nClemency Board Chairman\n1600 Pennsylvania Ave, n.w.\nWashing ton, D.C. 20500\n(\nAUG22 1975\n17 Argust 1975\nSubject: Clemency for deserters et\ndooft dodgers tabout the\nFORD\ncame thing traitors)\nyou and mm Ford must indeed feel\ngrat pangs of Liberal joy on your resp-\nentire records of leviency to your sunshine\ntraitors.\nThe cartempt you and company have\nabove pertaining to this country's was efforts\nis boundless.\nThe contempt wr, the living veterans, hold\nyou et company is bundless.\nThis clemeny business will h all of the\nfactor that will cost Fard his job\nHow in hell you two can cleep atringlituith\nthe panalpy y dead and mained prissing\nthrough is bynd me.\nCapt. HE Hess 1193\nWe hold these Truths.\nЖура\nPM SAN DIEGO\n18 AUC\n24\n1975\nUNITED STATES Oc\nCharles Goodell\nBnsidential Clemency Board\nHashington, D.C.\ndersonal\nave\nK\n5353 Baltimoro Dr, apt2\nLa mess\nM9 09.\n8\nAs\nDUA 81\nstell\n...\nNATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION\nthe right of the people\nto keep and bear arms\nshall not be infringed\nAugust 18, 1975\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nDear Mr. Pepitone:\nThank you for your letter of August 12, 1975, with\nreference to the projection of reconsiliation of service\ndispositions by this Board and my remarks to the press on\nAugust 12.\nThe 20 per cent referred to should have been clearly\nlabeled as applicants who receive our average period of\nalternative service of 4 to 6 months. Another 20 per cent\nreceive 3 months' alternative service. Put in a simpler way,\nit is our present projection that 20 per cent of our total\napplicants will receive 3 months' alternative service and\nanother 20 per cent will receive 4 to 6 months. Since we\nare now projecting our final number of eligible applicants\nat about 15,000, about 3,000 of those applicants will require\n3 months' alternative service and another 3,000, 4 to 6 months\nalternative service. We still project about 8,000 total\ncases referred to you to perform alternative service.\nI shall be in touch with you mery soon to discuss\nthe recommendations of the Presidential Clemency Board, which\nyou invited in our earlier meeting. You are the one in a\nposition to assess the nature and uniqueness of Clemency Board\nreferrals to you. I know we share a desire to have makimum\nparticipation in a program which fully carries out the\nPresident's intent.\nI am enclosing an updated projection of Board\ndispositions to this letter for your information.\nWith kind regard, I am\nSincerely,\nCharles E. Goodell\nChairman\nMr. Byron Pepitone, National Director\nSelective Service System\nWashington, D.C. 20435\nU.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nGEORGE E. DANIELSON\nCOMMITTEES:\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20515\n30TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA\nJUDICIARY\n(202) 225-5464\nVETERANS' AFFAIRS\nCHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON\nDISTRICT OFFICE:\nCongress of the United States\nCEMETERIES AND BURIAL BENEFITS\n879 SOUTH ATLANTIC BOULEVARD\nMONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA 91754\n(213) 570-8216\nhouse of Representatives\nASSISTANT MAJORITY WHIP\nDELEGATE\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nNORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY\nMEMBER:\nSPECIAL COMMISSION ON\nAugust 18, 1975\nMODERNIZATION OF\nHOUSE GALLERY FACILITIES\nHonorable Charles E. Goodell, Jr.\nChairman\nPresidential Clemency Board\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear-Mr. Chairman:\nEnclosed is a copy of my additional views to the report\nbeing issued by the House Subcommittee on Courts, Civil\nLiberties, and the Administration of Justice on their\noversight hearings regarding the Presidential Clemency\nprogram.\n1 would appreciate having your answers and any additional\ncomments concerning the areas of interest I have specified\nat the earliest possible date in light of the impending\ntermination of the Board's activities.\nVery truly yours,\nGEORGE E. DANIELSON\nMember of Congress\nGED:ctn\nEnclosure\nFORDO & GTV\nAMERICAN REVOLUTION\n1776-1976\nTHIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS\n94th Congress\n1st Session\n}\nCOMMITTEE PRINT\nREPORT\nON\nTHE PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY PROGRAM\nSUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES,\nAND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE\nOF THE\nCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY\nHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nNINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS\nFIRST SESSION\nAUGUST 1975\nPrinted for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary\nU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE\n50-634\nWASHINGTON : 1975\nADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. GEORGE E. DANIELSON\nI would like to add some additional remarks. Regarding recom-\nmendation No. 4:\nI certainly desire that the Presidential Clemency Board complete its\ntask by its original deadline of September 15, 1975. However, I would\nhope that there be no rush to judgment. Should the President decide,\nin fairness to those applicants whose cases are pending completion,\nthat additional time is necessary to complete this task in an equitable\nmanner, I would strongly reiterate that he seek such funds from\nCongress.\nAt that point, I think Congress, and specifically this subcommittee;\nbefore authorizing any funds, would be remiss if we do not more\nclosely scrutinize some of the policy decisions underpinning the\nexistence of the Presidential Clemency Board.\nBefore authorizing funds, I would like to know the following:\n(1) Did the Presidential Clemency Board give any special consider-\ntion to the cases of applicants who entered the service through Project\n100,000¹ and if not, why not?\n(2) Has the Board established any procedures for determining which\ncases are ripe for review by the various Department of Defense Dis-\ncharge Review Boards? If so, what are these procedures? In what\nmanner, then, are applicants' cases channeled to the appropriate\nDischarge Review Board?\n(3) Does the Presidential Clemency Board take steps to insure that\nits mitigation factors are consistent with factors used by DOD Dis-\ncharge Review Boards and consistent with the intent of theDepart-\nment of Defense's own clemency-oriented policies; that is, Laird\nmemorandum of 1972 regarding drug abuse and the ensuing alcohol\nabuse programs?\n(4) How many applicants submitted timely data and were granted\nde novo hearings pursuant to the notice filed in the June 13, 1975,\nFederal Register? This notice, changing the prior standard operating\nprocedure of the Board, stated in effect that the Board, because of\ntime considerations, would no longer allow the review of an appli-\ncant's comments on the content of his case summary prior to the\npresentation of applicant's case before the Board, as had been the\nprior procedure. Presently, the Board's procedure allows that if an\napplicant's case has been heard by the Board prior to the receipt of a\ntimely submission amending, contradicting, or supplementing, a\ncase summary, the case will be presented de novo to another panel of\nthe Board, other than that which heard the case originally, if the\nsubmission contains relevant information which could have affected\nthe disposition of the case. It is upon this change in procedure that\nthis question (4) is premised.\nRegarding recommendation No. 5:\nI would think that because of the small number of applications\nsubmitted to the Presidential Clemency Board, this subcommittee\n(17).\n1\nMcNamara Memorandum, Aug 23, 1966 \"Broadening the\nManpower Pool\"\n18\nshould make a close investigation of the policy behind the jurisdictional\nparameters of the military cases.\nSpecifically:\n(1) Why is jurisdiction granted only .to those persons who went\nAWOL (or AWOL-related offenses UCMJ Articles 85, 86, and 87)\nand not extended to those persons who resisted the war be refusing to\nobey orders?\n(2) To what depth did the Presidential Clemency Board, before\nfinding or denying jurisdiction, examine the administrative procedures\nand data which individual commanders used in determining which\nseparation program number would be listed on the separatee's DD\nForm 214? Therefore, what, on its face, was the basis for the dis-\ncharge may have only been the straw that broke the camel's back,\nand yet be the basis for denial of jurisdiction by the Board if one does\nnot look behind the separation program number.\n(3) What were the standards which the Presidential Clemency\nBoard used to determine that applications were clearly ineligible and\nthereby sent \"no jurisdiction\" letters when such a determination\nwas done without any review of the applicant's records except a\nreading of applicant's original letter?\nFinally, regarding the program as a whole: Upon a favorable con-\nsideration of the Presidential clemency, and the grant of a pardon,\nwhat, in effect, is the value of a clemency discharge? Are there cases\nin which the Board is recommending upgrades for veterans' benefits?\nUpon the receipt of a pardon and a recommendation by the Presi-\ndential Clemency Board that the applicant have some or all veterans'\nbenefits restored, what is the status of the applicant's veterans'\nbenefits?\nBURTON H. JAFFE\n3708 N. OAKLAND ST.\nARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22207\nDear Sen. Goodell\naug. 19, 1975\nThank you for your kind letter of\nany. 15. I performed to the best of\nmy ability and am fileosed to have can- -\ntributed, in the small way that 2\ndid, toward the healing processes to\nwhich this Program addressed itseep\nThis work experience has been the mest\nprofoundly fulfilling and meaningful\nof my 12 1/2 year federal Career, my\nhave served under your leadership for\nprimary regret is that 2 Could not\na greater period of time\nmy thanks and very best personal\nwishes to you for Continued success\nin the year ahead.\nGENAL B.FORD B.\nSincerely,\nBurton H. J affe\nCLERGY AND LAITY CONCERNED\n235 EAST 49th STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017\n212-371-7188\nAugust 21, 1975\nThe Honorable Charles E. Goodell\nChairman\nPresidential Clemency Board\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. Goodell:\nThe Office of International Justice and\nPeace of the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Southern\nAsia Office of the Division of Overseas Ministries of\nthe National Council of Churches, the American Friends\nService Committee, and Clergy and Laity Concerned are\nco-hosting a three day seminar on the ramifications of\nthe Indochina war on both domestic and foreign policy\nof America. The seminar will be held September 8\nthrough 11 at Pendle Hill Conference Center in\nPennsylvania.\nThe question of amnesty will be one of\nthe questions discussed at the seminar. Duane Shank,\na Board Member of the National Council for Universal\nUnconditional Amnesty, has prepared a paperfor the\nseminar; \"Remembering the Past to Serve the Future.\"\nSince this question is of vital importance to you and\nthe Presidential Clemency Board, it would seem important\nfor the seminar members to receive a response from\nyou to the paper. We will, of course, be glad to\nreproduce your response and send/ it to each eeminar member.\nWe would also like to extend an invitation\nto you to come to the seminar to discuss the issue of\namnesty with the seminar members.\nSincerely yours,\nTIBRART FORD &\nDor Live\nDon Luce\nExecutive Director\nClergy & Laity\nConcerned\nRemembering the Past to Serve the Future\nWith the final end of the war in Indochina this spring,\na new struggle begins for Americans who were involved in the\nanti-war movement. It is a struggle that promises to be as\nhard fought as the one just concluded, and perhaps equally\nas long. The goal is to interpret the history of the war and\nits meaning for America.\nThe American opinion-molders have already been active\nwith their analyses, which almost without exception see the\nwar as a mistake in tactical policies or as a basically good\n1\nventure somehow turned sour. We who opposed and organized\nagainst the war must now turn our efforts to seeing that the\nAmerican people hear and understand the true nature of the\nwar and the resistance it created.\nOne appropriate instrument for this process is the ongoing\nstruggle for a universal, unconditional amnesty. At the\npresent, however, much of the educational work around amnesty\nis still based on such concepts as reconciliation, healing of\nwounds, forgetting the past, etc. Without going into the\nrelative merits of those arguments, they. clearly share one\nthing in common-all are based on the past.\nWhile a legal forgetting of past actions is the general\ndefinition of amnesty, the process of working toward a goal\nand its ultimate meaning are in many instances as important as\nthe goal itself. In this case, the implications of amnesty are\nfor the future, while the obvious effect remains for the past.\nOne guideline that can be used in examining the implications\n2\nof amnesty is the judgement of Nazi war criminals at\nNuremberg and the resulting principles of international law.\nIt was the United States, more than any other country, which\ninsisted on the prosecution of the Nazis and the use of broad,\ngeneral principles in doing SO. It was also the United States\nwhich emphasized at the time the significance of those principles\nin judging future conduct of war.\nJustice Robert Jackson, the Chief Prosecutor for the\nUnited States at Nuremberg, specifically spoke to the future\npossibility of the judgement being used against the United\nStates when he said:\n=\nwe are not prepared to lay down a\nrule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be\n2\nwilling to have invoked against us\n\"\nThe significance of the struggle for amnesty, in continuing\nto speak to the American people, is to invoke that rule of\nconduct against the governments that have ruled the United\nStates for the past thirty years.\nTwo of the most basic ideas embodied in the Nuremberg\nPrinciples are the fundamental illegality of waging a war of\naggression, ie. the use of armed force against another nation in\nany context other than self-defense against attack; and the\nobligation of individuals to refuse to be a part of any such\nillegality by their governments.\nIn the terms of our strategic consideration, both of these\nideas contain the element of the past affecting the future. We\nshall first look at the past.\nVolume after volume has been written in documenting and\nanalyzing the commission of war crimes by the United States in\n3\nIndochina and the effect of these crimes on the Indochinese\npeople. This has been obvious enough that as early as 1966,\nBertrand Russell could say to the American people: \"[T]he\nUnited States is committing war crimes in Vietnam. These have\nbeen documented so frequently by Western observers that they\n3\nneed no further cataloguing here. \"\nI shall likewise not attempt to catalogue or conclusively\nprove that there were, in fact, war crimes committed in Vietnam.\nIt is enough to say that the very nature of the war, a techno-\nlogical war by the world's most powerful nation against a\nnational liberation movement, was a crime. The entire people\nof Indochina were the enemy, and American war policies reflected\nthat fact. Search and destroy missions, free fire zones,\nharassment and interdiction fire, massive bombardment of non-\nmilitary targets, the defoliation of vast areas of the country-\nside--all of these were officially sanctioned policies of the U.S.\n4\ngovernment and all of them are in violation of international laws.\nA conclusive proof could no doubt be constructed, but it\nis sufficient, in the words of Professor Richard Falk, to\n\"maintain that anyone who believes or has reason to believe that\na war is being waged in violation of minimal canons of law and\nmorality has an obligation of conscience to resist participation\n5\nin and support of that war by every means at his disposal.\n\"\nIt is difficult, in fact, to see how any American could not\nhave known of the legal and moral violations occurring in\nIndochina, as they were extensively covered by the American press.\nIn 1968, what was then \"Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam\"\npublished In the Name of America, a 420 page compilation of news\n4\nstories which documented American war crimes.\nYet while much has been written on the existence of war\ncrimes, until recently, not much has appeared which directly\n6\nrelates those crimes to the need for an amnesty. Nearly one\nmillion men and women did, in one way or another, refuse to\nobey orders to participate in the crime that was the war in\nIndochina, yet most of them continue to suffer legal and social\nsanctions for that refusal.\nI assert that draft, military, and civilian resistance\nactivities, although not always consciously articulated as such,\nwere in fact individuals exercising their legal responsibility\nunder the Nuremberg Principles to refuse orders of their\ngovernment to participate in war crimes, crimes against peace,\nand crimes against humanity. The theme of individual responsi-\nbility for actions in time of war was stated by the International\nLaw Commission in formulating the Nuremberg Principles as\nPrinciple IV:\n\"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order\nof his Government or of a superior does not relieve\nhim from responsibility under international law, pro-\nvided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. \" 7\nIt is that idea of making alternative moral choices, or, the\nright to resist, that is at the heart of the amnesty question.\nWhile governments in general, and their military services in\nparticular, operate on a chain-of-command structure that demands\nobedience, Nuremberg established that an individual dare not lose\nsight of his own conscience, his own responsibility to resist if\nnecessary.\n5\nRichard Falk points out that \" the Nuremberg teaching\n[is] that human beings have obligations that may transcend\ntheir duty to obey the dictates of their own state. Indeed,\nthe most important positive contribution of Nuremberg may have\nbeen to give citizens an argument to interpose between themselves\n8\nand the criminal conduct of their government II\nThere were a number of persons over the course of the war\nin Indochina who attempted to use the Nuremberg principle as a\ndefense in the criminal courts of the United States, usually in\ncases of induction refusal. The courts consistently refused to\nhear it, for various reasons.\nSome simply said that allegations of the illegality of the\nwar did not constitute a defense to the charge of refusing to\nsubmit to induction; some said that since a potential inductee\nhad not received orders to report to Vietnam, he did not have\nlegal standing to challenge the legality of the operations there;\nothers said that the power of the Congress to raise and support\narmies was not affected by international laws and treaties\nregarding the use of the armies that are raised. The most common\nresponse was for the courts to declare that the war was a\n\"political question\" charged exclusively to Congress and the\nPresident, and that the courts had no authority to interfere\n9\nwith politics.\nThe most blatant refusal, worth quoting at length, was the\nopinion of the district court for Connecticut, in the case of\nDavid Mitchell, a 1965 induction refuser. Mitchell had cited\nin his defense his belief that the United States was committing\n6\ncrimes in Vietnam and that an individual must disassociate\nhimself from the crimes of his government. The judge responded:\n\"Leaving aside the sickening spectacle of a 22\nyear old citizen of the United States seizing the\nsanctuary of a nation dedicated to freedom of speech\nto assert such tommyrot, and leaving aside also the\ntransparency of his motives for doing so, the decisive\npoint is that such political or philosophical views,\neven if sincerely entertained, are utterly irrelevant\nas a defense to the charge of willful refusal to report\nfor induction in the armed forces of the United States \"\n10\nAlthough, as stated earlier, certainly not every act of\nresistance against the involvement of the U.S. in Indochina, or\neven against the military in general, can be related to a\nconscious articulation of the Nuremberg principle, some interesting\nfacts may be observed.\nDavid Cortright, in his recently published book, Soldiers\nin Revolt, points to statistics which \"suggest that the pattern\nof dissent within the services was directly related to their role\n11\nin the war effort.\n\"\nHe cites the rates of absence and desertion,\nthe incidence of non-judicial punishments, rates of other-\nthan-honorable discharges, and applications for discharge as a\nconscientious objector. In terms of discharge applications,\nCortright notes specifically that objection in the ground forces\ndeclined quickly after a peak in 1971, while rates in the Navy\nand Air Force remained high well into 1972--the years of massive\n12\nbombings.\nWhether or not one could conclusively demonstrate anti-war\nfeelings as the basis for all acts of resistance, the point\nremains that in every instance there was a person exercising his\nindividual conscience, his responsibility to remove himself from\nsomething he knew to be wrong and wished no part of. This point\n7\nof individual responsibility is what must be emphasized and\nre-emphasized.\nThe obligation of an individual to at times go against\nthe orders of his government, in addition to being founded in\ninternational law, has its roots deep in our religious\ntradition. It has long been taught that if one's loyalty to a\nstate comes at variance to one's loyalty to God, the loyalty to\nGod must come first. This teaching is relevant to us here in\nthe form of \"just war\" theories and selective conscientious\nobjection to war.\nMany religious bodies, perhaps most notably the Lutheran\nChurch and the Roman Catholic Church, have taught that some\nwars can be morally justified and others cannot, depending on\nthe specific circumstances and the nature of the war. The\nconclusion which follows is that individuals, relying on their\nconscience and the guidance of their religious community, may\nfind it possible to participate in some wars and not in others.\nThis belief, based on the inseparability of moral ethics\nand political judgement, is held by persons who believe that\nconscience \"requires the individual to judge the morality of\nwhatever policy of government he may be under orders to implement\n13\nand where such a policy is clearly unjust, to refuse to obey.\n=\nThis belief, however, is not legally recognized as conscientious\nobjection in the present Selective Service law, which requires\n14\npersons to be opposed to \"participation in war in any form.' \"\nNumerous persons also attempted to use selective conscien-\ntious objection as a defense to criminal charges, arguing that\nthe draft law's definition should be broadened. The Supreme\n8\nCourt did broaden the definition of conscientious objection\nto include persons who did not believe in a Supreme Being,\nbut who held a belief that occupied a parallel place in\ntheir lives (Seeger, 1965) ; and to say that deeply held moral\nor ethical beliefs qualified as \"religious\" under the law\n(Welsh, 1970).\nIt rejected, however, a further broadening to include\nselective objection. The leading case decided in the Supreme\nCourt, the Gillette case in 1971, held that Congress did have\nthe right to draw a line between total pacifists and non-pacifist\nobjectors.\nWith this legal and moral justification for the idea of\nindividual responsibility, let us look more specifically at\nthe present--the people involved and the case for amnesty.\nAmnesty is generally defined as the legal forgetting of\npast criminal offenses or alleged offenses. Its effect would\ninclude an immunity from further or future prosecution, an\nexpungement of records relating to the alleged offenses, and\nin general, as far as the law is concerned, considering the\noffense never to have happened.\nAn amnesty must be universal, which is to say that all\npersons who come within the category of relevant offenses must\nbe covered. In this situation, amnesty refers to the war in\nIndochina and must cover all acts of resistance to that war.\nThis would include all violations of the draft law; military\nviolations including absentee offenses, disobedience of orders,\nand all other offenses which did or could lead to an other-than-\nhonorable discharge or other form of punishment; and, acts\ncommitted by civilians in opposition to the war.\n9\nA special emphasis here is necessary on the question of\nother-than-honorable discharges, which in the minds of some\npeople are still questionable beneficiaries of an amnesty. Two\ngeneral categories of discharges, administrative and punitive,\nare used by the armed forces. The major distinguishing feature\nbetween them is that a punitive discharge can be awarded only\nby sentence of a court-martial. Both types were commonly used,\nhowever, in quelling dissent within the military. The New York\nCity Commission on Human Rights, after a series of hearings in\n1973, concluded: \"Administrative proceedings and punitive\ndischarges were frequently utilized in dealing with soldiers who\n15\nwere outspoken in their opposition to the war\n\"\nTwo of the better known incidents of military resistance\nresulting in bad discharges involved a young Navy seaman and an\nArmy medical doctor.\nSeaman Apprentice Roger Priest began publishing an anti-war\nnewspaper in 1970, off base and out of uniform. An article\nappeared in the paper which offended Mendel Rivers, powerful\nchairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and he requested\nthat the Navy do something about it. Very shortly thereafter,\nPriest was charged with fourteen violations of the Uniform Code\nof Military Justice, ranging from solicitation of desertion to\nsedition. After a year of legal battles, he was convicted of\npromoting disloyalty and disaffection, and given a Bad Conduct\nDischarge.\nCaptain Howard Levy, M.D., was an Army doctor assigned to\ntrain Green Beret medics for Vietnam. As he realized more of\nthe political and military goals for which medical aid could\n10\nbe used, he refused to continue training what he considered\nto be potential war criminals. After rejecting his defense\ncontentions of the illegality of the Vietnam war and the\nnecessity to not participate in it, the military court sen-\ntenced Dr. Levy to three years at Ft. Leavenworth and dismissal\nfrom the service (equivalent to a Dishonorable Discharge). He\nserved twenty-six months of the prison sentence, but will retain\nthe stigma of \"Dishonorable\" for the rest of his life.\nWhile both of these cases involved a court-martial sentence,\nover 90% of the other-than-honorable discharges are given\nadministratively, usually at the recommendation of a commanding\nofficer. The recipient of the bad discharge has not been con-\nvicted of any crime, does not have the right to a hearing in\nthe matter, yet the discharge affects his life in much the same\nmanner as a felony conviction; making employment difficult,\nmaking him practically ineligible for veterans benefits, etc.\nThe universality of amnesty considerations must, therefore,\ninclude an upgrading of all such bad discharges.\nAn amnesty must also be unconditional, with no punitive\nor stigmatizing conditions attached. Such conditions could\ninclude a period of service to the government, loyalty oaths,\ncompletion of an unfinished term of military service, etc. Since\nany condition necessarily involves a consideration of punishment\nfor wrongdoing, any conditions must be rejected.\nThe point to emphasize here is that while stating that\namnesty legally means forgetting, the context of the discussion\nof individual responsibility to refuse illegal orders clearly\nimplies remembering. This is the consideration of having an\n11\neffect on the past and an implication for the future.\nThe persons who refused to participate in or opposed in\nwhatever manner the war in Indochina need to be legally freed\nfrom prosecution and punishment for their actions. But while\nthe law forgets the act, we must not forget the reason for the\nact. If we do not remember, we are doomed to repeat the crimes\nof this war in a future one.\nThe amnesty movement has just weathered the challenge of\nPresident Ford's \"Earned re-entry\" program, a program against\nwhich a world-wide boycott was undertaken. The boycott and\neducational work around it were successful, as less than 20% of\nthose potentially eligible for the program actually responded to\nits lures. The reason for the opposition and boycott of the\nprogram relate to the Indochina war and the assumptions about\nit which were made.\nThe President, in announcing his intentions, spoke of \"the\nfew citizens of our country who, in my judgement, committed the\n16\nsupreme folly of shirking their duty\n\"\nThis assumption\nwas embodied even more directly in the oath that was required\nof returning military absentees, \"recognizing that my obligations\n17\nas a citizen remain unfulfilled\n\"\nPersons accepting the\nprogram then had to pledge to complete up to two years of\ncivilian \"alternate service\", ostensibly to fulfill their\n\"obligation\", but practically, as punishment.\nIt was these assumptions that were categorically rejected.\nThe persons who resisted the crimes in Indochina did not shirk\ntheir duty or fail to fulfill their obligations as citizens.\nCompletely to the contrary, they fulfilled their duty and\n12\nobligation to exercise their legal and moral responsibility\nto refuse to participate in crimes against humanity.\nOne effective rejection of the program was the speaking\nand organizing tour of the United States carried out by Gerry\nCondon, an ex-Green Beret. In 1968, after 16 months in\nSpecial Forces training, Condon publicly \"resigned\" from the\nArmy and thereafter refused several orders for out-processing\nto Vietnam. As his court-martial approached, he planned as a\ndefense the fact that he had the right and responsibility under\nthe Nuremberg principle to refuse such orders, but when he\ndiscovered that such an argument had little chance of success\nin the military courts, he went to Canada.\nLooking back on his experience, Condon says that he had\nenlisted in the Special Forces to see what was really happening\nin Vietnam so he could form his own conclusions on it. The\nconclusion he formed came about because \"my Green Beret training\nwas long enough that I had a lot of time to think about the war,\nas well as the opportunity to meet many returned Vietnam veterans\nIt became all too clear to me that insanity and war crimes\nwere commonplace in Vietnam, that in fact, this was the\n18\nconsciously encouraged policy of the U.S. military there\n\"\nWhen the President's program was announced, Condon\nreceived a notice from the Army informing him that he had been\ntried and convicted in absentia in 1969 and sentenced to ten\nyears in prison and a Dishonorable Discharge, which had been\nsubsequently reduced to two years and a Bad Conduct Discharge.\nChallenging this conviction, Condon returned to the United States\nand engaged in a nation-wide speaking tour under the sponsorship\n12\nobligation to exercise their legal and moral responsibility\nto refuse to participate in crimes against humanity.\nOne effective rejection of the program was the speaking\nand organizing tour of the United States carried out by Gerry\nCondon, an ex-Green Beret. In 1968, after 16 months in\nSpecial Forces training, Condon publicly \"resigned\" from the\nArmy and thereafter refused several orders for out-processing\nto Vietnam. As his court-martial approached, he planned as a\ndefense the fact that he had the right and responsibility under\nthe Nuremberg principle to refuse such orders, but when he\ndiscovered that such an argument had little chance of success\nin the military courts, he went to Canada.\nLooking back on his experience, Condon says that he had\nenlisted in the Special Forces to see what was really happening\nin Vietnam so he could form his own conclusions on it. The\nconclusion he formed came about because \"my Green Beret training\nwas long enough that I had a lot of time to think about the war,\nas well as the opportunity to meet many returned Vietnam veterans\nIt became all too clear to me that insanity and war crimes\nwere commonplace in Vietnam, that in fact, this was the\n18\nconsciously encouraged policy of the U.S. military there \"\nWhen the President's program was announced, Condon\nreceived a notice from the Army informing him that he had been\ntried and convicted in absentia in 1969 and sentenced to ten\nyears in prison and a Dishonorable Discharge, which had been\nsubsequently reduced to two years and a Bad Conduct Discharge.\nChallenging this conviction, Condon returned to the United States\nand engaged in a nation-wide speaking tour under the sponsorship\n13\nof the National Council for Universal Unconditional Amnesty.\nHis success in reaching people with the message of his\nresistance to the war and his rejection of the assumption that\nsuch resistance was incorrect is responsible in a large\ndegree for the Army deciding to discharge him with the Bad\nConduct Discharge and dropping the prison sentence.\nAnother assumption relating to amnesty which is more\nwidely held is that which excludes from consideration those\npersons whose resistance to the war took the form of violence,\nusually defined as damage or injury to persons or property. This\nexclusion is true of the statements and resolutions of religious\nbodies on amnesty, it is true of all the current legislative\nproposals, and it is true of the personal feelings of many who\nare actively involved in working for amnesty.\nThis refusal to accept amnesty for acts of resistance which\ntook a violent form seems to indicate that most people still do\nnot see the war in Indochina as the type of crime which made\nresistance by any means possible a necessity. It immediately\nraises the general question of the official violence of the U.S.\ngovernment in Indochina VS. the relatively small amount of\nviolence by the anti-war movement.\nOfficial violence in Indochina involved massive programs\nof saturation bombing, anti-personnel weapons, torture and\nexecution of prisoners, assassination programs, etc. Anti-war\nviolence generally involved destruction of property which\ndirectly aided the war effort--draft files, RO TC buildings, etc.\nWhen this minimal violence is placed alongside the deliberate,\nofficial violence of the government, it pales in significance.\n14\nIt was not the anti-war movement which was violent, it was\nthe government.\nThere is, however, a more fundamental point. At the\nsentencing hearing for Karl Armstrong, accused of bombing an\nArmy research center in which a student working late was\naccidentally killed, Richard Falk spoke of\n\"\nthe individual's\nduty to do what he can to stop criminal acts from happening\nIn\nlight of the Nuremberg tradition, and the absence of constitu-\ntional redress, the sense of the right and duty of the\nindividual to take the law into his own hands in reinforced\nTo stop the commission of great crimes, one may have to commit\n19\nlesser crimes. \"\nArmstrong himself spoke of having \"acted out\n20\nof a feeling of moral responsibility\n\"\nAgain, we must emphasize that it is the moral responsibility\nto refuse to take part in a lawless war which is the essence of\namnesty. In his article \"War Criminals and War Resisters\",\nreferred to earlier, Herbert Kelman concludes by saying:\n\"Unconditional amnesty offers the best oppor-\ntunity to reinforce the principle that the individual\nhas not only the right, but the obligation to consult\nhis conscience when the government asks him to partic-\nipate in war. The war resisters were absolutely\nright in their judgement that American involvement in\nIndochina was immoral and illegal, that participation\nin the war would have constituted complicity in war\ncrimes and crimes against humanity, and that by re-\nsisting they were acting in accordance with the\nNuremberg principles. \" 21\nIf raised in this context, the continuing campaign for\nuniversal, unconditional amnesty can be a powerful tool to make\nthe American people aware of the character of a war that was\nwaged in their name. If we do not uncover the nature and scope\nof the crimes committed in the war in Indochina, we run the\ngrave risk of them happening again.\n15\nAs the second component of this educational effort, we\nshould work to have the principle of individual responsibility\nincluded in our domestic law. As pointed out earlier, the\npresent draft law does not provide for selective conscientious\nobjection to war. With the strong likelihood of inductions\nbeing reinstated, we must stress the rightness and the necessity\nfor individuals to exercise their conscience when faced with\ngovernment orders. This is an area of implication for the future\nthat the campaign for amnesty would do well to include.\nBased on the legal principle of individual responsibility\nto make moral choices and the religious tradition of enlightened\nconscience, we should seek the broadening of the legal definition\nof conscientious objection to include all persons who sincerely\nand deeply object to all wars or to a particular war.\nRemembering the past to serve the future--a universal and\nunconditional amnesty for acts of resistance against the\ninvolvement of the United States in Indochina--would have its\neffect on the past in erasing the stigma the resisters continue\nto suffer and its implication for the future in preparing people\nto better face the next war.\nIf built on this perspective, the campaign for amnesty will\nincreasingly be seen as upholding the principles the United\nStates put forth at Nuremberg. This growing awareness we seek\nwas recently demonstrated in a speech delivered by Vernon Jordan,\nJr. to the National Urban League's annual convention. In\nannouncing a break with the Ford Administration's policy, Jordan,\nwho was one of the original members of the Presidential Clemency\n16\nBoard, said:\n\"Among the mistakes of the past with which we\nhave yet to come to grips is Vietnam. Whatever each\nof us may have felt about the war, in retrospect it\nis clear that there was no justification for the\nmany crimes against decency and humanity that were\ncommitted there.\n\"We cannot absorb the true lessons and mean-\ning of the Vietnam experience into our history while\ncontinuing to punish the innocent victims of our war\npolicy\n\"That is why I call for complete, immediate,\nuniversal and unconditional amnesty.\" 22\n#\n#\n#\n#\nDuane Shank\n15 August 1975\nNotes\n1\nFor an excellent current discussion of this process, see \"The\nRemaking of History\", Noam Chomsky, Ramparts, August/September 1975.\n2\nPage 222, Crimes of War, ed. Richard Falk, Gabriel Kolko and\nRobert Lifton, Random House, 1971.\n3\nPage 101, \"The Only Honourable Policy\", Bertrand Russell, War\nCrimes in Vietnam, Monthly Review Press, 1967.\n4\nFor a compilation of the relevant international laws and treaties\nrelating to the conduct of war, see \"The Law\", pages 29-54, In the\nName of America, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam,\nTurnpike Press, 1968.\n5\n\"Songmy--War Crimes and Individual Responsibility--A Legal\nMemorandum\", Richard Falk, in Transaction, January 1970, as re-\nprinted by the American Friends Service Committee.\n6\nFor one of the best (and only) discussions of the connection between\nwar crimes and amnesty, see \"War Criminals and War Resisters\",\nHerbert Kelman, Society, May/June 1975.\n17\n7\n\"Principles of International L aw Recognized in the Charter of\nthe Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgement of the Tribunal\", as\nformulated by the International L aw Commission, June-July, 1950.\nPage 43, In the Name of America.\n8\nPage 7, Crimes of War\n9\nThe legal and semantic maneuverings used by federal judges make\nquite interesting reading. For those who may be interested, the\ncitations of some representative cases follow.\n--illegality of war is no defense:\nUS V. Prince, 1 SSLR 3150, 398 F.2d 686 (2d. Cir) cert.\ndenied 393 US 946 (1968)\nUS V. Pratt, 2 SSLR 3407, 412 F.2d 426 (6th Cir, 1969)\nRusk V. US, 2 SSLR 3428, 419 F.2d 133 (9th Cir, 1969)\n--potential inductee has no legal standing:\nAshton V. US, 1 SSLR 3287, 404 F.2d 95 (8th Cir), cert. denied\n394 US 960 (1969)\nVelvel V. Nixon, 3 SSLR 3273, 415 F.2d 236 (10th Cir, 1969),\ncert. denied 396 US 1042 (1970)\n--power to raise armies not affected by international law:\nUS V. Owens, 2 SSLR 3310, 415 F.2d 1308 (6th Cir, 1969), cert.\ndenied 397 US 997 (1970)\nUS V. St. Clair, 1 SSLR 3184, 291 F. Supp. 122 (S.D. NY. 1968)\nUS V. Hogans, 369 F.2d 359 (2d Cir, 1966)\n--war a non-justiciable political question:\nLuftig V. McNamara, 373 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir), cert. denied\n387 US 945 (1967)\nUS V. Berrigan, 1 SSLR 3150, 283 F. Supp 336 (D.MD. 1968)\nSimmons V. US, 1 SSLR 3304, 406 F.2d 456 (5th Cir), cert. denied\n395 US 982 (1969)\n--for a good overall discussion of all these issues:\nUS V. Sisson, 1 SSLR 3307, 294 F.Supp 520 (D.Mass. 1968) and\n1 SSLR 3354, 297 F.Supp. 902 (D.Mass. 1969)\n10\nUS V. Mitchell, 246 F.Supp. 874 (D.Ct. 1965), quoted from page 206,\nCrimes of War.\n11\nPage 16, Soldiers in Revolt, David Cortright, Anchor/Doubleday, 1975\n18\n12\nibid, see generally chapter 1, \"The Machine Breaks Down\"\n13\nPage 41, Conscience, War, and the Selective Objector, Richard J.\nNiebanck, Board of Social Ministry, Lutheran Church in America, 1972.\n14\nMilitary Selective Service Act of 1971, section 6(j), [50 U.S.C.\nApp. 456(j)]\n15\nPage 16, Postwar Opportunity and the Vietnam Era Veteran, New\nYork City Commission on Human Rights and the American Civil\nLiberties Union, 1975.\n16\nSpeech to Veterans of Foreign Wars, Chicago IL, 19 August 1974.\n17\n\"Pledge to Complete Alternate Service\" and \"Reaffirmation of\nAllegiance\", Department of Defense, 17 September 1974\n18\nSpeech to Convocation of Families for Amnesty, Washington DC,\n2 February 1975.\n19\n\"A Trapped Generation on Trial\", Henry Schipper, The Progressive,\nJanuary 1974.\n20\n\"Karl Armstrong, A Case of Resistance\", Karl Armstrong Defense\nCommittee, Madison WI.\n21\nSee note 5 above.\n22\nKeynote address at 65th National Urban League annual convention,\nAtlanta GA, 28 July 1975. Transcript from the Congressional Record,\n1 August 1975.\n19\nBibliography\nA. Books\nArmy in Anguish, Haynes Johnson and George C. Wilson, \"The\nWashington Post National Report\", 0 ctober 1971; Pocket\nBooks, 1972.\nConscience and Command, ed. James Finn, Vintage Books, 1971.\nConscience, War, and the Selective Objector, Richard J. Niebanck,\nBoard of Social Ministry, Lutheran Church in America, 1972.\nCrimes of War, ed. Richard Falk, Gabriel Kolko and Robert Lifton,\nRandom House, 1971.\nIn the Name of America, Clergy and L aymen Concerned About Vietnam,\nTurnpike Press, 1968.\nPostwar Opportunity and the Vietnam Era Veteran, Report of the\nNew York City Commission on Human Rights and the American\nCivil Liberties Union, 1975.\nSoldiers in Revolt, David Cortright, Anchor/Doubleday, 1975.\nThe Destruction of Indochina, Stanford Biology Study Group, 1970.\nThe Winter Soldier Investigation: An Inquiry into American War\nCrimes, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Beacon Press, 1972.\nWar Crimes and the American Conscience, ed. Erwin Knoll and Judith\nNies McFadden, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.\nWar Crimes, Bibliography and Comment, ed. Mark Sacharoff, American\nFriends Service Committee.\nWar Crimes in Vietnam, Bertrand Russell, Monthly Review Press, 1967.\nB. Miscellaneous\n\"A Trapped Generation on Trial\", Henry Schipper, The Progressive,\nJanuary 1974.\n\"Catholics and Conscientious Objection\", James Forest, Catholic\nPeace Fellowship.\n\"Conscientious Objection: A Guide for Lutherans\", Office of\nSelective Service Information, Lutheran Council in the USA, 1971.\n\"Ford and Indochina\", Ad Hoc Coalition for a New Foreign Policy, 1975.\n\"Karl Armstrong, A Case of Resistance\", Karl Armstrong Defense\nCommittee, Madison WI.\n20\n\"Songmy--War Crimes and Individual Responsibility--1 Legal\nMemorandum\", Richard Falk, Transaction, January 1970,\nreprinted by the American Friends Service Committee.\n\"The CIA Scalpel Cut Deep\", Kenneth Barton 0 sborn, Playboy,\nAugust 1975.\n\"The Remaking of History\", Noam Chomsky, Ramparts, August/September\n1975.\n\"War Criminals and War Resisters\", Herbert Kelman, Society,\nMay/June 1975.\n\"Watershed Between the Decades\", Daniel Schwartz, The Nation,\n26 November 1973.\n\"Wisconsin Bombing Case Evokes a Time of Anger\", New York Times,\n1 November 1973.\nC. Judicial Opinions [other than cited in Notes]\nUS V. Seeger, 380 US 163 (1965)\nWelsh V. US, 3 SSLR 3001, 398 US 333 (1970)\nUS V. Gillette, 3 SSLR 3741, 401 US 437 (1971)\nGC\nNE YORK.NY 21 M AUG\nWe hold these Truths\nWe hold these Truths\nWe hold these Truths\nC\nCLERGY AND\nLAITY\nCONCERNED\nis\n235 EAST 49th STREET\nNEW YORK, N.Y. 10017\nUNITED STATES\n10\nUNITED STATES\n10\nUNITED STATES\nc\nThe Honorable Charles E. Goodell\nChairman\nPresidential Clemency Board\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nRECEPTION HOUSE SECURITY\nProcessed AUG DVA 22 1975\nSEP 5 1975\nquil\n16\nScould city la\naug 24.\nNo CARd\nm\nPresident Juny Lord.\nI wonder and you will\nto, what our offical of the Clemency board\nis so box to inforce your program.\ndischarges is before they proved out. What in about,\nIt a fact these men were given\nthe world is our Official thinking\nThese men who agreed of signed upto\nwork should be prosecuted for draft\nworth, but the slacker will perflo out.\nevantion. a few will prove out there\n2ALD it. FORD LIB\nyours\nMerbe Burris 1467\nDeserters Quit Clemeney Jobs, Escape Punis hment\nVASHINGTON (AF Two-thirds of the\nAssociated Press inquiries, said the 2,035.\nPresidential Clemency Board, and its part of\nwith the board intend to perform jobs, although\nown time and is now a sheriff's deputy\nmany ways over and above his responsibilities.\ndeserters who joined President Ford's clemen-\n\"were terminated for non-performance for\nthe program is still unfinished.\nall agreed to do so which they applied.\nAnother Vietnam veteran worked his term as\nAlthough his term is over he continues to spend\ncy job program have dropped out, been kicked\nlack of cooperation and because they chose not\nOf all three parts of the program, the\nThe Justice Department portion of the\na food service worker in a state hospital in the\nsome time at Goodwill.\nou, or processed out by the military without\nto fulfill their agreements in many cases.\nClemency Board has had the most applicants\nprogram for draft dodgers has a low dropout\nwest. His supervisor wrote the Selective Ser-\nA man in New York State, a wounded\nreporting for jobs, and will escape punishment\nSome with families dropped out because they\n- 21,000 in all. It has until Sept. 15 to complete\nrate; only 19 of the 722 who signed up. Those\nvice that he wanted more employes like this\nveteran, works with mentally retarded\nwithout compl their assigned work.\ncouldn't make a go of it on the low pay.\nits work. So far it has found nearly 6,000\nwho don't complete their jobs still can be\none,\nchildren and is considering taking further\nOf the 4,5\ndeserters who joined the\nEven though we didn't get the numbers we\napplicants ineligible, recommended outright\nprosecuted for draft evansitn. Some of the\nsoldier who served in Vietnam is working\ntraining so as to be better equipped to help his\nprogram,\n035\neither dropped out or been\nanticipated, President Ford has attained more\npardons for about 6,000 others, recommended\ndropouts have fled the country to avoid this.\nas a \"jack of all trades\" in a rest home for the\nwards even more, the report said.\nticked out, the Selective Service says. Another\nof his initial goal than lots of people give him\npardons conditioned on work period for about\nSo far 52 of those in the Department of\naged. 'He enjoys his work and plans to remain\nman processed out hv the military never\ncredit for says draft Director Byron V.\n6.000 more. and denied pardons to about 700\nDefense portion of the program have\non the lob after his service is finished a\n<<\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nWe hold these Truths\nMr. & Mrs. Merle H. Burris Sr.\n2018 S. Palmetto Street\nSioux City, Iowa 51106\nPOSTAL s'n in -PM 15,5 Aim, SERVICE OF\nUNITED STATES\nPresident Jerry Hard\nWashington D.C."
}