Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1505975
label
Correspondence (4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1505975
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Correspondence (4)
citationUrl
collections
Charles E. Goodell Papers
Presidential Clemency Board Subject Files
subjects
Amnesty
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
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
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
4a98e3ab7a75d4ea
ocrText
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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.