4
Thursday, September 12, 1974
University Daily Kansan
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
SPECIAL FOCUS
'I WANT THEM TO COME HOME...'
— DEFENDENT FOOD
Amnesty tradition is long
From the days of George Washington to the present, presidents have assumed that the pardoning power of the Constitution carried with it the right to grant amnesty. Quite a few presidents have used this power.
The granting of amnesty was nothing new even in the time of George Washington. As early as 403 B.C., Athens granted amnesty to citizens to erase all political strife from memory. France also has a long history of 40 amnesties coming after virtually every civil strife since 1500.
By GERALD EWING Contributing Writer
English ammery dates, from 1600, and in the first year after World War II, countries as diverse as Argentina, Brazil.
The first instance was immediately after the American Revolution when a general amnesty was granted. In this case, Congress restored all troops who hadn't fled to Capilla.
numerous instances of debate over and granting of amnesty.
Bulgaria, Greece, India, Italy, the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia granted universal amnesties to political prisoners.
Another amnesty involving civil strife was granted in 1800 by President John Adams. He gave a general pardon to all of the participants in the Fries Uprising.
John Fries, the leader of the rebellion, had been sentenced to death, but Adams decided to follow him and take responsibility of one more appeal to the humane and generous natures of the people.
At the time, Jackson wrote, "...the ranks of the Army should be composed of respectable, not degraded material."
The United States, like the countries mentioned, has had
In the second war with Great Britain, 1812-1815, President James Madison used the pardon several times in an attempt to strengthen the regular standing army, but no general amnesty
No amnesty or pardon was granted for the next war, the Mexican War of 1848. The reason for the lack of pardons was that the 50,000 troops used were raised entirely from volunteers and a draft wasn't necessary.
On June 12, 1830, President Andrew Jackson issued an order that called for a response to Congressional action. The Congress had redrafted the military code, and ordered the authority for deserters in postemission.
the Whiskey Rebellion. Washington later explained to Congress that the "miskew had abandoned their errors, and pay the respect to our Constitution and laws which is due."
His order extended "free and full pardon to those who at the date of this order stand in the character of deserters."
was granted after the end of the war.
The first presidential ambency came in 1794 when President Washington granted pardons to all participants in the war.
Amnesty, war challenged
By JIM KENDELL
Contributing Writer
Amnesty is hard for Robin Jones to talk about.
The whole idea offends his sense of fairness.
But like four other Vietnam veterans, Jones, Lawrence senior, favors amnesty for him. Over in Vietnam War residents.
"I don't think it is fair that some people had it to carry the load and some didn't." Jones said, thinking of wanting to go so either but did we it.
U.S., not exiles, needs amnesty
To speak of amnesty misstates the issue. The thousands of men who left this country rather than fight in Vietnam need no amnesty. The United States does.
Amnesty. The word derives from a Greek word meaning forgetfulness. Webster defines it as the pardoning of a large group of individuals. Forgiveness is implicit in the term.
But forgiveness implies guilt for a crime. It is not the men who need to fight in Vietnam who forgive them.
Rather it is the United States that is guilty. Guilty of gross miscalculation in the highest offices of government. Guilty of supporting the wrong faction in the Vietnam War. Guilty of denying China's claims against a nation of patriots who only wanted the right every nation has—to rule itself.
But why? Why would the United States support corrupt Saigon regimes against the same kind of nationalistic fervor that forged this nation into one of its most destructive nation in the world make such a blunder?
The answer lies in history. And history must be traced at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the architect of monolithic communism, the notion of monolithic communist is a commie, no matter where he lives.
As if China were somehow ours to lose. Whom did we lost it to? The Chinese?
McCarthy needed an election issue. Any issue would have served. He almost chose welfare reform but decided it lacked sex appeal. Instead he chose communism. Communists were the most radical of Communists in the State Department had lost in 1949 when Mao Tse-tung took over.
But McCarthy was never one for complexities
He never dreamed that just as Chinese differ from Russians, so Chinese Communists differ from Russian Communists. They were all the same. We could have a comrade and we had to be tough on commies.
That was McCarthy's legacy. He faded quickly, a victim of his own irresponsibility. But from then on every politician had to prove he was tough on communism.
Jones was a Marine Corps infantryman in 1968-69 who was stationed near the Demilitarized Zone.
Enter Vietnamese nationalism. Enough of it to out force French colonialism and topple a puppet (Japan) from Vietnam.
And then John F. Kennedy. Would he stand by while Communists took over Vietnam? State Department specialists said, "Let the Vietnamese Communists have it. They'll be more trouble to the Russians and Chinese than they'll be to us." But Kennedy had to prove his toughness. We would take up the side of our old allies, the French. We would succeed with 100,000 men where they had failed with half a million. We were Americans. We could do anything.
He said he favored two years of alternative service for draf resisters who fled the country, but thought deserters should be dealt with under military law.
A few Americans saw the nature of the war, a burden refused to fight. Vietnam had the dumb refuse to fight.
Charles Hartman, Lawrence senior, is comfortable with the subject of amnesty.
That refusal was an act of courage. It would have been easier for them to go with the tide, to obey orders without question, to watch their country make a horrible mistake. Instead they were forced to fight on their own, belonged to the breed of fighters that was first in line after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
They are guilty of perception and foresight. They are guilty of putting the interests of their nation above their personal interests. They have long enough, it's time to move on home.
—Jack McNeely
Contributing Writer
Amnesty won't heal Viet sores
Vietnam drained the U.S. resources for 10 years. More Americans lost their lives in the war than in any other war in which the United States has fought. The conflict split our nation. Thousands of the nation's youth were conscripted and gave up years of their lives in military service. Many gave up years in prison, both at home and abroad. About 50,000 relinquished their citizenship because of Vietnam.
On Aug. 19, President Gerald R. Ford pledged "not only righteousness, but love, not only justice, but mercy" to those who dodged the draft and sought shelter in other nations. He said he would to heal the wounds of the Vietnam conflict, and that he would amnesty under consideration.
The Vietnam conflict was a no-win proposition even if he believed. Certainly no American won, anything from that.
How can Ford heal all the wounds of Vietnam?
How can Ford heal all the wounds for all those who gave up so much for so little?
Draft dodgers gave up their citizenship when they chose not to be conscripted and go to Vietnam. Gerald Ford is contemplating offering these men their citizenship.
limb there or lost their lives there. What recompense can Gerald Ford offer those who spent time in North Vietnamese prisons, or those who spent time in American prisons because they refused to fight in what they considered to be an immoral war?
There is little recompense for the family and friends of those still lost or missing in action in the war.
Each man who was eligible for the draft during the Vietnam conflict made his choice. The draft dodger and the POW each was faced with the decision of whether to be drafted, enlist, become a conscientious objector, leave the nation, join the National Guard or seek deferment.
Jeffrey Stinson Associate Editor
Talk of amnesty should cease and our nation should remember what happens to everyone when it enters into a no-win proposition like Vietnam.
Gerald Ford shouldn't revoke the draft dodger's decision when he cannot bring back the lives of those who died.
"I'm a little more interested in it from a personal standpoint, because my brother's in Canada." Hartman said.
Hartman served in the Signal Corps in 1967-68 at Danang and Nhatrang as a Spee. 5.
His brother attended KU in 1968-69 and requested conscientious objector status, but his draft board turned him down. So, five years ago he went to Toronto.
Hartman favors unconditional amnesy. He said he didn't think conditional amnesy would work.
Hartman said it would be extremely difficult to separate those who left for moral reasons those who left for other reasons.
"If they offer conditional ammety, there won't be that big a response to it," Hartman said.
Like Jones, Mike Colley, a December 1973 graduate, draws a distinction between different types of war resisters.
Colley was a Special Forces adviser to several companies of Montagnards in the northern sector of Vietnam in 1966-67.
"I'm very concerned for people who left the country for
moral reasons," Colley said. "I believe that they should be pardoned."
"I feel that they have a great deal of creativity and sensitivity to offer to America," he said.
"In the same way I don't believe those people who left or deserted to escape the issue or for criminal reasons should be treated the same way as those who left in good conscience."
Those men should have to perform 18 to 24 months of alternative service to gain amnesty. Colley said.
Byron Edmondson, who left KU last fall within a few hours of graduation, favors unconditional amnesty.
"Ever since I've formed an opinion I've been for un-
Readers respond Plagiarism alleged; Reviewer accused
Floating Juco
To the Editor:
As a graduate and transfer student from Highland Junior College, I was surprised to learn that it was moved to Kansas after the school was relocated in the Aug. 29 Kansan article "720 federal prisonerizes courses offered by KU." Last year, I worked with Havelander, Highland Jucs' newspaper, I wasn't informed of any plans to relocate the Junior College, which happens to be the oldest institution of higher education in the state. As I arrived at KU, I moved to KU to Stillwater, Okla.
George M. Hudson Lawrence junior
Critic copied?
hardly a remarkable observation (the only remarkable observation in Louden's version was his potently uninformed statement that "The Godfather" was the beginning of such promotions) and one could reasonably expect two writers to independently author articles on this subject.
It appears that your entertainment editor's enthusiasm for Pauline Kael's film criticism has obliterated his memory of the laws against plagiarism. Kael's landmark essay, On the Future of Literature, is one of the works magazine, Aug. 5, is unfortunately more than just a source of inspiration for Kenn Louden's review "Movie Profit Paramount" in Friday's Kansan, and although the latter has been reworked, using the same techniques to examples and inferior writing, it is still a plagiarism.
To the Editor:
Louden's point that mass advertising is destroying the artists in the film industry is
However, not only are the ideas expressed in the two articles the same, but the appropriate examples in the Louden reworking were all included in the same context as in the Kael article, and so it could have written his piece without knowledge of the earlier essay.
conditional amnesty for deserters, evaders, both," Edmondson said.
After hacking out a watered down version of an intelligently developed idea, Louden had the audacity to attach his byline to this imitation. (Possibly he wants credit for the fictional content. He states that "Mame" is making a fortune) or for the fact that a heart that has escaped their accounting department, which only recently has shown it in the black.)
He served as a Navy medic with the Marines in 1968-69 in the northern part of Vietnam. The Army commander was somewhat against the war.
"During the time when I was there my feelings against the war strengthened," he said. "I had to learn to sacrifice,nam, he considered deserting."
When he returned to KU in 1970 he became active in the anti-war movement, joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and majored in Peace Studies.
Miss Kael's article is the major piece of journalism about film this year, and deserves a re-examination. We thank Louden lamend his article with a paragraph stating that he is basing his piece on a portion of the Kael article. Then we would like to ask as a poorly written summary.
He said he thought the war resisters deserved some recognition.
Chuck Sack and Ward Harkavy Lawrence graduate students
"Those people in principle deserve some honor, as opposed to people like me who just want to win," the military, the war effort," he said.
"While I think that people do owe their country some service, I think that the people who serve us should service that service." Edmundson said.
Bill Beard, Lawrence senior, said he favored unconditional amnesty.
"I think it should be total, complete ammety, because those who went to Canada were in the first place," Beard said.
Beard worked in a computer center for the Air Force in Phamrgun in central Vietnam in 1969-70.
He said he doubted that President Ford would propose unconditional amnesty, because the American people wouldn't accept it.
He would have returning resisters do alternative service only if they wanted to. Alternative service might restore them in a place of honor among their fellow citizens, Beard said.
He said he had no difficulty advocating amnesty for the resisters of an "illegal, stupid, imperial war."
The amnesties following the Civil War were the most complex and weren't fully resolved until 1898. The passage of the 14th Amendment drastically changed the conditions grounds of amnesty, which was expanded to a combination of presidential pardon and congressional amnesty.
Between the two, Presidents Lincoln and Johnson issued six conditional pardons, which required an oath of allegiance to "the forthmost support, protect and defend the Constitution."
World War I was the first of the nation's wars in which a sizeable number of military deserters, draft and war resisters and draft evaders were over 200,000 draft evaders who were subject to up to five years in prison.
Like the Mexican War 50 years earlier, the Spanish American war fought entirely by voluntary force. There was no draft and state militias weren't called up. After the war no paradozen or armament was used.
No pardons were issued by President Woodrow Wilson but his son, Warren Harding, by Presidents Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover and a final pardon by President Eisenhower came on Christmas Day, 1933.
Confusing the World War I amnesty problem further were the 2,000 political prisoners who had been found guilty of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.
The hardest hit were the Socialists, including Eugene Debs, the party's presidential candidate in 1916, who opposed the war on ideological grounds. Debs was sentenced to 10 years finally pardoned by Harding on Christmas Eve, 1921.
Similarly, in World War II, a policy of selective pardon was followed. The official figure for ewes for draft evaders was 348,237.
At the war's end, President Harry Truman refused to grant pardons to a number of limited pardons. The most important pardon was granted to 1,323 draft evaders or were serving prison terms.
Much the same was true for the Korean War, where no fighting with North Korea. The reason, surprisingly, was that the draft-evasion and desertion rate (22 men per thousand) outnumbered the four wars in this century.
More than six million men served in the Vietnam War. It is estimated that the desertions took place from 1966 to the present. And the number of draft evaders is estimated in 2005 for the years 1966 through 1972.
It seems that amnesty or pardons have been granted when the war was considered "unpopular." It wasn't needed for the war, but wars, such as the Mexican and Spanish-American Wars.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
An All-American college newspaper
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newroom—UN 4-4810
Business Office—UN 4-4358
Published at the University of Kanaa weekdays during the academic year except holidays and excursions. Attendance. Lawrence, KA 60453. Subscriptions to mail are $8.95. Members' website, www.lawrence.edu, is $1.35 a semester paid through the student activity number.
Accommodations, goods services and employment support for students in the Student Support Facility (SSF) are provided except those of the Student Support Facility (SSF). The SSF provides assistance for students to access a variety of programs.
Editor
Eric Meyer
Associate Editor
Campus Editor
Jeffrey Simson
Jill Wills
Copy Chiefs
Greg Connelly
Millen
Carol Gwinn and Bunny Miller
Associate Campus Editor
Makeup Editors
Makeup Editor
Makeup Editor
Mark Mitchell and Gerd Ewing
Sports Editor
National Editor
Rocky Malone
Assignment Editor
Associate Sports Editor
Entertainment Editor
Kenn Lounen
Darrell Dillman
Business Manager
Steve Haugan
Steve Haugen
Advertising Manager  Assistant Business Manager
Alice Retter
Dave Beeves
Classified Manager
National Advertising Manager
Assistant Advertising Manager
Assistant Classified Manager
News Adviser Suzanne Shaw
Gall Johnson
Deb Daniels
Debbie Arbiones
Steve Brownback
Terry Kafka
Business Adviser Mel Adams