Editorial: What did happen, what can happen

In my view, the only real difference between those who refused to be drafted and those who resisted within the military or deserted lies in when they decided to resist -- and that difference relates directly to class and race. The college-educated faced the draft in their 20's, after exposure to the antiwar movement on the campuses. They had access to draft counseling and knew about the "underground railroad" to Canada. The poor -- and that often meant members of ethnic minorities -- faced the draft at 18, with little if any exposure to antiwar information. Many of them learned about the nature of the war and the mounting opposition to it only after being drafted or enlisting. If they decided to resist, they had to do in defiance of military law. It is irrational and unfair, I fell, to treat the two categories differently. In dropping charges against draft resisters and clearing their records, the Government should at the same time give honorable discharges to those who resisted the war within the services -- including deserters.



Steve Grossman wrote the above in an article entitled "I want to go home, but . . ." (January 2, 1977, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, the excerpt above appears on page 50). Jimmy Carter was due to be sworn in later in the month and the issue of of war resisters was one he had raised. While campaigning, Carter had touched on the issue frequently and August 24, 1976 was probably his most public moment. He was speaking in Seattle to the American Legion and the candidate declared, "I do not favor a blanket amnesty but for those who violated Selective Service laws, I intend to grant a blanket pardon." Carter was speaking to the American Legion conference and his statements were greeted with boos. If that sounds familiar, August 19, 1974, then-President Gerald Ford was booed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars when he announced his clemency program for war resisters (click here for clip at CSPAN -- fifth listed on the second half of the page and Ford notes his plan after he receives his award).



They were two different programs. Carter gave a blanket amnesty to 'draft dodgers' on his first day in office, Ford would implement a limited clemency program one month after his announcement which was open to 'draft dodgers' and 'deserters'. A reader suggested in an e-mail that the truth isn't just told, it's actively suppressed and offered this page of New York Times letters to the editor following Ford's death. If it was intentional suppression, it was a sure sign of stupidity on the part of the paper. The paper selects the letters they run. Therefore, letters with errors should either not be printed or else have an editor's note added to them. Howard Lisnoff's letter includes this factually inaccurate passage:



With Mr. Ford's amnesty program, [. . .]. The program ignored the plight of military deserters, who were generally less educated and usually came from less well-off backgrounds than draft resisters.



Lisnoff appears to have confused Ford's program with Carter's. Was it confusion on the part of The New York Times that led it to be published? (Is it confusion that has never led to a correction?) First off, Ford's program released all "deserters" then-currently serving sentences for desertion. James Schlesigner, the Secretary of Defense, announced September 17, 1974 that all they had to do was apply to the clemency program.



Second, Ford's program was problematic (we're being kind) but it covered both "deserters" and "draft dodgers." And media accounts at that time regularly referred to both as "war resisters." For example, November 18, 1974, Diane Henry's "Distrust Slows Ford Amnesty Program" (New York Times) would note, "With President Ford's conditional amnesty plan now two months old, only a small fraction of Vietnam war draft evaders and deserters have responded. The war resisters and their advisers say it is because of distrust of the Government, though the reasons for the distrust and the intensity of it vary." When the Style Bible (if not manual) uses "war resisters" in 1974, there's really no reason for today's press to play dumb today and use phrases such as "so-called war resisters" or "war resisters, as they call themselves". Since The New York Times did cover Ford's Clemency Program, there's really no excuse for them to run a letter that alleges Ford ignored "deserters" when his program included them.



To get to Ford or, later, Carter's program, groundwork had to be laid and that may be the most depressing thing about today's political race for president. Where is the pressure on Iraq, where is the pressure about addressing war resisters, where is anything from the so-called left?



December 24, 1974, Julius Dusehu would ask "Should there be amnesty for the war resister?" (New York Times). Prior to that George McGovern had already promised such in his 1972 presidential campaign. In the January 1973 issue of Harper's magazine, Robert Shnayerson, noting how Tricky Dick manged to grab his landslide by leading the bluster and the bullying, pointed out, "Instead of protesting, nice people joined in denouncing amnesty for war resisters, their own children having been routinely excused from military service by means of the most sophisticted draft-dodging in U.S. history.



Where is today's National Council for Universal and Unconditional Amnesty?

It's really needed right now. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Corey Glass is an Iraq War veteran and a US war resister. He went to Canada seeking asylum -- the kind of welcoming Canada provided to war resisters ("draft dodgers" and "deserters") during Vietnam. After being told he was being deported, he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. Douglas Glynn (The Barrie Examiner) quotes Corey stating last week, "The motion is not legally binding, though the majority of Parliament voted for it. I realized innocent people were being killed. I tried to quit the military while in Iraq," he said, "but my commander told me I was just stressed out and needed some R and R (rest and relaxation), because I was doing a job I was not trained to do. I went home on leave and said I was not coming back."


Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign will hold a "Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass" July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008. Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this motion." They are also asking for a July 2nd call-in. Diane Finley is the Immigration and Citizenship Minister and her phone numbers are (613) 996-4974 and (519) 426-3400 -- they also provide her e-mail addresses minister@cic.gc.ca ("minister" at "cic.gc.ca") and finled1@parl.gc.ca ("finled1" at "parl.gc.ca").

To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.