Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

the war. As each of these arguments has been succesively knocked down, a new one has sprung up in its place.

Neither is the executive branch's disregard of the first amendment and its protections against prior restraint of the press a recent outgrowth of this military folly. Soldiers, congressmen, and ordinary citizens have been watched by the FBI in a vain and illegal attempt to limit the outpouring of dissent which this war has engendered. It cannot be considered traitorous to oppose this illegal war which has destroyed the people and land of southeast Asia and torn our nation asunder. We must exert all our efforts to end this war.

Along with twelve other Members of the House of Representatives, I have filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of the President's waging this war without the consent of the Congress. The declaration of war clause of the United States Constitution (article I, section VIII, clause II) is clear proof of the founding fathers' intention that the executive alone should not be able to take this nation into war: Only the Congress has the power to declare war. The exigencies imposed upon the conduct of foreign affairs and war-making with the advent of the atomic bomb in no way permit the President to perpetuate the extended involvement of American men and money which we have squandered in Vietnam. Nor can the executive claim that congressional votes to continue appropriations for the soldiers who are in the battlefield and to extend the draft which sends them there are in any way equivalent to a congressional declaration of war.

Our case was dismissed last week by Judge William Jones of the United States District Court, Washington, D.C., without our lawyers' presenting any oral arguments on our behalf, but we have already appealed the district court decision to the appellate court. In its motion to dismiss, the Government contended that the President's powers as chief executive are sufficient to uphold his taking us into this war in the manner in which it has been done. The Justice Department has also argued that as congresmen we lack the standing to bring such a suit against the Government. The doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances will be mere charades if there is not a full airing of the issues we have raised in the case.

Our legal protest of the manner in which this war is being conducted is but one of many outcries against this slaughter. Despite this growing clamor for a change in our policy, President Nixon has widened the war into Laos and Cambodia, claiming victory and continued success for his Vietnamization program when the evidence clearly indicated otherwise. The much heralded Vietnamization of the war will mean that yellow-skinned people will do the dying instead of white, black, and brown-skinned Americans. Over 50,000 Americans have already died in this war. Three hundred thousand Americans have been maimed and wounded. We must not let those numbers get any higher. Neither can we permit the total of Vietnamese dead and wounded to mount any further.

What is at stake is not the stability of the Thieu-Ky regime we have been upholding for too many years. What is at stake is the credibility of our own system of government and the future course of our Nation. We cannot continue to ignore the problems that are before us. We cannot forsake the common good for the concerns of special interest groups. We cannot seek to place the blame for our difficulties upon false scapegoats.

As elected representatives of the American people, we must restore faith in our system of government and society that can only be done by putting an end to this ghastly war immediately and by insuring that Vietnam marks the end of an America that is insensitive to and ignorant of the real needs of its people as well as those of other nations.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID R. OBEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. Chairman: I would like to direct my remarks before this Committee to bill H.R. 4243, introduced by Congressman James Symington and myself last February.

This bill finds that "the President and the Congress share the responsibility for establishing, defining the authority for, and concluding foreign military commitments."

Similar to other measures before this Committee, our bill would limit the expenditure of funds in or over Vietnam to that amount required to bring about the orderly termination of military operations and the safe and systematic with

drawal of remaining American troops by December 31, 1971; to insure the release of prisoners of war; to arrange asylum or other means to assure the safety of South Vietnamese who might be physically endangered by withdrawal of American forces; and to provide assistance to the Republic of Vietnam consistent with stated objectives.

I would like to emphasize, however, two points about this bill which make it different from others introduced in the Congress.

First, while our measure would require the withdrawal of American armed forces from Vietnam by December 31, 1971, it would do so "unless the Congress by joint resolution approves a finding by the President that an additional stated period of time is required."

Second, while our measure would also limit the expenditure of funds to the Republic of Vietnam consistent with certain stated objectives, such assistance would have to be "in amounts and for purposes specifically authorized by the Congress."

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Symington and I believe it is important to restore public confidence in the Congress as an institution capable of asserting its appropriate responsibilities in the conduct of international affairs. But we also believe it is possible to do so without irrevocably tying the hands of the President in the process. It is for these reasons that these two particular points were included in our bill.

The first point makes it clear that the Congress does not intend to tie the hands of the President, but also retains for the Congress the final authority to determine the extent of our future commitment in Vietnam. The second point makes it clear that it is the Congress which has the final authority and the responsibility to specify the amount and purposes for which funds may be expended in connection with our efforts to withdraw from Vietnam. For too long the Office of the President has had to bear the full burden of the conduct of this war. That is not good for the Congress. It is not good for the Presidency, and it is most certainly not good for the country.

This legislation is an attempt to again establish the principle of cooperative responsibility between two branches of government, and, it is hoped, in the process, suggest a way to obtain release of American prisoners of war, end American involvement in the Indo-China war, and provide incentives for a compromise settlement by all parties within South Vietnam.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. RARICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I appreciate this opportunity to submit a statement in behalf of my bill, H. Con. Res. 66, providing that there be no withdrawal of our troops from the Vietnam War area until agreement has been reached for the release of all American POW's.

Because there are many Americans who do not believe in surrender in any war where our country has the overwhelming capabilities and power to quickly end by victory; and because the original reasons for which our country became involved in Vietnam continue to exist, I feel the Committee must give full consideration to all alternatives to peace in Vietnam. That includes ending the war by victory.

The testimony given before the Committee, for the most part, and the rationale for concluding the war have been pleasant sounding and well meaning rhetoric. Everyone has an easy solution. The only problem is that we are talking about ending the war among ourselves and not tuned in on the enemy.

No one likes war, and I doubt if history ever records any moral war. But, the enemy seeks victory and is unashamed and suffers no guilt because it dares to so proclaim. No-win wars are detrimental to all but especially to the politician. The masses of our people have been constantly fed propaganda and rumors and have become so convinced that their sons will not be permitted to end the war victoriously that public opinion has been almost completely, and I might add blindly, turned against our involvement. No one with a forum reminds the people of the consequence of losing a war by immediate withdrawal, nor the propaganda effect to be interpreted by our men running from the battlefield under a modern war where 90% of the battle is propaganda. Nor does anyone remind the American people that if we abandon our pledge to halt Communist aggression in Vietnam and the Far East, that we are not ending the war, but that our men will bind themselves recommitted to conflict elsewhere. If we will

not take a stand in the Far East, can we be expected to have the moral determination and will to survive by defending the Philippines from Communist aggression, or Hawaii, or Australia? Or will we defend our country when the Communists have taken over California, or will we take a stand on the east bank of the Mississippi when the Communist action is on the west bank?

We were once convinced that the need to contain Communism halfway around the world was vital to our peoples' security and peace so that should there be future hostilities the battleground would always be on foreign soil, rather than in the United States. Have our people forgotten the havoc and destruction that was in Germany, France, and Poland, which was the battleground of the last great conflict?

There are no easy solutions to war, for wars are ended either by winning or losing. And, if a country does not win, it loses. There are, therefore, no other alternatives except for semantics and deceit. It is criminal beyond all comprehension for any great nation with the manpower and capability to end a shooting war quickly, to deliberately procrastinate and intentionally lose.

Noteworthy, all of the well-conceived resolutions which report to encourage the Executive to set a date for withdrawal from Vietnam contain one catch provision. That is the provision adopted by the Democratic Caucus:

". . . and to bring about the release of all prisoners in a time certain during the 92nd Congress."

Such was in the language in the Mansfield resolution to end the war in nine months

"... subject to the release of all American Prisoners of War held by the Government in North Vietnam and forces allied with such Government.

It is truly unfortunate that the opinion makers of this country in stirring up the emotion and hysteria about bringing the boys home and ending the war, do not tell our people that all of the end-the-war actions are contingent upon the release of our POWs. Nor has anyone suggested how our POWs can be regained or freed if our troops were all withdrawn.

Thus it must be obvious that even those who hope to affect public opinion on the war are very aware of the immorality of any proposals which would abandon our POW's. Therefore, the resolutions of withdrawal are spurious and irrelevant since if the war is to continue until our POW's are recovered, it must be common sense that the only way our captive fighting men will be recovered will be either to go get them or win the war and recover them. To those who feel that we can talk reason with the enemy, we need only look at the record of broken promises and lies of the North Vietnamese since the time that country was separated into North and South.

In all wars before Korea and Vietnam, Americans fought for freedom-now our men are taught they fight to "win the peace", whatever that means. In all previous wars fought by Americans our fighting men were taken POW's. Yet, in all past wars except Korea, our POW's were recovered because we won our wars. History repeatedly teaches that any country that loses its wars can not only expect not to recover its captured men, but that they become pawns of political and propaganda use by the enemy. Likewise any country that loses its wars can expect to find its fighting men tried for war crimes and atrocities.

Our present soft-on-Communism policies and attitude and announced surrender military plans have already created the reaction atmosphere of national defeat and indignation. US POW's are treated as propaganda hostages--their wives, mothers, and children blackmailed for the possibility of their release by their captors, and US men from enlisted to general grade are being tried by our government as if to win peace talk points by appeasement.

We hear much these days about priorities-civil rights, poverty, welfare, guaranteed nutritional diet, and financial aid to the cities-in fact physical and financial security of the individual is now being made as if a responsibility of the federal government.

To those who so believe or are interested I can only ask what responsibility as a people and a government do we owe to every American held POW in a stinking Communist prison camp? Among priorities I say recovery of our POW's must be No. 1. Our POW's have shown their duty to us and our country-we must consider their rights and our responsibility to them. As Americans, they have not lost their Constitutionally secured rights merely because they are POWs.

It has only been Communist leaders who have regarded their captured fighting men as expendible and de facto casualties unworthy of recovery.

Withdrawal of all U.S. forces without recovery of our POW's will be the most immoral, callous action every taken by this government or tolerated by our people. Because we have silenced and handcuffed our military in favor of politics and tried to fight wars by public opinion polls, Americans are now boxed in. We are now caught in our own trap.

Public opinion is soured on our mission in Vietnam, but we cannot retreat from the battlefield without regaining our POW's. That the Reds do not give us our POW's to make retreat politically victorious must be regarded as evidence of the Communist intent to further exploit captured Americans to make the U.S. the laughing stock of the world. Public opinion based upon controlled facts and poor leadership is subject to change overnight. What has been made to appear as a demand for a rout from the battlefield today can be a cry for the blood of traitors tomorrow.

As General McArthur, who constantly warned against committing U.S. men in an Asian land war, said.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."

And in this instance a victory is still within our grasp, which could find the war ended, our POW's home before Thanksgiving, as well as a peaceful withdrawal of our troops.

I have been a POW and I can tell you first-hand that it is a psychic blow to lose one's freedom and be forced to work as slave labor. And being a POW of any foreign government differs greatly from incarceration in the penal systems and jails of our country which are under attack by our do-gooder friends. In a POW camp there are no color TVs, visitation hours, or sympathetic rehabilitation officers.

Our POW's in Vietnam not only suffer the loneliness and frustration of loss of freedoms, but we can be assured they are repeatedly being told of the persecution of our military men by our government and the politically popular pull-out resolutions. What greater denial of the civil liberties of an American by his country can there be than the uncertainty that our troops will be withdrawn from Vietnam, and he, the POW, abandoned by his own people and country.

Mr. Chairman, in view of my remarks, I urge that this subcommittee give early and favorable consideration to recommending that Congress rephrase any Vietnam withdrawal resolutions so as to include priority of action. That is the recovery of our POW's before any other consideration. To this end, the recovery of the POW's should be mentioned first and any deadlines or other conditions indicated as secondary.

Any total withdrawal of our armed forces without concluding the war in a final manner will haunt our nation's leaders and each of us hereafter. But to brazenly even consider our implying the abandonment of our POW's will be a national disgrace and a degrading insult to every American fighting man who has ever fought for his country.

I urge adoption of my bill H. Con. Res. 66, or other pending legislation with similar intent and phraseology.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN G. SCHMITZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I welcome this chance to present my views on the war in Indochina.

Looking backward we would all agree that our nation would have been much better off today had this war ended in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, or 1970. The length of the conflict has been the major factor instrumental in mounting the casualty rates higher and higher.

I think that we all also agree that the United States could have ended the conflict at any time it chose to do so. I am not speaking here of United States surrender in Vietnam by the rapid removal of our fighting forces from that theater, for that would simply end our participation in the war. The war would go on without us.

The United States has, and has always had, the power to end the war at any time by effectively utilizing the military forces which are at our disposal. Recently published documents have revealed that this course of action was recommended by our military men from the beginning of the conflict. The head of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1965, Mr. John A. McCone, recommended that "We must strike their (North Vietnam's) airfields, their petroleum re

sources, power stations and their military compounds. This, in my opinion, must be done promptly and with minimum restraint."

Our policy makers chose not to follow this sound course of action. Instead they decided to pursue a policy which they referred to as gradualism and restraint. While gradualism and restraint are what might be called "nice words" the results of this policy are now written in American, allied, and enemy blood all across the face of Southeast Asia. Our limited warriors by foreswearing victory and keeping our application of necessary force below that level which would compel the enemy to withdraw his expeditionary forces from the territory of Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam, managed to protract what should rightfully have been one of the shortest wars in any history into the longest war in our history.

The applied doctrine of limited war translated in the real world into seeming endless conflict. The fear of escalating to victory guaranteed us at best a stalemate of continuing war.

There are many people who would agree with the foregoing analysis. However. demoralization has taken its toll and there are, it would seem, few who would advocate the course of action which I do based on the identification of the major factor in United States conduct which has protracted the conflict. Many have come to the conclusion that because we have not as yet won the war, the war is unwinnable.

Since the war has continued due to enemy intransigence and our reluctance to use the military force necessary to bring the war to an end consonant with our continuing goal of maintaining a non-Communist Southeast Asia it is my suggestion that we take the military action necessary to deny the enemy his capability to continue fighting. The best way to end the war, and not just our participation in the war, in a manner consonant with long range United States security interests, the well being of the people of Southeast Asia, and the best assurances of repatriating the American servicemen who have been in enemy hands for so many years, is to win it.

It is not too late for victory. As far as I am aware the enemy has not substantially increased his military strength to the point where he could successfully resist the swift and determined application of our forces. Many military authorities have suggested that a simple naval blockade of Haiphong Harbor would critically degrade the enemy's ability to maintain his large forces in neighboring territory. The President has stated that over 80% of the enemies military supplies are coming in through this port of entry. Denying the enemy this portion of his military equipment would certainly radically lower his capability to wage war. Those who contend it would not have to show that the North Vietnamese armies can do just as well without 80% of their supplies. This would be a remarkable army.

It might also be necessary to sever the railroad lines coming into North Vietnam from Communist China. It is well within our capability to permanently close these avenues of input, using the correct bombing techniques.

In any case it is not really a question of the tactical aspects of achieving victory which need concern us. Everyone must know that we have the capability to eliminate the North Vietnamese Communist's capability to continue the war. It is a matter of will. It is a matter of setting the strategic obective. It is a matter of understanding the surest and most efficient and, in the long run, most humane way to our object.

Toward this end I introduced House Joint Resolution 71 at the beginning of this session. This resolution gives the North Vietnamese Commuists thirty days in which to release all the American Servicemen they hold and begin the large scale withdrawal of their armies from the territory of their neighbors or find themselves officially at war with the United States.

This approach notifies the North Vietnamese Communists that unless they rapidly desist from their efforts to impose their will upon adjacent non-Communist nations the United States will remove the means necessary for them to carry on aggressive war. It gives them the choice of either bringing their behavior back in accord with basic norms common to all civilized men or having others determine their future behavior for them.

The first option of victory has never lost its validity. It remains the one course of action open to the United States which ends the war in Southeast Asia in the shortest possible time while at the same time achieving those obectives which are of the most vital importance for the future of our nation and those other nations whose very existence depends on the manner in which the war is resolved. It is too late to cut and run. It is too late to lose. It is not, however, too late to win.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »