NET Journal; 170; Must I Serve

The following program is from NET, the National Educational Television Network. No man should be forced to kill for a cause his conscience rejects. The individual's obligation to society cannot be sacrificed to his own political opinions. From the campus of the University of California Los Angeles, NET Journal presents Must I Serve? A debate on the draft between teams from UCLA and Dartmouth College. The setting for our debate is the student union at UCLA, a center of political and social activity on the campus.

Our moderator for the debate, Richard McCutchen. Our subject tonight is the draft. No subject is more vital to young Americans who are being asked to serve in the armed forces and very possibly in the Vietnam. To examine the draft and the Vietnam, we have prepared a formal debate. Our resolution is this. Opponents of the war in Vietnam should refuse to serve if drafted. Our debaters are members of two of the nation's foremost debate teams. Dartmouth, which will take the affirmative, is the 1967 Intercollegiate Debate Champion. The team members, Thomas Brewer of Grandville, Michigan, and John Isaacson of Auburn, Maine, have both recently been chosen as Rhodes Scholars. UCLA's team has established itself this year as a leading West Coast contender for national honors. Its members, Claude Fisher of West Hollywood and Eldon Rosenthal of Los Angeles, will establish the negative argument.

It's interesting to note, I believe, that here on the UCLA campus, students recently voted by a five to four majority against the Vietnam ceasefire and American withdrawal from that country. We want to stress, however, that this does not mean that UCLA debaters are representing any official college position and the same must emphatically be said for the Dartmouth team. Our debate will be a formal one, starting with the resolution which was drawn in traditional debate fashion. That is, it was drawn in contradiction to the generally accepted position. In other words, in debating, the resolution is designed to challenge the status quo. Our debate will have a winner. Our judges will see to that. They are three of the nation's leading debate coaches. Thomas McLean of Northwestern, Robert Trum of Boston College, and John DeBros of the University of Southern California. In front of our judges, the time keeper, who will sound off when any debater runs over his allotted time.

Each side will give opening statements with cross questioning following those presentations. Once again, our resolution, opponents of the war in Vietnam should refuse to serve if drafted. The first affirmative speaker supporting that resolution, Mr. John Isaacson of Dartmouth. Thank you, Mr. McCutch. From the Old Testament, when you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you. Yay, when you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are not clean. Tom and I agree with God and believe that no man should kill when it violates his conscience. Today, America's power is shredding South Vietnam. By December 1966, American air power had unloaded 800,000 tons of bombs over the nations of North and South Vietnam.

More than we unloaded on Germany during all of World War II. Last year, the least estimate of civilian deaths related to military deaths was three to one. We can estimate that probably 300,000 military combatants were either killed or injured during the year. That means that probably a million civilians were either killed or wounded during last year. It is not surprising that the nation is split, that the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is a dissenter, that general chute the former Marine Corps commandant called the war unadulterated puppy cock. General Gavin and Ridgeway are dissenters, while the National Council on Churches asked of the United Nations a ceasefire if it all possible. In the midst of destruction, it should not be difficult to understand why there are so many who conscientiously object to this war. And Tom and I believe that to force conscientious objectors to serve is to make them something less than human, something less than human.

Modern psychologists claim that the human trait is the conscious awareness of choice and of consequence. In much more classic terms, that means distinguishing between right and wrong, that which separates the man from the beast as every theologian will tell you. To kill or not is the starkest possible form of conscious choice. If a man is fully human, he cannot be ordered blindly to kill, but must choose to do so, must choose to act with the knowledge of the consequences. Without choice, he becomes thoros, men who serve the state, not as men mainly, but as machines with their bodies. Hannah Arendt, in her study of Edolph Eichmann, concludes that Eichmann contrary to popular opinion at one point had a conscience. She said, yes, he had a conscience, and his conscience functioned in the expected way for about four weeks, whereupon it began to function the other way around. Like many men, Eichmann could not stand the tension between his conscience and his orders.

He was repulsed by murder, and he was frightened by command, and he abdicated any choice of right or wrong to become a small cog who channeled six million Jews in Europe to their deaths without in the least thinking of it. He was a small cog in a big Germany that did not care. He had become something less than human. As Eichmann was Germany, not a nation of satis, but a nation of sheep. Hannah Arendt concludes, conscience as such got lost in Germany, to a point where people hardly remembered it, and had ceased to realize the surprising new set of German values was not shared with the outside world. We are in danger in Vietnam. A conscientious objector to Vietnam, once in Vietnam, suffers from the same tension that Eichmann did. There are a million civilians about to be killed, wounded in the year he will be there. Once there, he can be ordered to direct artillery fire or napalm strikes against villages he knows civilians occupied. He can be ordered to raise villagers or defoliate crops. He must support a rigid police state whose hero general Ki once thought that Hitler was his own hero until the American press pointed out that that might be an unpopular position.

He must fight for the Vietnamese against the real Vietnamese freedom fighters who struggled for Vietnamese of independence against the French. The best that a morally distraught American who would like to remain human can hope for in Vietnam is to be sent home, driven by battle fatigue. Perhaps you believe that despite Eichmann and Ki, every citizen should be forced to serve. Your nation, however, is committed to quite another ethic. Article 8 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg has ported in the Department of State Bulletin of June 5, 1947 states the fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility. The Tribunal concluded after deliberations the relation of the leader and the follow-up does not preclude responsibility here any more than it does in the comparable tyranny of domestic crime.

Individual responsibility to his own conscience is rooted in American thought we have given conscientious objective status to people who oppose killing on religious grounds since the Revolutionary War. The Supreme Court recently extended that to include a secular belief against killing the logical extension is to include it to those who would be opposed to killing in a particular war. Abraham Heschel had the following quote, The deep and awesome power in blood that is spilled is the voice of the blood that cries from the earth. We would be less than human if we denied somebody's conscience the right to speak or listen. Thank you. Mr. Isaacson of Dartmouth will now be cross-questioned by Mr. Rosenfall of UCLA. Mr. Isaacson, do you oppose all killing? You would therefore find certain justifications and certain situations to kill someone.

Why do you object to this particular war then? Not necessarily that I object, Eldon, there are those who do object to it because they can find no justification for it. If I understand your analysis as originally presented, you suggested to us that this war was an exceedingly cruel war, is that correct? Yes, I think it's indicated. That this war therefore is cooler than all other wars. It has that characteristic in this war. Would you say this war was cooler than World War II? Not in some ways, no. Would you have served in the Armed Forces in World War II? Yes. You would have. Therefore, you find a justification for drawing a line between the Vietnamese conflict and World War II, for example. Oh, yes. Could you draw this line on basically political grounds? Eldon, there are some who would not have served in World War II on what they consider moral grounds. My opinions aren't even relevant here.

But we think it's very relevant here exactly how you feel because I think that you're basically opposed to this war on a political ground. That's an interesting commentary about what you feel. You therefore opposed to this war straightly on moral grounds? Eldon, I'm not necessarily opposed to this war. I am. Outside of that. I think I could justify a moral... Would you suggest the man who fires a machine gun is guilty of murder? If he kills someone in this war. Yes. There are plenty who would think that, Eldon, I think so. Well, would these people who think that, John, feel that the man who feeds the bullets into the machine gun is likewise guilty? Yes. And do you think that the people who feel this way would feel that an individual... ...built making the bullets in a ammunition foundry in Los Angeles was also guilty?

If he knew what the actual... The result of his actions were, he's responsible for them. And would you say that also an individual who pays his taxes to the federal government that helps support this war is guilty? Eldon, we're talking A about killing and now you've jumped to taxes. Well, I want to try to draw the line where you want to draw the line, John. And I wonder exactly where this line needs to be drawn. Now, isn't it to be drawn where the bullets are made or where they are fired? Every man thinks that his action will have some effect upon killing somebody. Therefore, would you extend your analysis here to include the fact that an individual who feels that paying taxes is immoral... ...should therefore be allowed not to pay taxes and not be penalized for this action? It would depend on what basis he wouldn't want to pay his taxes. If he was not going to pay this taxes on the basis that he thought this war was morally unconsciousable. And he should not be allowed not to pay his taxes. I'm asking you that question. I think maybe in a theoretical sense, Eldon, that's valuable to talk about. But right here, I don't want to talk about taxes. I want to talk about serving in the army.

But I want to try to draw the line. Would you draw the line there for it serving in the army? I think I'd be willing to draw that for this debate. Yeah. Therefore, we're going to say that a person is guilty of killing in this particular instance on an immoral grounds if he serves in the army, but not if he supports the army. In this case, we're talking about CO status and the rationale for it. Tomorrow, if you want to talk about the rationale for not paying any tax, I'll talk about it. All right, John. Are you comparing, in this instance, the United States with Nazi Germany? There are some comparisons that can be made. This is a serious comparison you're making then. Yeah. Who was convicted for war crimes at Nuremberg, John? I don't know all the names, 24, and there was six groups. Were they basically generals or civilian soldiers or what were they? There were tremendous range of Nazi criminals who were convicted for all kinds of different. Were there any foot soldiers? That ends our cross-questioning. Now go on to our first negative speaker, Mr. Claude Fisher of UCLA.

Thank you. There will be the position of the negative in this debate that the nature of the democracy is such that the individual's obligation to a society cannot be sacrificed to his individual personal political opinions. The principle we believe is that a democracy runs by the rule of the majority. When the majority or its elected representatives have determined that that society should engage in certain action, particularly a military action, then all individuals within that society, regardless of whether they agreed with the original decision or not, are bound to follow the democratic decision. Such was the statement of the philosopher of the social contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, when he stated, the man who had preserved his life at the expense of lives of others ought to turn to expose his own for their protection when it is necessary. The citizen is not a judge of the peril to which the law may expose him, and when the prince, in our case of the democracy, says to him, it is expedient for the state that thou shouldst die, then he ought to die, because it is only on that condition that he has enjoyed his security up to that moment.

This is the philosophy which Elden and I believe should run a democracy, should be applied in the case of Vietnam, and all selective objectorships such as the gentleman desire. Elden and his speech will go further into the issues of the philosophy involved in selective objectorships such as the German proposed. I wish in this speech mainly to dwell on the issue of Vietnam, for the German feel that Vietnam in some way is unique, in some way calls forth for this particular proposal. I suggest it does not, let's first examine what the gentleman had to say about Vietnam. They told us that American bombs were shredding Vietnam, and I agree that it is tragic. I don't agree however that this calls for a different policy in regards to American services in Vietnam, for the gentleman himself admitted that we shredded Germany, that many nations have fallen under the terrible yoke of disaster due to wars. The phone is no justification for selective objectorship. The most terrible war of all which could occur World War III would not allow anyone to resign his obligation to society. I suggest this rationale is no rationale for refusing service and military forces.

Secondly, the gentleman wished to tell us that one reason for refusing service is because the nation is split on this policy. The whole bright disagreed with it, yet they forgot that most senators do agree with it. They said general chup disagrees with it, yet they forgot that most generals do agree with it. They said generals Gavin and Ridgeway disagree, and indeed they do, but they have, they called for withdrawal of American forces, as they call for stopping American military action of Vietnam. No, they haven't. Their entire argument has been, well this tactic is wrong and we should change the tactics somewhat here, change the tactics somewhat there. It is not a call for withdrawal. It is not a charge that the Vietnam War is immoral, simply a question of tactics. Again, then the fact that the nation is split is no justification for the presentation of the gentleman's proposal. Indeed, if we look into the background of American history on this issue, we find the nation was split quite often. Abraham Lincoln had so much doves caulking at him that his administration was almost ineffective. People wanted him to negotiate with the South, yet that didn't excuse northerners from serving their, doing their obligation to their nation.

During the Korean War, according to the Los Angeles Times of yesterday, 66% of the population at one point said that the United States should withdraw. Neither did that occasion any such program as selective objectorship for the nation under the rule of law by selecting representatives where duty bound to continue their service. In other words, the nation being split is no justification for this policy. However, I believe there are two justifications for American policy in Vietnam, justifications dealing with power politics, the reality of the world in which we live. Number one is that American presence in Vietnam is vital for the security and stability of the Southeast Asian nations, indeed the underdeveloped nations throughout the world. The argument we make is that these nations, new and developing, can only build for the future if they have security and a sense of security that their future is secure from some sort of subversion and invasion. Prince CNook of Cambodia wrote to the New York Times a couple of years ago that I have never had the slightest delusion on the fate that awaits me at the hands of the communists, as well as that which is reserved for my government after having removed the influence and especially the presence of the free world and the USA in particular. I and myself and the people socialist community that I have created would inevitably disappear from the scene to help guarantee against that problem we suggest United States presence in Vietnam is vital because a failure here would lead to chaos throughout the underdeveloped world.

The second reason is that to discourage extremism and militancy within the communist world itself is vital that Peking and all communists throughout the world realize that violence is not the goal for the success of the Marxist evolution, but peaceful means must be used. Such was the conclusion of the 14 scholars who met at Freedom House recently. To accept a communist victory in Vietnam would serve as a major encouragement to those forces in the world opposing peaceful coexistence, to those elements committed to the thesis that violence is the best means of affecting change. It would gravely jeopardize the possibilities of a political equilibrium in Asia, seriously damage our credibility, deeply affect the morale and policies of our Asian allies and neutrals. These are not developments conducive to a long range piece. They are more likely to prove precursors to a larger more costly award, failure here, coming crises throughout the world to come. I suggest two important reasons why American national interest is at stake, why all men should serve their nation in this time of crisis. Thank you.

Cross questioning now by Mr. Isaacson of Dartmouth. In the first part of your speech, you argued that a man should die at the order of the state. I didn't argue that flatly. The point is that he has an obligation to the state as expressed by the theorist, John Jacques Rousseau. Does that mean that he has an obligation to follow the state's order when the state tells him to die in a war? Quite simple. I might not put his blandly as you, but to serve in time of crisis, yes. Do you have an obligation to serve to kill? Usually in the military, unfortunately, that happens to be a prime object of these. He has an obligation to serve, no matter what the motives of the state are. The individual has the right to decide his alternatives, and he does have an alternative. He can refuse his social contract by leaving the nation.

Do you think that somebody who believes in his country would like to affect the course of his country should be forced to leave it just because he disagrees with it? No, as a matter of fact, he has quite many routes open to him for affecting that policy. All the routes of a democratic society. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about a little democratic society. You suppose that there might be, or let's say, a minority in the United States, a 10 to 20% to oppose to the war, just hypothetical. I think the whole thing is blatantly immoral, and then have no effect at the polls. That's a real possibility, isn't it? Definitely, yes. Can you conceive of an instance, Claude? Let's try to construct one. Let's say you were in a disaster area somewhere in the South. It was necessary for you to dynamite a bridge or something like that. You knew perfectly well, Claude, that this would probably kill several people across the end of the other end of the bridge, because the flood was going to overtake him when they got there.

State ordered you to do it, though. You had to do it in the military. You didn't think they knew what they were doing. Now, would you follow orders? Well, as I understand the question of Nuremberg, I have the right to make up my mind as to whether it is a legal order or a war crime. Let's see if we can determine whether or not it's a legal order. Supposing you're in Vietnam and you are ordered to eradicate the village of Ben Sur, which was eradicated. Civilians, you mean? Civilians, just run away out of it. Is that a legal order? Or is it a war crime? You mean to kill civilians deliberately? No, you're going to run them out of the village. You're going to put them in a squal with a little refugee hunt. I don't believe this is against... I don't know, but I don't believe it is against any principal Geneva conference. You think maybe it might be against the principles of the International Tribunal at Nuremberg? I would suggest you raise that if it is. I haven't read all that. Take a look at Article 6, Section 6. We have it with me. We have more time.

Thank you. Claude, supposing it were in violation of Article 6, Section 6. And I were to know it. Yeah, and you were to know it. Would you follow the order of your superior? No, and then I would face the consequence. And supposing you thought that the entire war was an aggressive war and in violation of Article 6, paragraph A. Would you then follow the order of your superior? Then as I suggested, I have two alternatives. One is to reject that and to accept the consequences which the state has set up. Which is what? Number two. One of the consequences you would be forced to accept. Eleven worth probably. That's very nice. Unless I wanted court case or court hearing. Claude, do you think it might be a little nicer if we let people who really conscientious look? No. Well, let me suggest the point you're missing here. Is all very well to suggest the individual has the responsibility to determine his reaction. But you do not have the right to compel the state in turn to follow the decision of the individual. I never suggested that I was going to compel the United States to do anything. I think that's your resolution, isn't it?

No, I was asking should the United States do something. Now, do you think the United States should allow them in? Sorry. The second affirmative speaker from Dartmouth, Mr. Thomas Brewer. You'll recall we began the affirmative presentation by telling you that no man should be forced to kill for a cause that his conscience cannot support. Listen to what the negative team replies. A man's obligation to society cannot be sacrificed to his political opinions. Let's make a few comments. First of all, we're not talking about support for a bill for higher education. We're talking about the decision to kill someone and that's somewhat more than the run of the mill political decision that the negative team implying. But beyond that, let's take a look at that negative theory that they're advocating. I'd suggest that John Jacques Rousseau would roll in his grave if he knew that the price of his social contract was going to be a society of subhumans, a society of itemans who are willing to blindly follow the dictates of their government regardless of whether their conscience could support them. I'd suggest that the only rationale the individual has for entering into that social contract that the negative team wanted to talk about is because society,

and that's the wonderful thing about this society, supposedly is going to protect his freedom to live in accordance with his conscience. And that once the price of admission to that society is violation of his conscience, the social contract is not binding on the individual. He has no philosophical obligation to kill for a cause his conscience cannot support. They suggested that the man should go out and die for the society even if he were in a minority. I'd suggest that that proves nothing about his obligation to go out and kill for the society to go out and drop Napalm on Vietnamese civilians. What else did the negative team suggest? They said that, well, let's talk about Vietnam more specifically. They said, you know, civilian casualties are not an excuse for refusing to fight, even if we have a lot of them, we should still go over there and fight. Well, I thought this nation abandoned that principle at the Nuremberg trial. So did Robert McAfee Brown in his book, Vietnam Crisis of Conscience. In World War II, we learned that the Nazis had attacked civilians strongholds and killed civilians.

We were horrified to learn of such actions and condemned people at the Nuremberg trials for their part in such crimes. And yet we have done precisely the same thing in Vietnam without any sense of national outrage. Only we didn't call it a scorched-earth policy. We called it Operation Cedar Falls. I think the point is clear, this nation does believe that it's wrong to kill civilians wantily in a war action. And we think there is a moral question for the individual when he's asked to serve in Vietnam. They said that, well, you know, the dissenters are outnumbered. More generals disagree with general soup than agree with them. I don't think that proves anything at all very much. The point is that there is a significant number of people in the United States who do morally object to fighting in this country. Four out of nine of you, apparently, at UCLA are unwilling to bear arms in the Vietnamese conflict. And I'd suggested it would be wrong for the society to force you to go over there and start shooting at the Vietnamese. Frankly, I wouldn't be very happy about killing anyone to support general Tew and Ki. But what were the two specific facts of life that the negative team claimed justify our presence in Vietnam?

They said, number one, Vietnam is vital to our national security because apparently we're going to have a problem in the underdeveloped countries. They're going to somehow be more vulnerable to communism. Let me suggest that they haven't looked at the international facts of life and that the fact of political nationalism in our underdeveloped countries are going to protect them from any communist aggression. Let's go to peace in Vietnam, a publication put out by George McTernan Kayan at the University of Syracuse. He says that clearly the force of nationalism in the countries of Southeast Asia does not justify any simple domino theory approach in the United States policy. The power of nationalism will remain. The watchful guardian of political independence poised against any hint of outside interference, whether from China or from the United States. I don't think the one quote from Prince Cienuc who wants us there apparently under duress because now he's even agreed to let us invade his country, proves that there's really going to be a significant takeover by the Chinese in an area where the one thing that people want most is their national independence. They've remained free of China for one thousand years.

I'd suggest they can do it in the future regardless of whether we kill people in Vietnam or not. Well, their only other argument was we can discourage Chinese extremism if we continue to fight in Vietnam. I'd suggest it on the contrary. Our presence there has actually stimulated Chinese extremism. Go to Mr. George McTernan Kayan's new book, The United States in Vietnam. Mao's efforts to sustain a domestic environment of intense activity in xenophobia have received an added boost from the concrete American threat on China's southern borders. In the well publicized communist leadership checkup that came to the surface in April 1966, the threat of war with the United States severely handicapped, the moderate younger elements of the society and help open the way for the red guards. Our presence in Vietnam does just to reverse what this negative team told you it does. It stimulates Chinese extremism and adventurism. We contend that by withdrawing the moderates could point to no threat on their borders could argue for internal changes for development. Finally, though, let me make one general comment about this entire negative approach. They seem to assume that by adopting the affirmative resolution the country will suddenly be unable to fight the war in Vietnam.

Let me suggest that if this war really is a threat to our national security, John and I are telling you we don't think it is, but if it is, then let the negative team go to the American people and say, look, we have a problem in Vietnam, we think you should volunteer to help us fight it and let them finance and fight the war in that method rather than sending me. Let me see. Across questioning of Mr. Ruhr, now by Mr. Fisher. Tom, let's take a look at some of the issues in this debate. You suggest that someone should be able to follow their conscience, no matter what the society says. Would you extend this perhaps to other areas? Could you be more specific, Claude? Well, a Christian scientist who doesn't believe in medical care should he have to pay taxes to support medical care.

Claude, I think we can quibble about this at some length at all the various degrees of how civil liberties are interpreted in the United States. John and I have attempted to make our position very simple, a man should not have to kill in violation of his conscience. I see. So the crucial factor you suggest is killing. Right? I think that's the crucial factor about this war. Okay. However, people die over there. I realize that. Now, you suggest the factor is killing, but you also suggest that someone who is in the army, yet never fires a gun, is also guilty. I think he's contributing to a war machine, Claude, whose ultimate product is death and destruction in Vietnam. You suggest that someone who may be a millionaire and pay many taxes is not guilty because he's not in uniform. I think he has a responsibility. I think every American citizen has a responsibility for what we're doing in Vietnam. We're talking specifically about the people your age and my age who are being asked to go over there and kill, though, Claude. And we're saying the draft law shouldn't cause that to happen. Well, you didn't answer. Let's get back to the issue again then. You suggest that someone who is peeling potatoes, perhaps be wearing an army uniform in Georgia, is more guilty than someone who pays the money that supports the war.

I'm suggesting that he's playing apparently a necessary role in the army or he wouldn't be there. So it is enabling someone else to be in Vietnam fighting, Claude. So it isn't killing them, it's wearing the uniform. It's contributing to the war-making machine and I think the very fact that he is in the army makes him liable to be commanded to kill. Tom, do you pay taxes? Not yet, Claude. You pay sales tax or some sort of tax. That doesn't go to the federal government, Claude. Well, see if you pay your income tax return when you do earn enough money. Let's turn again to some of the issues dealing with... The war may be over first, Claude. Let's all hope so. Let's again deal with the issue of conscientious objectorship. Again, the problem is killing. You would have, however, John agree that he would fight in World War II. Right, Claude. I think what we're talking about here is the man who would have fought in World War II, but thinks this war is unjustified.

I see. Therefore, the difference between the two conditions, where is the policy? I don't understand the implication of what it's saying. The difference between killing Nazis and killing Viet Cong is the policy which you're defending. I think what we're saying, Claude, is that there's a moral question in Vietnam that wasn't present in World War II. And we shouldn't fight people who come down on the side of the moral question and says it's wrong to go over there and start killing. The difference is the policy, correct? I think that there are a number of people who believe there is a difference between Vietnam and Pearl Harbor. The difference is the policy, correct? Yes or no? Please. Yes, Claude. Okay. Thank you very much. Now, let's go to the issues of Vietnam. You suggested number one is regarding the underdeveloped world that political nationalism will guard against any danger from the communist world. First of all, who is Mr. Brown from my own information? Robert McAfee Brown and Abraham Heschel, the US Theologian, were commissioned to write this book Crisis in Conte. Theologians, okay.

Have you ever heard of... I'm sorry, I didn't quote Mr. Brown on this particular subject. I quoted George McTernan Kayan, who is the Mr. Southeast Asia of American Scholarship. Well, I'm talking about the first one. Let me ask you a question. Have you heard of Nationalism on you? What? Lee Kwan U. No, I'm sorry, Claude, I haven't. Prime Minister of Singapore? No, Claude, I haven't. Okay. Are you familiar with President Marcos of the Philippines? Yes, Claude, I am. You are familiar with the existence of Malaysia? Yes, Claude. Unlike China, it's there. I agree. Thank you. Our final negative speaker is Mr. Elden Rosenthal. Let me return to the justification for the negative case in this debate. Let me return to the idea and the concept of the social contract. Now, remember what my colleague said in his opening presentation. We join in a society in order to receive protection from the society.

And that is a crucial factor. And when the society then decides that it is necessary to protect itself, we argue that the individual who got the protection from the society must then listen to the desires of the society. Now, in cross-examination, my colleague gave us several alternatives. You know, you don't have to necessarily serve in Vietnam. If you are so opposed to the war that you couldn't under any understanding, under any rationalization, go to Vietnam. What could you do? A, you could move to Canada. Our country does not stop people from leaving. Or B, you can attempt to change the policy. Or C, you can go to jail for a specified number of years. But the point is still relevant. Society has the right to protect itself. And that is the essence of the social contract. Now, I want to talk about what the gentleman have been suggesting. They tell you, and they admitted it under cross-examination, that the basic difference, for instance, between Vietnam and World War II is the difference in policy.

Now, I asked this very crucial question. Who is to decide the political issues? Is it to be each individual in the country, or is it rather to be those elected representatives of our republic? You know, we have what we call a Republican form of government. We elect representatives and send them to Washington, D.C. And it is their decision whether or not a particular foreign policy obligation is to be followed through. But if each individual is to take upon himself to justify foreign policy obligations, the obvious results can be an out of certain argument. 200 million foreign policies in South Vietnam would not allow the constituted government to prosecute it as they saw fit. And I must ask the gentleman from Dartmouth, who is more fit to decide foreign policy measures? The gentleman from Dartmouth, the gentleman from UCLA, or the elected representatives when we have sent to our Congress? I would suggest that the Republican form of government, which were all behind in this particular debate,

has the right to protect itself, and the right to make the decisions where those decisions should be made. In the New Republic of July 1, 1967, Jeff Greenfield, ex-editor of the Yale Law Review, gave us the following indication of the same factor. The selective objector is more often than not inherently political. The selective objector is making a statement of political opposition, even when he bases his dissent on something like Augustinian theory. The roots may be based on religious tradition, but the application depends on whether you accept alsoft or litman, rust, or fulbright. We don't think that this is the correct way to make an influence policy. You know, the gentleman suggested an individual is breaking a specific neuron board dictate when he invades a specific village. But who is to make that decision? The individual soldier or the nation? And we have to ask the following question. When does an individual have to decide that he's politically opposed to a war? You know, if you go by the dictate that you can make this political decision, I would suggest logically you should be able to make this decision at any time.

You know, you can make it before you enter the military or after you enter the military. And I can see the possible results. A village is being invaded. All of a sudden there's a counter attack and we're in a tight spot. And all of a sudden, by Joe, the battalion decides the doctor's spot really was right, and they all take flight and flee, except those few brave and hardy souls who thought Dr. Spock was correct. I would suggest that this is an impractical issue, which the gentleman are arguing. But I must ask, where does the issue end? Because, under cross examination, I attempted to draw a line with John. I said, John, all right, where is the crucial part of the killing act? Is it infiring the gun? John said yes. I said, is it putting the bullets in the gun? He said yes. And then I asked, what about producing those bullets in a foundry somewhere? And John didn't want to answer this question. And then I asked him about paying taxes, and my colleague went further. Who is contributing more to the war effort I ask you? The millionaire who pays $100,000 in taxes annually, or the individual is peeling potatoes in a Georgia boot camp. I think that the logical extension of the gentleman's argument would only lead us to the point

where we could selectively object to any political act, which we felt so, which we felt so dain't to do. The entire constitution of the United States would no longer be relevant. Man can do what he wants, and hang the federal system, and hang the United States of America. Morris Greenspan, in an article in the LA Times this week, went to late great length to discuss the Nuremberg trials, and I want to address myself to that issue. You know, in cross examination, John admitted that he was comparing seriously the US with Nazi Germany, and I think that's sort of a silly thing to say. You know, in Vietnam, among other things, we're building schools and hospitals, and we're adopting a constitutional form of government. But what is the crucial issue? Who? Who are the people that are making the decisions? Now, at Nuremberg, the only people that were convicted with the policy makers and were not the foot soldiers. They were Japanese war trials held right after World War II, and an international tribunal decided that the foot soldier could not be made responsible for particular acts, and we don't think that that Nuremberg example is relevant.

Now, cross questioning by Mr. Brewer. In response to the rhetorical question posed by Mr. Rosen, though I suggest that anyone else is more confident to make the decisions than the people who are doing it now. Eldon, I just have a few general questions, Eldon. Let's go back to the philosophical statement or position of the negative team. You said that the man joins society to receive protection from it. What is it we're trying to protect, Eldon? I'm trying to get protection from you. Is it true we're trying to protect our consciences, Eldon, the right to live by them? We're protecting our consciences and our bodies also, Tom, and the fact that I cannot murder you and go on touched is the fact of the society. Man originally joined into collective groups for the collective protection afforded. And when he joined the group, he had to give up certain of his freedoms. Right, but isn't the whole reason he joined the group in the first place to gain the freedom to live by the dictates of what he thinks is right and wrong? I would argue that the basic reason that man went into collective groups was to receive protection from each other.

But once again, isn't what he's worried about, that the others might try to compromise his ability to live by what he thinks is right? Number one, he's worried about his life. Now, it so happens that in the last few hundred years these forms of government have been developing and now we have a bill of rights which protects the ability to say and think what you want. But does not grant the ability to do whatever you want against the very society which you've allowed these freedoms within? And in fact actually compels you to do things you believe are wrong. For instance, paying taxes, yes. Elden, you suggest that the man who is unhappy with America and policy and Vietnam should move to Canada? No. And you think it would be preferable for America to try and resolve the dissent within its own borders? I said we have several alternatives. If you're so adamantly against the Vietnamese struggle, then you should attempt to change this public policy. If you can convince the federal government through the elected representatives, more power to you.

And then I won't go to Vietnam even though my conscience says that maybe I should. I see, Elden. Even though those who believe the war are in a majority and even though there are a lot of people who think they are morally wrong, we should still compel them together. You know, a very interesting fact is pointed up here. Following that line of logic, the age group 18 to 26 could decide they didn't want to fight. And all people over 26 who thought it was important to fight but weren't able to fight could lose the war very easily. I see, Elden. In other words, you're arguing that in a case where there is a clear cut challenge to American national security, it will be impossible for a nation of 200 million to line up enough popular support from its youth to defend its own national security. Oh, that's not what I'm saying at all. Well then, what are you saying? I'm saying that... Elden, let's move on to another issue. Elden, you suggest that there's a question of who... This is in line with what we've been talking about. You suggested that representatives and not individuals should decide policy issues. It's a question of your theory of government apparently.

I think it's your theory of government also, Tom. What? I think it's all of our theory of government, not just mine. Well, my question, Elden, is whose conscience do you have to live by? The representatives or your own? I have to live by my own time. All right, Elden. Elden, you suggested our presence at Vietnam is different from the example of Nuremberg, because as you pointed out, we're building hospitals in Vietnam. One question. Why do we need so many of them, Elden? And who's in them? I'm sorry, I was trying to interrupt you. I didn't hear the question. You did a nice job, Elden. Do you deny the essential premise, though, that the principle established in Vietnam, that it is wrong to kill civilian populations in time of war, that was subscribed to by the United States, then should apply in principle to the Vietnam situation. Civilians have been killed in wars from time immemorial. I think Nuremberg said war is hell, and that we hung German army officers because they had a part in killing civilians who were policy makers.

Down to the sergeant level, Elden. And now we begin our rebuttal. In debate, the negative opens the rebuttal, so we start with Claude Fisher of UCLA. Let us sum up the negative position, first dealing with the issue of Vietnam. The gentleman suggested that some sort of special qualification should be made for selective objectors because America is shredding South Vietnam, and then we learned whether it was our right to shred Germany. In other words, the difference wasn't the violence, the difference was the policy. The gentleman talked about killing civilians and talk about war crimes. But war crimes are irrelevant to this issue. War crimes are illegal at any time. No matter what the war, the issue does not come down to whether a war crime is being committed in a particular instance, but to whether you are going to serve in general with the nation when it calls for your service. Again, the first argument the gentleman made about shredding South Vietnam is irrelevant to the issue of whether one should serve. The issue of whether the nation is split is also irrelevant. The nation has been split on wars many times, far more than in Vietnam.

I quoted this statistic concerning the Korean War. That too is no justification for special qualification in the area of Vietnam. But then I went on and I said in that American national interest, indeed, is at stake in Vietnam. I gave you two reasons. One, to encourage stability and security in the underdeveloped world, particularly Southeast Asia. The gentleman came back and quoted a theologian suggesting that a political nationalism will guard against all this. He didn't know who Lee Kwan Yoo was. Lee Kwan Yoo was a very nationalistic prime minister of Singapore, who has said that the United States is buying time for Southeast Asia by staying in Vietnam. He's so nationalistic he once kicked out American CIA agents for trying to influence him. Yet he supports U.S. policy. Mr. Sinook is about as nationalistic as any leader in Southeast Asia. You can imagine yet he is starting to swing with the tie. Burma is nationalistic, however, they have complained of guerrilla activity in their country. The Philippines are nationalistic, yet they have complained in our fighting against guerrilla activity in their country. Malaysia has always been nationalistic, but it too has had to fight and continue to fight against guerrilla activity in its country. I suggest nationalism is not enough to defend a small, weak, growing country against subversion, especially aided from outside.

But secondly, I also suggested that we need this to discourage extremism in the underdeveloped world. The gentleman quoted Mr. Keyhan saying, excuse me, extremism in the communist world. The gentleman quoted Mr. Keyhan saying, well, our action of Vietnam is late to Sinophobia. I'm not sure exactly how that is supposed to refute my argument. My argument is further substantiated by Mr. Scalapino, Professor of Political Science at Berkeley. When he says that the strategy of pushing America and forcing it into unilateral retreat works in Vietnam. It will work elsewhere and be tried elsewhere. The simple fact is this, the Marxist world wants to expand Marxism. We are perfectly willing to compete with them on an economic and a political level, for I think we have faith in our own system of government. But what we have to guard against is that the way they push their program is not by violence. We have to demonstrate that militancy will not succeed. I believe we've demonstrated that in regards to Russia, particularly the Cuban blockade. The question lies with Asian communism, and the question is crucial, because failure here could lead to crises throughout the world. I don't think the gentlemen on Vietnam have justified their program if Vietnam indeed is an area where American national interest is vitally at stake.

But then summarizing the philosophical issues involved. We took a look at the nature of the decision that the gentlemen want to protect. A political decision. We saw that the political decision in our former government rides with the majority, rides with elective representatives. Not the individual to make his own policy. We saw the impracticality of allowing political decisions, which inherently can be made at any moment, to be used for selective objectorship, because it can be done when there's a crisis. Imagine all the selective objectors at Valley Forge, we would have been in a tight spot. And then the gentlemen on the issue of political objectorship, it also rides down to how far you want to go. You can politically object to anything. A segregationist can politically object consciously. He can deeply feel his morals are involved in segregation, yet we force him to go against his conscience, because the majority has rule on this issue, which brings me to the basic philosophy, again, of the social contract. The issue, again, is the man in his society, the man in his democracy. The system of government we follow is this.

The majority through democratic process makes its decision, and it is then binding upon the individual, including the bigot in Alabama. The individual who disagrees with that policy has all the democratic means available to him to change that policy, or he can leave the social contract. When until he adopts either of those, or until his democratic protest succeeds, or until he foregoes the social contract, he has an obligation to serve his society as it deems best. Right now, it deems best in Vietnam. Thank you. Now for the affirmative rebuttal, John Isaacson. You'll recall it in my first speech. I began by claiming that there was a moral question in Vietnam. And the negative team would like you to believe that that moral question is a political question. Let me contend with you that a moral question that has nothing to do with this world,

that has nothing to do with life or death in Vietnam or anywhere else, is not much of a moral question. Because morals almost by definition is the relationships between human beings. And in terms of Vietnam, that's a life and death relationship. So this distinction between a political decision and a moral decision is effectively meaningless. Let's now consider whether there's a moral question in Vietnam. We're told by Claude that we've had dissension in the past with other wars that civilians have died in other wars. Which only indicates to me that there might have been a moral question in another war. That's entirely conceivable. And it does nothing to the fact that one million civilians next year will be killed or wounded in Vietnam. That three to four million will be rushed out of their homes and left his refugees. And that everybody has to decide whether he thinks it's worth it. And whether he thinks it's worth his while to be anywhere near Vietnam. Let's go to the second part of this case.

Where Claude was arguing that the American presence is vital in Southeast Asia. And here he cited to you five examples. Malaysia, Burma, Cambodia, Singapore. Good question what the fifth one was. He had four examples anyway. And he claimed that in each of those examples, if America left Southeast Asia, those countries would probably fall prey to communism. First, that's not true. In 1948, guerrilla operations were started in every single one of those countries, and accordance with an international common-turn declaration at the Calcutta Conference in 1948. They all failed, dismally. Mostly because in none of those countries could the communist gain support of the nationalist revolutionaries. They were not national leaders. They are not now national leaders in any one of those countries, and they can't succeed. Think on the alternative, though. Supposing the communists had vast populace support, and were able to win in one of those countries, would America intervene then always on the side of the underdog, of the weakling, the one who couldn't run, couldn't organize, couldn't organize an ideology?

The implication of this negative is that every time somebody falters, we've got to step in, and we don't. Secondly, will we stimulate Chinese extremism? I'd argue, no, the China has been very circumcised in Southeast Asia. Let's now talk about Elden's argument. First, the social contract. Elden was arguing that if we don't keep the social contract, you won't have protection of society. Analyze that. His protection is in terms of national security. I want you to think of one instance of where this country was really threatened, that people wouldn't subject themselves to the draft to defend it. Now, if the communists were actually climbing up California beaches, do you think that America's youth would refuse to serve to defend California? Clearly not. America would be quite willing. The only case where our national security could ever be threatened under Elden's considerations is in some case where our national security threat was so incredibly obscure that 80 to 90% of this country's youth didn't believe it.

And let me contend with you that when 80 to 90% of this country's youth don't believe in a war, we shouldn't fight it. This, after all, is some kind of a democracy. Secondly, they asked, who decides? Who makes political decisions? Congress or 200 million Americans? In theory, Congress is elected by 200 million Americans. In theory, this is a democracy. In theory, 200 million Americans are supposed to make political and moral decisions. We think they ought to continue to do to make that kind of decision. Finally, they tried to draw an implication about anarchy. Recall all we're doing is extending CO status to those who don't feel they ought to kill in Vietnam. Does that have any implication for tax forms at all? It's quite conceivable that it might. And the answer that Elden would have about tax forms is that it's difficult to administer when somebody doesn't want to give his money in for some purpose or as opposed to when he doesn't want to serve in the army. If he doesn't want to give money, you can never tell exactly when he ought to. In terms of the draft, you always can tell it's easy to exclude.

Thank you all. We've been watching and listening to this presentation of arguments on our resolution. Our judges have been watching and listening with a somewhat different perspective that of experts. After examining the arguments for content and evidence as well as persuasiveness, they are prepared we trust to render a decision. First, Thomas McLean of Northwestern. In my opinion, the proposition encouraged more oratory and more emotionalism than logical argument. And it's most difficult to make a decision and this debate on who won the issues. The entrenched positions of the two teams in relation to the proposition made it most difficult for them to interact logically. This is not to say that the topic is not controversial and debatable. It does force me as a critic to decide for one team or the other

on the basis of which team displayed more skill in this particular debate. This was a difficult decision for each debater, displayed skill, and each debater made reasonable arguments to support his position. In my opinion, the debaters from Dartmouth College did the better job of debating. Now Robert Schrum of Boston College. I think the real and fundamental question in this debate was whether or not democracy can work at all. That is whether a government which supposedly enshrines the principle of individual freedom can effectively defend itself in the world when it's threatened, for example, with an armed threat. I don't think this question was discussed as deeply as it might have been for two reasons. First, I think both teams got caught up in arguments about the wisdom of Vietnam per se. Secondly, I think both teams held fast to their initial and original positions. The affirmative insisting on the primacy of the individual, the negative insisting on the primacy of the state. I would have preferred to see both teams discuss the implications of the primacy of the individual

or the primacy of the state. I would, for example, like to have seen the affirmative team, ask whether or not the kind of society the negative has described to society in which the individual can be forced to do something is worth keeping. I don't think that question was asked. Of course, that question could never be answered in an academic debate. As far as my decision is concerned, I agreed with Professor McLean for essentially the same reasons and voted for Dartmouth. John DeBros of USA. I am in essential agreement with my colleagues on the comments made about the debate ability of the proposition. And I would make my comments in this direction to say that I believe that most of us listening to the debate probably had some difficulty in keeping separate the issues that might rest on moral grounds and the issues that might be purely political. And given more time, I'm sure both sides would have been able to separate more of those for us. However, in this debate, one issue seemed to be of primary importance.

One that was advanced by the first affirmative speaker and consistently advanced throughout the debate by the affirmative. The issue of the moral issue itself of whether or not a man should kill against his conscience. In my opinion, the negative did not fully address themselves to that issue. While I would agree with the negative philosophically, I would say that in this debate, my ballot would have to be cast for the affirmative of Dartmouth because their case was consistently supported throughout the debate. So by unanimous decision, Dartmouth has won our debate. Our thanks to you, the judges. And our thanks to you in the audience. For our debate, a decision in favor of Dartmouth. And again, a decision based on the presentation of the two teams, not, I add, on the political inclinations of our judges. But if we have had a decision in our debate, it's realistic to suppose as well that our subject will continue to be debateer and with increasing intensity in the months to come. What we have tried to do was to offer reasoned arguments on both sides of an issue in which emotion plays a large part.

Our debaters themselves show that they were not without emotion on the subject. And we believe that we should note for you that each of them is of draft age as are so many of those in our audience here at the UCLA student union. This is Richard McCutchen. Music Music Next week, NET Journal continues its coverage of Vietnam Issues with a special 90 minute showing of a film on North Vietnam and a discussion with David Schoenbrunn and Professor Robert Scalapino. Music

This is NET, the national educational television network. Music