Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearings on H.R. 12047, H.R. 14925, H.R. 16175, H.R. 17140, and H.R. 17194, bills to make punishable assistance to enemies of U.S. in time of undeclared war. Investigative [and legislative] hearings, Eighty-ninth Congress, second session"

See other formats


^^■^ o 

HEARINGS ON H.R. 12047, H.R. 14925, H.R. 16175, 
H.R. 17140, AND H.R. 17194— BILLS TO MAKE 

Part 2 






AUGUST 19, 22, AND 23, 1966 

Printed for the use of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities 

....,i.ii>^ U'.-i.i.i_v;i. 1 ,1',,.. 


OCT 28 1966 

67-852 WASHINGTON : 1966 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Ofiace 
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 45 cents 


United States House of Representatives 
EDWIN B. WILLIS, Louisiana, Chmrman 

JOE R. POOL, Texas DEL CLAWSON, California 


GEORGE F. SENNER, Jr., Arizona 

Francis J. McNamara, Director 

William Hitz, General Counsel 

Alfred M. Nittle, Counsel 


August 19, 1966: Statement of— Page 

Brig. Gen. James D. Hittle 1236 

Hon. Olin E. Teague 1245 

Afternoon session: 

Hon. Charies E. Bennett 1247 

Edwin Meese III 1256 

August 22, 1966: Statement of — 

Fred Burton Smith 1261 

Rauer H. Meyer 1295 

Afternoon session: 

Rauer H. Meyer (resumed) 1299 

Brig. Gen. William W. Berg 1305 

David Friesel 1322 

August 23, 1966: Statement of — 

Ramsey Clark 1325 

Additional statement submitted by — 

Hon. Don Edwards 1354 

Appendix I — Commiuiist Statements on Vietnam 1355 

Appendix II — Statement by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on Communist 

Party, U.S.A., Activities with Respect to the Vietnam War 1381 

Appendix III — Wars of National Liberation 1382 

Index i 


Public Law 601, 79th Congress 

The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946] ; 60 Stat. 
812, which provides : 

Be it enacted ty the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, * * * 


Rule X 


:is H: i): Jtf in if ^^ 

17. Committee on Un-Amrican Activities, to consist of nine Members. 

Rule XI 


(q) (1) Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(A) Un-American activities. 

(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a wliole or by subcom- 
mittee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, 
character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
(ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and at- 
taclvs the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, 
and (iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any 
necessary remedial legislation. 

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such 
investigation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable. 

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such 
times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, 
has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance 
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and 
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under 
the signature of the cliairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any 
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person 
designated by any such chairman or member. 

Rule XII 


Sec 136. To assist the Congress in appraising the administration of the laws 
and in developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem neces- 
sary, each standing committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative 
agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of which is within the juris- 
diction of such committee ; and, for that purijose, shall study all pertinent reports 
and data submitted to the Congress by the agencies in the executive branch of 
the Government. 


House Resolution 8, January 4, 1965 

4: * :!< ^ * 4: 4> 

Rule X 


1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Congress, 

:{: :{: ^: $ ^ ^ 4: 

(r) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members. 

* * ^. :ii ^ * ^ 

Rule XI 


18. Committee on Un-xVmerican Activities. 

(a) Un-American activities 

(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, 
is authorized to malce from time to time investigations of (1) the extent, char- 
acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in tlie United States, 
(2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and 
attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu- 
tion, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress 
in any necessary remedial legislation. 

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi- 
gation, together with .such recommendations as it deems advisable. 

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is autliorized to sit and act at such times 
and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has 
recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance 
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and 
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under 
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any 
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person 
designated by any such chairman or member. 

27. To assist the House in appraising the administration of the laws and in 
developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem necessary, 
each standing committee of the House shall exercise continuous watchfulness 
of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned of any laws, the subject 
matter of which is within the jurisdiction of such committee ; and, for that 
purpose, shall study all pertinent reports and data submitted to the by 
the agencies in the executive brancJi of the Government. 

HEARINGS ON H.R. 12047, H.R. 14925, H.R. 16175, H.R. 

Part 2 

FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 1966 

United States House of Representati\tes, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington. D.C. 


The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
met, pursuant to recess, at 9:30 a.m., in the Caucus Eoom, Cannon 
House Office Building, Washins^ton, D.C, Hon. Joe R. Pool (chair- 
man of the subcommittee) presiding. 

(Subcommittee members: Representatives Joe R. Pool, of Texas, 
chairman; Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri; George F. Senner, Jr., of 
Arizona; Jolm M. Ashbrook, of Ohio; and John H. Buclianan, Jr., 
of Alabama. Alternate member: Eepresentative Del Clawson, of 

Subcommittee members present : Representatives Pool, Ichord, and 

House Member also present : Representative James B. Utt, of 

Staff members present: Francis J. McNamara, director; William 
Hitz, general counsel; Alfred M. Nittle, counsel; Donald T. Appell, 
chief investigator ; and Eay McConnon, Jr., Herbert Romerstein, and 
Philip R. Manuel, investigators. 

Mr. Pool. The hearing will come to order. 

Believing that the investigative phase of the hearings would have 
been completed yesterday, the coimnittee contemplated starting the 
legislative hearings on the bills before us this morning. As is known, 
we still have a few more subpenaed witnesses to hear. They will be 
called shortly. 

The first witness this morning will be Brig. Gen. James D. Hittle 
(Ret.), U.S. Marine Corps, who is director of national security and 
foreign affairs of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

The VFW convention starts today in New York City, and General 
Hittle must catch a plane at 11 :30. Because the VFW is anxious to 
express its views on H.R. 12047 through General Hittle, we have de- 



cided to hear his testimony first so that there will be no problem in 
his making his scheduled plane connection. 
Go ahead -with General Hittle. 


General Hittle. Mr. Chairman, my name is James D. Hittle. I am 
director of national security 

Mr. Pool. Let us have order. Take your seats. The committee will 
take about a 3-minute recess here, General. I would like the press 
to hear your statement, and they will be back in here in just a moment 
I am sure. We will take about a 3-minute recess. 

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken. Subcommittee members 
present at time of recess and when hearings resumed : Representatives 
Pool, Ichord, and Buchanan.) 

Mr. Pool. The committee will come to order. 

Go ahead, General. 

General HiT'rLE. Mr. Chairman, the Veterans of Foreign Wars ap- 
preciates this opportunity to testify on the proposed legislation you 
are now considering. 

The VFW position with respect to H.R. 12047 is brief and it is firm. 
We wholeheartedly support this bill and endorse its passage and 
enactment. In a sense there is only one thing wrong with the pro- 
posed legislation as we see it — and that is, it is long overdue. 

Mr. Chairman, it is regrettable, but it is a fact of our national ex- 
istence today that there are persons and organizations in the United 
States who persist in doing those things which are harmful to our 
Nation in the midst of the war in which we are engaged in Vietnam. 

These acts which harm our own war efforts have, also, the effect 
of helping the enemy. The VFW believes that any form of assistance 
to the enemy of our Nation is unpatriotic and it is a disservice to our 
Nation and the beliefs for which our Nation stands. 

In short, Mr. Chairman, we hold that assistance to forces hostile 
to our country, the United States, should be clearly prohibited by law. 
Section 402 of the proposed legislation would accomplish much of 
that objective. 

As we read that section of the proposed legislation, this section 
would prohibit gifts, contributions, or assistance of any kind to the 
forces we are fighting against in Vietnam. Obviously, this would 
apply to the Viet Cong, the so-called Liberation Front, and the Com- 
munist government of North Vietnam. 

We should also clearly recognize, however, that under the wording 
of this proposed legislation, it would also prohibit such gifts, con- 
tributions, or assistance in any form to Red China and to the Soviet 

And why do I say this ? Because both are in active hostility against 
the United States and our allies in South Vietnam. The evidence is 
clear and the evidence is abundant that it is the materiel support 


from the Soviet Union and Red Qiina, as well as other forms of as- 
sistance from those two Communist countries, that gives North Viet- 
nam the capability to wage war on such a large scale and raise, at the 
same time, the melancholy toll of American dead and wounded. 

Such a prohibition of providing any kind of assistance to Com- 
munist countries is in accord with the resolutions unanimously adopted 
by the thousands of delegates attending the VFW National Conven- 
tion in 1965 in Chicago, Illinois. 

Our organization supports, also, section 403, which would prohibit 
the interference with the movement of Armed Forces personnel and 

Now, the need for this, we believe, should be obvious to any U.S. 
citizen. No person owing allegiance to the United States and benefit- 
ing from our form of government and our way of life should want to 
interfere with our Nation protecting itself in time of war. Those who 
interfere with the movement of troops and supplies are undermining 
our ability to fight for survival. No United States citizen should 
want to do that. Any United States citizen who does such a disserv- 
ice to his country should suffer the penalties of the law. 

And I think it is also important to note, Mr. Chairman, that such 
proposed legislation appears necessary in view of a very important 
technicality with respect to the war in Vietnam. In a technical legal 
sense, the United States has not formally declared war. However, 
from the practical standpoint, we are engaged in a war that is steadily 
assuming the status of a major conflict. And the issue of the South 
Vietnam conflict goes to the very heart of the protection of freedom 
and the survival of the United States itself. 

The reason some persons and organizations can openly oppose our 
Government's war efforts in Vietnam is because, for one thing, our 
Nation has not formally declared war. If w^e were in a formal state 
of declared war, this legislation would be largely unnecessary. Those 
who seek to aid the Communist enemy in Vietnam, those who interfere 
with our war effort, those who criticize our Government's policy in 
A'ietnam would, if we had declared war, already be in jail. 

But we must recognize from the practical policy standpoint, we 
are going to be faced for a long time with a series of the so-called 
wars of liberation and other kinds of Communist aggression. All 
such incidents of the protracted struggle which communism has forced 
upon us may well not, in the opinion of Congress, justify a formal dec- 
laration of war. This proposed legislation, therefore, will deprive 
those who oppose and undermine our Government in our fight for 
survival from the open opportunity to do so. 

The proposed legislation, Mr. Chairman, cannot accurately be de- 
scribed as any invasion of people's freedom. 

Those who are engaged in the kind of activities which would assist 
the enemy, and which would be prohibited by the bill now before 
your committee, have made a serious mistake in describing their actions 
as an exercise in freedom. 

Why is it? Because when a nation is at war — technically or other- 
wise — when U.S. troops are fighting and dying in defense of our 


country, it is time to realize in this country that there is a difference 
between the use of freedom and the abuse of freedom. 

It is right on this point that the protesters, the demonstrators, and 
the critics of our policy in Vietnam today are just plain mixed up. I 
believe the following story will provide one of the better explanations 
of why this legislation before you should be adopted. 

Some several months ago, it was my privilege to accompany the then 
commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on a visit to U.S. 
forces in South Vietnam. And in the course of that trip, we visited 
our Army's Special Forces units in the moutainous, forested area along 
the Cambodian border. 

"\^niile I was there, I had a long discussion with a sergeant in the Spe- 
cial Forces. He was one of the finest typo of soldier you run into, 
mature, alert, patriotic, and dedicated. His time was spent in work- 
ing with the Montagiiard tribesmen of that area in patrolling to cut 
off the Red supplies coming over the outlets through that area of the 
Ho Chi Minh trail. 

He had served one full assignment in this hazardous and uncom- 
fortable area and had already volunteered to extend for another tour 
of duty because he believed in what he was doing. 

In the course of our conversation, I asked him : ''"\Miat do you think 
about these protesters, demonstrators against our Vietnam policy, and 
those who want to send blood and medical supplies, for instance, to the 
Viet Cong?" 

He thought a moment, and this was his reply and I quote him : 
"Wliat they are doing helps the enemy, and I don't think any American 
has the right to do that." 

Mr. Chairman, neither does the Veterans of Foreign Wars. We 
agree with that master sergeant wearing the Green Beret and, because 
we agree with him, we support the legislation now before your com- 

Mr. Pool. Thank you. General. 

Mr. Ichord ? 

Mr. IciioRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is always a pleasure to have General Hittle before a committee of 

General Hittle recently appeared before my committee investigating 
commercial air travel for our servncemen. Those hearings have pro- 
gressed to the point now. General, that I can assure you that the com- 
mittee will at least in part adopt your recommendation. You per- 
formed a valuable service for our military and also for the men you 
represent, the Veterans of the Foreign Wars. 

I was very interested in your statement — "The proposed legislation, 
Mr. Chairman, cannot accurately be described as any invasion of peo- 
ple's freedom." I wholeheartedly agree with you. 

The acts that are covered by H.R. 12047 are the types of acts that 
definitely would not fall within the guarantees of freedom of speech or 
freedom of assembly. I don't think that there is an}^ doubt that no 
court would ever hold that such legislation invades the guarantees of 
the first amendment. 


I WRS also interested, IMr. Chairman, in General Hittle's comment 
that he believed the term "hostile force'' would cover gifts, contribu- 
tions, or assistance in any form to Red China and to the Soviet Union. 

Section 402 reads : 

Whoever, within the United States or elsewhere, owing allegiance to the United 
States, whenever any element of the Armed Forces of the United States shall be 
engaged in hostilities abroad — 

(1) gives, or attempts to give, or advises, counsels, urges, or solicits another 
to give or deliver, any money, property, or thing, or 

(2) solicits, collects, receives, or gives to another, any money, property, or 
thing for delivery, or 

(3) solicits, collects, receives, or gives to another, any money or thing of 
value for the purchase or acquisition of any property, supplies, or thing, intended 
for delivery, 

to any hostile foreign power, or agency or national thereof, or to any orga- 
nization, group, or person acting in hostile opposition to the Armed Forces of 
the United States * * *. 

It is 5^our opinion, General Hittle, that the term "hostile foreign 
power" would be broad enough to cover Red China and the Soviet 
Union? Certainly it would cover the North Vietnamese and the 
Viet Cong, but I am w^ondering if it would be broad enough to cover 
Red China and the Soviet Union. 

General IIittle. Well, anyone who is an accessory to the crime 
of aggression, and where we are resisting that aggression and our 
troops are dying, is certainly in a hostile posture as far as w^e are con- 
cerned, and the procession of Red bloc ships, Soviet ships, into the 
Haiphong Harbor, the Soviet missiles which are today shooting down 
American flyers, the admitted role of Red China in supporting and 
being the logistic backup for the operation in Vietnam, I think clearly 
demonstrate the role those two countries are playing as far as back- 
ing up the hostilities and, as such, being a party to them in Vietnam. 

Mr. IcHORD. I think that Red China has agreed that it is acting 
as a logistics base and, of course, I suppose you could also sa}'' that 
with the Soviets taking a more active part in North Vietnam than 
are the Chinese, due to the introduction of the Soviet SAM sit-es in 
North Vietnam, probably that action is adversely affecting United 
States forces more than the action of the Red Chinese. 

General HmLE. I think it is very difficult to draw a line between 
who is giving the most assistance over there. Red China and the 
Soviet Union are both partners in crime with North Vietnam as far 
as the aggression is concerned. And when you visit the troops and 
you see the weapons that have just been captured from the Communist 
forces and you see fine, well-machined Russian weapons, there is no 
doubt but what Russian industry today, the Russian armament ac- 
tivity, and the entire effort to support the Viet Cong are resulting in 
the Soviet Union as well as Red China killing U.S. troops. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, General Hittle has a plane to catch, 
and I don't want to keep him too long, but I think that it would be 
appropriate at this time to read into the record following General 
Hittle's testimony a statement that was broadcast on Radio Peking on 
August 9, 1966. 


I pointed out previously to this committee that the actions of the 
Progressive Labor Party, the Vietnam Day Committee, the May 2nd 
Movement, are not only actively aiding and abetting a hostile foreign 
power, but they are providing the enemy with some very valuable 
propaganda material that is having the effect of prolonging the war, 
and this is a type of war in which propaganda warfare plays a very 
important part, and they are prolonging the war and directly con- 
tributing to the death of American boys fighting in Vietnam. 

I read at this time the statement broadcast over Kadio Peking on 
August 9, 1966 : 

The U.S. Progressive Labor Party indignantly denounced the Johnson admin- 
istration for its intensified persecution of the American people's movement 
against the war of aggression in Vietnam, according to a New York report. In 
a press statement on 5 August the Progressive Labor Party noted that the 
people's massive opposition in the United States to U.S. imperialism's war of 
aggression in Vietnam has scared the U.S. ruling group. The notorious Fascist 
House Un-American Activities Committee has decided to call a group of people 
active in the antiwar movement to hearings in Washington on 16 August. 
Among those called are Jerry Rubin, chairman of the Berkley Vietnam Day 
Committee, and several others from the Progressive Labor Party. 

The hearings will be the Government's first official attack against the antiwar 
movement and are intended to crush this movement and end all opposition to 
the U.S. aggression. 

The statement emphasized : "Just as the Johnson gang has been imable to stop 
the forces of revolution in Vietnam, neither will the administration be able to halt 
the growing 'United States get out of Vietnam now' movement," because "the 
American people have nothing to gain from this war for power and profits. The 
big companies grow fat on death while working people's children are sent off 
to die." 

It said : "We believe that these hearings will only further expose the reaction- 
ary nature of the Johnson group. We believe that tens of thousands will rally 
to the support of those called to testify. We believe the House Un-American 
Activities Committee will be routed and that the 'United States get out of Viet- 
nam now' movement will continue to grow by leaps and bounds." 

The statement went on : The Johnson administration also intended by its 
illegal hearings to destroy the revolutionary Progressive Labor Party. Neverthe- 
less, "it is not the party which well be destroyed. The party is acting in the 
highest interests of the American people by opposing the war and fighting for 
socialism ; we will grow stronger. It is U.S. imperialsm whose survival is 
threatened. U.S. imperialism is more isolated than ever, is losing in Vietnam, 
and cannot solve the problems of the American people." 

Also, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent of the commit- 
tee to insert in the record at this point a statement made on the floor 
of the House by the chairman of this subcommittee concerning the 
need of H.E. 12047 as legislation. 

Mr. Pool. If there is no objection it is so ordered. 

(The statement follows :) 


Congressional Htcorcl 

juiicu amies ' "'^r _ . 


United States 

Vol. 112 


No. 84 

House of Representatives 


(Mr. POOL asked and was given per- 
mission to address the House for 1 min- 
ute, and to revise and extend his re- 

Mr. POOL. Mr. Speaker. In January 
of this year I introduced a bUl. H R. 
12047, which in short would make pun- 
ishable the giving of any money, prop- 
erty, or thing to any hostile foreign pow- 
er acting in opposition to the Armed 
Forces of the United States, and makes 
punishable the obstruction of the move- 
ment of military personnel or transpor- 
tation. The press has brought to our 
attention the fact that a number of per- 
sons and organizations in the United 
States — of whom most appear to be Com- 
munist or adhering to Marxist dogma — ■ 
were soliciting or forwarding money and 
"medlcaJ aid" for North Vietnam and 
were obs-tructlng the movement of our 
troops. This fact prompted the Intro- 
duction of my bill. 

Since offering the bill, I have received 
manj' communications from members of 
my constituency, and others, who have 
expressed wholehearted support for the 
objectives and purposes of my bill. How- 
ever, there are Indeed a few sincere per- 
sons who seem to be confused as to their 
duties and responsibilities v;hen thJs 
country is at war. One basis for this 
confusion appears to derive from the fact 
that no technical stale of v/ar has been 
declared against North Vietnam. I have, 
for example, recently received an Inquiry 
from a resident of Texas who wrote, in 
part, as follows: 

IiKllvlciiiials who send plasmii, etc., to North 
Vietnam, no matter liow morally reprehen- 
sible they may appear to you or me. are ex- 
ercising a peraonal choice. In the absence of 
a declared state of war. I fall to see why a 
legal restriction should be placed on them. 

This correspondent. In judging the 
propriety of legal restrictions against aid 
to one's enemies, apparently make his 
determination on the basis of whether a 
formal or technical declaration of \;ar 
has been made. Frankly. I do not see 
the validity of any such distinction. 
When our Armed Forces are actually en- 
gaged in hosUltles abroad, whether cer- 
tain conduct of citizens of the United 
States as harmful to our Nation and its 
people should be determined independ- 
ently of the question whether a legal 
status of war has been declared. Never- 

theless, the view of this tonstituent 
makes evident the confusion surrounding 
the issue. 

This confusion arises in large part. I 
believe, because of terminology. What 
Is war? The term "war" has been used 
principally In two senses. The common, 
nontechnical usage is that whif-h is 
descriptive of objective events, such as 
a contest of armed public forces between 
States. International lav/, on the other 
hand, war Is a "term of art." In this lat- 
ter sense, war is principally a juridical 
concept, resting on certain formalities, 
and Is descriptive of a certain legal rela- 
tion which exists between and among 
states which arises out of what Gentilis. 
an early scholar on the subject, described 
as "a properly conducted contest of 
armed public forces." 

We need not debate the adequacy or 
validity of any particular definition, ex- 
cept to point out that a nation is not 
at war In the technical sense unless Its 
politlctal or legislative department, hav- 
ing the power to do so. announces that 
fact. In the absence of such a declara- 
tion, even though the armed public 
forces of a nation are actually engaged In 
hostilities with another nation, and a 
war Is hence in fact taking place a nation 
Is not technically at war. Conversely, a 
nation may be legally at war even though 
there is no contest of armed public forces 
If a declaration of war Is In effect and 
has not been officially or legally termi- 
nated. Hence, whether a nation Is tech- 
nically at war with another is principally 
a subjective test, depending upon the 
declared policy of the nation concerned. 

When a nation is technically at war. 
certain serious consequences ensue, in 
accordance with the principles and us- 
ages of international law. Some of the 
immediate effects of a technical state of 
war are to suspend all nonhostile Inter- 
course between those states which are 
parties to the war. to suspend the ordi- 
nary nonhostile Intercourse between the 
citizens of those states which are parties 
to the war. to Introduce new principles 
in the intercourse between the states 
which are parties to the war and other 
states, to im.pose new duties upon neu- 
trals and allies, and to modify the opera- 
tion of certain treaties or to bring into 
operation treaties concerning the con- 
duct of hostilities. 

Since a technical declaration of war 
thus sets in motion certain usages and 
legal consequences in relation to the war- 
ring states and other nations and neu- 
trals, some of which have been above set 
forth, it Is apparent that a nation may 
not choose to set all such usages in mo- 
tion or to create all such legal con- 
sequences by declaring a technical state 
of war even though It Is actually engag- 
ing in war. 

Indeed, while it Is common knowledge 
that both the United States and North 
Vietnam are actually engaged in war, it 
is a curious fact tliat neither the United 
States nor North Vietnam has declared 
war. However, as I shall note, the United 
States has adopted a policy of not de- 
claring war for reasons different from 
that which has prompted North Vietnam 
to adopt the same course. 

The President of the United States has 
carefully refrained from seeking a formal 
declaration of war against North Viet- 
nam. We are. however, openly assisting 
South Vietnam In resisting aggression. 
The United States does not seek to con- 
ceal the fact that It is employing its 
Armed Forces for that pui-pose. The 
reasons for not declaring a formal state 
of war were recently made explicit In a. 
State Department position paper, dated 
November 19, 1965, which was prepared 
by the Department of State at the re- 
quest of the Senate Committee on For- 
eign Relations. Among the reasons for 
making this choice, the State Depart- 
ment set forth that it sought to avoid 
"unnecessarily enlarging the scope of the 
conflict," and to Imprpve the prospects of 
an early peaceful settlement. I thlnlc 
that this was a reasoned choice and 
was undoubtedly made with a view to- 
ward promoting the best interests of this 
Nation and world peace. 

On the other hand. North Vietnam' 
has also carefully refrained from a dec- 
laration of war against either South 
Vietnam or the United States, but, ss I 
repeat, for other reasons. North Viet- 
nam has not declared war in an attempt 
to conceal the fact that It is committing 
aggression against South Vietnam. Al- 
though North Vietnam Is engaging in 
actual war against South Vietnam, a 
public admission of this fact, which 
would be the result of a formal declara- 
tion of war, would not accord with her 


policy of stealth and subterfuge ~ *' "'" °*™° "™' **'* Communlets ha7o a Ei>ch Party recognlzea that aggression by 

Thp rnmmunM <;tratPBv_h!i-;orl nn ""'^ subtle renoon for favoring this type of mcana of armed attack In rha treaty arsa 
ine oommumst strategy— oasea on aggression, it creates m any situation a agairst an» of tte Parties or f^galnst wiy 
tne communict ..actlcai aoctnne or so- j,nse of ambiguity that they can exploit to stats or wrrliory which the Parties by 
called wars of liberation — Is to expand their own advantage. unanimous agreement may hereafter rtealg- 
the area of Communist conquest by the i , tu « i ^ » .t, nat*. wciid endanger Ita own peace and 
deceit and subterfuge of making the con- „ ^" «raP'oy'ng Uie Armed Forces of the ^^^^5^ „^j agrees that it win '.a that event 
flict In South Vietnam appear to be an United States, the President has acted ^t „, ^jMt the commcn danger In accord- 
Internal revolution or civil war rather "'*'*' ''"'^ authority of that branch of the once with ito oouatltutlonal processes, 
than an International war between the Government which Is empowered to de- mmwutcs teien under thu paragraph shall 
State of North Vietnam and the State ^^-^..Y^"".- ^'^y^}^ I: ^'*''°" ? °' .^^ ^' "^"f "'!"^, ^.^^'t?* . *" '"^ 3«urtty 
Vietnam. Tlie aggression from North Constitution of the Lnlted States tives council of the umtt-d Nationa. 
Vietnam has been, and Is being, accom- *° Congress the power to declare war. jj j^ important to recall that this 
pushed by clandestine techniques-the Jf' ^'^?P*'fJ5,A'"'.,'°"i^^'n'' f^^f flfJ"; "•^'''y w«^ adopted In accordance with 
secret infiltration of troops and revolu- J*""" /^Soq ^= =^^ L=?' i t. the terms and provisions of the U.S. 
tlonary cadres into South Vietnam, and ,Yv. „>.\^. , ' , ''?"8.'"*;ss constituiion. By virtue of article VI of 
the organizing, equipping, and flnanciiig °l •^^'T!'^, ^f}^ expressly authorized t^e Constitution, a treaty is declared to 
In secrecy of Commurdst cadres within "J^ V^']?l^ °' *,^ ""'K*? ^^^^ to t^se ^^ ..the supreme Law of the Land." 
South Vietnam. l^^ ^^™"«'l Forces in assisang ^y mem- Th^^^ ^^ (^ ,1,^ ^^^ of ^^^y ^^^ ^.. ^^^ 

By seeking to create an Illusion that "" '^I, P^V?*^' ^^ate of the Bouth?'i5t j^n^, all of our citizens are bound to 

a civil war is taking place In South Viet- r*'* <-oi;e<;ilve uerense Treaty request- gj^g support to this treaty and to abide 

nam rather than external aggression, !lif. assistance in oefense of Its freedom, ^y it. It is a duty £.nd obligation of cltl- 

they hope to make it difficult and Im- I^V^''f''^^?1.T,^ adopted by a com- ^ensblp to support the Government of 

practical for South Vietnam to gain sup- ° ° "^ ° '"'' '■° ^- the United States as it acts to comply 

port from other nations. They also hope "^^^ resolution makes clear that while with that treaty. 

to make It difficult for other lotions, who '^^ Congress did not use the precise Our soldiers are fulfilling their duties 

would come to South Vietnam's assist- words "declare war", the Congress has in support of their Government. They 

ence, to gain support form their own nevertheless authorized the President to neither have nor claim a freedom of 

people for intervention in aid of South ^"S^e *" actual war. A rose by any choice as to where or when they shall 

Vietnam. This was ciesrlv explained by "'her name is still a rose. The resolu- serve. It Is intolerable to think that 

our able Secretary of State In hla state- ^lon was adopted in the manner and any citizen has the right or freedom of 

ment before the Senate Committee on 1°"" required of a declaration of war choice to endanger the life, or to Increase 

Foreign Relations of February 18. 1S66. by that branch of the Government hav- the burden, of any one of our boys In 

Secretary Rusk said. In part: 1"S the power to declare war. While the armed forces by strengthening his 

The North Vietnamese regime has sought thus giving the President a mandate enemy. Moreover, to permit freedom of 
deliberately to ccnfuEe the Issue by seeking which authorizes him to undertake war. choice in either instance would result 
to make Its aggression appear as an Indlge. the Congress acceded to the policy of in anarchy. It would make impossible 
nous revolt. But we should not be deceived avoiding the consequences In Interna- the execution by our Government of Its 
by this subterfuge. It Is a familiar Commu- tional law which would ordinarily flow constitutional duties and would seriously 
e'^Snrthei/poTert^'tJTe iTseV^c^Sic^ 'J.^l,^ recognition of a fonnal status impair, and possibly destroy our con- 
forms of force such as the Invasion of Korea, °' **'^- stitutional processes. It Would be a be- 
the Communists have, over many years, de- Moreover, in employing the Armed trayal of our Nation. I therefore think 
veloped an elaborate doctrine for so-called Forces of the United States the Presl- that the restrictions that are sought to be 
wars of national liberation to cloak their ag- dent — and the Congress — were fulfill- imposed against rendering of aid and 
gression in ambiguity. "Ing the commitments of the United comfort to North Vietnam are wholly 

A war of national liberation. In the Com- states to which our country had bound Justified, 

imunlst lexicon, depends on the tactics of ter- ^^^^l j, j^ Southeast Asia Collective — ^— ^— 

ror and sabotage, of stealth and subversion. r^f^„„^ r^ ♦-„ 1 r. * 1 iw '-^"•'^ 

It has a partl^lar utility for them since It P^^f^t^^tyfrid Protocol thereto, of 

gives an advantage to a disciplined and ruth- September 8. 1954, by which we agreed 

Jess minority, particularly In countries where -to act in the event of aggression against 

the physical terrain makes clandestine Infll- South Vietnam. By the terms of that 

tratlon from the outside relatively easy. treaty it was explicitly agreed that — 

General IIittke. Mr. Cliairman, if I may add just a word here with 
your permission in connection with that report that was just read of 
how the protests in this country actually help the enemy, 1 saw^ a very 
persuasive demonstration of the manner in which the protests in the 
United States against our Vietnam policy actually provide ammuni- 
tion for enemy guns. 

Some several months ago, I was on the offshore island of Quemoy, 
wdiich is still bombarded by the Communist guns from the mainland. 
A few days before I had arrived there, they had received another heavy 
bombardment of propagaiida shells, and I was shown the contents of 
those propaganda shells. 

They were pamphlets with pictures and long explanations of the 
demonstrations in the United States, establishing the fact that the 
American people were opposed to the fight against communism and 
that it was doomed to failure. 

When these protests provide literally ammunition for the enemy 
guns, it is beyond the theoretical stage. 

Mr. IcHORD. Did those propaganda leaflets that were shot out of 
guns contain photographs ? 

General Hittle. They contained photographs and long stories on 
the United States, slanted of course from the Communist standpoint 
and to the Red Chinese advantage. 

Mr. Pool. General Hittle, I have a press release that just came in. 

On August 14 the Moscow radio featured the following broadcast 
hy commentator Yury Babich : 


It has been aiinouneed in "Washington tlie House Un-American Activities 
Committee is beginning to discuss a special draft bill aimed at the opponents of 
the war in Vietnam. The very fact of the appearance of this draft bill provides 
a sufficiently convincing picture of the political situation in the United States. 
On one hand American ruling circles are climbing straight up the steps of the 
notorious escalation of the conflict on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. On the other 
hand this policy is leading ever increasing numbers of Americans to come out 
against the war in Vietnam. Such actions cause serious anxiety among the 
Washington leaders, so serious that Attorney General Katzenbach has ordered 
the trial of the more active opponents of the war. 

Even the President himself has joined in the campaign of persecuting those 
who do not — repeat not — agree with his policy. Warmed by this support the 
darkest forces of American reaction have begun to move. Ultra rightvv'ingers 
who had dug themselves in in Congress have begun the public interrogation of 
nine eminent peace fighters on the charge of subversive, antipatriotic statements 
and actions. Among those who have been summoned for interrogation by the 
Un-American Activities Committee, a committee which has long been a bulwark 
of obscurantism, are such eminent public figures as the Professor of Sociology 
Allen Krebs, or Walter Teague, chairman of the American Committee of Aid to 
the NFLSV [National Front of Liberation of South Vietnam]. 

The latest step in this direction by the wild men was the decision to carry out 
the public examination of the special di'aft bill introduced by members of the 
Un-American Activities Committee and Texas Democrat, Joe Pool, aimed at 
stifling the anti-war-in-Vietnam movement by legal means. The draft bill for- 
bids any American citizen to render any aid whatsoever, including medical aid, 
to any State whatsoever taking part in a struggle against the United States, ir- 
respective of whether war has been declared or not — repeat not. This clause 
clearly gives the authors of the draft bill away. After all. it is well known that 
Washington is waging military operations in Vietnam without having declared 
war formally. And the intentionally vague formulation of this part of the draft 
bill is by no means without reason. By taking upon itself the functions of a 
world gendarme the United States, which is today trying to suppress by force the 
desire of the people of Vietnam for freedom and independence, can tomorrow 
attack any other country, where, in the opinion of the Washington leaders, a 
threat to the interests of the American monopolies may develop. 

The ruling circles of the country would like to have a free hand in such a 
case as well they would, so-to-speak, like to have legal grounds for the persecu- 
tion of opponents of possible new foreign policy adventures of the monopolist 
capital of the United States. 

However, the new draft bill includes more than this. In an attempt to protect 
itself in a situation similar to the one which developed last summer in the Cali- 
fornia town of Berkeley, when hundred of opponents of the war in Vietnam sat 
down on the railway lines and blocked the movement of military trains for sev- 
eral days, the Pool draft bill prohibits American citizens from ohstructing the 
movement of U.S. troops and the transport of war materiel. Violators are 
threatened with a fine of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), and a prison sen- 
tence of up to twenty (20) years. The author of this draft bill does not repeat not 
consider it necessary to hide its real aims. 

It is intended, he told journalists, to suppress statements against present U.S. 
policy in Vietnam, 

In other words, having begun with the persecution of Commimists, American 
reaction, following the path of McCarthyism, has logically reached the point 
when it can begin the persecution by legal means of all those who think differ- 
ently, of all those who, in trying to save America's honor, are coming out against 
the madness of the Vietnam adventure. 

I am sure that the people in this hearing room and all Americans 
perceive the typical Communist half-truths, lies, and distortions in 
their commentary. 

One of the absolute falsehoods in this statement should not be 
permitted to go imcorrected. It stated that I told journalists that my 
bill "is intended to suppress statements against present U.S. policy in 


The record will show that in my opening statement, copies of which 
were handed to the press, I said : 

This committee recognizes the right of every citizen to disagree with and 
criticize both the domestic and foreign policies of the United States Govermnent. 
It does not believe, however, that the Constitution gives any citizen, in a time of 
actual, though undeclared, war, the right to assist the enemies of this country — 
either by sending aid to them in any form or in any way sabotaging the move- 
ment or supply of its Armed Forces. 

General, would you like to comment on that question of hostile 
commentary ? 

General Hittle. With respect to your statement, Mr. Chairman, 
that no one has the right to help those who are hostile to our country, 
I think that the thing that the American people must keep in mind is 
that this is no abstract, theoretical issue we are engaged in and con- 
sidering before your committee. 

Wliat is actually involved here is a very simple equation in military 
power and that is this: That if an enemy is stronger, the extent to 
which he is stronger means that he can kill more of our troops and to 
the degree, therefore, that assistance to the enemy helps him and 
strengthens him, that results in killing U.S. troops, and that is not an 
abstract thing. 

That is somebody's son — perhaps in this room, perhaps the kid next 
door, or the boy down the street — and when we thmk of it in these 
terms, nobody has that right. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Buchanan. 

Mr. Buchanan. General, I want to thank you for your testimony 
and for the position of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

Earlier this year when I was in Vietnam, I visited the First Corps 
area and found that the marines were doing their usual outsta.nding 
work not only militarily, but I visited a Vietnamese village with a 
marine lieutenant and found that the marines there had won com- 
pletely the confidence of the people, that they were giving them help 
medically, agTiculturally, and various other ways. 

Indeed I found, as I am sure you did, all over Vietnam that our 
fighting men were giving great emphasis to civic action programs, 
helping to build schools and provide medical aid, agricultural as- 
sistance, and various other kinds of assistance to the people and helping 
to build their country economically, and found this same warm recep- 
tion by the people of Vietnam. 

Was this your experience in your visit there? 

General Hittle. I think one of the most remarkable discoveries 
that anybody can make going to Vietnam and in getting out away 
from the city out where the true Vietnam is, outside of Saigon in the 
hills and villages, along the seacoast, is a very revealing and meaning- 
ful thing. 

What you find is an almost inspirational dedication on the part of 
U.S. personnel over there, because they believe in what they are doing 
and they believe in the reason they are there. And those who protest 
in this country would do well to go over there and get close enough to 
where the shooting is going on and see the spirit and the dedication 
of the boys who are facing those bullets, because they believe in doing it. 

Mr. Buchanan. How much love of the Viet Cong did you find 
among the Vietnamese people ? 


General Hittle. I must say in all frankness that I don't speak Viet- 
namese and I could only do it through the interpreters, but we got 
out well away and I might say I have been four times to Vietnam since 
the war over there began, I have been into — this is a matter of rec- 
ord — into every major combat area. 

I found out long ago in the Marines that the only way you find out 
what is going on in the world is to get out of the command post and 
for that reason we did spend most of our time out of the city of Saigon, 
in the countryside, and the thing that impressed me about it was 
that the paramilitary — that's the militia, not the regulars — those who 
work in the field, those who have small shops in the villages, pick up 
their rifles at night and go out and defend their village. 

And who do they defend it against? They defend it against the 
VC's and the Communists. Those are the ones that they are trying 
to keep from taking over what little they have in this world, and the 
extent to which our troops and our allied troops help them, helps them 
preserve their concepts of freedom. 

Mr. Buchanan. Thank you very much. General Hittle, for your 
valuable contribution here. 

Mr. Pool. General Hittle, the committee thanks you for appear- 
ing and giving us the benefits of your testimony. You are a great 
American. We all appreciate it. 

Thank you. 

General Hittle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

* * * * * * *i 



Mr. Pool. At this time the Chair would like to offer for the record a 
bill and a press statement and other material presented to the Chair 
by Congressman Olin Teague, who has introduced similar legislation, 
and I would like to include it in the record. 

Is there any objection? If there is no objection it is so ordered. 

(The documents referred to follow:) 

Statement of: HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE FEBRUARY 10, 1966 

Representative Olin E. Teague (D-Tex.) introduced in the House of Repre- 
sentatives today a bill and a constitutional amendment to prohibit certain public 
activities in time of anned conflict. 

"Under legal authorities a state of war is a question of law rather than fact," 
Teague said, "and it is my purpose to provide the same protection to our govern- 
ment and armed forces while engaged in armed conflict, which I consider to be a 
factual state of war, as they now have if engaged in a legal state of war." 

The bill provides a $10,000 fine, 10 years imprisonment, or both, for any person 
who, without authority of the United States during a period of war or armed 
conflict, knowingly contributes, solicits, collects, or disburses money or anything 
of value directly or indirectly for the enemies of the United States. This pro- 
vision of the bill would prohibit activities such as those recently engaged in by a 
group of individuals in Berkeley, California, who call themselves the Medical 
Aid Committee for Vietnam. "I am advised that under existing law there is no 

1 The remainder of the testimony received on the morning of August 19 in the investi- 
gative phase of the hearings, appears in part 1 (testimony of Steven Charles Hamilton, 
George Hamilton Ewart, Jr., and Steven Cherkoss). 

67-852— 66— pt. 2 2 


provision which directly prohibits such assistance to the communist forces with 
whom we ai-e, in fact, at war," Teague said. 

The bill also makes it unlawful to make public speeches and lectures or to pub- 
licly picket, parade, rally or similarly demonstrate against any lawful measure 
of the United States related to the conduct of such armed conflict if such activi- 
ties give aid or encouragement to the enemies of the United States and if they 
are done with intent to interfere with the success-ful prosecution by the United 
States of any armed conflict in which it is engaged. 

"I am sure there will be some who consider this provision of the bill to be a 
violation of the first amendment of the constitution," Teague stated, "but it 
should he noted that these public speeches and demonstrations are prohibited 
only if they give aid or encouragement to the enemies of the United States and if 
they are done with intent to interfere with the successful prosecution of the 
armed conflict." 

"The freedom to dissent can be destroyed by its abuse because that freedom is 
dependent upon the survival of our government. If our government is to sur- 
vive, it must be permitted to protect itself against those who gave aid or encour- 
agement to enemies who seek to destroy us," Teague stated. 

"If any part of the bill I have introduced is in conflict with the constitution, 
then I think the constitution should be amended to give Congress the power to 
protect our government against the activities of those who seek to aid our 
enemies. I think we should legislate now to curb certain current activities. 
The power of the Congress during a time of declared war appears to be adequate 
but, in my judgment, it is unlikely that the United States will ever again be in a 
declared war. The Korean conflict was not a declared war and so far the con- 
flict in Vietnam is not a declared war. There will probably never be a declara- 
tion of war in any so-called 'brush fire' type of war and certainly an all-out 
nuclear war would be over before Congress could act. In my judgment it is 
therefore necessary to make such statutory or constitutional changes as are neces- 
sary to permit our country to survive under present-day conditions. 

"For these reasons I have also introduced a constitutional amendment, the 
provisions of which would be applicable only during a period when the United 
States is at war or engaged in armed conflict. This amendment would make it 
unlawful to give aid or encouragement to enemies of the United States during 
such a period by opposing any lawful measure or policy of the United States 
related to the conduct of the war or armed conflict by public demonstrations, 
public writings, public speeches, or other means. This constitutional amend- 
ment, if adopted, would be enforceable only as provided by the Congress through 
appropriate legislation. 

"We now use the police power of the state to draft young men into the armed 
forces where they are required to risk their lives in the pursuit of policies which 
our constitutionally-established government has adoi>ted. When these young 
men are inducted into the armed forces they forfeit many of their constitutional 
rights and I think it is not only proper — BUT NECESSARY — ^that we restrain 
the beatnik types and the pseudo-intellectuals who insist that the constitution 
permits them to give aid and encouragement to our enemies and thereby further 
endanger the lives of those who are called upon to sacrifice so much for the 

[H. J. Res. 833, 89th Cong., 2d sess.] 

JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution providing that certain 
activities shall be prohibited during a period of war or armed contlict 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled {two-thirds of each Hotise concnrring therein). 
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States and shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Con- 
stitution only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress : 

"Article — 

"Section 1. During any period when the United States is at war or engaged 
in armed conflict, it shall be unlawful to give aid or encouragement to the 
enemies of the United States by opposing any lawful measure or policy of the 


United States related to the conduct of such war or armed conflict througli 
public demonstrations, public writings, public speeches, or by any other means. 
"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate 

[H.R. 12775, 89th Cong., 2d sess.] 

A BILL To amend title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit certain activities in time 

of war or armed conflict 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That (a) chapter 115 of title 18 of the United 
States Code is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section : 

"§ 2392. Activities prohibited during war or armed conflict 

"Whoever, during any period when the United States is at war or engaged in 
armed conflict, without authority of the United States, knowingly contributes, 
solicits, collects, or disburses money or anything of value, directly or indirectly, 
for the enemies of the United States ; or 

"Whoever, with intent to interfere with the successful prosecution by the 
United States of a declared war or of any armed conflict in which the United 
States is engaged, shall give aid or encouragement to the enemies of the United 
States by opposing any lawful measure or policy of the United States related 
to the conduct of such war or armed conflict by public speeches, lectures, or other 
public utterances, by written or printed matter displayed or otherwise dis- 
seminated to the public, or by public picketing, parades, rallies, or similar public 
demonstrations — 

"Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, 
or both." 

(b) The analysis of chapter 11.5 of title 18 of the United States Code is 
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item : 
"2392. Activities prohibited during war or armed conflict." 


(The subcommittee reconvened at 2 :20 p.m., Hon. Joe R. Pool, chair- 
man of the subcommittee, presiding. ) 

(Subcommittee members present : Eepresentatives Pool, Ichord, and 

]\Ir. Pool. The hearing will come to order. 

This is the legislative hearing we are starting now. 

The Chair will now call as the first witness our colleagtie in the House 
of Representatives, Congressman Bennett of Florida. 

The Chair wishes to welcome you to our hearing, and we know that 
what you have to tell us will be of great interest. Thank you. 



Mr. Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee. 

I deeply appreciate this opportunity to appear before the commit- 
tee hearing testimony on legislation to amend the Internal Security 
Act of 1950, to prevent obstruction of Armed Forces of the United 

I congratulate the acting chairman of the committee, Congressman 
Pool, for his courage and leadership for such legislation, which I feel 
is vitally needed by our country at the present time. 

1 The remainder of the hearing record of the morning of August 19 (committee mem- 
bers' concluding remarks on investigative phase of hearings) appears in part 1. 


On the first day of the second session of the 89th Congress, Jannaiy 
10, 1966, 1 introduced H.R. 11864, a bill to provide criminal penalties 
for wrongful interference with, or impairment of, the operation or 
success of the military or naval forces of the United States during a 
period of war or armed conflict. My legislation is very similar to the 
chairman's bill, and H.R. 11864 is now pending in the House Judiciary 
Committee; and I have introduced a bill, H.R. 17140, similar to Chair- 
man Pool's bill in order to join him before this committee in behalf of 
such legislation. I am gratefid for this opportimity to discuss the need 
for legislation of this nature. 

Mr. Pool. May I interrupt at this time ? 

This second bill you introduced, is it the same bill as you introduced 
to the Judiciary ? Is this a similar bill to the one we have introduced ? 

Mr. Bennett. It is identical to the bill the chairman introduced; 

Mr. Pool. I was wondering if it would come to this committee. 

Mr. Bennett. It will be in this committee ; yes, sir. 

Mr. IcHOED. I don't quite understand that discourse, Mr. Chairman. 
I have before me 1Y140, a bill introduced by the distinguished witness, 
Mr. Bennett. Is this the bill that is identical to the Pool bill ? 

Mr. Bennett. It is identical to the Pool bill ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Pool. Thank you. 

Mr. Bennett. Tlie earlier bill was 11864, and it went to the Judi- 
ciary Committee. The reason why it went to the Judiciary Committee 
was because it amended a statute which came out of the Judiciary Com- 
mitee, while 17140, like the chairman's bill, amended a bill which came 
out of the House Un-American Activities Committee. 

Mr. IcHORD. The Internal Security Act. 

Mr. Bennett. That is correct. 

During the adjournment of Congress last fall we had a great rash of 
anti- American demonstrations caused by our Government's firm stand 
in Vietnam and our Nation's involvement in the conflict in assisting 
the free South Vietnamese people in stopping aggressors from North 
Vietnam. The several demonstrations and events around the country 
during the last year or two have threatened our military activity and 
support of American troops in South Vietnam. 

These demonstrations have threatened our national security. And 
many have been inspired by highly publicized, misguided individuals, 
some of whom called for giving blood to the aggressor Communist 
forces from North Vietnam, who have killed 4,640 of our American 
soldiers in the Vietnam war. 

Wliile some called for blood to the enemy, the distinguished acting 
chairman of this committee was leading a drive on Capitol Hill for 
blood to our friends, the South Vietnamese. At the same time others 
and I, in my hometown of Jacksonville, Florida, and on Veterans 
Day gave blood for the South Vietnamese. 

These demonstrators who seek to disrupt proper and important mili- 
tary activities of our Government are afforded license to act against 
the national interests of our country by encouragement to anarchy, 
even by some who claim to do so for religious reasons. 

Our Nation's involvement in the Vietnam war has caused serious 
debate throughout the country by many groups, individuals, inside 


and outside the Government, and in the news media. This is healthy 
and needed. 

However, there are those persons who have gone beyond tlie con- 
stitutional bounds of freedom of speech and assembly and who have 
actually subverted the national interest of the United States and its 
efforts to protect the general population and preserve the peace. 

In October 1965, for example, 11 demonstrators were arrested at 
Truax Air Force Base near Madison, Wisconsin, when they tried to 
enter the installation to make a citizen's arrest of the base commander. 

A group in Oakland, California, in the summer and fall of 1965, 
marclied on the Oakland Army Base and attempted to stop troop 
trains going to the installation. 

Just last week it was reported in the Nation's press that one of the 
more militant civil rights leaders had urged Negroes not to serve in 
the Armed Forces, and this was repeated recently in Atlanta. This 
seems to me to be a clear violation of the University Military Training 
Act, under which the violator of the law is subject to 5 years imprison- 
ment or a fine of $10,000. 

These and other illustrations point up the need for legislation now 
to make it clear that these acts with the color of treason be prohibited. 

My bills would provide penalties of fines up to $20,000 or im- 
prisonment of not more than 20 years, or both, to those people who 
interfere with the operations of the military forces of the United 
States, Covered would be those who w^ould interfere, those who 
would urge the interference of military operations, and those who 
distribute material urging interference. 

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you and the committee for looking 
into these matters which are harming our efforts to maintain freedom 
in Southeast Asia. The country, our country, needs a law on the 
books to cope with these demonstrations when they threaten our na- 
tional security. Thank you for this opportmiity to appear. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Ichord? 

Mr. IciiORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a pleasure to hear from Congressman Bennett. Congressman 
Bennett is one of the senior outstanding members of the House Com- 
mittee on Armed Services. He is very well versed in the problem with 
which we are concerned. As a matter of fact. Chairman Bennett 
is chairman of one of the subcommittees of which I am privileged 
to be a member. He is a great American, a competent and outstand- 
ing legislator, and a great credit to his district, his State, and his 
Nation. It is a pleasure to have you with us today, I might say, Mr. 

Mr. Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Ichord. 

Mr. Ichord. Now you stated that your bill provides for a $10,000 
fine. I presume that you were referring to the bill that has been 
referred to the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. Bennett. That is true. The bill that I 

]\Ir. Ichord. The bill pending before this committee carries 20 
years and a $20,000 fine. 

Mr. Bennett. That is correct, and in my corrected statement, I 
did mention it was $20,000 or 20 years. 


Mr. Pool. 'W^iile yoii are testifying, Congressman — may I in- 
terrupt, Mr. Ichord? 

Mr. IcnoRD. Surely. 

Mr. Pool. In this particular case, in the bill, I know that you 
have introduced the bill for $20,000 and 20 years, but do you have 
any further ideas on the amount 'i 

]Mr. Benneit. I don't have a strong feeling about the amount. 
I think $10,000 and 10 years is adequate, and I think, frankly, if I 
were a member of the committee and knew no more about it than 
I now do — of course you know a lot more about it than I do — I would 
be inclined to use the 10 and 10. But I introduced the 20 and 20 
because I just wanted to show that I am a hundred percent for your 
bill, and I want to go along with you, if you feel that that is the best 

Mr. Pool. Well, I used the 20 and 20 because I felt it was a serious 
thing. We also have problems on prosecution, and things like that, 
so we are going to take that take up in the committee. That's why I 
asked you. 

;Mr. Bexnett. I don't have a strong feeling about it. It was my 
original judgment that 10 and 10 was adequate, but I would defer 
to the committee after it has had these hearings. It would know that 
better than I would know it. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, I do have some questions of IMr. Ben- 

Congressman Bennett, I v\'holeheartedly agree vrith you. There is 
a need for legislation of this type. ^Ve have had very dramatically 
demonstrated to this committee that there is such need, because we 
have had witnesses who have freely testified that they are Communists 
and that they have nothing but utter contempt for the Government 
of the United States and this countr\^ ; that they do have sympathy 
with the aims and objectives of international communism; and that 
they are participating actively in the type of operations which you 
seek to prohibit by your bill. 

There are some, I loiow, who say that there is no need for such 
legislation, and I think that that can be answered by the fact — and I 
believe it Vv-ill be pointed out by jVIr. Meese — that there have been no 
prosecutions of this type of activity. If there is such legislation on 
the books, then somebody is not enforcing the laws of the United 
States of America and the laws of the various States that might apply. 

I am curious as to whether the language in the bills has been bor- 
rowed from any other statutes that might be on the books. Of course, 
we are dealing here Avith a law which proscribes certain acts as crim- 
inal. The courts in the construction of criminal statutes make a very 
strict instruction. 

The bill must be drawn in such a way that the accused is fairly 
and adequately, fully apprised that the act which he has done is crim- 
inal. The language must not be vague. 

In reading over section 402 and section 403, I recognize most of the 
language as having been used before in similar statutes, but I would 
like to know if you patterned this after any particular act. It is 
always desirable to use language that has been used in other acts, 
because they have been the subject of court construction, and we know 


whixt the Ijinguao'e means. "We are here distinguishing between legit- 
imate dissent and illegitimate dissent, and of course we don't want 
to legislate, and could not legislate, against any action w^iich could 
be guaranteed the protection of freedom of speech or freedom of as- 
sembl}'. We are legislating in a field in which we need to be partic- 
ularly- careful. 

Mr. Bexnett. Well, as you Iniow, Mr. Congressman, we are ]:)ro- 
vided in Congress with a legislative counsel. Late in last year, after 
some of tliese events had transpired, I contacted the legislative coun- 
sel, and asked them to prepare for me a lavv' Avhich would not violate 
freedom of speech, but would go to thmgs which are military in nature, 
that is, the impairment of an actual military operation, and would be 
not something which would be contrary to our tradition and constitu- 
tional provisions about freedom of speech, and they came up with this 

I did not draft it m^^'^elf, comma by comma and word for word. 
That is, I am now referring to the bill which is not actually before 
your committee, which is 11864. 

Now when you were kind enough to ask me to appear before your 
committee, I guess because I had previously introduced 118G4, I ac- 
cepted, And I felt that the later bills which have been introduced 
l:)y members of this committee had prol^al^ly been given special atten- 
tion by your counsel an.d, therefore, I felt that I v.anted to join with 
you, not in any sense of assuming any leadership, but in fact assuming 
followship, to go along with you in any improvement you might Vv-ant 
to make. 

I, therefore, would leave to the committee staff of this committee 
and to the people who have originally drafted the legislation on whicli 
17140 is drafted, an analysis of that particular bill. 

I must say that my bill, the one I originally introduced, is much 
shorter than the bill Avhich I have introduced that has come to this 
committee, and as far as I can see. it does practically tlie same thing. 
The shortness of the measure wliich I introduced first might recom- 
mend it a little bit to the committee for inclusion, and if you wanted to 
use this language, and put it into a committee bill, or into the chair- 
man's bill by amendment, if you felt it was better language, I would be 
very honored if you did so. But I would presume that the staff would 
want to evaluate these things, vis-a-vis each other, and arrive at what 
tjiev thin_k is the best language. I am somewhat inclined to a shorter 

]Mr. Pool. What is the number of your first bill ? 

Mr. Bennett. It is 11864. In fact, I will give you a copy of it, if 
you would like to have one. I have it right here. 

Mr. Pool. I have it right here, and Mr. Ichord, at this time, I think 
we should have this for the record. 

Mr. IcHORD. Yes, I think so, too. 

Mr. Pool. And, with no objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. IcHORD. Now, Mr. Bennett, General Hittle, who was represent- 
ing the Veterans of Foreign Wars, appeared before the committee 
this morning. And in his testimony he put a construction on the 
words "hostile foreign power*' on page 3, line 22 on page -3, as applying 
to Red China and the Soviet Union. That would prohibit any gift, 
solicitation, and so forth, to go to the Soviet Union or Red China. 


He did that on the basis that Red China is acting as a logistic base 
for Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese, and also the fact, which I 
know the gentleman is familiar with, the military supplies that Russia 
is shipping into North Vietnam, particularly the SAM's that have 
caused U.S. pilots so much trouble in North Vietnam. Did 
you intend that your bill would have that application ? At this time, 
I don't fully comprehend what would be all of the ramifications of such 

Mr. Bennett. Well, I certainly think that any assistance given to 
these countries that you have mentioned, the Soviet Union and Red 
China, which would have a bearing upon our activities adversely, in 
South Vietnam, would be included. As to the future, I would cer- 
tainly hope that we might see a time in the not to distant future when 
Russia, with its apparent efforts to try to bring about world peace, 
may be able to find a way not to continue this activity. There is 
nothing that indicates that at the moment, but I would hope that this 
might be the future, and I would, of course, hope that we wouldn't 
find ourselves embroiled in an all-out war with Red China, but at the 
present time, they are both giving assistance to North Vietnam and 
therefore, they would fall, in my way of thinking, under these termi- 
nologies, as to what they are now doing. 

]Mr. IcHORD. Of course, this would prohibit the solicitation of any 
money, property, or things going to any hostile foreign power, and do 
you feel that it would make such an act a crime ? Do you feel that we 
should prohibit the solicitation of medical supplies, for example, that 
might go to Russia at the present time ? 

Mr. Bennett. I would think if they might find their way into 
assisting North Vietnam in this hostility, I would favor such a law, 
but I must sa}^, as I said to begin with, you are now discussing not the 
bill which I originally drafted, but one which I drafted in a spirit of 
cooperation with the committee. My bill is not subject to this 

Mr. IcHORD. You do agree that it is something that should be looked 
closely at, then ? 

Mr. Bennett. Yes ; if I might say so, just read for a minute what 
my bill does say. I think it covers everything you would want to 
cover, the original bill I introduced. I think it covers everything you 
want to cover, and I think it could be handled by your committee, 
even thougli this particular bill was sent to another committee. I see 
nothing from a standpoint of parliamentarian activity that could 
mean that this language couldn't be used before your committee, and 
it strictly says: "(1) causes or attempts to cause interference with or 
impairment of any operation or activity of the military or naval forces 
of tlie United States ; or 

"(2) advises, counsels, or urges interference with or impairment of 
any operation or activity of the military or naval forces of the United 

"(3) or distril:>utes or attempts to distribute any written or printed 
matter which advises, counsels, or urges interference with or impair- 
ment of anv operation or activity of the military or naval forces of the 
United States." 

And to me, this covers everything you would want to cover with 
regard to Russia and China, without involving yourself in the ques- 


tion of what nation you are dealing T^'ith in a military operation, and 
this would be the test; the test would not be which countiy. The test 
would be whether or not it was impairing a military operation of our 
country, which I think is a better test, but I wouldn't feel that I am as 
knowledgeable in this field as this committee is, particularly after it 
has had all this hearing. But as I sit before you today, I would 
prefer the simpler language of the bill which I originally introduced, 
because to me it gets at what you are trying to get at without involving 
yourself in a question of definition of Avhich country particularly. 

Mr. IcHORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Buchanan? 

Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida for his contribution here today, and just one 

Your points are well taken concerning the portions of the bill which 
the chairman has introduced, and I, too, have joined in introducing, 
as to obstruction of Armed Forces. 

However, there is also in this bill included provision for penalties 
for assistance to hostile forces, which I believe would go beyond the 
purview of your original bill, and I assume you would also support 

Mr. Bennett. I do support that idea. However, it seems to me that 
everjrthing that you could cover — I may be wrong about this— but it 
seems to me that everj^hing that you have covered in the bill which 
the committee and I and others have introduced is covered by the 
much shorter bill, 11864, and I don't believe anything is added b}^ the 
other bill, which is more tersely stated. 

Mr. Buchanan. You feel it would cover all sections of the commit- 
tee bill. 

Mr. Bennett. I believe it would. 

Mr. Buchanan. Thank you very much. 

jNIr. Bennett. And I also believe it covers everything you can 
legitimately cover. I am not questioning the language of the later 
bill, but it is a more lengthy bill, and perhaps more polished bill, 
and there may be some reasons why you would want to have this 
extra language, but I believe that any assistance to a hostile coun- 
try that you would want to prevent would be prevented by 11864. 

Mr. Buchanan. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Nittle, I tjelieve you have a further addition to make 
to this discussion. 

Mr. N1TT1.E. Yes, sir. It would seem to me, Mr. Pool, that your 
bill would clearly make punishable the solicitation of supplies ulti- 
mately intended for a country with which the United States is engaged 
in hostilities, although indirectly shipped through Moscow or Peking. 

If the destination of supplies were only Moscow or Peking, with 
whom we are not presently engaged in armed conflict, and stopped 
there, you have some problem, but to cut off all communication and 
exports to countries with which you are not actually engaged in hostili- 
ties would raise other issues. The bill doesn't seek, really, to control 
exports generally. It is not an export bill. We have the Export 
Control Act of 1949 which regulates traffic with Communist countries, 
and the bill is not intended, as I understand it, to deal with export 
problems, in general, to Communist countries. 


It is really intended to deal with those ^Yho solicit property, supplies, 
or some thini? that wonld be useful to, and for the benefit of, tlie country 
with which the United States is engao;ed in actual hostilities. 

And so I certainly think that in the light of other legislation that 
controls traffic with Communist countries, the bill probably should 
not be extended, because it isn't intended as an export control bill. 

Mr. Bennett. Yes; I may say even the bill which I introduced 
originally in the Judiciary Committee was not one dealing primarily 
with export ; in fact, it didn't by terms or by intention get into this 

I feel that this explanation of the counsel does limit the activity of 
this bill, because as he says, we already have legislation which does the 
other thing. 

Mr. Pool. Well, I want to instruct the staff to work on this problem 
that has come up, over the weekend, and I want to caution you also that 
in forming this bill, we are going to have to be careful to not ignore 
the help that Soviet Russia is giving to the North Vietnamese. If there 
is any way to write legislation tha,t will take care of the particular situ- 
ation that might come up in the future, it may become of such im- 
portance that it will be self-evident that they are a hostile nation, but 
it is a real problem there, and I think we can take it up in the subcom- 
mittee and work out our problem. All these things can be considered, 
and we appreciate your bill. It will help us very much. I appreciate 
Mr. Ichord bringing the point up, too. 

Mr. Bennett. If I may say 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Buchanan. 

Mr. Buchanan. Excuse me. I don't want to interrupt you. 

Mr. Bennett. Well, there was a little point I was going to make 
here, and I don't want to have any pride of authorship here, because 
after all, it was drawn by lawyers, not myself ; I just gave them what I 
wanted put in it ; but it seems to me that language on page 2, line 3, 
which I introduced in 11864, where it says, "causes or attempts to 
cause interference with or impairment of any operation or activity of 
the military or naval forces of the United States" is just about as broad 
as you would want to get it, and it doesn't get into the question of de- 
fining which country. It looks at it from the standpoint of our 
country, whether it is impairing our military activities, so I would be 
hopeful that the counsel might want to look into this language and, 
possibly, you might want to use some of it, perhaps to get at the things 
you ai'e really trying to get at. Then you won't be involved in defining 
who is a hostile country, so mucli, you will be looking at what our mili- 
tary operations are and whether those military operations are being 
interfered with. 

Mr. Pool. You have one problem there. The help to the Viet Cong 
there and the South Vietnamese Army ; we have got a problem there. 
They are not the United States Armed Forces. You have to remem- 
ber that, at the same time. 

Mr. Bennett. Well, that presents a problem, but not as great a prob- 
lem as this question of defining who is a hostile country, because after 
all, all the operations in South Vietnam that are on our side, and all 
the local people who are fighting on our side for freedom of South 
Vietnam, all their activities are in conjunction with ours, and therefore 


any operation ag-ainst those people is also an operation against us, be- 
cause Ave are allies doing the same thing; so I think the question of 
definition there is much less complex and much clearer than it is when 
you start defining who is a hostile country. 

Mr. Buchanan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the items of testimony we have had as to a form of assistance 
which has been given to the Viet Cong is in terms of medical aid, and 
certain questions have been raised on humanitarian grounds as to 
whether or not this is a proper thing to do. 

If I give medical aicl to a force which is engaged in armed conflict 
with my military forces, I am releasing his resources so that he can 
buy guns and bullets with which to shoot my soldiers down. I would 
therefore assume that under the terms of your shorter bill, that such 
an act would constitute an impairment of the operation or activity 
of the military or naval forces of the United States, engaged in armed 
conflict with the nation. Is this correct ? 

Mr. Bennett. It certainly would in the context of anything that is 
now being done. It is not inconceivable to me that, in harmony with 
this bill after it became law, there could be an international agreement 
by which all nations, whether on my side or the other, might be given 
some assistance in the field of blood, or something of this type, if an 
international agreement was entered into by our country, or some- 
thing of that type, to say on a humanitarian international basis such 
should be done. 

This is not being done now, but conceivably that could be worked 
out, but I think it should be worked out by treaty or some very solemn 
enactment, if it were done. 

Mr. Buchanan. Not as an informal act by individuals or organi- 
zations within the United States. 

Mr. Bennett. That would be prohibited by the law which I have 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Ichord. 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, Mv. Chairman, as I understand it, Mr. Bennett, 
do you feel that clause (1) would prohibit the collection of blood to 
be sent to the Viet Cong. 

Mr. Bennett. I believe it would. And that's its intention. 

Mr. IcHORD. Of course, that would be a matter for the lawyers to 
work out. 

Mr. Bennett. They are going to have a hard tim.e working it out. 

Mr. IcHORD. I think you have to Ije specific on crimes, and I think 
that would be too vague to apprise a person, a defendant, that his 
action is prohibited. 

Mr. Bennett. Well, it might have been, prior to your asking me 
that question. And I appreciate your asking me the question, because 
now I think it won't be, because I think it will be in the legislative 
history that would be covered, and I don't think there is anything in 
it that would prohibit it, and there now is. 

Mr. IcHORD. Of course, when you are drafting a criminal statute, 
though, you have got to have a little more than the legislative history 
of it. The language itself has to be free from vagueness. The defend- 
ant himself has to be apprised by the wording of the statute that this 


particular act is prohibited, and I am a little concerned that if we use 
that language, well, I think we all recognize that it is something that 
we need to look closely at, and we will do that, the members of the staff, 
and I want to give the language considerable study and, also, I want 
the Department of Justice to give us the benefit of their views as to 
what language we need to use. 

Mr. Pool. Do you have anything further ? 

Mr. Buchanan. No, thank you. 

Mr. Pool. Congressman Bennett, we certainly do appreciate your 
appearing, and wo appreciate your introduction of both bills. And 
it is very helpful to this committee for you to be here and attack some 
of these intricate questions we are going to have writing this bill up. 
I have no pride of authorship on the original bill, just as you don't, 
but if we can come up with a good bill and get this thing worked out, 
we are going to do it. 

Mr. Bennett. The vast majority of the American public are deeply 
grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for 
putting up with what you have had to put up with, and doing it courte- 
ously, and doing it in the interests of our country, and trying to work 
out a bill which is needed, and I want to express that appreciation 
to you, sir. 

Mr. Pool. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. 

The next witness will be Mr. Edwin Meese, the deputy district at- 
torney of Alameda County, California. 

Mr. Meese has appeared heretofore as an investigative witness, and 
he is now appearing in the legislative part of this hearing. 


Mr. Pool. Go right ahead. 

Do you have a statement ? 

Mr. Meese. No, I don't, Mr. Chairman, but I would be prepared to 
answer any questions. 

Mr. Pool. Wliy don't I just tee off and ask you what you think about 
the previous discussions you just heard ? Do you have any ideas on it, 
or are you prepared on that legally ? 

Mr. Meese. I certainly would agree with the members of the com- 
mittee on the need for the bill, particularly in view of our own exper- 
ience in the Bay area. There was considerable discussion by local law 
enforcement officers at the time of the troop train incident, particu- 
larly, and subsequently, by local law enforcement officers and the mili- 
tary personnel in relation to the anticipated demonstrations at the 
Oakland Army Terminal, that this was more properly a matter for 
Federal law enforcement than local law enforcement, since the objec- 
tive of these groups was to interfere with and impede the Vietnam 
war effort. 

At the time, however, it was — there was a great deal of reluctance 
on the part of the local Federal authorities to become involved in 
any law enforcement activity or any prosecutions of these people; 
and therefore, inasmuch as there appears to be some uncertainty 
whether Federal law at that time was adequate to cover the specific 


conduct, I think the bill is very necessary and I think it would be 
very helpful, both to local law enforcement and to the Federal offi- 
cials in the Department of Justice, to have a specific offense under 
which they could prosecute this type of activity, such as is contained 
in section 403 of Mr. Pool's bill, 

I would have one suggestion to make in relation to that section, and 
that is, that on page 4, following line 22 — and I might mention paren- 
thetically that subdivision (1) there has to do with interfering with 
the movement of individual members of the Armed Forces; subdi- 
vision (2) has to do with interfering with any facility of transporta- 
tion — and I think it might be well to consider adding a subdivision 
(3), which would forbid interfering with the operation of military 
installations, inasmuch as this seemed to be the objective of the Viet- 
nam Day Committee as they attempted to get into the Oakland Army 
Terminal on their October and November marches. 

This, in brief, would be my comments on the bill in general, and 
my specific suggestions as to that clause. 

Mr. Pool. I think your point is well taken, and the staff, make a 
note of that, and we will check into that and see if we can write a 
point on that. 

JSIr. Ichord. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, of course the witness before us is an 
attorney, and again I want to compliment him for an investigation job 
well done. You have not only done your work well in regard to the 
activities of the Vietnam Day Committee, your investigation work, 
but you were also very adept in articulating it, the results of the in- 
vestigation, to this committee. 

I would like to inquire of you this: What statutes do you have 
in the State of California that could possibly be used for the prosecu- 
tion of the activities that you have described in your testimony be- 
fore this committee ? 

Mr. JNIeese. Well, there are none specifically dealing with people 
throwing themselves in front of troop trains, because up until the in- 
cidents last year, the legislature never contemplated there would be 
people doing this sort of thing. However, there are certain sections, 
such as distrubing the peace, which is the kind of conduct, the inter- 
fering, disturbing the peace section, and there is also a public nuisance 
section, wliich might possibly apply under certain circumstances. 

Mr. IcHORD. Misdemeanor statutes. 

Mr. Meese. Yes ; but they are misdemeanor statutes. Now, on the 
other hand, it is possible under State law, just as it is under Federal 
law, that when persons conspire, you may have a conspiracy, whether 
or not the act is ultimately carried out ; and in California, a conspiracy 
to commit a misdemeanor is itself a felony, regardless of the fact 
that the objective of the conspiracy is a misdemeanor. So it would 
be possible to utilize conspiracy law. 

However, the conspiracy law is usually reserved in prosecutions for 
organized crime, and whether this would be the logical subject for 
conspiracy would perhaps be questionable. 

Mr. IcHORD. Of course, you do agree, as an attorney, that we have 
to spell the prohibitive acts out very specifically ? 

Mr. Meese. Right. 


Mr. IcHORD. You are aware, of course, of the way the courts con- 
strue criminal statutes. 

Mr. Meesp:. Rip:ht. 

Mr. IciiORD. They must fully apprise the defendant of the fact 
that his particular action is prohibited and is criminal. 

Mr. Meese. Yes; and I think you do that in the bill in great detail. 
I don't think anybody could have much question. I am addressing 
myself, of coui*se, particularly to section 403. because this is the type 
of conduct we have been involved with, but section 403 seems to pretty 
clearly lay out what type of conduct is proliibited. 

I might state that a parallel section, which the committee counsel 
and tlie committee might wish to consider, just for comparison pur- 
poses, is section 2387 of Title 18, which has to do with advising, coun- 
seling, or urging Armed Forces members to disobey their orders, and 
it is a related subject, and it is already on the books, so in line with 
your discussion earlier, ]Mr. Ichord, that you would Vv-ant to conform 
any statute with existing statutes, which presumably have validity, 
that is a section you might look at. 

Mr. IcHORD. I didn't cjuite understand your statement in regard 
to prosecution under Federal laws. Is it your understanding that this 
activity is going to be prosecuted under Federal laws? 

Mr. Meese. No ; it is my understanding that it is not. 

Mr. Ichord. And have you been apprised of the reason for failure 
to prosecute ? 

Mr. ]Meese. Not specifically. It was, I believe, the contention of 
the United States attorney on one occasion, the occasion of the troop 
trains, that the Federal statutes that were then available were primarily 
railroad safety statutes, which did not apply to this type of conduct 
as closely as they might for prosecution. 

Mr. IcHORD, Then if there are any Federal statutes which would 
permit a prosecution of this activity, they would indeed be very weak, 
in your opinion. 

Mr. Meese. Right. They are not really relevant to the kind of thing 
these people are engaging in. 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, his point is very well 
taken in regard to forbidding the interference with the operation of 
a military base. I do not believe the bill as presently drafted would 
cover that type of activity. I agree with the gentleman that we should 
look into this particular matter. 

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. I might ask you, from a prosecution standpoint about 
the penalty involved hei-e. What is your opinion on that? 

Mr. Meese. Well, I think, as the chairman indicated earlier, the 
idea of the penalties would be to make them more or less in line with 
other penalties for similar classes of offenses within tlie United States 
■Code. I would bring to your attention, therefore, the fact that the 
penalty for adversely influencing a member of the Armed Forces, the 
section 2387 that I referred to, which I think is a parallel type of pro- 
vision of Federal law, has a penalty of a fine of $10,000 maximum and 
10 years' imprisonment, so it is a matter, really, of whether the com- 
mittee might want to make this a parallel provision, as far as the 
penalty provided in the bill. I would make 


Mr. Pool. Of course, I have had some suggestions that this is the 
same as treason, and of course there is a penahy for treason. 

Mr. Meese. Right. 

Mr. Pool. I say, I am not advocating that. That's wliy I asked you 
this question of prosecution and the question of the enormity of the 
crime. That's what we are trying to look into. 

Mr. Meese. Yes. 

Mr, IcHORD. It would be involved, Mr. Chairman, with a formal 
declaration of war. 

Mr. Pool. TJiat is right. 

Mr. Meese. I would make the observation, if I might, that maximum 
penalties don't really seem to be too important many times, because 
very seldom are maximum penalties given in sentences ; and certainly, 
as far as people being kept in prison, at least that's our experience in 
State law, very seldom do they get anywhere near the maximum that 
they could possibly get, so I am not sure how important this is. 

Mr. Pool, I just want to get your views. You are a prosecutor, 
and I wanted to find out what your idea was, 

Mr. Buchanan. 

Mr. Buchanan". I gather you would think that this would not be 
inappropriate — $20,000, 20 years maximum. 

Mr. Meese. No, I wouldn't think it would be inappropriate. 

Mr. Buchanan. Now you indicated the need for being specific in 
section 403. Would not this same principle apply in section 402 if we 
wished to prohibit acts of assistance to hostile forces? 

Mr. Meese. Yes. It would certainly have to be specific, and I think 
that the provisions of the section from a legal standpoint, where you 
solicit, where you prohibit solicitation, collecting, or receiving of any 
money, property, or thing, seems to spell it out pretty well. 

Mr. Buchanan. Thank you, sir. I appreciate very much your valu- 
able contribution. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Nittle, do you have any questions? 

Mr. Nittle. I would ask the witness, Mr. Chairman, whether he 
has made a thorough review of the Federal criminal law on this sub- 
ject, as I assume he has. 

Mr. Meese, We have gone through the Federal criminal law, but 
I wouldn't say that I have made an exhaustive study of it, inasmuch 
as my familiarity is primarily with State law. 

Mr. Nittle. But as a county prosecutor, you are, of course, con- 
cerned with the Federal law. Did you find in any Federal statute 
that you could use effectively, or that could have been used effectively, 
in law enforcement in California, in coping with the situation you 
had to cope with? 

I assume you cooperated with and communicated with the U.S. 
attorney in the area. 

]Mr. Meese. Yes. I think, Mr. Nittle, that it was the feeling of the 
United States attorney tliat the law available was not adequate to 
give them a good basis for prosecution, and so in essence that was his 
decision, rather than mine, 
Mr. Nittle. Yes. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Meese, section 403 reads : "Wlioever, within the 
United States or elsewhere, owing allegiance to the United States 
* * *." Of course, that would cover any citizen of the United States. 


I am wondering what would be the application of that to people other 
than citizens of the United States. 

Mr. Meese. Yes; this might cause a problem, this section, owing 
allegiance to the United States, inasmuch as you might have a person 
present in the country who does not owe allegiance to the United 
States, inasmuch as they might be an alien, who would participate in 
one of these demonstrations and then, presumably, would not be 
subject to the provisions of this bill. 

Now there may be other reasons for having that in there, but that 
is a problem, I think, that might be considered by the committee. 

Mr. Pool. Make a notation of that, Mr. Nittle. 

Mr. Nittle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Pool. Further questions ? 

Mr. IcHORD. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Buchanan ? 

]\Ir. Buchanan. No, thank you. 

Mr. Nittle. May I have one more question, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Pool. Yes. 

Mr. Nittle. Do you feel there is any question here of States' rights 
versus Federal power ? 

INIr. IMeese. I don't think so, inasmuch as the general congressional 
power to prohibit interference with the Armed Forces and their au- 
thority over the Armed Forces, military installations, and the like, 
it seems to me that the connection with the military forces and mili- 
tary installations clearly puts it within the Federal sphere, and I 
might say that in the State — and I think California's penal laws are 
]">retty similar to other States' laws — we really are not prepared under 
State law to cope with situations like this, because the State doesn't 
have these situations normally arise. They arise in a peculiar situa- 
tion, namely, the Federal military forces. 

So I don't think there would be any problem with States' rights. 

]\Ir. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, the staff just handed me a notation to 
the effect that one of the investigators has determined that there has 
been alien participation in these demonstrations. I concur with Mr. 
Meese that the bill as drawn would not cover aliens, but certainly 
we will need to consider an amendment in that respect. 

Mr. Pool, The point is well taken. 

Any other questions ? 

INIr. Buchanan. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. Well, Mr. Meese, we want to thank you for coming all 
the way from California and for giving us the benefit of your investi- 
gation and also of your legal background and advice on this bill. 
And it is a wonderful effort on your part and you are a great Ameri- 
can and we appreciate your being here. 

Mr. Meese. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Pool. Thank you. 

The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday 

(Subcommittee members present at the time of recess: Representa- 
tives Pool, Ichord, and Buchanan.) 

("Wliereupon, at 3 :05 p.m., Friday, August 19, 1966, the subcom- 
mittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, August 22, 1966.) 

HEARINGS ON H.R. 12047, H.R. 14925, H.R. 16175, H.R. 

Fart 2 


United States House of Eepresentatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D.G. 

PUBLIC hearings 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, 
pursuant to recess, at 10 :15 a.m., in the Caucus Room, Cannon House 
Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. Joe R. Pool (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

(Subcommittee members: Representatives Joe R. Pool, of Texas, 
chairman ; Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri ; George F, Senner, Jr., of 
Arizona; John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio; and Jolin H. Buchanan, Jr., 
of Alabama. Alternate member: Representative Del Clawson, of 

Subcommittee members present : Representatives Pool, Ichord, and 

Staff members present: Francis J. McNamara, director; William 
Hitz, general counsel; Alfred M. Nittle, counsel; Donald T. Appell, 
chief investigator; and Ray McConnon, Jr., and Philip R. Manuel, 

Mr. Pool. The meeting is called to order. 

Counsel, call your first witness. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Fred B, Smith, General Coimsel for the Treasury 
Department, will be the first witness. 

Mr. Pool. Go ahead, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


Mr. Nittle. Would you, Mr. Smith, state your full name and office 
and by whom you are employed ? 

Mr. Smith. Fred B. Smith, General Counsel, U.S. Treasury Depart- 

Mr. Nittle. Do you have a prepared statement ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, I do. 


67-852 — 66— pt. 2 3 


Mr. NiTTLE. Would you kindly deliver same? 

Mr. Smith. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am very glad to 
appear before you today to comment on II.R. 12047, which amends 
the Internal Security Act of 1950. You have also requested testimony 
concerning any actions the Treasury Department has taken relative 
to, or any communication that it has received from, any individuals 
or groups in the United States which have sent, or attempted to send, 
financial remittances or goods to North or South Vietnam for the Na- 
tional Liberation Front of South Vietnam, the National Liberation 
Front of South Vietnam Red Cross, or any other agent or agency of 
North Vietnam. 

First, I will comment on H.R. 12047. Section 402(a) of the bill 
would provide criminal penalties for certain acts connected with the 
collection of funds and property intended for delivery to any hostile 
foreign power or agency, or national thereof, or any person acting 
in hostile opposition to the Armed Forces of the United States. 

Most of the acts that would be covered by this section insofar as 
existing hostilities are concerned are already covered by section 5(b) 
of the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Treasury's Foreign 
Assets Control and Cuban Assets Control Regulations issued there- 

Mr. IciioRD. Mr, Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. Yes. 

Mr. IcHORD. At that point, I hope the witness in his statement will 
cover specifically those acts that are not covered by section 5(b) of 
the Trading with the Enemy Act. I haven't had the opportunity to 
read his statement. Perhaps he does go into it. He does say, "Most 
of the acts," indicating that some of the acts are not covered, so I 
would like for the gentleman to coimiient on the acts that are not 
covered by 5(b). 

Mr. Smith. I shall be happy to do so. I think I cover it in part 
in my statement, and if there are any further questions, I will be 
glad to elaborate. 

Mr. IcHORD. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith. Thus, anyone who might give to any hostile foreign 
power, or agency or national thereof, or to any organization, group, 
or person, acting in hostile opposition to the Armed Forces of the 
United States, or give to another for delivery to such an entity, any 
property, supplies, or thing, or any money or thing of value for the 
purchase thereof, without a license from the Treasury Department, 
would be in violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act. Punish- 
ment for such violation is a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment, 
$10,000 fine, or both. The only thing in section 402(a) that is not 
covered by the Trading with the Enemy Act and Treasury regula- 
tions is the advising, counseling, urging or solicitation of such gifts. 

As to the first part., the actual giving, delivery, or remitting of 
money or property to hostile entities, since it is adequately covered 
by existing legislation and regulations, we feel that enactment of the 
provisions'of section 402(a) is unnecessary. 

As to the second part, the advising, counseling, urging, and solicita- 
tion of gifts of money or property, and whether these should be the 


subject of prohibition in a criminal statute, I do not think the Treas- 
ury has any special competence to express a view. It is noted that 
the Justice^ Department feels that some of these activities may be 
covered by the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Certainly, I should 
say that 1 personally am revolted by the conduct of some of our 
citizens, particularly students and some of tlieir mentors on the 
faculties of some of our outstanding universities 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, at that point, if I may interrupt. 

Mr. Pool. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IcHORD. You say that it is noted that the Justice Department 
feeils that some of these activities may be covered by the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act. Now you state that that is the Justice Department's 
opinion. I am sure that it is not your opinion that such things as, 
where here you are dealing with 402, certainly 403 is not covered in any 
fashion by the Foreign Agents Registration Act, except if they were 
active directly as an agent of a foreign government. 

Mr. SMrrH. That would be my opinion ; yes. 

Mr. IcHORD. Now the Foreign Agents Registration Act would also 
not cover any of the acts in 402, unless they were acting as an agent 
of a foreign power. 

Mr. Smith. Well, now, there, I am not so sure, when you get into 
this solicitation area. However, I don't feel particularly competent to 
interpret that act. The Treasury doesn't deal with that a great deal, 
and I would prefer that you get an opinion on the coverage of that act 
from the Justice Department. I believe you are going to hear from 
Mr. Ramsey Clark tomorrow. I would think that certain forms of 

Mr. IcHORD. If they were as an agent of a foreign government, 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. IcHORD. — acting as an agent of a foreign government, but if 
they were, for example, an American Communist — as we have had 
some of the witnesses before this committee; they have stated that 
they were Communists; that they had nothing but utter contempt 
for their Government and they were in sympathy with the aims and 
objectives of the Viet Cong and of the North Vietnamese; and that 
they intended to solicit blood or any other supplies for the aid and 
comfort of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. But they are 
doing that all under the guise as loyal Americans and, certainly, they 
wouldn't be agents. They would be acting in accordance with the 
aims and objectives of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong, but that cer- 
tainly in and of itself wouldn't make them agents ; would it ? 

Mr. Smith. No, I would think not. I think I would agree with 
your view there. 

Mr. Ichord. I am sorry I interrupted. 

Mr. Smith. Perfectly all right. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Mr. Ichord, may I also point out, with the permission 
of the Chair, that the Foreign Agents Registratioin Act prohibits 
nothing; it merely requires that the agent register with the Attorney 
General prior to conducting certain activities on behalf of a foreign 


Mr. IcHORD. There is a penalty set up for the failure to register, 
though ; is there not ? 

Mr. NiTTLE, Yes ; but it would not prohibit the solicitation or giv- 
ing of money, property, or anything for delivery to a hostile power or 
a power with which we are in armed conflict. 

Mr. Smith. That is my understanding. 

Mr. NiTTLE. It merely requires you to register before you do that, 
which is, of course, of no consequence to the bill. 

Mr. Smith. That is my understanding. 

Certainly, I should say that I personally am revolted by the con- 
duct of some of our citizens, particularly students and some of their 
mentors on the faculties of some of our outstanding universities, in 
advocating assistance to foreign powers and groups who are engaged 
in warfare endangering the lives of members of our Armed Forces. 
I am, therefore, entirely sympathetic with the motives which under- 
lie the sponsorship of this legislation. I do feel, however, that to 
extend the scope of existing law to cover such matters as advocacy and 
solicitation might involve difficult questions of infringement upon 
the constitutional rights of our citizens in the areas of freedom of 
speech, freedom of thought, and so forth. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, at that point, could I interrupt once 
again ? 

Mr. Pool. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IcHORD. Do you — is it your opinion that solicitation of blood 
and medical supplies for the Viet Cong should be protected by the 
guarantees of the first amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of 
thought, freedom of assembly, and so forth? 

Mr. Smith. Not necessarily, but I think that when you go to the 
extent of making illegal the urging of others to solicit or give, you are 
into a gray area on the first amendment. 

Mr. Pool. Well, are there any cases that you can cite me on that? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. Again, I feel I am not an expert on the first 
amendment or on the views of the Supreme Court. I merely point 
out that it is 

Mr. Pool. Has the Supreme Court ever decided that issue? 

Mr. Smith. Not that specific issue, no sir. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Pool. They have never decided that one. 

Mr. Smith. Not to my knowledge, that specific point. 

Mr. Pool. In other words, it is a gray area that they will have to 
decide some day, if this bill passes. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Pool. They have had, in the Dennis case, I think, they had a 
strong dissent, but it was a dissent; it was not the majority opinion, 
in which it indicated that some of the members might take a dim 
view of such an act. Is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. Pool. But there is no majority view, and no case has ever been 
decided saying that we can't legislative in this field, under the first 
amendment ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right, and I am not alleging an absolute con- 
viction that it would not be upheld. 


I am merely saying that we feel it might raise difficult questions 
and, also, I think principally we doubt the necessity of it. As long as 
we effectively stop the remittances, we doubt the necessity of going on 
to that area in the legislation. 

Mr. Pool. All right. But also I want to point out that we haven't 
had any prosecutions on these overt acts and these solicitations we 
heard in this testimony here last week ; have we ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

Mr. Pool. So we really don't know. And there is a difference of 
opinion amongst lawyers, amongst lawyers throughout this land, on 
this question. 

Mr. Smith. I would assume so ; yes. 

Moreover, we are inclined to think that undue publicity has given 
an exaggerated impression of the proportion of our citizenry who 
hold and advocate these reprehensible views. 

Finally, we are inclined to believe that the aid actually received by 
these hostile groups in the form of money or property is minimal. 
For all of these reasons, we have serious doubts as to the wisdom of 
attempting to legislate further in this area. 

There is one further factor that I should like to mention. Undoubt- 
edly there are a certain number of persons in the United States who 
out of humanitarian motives would wish to contribute to the relief 
of civilians who are injured due to the conduct of hostilities, whether 
or not citizens of North or South Vietnam, and regardless of their 
allegiance. The proposed legislation does not clearly distinguish be- 
tween this group on the one hand and those groups which are motivated 
by a desire to help a hostile power in the conduct of its activities 
against the United States and South Vietnamese forces. I do not 
believe that we should make it a crime for persons to solicit funds for 
assistance based on these humanitarian motives. For this reason, I 
believe that in the development of any legislation governing solicita- 
tions, care should be taken to draw a proper distinction. 

Mr. Pool. Now can I interrupt you at this point ? 

Mr. Smith, Yes, sir, 

Mr, Pool, Do you have any language that you would suggest so 
that we could differentiate? 

Mr, Smith, No, I don't. Actually, we, as I point out a little further 
in my statement, we do, in our licensing policy, under our Treasury's 
Foreign Assets Control, exercise that sort of flexibility in consultation 
with the Department of State, and we think that the legislation we 
have now is well adaped to that sort of distinction, 

(At this point Representative Ashbrook entered the hearing room,) 

Mr, Pool, But where these people act without going through De- 
partment, you have no control whatsoever. 

Mr. Smith. Well, we have control over the remittances, through 

Mr. Pool. You do have control over the remittances ? 

Mr. SiMiTH. Yes; we don't have control over their domestic activi- 
ties, in making speeches and soliciting, and so on. 

Mr. IcHORD. At that point, Mr. Chairman, a specific question. Since 
the witness has mentioned the Export Control Act, and he has 
doubted or questioned the wisdom of legislating by statute in the field 


of solicitation and advising, Mr. Counsel, will you give me the Export 
Control Act, the regulations of the Commerce Department? The 
Commerce Department. I want the section dealing with advising and 
solicitation under the regulations. 

Mr. Smith. Sir, I don't believe I mentioned the Export Control Act. 
You may have misunderstood me. 

Mr, IcHORD. I thought you 

Mr. Smith. I was talking about the Treasury Department. 

Mr. IcHORD. I thought you were talking about the Export Control 
Act of the Commerce Department. 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; I was referring to the Trading with the Enemy 
Act and the Treasury Department Foreign Assets Control Regula- 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, then, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw that ques- 
tion and reserve it for the Department of Commerce when it comes 
before the committee. But I have another question to ask the gentle- 
man's comment on this. 

Now he states that the proposed legislation did not clearly distin- 
quish between these groups, on the one hand, and those groups which 
are motivated by the desire to help a hostile power in the conduct of 
its activities against the United States and South Vietnamese forces. 

I observed that comment, in one of the reports, and at first I thought 
an amendment should be considered to take care of that situation. But 
after a closer reading of the bill, I find that it does distinguish between 
those situations, because section 402 reads, "Whoever, within the 
United States or elsewhere, owing allegiance to the United States, 
whenever any element of the Armed P^orces of the United States shall 
be engaged in hostilities abroad * * * gives, or attempts to give, or 
advises, counsels, urges, or solicits another to give or deliver, any 
money, property, or thing * * * to any hostile foreign power," and then 
at the end of page 3, "with the intent, or having reason to believe, that 
such conduct will impede or interfere with the operation or success of 
the Armed Forces of the United States, or in any manner prejudice the 
interests of the United States, or advantage such foreign power, 
agency, national, organization, group, or person * * *." 

This, I would point out to the Counsel, is a specific intent crime, so 
certainly you have to prove that specific intent to advantage the for- 
eign power, or with the intent of impeding or interfering with the 
operation or success of the Armed Forces, or in any manner prejudic- 
ing the interest of the United States. 

I think that would adequately cover the concern which the gentle- 
man has. 

Mr. Smith. It might, sir ; but if you assume, as I do, that, for ex- 
ample, let's say, medical supplies are made available to the Viet Cong, 
you might have reason to believe that that would help the hostile power, 
and if someone just purely out of humanitarian motives wanted to give 
money to be used for medical supplies for either the Viet Cong or the 
South Vietnamese forces or l>oth, it might be deemed technically to 
come under that. 

I am just suggesting, possibly if you were going to legislate, that it 
might be tightened up a little bit to deal with that situation. 

Mr. Ichord. Of course, I am sure the gentleman doesn't agree with 
this type of reasoning which these people use to justify their actions on 


the gToiinds of humanitarian purposes. Obviously you can say that 
any medical aid given the Viet Cong is going to help the Viet Cong 
heal his wounds and perhaps help him to get back in the battle and 
kill American soldiers. I am sure the gentleman wouldn't indulge 
in that type of reasoning himself. 

Mr. Smith. No, I wouldn't; and I suspect the motives of some of 
these people who claim to be operatmg out of humanitarian motives, 
but I do also think that there are a certain number of people in the 
United States that have no desire to help the enemy, but are just moti- 
vated out of humanitarian motives and would like to help wounded 
civilians or military people on either side. I think there are some of 

Mr. Pool. Don't you think, though, that in view of the fact that our 
boys are getting killed over there and getting w'ounded, we are fighting 
a war, whether it is a declared war or not, that you have to stop these 
people from inadvertently helping the enemy, if they don't really 
intend to ? Don't you think M-e need statutes to do that ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I think that the important thing is to stop the 
aid from going. 

Mr. Pool. That is right. 

Now what has been done in that regard ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, that is what we are doing, we believe, and we think 
fairly effectively, with our Foreign Assets Control Regulations. 

Mr. Pool. Let me ask you this question. During the Korean war 
and World War II, World War I, did these humanitarians send aid 
to Red China, North Korea, Hitler's Germany, Japan, or the Kaiser's 
Germany ? What is the record on that ? 

Mr. Smith. I believe that where it was in the national interest of the 
United States, particularly where we were able to use it to obtain help 
for some of our soldiers who were prisoners of war, that certain specific 
licenses were granted for this type of assistance, but I don't have the 
record on that, sir. 

Mr. Pool. But that was done through the Government, and wasn't 
done through a bunch of agitators and radicals running around out 
here taking up funds, the way they want to do it. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Smith. That is correct; and under our existing regulations, 
none of this can be done, except pursuant to a specific license issued by 
the Treasury Department. 

In this connection, it may be of interest to this committee to know 
that in certain types of cases the State Department advocates, and the 
Treasury Department is prepared to license, the transmittal of funds 
or property for these purposes under strictly controlled conditions. 

In order to assure that such donations are used for humanitarian 
purposes, they must be made through the auspices of the International 
Committee of the Red Cross. 

Mr. Pool. Just a minute on that. Let me ask you about that. What 
control do you have over the International Red Cross? What in- 
formation can you find and how is it distributed ? What information 
do you have on that? 

Mr. Smith. Well, we 

Mr. Pool. I was in Switzerland last winter, and I couldn't find out 
a thing. 


Mr. Smith. Well, we have an understanding with them. To begin 
with, we will only license an application to send funds or medical 
supplies,^ on condition that no strings be attached to it and that the 
International Committee of the Ked Cross be allowed to use it any- 
where, and that it be used only for the purchase of medical supplies 
and services. And we have no reason to believe that they are not 
living up to that understanding. And there is an incidental benefit, as 
I point out in the balance of my statement, in that we may be able, 
in this way, possibly to get some assistance to some of our soldiers who 
are prisoners of war, through the International Committee of the Red 
Cross. And this is one of the very few ways we may have of helping 
our soldier prisoners of war over there, of getting some kind of assist- 
ance to them. 

Mr. Pool. They make no reports to you about how the assistance or 
the medical supplies are distributed, or anything like that ? 

Mr. Smith. Not to the Treasury. I don't know whether the State 
Department and other agencies of the Government get any informa- 
tion on that or not. We are pursuing a policy which was advocated 
by the State Department in this particular case. 

Mr. AsiiBROOK. On that point, the transfer of assets, or anything 
like that, doesn't come under your jurisdiction or supei'vision, simply 
because it is a Red Cross ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, we license the transfer of funds for medical sup- 
plies to the International Committee of the Red Cross, under certain 
defined conditions, with consultation with the State Department in 
each individual case, solely for the purchase of medical supplies or 

Mr. Ashbrook. They could go to the Viet Cong, and you wouldn't 
know anything about it, then. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, they could. As a matter of fact, we have not ob- 
tained a commitment from the International Committee of the Red 
Cross that none of this will go to the Viet Cong. It is that it be used 

Mr. Pool. "V^Hiat assurances do they give you that, say, prisoners, 
American prisoners over there, what assurances do they give you that 
the American prisoners are getting any of this ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I don't have any specific reports, but I do under- 
stand that there has been some assistance given to American prisoners 
of war, but I don't have the intelligence data on that. 
Mr. Buchanan. May I make sure I understand now ? 
Under certain circumstances, you do issue licenses for this kind of 
activity, and in some cases you have issued these licenses for people to 
give medical aid to the International Red Cross, which medical aid 
may be used, according to your agreement with the International Red 
Cross, to help either side, including the Viet Cong. Is that correct ? 
Mr. Smith. Yes. I might say, sir, that we have only had three in- 
quiries and that, up to date, only one was followed up to the point of 
a formal license application. We have issued one such license, and I 
think it was for $300. So, I mean, that is the extent of this type of 
transfer of funds, to date. 

There has been recently an inquiry by the Quakers — I should say, I 
have to correct myself. There have been four, because just this last 


week we liacl an application by the Quaker organizations of the Bahi- 
more-Philaclelphia area for a license to transmit up to a thousand 
dollars under these same circumstances, and we have that license under 
consideration and will be consulting with the State Department on 
that one. 

Mr. Buchanan. But now, under present law, it is entirely within 
your discretion. If you wanted to make it $3 million. 

Mr. Smith. Technically, yes. 

Mr. Buchanan. And it would be, between your consultation with 
the State Department and on the basis of their advice and your judg- 
ment, entirely within the discretion of the Treasury Department with 
the advice of State. 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. Buchanan. So if we want to say no, period, to this kind of 
activity, it would require legislation. Is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Technically. 

In order to assure that such donations are used for humanitarian 
purposes, they must be made through the auspices of the International 
Committee of the Eed Cross. Further, in order to make certain that 
donations are used where they will be of maximum benefit to the vic- 
tims of war, the International Committee of the Red Cross must be 
left free to use the gifts to aid victims of war on either side. Addi- 
tionally, to avoid making any foreign exchange available to North 
Vietnam or the Viet Cong, the International Committee of the Red 
Cross must be asked to purchase medical supplies or services with the 
donations received. 

This policy has been established in connection with the efforts of 
the Department of State to assist American military personnel who are 
prisoners of war in North Vietnam. A rigid ban against all solicita- 
tions of remittances such as is provided in the pending legislation 
might well interfere with this effort to assist our military people who 
are captives of North Vietnam. 

Under this policy, we have issued one license authorizing the remit- 
tance of $240 to the International Committee of the Red Cross. The 
licensee is Mary Bemier of the Viet Nam Relief Fund, 1025 Elm 
Street, San Carlos, California. 

We have also received two other inquiries as to the procedure for 
obtaining Treasury licenses for this purpose. The writers of these in- 
quiries were informed of the policy set forth above and were furnished 
application forms but have not to date submitted license applications. 
The persons were : 

Rodgers Taylor Dennen, Box 240, Whitman College, Walla Walla, 
Washington; Lois Lee Rathbun, 830 Calle Cortita, Santa Barbara, 

And then, as I said, just this week, we received this application 
from the Quaker organization, which is pending. 

Turning now to section 403 of the proposed legislation, that section 
would provide criminal penalties for any person who interferes with 
the movement of the Armed Forces or with the movement of supplies 
and material for the Armed Forces. The problem with which this 
section deals lies within the principal competence of the Department 
of Defense. Insofar as the functions of the Treasury Department 


are concerned, this provision is not needed. The only activity of which 
the Department is aware that has impeded the Coast Guard in the 
performance of its missions as an armed force concerns interfer- 
ence by members of various organizations with the launching of naval 
vessels. In this regard, the Coast Guard has authority under the 
Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.) to promulgate regulations 
establishing limited access areas in connection with the launching of 
naval vessels. Penalties for violation are imprisonment for not more 
than 10 years and a fine of not more than $10,000. The Treasury 
Department defers to tho, views of the Department of Justice as to the 
necessity for additional criminal sanctions in this area, since that 
Department would be primarily responsible for enforcing the pro- 
visions of section 403. 

Mr. Pool. There have been no prosecutions on that, either? 

Mr. Smith. I don't know of any ; no. But we now, under a recent 
amendment of the executive order, we now, in advance of the launch- 
ing of a vessel, publish in the Federal Register areas which are re- 
stricted, and then we patrol tliose areas, so that anybody and every- 
body is kept out, and we think that, as far as our limited, operations 
are concerned, we have adequate legislation. 

As I say, this is really not a Treasury problem, since the Coast 
Guard is the only military organization we have. 

Mr. Pool. Before we get completely away from this previous sec- 
tion, isn't it a fact that despite your Treasury Department regula- 
tions, $1500 was sent to the Viet Cong by so-called medical aid groups 
in California? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Pool. Do you want to explain more about that? I think we 
took care of the situation after it had happened. Isn't that right? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; I go into that, right now, in my statement. 

Mr. Pool. Oh, all right. 

Mr. Smith. You have also requested that I testify as to actions the 
Treasury Department has taken relative to persons in the United 
States who have sent, or have attempted to send, money or goods to the 
Viet Cong. In those cases where we have had information that a 
group intends to send funds or supplies to North Vietnam or the Viet 
Cong, we have either by letter or by personal interview placed such 
groups on notice that the proposed activity was illegal in the absence 
of a Treasury license. Specifically, we have sent letters to this effect 
to the Medical Aid Committee, Box 1128, Berkeley, California, and to 
the chairman of the Committee to Aid the Vietnamese, c/o the Uni- 
versity of Michigan. Copies of these letters were furnished to this 
committee with our letter of August 10, 1966. We have also sent this 
type of letter of warning to other groups not mentioned in the com- 
mittee's inquiry of August 1, 1966. These letters were sent to: 

Stanford Committee for Medical Aid to Vietnam, c/o Stanford 
ITniversity, Palo Alto, California; MSU Humanist Society, Cresskill, 
New Jersey. 

In addition, on October 29, 1965, representatives of the Treasury 
visited the office of the May 2nd Movement at 640 Broadway, New 
York. Two representatives of that group were personally advised of 
the prohibitions of the regulations and were requested to convey this 
information to all branches and members of the May 2nd Movement. 


We subsequently found that, despite our warning, the Medical Aid 
Committee sent $1,500 to tlie Liberation Red Cross via Prague, 

Mr. IcHORD. What was the date of that ? 

Mr. Smith. The date of the remission of the funds ? 

Mr. IcHORD. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. There was one $500 remittance and one $1000 remittance. 
If you will bear with me just a minute, I can give you those dates. 

The first one of $500 was on January 24, 1966, and the second one 
was on February 24, 1966. 

Mr. IciiORD. The reason why I ask, the drafts were remitted subse- 
quent to the dates of notice. 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. IciiORD. Subsequent to the visit of the representatives of the 
Treasury on October 29, 1965. So there was no question about there 
being notice that such remittances were in violation of Department of 
the Treasury regulations. 

Mr. S]MiTH. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Pool. Is the Justice Department going to explain to us why no 
prosecution was had in this matter ? 

Mr. Smith. I think that I could explain, also, if you wish me to. 

Mr. Pool. All right. Go ahead. 

Mr. IciiORD. Prior to that, I wish the witness, in his explanation, 
would also explain the procedures which the Treasury Department and 
the Department of Justice employ in arriving at a decision whether 
or not to prosecute. That is, this is a violation of Department of 
Treasury regulations, but I assume that the Department of Justice is 
the agency which makes the decision as to whether or not to prosecute. 

Mr. Smith. Yes. Well, the general procedure is this: When we 
detect a violation of our regulations, we investigate it thoroughly, and 
then there is a memorandum that goes to the Justice Department, 
giving it all of the evidence that we have obtained, and it may contain 
a recommendation for prosecution, or it may just pass the information 
on to the Justice Department. 

Mr. IciTORD. In this instance, what was the recommendation of the 
Treasury Department ? 

Mr. Smith. In this instance, I think that the matter was handled 
informally. Before any memorandum was sent, I think there were 
meetings held with both the State Department and the Justice Depart- 
ment, and because of certain technical problems with the prosecution, 
it was decided that in this case we would not prosecute. Following 
that, we 

Mr. AsHBROOK. "Wliat were these technical things you are talking 
about ? 

Mr. Smith. The teclinical problem was this : That under our regu- 
lations. North Vietnam is a designated country, and our regulations 
prohibit any financial transactions by or on behalf of designated 
foreign countries. Now as the regTilations stood at the time that this 
violation was detected, in order to convict the defendant, you would 
liave to be able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Viet 
Cong and the Liberation Red Cross were agencies of the North Viet- 
namese Government. Now everybody knows, as a matter of fact. 


that they are under the control of the North Vietnamese Government, 
but it is not a very easy thinj^ to prove, and you can imagine 

Mr. IciTORD. Not evei-ybody. There are many groups in the coun- 
try who feel that the Viet Cong are an independent force and inde- 
pendent of the North Vietnamese, 

Mr. Smith. "Well, as you can see, this would have to be debated, 
and evidence would have had to be adduced on that, and we would 
have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Mr. IciiORD. Well, you are in a position of not being able to do 

Mr. Pool. Everybody agrees that the Viet Cong is hostile to the 
United States. 

JSIr. Smith. Yes. So as a result of that, we have amended our regu- 
lations and have specifically designated the Liberation Ked Cross as 
a designated national, so that now we are not confronted wdth the 
technical difficulty in the event that another instance of this occurs. 
^Ve now are able to 

Mr. Pool. You don't think a statute is necessary to take care of 
that. You think a regulation is good enough in a criminal case? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, yes ; yes, indeed. 

Mr. Pool. You think it is sufficient. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, indeed. 

Mr. IciiORD. Mr. Chairman, since we are into this point, I have 
many specific questions on the Trading with the Enemy Act, and I 
would like to inquire of the witness as to how the Treasury Depart- 
ment amended its regulations to cover this situation. That is, these 
reports, to me, are absolutely inconsistent. The report of the Depart- 
ment of Justice, and the reports of the other Departments, deferring 
to the Department of Justice, are either in error, or to me, tliey con- 
stitute a prima facie case of self-indictment of the Department of 
Justice for the failure to prosecute some very flagrant, premeditated 
and intentional violations of the laws affecting the security of this 
country. And I just can't harmonize the various views of the report. 
Now you stated that you thought you had sufficient laAv to curtail 
this type of activity. But yet, you are now saying that because of 
technical difficulties, you did not think you could get a con^dction, and 
that's the point that is at issue here. 

If you have sufficient law, then why did you not prosecute? You 
are now admitting that you didn't have sufficient law. 

Mr. Smith. Well, we have 

Mr. IciioRD. And that's the thing I am concerned about. Failure 
to enforce the law breeds disrespect for the law, and I agree, any law 
that is on the books should be enforced, or it should be taken out, taken 
off the books. I just don't understand the gentleman at all. 

Mr. Smith. Well, sir, I think, to give you a simple answer, we have 
corrected, by an amendment of our regulations, the teclinical defi- 
ciency that made it questionable. 

Mr. Ichord. Oh, you are saying, then, that at first you didn't have 
regulations to cover the situation, but now you have amended your 
regulations so that you do have regulations that will cover the situation. 

Mr. Smith. That is right. That is right. 

Mr. IcHOED. Now how have you amended the regulations? 


Mr. Smith. Well, in our basic regulations at the time this violation 
occurred, the only designated national applicable here was North Viet- 
nam. So that we could only prosecute people for financial transac- 
tions with the Government of North Vietnam or nationals of North 
Vietnam or agents thereof. And that posed this technical difficulty 
of having to prove that the Liberation Ked Cross and the Viet Cong 
were agents or under the control of the North Vietnamese Govern- 

Mr. IciiORD. That is because — now let me get this correct — that is 
because the regulations designated North Vietnam as a blocked 
country ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. IcHORD. But did not designate South Vietnam ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. Now 

Mr. IcHORD. Now you have amended the regulations ? 

Mr. Smith. We have amended our regulations. 

Mr. IcHORD. To designate South Vietnam as a blocked country ? 

Mr. Smith. No, we specifically designate as blocked nationals the 
National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, the Viet Cong, and the 
National Liberation Front of the South Vietnam Hed Cross. Those 
three are now specifically designated, so that any remittance or finan- 
cial or other transaction with them would now be clearly a violation 
of our regulations and of the Trading with the Enemy Act. 

Mr. Nittle. As of what date ? 

Mr. IcHORD. Under what section ? 

Mr. Smith. As of June 1966. 

Mr. IcHORD. Under what section of the Trading with the Enemy 
Act are you hanging that regulation ? 

Mr. Smith. Section 5 (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which 

Mr. IcHORD. You are construing section 5(b) to read, "investigate, 
regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any 
acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, trans- 
portation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising 
any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involv- 
ing, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof 
has any interest" ? 

You are amending under the term "national" ? 

Mr. Smith. "National thereof." We have designated these organ- 
izations as nationals. 

Mr. Pool. Let me ask you this question. What would happen if they 
changed their names and called themselves something else, over there? 

Mr. Smith. Well, of course the mere specific designation, and we 
point this out very carefully, does not prevent the basic law from 
applymg, namely, that any transaction with anybody who is acting 
for, or on behalf of, or under the control of, the North Vietnamese 
Government or the Viet Cong is prohibited. There you would have to 
adduce proof to prove that the funds were destined ultimately, either 
for North Vietnam or for the Viet Cong. If you couldn't prove that, 
you would have to do what we have done here, whenever you hear 
of such an organization, specifically designate them. 

Mr. Pool. That's why I am asking this question now. Do you have 
to change your regulations everytime that this happens ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes ; but we f requently- 

Mr. Pool. But you lose the case that you have got each time. 

Mr. Smith. We might if there were insufficient proof that the funds 
were destined for the Viet Cong. 

Mr. Pool. That is right. So all they have got to do is change their 
name every so often and they avoid prosecution. Is that correct? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir, if the proof were inadequate. I think, possibly, 
though, you could run into the same difficulty under section 402(a), as 
to what is a hostile power or an agency of a hostile power. I am not 
sure that 

Mr. Pool. I think that catches them a whole lot better, though, than 
having to specifically name them ; don't you ? 

Mr. Smith. I am not sure that it does, to be honest with you. Be- 
cause you would have under 402(a), I think, problems of determining 
who was a hostile power or a hostile force. 

Mr. IcHOKD. How does your regulation read, again, now? 

Mr. Smith. Well, the amendment says: "The following organiza- 
tions or associations of persons have been determined to be specially 
designated nationals of North Vietnam." And then, as I said, we 
named the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, the Viet Cong, 
and the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam Red Cross. 

Our basic regulation says that, this is Section 500.201 of the Treas- 
ury Department's Regulations. It is rather long. If you would like 
me to, I will read it. It is on page 2 of that pamphlet, the Treasui*y 
Department pamphlet there. 500.201, on page 2. 

Mr. Pool. Go ahead and read it. 

Mr. Smith. [Reading:] 

(a) All of the following transactions are prohibited, e'Xcept as specifically 
authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury (or any person, agency, or instru- 
mentality designated by him) bj" means of regulations, rulings, instructions, 
licenses, or otherwise, if either such transactions are by, or on behalf of, or 
pursuant to the direction of any designated foreign country, or any national 
thereof, or such transactions involve property in which any designated foreign 
country, or any national thereof, has at any time on or since the effective 
date of this section had any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or 
indirect, ( 1 ) — 

these are the things that are prohibited, except pursuant to license — 

(1) All transfers of credit and all payments between, by, through, or to any 
banking institutions or banking institutions wheresoever located, with respect 
to any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or by any 
person (including a banking institution) subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States ; 

(2) All transactions in foreign exchange by any person within the United 
States; and 

(3) The exportation or withdrawal from the United States of gold or silver 
coin or bullion, currency or securities, or the earmarking of any such property, 
by any person within the United States. 

(b) All of the following transactions are prohibited, except as specifically 
authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury (or any person, agency, or instru- 
mentality designated by him) by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, 
licenses, or otherwise, if such transactions involve property in which any 
designated foreign country, or any national thereof, has at any time on or 
since the effective date of this section had any interest of any nature what- 
soever, direct or indirect : 

(1) All dealings in, including, without limitation, transfers, withdrawals, 
or exportations of, any property or evidences of indebtedness or evidences of 


ownership of property by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States ; and 

All transfers outside the United States with regard to any property or property 
interest subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

(c) Any transaction for the purpose or which has the effect of evading or 
avoiding any of the prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this 
section is hereby prohibited. 

(d) The term "designated foreign country" means a foreign country in the 
following schedule and the term "effective date" and the term "effective date 
of this section" means with respect to any designated foreign country or any 
national thereof, 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, of the date specified in 
the following schedule. 

And then we have a schedule of countries and effective dates, 
including China, North Korea, and North Vietnam, i.e., "Viet-Nam 
north of the I7th parallel of north latitude," and May 5, 1964, is the 
date when North Vietnam was designated a blocked area. And then, 
as I said, on June 17, 1966, we specifically designated as nationals 
these three organizations, the Viet Cong and the National Liberation 
Front of South Vietnam, and the Liberation Eed Cross. 

Mr. Pool. Well, under your testimony, then, if a person sends an- 
other $1,500 over there to another organization other than the one 
designated there, then you would have to change the regulations, and 
you couldn't prosecute them for the $1,500 that they sent. 

Mr. Smith. Not necessarily, sir; no. 

Mr. Pool. All right; explain that, then. 

Mr. Smith, Well, it woukl depend on what you have to prove. It 
might be that we would have very good proof of a noncontroversial 
nature that this new organization was an agency of the North Viet- 
namese Government. 

Mr. Pool. Wouldn't it be just as easy to prove they were hostile to 
the United States as it would be to prove that? 

Mr. Smith. Just as easy; yes. I am not sure it would be any easier. 

Mr. Pool. So my bill, that calls for a hostile power or a hostile 
force, is just as good as your regulation from a practical standpoint 
or a prosecution standpoint? 

Mr. Smith. Just as good, yes. 

Mr. Pool. All right. 

Mr. Smith. On that particular question. 

Mr. Pool. And in fact I think it would be better, because it would 
cover, you wouldn't have to change it every so often, like you would 
have to do. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; but as I pointed out, we are concerned about 
the lack of flexibility, in that it doesn't peiTnit certain— the licensing 
of certain transactions which might be in the national interest. 

Mr, Pool. Well, I am trying to stop the Viet Cong from getting 
this aid. And that way, I think, it is going to accelerate getting us 
through the war over there. 

Mr. Smith. Would you like me to continue? 

Mr, Pool. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. Smith. We subsequently found that, despite our warning, the 
INIedical Aid Committee sent $1,500 to the Liberation Red Cross via 
Prague, Czechoslovakia. We then blocked this amount in the U.S, 
accounts of the Czech bank which had received these remittances for 
the Viet Cong, thereby nullifying the intended foreign exchange bene- 
fit to the Viet Cong of the remittances. We were able to deprive the 


Viet Cong of the benefit of these illegal remittances even though the 
necessary information was not obtained until some time after the funds 
were sent. This blocking action demonstrates, we hope, that it" is 
futile under our existing regulations for any group to send funds to 
the Viet Cong without our license. Moreover, the blocking of the 
amount of these illegal remittances in the Czech bank's accounts 
served to close off a principal remittance channel which would other- 
wise have been available to groups wishing to send funds to the Viet 
Cong without our license. The action further served as a warning to 
other foreign banks not to permit their facilities to be used for such 
illegal remittances and as a reminder to American banks of the 
requirements of the regulations. The American bank was repri- 
manded for its negligence in handling these remittances for the 
Medical Aid Committee. Copies of our correspondence with that West 
Coast bank were furnished to this committee with our letter of August 
10, 1966. 

Similarly, we have just ascertained that a money broker in Hong 
Kong named Chin Sing Yap Tong has cashed some dollar checks 
which had been sent to the North Vietnamese commercial representa- 
tive in Hong Kong for the Viet Cong. We therefore have named this 
money broker as a designated national. This action makes it illegal 
for any American to deal with the money broker. Transactions by 
foreign banks in United States dollars with this money broker are 
likewise prohibited. We are continuing our investigation of money- 
changers in Hong Kong who may be cashing checks for the Viet Cong. 

Mr. Pool. How much money is involved ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, we don't know how many of these small checks 
may have gotten into the hands of these moneychangers. We do know 
that the three that were involved here, where we got onto this fellow, 
I think two of them were $5 and one was $10, something like that. 

Mr. Pool. But you don't know how many hundreds or thousands of 
these checks probably were cashed ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; we are inclined to think it is small; but, of 
course, you can't absolutely shut that off, without mail censorship. 

Mr. IcHOED. Now if you find out that any other moneychangers 
are receiving such money, you will put them on the list? 

Mr. Smith. We will put them on the list, too, but I think there are 
a lot of moneychangers in Hong Kong. 

Mr. Pool. Suppose a U.S. group were to send through an organiza- 
tion to Moscow or Prague or Budapest, would prosecution be possible, 
if it were designated that it was for a Moscow or Prague or Budapest 
group ? How would that affect it ? 

Mr. Smith. Sorry. If they indicated they Avanted money to go to 
the Viet Cong or North Vietnam ? 

Mr. Pool. No ; it would be sent through a Moscow, Prague, or Buda- 
pest group. Could you prosecute under that ? 

Mr. Smith. If it was for the purpose of aiding the North Viet- 
namese Government, or the Viet Cong, indirectly, we could; yes. 
But, of course, there is no — we have no prohibitions at present on 
financial dealings as such with the Soviet bloc. 

Mr. Pool. Go ahead. 

Mr. Smith. Although we believe such action enables us to prevent 
any sigTiificant foreign exchange benefit to the Viet Cong, it would 


be difficult if not impossible to completely stop all milicensed remit- 
tances in the absence of wartime censorship controls, and even then 
some might still escape detection. 

Mr, Pool. Let me ask you about Vv^artime censorship controls. 
What do you mean by that ? 

Mr. Smith, I mean authority to open mail and see whether illegal 

Mr. Pool. I didn't understand you. Say that again. 

Mr. Smith. Authority to open mail. To see if illegal remittances 
are being made. 

Mr. Pool. Do you have that authority ? 

Mr. Smiiti. No, we do not. We can, and we have in the past, ob- 
tained court orders, I thmk, in four or five cases, in connection with 
our China controls. Communist China, but you have to make a prima 
facie case in order to get such a court order. 

In other words, you have to have some basic facts to convince the 
court that there is a likelihood of illegal remittances going through 
this particular port, let's say, to this particular designee. Then you 
can get a court order, authorizmg the opening of the mail going to 
that particular addressee. 

Mr. Pool. Does it make any difference whether it is a declared war 
or undeclared war ? 

Mr. SaiiTH. No, sir. 

Mr, Pool, You have enough authority either way ? 

Mr, Smith, Yes ; we did this in connection with Communist China, 
and our controls over Communist China, in a number of cases, 

Mr, Pool, Go ahead. 

Mr. Smith. On August 10, 1966, the Washington Post carried a 
report that Quakers in the Washington-Baltimore area were deter- 
mined to send aid to victims of the fighting in North Vietnam even 
though it is illegal to do so. The Quaker representatives on the fol- 
lowing day informed the Department of State that they do not wish 
to do anything illegal and hope that a license will be granted to permit 
such humanitarian remittances. They were informed of the licensing 
policy concerning assistance through the International Conmiittee of 
the Red Cross and advised to apply for the necessary Treasury license. 
They subsequently did so, requesting permission to send up to $1,000 in 
this fashion. The Quaker application is presently under considera- 
tion by the Treasury Department, which is consulting with the De- 
partment of State as to whether it should be approved in the national 
interest. We have also sent a letter through the Federal Reserve Bank 
of Richmond to all banks in the area alerting them to the possibility 
of attempted illegal remittances by the Quakers. The banks were 
asked to bring any such attempts to our attention. 

We also noted over the weekend, in the New York Tiines, a report 
that the Quaker organizations in New York City are planning to send 
remittances for medical aid. And we are in the process of alerting the 
New York banks to be on the lookout for any illegal remittances in 
the New York area. 

Mr. Pool. Well, now, I read an article somewhere; it said the 
Quakers were going ahead and send the aid, regardless of the law, I 
have seen that in the press release. 

67-852— 66— pt. 2- 


Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Pool. Is it possible for them to do that, regardless of the law, 
or do you have the control that would keep them from doin<^ that, if 
they Avanted to do it ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, unless some bank neg-lifvently lets one of these go 
through, as happened in the case of these $1,500 on the West Coast, 
remittances through banking channels should not be able to go through. 

Mr. Pool. Are there any other channels they could go through? 

Mr. Smith. Well, there are two. 

Mr. Pool. Legal or illegal ? 

Mr. Smith. There are two principal channels. Both would be il- 

Mr. Pool. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. But two principal channels. Of course, it is possible to 
send cash through the mail, if you want to risk the loss of it. Also, it is 
possible to send checks. Now if a check is sent, drawn on a U.S. bank, 
under our regulations, the bank, when that check comes in for pay- 
ment, is obligated not to honor it and to notify us of the violation, if 
it involves a remittance to a designated national. 

Mr, Pool. Wliat penalty do you have, if they don't notify you ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, technically 

Mr. Pool, Banking laws? 

Mr. Smith, Well, it is primarily the severe penalties under the Trad- 
ing with the Enemy Act, if it were a willful violation. I suppose under 
the banking laws, if they were guilty of gross negligence, the bank 
supervisory agencies might be able to take some action, I am not sure. 

Mr. Pool. Could you prosecute a bank for being negligent ? 

Mr. Smith. No, but I must say this, sir. That the banks are very 
familiar with our Foreign Assets Control Regulations. We have had 
this type of control in ever since World War II, and on the whole tlie 
cooperation of the banks is tremendous, and we think they do a good 
job, on the whole. It was unfortunate that this one 

Mr. Pool, I am sure they do, but I just asked the question. 

Mr. Smith. But with all the possible avenues that there are for get- 
ting money abroad, I don't think that there is any system that can pre- 
vent an occasional remittance from slipping through. But I think we 
do a pretty good job on the whole 

Mr, Pool, I am sure you do, 

Mr, Smith, — in controlling them. 

So we sent a letter to the Federal Reserve Banks, asking them to 
notify all the banks in the area. As a matter of fact, on that West 
Coast one, we had a specific alert out there. And, nevertheless, some 
bookkeeper put these remittances through. Whenever we, in addition 
to general publication of our regulations, whenever we hear of some 
possible attempt, we try to specifically alert the banks in that area to be 
on the lookout for it, as a further check. 

Mr, Bttchanan, May I ask a question at this point ? 

Many banks are highly computerized. Does this constitute any dif- 
ficulty, in a computerized operation, of pinpointing this in time? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I don't know whether it does. I think the volume 
of banking business constitutes a difficulty, but my understanding 


is that they still have to have a visual examination by somebody of all 
checks that come in for payment. For example, they check for en- 
dorsements, and so on. So I think that there is still, in spite of the 
computerization, there still is a personal review of all checks coming 
into banks for payment. 

Mr. Pool. But you have no regulations on the way they operate. 

Mr. Smith. No; we don't tell them how to conduct their business. 

Mr. Pool. Go ahead. 

Mr. Smith. As I indicated earlier, it is the policy of the Treasuiy 
Department to administer these regulations veiy strictly in order to 
prevent any unauthorized foreign exchange accruals to blocked areas. 
We do not license any such transactions unless there is a clear-cut 
demonstration that it is in the national interest to do so, as in the 
example I cited earlier of assisting American prisoners of war. 

To sum up, therefore, the Treasury does not favor enactment of 
H.R. 12047 for the following reasons : 

(1) It is unnecessary since adequate authority to control the remit- 
tance problem exists and is in full use ; 

(2) The ban imposed on silicitations is inflexible and could inter- 
fere with U.S. efforts to aid our captured military personnel ; and 

(3 ) The Coast Guard has adequate authority to prevent interference 
with its launchings of vessels. 

Thank you for this opportunitv to explain the Treasury's views on 
H.E. 12047. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Ichord. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, I thanli Mr. Smith for appearing be- 
fore the committee and at least casting some insight to the law gov- 
erning this situation, but I must say to the gentleman that I am indeed 
surprised that the Treasuiy Department would take this position. 
But I honestly feel that the Department of the Treasury, in taking 
this position, is actually inviting the groups such as the Progressive 
Labor Party, the Vietnam Day Committee, and the Medical Aid to 
Vietnam Committee, and the May 2nd Movement to go out and solicit 
funds for the Viet Cong. Let me ask the gentleman this question : 

Under the law, the Treasury Department regulations, which are the 
regulations governing solicitation of funds for the Viet Cong and the 
North Vietnamese, is it not true that these groups can go out and 
solicit and solicit and solicit and solicit and at that point, they are 
not violating any law or Treasury Department regulations of the 
United States Government? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. Ichord. The only point that they would violate the law is 
when they succeed in sending these funds to the designees, the Viet 
Cong or the North Vietnamese ? 

Mr. Smith. Not necessarily succeed, sir. 

Mr. Ichord. Are you saying that an attempt to send the funds? 
Now the solicitation, you have agreed, is not a violation. Are you 
saying that an attempt to send the funds would be a violation of the 

Mr. Smith. No, not an attempt, but the act of sending the funds ■ 

Mr. Ichord. The act of sending the funds ? 

Mr. Smith. The act of sending the funds, which the bank may stop, 
or you could also have, of course, a conspiracy, followed by an overt 


act, wliicli would be a criminal violation. But I believe under Fed- 
eral law that attempts a re not 

JMr. IcHORD. That is one thing that I want to explore. 

Now, the Trading with the Enemy Act contained in Section 5(a) 
and Section 5(b), paragraph (3) of 5(b) reads as follows: 

As used in this subdivision tlie term "United States" means tlie United States 
and any place subject to tlie jurisdiction thereof: Provided, hoivever, That the 
foregoing shall not be construed as a limitation upon the power of the President, 
which is hereby conferred, to prescribe from time to time, definitions, not 
inconsistent with the purposes of this subdivision, for any or all of the terms 
used in this subdivision. Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of 
this subdivision or of any license, order, rule or regulation issued thereunder, 
shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, 
may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both ; and any ofiicer, director, 
or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation may 
be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both. As used in this subdivision, 
the term "person" means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation. 

Now, m your report, dated August the I7th, by "you," the Depart- 
ment, you admit that solicitation is not covered, as you stated a while 

You say with respect to the provisions of section 402(a), providing 
criminal penalties for advising, counseling, urging, or soliciting the 
giving or sending of such property, it should be noted the existing 
Treasury regulations do not prohibit such acts, unless they are a part 
of a conspiracy to violate the regulations. 

Now, of course, the gentleman, as a lawyer, is well aware of the fact 
that there are no — no common law crimes existing under Federal law. 

Mr. Smith. There is a general offense of conspiracy. Conspiracy to 
commit an offense against the United States is a specific statutory 
offense in the Criminal Code. 

Mr. IcHORD. Of coui-se, solicitation to commit a crime is a common 
law crime, but it is no Federal crime. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IcHORD. Unless there is a statute specifically stating that solici- 
tation to commit a crime is a crime, in and of itself. 

Mr. Smith. That is my understanding. 

Mr. IcHORD. I cannot see how you can even cover conspiracy under 
the Trading with the Enemy Act, because it states: "Whoever will- 
fully violates any of the provisions." Is conspiracy — Where is your 
authority to declare that a conspiracy would be a crime ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, if they had a meeting, let's say, and said, "We 
are going to solicit funds and then we are going to send them to the 
Viet Cong, through Canada," or something like that, and they clearly 
agreed at the meeting that they were going to coinmit a willful viola- 
tion, and then they solicited the funds, and put them in a bank ac- 
count, preparing to send them, I think that you might have a conspir- 
acy agreement followed by an overt act, and that particular case, the 
solicitation of the funds might be the overt act which would complete 
the conspiracy, the crime of conspiracy. But, of course, there you 
run into the question of proof. There you have to prove that they had 
this meeting to do this. 

Mr. IcHORD. Of course, proof would be very difficult. It is always 
difficult in a conspiracy, and this is a very interesting question of law. 


I would like to have some citations, if the gentleman has any, as to 
whether you would have the authority for holding a conspiracy in 
violation of the Treasury regulations. 

Mr. Si^riTH. "We w^ould be glad to submit a memorandum on that. 

Mr. IcHOUD. You might be able to find the cases ? 

Mr. Smith. I think we had one, as a matter of fact. I think we 
had one conviction, but in any event, I would be happy to. 

Mr. IcHORD. Now, of course the statute says 

Mr. Pool. Well, do you recall how far back that conviction was, on 
the conspiracy ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I am thinking of the China Daily News case. 
It was a Communist Chinese case, and I am not sure whether there was 
a count of conspiracy in there or not. I just seem to recollect that 
there was. I am not positive on it. 

I am informed that we have had a couple of convictions of con- 
spiracy. I think they were not within the 

Mr. IcHORD. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act ? 

Mr. Smith. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, and not relat- 
ing to North Vietnam. I think they were under our controls relating 
to Communist China. But the same principle applies. 

Mr. Pool. Would you yield there ? 

You have not felt that you had a conspiracy case in any of these, 
this aid to the Viet Cong ? 

Mr. Smith. No, because we have not had the proof of any conspir- 
acy to commit a willful violation. 

You see, the original agreement 

Mr. Pool. As Mr. Ichord says, it would be more difficult to prove 
the conspiracy than it would an actual act of sending the money. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, it certainly would be more difficult to prove the 
conspiracy than the act of solicitation. I think that is absolutely 

Mr. Ichord. Now, have you, in the regTilations, established as a 
crime the attempt to violate the regulations ? 

Mr. Smith. No. 

Mr. Ichord. Then an attempt to send the money would not be a 
violation ? 

Mr. Smith. No; but, of course, the act of drawing a draft, let's 
say, could be the transaction which would place you in willful viola- 
tion, even though the money never got there. 

In other words, in that sense, it is like an attempt. In other words, 
if I go into a bank and deposit $500, and say, "Send it to the Viet 
Cong," and I willfully intend to have that done, or if I — In other 
words, it does not have to be completed. The money does not have 
to get there to be a violation of our regulations. 

Mr. Pool. Do you need another statute to give you more power to 
promulgate regulations that would cover that? Or is the statute 
that you are operating under sufficient for you to promulgate a regu- 
lation to that effect ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, sir, I would certainly say that our statute and our 
regulations do not cover the solicitation or the advocating of others 
to send money or property to North Vietnam, and if the committee 
and the Congress feel that that is an area wliich, in the national 


interest, requires to be, needs to be prohibited, then I would say that 
our statute and our regulations are not adequate, 

I thirik our opinion is that the important thing is to prevent these 
remittances, and we feel that if that is what is necessary, then our 
existing statute and our existing regulations are sufficient. 

Mr. IciiORD. But you do not have any way to stop the solicitation of 
these funds ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. Pool. And this bill does do that. 

Mr. Smith, That is right. 

Mr. Pool. Do you have further questions ? 

Mr. IcHORD. No further questions, Mr. Chairman, 

Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Pool. Mr, Buchanan, 

Mr, Buchanan. Let me ask you one more thing about those Quaker 

You say that they desired and requested permission to send up to a 
thousand dollars in this fashion for the, quote, "humanitarian purpose 
of giving aid to the victims of hostilities in Xortlj Vietnam,'" 

Mr. Smith, In Vietnam, anywhere. North or South. 

Mr. Buchanan. North and South, and this would be done through 
the International Committee of the Red Cross ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir, 

Mr, Buchanan, And such aid could go to divisions engaged in a 
red-hot battle against the Marines, First Cavalry, First Infantry, pro- 
vide medical aid for their wounded. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Smith, Yes, or to the South Vietnamese forces, also, 

Mr. Buchanan. Thank you, 

Mr. Pool. What chance would you have of getting a conviction, 
if, after soliciting of funds, they were turned over to a Communist 
delegate to the United Nations in New York City ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, we could prohibit — we could prosecute the per- 
son turning them over to the Communist delegate. 

Mr. Pool, Could not the Communist courier travel to Moscow 
or Hanoi with the funds ? You never would find out about it, prob- 
ably. So don't you think it is pretty important that we stop the solici- 
tation of funds? 

Mr, Smith. I would like to see the solicitation of funds intended to 
help the enemy in its acitivities against the United States stopped, if 
there were some way that constitutionally this could be done. 

On the other hand, we do not favor prohibitions which would 
make it a crime for people, solely out of humanitarian motives, to 
solicit funds for nondiscriminaton' help tx) civilians of either or both 
sides, the victims of warfare, 

Mr. Pool. Well, this question is out of your line, since I am talking 
about illegal transfer of the funds. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Pool. But I am pointing that out as a practical matter, that 
would be the way they could handle it, very easily. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Pool, And it has nothing to do with your Department and 
tlie way you operate under the regulations, but I am just pointing 
it out, that that is what we are trying to do in this bill. 


Mr. Smith. That is right. 

I would add that I think most of these people, students and some 
professors, and so on, are not very long on funds, and I don't think 
that these remittances amount to an awful lot. 

Mr. Pool. Well, they might go out and steal it or highjack some- 
body. There are a lot of things they could do to get funds. I would 
not put anything beyond the Communists, trying to do something 
like that. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. Buchanan. One more question. 

This may be quite redundant, but although I am of the pure in 
heart, and my motives are as holy as those of a saint, if I, in fact, 
by my activities, provide assistance to the Viet Gong in the area of 
medical assistance, do I not, in fact, release resources they would 
otherwise have had to expend for such medical supplies, that they 
might instead buy guns and bullets with v.'hich to continue what most 
of us belieA'e to be an aggression against the Republic of Vietnam and 
continue their activities of shooting down our American soldiers? 

Now, is this not in fact the case, no matter how pure my motives 
might be ? 

Mr. Smith. I think you are right. 

Mr. Buchanan. Thank you. 

Mr. Pool. I think Mr. Nittle has some questions he would like to 
ask 37^011. 

Mr. Nittle. Mr. Smith, if we understand you correctly, it is the 
position of the Treasury Department that they feel this bill is un- 
necessary for three principal reasons. 

Mr. Ichord. Would you use that mike a little more, Mr. Nittle? 
It is difficult to hear up here. 

Mr. Nittle. Yes. I don't think it is turned up. 

I understand it is the position of the Treasury Department that Mr., 
Pool's proposed legislation is unnecessary, for three principal reasons, 
and I believe, further, that that is the position of the other executive 

One, you regard the bill as unnecessary because you feel other pro- 
visions of law, namely, the Trading with the Enemy Act, and possibly 
the Export Control Act of 1949, are adequate for this purpose. 

Secondly, you regard the bill as imposing an inflexible ban, pre- 
cluding aid to our captured personnel. 

And thirdly, you regard the bill as unnecessary with regard to the 
provisions of section 403, because you point out there is the Magnuson 
Act, which gives the President the authority, the Treasury Depart- 
ment, or the Coast Guard, to regulate access to ports and harbors. 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Nittle. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

On 403, on the third 

Mr. Nittle. Well, now, just a moment, please. I just want to un- 
derstand. Is that the position ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; except I would like to qualify on 403, that we 
really are not speaking to that, because it only applies to us in a very 
limited area, and it may well be that the Defense 

Mr. Pool. We understand that. 


Mr. NiTTLE. We understand that. 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now I would like to take up these points, just for a 
moment, in inverse order, because it seems to be the position of tne 
executive departments generally, and they have all combined to assert 
the same reasons. 

Now, section 403 of Mr. Pool's bill 

Mr. Smith. Could I make one correction, sir ? 

Mr. NiTTEE. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. Interestingly enough, we did not combine, and when I 
wrote up my report, I did not know what the Justice Department 
was going to say, but we did come out to the same conclusion, I gather. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, I would like to ask you a few questions, with the 
permission of the chairman, with regard to each of those points, but 
I would like to start in inverse order and take up section 403, to which 
you referred in your statement. 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. NiTTLE, That section of the bill would prohibit and make 
punishable the obstruction or interference with the movement of Army 
personnel, or transportation of personnel or materiel of the Armed 

Now, of course, there is nothing in the Treasury regulation that 
would relate to this specific section of the bill. Is that correct? 

Mr. Smith. That is correct. 

Mr. Nittle. Now 

Mr. Pool. Except that you have the Coast Guard under your juris- 
diction. Is that right? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. Pool. That is why you made that objection ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Nittle. Now, of course, the act which you point out as dealing 
with or relating to this section of the bill, is the Magnuson Act. 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Nittle. Now, it is quite clear from the Magnuson Act that that 
only relates to the safeguarding of vessels, harbors, ports, and water- 
front facilities of the United States. 

You do agree, however, do you not, that section 403 of Mr. Pool's 
bill is not limited to the obstruction of movements at ports, harbors, 
and waterfront facilities? 

Mr. Smith. Absolutely. 

Mr. Nittle. And are you aware that in August of 1965 there were 
efforts to obstruct and impede the movement of troops on trains in 
Berkeley ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I have read a number of articles about people 
lying down in front of trucks and things ; yes. 

Mr. Nittle. Yes. Now, that was not a waterfront facility problem ; 
was it ? 

Mr. Smith. Not to my knowledge ; no. 

Mr. Nittle. So that, will you agree that there is nothing in the 
statutes, including the Magnuson Act, which would have coped with 
this very serious situation that occurred in Berkeley last August? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I am really not familiar enough with other 


Mr. NiTTLE. Let me put it this way. The Magnuson Act 

Mr. Smith. I have no reason to believe 

Let me put it this way. The only thing that I know about is the 
Magnuson Act, and the Coast Guard's problems, and I have no reason 
to believe that that covers, that that law or the Coast Guard's regu- 
lations cover the situation with respect to other military bases. 

I just don't have any information on that. 

Mr. Pool. The Magnuson Act does not cover the transportation of 
troops or materiel, either, in the Coast Guard. 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. Pool. In the Coast Guard, either personnel or materiel? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. Pool. So you have no regulation that you know of that would 
cover that. 

Mr. Smith. We have nothing that would cover it. 

Mr. Pool. And this bill does cover that. 

Mr. Smith. That is my understanding. 

Mr. Pool. And you could have that happen to you any time. 

Mr. Smith. It certainly could happen; yes, sir. 

Mr. Pool. All right, go ahead, Mr. Nittle. 

Mr. Nittle. Now I want to pass next to your second major objec- 

You state next that Mr. Pool's bill poses an inflexible ban and w^ould 
preclude the sending of aid for our captured personnel in the Com- 
munist-controlled areas. 

Is that not correct? 

Mr. Smith. I believe that 

Mr. Nittle. Is that not what you said? 

Mr. Smith. No. 

Mr. Pool. You are talking about 402 now? 

Mr. Nittle. I am passing from 403, Mr. Pool; yes, sir. 

I will pass on to section 402 of Mr. Pool's bill. 

Mr. Pool. All right, now state your question again. 

Mr. Nittle. All right. Do I understand j^our position to be that 
the provisions of section 402, which prohibit the giving of aid to a 
hostile foreign power, would preclude and interfere with the efforts 
of the Government to aid our captured personnel ? 

Mr. Smith. I believe that it might be deemed to preclude the so- 
licitation and sending of funds on a nondiscriminatory basis for use 
in either North or South Vietnam, to aid victims of warfare on either 

Mr. Nittle. Well, now, apart from that point, your point, I believe, 
was — and correct me if I am wrong — and you specifically cited as an 
example, in your closing remarks, that the bill, section 402 of the bill, 
would interfere with the efforts to aid captured personnel. 

Is that your position ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, in this sense, and I would like to explain that, if 
I may : We have no vehicle for helping American prisoners of war. 
The State Department hopes, and seems to have some belief, on the 
basis of discussions with the International Committee, Red Cross Com- 
mittee, that if some of this money went, some of it might be used to 
provide medical supplies and services to U.S. captured prisoners of 


And this is why they advocate a licensing policy, where strictly 
for humanitarian purposes, where there are no strings attached that 
it goes only to the Viet Cong or to the North Vietnamese, and where 
it is not provided in the form of money, but is provided in the form 
of medical supplies and services, that we consider licensing. And as 
I say, this is a policy, but it has been applied only on a case-by-case 
basis, on the basis of individual consultations with the State Depart- 
ment in each case, as to the amounts involved, and so on and so forth, 
and an individual determination in each case that it is in the national 
interest to let this particular one go. 

Mr. Pool. Let me interrupt you now, Mr. Nittle. 

But yet the International Red Cross will not let you tag these sup- 
plies or money and specify it go not to the Viet Cong, or the North 
Vietnamese. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Smith. No, because that could prejudice their international and 
neutral position. 

Mr. Pool. So you have no assurance of where the supplies go? 

Mr. Smith. No asbolute, airtight assurance, no. 

Mr. Pool. O.K. 

Then it could go to the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese ? 

Mr. Smith. Some of it could. 

Mr. Nittle. All right, now let me inquire as to whether you would 
point out in Mr. Pool's bill any provision thereof which would prevent 
the sending of aid to our captured personnel, either through the Inter- 
national Committee of the Red Cross or through any other Govern- 
ment channel or contact. 

Wliat provision of this bill would preclude that ? 

Mr. Smith. I don't think it would preclude it being sent directly 
to our prisoners of war. 

Mr. Nittle. You don't think it would, so there is no problem there ? 

Mr. Smith. No. 

Mr. Nittle. Now, do you see anything in the bill that would pre- 
clude the sending, with the consent of the United States Government, 
or at its request, of any aid to captured personnel through some other 
source ? 

Mr. Smith. No. 

Mr. Nittle. Well, I do not understand, then, in what respect your 
Department or the executive branch of the Government regards Mr. 
Pool's section 402 as inflexible on this point. 

Mr. Smith. Well, sir, I can only reiterate what I said before. I am 
not sure that the International Red Cross would accept donations 
designated to go iust to our own forces, to begin with. 

Mr. Nittle. To captured personnel ? 

Mr. Smith. Just to our own. 

Mr. NiTixE. Is it not a fact that the International Red Cross, al- 
though it has made many requests to inspect prisoner of war camps 
in North Vietnam, has been refused that permission ? 

Mr. Smith. I don't know, sir. 

Mr. Nittle. And it is not a fact that the North Vietnamese will 
accept no contributions of the International Red Cross unless it is 
transmitted through one of the agencies of the North Vietnamese or 
the Viet Conjr ? 


Mr. Smith. Not to my knowledge. The State Department seems 
to believe that 

JNIr. NiTTLE. They have 

I am sorry. 

Mr. Smith. — that in certain of these cases, these funds for medical 
supplies and services that are given on an impartial basis, that some 
of them may go to the prisoners of war. 

Now, I don't have the intelligence reports. I don't have the con- 
versations on which they have that belief. 

Mr. NiTTLE. We do have correspondence from the International Red 
Cross with these medical aid committees, in which the medical aid 
committees were advised that all transmittals to the so-called Libera- 
tion Red Cross would have to go through Moscow or through another 
agency of the Viet Cong, and that they had no power to transmit or 
oversee the application of funds. 

The committee has further information that aid to Communist 
countries or transmitted through them, medical supplies and other 
assistance, has been utilized purely for political purposes within the 
Communist-dominated area. But, nonetheless, I want to point out 
that under existing practices, and under the provisions of Mr. Pool's 
bill, there is nothing contained in that, it seems to me, unless you can 
point out something to the contrary, that would prohibit the trans- 
mission of medical aid or money for certain humanitarian purposes 
in aid of the policy of the United States Government or in aid of our 
own troops serving in Vietnam. 

In further argument, let me point this out : Did we have any difficulty 
in World War tl in transmitting funds for humanitarian purposes to, 
or for persons within, a hostile country or enemy country ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; we had all kinds of difficulty, but we did get some 
through, through Switzerland. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes; and you found that doing so was no violation of 
law. Is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I think because we licensed it. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Well, let me put it this way. You had on the lx)oks in 
World War II, and prior thereto, a treason statute, wdiich precluded 
giving aid and comfort to the enemy ^ 

Mr. Smith. Oh, you are talking about to the enemy. Are you talk- 
ing about funds getting through to the enemy, or our funds going 
through to people we wanted to get them through to ? 

Mr. NiTTLE. What I am trying to point out is that in World War II 
we had on the books a treason statute, wdiich forbade giving aid and 
comfort to the enemy, and yet it was not regarded as a violation of 
this statute to send aid within enemy countries to our own troops or 
captured personnel, or for any other purpose that the Government 
thought was necessary. Is that not right ? 

Mr. Smith. I believe so, but I would personally say that I would 
not think that was aid and comfort to the enemy. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Very well, but now, Mr. Pool's bill does not go beyond 
that. In other words, I mean to point out this statute would not pre- 
clude the Government embarking upon any humanitarian program it 
chose to embark on. 

Do vou agree with that ? 


Mr. Smith. I agree; yes, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. So that 

Mr. Pool. The legislative intent can be shown when the bill is 
handled on the floor. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Pool. All right. 

Mr. NiTTLE. So that, do you agree, then, or it seems to me that you 
do agree, that section 402 of Mr. Pool's bill does not impose any in- 
flexible ban? 

Mr. Smith. No, I don't agree. 

Mr. NiTTLE. All right. 

Mr. Smith. For the reason I stated. 

Mr. NiTTLE. And what was that, again ? 

Mr. Smith. The reason I stated was that we may be able to get 
some assistance, I understand, to American prisoners of war by licens- 
ing these remittances for humanitarian purposes, which are not desig- 
nated to go to our forces. They are designated just generally for im- 
partial humanitarian relief, and there, I think, that 402(a) might be 
interpreted as preventing or prohibiting that, because some of it may 
go to the Viet Cong and may "advantage" them. 

Mr. Pool. But I thought a while ago you said that under the treason 
statutes it is not interpreted that w^ay. No prosecutions were had, in a 
similar situation. 

Mr. Smith. Well, the treason statute, as I understand — and I am 
not an expert on that, either, but as he read it to me — talked about 
sending money to aid the enemy. 

Mr. NiTTLE. No. It just says giving the enemy aid and comfort. 

Mr. Smith. Giving the enemy aid and comfort ? 

Mr. NiTTLE. And it has been construed that, if you help any national 
of an enemy country, you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, 
and it does not matter what aid and comfort you give him. 

Mr. Smith. But that did not stop — did that not fall upon the fact 
that this was a friendly national and, therefore, was not deemed to be 

Mr, NiTTLE, No ; when we transmitted funds or medical aid through 
the International Red Cross and in Switzerland, to go into Nazi Ger- 
many, that aid was earmarked for hostile nationals, was it not ? 

Mr. Smith, I don't know, 

Mr. Pool, I think the intent can be shown, anyhow. That takes care 
of that. 

Mr, NiTTLE. I think that point is anyway clearly made. 

Now, we have come to the pomt, the final and basic point you have 
made was, that your Department regards the Treasury regulations 
as adequate. And yet you have pointed out, have you not, that under 
the existing situation you have great difficulty in policing the exporta- 
tion of money and property, because you do not have a wartime 
censorship or control over mail or the inspection of mail. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Smith. That is correct, and I think the same difficulty would 
exist under 402(a), also. In other words, if people want to commit 
violations of a penal statute, they will do it, and some of tliem will not 
be detected. I think that you would have the same difficulty under 
402(a) that we have. 


Mr. NiTTLE. I don't agree with you. But let us point out in what 

Now, we have shown in hearings, during the past few days, and the 
committee has other evidence, as well, that solicitations for medical 
aid to the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese has taken place at a 
number of universities in this country, through Communist leadership. 

We have proved definitely that a Stanford committee transmitted, 
solicited and transmitted $250, that a Medical Aid for the Vietnam 
Committee at the University of California at Berkeley transmitted 
at least $1,500, that a group at the University of Michigan transmitted 
at least $100, and we are aware of other situations. 

Now, have you prosecuted for this under your regulations ? 

Mr. Smith. No, I explained why not. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I know you did. And you admitted, and pointed out to 
us, that these Treasury regulations cannot cope with this situation. 

Is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. No, I did not. I think we are coping very well with the 

Mr. Pool. Well, you did admit that there was not a conspiracy 
prosecution, there was not adequate evidence for a conspiracy prosecu- 
tion. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Smith. I stated that 

Mr. IcHORD. He said that he did not have regulations at the time, 
but now he does have regulations. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. Very well. Very well. 

Even with your present regulations, if you could not prove that 
the money was actually transmitted, although solicited and collected, 
you would have no basis for prosecution, would you ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

Mr. NiTTLE. All right. But will you agree that under Mr. Pool's 
bill you can punish these solicitations ? 

Mr, Smith. Yes, sir; assuming that it holds up in the courts. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, is it not more important to punish the solicita- 
tion as a means of preventing the collection of and transmittal of 
funds, because how can you transmit fimds unless you solicit them ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I stated that those who clearly are motivated by 
a desire to help the enemy, I would like to see some way to put a stop 
to their solicitation, if it can be done within constitutional limitations. 
And I don't vrant anybody here to get the impression that I have got 
any use for these people that are around doing this, because I don't. 

Mr. Pool. We imderstand that. You have been very cooperative. 
We appreciate it, too. 

Mr. NiTTLE. We do, and I don't want you to get the impression, Mr. 
Smith, that I am arguing with you at all. We are just trying to solve 
the problems here of the views of the executive departments which 
you are transmitting. 

Now, let us get to the point of solicitation. The view has been ex- 
pressed not merely by the Treasury Department, but in the opinions 
of the other agencies, that a solicitation in some ways is taboo, because 
of the first amendment. If that is so, then the solicitation to commit 
any crime is a violation of the first amendment. 

Did you regard solicitation as advocacy or as complicity? 


Mr. Smith. Well, I would say tliis : that I think, if I were to give 
a guess, that the solicitation might liold up, but this "advises, counsels, 
urges" others to give or deliver, tliere is where I think you might run 
into trouble on a constitutional basis. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Well, this is a simple problem. I think what Mr. Pool 
is getting at here is the solicitation of funds, and in the counseling and 
advismg I think he is getting at those who set up these students and 
others to make the solicitation. 

But nevertheless, would you agree that the language, "advise, coun- 
sel, and urge," is actually a traditional expression, words of art in the 
criminal law, wdiich are words expressive of conduct amounting to 
what is known as an accessory before the fact ? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, gee, that is a tough one. 

Someone that, I think, was just getting up on a soap box and say- 
ing, "All you people send your money over to help the Viet Cong," 
and I don't know whether that is — 

First, let me say this: that I merely said it raises the question of 
constitutional, infringement of constitutional 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, solicitation, though, you don't say raises that 
question. Is that right ? 

Mr. Pool. Just a minute. 

Go ahead, please. 

Mr. Smith. Particularly the advising, counseling, and urging, I 
would say, is in a gray area, but to predict what the Supreme Court 
would do with it 

Mr. Pool. And they have no cases on it. Is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. I think they have no cases on it. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Well, of course the bill could easily be corrected by 
deleting the words, "advises, counsels, or urges," if they present a 
problem. But I take it you would agree that the solicitation to send 
money and pro]:)erty or anything would not be within any gray area 
whatsoever. Is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I am not sure it wotild not be in a gray area. I 
said that it would probably have a better chance of standing up from 
the standpoint of the Constitution than the urging and counseling 
and advising. 

But I think you put your finger on it, when you said that our basic 
point is the question of the necessity for this broadened scope of legis- 
lation. I thought that there might be a constitutional problem here, 
but this was not our basic point. 

Our basic point was on the necessity of it. 

I might say also that I think some of these people would like to 
be prosecuted for a $5 remittance, and this is just a personal observation 
of mine, but I am not sure but what we might be playing into their 
hands, by this kind of business. 

This is strictly a personal observation. 

Mr. Nittle. You think that the 

Mr. Smith. They just want the publicity, and maybe it helps them 
raise money, rather than not. 

Mr. Nittle. It seems to be, Mr. Smith, evidence that firm laws, clear 
laws, and clear enforcement of the law, does have an effect upon these 
groups and their activities. 


The information before the committee is that these activities are 
growing and that tliey are widespread and that the troops overseas 
do not understand our tolerating this situation while they are forced 
over there to bleed and to die. 

Mr. Pool. I think a few convictions under this statute would stop it 
and would help the morale of the American troops overseas, greatly. 
I really do. 

Mr. Smith. Well, I can assure you that if we run into another one 
like the Medical Aid Conmiittee in Berkeley, the Treasury will 
strongly urge prosecution. 

Mr. Pool. Do you have any further questions ? 

Mr. Smith. As I say, I pointed out that there were technical diffi- 
culties in that particular case, in the light of the state of our regulations 
with respect to these organizations, but if we had those same facts 
today, under our existing regulations, we would strongly urge prose- 

And our investigators are busy ferreting out every lead that we have 
of this sort, and whenever we find a case that is a violation, we will 
do so. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, Mr. Smith, Mr. Pool pointed out a moment ago 
that you had one problem in prosecution because the National Libera- 
tion Front was not a designated national. Well, now, supposing the 
National Liberation Front or the National Liberation Red Cross were 
to change their name to the Freedom Red Cross, would you be able to 
prosecute that 'i A gift to that agency ? 

Mr. Smith. Probably. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Even though you have not designated it ? 

Mr. Smith. Probably. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Well, then, why could not your Department or the 
Justice Department prosecute the gifts to the Liberation Red Cross 
prior to the time you designated it ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, there all we w^ould have to do is establish by proof 
beyond a reasonable doubt that they were the same thing. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Why could you not prove that before ? 

Mr. Smith. Because before, the Viet Cong, and even today it is 
debatable, as one of the members of the committee pointed out, it is 
debatable whether the Viet Cong is an agency of the North Vietnamese 

We now would not have to prove that. We now have specifically 
designated the Viet Cong and the National Liberation Red Cross, and 
therefore if they, by any other name, were to be the recipients, we 
would have a much better basis for prosecution. 

Mr. NiTTLE. How would you prove that some organization calling 
itself the Freedom Band w^as an agency of the Viet Cong? 

Mr. Smith. We would prove it in the same way that you would 
prove that they were a hostile foreign power or agency or national 
thereof under 402(a), in exactly the same way, and it is just a ques- 
tion of w^hether you have the proof. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Well, I don't w^ant to argue. 

Mr. Pool. But mider my bill they would not have to change the 

Mr. Smith. No ; but you still w^ould have to prove that they are an 
agency of a hostile foreign power. 


Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. Mr, Ichord. 

Mr. Ichord. Mr. Chairman, that gives rise to one question that I 

Suppose under the present regulations tlie Vietnam Day Committee 
solicited and did raise funds for medical supplies for the Viet Cong 
and sent that money to one of the Buddhist monks in South Vietnam 
for the use of the Viet Cong. Would that be a transaction that is 
prohibited by your regulations ? 

Mr. Smith. Very definitely. 

Mr. Ichord. Why? 

Mr. Smfth. Because it was 

Mr. Ichord. Buddhists, I understand, say that they are not in sym- 
pathy with the Viet Con^ or the Ky government. 

Mr. Smith. Yes ; but if it was sent for the purpose of aiding the Viet 
Cong, it would be a violation. 

Mr. Ichord. But your prohibition goes to the transfer to designated 

Mr. Smith. Or any person acting by or on behalf of a designated 

Mr. Ichord. You would have to prove that the Buddhist monk was 
operating for or on behalf of the Viet Cong. 

Mr. Smith. No; we just have to prove that it was raised and sent 
to them for the purpose of being transmitted to, made available to the 
Viet Cong. 

Mr. Pool. That is what he said. 

Mr. Ichord. I understand. 

Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Buchanan. 

Mr. Buchanan. I know, in your testimony, and, of course you don't 
speak for the International Ked Cross, but I am mystified, Mr. Chair- 
man, as to in what way it would compromise the International Red 
Cross if medical supplies could be designated for prisoners of war, 

Now, we have always given very humane treatment to our prisoners 
of war. We provide them with full medical aid and attention. 

However, I don't imagine that there would be any objection to giving 
aid to prisoners of war who could no longer commit aggression, and 
shoot anybody, and to do this without discrimination between the two 
forces. And yet, as I understand it, what may now be given cannot be 
designated in any way. 

They cannot oversee this, the giving out of this aid, and we don't 
know whether so much as one Bandaid ever reaches a single American 
prisoner of war. 

Mr. Smith. Well, sir, I don't know, either. But all I could say to 
you is that the State Department has reason to believe that some of 
these funds or other activities of the International Committee can 
benefit our prisoners of war and that apparently they don't have any 
other way of getting help to them. 

I just don't have the information. I would be glad to state anything 
that I might have. 

Mr. Pool. No other questions ? 

Mr. Ichord. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. 


One more observation : I think Mr. Smith has been very helpful in 
miclerstanding the present law and also the provisions of this bill. 

As I understand it, and I agree with the gentleman, the only thing 
that gets into the so-called gray area is paragraph (1) "gives, or at- 
tempts to give, or advises, counsels, urges, or solicits another to give 
or deliver, any money, property, or thing." 

The gentleman admitted that solicitation does not get into the gray 
area, because we have solicitations to commit crimes scattered through- 
out the Federal statutes. That is, it is a crime to do these designated 
acts, under present Treasury regulations. 

Certainly we can establish that solicitation to commit the crime 
would be a crime in and of itself. 

I am sure you are not saying, then, that solicitation is in a gray area. 
That is what you stated a while ago. 

Mr. Smith. Well, I think that I said, expresed the opinion, that it 
is less gray, that if I were a betting man, I would say that might stand 
up, the solicitation, under the first amendment, although I would not 
say that somebody would not claim that, and I would not predict what 
the Supreme Court would do on that. 

But I think the serious constitutional problem, I will agree with 
you, is in this advising, comiseling, urging, or soliciting others. I think, 
there, that does present a serious constitutional problem. 

Mr, loHORD. Yes ; we are not concerned with the constitutionality of 
solicitations to conmiit crimes in areas not affecting the national secur- 

Certainly I don't think we should be concerned about the solicitation 
to commit crimes in matters affecting the national security. 

Mr. Smith. Well, I certainly would defer to your opinion on that. 

Mr. Pool. I think Mr. Nittle has one point there he wants to bring 

Mr. N1TTI.E. Mr. Smith, I just want to point out for the record and 
for your comment. Title 18, United States Code, setting forth crimes 
and criminal procedure, defines a prmcipal as follows : "Whoever com- 
mits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, 
commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a 

And I believe that is simply a statutory definition, derived from 
the common law, where the aiding and abetting, procuring or induc- 
ing of another to commit an offense, is an offense at common law. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Nittle, I don't believe there is any court decision 
that has ever said under the Constitution. 

Mr. IcHORD. What are you citing ? 

Mr. Nittle. That is Title 18, section 2, Mr. Ichord. 

The language in Mr. Pool's bill is the traditional language of the 
common law, which constitutes the offense of being an accessory, 
where you advise, counsel, or urge another to commit a crime. And 
as a matter of fact, there are a number of statutes, I believe, in the 
Federal jurisdiction now which make punishable solicitation to com- 
mit a crime. 

For example, the bribery statute punishes solicitation. Solicita- 
tion is punishable under another statute, which makes punishable 

67-852 — 66 — pt. 2- 


the solicitation of contributions for public office, and so on. Solici- 
tation is traditional, and I would also point out for the record that 
the Supreme Court of the United States had occasion to pass upon 
the question whether an alleged solicitation or urging to commit a 
crime is a violation of the first amendment. That was the case of 
Fox versus Washington, reported at 236 U.S. 273, an opinion by Mr. 
Justice Holmes, for a unanimous Supreme Court, which upheld a State 
of Washington statute which made punishable the circulation of any 
written matter advocating or encouraging the commission of any 
crime. The Court said that this is nothing more than solicitation to 
commit a crime, which has always been punishable, and it involves 
no violation whatsoever of the first amendment of the Constitution. 
Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, I do agree with Mr. Smith, as I stated 
before, that in paragraph 1, you are in a gray area, but I would 
point out at this time that if you are guilty of violating constitutional 
guarantees of the first amendment by the passage of that bill, then 
the Department of Commerce, which is soon to come before the com- 
mittee, would also be guilty in their regulations mider the Export 
Control Act, because they have a similar regulation in the Export 
Control Act, section 381.2, and I read it : 

No person may knowingly cause, or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, pro- 
cure, or permit the doing of any act prohibited by, or the omission of any act 
required by, the Export Control Law or any proclamation, order, rule, regula- 
tion, or license issued thereunder. 

Substantially the same language. 

Mr. Smith. Maybe we ought to put that in our regulations, but of 
course I think that the Justice Department exercises some discretion 
in the types of counseling, and so on and so forth, that they are pre- 
pared to prosecute, just because of concern over this constitutional 

In other words, the mere fact that it is in the statutes or regulations 
does not necessarily mean that they will prosecute or that it will stand 
up in courts. It depends upon the nature of — I mean, soliciting or 
bribery, I think, is a different thing. 

Mr. Pool. The only thing we can do here as Members of Congress 
is to try to pass legislation, and we are not going to try to tell the 
Justice Department how to run their business, and I hope that we can 
proceed without being told how to run our business, too. 

Mr. Smith. Certainly. Certainly. 

Mr. Pool. And I want to make this statement. If there are no 
further questions, Mr. Fred Smith, I want to thank you for a very 
cooperative statement. I enjoyed very much discussing this bill with 
you. It is a real pleasure to have had you before the committee. You 
have made an excellent witness. 

Mr. Smith. It is a very interesting problem, and as I said in my 
statement, I have a great deal of sympathy for the motivation behind 
this consideration. 

Mr. Pool. I appreciate those remarks, too. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith. Thank you. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Kauer H. Meyer, Director of the Office of Export 
Control, Department of Commerce, accompanied by Richard E. Hull, 
Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Department of Commerce. 



Mr. Pool. I don't believe you have a formal statement. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Meter. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Pool. I think you are here mainly to fill us in on the various 
regulations and things like that. If you want to, why don't you just 
go ahead and address yourself to the committee. 

Mr. Meyer. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: It is a 
pleasure to be here, to discuss the main provisions of the Export Con- 
trol Act and its administration. I have brought with me and left 
with the staff some copies of our most recent quarterly report and an 
additional publication which should shed some light on the adminis- 
tration of the act. 

Mr. Pool. Is this what you are talking about ? 

Mr. Meyer. That is correct. 

Mr. Pool. Thank you. 

Mr. Meyer. The Export Control Act of 1949, as amended, provides 
the President with the authority to prohibit or curtail exports from 
the United States, it territories, and possessions; and authorizes him 
to delegate this authority to such departments, agencies, and officials 
of the Government as he deems appropriate. The export control 
authority, which has been delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, is 
administered by the Office of Export Control of the Bureau of Inter- 
national Commerce. 

The act authorizes controls over exports for three purposes — "na- 
tional security," "foreign policy," and "short supply." National 
security controls, and short supply controls as required, are always 
coordmated to reflect U.S. foreign policy and international responsi- 
bilities. In addition, the 1965 amendment to the act included a policy 
statement that the United States opposes restrictive trade practices 
or boycotts by foreign countries against other countries friendly to 
the United States, and required exporters to report to the Secretary of 
Commerce any requests they receive for information or for action that 
would interfere with normal trade relations, such as restrictive trade 
practices and boycotts. 

National security controls are instituted to provide control of ex- 
ports from the standpoint of their significance to the security of the 
United States. They include an embargo to Communist China, North 
Korea, the Communist-controlled area of Vietnam, and Cuba, as well 
as broad controls over exports to the U.S.S.K. and other Eastern 
European areas. Controls to free world countries apply to a highly 
selected list of commodities and technical data to prevent their un- 
authorized diversion or reexport to the foregoing countries, thus 
frustrating U.S. controls over shipments to them. 

Short supply controls, as directed by the policy of the act, are used 
only when it becomes necessary to protect the domestic economy from 


the excessive drain of scarce materials and to reduce the inflationary 
impact of abnormal foreign demand. 

With two exceptions, all commercial exports from the United States, 
its territories, and possessions are prohibited unless the Department of 
Commerce has either issued a "validated license" or established a 
"general license" permitting such shipments. These two exceptions 
are : exports from the United States to its territories and possessions, 
and most exports to Canada for internal consumption. 

A validated license is a formal document issued to an exporter by 
the Department. It authorizes the export of commodities within the 
specific limitations of the document. It is based upon a signed applica- 
tion submitted by the exporter. 

A general license is a broad authorization issued by the Department 
of Commerce which permits certain exportations under specified con- 
ditions. Neither the filing of an application by the exporter nor the 
issuance of a license document is required in connection with any gen- 
eral license. The authority to export in such an instance is given 
in the Comprehensive Export Schedule, published by the Department 
of Commerce, which specifies the conditions under which each general 
license may be used. 

I might note that, in this connection, we have what we call a general 
license GIFT, under which anybody may send a gift to his family, 
friend, or to a religious, charitable, or educational organization, in 
any foreign country, except Communist China, North Korea, or the 
Communist-controlled area of Vietnam, without the necessity of 
getting a validated export license. 

Mr. Pool. How about North Vietnam? You didn't mention that, 
Mr. Meyer. We use the phrase in our regulations, "The Communist- 
controlled area of Vietnam," and that comprehends North Vietnam. 
For purposes of export control, all destinations, excluding Canada, 
are divided into six country groups. Country Group Z includes Com- 
munist China, North Korea, and the Communist-controlled area of 
Vietnam, and Cuba. The regulations vary in terms of strictness, ac- 
cording to country group. The strictest regidations are those apply- 
ing to Country Group Z. 

We have what is called the Commodity Control List, which is a 
numerical listing by export control number of all commodities for 
which export license authority is exercised by the Department of 
Commerce. It identifies for each listed commodity the destinations 
for which a validated license is required. 

Exportation of commodities to destinations other than Canada, for 
which a validated license is not required, may be made under the gen- 
eral license, as I noted before. 

The Commodity Control List is maintained on a current basis, 
through the periodic issuance of Current Export Bulletins, supple- 
ments to the Comprehensive Export Schedule. 

The Department of Commerce, through its Bureau of International 
Commerce, exercises control over all exports from the United States, 
except those which are specifically controlled by other agencies. For 
example, the Department of State, through the Office of Munitions 
Control, exercises control over the exports of arms, ammunition, im- 
plements of war, and technical data related thereto. 


The Atomic Energy Commission exercises controls over exports of 
specified, materials. The Treasury, in turn, exercises controls over 
gold, for example, and narcotics. 

With respect to violations under the act, section 5 of the act provides 
that, except as provided in subsection 5, in case of any violation of 
any provision of this act or any regulation, order, or license issued 
hereunder, the violator or violators, upon conviction, shall be punished 
by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more 
than one year, or by both such fine and imprisomnent. For a second 
or subsequent ofl'ense, the offender shall be punished by a fine of not 
more than three times the value of the exports involved or $20,000, 
whichever is greater, or by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, 
or by both such fine a.nd imprisonment. 

Additionally, whoever willfully exports anything contrary to any 
provision of this act or any regulation, order, or license issued here- 
under, with knowledge that such exports will be used for the benefit of 
any Communist-dominated nation, shall be punished by a fine of not 
more than five times the value of the exports involved or $20,000, 
whichever is greater, or by imprisonment of not more than 5 years, 
or by both such fine and imprisonment. 

Section 5 goes on to state that the head of any department or agency 
exercising any function under this act, or any officer or employee of 
such department or agency specifically designated by the head 
thereof, may impose a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for each 
violation of the act or any regulation, order, or license issued under 
the act, either in addition to or in lieu of any other liability or penalty 
which may be imposed. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, with that brief 

Mr. Pool. I would like Mr. Ichord to go ahead. 

Mr. IcHORD. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I understand it, Mr. Meyer, your regulations under the Export 
Control Act are geared primarily to commercial transactions, are 
they not, or do your regulations apply to the transfer of any 
commodity ? 

Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ichord. It is not mainly concerned with money and funds. 

Mr. Meyer. Oh, no, indeed. 

Mr. IcHORD. Money and funds come under the regulations of the 
Department of the Treasurj^ ? 

Mr. Meyer. That is correct. 

Mr. IcHORD. Now you have a prohibition for the transfer of publica- 
tions, except magazines and newspapers, educational and published 
material generally available to the public % 

Mr. Meyer. Our regulation covers all such technical information, 
including that which is published and generally available. Our pres- 
ent regulations provide, however, that such material, which is pub- 
lished and generally available to everybody, may go under general 
license to any destination in the world. 

Mr. IcHORD. I brouglit to tlie attention of the committee earlier in 
the hearings a propaganda leaflet, leaflets that were allegedly being 
distributed to American fighting men in South Vietnam, and I am 
now in the process of authenticating the particular leaflet to which I 
brought the attention of the committee. This leaflet showed an anti- 


Vietnam demonstration occurring in America, on the front side, and 
then on the back of the leaflet, there was a picture of a cross over a 
grave, with a doughboy's helmet hanging on the cross. And then 
there were statements of certain Americans on the inside of the leaflet. 

Certainly, I don't know whether that was printed in the United 
States, or whether it was printed in North Vietnam, South Vietnam, 
or some other country. Certainly, you have authority to restrict such 
exports under the commerce regulations ; do you not ? 

Mr. Meyer. Our regulations at the present time with respect to tech- 
nical data are principally directed to information which relates to the 
production or design, the process, the utilization, of commodities or 
materials. The document you have just described raises in my mind 
the question of whether or not this would properly be classified as 
technical data, under our regulations, 

Mr. IcHORD. Then it might be possible for a person to print such 
propaganda leaflets and ship them to North Vietnam under the Export 
Control Act? 

Mr. Meter. There is, in my mind, a real question right now as to 
whether or not, under our present regulations, this type of document 
would fall into the category of technical data. We would, of course, 
want to address ourselves to the question of whether or not it is of the 
type of information which is so available to anybody without restric- 
tion there would be no particular point in prohibiting its export. 

Mr. IcHORD. Observe, Mr. Meyer, that the report of the Department 
of Commerce, which is over the signature of Robert Giles, General 
Counsel, differs from the report of the Treasury Department. The 
Treasury Department expressed concern that Mr. Fool's bill might vio- 
late constitutional guarantees, such as freedom of speech and freedom 
of thought. This report of the Department of Commerce has no refer- 
ence to that. However, you seem to hang your objection mainly on the 
allegation that this bill would overlap with the present prohibitions 
imposed under authority of the Export Control Act on exports detri- 
mental to the national security. 

I can see some overlapping, but is there any real difficulty to the en- 
forcement of the law prohibiting these designated acts by having sepa- 
rate statutes on the books? That is in drafting a complaint, wouldn't 
the Department of Justice probably place its case on two statutes, or 
three statutes, instead of two, or one ? 

Mr. Meyer. Well, I would observe in this regard that the Export 
Control Act is very broad. It gives us considerable leeway to control 
commodities, technology. The enforcement provision of the Export 
Control Act does differ from that proposed in the proposed legislation. 
There might be 

Mr. IcHORD. As far as prosecution is concerned, it would not give 
the Department of Justice any difficulty ; would it ? 

Mr. Meyer. We might find ourselves in the position, for example, of 
pursuing the same violation, violation of our regulation, and imposing 
one penalty, while another penalty might be administered for the same 
violation, under the terms of the proposed act. 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, then you would have the discretion to prosecute 
under one statute or the other, depending upon the punishment that 
you thought was desirable for the particular offense ; would you not ? 

Mr. Meyer. Well 


Mr. IcHORD. Or, you could prosecute under both of them, in the same 

Mr. Meter. Well, we have at the present time the delegated author- 
ity of administering the Export Control Act. I don't know whether 
we would have the delegated authority with respect to the proposed act. 

Mr. IcHORD. No, you wouldn't. The enforcement, of course, would 
be up to the Department of Justice. Of course, you don't have the 
responsibility of prosecuting for any violations of the Export Control 
Act. You merely make a recommendation to the Department of 
Justice, do you not ? 

Mr. Meyer. There are administrative sanctions which we are author- 
ized to impose, to take up 

Mr. IcHORD. That is true. 

Mr. Meyer. — under the authority of the act. 

Mr. IcHORD. I am talking about the criminal liability. 

Mr. Meyer. Criminal is the Department of Justice. Yes. 

Mr. Pool. The Chair wishes to announce right now that there is a 
yea and nay vote on the floor, and I am sure the Members would like 
to go to the floor and vote. Do you have any further questions ? 

Mr. IcHORD. I have concluded my questions. 

Mr. Pool. Do you have any questions ? 

Mr. BucHANAisr. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. Do you have any questions ? 

Mr. NiTTLE. I have just a couple, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. Well, we don't have time to take them now. Could you 
come back at 2 o'clock, or would that be an inconvenience to you ? 

Mr. Meyer. I am at the disposal of the committee. 

Mr. Pool. Well, we have another witness scheduled, but I think we 
can get through with your testimony in 5 or 6 minutes, so if you will 
come back at 2, the committee will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock. 

(Subcommittee members present at the time of recess: Representa- 
tives Pool, Ichord, and Buchanan.) 

(Wliereupon, at 12 :35 p.m., Monday, August 22, 1966, the subcom- 
mittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.) 


(The subcommittee reconvened at 3:20 p.m., Hon. Joe R. Pool, 
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.) 

(Subcommittee members present: Representatives Pool, Ichord, 
Ashbrook, and Buchanan.) 

Mr. Pool. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Go ahead, Mr. Nittle. 


Mr. Nittle. Mr. Meyer, would we be correct in saying that the 
Export Control Act of 1949 is a regulatory statute rather than a 
penal statute? 

Mr. Meyer. I think it is regulatory. The act is largely enforced 
through civil sanctions; however, criminal sanctions are available. 


Mr. NiTTLE. It is directed toward the control, I believe, of the 
export of certain materials in order to protect the domestic economy 
from the excessive drain of scarce materials, to further the foreign 
policy of the United States and to exercise vigilance over exports 
from the standpoint of their significance to the national security. Is 
that correct? 

Mr. Meyer. That is correct. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now you, I presume, have had some opportunity to 
examine the bill of Mr. Pool? 

Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. It is correct to say, is it not, that Mr. Pool's bill is not 
a regulatory statute, but is a penal statute? 

Mr. Meyer. Correct. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Further, the Export Control Act of 1949 does not 
concern itself with what might be called the anhnus of the person who 
comes within the terms of it, the state of mind or his intent. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Rather, it is clear that Mr. Pool's bill is designed to 
punish those persons who have an intent to injure and damage the 
United States and those who have as their purpose the obstruction 
or interference with the operation and success of the Armed Forces; 
is that correct? 

Mr. Meyer. That is my understanding, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now we recognize that a comparable wartime statute, 
the treason statute, would also prohibit any intercourse with a nation 
w^ith which we are at war, but that is so not because it is an export 
control act, but because it is a penal statute prohibiting any com- 
munication, commercial or otherwise, with an enemy; right? 

Mr. Meyer. I believe so; yes. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now, Mr. Pool's bill is divided into three parts. The 
section 401 contains merely the findings of Congress and it is a pre- 
amble. The substantive provisions of the bill are contained in two 
sections, 402 and 403. 

Now with regard to section 403, of course, the Commerce Depart- 
ment has no interest whatsoever, and its opinion would not be directed 
toward that section because it deals with the obstruction of the free 
movement of Army personnel or materiel. So that the Department 
of Commerce's interest in this bill relates only to section 402 with 
regard to the provisions against the giving of aid to a hostile foreign 
power with the intent to injure the United States. 

The Department of Commerce, in addressing itself to that problem, 
has said that the provisions of Mr. Pool's bill would overlap the pres- 
ent prohibitions imposed under the authority of the Export Control 

The question I would like to pose to you is whether, in your exami- 
nation of Mr. Pool's bill, in contrasting that with the Export Control 
Act, it is your opinion that the Export Control Act covers all of the 
activity with which Mr, Pool's bill seeks to deal in 402 ? 

Mr. Meyer. With respect to exports of commodities with which the 
Export Control Act deals, we believe it does overlap. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Completely overlap ? 


Mr, Meyer. As of the moment, sir, the overlapping I think is fairly 

Mr. NiTTLE. Total or partial ? 

Mr. Meyer. I would observe that the Export Control Act, of course, 
is tied not so m.uch to persons as it is to destinations of goods. There 
may be areas where the distinction there might provide for something 
less than complete overlap. 

Mr. NiTTLE. That is, the Export Control Act does not completely 
overlap the coverage of the bill of Mr. Pool ? 

Mr. Meyer. I base this on the distinction I made between the Export 
Control Act and its concern with destination and goods and the con- 
cern of Mr. Pool's proposed act which is directed to persons. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, 

Well, now, further do you state that the Export Control Act covers 
all activities that Mr. Pool's bill would cover, or is there only a partial 
coverage by the Export Control Act with regard to those activities 
which ]\Ir. Pool's bill covers ? 

Mr. Meyer. Mr. Pool's bill, of course, does deal with money which 
the Export Control Act does not deal with. I think this may be the 
most conspicuous difference. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Now isn't there another important and conspicuous 
difference in Mr. Pool's bill with regard to the provisions contained in 
section 402, wdiich I now point out to you : Mr. Pool's bill provides 
that "Whoever, within the United States or elsewhere, and owing al- 
legiance to the United States," gives or collects certain money, 
property, supplies or goods. 

Your Export Control Act does not cover the activities of United 
States citizens abroad ; isn't that true ? 

Mr. Meyer. The Export Control Act deals with the disposition of 
U.S. goods, 

Mr. NiTTLE. The exportation from the United States to another 
country ? 

Mr. Meyer. And the possible reexportation or diversion of goods 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, but there must be a point of origin of this property 
w^ithin the United States ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Meyer. That is correct. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. Well, now, Mr. Pool, as the hearings have indi- 
cated, is concerned also with the activities of the United States citizens 
in delivering to foreign hostile powers certain property which they 
collect while abroad or prepare while abroad. The Export Control 
Act would not cover that ; isn't that right ? 

Mr. Meyer. Not unless the goods were in fact of U.S. origin. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, 

Mr. Meyer. In certain instances there is a control, sir, oveT the 
foreign-made product of U.S. technology, 

Mr. NiTTLE. Let me give you an example. Here is a leaflet directed 
to military personnel. Now, supposing the contents of this docu- 
ment were communicated to a United States citizen who then traveled 
to Hanoi and in Hanoi reproduced this document and disseminated 
it to American troops fighting in North Vietnam, your Export Con- 
trol Act would have no control over that activity ? 


Mr. JNIeyer. If the material in itself originated abroad, that is- 

Mr. NiTTLE. No, it is communicated directly to the U.S. citizen 
abroad, and he prepared these documents and delivered them to an 
enemy of the United States. The Export Control Act would have- 
no bearing on that whatsoever is that not correct ? 

Mr. Meyer. That is correct. 

Mr. Pool. But the bill before us would apply. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Precisely. 

Mr. Pool's bill has covered that activity. 

Mr. Meyer. I understood your particular transaction to be an in- 
stance where the material was entirely of foreign origin. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes, or prepared abroad and printed abroad. 

Mr. Meyer. And the idea was put to that particular use abroad. 

Mr. NiTTLE. By an American citizen who disseminated it then- 
among our troops abroad. 

Mr. Meyer. The Export Control Act would not touch that. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. Meyer. May I add one additional point there ? 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. Meyer. If, in fact, the information had been transported from 
the U.S., had originated in the U.S., then I think the Export Control" 
Act would come into play, could be brought into play. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I am supposing the situation where the material was- 
not exported from the United States in specie. 

Mr. Meyer. I am speaking now of the information and that goes 

Mr. NiTTLE. You had no control over ideas ; is that right ? It must 
be in writing and incorporated in some document or material and 
that material exported from the United States before the Export 
Control Act comes into play. 

Mr. Meyer. No, sir, not entirely. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Where in the Export Control Act of 1949 do you 
have explicit authority to control other than exportation of property ? 

Mr. Meyer. We have here imder Section 3(a) of the act the follow- 
ing phraseology : 

"To effectuate the policy set forth in section 2 hereof, the President may 
prohibit or curtail the exportation from the United States, its Territories, and' 
possessions, of any articles, materials, or supplies, including technical data, or 
any other information, except under such rules and regulations as he shall 

We have in connection with the regulations applying to technical 

Mr. NiTTLE. Are you reading there from the terms of the statute 

Mr. Hull. As amended in 1965, sir. 

Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 

Our regulations at the present time, for example, that deal with 
technical data have defined the term "export" in such a way as to 
catch the exportation or the transmission of unpublished technical 
data in whatever form, whether in the form of a blueprint, a printed' 
document, or as an idea in the mind of an engineer going abroad. 


So we are not restricted under the terms of our present regulation 
to something physical. 

Mr. NiTTLE. I am not talkmg about technical data. 

Mr. Meyer. I understand, but you cite that as an example, sir. 

Mr. NiTTLE. In any event, whatever activity the United States citi- 
zen undertook abroad, to disseminate to our troops abroad something 
which originated with him while abroad would not be covered by the 
Export Control Act? Do I understand you correctly on that? 

Mr. Meyer. If it originated with him abroad and the demonstra- 
tion could be made to our satisfaction that it did indeed originate 
abroad, it was not based in any respect on information which he 
carried from the United States, then I think the Export Control Act 
would not apply. 

Mr. Nfttle. All right. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Ichord has a question. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, I believe I noted previously that the 
report of the General Counsel of the Department of Commerce did 
not object to the bill on the grounds that it might infringe constitu- 
tional liberties guaranteed mider article I, amendment 1, to the Con- 
stitution. I would hope, and I could see why, the Department of 
Commerce has not given that objection because section 381.2 of the 
regulations contains substantially the same language which Mr. Pool 
has in his legislation. 

I will read it for the benefit of Mr. Meyer and would ask for him 
to comment and if that is the reason for the framing of the language 
in this report : 

No person may knowingly cause, or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, pro- 
cure, or permit the doing of any act prohibited by, or the omission of any act 
required by the Export Control Law or any proclamation, order, rule, regulation, 
or license issued thereunder. 

I hope it is not the position of the gentleman of the Department 
that the Department can do by way of regulation that which the 
Congress cannot do by statute. Do you not agree, first of all, that 
this is substantially the same language which Mr. Pool has in para- 
graph 1 of section 402 of the bill ? 

Mr. Meyer. I think it is substantially the same ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Ichord. You don't feel that you can do this by regulation and 
cannot do it by statute ? 

Mr. Meyer. If you are raising the question of constitutionality, I 
think the Department feels that it is not our Department's province 
but that of the Department of Justice to rule on questions of con- 
stitutionality in this regard. 

Mr. IcHORD. That is for the courts to pass upon. 

Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, apparently the Department of Justice does not 
feel that way; they feel that they should raise the question of con- 
stitutionality while it is in the Congress. 

One more question : Under the current export regulations, the De- 
partment of Commerce now has an embargo on all exports to North 
Vietnam except for scientific, education, and published material gen- 
erally available to the public. Do you have any export regulations 
in effect as to South Vietnam ? 


Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. The body of regulations which is applicable 
to a good many of the countries of the world is applicable to South 

]\Ir. IciiORD. All of South Vietnam, or just the Communist-con- 
trolled territories of South Vietnam ? 

Mr. Meyer. No. We have at the present time, as I stated in my 
statement at the outset, controls of varying strictness to all countries 
of the world. The controls applicable to South Vietnam are essenti- 
ally the same controls as those applicable to Western Europe ; for ex- 
ample, a selected list of strategic commodities which are identified 
in our regulations may be exported to South Vietnam only after a 
validated license has been issued by the Department of Commerce, 

Mr. IciiORD. Let me put it this way : Do you have the same exemp- 
tions existing as to South Vietnam as you have in regard to North 
Vietnam, that is, published material generally available to the pub- 
lic could be exported to South Vietnam ? 

Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IcHORD. Now with that answer, Mr. Meyer, let me ask you this : 
The Vietnam Day Committee has published in this country a leaflet 
entitled, "Attention All Military Personnel," and that has been gen- 
erally available in this country. Wliat prohibition is there against 
shipping such material to South Vietnam for use as propaganda leaf- 
lets in the field ? 

Mr. Meyer. Sir, I would want to examine that particular document 
to ascertain all the facts respecting it, the facts respecting its degree 
of publicity, publication, just how generally it is available. But, in 
fact, if it is generally available without restriction in the United 
States, I think it would be permitted to go abroad under our present 

Mr. IcHORD. Thank you very much. 

I have finished my questioning of Mr. Meyer. 

Mr. Meyer. May I deal with that just a little longer, please? 

Mr. IcHORD. Surely. 

Mr. Meyer. I notice under our present regulations it could be sent 
freely without a license to North Vietnam. Under the Export Con- 
trol Act, we could control it if we considered it wise and feasible to 
control it. 

I think perhaps it might be desirable to clarify what I said this 
morning. The legislation, the act, does give us the necessary leeway 
to control, although the regulations at the present time permit some- 
thing of that nature to be exported. Now whether it is wise or really 
feasible and practical to try to prevent something from going which 
by its very nature, its very accessibility in this country, we could not 
successfully prevent from going, is another matter. 

Mr. IcHORD. Let me ask you this question then : You stated that if 
it is generally available to the public, there is a question in your mind 
as to whether one would be even able and entitled to get an export 
license. You would then take under study as to what would be per- 
mitted to go. How long does it take you to amend the regulation? 

Mr. Meyer. We have amended them overnight. 

Mr. IcHORD. You could amend your regulations. How long does 
it take before the regulations are effective ? 

Mr. Meyer. Let me put it this way : We can revoke on very short 
notice a general license, a licensing authority. Ordinarily we amend 


our regulations through what we call our Current Export Bulletin. It 
may take a week, 2 weeks, perhaps longer to serve a public notice. 
Ordinarily we allow a certain savings time for the reguhition to be- 
come etlective. But we do, and we can if circumstances require it, 
amend our regulations on very short notice. 

Mr. IcHORD. There is no requirement for you to pass on any applica- 
tion for an export license within any period of time ^ 

Mr. Meyer, No, sir. We try to pass on these with the utmost expedi- 
tion. Some applications we can handle much more directly and rap- 
idly than others. The time varies. 

Mr. IcHORD. That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. Any questions ? 

Mr. Buchanan. No questions. 

Mr. Pool. I want to thank the witness for his cooperation and his 
patience during the rollcall. That was very cooperative and we ap- 
preciate it. 

Mr. ]Meyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. The next witness is Brig. Gen. William W. Berg, United 
States Air Force, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (^Military 
Personnel Policy) . He is accompanied by Capt. G. D. Williams, U.S. 

General, we welcome you to the committee and if you would like to 
you go right ahead with your prepared statement. 


General Berg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Brig. Gen. William W. Berg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense (Military Personnel Policy) . 

It is a privilege to appear before the committee. The Department 
of Defense obviously is concerned with the effect of activities which 
are intended either to assist our military adversaries or to impede the 
support of our Armed Forces. 

The Department of Defense defers to the Department of Justice as 
to the legal need for, or the desirability of, the sanctions proposed in 
H.R. 12047, and, hence, we make no recommendation as to your action 
on the bill. However, the chairman has requested that we provide 
such information as we can on the effect of the activities cited on the 
morale and efficiency of the Armed Forces. 

JMorale, of course, is not measurable in quantitative terms. There 
Hic some developments that experience has shown can be symptoms of 
changes in morale in military units. For instance, marked changes in 
the incidence of disciplinary offenses or as otherwise unaccountable 
change in the performance of individuals or units may signal that a 
morale problem exists. Other manifestations of morale changes are 
detectable by an experienced observer, although they may iiot be re- 
flected in statistics. 

We do not have any evidence a^-ailable to us, or reports by com- 
manders in the field, that indicate that the morale of our forces has 
been impaired by the demonstrations of dissent to United States 
policy, by the publicized assertions of intent to assist our adversaries, 
or by the gestures of impeding the military effort. As I have testified 


before another committee, we have had some instances in which rela- 
tives of military personnel have been harassed by abusive, ghoulish, 
or threatening communications based on the individual's membership 
in the Armed Forces. These incidents are individually outrageous, 
but on the present scale we cannot regard them as a general attack on 

You are aware that some efforts have been made to circulate litera- 
ture to military personnel, with the explicit or implicit intent to induce 
refusal to serve or refusal to follow orders. Individuals have reported 
receipt of such material voluntarily, and appropriate reports have 
been made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We cannot make 
any reliable estimate of the extent of such activities. However, the 
efforts clearly have enjoyed little success. There have been a few 
instances of personnel who have refused or protested orders to Vietnam 
on the basis of personal disapproval of United States policy. Most of 
the instances have arisen with new personnel. The total number has 
been so microscopic as to place them in the extremely eccentric fringe, 
which is likely in any large population. 

There is another indication of the negligible impact on military per- 
sonnel of efforts to induce disaffections. In the normal operation of 
the Armed Forces, we have cases in which an individual, after entry, 
acquires a religious conviction which causes him to assert conscientious 
objection to military service. The incidence is numerically quite small. 
There lias been some increase in the number of such cases, as would be 
expected with an increased military strength. 

The effect on members of the military service of the much publicized 
advice to claim conscientious objection can be gauged by the fact that 
in all of last year the Army received only 101 applications for dis- 
charge by reason of conscientious objection to service. So far this 
year, the applications have been at a comparable rate. 

Naturally, because the controversy centers on United States policy 
in Vietnam, the effect on personnel on duty in Vietnam has particular 
importance. In preparation for these hearings, we posed the question 
to the command in Vietnam. I reply, we have the following summary : 

There has been no discernable adverse impact upon the morale of U.S. Forces 
as a result of the CONUS demonstrations and activities in opposition to U.S. 
Vietnam policy and/or service in the Armed Forces. It is not possible to separate 
the effect of overt actions, that is, interference vrith military transportation and 
campaigns for aid to North Vietnam, from that of the demonstrations and other 
activities. The usual initial reaction of the troops, if there is any, is one of mild 
anger which soon gives way to amused tolerance and becomes a subject of 
satirical joking. 

I will submit separately for the record some samples of material 
and notes on incidents in which military personnel have been subjected 
to tactics intended to induce disaffection. As I previously stated, we 
are unable to estimate the volume associated with any particular effort. 
We do not censor mail to military personnel, and our information is 
limited to voluntary reports. Such evaluation of the extent of a par- 
ticular activity as may be possible would be develor)ed by the FBI. 
(Seep. 1312.) 

The committee is familiar with the flyer, "Attention All Military 
Personnel," bearing the imprint of the Vietnam Day Committee. This 
flyer was reported to have been distributed to sonie military housing 
areas on the West Coast. The command in Vietnam reports that 165 
copies were turned in by military personnel who received it by mail in 


^Vietnam. The FBI was informed of the distribution, and findings as 
to the sources would remain under the cognizance of the Bureau. 

The Department of Defense is unable to comment as to the probabil- 
ity of linkage between the organizations which have engaged in var- 
ious activities in opposition to United States policy in Vietnam. Nei- 
^ther are we in a position to speculate on any objectives other than those 
which are publicly stated. 

In summary, we have no indication of direct adverse effects on the 
morale of the Armed Forces from these activities. This does not mean 
that we are unconcerned. We have confidence in the loyalty and good 
sense of military personnel. Subversive approaches along the lines 
we have observed are unlikely to achieve significant direct effect. How- 
ever, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines serving overseas depend 
on news for their impressions of opinions and attitudes in the United 
States. Unfortunately, the volume of news coverage tends more to- 
ward unusual or sensational events than to the solid and less dramatic 
base of prevailing sentiment. We believe that our military personnel 
have not been confused by any distortion in emphasis, but we recognize 
that there is some potential for misunderstanding. Perhaps the most 
powerful counterbalance is the flow of mail from families and friends. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

(At this point Mr. Ashbrook left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Ichord. 

Mr. IcHORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Berg, it is a pleasure to welcome you to this committee. 

Now you have made one statement on page 3, the first paragraph : 

There has been no discernible adverse impact upon the morale of U.S. Forces 
-as a result of the CONUS demonstrations and activities in opposition to U.S. 
Vietnam policy and/or service in the Armed Forces. 

I would agree with that statement based upon what I heard and 
what I observed when I was in South Vietnam last June. Many of 
the American fighting men were concerned about the demonstrations, 
they didn't quite miderstand them, but I would say in substantially 
all cases that it was not adversely affecting their morale. I think that 
reflects to the credit of the American fighting man in Vietnam. He 
knows what he is over there for, he has a job to do, and he is determined 
to get that job done. 

However, there is another side of the question to which you have 
not directed yourself in your statement. Since I have agreed with you 
in your statement, I am sure that you will agree with me in a statement 
that I am about to make. 

Is it not true in your opinion. General Berg, that these demonstra- 
'tions are favorably affecting the morale of the Viet Cong and the North 
Vietnamese; that is, are not in South Vietnam and North Vietnam the 
North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong distributing pictures of demon- 
strations and other forms of agitation against American policy in 
South Vietnam and substantially saying, "Look what goes on back in 
the United States, the American people themselves are against Ameri- 
can involvement in South Vietnam and if we hang on long enough 
eventually we will be successful, because the American people will lose 
patience with the South Vietnamese problem." 

Isn't that being done by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese? 

General Berg. To the best of my knowledge it is being done, Mr. 
Ichord. As an individual I have seen some evidence of that; yes, sir. 


Mr. IcHORD. Then it is favorably affecting the morale of the Viet 
Cong and the North Vietnamese? 

General Berg. I would not feel competent to answer that it is or 
is not. I think someone from the Department whose primary interest 
is in this area would undoubtedly agree that what you say is right. 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, you are a Brigadier General in the Air Force. 
Would you not agree that that would be pretty effective campaign 
propaganda among the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong? 

General Berg. I think any reasonable man would agree to that; 
yes, sir. 

Mr. IcHORD. Now, General Berg, you state that the Department of 
Defense defers to the Department of Justice and you are making no 
recommendations as to the action of the Congress on this bill. Of 
course, your testimony is not too relevant because you make no 
recommendations one way or the other, but I wonder if your state- 
ment reflects the views of solely the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
or whether it reflects the views of the entire Department of Defense ; 
that is, has your statement in this matter been submitted to the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff for their recommendation and consideration ? 

General Berg. Mr. Ichord, we asked the separate military depart- 
ments to furnish us any relevant information they had in this regard 
and then put together the statement, and in accordance with the pro- 
cedure over there submitted it to the appropriate activity for coordi- 

I did not send it to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I do not know 
whether or not they actually had a chance to look at it. 

Mr. IcHORD. Thank you very much for that explanation. 

Now one more question. General Berg. On May 11, 1966, you ap- 
peared before the Commerce Committee testifying on Senate bill 2825 
and Senate bill 3072, which would make obscene, threatening, and 
harassing telephone calls in interstate or foreign commerce a Federal 
offense. Now in your testimony before that committee, and I read 
the last few sentences in the first paragraph, you state : 

The Department of Defense is concerned about the adverse effect on the mo- 
rale and welfare of our servicemen and their families of these offensive, 
harassing and even subversive acts— particularly as they pertain to our military 
operations in Vietnam and elsewhere. To date we have been able to identify a 
total of 87 such contacts. 

Then on page 4 of your statement, the last sentence in the top para- 
graph on page 4, you state, and I quote : 

The fact of the matter is that — once publicized — they have a detrimental effect 
on all members of out Armed Forces and their families everywhere. 

Now, in your statement before this committee you state, and I quote : 

As I testified before another committee, we have had some instances in which 
relatives of military personnel have been harassed by abusive, ghoulish, or 
threatening communications based on the individual's membership in the Armed 
Forces. These incidents are individually outrageous, but on the present scale 
we cannot regard them as a general attack on morale. 

I can't harmonize those two statements. The first statement you 
say they have a detrimental effect, and here you state that on the 
present scale you cannot regard them as a general attack on morale. 
1 Avould like for you to explain that apparent inconsistency in my 

General Berg. Wei], in preparation for coming over here I re- 
viewed both of these statements, sir, and in the one case we are talking 


about somebody calling up and physically threatening the well-being 
of die people or threatening them at a time in which they are under 
considerable personal bereavement. In most cases, these were di- 
rected towards people where the serviceman himself was deceased, 

Mr. IcHORD. Are you saying the individual cases have an effect 
upon morale, but all of the cases don't constitute a general attack on 

General Berg. Well, they don't in our opinion. They don't consti- 
tute an effect that is measurable. 

Mr. IcHORD. But you are saying that the individual case has an 
oiiect on the morale of the individual. That is what you are saying in 
your testimony before the House Commerce Committee ? 

General Berg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IcHORD. But here you are saying that there are not enough of 
them to constitute a general attack on morale. 

General Berg. That is the information that we haA^e gathered ; yes, 

Mr. IcHORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. General, how did you arrive at the Vietnam consensus, 
or whatever you want to call it, of morale damage ? 

General Berg. Well, Mr. Chairman, we sent a dispatch to them in 
response to the request we received to appear over here and asked 
tliem to comment, and the quote that I read is taken right off of the 
response that we received from them. I am not able to comment how 
they arrived at that decision. 

Mr. Pool. It could have been one officer's opinion, is that correct ? 

General Berg. It is possible ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Pool. We had this happen in the Post Office Committee last 
year, and I asked both the generals from the Pentagon how much 
extra cargo space would be necessary to get the mail to the servicemen 
overseas and especially in Vietnam. 

And they made the statement that it would tie up the shipment 
of materiel and war supplies and things like that, and it would be 
astronomical, or something to that effect, and also' the shipments to 
Europe and things like that were discussed. They gave me the im- 
pression that what we were attempting to do would not be at all feasi- 
ble. So in my trip to Europe last fall, I asked General Lemnitzer, 
our leader at NATO, and other personnel over there, and I fomid out 
that it took just one cargo ship to handle all the mail in that area for a 
week's time, and it was an entirely different version from what I had 
gotten from the two generals from the Pentagon and it rather startled 
me that they would make a statement to me like that and not back 
it up. 

That is why I asked the question. I am sure your answer is very 
frank and very honest and I apperciate it, but there is a question in 
my mind as to whether or not this information being furnished us 
is the real facts of tlie case. 

General Berg. Well, in this particular instance, Mr. Chairman, 
as I stated, I am relying on the answer that we received. 

Mr. Pool. You don't know whether a captain went out and talked 
to some of the men ? 

General Berg. I do not, and there is no such indication in the 

67-852^ — 66 — pt. 2 6 


Mr. Pool. Well, it is regrettable that we do not have that sort of 
information when we talk about the morale. Of course, it is very 
simply evident that these overt acts^ some of these demonstrators stand- 
ing in front of troop trains and things like that, I think definitely de- 
lays the shipment of materiel. Of course, now I don't think there is 
any question on that. Maybe you have a comment on that. I do not 
see any in your statement. 

Do you have a comment on that ? In the letter we did not ask that 

General Berg. No, sir, you didn't. 

Mr. Pool. I think it is self-evident that it would delay the trains if 
the trains were held up and things like that. 

General Berg. Quite obviously if some of these people lay down they 
have to drag them out from in front of the truck. 

Mr. Pool. The testimony we have had before the committee, there 
have been no prosecutions on that score and probably because there has 
been no Federal Laws to cover that. We have not developed in the 
testimony yet what would indicate that it could be handled under the 
present law. 

Do you have any information on that ? 

General Berg. I don't think I have any personal comments. 

Mr. IcHORD. Of course, Mr. Chairman — Go ahead, I will yield. 

Mr. Buchanan. Go ahead. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Ichord is on the Armed Services Committee and he is 
the best one we have to ask the questions. 

Mr. Ichord. It is fairly well known that some of these organizations 
have attempted to stop troop trains by lying down in front of them 
and by other methods. There have been no prosecutions arising out of 
those attempts. We have the Department of Justice before us tomor- 
row, and I presume that the Department will explain why there have 
been no prosecutions, if there is any such law. 

It is my information now that there is no such law that would pro- 
hibit such activity. Would not the general agree, however, that there 
could conceivably arise a situation in South Vietnam where we im- 
mediately need to get troops to South Vietnam and that these troops 
were being moved by rail and if such activity were successful in 
delaying the embarking of those troops to South Vietnam that it could 
very well adversely affect the military situation in South Vietnam. 

Mr. Berg. If the situation occurred as you say, I would agree. 

Mr. Ichord. And it would be your personal opinion that such ac- 
tivity should be prohibited by law ; would it not ? 

Mr. Berg. I believe so ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Ichord. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Pool. General, also you said it would be a correct belief to say 
that attempts to injure the Armed Forces morale should be punished, 
whether they succeed or not ? 

General Berg. Well, that is getting a little bit out of my competence 
here on morale in the Armed Forces, Mr. Pool. 

Mr. Pool. Whether he succeeds or not, he is attempting to injure 
the Armed Forces and also to injure the morale of the Armed Forces. 
And whether he succeeds or not, should he not be punished ? 

General Berg. Well, I am reluctant to say that he should or should 
not, Mr. Pool, for the simple reason my capacity is to indicate whether 
or not they have been successful. 


Mr. Pool. I understand. I just thought maybe you might have a 
comment on that. 

Mr. Buchanan. 

Mr. Buchanan. General Berg and Captaui Williams, we appreciate 
your testimony today. 

General Berg, I would just ask your judgment as a military officer, 
would you not deem it adverse to the military situation if the group 
succeeded in giving aid and comfort to the Vietcong in the present 
conflict in Vietnam ? Would that not be adverse to our military situ- 
ation, regardless of the morale ? 

General Berg. To the military situation I would agree; yes, sir. 

Mr. BucHANATsr. Now as to morale, I would be inclined, not on as 
firm a ground as you might have or the gentleman from Missouri may 
have, but on the basis of my own visit to Vietnam in February, I 
would he inclined to accept your analysis of the efi'ect upon the morale 
of our troops and indeed the one you received from Vietnam, I think 
I found morale sky-high everywhere I went. I found the reactions 
you mentioned— anger to satirical humor over the demonstrations at 
home. I found a good deal of anger. I thinlv that General West- 
moreland has done an excellent job in keeping the troops fighting 
there informed as to what is happening in the United States and keep- 
ing this in proper perspective and balance. 

I think there is an excellent communication of their mission and 
of the reaction back home, the degree of support they have back home 
on the part of the military leadership over there. Certainly it seems 
to be the case and therefore I thinlv that this has had an effect on 
keeping morale high. I found our troops seem to be very dedicated 
to what they are trying to do, believe in their mission, understand 
their mission, and therefore they have no morale problem. 

I would say, all of this to the contrary notwithstanding, if 87 phone 
calls caused the Department of Defense to be concerned about the 
morale of servicemen— and I understand the viciousness of these 
phone calls because I have had some personal experience with people 
who received this kind of heartless expression, having lost a son in 
Vietnam, from an anonymous letterwriter — if 87 such phone calls 
caused you to be concerned about the servicemen, would it not be 
natural to assume that you would have some concern over direct dol- 
lar distributions to Vietnam and attempts to stop troop trains and 
ammunition trains, and so forth ? It would seem to me there is some 
basis for concern here. 

General Berg. Well, I indicate in the statement that we were not 
unconcerned about this, but with regard to the major question we 
were asked to testify on whether or not this has affected the morale 
of the people in the Armed Forces. 

The position I presented in the statement here is the way in which 
we see it now. 

Mr. Buchanan. It would seem to me that your statement reflects 
to the credit of the men in our Armed Forces, and I would certainly 
feel that such credit would be deserved, but as the chairman has sug- 
gested, whether or not there is success in the attempt, whether or not 
these things in fact affect morale, the activities themselves are not 
necessarily made innocuous because the poison did not take when it 
came to our fighting men because of the caliber of our fighting men. 


General Berg. I understand what you are saying. 

Mr. Pool, General, we appreciate your frankness and cooperation 
with the committee and certainly appreciate you and the captain ap- 
pearing here today. 

General Berg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

(The material mentioned by General Berg on p. 1306 was sent the 
committee under date of August 27. The attachments referred to are 
retained in committee files. His letter and enclosures, except No, 4, 
"Attention All Militai-y Persomiel" which was previously mserted in 
the record as Meese Exhibit No. 16 (p. 1138) follow:) 


WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20301 


(Military Personnel Policy) 27AUG1S'66 

Honorable EdwiJi E. Willis 
Chairman, Ccsnmittee on Un-Anerican 

House of Representatives 
Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In ny statement on August 22, 19^, in hearings before the sub- 
conmittee considering H.R. 120kT, I stated that I would svibmit 
for the record some notes on incidents and samples of material 
which apparently were designed to induce disaffection among 
military personnel. At the time of my appearance the Depart- 
ment was awaiting the receipt of samples from Vietnam. 

Attachments suid enclosures are submitted herewith. Attachments 
1 through 7 are case summaries of incidents of harassment. 
Enclosures 1 through 7 are samples of conanuni cations received 
and reported by personnel serving in Vietnam. 

In the case notes (Attachments 1 through 7) identification of 
locations is included for the information of the Ccnmittee. 
It is requested that prior to publication of any of th^se 
items all information that might identify the location or 
identity of the victims in these case^ be deleted, in order 
to avoid incitement to a renewal of the harassment. 


William W. Berg / 

Brigadier General, USAF 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

Atts - 7 
EnclB - 7 


[Enclosure 1] 


)aly 31. 1965 

What to do when dmhod-lf you have a wnscieme 

By Pieter Romayn Clark 

THURSDAY. JtTNE 24. 1965. I was ordered lor Induc- 
tion into the BRned forces of the DiUted States. Hav- 
ing passed my pre-lDduciIon physical more than a year ' 
previously and been classified lA, I vu quite resigned 
to going m. Man; frten<l3 gave their advice u to how 
1 could avoid the draft. "Some sugsested pretending to 
be Insane or homose^tual or stupid. Some suggested that 
I claim CO. status on religious, pacifist or humanist 
grounds. Others suggested that I lust simply refuse to 
go and thus serve a jaU sentence. All of these sugges- 

I could not claim insanity or homosexuality since Z 
am neither insane nor a homosexual and to do so wouM 
be unprincipled and cowardly. Also I couldnt claim to 
be a con::clentlou5 objector since I am a materialist and 
don't believe In a religion or a god. Btsldea, not being a 
pacifist. I certainly do believe that It is sometimes 
necessary to defend one's self to the point of lillling- 
The fad Is that If this country were being Invaded by 
Eome fascist or foreign force, as Vietnam Is now being 
Invaded by the U.S.. I would willingly fight to resist the 
aggressors. But. since the D3. Is carrying out a com- 
pletely unjust and aggressive war against th& people 
of Vietnam. I could never support such a war. but I 
irould never refuse on pacifist grounds. 

Hence. I had two alternatives: (II refuM to go in and 
tbU3 serve a prison term or, (2) allow myself to be 
drafted and do my best against US. foreign policy from 
within the armed forces Since I feel there Is. to a great 
degree, a more derelict, criminal and In general bad 
element of our society within our prisons, I decided to 
allow myself to be Inducted. At least In the Army, espe- 
cially among the young draftees, there are a lot of 
good and honest young men. many of whom are nomi- 
nally against the war and the whcrfe military aystem. 
And as I found out later, most of the draftees are 
drafted unwillingly. Many of these young men are 
forced to leave their families, girl frlendj and In many 
casta their Jobs. So. on Thursday, June 24, 19fl5 — at 
6:30 In the morning — I reported for Induction aj or- 
dered by my local board. 

A3 SOON AS I ABRIVED at the central induction cen- 
ter I began to distribute about 200 3I>S leaflets against 
the Vietnam war which I had brought with me. It 
seems that my act of leaflet i 
Chat It did I 

personnel who were oresent. They all seemed 
was authorized to do whatever I was doing in 
ruung Inductees are given little tilings 
carrying a bunch of papers from one office 

In tact the military personnel newr discovered what 
: was really doing until an officer Inadvertently picked 
IP one of the leafleta and began reading It 

1 stopped and my leaflets were confiscated from 
the young draftees to whom I had distributed theni. 
i only after I had given out all I had. I was then 

taken to a fairly large 
and left to sit. 
litUe by little the r 

s tlma there 

military personnel left the rofcm. By tl 
were about 73 youths quietly sitting 
all by themselves. So. then I got the Idea of asking 
for signatures on an antl-Vletnam war petition. Hav- 
ing a large brown envelope with me which was gtven 
with a lot of other things by the military to be filled 
out at the proi>er time — I used this as the paper lor 
my petition. 

On the top of the envelope I wrote In pencil: '"A 
PETITION TO THE ARMY." Then I began to go fro-n 
person to person aiUng for signatures. Some refused, 
but after a short explanation that wa have no causa 

to fight for Lt either Vietnam or Santo Domingo, 
most of those approached signed. Many of tfce youths 
were Negroes who. with UUle ct-axlng. ^-llUngly signed. 
After I had got about 21 signjtur-s the miatary per- 
sonnel returned and I was Immediately stopped. One 
of the serg3ants began Co snout at me and I began to 
shout bacli, which sort of surprised him and the 
inductees. The sergeant was so surprised that he quiet- 
ed down. Talcing advantage of the sUence and atten- 
tion I began to slve a loud talk on how unjust the 
aggressive war is In Vietnam and If young Ameri- 
cans really want to fight .'or freedom then they should 
fight for Che rUht to vote in the South or Join the 
picket line around city hail lor eq'jolity in 
AT ONE POINT a whlt« !(!d told me to shut up but 

he did severaJ N«groes said. ■'Let hin^ talk. 
on« even Jumped up with raised fists to 

right to taia. Naturally, when the mllKars 
personnel recovered from their shock, ttiey seized me 
and isolated me and even placed a young sailor to 
guard me. After a short wait they rushed me through 

md had me fill out some papers. I refused 
n the'loyaity oath, which has ail londs of peace, 
rights and prr^gresslve groups listed as sub- 
besides the Nazi Party and the KKK. On 
all previous occasions, such as my pre-inductlon phy- 
sical. I had refused to sign. 

When finished with the test and an papers were 
filled out I except the loyalty g^th) I was rushed 
through the physical, all the time being accomparyed 
by this sailor giiard. As I went thrnugh the physical 
sjme of the guys, both black and white, asked how 
I was and In general greeted me warmly. In other 
words, there was Utile hostUlty toward me for what 
I had done. Admltedly I was quite frightened at 

i e^tccedingly friendly. 

« and would 

and that I should go home — which I did. 

VietnaTTi Day Committee 

2505 Telegraph Ave. 


345-6637 or 848-3153 


[Enclosuee 2] 

[Enclosure 2] — Continued 

"I have never ta-lked or corresponded ^/itli 
a person Icnov/ledgeable in' Indochinese affcirs 
who did not f.gree that had. elections besn held 
at the, tirae of the fighting (1954), possibly 
SQa of the population v.'auld have voted for 
the Conmiunist Ho Chi liinh -as their leader, '■ 

- Dv;ight D, Eisenhoirer, 

in his book Mandate ^or Change , p. 372 

Hie United States is fighting against the 
people of Vietnam. TJHI? 

'•'People ask me v.-iio my heroes are, I have 
only one — Kitlor." 

- Saigon premier I'guyen Cao Ky 

lJouldn»t it be better to let the Vietn?'mese 
people decide for themselves v;hat form of 
governm.ent they v/snt — even if it»s commvinist-- 
and stop this needless killing of Vietnamese 
peasants and American G.I.s?? 


[Enclosure 3] 

Aa BeU la w aod vwr U WbU. 
AgaSoMt jrour officers^ «alt«l 
I enjoin jrm, aoldlan, to rvbel 
Aad proclala, "Wc sijaOl net fl^tl" 

A vlel^ to ■• tbara ona one ai^^t 
Nora hoTTMKloaa tban «B7 Atmb. 
iBfora agr «7«« tha fl^Mtly sl«^tt 
avotAa^ua bodlas, tha plercixvs acraaa 
Of a vce^ii vitb b«r batojr teed 
In bar una. Daeag^t«t«A oao I e«w, 
Afid cTTvr the laaA » flood of rvd, 
Me^nds of bo£i*a« t2i« tassoe of var. 

"WiovraakB thlc sutm vpAn 1^ Inodt 

Vb&t la ijka hldcouc si^tt" 

I loc^d to OoA to ODdevetaed 

And acaver caaa by somloe's ll^t. 

lAto %ra tha guiltyT Ton asd I. 
Tor «« drop boatoa trcm tta* aky 
CB ?let laB's eoll far atray. 
"Ihla la far ttelr ffe**" w mv* 

But Boat culpable of all 
Ara tboa* vl» alan^tar with tlMlr etna, 
Aad theaa «bo e«gua« tin boaiba to fall. 
Our aoldiara, tbay, Iks foll^ oaaa. 

So te you nov, I Mdta IftUU plMii 
"RafUA* to kin, rafttM to dla, 
Throv down your anM; unit* w», 
Oafy tte draft aad Jola tlta ex7t 
As Sail la war and «ar ia BeU 
Afainat your offlcara, ualtat 
I anjoln you, aoldlsre, to rebal 
And proolala, 'We abaU not fl^t.'" 

Km vsxanBB vox m oarrasoR's m 
nn aoi AS msGBB 

Aaarloal Sow eac you ba 
Aflila wva you tiera one* to mt 

ZA»«la 9t fnaAn, J«pt Itora aada. 
Frlaeiplaa of a s3«et mUaELt 
Liberty cad tdaratloga. 

A land of ftvadoa, yen azpwaaed 
The rl^t of people to protaat 
?l«%a ^le& vtiv not tbalr om. 
F3<a*49B for paopla to dlaaaat 
?raa tto Tlaisa of ths ooveaiBaat, 
To Baka tbalr ftallnca ksem. 

And aov abread a war you a«0B, 
?«9lt by aoaa to ba an ootiaca. 
But oTea vhlla you foroa your haod 
Oreraoaa, oa Aaaaatle 


Your people filled vlth fiaar md bate 
For Coaan&lata, tbay sow aonsta 
Paeiflaa vlth tcaadtazy. 
Aaarisal Bsv aan you bat 
A«ala, «bat yea vara oaea te aat 
)tr wjuBtzy, I (rlaiM at yoor fiata, 
Wmd you BO leecax' toXanita 
SwQ^tful aaa ate t—l ottiaivtaa 
Ttaae you} tbay faar to orltiolaa 
Ibalr DlTlna ■atioa's pelloy. 


[Enclosure 5] 


One year agq, I was stationed in Bien Hoa. When I was 
there I becamo very bitter at the hullabaloo going on in the 
States about the Viet Nam situation. I felt that I had some- 
thing to say to the college students, but had no way to. Well, 
I am enrolled at the University of California now. A fellow 
journalist, John Maybury, eind myself have formed a program 
by which you can say something to the students, to the citi- 
zens o£ America. We know you have many things to say and we 
want to hear them. Your comments will be published exactly 
as you write them. We are tired of repressed news, distorted 
views, and administrative hogwashj you are the on es there, 
and you can have an honest voice. Please write, send photo- 
graphs, or see eibout our questionnaire. I personally want 
you to have a voice. 

James Granth2un 

Working with: Student, University of Calif. 

John Maybury Former airman at Bien Hoa 

EL GAUCHO, Student 839 #D Embarcadero del Norte 

, Newspaper Goleta, California 93017 
University of California, 
Santa Barbara 


[Enclosure 5] — Continued 


Perhaps you are aware of the great controversy 
in the States about the situation in Viet Nam. We, 
here in the States, hear only journalistic editorial 
comments and are given inacciirate views. This has 
led (as you know) to big anti-war demonstrations here 
and especially in the University of California. Well, 
now is oyur chance — we want to hezir from you I Please 
write anything you wish on your views and send them 
to James Grantham, 839 #D Embarcadero del Norte, 
Goleta, California 93017. Your views and comments 
will be published exactly as you write them. 
Nov? you can have a voice ! 

1. Name 

2. Age 3. Rank 

4. Branch of Service 

5. Where stationed ____________^_______________________^ 

6 . Hometown 

(Answer Yes or No or explain if you wish) 
7. Do you regret U.S. involvement in Viet Nam? 

8. How do you think the South Vietnamese feel about 
U.S. involvement in the war? 

.9.. How do you feel the war is going? 
10. Do you think U.S. forces are being used effectively? 

[Enclosure 5] — Continued 


H. What is life like where you ire? Explain your 

duties, schedules, conditions: Free time, clothes, 
food, travel — anything lik e that. 

12. Is there any problem with political investigators 
and VIP' 3 from Stateside? 

13. Do you favor escalation of the war? 

14. Which seems more effective — infantry or bombers? 

15. How do you feel about college students demonstrating- 
against the war in Viet Nam? What can college 
students at home do to help you? 

16. How is the news you get, your communication links? 
Do you have any comments or complaints about Stars 
and Stripes , for instance? 

17. What do you think of the USD shows? Of entertainment 
in general where you are located? 

18. Do you have any special gripes? 

19. What general concluding comments would you like to 

make to college students and all others here at home? 

By no means feel restricted to this page. The more 

the better — use the margins, the back, emd other sheets 

if you desire. Also include photos — anything publishable.) 


[Enclosure 6] 

Strong opposition to Camunlsts speakinp; on campus stems from an 
Irrational fear of Conmunism that exists in this counti^ today. The 
United States is one of the few western nations in which the Conmunist 
Party is regarded as sonethine: special or dangerously different from 
other political parties. Here the CPUSA is regarded as a secret con- 
spiracy apiaiinst the nation; but the Party was forced into its under- 
ground secrecy in 1951 with the passap;e of the McCarran Act with made 
it inpossible for them to participate openly in the political arena. 
Since that time the ronnants of McCarthyism have perpetuated a fear that 
has made it inpossible for anyone to support Coninunists or Ccsnnunism 
without beinp; subjected to extensive lepial, social and econcmlc harrass- 
ment. Similarly it has become inpossible to even discuss Connunism 
freely and candidly without the likelihood of being; accused of beinpc one. 

In the mid-twentieth century, Ccsnnunism has becane the scape-«>at 
for all the troubles, internal and external, that America faces. 
Ccsmiunlsm has beccnie an easyway of categorizing, and then discrediting, 
all social unrest. This categorization provides an easy explanation 
for the problems and eliminates the necessity for further investigation 
or consideration. In our foreign policy, all our government need do is 
pronounce that a revolution is camrunist inspired and we imnedlately 
swnounce it. Hence, the occurrance of the involution provides no 
occasion for the analysis of our foreign policy to see if your policy 
itself might be hindering the peaceful development of that country. 
More significantly, it is the mentsility that denounces Coimunism as 
evil and thinks no farther that allows us to kill fellow human beings 
in Vietnam without having any moral qualms. In the civil rights movanent, 
many accusations have been hurled about the Commmists in the movement, 
and this somehow abnegates the necessity of examining the social and 
economic injustices that exist in this country. Often these accusations 
have been started by legislative conmlttees such as the House Conmittee 
on UnAmerican Activities. On this campus similar red-baiting has been 
used against those that 


[Enclosure 7] 

^^\ LOHftTS THAT a UK/ l^y'rZt 


■What if you're 6;ea,3pgt way? dr the fitting In Vietaam? the • 

Itttf 8»y8 you n^y be eUgJble to beoooie a COHSCISNTICfaS CSgfBCTOR 
(Selective Service Classification 1-A-O or l-O). A «C<(iw(»iiaitiovia 
Objector** or "CO." is a man ^o ways "iny consoleeoo ^t ^ bttLief 
tells me it ' s wrong to kill, its wrong to bomb or ibdot and destroy 
people. I won't do it. Instead, I'll do * alternative service' like 
the work done in poor conmiuiities on developctent, teaching or orgazv 
isation, that's good for the country, and other people." 


The law may not cover everybody vAo's Against the war. It say» a 
laan can be a CO. "who by reason ef religlioxis training and belief, 
is conscientiously opposed to war in any form." A lot more men fit 
this description than you raay think right off, espeoialljr after recent 
court cases broadening the "religioa" clause. You're certainly not 
limited to formal religion. You may think of yourself as agnostic or 
an atheist. Thinking about religion has changed; one famous theo- 
logian, Paul Tillich, say, in effect, that religion is "ultimate 
concern", a measure of intensity, and that you may be considered 
"religious" without knowing it. Court cases have broadened the defi- 
nition of religion so that it may include agnostics and humanists. 

lio one knows vrtio will get CO. status froo his draft hoard and 
who won't. Even tliough the law may not cover everybody, ^ffly pan can 
,file Fora 150 (Special Fom for C.O.'s) asking to be a C.O. 
If you are conscientiously against war — 

—you may want to file for CO.. because you think you 
qualify clearly under the law; 

— ^you may want to file for CO. even if you're not sure 

you come •under the law; but you want to express your 
beliefs honestly and let your draft board decide; 

— yau raay want to file for CO. to tell your draft board, 
and everjrbody else that you're against the war; 

—you may want to file for CO. to tiy to get the goveiv 
nraent to broaden the law to cover all men who don't 
want to kill people; this would take an Act of Con- 
gress or a Supreme Court decision. 



Mr. Pool. The next witness will be David Friesel, national legisla- 
tive representative, Regular Veterans Association. 


Mr. Friesel. Shall 1 go on, sir ? 

Mr. Pool. Go right ahead if you have a prepared statement. 

Mr. I RiESEL. My name is David Friesel. I was born 20 July 1894. 
I enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1913, participated in World War I and 
World War II, and served twice in the army of occupation in Ger- 
many. I retired for physical disabilit}'^ in 1953 as a colonel. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee on 
behalf ol the Regular Veterans Association, as its national legislative 
representative, to support amending the Internal Security Act of 1950 
so that severe punishment be meted out to the few misguided, coward- 
ly rabble who give aid and comfort to our countrj-'? enemies at a time 
when our loyal men and w^omen are sacrificing their lives combating 
our enemies to ward olT greater danger in the future. 

Since Communists are not the only groups which seek the destruc- 
tion of free governments, especially ours, the pending amendment to 
the Security Act of 1950 should encompass other groups and individ- 
uals who have been and will continue to give aid and comfort to our 
enemies who v/ant to destroy this great free Nation of ours. 

This does not mean that we have a perfect Government which no one 
may criticize ; we do not ! Btit we have the means for improving it if 
our vast majority of loyal citizens were not befuddled by the slanted 
news emanating from our press and television. Every rabble-rousing 
lunatic is given top billing and notoriety many times per day on TV 
and they are possibly the major cause of the rioting, thievery, and 
even murder taking place in many of our cities, 

Besides the Communists we have the Nazis, the Ku Kluxers, and 
last but not least our mentally befuddled professors in some of our 
colleges and universities. A brief outline of their activities in the past 
is outlined below. 

Co7niivunisin is an organization based on holding all property with 
actual ownership ascribed as a whole to the state. Since our press and 
television are and have been reporting about them in detail for years, 
the public is well informed. However- there are three other very 
dangerous groups, namely : the Nazi Pft rty, the KKK, and the men- 
tally degenerated so-called professors of some of our colleges and 
universities — 39 by count — 119 professors by actual count. Since 
everyone knows about communism, we will follow with a brief sum- 
mary of the others, starting with nazism. 

The Nazi Party: The world and ottr adult population well Imow of 
the horrors and bestiality perpetrated by the Nazi Party of Hitler 
which forced us into World War II. It was started by a toolmaker, 
Anton Drexler, in 1919. Hitler's membership number was 7 of total 
membership of 25. He soon became the leader and helped to write a 
25-point program, the 25th point being : "For modern society, a colos- 
sus with feet of clay, we shall create an unprecedented centralization 
which will unite all powers in the hands of the government." * * * In 
1920 with the aid of police and disgruntled high-ranking army officers 
he organized the storm troopers to defend its meetings, to disrupt 


meetings of liberal Democrats, Socialists, Communists, and trade 
unions, etc. In 1921 he was elected chairman of the Nazi Party and 
adopted the swastika as the official emblem. In November 1923 Hitler 
marched with 600 armed storm troopers to a hall in Munich where 
Gustav von Kahr, head of the Bavarian Government, was addressing 
a public meeting ; took him and his associates prisoner ; and, abetted by 
General Erich Ludendorff, declared in von Kahr's name the formation 
of a new national government. 

Immediately thereafter, von Kahr was released and turned against 
Hitler and Ludendorff. Following a brief skirmish with the Munich 
police on November 9, Hitler and his cohorts fled and the putch failed. 
Hitler and Ludendorff were subsequently arrested. Ludendorff was 
unpunished, but Hitler was tried and received a 5-year prison term, 
and the Nazi Party was outlawed. It was in prison where he wrote 
Mein Kampf which, as later expanded, was a frank statement of Nazi 
doctrines, propaganda techniques, and plans for conquest of Germany 
and then the world. 

Hitler was released in less than a year and immediately rebuilt the 
Nazi Party. In 1926 Hitler established himself as the Fuhrer (leader) 
and organized the SS to supervise and control the Nazi Party. When 
Germany fell on hard times in 1929 the capitalists, led by Fritz Thys- 
sen, contributed large sums of money to the Nazi Party, and it grew 
tremendously. By 1933 von Hindenburg appointed him Cliancellor 
of the Reich and by December Germany was under complete Nazi 
control, and it extorted huge sums of money from the Gennan workers 
and peasants, conducted training of all youths through 17, and pro- 
ceeded to try to conquer the rest of the world. Everyone who attended 
school since then knows well of the unspeakable horrors which were 
perpetrated by the Nazis until our Nation came to the world's rescue 
and subdued the bestiality then existent. 

The Ku Klux Klan : An American, secretly organized group in the 
South about 1866, on the pretext of protecting white womanhood, soon 
instituted a program of illegal activities and hiding under white sheets 
and robes they flogged, robbed, and murdered throughout the Southern 
States. In 1871 Congress passed a law to enforce the 14th amendment 
to our Constitution. 

Hundreds of Klansmen and other terrorists were arrested following 
the issuance of a Presidential proclamation in 1871, and the Klan 
gradually dissolved. A second KKK was incorporated in 1915 com- 
posed of white Protestant males, 16 years or older, adopting a HATE 
jjrogram against Negroes, Catholics, and Jews. It had little growth 
until the economic dislocation in 1920. Following World War I, it 
expanded rapidly in about 40 States. It returned to terroristic tactics 
such as floggings, thievery, immorality, and lynchings. During World 
War II it joined the German-American Bund which was financed by 
the Nazis under Hitler. After this war there was widespread senti- 
ment for the suppression of the organization. It suffered a severe 
setback in its national stronghold, Georgia, when that State revoked 
the Klan charter in 1947. In 1949 the Association of Georgia Klans 
was placed on the list of subversive organizations issued by the U.S. 
Attorney General. 

That takes care of the two groups, the Nazis and the KKK, that 
cannot only embarrass us, but be dangerous to our Nation. 


The last one is the most important and the most dangerous, the be- 
fuddled professors. These comments are my own, not on behalf of the 
E.VA. They triggered by what I consider organized disloyalty and 
givmg aid and comfort to the enemy by jointly taking and paying for 
a one-half page ad on 7 July 1966 in the Washington Post berating our 
Government and demanding that — and I have the ad right here and I 
will read the quotations of their attempts. 

1. To cease all bombing, North aud South [Vietnam], and all other offensive 
military operations immediately ; 

2. To negotiate with the National Liberation Front and all other interested 
parties for a peaceful settlement ; 

.3. To encourage and in no way interfere with the free exercise of popular sov- 
ereignty in Vietnam ; 

4. To realize that the interest of self-determination for the Vietnamese, as well 
as our o^A^l national interest, will be best served by termination of our military 
presence in Vietnam. 

They jointly end up with the following threat in capital letters : 


They go on further ■ 

Mr. Pool. I would not bring politics into this thing. 

Mr. Friesel. Well, it is brief, but it is to the point and it shows 


Mr, Pool. You have a right to say what you want to. Go ahead. 
Mr. Friesel. [Continues reading :] 

Comments and contribution,s toward the cost of publication will be welcome. 
This Open Letter can be reprinted without permission. We suggest the widest 
publication, distribution, and use in letters to Senators, Representatives and the 
President of the United States. 

I have never in my life read about a more disloyal and traitorous 
attempt at intimidation by so-called professors, 119 of them out of 
thousands of professors in this country, and teaching in 39 of our most 
known colleges and universities, which annually receive millions of 
dollars from the United States Government. These professors have 
shown such mental deterioration that they are unfit to be pedagogues 
much less professors. These few poltroons should be tried for ac- 
cepting money under false pretenses as well as for giving aid and com- 
fort to our enemies. 

I will answer any questions you wish to ask. This is the half-page ad 
right here. 

Mr. IcHORD, I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Buchanan. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. We want to thank the witness for appearing and gi\dng 
the committee the benefit of his testimony. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Friesel. Thank you. 

Mr. Pool. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock 
tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4 :25 p.m., Monday, August 22, 1966, the subcom- 
mittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, August 23, 1966.) 

HEARINGS ON H.R. 12047, H.R. 14925, H.R. 16175, H.R. 

Part 2 


United States House of Reppesentatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 
public hearing 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in the Caucus Room, Cannon House 
Office Builcliiig, Washington, D.C, Hon. Joe R. Pool (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

(Subcommittee members: Representatives Joe R. Pool, of Texas, 
chairman; Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri; George F. Senner, Jr., 
of Arizona; Jolm M. Ashbrook, of Ohio; and John H. Buchanan, 
Jr., of Alabama. Alternate member : Representative Del Clawson, of 

Subcommittee members present : Representatives Pool, Ichord, and 

Staff members present: Francis J. McNamara, director; William 
Hitz, general counsel; Alfred M. Nittle, comisel; Donald T. Appell, 
chief investigator; and Ray McConnon, Jr., and Philip R. Manuel, 

Mr. Pool. The subcommittee is called to order. 

The chairman will have to ask the photographers to desist from 
taking any pictures under the rules. 

The first witness will be Mr. Ramsey Clark, Deputy Attorney Gen- 
eral. We especially welcome you before our committee this morning. 
Being a fellow Dallasite, I am sure that what you have to offer will 
be of interest to the committee. 


Mr. Clark. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee : I am privileged to 
have with me Mr. Walter Yeagley, who is one of the outstanding 


67-852—66 — pt. 2 7 


career public officials in the Department of Justice. He has served 
in various capacities in that Department for many years, and since 
1959 as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Internal Security 

The connnittee has before it a bill directed at activity of two types. 

First, it would proscribe the giving of assistance to any hostile for- 
eign power. 

Second, it would prohibit obstructions to the movement of militaiy 
personnel or supplies. 

A prime purpose of government is its own preservation. To this 
end, it must prevent the flow of aid to hostile foreign powers in times 
of armed conflict. It must prevent interference with the movement of 
its troops and their supplies. 

The question is whether additional laws are needed for these pur- 
poses, and if so, whether this bill best meets the need. 

There is no need for new legislation because a panoply of laws, 
State and Federal, presently protects the national interest. Moreover, 
however reprehensible, indeed irrational, much of the conduct of those 
who endeavor to interfere with our efforts to protect world freedom in 
Vietnam may be, it can hardly be considered a threat. Isolated in- 
stances of vain acts by a handful of extremists to aid the enemy or ob- 
struct our Armed Forces have failed. There has been no assistance 
from within the United States to hostile forces. There has been no 
interference with the free movement of military personnel or supplies. 
We should not lend credence to the possibility by again prohibiting 
what has not and will not happen. 

Essentially, the Vietnam obstructionist movement has been a propa- 
ganda effort. What w-e do to exaggerate its dimension which is minus- 
cule, only aids it in the accomplishment of its purposes. That such a 
tiny handful of people could secure so much attention in so vast a 
Nation by what has largely been eccentric behavior, is in itself a cause 
for concern. 

Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, it is unlaw^ful for any per- 
son subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to transfer funds, 
credit, or other property or to trade with, certain blocked countries or 
nationals thereof, except as specilically authorized by the Secretary of 
the Treasuiy. Included are outright gifts of assistance to the nationals 
in blocked countries. 

Its provisions are better adapted to prohibit the activity contem- 
plated by H.R. 12047 than is that bill itself. Its penalties, 10 years' 
imprisonment and $10,000 fine, are adequate to the crime. It is sup- 
plemented by the Foreign Agents Registration Act requiring anyone 
soliciting or sending aid to any foreign government to register with 
the Attorney General. The Export Control Act and other Federal 
statutes are also pertinent. 

Present law avoids the pitfalls, the frustrations, and the ineffectu- 
ality inherent in endeavors to limit expression. Section 402(a)(1) 
would control advising, counseling, urging, or soliciting. Without 
adding any meaningful protection, this language would jeopardize the 
purposes of the bill and fundamental rights of Americans by risking 
infringement of constitutional rights of free speech. 


Nor is it clear why the bill would not reach persons within the 
jurisdiction of the United States who do not owe their allegiance 
to this country, as does present law. Surely any act assisting hostile 
forces or obstructing military movement by an alien within our coun- 
try should be prohibited to the same degree at least as acts of a 

Finally, the absolute prohibition against all assistance would pro- 
hibit the arrangement of needed medical and other assistance for 
American prisoners of war. This has proved to be a valuable service 
in past conflicts. The International Committee of the Red Cross has 
rendered great humanitarian service. Surely we do not wish to out- 
law this possibility. 

It is difficult to conceive of either a major or a successful effort 
to obstruct the movement of military personnel or equipment in this 
country. Of all movement this is the most difficult to impede. 

Should such an effort be made scores of laws adopted through the 
years and tailored to meet acts of different degrees of wrongdoing 
would attach. 

For example, our sabotage statutes protect military material and 
installations, including buildings and grounds where such material 
is produced or stored, and utilities such as railroads, canals, bridges, 
vehicles, boats, aircraft, and power and communication lines used by 
the military. Severe penalties are provided. Of course, intensive 
investigation and prosecution would follow any act of sabotage. 
(See 18 U.S.C. 1362 and 18 U.S.C. 2151-2157.) 

Trespass on military property is a Federal crime. Entering any 
military reservation for any purpose prohibited by law or regulation 
or reentering after having been removed and ordered not to reenter 
subjects the offender to a fine of up to $500 and imprisonment up to 6 
months (18 U.S.C. 1382). Where there are restrictions placed on a 
military area any person entering, remaining in, or leaving such area 
in violation of those restrictions and with l^nowledge of them is sub- 
ject to a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year (18 U.S.C. 

The Port Security Act, 50 U.S.C. 191-192, prohibits movement in 
port areas during a national emergenc}' and provides high penalties. 

If two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, 
or threat, any person from entering the military service, or from dis- 
charging his duty; or to leave the place where his duty is to be per- 
formed, or to injure him, or his property on account of his discharge 
of his duties, or while he is engaged in the discharge of his duties; or 
to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his 
duties they are subject to a $5000 fine and 6 years imprisonment (18 
U.S.C. 372). 

To damage property of the United States, or being manufactured 
or constructed by it, is also subject to strict penalty. Where tlie. 
property value exceeds $100, punishment of 10 years and $10,000 
fine is authorized (18 U.S.C. 13G1). 

(At this point Representative Ashbrook entered the hearing room.) 


Mr. Clark. Many other Federal statutes are applicable to particu- 
lar conduct in certain places. Such laws as the Sedition Act and the 
Assimilated Crimes Act are parts of the panoply. 

These laws are adequate to protect the Federal interest. They, in 
turn, are bolstered by State and local laws reaching conduct properly 
within the jurisdiction of the States. In every jurisdiction of the 
Nation there are scores of laws applicable to conduct directed at 
members of the Armed Forces or military supplies. One need only 
point to general statutes and ordinances proscribing assault, destruc- 
tion of property, malicious mischief, traffic infractions, disorderly 
conduct, disturbing the peace, and parading without a permit. 

It would be unfortunate indeed if Federal law was extended into 
such clear State and local jurisdiction. There is no Federal police 
force to enforce such laws. We neither need nor want a Federal 
police force to enforce such laws. Nor is there any indication in any 
jurisdiction of the country that State or local law enforcement will 
not meet its responsibilities as fnlly where American soldiers are the 
subject of violation as where citizens of that community are. 

Any unnecessary law is undesirable. This is particularly so in our 
complex times. The bill under consideration is undesirable for more 
reasons than lack of necessity. Principal among these are: 

1. Its injection of Federal law and Federal enforcement into essen- 
tially State and local affairs, 

2. Its potential for infringement of the constitutional right of free 
speech because it reaches advising, counseling, urging, and soliciting, 

3. Its prohibition against sending medical and other needed su])- 
plies for members of the Armed Forces and civilians held prisoner 
by hostile forces, 

4. Its excessive and indiscriminate penalty which would attach the 
same severe sanctions to saboteurs and sit-ins alike. 

The Department of Justice recommends against the enactment of 
H.R. 12047. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Ichord. 

Mr. Ichord. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Clark, it is a pleasure to have you before this committee, and I 
wish to commend you in your analysis of the bill before the com- 
mittee. However, I must honestly state that I believe it is a very 
good general argument against the bill, but when you get down to 
specifics that your argument has no valid basis. First of all, in para- 
graph 2 on page 2 you state : 

Essentially, the Vietnam obstructionist movement has been a propaganda 
effort. What we do to exaggerate its dimension which is minuscule, only aids 
it in the accomplishment of its purposes. That such a tiny handful of people 
could secure so much attention in rso vast a Nation by what has largely been 
eccentric behavior, is in itself a cause for concern. 

Now, Mr. Clark, you state that the laws that are on the books 
are sufficient to cover the subjects that are sought to be legislated 
against by Mr. Pool's bill, but the fact remains for these actions that 
have been revealed or come to light by this hearing, there have been 
no prosecutions. 


Is it perhaps the policy of the Department of Justice that these 
individuals who have testified before the committee that they are 
against the policies of the United States of America in practically 
every field, that they are Communist, that they have sympathy with 
the aims and objectives of the Communist world, that they have 
nothing but utter contempt for this Government, that they have 
endeavored to solicit funds for the benefit of the Viet Cong, that 
they have collected blood to aid injured Viet Cong — is it perhaps then 
the policy of the Department of Justice not to prosecute because you 
would be directing too much attention to these activities? 

Mr. Clark. I don't believe attention is a factor when it comes to 
prosecution. Where we have evidence of an overt act that is a viola- 
tion of a Federal statute, we proceed. 

Mr. IcHORD. Then you are saying that it should be the policy of 
the United States Government not to legislate against such activity? 

Mr. Clark. No, sir; I am saymg that present legislation is ade- 
quate to protect the Federal interest and actually better. 

Mr. IcHORD. I ask you again, Why have there not been any prose- 
cutions for this activity ? 

Mr. Clark. It is difficult to generalize as to the activity that you 
may have in mind. Let me say that 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, let's get down to specifics, then. Your state- 
ment dealt with generalities. Let's get to specifics. There is testi- 
mony before this committee that a certain organization called the 
Vietnam Day Committee and the Committee for Medical Aid for 
Vietnam had solicited and collected funds to be sent to the Viet Cong. 
A check in the amount of $250 was sent to the "International Com- 
mittee of Red Cross" through Switzerland. The bank in Switzerland 
checked with the American Red Cross, and the American Red Cross 
advised them that they would not participate in such activities and 
that particular check was stopped. 

Then the Department of the Treasury notified these individuals 
that this was in violation of Department regulations. Later they 
sent in January or February of this year two checks, one in the 
amount of $500 and the other in the amount of $1,000 to a bank in 

Now we have testimony to the effect that the Department of the 
Treasury later froze $1,500 worth of assets of the bank in Czechoslo- 
vakia in a bank in this country. We don't loiow whether this money 
actually got to the Viet Cong. If it did get to the bank of the Viet 
Cong, then the bank of Czechoslovakia would have stood the loss, 
that is correct. But the money was sent out of the country. Why 
was there not any prosecution ? 

Mr. Clark. Let me note first that to the best of our Imowledge no 
money reached a hostile foreign power. 

Mr. Ichord. Plave you checked that through to the bank of 
Czechoslovakia ? 

Mr. Clark. On the basis of the information available to me, which 
is primarily through the Treasury Department, we do not know that 
any of these funds have reached a hostile foreign power. 


Mr. AsHBRooK. Would you yield on that point ? 
/ Mr. IcHORD. Yes. 

Mr. AsHBRooK, Would you take the position that the law is violated 
if it does not reach a hostile force, that you don't care or you don't 
proceed? The law was violated clearly and patently on its face with 
what might even be called being forewarned. The Treasury Depart- 
ment officials w^ent and counseled these people against any illegal act 
which they proceeded to disregard, to go ahead with. 

Are you taking the position that this act is not one that comes under 
Justice Department purview ? 

Mr. CLiVRK. I have not taken that position at all. As I said, I would 
like to note, first, that this money did not in fact reach a iiostile 
foreign power. Second, as 1 think Mr. Smith explained yesterday, 
the committee or interest that was to receive this money was not named 
under the regulation that was at that time in existence. Subsequently 
that committee was added to the proscribed group, and on the basis 
of those facts Treasury did not recoimnend to the Department of 
Justice that a prosecution ensue. 

Mr. IciiORD. And you are saying that at the time those particular 
acts were connnitted that there was no sufficient law on the books to 
prohibit this type of activity ? 

Now you say the Treasury regulations have been amended and there 
is sufficient law on the books to prohibit such activity. Is that your 
position ? 

Mr. Clark. We have not determined that the regulation in existence 
at the time of the conduct you have described was not in fact violated. 
The subsequent acts, however, of amendment to the regulations, coupled 
with the difficulties of proof under the circumstances, made the situ- 
ation one as to which Treasury did not recommend our going forward 
with a prosecution. 

Mr. IcHORD. Then you have not accepted the recommendations of 
.-the Treasury Department to prosecute ; have you ? 

Mr. Clark. Treasury reconunended against prosecution and the De- 
partment of Justice agreed with their recommendation. 

Mr. Iciiord. And there will be no prosecution for those pai^ticular 

I would like for you to answer my question as to whether it is the 
policy. We have no incidents, we have no examples of prosecution, 
-and I would like for Mr, Clark to answer whether it is the policy of the 
Department of Justice not to prosecute because of attracting too much 
attention lo this "tiny handful of people" as he describes them in his 

Mr. Clark. As I said earlier, the attention that might be attracted 
.has nothing to do with our prosecution policy. 

There have been within the last 2 weeks, in fact, a number of arrests 
and arraignment before the United States Commissioner in the Port 
Chicago area in San Francisco Bay community. There may be 
prosecutions now under consideration growing out of those incidents. 
. Mr. Pool. Eight here, the fact that we are having these hearings 
scheduled, would that have had some effect on the fact that you have 
not prosecuted ? Would that affect it in any way ? 


Mr. Clark. Absolutely none as far as I know, Mr. Chairman. 

]Mr. Pool. Yon did prosecute in tlie Berkeley troop movement inci- 
dent where they fell in front of the troop trains? 

]\Ir. Clark. There was no Federal prosecution. I understand there 
was State conviction, fine and time served. Those were misdemeanor 

Mr. Pool. They paid their fines and they were released in most 

Mr. IciiORD. T am very happy to hear the Deputy Attorney General 
state that that is the policy of the Department of Justice, because as 
a Member of Congress I am not in favor of having any law on the 
books that is not enforced, because the failure of the Department ot* 
Justice or any other prosecuting agency to enforce the laws breeds 
contempt for the law. I will have some more to say about that later 
on in my interrogation of you, Mr. Clark. 

The third paragraph of your report on August 12, 1966, the report 
of Mr. Clark to the committee on II.JX. 12047, the third paragraph on 
the first page, you state: "In general, proposed section 402 of the bill 
would duplicate the scope ancl effect of the Tradmg With the Enemy 
Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder." 

I would like for you to tell the committee, Mr. Clark, to what extent, 
specifically, there would be duplications of the Trading with the 
Enemy Act. Let's get down to specifics. 

Mr. Clark. The Trading with the Enemy Act as stated in the next 
full paragraph of that same letter encompasses not only commercial 
matters but also outright gifts of assistance to nationals in blocked 

Mr. Ichord. Of course, in that respect, you will concede that the 
Trading with the Enemy Act is primarily geared to commercial 
actions ? 

Mr. Clark. That is its primary purpose, and I think that is the 
primary risk to be protected against as well. 

Mr. Pool. At this point if you will yield, I have received in the 
mail this morning a letter from a person in Chester, Pennsylvania, 
in which he says this : 

Dear Rep. Pool; Enclosed are 3 books that I received in the mail 8/16/66. 
They were printed in Hanoi-North Vietnam, mailed from "Peace Rook Company 
In Hong Kong, and payment is snsposed [sic] to be made to a Mr. L. Y. Wong 
with no mention of the "Peace Book Co." on the checks. 

I hope yon have time to read this material to see first hand what anti- 
American trash can be, and. is, mailed to Americans from our enemies. 

I hope you can find some way to stop this un-American use of the mail. 

He also encloses the invoice from the Peace Book Company of 
83 Queen's Road, Hong Kong. The date of the invoice is July 1, 1966, 
This lists the three books that were sent to him and gives the price 
and the total of the bill which is listed on the invoice, which I will 
introduce in the record. Then it is rubberstamped down at the bot- 
tom of the invoice. It says : 

IMPORTANT: U.S. dollar checks must be made payable to Mr. L. Y. WONG 
personally. No name or address of the Company should be added on the checks. 

At this time I wish to offer this as evidence. If there is no objection 
it is so admitted. 


(Documents marked "Committee Exhibits Nos. 4-A and 4— B. 
hibit 4-A retained in committee files. Exhibit 4:-B follows :) 

Committee Exhibit No. 1-B 

83 Queen's Ruad, Hong Kong 
CabU Address: "PEACEBOOK" 
To: Mr. Austin Knowles 

200 V. Dutton Mill Rd. 

Chester, Bennsylvania 19014 No 717 i 

U. S. A. INVOICE - - 

Date jj,iy 1, 1966 
Your Order Ref: 


Vietnamese Intellectuals Against U. S. 

Once Again WE Will Win 

The Vietnamese Foeple on the Eoad to Victoi 


U. S. doikt checV« must be mvdt 
^■iyable to iiiL 1. Y. W(HK personally. 
N9 name or &&ittia of the Company 
should be added oa the checks. 



Mr, Pool, I ask you to comment on this procedure which is sending 
bills to American citizens and asking them to send checks made out 
personally I guess to get around the prevailing law. 

Also at this time I will introduce the three books that were sent. 
If there is no objection, they are submitted in evidence. 

(Documents marked "Committee Exhibit No. 5" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Pool. Go ahead, Mr. Clark. 

Mr. Clark. I would see nothing in the bill before the committee 
that would apply to this conduct that you have just described. 

Mr. Pool. Well, if they sent they money over there, or a personal 
check, it would be pretty hard to detect, I understand that. But at 
the same time it would be getting around your Trading with the 
Enemy Act which is what they are trying to do. We would like to 
strengthen the law to stop such procedures for that reason. I thought 
you might have a comment on that. 

Mr. IciiORD. Of course you agree, Mr. Chainnan 

Mr. Pool. No, that would not cover it unless they actually sent 
the money. 


Mr. IciiORD. Let me reframe the question, Mr. Clark. Let us take 
the other approach. What acts are prohibited by Mr. Pool's bill which 
are not prohibited by the Trading with the Enemy Act ? 

M,. Clark. The Trading with the Enemy Act would give a valu- 
able discretion to the Treasury Department and the Department of 
State enabling them to try to work out arrangements where blood, 
medical supplies, and other needed supplies could reach Ajnerican 
citizens, perhaps soldiers or civilians, held captive by hostile enemy 
power. The Pool bill would absolutely prohibit any gift for such 
a purpose. 

Mr. IcHORD. Now in that connection I don't want to get you off the 
track here in answer to my question, but I think your statement there 
is not exactly correct. I think you have failed to read the language 
at the top of page 4. Mr. Pool's hill reads, section 402 : 

Whoever, within the United States or elsewhere, owing allegiance to the 
United States, whenever any element of the Ajrmed Forces of the tfnited States 
shall be engaged in hostilities abroad^ — 

(1) gives, or attempts to give, or advises, counsels, urges, or isolicits an- 
other to give oi" deliver, any money, property, or thing, or 

(2) solicits, collects, receives, or gives to another, any money, property, 
or thing for delivei*y, or 

(3) solicits, collects, receives, or gives to another, any money or thing 
of value for the purchase or acquisition of any property, supplies, or thing, 
intended for delivery, 

to any hostile foreign power, or agency or national thereof, or to any organiza- 
tion, group, or person, acting in hostile opposition to tlie Armed Forces of the 
United States, with the intent — 

Now this is specific intent to crime, Mr. Pool — 

or having reason to believe, that such conduct will impede or interfere with the 
operation or success of the Armed Forces of the United States, or in any manner 
prejudice the interests of the United States, or advantage such foreign power, 
agency, national, organization, group, or person, shall be fined * * *. 

Now I would take issue with you that this would prohibit any 
solicitation for any purpose. It has to have a specific intent; it has 
t o have those elements of intent. 

Mr. Clark. Yes, I recognize it has to have those elements of intent 
which are very broad and would include, among others, "or advantage 
such foreign power" or national or organization or group. These 
would involve perhaps difficult questions of evidence and of proof 
both as to the intent of the individual making a gift and as to what, 
in fact, advantages a foreign power, national, or organization or 

Mr. Ichord. You are not seriously contending to this committee 
that if I went out to collect funds to send to North Vietnam to aid 
American prisoners in Vietnam that there would be any possibility 
of a prosecution under this section, are you ? 

Mr. Clark. I would say, at the very least, a far more effective way 
of handling the problem is through Treasury Department licensing, 
where you can see in advance what is going on and how the goods 
or money is to be used. 

Mr. Ichord. All right. Let's look at your contention that this will 
be effective. Now, Mr. Pool does make solicitation of such funds a 
crime, does he not, for these purposes ? We have no Federal law com- 
mon law crimes, do we ? 


Mr. CiARK. No. 

Mr. IcHORD. Now your solicitation to commit a crime, common law, 
is a crime in itself as a general rule; is that not. a correct, statement? 

Mr. Clark. That is the old common law as I understand it. 

Mr. IcHORD. Now in the testimony of Mr. Smith of the Treasury 
Department. I asked him if the Treasury regulations prohi])it.ed the 
solicitation of funds for these purposes, and Mr. Smith answered 
that question in the negative. Now are you taking a position that it 
is not desirable in this case to make solicitation of such funds a crime? 

Mr. Clark. In my judgment it would add ^ery little to the effective 
law enforcement. The overt act itself of transmitting funds is the 
thing to be stopped. When you get into solicitations, when you get into 
the other areas that this bill would reach of 

Mr. IcHORD. Solicitation, let's not get into the other areas. I might 
agree with you as to the other area, "gives, or attempts to give, or ad- 
vises, counsels, urges, or solicits" and I may possibly have an amend- 
ment to this bill in the committee, but let's stick to specifies. Soliciting 
to commit a crime is a common law crime, you have admitted that. 

Now are you perhaps taking the position that in matters affecting 
the national security we should not make solicitations to commit a 
crime, a crime in and of itself ? 

Mr. Clark. I doubt that it is important at all. If it is, it could be 
added perhaps to existing law more effectively than by passing an 
entire new act. 

Mr. Ichord. Well, Mr. Clark, let me say that, after study of the finer 
points of law involved in this legislation, I feel that if I were a mem- 
ber of the Progressive Labor Party that I could solicit funds for the 
aid of the Viet Cong, day in and day out, time and time again, and 
you could not prohibit that activity or take any action to prosecute 
under the laws as they now exist, and I will tell you why. 

I asked Mr. Smith this question. T said, Is it not true, Mr. Smith, 
that under the Treasury regulation that a member of the Vietnam 
Day Committee can solicit and solicit and solicit funds for the aid of 
Viet Cong and receive the funds, and that solicitation in and of itself 
is not a crime ? And Mr. Smith answered in the affirmative. 

Now do you agree with Mr. Smith's analysis ? 

Mr. Clark. You said, "collect" as well. Now if he collects or re- 
ceives and endeavors to transmit, then he has ^dolated existing law. 

Mr. IcHORD. What existing law ? Point that out to me, sir. 

Mr. Clark. The Trading with the Enemy Act. 

Mr. IcHORD. The solicitation of the money here in the United 
States is a violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act? Certainly 
not. There is not going to be any violation of the Trading with the 
Enemy Act until he sends that money outside the limits of the United 

Mr. Clark. I say "solicit and collect," not "solicit to collect." The 
solicitation followed by the collection or receipt and transmission of 
money is a transgression of present law . 

Mr. IciiORD. Let's confine ourselves to solicitation. I added the 
"collect" there, that is a different question altogether. But solicita- 
tion of funds, you do agree with Mr. Smith ? That was the question 
that I asked him, and he said that does not constitute a violation. 


Mr. Clark. As far as solicitation by itself is concerned, that is itiy 
understanding [ 

Mr. XiTTLE. Mr. Icliord, may I also call your attention to the fact- 
that the Treasury regulations do not prohibit the collection of funds ; 
they are directed solely toAvards the transmission. 

Mr. IciiORD. I wanted Mr. Clark to comment on that. We agree 
on solicitation. I would agree with the counsel for the committee 
on the Treasury regulations. I asked Mr. Clark to point 6nt 
where the collection of the funds, getting them together, constitutes 
a violation in the Treasuiy regulations. 1 would take issue with Mr. 
("lark on that and I asked for the specific statute. 

Mr. Clark, It is the transmission that is a violation of the present 

Mr. IcHORD. I agree. 

Mr. NiTTLE. It is not the collection. The witness stated 

Mr. IcHORD. And the collection. 

I am glad we have established that point . 

NowVe have no Federal law coimnon law crime, Federal common- 
law crimes. We do have statutes scattered throughout the books 
making solicitation to commit a crime a Federal crime. I ask you 
this again : Is it your position that in matters of national security we 
should not make solicitations to commit a crime, a crime ^ 

Mr. Clark. As I said before, I doubt that in connection with the 
particular problem here that it is important. If it is, if there is a 
clear need demonstrated, then perhaps the best way to catch it is by 
amendment to existing law. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Clark, I feel that the Department has not closely 
analyzed this problem. I feel very strongly. I think that the posi- 
tion of the Department on this bill constitutes a strong invitation for 
all Communist groups in this country to solicit and then solicit and 
now vre can add, since we are in agreement, "and collect funds" for 
the benefit of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. We have 
established that there will be no prosecution, there is no law covering 
those acts. We are dealing here with acts, not legitimate [ireas of 

Now I went over this one incident of sending the money to the 
bank in Czechoslovakia. There was no prosecution there; you have 
establislied that you did not have a law at that time. Later on you 
amended the Treasury regulations so that you could prohibit these 
acts. Now the way you have done it under the Treasury regulations 
under section 5(b) of Title 50 of the Appendix, subsection (B) reads, 
"investigate, regidate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or 
prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, with- 
drawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, 
or exercismg any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or trans- 
actions involving, any property in which any foreign countiy or a 
national thereof has any interest * * *. 

Now to make it more explicit, the situation we had before the 
amendment, the Treasury Department did have North Vietnam as a 
blocked country. This money of course was going to the aid of Viet 
Cong in South Vietnam. So you have amended the Treasury regu- 
lation — "Wliat is the wording of the amendment there? I am sure 
you have it. 


Mr. Clark. No ; I do not have it with me. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Coimsel, I know it included Vietnam, Liberation 
of Red Cross, what Mr. Smith testified to. Let's get the exact word- 
ing of the regulation. 

Mr. NiTTLE. He testified that on June 17, 1966, the regulations 
were altered to include expressly the National Liberation Front. 

Mr. IcnoRD. National Liberation Front. 

Mr. NiTTLE, As a specifically blocked national. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Smith, however, said it would be specifically a 
broad group of nationals. I suppose that would include a group. 

Mr. NiTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Smith also testified that they have added certain 
moneychangers in South Vietnam to this group. There have been 
some cases where people in sympathy with the Viet Cong in this 
country have sent money to certain moneychangers. 

Now if these groups can solicit the money and collect the money, 
they could pick out any individual in South Vietnam and send that 
money to anyone who is not a blocked national. That is why I 
state your position against solicitation is actually an open invitation to 
these groups to continue to solicit money. I predict that unless the 
Department of Justice changes its position, you are going to continue 
to have solicitations from now on out. 

Mr. Pool. At this point, if you will yield, I want to ask Mr. Clark, 
what chance would you have of getting a conviction if, after the 
solicitation, these funds were turned over to a Communist delegate 
to the United Nations and they took it back to Vietnam? 

Mr. Clark. It would be a matter of intention of the donor, I guess, 
as well as it would under your bill. 

Mr. Pool. But the solicitation should be st-opped. 

Mr. IcHORD. But he is not a blocked national. T don't think he has 
named eveiy Communist delegate to the United Nations as a blocked 

Mr. Clark. No; but if the intent of the donor is to give to the 
hostile foreign power through any intermediaiy, whether it be a 
Czech bank or some representative at the U.N., he would violate the 

Mr. Pool. But your violations do not spell that out. 

Mr. Clark. I think it is clear in the regulations that if the purpose 
is to send the goods to a blocked country, through whatever round- 
about way, it is a violation. 

Mr. Pool, But you have not named the blocked organization and 
you can't do that, it would be an impossibility to name all of them. 

Mr. Clark. I think not. There is a geographic designation, Viet- 
nam north of the 17th parallel. 

Mr. Pool. That is that Communist delegate to the United Nations. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to monopolize all the time. 
I have many more questions to ask Mr. Clark, but I am going to yield 
at this time and give the other members of the conuiiittee an opportu- 
nity to ask questions. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Ashbrook. 

Mr. Ashbrook. Yes. 

Mr. Clark, I note with interest on page 2 that you say, "Essentially, 
the Vietnam obstructionist movement has been a propaganda effort."' 


This comes as quite an interesting statement to me because it cer- 
tainly does not square with the type of information that we have had 
before this committee. I am wondering if, in your opinion, collect- 
ing and sending money to the Viet Cong is propaganda. 

Mr. Clark. Let me say that we know of no money that has reached 
the Viet Cong, nor do we know of any real interference with the^ 
Armed Forces. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. That is a real good point. What makes you so sure 
that money has not reached the Viet Cong ? 

Mr. Clark. Let me say this, that we would have the same investi- 
gative problem, the same problem of discovering the facts under any 
statute, and we have no facts. If this coim^nittee has them, we would 
like them so we could investigate. 

Mr. AsHBRooK. Then you don't know that money has not reached 
them, you just don't know of any specific instances of where it has. 

Mr. Clark, We have no information, based on our information and 
resources, that money has reached the Viet Cong. If the committee 
has any, we certainly would like to have that infonnation. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. Then you are saying you do have the ability to check 
the transfer of funds from Czechoslovakia, Moscow, or Peking to 

Mr. Clark. We have some aljility to do that. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. Some ability. 

Mr. Clark. Tliat would be necessary under any law as it is under 
existing law. You have got to get the facts somehow. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. Getting back to my question with regard to your 
statement, is collecting and sending money to the Viet Cong propa- 
ganda activity, or is that an activity not related to propaganda efforts ? 

Mr. Clark. I would say that is not propaganda. I would say if 
there is a major flow of resources to Vietnam or if there was actually 
a stoppage of troop movement in this country, that would not be prop- 
aganda, that would be interference. 

Mr. AsHBRooK. What about collecting blood for the Viet Cong? 
Is that propaganda, or would that be an activity in the same situation 
or same circumstances? 

Mr. Clark. On the basis of the mformation that we have, that has 
been largely propaganda. We know of no blood that has left this 
country and gone to North Vietnam. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. But if it were collected and sent, that certainly 
would not l3e propaganda ? 

Mr. Clark. No; we are talking about facts and not suppositions. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. Wliat about trying to halt a troop train; is that 
propaganda ? 

Mr. Clark. I would say that the people who stand in front of a 
troop train with the realization that they have no potential of stop- 
ping it, particularly when the train nevers slows down, contmues 10 
miles an hour, and before it reaches them they scatter off the track, 
that that is seeking publicity rather than an effort to stop a train that 
they know they cannot stop. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. You're kidding, aren't you ? 
Mr. Clark. No, I am not kidding at all. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. What about trying to stop ammunition trucks; is 
that propaganda? 


Mr. Clark. We have not seen any amniimit ion trucks stopped. We 
think people have soug-ht jniblicity, sought to dramatize what they 
are doing in tliat way. We have not seen any real effort to stop a troop 
train or ammunition truck. 

Mr. AsiiBROOK. What about trying to invade a military base or con- 
duct a so-called teach-in to show the longshoremen the bad side of 
Vietnam or our involvement in Vietnam and try and get them to stop 
their activities in handling materials that go to Vietnam? Is that 
propaganda or would that be an activity? 

Mr. Claek. We had 30 or 40 try to enter the Naval Ammunition 
Depot at Concord, California, wnthin the last 2 weeks. They have 
been charged with violating Federal law. 

Mr. AsiiBROOK. That was not propaganda ; that was an activity ? 

Mr. Clark. I would say that it was an activity based primarily on 
the end of securing publicity. 

Mr. Pool. What kind of a penalty would you have on that activity 
if you got a conviction ? 

Mr. Clark. We could have a very severe penalty if there is a mili- 
tary restriction on the area. I read in my statement, I think, it is 
$5,000 and one year in prison. 

(At this point Mr. Buchanan left the hearing room.) 

Mr. AsHBROOK. It just seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that in trying 
to refer to the Vietnam obstructionist movement as a propaganda 
eflfort, to use your terms, it certainly does not square with the facts, 
although I suppose incidentally everything they do would have propa- 
ganda value. It seems to me collecting money to send to the Viet 
Cong is not propaganda; it would seem endeavoring to collect blood 
for the Viet Cong is not propaganda; it would seem trying to halt 
the troop trains, trying to stop ammunition trucks, trying to invade a 
military installation are quite the opposite of propaganda; that is 
very concrete activity which we feel is based on conspiratorial activ- 
ity, Avhich brings me to the second part of my question. 

You also describe the Vietnam obstructionist movement as largely, 
I think you used the word "eccentric'' behavior. Do you mean by 
this that, contrary to the evidence that has been produced in these 
hearings, this movement is not a carefully planned Communist opera- 
tion calculated to aid the Viet Cong and injure the United Ststes? 

^ It would be my very great desire to get at the bottom of this. If 
it is an eccentric behavior, there must be something wrong in the 
evidence that Ave have received, because it is very clear to us that 
there is a very definite Communist iuA^olvement. 
•' What do you mean by eccentric behavior? 

]\Ir. Clark. I would call standing in front of a train, lying down 
in front of a truck, essentially eccentric. 

-'.Mr. AsHBROOK. But what about Communist involvement? Are 
you saying that the evidence we have produced is wrong, that there 
is no carefully planned Communist effort to aid the Viet Cong or to 
injure the United States, or is this all part of a propagaiida effort ? 

Mr. Claris. I am satisfied that the behavior is largely eccentric. 
That does not have anything to do with who is being eccentric. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. Let's look into the matter of Avho is being eccentric. 
Do you think there is a definite effort on the part, of the Communist 
Party to utilize this so-called eccentric behavior for propaganda and 


for activity to aid the Viet Cong or injure the United States in its 
military activities? 

Mr, Clark. I think there has clearly been Communist and Com- 
munist-oriented involvement in this eccentric behavior. We have not 
seen any accomplishment from the behavior. We do not have any 
evidence of any goods or materials or property actually going to the 
Viet Cong, nor do we have any evidence of any actual stoppage of 
military troop movement or supply movement, 

(At this point Mr. Buchanan returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr, AsHBROOK. I think your testimony, while very interesting, is 
certainly presenting the position of your Department, is very legiti- 
mate to our hearings, nonetheless indicates in my opinion more of a 
need for this bill. While we know that you would be the ultimate 
Government agency for enforcing it, it seems to me that the hearings 
are replete with evidence that all too often when a situation comes up 
where there is no regulation to cover it, prosecutions do not move 

It would be my thought, Mr. Chairman, that the bill as introduced 
by yourself and cosponsored by myself has more need, rather than 
less need, for an enactment on the basis of the evidence we have 
received in the past 2 days. 

That would be all I have at this time, Mr. Buchanan might have 
a question or two. 

Mr. Pool. Mr, Buchanan. 

Mr, Buchanan, As a layman here today I want to make certain I 
understand what you said, Mr. Clark. We are here engaged in a 
great conflict between the forces of communism and the forces of 
freedom. We have within our country an outfit called the Progressive 
Labor Party about which we have had considerable testimony in these 
recent hearings, various representatives of which stated they were 
Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries, they were proud to be Communists, 
that they desired to see our Government replaced with a socialist 
government or Communist government, that they were sympathetic to 
the cause of the Viet Cong, and unsympathetic to our cause. 

We had testimony concerning various activities led by these same 
individuals, and these activities included an attempt to sto]) troop 
trains, to stop the movement of supplies, an attempt to send leaflets 
out to adversely influence American soldiers and to try to persuade 
them to get out of the service and not go to Vietnam, that they pro- 
duced leaflets which eventually found their way to Hanoi and I 
believe to Red China and were used for propaganda purposes. Al- 
though they did not admit they were sent for this purpose, they were 
nevertheless used for this purpose. We have testimony in evidence 
as to their raising money to aid the Viet Cong, and so forth. 

Now am I given to understand that in the eyes of the Justice De- 
partment this is largely eccentric behavior? 

Mr, Clark, We have been commenting on the bill before the com- 

Mr, Buchanan, No, sir; I am referring to page 2 of your testimony 
and I quote : 

That such a tiny handful of people could secure so much attention in so vast 
a Nation by what has largely been eccentric behavior, is in itself a cause for 


I am asking if this is eccentric behavior in the eyes of the Justice 
Department, these activities oroanized and led by persons some of 
whom we heard and certainly some of them said they were Marxist- 
Leninist revolutionaries, if you w^ould judge this to be characterized 
by simply eccentric behavior? 

Mr, Clark. We have been commenting — the language that you 
quote is a comment on the bill before the committee. The bill before 
the committee would do two things: It would proscribe the giving 
of assistance to any hostile foreign power and it would prohibit ob- 
structions to the movement of military personnel or supplies. 

In the area of the conduct directed to those two things, both of 
which have failed insofar as all of our information is concerned, the 
conduct that we have seen, the lying down in front of trains or the 
lying down in front of trucks, I characterize as eccentric. 

Mr. Buchanan. Now would these things become crime only when 
they are met with success? Would it not be the same principle to 
say that attempted larceny does not become a crime mitil the larceny 
is successful? 

Mr. Clark. I have not said that this eccentric conduct is not a crime, 
in fact some of these people were charged, convicted, and served time 
under State and local ordinances in California for this eccentric 

Mr. Buchanan. But you immediately stated as a reason not to pass 
this law that these activities have not been successful. I am just 
asking if whether they are successful or not determines whether 

Mr. Clark. We gave five reasons for not j>.assing this law, the first 
of which is it is not necessary because there is adequate legal protec- 
tion now, I merely pointed out that actually there has been no real 
threat, there has been no successful behavior of the type sought to be 
prohibited by this bill, 

Mr, Buchanan. Now again speaking simply for the people, I think 
it is manifestly clear that the American people have said and are say- 
ing a resomiding "no" to this kind of activity. However it may be 
discoimted and however small the group may be and however unsuc- 
cessful their efforts, the people have said and are saying a resounding 
"no." There is not any louder way that people can speak than 
through an act of Congress. Should the Congress — as I very much 
expect the House to — pass this bill, or some variation of this bill, 
because you have brought some criticism in the area of the first 
amendment connections, with which I agree, and if Mr. Ichord offers 
his amendment, I shall support it, and appreciate your bringing up 
this problem. 

If we pass this bill or an amended version of this bill, in my judg- 
ment it will be an expression of the will of the American people that 
in this system in which legislation is in the hands of ,a representative 
body and therefore which expresses the voice of the people that their 
overwhelming protests against these activities, their overwhelming 
feeling that tliese are or ought to be unlawful, and that where these 
acts are committed they should be prosecuted. In light of this if this 
is passed can we count on the Justice Department to move prosecutions 
in these areas ? 

Mr, Clark. We would certainly enforce any law thait this Congress 


Mr. Buchanan. Thaiik you, sir. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Clark, you stated a while ago in answer to Mr. 
Ashbrook's question that trespassing on a militaiy base would be 
subject to a fine of $5,000 and 1 year. My attention is directed to 
Title 18, section 1382, which deals with trespass upon a military in- 
stallation. I see there a fuie is established at $500 or imprisonment of 
not more than 6 months or both. Is there perhaps another statute 
that you have reference to, which I am not aware of ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, Mr. Ichord. At the time, I said if there was a 
military restriction placed on the area, and the section that covers 
restricted areas is 1383. 

Now I did say $5,000 or imprisonment up to 1 year. However, I 
referred back to the statement at the time of my comment. 

Mr. IcHORD. The restriction would have to be placed on it before that 
penalty would go into effect ? 

Mr. Clark. That is true, and that gives a very desirable flexibility 
to enforcement. 

Mr. Ichord. Now, Mr. Clark, you also made a statement in response 
to Mr. Ashbrook's question that yovi have no knowledge of any incident 
Avhere money had been successfully transmitted to the Viet Cong or 
the North Vietnamese. Of course I think you were pretty much like 
I am in regard to the $1,500 that went to the bank in Czechoslovakia. 
Is your information that the money was not transmitted by the Czecho- 
slovakian Government to the Liberation Front ? 

Mr. Clark. That is my information ; yes. 

Mr. Ichord. A m,ember of the staff has just informed me of one 
incident where money was transmitted, admittedly a very small sum, 
to aid the Viet Cong. In this case the individual involved took the 
$100 over to Algiers and presented it to the National Liberation Front. 
I am advised that he was presented with a medal or honored in some 
fashion by Communist agents within that country. That is one alleged 
violation which I bring to your attention. 

Are you familiar with that case? 

Mr. Clark. No ; I am not. If the committee will give us the facts 
on it, we will look into it. 

Mr. Ichord. The point I am making is that he can collect. We 
have established that there is no law against solicitation, and you 
admitted that it didn't go into effect until there was transmission. 
You are content with coming along with an after-the-fact piece of 
legislation that you now have on the books. This money can be 
collected and transmitted in a thousand different ways, assuming that 
they can collect it. I rather agree with you I don't think this group 
can collect much money. I would agree with that. 

However, there may be some of the sincere pacifist groups in the 
country who would be duped by members of the Progressive Labor 
and the Committee to Aid the Vietnamese who might make a contribu- 
tion to such a cause and therefore obtain sufficient sums of money. 

I would like to have your comments on that. 

Mr. Clark. Well, we have not seen any evidence of any substantial 
collections of money. Let me say that evidence indicating a wide 

67-852—66 — pt. 2 8 


solicitation and a Avide collection would be the basis for an investi- 
gative endeavor to see whether there is in fact a transmission. 

Mr. IcHORD. The point is you don't have the law to prohibit — and 
you have conceded that — you don't have the law to prohibit the solicita- 
tion and collection. 

Mr. Clark. The thing to be concerned about is the transmission. 
There is no injury as long as the funds are in this country. For that 
reason I really don't see that solicitation would add significantl}'^ to 
the law, but again, it could be added to existing law. 

Mr. IcHORD. Of course you could turn the money over to any number 
of individuals leaving the United States of America to take to many 
countries. It would be impossible to control that factor. 

Mr. Clark. You have the same problem under any law. You are 
talking about the difficulty of investigation. 

Mr. IcHORD. We are looking to the desirability of prohibiting that 
solicitation and collection. 

Let me ask you this question, Mr. Clark. This was handed to me 
by an interested member of the press. I think that I laiow the answer, 
but you are the authority on that matter. 

The question is. Can we clear up whether there must be a formal 
declaration of war before the Trading with the Enemy Act goes into 

Mr. Clark. We think it is perfectly clear that there exists, and has 
existed since 1950 and has been found by the courts as recently as 
1964, 1 belive, to exist, a national emergency, and on the basis of this, 
not only that statute but other statutes conditioned upon the same 
circumstance are in full force and effect. 

Mr. IcHORD. I agree the statute reads "during the time of war or 
during any other time of national emergency declared by the Presi- 
dent." We are still under a national emergency I believe declared 
by President Truman ; are we not ? 

Mr. Clark. That is correct. 

Mr. Pool. I wanted to ask him on that point here, if the gentleman 
will yield. 

Mr. Clark, these groups that we have been investigating, do you 
think that their reference to solicitation does or does not amount 
to a whole lot ? 

Mr. Clark. We have no evidence that they have secured any sig- 
nificant amount of money or blood. More important, we have no 
evidence that any money has, in fact, reached a hostile foreign country. 

Mr. Pool. Let me state it this way : Do you think they are capable 
of collecting veiy much money ? 

Mr. Clark. I would not think so. I would agree with Congressman 

Mr. Pool. Well, I want to point out to you that we have the mves- 
tigation on the trips to Cuba and we had the minutes of one person 
paying $20,000, I believe it was, for airline tickets to go to Plavana 
and we estimated I believe during that period that about $40,000 was 
collected. That is a pretty tidy sum for one group to go to Cuba. 

In my opinion these groups are capable of collecting a sizeable sum 
of money to send the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese. I wanted 
that fact brought out in the hearing that we had here. 


Mr. Clark. They may be. I don't think that they have. I really 
don't think that they are, but if they are and if they do, they will be 
hard pressed to get that money out of this country to any hostile for- 
eign power because we will do our best to investigate and prohibit 
that transmission. 

Mr. Pool. I am sure you would understand the regulation you are 
operating under, l)ut I feel that it is awfully easy to get money out of 
this country and get it into a hostile country. Solicitation I think is 
most important. 

I want to add this, that during the Civil War I think Abraham 
Lincoln had a case there in which he said, I believe I quote him right 
here, "Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier who deserts, while I 
must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?*' 

That is the question, whether you get the fellow for soliciting or 
do you get the fellow that passes the money over. 

Mr. Clark. There is nothing in your bill that I see that would 
prohibit someone from inducing someone to desert from the Armed 

Mr. Pool. I use that to show the fact that solicitation is most im- 
portant and we should provide against solicitation. That is why I 
quote that. 

Mr. Clark. Solicitation is a fairly vague word; it involves at least 
some of the same problems that "advice" and "counsel"' do. Solicit 
does not mean merely 

Mr. Pool. One fellow gathers up the money, and then somebody 
else sends it. You get the fellow that sends it, but who gets the fellow 
that solicits it ? I think the fellow that solicits it is just as guilty as 
the person that sends it. 

Mr. Cl.\rk. The person that gives the money with the intent that 
it go to the foreign power is the one that would be prosecuted. 

Mr. Pool. If you have a solicitation provision in there, I am sure 
that you will get your evidence ; but if you don't have it in there, how 
are you going to get your evidence on solicitation ? 

Mr. Clark. You have to get the evidence from the resources that 
you have, regardless of the law. Your law won't make an investigation 
any easier; it will be the same problem. 

Mr. Pool. I disagree with you there. The Treasui-y witness yester- 
day admitted in several instances that there were loopholes there that 
could be used. Go ahead. 

Mr. Ichord. Mr. Clark, yesterday General Berg appeared before 
the committee representing the Department of Defense. His testi- 
mony was that he had no recommendations to make in regard to this 
bill. He did testify to the effect that he did not believe that the morale 
of American troops was being adversely aft'ected by the type of activity 
that this bill seeks to prohibit, and all of the members of the committee 
agreed with him in that respect. I agree after a personal inspection 
of South Vietnam and talking to the troops there. But of course that 
reflects to the credit of the training and the determination of the men 
that we have in South Vietnam. However, there is another aspect 
to this question and that is even more important in my opinion and 
one whicli none of the reports have touched upon. 

I wonder if the executive departments have given this aspect of the 
problem proper consideration. I pointed out to General Berg, and he 


acknowledged this to be true, that we have taken photographs from the 
bodies of dead Viet Cong, of some of tlie demonstrations which these 
groups have been staging, and that the Viet Cong use the photographs 
as propaganda by going to other South Vietnamese and saying, "Look 
wliat is going on back in America, the American people themselves are 
against American involvement in South Vietnam." 

General Berg agreed that this was having the effect of enhancing 
the morale of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. I would like 
for you to comment on General Berg's testimony. I noticed that part 
of his testimony was not reported in tlie newspapers also. 

Mr. Clark. Well, it would be very difficult for me, on the basis of 
my information, to measure what effect this might have on the morale 
of Viet Cong soldiers. I can see though as a matter of logic, and I 
think General Berg referred quite correctly to it in his statement, that 
whatever we do in this country to exaggerate or dramatize the dimen- 
sion of this very tiny little obstructionist movement would add to the 
imimct that this might have on the Viet Cong soldiers. 

General Berg on page 4 of his statement said 

Mr. IcHORD. Of course you are not saying it is a tiny movement in 
the United States who have opposition to the war in Vietnam. 

Mr. Clark. I am talking about the obstructionist movement. 

Mr. Ichord. You are limiting your statement, but there is a very 
widespread opposition to the war in South Vietnam from groups other 
than these people. 

Mr. Clark. I was talking about in terms of the bill. 

IVIr. Ichord. So much for section 402. Let's move on to section 403. 
Now in your report you state that section 403 "would provide criminal 
penalties for any person who interferes with the movement of the 
Armed Forces or with the movement of supplies and material for the 
Armed Forces." The report also states that the only activity which 
this Department is aware of having been impeded is the Coast Guard 
in performance of its mission concerning interference by members 
of various organizations. 

That is the Treasury Department report. 

Mr. Counsel, may I have a copy of the report of the Attorney 
General ? Here it is : 

Proposed section 403 of the bill would make it unlawful for anyone, with 
intent to obstruct the activities or supplies of the Armed Forces, to interfere 
with the free movement of the Armed Forces or with transportation facilities 
used or intended to be used to transport military personnel or property. 
With respect to the activities to which this section is directed, depending upon 
the details of any specific activity, one or more of the sections of the criminal 
code such as those relating to conspiracy, treason, sedition, and subversive ac- 
tivities might be applicable. * * * 

You are saying "might be applicable." Would you amend the 
"might" there and say "would be applicable" ? 

Mr. Clark. It would depend on the conduct involved. 

Mr. Ichord. Then you are admitting that the criminal statutes do 
not cover all of the activity that would be covered by Mr. Pool's bill ? 

Mr. Clark. No, I am not sure that I have admitted that, at least 
not in that sentence. I am not saying that every act would also be an 
act of treason or sedition or subversive activity. It would depend 
upon the particular conduct. 


Mr. IcHORD. Let's take treason, for example. Would treason statutes 
be applicable to lying down in front of a troop train ? 

Mr. Clark. No. 

Mr. IcHORD. "Wliy would it not be applicable ? 

Mr. Clark. Well, treason is defined in the Constitution, the only 
crime that is, and it requires more in the way of overt acts than you 
would find • 

Mr. IcHORD. Also we would have to be at war and, technically, are 
we at war? 

Mr. Clark. Well, you don't have to be at war necessarily. I think 
if there are open hostilities that would be sufficient for the treason 

Mr, Ighord. If there are open hostilities and insurrections existing 
in the United States, certainly we don't have insurrection by activity. 

Mr. Clark. No, we sure don't. 

Further, some of the activity may be in violation of State or local 
law and subject to appropriate action by such jurisdiction. In our 
view present laws, both Federal and State, would seem to be adequate 
to protect society from the extreme effort of interference with move- 
ment of military personnel and property by severe penalty for any 
minor interference, misdemeanor action. 

Furthermore, such laws reflect the better balance in Federal-State 
relationships and do not inject the United States into law enforcement 
in what are essentially local activities, to involve matters as to which 
the Federal Government has constitutional authority to act. In these 
circumstances we see no need for the provisions of proposed section 
403 of the bill. 

Mr. IcHORD. Certainly you will agree that the Congress does have 
competence to legislate in the field of protecting the movement of 
military troops. 

Mr. Clark. There is no question of that in my mind. 

Mr. IcHORD. Don't you think that that is more properly a subject of 
Federal legislation rather than State or local legislation? 

Mr. Clark. Certain types of obstruction ; in fact I would say those 
types that are presently prohibited by Federal law, are more appropri- 
ately handled imder Federal law enforcement and under Federal law. 
Other types quite clearly in my judgment should be a matter of State 
and local law. 

Mr. IcHORD. What specific statute do you have on the books that 
would prohibit the lying down in front of a Federal troop train ? 

Mr. Clark. The statutes that I mentioned could under some circum- 
stances ; it would require a rather extreme situation to be involved. 

Mr. IcHORD. "VVliich one? 

Mr. Clark. I say section 372 could be. 

Mr. IcHORD. I agree section 372. Section 372, Title 18, "If two or 
more persons in any State, Territory, Possession" — to start off with 
I guess if one person did it, he would not be subject to prosecution 
under the statute 

Mr. Clark. Not under 372. 

Mr. IcHORD. [Continues reading :] 

or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person 
from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the 


United States, or from cliscliarging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means 
any officer of tlie United States * * * such persons shall be fined not more than 
$5,000 or imprisoned not more than six years, or both. 

YoTi have to have two or more persons and you also have to prove a 
conspiracy ; do you not ? 

Mr. Clark. That is true. 

Mr. IcHORD. And you will concede that the elements of conspiracy 
are very difficult to prove; are they not? 

]\rr. Clark. They can be. 

Mr, IciiORD. And usually are. 

Now we had Mr. Meese before the committee, and he testified that 
the only statutes which the State of California had on the books in 
regard to this interfering with troop trains were the usual disorderly 
conduct statutes and he also stated that, after conference with the local 
United States attorney, the United States attorney indicated to him 
that the Federal Government was not going to prosecute because 
they did not have the statutes to prosecute under and there were no 

After you cite 372 I think tlie testimony of Mr. IMeese and the alleged 
decision of the U.S. attorney have been substantial, but I don't think 
you have a statute to prosecute under. 

Now are you saying that it is desirable to have only disorderly con- 
duct statutes to apply to this type of activity ? 

Mr. Clark. I think it depends on the nature of the activity. First, 
I would say that 372 is applicable if there is an interference or impedi- 
ment or obstruction to the Armed Forces personnel. That is, a direct 
interference could be a serious thing depending on the dimension of 
the act. 

Mr. IcHORD. Let me read to you a newspaper report from the Santa 
Ana Register May 17, 1966. "Two Palo Alto men were arrested for 
creating a public nuisance Monday when they tried to block a truck 
at the Redwood City napalm plant of United Technology Corp." 

Do you think that prosecution under the public nuisance is a suffi- 
cient penalty for this type of activity ? 

]SIr. Clark. Well, it would depend on the details. Ordinarily I 
would say that would be much more in line and much preferable. ^Ye 
have watched all of these instances with great care. I ]ia^-e talked per- 
sonally with Cecil Pool, United States Attorney, late at night and 
early in the morning in connection with a number of occasions. The 
simple truth is that this is local conduct by local citizens; it happens 
to be directed toward this particular type of activity. We do not have 
the police available, we do not want to have the police available from 
a Federal reserve to handle this tiling. We have been relying in these 
instances on the sheriff's office in Contra Costa County and on various 
city police, and that is as it should be. 

Mr. IcnoRD. I don't know the circumstances surrounding this par- 
ticular case, but I would point out I think you would have to agree 
that section 372 would have no application in this case even though 
there was a conspiracy and there vrere 500 or 600 members of the Pro- 
gressive Labor Party out there blocking the truck going into the na- 
palm plant because this is a private corporation of United Technology 


Even if there was a conspiracy, even though there were two or more 
persons, you would not have any Federal officials involved. 

Mr. Clark. That would be quite easy to remedy — in Concord in the 
past 2 weeks when we have had marines on the trucks. 

Mr. IciiORD. Beg pardon ? 

Mr. Clark. I say that is easy to remedy. When there was need, 
we put marines on some of these trucks and you would be interfering 
with them in the discharge of their duties, but really they have not 
stop}3ed these trucks. Now if they want to stand in front of an 
aml3ulance or in front of a fire wagon or in front of a commercial 
truck, that is a matter of State or local law. If it happens to be a 
military truck, it will still be much better handled by State and lo- 
cal. If they actually try to attack the truck, tliat is another circum- 
stance under whicli Federal law is clearly applicable. 

Mr. IcHORD. I yield. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. I listened to this trying to square it with what they 
say in other fields of activity, civil rights, and so forth. I would have 
to say to the witness who is a very intelligent exponent of the point 
of view that it just does not make sense. The sending of aid to the 
enemies of the United States is an overwhelming matter of Federal 
and national concern, and not one of local interest or local concern. 
I just don't see how you possibly can arrive at that conclusion. 

Mr. Clark. We are talking about section 403 which has nothing to 
do with sending aid. 

Mr. Pool. Stopping supplies, military personnel, same thing. 

Mr. AsHBROoK. How you can construe this to be local when in every 
area of civil rights you take the opposite position and say this is a 
matter of national concern? When local ordinances say certain 
thmgs, or sit in the back of the bus, this is always national. But 
when it comes to a matter of prosecuting a war, in which we are 
spending 10 to 15 billion dollars against an enemy that is an inter- 
national enemy, now all of a sudden it is a matter of local concern. 

Mr. Clark. I don't know what the facts are, upon which you have 
based your statement on civil rights. I have not seen Federal troops 
in Cleveland, Chicago, California, New York. Those are State and 
local matters. 

j\Ir. AsuBROOK. I have heard the testimony of ^Slr. Katzenbach time 
and time again, the neoessity of enacting civil rights laws, some of 
Avhich I have agreed with, some of which I have not; and in eveiy 
case he has talked in terms of the inability of local agencies. True, 
we have not put troops in as often lately as we did a few years ago, 
but it just seems to me that to take something that is so obviously a Fed- 
eral and national, even an international problem, and call it local, 
to say it is a matter of local interest and local law enforcement, just 
does not square with the way the Justice Department treats other 

Mr. IciiORD. I agree with the gentleman that this is not a proper 
area concerned with local law enforcement officials. What I strongly 
fear here, maybe I misunderstand, Mr. Clark, is that the local officials 
may say that the Federal Government is really not concerned with 
this situation, and why should we be concerned ? I think that would 
be a legitimate course to follow. 


Mr. AsHBRooK. I would even go further. The protection of our 
Armed Forces in guaranteeing their free movement is a matter of 
Federal concern and not one of local concern. 

Now we are not talkmg about individual activity that we are in the 
civil rights movement; we are talking about the protection of the 
Armed Forces of the United States, men who are not in local militia. 
To leave this up to local concerns seems to me to be patently ludicrous 
on the face of it. 

Mr. Clark. Well, we are really not talking about protecting the 
Armed Forces because they don't need protecting. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. How can you say that? Are you going to wait 
until somebody throws a brick? They work to heat up ail these pas- 
sions against these servicemen. Are you going to wait until they throw 
bricks through troop trains and say that is not a propaganda effort, 
maybe there is something here? If they keep agitating, if they keep 
building up this anti- Armed Forces hostility, one of these days as a 
part of trying to block a troop train they are going to say, "Well, they 
don't slow down, let's start throwing bricks through the windows." 

At that point does it become a matter of hostility? We are talking 
about people who are trymg to well up hostility against our Armed 
Forces. Whether you think it is propaganda or not, it just does not 
seem to me you can say this is a local matter. If we wait for the first 
brick to go through a troop train and say maybe at that point it is not 
propaganda, I think we are seeing the forces that will endeavor to 
make this kind of activity. 

IMr. Pool. Mr. Ichord. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions to ask, I do 
want to thank Mr. Clark for his appearance here this morning. I 
think Ave have succeeded in identifying the differences, at least differ- 
ences between our thinking and the thinking of the Department of 
Justice, and I am concerned about the position of the Department 
of Justice. 

The gentleman has inferred in his statement that this committee 
might be focusing too much attention on a very small minority in 
this country, and I agree with the gentleman that these people carry- 
ing on this type of activity are a very small minority indeed. I don't 
think they constitute, at least at the present time, any serious threat 
to the security of America. But after your testimony today, Mr. 
Clark, I am concerned about what will be the effect on the American 

I made a statement a while ago and the interchange might be mis- 
construed. I think the overwhelming body of the American public 
support the policy of the administration in South Vietnam and those 
who are opposed to the war constitute just a very small group, whether 
they are pacifists or whether they are members of the Communist 
Party and have sympathy with the Communist world. 

On the Armed Services Committee I made the statement to Secre- 
tary McNamara that I sympathize very much with his difficulty in 
prosecuting the war in South Vietnam and he has a responsibility, the 
admiuistration has a responsibility, of not only devising and deploy- 
ing effective means of fighting the war in South Vietnam, but also 
devising and deploying means of fighting the war that the American 
people will support, and that is the area that concerns me. 


I feel when the Department of Justice takes a position and to have 
admitted — I don't question your motive any more than I know you 
don't question mine. I feel that the Department of Justice is taking 
a position here today saying that we should permit the solicitation and 
collection of funds. 1 disagree with the gentleman when he says 
they cannot be transmitted, I am sure they can be transmitted, I fear 
that we are not following a policy which the American people under- 

Now you have inferred that this committee is perhaps focusing too 
much attention upon a small group. I make this statement, sir. I 
tliinlv by the position you have taken it is not going to be understood by 
the American people. 

Mr. Clark. I don't know that the American people will be con- 
cerned as long as they are of the judgment that there has been, in 
fact, no interference with military movement and there has been, in 
fact, no passage of money or other things of value to any hostile 

Mr. IcHORD. Except the $100. 

Mr. Clark. If you have that allegation, we will be interested in 
looking at it. 

Mr. IcHORD. The staff handed me that information and that can 
be checked into. I am positive that there have been other incidents 
in the passage of the money because you just don't have the regula- 
tions ; you are after the fact all the time, you can't prohibit it. 

Mr. Clark. The law does not discover fact. The problem of reg- 
ulation will be the same under the proposed bill as it is under existing 

Mr. IcHORD. I disagree with you there because we make solicitation 
and collection of such money the crime under Mr. Pool's bill. The ex- 
isting law does not say that solicitation and collection is a crime. I 
pointed out, and the gentleman has agreed, that there is nothing new 
in this legislation. Solicitation to commit a crime is a crime of com- 
mon law, and I see no reason why, in matters affecting the national 
security of the United States, we should not follow the common 
law and make solicitation to conunit a crime, a crime. 

As a matter of fact, I submit that there are stronger reasons to follow 
the common law in matters affecting the national security than there 
are in other areas. That is where we differ. I respect the difference 
of opinion of the gentleman, he is a very competent lawyer. I don't 
think we differ so much on the law as we do as to how we should 

I know you are not condoning these groups; of course you are not. 

Mr. Clark. I am sure our interest in protecting the national safety 
is the same; it is a matter of how. 

Mr. IcHORD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Clark. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Ashbrook. 

Mr. Ashbrook. I would point out one thing in concluding. I am 
sure our interests are the same, but I would have to say that that is 
why I find just a little bit curious the statement of the gentleman as 
it relates to the position of the Department. I am also well aware of 
the fact that when the Department takes a position that you are here 


to speak to that position and you have to back up that position. But 
to have such an important matter involving the securitv of tlie United 
States, where we are fighting- this enemy, losing; probably 500 lives a 
month if we can project in the next few months, where we have the 
commitment of billions of dollars to the Armed Forces, and you make 
a statement as you do on page 3, obviously the Department policy — 
page 3 of the report which you transmitted to us, that the laws, re- 
ferring to local laws, do not inject the United States into law enforce- 
ment in essentially local activities. 

Now I will have to admit that that leaves me wondering about a 
curious position in the Justice Department. Something as important 
as all of this is left up to what you refer to as essentially local activi- 
ties and then you go on to say, "though they involve matters as to 
Vv^hich the Federal Government has constitutional authority to act." 

Mr. Clamv. We feel the city police should regailate the traffic on 
Main Street whether it involves a taxicab or an ambulance or military 

Mr. AsHBROOK. What about the troop trains ? 

Mr. Clark. If there is really interference wnth the troop train, then 
Federal law attaches. If it is merely people in a station where there 
are local people available and there are no Federal police available, 
then local law should apply and take care of the situation. That is 
in fact what happened. There was no stoppage of any troop train, 
there was no delay of any troop train. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. Well, I would merely say, by taking the position as 
the Department has, that you are not going to inject the United States 
into law enforcement at the local level in this area, it does create, in 
my mind anyway, a curious contrast between the position of the De- 
partment of Justice in many other areas, civil rights being one of 

Mr. Pool. Do you not think that the people would be more apt to 
not demonstrate against the troop train if you had a Federal law? 

Mr. AsHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I would not want to butt in, but it 
is exactly the same thing we have before this committee. If you go 
listen to their meetings, their rallies that they are going to conduct 
against this, everyone knows that they are in a worse position when 
they come here to demonstrate as against going out to City Hall in 
San Francisco. That is the first thing they advise them, "Remember 
you are on Federal property, remember there are Federal laws." 

When this committee and other instruments of the Government go 
out and meet in local areas like San Francisco or Buffalo or Chicago, 
places that we have been, we know very well at the start that we are 
not going to have the same degree of cooperation from our witnesses; 
tliat they are uiore apt to be hostile because thev know where the Fed- 
eral law does not attach they probably can get away with a little bit 
more. I think you have answered the question on the basis of the 
lienrinjTS we have had in the last 6 years. 

Mr. Pool. Do vou care to comment on that ? 

Mr. Cl.vrk. On whether a Federal law would make this conduct 
less likely ? 

Mr. Pool. Yes. 

Mr. Clark. You are in as good a position as I am to judge the tem- 
perament of these people. I got the impression from reading the news- 


paper that they might be looking for an incident because of the noto- 
riety they feel they can achieve through it. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Buchanan. 

Mr. BucHANAisr. Mr. Clark, I think I understand your criticism 
of sections 402 and 403, and I think some of my constituents would be 
amazed to find you have taken a States rights position but, be that as 
it may, I want to make certain that the record may speak clearly in 
light of your statements concerning the small number of people in- 
volved and the lack of success it had, more or less discounting this as 
propaganda effort and eccentric behavior, and saying it is State and 

At least some of these activities you say are primarily State and local 
and we have had this colloquy about that just now. 

In light of these statements, I want to make sure you agree with 
the finding of fact of the committee in section 401 and most specifically 
on page 2 of the bill, Ime 19 : 

(6) There exist in the United States certain organizations, groups, and per- 
sons who adhere to the purposes and objectives of the world Communist move- 
ment, who seek to give aid, assistance, and comfort to forces hostile to the 
Government of the United States, and enlist others in support of the purposes 
and objectives of the world Communist movement, with the intent to obstruct 
and defeat the defense activities of the United States. 

Now, albeit this group is small, and we all recognize this fact, do you 
agree with this finding of fact ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. I would not disagree with that finding. To make 
it perfectly clear, v/e have cited a n.umber of Federal laws that would 
attach to nnich of this conduct and particular!}^ to the more extreme 
conduct and to the conduct that is directed specifically against inter- 
ference with military personnel in the discharge of their duties, and 
things like tliat. 

The State and local law is the same State and local law that applies 
to all other movement of traffic, to all other activities of the same types 
in those communities. 

Mr. Pool. Mr. Buchanan, will you yield at this point? 

Mr. BuciiANAisr. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Pool. In relation to the congressional findings of fact, H.R. 
12047 and identical bills, the committee staff has compiled a number 
of documents from official Communist sources which make it clear that 
it is now, and for some years has been. Communist policy to support 
so-called wars of liberation or people's wars. 

It is this policy, coupled with Communist world conquest, which 
places the United States and other free nations of the world in the 
position of having to engage in actual undeclared war. If there is 
no objection, I direct that these documents be made a part of the hear- 
ing record. No objection is heard, so ordered. 

(See Appendix III, pp. 1382-1397.) 

Mr. BuciiAXAX. I just wanted to say, then, you agree with this 
finding of fact, and also you have indicated that you agree this is a 
matter of Federal concern. The laws you have cited also indicate 
it is a matter of Federal concern. 

Mr. Clark. It is a matter of longstanding Federal concern, perhaps 
most clearly demonstrated by our presence "in Vietnam. 

Mr. Buchanan". Thank you. 


Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clark has indicated that some of 
these acts are things that we just have to put up with in having a free 
society. I agree with the gentleman that is one of the penalities that 
we have to undergo to have the free society which we have, and it is de- 
sirable that we do undergo them. 

We touched upon some areas which do vitally affect the prosecution 
of the war in South Vietnam by reason of the fact that there is an un- 
declared war going on in South Vietnam. 

Now I am not in favor of having a formal declaration of war, but 
I would like to ask the opinion of Mr. Clark. Is it not true that if 
there were a formal declaration of war between North Vietnam and 
the Viet Cong and the United States that these activities, such as the 
collection of blood for the use of the Viet Cong, raising of funds, inter- 
ference in movement of troop trains, would be treason ? 

Mr. Clark. There have been 

Mr. IcHORD. Let me get all of the elements that the gentleman has 
admitted; that they are Communist, that they are opposed to the 
United States Government, they are seeking to aid the enemy of the 
United States Government, and they perform these acts with the pur- 
pose and intent of aiding the enemy. 

If there were a formal declaration of war, would these acts not be 
treason ? 

Mr. Clark. As I said earlier, I believe not. 

Mr. IcHORD. I would like to ask you why not. 

Mr. Clark. For the reason I give if there are open hostilities 
that • 

Mr. Ichord. We have no open hostilities, that is out of the picture. 

Mr. Clark. No, you relate that to domestic hostilities. I think it 
is not so restricted, but under any circumstances since 1795 there have 
been fewer than 40 prosecutions for treason. Treason is high crime 
against nations, it is the highest crime against a nation that an indi- 
vidual can commit. 

Mr. IcHORD. You are testifying then that these acts would not be 
treasonable ? 

Mr. Clark. You have to tell me what the act is. You have said that 
all the elements of treason are present. If that is so, by definition that 
is treason. 

Mr. IcHORD. Let me give you these elements. A person is a member 
of the Communist Party ; he states publicly that he is such a member, 
that he has utter contempt for the Government of the United States 
and his sympathies are with the Viet Cong, that he hopes that the Viet 
Cong wins the war, and that he is taking these steps to aid the Viet 
Cong; there is a formal declaration of war between the United States 
and the Viet Cong; and tlien he raises blood for the use of the Viet 
Cong, he raises funds for tl^^ use of the Viet Cong, nnd ho lies down in 
front of troop trains with the intention of interfering with the move- 
ment of the troop train. 

Now I think I have given you about all of the elements of the facts. 
Would that be treason or not if there was a fonnal declaration of war? 
I am interested in the law. 

Mr. Clark. Well, treason is defined in the Constitution as the levy- 
ing of war against the United States or in adhering to the enemies of 
the United States, giving them aid and comfort. 


Mr. IcHORD. All right. Tliat would be giving them aid and com- 

Mr. Clark. Adhering to the enemies of the United States and giving 
aid and comfort. 

Mr. IcHORD. I stated that they hoped the Viet Cong would win the 

Mr. AsHBROOK. Still have to show direct contact with the enemy. 
He could be doing this and not be acting in concert with the enemy. 

Mr. Clark. He would have to be adhering to the enemy, that is 

Mr. AsHBRooK. The court case is very clear this has to be a direct 
contact with the enemy and not just some ideologic identity or interest ; 
it has to be a very close connection between the enemy and his activity. 

Mr. Clark. Certainly it has to be action and not belief. 

Mr. IcHORD. I know the elements are very difficult to prove, and 
they should be, because treason is a high crime and subject to the pen- 
alty of death. 

Do you think then that these acts would not be treason ? 

Mr. Clark. No ; I think all of those acts could be treason. I think 
thta that is a crime that you have to look at with great care and you 
have to look at the very particular facts and the overt acts. There is 
a high burden of proof, and I think generalizations on that subject 
are really not very helpful. 

Mr. IcHORD. Let me ask you one more question which deals with the 
matter of prosecution. I read in the newspapers where there is one 
professor in this country who contends to be a pacifist, who has trav- 
eled to Vietnam and, in Hanoi, made speeches against American pol- 
icy in Vietnam. Is it your opinion that this is a violation of any of 
the laws of the United States ? I am referring to Professor Lynd. 

Mr. Clark. I don't see that that conduct is covered by this bill at all. 

Mr. IcHORD. I agree it is not covered by the bill at all, but I think 
it is so very relevant to the subject here when you say that we have 
sufficient laws on the books to cover this law. 

I am wondering if we have laws to cover that sort of activity. 

I am referring specifically to the Logan Act. 

Mr. Clark. There is the Logan Act and there has been and is con- 
tinuing an investigation of that matter, but that is an act under which 
there have been practically no prosecutions, perhaps not any. 

Mr. IcHORD. I don't remember any prosecutions. 

Mr. Clark. Perhaps not. I think there may have been some insti- 
tuted ; I don't believe there has ever been a full prosecution under the 

Mr. Pool. If Mr. Ichord will yield, I would like to read in the rec- 
ord the exact quote as taken directly from the decision of the court 
in the Greathouse case as follows : 

War has been levied against the United States. War of gigantic proportions 
is now waged against them and the government is struggling with it for its life. 
War being levied, all who aid in its prosecution, whether by open hostilities in 
the field, or by performing any part in the furtherance of the common object 
however minute or however remote from the scene of action, are equally guilty 
of treason within the constitutional provision. 

Mr. IcHORD. I have no further questions. 
Mr. Pool. Any other questions ? 


Mr. Buchanan. I would just observe that Mr. Clark has made a 
veiy able presentation of his point of view, and it would seem that no 
one supports the bill except the people. 

Also, I think that Mr. Ichord and Mr. Ashbrook have ably demon- 
strated, the view of the Justice Department notwithstanding, the 
need for this legislation, so I might also add there is nothing behind 
our case except the facts. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Pool. Mr, Clark, we appreciate your appearing and ably repre- 
senting your viewpoint and the committee appreciates the benefit of 
your testimony. 

Mr. Clark. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pool, This will conclude the legislative phase of the hearings. 
The committee will meet in the executive session at 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Tuesday, August 23, 1966, the subcom- 
mittee recessed, and the public hearings were adjourned.) 



After the conclusion of the hearings, the following statement was 
submitted for inclusion in the record : 


Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 12047 which would amend the Internal Security 
Act of 1950. I support the analysis of the Treasury Department that there are 
already laws to cope with overt acts which interfere with troop movements or 
constitute sabotage, as well as criminal sanctions against trading with the 
enemy. Insofar as H.R. 12047 would affect the present statutes, it would only 
create confusion and substitute vagueness for certainty of detinition. It is im- 
possible to tell from the language of the bill who comes within the phrase "hostile 
foreign power." Premier DeGaulle is bitterly opposed to our Vietnam policy. 
Is France a "hostile foreign power"? Nor can one say with assurance who is 
covered by the phrase "acting in hostile opposition to the Armed Forces of 
the United States." It appears that a waterfront barroom brawl comes within 
the definition. 

Far more important than the problem of vagueness, however, which could 
possibly be cured with more precise language, is the threat the bill poses to open 
and free debate about the foreign policy of this country. The bill would punish 
with imprisonment for up to 20 years and a fine of .$20,000 certain expressions of 
advice and counsel. The scope of the proscribed "advice to another" in sec. 40.3 
is so broad that it is inevitable that free speech protected by the first amend- 
ment would be throttled. It seems especially incongruous to consider such di-astic 
legislation in light of the testimony of Brigadier General William W. Berg of 
the Defense Department that the morale of our forces has not been impaired 
by the demonstrations of dissent to United States policy. 

I urge the committee to reject H.R. 12047 as unwise, unnecessary, and 


There are recognized differences between the Communist Govern- 
ments of Moscow and Peking which, in turn, are reflected in the posi- 
tions taken by the Communist Party, U.S.A., and the Progressive 
Labor Party. However, both Communist powers are firmly united in 
support of the Communist Government of North Vietnam and in 
opposition to United States policy in Vietnam. 

The following extracts from various Communist sources clearly 
demonstrate this : 

Foreign Communist Statements 

( Statement of the 23d Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet 
Union, Moscow, March 29 to April S, 1966) 

Giving voice to tlie will and feelings of the Soviet Communists, of the entire 
Soviet people, the 23rd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 
wrathfuUy condemns US brutal aggression against the fraternal people of Viet- 

By their bloody war in Vietnam, the American imperialists are striving to sup- 
press the national liberation struggle of the people of South Vietnam and the 
other peoples of South-East Asia, and infringing openly upon the sovereignty 
of a socialist state, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. 

The Vietnam adventure undertaken by US imperialism is severely denounced 
by all progressive, democratic forces of the world. Increasingly broader sec- 
tions of the world public are joining the campaign in support of the just eaUse 
of the Vietnamese people. Protests against the aggressive war in Vietnam 
are mounting in the United States itself. The moral and political isolation of 
the aggressors is becoming moi'e and more obvious. 

The Soviet Communists and our entire people admire the courage and fortitude 
of the Vietnamese patriots. They are sure that no atrocities committed by the 
interventionists will ever break the will of the Vietnamese people. 

^ '^ ^ 4: ^ ^ i^ 

The Soviet Union, the other socialist countries and the international working- 
class and communist movement have always rendered the Vietnamese people 
extensive and all-round assistance and support. On behalf of the whole Party, 
of all Soviet people, the 23rd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet 
Union firmly demands that the US aggression against Vietnam be stopped and 
all interventionist troops be withdrawn from that country. Any continuation 
of this aggression, which the US militarists are trying to spread to other South- 
East Asian countries, is fraught with most dangerous consequences for world 

The Congress resolutely declares : in "escalating" the disgraceful war against 
the people of Vietnam the aggressors will meet with increasing support of Viet- 
nam by the Soviet Union and other fraternal socialist countries. The people 
of Vietnam shall be masters of their entire land. Nobody will ever succeed in. 
extinguishing the torch of socialism held high by the Democratic Republic of 

4: # ^ ^ ^ 9!: 3}: 

The 23rd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union solemnly 
declares its fraternal solidarity with the heroic Vietnamese people, the Working 
People's Party of Vietnam and the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, 



and calls on all Communist and Workers' Parties to work still more persistently 
for united action in the struggle against US aggression in Vietnam and in render- 
ing effective aid and support to the fighting Vietnamese people. 

^t ^l :i: * * * * 

It has never been more important for the socialist countries and all Commu- 
nist Parties to display their sense of internationalist responsibility to the full 
extent and to join together in united actions, rallying all progressive, democratic 
and peace-loving forces in order to frustrate the imperialist aggression. 

May all the Communists of the vs^orld * * * raise their voice in protest and 
act still more vigorously against the aggressive actions of the US imperialists 
in Vietnam! May the movement of protest against US aggression, in support 
of the struggle of the Vietnamese people for independence, freedom and the 
salvation of their country, spread still more in all parts of the world ! 

The forces of peace and progress, once united in a single front, can and must 
thwart US aggression in Vietnam. 

Hands off Vietnam ! 

The just cause of the Vietnamese people is sure to triumph ! ^ 

(Statement of Henry Winston, Head of the Delegation From Communist 
Party, U.S.A., to 23d Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet 

Unity — Supreme Need of the Moment 

In the midst of these currents our Party, the Communist Party of the 
USA, gives its support to, and participates in, the building of the broadest unity 
of all strata to stop the war in Vietnam. The Party at the same time develops 
many-sided independent activities in defense of peace. 

In his message to the Twenty-Third Congress, Comrade Hall expressed the 
essence of proletarian internationalism today in these words : 

* ^ * Hf * * * 

"Unity is the key to the victory over U.S. imperialism in Vietnam. Unity 
is the key to national independence for all peoples. Unity is the key to all vic- 
tories for socialism. Unity is the key to the speediest build-up and industriali- 
zation of the countries of socialism. Unity is the key to the struggles of the 
working class." 


A feature of politics in the U.S. today is the massive and multiform develop- 
ments which are challenging U.S. aggression in Vietnam. The forms of struggle 
involve parades, demonstrations, mass meetings, picket lines, delegations, peti- 
tions, public hearings, polls, teach-ins, read-ins, television, radio, and many 
others. A depth of feeling is found in all social groupings. There are some who 
feel they can arouse the conscience of the nation by applying a match to a kero- 
sene-soaked body. Some burn draft cards, and still others go on hunger strikes. 
The slogans vary, and are many, but the sum total can be summarized in the 
following way : 

Get out and stay out of Vietnam ! 

Get out and stay out of the Dominican Republic ! 

Stop intervention in Cuba and Latin America, in Africa and Asia ! 

The Communist Party helps in the creation of maximum unity against U.S. 
aggression. * 

'^2Srd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Moscow: Novosti Press 
Agency Publishing House, 1966). 

- World Marxist Review, June 1966. 

This magazine, published in Ontario, Canada, is the North American edition of 
the monthly journal. Problems of Peace and Socialism, which is published in Prague, 
Czechoslovakia. Problems of Peace and Socialism, the "Theoretical and Information Jour- 
nal of Communist and Workers' Parties," is published in 16 other languages in addition to 


We Are in Solidarity With You, Vietnam ! 

in heroic vietnam 

Recently a delegation of the Central Committee of the Young 
Communist League [of the U.S.S.R.], returned from a trip to the 
Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The delegation was headed by 
Alexander Kamshalov, Secretary of the Komsomol Central Com- 
mittee. Here is what he said about the visit in an interview taken 
by our correspondent. 

We made a brief tour of Vietnam, but in that time we met very many different 
people and talked with heroes of the National Army, with anti-aircraft gunners, 
with members of the people's volunteer corps and soldiers of the National Mili- 
tia. We conversed with workers and visited the Hanoi Mechanical Engineering 
Plant, which was built with Soviet aid. We also paid visits to farm cooperatives, 
in the village of Nam Ngan of the Tkhan Hoa Province, for instance. It is sit- 
uated near the Handjon bridge and is mercilessly bombed without re.spite by the 
U.S. aircraft. We saw the Tkhan Hoa hospital, which had been built with the 
assistance of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. It was equipped 
with the latest instruments and installations for treating patients suffering from 
tuberculosis. The Red Cross on its roof could be seen from a great distance, 
but nonetheless American pilots sent bombs weighing a ton and more crashing 
into it. razing the hospital to the ground. This barbarity can never be forgiven. 
When we were in the Tkhan Hoa Province a school was bombed and 52 school- 
children were killed at the time. All along the way from Hanoi to Tkhan Hoa 
we witnessed destroyed bridges and villages vrhere not a single house remained 
intact. Our hearts filled with wrath and indignation. We learned that the 
Americans shot people going to work in the riceflelds. They even bombed the rice 
plantations, and v.^e saw the results of these savage actions. It could be said 
that the American brass has turned the territory of the Democratic Republic of 
Vietnam into a proving ground for their explosives and military equipment. 
They have already "tested" 29 models of various aircraft in Vietnam. However, 
the anti-aircraft gunners of the Vietnamese are sure shots. By the time that we 
were in the Tkhan Hoa Province, 120 U.S. aircraft had been shot down. 

We are confident that the aggre.ssors will suffer defeat in Vietnam. We are 
convinced that the Vietnamese people will achieve their ultimate victory. The 
Soviet Union, the socialist countries and all progressive mankind are on the side 
of struggling Vietnam. 

Recently Soviet youth again demonstrated its fraternal solidarity with the 
struggle of the Vietnamese people and expressed a wrathful protest against the 
dirty war which the American imperialists are waging in Vietnam. Meetings 
of solidarity with the struggle of the Vietnamese people were held all over the 
Soviet Union during the International Solidarity Week, in which thousands 
upon thousands of youth took part. 

Our assistance to Vietnam is growing all the time. In just recent times, for 
instance, the Komsomol Central Committee sent the patriotic forces of South 
Vietnam 1.30,000 roubles worth of medicines, medical equipment and food. 

Soviet youth, like all Soviet people, will continue to render every possible 
assistance to the fraternal Vietnamese people. Wherever we went, whether 
to a reception given at the Central Committee of the Union of Vietnamese Work- 
ing Youth, or at a talk with DRV President Ho Shi Min [sic], during meetings 
with Vietnamese youth at institutes and at enterprises, our Vietnamese friends 
spoke very highly of the aid which the Soviet Union is rendering them. 

"With the assistance of the USSR and the fraternal socialist countries our 
people, who are at the front line of sturggle [sic] againsit the U.S. aggression, will 
be able to achieve victory over the enemy !" were the words which we heard time 
and again. Our delegation, on behalf of the Komsomol Central Committee, ex- 
]>resses its warm gratitude to the Central Committee of the Union of Vietnamese 
Working Youth for the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the experience 
accumulated during their work. We saw much and became acquainted with 
interesting people, and all this made it possible for us to become convinced of the 
firm resolve of the Vietnamese people to sweep the American aggressors off their 
long-suffering land ! ^ 

Iniormation Bulletin published by Committee of Youth Org.inizations of the U.S.S.R., 

e nf Mflv Iftfifi. 

issue of May 1966. 

67-852 — 66 — pt. 2 


Stop the Drift to World War 

(By Norman Freed and Kjeld Oesterling) 

THE PEACE MOVEMENT is now confronted with new tasks arising from tlie 
existing international situation and the growing tlireat to world peace on the 
part of U.S. imperialism. 

U.S. imperialism has embarked on a blatant course of aggression in various 
parts of the world. The massive air attacks on the Democratic Republic of 
Vietnam, the use of chemicals, poison gas and napalm bombs, the landing of 
marines in increasing numbers constitute naked aggression against the people 
of Vietnam. 

U.S. aggression in Vietnam, a grave danger to world peace, is an important 
link in the chain of military conflicts developed by American imi>erialism. The 
aggressors are trying to involve the Latin American continent in these conflicts. 
They are carrying out preparations for a war in Europe, for it is in Europe that 
most of the luiresolved issues left over from World War II remain. 

The recent conference of the Communist parties of the capitalist countries of 
Europe likewise made a valuable contribution to the struggle for unity. It ad- 
dressed an appeal to the Labor and Socialist parties of Western Europe to end 
their support for U.S. policy in Vietnam; to halt the barbarous bombing and 
acts of aggression against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam ; to end all acts 
of aggression by the United States in South Vietnam, beginning with the with- 
drawal of all U.S. military forces, and to allow the Vietnamese people to exercise 
freely their right to decide their own destiny. This requires recognition of the 
National Liberation Front as the true representative of the people of South Viet- 
nam. This api>eal, if put into united anti-imperialist action throughout the 
world would bring peace to the people in Vietnam and eliminate a grave danger 
point threatening the peace of the world. 

The Communists are convinced that if the peace-loving forces unite for a 
decisive struggle they can frustrate the criminal war plans, maintain peace and 
promote friendship among peoples. The Commimists, as noted in the 11H>0 State- 
ment of fraternal parties, see their historical mission not only in abolishing 
exploitation and poverty on a worldwide scale and in excluding wars from the 
life of human society for all times, but in ridding mankind already in the present 
epoch of the nightmare of a new world war. 

The forces upholding peace are vast. They can put an end to the ix)licy of 
aggression pursued by U.S. imperialism. Major international actions aimed at 
putting an end to U.S. aggression in Vietnam, protest campaigns, a powerful 
movement of solidarity with the Vietnamese people in all countries will become 
the barrier that will hold back the wave of aggression. In a number of countries, 
money is being collected for the purchase of supplies and medicines to be sent 
to the war-stricken people of Vietnam. This is one of the manifestations of the 
growing consciousness of the peoples and the consciousness of the peoples is an 
imiwrtant factor in world politics. 

The working people have created an arsenal of effective means of struggle 
against imperialist aggression. They were inspired to this by the sense of soli- 
darity with the victims of the imperialist aggression, a clear understanding of 
the fact that the sparks of imperialist war are threatening their own homes. 
* * * * * * * 

Today also, the working people can take up the tested weapons of struggle 
against the increased war danger. In this respect the world congress for peace, 
national independence and disarmament to be held in Helsinki will, undoubtedly, 
be of great importance. This congress will promote unity of all peace-loving- 
forces in the interest of joint actions against the forces of war. 

The demands of the peace-loving forces reflect standards of social justice so 
dear to the peoples, standards which the imperialists have never succeeded in 
destroying in the minds of the working masses. 

The peoples demand : 

— an end to U.S. acts of aggression in Vietnam; 

— the withdrawal of American troops and armaments in keeping with the 
Geneva agreements of 1964 ; 


— au end to the interference of U.S. imperialists in tlie affairs of South Viet- 
nam ; the granting to the people of Vietnam of the right to determine their own 

Mankind is at present living through a critical moment in its history. To stop 
the aggression in Vietnam and elsewhere, to defeat the interventionist policy of 
American imperialism, to deliver a decisive blow to the "war party" — that is the 
mo3t important task today. Unless this is done the aggression in Vietnam and 
Latin America, whetting the appetite of the imperialists, may become the prelude 
to a world nuclear war. 

* * * * * * * 

Action, cohesion and initiative are urgently needed throughout the world to 
safeguard peace and the security (jf the peoples. Such a line should be pursued 
in the course of multilateral actions at all levels, embrace all tendencies and 
trends, and become a versatile democratic movement of our epoch. In our 
opinion, it should be a broad and genuinely effective one. 

Aggression must be stopped ! The "limited wars" must be stopped ! 

Peace, freedom and self-determination are indivisible. The proposals of the 
peace champions must acquire a realistic and concrete form when translated 
into practice. An immediate end to the aggression in Vietnam ! Peace for Viet- 
nam I Dem(K'racy and self-determination for the Dominican Republic ! No 
further political or military preparations for attack against Cuba ! No multi- 
lateral nuclear forces, and a new system of security in Europe ! No new provo- 
cations in connection with Berlin ! * 

Unity of Action Is a Vital Need of Our Time 
(By F. Anton, A. Ferrari, and V. Slavik) 

^ ^ ^ :]: $ ^ $ 

The task is to so act as to end the imi>erialist aggression in all areas of the 
world. The most dangerous aggression at the moment is the U.S. aggression 
against the i>eople of Vietnam. Ending this "dirty war" would signify not only 
the triumph of the just cause of the people of Vietnam and the opportunity for 
them to decide their own destiny ; it would also avert the danger of the conflict 

It is true that all the Communist and Workers' parties have publicly voiced 
their complete solidarity with the just struggle of the people of Vietnam. Valu- 
able and effective material aid has been rendered, and is still being rendered by 
a number of parties. This aid, as the example of the USSR and other socialist 
countries shows, is in keeping with the corresponding agreements concluded with 
the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and is in line with the 
request of the latter. In the capitalist countries protest demonstrations are 
taking pJace demanding an end to U.S. aggression. Carrying forward the finest 
traditions of their people, progressives in the United States are courageously 
raising their voices in the citadel of imperialism in protest against the war. The 
call "Stop the Bombing of the DRV!" is heard throughout the country. 

The need, however, is for united action on a broader scale in all parts of the 
world, and in particular in those countries where the governments support the 
U.S. aggression. This will give added impetus to the solidarity with Vietnam. 
It is likewise important to demonstrate that more effective forms of aid will be 
given in the event of the U.S. imperialists venturing to e-scalate their aggression. 

The parties must help by every means at their disposal to give effect to this 
unity of action. 

This applies, first and foremost, to the Communist and Workers' parties of the 
socialist countries. It is the socialist world system, the bulwark of all the 
revolutionary and progressive forces, that shoulders the weight of the struggle 
and extends aid to the peoples carrying it on. Every opportunity should be 
used to render the aid needed ; the people of Vietnam, indeed, people everywhere 
in the world, expect this. Close unity of the socialist community would be a 
stimulus, a great power of attraction and mobilization of the in the 
capitalist world and of the peoples who have cast off the imperialist yoke, and 
would pave the way for joint action by the forces of progress. 

* World Marxist Review, July 19G.5. 


This task concerns also the Communist and Workers' parties in the rest of 
■the world. Most of them have considerable influence among the working class 
and other democratic forces in their countries. All these forces are opposed to 
the aggression of U.S. imperialism and support the people of Vietnam ; they want 
to see aggression ended and have expressed this sentiment in different ways 
^nd on different occasions. Greater coordination of the policy and activity of 
these parties and organizations is essential if the actions by the working class 
and masses, generally, the trade unions and other organizations and democratic 
forces is to have an impact on a regional, continental and even world scale, 
actions with which U.S. aggressive circles and those supporting them will have 
to reckon. 

Such are the demands of proletarian internationalism from which the Com 
munists draw their strength. It is hoped that unity of action will be achieved, 
and the sooner, the better, for we shoidd bear in mind that things might become 
worse, and this would make it even more difficult to advance along the path 
where the obstacles, although they exist, are not insuperable.* 

Solid AEiTY With the People of Vietnam ° 

(Review of protest actions around the world) 
• **•*** 

The imperialists evidently have chosen Vietnam in order to "probe" the 
firmness of the socialist camp. Now they have been able to satisfy themselves 
that "probes" of this kind bode them little good either in Vietnam or in Cuba 
or in any other part of the world. 

The socialist countries immediately came to the defense of the people of Viet- 
nam in their fight against the U.S. aggression. 

The Soviet government, which has repeatedly denounced the U.S. aggression 
in South Vietnam, immediately after the beginning of raids by U.S. aircraft 
against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, took concrete steps to help repel 
the aggression. One of its statements said : "In the face of the above-mentioned 
actions of the United States, the Soviet Union will be compelled, together with 
its allies and friends, to take further measures to safeguard the security and 
strengthen the defenses of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Let no one 
doubt that the Soviet Union will do this, that the Soviet people will fulfil their 
internationalist duty in respect to a fraternal socialist country." 

jf ***** * 

The Communist parties in all countries — the voice and conscience of the 
working class, the peasantry and of all progressive sections of the people — 
oppose the U.S. aggression as the most resolute and consistent exponents of world 
public opinion. Statements, protest resolutions, messages of solidarity, letters, 
appeals and calls to action come from the Communist parties of Europe, Asia, 
Africa, the Middle East, North and South America and Australia. The Parties 
are organizing and initiating solidarity campaigns and militant actions by the 
working people against the policy of military gambles and for aid to the embattled 
people of Vietnam. 

Calls to combat the U.S. aggression have been made by many international 
democratic organizations including the World Federation of Trade Unions, 
World Peace Council, World Federation of Democratic Youth. International 
Organization of Journalists, International Students' Union, Women's Inter- 
national Democratic Federation, International Association of Democratic Law- 
yers. International Trade Union Committee of Solidarity with the Workers 
and People of South Vietnam, Bureau of the International Conference of Soli- 
darity with the People of South Vietnam and the Permanent Secretariat of the 
Afro-Asian Solidarity Organization. 


Condemnation of the U.S. aggi'ession resounded in the May Day demonstra- 
tions held all over the world, and in the public gatherings held on the occasion 
of the 20th anniversary of the end of World War 11. May Day marchers 

6 Italics in this and all following quotations appear in the originals. 
5 Ibid., January 1966. 


demanded an end to the imperialist war in Vietnam. "Peace to Vietnam !"', "No 
to tlie American War in Vietnam!", "Stop actions threatening nuclear catastro- 
phe!" — these slogans were the keynote of the meetings and demonstrations in 
honor of the international day of working people's solidarity. 


The United States, too, has been the scene of a big and widespread protest 
movement. No event in the twenty years since the Second World War has 
agitated Americans so forcefully as the bomb-happy policy of the Johnson Admin- 
istration in Vietnam. 

"There has never been a government policy with less support from our people 
as is the case with this policy of aggression," said Gus Hall. "There has never 
been a policy so out of step with popular 'consensus'." 


Big demonstrations have been held all over the country. On April 10 six 
thousand people marched in New York. On Easter eve, April 17. Washington 
witnessed an unprecedented demonstration against the Administration's foreign 
policy^ — a i)eace march in which some 30.000 took part. One of the leaflets 
distributed on behalf of the marchers said : "The war in Vietnam is a hideously 
immoral war ... It is a terrifyingly dangerous war. And it is a civil war in 
which the only outside forces are those of the United States." The demonstra- 
tion ended at the White House where the marchers called, but in vain, for the 

The movement in the USA against the war in Vietnam shows signs of growing 
into a real movement of all the people, embracing all walks of life and the most 
varied organizations, such as the Student's Peace Union and the W.E.B. Du Bois 
Clubs, the Sane Nuclear Policy Committee and a number of trade unions, the 
Women Strike for Peace organization, societies advocating civil rights for the 
Negro population, and religious groups. On May 12, for instance, the Pentagon 
was besieged by hundreds of demonstrators, representing religious groups who 
had come to protest against the reckless military policy and to "demonstrate the 
desire of the American people for a peaceful settlement in Vietnam." 

A very active role in the anti-war campaign is played by Students for a Demo- 
cratic Society, which unites representatives of 63 universities. 

This role of the students in the protest demonstrations against Washington's 
military policy in Southeast Asia has compelled the U.S. press to speak about 
the awakening of the Silent Generation as the youth used to be considered. 
Special "peace in Vietnam" and "no war in Vietnam" committees have been set 
up on university campuses. 

For many organizations this condemnation of the war in Vietnam was the 
first experience of opposition to the foreign policy of the government. 

The worldwide movement against the U.S. war in Vietnam is growing day 
by day. All who cherish peace and the security of the peoples are acting in a 
united front. 

The U.S. rulers and the few governments which support them, having com- 
pletely counterposed themselves to world public opinion, find themselves in a 
position of political and moral isolation. In all countries the call of the peace- 
loving peoples resounds with ever greater force : "Hands Off Vietnam !" ^ 

"Smaix Waks" and the Aggression in Viet-Nam 
(By Y. Oleshchuk) 

American imperialism is continuing its criminal war in South-East Asia. 

In an effort to crush the Vietnamese people's heroic resistance, the United 
States has been extending and intensifying its armed intervention in Viet-Nam. 
The U.S. Congress recently voted additional appropriations of nearly $13,000 
million for the war in that country. There is talk of a possible dispatch of 
more and more U.S. troops to South Viet-Nam in addition to those already 

"^ Ibid.. .June 19(;5. 


U.S. imperialism's Viet-Nam gamble is being severely condemned by all pro- 
gressive, democratic forces in dozens of countries. The greatest international 
responsibility for the future of the world and humanity calls upon all Socialist 
countries, the supporters of social progress and democracy, all those to whom 
the real freedom and independence of nations is near and dear to close their 
ranks and give joint and effective support to the heroic Vietnamese people. 

Experience has already shown that the imperialist "small wars" inevitably 
contain the embryo of armed conflicts on a much wider scale. The international 
unity of all progressive, democratic, peace-loving forces must show and will show 
that imperialist aggression holds out no prospects of success.* 

Slogans Is,sued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the 
Soviet Union for May Day 1066 

Long live May Day, the day of international solidarity of the working people, 
the day of the unity and brotherhood of the workers oif all countries ! 

Long live the working class of the whole world ! Proletarians of all countries, 
unite ! 

Long live Marxism-Leninism, the ever-living, all-conquering revolutionary 
teaching ! 

^ ^ :!r- :ii ^ ^ at 

Peoples of the socialist countries, the peoples waging the national liberation 
struggle, working people of the whole world ! LTnite your efforts in the struggle 
against imperialism and colonialism, for national liberation, for peace, for 
democracy, and socialism ! 

Peoples for all countries ! Expose the schemes of the imi>erialist instigators 
of war ! Intensify the struggle for the suspension of the arms race, for the 
banning of nuclear weapons, for general and complete disarmament, for peace 
the world over! 

Peoples of the world ! Struggle for the suspension of the military intervention 
of American imperialism in Vietnam ! Demand the immediate withdrawal of 
U.S. Armed Forces from South Vietnam, the placing at the disposal of the people 
of Vietnam the possibility of deciding their own affairs! May international 
solidarity with the heroic people of Vietnam broaden and grow stronger ! 

Fraternal greetings to the working people of the Democratic Republic of 
Vietnam, who are building socialism and struggling against the American ag- 
gi-essors and for the peaceful unification of their country on democratic prin- 
ciples ! Long live the eternal, unbreakable friendsliip and cooperation between 
the Soviet and Vietnamese i>eoples ! " 

(Letter From Liu Shao-chi, Chairman of People's Republic of China, to 
Ho Chi Minh, President of Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Dated January 
20, 1966) 

China Resolutely Supports D.R.V.'s Just Stand 

Respected and Dear Comrade President, 

* * * * * * * 

U.S. imperialist aggression is the root cause of the present grave situation in 
Vietnam. It is clear to all that, according to the 19.54 Geneva agreements, the 
Vietnam question should have already been settled. But the United States has 
thoroughly trampled underfoot the Geneva agreements under which it has 
assumed obligations. It has fostered its puppet regimes in southern Viet- 
nam, obstructed the peaceful reunification of Vietnam, slaughtered or imprisoned 
hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese patriots and launched an inhuman "special 
war" against the south Vietnamese people. As it failed to win the "special war," 

'< Tnfernationnl Affairs, May 1966. 

Tliis imblication is an international Communist agitation and propaganda organ 
nuhlished in Moscow in tiie Russian, Englisli, and Frencli languages by the All-Union 
Society ("Znaniye") of tlie U.S.S.R. 

^Moscow Radio (Russian Language Broadcast) 17 April 1966. 


it has sent over huge forces for direct aggression in southern Vietnam and em- 
ployed its air force units to bomb the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Ob- 
viously, the aim of the United States is to turn soutliern Vietnam into its colony 
and military base and perpetuate the partition of Vietnam. 

* ^ * * :5^ if! # 

If the Vietnam question is to be settled, the United States must truly abide by 
the Geneva agreements. The four-point stand for a settlement of the Viet- 
nam question set forth by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet- 
nam is a concentrated expression of the essence of the Geneva agreements. If 
the U.S. Government really has any sincere desire for a peaceful settlement of 
the Vietnam question, it should act in accordance witli this foux'-point stand, stop 
its aggression against the whole of Vietnam, withdraw all its own forces and 
those of its vassal countries from southern Vietnam, recognize the South Viet- 
nam National Front for Liberation as the only genuine representative of the 
south Vietnamese people and let the Vietnamese people settle their own prob- 
lems by themselves. But so far there has been no indication that the Ignited 
States is ready to do so. On the contrary, it is continuing to send aggressive 
reinforcements to southern Vietnam, pursuing there the still more barbarous 
"scorched earth" policy of "burn all, destroy all, kill all," and extending the 
tlames of its war of aggression against Vietnam to Laos and Cambodia step by 
step. This shows that the United States does not really want a peaceful settle- 
ment of the Vietnam question but is using these "peace offensives" to cover up its 
designs of intensified expansion of its war of aggression. 

The great stniggle of the Vietnamese people against U.S. aggression and for na- 
tional salvation is perfectly just. Your heroic deeds have inspired all revolution- 
ary peoples, and your struggle has won the extensive sympathy and support of 
the peace-loving countries and people of the whole world. It is certainly not 
the Vietnamese people fighting for independence and freedom, but the U.S. im- 
perialists persisting in policies of aggression and war, who are really isolated. 
The facts will prove that the farther U.S. imperialism goes along its path of war 
expansion, the nearer it will approach the day of its thorough defeat. China 
and A'ietnam are neighbours closely related like the lips and the teeth; our two 
peoples are brothers sharing weal and woe. The Chinese people always un- 
swervingly stand together with the Vietnamese people and wholeheartedly sup- 
port and assist them in their just struggle. To whatever extent U.S. imperial- 
ism may expand its war and whatever may be the price we have to pay, we 650 
million Ctiinese people will stand by the fraternal Vietnamese people in a joint 
struggle to thoroughly defeat the U.S. aggressors.^" 

(Report on Accomplishments of First Solidarity Conference of the Peoples 
OF Asia, Africa, and Latin America, Commonly Known as the Tri-Conti- 
NENTAL Conference, Held in Havana, Cuba, January 3-16, 1966) 

First Conference of the Peoples of Three Continents 
(By Lionel Soto) 

4; :(: 4: ^ 4: !|! * 

On Vietnam 

The Subcommittee for Vietnam adopted a resolution noting the heroism, in- 
domitable v/ill for victory and remarkable successes of the Vietnamese people 
battling against the might of the United States. The resolution qualifies the 
Vietnam problem as the central problem of the Conference ; "human conscience," 
it declares, "is deeply shocked and indignant at the genocide prac-ticed by the 
North American aggressor." 

The resolution exposes the hypocritical manoeuvres of the L^nited States 
like the notorious "peace offensive" and demands observance of the 19.'">4 Geneva 
Agreements. It supports the January 4, 1966 Statement of the Democratic 

^0 Peking Eerirv, Fphniary 4. Iftfi6. pp. .5. 6. 

This is a wppkly mazacrnip piihlisherl in the capital of Red China in English, Frencli, 
.'^panish, Japanese, and German editions. 


Republic of Vietnam, the Statement of the Central Committee of the National 
Liberation Front of South Vietnam dated January 5, 1966, the five points in the 
Statement made by the NLFSV on March 22, 1965, and the four points contained 
in the April 8, 1965 Statement of the DRV Government. "The conference con- 
siders these documents to be the sole just basis for the solution of the Vietnam 
problem," for which the demand for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. 
troops and those of its satellites from South Vietnam is of decisive importance. 

The conference decided to set up a Tricontinental Committee for Aid to Viet- 
nam, the chief purpose of which will be "to mobilize, organize, coordinate and 
intensify the movements of solidarity, support and aid to the Vietnamese people 
in all fields — moral, political, material and economic, including aid through 
volunteers and arms — within the framework of each country, each continent 
and all the three continents." Havana was chosen as the seat of the committee. 

The Political Committee of the conference discussed the proposal submitted 
by the delegation of the Soviet Union on the establishment of an International 
Relief Fund for Vietnam under the auspices of the above-mentioned committee 
which should study the practical asi)ect of this question." 

(Appeal Adopted by the World Council of Peace (World Peace Council) 
During Its Meeting Held in Sofia, Bulgaria, 2()-21 November 19<)5) 

■if * if if * * * 

The Presidential Committee of the World Council of Peace, meeting in Sofia, 
notes a constant deterioration in the situation in Vietnam due to the American 
policy of intensifying and extending its war of aggression. 

Despite the indignation and vigorous protests of world public opinion, the 
US Government is stubbornly going still further in its extremly dangerous mili- 
tary adventures : sending to South Vietnam new reinfrocements of tens of 
thousands of American soldiers and troops from its satellite countries bringing 
in weapons and war material, thousands of tons of chemical products and toxic 
gas, intensifying the bombing of the population of South Vietnam by the 7th 
Fleet and B52 bombers ; at the same time, it is intensifying and extending its 
bombing of towns and villages in the territory of the Democratic Republic of 

It is to be noted that while these shameless crimes are being committed, the 
US President continuously talks about "peaceful negotiations". This is a de- 
ception aimed, on the one hand, at concealing the fresh American military 
manoeuvres and, on the other, at saving the desperate situation of the American 
aggressors and their puppets in South Vietnam. 


The WCP Presidential Committee considers that it is necessary and possible, 
in the pi'esent situation, to mobilise a broader movement of the forces of peace 
and freedom in the whole world to urge the US Government officially to declare 
its recognition of the 1954 Geneva Agreements and prove by concrete actions 
recognition of the following points : 

• End the war of aggression in South Vietnam, withdraw the troops, weap- 
ons and American military personnel from South Vietnam, leave the 
South Vietnamese people to settle their own affairs ; 

• Immediately stop the war of destruction waged by US air and naval 
forces against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, a sovereign and in- 
dependent country ; 

• Recognise the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam as sole and 
authentic representative of the 14 million inhabitants of South Vietnam. 

The Presidential Committee of the World Council of Peace considers that 
once these bases were recognised, the i;)eaceful settlement of the problem of 
Vietnam could go ahead under favourable conditions : any solution, however, not 
based on the above-mentioned points would not be appropriate, not being in 
conformity with the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Vietnam and the legitimate 
aspirations of the Vietnamese people. 

The Presidential Committee of the World Council of Peace calls on the peace 
workers and peoples of all countries to work more actively to help end the 

11 World Marxist Review. April 196(i. p. 8. 


American war of aggression in Vietnam and to clevelope the movement of all 
possible support for the Vietnamese people. 

The Presidential Committee of the World Council of Peace calls on all peace 
movements in the United States and the countries taking part in the war of 
aggression in Vietnam to participate in all the demonstrations of university 
groups, women and young people, to support the movement opposing service in 
armed forces assigned to Vietnam, to help ensure the success of marches and 
other protest actions. It calls on all peace forces in the world to strengthen 
the campaign of refusing to load and transport \\eapons, munitions and troops 
to Vietnam, to oppose the US imperialists using foreign territories and their 
military bases in these countries for aggression against Vietnam. ^- 

Declakation of the IUS Secretariat on the Occasion of the 11th Anniver- 
sary OF THE Signing of the Geneva Agreements of 1954 on Vietnam — .Iuly 
20th, 196.5 

At the price of a long, stubborn and heroic struggle for national indei>endence. 
the Vietnamese people won a brilliant victory o^'er the French aggressors and 
American interventionists. The Geneva Agreements signed on July 20th, 19.54, 
solemnly recognized the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity 
of Vietnam. 

But the Aiiierican imperialists were opposed to the establishment of an inde- 
pendent and unified Vietnam. For 11 years, they have systematically sabotaged 
the Geneva Agreements, starting immediately after their signing. They have 
transformed South Vietnam into a neo-colony and into a U.S. military base, they 
have been waging a barbarous aggressive war against the South Vietnamese 
people and have been trying to perpetuate the division of Vietnam. Tens of 
thousands of tons of weapons and modern American war material, including 
napalm and phosphorous and chemical and toxic gas products, and tens of thou- 
sands of American soldiers and oflBcers as well as thousands of soldiers from its 
satellite countries have been illegally introduced into South Vietnaiii. in spite 
of the rigorous prohibition in the Geneva Agreements. 

The IUS and the progressive students of the world express their total support 
for the just, Five-Point position of the National Liberation Front of South Viet- 
nam as expres.sed in its declaration of March 22nd, 1965. and for the Four-Point 
declaration of the Government of the DRV, as expressed on April Sth. 1965. 
These positions constitute the .sole reasonable and realistic basis for the solution 
of the Vietnamese problem. Any other measure running counter to these posi- 
tions, including the intervention of the UN. is bound to fail. The so-called 
peace proposals put forth by the Wilson government which has ah^ays actively 
supported the American war of aggression in South Vietnam and which is kept 
in tow by Johnson as far as his military actions in Vietnam are concerned, are 
nothing more than the reflection of the "peace negotiations" trickery of the 
American imperialists. 

The IUS and the progressive students of the world consider that the National 
Liberation Front of South Vietnam is the only authentic representative of the 
South Vietnamese population and consider that no question relating to South 
Vietnam can be resolved without its participation. 

On the occasion of July 20th, 1965, the IUS addressed all progressive students 
of the world, calling on them to : 

— energetically condemn the American imperialists' policy of aggression in Viet- 
nam and to demand of them : 

— total respect and the strict application of the 1954 Geneva Agreements on 

— an immediate end to their aggression in South Vietnam, 

— the immediate withdrawal of their troops, the liquidation of all their military 
bases in South Vietnam, 

— the immediate cessation of aggression against the DRV, 

12 Supplement to Bulletin of the World Council of Peace, No. 1.3. December 196.5. 

The World Council of Peace (World Peace Council) is generally recogrnized as the 
principal international "peace" front of the world Communist movement. It was formed 
in 1950 at a Communist-sponsored "peace" conference held in Warsaw. Poland. 


— resiject the legitimate ri^lit of tlie Soutli Vietnamese people to freely deter- 
mine their own destiny and the right of the entire Vietnamese people to decide 
for themselves the re-unification of their country, 

— support the just liberation struggle of the South Vietnamese people and 
students by all means, both moral and material, including the sending of funds 
for the purchase of weapons and, in case of necessity, the sending of volunteers 
to fight alongside the South Vietnamese students and people. 

The lUS and the progressive students of the world are convinced that the people 
and students of Vietnam, strong in their firm determination to struggle against 
the aggressors and in the warm support of the peoples of the world, will unques- 
tionably achieve final victory. The American aggressors will certainly be 

The profound aspirations of the entire Vietnamese people — independence, sov- 
ereignty and national unity— will undoubtedly be realized. 

American aggressors, out of Vietnam ! Long live the liberation struggle of the 
people and students of South Vietnam ! Long live the heroic resistence of the 
people and students of "S'ietnam against American aggression ! ^^ 

Declaration of the Women's International Democratic Federation Issued in 
East Berlin, Germany, March 11, 1966 


The whole world is aroused at the growing seriousness of LTnited States aggres- 
sion against Vietnam. Over the last few weeks, the bombings have redoubled 
in the North, hitting without discrimination cities and towns, hospitals, schools, 
pagodas and hydraulic installations. It is with anguish that the peoples of the 
world note the daily increase in the number of military personnel, both of the 
United States and satelite [sic] countries. Tremendous force, the most bar- 
barous methods of destroying human lives, culture and the fruits of man's labour 
are unleashed against a people numbering 31 million, who aspire for their reuni- 
fication, against men, women and children who only ask to live free in their coun- 
try and to decide their own future. 

The condemnation of peoples all over the world is increasing against such 
crimes. Millions of women and mothers, who wish for all children of the world 
the same happiness, in a world at peace that they desire for their own children, 
are protesting. In ever larger numbers they are estimating the danger of this 
war against Vietnam being extended to all countries, the danger of a new world 
war, which using terrifying atomic weapons, would destroy all signs of life on 


Let millions of women's voices everywhere join together to demand 

— the strict and immediate implementation of the Geneva Agreements, 

— an immediate end to bombing 

— the withdrawal of American and satelite [sic] troops from South Vietnamese 
territory, the liquidation of military bases, 

— the recognition of the F.N.L. of South Vietnam as sole bargaining repre- 
sentative in negotiations. 

These are the only conditions that will permit the Vietnamese people to settle 
their own affairs, free from all foreign intervention. 

The period ahead will be marked throughout the world by very large actions 
of all freedom-loving forces, who desire respect for human rights, justice and 

Let the women, mothers, whose hearts beat together, in a common cry of re- 
volt, contribute to putting an end to so much unhappiness which nothing can 
justify, and let them be worthy of the sacrifices willingly made by the Vietnamese 
women in their noble patriotic struggle, for the freedom and happiness, not 
only of their country, but of the world." 

wA^eirs Service, No. 1.5-16, August 1965, published in Prague. Czechoslovakia, bv Inter- 
national Union of Students. 

The International Union of Students, established in 1946. is the worldwide Communist 
front for students. It has been cited by this committee and the Senate Internal 
Securit.v Subcommittee. 

1' Women's International Democratic Federation, a Communist front founded and sup- 
ported at all times b.v the international Communist movement, has stated franltlv that it 
intended to follow the lead of the Soviet Union, "the onl.v country trulv working for 
peace." It has been cited by this committee and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. 


World Federation of Democratic Youth 

Tens of thousands of American troops keep flowing into Vietnam. What for? 
To defend freedom and democracy? To halt communist aggression? On being 
sent thousands and thousands of miles away from their homeland — to Vietnam, 
this is how their mission is explained to them. The unfortunate thing is that 
many fall for this humbug and tliey carry out their mission of destruction, kill- 
ing and soil-razing . . . But to avoid becoming accessories to this crime some 
young Americans burn their draft papers, and even commit self-immolation by 
tire. Both types are just young people, but with a difference . . . 

The Vietnam problem has become a touchstone for all progressive forces. It 
has brought to light the intrinsic qualities of the majority of young people 
of our time. It is not surprising then that people with widely differing views on 
different pi'oblems join together in a vast international solidarity movement 
with the youth and people of Vietnam. 

The International Youth and Students' Conference for Solidarity with the 
People. Youth and Students of Vietnam, to be held in Pyongyang (Demo- 
cratic Republic of Korea, May 1966), will be aimed at strengthening this light- 
ing unity, against American imperialism. 

The first item on the agenda of the forthcoming Assembly of member organi- 
sations of the World Federation of Democratic Youth (Bulgaria — .June 1966) 
will deal with the question of building up international solidarity and con- 
.solidating unity of action of world youth against American's war of aggression 
in Vietnam. 

Everywhere w^here men live protest actions are being staged against the US 
imperialist war of agression in Vietnam and demonstrations for peace and aid 
to the heroic Vietnam people are being organised. Blood for wounded Viet- 
namese patriots as well as medicines and medical instruments are being sent to 
the country .^° 

Domestic Communist Statements 

National Liberation and the Anti-Imperialist Struggle 


The struggle of the American people against the war of aggression in Vietnam 
is no less material in shaping its outcome than the heroic resistance of the Viet- 
namese people themselves. * * *^*' 

Directives of the Coximunist Party, U.S.A., Concerning the War in A^ietnam 

August 19. 1964. 
To All Districts : 

On August 7th our Party issued a statement condemning the military aggres- 
sion by the United States against North Vietnam and the danger of a world 
nuclear conflagration created by such an attack. 

That statement in full was published in The Worker of August 11 and called 
for all people "to speak out for peace" and for "all peoples organizations, trade 
unions, churches * * * to speak out before it is too late." 

We called for meetings, petitions, letters, telegrams to be sent to President 
Johnson, the Senators and Congressmen urging negotiation and the settlement of 
all the issues through the existing machinery of the 14-power Geneva conference 
and the good offices of the United Nations." 

IS TForZrt Youth. Budapest, Hungary (official publication of WFDY), editorials in .January 
1966 issue. 

The World Federation of Democratic Youth is the largest of all the international Coin- 
munist youth fronts. It has been cited by this committee and the Senate Internal Security 

^« Political Affairs, February 1966, p. 6. 

Political Affairs identifies itself as the "Theoretical Journal of the Communist Partv, 


During the weekend of August 8-9, there were many peace actions wliicli raised 
the slogans of "No More Hirosliimas. End War in Vietnam." Meetings were 
held in AVashingtou Square in New York, the Boston Common, and other places. 
Picket liiie.v and peace walks were also held in some cities. Full-page ads were 
placed in Chicago papers. Statements have been published in newspapers. 
Leaflets have been issued. TV and radio programs have been promoted. There 
are many forms through which the broader mass movement has expressed the 
peace demand. All of this needs encouragement. We aLso want to know what 
has been done in your locality and what is being planned to help influence policy 
toward the negotiation of a peaceful settlement. 

We also want to know what activities have been conducted by our Party and 
by the Left forces. What use was made of our statement, what leaflets have been 
issued, what articles from The Worker have been reprinted, what statements have 
been issued and by whom. Let iis also know what activities are planned for this 
in relation to the election campaign and which identify our positive contribution 
to the struggle for peace. 

It is obvious that the danger of expansion of the war in Southeast Asia remains 
high and that this and similar foreign policy issues will be central in the election 
campaign. In view of this sitviation and our special responsibilities because of 
the I'ole of U.S. imperialism in Southeast Asia, we urge even gi'eater initiative to 
stimulate pressure for a negotiated settlement and the convening of the 14-nation 

Fraternally yours, 

Organization Department. 

November 25, 1964. 
To All Districts : 

memo on end the war in south VIETNAM 

I. The demand for peace is a key point in the election mandate and any imple- 
mentation of that demand calls for an end to the war in South Vietnam. The 
vote against Goldwater was a vote against reckless brinkmanship, a vote against 
the very proposals which are now being advanced by Gen. Maxwell Taylor. 

The demand for the end of the war in South Vietnam comes immediately on the 
agenda, and is urgent because of the scheduled policy conferences starting on 
November 27 with President Johnson and including Secretary of State Dean 
Rusk, Secretary McNamara, General Taylor, the Pentagon, and others. 

The real danger — and the major threat — is that the Taylor proposals would 
escalate the war into a world nuclear war. Such a threat places South Vietnam 
as a top priority and the urgent point for all mankind. This is no narrow 
demand for the organized peace forces. 

In presenting this demand it is essential to call attention to certain additional 
facts, The demand for peace comes from all parts of the world. It is the agonized 
cry of the people of South Vietnam. This is demonstrated again and again by the 
people on the streets of Saigon as well as in all parts of that country. One puppet 
government after the other cannot cover up the demand for peace, for an end to 

That war has brought suffering and terror to the mass of i)eople in that country. 
Our government is held responsible for napalm bombing, the strafing of villages, 
the destruction of food supplies by chemical warfare, the imprisonment of popula- 
tions in stockaded concentration camps, the brutal torture of prisoners, and the 
senseless killing of people. 

Our own soldiers have been killed in battle. And any escalation can mean that 
thousands of American troops will be in battles. This warning is made in a New 
York Times editorial of November 25 which warns that the proposals of General 
Taylor imply "a willingness to send as many as eight American divisions to defend 
South Vietnam," and warns, "it could involve war with Commimist China." 

This could mean a world nuclear war. That policy must be rejected. This 
must be the occasion for the beginning of an opopsite course — a peace ix)licy as 
the will of the American people. 

II. Millions of Americans have demanded Peace : For 10 years, the people of 
South Vietnam have been denied their right of self-determination and the appli- 
cation of the terms of the Geneva agreement which promised free elections 
within 2 years. 


For 10 years mass organizations and individuals have demanded that the mili- 
tary intervention and vpar in South Vietnam be ended. During these years thou- 
sands have signed petitions, sent letters to the editor, placed ads in newspapers 
and participated in all kinds of activities which have involved people of varied 
political persuasions and from all vralks of life. It is partly on this base that the 
immediate mass expression of the people should be organized. 

III. In the immediate situation, there is the need for mass demonstrative action, 
such as picket lines and vigils which can dramatize the issue to the American 
people. The youth of our country undoubtedly will welcome the opportunity to 
participate in such forms. 

Certain mass professional peace organizations in which many people of varied 
views today participate are sending delegations to Washington in an effort to see 
the President or the Secretary of State and to place the demand for peace. This 
is also true in regard to many prominent individuals who have been making tele- 
phone calls and visiting public oflScials. 

It is urgent that every form be used to bring the peace plea to the President, and 
we should aid in organizing cooperation with all organizations to this end. In 
some cities peace vigils have been organized, such as at Times Square in New 
York. In other cities plans are made for mass meetings. Some organizations 
have mass petitions and a mass mailing of post cards and letters. There should 
be cooperation on all of these. 

Campus activities are very important. This applies both to student meetings, 
articles in the student newspapers as well as distribution of leaflets and partici- 
pation in peace walks. 

Many congressmen were elected on the basis of a peace program. All congress- 
men and senators should be visited during these crucial days. Immediate actions 
should be organized with a perspective of continued activity imtil peace is estab- 

To achieve this, the main forces of the trade union movement, the Negro people's 
movement, the youth and religious organizations are finally decisive. At this 
time church and other organizations raise the question of Peace on Earth and the 
key test is, of course, what they say on Vietnam. Many youth will plan on send- 
ing delegations to Washington during the Christmas holidays. The key on this is 

We will be issuing a mass piece of literature in the form of a small leaflet giving 
our point of view on Vietnam. We are also preparing now for a supplement to 
the Worker and for the writing of a more basic piece of literature which com- 
bines the issues involved in Vietnam with those involved in the Congo and the 
need for a change in U.S. foreign policy so as to have our country express the 
will of the people for peace. 
Fraternally yours, 

National Organization Department. 

December 3, 1964. 
To All Districts: 

Dear Comrades : While the proposals of Gen. Maxwell Taylor to extend the 
war into North Vietnam at the reckless risk of a world nuclear war did not get 
open administration support or repudiation, he was returned to his post. Taylor 
and his immediate supporters should have been removed in accord with the de- 
mand made by Senator Wayne Morse. The danger of all-out war continues and 
must be defeated. 

The popular movement to end the war in South Vietnam was intensified during 
the past 2 weeks and got some results. The mass actions in Washington. D.C, 
New York, and other areas, and the many declarations and statements to the 
President are now being followed up by more actions in the cities and on the 
campus. These are becoming so effective that the HUAC and the ultra-Right 
sections of the press are trying to smear and suppress the peace demands of the 

This means that much more attention must be given to sustained and growing 

We urge special attention immediately to the full use of the "Peace on Earth" 
expression of the people during this month. Undoubtedly, the various peace 


organizations will be calling on the religious leaders to devote one Sunday this 
month to a sermon on ending the war in South Vietnam and to halting the military 
intervention of the Ctmgo as a practical application of the universal peace theme. 
The action of Rev. Martin Luther King and others in presenting the peace demand 
to the President and the speeches of Pope Paul with the emphasis on peace are 
imi)ortant declarations which represent the desires of millions of Americans. 
Such declarations are a challenge to labor and other sections of the population to 
speak out for peace. 

It is reported that trade unions in other parts of the world are dedicating the 
weekend of December 20 to the slogan of "End the War in South "Vietnam." It 
is also reported that many church and religious organizations are using this same 
weekend for this peace theme. We want to know what is being planned, as well 
as what has been done, by labor, youth, and women as well as church and pro- 
fessional peace organizations in your area to make the greatest use of these days 
when the world is calling for "Peace on Earth." 

During these days when Congressmen and Senators are at home — what dele- 
gations are visiting them with peace petitions and resolutions? 

And during these days, when the youth are still on the campus, what plans are 
being made to send delegations to Washington for peace activity during the 
Christmas holidays? During recent years, the student peace organizations have 
utilized these days for such a purpose. 

This deserves immediate attention. Every phase of this campaign must be 
followed up. 

Fraternally yours, 

National Organization Department. 

December 8, 1964. 
To All Districts : 

Our letter of December .3 emphasized the need for all sections of the population 
to si^eak out "to end the war in South Vietnam." Every event makes this more 

We also urged that special efforts be made for mass activities and expressions 
for peace during the weekend of December 19 and 20 with the theme "Peace on 
Earth" being applied to South Vietnam. 

Since writing that letter, the enclosed "Appeal to the Conscience of America" 
has come to our attention. This deserves wide support. It is undoubtedly 
being sent to many people in your area. 

Please keep us informed as to all developments on this campaign for peace, 
nnd as to what activities are being planned by the varied peace forces in your 

Fraternally yours, 

National Organization Department. 

March 2. 19fi.5. 
To All Districts : 

Dear Comrades : Obviously the major crisis facing the American people at 
the present time is the threat of a world nuclear war arising from the escala- 
tion of the unjust war in South Vietnam to North Vietnam. The escalation 
is not only in the form of territory but also in its brutality and its use of 
weapons. The bankruptcy of U.S. policy and the failure to have any support 
for that policy among the people is one of the reasons for the stepped up 
military aggression. The so-called white paper indicates the crisis. 

Every step must be taken quickly to express every form of protest against this 
threatened world war. 

We ai"e enclosing a graphic folder which can be ordered directly from INIassa- 
chusetts. We are also enclosing a memorandum on the trial of March 16 and 
the Assembly of the Accused on March 1.5. We are also enclosing a copy of the 
recent Truman radio program. 

Please let ns know what is happening in these fields. 
Fraternally yours, 

National Organization Department. 


March 5, 196.5. 
To All Districts : 

Once in many years a book is capable of being a significant factor in changing 
history. Wilfred Burchett's "Viet Nam : Inside Story of the Guerrilla War" is 
such a book. The crucial character for all social progress in the U.S. of ending 
the brutal U.S. imperialist intervention in Vietnam makes the book so important. 
Its appearance at this moment and the nature of the book as an eyewitness 
account of the character of the war all demand that anything but a routine 
approach be used in promoting its circulation. 

There are, of course, an endless variety of ways to promote its use. One 
District has bought over 500 copies at $2..50 a book and is selling it to its clubs 
at $3. .50 a copy. This enables the District to guarantee itself against a loss and 
permits the club to make some money, since they sell it for retail at $4.95. Every 
club is urged to buy at least two copies, one to be sold within the club and one 
to club contacts. In addition, a fund is being raised from fi-iends to enable the 
District to give the book free to some key local people in the i)eace, trade union, 
Negro, and youth fields who would not otherwise buy it. The District is also 
mailing out to their local list several hundred copies of the attractive advertising 
brochure that is enclosed. 

The prices are as follows either to a local bookstore or to the District : 

1-4 copies : 25 percent discomit. 

5-9 copies : % discount. 

10-499 copies : 40 percent discount. 

500 and over: .50 percent discount (or $3 apiece to District, including shipping). 

Retail price : $4.95 clothbound. 

Reasonable quantities of the advertising brochure for sending out to a mailing 
list can be acquired from : International Publishers, 381 Park Avenue South, 
New York, N.Y., 10016. 

Sale of the book, we understand, is moving so rapidly that the first edition is 
nearly sold out and there will be a delay before new edition appears. So get 
in your order and money rapidly. 

April 11, 1965, Vleinam march on Washington 

The enclosed call has come to our attention. This event is shaping up as the 
biggest single action calling for an end to the war in Vietnam. We understand 
that Women's Strike for Peace and other adult as well as youth groups have 
endorsed it and are making an all-out mobilization of people to produce thousands 
of people in Washington, D.C., on April 17, from the Midwest, East, and even 
token representation from the West Coast. 

National Organization Department. 

March 31, 1965. 
Memo to All Districts From National Organization Department : 

At this writing, the war drums are being beaten very loudly in connection 
with the current visit of General Taylor. All indications point to an attempt to 
escalate much further the atrocious war in Vietnam. As a result, within the 
framework of a generally very dangerous situation for world peace, this is an 
especially critical moment. 

We urge as many protest actions, big and small, as possible pinpointed at the 
Taylor visit. Despite the horror of the world at the use of nausea gas, "lazy 
dog" and other weapons of a genocidal type and the growing isolation of the 
United States, the administration refuses to indicate a willingness to negotiate 
an end to the war, an end which, of course, can only come based on the United 
States withdrawing its military forces. Instead, it plans new provocations. 

April 17th is becoming the major point of concentration, not only for youth 
but also for adults in peace organizations, in many other circles, and among the 
Left, including the Communists. In the East and Midwest, the main drive is to 
get maximum participation in the march to Wa.shington, D.C., sponsored by 
Students for a Democratic Society and endorsed in cities by Women's Strike 
for Peace, SANE, DuBois Clubs, etc. In some cities, there will be a city march 
with speakers to send the travelers off to Washington. 

On the West Coast, parallel actions are being organized and the point for 
Vietnam protests by the more advanced forces undoubtedly will be May Day. 


In connection with these developments, it is important to examine at all levels 
whether we are living up to our responsibilities and character as a Party of 
action, including strong protest. At each new stage, such as the announcement 
of the use of gas, did we react everywhere with sharp protests, mobilizing our 
forces on an emergency basis as a first step toward our mobilizing many others? 

Such ongoing examination and improvement and correction is necessary to 
build the Party in the course of struggle. 

New Outlook Publishers has just published a new pamphlet on Vietnam by 
Betty Gannett. We have been informed that the orders for this very important 
and timely pamphlet are very small and in many cases no order what.soever has 
been placed. Only the Illinois order indicates anything more than a routine 
approach of sale to some of our own people and slightly beyond. 

The orders do not reflect plans to sell or distribute pamphlets widely at the 
April 17th events and the many other meetings and actions, or to put out a sub- 
stantial mailing. While we have often tended to treat everything as an emer- 
gency, if we are going to treat the Vietnam question in a routine manner, then 
what is a crucial question for extraordinary measures? 

September 10, 1965. 
To All Districts : 

I. To strengthen the campaign to end the war in Vietnam and for greater 
unity of all peace forces, the following slogans should be used : 

1. End the War in Vietnam ! 

2. Stop U.S. Aggression Against Vietnam ! 

3. Bring Our Boys Home ! 

4. Withdraw All U.S. Troops ! 

Let the People of Vietnam Determine their Own Affairs ! 

5. End Bombings ! Stop Escalation ! 

Create the Climate for Meaningful Negotiations with the National 
Liberation Front ! 

6. Halt all Acts of Torture ! 

End Gas and Chemical Warfare ! 

7. Restore the 1954 Geneva Accord for the Independence and 
Unification of Vietnam ! 

8. Peace in Asia ! Recognize People's China ! 
Give China its Rightful Place in the U.N. ! 

9. U.S. Imperialist Aggression in Vietnam Endangers World Peace I 

Of course, local conditions will largely determine which slogans may be most 
effective for specific meetings, leaflets, or demonstrations. 

II. Gus Hall's "Open Letter to President Johnson" which was published in The 
Worker of September 12, is being reprinted in leaflet form in 100,000 copies as a 
public service by The Worker, for mass distribution. 

It can be ordered by the districts and other organizations from this office 
or from The Worker at $5.00 per thousand. Send money with your order. Give 
this immediate attention. 
Fraternally yours, 

National Org. Dept. 

The Prospects for Peaceful Coexistence 

Looking exclusively at the domestic scene, as some do, and seeing the grow- 
ing but still modest forces consciously arrayed againt the global operation of 
U.S. imperialism, the contest appears uneven, with the heavy odds on the side 
of imperialism. But to see the conflict in such narrow focus is to see it falsely 
on two counts. First of all, the present relationship of forces is not static. 
Secondly, this relationship is part of, and is influenced by, the worldwide balance 
of forces. 

Looking at the world scene, we American Communists, in common with most 
of the world's Marxists, conclude that although mankind is embarked upon the 
mosit treacherous passage of its existence, shadowed by the peril of nuclear war, 
it can avert this peril. The Marxist judgment on this score merits special con- 
sideration because of the historical background. 


Only in relationship to the world struggle for peace do the differences in U.S. 
monopoly circles, discussed previously, become significant. In themselves such 
differences are inconsequential as barriers to the war drive inherent in imperial- 
ism. But when U.S. imperialism faces increasing resistance abroad and mounting 
popular pressures at home, then such differences can be sharpened and deepened, 
the most aggressive trends can be weakened, the tendencies toward accommoda- 
tion with present world realities can be encouraged, made firmer, and thus 
another factor for peace can be thrown into the scales. 

At this writing U.S. military aggression in Vietnam represents the most clear 
and present danger to world peace. The supreme challenge of the moment, in the 
fight for world peace is to halt U.S. aggression, to end U.S. military occupation 
of South Vietnam, so that the Vietnamese people can decide their own destiny.^" 

End the War in Vietnam 

(Pamphlet— By Betty Gannett) 


This demands direct intervention by the people. It cannot be left to Washing- 
ton. The Johnson Administration must feel the full wrath of an aroused people 
who do not let up their pressure for a moment in their determination to pull back 
our country from the abyss of all-out war. Above all, it is necessary to under- 
stand that without mass pressure the Johnson Administration will not heed the 
voices of sanity at home and abroad. When the U.S. Communists called for the 
defeat of Barry Goldwater, the darling of the ultra-Right, in last year's Presiden- 
tial election, they at the same time pointed out that only if the people — labor, the 
Negro people, the women and youth, the farmers and professionals — unfold a 
vigorous struggle for their demands, can there be a guarantee that the i)eople's 
demands will ever be realized. For the Communists knew that Lyndon Johnson 
is not a representative of the people but of the monopoly interests in our country 
who will cede nothing to the people unless it is wrested from them in united 

This is as true today as it was last year. For peace will not be restored without 
a groundswell of protest, of resolute struggle, that involves the workers in their 
shops and unions, the Negro peiople in the ghettos, the women in their homes, the 
professors in the imiversity, the students in the classroom. All have a special 
stake in restoring peace. For if the war is expanded, the people's needs will 
become the first victim. War on an expanded scale will halt all social legislation : 
the war on poverty, inadequate as it is, will come to an end ; civil rights will be 
subordinated to the rights of the war machine ; the hope for peace will be sup- 
pressed in the all-out drive to silence all opposition ; the accumulating economic 
needs of labor will be deferred to the distant future. 

To remain on the sidelines in this grave moment of danger is to give the upper 
hand to the cold-warriors, the very forces who are anti-labor, anti-Negro, anti- 
democracy and anti-peace. Above all, labor cannot remain silent. Its multi- 
million strength, if fully mobilized, can be decisive in compelling the Johnson 
Administration to retreat from the brink. Let President Johnson feel the full 
power of a united people, speaking out for peace against war. This is the time to 
speak, to act, to demonstrate : 

• Demand a halt to U.S. armed intervention in South Vietnam ! 

• Demand a halt to all aggressive acts against North Vietnam ! 

• Call for a withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from South Vietnam ! 

• Support the demand for the reconvening of the Geneva Conference to nego- 
tiate a peaceful settlement of the war. 

• Defend the inalienable right of the South Vietnamese people to settle their 
own internal affairs without outside interference ! 

^TNew Program of the Communist Party U.S.A. {A draft) (New York: Political Affairs 
Publishers, Inc., February 1966). 

67-852— 66— pt. 2 10 


In our nuclear age, there is no alternative to nuclear annihilation except peace 
and peaceful coexistence. Thei'e can be no victor in a nuclear holocaust.^* 

The Communist Party — A Review and Perspective 
(By Gus Hall) 

The purpose of this article is to sketch briefly the events, the trends and move- 
ments of the pasit year in order to assess the work of the Communist Party in its 
relations to these developments. It is not the objective here to review the work 
of the party, but merely to set some guide posts for the pre-convention discussion. 

The drive of U.S. imperialism for world domination ajid the exploitation of 
peoples and nations everywhere, comes into sharp collision with the progressive 
direction of history. The direction of life is toward the independence and 
equality of nations ; U.S. policies aim to turn back the clock of history. Possibly 
more than any other factor, what determines the nature of this period is this 
collision between the direction of U.S. imperialist policy and the direction of his- 
tory. But U.S. imperialist policy is based on a gross miscalculation of the present 
period and the world balance of forces. This is most graphically dramatized by 
the dangerous confrontation in A^ietnam. The people of Vietnam are determined 
to win their independence; U.S. aggression seeks to deny this independence. Not 
only the people of our country, but the people of the entire world, have risen in 
opposition to this brutal and genocidal war of oppression. "Withdraw U.S. mili- 
tary forces from Vietnam." has become a demand echoed in all parts of the 
world. U.S. imperialism will be compelled to retreat before the anger of the 
A^orld's peoples or face a disastrous defeat. 

U.S. imperialist policies are destined to be defeated by the forward thrust of 
the worldwide struggle for freedom, independence and socialism. 


Our struggle to change the direction of U.S. foreign policy is to change it in 
the direction of coexistence. The struggle to bring our boys home from Vietnam ; 
the demand to keep hands ofl' the Dominican Republic ; the recognition of People's 
China and its seating in the United Nations ; the defense of the right of all peo- 
ples to self-determination — all these and more are in line with realizing in life 
the policy of peaceful coexistence. Thus, this is a struggle to compel imperialism 
to retreat from its aggressive drive to war and destruction. It is a policy in the 
interest of all who desire world peace.^" 

For a Radical Change^ — ^The Communist View 

(Report of Gus Hall to the 18th National Convention, Communist Party, U.S.A., 

June 22-26, 1966) 

There is one matter that ca.sts its ugly shadow over our lives, over everything 
we do. This is the criminal, brutal U.S. imperialist aggression against the 
people of Vietnam. This is the most vicious, savage, uncivilized assault on a 
small nation in all the annals of human history. 

The savagery of Hitler Germany, transporting its victims to the crematoria, 
shocked the conscience of civilized man. But now the United States is oper- 
ating hundreds of flying crematoria, delivering the devouring seas of flame that 
engulf villages, towns and the countryside. Its victims in the place are 

" Published by New Outlook Publishers. March 1965. 

Betty Gannett has been a full-time functionary of the Communist Party since 10.30 anrl 
is now executive editor of Political Affairs. Communist Party theoretical journal. She 
lias served a prison term for violation of the Smith Act. 

1" Political Affairs, May 1966. 

Gus Hall has been "boss" of the Communist Party. U.S.A., since 1959. when he was 
elected general secretary. In order to avoid prosecution, he dropped the title of general 
secretary for a time, calling himself only a "spol^esman" for the party. He resumed the 
title this year at the party's 18th National Convention. 


women and children. When before in all the history of human brutalities has 
any nation ever set out to desti'oy by fire and by massive, indiscriminate use of 
chemicals, everythng [sic] that grows, every living sprout, every living animal? 
Unless this is stopped, Vietnam will be as barren as the surface of the moon. 
As the gas chambers and the storm troopers are Hitler Germany's contribution, 
so "depopulation," "defoliation," "saturation bombing," "napalm," are words, 
concepts and deeds the United States is contributing to civilization. 

If it is possible to comixiund a crime of such vileness and such magnitude, 
then it is compounded by the sickening demagogy, the depraved hypocrisy of 
Johnson, McNamara, Rusk and Goldberg. This is moral degeneracy with no 
bottom. It is demagogy unsurpassed in history. 

On one day last week, while .300.000 U.S. troops in "Vietnam supported by hun- 
dreds of warships were raining death on the Vietnamese people, while U.S. 
planes were burning villages in South Vietnam and bombing cities in North 
Vietnam, while U.S. forces were rushing to finish new military airfields in 
Thailand, and while Buddhist monks who refused to support the miserable pup- 
pet Ky were being harassed and arrested— while all this was taking place under 
the orders of Johnson as Commander-in-Chief, on that i^ame day McNamara 
announced new troop shipments to Vietnam, Johnson spoke about our great love 
for peace and independence, Rusk declared that the nations of the world had 
better get on with working for peace, and Goldberg spoke again of how the 
U.N. is not doing its part in bringing peace in Vietnam. 

This is the dead end to all intellectual honesty — that such depraved insanity, 
such gross hypocrisy is presented as policy. 

This is imperialist aggression. In the context of this demagogy, one can 
appreciate Eisenhower's slip when, in giving his reasons for the aggression, 
he said : "The tin and tungsten we so greatly value from that area would cease 
coming." What he meant was that U.S. big business can steal it by way of mili- 
tary aggression. Otherwise they would have to buy it. That is the role of the 
aggression. The people of Vietnam want the simple right of determining for 
themselves what they wish to do with their tin and tungsten. The U.S. corpo- 
rations want to steal it. 

That is what U.S. imperialism is about throughout the world. 

That, for example, is the meaning of the unending policy of aggression, in- 
filtration and provocation against Cuba. The people of Latin America, Asia, 
Africa, Canada want to be the masters of their own destinies. Self-determina- 
tion is an obstacle to imperialist robbery. Independence is the key to equalit.v of 
nations. U.S. policy in Vietnam is rather to destroy a people, a nation, than 
to grant it the right to self-determination. 

On the home front this criminal aggression creates a backlash like that of a 
tidal wave. It is eroding and eating away the lives, resources and moral values 
of our society. 

The war on poverty, the announced attack on slumism, hot school lunches, 
housing, school construction, urban renewal are already slipping into the churn- 
ing waters brought on by the policy of aggression. They remain empty plati- 
tudes in the speeches of Lyndon B. Johnson and Hubert Humphrey. 

The mind of every American must absorb these facts. The conscience of our 
people must be aroused by them. We cannot rest until the last piece of U.S. 
military equipment, the last warship, the last plane, the last unit of military 
personnel has been removed from the soil of Vietnam. We cannot rest until the 
people of Vietnam have the full right to determine their own affairs. 

United, aroused, determined, we can put an end to this crime, this mass mur- 
der. We cannot rest until we do. 


The struggle in Vietnam is a frightening display of the clash between a world 
moving in one dii'ection and U.S. policy moving in another. It is an example 
of the nature of U.S. imperialism's miscalculation. 

Oppression and exploitation of nations and people are the very essence of 
ini' At times, as in Vietnam, it seeks to achieve these aims by a policy 
of military aggression. But at other times it pursues the same objectives by 
non-military policies."" 

-1 Published by New Outlook Publishers, 1966. 


"Stop the Bombing, End the War Now!" 
(By James E. Jackson, editor-in-chief, "The Worker") 

GREETINGS AND CONGRATULATIONS to you who have come out against 
the horrendous war of aggression which the Government is waging against the 
people of Vietnam. 

You youths and adults, you workers and students, you Negro and white 
citizens from the crossroads and grassroots of America. 

You who have a genuine regard for the honor of our country and a concern 
for the rights of Man everywhere, you are the vanguard of the true conscience 
of our nation. 

Our country's military forces, including our young draftees, have been com- 
mitted to a cause without honor. 

Under the orders of the Pentagon and the Government in Washington, our 
armed forces are committing unspeakable atrocities there. Newsmen and tele- 
vision reporters from America have borne witness to the burning of villages 
by U.S. soldiers, and they have described the seared and blistered flesh of in- 
fants upon whom bits of jellied gasoline had fallen when their villages were 
under bombardment by napalm-bombs from high-flying war planes. 

Not only is the U.S. Government guilty of incinerating hundreds of inhabited 
places, of defoliating agricultural areas with noxious gases, of causing the 
death of scores of thousands of noncombatant men and women and children, but it 
also stands accused of sending to their death over one thousand of our young 
citizens in uniform who were mustered into the war under the compulsion of the 

Who wants this war? For what purpose are our young men killing and dying 
over there? 

To the merchandisers in the material of death, war comes as a boon to business 
and profits. 

To the Pentagon speculators in strategic designs for U.S. world domination, 
the war against Vietnam fits neatly into their pattern of bases for maintaining 
and expanding the imperialist power of the monopoly interests in the United 

The politicians who pander exclusively to the privileged monopolist circles ; 
the reactionary ultra-Rightists and Dixiecrat racists ; the political enemies of the 
urban and rural working people of hand and brain, and of the Negro people ; 
such reactionaries who oppose all governmental programs to meet the social 
needs of the people ; only such forces can find any satisfaction in the war which 
the Government has escalated in Vietnam. 

All who are decent, all who are in any way forward-looking, are already not 
in favor of the war, or can be won to a position of active opposition to the role 
of the Government in continuing its war of aggression in Vietnam. 

The "explanations" which McNamara and others use to mask genocidal 
outrages against the Vietnamese people are like Ian Smith's arguments for white 
supremacist rule in Rhodesia. 

Morally and spiritually, the war which the Government is waging in Viet- 
nam leads our country onto the plain of infamy to which Hitler led the German 
nation. History will not absolve our nation should our countrymen remain 
silent and acquiesce in the crimes against humanity being done in our name 
against the people of Vietnam. This was the Judgment of Nuremberg and we 
cannot evade its clear and present implications. 

^ Hf * * * * * 

ACT OUT your yearning for peace NOW ! 

• Let the united voice of millions thunder across the land to proclaim Peace to 
Vietnam. Let none be silent ! 

• Let all demand that the President immediately GROUND THE PLANES and 

• Let the people of South Vietnam exercise their right of self-determination in 
accord with the Geneva Convention of 1954, without U.S. interference. 

• Let all work unitedly to mobilize the conscience of America to compel the 
Government to end its war in Vietnam."^ 

^ The Worker, November 28, 1&65, p. 1. 

James E. Jackson, long a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party, 
has been editor of The Worker, oflacial party organ, for the past 6 years and is now its 


"The Two Wars" 


Lyndon Johnson continues to pour more men and more money into the bloody, 
dirty war in Vietnam. Each day brings new reports of bombings, of villages 
burned, of Vietnamese killed, of Amei-ican casualties. 

In Vietnam the United States forces have planes, tanks, artillery, napalm, 
poison chemicals and almost unlimited weapons and supplies. The guerrillas 
have little more than their bodies and their rifles. The forces of racism in the 
United States have the police, the courts, the banks, the press on their side. They 
have unbridled terrorism : they can bomb and burn and shoot Negro Americans 
and their white allies with little fear of punishment. 

The imity of Negro leaders supporting Julian Bond, the increasing warnings 
of Negro congressmen and civil rights workers against cutbacks in domestic 
spending to finance more war expenditures, all reflect a growing concern and 
dissatisfaction in the Negro community over the war in Vietnam. Despite all 
the efforts of the Johnson administi*ation to "merchandise" this war, many 
Americans just aren't buying it. It is safe to say that never has a war being 
waged by this country met with so much domestic opposition, or been less 
enthusiastically supported even by its advocates. 

Around the world U.S. prestige has suffered mightily as a result of Vietnam. 
As American opinion condemns the Ku Klux Klan in Dixie, world opinion con- 
demns U.S. policy in Vietnam. And here at home, it is becoming increasingly 
apparent to both black and white Americans that the war in Vietnam is related 
to the war against the civil rights movement. In both cases the enemy is the 
same. The fights for peace and for freedom are part of one movement."^ 

Imperialism — Friends and Foes 

All facts prove that Hitlerite ambitions of the Johnson gang are running into 
overwhelming opposition from the people of the world. And, in the not too 
distant future, U.S. imperialism will meet a quicker and more permanent fate 
than the Third Reich met. The 1960s are not the Forties. The forces of revolu- 
tion and progress are now stronger than the forces of counter-revolution. 


To meet the situation, U.S. imperialism is resorting to : 

1. A rapid build-up in forces in Southeast Asia. 

2. Expanding the war to all of Southeast Asia. 

3. Ringing China with a series of military bases. 

4. Reliance on the war economy to prevent growing opposition among work- 
ers to the war from reaching the same pitch as that of students and intellectuals. 
Reliance on the war economy to "stabilize" it, and keep various sections of the 
upper and middle classes happy with bloated profits from the war. 

The defeat of revisionism will spell the defeat of imperialism. It will rob 
imperialism of its last major reserves. 

The defeat of revisionism will strengthen the revolutionary movement ns 
never before, allowing it to enter the last battle invincible. Those who dismiss. 

^''Insurgent. March-April 1966 (official publication of the W. E. B. DuBois Clubs of 


or who underrate this decisive task, do not understand the class relationsliip 
between imperialism and opportunism. 

Despite all these attacks from within and without, the forces of revolution 
grow stronger each day. As previously mentioned, the imperialists, especially 
U.S. imperialists, are in a state of disarray. The motive force, the courage and 
victories of the foreces [sic] of revolution, desinte military and political attack, 
inspire and will continue to inspire honest forces the our people are becoming a 
decisive force. They are the Achilles heel of U.S. imperialism. Not too long 
ago it was fashionable in "left" circles to dismiss the American people. The 
defeat of U.S. imperialism cannot he achieved icithout the full participation of 
our people. 


Our people and the revolutionary forces must press ahead. It is only their 
efforts, not the momentary mouthings of various foi'ces within the ruling class 
circles, which can compel the U.S. to get out of Vietnam now, and lay the 
basis for a pi'ogressive and eventually a socialist development in our country. 
By invigorated action, not relying on these 'liberal' apologists for imperialism, 
who quarrel not out of concern for the people, but only because the U.S. is 
losing, can the people take advantage of these divisions. 

The Vietnamese people have given us and the people of the world a lesson in 
revolutionary courage. Every citizen of our country will one day understand 
the decisive role they are playing in the fight for a better world."'^ 

Counter Offensive 


As Johnson's war machine moves into high gear, the people of the United 
States, along with their brothers around the world, are assuming an increasingly 
more militant counter offensive. 

While profits are sky-high (with an "excess" work force .being sent to die in 
Vietnam), the worker's pay check is at best the same, and in many cases actually 
lower. But the first quarter of 1966 saw more strikes since 1953. Union 
fakers have joined the loyal-opposition "peace" group of SANE to pacify and 
stifle union militancy, both on wages and in relation to the war. While there 
are no doubt honest trade unionists among this group, we have seen how SANE 
loses its sanity when it comes to supporting Johnson. 

4c * * • * • * 

For the students in this country, being right after the workers in being called to 
die in a war they want no part of, are fighting back. Not only are they fighting, 
but their "silence" has turned into a loud cry that tells the people what they 
must know. 

Is it coincidence that as recently as a year ago, the vast majority of the people 
in this country, mislead by the lies of the press and the government, supported 
the war in Vietnam — while today, according to the latest polls, the majority of 
the people do not go along with the murder? 

Johnson and Company, as we see it, are faced with a situation where (he war 
brings both profits and protest. The protests will swell. But to stop the mo.b 
that runs this country from starting a Vietnam war somewhere else where 
their profits are threatened — we must do more than picket and speak. 

We must throiv the murderers out, for good and all."* 

^Progressive Labor, March-April 1966 (official publication of Progressive Labor Party). 
Progressive Labor Part.v is a new and extremely militant, Peking-oriented Communist 
2;roui) which grew out of a faction within the orthodox Communist Party. 

"^Challenge, May 24, 19GG, p. 8 (official publication of Progressive Labor Party). 


Peace — For Whom? 

Regardless of the treacherous character of Johnson's "peace" campaign, its 
very magnitude has posed a powerful question that serious people in the peace 
movement must answer : 

What is peace f 

To a slaveholder, it is the slave's humble acceptance of his slavery. To the 
slave it is freedom from his chains. 

To the colonialist super-power it is the colony's willing submission to the 
"mother country." To the colony it is the end of its colonial status and the secu- 
rity of independence. 

To ancient Rome the "Pax Romana" meant domination over a whole world 
of colonies too weak or disorganized to make war to liberate themselves. 

To Lyndon Johnson ijeace is imperialist victory over a war of people's libera- 
tion. It is the liquidation of the revolution in South Vietnam and the permanent 
establishment of the usurping, dictatorial puppet government of Kao Ky over 
the rebellious masses. 

To Ho Chi Minh and to the National Liberation Front peace is the withdrawal 
of U.S. forces and the right to govern their own country without any interference. 

The U.S. peace movement could fail to choose which of these definitions of peace 
it favored — as long as Washington put all its diplomatic and propagandistic 
emphasis on war. The word "peace" was then automatically progressive and 
regarded by the warmakers as subversive. But now that Johnson has launched 
his global "i^eace" campaign (which, no matter how short-lived or phony, will 
have its effect on enormous numbers of people) the genuine advocates of peace 
must demand the immediate w-ithdrawal of all U.S. troops, ships, etc. from Viet- 
nam — or they fall into the trap of backing Johnson's Roman peace. 

Undoubtedly, the vast majority of all those who marched and demonstrated 
for i>eace last year want an honest peace. They have no intex'est in a robbers' 
peace. But many of their leaders want some variation of Johnson's present 
approach and only want to stop the shooting and leave U.S. forces in essential 
command of the country. 

Few of these leaders are exposing John.son's hypocrisy, for example, and still 
fewer are maintaining a clear opposition to the government under the barrage 
of its "peace" campaign. 

But the genuine anti-war forces will be more energetic than ever in opposing 
the war if they prove able to cut through the fog of confusion and doubletalk 
raised by Johnson. They can do this b.v sharpening the peace slogans. Not 
simply "peace." but "U.S. Withdrawal" should be the watchword. 

To differentiate a people's peace from an imperialist peace— and at the same 
time to appeal to the masses of the U.S. as well as defend the oppressed of Asia, 
the proper slogan for the movement should be, "Brhig the GI's Home Noir!""' 



Johnson's decision to resume bombing of north Vietnam marks a new stage 
in the escalation of the Vietnam war. It demonstrates conclusively that the 
so-called "peace offensive" was nothing but a maneuver intended to lull antiwar 
.sentiment in the United States and the world. Even during the "peace offensive," 
the U.S. escalated the war in the south through intensified bombings of villages 
and homes with jellied gasoline fire bombs, a massive troop buildup, and large- 
scale troop actions. Johnson now intends to intensify the war still further in 
both north and south Vietnam, sending ever greater numbers of American boys 
to kill and be killed in this unjust and counterrevolutionary war. 

^ Workers World, .Tamiary 13. 1966. p. 2. 

Workers- World is the official publication of a Communist splinter group, also called 
Workors World, founded b.v former members of the Socialist Workers Part.v (see foot- 
note 2") who left SWP in Februar.v 1959 because, to them, the old-line Trotskyite Com- 
munist organization was not sufficiently revloutionary in its outlook. 


This new escalation is not only a further violation of the rights and lives of 
the Vietnamese people, which is horrible and inhuman enough. It is also one 
more step on the road to a major confrontation with China and the Soviet Union, 
and to the nuclear destruction of a third world war. 

The "peace offensive" and the cynical use Johnson has made of the demand for 
"negotiations" as a cover for intensified aggression have shown the impotence of 
this demand as a focus for the antiwar movement. The most effective demand 
the movement can make is the call for the immediate withdrawal of U. S. troops, 
in order to end the war now and allow the Vietnamese to decide their own fate 
and future. 

The day after the bombing of north Vietnam was resumed, a significant protest 
demonstration was held in New York. We urge everyone who is against this war 
to speak out and act now to oppose this new escalation. Stop the bombing of 
north and south Vietnam ! Bring the troops home now ! ^^ 

28 The Militant, February 7, 1966, p. 1 (official publication of the Socialist Workers 

Scialist Worljers Party is a Trotskyist Communist group, cited by tlie Attorney General 
and tliis committee. 



The following is an excerpt from press release of January 6, 1966, 
regarding a statement Mr. Hoover submitted to Attorney General 
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach on FBI operations during 1965 calendar 

Always eager to engage in any activity which will bring embarrassment to the 
United States, the Party has played an ever-increasing role in generating opposi- 
tion to the United States position in Vietnam. In September, 1965, Party head- 
quarters sent a directive to all Districts giving instructions on slogans to be used 
in protests against United States action in Vietnam. In addition, the Party has 
expended large sums of money in propaganda efforts designed to hinder United 
States progress toward peace. 

The calendar year 1965 saw the emergence of a new movement in the United 
States in the form of demonstrations of practically every type imaginable pro- 
testing United States policy in Vietnam. The moving forces behind the demon- 
strations were various pacifists and student groups. In addition, many members 
of the academic community have been active in the demonstrations by speaking 
at them or by organizing, conducting or speaking at "teach-ins," a new form of 
demonstrating which has been born out of the Vietnam situation. 

The Communist Party and other subversive groups and their members fully 
supported and participated in these affairs. This has been particularly true 
regarding the following major events which took place during 1965 : Student 
March on Washington, April 17, 1965 ; Washington Summer Action Project in 
August, 1965 ; International Days of Protest (a nationwide affair), October 15-16. 
1965 ; March on Washington for Peace in Vietnam, November 27. 1965 ; and 
National Anti-War Convention, Washington, D.C., November 25-28. 1965. 



Since revolution was an integral part of the Communist movement 
before it seized the powers of state in Russia in 1917, it is quite natural 
that following that event the U.S.S.R. should make the fostering and 
support of wars of "national liberation'' an instrument of national pol- 
icy. However, the recent emphasis on the refinement and professional 
perfection of such wars during the current decade is attributable to the 
interest shown by Khrushchev and the CPSU as revealed in his long 
but candid speech of January 6, 1961, The speech was entitled "For 
New Victories of the World Communist Movement"' and was delivered, 
significantly, to the meeting of party organizations of the Higher 
Party School, the Academy of Social Sciences, and the Institute of 
IMarxism-Leninism attached to the Central Committee of the CPSU. 
It was his report concerning the important conference of representa- 
tives of 81 Communist parties held in Moscow in November-December 

Apparently impressed by the paramilitary successes against the 
Fi-ench in Southeast Asia and Algeria and against Batista in Cuba 
during the fifties, the Soviet Premier decided it was time to place such 
revolutions in a top-priority category, deserving the full material and 
moral support of Communists everj^where. Such revolutions would 
henceforth be "sacred wars." Khrushchev said, in part : 

Now about naUonal-liheration wars. Recent examples of wars of this kind 
are the armed struggle waged by the people of Vietnam or the present war of 
the Algerian people, which is now in its seventh year. 

These wars, which began as uprisings of colonial peoples against their oppres- 
sors, developed into guerilla wars. 

There will be liberation wars as long as imperialism exists, as long as colonial- 
ism exists. Wars of this kind are revoutionary wars. Such wars are not only 
.instified, they are inevitable, for the colonialists do not freely bestow inde- 
pendence on the peoples. The peoples win freedom and independence only through 
struggle, including ai-med struggle. 

Why was it that the U.S. imperialists, who were eager to hel[) the French 
Cf)lonialists, did not venture directly to intervene in the Avar in Vietnam? They 
did not do so because they knew that if they gave France armed assistance. Viet- 
nam would receive the same kind of assistance from China, the Soviet Union 
and the other socialist countries, and that the fighting could develop into a 
world war. The outcome of the war is known — North Vietnam won. 

A similar war is being waged today in Algeria. What kind of a war is it? 
It is an uprising of Arab people against French colonialists. Tt lias as,sumed the 
form of a guerrilla war. The imperialists of the USA and Britain are helping 
their French allies with arms. Moreover, they have allowed France, a party to 
NATO, to transfer troops from Europe to fight against the Algerian people. The 
people of Algeria, too, get help from neighboring countries and others sympathiz- 
ing with their love of freedom. Rut this is a liberation war. a war of independ- 
ence waged by the peojile. It is a sacred war. We recognize such wars : we have 
helped and shall continue to heli) peoples fighting for their freedom. 

Or take Cuba. A war was fought there too. It began as an uprising against 
a tyrannical regime, backed by U.S. imperialism. Batista was a pupi>et of the 


United States and the United States helped him actively. However, the USA 
did not directly intervene with its armed forces in the Cuban war. Led by Fidel 
Castro, the i>e()ple of Cuba won. 

Is there a likelihood of such wars recurring? Yes, there is, Are uprisings of 
this kind likely to recur? Yes, they are. But wars of this kind are popular up- 
risings. Is there the likelihood of conditions in other countries reaching the 
point where the cup of the popular patience overflows and they take to arms? Yes, 
there is such a likelihood. What is the attitude of the ^Marxists to such up- 
risings? A most favorable attitude. These uprisings cannot be identified with 
wars between countries, with local wars, because the insurgent people are fight- 
ing for the right to self-determination, for their social and independent national 
development; these uprisings are directed against the corrupt reactionary re- 
gimes, against the colonialists. The Communists supixsrt .lust wars of this kind 
wholeheartedly and without reservations and they march in the van of the 
peoples fighting for liberation.^ 

Ivliriiscliev, in his address, stressed that the policies set forth in 
the statement nnanimon.sly adopted by the 81 Commnnist parties at 
the Moscow g-atherino; must be adopted by all Communist countries 
and Communists every ^Y here as their own and, moreover, must be 
executed and coordinated with clocklike precision. Communist par- 
ties throuoliout the world, he said, must, "set our watches" with the 
documents and policies developed at the Moscow meetmg. Continu- 
ing on this theme, he added : 

Indeed, the socialist countries and the Communist parties need to set the time. 
Wlien someone's watch is fast or slow, it is adjusted, so as to show the right 
time. The Comuumist movement, too, needs setting the time, so that our formi- 
dable army marches in step and advances with confident stride towards com- 
munism. Putting it figuratively, Marxism-Leninism, the jointly prepared docu- 
ments of international Communist meetings, are our time-piece. 

Now that all the Communist and Workers' parties have adopted unanimous 
decisions at the Meeting, each Party will strictly and undeviatingly abide by 
these decisions in everything it does." 

One of the decisions adopted at the Moscow meeting was the fol- 
lowing declaration on so-called wars of national liberation which was 
contained in the statement unanimously adopted by the 81 Com- 
munist parties on December 5, 1960, at the close of the gathering: 

National-liberation revolutions have triumphed in vast areas of the world. 
About forty new sovereign states have arisen in Asia and Africa in the fifteen 
post-war years. The victory of the Cuban revolution has powerfully stimulated 
the struggle of the Latin-American peoples for complete national independence. 
A new historical period has set in in the life of mankind : the peoples of Asia, 
Africa and Latin America that have won their freedom have begun to take an 
active part in world politics. 

The romplrfr coJlapite of rolonialistn ift rmminrttf. The hreakflown of the 
fijistrm of colo)iinl slavery under the impact of the national-liheration movement 
is a dvelopment ranking second in historic importance only to the formation of the 
world socialist system. 

The Great October Socialist Revolution aroused the East and drew the 
colonial peoples into the common current of the world-wide revolutionary move- 
ment. This development was greatly facilitated by the Soviet Union's victory 
in the Second World War, the establishment of people's democracy in a 
number of European and Asian countries, the triumph of the socialist revolu- 
tion in China, and the formation of the world socialist system. The forces 
of world socialism contributed decisively to the sti'uggle of the colonial and 
dependent peoples for liberation from imperialist oppression. The socialist 
system has become a reliable shield for the development of the peoples who have 
won freedom. The national-liberation movement receives powerful support 
from the international working-class movement. 

1 World Mnrxht Revieic, January 1961, vol. 4, No. 1, p. 1.5. 
- Ibid., p. 27. 


The face of Asia has changed radically. The colonial order is collapsing in 
Africa. A front of active struggle against imperialism has opened in Latin 
America. Hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa and other parts of the 
world have won their independence in hard-fought battles with imperialism. 
Communists have always recognized the progressive, revolutionary significance 
of national-liberation wars ; they are the most active champions of national 
independence. The existence of the world socialist system and the weakening 
of the positions of imperialism have provided the oppressed peoples with new 
opportunities of winning independence. 

The peoples of the colonial countries win their independence both through 
armed struggle and by non-military methods, depending on the specific condi- 
tions in the country concerned. They secure durable victory through a power- 
ful national-liberation movement. The colonial powers never bestow freedom 
on the colonial peoples and never leave of their own free will the countries they 
are exploiting.* 

The adopted program by the 22d Party Congress of the CPSU in 
1961 emphasized all-out aid to the leaders of Avars of "national libera- 
tion" as an international "duty" and stated that: 

A powerful wave of national-liberation revolutions is sweeping away the colonial 
system of imperialism. 

In a section entitled "The National Liberation Movement," the same 
program stated in part : 

The world is going through an era of tempestuous national-liberation revolu- 
tions. Whereas imperialism suppressed the national independence and freedom 
of the majority of peoples and fettered them with the chains of harsh colonial 
enslavement, the rise of socialism marks the advent of the era of liberation of 
oppressed peoples. A mighty wave of national-liberation revolutions is sweeping 
away the colonial system and undermining the foundations of imperialism. 
Young sovereign states have arisen or are arising in the place of former colonies 
and semicolonies. Their peoples have entered a new period of development. 
They have emerged as makers of a new life and active participants in interna- 
tional politics and as a revolutionary force for the destruction of imperialism. 

But the struggle is not yet over. The peoples who are throwing oft' the chains 
of colonialism have reached various levels of freedom. Many of them, having 
established national states, are striving for economic independence and stronger 
political sovereignty. The peoples of countries that are formally independent 
but actually depend politically and economically on foreign monopolies are 
rising in the struggle against imperialism and reactionary, pro-imperialist 
regimes. Peoples who have not yet cast off the chains of colonial enslavement 
are conducting a heroic struggle against their foi-eign enslnvers. 

The young sovereign states do not belong to either the system of iiii]>erialist 
states or the system of socialist states. But the overwhelming majority of them 
have not yet broken out of the world capitalist economy, even though they occupy 
a special place in it. They constitute a part of the world still being exploited 
by the capitalist monopolies. Until these countries put an end to their economic 
dependence on imperialism, they will have the role of a "world countryside," 
they wall remain objects of semicolonial exploitation. 

The existence of the world socialist system and the weakening of imperialism 
open up before the peoples of the liberated countries the prospect of a national 
renascence, of ending age-long backwardness and poverty and achieving economic 

A nation's interests call for elimination of the remnants of colonialism, the 
eradication of imperialist rule, the ousting of foreign monopolies, the establish- 
ment of a national industry, the abolition of feudal ways and survivals, the 
implementation of radical agrarian changes with the participation of the entire 
peasantry and in its interests, the pursuit of an independent peace-loving foreign 
policy, the democratization of public life and the strengthening of political 
indei>endence. All the patriotic and progressive forces of the nation are inter- 
ested in the accomplishment of the national tasks. This is the basis on which 
these forces can be unified. 

8 Political Affairs, January 196il, pp. 17, 18. 


A consistent struggle against imperialism is a fundamental condition for 
solving national tasks. Imperialism seeks to keep former colonies and semi- 
colonies in the system of capitalist economy and to perpetuate their unequal 
position within it. The imperialism of the United States of America is the 
chief bulwark of present-day colonialism. 


Imperialism thus remains the chief enemy and the chief obstacle to the 
accomplishment of the national tasks facing the young sovereign states and all 
dependent countries. 

A national-liberation revolution does not end with the winning of political 
independence. This independence will be unstable and will turn into a fiction 
unless the revolution brings about radical changes in social and economic life and 
accomplishes the pressing tasks of national renascence. 


In many countries, the liberation movement of the peoples that have awakened 
proceeds under the flag of nationalism. Marxists-Leninists draw a distinction 
between the nationalism of oppressed nations and the nationalism of oppressor 
nations. The nationalism of an oppressed nation has a general democratic con- 
tent directed against oppression, and the Communists support it, considering it 
historically justified at a given stage. This element finds expression in the 
striving of the oppressed peoples to free themselves from imperialist oppression, 
to gain national independence and bring about a national renascence. At the 
same time, the nationalism of an oppi-essed nation has another aspect, one ex- 
pressing the ideology and interests of the reactionary exploiter upper clique. 

One of the basic problems confronting the peoples of the countries that have 
freed themselves from the yoke of imperialism is which path to follow, the capi- 
talist path or the noncapitalist path of development. 

What does capitalism offer them ? 

Capitalism is the path of suffering for the people. It will not ensure rapid 
economic progress or eliminate poverty ; social inequality will increase. The 
capitalist development of the countryside will still further ruin the peasantry. 
The lot of the workers will be either to engage in exhausting labor to enrich 
the capitalists, or to swell the ranks of the disinherited army of the unemployed. 
The petty bourgeoisie will be crushed in competition with big capital. The 
benefits of culture and education will remain inaccessible to the masses. The 
intelligentsia will be obliged to sell its talents. 

What does socialism offer the peoples? 

Socialism is the path to freedom and happiness for the peoples. It ensures 
rapid economic and cultural progress. It transforms a backward country into 
an industrial country within the lifetime of a single generation rather than in 
the of centuries. By its very nature, a planned socialist economy is an 
economy of progress and prosperity. Abolition of the exploitation of man by man 
does away with social inequality. Unemployment disappears completely. So- 
cialism provides all peasants with land, helps them to develop farming, combine's 
their labor efforts in voluntary cooperatives and puts modern farm machinery 
and agronomy at their disposal. Peasant labor becomes more productive and the 
land can yield more. Socialism provides a high material and cultural stand- 
ard of living for the working class and all working people. Socialism wrests the 
masses of the people from darkness and ignorance and gives them access to 
modern culture. Broad horizons for creative efforts for the benefit of the people 
open up to the intelligentsia. 

The Communist Parties are actively fighting to press on consistently with 
the full anti-imperialist, antifeudal, democratic revolution, to establish national 
democracies and achieve social progress. The Communists' goals correspond to 
the supreme interests of the nation. The attempts of reactionary circles to dis- 
rupt the national front under the guise of anticommunism and their persecu- 
tion of Communists lead to the weakening of the national-liberation movement, 
run counter to the national interests of the peoples, and threaten the loss of the 
gains that have been won. 


Unification of the efforts of the peoples of newly liberated countries and the 
peoples of the socialist states in the struggle against the war danger is a major 


factor for universal peace. This mighty front, which expresses the will and 
strength of two-thirds of mankind, can force the imperialist aggressors into 

The socialist countries are sincere and true friends of peoples fighting for 
their liberation and of those newly freed from the imperialist yoke, and render 
them all support. They stand for the wiping out of all forms of colonial oppres- 
sion and promote in every way the strengthening of the sovereignty of the states 
rising on the ruins of colonial empires. 

The C.P.S.U. considers fraternal alliance with the peoples who have thrown 
off the colonial or semicolonial yoke to be a cornerstone of its international 
policy. This alliance is based on the community of vital interests of world 
socialism and the world national-liberation movement. The C.P.S.U. regards it 
as its internationalist duty to assist the peoples who have set out to win and 
strengthen their national indeijendence, all peoples who are fighting for the 
complete wiping out of the colonial system.* 

The Chinese Communists have been unmistakably clear in their 
position regarding wars of national liberation. 

In 1963, the official Chinese Communist position on this question 
fully conformed with the principles of the 1960 statement of the 81 
Conrniunist parties which had met in Moscow. Eed China stated : 

U.S. imperialism cannot stop the people's revolutionary struggles in various 
countries by means of nuclear weapons. The reason is that, politically, re- 
course to this kind of weapon would place U.S. imperialism in a position of ex- 
treme isolation and, militarily, the massive destructiveness of nuclear weapons 
limits their use, for in civil wars and wars of national independence, where the 
lines are zigzag and the fighting is at close range, the use of nuclear weapons 
of mass destruction would inflict damage on both belligerents. 

In a speech delivered on December 16, 19.59, Kennedy admitted that U.S. nu- 
clear strength "cannot be used in so-called 'brush-fire' peripheral war. It was 
not used in Korea, Indo-China, Hungary, Suez, Lebanon, Quemoy, Tibet or Laos. 
In short, it cannot prevent the Communists from gradually nibbling away at the 
fringe of the free world's territory and strength, until our security is being 
steadily eroded in piecemeal fashion. . . ." 

It is our view that in order to strive for world peace, it is necessary to give 
full support to the national-liberation movement and the revolutionary struggles 
of the peoples of all countries. The more these struggles develop, the more the 
imperialist forces will be weakened. . . .® 

On September 2, 1965, Lin Piao, vice chairman of the Central Com- 
mittee of the Chinese Communist Party and Minister of National 
Defense, wrote an article entitled "Long Live the Victory of the Peo- 
ple's War." In this widely publicized article, he wrote: 

Taking the entire globe, if North America and Western Europe can be called 
"the cities of the world." then Asia, Africa, and Latin America constitute "the 
rural areas of the world." Since World War II, the proletarian revolutionary 
movement has for various reasons been temporarily held back in the North 
American and West European capitalist countries, while the people's revolu- 
tionary movement in Asia, Africa, and Latin America has been growing vigor- 
ovisly. In a sense, the contemporary world revolution also presents a picture of 
the encirclement of cities by the i-ural areas. In the final analysis, the whole 
cause of world revolution hinges on the revolutionary struggles of the Asian, 
African, and Latin American peoples who make up the overwhelming majority 
of the world's population. The socialist countries sliould regard it as their inter- 
nationalist duty to support the people's revolutionary struggles in Asia, Africa, 
and Latin America. 

On January 3, 1966, an event of vital importance to the security of 
the United States and the question of "wars of national liberation" took 

* Current Sornet Policies, IV: The Documentary Record of the 22nd Congress of the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Columbia University Press, New York and Lon- 
don, 1962), pp. lb, 11. 

5 Peking Review, Sept. 6, 1963, No. 36, p. 12. 


place in Havana, Cuba. It was the first nieetino- of the Tri-Contmental 
Conference of African, Asian, and Latin American Peoples and one of 
the largest gatherings of Communists, pro-Communists, and anti- 
American personalities ever assembled. The resolution on the "libera- 
tion" theme adopted b}^ the delegates was summarized as follows by a 
leading theoretical journal of connnunism : 

The resolution calls for support of the struggle of the people along three lines : 

Support for the i>eoples lighting for liberation from the "trartitional" colonial 
yoke — the peoples of Angola, Mozambique, "Portuguese" Guinea, Sao Tome and 
Principe, the Spanish colonies. Aden and Oman in South Arabia, Northern 
Kalimantan and Malaya (including Sinapore), Puerto Rico, British Guiana and 

An active, all-out movement of solidarity with countries subjected to im- 
perialist aggression, with maximum attention to Vietnam, which "is in the very 
centre of the struggle against U.S. imperialism." Solidarity should be displayed 
for Laos and Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, the Korean People's 
Democratic Republic, the Congo (Brazzaville), Ghana, Guinea, Mali and 

Support for the national liberation struggle, especially in countries where armed 
struggle is under way : Venezuela, Colombia ; Guatemala, Peru, Oman and the 
Congo ( Leopoldville ) . 

The resolution declares that it is '"the right and duty of i)eoples subjected to 
aggression" to reply with revolutionary force to "the amied force of imperialism." 
The countries of tlie three continents should "render full moral support as well 
as material, political and diplomatic support to revolutionary movements waging 
armed or political struggle." " 

The North Vietnam Government recognizes its attack on South Viet- 
nam as a part of the Communist global strategy of wars of "national 
liberation." The relationship between the two was set forth in a re- 
cent pamphlet by General Nguyen Van Vinh, Deputy Chief of Staff 
of the Vietnam People's Army : 

Our revolution is the condensed picture of the world revolution at present : 
national liberation, building and defence of socialism, contribution to the safe- 
guard of world peace and the speeding up of the revolutionary struggle of the 
world people. We are fighting with arms in hands against a most cruel enemy 
of mankind — U.S. imperialism.^ 

The following excerpts from various Communist publications and 
authorities are indicative of the intense interest placed upon "wars of 
liberation" by all Communists: 

Fifthly, ties between the national-liberation movement in different countries 
and solidarity of the peoples fighting against imperialism and colonialism have 
been consolidated. Contemporary national-liberation revolutions are no longer 
isolated spontaneous actions, but powerful revolutionary movements extending 
to three continents and maintaining direct ties on the basis of community of 

The international situation is exerting a particularly strong impact on the 
destinies of present-day national-liberation revolutions. Without taking this 
factor into conisideration it is difficult or even impossible to explain, for example, 
the rise in some countries of an anti-imperialist movement with a broad plat- 
form of national liberation even hcfore the traditional clasfi prerequisites have 
matured (they have hardly any proletariat or local bourgeoisie, the national in- 
telligentsia is nmnerically very small and the bulk of peasantry live in pre-feudal 

It is necessary to grasp the full importance of the interaction of contemporary 
revolutionary movements to understand also why the national-liberation move- 

8 World Marxist Review. April 1006. vol. 9. No. 4. p. 8. 

"General Njjuyen Van Vinh. The Vietnamese People on the Road to Victory (Hanoi 
Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1966), p. 31. 


ment is triumphing over imperialism. It must be remembered tliat, as a rule, 
the colonialists have overwhelming military superiority over the liberation fight- 
ers. The existence of the Socialist system has a "paralysing effect on inter- 
vention by the imperialist Powers", which Lenin had in mind when he spoke 
about a "partwiilarly favourable conjuncture of international conditions" for the 
success of national wars. 

International factors have also greatly influenced the forms in which the 
national-liberation revolutions develop. The colonialists, contrary to the false 
claims of their propagandists, have not withdrawn voluntarily from, and have 
not "granted" independence to, a single enslaved country. The peoples of North 
Viet-Nam, Algeria, Indonesia and some other countries had to win independence 
by armed str'uggle. A liberation war is now being waged in South Viet-Nam, 
Angola, "Portuguese" Guinea, North Kalimantan and other areas. Nevertheless, 
with the support of the world Socialist forces in the new international condi- 
tions, approximately two-thirds of the countries in imperialism's former colonial 
periphery have won political independence without recourse to a military 

The social and ideological tendencies of the national-liberation movements 
are directly linked with the specific features of our epoch and the relationship 
of class forces in the world. 

The attainment of political independence by countries in imperialism's former 
colonial and semi-colonial periphery signifies a deep revolutionary turn in the 
life of two-thirds of mankind. The newly-free peoples have received a mighty 
stimulus in developing their constructive forces, and new horizons have opened 
up before them in the anti-imperialist str'uggle and in economic and social 

The peoples in the former colonies and semi-colonies have become independent 
makers of world history. This considerably widens the sphere of social progress 
and multiplies the numbers taking part in it. Revolutionary development is be- 
coming world-wide, bringing nearer the time when social progress will be the 
conscious endeavour of all nations without exception. 

The break-up of the colonial system is a telling blow at imperialism which is 
no longer in a position to hold under its undivided sway the political and economic 
life of scores of countries. The imperialists have been forced to withdraw their 
troops from close on 40 countries in Asia, Africa and Central America, so that 
the latter no longer serve as strategic bridgeheads of imperialism. 

The Meeting of the Communist and Workers' Parties in 1960 rightly declared : 
"The break-doirn of the system of colonial slavery under the impact of the 
national-liberation movement is a development ranking second in historic im- 
portance only to the formation of the world Socialist system." * 

The absolute majority of the states of the world and all of world public 
opinion unconditionally recognize the just, progressive character of wars of 
liberation. In leveling the acc'usation of aggression against peoples who are 
liberating themselves, the imperialists are acting on the principle of the petty 
thief who shouts "Stop the robber." It is not the peoples who are obliged to 
defend their lavsnEul rights with weapons in hand who are the aggressors but the 
imperialists who are encroaching upon these rights. The Cairo conference of 
nonaligned states resolutely branded and condemned "the positions of those 
powers that are resisting the peoples' exercise of the right to self-determina- 
tion" and also "their use of force and all forms of compulsion, interference and 
intervention to prevent the exercise of this right." 

The claim that wars of liberation constitute a "new" form of struggle of the 
oppressed peoples is intended to mislead public opinion deliberately. Such wars 
have been waged ever since foreign oppression began. With the appearance of 
the socialist states in the international arena — states giving the revolutionary 
peoples every support in repelling the imperialist export of counterrevolution — 
only the effectiveness of these wars and the likelihood of their tritunphant con- 
clusion have increased." 

8 Jnternational Affairs, vol. I, 1966, pp. 63, 64. 

9G Starushenko, "Fiction and Truth About Wars of Liberation," Knmmiiniat, No. 
12, August, pp. 94-97, reprinted in The Current Digest of the Soviet Press, 1965, vol. 
XVII, No. 34, p. 5. 


Tlie Soviet Union has supported and will always support the just national- 
liberation struggle, peaceful and non-peaceful, if the peoples are forced to take 
up arms. In all stages of the national-liberation struggle the nations which have 
smashed or are fighting to smash the colonial fetters can rely on the disinter- 
ested assistance of the Soviet Union whose prestige has more than once com- 
pelled the imperialists to abandon their attempts to encroach upon the freedom 
of small nations. 

Lenin's statement that "to deny all possibility of national wars under 
imperialism is wrong in theory, obviously mistaken historically, and tantamount 
to Euroi>ean chauvinism in practice" fully retains its significance today. The 
peoples waging just national wars of liberation can count not only on the political 
and moral support of the Soviet Union but also on its military assistance. The 
U.S.S.R. is doing everything to strengthen the defences of the newly-independent 
states. The Socialist countries, and the Soviet Union above all, have deprived 
the imperialists of the monopoly of weapon production. Military support of the 
Socialist states has been of substantial significance for the success of national- 
liberation movements. For many countries the Soviet Union's military might 
has served as a shield and guarantee against imperialist aggression.^" 

The U.S.S.R. and National-Liberation Struggle 

In the summer of 1919 a train slowly traveled along the railroad from Tash- 
kent to Moscow. The first diplomatic mission from independent Afghanistan, 
crossing an enormous country squeezed by a ring of fronts, was making its way 
to the capital of Soviet Russian. The Afghans were coming to see Lenin. 

"I shall never forget the meeting," recalled Muhammed Yaftali, a member 
of the mission who later became Afghanistan's first ambassador to Moscow. 
"Lenin emphasized at the time that Soviet Russia warmly supported the peoples 
of the East who were struggling for independence, since the Soviet state desired 
that all the peoples of the world should be free." 

The oppressed peoples had waged struggles for their independence long before 
the formation of the world's first socialist state. The history of the enslavement 
of various countries and peoples by the capitalist states was at the same time a 
history of anticolonial, liberation struggle. But the crisis of imperialism's 
colonial system came after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolu- 
tion. It became an integral part of the general crisis of capitalism that began 
as a result of World War I and the victory of Great October. 

The October Socialist Revolution created extremely important prerequisites 
for the success of the national-liberatioti movement. The front of imperialism, 
was broken; its economic, political and military might was iveakened. The 
Soviet Union became the mainstay of the world liberation process, a mighty 
force that revolutionized broad masses of the people in various countries. 

Immediately after the birth of the Soviet state it addressed to all oppressed 
peoples an inspiring call for freedom. The passionate words of Lenin's appeals 
were summons to battle and instilled confidence in victory in the hearts of the 
peoples enslaved by colonialism, who at the time made up 70% of the world's 
population. Lenin's Decree on Peace, the Declaration of the Rights of the 
Working and Exploited Peoples, the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples 
of Russia and the Soviet government's message "To All Working Muslims of 
Russia and the East" clearly showed the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America that there had emerged in the world arena a state that would unswerv- 
ingly carry out an anti-imperialist policy and support the liberation struggle 
of the peoples oppressed by imperialism. 

Lenin's ideas of liberation were always embodied in the practice, in the con- 
crete deeds of the Soviet government. The relinquishment by the Soviet state 
of the special rights and privileges resulting from various covenants and treaties 
that the tsarist government in its time had impo.sed upon China and the nullifi- 
cation of the inequitable treaties between tsarist Rus.sia and Mongolia, Iran, 
Turkey and other countries facilitated the struggle against imperialism for many 
peoples of the East. 

The Soviet socialist state gave assistance to Afghanistan, which was then 
struggling against the colonialists. It turned over to the Turkish government of 

^0 International Affairs, vol. 11, 1965, p. 12. 
67-852 — 66— pt. 2 11 


Mustafa Kemal 10,000.000 gold rubles precisely at a time when the fate of the 
Turkish revolution was hanging" by a thread. And not because our people did 
not need this money, but because the young Soviet Russia understood that this 
was a question of the destiny of a national revolution and came to its aid. The 
outstanding Soviet military leaders M. V. Fi'unze, who went to Turkey in 1921- 
1922, and V. K. Bluecher, who was invited to Canton in 1924 by the great son 
of the Chinese people Sun Yat-sen, helped the struggle against the imperialists 
and their agents. Soviet Russia supported the people's revolution in Mongolia. 
The Mongolian People's Republic embarked on the path of socialism. 

As the Soviet state became stronger and as socialist construction developed, 
the U.S.S.R.'s aid to the peoples waging an anti-imperialist struggle steadily 
increased. The Soviet Union consistently fulfilled its internationalist duty. 
The buildings of textile combines erected with Soviet economic assistance sprang 
up in the cities of Kayseri and Nazilli. Soviet airplanes, tanks, artil- 
lery and military supplies were sent to China, which was being attacked by the 
Japanese aggressors. Our volunteer pilots shot down more than 100 planes of 
the Japanese invaders in the skies over China. 

During World War II the Soviet Union played a decisive role in routing the 
most aggressive detachments of world imperialism: German and Italian facism 
in Europe and Japanese militarism in Asia. A blow was struck at the reaction- 
ary policy of imperialism as a whole and at its colonialist and racist ideology. 
The rout of facism was accompanied by the victory of socialist revolutions in a 
number of countries of Europe and Asia. A world system of socialism came into 

The Soviet Union has constantly felt the support of the suppressed peoples of 
the colonies and semicolonies who have risen in struggle for their liberation. 
The Soviet people always highly appreciated the liberation struggle of the 
Chinese people against the imperialists who tormented them ; of the Indian 
people, who fought against the 200-year-old British rule; of the Indonesian 
people, who repeatedly rose up against the Dutch colonialists ; of the peoples of 
the Arab East, who waged a heroic struggle in Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Syria 
and Iraq against the foreign oppressors. 

Great importance in the rout of Japanese militarism in 194.5 attached to the 
joining of the Soviet Union's military efforts with the national-liberation move- 
ment that unfolded throughout Southeast Asia and in the Far East. These joint 
actions showed the high effectiveness of unity, solidarity and mutual aid of the 
forces of social and national liberation. 

The victory of the Soviet Union and all freedom-lovinr/ peoples in World War 
II and the transformation of socialism into a v:orld system further weakened 
world imperialism. The positions of the principal colonial powers were under- 
mined in the cotirse of the antifacist liheration struggle, and democratic processes 
became broader and deeper in the metropolitan countries and in the colonies. 
The second stage of the general crisis of capitalism nufoldcd. The disintegra- 
tion of the colonial system of imperialism under the blows of the national- 
liberation movement became an integral part of it. 

The flames of the national-liberation struggle engulfed Asia, Africa and Latin 
America. Socialist revolutions were victorious in three Asian countries — China, 
the Korean People's Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Viet- 
nam. The Soviet people are proud that, consistently fulfilling their internation- 
list duty, they gave these countries comprehensive assistance. 

The independence of India, Indonesia, Burma, Ceylon and Pakistan has been 
proclaimed. The peoples of Indochina are winning victories in their liberation 

The British, French and Dutch colonial empires in Asia have collapsed. 

As J. Nehru emphasized, the victory of the Indian people was the direct result 
of the enormous influence of the great victory over the forces of fascism and 
militarism in World War II and of the role played in its achievement by the 
Land of Soviets. 

The actions of the Soviet Union facilitated the victory of the Indonesian 
people in the colonial war begun against them by the imperialists of the Nether- 
lands and Britain with the actual support of the U.S.A. The firm position and 
unity of the U.S.S.R., the Chinese People's Republic and the Democratic Republic 
of Vietnam at the 1954 Geneva conference contributed to its success and led to 
the retreat of imperialism in Indochina. 

The Soviet Union has invariably supported the creation of young independent 
national states and their first steps in the international arena. 


The present situation, the new, third stage of the general crisis of capitalism, 
\Ahieh developed at the end of the 1950s, is characterized by the further growth 
of the might of world socialist system, which is being transformed into the 
decsive factor of social development. The downfall of imperialism's colonialist 
system is an integral part of the present stage of the crisis of capitalism. Colo- 
nial regimes have collapsed in va.^t areas of Africa, where 36 independent states 
are now developing. The independent countries of Asia are gi'owing stronger. 
The socialist revolution has triumphed in Cuba, and the liberation struggle in 
Latin America is becoming broader. 

National-liberation revolutions are increasingly undermining the positions of 
imperialism. A number of countries are making the transition to the noncapital- 
ist path of development and have proclaimed as their goal the building of a 
socialist society. 

Through its constantly groicing might, the Soviet Union is fettering the chief 
forces of the imperialist poicers. The U.S.8.R. and the entire, mighty socialist 
world are giving comprehensive support and assistance to the forces of national 

The leaders of the national-liberation movement have repeatedly emphasized : 
If the camp of imperialism, headed by the United States, which has assumed 
the functions of world gendarme, is unable to resist the national-liberation move- 
ment and to strangle the countries that have freed themselves from colonialism, 
this is because the selfless struggle of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America is finding comprehensive support from the Soviet Union and the other 
socialist states as a result of the anti-imperialist policy they are pursuing. 

The Soviet Union has more than once barred the way to the imperialists and 
their hirelings. In 1956 the heroic struggle of the Egyptian people was rein- 
forced by the Soviet Union's: resolute warning to the initiators of the tripartite 
imperialist aggression against Egypt. Britain, France and Israel were com- 
pelled to withdraw. The independence of Egypt and the other sovereign Arab 
countries was strengthened. 

Relying on the determination of its own people and the support of the Soviet 
Union, Syria courageously faced up to the threat of foreign imperialist inter- 
vention in the autumn of 1957. In 1958 the firm stand of the Soviet Union and the 
other socialist countries and the solidarity of the countries of Asia and Africa 
thwarted the schemes of the American and British colonialists who landed in 
Lebanon and Jordan and were prepared to march on Baghdad. 

The resolute anti-imperialist stand of the Soviet Union and the other socialist 
countries, as well as the solidarity of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America in support of Cuba and against the repeated attacks of American im- 
perialism, has been of great importance. "Were it not for the Soviet Union," 
Fidel Castro has said, "the imperialists would not have hesitated to make a 
direct armed attack on our country. It was the might of the Soviet Union 
and the entire socialist camp that prevented imperialist aggression against our 

Making use of the United Nations and other international organizations in the 
interests of the national-liberation struggle, the Soviet Union persistently strives 
for the mobilization of progressive forces and the isolation of the imperialist 
colonialists. The Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries 
and Peoples adopted by the U.N. on the initiative of the Soviet Union and with 
the active support of the young independent states has contributed to this. 

Of course, the Soviet people do not set their hopes on the U.N. Declaration as 
some kind of panacea for colonial exploitation ; they feel that the Declaration 
should be constantly reinforced by concrete actions on the part of the peoples 
against the imperialists and their accomplices. 

In the wake of the downfall of the principal colonial empires a situation has 
been created in the world in which it is becoming increasingly diflBcult to keep 
in colonial bondage the peoples of Angola, Mozambique, South Africa, 
"Portuguese" Guinea, Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Swaziland, the "Spanish" Sahara 
and the Pacific Islands. 

The Soviet Union advocates the use of every form of struggle for national 
liberation. The peoples' right to freedom and independence, whether established 
hy peaceful means or in armed struggle, is sacred. The Soviet Union gives com- 
prehensive assistance to the peoples fighting with weapons in hand against 
imperialism and colonialism. 


Our country also proceeds from the premise that recognition for each people of 
the right to independence, the right to decide its destiny for itself, is a manda- 
tory condition for the establishment of lasting peace on earth. The Soviet Union's 
vigorous statements in support of the liberation struggle of the peoples are at the 
same time concrete actions in defense of peace. The Soviet Union favors the 
peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. But we shall never 
permit the imperialists to distort the principles of peaceful coexistence, to 
strangle the peoples who are struggling for freedom and independence. 

One of the most important tasks now confronting the forces of social and 
national liberation is resolute support for the heroic Vietnamese people, who 
have become the victims of aggression on the part of U.S. imperialism. The 
American invaders are waging an open war against the people of South Vietnam 
and are making barbarous, piratical attacks on the territory of the D.R.V. 

In conformity with an agreement with the D.R.V. government, the Soviet 
Union is helping the Democratic Republic of Vietnam to strengthen its defense 
capacity. The Vietnamese comrades have repeatedly noted the great imiwrtance 
of this aid in the cause of securing the rebuff of the imperialist interventionists. 
If necessary, U.S.S.R. aid to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam will be 
stepped up. 

The peoples are raising an angry voice against the American intervention in 
the Dominican Republic, where U.S. imperialism, with the help of the Organiza- 
tion of American States, is attempting to implant reactionary puppet authorities. 

Now as never before it is urgently necessary to strengthen the unity of action 
of all the socialist countries and of all progressive, peace-loving forces in order 
to repulse the high-handed aggressor. Such actions can and must be taken despite 
the existing differences on certain questions in the anti-imperialist camp. To 
deny the need for unity of action is tantamount to striking a blow at the interests 
of the anti-imperialist struggle, the interests of world socialism and the national- 
liberation movement. 

In the chief areas and on the most acute sectors of the struggle, the S,oviet Union 
has given and will continue to give the most effective assistance to the revolution- 
ary, anti-imperialist forces that are storming the bastions of colonialism and 
racism. Suffice it to cite a few convincing examples. The Soviet Union helped 
the courageous Algerian people in their heroic struggle against the French colon- 
ialists. In the days of the decisive battles for independence, Algeria received com- 
prehensive assistance and support from the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, the 
U.A.R. and a nimiber of other states. 

When the people of Indonesia unloosed their struggle for the return of West 
Irian, which had been illegally retained by the Dutch colonialists, it received 
arms from the Soviet Union. The U.S.S.R. sent warships to Indonesia. Thus 
was created the backbone of the Indonesian navy, the existence of which has 
extremely great importance for this island country. 

The Soviet Union has given the U.A.R., Ghana, Mali, Guinea, Cambodia and 
other countries great assistance in the creation of powerful national armies. 

Soviet weapons are being used by the patriots of Asia and Africa who are 
fighting for the independence of their countries. 

Everyone clearly understands the great importance of the Soviet Union's 
economic assistance to the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. 
It is contributing to the overcoming of the economic backwardness of the young 
national states that resulted from the colonial period. 

The economic cooperation of the U.S.S.R. and the developing countries under- 
mines the existing exploitative economic ties of the former metropolitan countries 
with the yomig independent states of Asia, Africa and Latin A-mcrica. The 
predatory division of labor imposed hy world, capitalism is also being undermined. 

Soviet aid ds aimed at the creation of genuinely national economies in the 
developing countries. In cooperation with the Soviet Union, industrialization 
is being successfully carried out in the U.A.R., Ghana, India and other countries, 
and new branches of industry and agriculture are being created. These countries 
are now beginning to have their own power, metallurgy, machine-building and 
mining enterprises. About 30 enterprises and shops for ferrous and nonfeiTous 
metallurgy, 4.5 machine-building and metalworking enterprises, 30 power plants 
and hundreds of other projects have been or are being built with Soviet techni- 
cal assistance in the young national states of Asia and Africa. All these enter- 
prises are being built on the basis of the latest achievements of world technology. 


Enterprises that have already been or are now being built with the aid of the 
Soviet Union in the developing countries of Asia and Africa will increase produc- 
tion capacities for steel smelting by (5,100,000 tons and for oil processing by 8,- 
600,000 tons. The rated capacity of power plants will increase by 4,700,000 kw. 

The Soviet Union's economic cooperation with and technical assistance to the 
developing countries are strengthening the public sector of the economies of these 
countries. The development of the state sector and the introduction of planning 
principles in economic construction are strengthening the noncapitalist tendencies 
in the national economies of a number of young states and are contributing to 
profound socio-economic changes in their life. It is becoming increasingly diffi- 
cult for the imperialist monopolies and internal reaction to resist the social and 
economic transformations that are being carried out in these countries and that 
are frequently anticapitalist in nature. 

Assistance in the training of national cadres of engineers and skilled workers 
has become an important part of Soviet aid to the developing countries. Ninety 
educational centers have been created and are now operating. They are turn- 
ing into centers for the training of technical cadres in the countries of Asia 
and Africa. 

The construction of hundreds of industrial enterprises in the developing coun- 
tries is more than just the creation of important branches of the economy ; it also 
means the formation of a working class. This class is growing in numbers. 
Skilled industrial and agricultural workers are exerting great influence on the 
workers who were employed in the old, often semiprimitive enterprises. 

The Soviet people, fidfillmg their internationalist duty, have given and will 
continue to give comprehensive aid and support to the national-lihcrat ion move- 
ment. The Soviet Union has been, is and will continue to he a friend and brother 
to the peoples waging a struggle for the complete and final liquidation of 

A characteristic feature of the world revolutionary process is unity, the in- 
dissoluble organic link between its three main parts : the world system of social- 
ism, the national-liberation movement and the revolutionary struggle of the 
working class of the capitalist countries. Any actions aimed at splitting or isolat- 
ing these parts, at setting one against the others, plays solely into the hands of 
the imperialists. Such actions weaken the revolutionary struggle, give imperial- 
ism an opportunity to maneuver, and create a situation that contributes to the 
increased activity of the most aggressive, most reactionary elements in the ruling 
circles of the imperialist countries. 

The national-liberation movement has long since ceased to be a "local" move- 
ment that carries out perhaps important but nevertheless pi'ivate tasks having no 
great significance for the other currents of the revolutionary forces. Today the 
national-liberation movement has merged with these currents, with all detach- 
ments of fighters who are struggling on the most diversified fronts against im- 
perialist reaction. 

The increasingly close tie between the different currents of the anti-imix'rialist 
revolutionary struggle is reciprocal. World socialism helps the national libera- 
tion of the oppressed peoples ; the liberation struggle of these peoples in turn 
makes a substantial contribution to the struggle for socialism and strengthens its 
positions. Marxist-Leninisits see this contribution in the fact that the national- 
liberation movement strikes severe blows against the common enemy — imperial- 
ism. Representing the interests of the broad masses, the national-liberation 
movement strengthens the position of the socialist and democratic forces in the 
international arena and opens new possibilities for the struggle against the im- 
perialist policy of expansion and depradation. Exceptionally important is the 
fact that the peoples of the former colonies and semicolonies. having achieved 
national liberation and set on the path of independent development, are beginning 
to move actively in the direction of socialism, augmenting the ranks of its sup- 
porters, enriching its world experience and making it increasingly universal. 

There is also a profound link between the national-liberation movement and 
the struggle for peace. Wars of aggression have been and still are one of 
the chief tools of the imperialists' colonial policy. The resolute .struggle against 
militarism and the arms race, against military adventures organized and planned 
by imperialism, is a big and serious help to the peoples who are defending their 
independence, fighting for national liberation and social progress. The ripsurge 
of the national-liberation movement, the emergence of the independent national 
states and their anti-imperialist, pea* e-loving foreign policy have greatly increased 


the might of the forces opposing the imperialist warmongers and have broadened 
the possibilities of the struggle for the preservation and consolidation of peace. 

The forces of the fighters against imperialism and for peace, democracy, na- 
tional liberation and socialism are greater today than ever before. The task 
consists in unitvug and consolidating these forces. 

The objective prerequisites for such consolidation already exist, first and fore- 
most the extremely deep community of vital goals among all the main currents 
of the revolutionary movement. The realization of these possibilities for unity 
and firm cooperation in action depends on the solidarity of the chief revolutionary 
forces of our times, the Communists first of all. 

In today's complex conditions, the Communists bear the greatest historical 
responsibility for the organization and consolidation of all progressive forces. 
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, well aware of this responsibility, is 
persistently and consistently struggling for such consolidation. Our party 
has waged, is now waging and will continue to wage this struggle despite all 
the attempts to drive the Communist movement onto the path of schism and 
internecine strife." 

Nationai. Liberation Movement : Vital Problems 


A major feature of our time is the extensive development of the national-liber- 
ation movement sweeping away colonialism. In this struggle, in which scores 
of nations are involved, the destinies of almost half of mankind are being shaped. 
By cementing their solidarity with the countries of the socialist community and 
the working class of the capitalist countries, the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America are casting off all forms of national oppression and taking up the road of 
social progress. 

The national-liberation movement as a whole has entered a new phase of its 
development. Whereas in the past it was outward-looking , with more and more 
countries and territories becoming involved in it, at present it is .becoming in- 
ward-looking, giving its primary attention to the complete eradication of colo- 
nialism and destruction of the economic roots of imperialist influence, to social 
and economic problems. In forms peculiar to these countries as former colonies, 
some of them are passing over from national-liberation revolutions to socialist 


Marxism-Leninism has proved that the revolutionary role of the colonial and 
semi-colonial peoples can become manifest only in the conditions brought about by 
world revolutionary development and in connection with the international labour 
movement and that the national-liberation struggle as such is, in point of fact, 
their contribution to this development. 

In contrast to the anti-colonial struggles in the past the signal feature of the 
national-liberation tnovement in our time is that it is an integral part of the 
world revolutionary process. It is this specific feature that determines the 
development of the national-liberation movement, its strength and scope, its so- 
cial content and social perspectives. 

In speaking about the national-liberation movements which had flared up 
in the Asian countries Lenin stressed that they were being drav.'n and had been 
drawn into the revolutionary struggle, into the revolutionary movement, into 
the international revolution, into the general maelstrom of the world revolution- 
ary movement. 

The world revolutionary process is in fact a process of liquidating capitalism 
and at the same time of ridding mankind of all other forms of oppression. In 
view of unequal historical development, characteristic for all antagonistic forma- 
tions and particularly for capitalism, this process cannot unfold as a "purely" 

^^Pravda, June 28, 1965, editorial, pp. 2, 3. Reprinted in The Current Digest of the 
Soviet Press, vol. XVII, No. 26, July 21, 1965, pp. 3-5. 


social revolution ; its social "maturity"' is unequal and it appears in varying con- 
crete forms in different parts of the world — in the form of struggle against 
capitalism, colonialism or even against feudal and pre-feudal relations. 

Nonetheless, it is a single process. However different the forms of oppression 
in the imperialist states and the countries they had subjected and exploited as, 
for example, in the United States and South Vietnam, in Britain and the prin- 
cipalities in the Arabian peninsula, they are organic parts of one and the same 
world system of oppression ; directly or indirectly their standard-bearers are the 
imperialist monopolies. Therefore, irrespective of the social composition and 
immediate aims of those taking part in the fight against imperialism they 
merge into a single world stream. 

But from this there also stems the interconnection and identity of the social 
"purport" of the different streams of the liberation movement. The present 
trend of development of the world revolutionary process is the increasing social 
content of the struggle of those of its detachments which come out against im- 
perialism on a platform of struggle against colonial oppression, and for national 
liberation. This is determined by both the objective dialectics of the revolution- 
ary process itself, by the coordinated action of its forces against the common 
foe and the influence of the vanguard of this process — the labour movement. 

The objective relationship within the framework of the world revolutionary 
process acts as a source and foundation for united and coordinated action of the 
national-liberation movement and the international labour movement and the 
forces of world socialism. It also determines the reactionary essence and the 
futility of the attempts to divert this movement to a kind of "isolationism" and 
to divide it from the forces of socialism. 

The great Lenin warned time and again that the way to victory for the world 
revolutionary process as a whole and for each of its forces lies unquestionably 
through their close unity and fraternal solidarity. Lenin wrote : "World im- 
perialism must fall when the revolutionary onslaught of the exploited and op- 
pressed workers in each country, overcoming the resistance of the petty- 
bourgeois elements and the influence of the small upper layer of labour aristocrats, 
merges with the revolutionary onslaught of hundreds millions of people who 
have hitherto stood outside of history and have been regarded merely as the 
object of history." 

If the oneness of the world revolutionary process and the relationship of its 
various detachments assures a lasting prerequisite for cohesion, then unity be- 
tween them develops and undergoes a change along and in accordance with the 
development of these forces and the entire revolutionary process. The con- 
tinued strengthening of the unity of world socialism and the national-liberation 
movement, the growing variety of the forms of this unity and its increasing spread 
to other spheres of relationship is a natural historical phenomenon. 

» i)l i: iii * * * 

The forces of world socialism are directly opposed to the capitalist system 
whereas the national-liberation movement does not directly overstep the frame- 
work of capitalism, and some of its objectives, may, if only partially, be realized 
within this framework. Therefore, the struggle of the proletariat and the forces 
of world socialism most fully and clearly expresses the social essence of revolu- 
tionary development. It is on this front that the main forces of imperialism 
and the world revolutionary process are massed. It is the labour movement 
and the forces of world socialism which are armed with a scientific ideology, 
which illumine the law-governed processes and the prospects for the develop- 
ment of the world revolutionary process in its entirety and its component parts, 
including the national-liberation movement. 

The foremost role of the proletarian movement is historically manifested also 
in the fact that it lays the foundation of the world revolutionary process. It is 
not at all a matter of chance that the working class had to inflict serious blows 
on imperialism and triiunph in socialist revolution before the national-liberation 
movement could, from isolated and spontaneous outbursts, develop into an 
international phenomenon. The foremost role of the international proletariat 
does not, naturally, pose it "over" the forces of national liberation : it gives it 
but the "privilege" of being the pioneer in the struggle against imperialism 
and to fight it tooth and nail. 

It should be also stressed that Marxism is thoroughly opposed to any attempt 
to treat the national-liberation movement as a kind of "subsidiary" force of 


world revolutionary development. Marxist-I^ninists regard the national-libera- 
tion movement as an important and independent force of the historical process. 
That is exactly how the issue is posed in the CPSU Programme which states 
that "the world is exi^eriencing a period of stormy national-liberation revolu- 
tions", that the peoples of the ensalved countries "have emerged as makers of a 
new life and as active participants in world politics, as a revolutionary force 
destroying imperialism". 

JB * J|: » * V i 

The entire development of the national-liberation struggle — its course and 
forms, the order of events and landmarks, its evolution — is witness to the fact 
that it is associated with the world revolutionary process, with the strengthening 
of socialism. Beginning with the October Socialist Revolution in Russia the 
link between the national-liberation and the labour movement within the frame- 
work of the world i*evolutionary process was reinforced by unity and militant 
interaction between them. The October Revolution itself which united in one 
single onslaught the .socialist revolution and the uprising of the oppressed nations 
of tsarist Russia was the first alliance of this kind and its prototype on a world 
scale. The October Revolution gave the liberation movement a mighty impetus 
not only in the capitalist countries but also in the colonial and semi-colonial 

^t iH * * * * * 

After the October Revolution the colonial empires lived on for a few more 
decades but the golden age of colonialism had already ended. The empires 
were not destined any more to expand their possessions and had to defend their 
gains. In collaboration with the socialist state and close to it the fighters for 
national independence inflicted serious defeats on the colonialists, frustrating 
their attempts at territorial expansion and ushering in the era of victorious 
national-liberation movements. Turkey. Mongolia and Afghanistan were saved 
from foreign subjection. The imperialist designs of dismembering and com- 
pletely subordinating China also fell through. 

Subsequently, together with the consolidation of the Soviet Union, with the 
mounting organisational and political role of the world proletariat and with 
the conversion of the international communist movement into a most influential 
factor of historical development, the national-liberation movement gained 
strength, increased in scale and scope. If the victory of the first socialist revo- 
lution led to a crisis of the colonial system, then the conversion of socialism into 
a world system brought about its (iisintcgration. The third phase of the general 
crisis of capitalism was marked by the collapse of the colonial system. 

In the second post-war decade the process of national liberation spread 
throughout Africa and at the close of the fifties and early sixties reached out 
to the Western hemisphere. There at the very gates of the USA the torch of 
the Cuban revolution burst into flame. 

Today the remnants of the colonial order are being wiped out. In contrast 
to capitalism socialism ushers in the era of liicration of peoples. 

The support of the forces of world socialism did not only decisively promote 
the rise and victorious development of the national-liberation struggle but gave 
the oppressed nations the opportunity to put an end to colonial rule in a more or 
less painless way. Of the more than fifty countries which had won state inde- 
pendence in the post-war years roughly two thirds had achieved sovereignty 
without any armed struggle. Had not the war machine of imperialism been handi- 
capijed by the socialist community events, would have taken a dilferent turn. 

Furthermore, the disintegration of the colonial system and the turbulent 
upsurge of the national-liberation struggle seriously promoted the world revolu- 
tionary process as a whole. By weakening imperialism and forcing it to divert 
part of its forces to the struggle against the colonial and semi-colonial peoples, 
the national-liberation movement dealt serious blows at the imperialist policy 
of aggression, at the strivings of international reaction to exert pressure on the 
socialist community and the world labour movement. 

But the unbreakable bonds of the national-liberation movement with the 
whole world revolutionary process are most clearly evident in the social content 
of tlie movement and in its socio-trausforming trends. It is common knowledge 
that in the last century, and even at the beginning of this century, the national- 
liberation revolutions pursued bourgeois, or at best bourgeois-democratic objec- 
tives. Crushing foreign oppress! ;>n they created state sovereign frameworks to 


clear away the medieval and other obstnietions standing in the way to the 
development of national capitalism. Although, as a rale, the masses were the 
leading force in these revolutions they were unable to influence the course of 
events decisively. 

This was the outcome not only of undevelopment of the processes of social 
differentiation and class self-determination of the labouring masses ; it was due, 
above all, to the fact that foreign domination, which the national-liberation 
revolutions destroyed, was, in point of fact, a remnant form of feudalism. 

In contemporary times national-liberation revolutions are destined to play 
a new historical role. They are developing in the period of transition from 
capitalism to communism on a world scale, form a pai-t of this era and bear its 
imprint. The yoke they destroy is one form of oppression by monopoly capital. 
It is true that the common aim of a national-liberation revolution — political 
self-determination of nations — may, if only formally, be achieved within the 
framework of capitalism. However, by their very system of international eco- 
nomic control and exploitation the imperialist monopolies "pose" before the 
national-liberation revolution the task of achieving economic emancipation. 
By creating obstacles to solving the problem, obstacles which cannot be overcome 
under capitalism, they merely "prompt" the revolution onto the road of social 

The same holds for the existing ties of the national-liberation movement with 
other forces of the world revolutionary process. Therefore, in the national- 
liberation revolutions of today the people are able to play the part not only 
of the main force, but also of "conductor" of the historical action. That is why 
revolutions in the one-time colonial empire are able to develop along national- 
democratic lines. 

Enrichment of the social content of the national-liberation struggle on the 
basis of its development within the framework of the world revolutionary proc- 
ess brings about consequences of utmost importance. 

The world revolutionary process is unfolding in scale and scope, ever more 
profoundly changing life on our planet and bringing ever nearer the bright 
future of mankind. The national-liberation movement is an organic part and 
a motive force of this great transformation. It was able to achieve and has 
indeed achieved outstanding success in the fight against imperialism and colonial- 
ism only within the framework of the world revolutionary process and in coop- 
eration with the other motive forces — the socialist states and the labour move- 
ment in the capitalist countries. Only within the framework of this process, 
only in cooperation with these forces can the national-liberation movement 
score fresh victories and fully play its revolutionary role, do its duty to the 
peoples of the former colonies and semi-colonies, to the whole of mankind.'' 

''" National-Llheration Movement ; Vital Problems (U.S.S.R. : Novosti Press Agency Pub- 
llshingr House, 1966), pp, 7, 159-165, 172. 

(The publication is a collection of articles prepared b.v R. Avakov, K, Brutents, K. 
Ivanov, V. Kiselev. G. Mirsk.v, Y. Ostrovit.vanov, L. Stepanov, O, Tupranova. and V. Tyasu- 
nenko — "prominent Soviet experts in problems facing tlie developing countries of Asia, 
Africa and Latin America.") 



A Pase 

Anton, F 1359 


Babich, Yiirv 1242 

Bennett, Charles C. (statement) 1247-1256 

Berg, William W. (statement) 1305-1321, 1343, 1344, 1354 

Bernier, Mary 1269 


Cherkoss, Steven 1245 

Chin, Sing Yap Tong 1276 

Clark, Pieter Romavn 1313 

Clark, Ramsey (statement) 1263, 1325-1354 


De Gaulle, Charles 1354 

Dcnnen, Rodgers Taylor 1269 

Drexler, Anton 1322 


Edwards, Don (statement) 1354 

Eisenhower, Dwight D 1315 

Ewart, George Hamilton, Jr 1245 


Ferrari, A 1359 

Freed, Norman 1358 

Friesel, David 1322-1324 


Gannett, Bettv 1373 

Giles, Robert E 1298 

Grantham, James R 1317, 1318 


Hall, Gus 1356, 1361, 1374 

Hamilton, Steven Charles 1245 

Hindenberg, (Paul Ludwig) von 1323 

Hittle, James D. (statement) 1235, 1236-1245 

Ho Chi Minh 1362 

Hoover, J. Edgar 1381 

Hull, Richard E 1295 

Jackson, James E 1376 


Kahr, Gustav von 1323 

Kamshalov, Alexander 1357 

Katzenbach, Nicholas deB 1243, 1347, 1381 

Knowles, Austin 1332 

Krcbs, Allen M 1243 



L Page 

Lemnitzer, Lyman L 1309 

Lin Piao 1 13S6 

Liu Shao-chi 1362 

Ludendorflf, Erich 1323 

Lynn, Staughton 1353 


Alayburv, John 1317 

Meese, Edwin, III (statement) 1256-1260, 1346 

Meyer, Rauer H (statement). 1295-1305 


Nguyen, Cao Ky 1315 

Nguyen, Van Vinh 1387 


Oleshchuk, Y 1361 

Osterling, Kjeld 1358 

Pool, Cecil 1346 


Rathbun, Lois Lee 1269 

Rubin, Jerry 1240 

Rusk, Dean 1242 


Slavik, V 1359 

Smith, Fred Burton (statement) 1261-1294, 1330, 1334, 1336 

Soto, Lionel 1363 


Teague, Olin E. (statement) 1245-1247 

Teague, Walter Dorwin, III 1243 

TilHch, Paul 1321 

Truman, Harry S 1347 


Westmoreland, William C 1311 

Williams, G. D 1305 

Winston, Henry 1356 

Wong, L. Y 1331, 1332 

Yeagley, J. Walter 1325-1354 


Afro- Asian Solidarity Organization: 

Permanent Secretariat 1360 

American Committee of Aid to the NFLS V 1243 

American Nazi Party 1322, 1323 

American Red Cross 1329 

Association of Georgia Klans 1323 


Committee to Aid the Vietnamese 1270, 1341 

Communist Party, China: 

Central Committee 1386 

Communist Party of the United States of America 1320, 1355, 1367 

National Structure: 

Organization Department 1367-1 372 

National Conventions and Conferences: 

18th National Convention, June 22-26, 1966, New York City.__ 1374 

IXDEX ill 

Communist Party, Soviet Union: 

Congresses: Page 

Twenty-second Congress, October 17-31, 1961, Moscow 1384 

Twenty-tiiird Congress, Marcli 29-April 8, 196G 1355, 1356 

CONUS : 1306, 1307 

Conference of Solidarity of the Peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America 
(also known as Tri-Continental Conference) : 

First Conference, January 3-12, 1966, Havana, Cuba 1363, 1364, 1387 

Tricontinental Committee for Aid to Vietnam 1364 

German-American Bund 1322, 1323 

International Association of Democratic Lawyers 1360 

International Committee of the Pied Cross (see also International Red 

Cross) 1267-1269, 1277, 1282, 1285-1288, 1327, 1329 

International Conference of Solidarity with the People of South Vietnam. 1360 

International Organization of Journalists 1360 

International Red Cross (see also International Committee of the P^ed 

Cross) 1267, 1268, 1292 

International Trade Union Committee of Solidarity with the Workers and 

People of South Vietnam 1360 

International Union of Students (lUS) 1360, 1365 

Ku Klux Klan 1323 

Liberation Red Cross 1262, 1271-1275, 1287, 1291, 1336 


May 2d Movement 1240, 1270, 1279 

Medical Aid Committee (also known as Stanford Committee for Medical 
Aid to Vietnam; Medical Aid for tlie Victims of U.S. Bombing in Viet- 
nam; Committee for Medical Aid to Victims of U.S. Bombing) . (see also 
Medical Aid Committee for Vietnam) 1270, 1271, 1275, 1276, 1279, 1289 

Medical Aid Committee for Vietnam (also known as Medical Aid Com- 
mittee, Medical Aid for Vietnam Committee) . {See also Medical Aid 
Committee) 1289, 1291, 1329 

MS U Humanist Society (Cresskill, N.J.) 1270 


National Committee for the Sane Nuclear Policy 1361 

National Front of Liberation of South Vietnam (NFLSV) 1262, 

1273-1275, 1291, 1336, 1341, 1363 
National Liberation Front of South Metnam (NLF) {see National Front 

of Liberation of South Vietnam (NFLSV). 
National Liberation Front of South Vietnam Red Cross (see Liberation 

Red Cross). 

Nazi Party (Germany) 1322 

North Vietnam, Government of 1271-1274 

Oakland Army Terminal (OAT) 1257 


Peace Book Co. (Hong Kong) 1331,1332 

Progressive Labor Movement (see Progressive Labor Party). 

Progressive Labor Party (formerlv known as Progressive Labor Movement) _ 1240, 

1279, 1334, 1339, 1341, 1346, 1355 


Quakers 1268, 1269, 1277, 1282 


R Page 

Radio Peking 1239, 1240 

Regular Veterans Association 1322 

Stanford Committee for Medical Aid (see Medical Aid Committee). 

Student Peace Union 1361 

Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) 1313, 1361 

Tri-Continental Conference, January 3-12, 1966 Havana, Cuba. (See 
Conference of Solidarity of the Peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, 
First Conference.) 

U.S. Government: 

Atomic Energy Commission 1297 

Coast Guard (see entry under Treasury, Department of). 

Commerce, Department of 1295-1305 

Bureau of International Commerce: Office of Export Control. 1295-1305 

Defense, Department of 1305-1321 

Justice, Department of 1263, 1271, 1272, 1305, 1308, 1325-1354 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 1306, 1307 

Internal Security Division 1325 

State, Department of 1271 

Treasury, Department of 1261, 1297, 129S, 1326, 1329, 1330 

Coast Guard 1344 

University of California: 

Berkeley campus 1 289 

Santa Barbara campus 1317, 1318 

University of Michigan 1270, 1289 


Veterans of Foreign Wars 1235 

Vietcong 1263, 1264, 1268, 1270 

1271-1276, 1279, 1286, 1289, 1291, 1307, 1308, 1334, 1335, 1337 

Vietnam Day Committee 1240, 1257, 1279, 1292, 1306, 1313, 1329, 1334 

Vietnam Relief Fund 1269 


W.E.B. Du Bois Clubs of America 1361 

Women Strike for Peace 1361 

Women's International Democratic Federation 1360, 1366 

World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY) 1360, 1367 

World Federation of Trade Unions ( WFTU) 1360 

World Peace Council (WPC) 1360, 1364 


Young Commtmist League, Soviet Union (Komsomol) 1357 


Attention All Military Personnel (VDC leaflet) 1306, 1312, 

China Daily News 1281 1281 



3 9999 05706 3057