SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
anti-war
Why Jimmy Carter Pardoned Draft Resisters
President Carter’s pardon took a certain amount of courage and compassion, but it was also the culmination of years of determined resistance and organizing.
Jan 06, 2025
The passing of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has been duly noted in ubiquitous remembrances and commentaries on his four-year presidency from 1977-1981. Carter is lauded more for his post-presidential humanitarian projects, while his presidency is deemed a mixed bag by left and right alike. For many Vietnam War resisters—myself included, it is more personal. Jimmy Carter’s first act as president was to pardon draft resisters. He then established a program for military deserters like me, who were able to return from exile or up from “underground” without going to prison.
President Carter’s pardon took a certain amount of courage and compassion, and for that we remember him fondly. To say that “Jimmy Carter pardoned war resisters,” however, is a bit like saying that “Abe Lincoln freed the slaves.” Both presidential decrees were the culmination of years of determined resistance and organizing—by the war resisters and the slaves—and by their many valuable allies. Grassroots people’s movements laid the table.
Over 1 Million People Needed Amnesty
Resistance to the U.S. War on Vietnam was widespread throughout the late 60s and early 70s. Over 1 million young men found themselves in legal jeopardy—an estimated 300,000 draft resisters, as many as 500,000 deserters, and another 500,000 veterans who were discharged from the military with “less-than-honorable” discharges—life sentences of discrimination, particularly by employers. There were also thousands of women and men who had been prosecuted for their antiwar protests.
Somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 Vietnam War resisters emigrated to Canada—the majority being draft resisters, often accompanied by girlfriends and spouses. Thirty thousand became Canadian citizens. Another 800 U.S. war resisters—mostly deserters—fled to Sweden, the only country to officially grant asylum to Vietnam War resisters. (Canada’s immigration policy was wide open at the time, unlike today, and did not care about the military obligations of other countries).
In 1972, AMEX-Canada, a Toronto-based collective of U.S. deserters and draft resisters, of which I was part, took the lead in calling for unconditional amnesty for all war resisters and veterans with less-than-honorable discharges. (AMEX = American Exile.) We fought hard for this position within the broad-based National Council for Universal, Unconditional Amnesty (NCUUA), which included the National Council of Churches, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), War Resisters League (WRL), Women Strike for Peace, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), and many local peace groups. The initial instinct of some of the church groups was to call for amnesty only for draft resisters, who were mostly white and middle-class, and not for deserters, who were largely working class, and were wanted by the military.
It was a bigger struggle yet to include veterans with less-than-honorable discharges, who were often people-of-color who had resisted racism within the military. But AMEX-Canada, the only organized group of war resisters within the amnesty coalition, along with WRL and VVAW, prevailed, as evidenced by the awkward but specific name, National Council for Universal, Unconditional Amnesty.
AMEX-Canada always called for the U.S. to end its “illegal, immoral” war in Vietnam, which killed over 3 million Vietnamese, mostly civilians. AMEX’s Jack Colhoun, an Army deserter and historian, chronicled the progress of the Vietnam War in the pages of AMEX-Canada magazine. By demanding amnesty, war resisters had opened an antiwar front that outlasted the antiwar movement, which waned after U.S. troops were withdrawn from Vietnam in 1972-73.
In September 1974, AMEX-Canada hosted an international conference in Toronto, with exiled U.S. war resisters from Canada, Sweden, France, and the U.K., who were joined by Vietnam Veterans Against the War and other U.S. peace activists. Several days before the long-planned conference, President Gerald Ford announced that he was granting an unconditional pardon to his disgraced predecessor, Richard Nixon, along with a very limited and conditional “earned re-entry” program for Vietnam War resisters. Returning resisters would have to sign loyalty oaths, to perform alternative service, and—if they were deserters—accept a new kind of “less-than-honorable” discharge that would mark them for life.
Resisters Demanded Total Amnesty, Not “Shamnesty”
The U.S. media flocked to Toronto to hear U.S. war resisters’ response. We totally rejected Ford’s so-called “clemency” program and unanimously demanded an unconditional amnesty for all Vietnam War resisters. “It is right to resist an unjust war,” we exclaimed. We called on our fellow war resisters to boycott Ford’s punitive program, and we vowed to continue our struggle for total amnesty
In order to raise the temperature, we sent a draft resister, Steve Grossman, back to the U.S. to challenge the program. And then a deserter, yours truly. Grossman’s draft charges were dropped, as was my jail sentence, after a 50-city speaking tour that put the government on the defensive. Although some war resisters were able to take advantage of Ford’s “earned re-entry” program, relatively few did. The program was scheduled to end on January 31, 1975. The White House extended it twice—for a total of two months—in the hopes of gaining greater numbers. But to no avail. The media declared Ford’s program a resounding failure. We kept pushing for real amnesty, not “shamnesty.”
The Democratic National Convention in New York City in July 1976 provided us with a great stage. That was the convention that nominated Jimmy Carter for president. Carter had campaigned on a pledge to pardon draft resisters. Little did he know that a draft resister and a Vietnam veteran would steal the show at his convention. Fritz Efaw, who was living in England after refusing draft orders, managed to get himself elected as an Alternate Delegate from Democrats Abroad, and flew into New York’s Kennedy Airport. Lawyers for the amnesty coalition (NCUUA) negotiated a deal with authorities that delayed Efaw’s arrest to allow him to participate in the convention.
By 1976, the mood of the country had changed. Most people agreed that the Vietnam War had been—at the very least—a terrible mistake. A majority of grassroots Democrats supported an amnesty for Vietnam War resisters. That probably included a majority of the 2,100 or so delegates to the Democratic National Convention. But it took only 300 of their signatures to nominate Fritz Efaw to be the next vice president of the United States.
Draft Resister and Paralyzed Vietnam Veteran Take the Podium at Democratic Convention
And so it was that a wanted draft resister grabbed a precious 15 minutes of prime time TV before a very large audience. First, Efaw had to literally draw straws with the other three VP candidates to determine the order of their nominating speeches. The other three were progressive African American Rep. Ron Dellums (with whom the amnesty activists had coordinated), an anti-abortion advocate whose name has long been forgotten, and the “other Fritz”—Fritz Mondale, who would become Carter’s running mate. Fritz Efaw won the most desirable primetime spot.
Next came the battle with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) over who could speak on Efaw’s behalf. The established format was for a nominating speech, a seconding speech, and an acceptance speech. NCUUA had chosen Gold Star mother Louise Ransom, a leading advocate for amnesty, to make the nominating speech. Her son had been killed in Vietnam. But it was the seconding speaker, paraplegic Vietnam veteran and fiery antiwar activist Ron Kovic, who ran into resistance.
The DNC did everything in their power to keep Ron Kovic off the podium. They even claimed that the Democratic Party—the party of Roosevelt—did not have insurance to cover a wheelchair on the podium. The diverse team of amnesty advocates, including former exiled war resisters Dee Knight, Steve Grossman, and Gerry Condon (that’s me), would not take no for an answer. Eventually Ron Kovic was allowed to make what many observers agreed was the most powerful speech of the convention. He began with these words:
I am the living death
the memorial day on wheels
I am your yankee doodle dandy
your john wayne come home
your fourth of july firecracker
exploding in the grave
These words are also how Ron Kovic begins his remarkable autobiography, Born on the Fourth of July (his birthday), later memorialized in Oliver Stone’s marvelous 1989 film by the same name. Tom Cruise did an amazing job portraying Ron Kovic, and was nominated for Best Actor at the 62nd Academy Awards. The last scene in the film dramatizes Ron Kovic’s triumphant appearance at the 1976 Democratic Convention.
The team of amnesty organizers at the convention was exuberant after the powerful presentations by Louise Ransom, Ron Kovic, and Fritz Efaw. And rightly so. We had won 15 minutes of primetime TV proclaiming that Vietnam War resisters were heroes for resisting an unjust war, and should not be punished. What a triumph!
True to his word, once elected and inaugurated, Jimmy Carter wasted no time—his very first act as president was to pardon draft resisters. He also ordered the military to establish a case-by-case program for returning deserters. In a nod to the amnesty movement’s demand for a Single Type Discharge, Carter even set up a program for case-by-case review of less-than-honorable discharges.
This was not quite the “universal, unconditional” amnesty that we had fought so hard for. But it was quite an achievement. Many war resisters were able to resume normal lives without fear of arrest and imprisonment. Even those who chose to remain in Canada, Sweden, and other havens were able to legalize their status so they could return to the U.S. for family visits—a welcome departure from the days when the FBI would haunt their parents’ funerals looking to make arrests.
President Nixon had ended the draft in 1973, in part to defuse the antiwar movement, but six years later in 1979, during the Iran hostage crisis and increasing tensions with the Soviet Union, President Carter resumed draft registration, sparking another era of draft resistance. Young men are legally required to register for the draft when they turn 18, but millions have failed to do so. Fast forward to 2025: The Congress is haltingly considering several bills that would extend draft registration to women, and the debate about resuming the draft continues.
U.S. Is Immersed in War and Genocide Today
The terrain for GI resisters is arguably more difficult today. Soldiers who refused to deploy—or re-deploy—to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had a really hard time fighting for refuge in Canada, whose immigration policy has tightened considerably since the Vietnam era. Some were able to remain in Canada while others were forced to return to the U.S. and face military court martial. Sweden offered no refuge to Iraq and Afghanistan war resisters, and recently abandoned its neutrality in favor of joining U.S.-dominated NATO.
A 14-month-long Israeli campaign of daily horror and genocide against the Palestinian people—especially children—is being actively facilitated by the United States. U.S. troops remain in Syria, after helping to overthrow the Syrian government and replace it with an al Qaeda offshoot. The U.S. is escalating the war in Ukraine by facilitating the firing of U.S. missiles into nuclear-armed Russia. And the notorious Neocons who inhabit both Democratic and Republican administrations are pushing for wars against Iran and China. People across the political spectrum worry aloud about the looming threat of a civilization-ending nuclear war, while war planners insist they can fight and win a nuclear war. When will they ever learn?
It Is Right To Resist an Unjust War
Veterans For Peace (VFP), which includes Vietnam combat veterans as well as former GI resisters, has issued a statement applauding those Israeli soldiers who are refusing to fight in Gaza. Aaron Bushnell, an active-duty U.S. Airman, self-immolated in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington to protest the U.S.-Israeli genocide. Another active-duty Airman, Larry Hebert, then fasted against genocide in front of the White House and Congress. Many active duty personnel are expressing concern that they will be ordered to fight or facilitate illegal wars and genocide.
Veterans For Peace has joined with About Face—Veterans Against the War, the Center for Conscience and War, and the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild to promote the Appeal for Redress (v.2), an opportunity for active-duty GI’s to legally present their concerns about war and genocide to their congressional representatives. The veterans also refer GI’s who are thinking about becoming Conscientious Objectors to the Center on Conscience and War, and to the GI Rights Hotline, 1-877-447-4487. If needed, the 40-year-old veterans’ organization can put people in touch with lawyers experienced in military law.
Harkening back to the Vietnam era amnesty movement, the VFP statement concludes with: “Remember, it is right to resist unjust wars and illegal orders.” These words will become all the more important in the dangerous days ahead, as will increasing support for military personnel who refuse to be part of unjust wars of empire and genocide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
It Isn’t ‘The System’ That’s Holding Visionary Activists Back From the World We Want
A new book by Mark Satin—Up From Socialism: My 60-Year Search for a Healing New Radical Politics—makes a powerful case that the real answer lies within.
Nov 10, 2024
As administrator of the Schumacher Center for a New Economics, I have spent decades trying to usher visionary, regenerative, and decentralist ideas into the American body politic. So have many of my counterparts in organizations across the country. But sometimes I think we’re no closer to making a difference on a national scale now than we were in the 1970s. What is holding us back?
The usual answers are “capitalism” and the two-party system. But the more experience I’ve gained, the more I’ve come to believe that those are just excuses, and the real answer lies elsewhere.
Mark Satin’s new book—Up From Socialism: My 60-Year Search for a Healing New Radical Politics—makes a powerful case that the real answer lies within: We visionary activists have been so internally divided, and so driven by ego and unexamined personal pain, that we’ve never been able to harness the life-giving ideas of people like Jane Jacobs, Ivan Illich, Hazel Henderson, David Korten, Kate Raworth, and E.F. Schumacher himself (all of whom turn up in Satin’s book) to a viable national political organization.
The last page reveals the “moral” of the book: “Only by becoming kind people can we create a kind world.”
Satin’s book reads like a novel, and it is admirably, some may say shockingly, specific. It spends a lot of time on activists’ parental, collegial, and love relationships, not just on their political organizing. And Satin finds all of it wanting. (He is as tough on himself as he is on anyone, which gives the book a feeling of heartache rather than blame. And there is redemption at the end!)
To stick to the political organizing—the first part of the book tries to demonstrate that the New Left of the 60s was an inadequate vehicle for us. Satin shows in devastating detail that the leading members of his Mississippi Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee group were more interested in Black nationalism than in integrating the local schools. He shows that the older student leaders of his campus Students for a Democratic Society group were more interested in promoting socialism than in listening to the emerging ecological, decentralist, and humanistic-psychology ideas of younger students. And he shows that the leaders of the Toronto Anti-Draft Program (North America’s largest draft-resister assistance organization) were more interested in fomenting a Marxist revolution than in providing practical help to the resisters.
According to Satin, these and similar experiences led to the collapse of the New Left—and to the rise of thousands of independent feminist, ecological, spiritual, appropriate-technology, etc. organizations. In addition, two visionary organizations arose that aimed to synthesize such ideas and bring them into national politics.
The first of these, the New World Alliance, drew its Governing Council from a wide range of professionals, educators, businesspeople, and activists. It included three future Schumacher Society participants, Alanna Hartzok, John McClaughry, and Kirkpatrick Sale. But it fell apart after four years of constant bickering over policies, processes, and fundraising, often caused (Satin seeks to show) largely by personal jealousies and rivalries. At one point, spiritually oriented Planetary Citizens president Donald Keys accused McClaughry of being in league with the Devil! Some of the scenes in this chapter are so tragicomic that they’d work as skits on Saturday Night Live.
The chapter on the U.S. Green Party movement, though, is pure tragedy. By the mid-1980s, America was yearning for a major third party. Amazingly well-connected people were waiting in the wings to help the Greens get off the ground. But, instead, the principal organizers of the Greens—a spiritual feminist, an anarchist, a socialist, and two bioregionalists—created an organization in their own narrow image. As Satin sees it, this was a classic case of the organizers and their cohorts preferring to be big fish in a small pond. The resulting Green “movement” then engaged in phenomenally ugly infighting over the next decade—what happened to three Green women is truly sickening to read—and the Greens emerged in the end not as a major beyond-left-and-right political party capable of spearheading a regenerative economy and culture, but as a minor far-left protest party.
In more recent years, Satin found hope in what he calls the “radical centrist” or “trasnspartisan” movement—people and groups that are more interested in fostering cross-partisan political dialogue than in providing Correct Answers. He felt this would be an excellent way to insert the views of visionary thinkers into the national dialogue—and to win support for all kinds of local and regional experimentation. But he notes that the track record of radical-centrist groups like New America and No Labels has so far been disappointing. They’re as internally divided as the Greens and a lot snootier. What Satin really wants, he confides to us, is a new political movement of committed listeners, bold beyond-left-and-right synthesizers, and savvy organizers.
A powerful conclusion urges visionary activists to live more like ordinary Americans, in order to decrease arrogance and deepen understanding. The last page reveals the “moral” of the book: “Only by becoming kind people can we create a kind world.”
When E.F. Schumacher wrote his famous book Small Is Beautiful, he entitled his chapter about political economy “Buddhist Economics.” Later he must have had second thoughts about characterizing his ideas in such an oppositional way, for his later book, A Guide for the Perplexed, makes it clear that his ideas are consistent with the beliefs of all the great religions, including of course Christianity. When Satin argues that we visionary activists cannot move forward unless we (a). learn to be kind to self and others, and (b). listen to and learn from all engaged Americans, he is following in Schumacher’s footsteps. We should listen to him.
Mark Satin, Up From Socialism: My 60-Year Search for a Healing New Radical Politics (New York: Bombardier Books, distributed by Simon & Schuster, 2023), 380 pages, $21.95 pbk, $12.95 eBook.
Keep ReadingShow Less
They’re Arresting the Wrong People Inside of Congress
While they are arresting peace activists for exercising First Amendment rights, they are making plans to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a war criminal with an actual arrest warrant request.
Jun 12, 2024
I was arrested again inside of Congress for speaking out against U.S.-backed genocide. Myself and others were brutally tackled and carried out of the room by Capitol Police. I was charged with “crowding, obstructing, or incommoding” for speaking out and holding a sign as the secretary of state and the secretary of defense testified in Congress for more money for the endless U.S. war machine.
While they are arresting peace activists for exercising First Amendment rights, they are making plans to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a war criminal with an actual arrest warrant request from the International Criminal Court.
The real criminals are the ones we are protesting against—the ones literally sitting directly in front of us inside the hearing room—and they should be the ones arrested, charged, and found guilty.
For decades, people following CODEPINK’s lead have been protesting inside the halls of Congress. The year before October 7, there were a handful of us protesting the bloated military budgets and the U.S. warmongering. I was arrested several times on my own, but since October, dozens of us have been arrested in Congress, hundreds in D.C., and thousands across the U.S. and the world for Palestine.
The sustained energy and activism are the result of the nearly 40,000 of Palestinians murdered; millions being starved and displaced, their land, water, and air poisoned; and neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, and refugee camps demolished.
The real criminals are the ones we are protesting against—the ones literally sitting directly in front of us inside the hearing room—and they should be the ones arrested, charged, and found guilty for the war criminals they are funding and supporting and the war crimes they are committing.
Any of us speaking and acting out on the side of justice know we are taking risks. We see it as our duty as people in the U.S. in solidarity with and inspired by the Palestinian people facing and resisting this horror.
As I await my court date, I think of the people I spent the night with at the D.C. detention facility. Just this year, there have been five deaths inside the D.C. jail. The dozen or so women in there reminded me that poverty is a policy choice and our carceral, systemically racist state perpetuates harm and cycles of violence.
According to the U.S. Center for Palestinian Rights in Washington D.C., for this year alone (before our additional billions of aid were sent), the $3.8 billion allocated for Israel’s weapons could instead fund 451,735 households with public housing, free or low-cost healthcare for 1,322,199 children, 41,490 elementary school teachers, solar electricity for a year for 10,818,505 households, and debt cancellation for 100,563 students.
The fight against U.S. militarism is one that the climate, feminist, Indigenous, economic, and racial justice movements are all uniting around right now. And as it deepens and strengthens, we must become more organized as we escalate while we continue to make those in power uncomfortable.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular