Title: Interview with Ted Kennedy

Description:

Interview with Ted Kennedy in his Senate Office in March/April 1989 where he is asked about offering amnesty to draft dodgers OKAY. WELL I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU, IN THE '72 SENATE HEARINGS ON AMNESTY THAT YOU CHAIRED, YOU ASKED THE FOLLOWING RHETORICAL QUESTIONS. HOW, SOME ASKED, CAN AMNESTY BE OFFERED TO THOSE WHO FLED WHEN OTHERS FOUGHT? BUT OTHERS ASSERT, HOW CAN AMNESTY NOT BE OFFERED TO THOSE WHO RIGHT ABOUT THIS WAR BEFORE THE REST OF US? l'M WONDERING WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THOSE QUESTIONS IN THE INTERVENING 17 YEARS, IF YOU'VE REACHED ANY CONCLUSIONS? Well, the conclusions that I've reached after a number of years just reinforced. my feelings and beliefs at that time. That was that the young people that left as a matter of conscience, both those prior to the time or the draft, and at that time the draft was grossly unfair, or those that even went to Vietnam and perhaps came to the conclusion as a matter of conscience that it was an unjust war. We're following a very important tradition In our society and that is to at times of a moral crisis, exercising a conscience and refusing to be a part of a system that perpetuates illegality or gross injustice. And civil disobedience has been a part of our tradition and in the early 1960s, with the civil rights movement, it was rekindled as a matter which many young people were involved in. And then in the course of the war, it was rekindled again by those that refused to be a part of a system in the United States that had an unfair, was supporting an unjust war-. And I have a good deal of admiration for the courage of those individuals. They played a very important role, I think, in accelerating the time when the United States finally did end the war, although it certainly wasn't perceived to be a popular step at the time, or even an understandable policy question to grant some reprieve, some amnesty, for those who left the United States as a matter of conscience because they believed, that the war was unjust. To a very real extent, they understood that it was an unjust war before the politicians did. So rather than being condemned, their action should be recognized as a positive contribution to the whole debate and discussion on the war in Vietnam. And they ought to have a sense of satisfaction that they helped bring the war to an end sooner. , , EVEN THOUGH THEY LEFT THE COUNTRY, DIDN'T THAT PLACE THEM OUTSIDE OF THE TRADITION OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND .•• Well, in the fact that civil disobedience took place here, it was a different expression but they certainly recognized that it was something that their roots being here, their parents, their friends, it had an important impact in the, in the American political history. And that was not insignificant. SO WHAT WOULD YOU SAY WAS THE LEGACY OP THIS EXODUS OP PEOPLE DURING VIETNAM? Well, as I look back on it, they saw that the war was unjust prior to the time that military commander saw it, and that politicians were really willing to recognize .. And they made a contribution, 1 believe, in bringing the war to an earlier end. I mean there ware many who were involved in bringing that war to an earlier end, but they certainly had their place in history. OKAY. IM WONDERING WHAT MOTIVATED YOU TO TAKE THE LEADERSHIP ON T!IIS ISSUE AND HOLD THE '72 HEARINGS ON AMNESTY. WHAT WERE TIIE POLITICAL BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THAT DECISION FOR YOU? 6:25 - Well, there were very few political benefits. I approached the issue as someone who believed that the draft system was chronically unfair. It was poor people fighting rich men's wars. The combination of deferments and other provisions of the draft law were very unjust and very inequitable. I conducted hearings in 1969 on the draft issue and you couldn't come to a real studyof the whole draft issue without facing the issue of amnesty and its implications. And then again conducted them in 1972 and then following President Ford's partial amnesty in 1974. The mail was running about twenty-to-one against any form of amnesty. And in the course of those hearings that were very widely covered by the media; you had parents who lost boys in Vietnam that were extremely harsh in their criticism of those that had left the United States as a matter of conscience. And then you had parents who had lost boys in Vietnam and who understood the injustice of that war, who respected the decision of those who as a matter of conscience went to Canada. and you had these parents sitting right next to each other. Both parents, the series of parents that spoke on that question exhibited the same kinds of emotions, the same kind of feelings, the same kind of love for their children. And so across the communication to the American people is that this issue, really it was a matter of conscience. And I think people had a better understanding of what was really involved. They hadn't really thought about it. And even though as a result of that hearing, there wasn't a real break in the national opposition to amnesty, there was a very important softening of the opposition. And I felt myself during the course of those hearings that there was really, the healing process was really beginning. It was just a feeling, but I believe that it was there. And I think although we were unable to pass any legislation, we never would have had the votes for it. And I think probably have been beaten sufficiently badly that any president might have been extremely reluctant to take any executive action. But there was no question there was a deepening of understanding of the real principles involved. And I like to believe with that understanding, we saw the partial amnesty of President Ford and then the further actions of President Carter In 1977. l'M WONDERING, GIVEN THAT OPPOSITION, THAT LETTERS WERE RUNNNG 20-TO-l YOU SAID AGAINST IT, WHY PRESIDENT CARTER DIDN'T DECIDE TO GO WITH AMNESTY Well, he certainly deserved credit. The atmosphere in '77 again was different from where it was even in 1974. There was a real desire to try and bring some healing to the society that had really been very much torn apart in the course of the whole Vietnam war. The incremental step of '74 and then the intitial step in '77, although I give credit to President Ford and to President Carter for taking the actions that they did. They deserve credit. DO YOU FEEL, OR I SHOULD SAY, WERE YOU SATISFIED THEN WITH THE RESULTS OF YOUR HEARINGS IN '72 AND '74? Well, I was. We're legislators and being members of the United States senate, we oversee legislation that's passed in time. But we're, also part of our function is to try and inform the American people, too, and the education process, both for ourselves as well as the American public. And I think the American public had a better understanding. I'd like to hope that we made some contribution in that area. And I think although we didn't pass the legislation, that we were able to encourage the process which really had to be with the executive, certainly at that period of time WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE WAR RESISTERS IN GENERAL, OR THE PEOPLE THAT WENT TO CANADA? DID YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR OPINION OF THEIR MOTIVATIONS THEN AND HAS YOUR OPINION CHANGED? No. l think that the, someone who was opposed to the war in 1967 and certainly on, a number of these individuals went there prior to that period in time. I think probably my view of them may have changed from the time that there was a general kind of support for the war and when we saw how unjust the war was. And then thought about the issue subsequently. I suppose my view of the, both the issue and those individuals changed in 1967 when my own understanding and awareness of the war had changed very very dramatically. IF YOU HAD BEEN A YOUNG MAN. Oh, l don1t know. It depends whether I suppose, whether it was prior to the time, 1967, or afterwards. It would have so happened that I probably would have been not affected because I would have had the educational deferments and the other deferments that were available. I think that that may very well have been the circumstances. SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THAT POSITION. Most people that followed that particular track that I did in terms of college, and law school, and then marriage didn't serve. THERE WAS ONE THING THAT WAS ALWAYS SURPRISED ME WAS THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT UNDER THE JOHNSON AND NIXON ADMINISTRATIONS, DIDN'T SEEM TO PUT A LOT OF PRESSURE TO CLOSE THE DOOR. The only other thing I might mention is that I was in the army prior to that in any event. I UNDERSTAND. HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. Yes. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU HAD ANY THOUGHTS WHY THE·UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN THOSE DAYS DIDN'T PUT PRESSURE ON CANADA TO CLOSE THE BORDER TO THESE PEOPLE. Well, Canada of course has fought with the United States in its wars, close valued ally with many shared values and principles and friendships, associations. And I think there was probably a recognition that the Canadians would be making their own independent judgment as I think clearly they would have. And they have value In recognizing men and women of conscience in its own tradition. I think the presidents were smart enough to understand that they would make their own judgment and probably didn't want to face that independent decision perhaps.. I would think that's my conclusion. OKAY. THERE WAS ONE QUESTION I DIDN'T ••• EARLIER THAT STRIKES ME, AND THAT IS THAT PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY SAID ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY. THAT HAD A TREMENDOUS INFLUENCE ON THAT GENERATION IN THE SIXTIES. AND THEN THESE PEOPLE WERE PLACED IN A POSITION WHERE SO MANY, AS YOU'RE SAYING, FOR REASONS OF CONSCIENCE, DECIDED EVEN TO LEAVE THEIR COUNTRY. ISN'T THERE A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN PEOPLE WANTING TO ASK NOT WHAT YOU KNOW, THEIR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR THEM, BUT TO GIVE, SACRIFICE FOR THEIR COUNTRY. AND ON THE OTHER HAND, END UP IN A POSITION OF .CONSCIENCE TO LEAVE THEIR COUNTRY. HOW DO THESE THINGS RIG

Keywords:

interview, political action, amnesty, anti war, villon

Contact us to license this footage. We’re happy to assist you and help find what you’re looking for!