World/national news
Nixon proposes end to
most draft deferments
WASHINGTON (AP) — Only
medical students will be eligible
for college deferments under the
Nixon administration proposals
to eliminate draft inequities.
After a specified date, no other
student entering college can
claim a draft deferment on the
basis of education.
However, a sophomore, junior,
or senior with an existing draft
deferment when the new rules
go into effect will be permitted
to complete his undergraduate
schooling.
Affects all categories
This is the thinking of Penta
gon officials who have been shap
ing the Administration’s pro
posals to do away with draft de
ferments in the student, occupa
tional, and parental categories.
Secretary of Defense Melvin
Laird said last weekend Presi
dent Nixon “wants to move in
the direction so that all young
people are treated equally and
fairly.”
Proposed measures to carry
out this objective will be review
ed by the National Security
Council and laid before the Sen
ate Armed Services Committee
next month with indications the
administration will put them in
to effect as soon as possible. Just
when this will be is still uncer
tain.
New ones not granted
Officials said young men hav
ing occupational and parental de
ferments at the time the more
stringent rules take hold will be
allowed to retain them.
But, as in the case of student
deferments, no new ones will be
granted.
Unlike the student deferment,
which offcials say will permit ex
ceptions for pre-medical students,
there appears to be no prospect
of any further deferments for
job or family reasons, except
where hardship might be in
volved.
Job deferments have been
heavy in the field of teaching,
police, and fire department work.
GIs to fill jobs
Authorities expect community
needs can be filled adequately
by former servicemen and no
special deferments will be re
quired in these areas.
The same reasoning applies to
hard skill jobs in the mechanical
and technical fields, it was said.
As the United States scales
down its committment in Viet
nam and simultaneously reduces
the overall size of the armed
forces, fewer and fewer young
men will be required for the
draft. The Pentagon expects the
draft will take about 225,000
young men this year, a drop of
65,000 from 1969. The level
should go down even further in
1971.
ROTC to benefit
Some Pentagon experts believe
the virtual elimination of student
deferments may indirectly help
the flagging ROTC program with
some students possibly enrolling
as a hedge against the draft in
terrupting their schooling.
Authorities say provisions may
be made for allowing young
freshmen who enter college be
fore they are 19 to finish that
first college year. However, they
would then have to report for
military service.
Laird has stressed the new sys
tem will keep draft deferments
in effect for medical and hard
ship reasons.
Protests mar Agnew
visit to New Zealand
AUCKLAND, New Zealand (A5)
Police pushed back about 500
demonstrators Thursday at Vice
president Spiro Agnew’s down
town hotel. Eight were arrested.
The touring vice - president’s
motorcade entered the hotel’s exit
driveway at the other end of the
block and most of the demon
strators did not know he had
arrived until he was inside.
It was the largest anti-Ameri
can protest of Agnew’s 11-nation
Asian tour, which he winds up in
Auckland. He returns to Wash
ington Monday via Honolulu.
The police said they turned out
more than 200 men nearly a
third of Auckland’s force — to
contain the demonstration who
chanted, “Go home Yank” and
waved Viet Cong and swastika
painted American flags outside
the hotel.
Those arrested were charged
with insulting the police, resist
ing arrest, using obscene lan -
guage and disorderly conduct.
Leaders of the protest said
they would maintain a vigil out
side the hotel throughout Ag
new’s 42-hour stay.
Prime Minister Keith Holy
oake greeted Agnew and his wife
on their arrival from Australia
and took them to the summer res
idence of Gov. Gen. Sir Arthur
Perritt for a brief meeting.
The only other event on Ag
new’s schedule Thursday was a
hotel reception.
Anti-draft groups sue for
equal radio-TV air time
By PHILIP HAGER
The Los Angeles Times
SAN FRANCISCO—The radio announcer, in suit
ably deep and authoritative tones, would read the
following spot announcement:
“Attention, all men of draft age. What are you
planning to do about the draft? It is not gener
ally known, but the selective service law does pro
vide many deferments to which you may be en
titled. If the army is not your bag, and you feel
you may be eligible for a deferment, do some
thing about it now. Phone 642-1431 for free in
formation . . .”
Three antiwar organizations have sought time
for just such announcements on radio and tele
vision stations here, threatening to appeal to the
federal communications commission and the courts
should the stations not comply.
WAR MORE DEADLY THAN SMOKING
The attorney who represents the antiwar organi
zations, Donald Jelinek of Berkeley, explains:
“Who would have thought five years ago that
you’d ever be watching antismoking announce
ments on television? And war is far more impor
tant and far more serious than cigaret smoking.”
^ The three antiwar groups (Women for Peace, the
GI Assn., and the Resistance) are basing their
appeal for antimilitary advertisements on the
1967 ruling by the FCC requiring stations carrying
cigaret ads to also carry anticigaret announcements.
“Under the FCC fairness doctrine, stations that
present one side of the controversial issue must
provide a reasonable opportunity for the oppos
ing side,” Jelinek notes.
VIETNAM WAR IMMORAL
“We’re saying that contrary to World War II,
the Vietnam war is immoral and not in the inter
est of the country—that it’s not worth sacrificing
your health and life and compromising moral prin
ciples for.”
In all, the anti-war groups last month petitioned
27 radio and television stations here, all of whom
they allege broadcast free recruitment advertise
ments urging young men to join the Army, Navy,
Marines or Air Force, with no mention of the
availability of deferments from the draft.
NO SPOTS RUN YET
So far, 15 stations have replied, none of them
agreeing to run antiwar announcements. Some of
these have replied that their news departments
sufficiently provide the “other side” of the contro
versy.
If the stations refuse to run the announcements,
and Jelinek concedes most will, the antiwar groups
will take their case to the FCC and then, if neces
sary to federal court.
Justice on trial along with Chicago Seven
By RICHARD T. COOPER
The Los Angeles Times
CHICAGO—After more than three months of sound
and fury filling 10,000 pages of transcript, the Conspiracy
Seven trial has become a troubling monument to the
frailties of justice.
The trial, involving seven antiwar leaders accused of
conspiracy to incite riots at the 1968 Democratic National
Convention, has posed an elementary test for any crimi
nal justice system: its capacity to deal fairly with de
fendants who scorn it.
At the same time, this is the first court test of the fed
eral antiriot conspiracy statute, a law so broadly drafted
that some legal experts fear it may be used to stifle
dissent.
And the fact that several defendants are nationally
prominent militants has given unusual weight to the legal
maxim that justice "must not only be done but must be
seen to have been done.”
If young activists across the country conclude their
leaders have been “railroaded,” the cost in greater mili
tancy and distrust could outweigh any benefits the gov
ernment might get from convictions.
ALL ON TRIAL
Thus it was inevitable that the proceedings here be
fore U.S. Dist. Court Judge Julius Hoffman would place
on trial not only the seven protestors and their causes,
but also the government, the court and “the svstem"
itself.
From the beginning, the government has employed a
style of invective against defense lawyers and their
clients.
Within the first hour of the opening session Sept. 24,
during legal arguments over the absence of several de
fense counsels, U.S. Attorney Thomas Foran angrily
shouted that the counsels’ behavior was “so incredibly
irresponsible and unprofessional it would be unbeliev
able if it was not consistent with so much of their
conduct.”
Prosecutors also have appeared several times to be
ridiculing defendants before the jury—mispronouncing
their names, for example, even weeks after the trial had
begun and the correct pronunciations had been ex
plained repeatedly.
Unusual concern with security has further intruded on
the customary judicial atmosphere. As many as 20 U.S.
Marshals are stationed inside the courtroom every day
and large numbers of police are deployed outside the
building whenever pro-defense demonstrations are held.
SEARCHES CONDUCTED AT DOOR
Spectators and some members of the defense staff
are searched as they enter the courtroom. All persons
visiting any office in the federal building must explain
themselves to police; purses, briefcases and packages
are examined.
P«9« 12
The defense has protested the “armed camp” at
mosphere.
In the view of many observers, Judge Hoffman has
often appeared as antagonistic as the government. He
has lectured defense attorneys William Kunsler of New
York and Leonard Weinglass of Newark, N.J., on legal
technicalities and interpreted their legal motions as
personal attacks.
Like the prosecutors, Hoffman has often mispronounced
names of defendants and their lawyers. David Dellinger
has been referred to as “Mr. Dillinger” and “Mr. Der
ringer.” Weinglass often is called “Weintraub” by the
judge.
DEFENSE LAWYERS BELITTLED
While Hoffman has praised and defended the govern
ment lawyers, he has spoken to defense lawyers in ways
they consider belittling.
During an early sesison, Weinglass thanked a prospec
tive juror for admitting bias. Hoffman rebuked him. “We
Analysis
don’t do that here,” the judge said, “maybe they do in
Newark.”
On another occasion Weinglass routinely told a wit
ness to take his time examining a document before testi
fying about it. Hoffman snapped at Weinglass, “I’m to
have nothing to say about how much time? You will de
cide that? Please don’t try to take over the court.”
Among lawyers in the federal courts here, Hoffman is
considered a master of trial law but also a partisan for
the government. "He uses technicalities to maneuver
people," an experienced trial lawyer said recently.
The unconventional, irreverent nature of the defend
ants obviously has offended the 74-year-old jurist.
Several times Hoffman has spoken from the bench on
the painfulness of his experience in the trial. “I don’t
deserve to be called what I was called,” he said once, "1
can't do anything about it but I don’t deserve it.”
"RACIST PIG"
Unquestionably the court has been treated with con
tempt. Hoffman has been called by several defendants
such things as a "racist pig," a “Fascist,” and a "liar.”
If their experiences in the courtroom have reduced the
defendants’ restraint, it is also true that most of them
were convinced from the beginning that they would be
convicted in something akin to the Soviet show trials.
Accordingly, at least some defendants decided to use
the proceedings to expose what they consider the sys
tem's corruption. The trial was seen as a new oppor
tunity to carry the gospel of revolt to young people.
They have flaunted their beards and boots, read their
underground newspapers and comic books in court and
laughed aloud at judge and prosecutor.
Technically, the seven are accused of joining together
with the intent to promote a riot at the convention and
with committing various overt acts, including interstate
travel, to further that intent.
In his opening statement to the jury, Assistant U.S.
Attorney Richard Schultz said the defendants had carried
out the alleged plan in three stages:
First, he said, the unpopularity of the Vietnam war
was used to assemble thousands of protestors in Chi
cago during the August convention.
Then, the mass of demonstrators was encouraged to
view city police with hostility and was conditioned to
resist the authorities.
Finally, Schultz asserted, the defendants planned to
create situations in which the preconditioned crowd
would confront policemen, refuse to obey them and thus
make violence inevitable.
Under the provisions of conspiracy law, the govern
ment need not prove all defendants were involved in,
or even knew about, all parts of the plan.
EACH RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ACTS
Once the trial judge decides prima facie evidence has
been presented that a conspiracy did exist, each de
fendant becomes responsible for the acts of every other
defendant.
Judge Hoffman made this determination near the end
of the government’s case.
More than 50 witnesses testified for the government,
with most of the critical testimony coming from police
undercover agents or paid informers.
In cross-examining government witnesses, defense
lawyers sought to emphasize the financial dependence
of paid informers and the potential bias of police agents.
Defendants acknowledge they promoted and led dem
onstrations during the convention but they dispute the
testimony of agents who say the seven plotted disrup
tion. Violence erupted or was provoked bv police and
city officials who refused to recognize the right to pro
test, the defense asserts.
JURY MUST DECIDE
Films, recordings and the testimony of many govern
ment witnesses have shown that Davis and other march
leaders frequently urged demonstrators to avoid violence
The prosecution contends, however, that these public
statements were meant only to mask the leaders’ true
purpose.
The jury, in the end. must choose between two versions
of history: The governments view of convention dis
orders as a radical plot and the defendants’ assertion
that repressive officials collided with ordinary citizens
exercising their constitutional rights
Los Angeles Times Washington Post News Service
Oregon Daily Emerald