This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
adc
Lieutenant Bill Baker and Seaman Apprentice Joe Able are pseudonyms for two Navymen who petitioned in peacetime to be considered as conscientious objectors and discharged. The fact that one petitioner succeeded and one failed suggests a need for a more equitable policy—especially in light of the peacetime Presidential pardoning and forgiving of wartime deserters, draft dodgers, and other "higher law” practitioners.
From Section 1860120 of BuPers Manual comes the following, “No vested right exists for any member to be discharged from the Regular Navy or the Naval Reserve at his own request, even for conscientious objection, before the expiration of his term of service, whether he is serving voluntarily or involuntarily.” [Emphasis added.] Then follow nine pages setting forth in detail the procedure for attempting to determine whether a petitioner for conscientious objector status is bona fide.
The Navy’s view is that even though a sailor or officer has no right to special conscientious objector treatment, the service may extend the privilege of such treatment, even up to and including discharge.1
Conscientious objection is as old as mankind; however, it is only in this century that exemption or discharge from service on conscientious objection grounds has occurred in large enough numbers to warrant extensive policy consideration. World Wars I and II saw the emergence of the first large waves of COs. Most men did—and still do—decide that though war and killing are repugnant in the extreme, the protection of our country still requires the existence of capable military forces. By extension, it is honorable to serve in these organizations. But with the increasing sophistication of communications— books, films, and television—that show the errors and the horrors of war, “glory” ceased to exist as a motive. Moreover, the loosening of traditional fam-
'Supported by law: Brown v. McNamara, 263 F. Supp. 686 (DCNJ 1967).
ily, religious, and national mores tending to supp0fl the military reached a peak during the Vietn^ War. And the number of COs peaked too.
Even now, however, there is a continual flow 0 CO applications, though there are no war, no drfll and no societal pressure to perform military service' These applications come from young men women who voluntarily enlisted or entered into officer training program. Somewhere along the they decide that their consciences will no lon£ef permit them to serve out the remainder of their e0iv tract, so they petition for discharge.
As a first step, the commanding officer of the Pf0’ fessed conscientious objector assigns an officer can even be an inactive reserve officer—of the gtv of lieutenant commander or above (or a lieutenant no higher grade is readily available) as a one-m1'11 investigating board. As the BuPers Manual pointed stresses, the hearing of the petitioner is not an adv^ sary proceeding, has no restrictions whatever on ^ source or nature of evidence presented, and perm>tS the investigating officer no discretion as to the suin' bility of the petitioner for naval service or his valuet0 the service.
In short, the knotty question facing the investigat ing officer is solely: “Is this petitioner a bona ^ conscientious objector?” And the test is: “Is his cl sincere and are his beliefs deeply held?” Because tnc investigating officer’s report and recommendation arC rarely reversed except in cases of improper procedut£'
his decision is usually tantamount to the verdict 0 the Chief of Naval Personnel. Here are some of ground rules that emerge from the regulations an0 applicable court cases:
^ Belief in God not necessary. A deeply held moral 0< ethical belief that governs one’s life as would rd1' gious principles is acceptable.
► Political views do not qualify. Deep and sincere lief that a specific war or national course of action lS wrong is not conscientious objection.
► Recommendation based on entire record. In addition t0 material presented at the hearing, the investigating officer may consider any other matters he feels
on the case.
n&
a
► Circumstantial evidence acceptable. Facts and circumstances that reasonably imply existence or absence of sincerity and depth of conviction may be considered and evaluated by the investigating officer.
► Petitioner’s history and past conduct applicable. The timing of an application relative to an unwanted assignment and a long lapse between profession of such beliefs and the submission of the application are examples of historical patterns that should be considered.
► Opposition to killing insufficient. Believing that the Navy is an organization devoted to killing or murder is, of itself, not enough.
► Life must be directed by claimed beliefs. To quote the manual, “. . . the belief upon which conscientious objection is based must be the primary controlling force in the applicant’s life.”
► Church’s tenets not sufficient. If a petitioner’s church advocates conscientious objection, membership does not (of itself) show the petitioner to be a true conscientious objector.
► Religious activity germane. Where the petitioner relates his claim to teachings of his church, inquiry may properly be made into those teachings and the petitioner’s religious activity.
► Word and deed important. Beliefs that are sincerely held should normally govern the petitioner’s actions in both word and deed.
► Burden of proof. As grounds for separation or assignment to noncombatant service, conscientious objection has to be established by the petitioner.
With those guidelines under our caps, let’s look at two actual cases. There has been only enough alteration of non-vital details to disguise the petitioners’ identities and protect their privacy.
Seaman Apprentice Joe Able enlisted in the Naval Reserve in mid-1972. At the time, he was 21 years old and attending college. Within a few weeks, he was given recruit training and then sent aboard ship for several months of active duty. Early in 1973, he was returned to inactive duty to serve out the remainder of his six years through mid-1978 by attending monthly weekend drills at a reserve center. His performance marks while on active duty averaged 3.8.
The reserve center immediately transferred Able right back to the selected reserve component of the very ship in which he had just finished his active duty. (This was done simply because the ship was short of reservists at the time and Able was one of a number who were eligible for such transfer.)
Near the end of 1973, Able was transferred to a surface division, where he remained until March
1976. During this two and one-half-year period, was twice sent letters warning him that his attefl' dance was unsatisfactory, but each time he came for makeup drills. His performance marks continue to be good to excellent.
At the beginning of April 1976, Able was issue orders back to the reserve training ship in which hc had served in 1972 and 1973. He immediately suh' mitted an application for discharge from the Navy °n grounds of medical unfitness, i.e., mental and etn°' tional disturbances. To bolster this claim he sub mitted documents from a civilian psychiatrist and h|S minister. He also ceased attending drills and was not seen again at either the reserve center or the ship
The reserve center sent him several letters an' set the wheels in motion to send him on 27 day5 involuntary active duty. He continued to be absen1' In September 1976, his application for medical dlS charge was returned, disapproved. The reserve cer>tet immediately mailed Able a notification of intent send him on involuntary active duty.
Eleven days later, the reserve center received ;l11 application from Able to be considered as a conscien tious objector and discharged. Though received 1 days after the center had mailed Able the notice 0 pending involuntary duty assignment, Abie’s apP^1 cation was dated three days before the notice was sen1- His petition contained the following pertinen1 statements or claims:
► His beliefs stem from his early life, his religi°uS training, and from his everyday experiences tvi^1 basic human rights.
► He believes in the sacredness of human life an1 that his participation in any way in an organizati01’ devoted even in part to the making of war is sin*u and against the Bible’s teachings.
► The Navy, he believes, aims for victory through killing during wartime and, in peacetime, by prepar" ing for that killing, which violates a sacred con1 mandment of God.
► He was raised in a churchgoing family and re ceived religious training in a church school for mOst of his life. During his first years in college, he in' tended to become a minister, though he later became more interested in sociology and decided to become*1 professional songwriter.
► During his four and one-half years in the reserve' he became progressively more frustrated and agitate1 at the thought of being a part of an organization pre' paring for war. This led to crying jags, deep depre5' sions, and emotional upsets that made him incapable of normal responses to other people.
► The transfer back to the ship brought his feel inf5 acutely to the surface and his counselings with h15
It
1-
n
i
Psychiatrist and minister made him realize that participation in the Navy was the reason for his mental
Isturbances.
During the next six months, he came to realize
at these feelings were really conscientious objection.
^ He believes that violence in any form is wrong and C'*n never be justified morally or religiously. If attacked, he would not defend himself if violence were
Required.
He belongs to no other organizations besides the aval Reserve and his church.
Dn the day of the hearing, Able appeared with his attorney and minister. Also present were a Judge
Ad'
the
v°cate General’s Corps officer as legal advisor to
. Investigating officer and, if desired, to the peti-
. °ner as well. In addition, a Navy chaplain who had
^terviewed Able prior to the hearing (a requirement
che BuPers Manual) was on hand.
Records and documents available to all parties in-
ded Abie’s service and medical jackets, the chap- lain’c „ • . . r • •
b4 written interview report, a report ot interview
y a Navy psychiatrict (another manual require-
enH> and a copy of the manual.
The Hearing: The investigating officer read to Able . ^ had him sign) certain statements relating to his ^fhts; possible loss of benefits, the investigating of- bCers qualifications, and the procedure that would be hollowed. He then swore in Able and his minister, i 6Cause the manual requires that any oral testimony e under oath.
The investigating officer then asked the following ^Uestions of Able, receiving the answers indicated:
Q- “Are you willing to perform alternative service py' ah°urd an armed ship or aircraft in a combat zone,
6vided you are not personally and directly involved in the Nation of weapons?"
A- “No.”
t- Q- “. . . in any other assignment, the primary func- ,n°f which does not require the use of arms in combat, n'ided that such other assignment is acceptable to you
does not require you to bear arms or to be trained in ‘heir use?„ * '
A- “No.”
Q- “• . . as a member of the medical department of °f the armed forces?"
A- “No.”
Q- “. . . as a member of any unit of the armed forces Ich is unarmed at all times?"
A- “No."
• Q- Please state, then, exactly what you are request-
A. “Discharge and complete severance from the naval service.”
The investigating officer then asked Able to present his case in any manner he desired. Abie’s attorney, a specialist in CO cases, requested that he present the case by asking a series of questions of Able and his minister. The significant questions and answers follow.
(Attorney to Able)
Q. “Why did you enlist?”
A. “I was eligible for the draft and wanted to avoid Army service, as my brother, just back from Vietnam, influenced me against it. Also, my school plans were best satisfied by the Naval Reserve route.”
Q. “Did you hold the beliefs then you now hold?"
A. “They began in ‘boot camp’ . . . deep emotional upset, stomach churnings, difficulty in dealing with people.”
Q. “Did you then understand what caused those feelings?"
A. “No.”
Q. “When did you have your first problems attending drills?"
A. “In April 1976, when I was ordered aboard ship.”
Q. “At that time, did you apply for discharge?"
A. “Yes, because I couldn’t handle emotional matters aboard ship.”
Q “What was the result?”
A. “Denied.”
Q. “Is your current CO application an expedient to
separate?”
A. “No. It would be simpler to say I am a homosexual or a bedwetter.”
Q. “When did you realize your emotional problems were tied to conscientious objection?”
A. “When I talked with my minister. I can’t say precisely when, but it was recently that I realized.” Q. “What are your religious beliefs?”
A. “I am a sinner because I’m in the reserve, which is part of an organization existing to kill people. I live according to Christ’s teachings, as much as I can.”
Q. “How long have you known your minister?"
A. “Three years.”
Q. “Is physical force justified in any circumstances?” A. “No.”
Q. “How about if a loved one is attacked?”
A. “I would try to restrain the attacker, but without violence to him.”
Q. "And if you couldn't restrain him?"
A. “I’d do my best to control him, but without the use of force.”
Q. “Have -you had to use self-defense in the past three- four years?”
A. “No.”
Q. “Do you hunt, fish, have a gun, are you a vegetarian?”
A. “No.”
Q. “Why not serve in a noncombatant role, or as a medic?”
A. “I would then be approving of war.”
Q. In a general mobilization or World War 11-type situation, isn’t it your patriotic duty to serve?”
A. “No.”
Q. “If ordered to alternative civilian service, would you do so?”
A. “Not if it supports the military.”
Q. “How about a state hospital?"
A. “Yes, but not if it admits military personnel, and not a military hospital.”
Q. “Have you performed any hazardous duty and do you fear it?”
A. “Yes, I had to load guns on board ship. No, I don’t fear hazardous duty.”
Q. “If this petition is disapproved and you are not discharged, what will you do?”
A. “I’ll go AWOL—'over the hill’.”
Q. “Why go AWOL instead of claiming something else that might work?"
A. “I choose this harder route because I’m honest, and this shows my sincerity.”
The attorney here requested copies of the reports of interview by the Navy chaplain and psychiatrist, and they were given him to read with Able. The psychiatrist’s report, based on a one-time encounter of ten minutes or so a few weeks earlier, simply stated that the doctor could find no sign of mental illness, nervous disability, or lack of alertness and orientation. The chaplain’s report, based on an hour’s conversation with Able the previous week, was more extensive and more definite in opinion. The chaplain had queried Able on a variety of tenets of his church, which by coincidence was the same faith in which the chaplain was ordained. He also asked a broad range of questions about general Bible knowledge and about Abie’s religious feelings as related to Christ’s teachings.
The chaplain noted that Able knew practically nothing about the persons involved in the peace movement, except the names of Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesse Jackson. He had never studied any course or tract on nonviolence; nor had he attended any meetings of or joined any pacifist or non-violence organization. Neither had Able written any letter or article on nonviolence or conscientious objection, or picketed, protested, or 1° any other way taken a specific action in favor of nof>" violence.
Also, the chaplain pointed out, Able was woeful ignorant of well-known biblical items, such as th£ parables, the names of the books of the Bible, mcl' dents in Christ’s life, etc. His knowledge of the baslC tenets of his own church was extremely scanty. In the opinion of the chaplain, this knowledge was mutt1 less than would be expected of the average churd1 member, especially in view of Abie’s statement tfr11 he was a regular church attender and had take11 courses in religion in college.
After conferring with his client, Abie’s attornd stipulated that the psychiatric report was acceptabk though not meaningful and that the chaplain’s re' port was ambiguous and based on insufficient pef' sonal knowledge of the petitioner. He then resume“ questioning of Able.
(Attorney to Able)
Q. “Did you base your beliefs on Gandhi, King, l,r I Jackson?”
A. “No.”
Q. “Will you waive the priest-penitent privilege [sin11' lar to doctor-patient and attorney-client privilege]19 allow your minister to testify?”
A. “Yes.”
(Attorney to minister)
Q. “What are his beliefs? How have they changed?
A. “He’s a nice guy in church, involved in work' ing with children. He was kind of a loner. I tried t0 get him to socialize and introduced him to girls, but he seemed a withdrawing type. My parents— father is a minister, too—thought he was retarde emotionally. Christmas of ’73, we invited him t0 stay in the parsonage, as he was away from home' Whenever Navy weekend was near, he’d close h|S door and withdraw. Bizarre. When he moved out,J year later, I suggested psychiatric help. In April 0 ’76, when he received orders to the ship, he came 1(1 sobbing, all broken up. I tried to find a way t0 help.”
Q. “In April, was he becoming more of a conscientious objector?”
A. “Yes.”
Q. “After April, how did you counsel him? Did talk about the Bible?”
A. “More on the meaning and philosophy of tbe scriptures.”
Q. “Is Able a biblical scholar?”
A. “No. He doesn’t know many verses. When, & a boy, they tried to force him to memorize verses, ran away from home for three days. But, in di5' agreement with the chaplain’s report, I must insb1
t0 tu “ '
>Ine reserve center commanding officer about my
nfis, and it was then I first realized what the true
“iis;
t*lat he is very honest, truthful, and sincere about his re *gious beliefs.”
Q. “Were these emotional problems in April an uncon- Cl0Ils expression of conscientious objector feelings?”
A' Yes. These were his ways of expressing his j.1 Osophy. He is a very private person, not given to lsplay. He is motivated by love, and Christ is his rriodel for living.”
nvest>gating officer to minister)
Q- ‘Are you professionally qualified as a psychological COunselor?”
A- "Yes.”
Q- “Are Abie’s problems emotional or psychological?
A- It’s semantics. I prefer the term ‘emotional.’” nv^tigating officer to Able)
V- ‘Do you consider you have emotional problems?”
A- "Yes.”
Q' “With whom else have you discussed your conscien- °Us Ejector feelings?”
_^A- No one but my minister’s family. I don’t talk Personal things unless someone is very close to
Q- ‘Have you discussed this with your parents?”
A; No, they’d be embarrassed to learn of my CO P‘cation, especially my brother and sister.”
N- How committed are you to your CO ideas?”
A' “Totally.”
the' ^'ou^ y°u refuse t0 pay Part or °f your taxes>
A- No, because you can’t avoid it. The govern- c will take it away from you anyway, somehow.” What is a sin?”
• A violation of Christ’s teachings.”
Y ■ How do you resolve breaking the oath you took on Wing?”
j A- My greater duty is towards my fellow man. If k ^‘stakenly took an oath to commit what I now 0^<Av ‘s a sin, it would be a worse sin to follow that
• I will be forgiven for not doing so.”
0rrj‘ Phis whole thing came to a head when you were erfd back to the ship, is that right?”
A- "Yes.”
^ N- “Then without that transfer order having occurred, Probably wouldn’t be here today, is that right?”
' I guess so. When I got those orders, I talked
feeli
^‘on of the Reserve is. To kill.” oh /■ “Tut your beliefs didn’t jell enough for you to make Ration for CO status until six months later?” j p • I was counseling with my minister, and when ; InaIly realized I was a conscientious objector, I a ^diatdy called an attorney and submitted my ^•'cation.”
Q. “If l fell injured to the deck right now, would you refuse to help me simply because I wear a uniform?”
A. “[With some hesitation] Yes, I couldn’t help you.”
Q. “How do you reconcile first applying for a medical discharge in April, and then applying for CO status in September, only after the medical was disapproved? Why didn't you withdraw your medical application in the interim and substitute a CO petition ivhen you understood your true feelings?”
A. “Each application was an accurate reflection of my feelings at the time. 1 only recently came to a full understanding of them.”
Q. “Do you agree that your ability to enjoy the fruits of existence in this country, including your ability to be here making this application, exists at least partly because others who may find war equally loathsome are still willing to perform the service you wish to avoid?”
A. “Yes.”
Q. “Then how do you reconcile that if you are excused from having to do an unpleasant or hated duty, it will be at the cost of others having to do it for you?”
A. “I am happy that there are others who can reconcile it with their consciences and serve. I can’t reconcile it with my conscience.”
Q. “Is there anything at all that you've said or written to others that tends to show how your feelings have affected your life, or changed it?”
A. “Well, I’ve submitted this application, laying myself open to abuse and dislike from others who may learn of it. That’s one indication. And there are my songs. Here are copies of ten of them.”
After Able had read the lyrics of one of his songs into the record, there were no more questions anyone desired to ask or testimony anyone wished to offer, so the hearing was concluded. During the next two weeks, the investigating officer reviewed the evidence and applicable legal precedents. Then he wrote his report, sending a copy to Seaman Apprentice Able for attachment of any comments, a requirement of the BuPers Manual. The report was then forwarded to the Chief of Naval Personnel for final decision.
The next page contains a summary of the investigating officer’s reasoning, followed by his recommendation. Before turning the page, consider what your own recommendation would be, and why. The ground rules here are that (1) the recommendation must be justified, (2) the justification must be based on material contained in the report of hearing, and (3) no consideration can be given to whether you think that SA Able is or is not a useful person for the Navy to have in its ranks, or whether Able will be better off in or out of the Navy.
dif
ferences were that Dr. Baker did not stress his gious feelings or his formal ties with the church, a(1 he did provide a much more comprehensive dod mentation of words and actions tending to prove h1 contention that from about a year after his comfld sioning in 1969, he had found his entire life c°° trolled by conscientious objector feelings.
In answering questions about his feelings,
Reasoning and Recommendation: The investigating officer felt that Able showed no history of conscientious objector-type activities prior to submitting his petition. He talked with no one but his minister’s family about his feelings. He joined no groups, made no speeches, wrote no articles. He did write songs, but these, the investigating officer judged, showed evidence of fantasy and escapism and emotional confusion rather than conscientious objection.
Able was also unable to point to any week or month in which his feelings crystallized into conscientious objection. He was unable to explain, to the investigating officer’s satisfaction, the peculiar coincidence in time between receipt of notification of disapproval of the medical discharge application, the notice of impending involuntary active duty, and his immediate submission of a CO petition.
Abie’s philosophy, which the BuPers Manual says should govern his entire life, was not explained beyond his statement that killing was wrong. He showed no logical chain of thought connecting his premise that killing was wrong and his conclusions, such as that helping a wounded serviceman was sinful and that it was all right for him to avoid service while still enjoying the benefits of others protecting him through their service. Also, his intention of running away if denied CO status was a much less strong position than if he had stated his willingness to go to jail for his principles.
The investigating officer noted that Abie’s thoughts appeared to be heavily influenced by the counsel of his minister over a long and intimate relationship. There was no balancing of views provided by counsel from others. In view of Abie’s demonstrated tendencies toward fantasy and escape, he seemed particularly susceptible to the opinions of others where avoidance of unpleasant encounters was involved. Thus, he avoided the Army because of his brother’s opinions. He refused to confide his feelings to his family because they would, he thought, disapprove. He ran away from home to avoid the unpleasantness of learning Bible verses. He eagerly accepted his minister’s shelter and counseling to avoid further service.
The background necessary for a mature development of a sincerely and deeply felt philosophy was missing. Able had not studied the words of those who had been active in pacifist or nonviolence activities and causes. He was also unusually ignorant in his own religious persuasion that he used as one basis for his claim. Finally, the words and actions of Able did not tend to show a pattern of belief justifying conscientious objector status. They did, however, show another pattern—flight from unpleasantness.
The investigating officer concluded that thoug Able was emotionally confused and unstable, he ",l' not a conscientious objector as defined by the BuP^ Manual and applicable law. He therefore reC ommended the petition be denied.
Another case: To show how another applicant suc ceeded where Able failed, let’s look at a much briefer set of facts. We’ll skip the details and just exam>flt the meat. .
Lieutenant Bill Baker, Medical Corps, U. S. Nava Reserve, made much the same application in 1973 &
Seaman Apprentice Able did in 1976. The major hi*
statements were surprisingly similar to those of Abl£ He would not participate in a noncombatant biHet' nor would he render aid to military personnel, as d11 would be assisting and condoning a military eff°ft Like Able, he would agree to perform civilian set' ice, but only if there were absolutely no connect!011 with anything military.
Though Baker follows his faith moderately aI1 recognizes that his religious teachings include commandment not to kill, he based his petition °f personal ethics and moral philosophy. These dev° oped between 1970 and 1973, coming to full h° ition during a tour of duty on a Pacific island. ing these three years, he consulted with many Pet sons on the matter, and he participated in both fotj mal and informal gatherings devoted to peace a° nonviolence.
In his search for understanding, he sought out a0 consulted with Jews, Catholics, Hindus, BuddhistS’ Sikhs, Moslems, Polynesians, and others. As e'[ dence in the hearing, he presented a coherent, thought-out, typed document of 36 pages settif*' 1 forth his ideas, ideals, and philosophy. Appended 11 it were letters from doctors, friends, and organic tions with whom he had talked and worked over d1* past several years. All supported, in detail, his cla'11 to being a conscientious objector.
The interviews with a Navy chaplain and psych1*1 trist were highly favorable to his claim, both reed11 mending that it be approved. All of these do^ ments, from all of these diverse people, supported |f their various styles of language and their varid1 viewpoints the claims of the doctor, claims that
hard
to improve on, it would be difficult for most
P.ersons to decide differently than did the two inves- ^gating officers.
^ere Baker’s ideas about the wrongness of service any tnore or less correct than Abie’s almost identical eas? That’s impossible to say, because the very existence of conscientious objection as a course of ac- tl°n for some implies that, for some, it is “correct,” "jhile for others it is “not correct.” There is no ear-cut answer at this time as to the rightness or Wrongness of being a member of a military organiza- tlon. Under our system, it is more or less presumed tight” for everybody, except that we also offer e privilege to individuals to try to prove that for e,r unique cases it is “wrong” for them.
^ete the investigating officer’s judgments in both C,lSes the right ones? Who can tell? The two judg- ^ents followed the rules laid down for the proce- Ure- The investigating officers did their homework
tried to find whatever truth could be found, and then ho
Se,
At
Presented in full development and detail.
The investigating officer recommended without citation that the doctor be considered a bona fide c°nscientious objector and released immediately from ,lctive service and any further service obligation. He ftas easily able to justify this recommendation fully.
Some Questions to Ponder: Was Baker any more in- ^nse in his feelings than was Able? Possibly not. et> under the procedure, which seems both fair and
exercised their best judgment. Two things, "■’ever, are sure. First, a judgment had to be made. c°nd, the burden of proof was on the applicant.
in the end, it all came down to the fact that °ne man had to convince another that his feelings ^ere sincere and so deeply held that they had become e eontrolling force in the petitioner’s life.
One applicant succeeded, and one applicant failed. h°se two cases are finished, but tomorrow there be another hearing somewhere, with two other ^en facing each other across a table strewn with °cuments, one trying to convince the other of his ^ncerity. And here, now, comes the really big prob- rn> for which there are no provisions in BuPers anual or the files of court cases.
. those future cases, the applicants and the inves- '‘gating officers will come to the hearings knowing ,at many deserters and draft dodgers have been for- k.1Ven or pardoned for their unlawful actions taken in tlrne of war. How, they will wonder, can that be rec- °nciled with the denial of a petition from a man in time of peace, wishes only to exercise his law- U privilege of following the dictates of his con- SC|cnce, when there is no immediate present danger
to the country and there are others, volunteers, who will step in to take his place in the ranks?
The conscientious objector problem today is complicated by three “Pandora’s boxes" that we have opened in the past four decades. The first was opened at the Nuremberg trials, when we condemned military personnel for lacking sufficiently strong consciences to refuse to follow orders they thought both unlawful and immoral.
The second box was opened recently by two Presidents who have said, in effect, that citizens and soldiers who did follow their consciences by refusing orders they thought unlawful and immoral were wrong. But ... we forgive them, now that war is over.
The lid on box number three is rising. We now say that if you think the military is wrong so far as you personally are concerned, but you don’t want to refuse to follow orders (though Nuremberg prescribed such refusal), or to run away (which our Presidents say is wrong, but forgivable later), then your only choice is to plead conscientious objection. If you can prove it, fine. If not, then you are confounded by the war trials and the Presidential pardons, and you become an extremely unhappy citizen.
We cannot have it all ways at once. This trichotomy promises severe problems for us, especially in the event of another national emergency requiring rapid enlargement of our armed forces. Let us hope that no such emergency arises until a new policy is written. That policy must be firm, clear, and applicable to all at all times, stating what our duty is to the services, what it is to our consciences, and when one shall prevail over the other.
Captain McIntosh graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1951 and served in destroyers and amphibious ships through 1955. Attending Harvard Business School, he received a master of business administration in 1957 and moved to Pacific Palisades, California, where he is a partner in the technical advertising firm of McIntosh & Blatherwick. A member of the Naval Reserve since his release from active duty, Captain McIntosh retired on 1 June 1977. In late 1976 and early 1977, he served as investigating officer in a conscientious objector case of some complexity, during which he was faced with some of the moral and legal questions that inspired this article.