Vietnam Veteran John Kerry Defends Amnesty in Debate

The former director of Vietnam Veterans Against the War said yesterday that the questionable legitimacy of the Vietnam War makes further punishment of those who refused to fight unthinkable.

The former director, John Kerry, participated in a debate here on the moral and political aspects of amnesty with Ernest van den Haag, professor of Social Philosophy at New York University and a writer for the National Review.

The debate was sponsored by the Harvard-Radcliffe George Washington Society, a group formed for the discussion of political philosophy.

Kerry said that the granting of amnesty would "elevate the values of compassion above those of hatred, fear and vengeance" and would "put the nation back on its pedestal of gentleness and goodness."

Van den Haag maintained that "the purpose of law is to supercede the individual conscience." Draft evaders, he said, must accept responsibility for their actions which conflict with their legal obligations.

Kerry said that the fear of a Communist takeoverin South Vietnam was not a valid worry for many people. "We can't make people fight who feel no threat," he said.

Van den Haag contended that a war, whether just or unjust, represents a decision made by the government; he said that those who reject that decision cannot expect to be welcomed back as soon as the war has ended. "People who violate the law must not profit from that violation," he said.

The government's concern should be with justice, van den Haag continued, not with charity. A general amnesty is "contrary to the spirit of democracy," he said.

Kerry asserted that the granting of amnesty does not deny a belief in the law. He said that the act would heal divisions within the country.

"Surely you cannot punish people for refusing to participate in a war which was not even worth the cost," Kerry said.