One of the most encouraging developments over the past two years has been the
growth in the United States of an organized opposition to the government's
dirty war in Vietnam, That this opposition has found response among the ad-
vanced elements of the black people in the U.S. should inspire people anew.
Two young black men in Los Angeles have refused to obey an order to be in-
ducted into the U.S. Army. Karl Van Key and Norman Earl Richmond have cha-
llenged the right of the American government to draft negroes on the basis
that they are not citizens but colonial subjects. The suit they have filed
also charges that the war in Vietnam is illefal and contrary to United
States laws and treaty obligations,
Key and Richmond's original petition states, "Petitioners were born in the
United States of America and are members of the colored race... In harmony
with the views and purposes of the Self Determination Committee (of which
both are members) petitioners are of the belief, based upon the actual and
real relations subsisting between the colored and white people in the United
States, that the colored petitioners, are not citizens of the United States
but colonial subjects thereof...
"By virtue thereof, petitioners believe and allege that the order of induc-
tion as addressed to them, placing upon them burdens which erroneously ass-
ume their position as citizens of the United States is a violation of the
equal protection and due process clause of the Constitution of the United
States...(and was) issued solely in furtherance of the military actions of
the officers of the United States...in Vietnam.
"The said military actions, are unlawful in that they are in violation of the
Constitution of the United States, the treaty obligations of the United
States, including the Charter of the United Nations, and the law of nations
and said induction order is accordingly itself unlawful. The purpose of
said military actions is a colonial suppression and subjugation of a simi-
arly unorganized non-white people, and similar denial of self-determination
to thems also containment of an idea, for private and not for public benefit;
and wholly beyond the war-making power guaranteed under the constitution..."
Richmond testified at his hearing, "They (the Vietnamese) have a common
bondage with the Negro and a common suffering, both from the white man, I
don't see why I should be there. I am fighting for the same thing they are
fighting for -- freedom and self-determination."
The government is worried about the effects that this case may have in the
Black ghettos nationally and is attempting to have the appeal dismissed, so
far unsuccessfully. But despite intimidation and other difficulties the under-
current of Negro resentment at being drafted for the Vietnam war while be-
ing denied rights at home is steadily coming to the surface, "Bringing it
211 home," in the words of Karl Ven Key, "I have and obligation to Black
people in America, If I pive my life it will be for Black people in America"
NOTE: They stood trial Monday, Feb. 27, '67. Results were not available at
press time. Statements of solidarity and/or contributions to P.0. Box
37028, Los Angeles, California 90037.
Book Review: “From Yalta to Vietnam" Harold K.. Holt
by David Horowitz. Penguin Special 10/64. David Horowitz has written a magnificent book. The work of a scholar; fully documented, rich in relevant quotation, complete with notes, index and chrenological tables, yet completely free of jargon or pedantry. It might well be sub-titled “Everyman's Guide through the post-war political madhouse," for as the story unfolds, concise, factual, unadorned, from Yalta to Vietnam, the reader hes the experience of living through a nightmare or surrealist world, peopled with ghouls and schizophrenics bearing cardboard banners "Leaders of the Free World" "Our problem has been that we expect the veice of terror to be frenzied, and that ef madness irrational. It is quite the contrary in a world where genial, middle-aged Generals consult with precise social scientists about the parameters of the death equation, and the problem of its maximisation. The most rational, orderly, disciplined minds of our time are working long hours in our most efficient laboratories, at the task of eliminating us.' In the spring of 1962, stewart L. Pitman, Assistant Secretary of Defence indicated that “under the most severe type of nuclear attack foreseeable in the late gixties or early Seventies," 110 million Americans would prabably die from heat, blast or immediate radiation close to the explesions. In addition, 4O million to 55 millions probably would die if they lacked protection, but would survive if they were in fall-out shelters. Perhaps as many as 35 milliens would survive without protection because they were out of range sf the explosiens or fall-out patterns. "Thus," Mr. Pitman said, "enough persons ceuld live to ensure the survival of the United States as a nation." He omits to tell us how much respect for the individual, for law, for democratic processes of government, for orderly processes of social change would remain after a nuclear war in which 110 million died. These macabre situations are the legical results of the cold war. But hewdid the ccld war begin ? Not, as we are so often told, because of the ruthlessness and duplicity of Stalin er the intransigence of Russia, So anxieus, indeed, was Stalin to keep his agreements and maintain good relations with the West that he stood by while British forces broke the back of the Communist-dominated Greek resistance movement, and later restored the menarchy in Greece. In Yugoslavia he disparaged Tito's partisans, extolled the counter-revolutionary Chetniks of Mikhailovich and, later, tried to make Tito agree to the restcration of the monarchy and a British occupation. The break came following the first successful atomic bomb test at Alamogordo: it came because the United States no longer needed the Russian co-operation. Secretary of State Byrnes ‘adopted a position cf intransigence.’ His tough line was supported by John Foster Dulles. Truman announced that there would be no more Big Three Meetings. Bernard Baruch stated “America can get what she wants if she insists on it. After all, we've got it - the bomb - and they ls ven't and wn'thave for a long time to come" And so on, to Iran, Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala ... the fantastic arms expenditure, the sordid mis-representatiens, the pre-occupation with “positions of strength", with missile "gaps" that did not exist; the rejection of advice of men like Cordell Hull, Henry Wallace, Walter Livpmann, the rise of obsessicnal anti-Soviets such as Dulles, Vandenberg, Harriman, In this book we have the indictment of a nation: we should get it in large numbers to the man in the street.