“Peace and War in the Heartland: What has history taught us

“Peace and War in the Heartland”

The 1970-1971 trials of “The Minnesota 8”

Selective Service Draft Board Raiders

Academic Themes

The Selective Service draft board raids and the trials can be of interest to various academic disciplines. See, "Public Events" at Peace & War In The Heartland

From 1967-1971 a wave of draft board raids hit the Selective Service System. (See, www.minnesota8.net, bottom navigation bar, “Timelines”). In many places, these raids crippled draft operations for six months or more. It was the age of paper based carbon copies, and it was extremely rare for a draft board to have backup files. The raiders focused on the “1-A” files because those identified young men about to be drafted. Once destroyed, it was up to an individual to make a conscious moral choice to re-register.

The raiding actions, themselves, were the practical outcome of diverse but interlocking moral, historical, political, cultural, etc., analyses. The trials, likewise, put on the table a range of interpretations drawn from a broad spectrum of intellectual and moral positions.

If there is one humorous theme, it is that the Minnesota 8, among themselves, rarely agreed on anything, except raiding draft boards.

“Outlaw or American Patriot?” (see the “Writings” link on the bottom navigation bar of www.minnesota8.net) contains trial excerpts, newspaper clippings, interviews with mothers of the 8, witness testimony, wartime letters from WWII, and quotes from the key evidentiary documents, those of Vatican Council II and Pope John XXIII.

Background

The 1970s trials serve as an anchor to the general discussion of “What has history taught us?” Since President Harry Truman authorized the peace-time draft, America has defined itself as at war: cold or hot war. What have we Americans learned about ourselves during this timeframe?

The raids of the Minnesota 8 were extreme acts. They were consciously and intentionally illegal acts and, equally, symbolic nonviolent acts. They were acts of public speech. They were acts of outraged citizens (Vox Populi). Significantly, in each of the three trials, their speech was suppressed. They were forbidden to talk about the war, nonviolence, their moral traditions, interpretations of American history, advance a legal defense, or anything that spoke to motivation or intent. From the court’s perspective, the 8 were simply burglars. This is a critical controlling point to any discussion, academic or otherwise. In short, the Minnesota 8 were rendered juridically “voiceless.”

However you react to the social, political, moral, etc., interpretations of the Minnesota 8, you must ask, Why didn’t the courts listen to their arguments? Here’s the fine point. In draft resistance cases, the courts would not allow any legal defense. The defendants could take the witness stand and talk until they were blue in the face. Then the judge would instruct the jury to ignore any mention of the war, criticism of the government, etc. Witnesses were allowed only as character witnesses. The judge would stress that “motivation or intent” was not acceptable as a justification for an illegal action. (Humorously, were the 8 involved in the black-market trading of stolen 1-A files?)

Amazingly, in one case, Kroncke and Therriault before Judge Neville, a defense – the “Defense of Necessity” – was allowed. Thirteen witnesses were called. Kroncke went pro se and made Opening and Closing Arguments. However, in his final instructions, the judge told the jury that everything they had been hearing for the last week was “irrelevant and immaterial.” Poof! Voiceless, again. So, no jury ever had the opportunity to hear and evaluate the analyses and interpretations of any of the draft raiders. The overriding question drawn from this judicial avoidance is, again, “Why?” Or, re-framed, “What were the Minnesota 8 saying that the judge feared the jury would hear?” And in so hearing, possibly rule in their favor.

Here is what might have been feared: In the Kroncke-Therriault trial, the jury was split six-six. After two hours of deliberation, the jurors returned and asked whether they could read the documents entered that were the foundation for K and T’s moral and spiritual justifications for the illegal actions. (“The Documents of Vatican Council II,” and “Pacem in Terris.”) The judge had to say, quite vociferously and sternly, “No! You cannot read …” This was one incident that provides a possible answer to the Why question. It is that the jurors (Vox Populi) might hear what the judge/government does not want them to hear. If they did hear (as these jurors did) they might set draft raiders free (as these jurors almost did). [In “Outlaw or American Patriot?” during a newspaper interview, a juror states that some felt coerced by the judge’s instructions.]

In contrast, as public speech on the streets, the Minnesota 8 were heard far and wide. The newspaper clippings and other media events testify to that fact. Many references are held at the Minnesota History Society, see “Writings” for link. The actions evoked a broad range of responses from the public, as seen through sundry Letters to the Editor and protest demonstrations on behalf of the 8.

The nub of what the 8 were about is summarized in a compact paragraph from K-T’s appellate argument:

I challenge the court to articulate guidelines to determine in what extreme circumstances people who act in a measured way for reason of conscience, and for the purpose of effecting their religious truths, may resist the immoral acts of their government.

The trial judges and the appellate justices articulated this challenge but then declared that they would not address it.

Here is a framework for all academic inquiry and evaluations. A few seed questions are:

What defines:

“extreme circumstances”

How you evaluate and answer all the other points in this challenge pivot upon this question and your answers to the following:

§ The 8 claimed that American society was in “extreme circumstances.” Other than as an anarchist rant or journalistic hyperbole, can such a description ever be applied to a nation? If so, what are the assessment guidelines and standards?

§ The 8 held that the government was out of control. Can a government ever assess itself as out of control? Can it ever say that the “balance of powers” is not balanced nor balancing? Or, is that judgment left to citizens (“We, the People”)?

§ Does a citizen have a “right” of any sort to make such a claim? And expect to be taken seriously? If so, where should that claim be heard and judged? Should a nation look to other nations or international agencies for assessment and guidance?

“Measured way”

§ Can a draft raid be considered a “measured way” of acting?

§ Others would say, Work within the System, but what happens if you’ve worked within every facet of the System (voting, petitioning, rallying, suing, protesting, etc.) and you still remain “voiceless”?

§ Is there such a thing as nonviolent symbolic speech? If so, should it be protected?

§ Is a legal definition the only definition possible for “measured way”?

“Reason of conscience”

§ The 8 laid claim to a Higher Allegiance. Is there such a faculty as “conscience”?

§ If so, is it formed by a person or by the collective, here, the nation state or a religious authority?

§ Should there be a legal, political and moral category for “political prisoner” and/or “prisoner of conscience”?

§ Is “conscience” a political, moral, social, psychological term or a theological fantasy?

§ What does this mean: “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience.”

§ Was “We, the People” an embodied agent of conscience? If so, why was it necessary for individuals to sign the Declaration of Independence?

§ Can conscience be coerced? Consider the possible “involuntary servitude” aspect of the mandatory Registration with the Selective Service System that is required of all eighteen year old males, regardless of physical or mental condition. Everyone must Register; only then are deferments are given.

“Effecting religious truth”

§ Like “conscience,” can an individual determine what a “religious truth” is? Or, is it formed by a collective, here, a religious authority or a Moral Tradition?

§ Does/should a “religious truth” have any legal standing?

§ What is/are the “religious truth(s)” upon which “America” was founded? If any at all.

§ One witness, a Roman Catholic priest and theologian, asked the court to recognize that they were asking him to swear upon the Abrahamic Bible in order to ensure that he was telling the truth. “…the Court itself sanctions the use of an oath as an authority which will protect the type of testimony that I am about to give. It appeals to a higher authority as a sanction for believing that my testimony will be truthful.” Was this a cogent argument and demonstration?

§ Is the courtroom act of swearing in a witness an appeal to a Higher Allegiance or a religious truth, e.g., the existence of a God who cares about justice?