DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1965-1967

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1965-1967

31858064848116_015

[handwritten] DI ? 10/17/67

Local Forum Argues Legality Of Nation's Role In Vietnam
[handwritten]
10/17/67

A disagreement on the legality of United States involvement in Vietnam highlighted the last two sessions of the "Vietnam: The Future" forum on Saturday.
A debate between John N. Moore of the University of Virginia and Rich A. Falk of Princeton University, both specialists in international law, was followed Saturday afternoon by a panel discussion among Moore, Falk, Morton A. Kaplan and Edmund O. Stillman. The panel answered questions from a group of students and faculty members.
Stillman and Kaplan of the University of Chicago and Hudson Institute in New York, respectively, debated on the political aspects of the war Friday night.
Falk said Saturday morning that U.S. intervention was in direct violation of the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Convention Agreement of 1966 (the document which marked the end of the French-Indochina War).
HE said that North Vietnamese aggression was not the cause of U.S. intervention, since as early as 1950 the U.S. was paying 80 per cent of French war costs in Vietnam, then called Indochina.
Moore's major contention was that the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Convention were "ambiguous and incomplete," and that strict adherence to those documents - that is, staying out of Vietnam - would be "legality in the extreme."
He added that U.S. troop build-up and the start of bombing attacks on North Vietnam, both in 1965, were "reluctant" moves to counter increased aggression by North Vietnamese regular army units.
The debate on the legal right of U.S. presence in Vietnam continued in the panel discussion, in which Stillman said that the U.S. had no right to be in a "civil war," and any peace negotiations would have to include the National Liberation Front (the political arm of the Viet Cong). 
Falk lauded the efforts of the U.S. citizens who were challenging the Federal draft laws and suing for refund of income taxes in protest against the war. "Citizens are demanding that their government obey international law."
The two-day forum was sponsored by the Iowa Society of International and Comparative Law. 

[handwritten]
10/18/67

Free-For-All On Vietnam At Soundoff
By GAIL DRAUDEN

Soapbox Soundoff was a Vietnam free-for-all Tuesday, and even a Cedar Rapids businessman got into the act.
Robert Tichane, A2, Painted Post, N.Y., said that the United States was wrong to be in Vietnam, and that Vietnam should not be considered part of the South East Asia Treaty Organization. 
Allen Stroh, A2, Carroll, said, "American mothers wouldn't be losing sons if we went in and bombed north Vietnam as we should." 
Mike Lally, A2, South Orange, N.J., said, "If we have a right to take over countries going Communist, does that mean Communists have a right to take over democratically inclined countries?"
The Cedar Rapids businessman, Arthur Wulfberg, compared Communist advances to pre-World War II German takeovers. "It took 100,000 American lives to stop that," he said.
Lee Dewitt, A2, Fort Knox, Ky., said, "By burning draft cards, people are only showing their ignorance and their lack of patriotism."
"They are both blind, emotional things," he said. "I'm for a rational, enlightened patriotism. It is a fact that we are murdering people in Vietnam, and we should stop."
Douglas Elden, A3, Glenco, Ill., asked to be shown that the Vietnamese would be better off if the bombing were stopped.
"They wouldn't be burned by napalm," Lally said. 
Elden said he wondered how the people dead under Communist regimes liked their rules.
He was answered with "You can't eat freedom," and was told that the Vietnamese would starve while waiting for an abstract freedom."

Saving...

[handwritten] DI ? 10/17/67 Local Forum Argues Legality Of Nation's Role In Vietnam [handwritten] 10/17/67 A disagreement on the legality of United States involvement in Vietnam highlighted the last two sessions of the "Vietnam: The Future" forum on Saturday. A debate between John N. Moore of the University of Virginia and Rich A. Falk of Princeton University, both specialists in international law, was followed Saturday afternoon by a panel discussion among Moore, Falk, Morton A. Kaplan and Edmund O. Stillman. The panel answered questions from a group of students and faculty members. Stillman and Kaplan of the University of Chicago and Hudson Institute in New York, respectively, debated on the political aspects of the war Friday night. Falk said Saturday morning that U.S. intervention was in direct violation of the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Convention Agreement of 1966 (the document which marked the end of the French-Indochina War). HE said that North Vietnamese aggression was not the cause of U.S. intervention, since as early as 1950 the U.S. was paying 80 per cent of French war costs in Vietnam, then called Indochina. Moore's major contention was that the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Convention were "ambiguous and incomplete," and that strict adherence to those documents - that is, staying out of Vietnam - would be "legality in the extreme." He added that U.S. troop build-up and the start of bombing attacks on North Vietnam, both in 1965, were "reluctant" moves to counter increased aggression by North Vietnamese regular army units. The debate on the legal right of U.S. presence in Vietnam continued in the panel discussion, in which Stillman said that the U.S. had no right to be in a "civil war," and any peace negotiations would have to include the National Liberation Front (the political arm of the Viet Cong). Falk lauded the efforts of the U.S. citizens who were challenging the Federal draft laws and suing for refund of income taxes in protest against the war. "Citizens are demanding that their government obey international law." The two-day forum was sponsored by the Iowa Society of International and Comparative Law. [handwritten] 10/18/67 Free-For-All On Vietnam At Soundoff By GAIL DRAUDEN Soapbox Soundoff was a Vietnam free-for-all Tuesday, and even a Cedar Rapids businessman got into the act. Robert Tichane, A2, Painted Post, N.Y., said that the United States was wrong to be in Vietnam, and that Vietnam should not be considered part of the South East Asia Treaty Organization. Allen Stroh, A2, Carroll, said, "American mothers wouldn't be losing sons if we went in and bombed north Vietnam as we should." Mike Lally, A2, South Orange, N.J., said, "If we have a right to take over countries going Communist, does that mean Communists have a right to take over democratically inclined countries?" The Cedar Rapids businessman, Arthur Wulfberg, compared Communist advances to pre-World War II German takeovers. "It took 100,000 American lives to stop that," he said. Lee Dewitt, A2, Fort Knox, Ky., said, "By burning draft cards, people are only showing their ignorance and their lack of patriotism." "They are both blind, emotional things," he said. "I'm for a rational, enlightened patriotism. It is a fact that we are murdering people in Vietnam, and we should stop." Douglas Elden, A3, Glenco, Ill., asked to be shown that the Vietnamese would be better off if the bombing were stopped. "They wouldn't be burned by napalm," Lally said. Elden said he wondered how the people dead under Communist regimes liked their rules. He was answered with "You can't eat freedom," and was told that the Vietnamese would starve while waiting for an abstract freedom."