In ’67 it was the call to resist immoral authority (2012– BDS)

on 5 Comments
Howard Zinn
The late Howard Zinn, pictured at his website

In Al Jazeera the other day, Noam Chomsky remembered Howard Zinn on the second anniversary of his death and cited Zinn’s leadership in the civil rights and antiwar movement. “Whatever was needed – talks, participation in civil disobedience, support for resisters, testimony at trials – Howard was always there.”

Chomsky linked to Zinn’s being an early signer of A Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority (1967).

I went to Chomsky’s link to read this letter, and its intro. I am posting it today because I believe the points of resistance Zinn and these other honored leftwing writers invoked, resisting the immoral authority of a government pressing war in Vietnam, apply to the occupation. We do not endorse violent resistance at this site. But as the U.N. acknowledges, and as the 1967 signers would say, Israel’s rule of the West Bank and Gaza legitimizes many forms of resistance, including the boycott effort here.

And when I read of the destruction of Vietnam’s resources, I think of the noble brave Mustafa Tamimi, who died throwing a rock at Goliath so that his village could gain access to water. The Palestinians have shown remarkable restraint. What can we do to honor their struggle?

This document, published widely in the fall of 1967, became the main basis for the federal government’s criminal prosecution of five of the signers: Dr. Benjamin Spock, Marcus Raskin, Mitchell Goodman, Michael Ferber, and the Reverend William Sloane Coffin. These men also turned in to the Justice Department a briefcase filled with draft cards.

To the young men of America, to the whole of the American people, and to all men of goodwill everywhere:

1. An ever growing number of young American men are finding that the American war in Vietnam so outrages their deepest moral and religious sense that they cannot contribute to it in any way. We share their moral outrage.

2. We further believe that the war is unconstitutional and illegal. Congress has not declared a war as required by the Constitution. Moreover, under the Constitution, treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate have the same force as the Constitution itself. The Charter of the United Nations is such a treaty. The Charter specifically obligates the United States to refrain from force or the threat of force in international relations. It requires member states to exhaust every peaceful mean s of settling disputes and to submit disputes which cannot be settled peacefully to the Security Council. The United States has systematically violated all of these Charter provisions for thirteen years.

3. Moreover, this war violates international agreements, treaties and principles of law which the United States Government has solemnly endorsed. The combat role of the United States troops in Vietnam violates the Geneva Accords of 1954 which our governme nt pledged to support but has since subverted. The destruction of rice, crops and livestock; the burning and bulldozing of entire villages consisting exclusively of civilian structures; the interning of civilian non-combatants in concentration camps; the summary executions of civilians in captured villages who could not produce satisfactory evidence of their loyalties or did not wish to be removed to concentration camps; the slaughter of peasants who dared to stand up in their fields and shake their fists at American helicopters; – these are all actions of the kind which the United States and the other victorious powers of World War II declared to be crimes against humanity for which individuals were to be held personally responsible even when acting under the orders of their governments and for which Germans were sentenced at Nuremberg to long prison terms and death The prohibition of such acts as war crimes was incorporated in treaty law by the Geneva Conventi ons of 1949, ratified by the United States. These are commitments to other countries and to Mankind, and they would claim our allegiance even if Congress should declare war.

4. We also believe it is an unconstitutional denial of religious liberty and equal protection of the laws to withhold draft exemption from men whose religious or profound philosophical beliefs are opposed to what in the Western religious tradition have been long known as unjust wars.

5. Therefore, we believe on all these grounds that every free man [and woman!] has a legal right and a moral duty to exert every effort to end this war, to avoid collusion with it, and to encourage others to do the same. Young men in the armed forces or threatened wit h the draft face the most excruciating choices. For them various forms of resistance risk separation from their families and their country, destruction of their careers, loss of their freedom and loss of their lives. Each must choose the course of resista nce dictated by his conscience and circumstances. Among those already in the armed forces some are refusing to obey specific illegal and immoral orders, some are attempting to educate their fellow servicemen on the murderous and barbarous nature of the war some are absenting themselves without official leave. Among those not in the armed forces some are applying for status as conscientious objectors to American aggression in Vietnam, some are refusing to be inducted. Among both groups some are resisting o penly and paying a heavy penalty, some are organizing more resistance within the United States and some have sought sanctuary in other countries.

6. We believe that each of these forms of resistance against illegitimate authority is courageous and justified. Many of us believe that open resistance to the war and the draft is the course of action most likely to strengthen the moral resolve with which all of us can oppose the war and most likely to bring an end to the war.

7. We will continue to lend our support to those who undertake resistance to this war. We will raise funds to organize draft resistance unions, to supply legal defense and bail, to support families and otherwise aid resistance to the war in whatever ways may seem appropriate.

8. We firmly believe that our statement is the sort of speech that under the First Amendment must be free, and that the actions we will undertake are as legal as is the war resistance of the young men themselves. But we recognize that the courts may find otherwise, and that if so we might all be liable to prosecution and severe punishment. In any case, we feel that we cannot shrink from fulfilling our responsibilit ies to the youth whom many of us teach, to the country whose freedom we cherish, and to the ancient traditions of religion and philosophy which we strive to preserve in this generation.

9. We call upon all men of good will to join us in this confrontation with immoral authority. Especially we call upon the universities to fulfill their mission of enlightenment and religious organizations to honor their heritage of brotherhood. Now is the time to resist.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

5 Responses

  1. Citizen
    January 30, 2012, 2:32 pm

    Jewish people I knew back in the Nam Era always hated US foreign policy for obvious ethical and moral reasons; now, they rubber-stamp Israel’s conduct, and US enablement of it, by their complete lack of interest in doing anything to stop it. In the Nam Era, none of these Jewish Americans I knew fought in Vietnam, and now they don’t fight with US military in ME. None of them have ever joined any military force, but a number of their children have–they joined the IDF. What should I make of this?

  2. tombishop
    January 30, 2012, 4:12 pm

    On April 4, 1967 (exactly one year before his death), Martin Luther King gave a speech against the Vietnam War. He spoke about the hypocrisy of those who counsel non-violence in the struggle for equal rights while at the same time being “the greatest pervaour of violence in the world.” His speech had a profound affect on the ani-War movement and probably played a big role in this “A Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority” document. King’s speech can be heard here:

    Can anyone, after hearing this speech remain silent about what is being done to the Palestinians?

    • thetumta
      January 30, 2012, 10:28 pm

      Or us for that matter? Yes you can, but not if it’s no longer smart.
      In my case yes, but it took a while. Yes, some of us have spent decades reconciling our past with his challenge, in spite of the fact that we were on the other side of the fence at the time. His denunciation of the Viet Nam debacle was political suicide and he was warned. He knew exactly where he was going. Everyone abandoned him and then they killed him. This was not my view at the time, but you should be aware of it, should you get serious.

Leave a Reply