April 3, 1974

Kent Indictment A Bum Rap

The indictment last week of eight Ohio National Guardsmen for violating the "civil rights" of four Kent University students - killed during an anti-war riot in 1970 - is a bum rap.

The main charge of "conspiracy" to shoot the students was specifically rejected.

The Kent affair has been a political side show from the start.

The original riots at Kent were political protests - of American bombing of communist strongholds that soon after brought an end to the longest war in U.S. history.

A citizen grand jury three months later exonerated the National Guard, indicted 25 students for rioting, and criticized the university administration for its permissive attitudes.

Outraged that the rioters should be blamed, New Left political elements began a shrill campaign for another, more sympathetic forum.

Within a year President Nixon appointed a "blue ribbon commission" to investigate the shootings.  Chairman was Harold Scranton, former governor of Pennsylvania.  After much testimony - heavily larded with political demagoguery by the liberal members - the commission could find only that the shooting was "unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

With this, the liberals turned to the last remaining possibility of vindication - the federal political arena.  For this a possible violation of federal law had to be established.

First, the United Methodist church sanctioned a "report" by a Peter Davies that charged felonious conspiracy.  Sgt. Myron G.  Pryor, the ranking non-commissioned officer at Kent, was accused of planning the shooting and firing the first shot.

Pryor immediately sued for $3 million libel damages, and the suit is now pending.  Significantly, the grand jury last week once again cleared Pryor of conspiring and of firing his weapon.

John Mitchell, then U.S. attorney general, wouldn't buy the Davies propaganda.  "I agree with the findings of the Scranton Commission that the shooting was inexcusable," said Mitchell.  "However, there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy between National Guardsmen to shoot students on the campus, and there is no likelihood for successful prosecutions of individual guardsmen."

Mitchell was exactly right that Davies had not produced any credible evidence, and that there was no conspiracy.  Events this summer will demonstrate Mitchell's assessment of successful prosecutions.  Indictments are easy outs, legal convictions requiring proof are difficult.

Political pressure was brought to bear as petitions for a federal grand jury were forwarded to various Washington officials by the parents of the slain students, by the liberal members of the Scranton Commission, by KSU President Glenn A.  Olds, by students wounded in the shooting, and by thousands of sympathizers solicited by KSU militants.

Finally, Senator Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) caved in and announced he had "new evidence" that Terrence B.  Norman, a photographer for Kent University security guards, had started the shooting.

Norman's part in the affair had been thoroughly investigated by the state grand jury and the Scranton Commission, and he was absolved in both cases.  The federal grand jury, likewise, agreed that Norman's role did not contribute to the shooting.

Senator Bayh's non-existent new evidence persuaded Acting U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson - then on his way out of office in a dispute with the President over Watergate - to set the machinery in motion for a federal grand jury.

And so we have eight indictments of enlisted National Guardsmen who were in uniform, on duty, under orders, operating in accordance with the Ohio Riot Act formally proclaimed.

This is the first time in the history of the nation that soldiers under orders have been brought before a civil court.

Conviction will establish two far-reaching precedents:

• Political harassment of the military.  

• Destruction of the National Guard.

Until now, civilian authorities over the military were answerable to civil courts.  Military authorities were answerable to courts martial.

But two grand juries could find no fault with civilian or military authorities.  The burning, looting and destruction were widespread and required military intervention.  Officers had properly deployed their men.

So enlisted men are to be sacrificed to hysteria.

If they are, determined militants in the future will command the instrument of anarchy.  And future soldiers will refuse to bear arms.

It is hard to see how the guardsmen can be convicted on a civil rights violation.  The Riot Act, which suspends civil rights, had been proclaimed.  Even the federal grand jury indictments say guardsmen acted "under the color of the laws."

But an awesome growth of "headline justice" is already far advanced in this country.  I no longer take bets on 198 years of law.

Preposterous propaganda these days takes on the air of righteousness by loud repetition.  Deliberate falsehood is condoned if the liar speaks for a "cause."

It was to be hoped that with a court review the parents of the slain students would have found some accounting for the deaths of their loved children.

Unhappily, we discover that their intent is more political than loving.  They now demand an investigation of President Nixon on the basis he "may" have sought to prevent a third investigation.  The liberal press regrets, editorially, that, soldiers in the ranks are singled out but "hopes" their prosecution will yet turn up some basis to embarrass a former governor.

They will not allow the dead to rest in peace, nor us to cloak them in the mantle of mercy.  So, let us say the hard things that we must face up to in this contrived confrontation: The slain students were trouble makers taunting the law, and their parents are seeking unwarranted political vengeance.

It is time to speedily conclude this traumatic experience in the court and be done with politics.

Author: Lindsey Williams