justice harlan (joined by justice clark) dissented, arguing that "to permit conscription without more to establish duress unjustifiably limits, if it does not largely nullify, the mandate of § 401(c)," since by 1940 conscription had become the main way of raising armies around the world. he also believed that the burden of proving duress should remain on nishikawa: "one of the prime reasons for imposing the burden of proof on the party claiming involuntariness is that the evidence normally lies in his possession." he therefore thought that the supreme court should defer to the district judge's findings on nishikawa's credibility.