- Series
- Security and civil rights
- Air Date
- 1957-01-01
- Duration
- 00:28:55
- Episode Description
- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey and Congressman John Moss discuss government committees evaluating security and secrecy.
- Series Description
- Interviews on balancing national security interests with personal liberty. The series is moderated by Monrad Paulsen of Columbia University.
- Subject(s)
- Creator(s)
- KUOM (Radio station : Minneapolis, Minn.) (Producer)University of Minnesota (Producer)Gelb, Philip (Producer)
- Contributors
- Paulsen, Monrad G. (Moderator)Moss, John (Guest)
- Genre(s)
- Geographic Region(s)
- regions
- Time Period
- 1951-1960
[00:05 - 00:09]
Well as you may know I was the chairman of a subcommittee that conducted a rather
[00:09 - 00:14]
extensive. And intensive inquiry into our national
[00:14 - 00:19]
security programs particularly the security rules and regulations
[00:19 - 00:23]
relating to government personnel and American industry that have
[00:23 - 00:27]
that has the defense contracts.
[00:27 - 00:32]
That was the actual voice of Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota on this
[00:32 - 00:37]
program you will hear Senator Humphrey and Congressman John Moss of California.
[00:37 - 00:41]
Both of these men are chairman of congressional committees set up to evaluate our government's
[00:41 - 00:46]
security and secrecy programs. Are our government secrets being
[00:46 - 00:50]
protected. Can they be overprotected to the problems of national
[00:50 - 00:55]
security and government secrecy affect you. These questions will be answered
[00:55 - 01:00]
now on the seventh program in this series. Security and Civil Rights produced
[01:00 - 01:05]
by the University of Minnesota radio station KUNM in cooperation with the National
[01:05 - 01:09]
Association of educational broadcasters under a grant from the Educational
[01:09 - 01:14]
Television and Radio Center. To introduce our topic for today and our
[01:14 - 01:19]
special congressional guest authorities here is the consultant commentator for security and
[01:19 - 01:24]
civil rights a member of the law faculty of Columbia University. Professor
[01:24 - 01:26]
Paulson.
[01:26 - 01:31]
Of course in any great problem such as security and civil rights in the
[01:31 - 01:35]
forefront of the solution to the problem and the controversy about the problem
[01:35 - 01:41]
rightfully and stands our elected representatives in the Congress.
[01:41 - 01:46]
On this program. We present to you the views of two members of the
[01:46 - 01:50]
Congress of the United States who are identified with committees of the Congress in
[01:50 - 01:55]
important positions. We've all heard about the various
[01:55 - 02:00]
committees in the Congress that have investigated American activities
[02:00 - 02:04]
and the McCarthy committee operating in the Senate.
[02:04 - 02:10]
Yet these committees have not been charged with the task of reviewing the
[02:10 - 02:15]
problems of security in the laws with respect there to nor have they
[02:15 - 02:20]
studied the problem of the need for government secrecy so far as
[02:20 - 02:25]
information is concerned. Sen human H Humphrey of Minnesota is the
[02:25 - 02:30]
chairman of the Senate special subcommittee on loyalty security programs.
[02:30 - 02:35]
It is a special task of this committee to evaluate the present laws and to
[02:35 - 02:40]
make recommendations for change. Our second speaker on this program
[02:40 - 02:45]
will be Congressman John Maass of California chairman of the House of Representatives
[02:45 - 02:50]
Subcommittee on Government Information which deals directly with the
[02:50 - 02:54]
question of how much secrecy is necessary how much freedom of
[02:54 - 02:59]
information can be provided to the public of the United States.
[02:59 - 03:03]
First. We will hear an interview with Senator Hubert H Humphrey of Minnesota.
[03:03 - 03:09]
Conducted by Mr. Philip Goh producer of this series and
[03:09 - 03:14]
recorded in Senator Humphrey's office in Washington D.C. Could you talk a
[03:14 - 03:19]
little about the kind of legislation that we've had in recent years in relation to national security.
[03:19 - 03:24]
Well as you may know I was the chairman of a subcommittee that conducted a rather
[03:24 - 03:28]
extensive and intensive inquiry into our national
[03:28 - 03:33]
security programs particularly the security rules and regulations
[03:33 - 03:38]
relating to government personalities and American industry that have
[03:38 - 03:43]
that has the defense contracts. This hearing was based
[03:43 - 03:48]
on a resolution that I introduced designed to establish a
[03:48 - 03:52]
presidential commission on the subject of national security. That
[03:52 - 03:57]
resolution was adopted after several weeks of hearings and debate in the Senate and House of
[03:57 - 04:02]
Representatives. The president has or should I say the commission has
[04:02 - 04:07]
now been appointed representing the public. The House of Representatives and the
[04:07 - 04:12]
Senate of the United States. The commission has organized its staff. It's
[04:12 - 04:17]
now in the process of holding hearings and making a formal scale study of all
[04:17 - 04:22]
the security laws espionage acts and other laws relating to
[04:22 - 04:26]
our national security plus the president's executive order on loyalty security
[04:26 - 04:31]
programs. So. I'm confident in my own mind that we're going to make
[04:31 - 04:36]
genuine progress and in fact I can say now that as a result of the hearings
[04:36 - 04:41]
so there have been substantial reforms in the overall government employee security
[04:41 - 04:46]
program. And I feel that we're on a path around the road
[04:46 - 04:51]
to equating personal rights with national security in
[04:51 - 04:56]
a way in a really good sound and constructive manner.
[04:56 - 05:01]
Well Senator Humphrey you're an authority to speak in this area do you
[05:01 - 05:06]
feel that constitutional protections are of any unique significance today.
[05:06 - 05:10]
Well I always feel that constitutional protections are of real significance.
[05:10 - 05:15]
The phraseology in our Constitution as the courts have
[05:15 - 05:20]
interpreted Due Process of Law is a great protection to
[05:20 - 05:24]
any individual's rights without what is meant in due process of law.
[05:24 - 05:30]
Your substantive rights may very well be meaningless or at least greatly diluted.
[05:30 - 05:35]
But what about this is not an unrelated question but we will show the relationship a little
[05:35 - 05:40]
later. Would you comment just on the question of how great are the threats to our
[05:40 - 05:41]
national security today.
[05:41 - 05:47]
Well I would say that one should not underestimate the threats to our national
[05:47 - 05:51]
security. The communist organization the
[05:51 - 05:56]
International Communist Conspiracy is always at work.
[05:56 - 06:01]
We would be very foolish to undermine underestimate its diabolical purpose.
[06:01 - 06:06]
Therefore I believe that it is essential that our government always be on guard. However
[06:06 - 06:11]
I must say that it is important that in the protection of national security
[06:11 - 06:16]
that we do not deny the basic rights of individuals. In other words
[06:16 - 06:21]
in order to combat or to challenge and meet the totalitarian
[06:21 - 06:24]
we must not keep his ways and manners.
[06:24 - 06:29]
You think that this is occurring to any extent you think that there are threats to our
[06:29 - 06:31]
individual constitutional protections today.
[06:31 - 06:36]
I think there have been and I suppose there will always be some. I must say however that I think
[06:36 - 06:41]
theres been a decided improvement. Furthermore the courts particularly the
[06:41 - 06:46]
Federal District Circuit and Supreme Court have laid down some very
[06:46 - 06:50]
good rules of law. The procedural rights of individuals are being
[06:50 - 06:55]
protected by our courts. I think the main abuse of procedural rights
[06:55 - 07:00]
or of individual rights comes in administrative agencies. But even
[07:00 - 07:05]
there there is improvement and I am confident that there will be substantially
[07:05 - 07:07]
more improvement in the months to come.
[07:07 - 07:13]
You feel that there is any kind of innate conflict inherent conflict on the one hand
[07:13 - 07:15]
between national security and individual rights.
[07:15 - 07:20]
I don't think there needs to be. In fact I have addressed myself to this subject on several
[07:20 - 07:25]
occasions. I did so at the University of Minnesota last year at the
[07:25 - 07:29]
annual Phi Beta Kappa dinner. I've done so with the American Political Science
[07:29 - 07:34]
Association and other fine groups. It seems to me that task of
[07:34 - 07:39]
statesmanship now want to reconcile our national security
[07:39 - 07:44]
which is of utmost importance to all of us with our basic individual rights.
[07:44 - 07:49]
I think this can be done by careful procedures by bringing into
[07:49 - 07:54]
administrative agencies as much the. Idea
[07:54 - 07:58]
of due process of law as is possible in an administrative tribunal and
[07:58 - 08:03]
surely in the courts to proceed within the tradition of Anglo-Saxon
[08:03 - 08:04]
America Long.
[08:04 - 08:09]
Just one final question as I think it's a kind of thing that people back in Minnesota and other parts away from
[08:09 - 08:14]
Washington ask that is the most people are very good and loyal
[08:14 - 08:19]
Americans but concerned should they not have the political backgrounds of their friends that they have to check
[08:19 - 08:24]
and who's written a particular book before they read it. How much of this security involves
[08:24 - 08:28]
just government employment as such and how much the average man and terms of his
[08:28 - 08:29]
concerns.
[08:29 - 08:34]
Well first of all I think we ought to understand that the government does not owe
[08:34 - 08:40]
anyone a job as such but the government does everyone justice.
[08:40 - 08:44]
And when a person is employed by the government he or she should expect
[08:44 - 08:49]
that a security check will be made. It has been my view of however
[08:49 - 08:54]
that when that check is made and if there is some derogatory information turned up
[08:54 - 08:59]
that the individual should be confronted with that in information. The individual
[08:59 - 09:04]
concerned should have the opportunity to defend himself. He should have the right of
[09:04 - 09:09]
consul. He should have the right of proper review of the charges so that not so that
[09:09 - 09:14]
no one person makes a a final determination. Now this goes also
[09:14 - 09:19]
on for applications for jobs as well as being on the job. I
[09:19 - 09:23]
want to emphasize the importance of job applicant security tests.
[09:23 - 09:28]
You see if a person applies for a job with the federal government these days
[09:28 - 09:33]
he is given a security check. And in many agencies of the government the
[09:33 - 09:38]
individual may be turned down on the basis of that security check and still never know why
[09:38 - 09:43]
he was turned down. Just told that there's no job available yet the. They
[09:43 - 09:48]
file the Cheka remains in government files and
[09:48 - 09:53]
haunts that person to the last day of his life even as he or she may seek
[09:53 - 09:58]
private employment. Because in many areas now of American life industry
[09:58 - 10:02]
has contracts with the government and therefore checks with government security
[10:02 - 10:07]
agencies with the Civil Service Commission for example to see whether or not there was any
[10:07 - 10:12]
derogatory information. Now frequently this derogatory information is on
[10:12 - 10:17]
is of little or no consequence. It can't be substantiated. It sometimes is based
[10:17 - 10:21]
upon half truths and rumors I say sometimes. But whatever it may be I think the
[10:21 - 10:26]
individual should have the right to reply to clear his or her record and up to
[10:26 - 10:31]
date in many agencies this has not been permissible and therefore some grave
[10:31 - 10:36]
injustice has been done to some of our fellow citizens. Now you've
[10:36 - 10:41]
asked about the general general private associations.
[10:41 - 10:46]
Well I think every person who would like to be reasonably careful about his his or
[10:46 - 10:51]
her private associations. But I would say that the main interest in this should
[10:51 - 10:56]
be in the public eye where government is involved. It would
[10:56 - 11:01]
be indeed a very sad day in American life if everybody was suspicious of his
[11:01 - 11:06]
neighbor. If everyone looked with a jaundiced eye upon everyone with whom he or she
[11:06 - 11:10]
visited or associated. I'm sure that the average American is
[11:10 - 11:14]
sufficiently politically mature to really understand and
[11:14 - 11:20]
and found her out and the one who would be a true subversive one who
[11:20 - 11:25]
wouldn't try to undermine the foundations of our country. Furthermore I think it's rather
[11:25 - 11:30]
good for people to rub shoulders with many kinds of people this is the only way that you
[11:30 - 11:35]
can understand the good from the bad and the loyal from the disloyal. The
[11:35 - 11:40]
persons who are deeply interested in their country and those who are not. If you constantly
[11:40 - 11:45]
keep people sort of closeted Oh wait they'll never be able to understand the
[11:45 - 11:50]
menace of totalitarianism. Frankly I think people ought to know much more about it and they
[11:50 - 11:55]
ought to be instructed as to what this communist ideology is all about
[11:55 - 12:00]
in its true sense and not going around feeling that when somebody is for a two cent
[12:00 - 12:05]
postage stamp instead of a three cent one that he may be communist a communist or
[12:05 - 12:10]
a totalitarian is one that does not believe in democratic processes. It is one
[12:10 - 12:14]
that does not believe in the rights of the individual is one that has
[12:14 - 12:20]
another loyalty other than his own country is one that literally repudiates all
[12:20 - 12:25]
democratic principles. And it's not too difficult to understand these people once that you understand a
[12:25 - 12:30]
little bit about the whole totalitarian idiology. I frankly think
[12:30 - 12:34]
that both government and educational institutions have rather failed in
[12:34 - 12:39]
alerting the American people to the menace of any type of subversion of our
[12:39 - 12:44]
totalitarianism that is alerting them to its nature. That's why so
[12:44 - 12:49]
many false prophets can run across the country frightening people. Now one final
[12:49 - 12:54]
word. I think we have to be careful that in a free society we do
[12:54 - 12:58]
not put the damper on or
[12:58 - 13:04]
what should I say our of our book or tried to do away with an orthodox thinking.
[13:04 - 13:09]
After all the most important thing in a free society is competition of ideas the right of
[13:09 - 13:13]
free choice the right to be different. The right to dissent to discuss and to debate
[13:13 - 13:18]
and the right to engage in controversy. I've noticed in recent years that
[13:18 - 13:23]
people really shy away from controversial subjects. People are somewhat
[13:23 - 13:28]
suspicious of anyone else who has a different point of view. There's a tendency to
[13:28 - 13:32]
stamp out a kind of uniformity based on mediocrity of
[13:32 - 13:37]
thought and citizenship participation. This is a bad thing.
[13:37 - 13:42]
American democracy must have vitality it must be willing to tolerate many
[13:42 - 13:47]
differences. It must be willing to enjoy the experience and
[13:47 - 13:52]
appreciate the experience of legitimate dissent legitimate discussion.
[13:52 - 13:57]
And therefore I would say that we ought not to be going around looking
[13:57 - 14:01]
for ghosts in closets or little pink elephants under beds or
[14:01 - 14:06]
whatever else you may wish to call him. Let's be strong in our own state. Let's be
[14:06 - 14:11]
willing to understand that people do have differences. And then let's be willing to really
[14:11 - 14:16]
separate or let's be capable of really being able to separate those who are
[14:16 - 14:20]
genuinely anti-democratic from those who are democratic in the
[14:20 - 14:25]
fullest sense to a point of being willing to argue every point of view. And many times taking a
[14:25 - 14:29]
Barry unpopular point of view simply because they believe in it.
[14:29 - 14:34]
That was Senator Hubert H Humphrey of Minnesota chairman of the Senate special subcommittee
[14:34 - 14:39]
on loyalty security programs. And now we shall hear an interview with
[14:39 - 14:44]
Congressman John Maass of California chairman of the House of
[14:44 - 14:48]
Representatives Subcommittee on Government security information discussing
[14:48 - 14:53]
with Mr. Philip gallop the work of his committee. This interview was
[14:53 - 14:58]
recorded in the office of Congressman mosque in Washington D.C..
[14:58 - 15:03]
Press 1 Mr. Moss what is the House Government Operations Committee investigating alleged
[15:03 - 15:06]
suppression of public information.
[15:06 - 15:10]
Of course the Subcommittee on Government information and the first
[15:10 - 15:15]
committee to be established by Congress for the purpose of determining
[15:15 - 15:20]
information policies of the federal executive departments
[15:20 - 15:24]
of government and of the independent agencies of government.
[15:24 - 15:27]
Is this something new and how did it come about.
[15:27 - 15:32]
It was authorized by the chairman of the Federal Government Operations
[15:32 - 15:37]
Committee. Congressman William Dawson of Illinois. In
[15:37 - 15:42]
May of last year under the general of the already of the Government
[15:42 - 15:44]
Operations Committee which is derived from statute.
[15:44 - 15:50]
I there are particular legal reasons for suppression or allowing
[15:50 - 15:52]
back of government information.
[15:52 - 15:57]
But we can answer that questions to geld we'd have a much simpler problem of
[15:57 - 16:02]
study than the one that faces us at the moment. There are many claimed
[16:02 - 16:07]
legal authorities by the various departments and agencies for their withholding of
[16:07 - 16:12]
information. Some of these authorities are correct. The Congress has from time to time
[16:12 - 16:17]
granted by statute to the administrators of departments and agencies.
[16:17 - 16:22]
The right to control information. We feel that in some instances this
[16:22 - 16:27]
has not been a wise action because in almost every
[16:27 - 16:31]
instance they place the responsibility upon me the
[16:31 - 16:35]
director of the agency to justify the release of news.
[16:35 - 16:40]
We believe we can bring a change of emphasis which would require the
[16:40 - 16:45]
justification of the withholding that much more information about government would be available.
[16:45 - 16:50]
How are we at a stand now given the parliament can make its own rules.
[16:50 - 16:56]
Well now in some instances where and we're not willing to grant that he has the overall authority.
[16:56 - 17:00]
Many of the departments and agencies are claiming for themselves the.
[17:00 - 17:07]
Supposed inherent powers of the president. It's the position of
[17:07 - 17:11]
the staff of my committee and of the committee members that any inherent powers of the
[17:11 - 17:16]
presidency are powers held by the president himself and powers which cannot be
[17:16 - 17:21]
delegated. And there is considerable doubt as to what those powers might be.
[17:21 - 17:26]
You may recall that in the case of the steel plant seizure ordered by former
[17:26 - 17:30]
President Truman the Supreme Court ruled in that instance
[17:30 - 17:35]
that the inherent powers were not so broad as to permit that action. I think perhaps
[17:35 - 17:40]
if the court should rule on this general question of control of information that the chief
[17:40 - 17:45]
executive would find that his powers are not nearly as broad
[17:45 - 17:50]
as have been claimed by almost every president since Washington. Is
[17:50 - 17:55]
there any likely your case that would pass this the court seemed to carefully
[17:55 - 18:00]
sidestep the specific point. However we
[18:00 - 18:05]
hope to come up with some legislative recommendations which will certainly clarify some
[18:05 - 18:10]
of these powers. What is the opposite of strategic information. If I
[18:10 - 18:14]
could give you the answer to that question Mr. Gubb I would be a very happy man.
[18:14 - 18:18]
After about 10 hours of hearings with the
[18:18 - 18:23]
present director of the Office of Strategic Information and his two predecessors in
[18:23 - 18:28]
office our committee finds and I think the record will bear us out very strongly.
[18:28 - 18:33]
But no one seems to know what the office does or what its objectives might
[18:33 - 18:34]
be.
[18:34 - 18:39]
I think one newspaper writer in Washington following our most recent hearings
[18:39 - 18:44]
characterized it as an agency of utter confusion that seems to be very
[18:44 - 18:48]
descriptive and at the moment that represents the agency's
[18:48 - 18:51]
activities as I see them.
[18:51 - 18:56]
But do they actually take the information which is not classified and checked over that for
[18:56 - 18:57]
possible last vacation.
[18:57 - 19:02]
Well that would appear to be one of the things that they are supposed to do although they deny that they do
[19:02 - 19:07]
it. The only thing that they did assure us
[19:07 - 19:12]
of was the fact that the directive giving the original
[19:12 - 19:17]
mandate to the secretary of commerce to establish an office of strategic information is
[19:17 - 19:21]
itself classified and that while the agency has to deal entirely in the
[19:21 - 19:26]
field of unclassified information nevertheless its progress
[19:26 - 19:31]
reports are classified. These are two interesting points which the committee
[19:31 - 19:34]
intends to study with extreme care.
[19:34 - 19:39]
What kind of budget is this office work roughly and this would have to be a
[19:39 - 19:44]
rough quotation I believe the budget is about $60000 a
[19:44 - 19:48]
year. But that's the direct budget. There's certainly other costs in connection with the
[19:48 - 19:53]
agency which would run that figure up considerably higher.
[19:53 - 19:58]
And this is a pretty naive question but I think it's probably fundamental to the work of Europol
[19:58 - 20:02]
subcommittee. Is public information zone portable.
[20:02 - 20:07]
It's about the most important commodity of government. If the people who
[20:07 - 20:11]
are themselves the governors in this nation are to
[20:11 - 20:15]
intelligently exercise their franchise to be able to
[20:15 - 20:20]
properly appraise the activities of government the official actions of the
[20:20 - 20:26]
president and his appointees to office it's
[20:26 - 20:31]
essential that they have the fullest possible information about the activities and the
[20:31 - 20:36]
actions of these men and the departments and agencies of government.
[20:36 - 20:41]
Without that information it would be impossible to cast an informed ballot.
[20:41 - 20:46]
I think it is so important that our studies today in
[20:46 - 20:51]
the subcommittee would support very strongly a
[20:51 - 20:54]
constitutional right of the people to know.
[20:54 - 20:59]
One Washington editorial writer prefers not to be named told me that the present administration
[20:59 - 21:02]
is government by withholding information which you comment on has.
[21:02 - 21:07]
Well I think that this whole problem of control of information by
[21:07 - 21:11]
government is an example of. Evolution
[21:11 - 21:17]
has evolved from the very beginning of the republic and as any evolutionary
[21:17 - 21:22]
process the most recent example probably represents the most extreme
[21:22 - 21:27]
example. However the withholding of news is not new to this
[21:27 - 21:31]
administration and one of the things that we've tried to do in our study
[21:31 - 21:36]
is to point out that this is not a partisan political question. It's a matter of
[21:36 - 21:43]
grave national concern and we're going to try to keep politics out of it.
[21:43 - 21:47]
So far my candidate in Washington whenever there is anything obviously there
[21:47 - 21:52]
steps on constitutional protections such as I don't want users or
[21:52 - 21:57]
indefinite charges or the suppression of information. It seems to be done
[21:57 - 22:00]
primarily in the name of national security.
[22:00 - 22:05]
Is this just an observation of my own wonder but you see it seems to be a situation on a
[22:05 - 22:10]
ledge a convenient cloak and it immediately places the whole question
[22:10 - 22:15]
of withholding or of employment about American tactics
[22:15 - 22:21]
under the very colorful banner of patriotism.
[22:21 - 22:26]
I am of the opinion that we can't continue to copy some of the
[22:26 - 22:31]
methods of dictatorship. The methods of totalitarian
[22:31 - 22:36]
government and preserve a free democracy. It is after all the
[22:36 - 22:41]
method itself which distinguishes between the various forms of
[22:41 - 22:45]
government. The methods that we have in our nation at
[22:45 - 22:50]
here do we should adhere to unless there is a very compelling reason
[22:50 - 22:54]
and one of real national importance
[22:54 - 22:58]
to cause us to make any changes.
[22:58 - 23:03]
Would you care to color on how insecure we might be nationally today.
[23:03 - 23:08]
Well whenever we give up our freedoms and our rights we impair our security as
[23:08 - 23:13]
individuals and ultimately as a nation. Our strength has been
[23:13 - 23:18]
derived from the freedom of the individual and the collective freedom
[23:18 - 23:24]
of a strong and active people.
[23:24 - 23:29]
Just as Harlan made a statement to me other day that it's not easy curity or our nation to be measured
[23:29 - 23:34]
in the security of the individual and his rights as essentially which I can think of no
[23:34 - 23:39]
better measurement. Well this next question my last
[23:39 - 23:43]
as a comparatively long one but I think it affects people more outside of Washington
[23:43 - 23:50]
and here is a lot of people in Washington are not quite aware of this.
[23:50 - 23:55]
Less than 5000 teachers are opposed to a half million federal employees have been investigated and drop a
[23:55 - 24:00]
security risk. To my knowledge we are probably the least sabotages nation in history. Still
[24:00 - 24:05]
we have closed hearing secret sources and definite charges and then accuse or Young was
[24:05 - 24:10]
deep restrained use of such words as a version of espionage sabotage as Ed..
[24:10 - 24:14]
Other very terrifying and extreme terms and methods of cloak and dagger suspicion and
[24:14 - 24:19]
particularly secrecy and just a title like offices to DZIEDZIC information would be
[24:19 - 24:20]
an example of that.
[24:20 - 24:25]
How might always be affecting the obviously loyal but concerned American. Of
[24:25 - 24:30]
course the most important question is how does it affect the morale of the men
[24:30 - 24:35]
and women who have to perform the many services of government. If their moral is
[24:35 - 24:40]
low their efficiency is going to be impaired and the cost to government indirectly can
[24:40 - 24:42]
be extremely happy.
[24:42 - 24:47]
You cited 5000 cases as security risks I think it would be well for
[24:47 - 24:52]
our listeners to understand that a security risk may involve a simple
[24:52 - 24:57]
question of suitability. A man who drinks too much. A man who doesn't
[24:57 - 25:02]
pay his bills. The one who habitually gets tickets for parking
[25:02 - 25:07]
violations a security risk does not deal with the individual
[25:07 - 25:12]
who is subversive or who might sell out the government of the United States
[25:12 - 25:17]
on the record. I doubt if there's a handful of such individuals who have been
[25:17 - 25:22]
separated from federal service and many of these cases represent a
[25:22 - 25:27]
constellation of post auditing evaluations of personnel
[25:27 - 25:32]
files rather than actions most of these people were separated under regular civil
[25:32 - 25:37]
service procedures. Some of them resigned without any idea that they had any clout over them at
[25:37 - 25:41]
all. Figures therefore are somewhat meaningless.
[25:41 - 25:46]
Certainly however when a man is discharged. On the basis of a
[25:46 - 25:51]
tape from some undisclosed source I think it violates very
[25:51 - 25:55]
fundamental American rights the constitutional right to be
[25:55 - 26:00]
faced by your accuser to know specifically the charges that have
[26:00 - 26:05]
been made against you. All of those things are violated in the procedures presently
[26:05 - 26:10]
followed in Washington. I think it poses a real threat to the
[26:10 - 26:16]
public servants the men and women who make a career of
[26:16 - 26:21]
working for government. And I hope that sometime in the
[26:21 - 26:26]
not too distant future the Congress will review this rather ludicrous situation
[26:26 - 26:31]
and devise a better system one more consistent
[26:31 - 26:36]
with American traditions for the evaluation of those who
[26:36 - 26:41]
might be charged with failure as employees of the government.
[26:41 - 26:44]
I would just like to restate that question.
[26:44 - 26:48]
Preppers the abstract I think your answer is very important but there is the element of
[26:48 - 26:55]
individual reading about these kind of investigations and reading
[26:55 - 26:59]
about subversion and sabotage in the rest of it. It disturbs them. Certain
[26:59 - 27:04]
words are un-American that if you're interested in racial problems you see
[27:04 - 27:11]
this inverse of I know this is occurring back in Minnesota I swim in
[27:11 - 27:16]
California where people are criticizing some of the different point of
[27:16 - 27:20]
view as subversive and I'm not sure that this is
[27:20 - 27:23]
a tradition that we're used to.
[27:23 - 27:28]
Well of course I'm not a sensitive that to that probably as some people might be as
[27:28 - 27:33]
a Democratic officeholder I've been accused of almost everything under the sun and my
[27:33 - 27:38]
height has become just a little time and I think however that unnecessarily
[27:38 - 27:42]
disturbs people it gives them a distorted picture. And certainly one greatly
[27:42 - 27:46]
at variance with fact and the sooner we get back to a proper
[27:46 - 27:52]
respect for the right of people to disagree without having to
[27:52 - 27:57]
question their loyalty as Americans they still are we're going to be on
[27:57 - 27:59]
a safe road.
[27:59 - 28:05]
That was Congressman John Moss of California chairman of the House Subcommittee
[28:05 - 28:09]
on Government Information. Our first guest was Senator Hubert Humphrey of
[28:09 - 28:14]
Minnesota. Next week at this time security and civil rights presents
[28:14 - 28:20]
the personal and psychological aspects of security loyalty programs through an exclusive
[28:20 - 28:24]
interview with Dr. Maria Hoda professor of psychology and assistant director of the
[28:24 - 28:29]
Human Relations Center at the New York University. Security and civil rights
[28:29 - 28:34]
is produced by the University of Minnesota radio station. Under a grant from the
[28:34 - 28:39]
Educational Television and Radio Center. For distribution by the National Association
[28:39 - 28:44]
of educational broadcasters. The interviews on today's program were
[28:44 - 28:49]
conducted by the producer of the series Philip gold. The consultant commentator
[28:49 - 28:54]
for security and civil rights is a professor of law. Read Paulson. Your
[28:54 - 28:57]
announcer Charles Brehm.
[28:57 - 29:01]
The preceding tape recorded program was the presentation of the end E.B.
[29:01 - 29:03]
Radio Network.
🔍