Alan Barth

I think that these freedoms have been more than

any other quality in American life. Responsible for the growth in the greatness of the

United States they have been not luxuries

but necessities. They are indeed the characteristic of

this nation which most distinguishes us from

the communist countries and which most contributed to our

superiority and our superior strength in relation to them.

That was the voice of Mr Allen by. Washington journalist and author

of the loyalty of free men and government by investigation.

Mr. Barth will now discuss some effects of security loyalty programs

upon the fundamentals of democracy. On the 12th program in this series

security and civil rights produced by the University of Minnesota radio station.

Security and Civil Rights has been made possible by a grant from the Educational Television

and Radio Center and produced in cooperation with the National Association of

educational broadcasters and the University of Minnesota Law School. This series

is presented in the hope that in authoritative review of the various issues involved in the

field of security and civil rights will help to clarify some of the distinctive features of a

free and democratic society. And now to introduce our special guest

authorities. Here is the regular consultant commentator for security and civil rights

and member of the law faculty of Columbia University Professor man mad Pawson.

As we near the end of our series of programs we have with us Mr. Alan Barth of

Washington DC who discusses some of the implications of the

security loyalty program in respect to the fundamentals and basic

concepts of our freedom and our democracy. His statement is a

kind of summary of what the ultimate philosophical and political implications of

the present security loyalty system is. Mr. Allen

Barth has been a reporter and journalist in Washington D.C. for

over 20 years. He is an editorial writer for The Washington Post.

His the author of two books the loyalty of free men and government by

investigation. Both of these books incidentally are available in

inexpensive paperback editions. Mr. Bias is

interviewed in this program by Mr. Philip Gallo the producer of our series.

The interview was recorded in our nation's capital.

Why one book which was published in

1951 by the Viking Press and a year later by pocket books in a

paperback edition is called the loyalty of free men.

It's a general discussion of the problem of individual rights in relation to national

security and to the development of what seemed to me at that time

to be real and serious threats to individual liberty

which at the same time with threats to the security of a country. Threats to

national security because they diminish the area of independent

thinking and the freedom to criticize

which has always been a source of strength and in the United States or in any free country.

The other book published this year is called government by investigation

also published by the Viking Press and it's an analysis or discussion

of congressional investigations and of

their impact on individual liberty and the civil rights of

Americans.

In our series My research paper list

13 legal rights are you rights are respected in.

Question or hearings or is there a kind of a who or regulations.

One has to be discriminating in discussing congressional hearings.

I suppose that Perfection is achieved nowhere or not to

recognize at the outset that congressional that the Investigating Power is an

immensely important and useful

authority which is given to the Congress of the United States and which is

which is which is an indispensable adjunct of the power to

legislate. Now that power is sometimes used wisely and

sometimes not so wisely. We have had periods in history when the power to

investigate has been abused by some congressional committees we have it in. We

have had instances of extremely valuable. Use of the

Investigating Power by committees. It seems to me that in recent

years. The Investigating Power has been used by some committees.

For our purposes which are improper for purposes which have no

relation no proper relation to the legislative function.

Sometimes the power to investigate has been used it seems to me that

in order to punish citizens for ideas

or activities which which members of Congress deplore.

And sometimes it has been used to cut across the word of courts.

And to conduct what amounted in effect to legislative trials that

is trials of individuals. For wrong

opinions or for activities which are not punishable by law.

And trials which are conducted without any of the protections

for individual rights which are encompassed in the phrase

due process of law. Sometimes the investigating power of

Congress has been used to punish individuals if you like

by publicity for offenses which are not under the Constitution of the United States

punishable by law. The most conspicuous instance of this

dangerous tendency that I'm talking about seems to me to would be in the latter more case

there was a case of. In which a man

was charged out of a extremely

offensive behavior by a United States senator he was not however a public

employee. He was not charged with the commission of any crime

yet he was held before a committee of the Senate. And for

12 days he was subjected by one member of the

committee after another and by its counsel as well. To

a series of heresy and badgering questions in regard to

which he was given very little opportunity of affective reply.

So that it seemed to me as one of the newsman watching those hearings.

That this was much more a lot like one of those

odious people's court procedures that we hear about in the Soviet Union.

The most dangerous aspect of the latter more proceedings it was a

tendency.

To entrap Mr. Latham or into

making admissions or to giving

statements which which could be found to be in conflict

with advance which had occurred 10 years or more prior to the time that he was

testifying. And to use these discrepancies between the

facts and his testimony as a basis laid around for a perjury

prosecution and that indeed is what happened. Mr. Latimer was

indicted for the discrepancies between what he said and what had

happened. Of essentially a pretty trivial nature. For

example he was indicted because he said that he had had a luncheon with the

Russian ambassador.

Prior to that. The invasion of

Germany by the way of Russia by the Germans.

Whereas in fact it had taken place a few days earlier. And this discrepancy was made the

basis for a perjury prosecution.

He was he was prosecuted in addition for charges which seemed

so vague. To the United States judge who conducted the

trial that they were thrown out of court as insubstantial.

Oh I was kind of sad by heritage American expressing what I hear.

Of course if Americans generally want to become fearful

that they might be healed before congressional committees because they had expressed

opinions which were heterodox or unpopular.

There would be a considerable disinclination to run that risk. To be

called before a congressional committee is not a comfortable experience for anybody.

And to be called before a committee accused out

of disloyalty or of being a risk to the security of the

United States is can hardly be can hardly be agreeable to

any patriotic citizen. So that I should take it readily

understandable that men and women would be reluctant to

incur that risk and that reluctance might lead them to be more guarded about what they

said. More circumspect about the expression of their opinions more

reticent in criticizing the government than citizens of a

free country ought to be.

Are you saying that my Ha Ha last night is. Mr. Mallory vindication just

because that we see here patients and US you see

I have a strong feeling that we make a grave

mistake when we suppose that there is some kind of conflict between

individual rights and national security.

When we think of individual rights as though they were some sort of privilege or indulgence to be

enjoyed only in untroubled times. On the contrary

it seems to me that personal freedom the kind of

right to individual expression which has always been

obtained in the United States has been a real and significant

and affirmative source of national strength. This kind of freedom

to criticize the government has been a key to the

efficiency of the United States because it has enabled us it is given as a means of correcting

errors which is entirely lacking in totalitarian states. When

something is done wrong when a policy is mistaken in the government of a free

country there are always people to challenge or to attack or to criticize it

and to point out the nature of the error. This gives us a a kind of

self-governing mechanism through which we can.

Overcome our errors and correct them. Now Similarly it seems to me that

freedom to dissent freedom to criticize freedom to differ

from the prevailing opinion the majority opinion is a

tremendous source of national unity. Unity you know

comes not out of any kind of enforced uniformity but it comes

out of the resolution of differences through conflict through discussion through

what we call a democratic process. And it is out of that process that a

nation achieves the only real and enduring unity the

only kind of stability which can be and which can be really

counted upon to endure the test of a crisis in time.

This is something which the founders of the American republic profoundly understood.

And it was for utilitarian reasons that they guaranteed to

the American people in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of expression

freedom to express differences of conscience and of modes of

worship freedom to maintain the press

the prime function of which was to criticize the government to act as a kind of

censor of the government. Now I think that

these freedoms have been more than any other

quality in American life. Responsible for the growth and the greatness of the United

States they have more than any other factor made this country

invulnerable to attack from the outside. They have been not

luxuries but necessities. They are indeed the

characteristic of this nation which most

distinguishes us from the communist countries. And which

most contributed to our superiority and our superior strength in

relation to them. I think that I think that our

security against foreign aggression our security against the threat of communism

comes not so much from our industrial strength or from our superiority

in arms as it does from the superiority.

Which grows out of a system of individual freedom

and of the tolerance of diversity. Now I'm not saying of course that there are not

threats to national security. There are such threats there are very

significant and real dangers from the outside from the

expansionist tendencies and the aggressive ambitions of the

Soviet Union. And against this kind of danger we certainly

have to guard beyond our guide by maintaining our affective military

naval strength. At the same time I think we need to be on

our guard most of all to preserve the qualities of

individual freedom and freedom of expression and freedom of

conscience. But I have been the prime sources of American strength in the past.

Strange that in talking about these we are

actually on the whole are happy with Charlie Sheen

in each county and we. Two areas for example where I work he swears he

sold car had a perjury trial he did the right to have definite

charges that he hears he's too noisy users in fact all of these words

continually expand upon concepts of freedom seemed to

start with very specific illegal

elements being nice is this.

Yes let me say something if I may about the Peters case because it

reflects better by haps than any other single case.

The notion what I think is the hideously mistaken notion

that national security is promoted somehow or other.

By overriding and discarding the traditional rights of American citizens.

The Peters case reflects a philosophy. That

simply because a man accept employment in the government of the United

States that is undertakes to become an American public service servant.

Even our buy for office all of the right to due process of war

which are indeed the usual birthright of Americans. Now

Peters as you may recall was a man who worked as a consultant

to the surgeon general Dr. Peters was an eminent physician a professor of

medicine at Yale University.

He came down here for only a few days in the year to advise the surgeon

general in regard to grants

connected with public health research. Now he was

accused of by unknown by

unidentified and anonymous accusers. I was some kind of

under find disloyalty to the United States. He was

cleared of that accusation by a loyalty board. He was cleared

again by a loyalty review board but some years later.

That clearance was reversed when a new standard for the determination of why only

was introduced. And Dr Peters

was ousted from a job which

he hadn't sought and which he rendered as a public servant.

As a public service.

On the basis of anonymous accusations and without

specific charges. Now now

I think that the security of the United States is not protected by that kind

of procedure.

I think that when a bird undertakes to make a judgment as to the loyalty

out of any American of any individual

it needs to know at the very least the source of the

accusations on which its judgment is to be based. If it doesn't know

the identity of accusers then it has no means whatever

of judging whether the accuser is a paragon of veracity or

a name or for that matter the village idiot. It has no means

of weighing the essential element of the case. That is whether the

information against the defendant is reliable information.

If it doesn't know that it is engaged in something which can by no reasonable use

of the term be called judgment it is engaged in something which ought to be called

guesswork. And it might better make its decisions

on a basis of lottery or if you like of Russian roulette

because it is not engaged in anything. Which can be

called rational procedure. Now I'm talking about this

not in terms of its terrible impact on the individual involved and Dr. Peters for

example but in terms of its terrible impact upon the

national security which it is supposed to protect. So if you will of

what an instrument for mischief. This

reliance on accusations from anonymous sources put into the

hands of mischief makers of a communist if you like or of persons who have

some particular grudge or malice which they wish with which they wish to

discharge. Security national security is much

too important to be left to this kind of guesswork. And

if any malicious person or enemy of the United States can

bring about the dismissal of able loyal devoted government services servants

simply by whispering accusations about them anonymously

then they have a weapon in their hands which is

infinitely dangerous to the security of the country.

I better hurry I question you now a hyena and a man well be of

a mean by loyalty and security. Simple enough

that he may do what I asked. How secure are I only

the Department of Justice or the government was to me.

I suppose that each one of us has his own concept of loyalty and has a pretty clear

idea of what the word means to me it means a devotion

to the country which puts that

country above all others. But

of course the very big news of the term and the fact that it may have different

meanings for different people can

resulting in a great range of interpretation of it when you come to judge

individual cases. And some people

regard as disloyal any form of criticism of the government.

Some people tend to regard dissent as the same thing as

disloyalty. And this tendency to acquaint disloyalty with

dissent is what I was talking about before. As a real

threat to freedom of expression. If a man is

fearful. The criticism of the government criticism of any

governmental policy may be misconstrued by people who

judge him as disloyalty to the United States. Then he

will of course be fearful about expressing dissent.

And if people generally become serious or are expressing dissent of

expressing criticism. Then we shall lose one of the most

enriching and and healthy

factoids in the life of a free society. Then we shall be

reduced to the kind of expression of JA

that the Germans had and that resulted in allowing

all of Hitler's errors to bring about the destruction

of the German people and their money out heartless as

we need their measures to protect national security that it can an act of

treason sedition a sad hour.

How many stories of this kind are actual events. We

heard this one.

Man here I have no doubt that there are real threats to national

security. And they come from enemy agents

who was given an opportunity would commit espionage or

sabotage.

Now espionage and sabotage are real dangers. They involve

crimes they are forbidden by laws of the United States. And I

think that we need to be very vigilant león guard against those

crimes. We have an efficient

national police force in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And we

have more or less sufficient local police forces which I think are

competent to deal with these dangers.

Treason is something else. Disloyalty is something else. Treason

is a crime. The only crime

specifically defined in the Constitution. Which is

narrowly defined there. Precisely because

the authors of the Constitution understood very well. That

loose and vague definitions of treason could be

used to curb dissent to punish any kind of an

orthodoxy. And so they said that treason shall consist

only in giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United

States and they specified even the means by which a

Conviction of Treason could be procured.

I think they did that because they had had long experience with the

tendency in England during the 17th and 18th centuries

to use accusations of treason merely to

punish dissent or criticism of the government and they desired

to keep alive the freedom of expression

which they thought the basis of all other freedoms the freedom to criticize

to dissent to express heterodox or unorthodox points of

view. They desired to keep that freedom alive and it was because they

wished to keep it alive that they tried to be very careful to

avoid having that kind of freedom of expression

confused with treason. They wanted to confine a crime of treason

to the to the commitment of certain very precisely

defined overt acts against the security of the

nation as well.

Questions or has this been your experience whenever

I tell people the stories in various cases far west of

Israel he was or see here three hundred bad police their oppression is that this is

smart police work they say to get this impression from the newspapers radio and

television. Sure is that where you are very seldom

where anybody at any legal rights or constitutional protections really needed

the average individual might do to be more aware

of what his rights are in terms of where hotter. Here you're using

just hear anything I wish he had

I don't know we don't I don't know if your premise is right.

We and we have in the United States a

longstanding long established and recognized

code of fair play. I couldn't undertake to define it for

you but it encompasses a whole lot of.

Our ideas regarding the worth and dignity of the individual

regarding respect for differences of opinion

regarding tolerance of diversity regarding CNS

in dealing with a fellow who is down

regarding that that vague ideal called sportsmanship and

these are if you like rough and ready

approximations of what the lawyers mean by due

process they are rough and ready approximations of what we

formalized as justice in our laws and our rules of

judicial procedure.

Americans generally have a highly developed sense of fair play

and this is I suppose our richest and our

greatest heritage as a people.

That was Mr. Alan Barth editorial writer for The Washington Post

and author of two books on security and loyalty government by investigation

and the loyalty of free men. Mr. Barth was recorded in Washington D.C..

Next week from New York City the National Association of educational broadcasters

presents the final program in the series. Security and civil rights. In this

program. We will present a summary and recommendations for our security programs.

Mr. Dudley Bunce. Mr. Bunce is chairman of a special nonpartizan

committee set up by the Association of the bar of the city of New York to evaluate our

security loyalty programs. Here Dudley be banned next week on

security and civil rights produced by the University of Minnesota radio station KUVO

am under a grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center.

This series is edited and produced by Philip go consultant commentator

Columbia University professor of law.

Read Paulson your announcer Charles Brin the

preceding tape recorded program or the presentation of the end E.B. Radio

Network.