Your rights are on trial; National security or individual rights

The following tape recorded program is distributed by the National Association of educational broadcasters. Is there a conflict between national security and individual rights. This challenging question will be faced now on the final programme in this series of authoritative discussions in which your rights. This is the final and most challenging programme in this series. Your rights are on trial produced by the University of Minnesota radio station. I am under a grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters and the University of Minnesota Law School. On today's program national security versus individual rights you will hear Attorney Joseph a Fanelli Jr. outstanding counsel and security loyalty

cases Dr. Maria Hoda assistant director of New York University's Human Relations Center. And John be over sun acting manager of the National Defense Department for the United States Chamber of Commerce. But first here is one of the consultant commentators for your rights are on trial. Professor of law at Columbia University. Mr. Mann read Polson most speakers would have us believe that our liberties and laws are endangered only by organized villains who would swoop down upon us seize us tear up our Constitution before our eyes and treat us like slaves. While it cannot be denied that forces do exist that might like to do this. History has shown us time and time again that when liberty is lost and justice becomes a mockery it is not always through an obvious and dramatic struggle against avowed enemies. On the contrary it is far more likely today that freedom and law which is our major expression of safety and security can be lost in the very

name of preserving freedom and security from the excesses of the French Revolution to the modern states of communism and fascism. Security and liberty often have been destroyed in the name of saving security and liberty. This is not a simple concept to grasp but history has proved that liberty and law can be eliminated by good and concerned people as easily as by evil and indifferent people. The price of liberty is more than eternal vigilance. The price also includes intelligence patience compassion and a consideration of all factors. Plus the most difficult of human understanding the knowledge that final answers are seldom final but invariably involved with some compromise sacrifice. Check and balance. Nowhere are these abstractions made more real than in our present day problems of preserving both national security and individual rights. There are a few

villains in this conflict. I think it is safe to say that almost every american concerned wants both security for the nation and freedom for the individual. In our present pursuit of either one we seem to be endangering the other. First to appreciate the fact that there usually is a strong case on both sides and that all mean well in a conflict where constitutional rights are at stake. Listen to the beginning of our major security law the Internal Security Act of 1050 as a result of evidence the do was to before various committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives the Congress hereby finds that there exists a world communist movement which in its origins its development and its present practice is a worldwide revolutionary movement whose purpose it is by treachery deceit infiltration into other groups governmental and otherwise espionage sabotage terrorism and any other

means deemed necessary to establish a communist totalitarian dictatorship. Is it any wonder in the light of such a threat that the attorney general of the United States Mr. Herbert Ronald Jr. stated we have never before had to face a clandestine international conspiracy which is trying to destroy our government by infiltration as well as by force and violence. We have to devise new methods to meet this new threat instituting new methods to meet the new threat methods which seem to be minimum essential for national security programs. While the board's FBI checks clearances classifications record reviews certain machinery automatically and necessarily developed. These include hearing agencies that were not actually courts charges that were not very specific accusers that could not be no punishments that were

not actually ordered and other extra legal non legal and illegal results that could not be avoided. All of this began not by violence or protest but by a quiet simple routine executive order from the president of the United States to his agencies and order either unknown to or understandably accepted by the leaders law enforcement officers and people of our nation. I think it should be clear now that vigilance alone is not the price of liberty vigilance alone will not solve the problems of conflicting interests. Ambiguous circumstances and legitimate dangers. All of which invariably combined form those non-dramatic but oh so true situations in which there are neither heroes nor villains but in which liberty and law are nonetheless in danger. Our story today which will be told to you through a factual reporting of events and authoritative recorded comments

illustrates this inescapable and eternal challenge to meet the invariably well-meaning paradoxical but genuine dangers to liberty and security by rational patient and particularly democratic means. That is why we have chosen this program as the final one in this series. Your rights are on trial. The policy of the United States Chamber of Commerce toward a national security loyalty program is typical of the view held by many fine and important American organizations. This policy also illustrates the point this program is trying to make that liberty and law often are threatened not just by overt enemies but by conflicting interests and circumstances directly within the most well-intentioned of ideologies individuals and groups. As Professor Paulson has pointed out this is a fact of life and it is seldom a question of being right or wrong. And now Mr John be our verse and

the United States Chamber of Commerce in a statement recorded especially for your rights are on trial. This is John B all of us I'm acting manager National Defense Department Chamber of Commerce of the United States speaking to you from the chambers headquarters in Washington D.C.. I'd like to outline for you the national chambers current policies covering national defense and subversive activities. The implications of present world tensions have awakened America to the overwhelming importance of building and maintaining a strong national security program. The war of idiology is now in the open and it promises to be both pronounced and prolonged. It requires on the part of civilians and industrial organizations participation and understanding to a marked degree and also they're undertaking a new and important role in the civil defense aspect of

continental defense. It is strongly urged that plant protection and security programs be centralized in one agency so that owners may follow a unified code. In line with this procedure sufficient authority should be granted to implant government security offices staffed with specifically trained civilians security officers to expedite practicable solutions to security problems and to determine and apply realistic procedures developed within the basic intent and framework of government security regulations. The National Chamber of Commerce is an altar Oblio opposed to any political ideology not consistent with the provisions of our Constitution guaranteeing Democratic Democratic government processes individual freedom economic opportunity and the right to the acquisition and enjoyment of property. We advocate an unrelenting campaign against

communism. The National Chamber re-iterate sits earlier position in favor of the continuance of congressional inquiry into all forms of subversive activity and favors in that moment of legislation to provide for more effective means of eliminating subversion spam and other threats to the national security. We favor strengthening the provisions of the labor labor management relations Act of 1947 and the regulations of departments of the federal government designed to expose and eliminate communists and labor unions. Industry and the governmental agencies. The chamber has steadfastly refused to endorse or approve broad proposals that wiretapping be legalized. We recognize however that subversive activities as now revealed are a serious and continuing threat to our national security. Under these circumstances the demands of national security may be

paramount. Therefore we urge the Congress to enact legislation authorizing the introduction and use in evidence in criminal cases involving subversive activities in our federal courts of information secured or developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation through intercepting communications when such interception practices have been expressively authorized by the attorney general. Because teachers in our schools and colleges play a most important role in molding the minds of our children and young people. They should be free of mental shackles. Therefore those who are addicted to communist doctrines should not be allowed to hold teaching positions. We pledge ourselves to constant vigilance in exposing any activities subversive to the principles upon which our republic is founded. That was John B. Oliver Stone acting manager of the National Defense Department for the

United States Chamber of Commerce as recorded in Washington D.C. The views expressed here clearly state the conflict set forth earlier by Professor Paulison. Our Constitution is particularly strong in its regard for freedom a national security program must place limits upon this freedom on the one hand the National Chamber of Commerce is opposed to wiretapping. On the other hand they believe wiretapping should be allowed in situations essential to national security. The chamber is an altar ablate opposed to any group who threaten our constitutional guarantees. And yet that chamber like hundreds of well-meaning and genuinely concerned American organizations stands strongly for security loyalty program that in itself threatens our constitutional guarantees. How does a do this. Are there really specific ways in which our constitutional guarantees are threatened by a security loyalty program. For an answer to this most vital question the producer of the series Philip Gelb

interviewed Mr. Joseph a Fanelli Jr. Mr. Finelli was a former special assistant to the attorney general and is one of the leading lawyers in our nation's capital and handling security loyalty cases as interviewed in his law office in Washington D.C. attorney Joseph NLE almost a finale in general a serious concern with specific legal rights like freedom from arbitrary arrest and reasonable treatment interrogation illegal search and seizure the right to face accusers to know your charges. To have a fair trial and the right to counsel to right extent any or all of these rights possibly endangered by some of the practices of the loyalty hearings and congressional hearings and also by public opinion and the like perhaps these things have to be limited or sacrificed for national security. We've been talking primarily about Central. Confrontation and cross examination the deprivation of that right

occurs in a context of the deprivation of many of the rights to a fair hearing. It is a well understood right of a fair hearing that the standards of decision be precise so that the governing boards I'm not putting you know what decision their own predilections and prejudices but the citing cases objective like the government's security programs have standards take on like such phrases as doubt as to loyalty to the present governing phrase clearly consistent with the security of the United States. Now you can get out of those standards just about what you put into them. I'm not all right in a field that the charges are specific but are security programs specific

only in so far as quote security considerations permit. And so it's not unusual to have a charge for example quote information at hand shows that you have attended meetings and actively participated in subversive organizations. Security considerations are usually held not to permit identification of these meetings as to time and place on the ground that this might supply information which could lead to the identification of informants. Indeed it is not unusual for a security board to refuse to identify even the alleged subversive organizations on the same grounds. Now what this means in practical effect is how do you made a charge that says that you are at an un does ignited meeting at a non designated time at an undesignated place. In the past I know the charge I recall seeing is one red. You have been more interested than the average American has

and racial problems. How do you mean that. Sometimes the very right made an accusation with proof isn't lemonade and security for safety. In one case in which I was present the Hearing Board ruled that the description of a person in a security charge as a quote known communist known to the government as a communist and if the government know what why don't you couldn't controverted by sworn denials and proof of proof showing that that person was currently employed in Mother agency of the government. Right to a fair hearing is the right to compel the attendance of evidence in your favor this is usually known as the subpoena power. There was no such right and security proceedings. I'm not a right is the right to appeal to the

people who are going to decide a case and generally the responsibility of the head of the agency is has this charged with the opportunity to make an argument to him and to reach him. Although the security officer of the agency advises him on a disposition of a case this pertains to one on the right of a fish hearing and eye does not to have your opponent with a secret access making statements outside of the hearing to the man who is going to decide the case when you are not even permitted to be present on such occasions. There is a so-called right to counsel and a security proceeding but counsel is under the same disability the employee has and which I have outlined it doesn't come the right but as a practical thing it's a tough thing financially for an employer to carry himself for the six or eight months or more it takes a security proceeding to and this is a

deprivation of an early and reasonable decision which is a right of a fair hearing. All of these and because of public opinion and gender we get. And eating away and corrosion of other right so private employers have been encouraged to fire their employees without even the facade of a hearing on some theory that they are subversives local time board. We had one here in Washington hold hearings to determine the political qualifications of a person who applies for renewal of a license to do so and second hand second hand pianos we have such a case pending right here. So the very right to earn a living under our Constitution is just prejudiced loyalty always have been held to be bad by our constitution and they upped the graft case. But nevertheless

many industries make frequent use of loyalty oaths and the very right to free speech and expression of opinion is impeded. We had the spectacle not too long ago of a great controversy as to whether you could have a university debate on a touchy subject like recognition of Red China. And by the cumulative effect of all of the commotion of rights such as those I mentioned. One gets decisions by legislative committees by security hearing boards by heads of agencies involving out of the rights of and positions and statuses of citizens of the United States decisions that that rule was too reminiscent of an old dog or old one can't help thinking of it in this connection. Absolute evidence have I none

but my aunt's charwoman sister's son heard a policeman on his beat a housemaid and Downing Street and so forth. That was Attorney Joseph a Fanelli Jr. as interviewed in his law office in Washington D.C. Mr. Finelli pointed out how our constitutional rights become involved in a security loyalty program. One important question remains however does all this really have any effect upon the average individual. For an answer to this question your rights are on trial went to Dr. Marie Yehuda a professor of psychology and assistant director of the Human Relations Center at New York University. Here is Dr. Maria Hoda as recorded in her office in New York City reporting on a study and survey she directed that is highly pertinent to our topic today. Doctor you hota what we actually did this. We talked in Washington to professional people in government employment

research the idea off finding out there was any noticeable influence on the loyalty and security measure as I described that intensive interview with trained psychologists and the overly nature of the ideas that came out from this is that the security and loyalty policy just really did have serious impact. But better to be more concrete about it. We found out that these federal employees range to very high ranks and went over all the possible government departments whether they approved or disapproved of the loyalty policy just well affected by them. And we found actually quite a few who said there were serious mistakes and they felt that the security problem was not handled well while others

felt it was ideal just what they had always dreamt about. But in the band and of this prosecution and independent of their political preferences most of these people showed signs of serious him. Pick one area in which we could notice this force that these people are much more than any law require us had come to click that and Kaiya thinking and social life to a much lower level of performance. For instance they felt so self-conscious about some of the books they headed home that they did away with their books you know they hid them in the background are some rather foolish things like this. One person even went ahead and burned some books. What's perhaps more important for government services that they said Right clearly in this interview was that many of them. If you still bring up subjects for discussion in their

professional capacities which they ordinarily really should discuss sharing their father not their best thinking was any longer available to the government. Oh they stopped subscription to newspapers they dropped out of organisations they dropped out of organisations which weren't even on the Attorney-General's list. And when you ask them ride their answer was the organisation isn't there now but what do I know about in six months or a year from now it might get on the list. So you see this general curtailment this was one of the effects and as an effect rose there. The brainwashing net that very clearly marked areas where groups of people became suspicious we found out that people for instance was foreign sounding names juice and Negroes. People who

joined organizations became the target for suspicion for our Everybody else who had put in his her incessant read become more cautious. Now this indicated that a group of people against whom there was really no official accusation and I'm quite sure the government wouldn't want them to be suspect. It nevertheless became suspected as an unintended consequence of the general security. Which I think is a real threat to our democratic concepts and democratic notions. That was Dr. Maria hota professor of psychology and assistant director of the Human Relations Center at New York University. And now once again one of the consultant commentators for your rights are on trial professor of law at Columbia University. Mr. Mann Right Ponson.

While there has been a good deal of pressure to increase the punishment for advocating or teaching a violent overthrow of the government and for extending the entire security loyalty program the major developments have been in the direction of protecting constitutional privileges and individual rights. April 1956 headlines in The New York Times read loyalty checks in science eased security rules covering seamen modified and army eases code in security cases in an authoritative nonpartisan $100000 study of our nation's security system. The bar association of the city of New York concluded according to U.S. News and World report for July thirteen thousand nine hundred fifty six that the security program should be kept. But its weaknesses should be corrected. At least one of the Bar Associations recommendations has become a reality. Loyalty security tests should be limited only to those who hold sensitive positions. Other recommendations are

accusers should testify unless disclosure of their identity would harm national security. The attorney general's list of subversive organizations should be abolished unless it can be modified a charged employee should be furnished with written findings of fact with only such deletions as are required in the interests of national security. The conflict between national security and individual rights has not been settled. It never will be settled. The conflict is simply a modern example of the struggle every minute every group always has known and will know the struggle between two things all of us want security for the group and freedom for the individual. Each one of us wants to be a part of others and yet often we want to be apart from the others. This fact of life rather than being a frustrating unanswerable problem has given rise to our greatest efforts of thought philosophy art psychology and government. It is with

the latter that this series has been concerned. Our free and democratic system of equal justice under law has proved far greater and more vital than any single conclusion or court decision. The system is bigger than its findings. Justice and Law has proved as much as it is possible to be both security and order for the community and safety and freedom for the individual. It has done this by checking and rechecking compromise and decision. Our Way has proved itself not just because we have a fine set of rules a fine set of regulations a constitution and a bill of rights but because we have an active working system that can consider adjust and solve its problems without violence. A system of courts and guarantees that can be aware dynamic flexible while maintaining both the balance and fundamentals absolutely necessary for the free secure and decent life.

You have just heard the 13 and final program in this series. Your rights are on trial produced by the University of Minnesota radio station. In cooperation with the School of Law. This program was made possible by a grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center and distributed by the National Association of educational broadcasters. And social commentator for the series where professors of law Brad Paulson and Charles Allen write. Your rights are on trial has been written edited and produced by Philip Gill. Assistant producer William Dale. Your announcer as been heard are right. This is the end of the Radio Network.