From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Commies, Queers, and Cuba -- Historical Perspective
Keywords: Are you now, or have you ever been...
Date: 14 Nov 92 04:13:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


                   COMMUNIST THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES
                           THROUGH THE CARIBBEAN
==========================================================================

                                  HEARINGS
                                 BEFORE THE
                      SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
                  ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY
                    ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
                                   OF THE
                         COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY
                            UNITED STATES SENATE
                          EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
                               FIRST SESSION
                               -------------
                                  PART 12

                        Testimony of Robert C. Hill

                      [former US ambassador to Mexico]
                               -------------

                               June 12, 1961

p.821...

 -Mr. Sourwine.  Mr. Hill, do you recall telling this committee in
  executive session "there is no doubt in my mind that individuals in the
  State Department, with the help of individuals in the New York Times put
  Castro in power"?
 -Mr. Hill.  There is no doubt in my mind that is a true story. Individuals
  in the State Department and individuals in the New York Times put Castro
  in power.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  What specific individuals do you have in mind?
 -Mr. Hill.  Well, remember, Mr. Sourwine, that we are dealing here with
  the personalities.  The Foreign Service has got many outstanding
  officers.  I believe that that particular question should be answered in
  executive session because it involves their names.  I could be wrong and
  they could be right.  This is an open hearing and I think that to mention
  specific names at this particular time would not be productive.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  Do you recall telling the committee that you had been told
  by a responsible official of our Embassy in Havana that there was a CIA
  representative in Havana who was pro-Castro?
 -Mr. Hill.  That is correct.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  Does the some situation you recounted prevent you from
  giving us the name of this individual?
 -Mr. Hill.  That is correct.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  Mr. Hill, in your service in the State Department have you
  run into the problem of homosexuality as a security risk and a security
  problem?
 -Mr. Hill.  I believe it is well known, Mr. Sourwine, that it has been a
  problem in our Government.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  I am asking about your own experience.  Do you know it to
  be a problem in the State Department?
 -Mr. Hill.  I certainly recognize that there is the problem and know it
  first hand.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  What can you tell us respecting the extent of this problem?
 -Mr. Hill.  I want to cooperate with the committee, Mr. Chairman, but I do
  believe that a subject of this nature should be confined to an executive
  session.
 -The Chairman.  Well, as long as you won't call names I think the
  testimony is pertinent.  After all, there is a security problem.
 -Mr. Hill.  I felt, Mr. Sourwine, that you expected me to give names and
  personal experiences and I felt that was unfair.  The ones that I have
  to give have suffered the penalty of loss of jobs.  I think you are
  referring to the case that happened in Mexico City, Mr. Sourwine.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  I wasn't referring to a particular case.  I had in mind
  the information you had given the committee in executive session
  respecting the extent of this problem and respecting a particular number
  of such individuals who have been found in the Department. Do you recall
  this?
 -Mr. Hill.  I certainly do.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  Suppose you go into that without naming particular names?
 -Mr. Hill.  If you recall, I was Assistant Secretary of State for
  Congressional Relations and this is one of the unfortunate problems that
  came to my attention because from time to time the Bureau of Security in
  the Department of State filed reports to the appropriate congressional
  committees dealing with those that were employed in the State Department
  that were severed because of homosexual tendencies or admissions of being
  a homosexual.
    My first 2 weeks in Mexico City---I believe I reported this to you and
  the committee---there were seven members of my staff who resigned from
  the service because of this problem.
  Senator Keating.  How large a staff did you have?
 -Mr. Hill.  The percentage was on the right side, Senator.  We had over
  500 employees.
  The Chairman.  Do you have any estimates of the number within the State
  Department?
 -Mr. Hill.  When I served as Assistant Secretary of State for
  Congressional Relations I was told by the officer responsible for
  conducting investigations on this problem that about 1,400 had been
  severed from the Department of State.
 -The Chairman.  That is out of how many employees?
 -Mr. Hill.  I think at the time there were 21,000 employees.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  Do you know of any instances in which homosexuality was
  discovered in the case of a particular individual but that individual
  was not severed from his position in the Department?
    I will not ask you for the names of the individuals.
 -Mr. Hill.  I know of no individual that was not severed for the
  Department of State that admitted homosexual activities, Mr. Sourwine.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  You remember, sir, telling the committee that you knew
  there were 75 security risks in the Department in whose cases security
  hearings had been recommended by the responsible officer but who had been
  cleared for security without such hearings?
 -Mr. Hill.  There is an Executive order, I believe, that still exists that
  if there is adverse information in the file regarding an individual that
  the Attorney General and the Secretary of State may waive that
  information if they believe it is inconclusive.
    Once again, that was a problem that came with my supervision as far as
  Congress was concerned, in keeping them informed regarding the security
  problem.  The same individual that gave me the information regarding the
  homosexual problem told me that he personally had recommended severance
  of approximately 75 individuals in the Department but had been overruled
  by the Attorney General and by the Secretary of State because, in the
  opinion of both men, there was inconclusive evidence.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  Do you have any knowledge as to whether those 75 men or
  any of them are still employed in the Department?
 -Mr. Hill.  I know of one that is over in the area of the Belgian Congo.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  Here again this is a name you do not want to give the
  committee in public session.
 -Mr. Hill.  That is right.
 -Mr. Sourwine.  Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of this witness.
 -Senator Keating.  Mr. Hill, you have given us very important information
  about Cuba and your impressions of the various stages of Castro's
  affiliations have been borne out by the facts.
    Now a hearing of this character loses much of its value unless it can
  be used in the future.  A great number of us, including myself, have been
  urging for some time a complete embargo against shipment of goods to
  Cuba.  Up to the present time, the Department of State has said they are
  considering such a step.  But that is as far as they will go.
    Do you feel that an embargo against Cuba would prove to be an effective
  instrument for our country to use in a situation in which it now finds
  itself?
 -Mr. Hill.  Senator Keating, I had been advocating a complete embargo, air
  and sea, for many months and to no avail.  I have stated it publicly in
  speeches that I have made in the United States.  There is no reason in
  the world for the United State to allow Communist arms to be shipped into
  this hemisphere through Havana.
    It is in violation of every treaty we have signed with Latin America
  that deals with the common defense of the area.  Until such an embargo
  is placed, the arms will continue to be brought into this country and
  will be used to overthrow governments that are not in favor with Moscow.
    I would wholeheartedly subscribe to a total and complete air and sea
  embargo.
 -Senator Keating.  And it would be, in your opinion, most effective and
  would be in accordance with any treaty commitments that we have?
 -Mr. Hill.  That is correct  What you have to do is convene the
  Organization of American States and go through channels.  This should
  have been done many months ago.
    All the nations of Latin America have signed the various treaties of
  Bogata and Rio that deal with this problem.  Castro is not a problem
  solely of the United States.  It is a problem of the Western Hemisphere.
  If Latin America lives up to the treaties and they join with the United
  States and the Organization of American States effectuates the embargo,
  it will have much more effect.
    Now, as you know, Senator, there is considerable concern in Latin
  America about Castroism.  We might not have the necessary votes to bring
  about an embargo.
    If that should happen, then we should act unilaterally.
 -Senator Keating.  I could not agree with you more.
    Do you think we should continue to trade with Cuba, even though that
  trade, outside of the sugar problem, although the trade is small, do you
  think the trade should be continued?
 -Mr. Hill.  There should be no trade with Cuba---period.  The most serious
  foreign policy problem that faces the United States today outside of
  Communist China and Russia is Cuba.  If something isn't done about Cuba
  the freedom of the Western Hemisphere is in serious jeopardy.
 -Senator Keating.  And does it make any sense to you to have American
  dollars sent to Cuba which Cuba can use to purchase arms to destroy
  other countries in Latin America and to try to destroy us?
 -Mr. Hill.  It is inconceivable, but I know it has been going on.
  Senator Keating.  Are there other possible steps in addition to that
  which you would like to see the United States or the Organization of
  American States take to deal with the situation in Cuba?
 -Mr. Hill.  Yes, it is interesting for me to note that 14,000 or 15,000
  miles away, we lost 150,000 American boys or they were maimed for life
  or many of them seriously injured and killed in the defense of Korea
  and in the fight against the Communists.  But in Cuba, only 90 miles
  from the United States, we are unwilling to take affirmative action.
    Now, there is still available to the United States ways and means,
  positive steps that we can take to try to resolve the Cuban problem.
  It is very late but it has to be done, because if it isn't done, communism
  will overrun this hemisphere.
    We should request a reconvening of the Organization of American States
  and I recall, Senator, as you do, Secretary Dulles pointing with pride
  that this was the oldest organization among international organizations,
  with many years of experience and just how successful it had been in
  dealing with problems in Latin America.  All of a sudden, that success
  has been lost.
    But the instrument is still there.  If the United States will show
  some leadership, reconvene the Organization of American States, then
  clearly and consistently outline the problem---the problem of communism
  ---and suggest that we invoke the Caracas resolution or the Rio
  resolution, then you can move with your economic sanctions within the
  prerogatives of the Organization of American States, if the majority
  agrees.
    If the majority does not agree, then the U.S. Government has the
  opportunity to put on notice our friends south of the border.  I am sure
  you know of my respect for the Latin American people.  You know of my
  aspirations for a better way of life for these wonderful people in Latin
  America.  If they can't see fit to protect what is their own security,
  then the United States must concern itself with theirs, as well as our
  security.  Then the United States could bring about the total embargo
  which I believe is necessary in Cuba, stopping all trade with Cuba,
  recognize a Cuban Government in exile that is not a Fidel government
  without Fidel.  If the Cuban Government in exile requests the United
  States to intervene or if Castro continues to provoke the United States,
  we give Mr. Castro 48 hours.  At the end of 48 hours if he is still in
  Cuba, then we go in.

  [ * * * ]


Quiz:  0. Who all in the New York Times and State Department was thought
          to have helped put Castro in Power?

       1. Is the "Queer-Scare" far bigger than the "Red-Scare" ever was?

       2. Should back-pay be provided in recompense for those who were
          forced out of their jobs?

       3. What are present "security policies" regarding homosexuality
          in the State Department and other branches of the Federal
          Government?

       4. Considering the Belgian Congo connection and such, were names
          named in Exective Sessions? Are these now available through
          FOIA request? If not, will anyone who was "kissing" then,
          "tell" now?

       5. Who was President at the time of the hearing? Who was Attorney
          General?

       6. What trade was still going on with Cuba then? How about
          contraband?

       7. Has the embargo been effective?

       8. Did we give Castro 48 hours prior notice?

       9. Did this hearing as related above actually take place?

      10. If you can answer #9, was Tom McCabe (Scott Paper)
          a friend, or just an associate, of Robert Hill?

  Bonus.  How large was Ambassador Hill's "staff," and was it completely
          "severed?"