Evening star., 1950-12-08
We Help Our Enemies

The case Of Judith Coplon, whose espionage
conviction has been reversed by the Second Cir
cult Court Of Appeals, illustrates the absurd
length to which our law has gone in shielding
enemy agents from punishment when they have
been caught.
In Miss Coplon's case there were two main
questions. ID Did the FBI have legal right to
arrest her without warrant? (2) Did any OF
the evidence used against her come from leads"
obtained by tapping wires?
The appellate court ruled against the Gov
eminent in both respects. The ruling on the
first point is not too serious far as its effect
on counter-espionage work is concerned. Had
the FBI been able to show, to the satisfaction OF
the court, that there was substantial danger that
Miss Coplon would escape, it would have been
Justified in seizing her without warrant. Since
1t could not satisfy the court on this point, the
arrest was declared illegal, and, consequently,
the evidence found in her possession could not
lawfully be used against her in court. In the
circumstances of the Coplon case this ruling
raises no insuperable barrier. The FBI pre-
sumably could have secured a warrant prior
to the arrest, and in future cases it undoubtedly
will do so.
But the ruling with respect to wire tapping,
in which the Court of Appeals was simply fol-
lowing the command of the Supreme Court. is
quite different matter. For it means that the
FBI, If 1t is to obey what the court speaks OF as
law, will find its hands tied in safeguarding this
country against enemy spies, and it also makes
1t inordnately difficult to convict any espionage
agent who might be caught.
As practical matter, If it is to do its duty,
the FBI will have to continue to tap wires in
espionage and similar cases. If it should refrain
from all re-tapping, as series OF court rul-
ings tend to compel it to do, the result would
vxyi%L 1o$t 3,,
punity They would be free to use telephones
in their espionage activities but the FBI would be
forbidden to tap wires in it's counter espionage
work. In other words, because of an emotional
prejudice against wire-tappng, we would simply
make it easier and safer for enemy agents to
do their work
This situation traces back to an interpreta-
ton which the Supreme Court has placed on
q section of the Federal Communications Act
which forbids intercepting and divulging any
communication It is doubtful that Congress
ever intended this prohibition to apply to such
agencies as the FBI, and it is even more doubtful
that it was intended to apply to mere interception
of messages without divulging their contents.
Nevertheless, this Interpretation is coming to be
regarded as the law and when FBI agents tap
the wires of espionage agents, they find them
selves denounced as lawbreakers.
The remedy for this monumental stupidity
lies with Congress. The appellate court sug-
pested-although 1t did not and could not ad-
vocate-that the law might be changed to au-
thorize wiretaps by the FBI in espionage, sabo-
tage and kidnapping cases and in general in
yestipations involving the national security and
defense. This could be done by Congress without
opening the way to indscriminate overlapping
which any rational person would oppose. And
most certainly it ought to be done.