Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-06-30

rev men cOul0 survive Sucn 3
period Of investigation and in
terrogation without having many
Of their actions imisinterpreted
or misunderstood.
To be effective a security syS-
tenn must be realistic. In the
words of the Atomic Energy
Commission security criteria:
"The facts of each case must
be carefully weighed and de-
termination made in the light
Of all the information presented
whether favorable or unfavor-
able. The judgment of respon-
sible persons as to the integrity
Of the individuals should be con-
sidered. The decision as to Sc
curity clearance is an overall,
common-sense judgment, made
after consideration of all the
relevant information as to
whether or not there is risk that
the granting of security clear
ance would endanger the COM
mon defense or security"
Human Weaknesses.
Application Of this standard
Of overall comnaon-senSe judy
ment to the whole record de-
StroyS any pattern Of suspicious
conduct or catalog Of falSehoods
and evasionS, and leaves a pic
ture of DR.. Oppenheimer as an
able, imaginative human being
with normal human weaknesses
and failings. In my opinion the
conclusion drawn by the major
ity from the evidence is so ex-
IRENE as to endanger the Secur-
ity system.
If one starts with the assump-
ton that DR.. Oppenheimer is
diSloyal, the incidents which I
have recounted may arouse sus-
picion. However. if the entire
record is read effectively, DR..
Oppenheimer's loyalty and trust
worthinesS emerge clearly and
the various disturbing incidents
are shown in their proper light
as understandable and unim-
portant.
The "Chevalier incident" re-
mains reprehensible: but in fair
ness and on all of the evidence,
this one admitted and regretted
made many years ago
does not predominant in my
overall Judgment of DR.. Open
heimer'S character and RELIABLE
ity. Unless one confuses a man.
ner Of expression with candor, or
errors in recollection with lack
of veracity, DR.. Oppenheimer'S
testimony before the Gray board
has the ring of honesty. I urge
thoughtful citizens to examine
this testimony for themselves,
and not be content with sum-
maries ,or with extracts quoted
out Of context.
Nothing to Worship.
With respect to the alleged
disregard of the security system,
I would suggest that the system
itself is nothing to worship. It
is a necessary means to an end.
It's sole purpose, apart from the
prevention of sabotage, is to pro-
tect secrets. If a man protects
the secrets he has in his hands
and his head, he has shown
regard for the security
system.
In addition, cooperation with
security officials in their legiti-
mate activities is to be expected
of private citizens and Govern
ment employees. The security
system has, however, neither the
responsibility nor the right to
dictate every detail Of a mans
life. I frankly do not under
stand the charge made by the
majority that DR.. Oppenheimer
has shown a persistent and will
full disregard for the obligations
of security, and that, therefore,
he should be declared a security
risk. No gymnastics Of ration
alization allow me to accept
this argument. If in any recent
instances, DR.. Oppenheimer has
misunderstood his obligation to
security, the error is occasion
for reproof but not for a finding
that he should be debarred from
serving his country. Such a find
ing extends the concept of "se-
curity risk" beyond its legitimate
justification and constitutes a
dangerous precedent.
In these times, failure to en-
ploy a man of great talents may
the strength and power
Of this country. Yet I would &C
cept this loss if I doubted the
loyalty Of DR.. Openheimer or
his ability to hold his tongue. I
have no such doubts.
I conclude that DR.. Open
heimer's employment will not
the common defense
and security" and will be
clearly consistent with the in
terestS of the national security"
I prefer the positive statement
that DR.. Oppenheimer's further
employment will continue to
strengthen the United States.
I therefore have voted to re-
instate DR.. Oppenheimer's
clearance.