Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-12-11
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Has Army Qualified
Itself as Subversive?
By JAMES M. MINIFIE

ARMY OFFICIALS studying Ile u All
script Of the Senate Constitutional
Rights subcommittee hearings are
beginning to wonder whether secu-
rity procedures developed at the
Pentagon may not. ironically. bring
the United States Army under its
own definition Of q subversive or
ganization.
Denial of constitutional rights
by intimidation is one Of the ear
marks by which the Army tags an
outfit as subversive.
And over the past three weeks
the subcommittee, presided over by
Senator Thomas c. Hennings. jr..
Democrat of Missouri. has heard
evidence which appears to estab-
lish that the Army has
/. Persuaded or intimidated in
ductees voluntarily" to claim con-
stitutional privilege If they do not
sign the Defense Departments 10y
atty certificate, Form DD-98.
2. Penalized during their service
men who have exercised the consti-
tutional rights the Army forced on
them.
8. Penalized these men after re-
turn to civil life by giving them
less than honorable discharges.
with accompanying substantial
prejudice"
Two LogieoI Questions
n-as whimsical observers on
Capitol Hill. are suggesting - this
makes the Army Q subversive or
ganization. two questions logically
follow:
. Would their membership in such
An organization not mean that all
men now serving must be denied
IN honorable discharge from the
Army?
. Would not all discharged for
mer members Of the Army then be
forever denied Government posts
or sensitive Jobs in defense indus
tries?
Actually. no one is seriously sug-
costing that the Army Is subversive.
But the implications Of the sub
committees evidence is being taken
seriously by the Pentagon-seri-
ously enough to have brought about
already q modification Of Defense
Department policy.
Secretary Of Defense Wilson an
nounced November 10 that hence
forth investigation In inductees'
subversive connections would be
completed prior to induction.
Still undecided by the Army is
whether to change its policy on Sc
curity cases now being investigated
or already discharged. A final de-
cision is not expected before the
first Of the year.
Loyalty Form Is Pivot
Form DD-98 Cthe loyalty GER
tif1cate) is the pivotal item in the
story Of how the Army came to
get itself into this sad box. But
the full story can only be found by
piecing together evidence scattered
through hundreds Of pages of tes-
timony before the Hennings sub
committee. page numbers in pa
rentheses pinpoint the evidence as
1t appears IN transcripts of the
hearings.)
The basic fact is that If an in
ductee exercised his constitutional
privilege against self-incrimination
on Form DD-98-as he was care
fully instructed how to do page
1,049)-he was automatically de-
MED an honorable discharge page
1879.
Further evidence showed that
some inductees were forced to ex-
ercise this privilege" against their
will. under duress or intimidation
(pdges S03-4. They also were re-
quired, many months later, to rec
ognize Just before leaving the Army
that the general discharge" they
were about to receive might de-
prive them Of many rights as a
veteran under both Federal and
State legislation" and that they
might encounter substantial pref
udice in civilian life" as a result.
page 1,085)
This language was contained in
letter handed at the Separation
Center to each CT receiving a less
than-honorable discharge. The SOL
der was required not only to read
the letter, but to sign it, The letter
then went into Army files.
1t is on this point that the Army
might seem to find itself on its own
subversive hook. Form DD-98 de-
fines the Objectionable type Of Or
ganization. membership In which
prohibits normal duty or honorable
discharge. as one which. among
other things
a.. practices, seeks to practice,
or advocates denial TO any
person Of any right or rights
which the Federal Constitution
guarantees or protects against en-
croachment by either or both Fed
eral and State governments. when
such denial is attempted by force,
violence, or intimidation (em-
phasis supplied) tpdge 1914.
Do They Understand?
In studying this point. Subcom-
mittee Counsel Lon Hooker asked
an Army witness: And you expect
the lnductees to read and under
stand those phrases, don't you?"
Lewis Berry. Army counsel. re-
piled. Eyes, sir"
MR.. HOOKER: And if he doesn't,
and he is afraid he doesn't, and he
puts down constitutional privilege
claimed then under the policy of
the Army he is given controlled
duties and a less-than-honorable
discharge. Is that right?
MR.. BERRY: Yes, sir. page
1,075)
Senator Hennings later broke in
to observe:
According to the sworn testi-
mony, he is told to put down con-
stitutional privilege after he is
told that it is voluntary, so that
i