Evening star., 1955-07-24
By PHIL YEAGm
and JOHN STARK


Are the three ''Ttrncoat GIs"
going 10 get away with 1t because
Of the legal tangie their case has
created?
The answer appears to be a pretty
certain, No.
Not, that is, II the Army decides
that the situation demands punish
ment in addition to the dishonor-
able discharges handed out in
January, 1854, to former Corporals
Otho Bell. Hillsboro, Miss: William
Cowart, Dalton, Ca. and Lewis
Griggs. Neches, Tex.
Much has been made Of the fact
that Defense Secretary Charles e.
Wilson designated these men as
deserters (when they elected to stay
with the Chinese Reds following
their capture in the Korean war;
and gave them dishonorable dis
charges without any court martial
proceedings. 1t has been claimed
that the Military Code of Justice
requires such discharges to be is
sued only at the hands of military
court.
This is incorrect. The Military
Code Of Justice does not limit dis
charge action to court martial
cases; 1t is silent on the question
Of whether dishonorable discharges
may be given administratively. So
while there Is doubt o. to the legal
ity Of Mr.. Wilson's act, the doubt
springs not from Interpretation Of
the military code but from the
nature Of the general authority Of
the Secretary Of Defense.
cousht Either Way
From the point Of view of the
errant GIs, however, the question
Of overstepped authority makes lit
tie difference.
Assuming that Mr.. Wilson acted
beyond his powers. then the Turn
coat Trio remains in the Army and
Is subject to military jurisdiction.
Assuming on the other hand that
the administrative discharges were
good. then under Article of the
military code the Army can reas-
sert jurisdiction. This article per-
mits military authorities to try and
punish men for major offenses
committed while In the armed
forces II they cannot be properly
prosecuted for them in the civil
courts. There is a two-year statute
of limitations on this authority.
but it is inapplicable in wartime
desertion cases and does not begin
to run In other cases until persons
charged can be physically appre-
hended.
In short. Messrs. Bell, Cowart
and Griggs now appear to be
available" to the Army regardless
Of their discharge status
Question Of Rights
Some, contend that these three,
under the Panmunjom Agreement.
were within their legal rights in
declining repatriation and are thus
absolved of possible crimes con-
nected with that act.
But the Panmunjom Agreement
created no new right for American
soldiers. It was q political action
under which the United States
promised Communicated GIs i'm
munity from desertion charges II
they returned to their own forces
by certain date. It gave no
blanket amnesty or legal immunity
to those who did not return or who
returned later.
Some of the confusion over the
status Of the turncoat GIs results
from inapt comparison with other
cases, such as:
o The Bachelor and DickenSon
cases. Corporals Claude j. Batch
elor and Edward s. Dickinson were
convicted of aiding the enemy by
collaboration during prisoner of
war status in the Korean fracas.
They are serving prison terms Of
20 and 10 years respectively. Both
men returned to American lines
prior to the Panmunjom deadline
and were never discharged prior to
trial.
q The ScEDGble case. Marine Col.
Frank H. Schwable made "confes-
sions" as a Korean POW of which
the Chinese Communists took ad-
vantage. A Marine board of in
quiry, however, decided Schwable
had been tortured and brain
washed" and had held out as long
as a human could be expected to
do so. His case did not actually
come to trial, although the. Marine
Corps effectively blocked further
promotion for him. i.
The HirSchberg case. In World
War II. Navy Petty Officer Harold
Hirschberg, captured by the jap
anese, treated fellow prisoners
brutally and aided japanese guards
In doing the same. He was later
tried and convicted for collabora-
ton and brutality, but his case was
dismissed on appeal because he had
been tried following his discharge
and the military was held TO have
acted without jurisdiction. Par
TALLY as q result of the Hirschberg
case, the Military Code of Justice,
subsequently enacted, plugged the
loophole by permitting the armed
forces to act In such cases.
. The ProDoo case. Army Sergt.
John d. Provoo, also a Japanese
prisoner during World War II, was
instrumental in contributing to the
torture and death of fellow prison.
ers. He was tried and convicted of
treason in Federal civil court. His
conviction and sentence of life i'm
prisonment in 1853 was set aside
because the Government took too
long to prosecute and thus violated
his rights under the Sixth Amend
ment.
When the Military Code was
adopted in 1850, it defined the spe-
cific crimes Of collaboration and
misconduct as a prisoner. and per-
rnitted the military forces IN re