Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-06-23
A Blow to Security

One cannot be dismissed
as security risk" from a
position in the Government in
which it was not possible for
anyone. even the worst en-
ploye, to be a risk to the
national security" In other
words, to be called a security
risk" one must be a security
risk" not in the sense in
which all people are to some
extent. since what they do or
say may affect the general
welfare" adversely, but in the
sense that they are in "sensi-
tive" positions, in which even
otherwise innocent conduct
may threaten national Sc
curity."
This seems obvious to me,
but I would have to argue with
some to convince them that
the chain of differences" lead
ing to this conclusion contains
no inference which is not
valid. How else do reasonable
men reason or convince 9TH
ers of their opinions?
Twice in your editorial, "A
Blow to Security" of June IS,
you refer to the opinion of
the Supreme Court in the
Cole VS.. Young Case as rest
ing upon a "chain of infer
ences." How else is it posi-
BILE to reason? Will you not
give respectful consideration
to the opinion of the court,
because the Judgment came by
rational differences and not the
way Athena was born fully
panoplied from the brain Of
Zeus?
But it was not the opinion
of the court which hangs"
as you say, on an admitted
"chain of differences" but the
Interpretation it was forced to
make of the Presidents Execu-
tive Order 10450. setting up the
Federal security risk" pro-
gram and abolishing the 10Y
atty" program of the preced-
ing administration. I'VE rec
ognize that this Interpretation
rests upon a chain of infer
enceS drawn from less than
explicit provisions" the court
stated. The weakness, then, is
not in the Supreme Courts
opinion but in the lack of
clearness of the executive Or
der. Nor did the minority con-
test the Interpretation of this
order or propose an alternative
one.
Those administering Execu-
tive Order 10450 are not clear
in their own minds what it
means. According to the
New York Times of May 3.
1858, THE Eisenhower system
eliminates the line between
loyalty and security on the
ground that the dual stand
ard was too cumbersome"
Now the President complains
to ex-senator Cain that he
had thought that a clear dis
tinction was being made be-
tween loyalty cases and Sc
curity cases."
However, the main issue in
the case is whether summary
dismissal of an employee from
a ''nonsensitive" agency, such
as the Department of Health.
Education and Welfare, was in
accordance with the Sum-
mary Suspension Act of 1850.
Here it is the minority which
relies on Inference" while the
court studied the explicit pro-
visions of the act. That the
President extended the COW
erage of the act to the Depart
ment of Health. Education,
and Welfare" as the minority
opinion puts it, or that he
added the agency to the
sensitive" list. as you put it,
is not true, except to the ex-
tent that it may be inferred
from his blanketing of the
whole Government in the "se-
curity risk" program. The law
gave the President the power
to add this agency to the
sensitive" list If he judged it
to be required in the interest
of national security" This
he never did explicitly. But he
did rule. that the whole Gov
eminent was subject to Ex-
ecutive Order 10450 because
"the interests of the national
security require that all per-
sons privileged to be employed
in +. the Government.
shall be reliable. trustworthy.
of good conduct and character,
and of complete and unswerv-
ing loyalty to the United
States" This catch-all APP
proach was contrary to law,
not because unreliability, un-
trustworthiness. evil conduct
and character, or disloyality in
the Government are to be con-
doned. We are not without
other means to combat these.
. It Is against the law because