National Affairs: What the AEC Said

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

SAID the AEC majority: “The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 lays upon the commissioners the duty to reach a determination as to ‘the character, associations and loyalty’ of the individuals engaged in the work of the commission. Thus, disloyalty would be one basis for disqualification, but it is only one. Substantial defects of character and imprudent and dangerous associations . . . are also reasons for disqualification . . . Prior to these proceedings, the derogatory information in Government files concerning Dr. Oppenheimer had never been weighed by any board on the basis of sworn testimony

“We find Dr. Oppenheimer is not entitled to the continued confidence of the Government and of this commission because of the proof of fundamental defects in his ‘character’ . . . The record shows that Dr. Oppenheimer has consistently placed himself outside the rules which govern others. He has falsified in matters wherein he was charged with grave responsibilities in the national interest.”

Examples of this character defect cited by the majority included:

¶The Haakon Chevalier incident: “It is not clear today whether the account Dr. Oppenheimer gave to Colonel Pash [of military intelligence] in 1943 concerning the Chevalier incident or the story he told the Gray board last month is the true version. If Dr. Oppenheimer lied in 1943, as he now says he did, he committed the crime of knowingly making false and material statements to a federal officer. If he lied to the board, he committed perjury in 1954.”

¶Rudy Lambert: “In 1943 Dr. Oppenheimer indicated to Colonel Lansdale [another military intelligence officer] that he did not know Rudy Lambert, a Communist Party functionary. In fact. Dr. Oppenheimer asked Colonel Lansdale what Lambert looked like. Now, however, Dr. Oppenheimer under oath has admitted that he knew and had seen Lambert at least half a dozen times prior to 1943; he supplied a detailed description of Lambert . . . and [said] that he knew at the time that Lambert was an official in the Communist Party.”

¶The Bernard Peters incident: “In 1949 Dr. Oppenheimer testified before a closed session of the House Un-American Activities Committee about the Communist Party membership and activities of Dr. Bernard Peters. A summary of Dr. Oppenheimer’s testimony subsequently appeared in a newspaper, the Rochester Times-Union. Dr. Oppenheimer then wrote a letter to that newspaper. The effect of that letter was to contradict the testimony he had given a Congressional committee.”

¶Joseph Weinberg: “In 1950 Dr. Oppen heimer told an agent of the FBI that he had not known Joseph Weinberg to be a member of the Communist Party until that fact became public knowledge. Yet on Sept. 12, 1943, Dr. Oppenheimer told Colonel Lansdale that Weinberg was a Communist Party member.” Continued the commissioners: “The work of military intelligence, the FBI, and the AEC—all, at one time or another, have felt the effect of his falsehoods, evasions and misrepresentations. Dr. Oppenheimer’s persistent and willful disregard for the obligations of security is evidenced by his obstruction of inquiries by security officials . . . Under oath he now admits that his refusal to name the individual [Chevalier] impeded the Government’s investigation of espionage . . .

“Dr. Oppenheimer’s close association with Communists is another part of the pattern of his disregard of the obligations of security. Dr. Oppenheimer, under oath, admitted to the Gray board that from 1937 to at least 1942 he made regular and substantial contributions in cash to the Communist Party. He has admitted that he was a fellow traveler at least until 1942. He admits that he attended small evening meetings at private homes at which most, if not all, of the others present were Communist Party members. He was in contact with officials of the Communist Party, some of whom had been engaged in espionage. His activities were of such a nature that these Communists looked upon him as one of their number . . . We find that his associations with persons known to him to be Communists have extended far beyond the tolerable limits of prudence and self-restraint . . .

These associations have lasted too long to be justified as merely the intermittent and accidental revival of earlier friendships.” Example: “His admitted meetings with Haakon Chevalier in Paris as recently as last December—the same individual who had been intermediary for the Soviet consulate in 1943.” Ruled the majority: “Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer is hereby denied access to restricted data.” Commissioner Zuckert, onetime Assistant Air Force Secretary and an assistant dean at Harvard, explained in an additional statement why he felt there was no alternative way to dispose of the Oppenheimer case. Said he: “The commission might merely allow Dr. Oppenheimer’s consultant’s contract to lapse when it expires on June 30, 1954, and thereafter not use his services. I … have concluded that [this] is not practical . . . The commission’s clearance has permitted Dr. Oppenheimer to carry out his role as an active consultant of scientists. For exampie, Los Alamos laboratory reports on the most intimate details of the progress of the thermonuclear and fission programs have continued to flow to him … I think the commission is clearly obligated to determine . . . whether scientists may continue to call upon him, as they have in the past, in regard to highly classified material . . . Any other action would merely postpone the problem.”

THE SMYTH DISSENT

Physicist Smyth, author of the famed Smyth Report on the atomic bomb and the only scientist among the commissioners, reasoned: “Since Dr. Oppenheimer is one of the most knowledgeable and lucid physicists we have, his services could be of great value to the country in the future. Therefore, the only question being determined by the AEC is whether there is a possibility that Dr. Oppenheimer will intentionally or unintentionally reveal secret information to persons who should not have it … There is no indication in the entire record that Dr. Oppenheimer has ever divulged any secret information.” Among Smyth’s specific points:

¶”The Chevalier incident … is inexcusable. But that was eleven years ago; there is no subsequent act even faintly similar.”

¶Later meetings with Haakon Chevalier were “isolated visits [which] may have been unwise, but there is no evidence that they had any security significance.”

¶Oppenheimer’s meetings with Communists “are nothing more than occasional incidents in a complex life, and they were not sought by Dr. Oppenheimer.”

¶”There was no evidence that he was a member of the party in the strict sense of the word . . . The Communists with whom he was deeply involved were all related to him by personal ties . . . While there are self-serving claims by Communists on record as to Dr. Oppenheimer’s adherence to the party, none of these is attributed to Communists who actually knew him.”

Concluded Smyth: “The conclusion drawn by the majority from the evidence is so extreme as to endanger the security system … If a man protects the secrets he has in his hands and his head, he has shown essential regard for the security system … In these times, failure to employ a man of great talents may impair the strength and power of this country. Yet I would accept this loss if I doubted the loyalty of Dr. Oppenheimer, or his ability to hold his tongue. I have no such doubts.”

THE MURRAY OPINION

Commissioner Thomas E. Murray, industrial engineer, inventor and onetime director of the Chrysler Corp., concurred in the majority decision, but he went further in stressing the seriousness of disrespect for laws under a government of laws rather than men. Said he: “The primary issue is the meaning of loyalty . . . The idea of loyalty has emotional connotations; it is related to the idea of love, a man’s love of his country. However, the substance of loyalty does not reside solely in feeling or sentiment. It cannot be defined solely in terms of love. The English word ‘loyal’ comes to us from the Latin adjective ‘legalis,’ which means ‘according to the law’ . . . To be loyal, in Webster’s definition, is to be ‘faithful to the lawful government or to the sovereign to whom one is subject.’ This faithfulness is a matter of obligation ; it is a duty owed. This general definition of loyalty assumes a sharper meaning within the special conditions of the present crisis. The premise of the concrete, contemporary definition of loyalty is the fact of the Communist conspiracy . . .

“On the domestic front this problem has been met by the erection of a system of laws and executive orders . . . American citizens who have the privilege of participating in the operations of Government, especially in sensitive agencies, are necessarily subject to this special system of law. Consequently, their . . . loyalty must be judged by the standard of their obedience to security regulations . . . This security system is not perfect in its structure or in its mode of operation. Perfection would be impossible . . . Those who are affected by the system have a particular right to criticize it. But they have no right to defy or disregard it.

“The record of [Oppenheimer’s] actions reveals a frequent and deliberate disregard of those security regulations which restrict a man’s associations. He was engaged in a highly delicate area of security; within this area he occupied a most sensitive position. The requirement that a man in this position should relinquish the right to the complete freedom of association that would be his in other circumstances is altogether a reasonable and necessary requirement … It was particularly essential in the case of Dr. Oppenheimer. It will not do to plead that Dr. Oppenheimer revealed no secrets to the Communists and fellow travelers with whom he chose to associate. What is incompatible with obedience to the laws of security is the associations themselves, however innocent in fact . . .

“Those who stand within the security system are not free to refuse their cooperation with the workings of the system, much less to confuse or obstruct them, especially by falsifications and fabrications . . . This cooperation should be active and honest … No matter how high a man stands in the service of his country he still stands under the law.”

With that, Murray applied his definition of loyalty to the case of J. Robert Oppenheimer: “It was reasonable to expect that he would be particularly scrupulous in his fidelity to security regulations. These regulations are the special test of the loyalty of the American citizen who serves his Government in the sensitive area of the atomic energy program. Dr. Oppenheimer did not meet this decisive test. He was disloyal.”