THE MEANING OF SECURITY

ONE of the nation's stormiest political debates swirls around a series of digits: Ten-Four-Fifty, officially Executive Order 10450, issued by the President on April 27, 1953, establishing broad new security standards for federal employment. Critics say that Ten-Four-Fifty results in a cold reign of terror among Government workers, that no man is safe from his neighbor's malice. Defenders say that Order 10450 is necessary to protect the U.S. from the infiltration of its Government by enemies.

The U.S. got along for more than 150 years without a security system for federal employees: Is Order 10450, therefore, a sign of hysteria? Or is the system justified by the threat posed by a clever and implacable enemy?

THE BASIC CHANGE

BEFORE the 20th century, only a few people in any government shared in its secrets and its decisions. They could be bound to the rules and the state in various ways; their personal weaknesses were known; they could be watched. Most of the people who could hurt the government by treachery or indiscretion had been tested for years in the crucibles of political or military careers.

The overriding characteristic of the 20th century is the division of work and responsibility into minute parts. In this respect, government parallels industry and science. Every piece of information now involves scores, often thousands, of people. Less than a century ago, a decision could be locked in the breast of one man, e.g., in planning his Valley campaign, Stonewall Jackson withheld nearly all information even from his top subordinate, Major General Richard S. Ewell, who was heard to complain, "I tell you, sir, he's as crazy as a March hare. He has gone away; I don't know where." Today Jackson would have to parcel out his secret among hundreds of helpers, most of them unknown to him, and some of them untested by their careers on the points of loyalty and discretion.

This basic change is what brings a security system into being. The system is a clumsy, fumbling effort to adjust to an entirely new situation in governmental life, the dependence of the national security on the loyalty and discretion of tens of thousands of men and women, some of whom are not even aware that they can affect the safety of the country.

It has taken the U.S. a long time to realize the nature of this problem. In the early days of the New Deal, Paul Appleby, then an Agriculture Department official* and a pundit among public administrators, said: "A man in the employ of the Government had just as much right to be a member of the Communist Party as he has to be a member of the Democratic or Republican Party." This attitude, modified and veiled, still persists. At the opposite extreme is the view that since Government employment is a privilege and not a right any employee may be fired--and his career blasted--on the shadow of a doubt. The argument over Ten-Four-Fifty comes down to how well the order and its administration avoid these two extremes.

THE NEW RULES

EXECUTIVE Order 10450 requires that the hiring and continued employment of federal workers must, in the judgment of department and agency heads, be "clearly consistent" with the interests of national security. The order recognizes that an employee may be loyal, yet still be a security risk. The homosexual may be easy prey to blackmail. The person with relatives behind the Iron Curtain may be exposed to overwhelming pressures. The alcoholic may unintentionally blab secrets.

The order also provides certain safeguards against injustice to the employees, who can demand hearings before a Civil Service Commission board, have the right to counsel, can present witnesses in their own behalf and (in most cases) cross-examine adverse witnesses. But the system does not--and cannot--adhere strictly to judicial principles, with the "defendant" presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For guilt in the legal sense is not involved. The idea is not to wait until the drunken employee gives away an important secret; it is to get rid of him beforehand.

Such a judgment is part of an administrative, not a judicial, process. Nevertheless, grave injustice can result when this process is mismanaged. The outcry over the case of Wolf Ladejinsky (TIME, Jan. 3) shows that the nation's ethical sense is not satisfied by the statement that "all doubt must be resolved in favor of the Government."

One of the few sensible statements about Order 10450 came recently from a surprising source: Subversive Activities Control" Board Member Harry P. Cain, who, as a Republican Senator from Washington state (1946-52), was widely considered one of the lighter-weight members of the U.S.

Congress. A speech by erstwhile arch-reactionary Cain last month was inserted in the Congressional Record by erstwhile archliberal Senator Hubert Humphrey.

FIBER & SUBSTANCE

SAID Cain: "My own considered view is that our security system has worked well and fairly on the average, but that conspicuous and inexcusable examples to the contrary have occurred much too often."

Among Cain's criticisms of Order 10450:

P: lt is left to the department and agency heads to interpret and enforce the order. Said Cain: "No internal security system can become effective, understandable, or reasonable unless its standards and the procedures for implementing them are national standards, not departmental or bureau standards." Even as he spoke, the Administration was moving to turn over to a special branch of the Justice Department responsibility for getting uniform action under the security program. But the new office will have only advisory power--which may not be enough.

P: Security officers often are too inexperienced, or otherwise unfit to measure up to their responsibility. They should understand not only Communist theory and practice, but also the principles by which the U.S. governs its people.

P: The basic requirement that Government employment must be "clearly consistent with the interests of national security" is open to considerable question. It could--and probably has been--interpreted to mean that hearsay, malicious gossip and unsupported accusations constitute doubts that must be resolved in favor of the Government.

P: Little distinction is likely to be made in the public mind between the security case and the loyalty case. If the alcoholic is dismissed simply because he drinks too much, he may still reform and live down his disgrace. But if he is fired as a security risk, the brand stays livid. Order 10450 brackets the security and loyalty cases.

Harry Cain concluded his speech with an eloquent statement: "Any government, to deserve to survive, must deserve the respect of its citizenry. A government is under no compulsion to be less than severe in punishing crimes against the state, but that government is under every compulsion to extend consideration and just treatment to every citizen. He or she must be treated as what they actually are--the fiber and substance from which a free nation derives its strength and purpose." Only when the requirements of security and justice are met will the numbers Ten-Four-Fifty move out of the hurricane vortex.

* Now budget director of New York state.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.