--- Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 16:04:21 -0700 From: William Mandel <wmmmandelat_private> Subject: [Fwd: 50 year old McCarthy records released] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I don't want to write an essay to parse this, so as I go down it > (have never read it before, obviously), I'll write brief notes. For > example, in the public hearing the next day McCarthy tried to make hay > of the fact that I took the 5th on sabotage and espionage. But what he > did gave away the whole game. He said: "If a man has committed sabotage, > espionage, his employer should know that." In plain English: there's > nothing to convict him with, but he's a Red, so fire him from his job. > I murdered him on that one. I stalled on responding to the $64 > question: "Are you now or have you ever been...", saying "eventually, > you'll get your answer." Cohn plaintively asked McC whether he had to > wait till eventually for an answer. McCarthy committed suicide. He said: > "First you will answer the question, then you may make any speech you > like." > The whole goddam country was glued to its TV sets, and McC couldn't > wriggle out of that. So, after I took the 5th on Party membership, I > made my speech, saying the committee had arrogated to itself the right > to be prosecutor, judge and jury although it was not a court of law, and > levying punishments "of thousands of dollars in the case of people > dismissed, up to the fact that you, Senator McCarthy, murdered Major > Raymond Kaplan by driving him to the point at which he jumped under a > truck, although everyone knows that there was nothing" for which to hold > him to account. That made the front page of the NY Times, as did my > accusations of bookburning, of anti-Semitism, etc. > Farther along, when I answer that I'll raise hell if they > publicize where I work and I lose my job, Cohn asks me if that's a > threat. It was that which caused McCarthy to make the very stupid > mistake of calling me back for a public hearing the next day, at which > he said to the committee and the country that it was because I had > threatened them if I lost my job that he had me up in public. I lost my > job, but I broke the fear of McCarthy, as is evident from the fan mail > from strangers across the country I quote in my book. Once again, even > writing such letters was an act of courage in that situation. > Continuing. Note Sen. Jackson (same guy responsible for the > Jackson-Vanik Amendment that still hampers Russian trade even though > Jews have long been able to emigrate freely) actually saying right out > loud that losing my livelihood is the price I have to pay for being a > member of the CP. > WOW! My god -- look at the end of this thing. The State Department's > note on the investigation, describing it for readers, chooses to end > with my most powerful and damning statement -- the one about McCarthy > committing murder! > Bill Mandel > > Simon Strelchik wrote: > > > > Socialist Register: > > > > Today, most of the testimony that was provided behind closed doors to the > > McCarthy hearings has finally been released. It had been kept secret for 50 > > years. > > > > Our own Bill Mandel's testimony is included in the released documents. I > > have attached the full transcript of his testimony below. > > > > Bill's testimony is derived from the following URL: > > http://www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/mccarthy/83870.txt > > > > To see the overview of the newly released documents, click here: > > http://www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate12cp107.html > > > > To read Yahoo's coverage of the story, click here: > > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030505/ts_nm/congress_mccarthy_dc_1 > > > > Below is the full portion of the testimony, unedited. I read it and found it > > very interesting. So Bill, tell me, did you end up losing your job at that > > advertising company? > > > > Simon Strelchik > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Chairman. Will, you raise your right hand, sir? > > In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you > > solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing > > but the truth, so help you God? > > Mr. Mandel. I do. > > Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name, please. > > > > TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM MARX MANDEL (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, > > JOSEPH FORER) > > > > Mr. Mandel. William Marx Mandel. > > Mr. Cohn. Is that M-a-r-x? > > Mr. Mandel. Yes. > > Mr. Cohn. And where do you reside? > > Mr. Mandel. 545 West 164th Street, New York City. > > The Chairman. Is that the name you have always gone under? > > Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer that question, under my > > privilege within the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, not > > to testify against myself. > > The Chairman. May I ask this question? Is that the name > > that you bore when you were, we will say, one year old? If you > > think it will incriminate you, you may refuse to answer. > > Mr. Mandel. I will stick to the Fifth Amendment. > > The Chairman. In other words, you say if you tell us what > > your name was when you were a year old, it might tend to > > incriminate you? > > Mr. Mandel. Well, it is quite obvious that carried up to > > the present day, it may lead to something which might tend to > > incriminate me. > > The Chairman. Well, it is a broad privilege. > > Senator Jackson. Is this your true name, that you gave the > > committee? > > Mr. Mandel. That is my true name. > > Senator Jackson. Your true name. And what was your full > > name, again? > > Mr. Mandel. William Marx Mandel, M-a-n-d-e-l. > > The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Have you written under > > pseudonyms? > > Mr. Mandel. I will have to give the same reply. > > The Chairman. You refuse to answer on the ground that it > > might incriminate you? > > Mr. Mandel. Yes. > > Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of Soviet Far East and Central > > Asia, Mr. Mandel \2\ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > \2\ William Mandel, The Soviet Far East and Central Asia (New York, > > International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1944). > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Mr. Mandel. I am. > > Mr. Cohn. When did you write that book? > > Mr. Mandel. Well, I think I wrote most of it in 1942, and I > > think some of the additional material came in 1943, '42-'43. > > Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party in 1942- > > 43? > > Mr. Mandel. I must refuse to answer that question, under my > > privilege within the Fifth Amendment not to be a witness > > against myself. > > Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in espionage? > > Mr. Mandel. No. > > Mr. Cohn. Do you know of any Communists who ever did engage > > in espionage or any related activity? > > Mr. Mandel. I don't understand ``related activity.'' > > Mr. Cohn. I will withdraw that. Did you know of any > > Communists who have engaged in espionage? > > Mr. Mandel. No. > > Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today? > > The Chairman. The question is: Are you a member of the > > Communist party as of today? > > Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment. > > Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in sabotage or any other > > illegal act against the United States? > > Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment. > > The Chairman. Will you separate the question? > > Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in sabotage against the > > United States? > > Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment. > > Mr. Cohn. Have you ever violated any law of the United > > States? > > The Chairman. I don't think that is a proper question. > > Senator Jackson. Beyond the scope of the committee. > > The Chairman. Mr. Mandel, have you ever been convicted of > > any crime? > > [Mr. Mandel confers with Mr. Forer.] > > Mr. Mandel. Will you repeat the question, please? > > The Chairman. The question was: Were you ever convicted of > > a crime? > > Mr. Mandel. If disorderly conduct be regarded as such--I > > think it is a misdemeanor--the answer is ``yes.'' > > Mr. Cohn. In connection with what? That is a matter of > > public record, I suppose. In connection with a demonstration or > > riot or something? > > Mr. Mandel. No, the answer is that I was selling a > > pamphlet, about twenty-odd years ago, or perhaps not that long > > ago. > > Mr. Cohn. What was the pamphlet? > > Mr. Mandel. The pamphlet was called ``The Truth about > > Father Coughlin.'' > > The Chairman. And you were arrested at that time and > > convicted of disorderly conduct? > > Mr. Mandel. That is my recollection. > > The Chairman. And that is the only time that you were > > either arrested and convicted of any crime? > > Mr. Mandel. Other than traffic violations, or things of > > that kind. That is the best of my recollection. > > Mr. Cohn. Do you know Louis F. Budenz. > > Mr. Mandel. Fifth Amendment. > > Mr. Cohn. Would you fight for the United States against the > > Soviet Union in the event the United States Congress declared > > war against the Soviet Union? > > Mr. Mandel. Yes. > > Mr. Cohn. Under any circumstances? > > Mr. Mandel. If the United States Congress declared war, > > yes. > > Mr. Cohn. You would. Do you believe that our cause in Korea > > is a just cause? > > Mr. Mandel. No. > > Mr. Cohn. You do not? > > Mr. Mandel. No. > > Mr. Cohn. Would you fight on the side of the United States > > and the United Nations in Korea? > > Mr. Mandel. Under the laws of the country, if required to, > > yes. > > The Chairman. Do you think the cause of the North Koreans > > and the Chinese Communists is a just cause in Korea? > > [Mr. Mandel confers with Mr. Forer.] > > Mr. Mandel. The answer is ``yes.'' > > The Chairman. It is a just cause? > > Mr. Mandel. That is correct. > > Mr. Cohn. That is very interesting. What did you say your > > occupation was at the present time? > > Mr. Mandel. Let me preface my reply, and I will answer the > > question if you insist. My occupation at the present time has, > > as will be evident if you press me, no conceivable relation to > > any business before this committee. Therefore, to request > > this--and I will answer it if you press me--can only have the > > effect, if this is later made public, of causing me to lose my > > livelihood, something which I will make the most of, I state > > quite candidly. > > Mr. Cohn. Is that a threat? > > Mr. Mandel. That is not a threat. That is simply a > > statement. > > Mr. Cohn. Where are you going to make the most of it? > > The Chairman. On the reason for calling you, or not, you > > said the question of your occupation would have nothing to do > > with what is before the committee. We are checking into the > > information program, which has been costing us, oh, $125 mill > > or $135 million a year. And we have been checking into the > > background, the activities, on some of the individuals who are > > being used in this fight against communism. That is the > > announced objective of the information program. And I think > > under the circumstances it is a pertinent question to ask you > > about your background, what you are doing today. > > I do not know what you are doing today, you see, until you > > answer the question. > > Mr. Mandel. I am a writer of medical advertising copy to > > the profession. > > Mr. Cohn. How long have you been doing that kind of work? > > Mr. Mandel. Oh, since shortly after the last time I was > > before a committee hearing here in Washington. > > Mr. Cohn. What were you doing before that? > > Mr. Mandel. Before that I was in the furniture business for > > a year. > > Mr. Cohn. And what were you doing between then and the time > > you were before some other committee? > > Mr. Mandel. I have been before one previous committee. Let > > me see, now. I have been in this work for a year. I was in the > > furniture business for just about a year, I would imagine. And > > last prior to that, I was employed as a translator for the > > Stefansson Library at 14 St. Luke's Place, New York City. > > The Chairman. Is that Vilhjalmur Stefannson? > > Mr. Mandel. Vilhjalmur, yes. > > The Chairman. I would like to get your thought on this. You > > seem to think that we should not inquire as to your occupation > > as of today. If you have any valid grounds on which you want to > > urge that, we would be glad to hear them. > > Mr. Mandel. Yes. The advertising business is a very public > > relations-conscious business, and the firm by which I am > > employed has important concerns as its clients, and they are > > probably more public relations-conscious than is necessary. > > That is the situation in the industry. So that if it became > > public knowledge that someone employed by that firm had been > > before this committee, that, in itself, would probably--it is a > > guess; I think a sound guess--would probably be cause for my > > losing my employment. > > The Chairman. Well, now, I do not want to argue this point > > with you, but I would like to get the thought of the other > > senators on this. > > My thought is, Senator Jackson, that here you have a man > > who says, ``If I tell you the truth about whether I am a > > Communist today, that might incriminate me.'' It creates a > > strong inference, certainly, that he is a member of the > > Communist party. Otherwise, it could not very well incriminate > > him. His works are being used to fight communism. He is now > > writing advertising copy, material being read by the general > > public. I can't think of any reason why his occupation should > > not be known. Do you? > > Senator Jackson. Well, I think that the committee has a > > right, on the basis of asking the routine questions incident to > > an over-all investigation, to ask what a man is doing and where > > he lives. On that basis also, I think we have the right to ask. > > Might I say to the witness: I am sure you are realistic > > enough to know that when you come before a committee in open > > session it will be known in time whether you have answered, and > > maybe in a way that might confuse the public; it will be known > > that you have appeared, and it will be brought out through the > > press that you worked for such and such a company. And it would > > occur to me that in order to keep the record straight, you > > should simply state it. You are in that situation, and > > apparently that is the price you have to pay as a member of the > > Communist party. > > The Chairman. And as a country, we are apparently dedicated > > to the idea that communism is wrong, that it is set to destroy > > us, that it is a conspiracy, that it is a crime to be a member > > if you are aware of the conspiracy. Therefore, when a man comes > > before the committee and says, ``I will not tell whether I am a > > Communist or not,'' he, I believe, forfeits any right or any > > privilege or special protection by the committee. I think he > > should answer all the questions. Under the circumstances, the > > answer will stay in the record. > > Mr. Cohn. Will you give us the name and address of your > > business, and telephone number, at the present time? > > Mr. Mandel. Yes. The only point I want to make before > > answering it is that I claim no privilege on this matter, and I > > simply want to point out that if the committee wishes to face > > the onus of causing loss of a job, not in any abstract sense--I > > don't think that concerns the committee at all--but in the > > practical sense of the impression that might be created upon > > the public, if that is the case, I will, since I am aware of no > > privilege on this matter, be happy to give you the information. > > The Chairman. May I say that I get the impression from what > > you said that you were threatening the committee. When you are > > outside the committee room, you can say anything you like about > > this committee, and if you are a member of the Communist party, > > as you indicate by your answer, you are dedicated, of course, > > to attacking this committee, regardless of whether you lose > > your job. I have been a subject of attacks by every Communist > > writer, every Communist in the country. None of them, as far as > > I know, have been supporting me or this committee. So that you > > are not impressing us at all by any threat to attack it. You > > will be just one of a long line, if you do answer the question. > > Mr. Mandel. The firm I am employed by is L. W. Frohlich, F- > > r-o-h-l-i-c-h, and Company, and I don't know at the moment-- > > they are in three buildings. I suppose the legal address is 76 > > East 52nd Street, New York City. > > Mr. Cohn. What kind of a firm did you say this was? > > Mr. Mandel. They advertise medical products to the > > profession solely. That is their business. > > Mr. Cohn. Do they have any connection with the government > > in any way, any government work? > > Mr. Mandel. None whatever, to the best of my knowledge. > > Mr. Cohn. I have no further questions of this witness, Mr. > > Chairman. > > You have told us you are the author of Soviet Far East and > > Central Asia? > > Mr. Mandel. That is right. > > Mr. Cohn. You decline to tell us whether or not you were a > > member of the Communist party at the time you wrote that book? > > Mr. Mandel. That is correct, for the reason stated. > > Mr. Cohn. Is there anything in that book unfavorable to the > > Soviet Union? > > Mr. Mandel. I haven't read the book in quite a while. > > Mr. Cohn. Can you give us your best recollection on it? > > Mr. Mandel. As far as that book is concerned, I cannot say > > offhand. I can state that, as I stated to a committee last > > year, I am aware of injustices, errors, and more of them than I > > have described in things that I have written, and have no > > hesitation discussing them, and I simply don't know, frankly, > > whether in that work at that time I discussed that or not. > > Senator Jackson. Have you written anything unfavorable to > > the Soviet Union at any time? > > Mr. Mandel. In the first place, you would have to define > > the term. In short, if one describes the term ``favorable'' as > > meaning that everything that happens there is good and nothing > > that happens there is bad, then I would say that I certainly > > have written unfavorable things. I just don't recall. The book > > was written ten years ago, is on a specialized subject, and I > > just don't recall. > > Senator Jackson. What is your opinion of the anti-Semitism > > in the Soviet Union? > > Mr. Mandel. Being a Jew, I have certain standards on the > > basis of which to judge that. I have never encountered an anti- > > Semitic government in history that had a Jewish member of its > > cabinet. > > Mr. Cohn. Who is the member of the Jewish Cabinet? > > Mr. Mandel. Kaganovich, K-a-g-a-n-o-v-i-c-h. > > The Chairman. What is his position? > > Mr. Mandel. He is one of the vice premiers, one of the > > members of the five inner cabinet under the present > > administration. > > Mr. Cohn. I think Senator Jackson's question was addressed > > to these purges. Do you approve of the anti-Semitic purges? > > Mr. Mandel. I think that is utter nonsense. > > Mr. Cohn. That is just counter-revolutionary propaganda? > > Mr. Mandel. It is not counter-revolutionary propaganda. It > > is nonsense. I went down and bought a copy of True, Soviet > > Labor party. I bought copies of Pravda at the library next to > > the main public library on 42nd Street. Four days after this > > thing happened, that comes over by air mail, when our post > > office doesn't stop it. > > And on the same front page of the same paper which > > presented the indictment of these physicians, there was an > > announcement of the meeting the previous evening of the > > committee of Judges for Stalin prize awards in the literature > > and science for this coming year. > > Among the eleven judges are two men who are well-known to > > be Jewish. > > Mr. Cohn. And that is that? > > Mr. Mandel. And many similar things. If you want a lecture > > for an hour and a half, I would be glad to give it to you. > > Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Aaron Berg, who is a very > > high functionary in the Soviet Union at the present time? > > Mr. Mandel. He is a very prominent writer. I don't know > > that he has a function of any kind. > > The Chairman. Just one question. As I read the account of > > the trials in the Slansky and other cases, the news stories > > were to the effect that some of the individuals confessed to > > being Zionists. They were hung. That apparently was a major > > part of their alleged crime. > > Would you agree that it would be a crime to be a Zionist? > > Mr. Mandel. Their crimes under the indictment were military > > treason, economic treason, murder, and a fourth which I don't > > recall at the moment. You may have whatever opinion you care to > > about the confessions and the evidence. The fact is that they > > describe at great length the crimes which they committed. And > > it is a rather interesting fact to me that the New York Herald > > Tribune correspondent reported from Washington a couple of days > > later that informed anti-Communists in Washington apparently > > feel that these men were a little inept and stupid, and more > > able men will have to be gotten into that job next time. > > Senator Jackson. Well, let me ask you this: You do not > > think it is unusual that simultaneously, at least, leaders of > > the Communist party in the Soviet Union and the satellite areas > > of Jewish origin were all brought to trial at once? > > Mr. Mandel. The United States government is openly and > > publicly engaged in a program of espionage against the Soviet > > Union. In order to do this kind of thing, you have got to have > > people who are going to be able to get inside of those > > countries. Now, the State Department, which you gentlemen seem > > to have differences with, has pursued a policy of cutting off > > trade with those countries. Therefore you cannot possibly use a > > businessman as cover for that kind of operation. The other side > > has cut down the number of journalists which they admit in to a > > very small number. Therefore, it is very difficult to find more > > people like Oatis to do that kind of job. And so what you are > > left with is the possibility of using whoever can get in. Now, > > the allegedly anti-Semitic governments of the east European > > countries permitted only Jewish organizations, and particularly > > this Joint Distribution Committee, to function within their > > territories after World War II, despite the fact that there are > > similar Ukranian organizations. > > Pardon me just one moment. > > And apparently they did so on the grounds that the Jews had > > suffered special persecution. So that it would seem entirely > > logical to me that a government which is by open proclamation > > engaged in espionage in their countries as our government is > > would utilize whatever organization comes to hand that has > > access to those countries. > > Therefore, it is not at all surprising that certain people > > with that kind of connection were brought to trial. > > Senator Jackson. You said the Ukrainian organizations were > > not allowed to function. > > Mr. Mandel. To the best of my knowledge. Remember, I am > > speaking of foreign non-Soviet and east European organizations. > > Senator Jackson. What did you say about a Ukrainian > > organization? > > Mr. Mandel. I said Ukrainian organizations existing in the > > United States and Canada were not permitted to function on a > > parallel relief basis as the Joint Distribution Committee was. > > Senator Jackson. Well, the Ukrainians have never been very > > reliable so far as the Soviets are concerned. > > Mr. Mandel. That is a matter of opinion. I would say the > > record of World War II is that the overwhelming majority of the > > Ukrainians were entirely loyal. Hitler put up a puppet > > government which fell to pieces in a few weeks. > > Senator Jackson. When they are fighting for their home that > > is something else; but I am talking about reliable from an > > ideological standpoint. > > Mr. Mandel. My opinion, since it is a matter of opinion, is > > that the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainians have been > > loyal to the Soviet Union during the vast bulk of this thirty- > > five-year period. > > Senator Jackson. So you do not think it is unusual that > > Anna Pauker has been removed? > > Mr. Mandel. Anna Pauker's successor is a man named Simon > > Bugitch, who is also a Jew. > > Senator Jackson. You do not think that the Jewish leaders > > in the Czechoslovakian government, that were all purged at the > > same time, and the doctors in the Kremlin, provide any > > significant pattern? You think that is totally unrelated to any > > anti-Semitism within the Soviet Union? > > Mr. Mandel. The foreign minister of Czechoslovakia, who is > > here at the present time, is Jewish, and so forth, on down the > > line. > > Senator Jackson. I am glad you said that. > > Would you like to assure the committee that their tenure is > > going to be pretty certain for the future, so we can check on > > this? > > The Chairman. I am afraid he could not do that. > > Let me ask you this question: Do you think the Communist > > society is superior to our society in this country? > > Mr. Mandel. That would be an interesting question to > > debate. But there again, circumstances being what they are, and > > legislation being what it is, I am afraid that I would have to > > rely upon the Fifth Amendment and refuse to reply to that > > question. > > The Chairman. Let us rephrase the question. Do you think > > the present type of Communist government as it exists in Russia > > is superior to the present form of government as it exists in > > the United States of America? > > Mr. Mandel. That I am afraid is governed by exactly the > > same privilege, in view of legislation and prosecutions that > > have taken place, with which Mr. Cohn is quite familiar. > > Mr. Cohn. Thank you. > > Mr. Mandel. So that I am afraid I am unable to answer that > > question. > > The Chairman. In other words, is it your answer that if you > > told us the truth in answer to that question, you think that > > that answer might tend to incriminate you? > > Mr. Mandel. No, sir. I think that the Fifth Amendment has > > as its purpose to protect the innocent, and I think that the > > origin of the Fifth Amendment lies in the protection of > > political dissent. > > The Chairman. You will then be ordered to answer the > > question. > > [Mr. Mandel confers with Mr. Forer.] > > The Chairman. May I say to counsel that I do not want to > > interrupt the consultation, but---- > > Mr. Forer. I think he misunderstood the preceding question, > > and his answer to that led to your direction. That is what I > > think is the situation. > > But I understand the chair's position. > > Mr. Mandel. What was the question prior to the last > > question? > > The Chairman. Maybe I should rephrase the question. > > The question originally asked was: Do you consider the > > present Communist government in Russia more desirable than the > > present government which we have in the United States? > > Mr. Mandel. And to that question I will reply that I refuse > > to answer under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. > > The Chairman. Now my question to you is, do you feel that > > if you told the truth in answer to that question, your answer > > might tend to incriminate you? > > Mr. Mandel. Yes. Let me make this clear---- > > The Chairman. First, just so you will understand us fully: > > You see, you are not entitled to claim privilege if you > > incriminate yourself by committing perjury. It is only when a > > truthful answer will incriminate you that you are entitled to > > claim privilege. > > Before we can determine whether you are entitled to claim > > privilege, we must know whether or not you honestly feel that a > > truthful answer might tend to incriminate you. > > That is the purpose of that question. > > Mr. Mandel. I would say that a truthful answer might tend > > to incriminate me. > > The Chairman. Okay. Then you are entitled to the privilege. > > Mr. Mandel. Fine. > > The Chairman. We will excuse you until 10:15 tomorrow > > morning. > > [Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., a recess was taken until 10:30 > > a.m., Tuesday, March 24, 1953.] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > (Simon: The editor's note to this above testimony is attached below, for > > your convenience) > > > > STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM--INFORMATION CENTERS > > > > [Editor's note.--The United States Information Service > > initially established a ``balanced presentation'' policy under > > which books by controversial authors, including Communists, > > would be stocked by its overseas libraries to reflect the > > diversity of opinion in the United States and to preserve the > > intellectual credibility of the collections. In 1952, the > > Truman administration judged several books by the novelist > > Howard Fast to be Communist propaganda and removed them from > > the shelves although his other works remained. In January 1953, > > the Eisenhower administration upheld the policy of balanced > > collections but set criteria for defining books that might be > > excluded. > > Between March and July 1953, the Permanent Subcommittee on > > Investigations held extensive hearings, in both executive and > > public session, that focused on the U.S. Information Libraries > > worldwide. It examined the books that the libraries stocked, > > and called some of the authors--including Howard Fast--to > > testify. During the course of the investigation, chief counsel > > Roy Cohn, and chief consultant David Schine, embarked on a > > highly-publicized tour of the overseas libraries in major > > European capitals, from April 4 to 21. Simultaneously, the > > State Department ordered the removal of any books by Communist > > authors or Communist sympathizers from the Information > > Libraries' shelves. Hundreds of works of fiction and non- > > fiction were discarded, and some were burned. In his > > commencement address at Dartmouth College on June 13, President > > Eisenhower told the students: ``Don't join the book burners. > > Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing > > evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your > > library and read every book as long as any document does not > > offend our own ideas of decency. That should be the only > > censorship.'' > > Mary M. Kaufman did not testify in public. Sol Auerbach > > (who wrote as James S. Allen) and William Marx Mandel appeared > > before the subcommittee in a televised public hearing on the > > following day. During the open session, the chairman ordered > > Mandel to identify publicly his current employer, information > > that the witness had provided in executive session with the > > request that it be kept confidential. Mandel complained that > > the subcommittee had ``arrogated itself the right to exact > > punishment, although it is not a court of law and deprives one > > of due process of law. That punishment has ranged from fines > > ranging from several thousand dollars in the case of people > > dismissed up to the fact that you, Senator McCarthy, murdered > > Raymond Kaplan by forcing him, driving him to the point where > > he jumped under a truck. . . .''] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > -- > > ======================================================== > > My autobiography, SAYING NO TO POWER (Introduction by Howard Zinn), is > a history of how the American people fought to defend and expand its > rights since the 1920s (I'm 85) employing the form of the life of a 30s > AND 60s activist, one who was involved in most serious movements: > student, labor, 45 years of efforts to prevent war with the USSR and > Cuba, civil rights South and North, women's liberation [my late wife > appears on 50 pages], 37 years on Pacifica Radio [where I reinvented > talk radio, of whose previous existence I had been unaware], civil > liberties. You may hear/see my testimony before the three different > McCarthy-Cold-War-Era witch-hunting committees [used in six films and a > play]) on my website, http://www.billmandel.net I am the author of five > books in my academic field, have taught at UC Berkeley, and earlier held > a postdoctoral fellowship, by invitation, at Stanford's Hoover > Institution. > The book may be ordered through all normal sources. For an autographed > copy, send me $24 at 4466 View Pl.,#106, Oakland, CA. 94611 > ======================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 07 2003 - 15:33:40 PDT