
Transcripts Kept Secret for 60 Years Bolster Defense of Oppenheimer’s Loyalty - dnetesn
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/us/transcripts-kept-secret-for-60-years-bolster-defense-of-oppenheimers-loyalty.html?ref=science
======
schience
Oppenheimer was probably lucky to have gone through this, long term, to be
accused by these clowns instead of endorsed. He saw it as the sham it was, and
the characterization of a “broken man” is misleading. Had many years of
lecturing, writing books, and leading the Institute for Advanced study after
this, with deep support from the scientific community. Although it was deeply
hurtful.. he was a loyal man, a soldier basically during the war, and his
country betrayed him.

His consulting contract to the AEC was expiring in December 1953, but as a
political takedown he was officially accused instead of simply not renewing.
Oppenheimer had the option to compromise and resign, but he declined writing
Strauss: “Under the circumstances, this course of action would mean that I
accept and concur in the view that I am not fit to serve this government, that
I have now served for some twelve years. This I cannot do. If I were thus
unworthy I could hardly have served our country as I have tried, or been the
Director of our Institute in Princeton, or have spoken, as on more than one
occasion I have found myself speaking, in the name our science and our
country”.*

He was found to be absolutely loyal, he was not even accused of violating any
security regulations. But was accused of not being sufficiently enthusiastic
about a _crash program_ to build a hydrogen bomb, and that this lack of
enthusiasm was a sign of a character flaw.

This “trial” marked an end of extremely wide public respect for scientists.
And a new era where technical and scientific achievements are to be harvested
by military industrial complex, and used by right wing strategists. It put
scientists in their place..

*American Prometheus - p484

~~~
gregd
American Prometheus is an _excellent_ book and I highly recommend people put
it on their shortlist.

------
guelo
I don't understand how the absolute power to mark any information secret is
compatible with democracy. The way the constitution was designed was to try to
balance powers and checks between branches. But there is no check on the
executive's ability to mark things secret. In this case the secrecy seems to
have just been about covering up an embarrassment. They should not have the
power to cover up an embarrassment. Seems like this invented absolute power
needs judicial review.

~~~
philwelch
If you think the executive branch has no legitimate purpose in keeping
secrets, you should study history.

~~~
tikhonj
I think it's pretty reasonable to say the executive branch has no legitimate
purpose in keeping secrets _from select parts of the judicial and legislative
branches_. That completely undermines our system of checks and balances, which
seems to work quite well otherwise.

Also, there are at least two kinds of secrets to consider: "structural" ones,
like "this program exists" and specific details "agent Bob is part of this
program". I could see the need to keep some of the latter even from other
parts of the government, but it seems the former could do with some review.
That's where the problems usually come from, after all: either government
programs that overreach their authority or failures swept under the rug. At
the same time, they're much less of a security threat than specific details of
a program.

------
EthanHeilman
As an aside:

>In 1953, a former congressional aide charged in a letter to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation that the celebrated physicist was a Soviet spy.

The congressional aide's name was William Liscum Borden. If Borden's views had
been adopted by the US Government, it is likely that we would have had a
nuclear world war[0], instead the US built its strategy on the views of
Brodie[1].

[0]: Borden's strategic views
[http://ethanheilman.tumblr.com/post/29405762446/there-
will-b...](http://ethanheilman.tumblr.com/post/29405762446/there-will-be-no-
time-a-review)

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Brodie_(military_strate...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Brodie_\(military_strategist\))

~~~
mkempe
undermining the idea that it was all somehow a plot by evil Republicans:
Borden, the scum who initiated the witch-hunt against Oppenheimer, was a
protégé of Democrat Senator McMahon, who was deeply in love with hydrogen
bombs. [1]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brien_McMahon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brien_McMahon)

~~~
EthanHeilman
Borden himself advocated for a one-world government, which is the opposite of
the Republican, Bircher, and McCarthyist positions.

------
rjsw
The article just confirms to me the reasons that Groves chose Oppenheimer to
lead the Manhattan project, Oppenheimer was able to see the bigger picture.

------
throwwit
Is any organizational structure resistant to McCarthyism?

~~~
aurelian
Any organization with secrets worth keeping must try to detect spies and repel
infiltrators.

It may reduce disastrous false negatives at the cost of an increase in false
positives.

In the 1940s, the Soviet Union had hundreds of agents in the executive branch
of the US government. KGB records opened in the last 20 years largely
vindicate McCarthy (Edit: in that the threat was real; infiltration had
happened; most of his targets were Soviet agents, Communists, or associated
with Communists; and security risks had to be removed from positions in which
they could do harm for the good of freedom-loving people everywhere).

~~~
jjoonathan
According to

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy)

> historian John Earl Haynes concluded that, of 159 people identified on lists
> used or referenced by McCarthy, evidence was substantial that nine had aided
> Soviet espionage efforts.

9/159\. A 94% false positive rate.

~~~
aurelian
Why don't you quote the next sentence? "He suggested that a majority of those
on the lists could legitimately have been considered security risks, but that
a substantial minority could not."

~~~
jjoonathan
Because it's nearly tautological: everyone on that list got there for _some_
reason. The fact that a majority of those reasons weren't entirely made up
isn't an indication of their quality as predictors of espionage.

Since we now have access to the ground truth we can compute the actual false
positive rate. The great-grandparent post suggests that such an examination
would vindicate McCarthy, but I have trouble sympathizing with this view. A
94% false-positive rate (96% if you use McCarthy's original figure) is bad no
matter how you slice it.

~~~
aurelian
McCarthy identified several agents actively engaged in espionage. KGB records
identify hundreds more that he missed.

McCarthy identified many more people in sensitive positions who were security
risks, many with Communist associations. Even if those people were not
actively engaged in espionage, they should not have held sensitive positions.

KGB/NKVD archives reveal they had hundreds of agents in the executive branch
in the 1940s. McCarthy spurred the removal of Soviet moles, Communist
sympathizers, and other security risks from sensitive positions. In this, he
did the US a great service, as regrettable as false accusations are.

Edit: In response to your questions, it's as if you didn't read what I just
wrote. Regarding the Soviet records of infiltration, several books have been
written on these records and their revelations.

~~~
tomjen3
I don't get why you haven't been downvoted to hell yet: removing people from
their positions for the views they hold is _unamerican_.

As an entirely aside if he identified a few real spies and missed hundreds
doesn't that suggest he was ineffective, to the point of actual harm?

~~~
aurelian
Removing enemy agents from positions is not unAmerican.

Removing people with known security risks from sensitive positions is not
unAmerican.

He missed hundreds of agents, identified several agents and many more security
risks, and spurred heightened security awareness that was a very good thing at
the time. Expecting him to know the identity of every Soviet agent before
attempting to remove any security risks is unreasonable.

~~~
smutticus
Just because some members of the American Communist party were working for the
Soviets, does not mean that every member was. Guilt by association is
generally not a crime under common law.

I don't know what 'unamerican' means, I know how it was used, but I don't
think anyone really knows what it means. Therefore I'm bringing up common law.
Whether something is unamerican or not is irrelevant. We're supposed to live
in a nation of laws, not arbitrary standards.

~~~
SamReidHughes
We're talking about security risks, not guilt.

~~~
dalke
We're talking about _presumed_ security risks, where there is a model
justifying its validity but where the validity has not been demonstrated.

American citizens of Japanese ancestry were labeled "security risks" during
WWII and sent to internment camps.

Do you agree that they were risks and therefore should be removed from all
sensitive positions? And if so, what defines "sensitive position"?

(We know, by the way, that there absolutely were spies for Japan in the US.
[http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/04/sorelle/poetry/wwii/...](http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/04/sorelle/poetry/wwii/internment.html)
says that 10 were found, and none were Japanese. The only one I found by name
was Velvalee Dickinson. Perhaps the risk factor was actually _not_ having
Japanese ancestry?)

If there was a risk, why the lack of serious sabotage, espionage, etc. on
Hawaii, where 1/3rd of the population had Japanese ancestry and therefore
economically infeasible to intern them? Was it only because the islands were
under martial law, and if so, how does that make a difference?

Or do you agree with the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of
Civilians that there was, in fact, little evidence of disloyalty? Do you agree
with U.S. legislation saying that the "security risk" label was actually due
to "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership"?

If the latter, how does one distinguish between a (supposed true) claim for
being a security risk based on political party affiliation and a (demonstrably
false) claim for being a security risk based on ancestry?

~~~
SamReidHughes
We're talking about people in administrative positions, not people being put
in internment camps.

~~~
dalke
All I see in the history is "McCarthy identified several agents actively
engaged in espionage. KGB records identify hundreds more that he missed. /
McCarthy identified many more people in sensitive positions who were security
risks, many with Communist associations."

I see nothing which says that "sensitive positions" is or was meant as a term
limited to the executive branch or to administrative positions.

Wouldn't a non-administrative physicist on the atomic bomb project, like
Theodore Hall, count as a "sensitive position"? Since I'm pretty sure that was
the view back then.

Keeping people in an internment camp rather made it difficult to _have_ an
administrative position, so I don't really see the difference. Well, there's a
different mechanism, but the same end goal - keep Japanese/Communists out of
possible sensitive positions because some people who are Japanese/Communists
are the enemy. No?

