View source for The World Today, Key West Citizen (April 1953)

<gallery>
File:1953-04-29-key-west-citizen-the-world-today.jpg
</gallery>

=== Full Text ===
THE WORLD TODAY

By JAMES MARLOW

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Eisenhower's new security order should give teh government better protection. Time will show whether it also gives the individual government [employee] better protection.

The Truman administration had two programs: (1) loyalty -- to bounce people of questionable loyalty; and (2) security--to weed out security risks: people whose loyalty was not questioned but who might spill secrets.

The loyalty program was applied to all government [employees]. The security program covered only those with big secrets, like State Department and Defense Departments and the Atomic Energy Commission.

The new Eisenhower move telescopes the loyalty and security programs into one. It covers all government [employees], no matter where they work, on loyalty and security.

In doing this the administration has made some changes in the way people in both groups are to get rid of people it decides can't be trusted to work for the government.

The best way to understand the new program is to compare it with the old.

The old loyalty program:

A man of questionable loyalty was given a hearing by a board made up of officials from his own agency. If it recommended he be fired, the head of the agency or department could do so. Then the man could appeal to the Loyalty Review Board, men specially appointed by the President. If the board found the man loyal, he kept his job.

At these hearings the accused man was entitled to counsel and to get a copy of the charges against him, in writing. There wasn't one case in 1,000 where this man was told who his accusers were. The government didn't have to tell him. So he got no chance to cross-examine witnesses against him.

The Eisenhower loyalty program:

The Loyalty Review Board goes out of existence in seven months, long enough to clear up pending business. It can't take on new cases. Thus the head of the agency or department now has the last word. A man he fired on loyalty grounds stays fired, with no appeal. He gets a hearing before a board set up by his department head but made up of men from other agencies.

At all stages he's entitled to be represented by counsel and, as under the old program, gets a copy of the charges against him. And, the Eisenhower order says, he "can" be told who his accusers are and can cross-examine them. But since the order doesn't say this "must" be done, it probably won't.

The old security program:

The top Loyalty Review Board had nothing to do with security risk cases. The man under investigation didn't have to be told the charges against him. He could get a hearing by a board in his own agency and then be fired by his agency head and he had no appeal.

But only 10 government agencies or departments were covered by the Truman security program. In those places which dealt in secrets a man might be considered loyal but a bad security risk if he drank too much, talked too much, or among other examples, was a homosexual who might be blackmailed into giving secrets.

The Eisenhower security order:

Now every government [employee], no matter where he works, can be fired on security grounds. He, too, has no appeal if the agency heads fires him. If suspended while under investigation, he would get a copy of the charges against him. But he wouldn't be allowed to cross-examine any accusers, or even learn who they were.

Under Truman a man considered a security risk in a certain job could be transferred to another, non-sensitive job in the same agency. Or, if he was fired as a security risk in one agency, he might be able to get a job in an agency not handling secrets.

Under Eisenhower's security order, covering all agencies, a man still could be transferred to a non-sensitive job or get a job in another agency, but under definite limitations.

Now each agency head will decide what jobs are sensitive, what national security is, and what a security risk is. This is a pretty great latitude.

It's assumed that anyone fired as a security risk will be a real risk to national security and will not be fired on some trivial ground thought up by an agency head.