FC: Bill Mandel's firsthand report of testifying before Sen. McCarthy

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 16:04:21 -0700
From: William Mandel <wmmmandel () earthlink net>
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------