CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000100540018-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 17, 1999
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: September 5, 1963
• Content Type: OPEN

Iti~c %1 0 SE ' 5 1963
1963
Approved For Release 1999/09/17F:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SE
helpful to the Communist conspiracy around
the world.
These men include Morarjl Defai, who has
been' Finance Minister, and S. X. Patti, who
has been Food Minister. Both are strongly
anti-Red; both are friendly to the United
States; and both favor close cooperation with
the free and open West, as against the regi-
mented and unfree Communist world. But
Mr. Nehru, for reasons best known to himself.
and despite the threat he faces from Mao's
China, apparently does not want such ad-
visers around him. Instead, pushing them
out of office, he has replaced them with
leftist succesuirs who probably satisfy the
insufferable standards of Krishna Manor's
brand of neutralism.
All of which ampunts to a mystery of sorts.
Why. for example, should a man as able as
Mr. Desal-who li4s often been thought of
as Mr. Nehru's successor-be kicked down-
stairs? The inscrutable East, quite evidently,
extends all the way t4 New Delhi.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF
MILITARY PERSONNEL.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, the rights
of every American are spelled out In the
U.S. Constitution and ih the amend-
ments to it.
Among these rights area the right of
freedom of speech and the press, the right
of freedom of religion, the right to vote,
the right to due process of law, the right
to a speedy public trial and to legal coun-
sel in criminal cases, and many other
basic rights.
As a member of the Senate S bcom-
mittee on Constitutional Rights. X have
long been concerned with the question of
constitutional rights for all Americans
and I have given a great deal of study to
this question.
color, or national origin, I have cospon
sored more than 20 bills to Insure for all
Americans the right to vote, to attend
public schools, to have access to public
accommodations, and other rights to
which they are entitled.
My study also has shown the need to
protect the rights of defendants in crimi-
nal cases in Federal courts. For ex-
ample, although the Constitution guar-
antees a speedy public trial, sometimes
the Government has used delaying tac-
tics contrary to the spirit of the Consti-
tution. The bill I have sponsored with
others would prevent the Government
from using tactics such as delay in bring-
ing charges; repeatedly asking that a
charge be dismissed and later bringing
the same charge; filing multiple indict-
ments in different courts without the
defendant's knowing which case the Gov-
ernment will prosecute first; delay in
going to trial long after indictment; and
delay in imposing sentences.
My study has shown further a com-
pelling need to insure fairplay and con-
stitutional protections in trials of per-
sons in our Armed Forces accused of
wrongdoing.
I have followed closely recent develop-
ments In our Federal and military courts.
In the Federal courts, there has been
a distinct trend toward providing greater
judicial protection for the American
serviceman. It is clear today that court-
martial proceedings are subject to all the
due process requirements of the Contgti-
tutlon, and that Federal civil courts can
review court-martial convictions and dis-
honorable discharge cases.
Congress, recognizing the need to safe-
guard the GI's constitutional rights, en-
acted the Uniform Code of Military Jus-
tice in 1960. The code expressly
extended the protections afforded by the
Bill of Rights to military personnel.
In addition. Congress established the
first independent civilian tribunal-the
U.B. Court of Military Appeals-empow-
ered to review convictions imposed by
military courts.
Although we have come a long way in
implementing the constitutional rights
for service personnel, hearings held by
the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee
have shown that much is still to be done.
First. Many abuses which the code
was designed to eliminate still persist:
(a) The GI defendant's right to an
impartial trial has been denied In some
cases because military tribunals have
been subject to the pressures and influ-
ence of command and other superior
officers.
(b) Protections afforded by the due
process clause of the Constitution are
violated in the summary court-martial,
where a single officer acts as judge, jury,
prosecuting attorney, and defense
counsel.
(c) The defendant's right to a speedy
trial is infringed upon by the unreason-
ably long and cumbersome procedures of
military trials.
(d) Defendants have been harrassed by
unreasonable searches and seizures, and
evidence so illegally obtained has been
admitted into court.
(e) Judicially untrained persons have
been allowed to preside over special
courts-martial and to impose the very
serious penalty of a bad conduct dis-
,charge.
(f) The constitutional right to counsel
i .dented In many cases.
Vecond. The provisions of ? the code
haft been increasingly circumvented by
the litary's resort to administrative
actldfX which Is not subject to the code'd
safegAprds.
(a) 4ccused persons have been con-
victed III administrative proceedings and
sentenced to a bad conduct discharge or
a disch a under "other than honor-
able" con tions without the benefit of
legal I or other constitutional
safeguards.
(b) Servicirlen have been discharged
administratively under "other than
honorable" corWitions for the same aI-
leged misconduct. for which they already
had been tried all d acquitted by courts-
martlal--a clear ` iolatlon of the con-
stitutional prohibition against double
jeopardy.
(c) Administrativd board proceedings
are not subject to appellate review, need
not be presided over by an Impartial and
judicially trained o?cer, and rely on
written statements rathpr than direct
testimony and confrontation of wit-
nesses who are conipelled to appear.
Because I believe it Is only fair and
lust that we do everything possible to
protect the bade constitutional rights
of men and women to whom we have
539
entrusted the 'defense of'otr. Nation, I
am cosponsoring . 10 bills which have
been draws ;Carefully to meet apeot4-
each problellli I have described "; 1'
ence; provide tory au= fq '
field judiciary devo . by:
Army; eliminate court-
martial; authorize ulle "? to $ ' law
tarn aspects of Court-martial Pft
PROFESSOR BRZEZINSKI = Slt:l1N[i
INES IMPACT OF TEST BAN` ON
U.B. POLICY TOWARD) EUROP*i
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, An.
the current issue of the New Republic
the eminent Soviet scholar, Prof. Zbld
niew Brzezinski, of Columbia Univeralty;
has analyzed two profound questions re-
lated to the signing of the limited test
ban treaty. First: Why did the U.S.S.R.,
suddenly agree to sign this treaty? SeC-
ond: What ought to be the U.S. response
In the months ahead?
I suggest that both of these questions
are indeed fundamental. Malta theo-
ries have been propounded by Soviet ex-
perts and pseudoexperts as the reasom
for Soviet acceptance of is limited treaty:"
Professor Brzezinski Is acknowledged' to
be as well informed on Soviet, strategy,
and tactics as any political. scientist 4i1
this country. He "writes:
Khrushchev'a acceptance of an stmes-
phere-only test ban strongly suggests a aow?
jar Soviet reassessment of the world sit xUsu.
and an Implicit acknowledgment that So let
policies of the last few years have failed. The
Soviet leaders have evidently concluded that
the general world situation is again in a qula
eacent stage. Instead of dlsilpatmg Hovlat
resources In useless revoluattonary ?ee'orta or
missile adventures of the Cuban varlet, they
will probably concentrate on oonsolldaxing
their present position.
Professor BrzezinSki goes on to "itemixi
the factors contributing to the failure of,
Soviet policy. These include--s failure
of the economy to, grow as fast as prow'
dieted, a lagging standard of livirW. pis-
Ing food prices, continued disaseottol
among intellectuals and artists, Coburn-.
ued resentment of MoacoW. control.
among ethnic minorities, the Siiio-Soviet
Ideological dispute, disaffection anion
satellite nations, the failure, of Soviet
policy in Africa and the Middle East.
Finally, when 8hrushchev felt the naked
power of the U.S. strategic forces in his
reckless adventurism In Cuba. be decided
the time had arrived for a major con
solidation of Soviet policy. .
As Professor Brzezinski emphasizes:
this clearly does not mean that United
States-Soviet differences will dissolve.
There exist today and for the foreseeable
future the most profound and funda
mental disagreements between the two
regimes. However, the months ahetld
do offer the United States a rase oppor-
tunity to work toward the caosoridatlcsl
of Europe. particularly to continue the
evolution toward national Identity
among the Soviet satellites which has
Approved For Release 1999/09/17 : CIA-RDP75-00149R000100540018-6