Tail-Gunner in the Pilot's Seat 2.0

[Wolfpaw]

EXECUTIVE ORDER​

————————————​

SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT
​

WHEREAS the interests of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in the departments and agencies of the Government, shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States; and

WHEREAS the American tradition that all persons should receive fair, impartial, and equitable treatment at the hands of the Government requires that all persons seeking the privilege of employment or privileged to be employed in the departments and agencies of the Government be adjudged by mutually consistent and no less than minimum standards and procedures among the departments and agencies governing the employment and retention in employment of persons in the Federal service:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including section 1753 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (5 U.S.C. 631); the Civil Service Act of 1883 (22 Stat. 403; 5 U.S.C. 632, et seq.); section 9A of the act of August 2, 1939, 53 Stat. 1148 (5 U.S.C. 118j); and the act of August 26, 1950, 64 Stat. 476 (5 U.S.C. 22-1, et seq.), and as President of the United States, and deeming such action necessary in the best interests of the national security, it is hereby ordered as follows:


Section 1
In addition to the departments and agencies specified in the said act of August 26, 1950, and Executive Order No. 10237 of April 26, 1951, the provisions of that act shall apply to all other departments and agencies of the Government.


Sec. 2
The head of each department and agency of the Government shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining within his department or agency an effective program to insure that the employment and retention in employment of any civilian officer or employee within the department or agency is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.


Sec. 3
(a) The appointment of each civilian officer or employee in any department or agency of the Government shall be made subject to investigation. The scope of the investigation shall be determined in the first instance according to the degree of adverse effect the occupant of the position sought to be filled could bring about, by virtue of the nature of the position, on the national security, but in no event shall the investigation include less than a national agency check (including a check of the fingerprint files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and written inquiries to appropriate local law-enforcement agencies, former employers and supervisors, references, and schools attended by the person under investigation: Provided, that upon request of the head of the department or agency concerned, the Office of Personnel Management may, in its discretion, authorize such less investigation as may meet the requirements of the national security with respect to per-diem, intermittent, temporary, or seasonal employees, or aliens employed outside the United States. Should there develop at any stage of investigation information indicating that the employment of any such person may not be clearly consistent with the interests of the national security, there shall be conducted with respect to such person a full field investigation, or such less investigation as shall be sufficient to enable the head of the department or agency concerned to determine whether retention of such person is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.

(b) The head of any department or agency shall designate, or cause to be designated, any position within his department or agency the occupant of which could bring about, by virtue of the nature of the position, a material adverse effect on the national security as a sensitive position. Any position so designated shall be filled or occupied only by a person with respect to whom a full field investigation has been conducted: Provided, that a person occupying a sensitive position at the time it is designated as such may continue to occupy such position pending the completion of a full field investigation, subject to the other provisions of this order: And provided further, that in case of emergency a sensitive position may be filled for a limited period by a person with respect to whom a full field pre-appointment investigation has not been completed if the head of the department or agency concerned finds that such action is necessary in the national interest, which finding shall be made a part of the records of such department or agency.


Sec. 4
The head of each department and agency shall review, or cause to be reviewed, the cases of all civilian officers and employees with respect to whom there has been conducted a full field investigation under Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, and, after such further investigation as may be appropriate, shall re-adjudicate, or cause to be re-adjudicated, in accordance with the said act of August 26, 1950, such of those cases as have not been adjudicated under a security standard commensurate with that established under this order.


Sec. 5
Whenever there is developed or received by any department or agency information indicating that the retention in employment of any officer or employee of the Government may not be clearly consistent with the interests of the national security, such information shall be forwarded to the head of the employing department or agency or his representative, who, after such investigation as may be appropriate, shall review, or cause to be reviewed, and, where necessary, re-adjudicate, or cause to be re-adjudicated, in accordance with the said act of August 26, 1950, the case of such officer or employee.


Sec. 6
Should there develop at any stage of investigation information indicating that the employment of any officer or employee of the Government may not be clearly consistent with the interests of the national security, the head of the department or agency concerned or his representative shall immediately suspend the employment of the person involved if he deems such suspension necessary in the interests of the national security and, following such investigation and review as he deems necessary, the head of the department or agency concerned shall terminate the employment of such suspended officer or employee whenever he shall determine such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the national security, in accordance with the said act of August 26, 1950.


Sec. 7
Any person whose employment is suspended or terminated under the authority granted to heads of departments and agencies by or in accordance with the said act of August 26, 1950, or pursuant to the said Executive Order No. 9835 or any other security or loyalty program relating to officers or employees of the Government, shall not be reinstated or restored to duty or reemployed in the same department or agency and shall not be reemployed in any other department or agency, unless the head of the department or agency concerned finds that such reinstatement, restoration, or reemployment is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security, which finding shall be made a part of the records of such department or agency: Provided, that no person whose employment has been terminated under such authority thereafter may be employed by any other department or agency except after a determination by the Office of Personnel Management that such person is eligible for such employment.


Sec. 8
(a) The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment in the Federal service of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited, to the following:

(1) Depending on the relation of the Government employment to the national security:
​

(i) Any behavior, activities, or associations which tend to show that the individual is not reliable or trustworthy.
​

(ii) Any deliberate misrepresentations, falsifications, or omissions of material facts.
​

(iii) Any criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, habitual use of intoxicants to excess, drug addiction, sexual perversion.
​

(iv) Any illness, including any mental condition, of a nature which in the opinion of competent medical authority may cause significant defect in the judgment or reliability of the employee, with due regard to the transient or continuing effect of the illness and the medical findings in such case.
​

(v) Any facts which furnish reason to believe that the individual may be subjected to coercion, influence, or pressure which may cause him to act contrary to the best interests of the national security.
​

(2) Commission of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, or sedition, or attempts thereat or preparation therefore, or conspiring with, or aiding or abetting, another to commit or attempt to commit any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, or sedition.
​

(3) Establishing or continuing a sympathetic association with a saboteur, spy, traitor, seditionist, anarchist, or revolutionist, or with an espionage or other secret agent or representative of a foreign nation, or any representative of a foreign nation whose interests may be inimical to the interests of the United States, or with any person who advocates the use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States or the alteration of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
​

(4) Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
​

(5) Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in, any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons (hereinafter referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, or which seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States or any State or subdivision thereof by unlawful means.
​

(6) Intentional, unauthorized disclosure to any person of security information, or of other information disclosure of which is prohibited by law, or willful violation or disregard of security regulations.
​

(7) Performing or attempting to perform his duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.
​

(8) Refusal by the individual, upon the ground of constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, to testify before a congressional committee regarding charges of his alleged disloyalty or other misconduct.
​

(b) The investigation of persons entering or employed in the competitive service shall primarily be the responsibility of the Office of Personnel Management, except in cases in which the head of a department or agency assumes that responsibility pursuant to law or by agreement with the Office. The Office shall furnish a full investigative report to the department or agency concerned.

(c) The investigation of persons (including consultants, however employed), entering employment of, or employed by, the Government other than in the competitive service shall primarily be the responsibility of the employing department or agency. Departments and agencies without investigative facilities may use the investigative facilities of the Office of Personnel Management, and other departments and agencies may use such facilities under agreement with the Office.

(d) There shall be referred promptly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation all investigations being conducted by any other agencies which develop information indicating that an individual may have been subjected to coercion, influence, or pressure to act contrary to the interests of the national security, or information relating to any of the matters described in subdivisions (2) through (8) of subsection (a) of this section. In cases so referred to it, the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall make a full field investigation.


Sec. 9
(a) There shall be established and maintained in the Office of Personnel Management a security-investigations index covering all persons as to whom security investigations have been conducted by any department or agency of the Government under this order. The central index established and maintained by the Office under Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, shall be made a part of the security-investigations index. The security-investigations index shall contain the name of each person investigated, adequate identifying information concerning each such person, and a reference to each department and agency which has conducted an investigation concerning the person involved or has suspended or terminated the employment of such person under the authority granted to heads of departments and agencies by or in accordance with the said act of August 26, 1950.

(b) The heads of all departments and agencies shall furnish promptly to the Office of Personnel Management information appropriate for the establishment and maintenance of the security-investigations index.

(c) The reports and other investigative material and information developed by investigations conducted pursuant to any statute, order, or program described in section 7 of this order shall remain the property of the investigative agencies conducting the investigations, but may, subject to considerations of the national security, be retained by the department or agency concerned. Such reports and other investigative material and information shall be maintained in confidence, and no access shall be given thereto except, with the consent of the investigative agency concerned, to other departments and agencies conducting security programs under the authority granted by or in accordance with the said act of August 26, 1950, as may be required for the efficient conduct of Government business.


Sec. 10
Nothing in this order shall be construed as eliminating or modifying in any way the requirement for any investigation or any determination as to security which may be required by law.


Sec. 11
On and after the effective date of this order the Loyalty Review Board established by Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, shall not accept agency findings for review, upon appeal or otherwise. Appeals pending before the Loyalty Review Board on such date shall be heard to final determination in accordance with the provisions of the said Executive Order No. 9835, as amended. Agency determinations favorable to the officer or employee concerned pending before the Loyalty Review Board on such date shall be acted upon by such Board, and whenever the Board is not in agreement with such favorable determination the case shall be remanded to the department or agency concerned for determination in accordance with the standards and procedures established pursuant to this order. Cases pending before the regional loyalty boards of the Office of Personnel Management on which hearings have not been initiated on such date shall be referred to the department or agency concerned. Cases being heard by regional loyalty boards on such date shall be heard to conclusion and the determination of the board shall be forwarded to the head of the department or agency concerned: Provided, that if no specific department or agency is involved, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to the applicant. Investigations pending in the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Office of Personnel Management on such date shall be completed, and the reports thereon shall be made to the appropriate department or agency.


Sec. 12
Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, as amended, is hereby revoked.


Sec. 13
The Attorney General is requested to render to the heads of departments and agencies such advice as may be requisite to enable them to establish and maintain an appropriate employee-security program.


Sec. 14
(a) The Office of Personnel Management, with the continuing advice and collaboration of representatives of such departments and agencies as the National Security Council may designate, shall make a continuing study of the manner in which this order is being implemented by the departments and agencies of the Government for the purpose of determining:

(1) Deficiencies in the department and agency security programs established under this order which are inconsistent with the interests of, or directly or indirectly weaken, the national security.
​

(2) Tendencies in such programs to deny to individual employees fair, impartial, and equitable treatment at the hands of the Government, or rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States or this order.
​

Information affecting any department or agency developed or received during the course of such continuing study shall be furnished immediately to the head of the department or agency concerned. The Office of Personnel Management shall report to the National Security Council, at least semiannually, on the results of such study, shall recommend means to correct any such deficiencies or tendencies, and shall inform the National Security Council immediately of any deficiency which is deemed to be of major importance.

(b) All departments and agencies of the Government are directed to cooperate with the Office of Personnel Management to facilitate the accomplishment of the responsibilities assigned to it by subsection (a) of this section.

(c) To assist the Office of Personnel Management in discharging its responsibilities under this order, the head of each department and agency shall, as soon as possible and in no event later than ninety days after receipt of the final investigative report on a civilian officer or employee subject to a full field investigation under the provisions of this order, advise the Office as to the action taken with respect to such officer or employee. The information furnished by the heads of departments and agencies pursuant to this section shall be included in the reports which the Office of Personnel Management is required to submit to the National Security Council in accordance with subsection (a) of this section. Such reports shall set forth any deficiencies on the part of the heads of departments and agencies in taking timely action under this order, and shall mention specifically any instances of noncompliance with this subsection.

JOE McCARTHY
THE WHITE HOUSE,
AUGUST 15, 1953.​

 

[Wolfpaw]

TIME Magazine
August 31, 1953​

The War for Teheran: No End in Sight


Street fighting continues in the Iranian capital of Teheran as the supporters of Premier Mossadegh try to push back soldiers seeking to topple the government and restore the Shah to power. At least 72 people were killed in the last two days and at least 220 wounded.

Gunfire and explosions continued Saturday as pro-Mossadegh rioters clashed with pro-Shah soldiers outside of Teheran's famous Grand Bazaar.

On Saturday afternoon the monarchist soldiers spread barbed wire and constructed barricades around Baharestan Square, just outside of the Parliament building. They put up signs that read "Long Live the Shah!" and "Death to All Traitors!"

Those opposed to the Shah's rule are nonetheless determined to fight on. Sunday morning saw a mob armed only with knives, clubs and other ad hoc weaponry charge a pro-Shah checkpoint on Kargar Avenue, one of Teheran's major streets. It was only after a tank fired into the crowd that the rioters hit the ground and fled into alleyways. In the aftermath of the carnage, a few anti-Shah militants could be seen limping towards the checkpoint, bleeding and apparently shot, but still defiant. They were quickly killed by the soldiers.

The leader of the pro-Shah forces, General Fazlollah Zahedi, has made a national radio broadcast and declared that the country will join together to restore the Shah and "drive out the illegal government of Mossadegh and his Communists."

When asked about the violence tearing his country's capital apart, the Shah--sequestered in his suite at Rome's lavish Hotel Excelsior--evaded questions concerning the forces fighting in his name and blamed the bloodshed on Communist elements among the pro-Mossadegh mobs. Order, he said, would be restored within a matter of days, "but only after the Iranian people do what is right."


​

 

[RogueBeaver]

So the Tail-Gunner will have to open communications with Churchill and Eden (how will they react to Joe? ) for not just obvious reasons, but because they have forces in situ at the Suez JOB. This is about a year before the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. Was Farouk still overthrown as per OTL in 1952? Shouldn't take that much force to get Mossadegh out, since the military is united against him.

 

[Wolfpaw]

So the Tail-Gunner will have to open communications with Churchill and Eden (how will they react to Joe? ) for not just obvious reasons, but because they have forces in situ at the Suez JOB. This is about a year before the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. Was Farouk still overthrown as per OTL in 1952? Shouldn't take that much force to get Mossadegh out, since the military is united against him.

Farouk was still booted out since the Egyptian Revolution took place before the POD.

The situation in Iran right now is a direct result of Taft snubbing British overtures to throw out Mossadegh and Downing Street deciding to try it without American backing. Much to the UK (and the Shah's) chagrin, things have gone badly wrong.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Surely McCarthy would be enthusiastic in helping overthrow a man he perceives to be a Soviet puppet? Dulles and Doug would also be quite insistent on that point.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Surely McCarthy would be enthusiastic in helping overthrow a man he perceives to be a Soviet puppet? Dulles and Doug would also be quite insistent on that point.

The Brits have decided to go it alone because the Americans weren't going to help. By the time McCarthy became POTUS at the beginning of August, it's pretty much too late for the CIA to do anything major to help out. This is far more Britain's baby ITTL than America's due to Taft's non-interventionism. That being said, McCarthy wholeheartedly supports Mossadegh's ouster.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Despite Joe’s successes in having MacArthur, Brewster and Welker approved for the Cabinet and the beginning of the “cleaning out” of homosexuals in federal employment, it would not be until September that the gloom following Taft’s death would completely dissipate. At the start of the month McCarthy flew to Korea to greet the last few American POWs being repatriated at Panmunjom’s Freedom Village, where he proceeded to mount a hastily constructed stage facing the North Korean border and deliver a harangue that both viciously denounced the Communists and praised the bravery of those American soldiers who had been captured. Towards the end of his tirade, Joe stabbed a finger at one of the North Korean soldiers just on the other side of the wire and declared that, “Next time it will be us who catch you off guard.”

McCarthy laughed off accusations that he was planning to reignite the war, quipping to several reporters at a state dinner in Seoul that he was sure that the Democrats would like nothing so that they could “finish up selling the rest of Korea downriver.”

On September 12, fresh from his trip to Korea, Joe headed to Newport, Rhode Island, to attend the wedding of newly elected senator John F. Kennedy. Though many of the guests were still irate at the President for his most recent jab at Democrats, the Kennedys welcomed their old friend with open arms. High jinks followed as Joe began pulling the various pranks he so much enjoyed when drunk at parties. He pulled seats out from under people, tapped men on their shoulders to steal dance partners, and would swap a partygoer’s full glass with an empty one when they were not looking, and pour vodka into empty water glasses, giggling all the while. At one point Joe, noticing that the bride was not dancing, swaggered over to her and asked her if she was having a good time. When she said yes, Joe shook his head, said, “No you’re not,” lifted her out of her chair and carried her to the center of the dance floor to dance a clumsy waltz. The ever-jealous Jean refused to make eye contact with the mortified Mrs. John F. Kennedy for the rest of the night. After the wedding, guests were sent a letter from the Kennedy’s apologizing for the President’s boisterous antics. “But we still had a great time,” Bobby recalled years later.

Soon after the Kennedy wedding, McCarthy received a distressing report from the Public Health Service. Officials in Utah had found dramatically elevated levels of radioactive iodine in milk samples that were going to children. Joe, who had always been very concerned with the welfare of dairy farmers, immediately established an emergency task force to address and remedy the matter, reluctantly keeping silent on the issue lest the government turn out to be the source of the problem.

On the 22nd McCarthy sunk into an angry funk when he heard that twenty-three American POWs had refused repatriation in favor of staying in North Korea. The rest of the day was marked by outbursts damning “Red brainwashing” and wondering aloud whether the North Koreans had not killed the actual POWs and replaced them with Russian agents just to humiliate America. As always, his aides gently humored McCarthy’s latest conspiracy theory.

Yet as quickly as he had fallen into his funk, the President leapt right out. Joe took time out from his busy schedule to marry Jean Kerr on September 29, 1953, at St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington. Their romance over the past several years had been stormy. Both strong-willed, the two quarreled often, broke up, and then patched things together again. The final rift was smoothed over just before Jean’s mother announced the engagement. “I was fired three times,” Jean later admitted. The major cause of the squabbling was Joe’s constant attentions to other women. Jean once used her friendship with J. Edgar Hoover to have the FBI agent husband of a particularly attractive office secretary transferred to Alaska in order to remove her from Joe’s sight. She told reporters that before their engagement she had laid down conditions for their marriage. She firmly declined to disclose them, however.

A few of McCarthy’s close friends resented what they saw as Jean’s aggressive pursuit of her employer. Ray Kiermas said later, “He wasn’t the marrying kind.” Willard Edwards thought that Joe, 45, consented to marriage only to quash stories that he was homosexual.

At 29, Jean abandoned her Presbyterian past and converted to Roman Catholicism. Bobby made the arrangements through the clergy at St. Matthew’s. On the wedding day, a cablegram arrived from Rome giving Pope Pius’s “paternal and apostolic” blessing to the couple.

Close to 900 people gathered in the Cathedral for the ceremony, some 200 of whom were from Wisconsin. About 3,500 others milled around the outside of the cathedral for a look at the dignitaries as they arrived. Along with the whole of the Cabinet, numerous senators and congressmen were present, with Senators Kennedy and Nixon being given preferential seating. Also on hand were CIA Director Dulles, former heavyweight boxing champion Jack Dempsy, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Roy Cohn, Bobby Kennedy, Ed Nellor, Ray Kiermas, Tom Korb, and Urban van Susteren. Mrs. Robert E. Lee was matron of honor and Joe’s Brother Bill served as best man.

At the conclusion of the mass, the President and the First Lady turned slowly, smiled, and walked back down the middle aisle toward a waiting limousine, showers of rice, and a cheering crowd. Joe, beaming, waved at Nixon.

Wealthy Texas businessman Ross Biggers told reporters in Houston that he and some twenty others had purchased a new Cadillac for the First Family as a wedding present. Deliver would be delayed, he explained, because Jean had selected a particularly plush Coupe de Ville model. Biggers said that when he asked the President if he had ever owned a Cadillac, Joe replied, “Heck no, I’ve never even driven one.” (When the car was delivered, the yarn was told that some 2,000 donors had purchased it, contributing sums from twenty-five cents to $100. “All those letters,” Biggers said later, “convinced me that Joe is the most beloved man in America and, in a few quarters, the most hated. But thank God the ones that are backing him are loyal and those that are against him would destroy our beloved country.”)

As the newlyweds prepared to board a plane that would take them to their Spanish Cay honeymoon in the British West Indies, Joe turned to reporters and proudly announced his appointment of Michael Angelo Musmanno as the fourteenth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. “And if the Senate decides to confirm him,” he smiled, “well, that would make a fine wedding present.”


—Excerpt from Tail-Gunner: The Court of the American Nero by P. J. Lykos

 

[RogueBeaver]

Hmm... all in character. Keep it coming.

 

[Historico]

Hmm...Joe's playfulness at Jack's wedding reminded me of a story about Teddy, when he was coming back from Alaska in the pre-chappaquidick days where he had a food fight with dinner rolls on an airplane against the press lol. Maybe it's his way of coping with the enormous pressures on his shoulders as President. And atleast from the Loyalty Oath Executive Order that Joe makes it to the summer of '58 atleast. So we've got a full five years to see what he's going to get himself and the nation into...Keep it comming

 

[Rediv]

Nice update! I'm really loving all the detail you've put into this -- McCarthy seems like an awfully more unrestrained and unpredictable type this time around.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Or when Bobby stole a policeman's hat (which Joe Sr. forced him to return after an earful) before Jack's wedding. But semantics, semantics.

 

[Presbyman]

Great stuff, Wolfpaw. Thank you for re-launching this amazing timeline. You research well and write even better.

Edit: I do have one question. Did you mean for McCarthy's Admin to institute the EO for Security Requirements for Government Employment in 1958?

 

[Wolfpaw]

Oops: 1958 = 1953

And atleast from the Loyalty Oath Executive Order that Joe makes it to the summer of '58 atleast.

Edit: I do have one question. Did you mean for McCarthy's Admin to institute the EO for Security Requirements for Government Employment in 1958?

Whoa, I gotta watch my copy/pasting. That was meant to read 1953, so don't take the '58 thing as canon.

It's been remedied

 

[Historico]

Ill be definatley interesting in this version TL, to see how the butterflies swarming around Joe's Adminstration will affect Jack's chances(Granted, he very well could not live to see another Presidential Election due to his back problems of the fifities, It really could have happened in '54) and presidential ambitions. If things go bad, I think Massachusetts may be one of those last bastions of McCarthy support. Jack and Joe, despite party pressure to do otherwise, may stay close friends for mutualistic political reasons. As for Jack's own presidential hopes, I really think it will depend on how McCarthy's Presidency looks like. Joe was many was a living charicture of the Irish-American sterotype, and any shennigans that he might get into might reinforce the idea that Irish can't lead the nation. However if it's a success, Joe being the nation's 1st Irish-American Roman Catholic POTUS might be seen as a great burden off of Jack's shoulders.

 

[stevep]

Wolfpaw

With regard to post #81 double ugh! Is that based on actual legislation as big chunks seems to be virtually unreadable? Then a lot of the bits that I could absorb sounded distinctly horrifying. So much in terms of control and checks, that I think Orwell could sue for copyrite infringement.

Given what seems to be said about Cohen being pretty openly gay how much double standards are being applied in the new rules?

It sounds distinctly like things are going to get very bad very quickly.

Steve

 

[Wolfpaw]

"I, Michael Angelo Musmanno, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Chief Justice of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

—October 5, 1953

 

[Wolfpaw]

The New York Times
October 15, 1953​

McCARTHY MOVES TO OUST U. S. AIDES WHO BALK INQUIRY;
Fights Self-Incrimination Plea -- Welker Asks Law, Seeks Part in Immunity Decision
BALKY WITNESSES FACE U. S. OUTER

October 14 -- President McCarthy today made the refusal of Federal employees to testify before Congressional
committees on the ground of of possible self-incrimination a basis for their dismissal from their Government jobs....
​

 

[Historico]

Wow, Joe's using potential self-incrimination as reasons to get rid of all these federal employee's...My only question is, who the hell is he going to replace them with...Birchers?

 

[Wolfpaw]

With regard to post #81 double ugh! Is that based on actual legislation as big chunks seems to be virtually unreadable? Then a lot of the bits that I could absorb sounded distinctly horrifying. So much in terms of control and checks, that I think Orwell could sue for copyrite infringement.

That is, word for word, the exact same executive order that Dwight D. Eisenhower issued in 1953, which is funny since I never thought of Ike as Big Brother

Given what seems to be said about Cohen being pretty openly gay how much double standards are being applied in the new rules?

"Double standards" is so intrinsically a part of McCarthyism that the phrase doesn't even appear in its vocabulary

 

[Wolfpaw]

It is now over six months since the McCarthy administration took office. During those six months I have often spoken of various parts of our foreign policies. Tonight I should like to present an overall view of those policies which relate to our security.

First of all, let us recognize that many of the preceding foreign policies were good. Aid to Greece and Turkey had checked the Communist drive to the Mediterranean. The European Recovery Program had helped the peoples of Western Europe to pull out of the postwar morass. The Western powers were steadfast in Berlin and overcame the blockade with their airlift. As a loyal member of the United Nations, we had reacted with force to repel the Communist attack in Korea. When that effort exposed our military weakness, we rebuilt rapidly our military establishment. We also sought a quick build up of armed strength in Western Europe.

These were the acts of a nation which saw the danger of Soviet communism; which realized that its own safety was tied up with that of others; which was capable of responding boldly and promptly to emergencies. These are precious values to be acclaimed. Also, we can pay tribute to congressional bipartisanship which puts the nation above politics.

But we need to recall that what we did was in the main emergency action, imposed on us by our enemies…. We live in a world where emergencies are always possible, and our survival may depend upon our capacity to meet emergencies. Let us pray that we shall always have that capacity. But, having said that, it is necessary also to say that emergency measures—however good for the emergency—do not necessarily make good permanent policies. Emergency measures are costly; they are superficial; and they imply that the enemy has the initiative. They cannot be depended on to serve our long-time interests.

This "long time" factor is of critical importance. The Soviet Communists are planning for what they call "an entire historical era," and we should do the same. They seek, through many types of maneuvers, gradually to divide and weaken the free nations by overextending them in efforts which, as Lenin put it, are "beyond their strength, so that they come to practical bankruptcy." Then, said Lenin, "our victory is assured." Then, said Stalin, will be "the moment for the decisive blow." In the face of this strategy, measures cannot be judged adequate merely because they ward off an immediate danger. It is essential to do this, but it is also essential to do so without exhausting ourselves.

Change was imperative to assure the stamina needed for permanent security. But it was equally imperative that change should be accompanied by understanding of our true purposes. Sudden and spectacular change had to be avoided. Otherwise, there might have been a panic among our friends and miscalculated aggression by our enemies. We can, I believe, make a good report in these respects. We need allies and collective security. Our purpose is to make these relations more effective, less costly. This can be done by placing more reliance on deterrent power and less dependence on local defensive power.

This is accepted practice so far as local communities are concerned. We keep locks on our doors, but we do not have an armed guard in every home. We rely principally on a community security system so well equipped to punish any who break in and steal that, in fact, would-be aggressors are generally deterred. That is the modern way of getting maximum protection at a bearable cost. What the McCarthy administration seeks is a similar international security system. We want, for ourselves and the other free nations, a maximum deterrent at a bearable cost.

Local defense will always be important. But there is no local defense which alone will contain the mighty landpower of the Communist world. Local defenses must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power. A potential aggressor must know that he cannot always prescribe battle conditions that suit him. Otherwise, for example, a potential aggressor, who is glutted with manpower, might be tempted to attack in confidence that resistance would be confined to manpower. He might be tempted to attack in places where his superiority was decisive.

The way to deter aggression is for the free community to be willing and able to respond vigorously at places and with means of its own choosing. So long as our basic policy concepts were unclear, our military leaders could not be selective in building our military power. If an enemy could pick his time and place and method of warfare then we needed to be ready to fight in the Arctic and in the Tropics; in Asia, the Near East, and in Europe; by sea, by land, and by air; with old weapons and with new weapons….

But before military planning could be changed, the President and his advisers, as represented by the National Security Council, had to take some basic policy decisions. This has been done. The basic decision was to depend primarily upon a great capacity to retaliate, instantly, by means and at places of our choosing. Now the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff can shape our military establishment to fit what is our policy, instead of having to try to be ready to meet the enemy’s many choices. That permits of a selection of military means instead of a multiplication of means. As a result, it is now possible to get, and share, more basic security at less cost…


—Speech of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles before the Council of Foreign Relations, January 12, 1954