Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

As separate title of the Internal Security Act, the Emergency Detention Act has been an anomaly from the beginning, since it was opposed, during the earlier stages of the legislative process, by virtually all of the sponsors of title I (then known as the McCarranWalter Act) and sponsored by virtually all of those who were opposed to the McCarran-Walter Act.

Although the late Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, floor manager of the Internal Security Act and author of the legislation which became title I of that act, rewrote the Emergency Detention Act on the floor of the Senate, in what he described to the Senate as an attempt "to put due process into it", he warned the Senate at the time that even in its rewritten form, the title still raised serious constitutional questions.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS REPEAL

The Internal Security Subcommittee has twice recommended repeal of title II of the Internal Security Act. The first time was in the subcommittee's report on the bill S. 2988, in the 90th Congress. The second time was in the subcommittee's report on the bill S. 12, the proposed Internal Security Act of 1969, reported to the full Judiciary Committee in January of this year.

AUTHOR'S EXPLANATION

Senator Inouye, author of the bill S. 1872, has explained the purpose and background of his bill very well in a letter addressed to the chairman of the committee. The text of this letter is as follows:

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, D.C., December 4, 1969.

Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Early this year I introduced with 25 other Senators, S. 1872, a bill to repeal title II, the emergency detention provision of the Internal Security Act of 1950. I understand that you have received a letter dated December 2 from Deputy Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst speaking for the Justice Department supporting S. 1872. Since this bill's introduction, I have received, as I am certain my colleagues have, many resolutions, petitions, and letters urging this law's speedy repeal. I, therefore, hope that your committee will be able to quickly and favorably report this measure to the Senate.

Title II of the Internal Security Act gives the President the power to proclaim an "internal security emergency" in the event of any of the following: (1) invasion of the territory of the United States or its possessions; (2) declaration of war by Congress; (3) insurrection within the United States in aid of a foreign enemy. Following the declaration of an internal security emergency, title II gives the President or his agent the power to detain persons "if there is reasonable ground to believe that such a person will engage in or probably will with others engage in acts of espionage or sabotage." Following the person's arrest, title II details the procedures for the continued detention of a person. Generally, this course of action is at odds with normal judicial procedure and in fact the procedures detailed in the act would, I believe, have the effect of changing the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt for the accused.

S. Rept. 91-632

As you may remember, the Internal Security Act of 1950, became law over President Truman's veto. In referring to the great majority of the provisions of this act, President Truman declared that they "would strike blows at our own liberties." Title II, I believe, violates a number of our established freedoms and constitutes a threat to our constitutional rights.

I introduced this measure when I became aware of the widespread rumors circulated throughout our Nation that the Federal Government was readying concentration camps to be filled with those who hold unpopular views and briefs. These rumors are widely circulated but are believed in many urban ghettos as well as by those dissidents who are at odds with many of the policies of the United States. Fear of internment, I believe, lurks for many of those who are by birth or choice not "in tune" or "in line" with the rest of the country. There is a current mood of tension among some citizens in our land which does not permit these rumors of concentration camps to be laid to rest. These feelings of malaise and discontent have deeply permeated our society and have created a climate whereby such rumors fall on receptive ears. For some, additional credence was given to the possible use of concentration camps by a House Un-American Activities report of May 1968, which contained a recommendation for the possible use of these detention camps for certain black Nationalists and Communists.

I believe that the emergency provision of the Internal Security Act of 1950 stands as a barrier to trust between some of our citizens and the Government. As President Truman stated in his veto message "it is not enough to say that this probably would not be done. The mere fact that it could be done shows clearly how the bill would open a Pandora's box of opportunities for official condemnation of organizations and individuals for perfectly honest opinions ***"

Many would respond to these rumors of concentration camps with the refrain "This couldn't happen in America." However, in times of stress and crisis American justice has not always withstood these pressures. I am naturally reminded that during World War II, 109,650 Americans of Japanese ancestry were arrested, their property confiscated and were detained in various "relocation camps" for most of World War II.

For these reasons I hope your committee will immediately and favorably consider S. 1872, my legislation to repeal the emergency detention provision of the Internal Security Act of 1950. The speedy repeal of this statute would forever put to rest the rumors and allay the fears of some of our citizens. As the Justice Department stated in announcing its support for S. 1872, the gains to be made from repeal of title II will outweigh “**** * any potential advantage which the act may provide in a time of internal security emergency."

Some have defended the existence of this statute by stating that no President would use this provision. However, if it is not to be used, it should be repealed. It is the responsibility of the Congress to repeal this statute and I believe we should do so immediately to forever allay the fears and suspicions of many, and to remove this threat to our liberty and freedoms.

Sincerely,

DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. Senator.

S. Rept. 91-632

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FAVORS REPEAL

The Department of Justice has recommended repeal of the Emergency Detention Act, in a letter to the chairman of the committee from the Deputy Attorney General. A full text of this letter follows:

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Washingon, D.C., December 2, 1969.

Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on S. 1872, legislation to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950.

The Emergency Detention Act was enacted as title II of the Internal Security Act of 1950. In brief, the act established procedures for the apprehension and detention, during internal security emergencies, of individuals likely to engage in acts of espionage or sabotage.

Unfortunately, the legislation has aroused among many of the citizens of the United States the belief that it may one day be used to accomplish the apprehension and detention of citizens who hold unpopular beliefs and views. In addition, various groups, of which our Japanese-American citizens are most prominent, look upon the legislation as permitting a recurrence of the roundups which resulted in the detention of Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II. It is therefore quite clear that the continuation of the Emergency Detention Act is extremely offensive to many Americans.

In the judgment of this Department, the repeal of this legislation will allay the fears and suspicions unfounded as they may be of many of our citizens. This benefit outweighs any potential advantage which the act may provide in a time of internal security emergency. Accordingly, the Department of Justice recommends the repeal of the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 as proposed in S. 1872.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely,

RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST,
Deputy Attorney General.

COMMITTEE ACTION UNANIMOUS

The action of the Committee on the Judiciary in recommending repeal of the Emergency Detention Act, and reporting favorably the bill S. 1872, was without dissent by any member.

In the opinion of the committee it is necessary to dispense with the requirements of subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate in order to expedite the business of the Senate.

о

S. Rept. 91-632

[blocks in formation]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »