Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

For example, court-martial, dishonorable discharge, or decoration for meritorious behavior.

Mr. O'DONNELL. What is the date of that, Doctor?

Dr. SEGAL. Late in 1954, roughly, November of 1954.

These determinations by the Army

Senator MCCARTHY. May I interrupt to ask this question: You may not be able to answer this. I don't know. If you feel you can't, I will understand.

We had testimony yesterday to the effect that two colonels were teaching communism to the prisoners of war. One of them was promoted while he was doing that or immediately afterward. The punishment meted out to the one was that he was demoted with a reduction of 100 points in his promotion grade, nothing else. Then we read about privates who got as much as 20 years for even less. Would you be able to shed any light on the reason for that, or the reasoning behind it?

Dr. SEGAL. No, sir; absolutely none. May I make this clear at the outset ?

Senator MCCARTHY. I thought you might not be able to answer that.

Dr. SEGAL. No, sir. In elaboration of that response I simply want to state that each prisoner of war who fell into our sample, which I wish to describe now, and all of the men who returned from Korea whose files we might have looked through, became for our research purposes a number punched on an IBM card for statistical analysis. There was never, after the initial survey of a man's dossier, any attempt on our part to identify a man as a man, but only to have him part of a group to serve for statistical analysis.

Senator MCCARTHY. Thank you.

Dr. SEGAL. From this processing that the Army conducted with the repatriated prisoners of war, we grouped these men into three criterion groups. Fifteen percent of the returning prisoners of war were categorized as participators or, as I said earlier, as cooperators or collaborators.

I think it is important at this point to explain very carefully the bases of these criterion groupings. As I say, 15 percent of the 3,323 were categorized as participators by virtue of these criteria: These were men who either were recommended for courts-martial at the time we began our research or who had already been courts-martialed, men who were suggested for dishonorable discharge or who were already dishonorably discharged, and also men who were discharged from the military service upon their repatriation prior to the processing of these files; that is, men against whom some administrative action would have been taken had they not already been discharged from the military service.

There is an apparent discrepancy between this 15 percent and the data which have been presented by the Defense Department committee on prisoners of war contained in the Code of Conduct which they developed, but it is only an apparent discrepancy, and if I may, I should like for the record to clarify that discrepancy.

This 15 percent of the returning prisoners of war who we termed "participators" in actual numbers comprised roughly 500 cases. For purpose of bringing the committee up to date I would like to read

from the Code of Conduct developed by the Defense Department committee on prisoners of war. These data, unlike our data, apply to all prisoners of war, irrespective of the branch of the military to which they belonged.

By joint action of the services, all of the prisoners recovered were screened by military intelligence agencies.

Mr. O'DONNELL. What page are you reading from?

Dr. SEGAL. Page 25, sir.

Of these 565 whose conduct was questioned

and here the number is larger than our 15 percent of 3,323, simply because this dealt with all of the branches

of these 565,375 were cleared or dropped after investigation. Of the remaining 192 suspects, 68 were separated from the services, 3 resigned, 1 received reprimand, 2 were given restricted assignments, 6 were convicted by courts-martial. As of July 20, 1955, 112 cases are pending.

I mention this simply to note that the processing of these cases was a dynamic thing, something which was not at an end at the time we conceived and began our research, and therefore the 15 percent who fall into our category include a larger number than that small proportion which Army administrative agencies have brought to trial and have dishonorably discharged, and so forth.

Mr. O'DONNELL. I think you said in November 1954 when your study began these were cases which were scheduled for courts-martial, dishonorable discharge, and other disciplinary action by the Army. Dr. SEGAL. Or men who had already been through that process by the time we began our research.

Mr. O'DONNELL. All right.

Senator MCCARTHY. If I could interrupt, Mr. Chairman, for a very brief comment.

I must leave shortly to interrogate Secretary Wilson. May I say it seems rather unusual that we court-martialed and gave dishonorable discharges to men who under torture may confess certain activities, and at the same time Army Secretary Brucker issued an order to the effect that even belonging to the Communist Party in this country, where there is no pressure whatsoever, is no ground for a discharge from the Army. I am not asking you for a comment on that. I just wanted to make the observation for the record because I have been somewhat disturbed by the unusual picture which develops. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That remark might include the Supreme Court. It seems to me that it is beginning to hold that you can't discharge one from Government service just for the mere fact that he is a Communist.

Senator MCCARTHY. Yes. This is neither the time nor the place to comment on it, but I think the Supreme Court has come to a new low since Governor Warren became Chief Justice. Again I say it is certainly unbelievable that we would court-martial and dishonorably discharge a man who succumbs to the torture of the enemy and at the same time have the Army Secretary and the Supreme Court hold that you can't discharge a man who is a member of the Communist conspiracy in this country who is under no pressure.

Again I say I am not asking for any comment from the witness unless you care to.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us proceed.

Mr. O'DONNELL. Doctor, in reference to what you just said, you indicated that 565 were questioned, 375 were dropped after investigation. Do you have any information relating to that 375?

Dr. SEGAL. None at all; no, sir.

Mr. O'DONNELL. Has your report been filed with the Department of Justice?

Dr. SEGAL. Our report has been submitted to the Department of the Army for review and approval just about 10 days ago, sir, and at the same time it was submitted to the Director of my agency for his review. Two copies of this report were submitted to members of the committee staff for review prior to this testimony.

If I may now jump to the extreme right of that second bar chart: 5 percent of the prisoners we termed resisters. These were men who were actually decorated for meritorious behavior in captivity as well as those men who were, at the time we began our research, suggested for decoration by the Army. Some of these cases may have reached fruition in the sense that these men were decorated. Some of them, the Army has judged, were not liable for decoration. In any case, the resister group included all those cases then decorated or suggested for decoration.

(Committee members present at this point: Senators McClellan, McCarthy, and Bender.)

Dr. SEGAL. Eighty percent of the returning prisoner population, 80 percent of the 3323 cases, we termed a middle group, or middlemen, as I shall refer to them in this report. These were prisoners concerning whom at the time we began our research the Army had little or no derogatory information, and those cases which were temporarily marked "undetermined" by virtue of the conflicting evidence then available regarding these men.

This I hope explains the basis by which these criterion groupings were derived.

In our sample for research we studied every second participator randomly chosen from among the 15 percent. We studied every 13th middleman randomly chosen from the 80 percent, and we studied all resisters who fell into the resister group. A very important point in terms of our research analysis and design is the technique of sampling which was utilized. Just a brief word about that.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like you to state how you determined what a resister was, how you judged them. By what criteria did you determine that one was a resister whereas the other larger groups were perhaps "middlemen," as you term it.

Dr. SEGAL. The resister group, sir, contained all these men who were decorated for meritorious behavior while in captivity and those who at the time we began our research were suggested or slated for decoration although their cases had not been fully processed. None of the 80 percent of the middle group were so categorized.

The CHAIRMAN. How was it determined that they were entitled to a medal? They were in prison. Who knew?

Dr. SEGAL. On the basis of the interrogations of returning prisoners of war contained in dossiers on each prisoner of war, the Army judged the merits and demerits of each case. We as researchers, of course, were not involved in those administrative procedures.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. The resister, though, is the man who refused to conform, who was obstinate, and who gave the captors the most trouble insofar as their being able to regiment the group and indoctrinate them.

Dr. SEGAL. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that a priori when we began our research and categorized these men we didn't know what traits the resister had. We had some hypotheses but the results will indicate answers to those questions. We accepted Army criteria, the ones which I just described, for designating or slotting a man in one of the three groups.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, proceed.

Dr. SEGAL. It is important to note in the sampling procedure that these 579 prisoners of war which comprised our sample, 238 participators, 138 resisters, and 203 middlemen, were statified on the basis of their rank, race, length of military service, length of captivity, and their principal places of internment. That is to say, our final sample of 579 prisoners of war reflects the same proportions of rank, et cetera, as obtained in the total prisoner of war population of 3,323 repatriated PW's.

[blocks in formation]

Dr. SEGAL. Just a brief word about the sources of the data for our research. Not one prisoner of war was available to us for direct interrogation or psychological testing. Our data were derived from the following sources:

Primarily, they came from those dossiers which the Intelligence Branch of the Army compiled in their postrepatriation interrogation of these prisoners of war. These were made available to us at HUMRRO, the Human Resources Research Office, for careful research analysis.

In addition, we used four secondary sources: From the Surgeon General's Office of the Army we gathered medical statistics about the PW's, the physical and medical conditions under which they lived, and clinical, medical, and psychiatric evaluations made with the PW's when they returned. From the Walter Reed Graduate School of the Surgeon General's Office we gathered certain psychological test data derived from some of these prisoners of war. From the Adjutant General's Office, the Battle Casualty Branch, we got certain vital statistics about the prisoners. And we requested the Adjutant General's Office of the Army to provide us with photostatic copies of each man's personnel form 20 or 66 giving certain pertinent civilian and military background characteristics.

May I have the next chart, please.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small]

Dr. SEGAL. The treatment of those data contained in these very voluminous dossiers posed a problem, and just a brief word about how we did this. From each of these 579 dossiers, for each of the prisoners of war in our sample, we codified over 300 items of information, information ranging from background characteristics, civilian, and so on, to actual experiences and traits evidenced during captivity. These data were punched on IBM cards for machine analysis.

In addition, because it was difficult to obtain quantitative assessment on factors deemed to be of great importance, we developed 27 rating scales whereby each prisoner of war was rated on 27 factors thought to be important. I shall cite just one example.

Each man's dossier contained descriptions of the kinds of mistreatment and pressure to which he was subjected, but no overall assessment of this man's pressure compared to other prisoners was available. By means of rating scales we were able to assess the degree of pressures, for example, to which this prisoner was subjected as compared to other prisoners of war. Additional rating scales had to do with, for example, degree of preferential treatment received, et cetera. May I have the next chart, please.

(The chart follows:)

CHART No. 5

MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC DATA

Civilian and military background.

Vital statistics on capture and internment.

Acts of participation.

Acts of resistance.

Interrogation experiences.

Indoctrination experiences.

Preferential treatment.

Mistreatment.

PW relations.

Contacts with outside world.

PW traits and attitudes.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »