Mr. KENDALL. I was going to ask you that very thing. You obviously are a very dedicated, determined, and patriotic American. If they can make propaganda use of your patriotic and dedicated statements, we may as well plow right on through?

Colonel MAYER. I think that is true, and I thank you for bringing it up.

MAYER PARTICIPATION IN THIRD HUMAN EVENTS POLITICAL ACTION

CONFERENCE

Mr. KENDALL. I believe you were one of the speakers in the Third Human Events Political Action Conference held here in Washington in January; were you not?

Colonel MAYER. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. KENDALL. In the Third Human Events Political Action Conference news release, it was stated that it would provide inspiration to fight for the right candidates and principles of sound constitutional government; it will provide the information necessary to marshal the forces of conservatism in one's State to support good candidates; it can supply political action which can lead to conservative victory in 1962. It says that the theme of this conference will be what you can do to help conservatives win in 1962.

I want to make it clear that I certainly do not criticize those statements or do not suggest or imply any criticism of the conference or its sponsors. But since it was obviously political in nature and of a partisan political nature, the question arises in my mind as to whether or not it was an appropriate forum for an appearance by an active duty military officer?

Colonel MAYER. The same question was directed to the Chief of the Information Office by my command, to whom I submitted it. The request to me, of course, did not provide this kind of information as to what the meaning of this conference was, and we do not go blindly into accepting invitations. It was simply said, however, in the invitation directed to me, that this was an entirely nonpartisan discussion, that my part of it specifically was to lend the contribution of some knowledge, not of anything having to do with politics, and that they were most anxious not to cause me embarrassment by asking me to participate. This is why I asked my superiors and the request for approval or disapproval went to the Chief of Information's Office.

I was then informed by my superiors that there was no objection and that I could go as long as I stayed within my cleared manuscript.

RISK OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS GETTING INTO POLITICAL FIELD

Senator STENNIS. Pardon me just a minute, now. It seems to me like that is the final point on that. You got permission and you went and that is all.

Now, if I may just comment, if counsel will yield on that, it seems to me that the chance the military runs there, and that, I believe, is your problem, and I want you to react to this as you see fit-in these forums, you accept an invitation. It is made in good faith and you accept it in good faith. But some of these meetings or programs can

Colonel MAYER. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. An uncharted political field?

Colonel MAYER. Absolutely.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. X, the local speaker, may get into partisan politics. If it happens that way, you are already there and the uni

form is there.

Colonel MAYER. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. You are stuck to that degree; are you not? You are identified with what he says, and there is association in the public mind. Many are inclined to look upon it as all blended together. That is the way I have heard the reaction.

What is your analysis of that situation, just briefly?

Colonel MAYER. Briefly, I believe that the association of the military in the mind of the public with whatever is espoused at such a meeting this has been a consideration when I have been asked to talk to the Civil Liberties Union, for example that this association in the mind of the public is certainly a risk. It can redound to your discredit.

But I believe that this is a calculated risk that a man who knows what he wants to say and has the courage to say should be willing to undertake, so long as it is not really a trap.

Senator STENNIS. Yes, and I would assume that it was not a trap. Do you have anything further?

DISCUSSION ON FILM "COMMUNIST TARGET-YOUTH”

Mr. KENDALL. One final question.

Colonel Mayer, have you seen the film "Communist TargetYouth"?

Colonel MAYER. Yes, sir. I believe I have seen the film.

Mr. KENDALL. Do you have any opinions on the value of that film as a troop training aid?

Colonel MAYER. It would not be fair of me to give an opinion, because I cannot recall in this detail or whether the "Communist Target-Youth" film that I have seen is the film you are talking about. There was such a film made by

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Kendall, your time is up.

KOREAN POW OFFENSES LARGELY A RESULT OF IGNORANCE OR NAIVETE

Senator Thurmond, do you have any questions?

Senator THURMOND. Yes.

Colonel Mayer, on page 11 of the statement you sent into the committee last November, you made this statement:

It was evident that many, if not most, soldiers, knew so little about the enemy and his methods and objectives, and so little about the details of soldiery responsibility in captivity-Communist or otherwise that offenses were largely a result of ignorance or naivete.

I wonder if you care to elaborate any on that statement, which I thought was a very fine statement?

Colonel MAYER. Thank you.

No, sir, I do think there never was a problem of vicious intent or criminal behavior. It was ignorance or naivete.

MAYER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BEST ALLOCATION OF HIS TIME

Senator THURMOND. On page 17, I notice that you made the statement that you would recommend that a third of your time be devoted to public discussions, a third to future medical officers who are still in the medical schools, and a third to instructing troops and junior troop leaders.

Do you still feel that that is a reasonable allocation of the way in which you can spend your time to best serve your country?

Colonel MAYER. Yes, sir, I do. I was asked how I thought I could best distribute my time by the executive officer in the Surgeon General's office, and that is the answer I gave him and I still believe that.

EFFECTS OF MAYER'S AND TRUDEAU'S TESTIMONY ON THEIR CAREERS

Senator THURMOND. Colonel Mayer, we are just about at the end of your testimony now, and the film will be shown last, so I just want to make this comment, that you have demonstrated here today not only a tremendous and valuable store of knowledge about the matters under investigation by this subcommittee, but more importantly, you have shown courage and loyalty to your convictions and your country. You have been most candid and responsive and what you have said should make sense to every American, whether he be right, center, or left of center in his political philosophy.

Now, we recently had another frank witness before this subcommittee, and at that time, it was reported in the press that he was the first choice and recommendation of the Army to be considered for appointment as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. În fact, this extremely well-qualified officer was reported to have the inside track. The day following his appearance, this news article which I hold in my hand reported that the officer may have hurt his chances to become Deputy Director of the CIA by his frank testimony.

Later, I saw an editorial in a paper, just a few lines here, which I shall read:

After Lt. Gen. Arthur G. Trudeau had testified in the Stennis hearings, a White House staff member declared that the general had imperiled his chances of becoming Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Agency because he displayed signs of what Schlesinger calls a dogmatism.

My point is this: I do not know that any reprisals were taken against this officer. In fact, I am not familiar with the other Army officer finally selected for this position. But I would be concerned if I found that this officer received any less or any adverse consideration.

Do you feel that your frankness here today will in any way affect your career?

Colonel MAYER. I feel sure that some elements of my testimony here today will make some perfectly intelligent, responsible men whom I respect as mad as the very devil. But I do not honestly believe that it will significantly affect my career in this Army.

Senator THURMOND. I am glad to hear you say that, and in case you should be adversely affected any way, I am sure this subcommittee

Colonel MAYER. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. An uncharted political field?

Colonel MAYER. Absolutely.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. X, the local speaker, may get into partisan politics. If it happens that way, you are already there and the uniform is there.

Colonel MAYER. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. You are stuck to that degree; are you not? You are identified with what he says, and there is association in the public mind. Many are inclined to look upon it as all blended together. That is the way I have heard the reaction.

What is your analysis of that situation, just briefly?

Colonel MAYER. Briefly, I believe that the association of the military in the mind of the public with whatever is espoused at such a meeting this has been a consideration when I have been asked to talk to the Civil Liberties Union, for example that this association in the mind of the public is certainly a risk. It can redound to your discredit.

But I believe that this is a calculated risk that a man who knows what he wants to say and has the courage to say should be willing to undertake, so long as it is not really a trap.

Senator STENNIS. Yes, and I would assume that it was not a trap. Do you have anything further?

DISCUSSION ON FILM "COMMUNIST TARGET-YOUTH”

Mr. KENDALL. One final question.

Colonel Mayer, have you seen the film "Communist TargetYouth"?

Colonel MAYER. Yes, sir. I believe I have seen the film.

Mr. KENDALL. Do you have any opinions on the value of that film as a troop training aid?

Colonel MAYER. It would not be fair of me to give an opinion, because I cannot recall in this detail or whether the "Communist Target-Youth" film that I have seen is the film you are talking about. There was such a film made by

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Kendall, your time is up.

KOREAN POW OFFENSES LARGELY A RESULT OF IGNORANCE OR NAIVETE

Senator Thurmond, do you have any questions?

Senator THURMOND. Yes.

Colonel Mayer, on page 11 of the statement you sent into the committee last November, you made this statement:

It was evident that many, if not most, soldiers, knew so little about the enemy and his methods and objectives, and so little about the details of soldiery responsibility in captivity-Communist or otherwise that offenses were largely a result of ignorance or naivete.

I wonder if you care to elaborate any on that statement, which I thought was a very fine statement?

Colonel MAYER. Thank you.

No, sir, I do think there never was a problem of vicious intent or criminal behavior. It was ignorance or naivete.

MAYER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BEST ALLOCATION OF HIS TIME

Senator THURMOND. On page 17, I notice that you made the statement that you would recommend that a third of your time be devoted to public discussions, a third to future medical officers who are still in the medical schools, and a third to instructing troops and junior troop leaders.

Do you still feel that that is a reasonable allocation of the way in which you can spend your time to best serve your country?

Colonel MAYER. Yes, sir, I do. I was asked how I thought I could best distribute my time by the executive officer in the Surgeon General's office, and that is the answer I gave him and I still believe that.

EFFECTS OF MAYER'S AND TRUDEAU'S TESTIMONY ON THEIR CAREERS

Senator THURMOND. Colonel Mayer, we are just about at the end of your testimony now, and the film will be shown last, so I just want to make this comment, that you have demonstrated here today not only a tremendous and valuable store of knowledge about the matters under investigation by this subcommittee, but more importantly, you have shown courage and loyalty to your convictions and your country. You have been most candid and responsive and what you have said should make sense to every American, whether he be right, center, or left of center in his political philosophy.

Now, we recently had another frank witness before this subcommittee, and at that time, it was reported in the press that he was the first choice and recommendation of the Army to be considered for appointment as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. În fact, this extremely well-qualified officer was reported to have the inside track. The day following his appearance, this news article which I hold in my hand reported that the officer may have hurt his chances to become Deputy Director of the CIA by his frank testimony.

Later, I saw an editorial in a paper, just a few lines here, which I shall read:

After Lt. Gen. Arthur G. Trudeau had testified in the Stennis hearings, a White House staff member declared that the general had imperiled his chances of becoming Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Agency because he displayed signs of what Schlesinger calls a dogmatism.

My point is this: I do not know that any reprisals were taken against this officer. In fact, I am not familiar with the other Army officer finally selected for this position. But I would be concerned if I found that this officer received any less or any adverse consideration.

Do you feel that your frankness here today will in any way affect your career?

Colonel MAYER. I feel sure that some elements of my testimony here today will make some perfectly intelligent, responsible men whom I respect as mad as the very devil. But I do not honestly believe that it will significantly affect my career in this Army.

Senator THURMOND. I am glad to hear you say that, and in case you should be adversely affected any way, I am sure this subcommittee