News

Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search

News

First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni

News

Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend

News

Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library

News

Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty

Spy Story?

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

LAST MONTH a federal jury in Virginia convicted David Truong and Ronald Humphrey on counts of espionage, stealing government documents and passing them to the government of Vietnam. On June 23 the two men will be sentenced, facing a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. While Truong and Humphrey did, indeed, steal some classified documents and give them to Vietnam through a CIA agent, they maintain that their purpose was not espionage but a part of a campaign to normalize relations between the United States and Vietnam. During their trial, both prosecution and defense witnesses disagreed whether the passing of the documents in question constituted a breach of national security; many witnesses admitted that the papers contained little in the way of sensitive material. While the two did break the law in stealing the documents, the government has trumped up the severity of the charges against them.

But there are two further considerations involved in this unique and disturbing case. First is the method by which the Justice Department, in its apparent eagerness for a conviction, went about gathering evidence against the defendants: federal agents used various means of electronic surveillance--including wiretaps--all with President Carter's personal approval. Carter has thus taken hold of a power that should not be his to appropriate--executive use of wiretaps without a court order--and thereby violated the defendants' civil rights. The Carter Administration's use of Nixon-esque techniques to pursue "justice" is at the very least a disappointment.

Another issue involved in the Truong-Humphrey case is the future of American relations with Vietnam. Carter may pledge a commitment to human rights elsewhere in the globe; with regard to the nation that we bombed and delohated in the name of democracy, however, the lofty rhetoric is abandoned. Truong and Humphrey's trial may be interpreted by the Vietnamese government as a clear indication that the United States is neither ready nor willing to normalize relations, nor is our government willing to consider the payment of reparations.

The Truong-Humphrey case indicates not only Carter's maintenance of a foolish Cold-Warrior attitude towards Vietnam, it represents an infringement of civil liberties. For these reasons we condemn the conviction of David Truong and Ronald Humphrey and hope that they will receive a fair trial in their appeal.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags