vided that it is done with appropriate guarantees and safeguards the kind of extradition involved.

f we look at the core, for example, of antiterrorism conventions and ihijacking conventions, for example, that is precisely one of the st important elements. It is precisely that we do want Libya to her prosecute or extradite those who have been involved in comtting terrorist acts.

Genocide is certainly terrorism writ large. So I do not think, even on › merits of that, provided that there is appropriate guarantees for a process, that we should be concerned.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is an additional point. It is that the plementing legislation in this case makes very clear that the United ates would also have a concurrent jurisdiction, and if it chose to ercise that jurisdiction, that is to bring a criminal trial itself under › provisions, there would be no obligation whatsoever to extradite. we would always have the protection and full constitutional safeards of ourselves trying any United States citizen that was accused any foreign country with extradition sought.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to come back to you, Mr. Bartell, and k you a question. But I would like to precede it by just saying that am reminded of 1964, when I was on television with Governor eorge Wallace. I was a businessman in Chicago at the time. We were bating for an hour the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

He made the statement that there was a provision in that Act that ould require that every family firm hire a black man and fire the son they had to. I threw down a bunch of papers on the table in front of , in front of the television camera, and said: Governor Wallace, will yield you the rest of my time on this program. You find that there.

He never did find it. I told him later that I did not have any real pers with me. I just threw a bunch of papers down. But I knew that was not there, anyway.

We became good friends. We are both hard of hearing and he and exchange technical data all the time now on what is the best aproach to use for the hard of hearing. We had a sharp difference of pinions on that particular law, however.

I wonder if you could find now the section in this Genocide Treaty at would go to this point and that would reaffirm the statements that ou have made or that the Liberty Letter has made.

Mr. BARTELL. I think Ms. Katson probably answered the question ready. I will go back to my testimony. Senator Bentsen says:

I oppose ratification of the treaty because I do not want U.S. citizens subcted to extradition of other nations that may never have known our constituonal guarantees.

Senator Hayakawa says: "There seem to be several international terpretations of the treaty."

Senator Goldwater also speaks to this

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think they are referring to the specific oint that was raised.

Maybe we can ask Senator Pell and Senator Dodd, who were folowing up on that, to request more precision from you.

Senator PELL. I was asking you where in the treaty is the authority o take somebody away in chains for telling a Polish joke or a WASP

joke or any other kind, and taking them to a foreign authority? Where in the treaty is this?

Mr. BARTELL. In order to make it an extraditable offense, Senator, obviously it is going to have to be implemented.

Senator PELL. Would you read me the language that gives the authority to do this, the treaty language? You have the treaty in front of you, do you not?

Mr. BARTELL. Yes; I have the treaty in front of me.

Senator PELL. Where is the language that gives this authority.

Mr. BARTELL. Obviously, there is no authority in the treaty itself. But if Mr. Hansell of the State Department, whom we quoted, is correct that at the present time genocide is not listed as an extraditable offense in any of our extradition treaties, we would have to negotiate a new or amend an existing extradition treaty.

"Would we be obliged to do that as a commitment?" Senator Case then asked. And he was answered: "Yes, as a commitment." That is the basis for our arguing that this would take place.

Senator PELL. Well, that is one man's opinion. We know what your opinion is, and Ambassador Moore's. And I would add, Mr. Moore is also an Ambassador. We are honored to have you with us again.

But I am asking. I would say that I may not be as bright as some, I am not a lawyer, and I am trying to find it in the treaty, although I have read it through several times.

Mr. BARTELL. I stipulated already that it does not say so specifically in the treaty.

The CHAIRMAN. Where also is the United Nations police force, the U.N. police that you mentioned as hauling someone off in chains? Mr. BARTELL. Senator, I kind of feel that you are taking unfair advantage.

The CHAIRMAN. I am quoting from your official publication, Emergency Liberty Letter, dated September 10. And you are the spokesman for Liberty Lobby. You say the language is colorful, but I am saying that it is untruthful.

I am just asking you to prove your statements.

Mr. BARTELL. Do you deny that the U.N. has a peacekeeping force? The CHAIRMAN. But you said police force. The U.N. does have a peacekeeping force. They are set up in the Sinai, for instance. They are stationed in the Sinai and that is the only place they are.

We have United Nations forces in other countries, between say Pakistan and Kashmir. But they are based there for peacekeeping. This seems to imply to people that there are United Nations police. The others are peacekeeping forces.

Mr. BARTELL. But what is a policeman? A policeman is a peacekeeper. Am I wrong?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you are kidding yourself, and you are trying to kid other people that there are United Nations policemen going around who can take people, citizens, off in chains, that they can haul them off. It just is not true.

Mr. BARTELL. It is not true now.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it is befitting of the many people whom I admire and respect who are members of Liberty Lobby. I do think that colorful language is one thing, but untruthful language

hat has no foundation, in fact is something else. That is what I am ally trying to say.

As we go into this debate now, it it not possible for us to have the easoning that you used in your testimony and not the sort of colorful nguage that goes out? The actual tesimony is heard by very few peole, but this letter goes out to tens of thousands of people. It whips up e emotions. It does not play to the reason of people.

What authority, for instance, is required to extradite American citiens abroad to stand trial on criminal charges? Does the genocide conention provide such authority, for instance?

Mr. BARTELL. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that correct, Ambassador Moore?
Ambassador MOORE. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. So then, it does not. Would the convention obligate he United States to conclude extradition treaties, for instance, with uch countries as Vietnam or Albania, or other countries with which we do not have treaties? Is there any obligation in this treaty that would require that we have extradition treaties with other countries hat we do not choose to have them with?

Ambassador MOORE. No, Mr. Chairman, I would think there would not be, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We have the option, as we had yesterday, to go into wo more extradition treaties with two countries. But it was after a full airing and hearing in the Senate that we had a final vote. There s not anything in the Genocide Treaty that would require that?

Ambassador MOORE. The language of article 7 is rather clear on that point. It specifically says "in accordance to the laws and treaties in force." It is clear that there is no obligation to create a series of extralition treaties with nations where one does not have extradition creaties.

I think the most important thing, that is easily overlooked in this, is what happens when you negotiate an extradition treaty. It would be conceivable to us that the United States would negotiate an extradition treaty which would say, for example, that if the United States in the case of a U.S. citizen charged abroad wanted to try that U.S. citizen with all of the appropriate constitutional guarantees here in a U.S. court, that somehow that treaty would require us to extradite. That is not our normal practice. That flies in the face of the very specific language of the implementing legislation that was prepared and submitted with this, Mr. Chairman.

you

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bartell, I want to make clear that I understand do not personally edit the Liberty Letter. But I would hope that your own careful testimony would be during the next year setting a tone for the kind of debate that we will have. I hope we do not get into extremism. I hope that proponents of it do not go to extremism or colorful language that will in any way mislead people as to what this treaty actually is, either.

Mr. BARTELL. Obviously, this is a highly complicated and very legal matter, subject to broad possible interpretations.

Referring to the necessity for exercising treaties, if the United States does not want to, obviously, I would think the learned gentlemen of the bar were absolutely correct, that we would not have to. On the other hand, why would we want to conclude a treaty with Vietnam?

Yet, according to Senator Thurmond's testimony, they became a party to the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. That seems a little ridiculous to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am raising the point for that reason. We have a choice as to whether to go into a treaty. There is nothing in this treaty that would require that we enter into an extradition treaty with any country. That is our free choice, regardless of whether we have a genocide treaty or not.

Mr. BARTELL. Do you seriously believe, Senator, that by Vietnam signing the genocide treaty, there is not going to be genocide in Vietnam anymore?

The CHAIRMAN. But that does not mean that we have to sign an extradition treaty with Vietnam. And to the best of my knowledge, we do not have such a treaty. That is our free choice. We have that only with 90 countries. Out of 160 countries on Earth, we only have extradition treaties with 90 countries. And we have carefully selected those countries. We have left about half of the countries out for one reason or another.

Mr. BARTELL. Are you saying you could have the genocide treaty with a certain number of countries with which you have an extradition treaty as part and parcel of it, and a certain number with which you do not?

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. If we have no extradition treaty with a country, then it simply would not be effective.

Is that correct?

Ambassador MOORE. That is absolutely correct, as I read article 7, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I have completed my questions. Senator Dodd, why do you not take your questioning period, and then we will come back and see if Senator Pell has anything further.

Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very intrigued with this, Mr. Bartell. I think the chairman has been very polite to you in calling this colorful rhetoric. I think it is a lot more than that.

The white paper which you have published is 23 pages and it analyzes the Genocide Treaty. The Genocide Treaty is about two pages. Why did you not print the Treaty in the white paper?

Mr. BARTELL. Excuse me. It is on pages 25, 26, and 27.
Ms. KATSON. It is in the back of the white paper.

Senator DODD. It wasn't included in what we have here.

Mr. BARTELL. Excuse me. These were delivered to staff, and it was in the record, Senator.

Ms. KATSON. Senator, I am not sure what you have.

Mr. BARTELL. Senator Percy included it in the record.

Senator DODD. Did you send that out as well included in your white paper?

Ms. KATSON. The white paper was delivered to the committee a couple of days ago with the testimony to be inserted. I am not sure what you are referring to. I am not sure what you have in your hand.

Senator DODD. Well, let me refer to page 5, for instance, of the white paper. I would ask you to open that up and look at it with me. Looking

at the paragraph, "Political Mass Murder Accepted,” let me just it here. It says,

prisingly, the definition of the term genocide in the Genocide Convention bstantially different than both the popular understanding and dictionary tions. In addition to certain sorts of killing, the Genocide Convention sets such things as mental harm, moving children from one place to another, ven birth control. All these and less are genocide.

ow, I presume you are talking about article 2 of the Convention. I correct? Isn't that where some of those items are mentioned? r. BARTELL. Yes.

enator DODD. Now, if you read article 2, having just read from your e paper, the opening paragraph of article 2 in the present Conion,

nocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy hole or in part a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such : killing bers of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the p; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring t its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended revent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to her group.

'he way you read the white paper, it sounds as though if you take r children to Disneyland, you could in effect at least be charged h genocide, whereas it talks about with intent to destroy in whole or part that group, and you don't even mention the word forcibly in r own paper. It just seems like misinformation rather than honestly ing your readers a more exact and thorough examination of the visions of the treaty. You don't mean that at all. Surely you undernd what all that means.

Mr. BARTELL. If we intended to obfuscate or deny the meaning of the nocide Treaty itself, Senator, why in the world would we include it? Senator DODD. Well, why do you say this on page 5, that about mov- children?

Mr. BARTELL. Because that is precisely what it says in article 2. Senator DODD. But with the intent to destroy. That is a big differze, the "with intent to destroy" provision.

Mr. BARTELL. Well, you are arguing with the manner in which we rased it.

Senator DODD. I think it is a lot more than colorful language that you ve employed. Let me say to the members of the ABA that I don't ow whether you were here earlier this morning when I raised the estion of whether or not we would be in a better position with the enocide Treaty to protect American citizens. One of the complaints those who oppose it is that we may be subjecting American citizens charges and prosecution without any sort of protection.

As I understand it, the Genocide Convention is international law. Is at correct?

Ambassador MOORE. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we could say at ast that the principles underlying the general convention are cusmary international law today. I think that is generally conceded. Senator DODD. In effect, then, it would be possible for an American tizen charged with genocide to be prosecuted and convicted in a naon that has ratified the Genocide Convention, whether or not we tify it. Is that correct?

88-296 0 - 82 8