« AnteriorContinuar »
means to be saying to the authorities on Taiwan that we are in fact not expecting them to send these individuals over here in the absence of an extradition agreement between Taiwan and the United States.
The whole purpose of this resolution is precisely to reinforce the request of the administration that these individuals who have been charged in American courts be sent to the United States. Now I did not personally care whether the phrase was extradition or delivery. But if you believe that by using the word “extradition” that we would in effect, be saying be that the Taiwanese authorities are not obligated to send them here until we have an extradition agreement, then I have to oppose this for two reasons.
First of all, I think that they should be sent here whether or not there is an extradition agreement. And second, under the extradition law of Taiwan according to an analysis that we received from the Library of Congress, the President of Taiwan has the authority to send these people here even without an extradition agreement.
So I hope, Mr. Hyde, even though we got this at the last second, and we have gone through a process where we have accommodated all of your other concerns, and you have accommodated some of ours, and I think that we have an agreement, I would like to strongly support the suggestion of Mr. Leach that the phrase extradition be taken out for the reasons that the administration originally wanted it out of our draft resolution, and substitute instead his suggested language of delivery which picks up the original language of the resolution.
Let me just say finally that if we do that, I think that by incorporating your other language that we have expressed our views in a perhaps more diplomatic way. We have taken note of the fact that Taiwan has requested extradition agreements in the past. And I honestly believe that with this language it would be compatible with the concerns that all of us have. Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. SOLARZ. Yes.
Mr. HYDE. I think that we have reached an impasse, although the gentleman from Iowa has highlighted the differences that we have. Now I did not go through my presentation of what the law is in the United States, of the practice of never extraditing a citizen absent an extradition treaty.
The history, the tradition, the cases where Northern Ireland asked to extradite someone convicted of murder, a citizen of Ireland, and we would not extradite. There is a whole history here that is just being overruled. What I object to as a lawyer is delivering people. Mr. Eichman was as monstrous a human being, and it is abusing the term "human” to call him that. But to pick somebody up and pick a straitjacket on them and ship them across the sea for a trial is not the rule of law. It is not due process, and due process is at stake here, not Henry Liu. Due process, a recognition that there are laws to be followed, procedures to be followed from a country that is allied with us.
You, in the very amendment that you would offer conclude an extradition agreement. You recognize some merit to the term extradition. But to deliver people, under what law do you deliver people, unless you want to legitimate kidnapping. Now this is a very important issue.
Nr. LEACH. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. HYDE. Just a moment. I have tried to phrase it with some gesture, some deference to the fact that are laws in Taiwan to be followed and to be observed without an arrogant saying deliver them to us, because we have charged them with a crime. And I think that we are making a serious mistake. I think that we are riding roughshod over due process and the rule of law.
So if we have to battle it out, we will battle it out. I would like this guy extradited here, but I would like some understanding that Taiwan is a sovereign state and has its laws too, and that they are pursuing the prosecution.
Mr. BONKER. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair would like to explain the parliamentary situation here. We have the gentleman's resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 49. Mr. Hyde has offered a substitute which has been amended a number of times in an effort to find a genuine consensus. Apparently, we have a fundamental difference.
Now we can vote on what has been offered and agreed to up until now, but I do not think that that is going to resolve the problem. It would be my preference that we adjourn, and that the principals attempt to reach a compromise if you will, and bring back to the committee next Tuesday a new bill.
I am not sure that the staff has even kept track of all of the amendments and the unanimous consent requests that have been made. So unless there is an objection, I would like to adjourn the meeting. Perhaps when we reconvene on Tuesday, we can take up this issue again.
Hearing no objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene on Tuesday, March 26, 1985.]
THE MURDER OF HENRY LIU
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1985
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC. The committee met in open markup session which began at 1:33 p.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dante B. Fascell (chairman) presiding.
Chairman FASCELL. The next order of business is House Concurrent Resolution 110. Mr. Solarz. Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is, I think, noncontroversial. It calls upon the authorities on Taiwan to cooperate fully with the United States in the case of Henry Liu, and for the establishment of an extradition agreement between Taiwan and the United States.
Mr. Hyde and Mr. Solomon raised some questions last time we took this up. Those questions have been addressed and resolved.
Chairman FASCELL. Does anybody on the minority side have a comment?
Mr. HYDE. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may, this is the product of long negotiation with Mr. Leach, who is not here, but his staff person is, and Mr. Solarz, and we are satisfied that it accurately reflects the situation, and recognizes that Taiwan has been cooperating fully with the authorities, and the FBI has been allowed to question and polygraph the individuals, and that there are laws to be followed, and that the request for an extradition agreement has been one that Taiwan has wanted for a long time, too.
So I have no problems with this, and I would hope that it would be adopted.
I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon. Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and Chairman FASCELL. Mr. Solomon. Mr. SOLOMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that there has been a compromise here. I am not completely satisfied with it, but certainly I am not going to object to it.
But, Mr. Chairman, you know, the resolution itself calls for the Government of Taiwan, the Republic of China, to send to the United States under appropriate legal processes those citizens of Taiwan, et cetera, et cetera.
I want to point out that that is something that the United States never does. We never allow one of our American citizens to be extradited to another country, and yet we are asking for them to do that here.
Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, I think it ought to be pointed out that the Republic of China, Taiwan, were the ones who actually informed us of the arrest and detention of suspects in this case that allowed the U.S. police authorities to crack the case. And I think in no way should we be criticizing Taiwan, because at no time has the State Department or our FBI or other agencies in this case ever said or insinuated that Taiwan has been anything less than cooperative.
And as a matter of fact, three of the gangsters involved in the murder have already gone on trial in Taiwan, and three officials of the military intelligence bureau have been indicted.
So I think that shows extremely good faith on the Republic of China's part, and I think that we ought to be acknowledging that, even though we are passing this resolution.
Chairman FASCELL. Without objection, House Concurrent Resolution 110 is ordered favorably reported, and the chair will take appropriate action to bring it to the floor.
[Whereupon, the committee proceeded to other business.]
t to the orted, andouse con
“THE HENRY LIU MURDER CASE AND THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA ON TAIWAN,” STATEMENT BY A. JAMES GREGOR
A. James Gregor is Professor of Political Science and Principal Investigator of the Pacific Basin Project, Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of fourteen books, the last being The Iron
Triangle: A U.S. Security Policy for Northeast Asia (Hoover
Institution). His most recent work, The China Connection,
will be published by the Hoover Institution Press at the end
Professor Gregor has published widely in sinological
journals, including Asian Survey, the Journal of Asian
Studies, Philosophy East and West, and Pacific Affairs. He
has served as Adjunct Lecturer at the School of Professional Studies at the Department of State and is an occasional lecturer at the United States War College in Washington, D.C.