« AnteriorContinuar »
to distribute for you to look at a proposed hearing agenda for the subcommittee throughout the rest of the year. After we finish our hearing today, if anyone is still around, I thought we might have a discussion as to the agenda for the subcommittee for the duration of the year.
I want to emphasize this is only a tentative schedule. It represents the thinking of myself and the staff about some of the issues we could productively address. But we are very open to any additional suggestions people may have, any modifications, proposals for witnesses, subjects of hearings and the like. So you might, as the hearing proceeds, want to take a look at this and hopefully after the witnesses have given their testimony we can have a brief discussion of the schedule for the rest of the year.
Mr. Brown, your testimony will be included in the record. If you can possibly summarize your statement in about 10 minutes, that would be helpful.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BROWN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRE
TARY FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT
I have with me, Mr. Andre Surena of our Legal Bureau in the Department of State and Mr. Mark Pratt.
I have no prepared statement. At the committee's request I am here today to respond to your questions, within the limits of certain constraints, about the investigation into the murder of Henry
I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee, will appreciate that there are a number of things to which I may not respond, even if they relate to matters that have been reported or intimated in the press. My concern and the cause for the constraints upon me is that I wish to say nothing that may prejudice the ongoing investigation nor any possible future prosecutions that may occur in the United States. Consequently, with the committee's indulgence, in my remarks today in response to your questions, I propose not to allude to or to confirm or deny the existence of any evidence that may have been uncovered or the names of any of the suspects in the American investigation of this case.
Any questions that you may wish to put with respect to those areas are, Mr. Chairman, I believe best directed to the U.S. law enforcement officials investigating the case.
It might help the committee to better understand my reluctance to enter into those areas if I sketch briefly the Department of State's role in this investigation. The investigation is being conducted on the local level by Daly City and relevant California county law enforcement officials.
On the Federal level, it is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On behalf of the local law enforcement authorities, the FBI has requested the Department of State to facilitate obtaining certain legal assistance from Taiwan authorities to help in the U.S. criminal investigations. Upon receipt of these questions, the Department of State has ensured that they were expeditiously and firmly, vigorously communicated to the Taiwan authorities through the American Institute in Taiwan which, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is the instrumentality set up under the Taiwan Relations Act for conducting unofficial relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan.
As we noted in the answers submitted for the record-which I believe are being distributed-in response to questions received to date, the assistance that we have received from Taiwan authorities has been in the form of photographs and fingerprint records of some of the suspects and Taiwan consent to interviews and polygraph examinations of two of the suspects who are now in Taiwan custody. All of the Department of State's communications on this subject have been through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) to the Taiwan counterpart organization, the Coordination Council for North American Affairs [CCNAA] and, when the interviewpolygraph team traveled to Taiwan on January 22, 23, they were in Taiwan under the auspices of the AIT.
As you can see, while the Department of State has played an important role in this investigation, it is nonetheless an ancillary role. We have been seeking to help and will continue to help the U.S. law enforcement authorities that have primary responsibility in this matter. The Department of State is intent to do all that it can within its spheres of responsibility to assist in bringing the killers of Henry Liu to justice.
This is an unusual occasion for a State Department official to be asked to testify before this committee. I hope I will be able to address your questions to your satisfaction, in addition to those to which I have submitted written responses.
Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Have we asked the authorities in Taiwan to deliver any of the people charged in the California judicial system with the murder of Henry Liu to the United States?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, we have, Mr. Chairman. We have asked for the delivery unto the Daly City authorities for investigation and trial for murder of the suspects, Chen and Wu.
Mr. SOLARZ. Now, the Taiwanese authorities themselves have, I gather, apparently indicated that there was some involvement in this affair on the part of three officials in the Bureau of Military Intelligence, is that correct?
Mr. BROWN. Well, Mr. Chairman, the newspapers, the media reported that the head of the Intelligence Bureau of the Ministry of National Defense (IBMND), Admiral Wang Hsi-ling and two others have been remanded to a military prosecutor.
Mr. SOLARZ. And for what reasons have they been remanded to a military prosecutor?
Mr. BROWN. I do not believe that that has been publicly enunciated beyond the question of investigation for possible implication.
RETURNING'ACCUSED TO THE UNITED STATES Mr. SOLARZ. Have we asked the Taiwan authorities to deliver these three individuals to the United States?
Mr. BROWN. No; we have not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SOLARZ. Are we considering asking the Taiwanese authorities to deliver these three individuals to the United States?
Mr. BROWN. To this date we have made no such request. The Department's role in this case has been to help, through the use of the AIT-CCNAA channel, American law officials to proceed with a full investigation of the murder of Henry Liu. Through that channel we have asked the authorities to return Chen and Wu as requested by U.S. law enforcement officials.
Now, as far as the question of requesting the presence of IBMND officials in the United States, I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that question is best directed to the law enforcement authorities investigating the case.
Mr. SOLARZ. Let me ask you this, Mr. Brown. If the law enforcement officials investigating this case-I gather you indicated that they were the Daly City officials? Mr. BROWN. And the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. SOLARZ. And the FBI. If either of them prefer criminal charges against the three individuals in the Bureau of Military Intelligence, would you, under those circumstances, request the deliverance of those three individuals?
Mr. BROWN. If those relevant local and Federal law enforcement agencies came to me, Mr. Chairman, with such a request involving a prosecutable case before the relevant authorities in the United States, I would act accordingly.
Mr. SOLARZ. And presumably you would also request the deliverance of any other individuals that Federal or local authorities believe should be prosecuted for their involvement in the Henry Liu affair.
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir; under the circumstances I have outlined.
EXTRADITION TREATY WITH TAIWAN Mr. SOLARZ. Now, we do not have, I gather, an extradition treaty with Taiwan?
Mr. BROWN. No, sir; we do not. Mr. SOLARZ. In view of the fact that we don't have an extradition treaty with Taiwan, why have we requested the Taiwanese to deliver Mr. Chen and Mr. Wu to the United States?
Mr. BROWN. We have here, sir; as has been eloquently noted previously, an outrageous, heinous murder of an American citzen on American soil by people for whom there are now murder warrants issued by the relevant court in California.
Mr. SOLARZ. How many countries around the world do we have extradition treaties with? Do we know off-hand?
Mr. BROWN. Many, but I do not have the number. I will get it for you. [The following was subsequently submitted:]
COUNTRIES WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS EXTRADITION TREATIES
ALBANIA Treaty of extradition. Signed at Tirana March 1, 1933; entered into force November 14, 1935. 49 Stat. 3313; 5 Bevans 22; 166 LNTS 195; TS 902.
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA Extradition treaty, with protocol of signature and exchange of notes. Signed at London June 8, 1972; entered into force January 21, 1977. 28 UST 227; TIAS 8468.
ARGENTINA Treaty on extradition. Signed at Washington January 21, 1972. Entered into force September 15, 1972. 23 UST 3501; TIAS 7510.
AUSTRALIA Treaty on extradition. Signed at Washington May 14, 1974; entered into force May 8, 1976. 27 UST 957; TIAS 8234.
AUSTRIA Treaty for the extradition of fugitives from justice, and exchange of notes concerning the death penalty. Signed at Vienna January 31, 1930; entered into force September 11, 1930. 46 Stat. 2779; 5 Bevans 358; 106 LNTS 379; TS 822.
Supplementary extradition convention. Signed at Vienna May 19, 1934; entered into force September 5, 1934. 49 Stat. 2710; 5 Bevans 378; 153 LNTS 247; TS 873.
Extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. Signed at London December 22, 1931; entered into force June 24, 1935. 47 Stat. 2122; 12 Bevans 482; 163 LNTS 59; TS 849.
Agreement continuing in force between the United States and The Bahamas the extradition treaty of December 22, 1931 (47 Stat. 2122) between the United States and the United Kingdom. Exchange of notes at Nassau and Washington March 7, June 19 and August 17, 1978; entered into force August 17, 1978. 30 UST 187; TIAS 9185.
BARBADOS Extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. Signed at London December 22, 1931; entered into force June 24, 1935. 47 Stat. 2122; 12 Bevans 482; 163 LNTS 59; TS 849.
BELGIUM Treaty for the mutual extradition of fugitives from justice. Signed at Washington October 26, 1901; entered into force July 14, 1902. 32 Stat. 1894; 5 Bevans 508; TS 409.
Supplementary extradition convention. Signed at Washington June 20, 1935; entered into force November 7, 1935. 49 Stat. 3276; 5 Bevans 566; 164 LNTS 205; TS 900.
Supplementary extradition convention. Signed at Brussels November 14, 1963; entered into force December 25, 1964. 15 UST 2252; 522 UNTS 237; TIAS 5715.
BELIZE Extradition treaty, with protocol of signature and exchange of notes. Signed at London June 8, 1972; entered into force January 21, 1977. 28 UST 227; TIAS 8468.
BOLIVIA Treaty of extradition. Signed at La Paz April 21, 1900; entered into force January 22, 1902. 32 Stat. 1857; 5 Bevans 735; TS 399.
BRAZIL Treaty of extradition. Signed at Rio de Janeiro January 13, 1961; entered into force December 17, 1964. 15 UST 2093; 532 UNTS 177; TIAS 5691.
Additional protocol to the treaty of extradition. Signed at Rio de Janeiro June 18, 1962. Entered into force December 17, 1964. 15 UST Ž112; 532 UNTS 198; TIAS 5691.
1 Applicable to all territories.
BULGARIA Extradition treaty. Signed at Sofia March 19, 1924; entered into force June 24, 1924. 43 Stat. 1886; 5 Bevans 1086; 26 LNTS 27; TS 687.
Supplementary extradition treaty. Signed at Washington June 8, 1934. Entered into force August 15, 1935. 49 Stat. 3250; 5 Bevans 1103; 161 LNTS 409; TS 894.
BURMA Extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom, signed at London December 22, 1931; made applicable to Burma from November 1, 1941. 47 Stat. 2122; 12 Bevans 482; 163 LNTS 59; TS 849.
CANADA Treaty on extradition, with schedule. Signed at Washington December 3, 1971. Entered into force March 22, 1976. 27 UST 983; TIAS 8237.
Agreement amending the treaty on extradition of December 3, 1971. Effected by exchange of notes at Washington June 28 and July 9, 1971.2 Entered into force March 22, 1976.
CHILE Treaty providing for the extradition of criminals. Signed at Santiago April 17, 1900; entered into force June 16, 1902. 32 Stat. 1850; 6 Bevans 543; TS 407.
COLOMBIA Extradition treaty, with annex. Signed at Washington September 14, 1979. Entered into force March 4, 1982. TIAS.
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) Extradition convention between the United States and France. Signed at Paris January 6, 1909; entered into force July 27, 1911. 37 Stat. 1526; 7 Bevans 872; TS 561.
Supplementary extradition convention between the United States and France. Signed at Paris January 15, 1929; entered into force May 19, 1929. 46 Stat. 2276; 7 Bevans 972; 92 LNTS 259; TS 787.
Supplementary extradition convention between the United States and France. Signed at Paris April 23, 1936; entered into force September 24, 1936. 50 Stat. 1117; 7 Bevans 995; 172 LNTS 197; TS 909.
COSTA RICA Treaty of extradition and exchange of notes concerning the death penalty. Signed at San Jose November 10, 1922; entered into force April 27, 1923. 43 Stat. 1621; 6 Bevans 1033; TS 668.
CUBA Treaty providing for the mutual extradition of fugitives from justice. Signed at Washington April 6, 1904; entered into force March 2, 1905. 33 Stat. 2265; 6 Bevans 1128; TS 440.
Protocol amending Spanish text of extradition treaty signed April 6, 1904. Signed at Washington December 6, 1904; entered into force March 2, 1905. 33 Stat. 2273; 6 Bevans 1134; TS 441.
Additional extradition treaty. Signed at Habana January 14, 1926; entered into force June 18, 1926. 44 Stat. 2392; 6 Bevans 1136; 61 LNTS 363; TS 737.
CYPRUS Extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. Signed at London December 22, 1931; applicable to Cyprus June 24, 1935. 47 Stat. 2122; 12 Bevans 482; 163 LNTS 59; TS 849.
2 Applicable to all territories.