Imágenes de páginas

Mr. LEACH. I just wanted to make one brief observation, first on a very positive note and then to undercut that positive note a bit.

I know of no instance in which the Government of the United States has been as firm and stern with the Government of Taiwan in expressing U.S. concerns as in this particular one, and for that I think concerned members of Congress were appreciative of the forthrightness of the administration.

Second, I would hope you would reconsider, in terms of making a firm determination at this moment in time, a question that was put to you earlier, simply because it relates to matters of common sense and also, perhaps, dictionary definitions. Terrorism is something that has broad and very precise meanings and, with respect to the question of whether this is a terrorist act, to suggest that it isn't could well imply that one doesn't take it overwhelmingly seriously. To suggest that it is simply a gang activity also implies that it may not be taken as seriously as I think the administration has


So, all I would urge is that your response be tempered by a willingness to wait for the evidence to unfold and that if, for example, this proves to be a government-sanctioned murder, it would strike me as next to impossible not to label it an act of terrorism.

Would you agree with that, sir?

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for that constructive interpretation. I so accept it.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you.
Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. First I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Leach, for

t clarification because I certainly agree with his statement. Mr. Brown, the facts that are public in this case clearly indicate some degree of governmental complicity. It is very difficult to understand why three key people in military intelligence would have been treated the way they apparently had been thus far had there been no involvement. We don't know as yet, I take it, how high up governmental involvement is likely to have gone, but the fact there was some governmental involvement appears clear to the naked eye.

With that assumption, would you care to speculate on what the motivation could have been on the part of whoever put the gang up to this act?

Mr. BROWN. Much as I might be personally tempted, sir, I really think under the constraints that I have laid out in my introductory remarks with case or cases sub judice, investigation by relevant law enforcement agencies, it would be better for me to refrain from so speculating.

Mr. LANTOS. Let me then ask you, if I may, would it be your judgment it is in our national interest and in the interest of the Taiwan-United States relations to get this case resolved as expeditiously as possible? Mr. BROWN. Most emphatically, yes.

Mr. LANTOS. If the answer is most emphatically yes, can you conceive of the case being resolved except in an American court of law?

Mr. BROWN. Well, I would certainly hope that it was resolved in an American court of law, but I can conceive that my hopes notwithstanding that it would be resolved elsewhere.

Mr. LANTOS. If elsewhere, meaning where?
Mr. BROWN. Taiwan.

Mr. LANTOS. If it is resolved in Taiwan, is the assumption that I made in my opening remarks, that suspicions would linger, a reasonable assumption?

Mr. BROWN. Well, sir, I think that could depend obviously on the prosecution and the outcome of such a case. We have emphatically, to reiterate, expressed our desire that that case, the case of Chen and Wu be conducted in Daly City in this country where the crime was committed.

Failing that, if there is to be, if our desires are not met and if there is to be a trial, as is indicated, in Taiwan, one would hope that it was speedy, just and open to the public. If it were, even though I would prefer for obvious reasons that it would be conducted in the United States, one would have to look at the outcome. Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SOLARZ. If there are no further questions? Mr. Solomon.

POSSIBLE FBI CONNECTION Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, since I am going to be offering an amendment to your resolution a little later, I just want to make a point on a couple of things.

Mr. Brown, there have been a number of interesting reports in the press concerning Mr. Liu's activities. I am reading an article here that was in this past week's edition of Newsweek, which, for example, identified Mr. Liu as an FBI informant in one way or another.

The United Press International has reported that he gathered intelligence data concerning mainland China for the Republic of China. As a matter of fact, the Defense Intelligence Bureau, the very agency that has been implicated in his death, and other reports, which I don't believe-have suggested that he had connections with the mainland Chinese.

Have you any comments on these suggestions? Might they have some kind of a bearing on the case?

Mr. BROWN. I am aware, sir, of that report and others in the media, but I really think I should refrain from such speculation on matters involving intelligence, or allegedly involving intelligence organizations. Mr. SOLOMON. Fine.

Just what precisely is the attitude of our government? In other words, what attitude do they take concerning matters of extradition? Do we hand over our citizens, American citizens, to a foreign government for purposes of standing trial?

Mr. BROWN. Pursuant to an extradition treaty, sir, yes. In the absence of an extradition treaty, this government does not hand over anyone for prosecutior, abroad.

Mr. SOLOMON. Are there relevant Supreme Court decisions in this line? Particularly I know in 1936, there was a case Valentine v. United States in which, as I understand it, the executive authority of the government to extradite American citizens was restricted severely at that time. I suppose we abide by that Supreme Court decision, even today.

Mr. BROWN. I suppose so, sir, but I would refer to my legal colleague. Mr. SOLOMON. Just one last question.

Could you just restate for me the contacts our Government has had with the Republic of China concerning this case. Are you satisfied yourself that they have actually cooperated and have been helpful to us?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, up to this moment, sir.
Mr. SOLOMON. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOLARZ. I thank the gentleman. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Brown. We would appreciate it if you possibly could be available during the duration of this hearing, first because we expect to hear from Mrs. Liu in a few minutes, and then Professor Glennon. There may be some matters that come up on which we would want the administration to subsequently comment. Also we will be taking up the resolution, and during the course of our consideration of the resolution, it is possible members may have some questions which they would like an administration witness to respond to.

If you or one of your associates who is in a position to speak for the Department can remain behind, that would be helpful.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I have an appointment to see off a high visiting dignitary with whom you lunched the other day. I wondered if I might be excused. I could leave my colleague, Mr. Surena.

Mr. SOLARZ. So long as he has your proxy. You are permitted to go and give the Prime Minister my regards. Thank you very much.

Mr. SOLARZ. The committee will now hear Mrs. Helena Liu. Mrs. Liu, do you want to come to the witness table. Mrs. Liu, let me say on behalf of all my colleagues on the committee, how deeply we regret the fact that we are all meeting you under these tragic circumstances.

Mrs. Liu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SOLARZ. All of us, I am sure, on both sides of the aisle have a

f outrage over the fact that your husband was killed, and we want you to know that you have our sympathies, and indeed even our prayers at this very difficult moment. We are very grateful to you for your willingness at such a difficult time for you personally to come here to share your thoughts with us about what happened to your husband, and its implications for the policy of our own Government. Thank you very, very much for coming; we look forward to your testimony.

Mrs. Liv. Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak before the committee.

Mr. SOLARZ. Mrs. Liu, if you could possibly move the microphone a little bit closer, and perhaps try to speak a little bit louder, because there are a lot of people here who would like to hear your testimony.

Mrs. Liv. Here with me is the chairman of the Committee to Obtain Justice for Henry Liu, Prof. Ling-chi Wang, and my attorney, Jerome Garchik. I have prepared a long statement, along with my document, and Professor Wang has a statement for the committee, too.

I would like for those documents and statements for your record, if I may.

[The following was subsequently submitted:]



I am grateful and honored to be asked to come here today to testify before the United States Congress regarding my husband, Henry Liu, and to relate to you, and to the American People some of the history of my husband's life, what he believed in, and what he wrote about. My husband and I lived here, in Washington, D.C. together for over ten years, from 1967 to 1978, and Henry and I made many friends here during those years. Yet though we made many friends and acquaintances in government life, we never thought that someday I would be testifying as a witness here in the Congress, and we certainly never could have anticipated what tragic circunstances would bring me here.

First, I want to state that I am also here as a represen· tative of The Committee to Obtain Justice for Henry Liu which was oroanized spontaneously by many of Henry's friends and fellow journalists right after his death on October 15th, 1984. The Chairman of our Committee, Prof. Ling-Chi Wang, and our attorney, Jerome M. Garchik, are with me here today. also on behalf of our Committee. Our Committee has members now all across the United States, and it includes many prominent journalists, intellectuals and community leaders, some of whom did not know my husband personally, but only knew and respected his work, Our Committee is not a political comittee, but rather is a humanitarian and civil rights group. The members and supporters hold , all different political viewpoints on issues of American and Chinese questions, but they all share the same sense of

« AnteriorContinuar »