« PreviousContinue »
TEMPORÁRY EXITS AND ENTRIES
It is, of course, a tragic thing that the have all agreed that it would be helpful Name of
Signature free nations should be compelled to di to NATO and in the national interest of Port or Customs
and Stamp of vert so much of our productive capacity the United States to push ahead with Station Date Customs Officer
to the buildup of our defensive strength. ratification of all these treaties at the Exit
But it might prove far more tragic, Mr. earliest practicable time.
NEED FOR AGREEMENTS
The need for these agreements arises Entry conditions for peace have been met.
out of the integrated defense system that Exit
SOVIET PEACE OVERTURES
has been developed under the North AtEntry
Therein lies the real danger of the lantic Treaty. Obviously, when large Exit
peace overtures made by the Soviet Goy numbers of armed forces are stationed in Entry ernment. If they cause us to drop our
other countries all sorts of problems inThis document shall be in the language guard now, who knows what the results evitably arise. Suppose, for example, a of the sending State and in the English and might be?
soldier off duty commits a crime? Or French languages.
I would be the last, Mr. President, to suppose a NATO plane crashes into a
farmer's home? Or the troops stationed Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I rise at reject any honest, sincere proposal tothis time to present to the Senate three
ward peace that the Soviet Union has to abroad wish to import goods and comoffer. Moreover, I would not want to modities from other countries?
Or a treaties relating to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Technically speak
say anything provocative at this juncture division of ground forces must be shifted ing, they are not treaties—there are that might deter the Soviet Union or rapidly to another country?
During World War II, the United two agreements and one protocol—but give them pause if they really. want to
There is the rub.
States entered most European countries inasmuch as they have been submitted coooperate with us. for the advice and consent of the Sen
as a conquering or liberating power. As Do they want to cooperate? But before ate, the term treaty in its broader sense
we in the free world grasp the olive such, we made our own laws to deal with would seem entirely appropriate.
branch that is proffered us, let us make such problems. Often very stern measure it is not full of thorns.
sures were applied. For the past 342 years, the foreign
Meanwhile, in our relations with the But wartime arrangements cannot be policy of the United States has been in
Soviet bloc, we have no alternative but applied in time of peace. So after World separably linked to the North Atlantic
to act with firmness and determination. War II, we negotiated interim arrangeTreaty Organization. In 1948, by a vote of 64 to 4, the Senate approved the Van
It is imperative that we move on, with ments with various countries covering una bated vigor, with plans to build a
the status of our forces there. These denberg resolution, which advised the common defense adequate to deter any
executive agreements varied considerPresident to associate the United States possible aggression.
ably from country to country, however, with regional and other collective defense
and difficulties arose in their applica
PURPOSE OF AGREEMENTS arrangements under the Charter of the
tion. United Nations. A year later, we gave The three treaties before the Senate
When NATO came into existence, it our resounding approval to the Atlantic are significant steps in that direction. became apparent that we needed a more Pact. Since that time we have taken In broad terms, the chief purpose of the substantial basis for our NATO relationmany steps to implement the treaty and treaties is to define th
treaties is to define the legal status of ships. We needed something permanent. to strengthen our ties with our North the military forces of one NATO power And because of the close teamwork reAtlantic neighbors.
stationed in the territory of another, as quired in an integrated defense sysSUPPORT FOR NATO
well as the status of the military head- tem, we needed uniform regulations for In view of the discouraging obstacles Atlantic Treaty Organization.
quarters and civilian organs of the North both the headquarters and the Armed which we faced in 1949, remarkable prog
Forces. That is why these agreements
The first is the agreement on the ress has been made in injecting strength status of forces.
This deals with such Mr. President, it is not my intention to and vitality into the North Atlantic sys
matters as passport and visa regulations, impose upon the Senate a long and detem. Where fear and despair existed immigration inspections, the carrying of before, there is now faith and hope for
tailed description of the agreements. arms, the settlement of claims, and im- That is done in the committee report. I a better tomorrow. Where there was disunity, there is now coordination and port and customs regulations. Senators should like to comment briefly, however,
will readily recognize that many questeamwork among the 14 member nations. tions in each of these areas must be
on certain aspects of the status of forces
agreement. Then my colleague the disWhere there was a dangerous power
resolved in connection with the station- tinguished senior Senator from New Jervacuum, there now stands sufficient miling of American forces abroad.
sey [Mr. SMITH] will discuss the other itary strength to serve as a serious de
The second agreement is the protocol two. terrent to any possible totalitarian ag
to the status of forces agreement. This In this connection, we should never gression against the free nations.
protocol defines the status of the mili- lose sight of the fact that the United In view of conditions on the European tary headquarters of NATO, and sets States has a dual interest in the agreeContinent, in East Berlin, in Poland, in
forth the various rights, responsibilities, ment; we have an interest as a sending Czechoslovakia and in Hungary, and in
and privileges necessary for the effective state, with large numbers of our armed view of the apparently imminent liqui. operation of such headquarters in NATO forces stationed in other NATO coundation of Beria and the upset conditions countries.
tries, and as a receiving state, with some beyond and behind the Iron Curtain, I
The third agreement gives legal per- NATO forces stationed here. think there is every reason to believe that sonality to the North Atlantic Treaty As a result, we have had to reconcile if we keep our powder dry and coordinate
Organization and confers upon it those our desire to secure the maximum our forces and do that which is neces
privileges and immunities which are nor rights for our troops abroad with our sary under the circumstances, we shall
mally bestowed upon international or rather natural tendency to limit the extricate ourselves from the world mess
ganizations. It also defines the privi- rights and privileges of other NATO in which we find ourselves.
leges and immunities of the national troops coming to our shores. Clearly In my strong support for NATO, I find
representatives to NATO and of the in we cannot have our cake and eat it too. myself in complete agreement with Pres-. ternational staff.
We have had to make some concessions. ident Eisenhower. In his message to the
Mr. President, the Foreign Relations But I think the result is a reasonable North Atlantic Council on April 23, the
Committee held hearings on these agree compromise which protects our interests President stated:
ments and, so far as I am aware, there both as a receiving and a sending state, As you know, I have long held the deep is no substantial opposition to any of Those who may be dissastisfied with conviction that the success of NATO's pró them, although a question has been certain aspects of the agreement should gram was essential to world peace and to
raised about one article of the status remember these two simple facts: (1) the security and well-being of all Atlantic nations. My subsequent experience has rein
of forces agreement. The Department we cannot expect other countries to forced and strengthened this belief. NATO
of State, the Department of Defense, the grant treaty rights and privileges to our has become a mighty force for peace and an
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Armed Forces which we will not in turn instrument of enduring cooperation among Justice, and the Treasury Department, in grant to theirs; and (2) since we have the Atlantic peoples.
one of those inspiring displays of unity, a relatively large number of troops
abroad in comparison to the number of In general, foreign courts will have juris Fourth. A representative of the United foreign troops stationed here, we have diction over Americans who commit of- States Government will attend any trial a very special interest in establishing fenses while off duty against the laws of an American serviceman under the our relationship on a firm and equi- of the country where they are stationed.
of the country where they are stationed. treaty and report any failure to accord table basis.
Our own military authorities will retain the defendant the rights to which he is
jurisdiction over offenses committed in entitled. In these cases, the commandIMMIGRATION PROCEDURES
performance of duty, as well as offenses ing officer is again directed to request I can assure the Senate that the
against the property or security of the diplomatic intervention by the Departagreement does not run counter to the United States, and the person or prop
ment of State. internal security interests of the United
erty of another member of our Armed Mr. President, it seems to me that this States. To be sure, arrangements had Forces or civilian component.
is as far as the Senate can effectively go. to be made which would permit the
Moreover, an American on trial in a ready movement of armed forces from
It has been suggested that we should inone country to another in peacetime. foreign country will have all those rights sist upon exclusive criminal jurisdiction
to which a citizen of the country is en over our troops abroad. Aside from the To that end members of NATO military
titled. Specifically, he must be accorded merits of exclusive jurisdiction and it is forces are to be exempt from passport and visa regulations, from immigration
the right of counsel, the right to a fair by no means an unmixed blessing—the
and speedy trial, the right to procure suggestion is wholly impractical, because inspection, and from regulations on the registration and control of aliens. They
witnesses in his behalf, the right to be the other countries simply will not agree are required, however, to have personal
confronted with the charges and wit- to it.
nesses against him, the right to have an That fact is that under this treaty we identity cards and individual or collective military movement orders. More
interpreter, and the right to communi- shall have a larger measure of jurisdic
cate with his Government. over, any individual may be removed
tion than we now have or than we shall from the receiving state at any time if I confess, Mr. President, that I can have if we fail to ratify the treaty. The the situation requires.
not think of any other adequate solu- treaty does not turn over American seryI am sure the Senate will understand tion to this thorny problem. Clearly, icemen to foreign courts. American the common sense that is back of these exclusive American jurisdiction which servicemen are already being tried by arrangements. If it becomes necessary
amounts to extraterritoriality—is not foreign courts. The treaty will give to move a body of troops from one the answer. That would set our forces them more rights than they now have. NATO country to another, we certainly apart as a privileged class and would
SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS do not want to be hampered by all the serve as a constant irritant to the local
Let us now turn to a third problemred tape that is involved in the normal population. More than that, it would be
the matter of settling claims. Obviously, immigration procedures. an infringement of the sovereignty of
if American troops on maneuvers tramp It seems to me that the agreement is the other countries.
over a farmer's crops, or if an American entirely consistent with our national We must keep in mind that the sys- jeep collides with a French automobile, security interests. In order to remove
tems of law and justice which prevail arrangements must be made to take care any possible doubt on this score, the in the other NATO countries are very
of the resulting damages. committee has approved language which well advanced. Indeed, most of them
Here again, the suggested procedure will be incorporated in the resolution are older than our own. Thus far, our
is a compromise emerging from long exof ratification and which will make crys- experience with these countries with retal clear that nothing in the agreement spect to this problem has been good. Forces. In the event a tort is committed
perience with such matters by the Armed diminishes or changes the right of the Under the new agreements I am con
in the performance of duty, the person United States to exclude or remove perfident it will be even better.
injured will take action against his own sons whose presence here is deemed prej The committee naturally was anxious government, exactly as though the in, udicial to its safety or security. The
The to insure, so far as possible, that Ameri- jury had been inflicted by the armed executive branch has also informed us can servicemen who may be tried in for- forces of his own country. The claim that adequate screening procedures are eign courts are accorded all the essential will be settled by the injured person's being established to prevent the entry rights which they would receive under of undesirable people. the Constitution of the United States. government, which will pay 25 percent
of the damages. The remaining 75 perI desire to make one additional com As, I have indicated, a number of these
cent will be paid by the sending state ment in this connection. I am com rights are spelled out in the treaty itself.
whose national is at fault. In the event pletely sympathetic with those who wish others are provided for in the laws of
of an injury arising out of an act not to be ever on guard against the infil the other NATO countries.
performed in line of duty, the person tration of spies and saboteurs into this As an additional step, the committee damaged will be able to bring suit digreat country of ours. But I would is recommending that the Senate attach
rectly against the person responsible. remind my colleagues in the Senate that to the resolution of ratification a state
Additional remedies will be available in NATO is quite unlike other interna ment that tional organizations in this respect. It
case of inability to pay.
First. The criminal jurisdiction prodoes not include any Communist coun visions do not constitute a precedent for
Mr. President, I do not wish to become tries. All its members are firmly dedi future agreements.
involved in the intricacies of claims setcated, as we are, to the joint task of
tlements at this point, but it does seem to
Second. Whenever an American servpreserving freedom in the North Atlantic iceman is to be tried in a foreign court
me that the procedures outlined in the area. I am confident, therefore, that under this agreement, the commanding
under this agreement, the commanding agreement are fair and equitable, taking we can expect full cooperation from them officer of the American Armed Forces in
into account the rights of the citizens, in preventing the entry of individuals that country will examine its laws with
as well as the interests of the states con. who might be security risks.
particular reference to the safeguards cerned. Moreover, the United States as CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
contained in the United States Consti a sending State will probably save conMr. President, the committee also gave tution.
siderable money by having local officials careful consideration to the provisions Third. If, in the commanding officer's handle the claims, since they normally of the agreement dealing with criminal opinion, there is danger that the person take a more moderate view of monetary jurisdiction. On the one hand, we want tried would not be protected in the con damages than do American claims to make sure that our boys who commit stitutional rights he would enjoy in the officials. offenses in foreign lands receive a fair United States, the commanding officer
OTHER PROBLEMS trial with due regard for proper legal shall request the authorities of the resafeguards and the rights of the indi- ceiving state to waive jurisdiction. I
The agreement contains a number of
other provisions relating to such things vidual. On the other hand, we in the point out that paragraph 3 (c) of article United States do not wish to give up VII requests the receiving state to give
as customs duties and other taxes, driyour rights with respect to criminal juris sympathetic consideration to such re
ing licenses, military uniforms, the cardiction over the members of foreign quests. If the authorities refuse the re rying of arms, and so on. But these armed forces stationed on our soil. quest, however, then the commanding matters are explained in the committee
The compromise which the agreement officer is directed to request diplomatic report, and I shall not deal with them provides is, I think, quite satisfactory. intervention by the Department of State. here.
THE OTHER AGREEMENTS
without delay, so that President Eisen- cause of a lack of a definite designation, But before closing, Mr. President, I hower can move on to implement them there might be hesitation as between should like to say a few words about the in the very near future.
the military authorities and the diplotwo other treaties before us. It is, of Mr. President, at this time I send to matic authorities, with the result that course, essential that the North Atlantic the desk the amendment to which I neither would take action to appoint our Treaty Organization, as well as the referred, and I ask that it be stated. representative. military headquarters, be given juridical The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mr. WILEY. I shall give considerapersonality, with the right to make con BUSH in the chair). The amendment is tion to the point the Senator from tracts, acquire and dispose of property, not in order at this time. It will not be Massachusetts has made. and to sue and be sued. It is also essen in order until the resolution of ratifica
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I suggest that tial, it seems to me, that NATO's ar tion is before the Senate.
it be cleared up. chives and other official documents Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
Mr. WILEY. I thank the Senator should be inviolable, and that it have the will the Senator from Wisconsin yield from Massachusetts. privileges and immunities normally for a question?
Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, Exgranted to international agencies. In Mr. WILEY. I yield.
ecutive T, as the first on the Executive brief, that is what the treaties before us Mr. SALTONSTALL. In connection Calendar treaty is known, raises some would do.
with the amendment submitted by the compelling questions upon which I feel Mr. President, it will be recalled that Senator from Wisconsin, which is in the it is my duty to comment. from the time of the approval of the form of a memorandum, I call his at With purposes and motives, I cannot first military-assistance program, the tention to paragraph 4, which states that deal; for I do not know all the purposes Congress has insisted that NATO should
a representative of the United States will be built upon an integrated defense sys- attend the trial. However, the amend
or all the motives of those who have
negotiated this treaty and who have tem. This is truly an epoch-making ment does not state who shall appoint brought it here, seeking ratification by venture; never before in peacetime have the representative.
the Senate of the United States. So, at nations taken such a step. But we who
For the sake of clarity, will the Sen the outset, I wish to make it clear that insist upon an integrated defense for the ator from Wisconsin tell us who will ap nothing I may say is intended to impugn North Atlantic area should approve point the representative? If the re the motives of anyone; and when I shall these treaties without delay, for without sponsibility for making the appointment speak, a little later, of certain results them a truly effective integration of is not definitely stated in the amend which the ratification of this treaty NATO's armed forces would not be ment, would not it be wise to make that would inevitably bring about, I do not possible.
matter clear by means of a modification mean to assert that the achievement of SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE AGREEMENTS of the amendment?
those results was a purpose of any parBy way of summary, Mr. President, I Mr. WILEY. It would depend entirely ticular person or group of persons. It am convinced that the agreements before upon the situation, of course. I suppose is enough that the results which would the Senate are in the national interest a military man would be involved. Prob flow from this treaty, if it should be ratiof the United States, for the following ably the military commander of the dis- fied, shall be clearly presented to this reasons:
trict would make the appointment, or it body before it votes on ratification. First. They will replace the present might be that the Government would So that there may be no doubt about hodgepodge of bilateral arrangements, ask our Ambassador to make the ap my position on this treaty, Mr. President, which are temporary in nature, with a pointment.
pointment. In any event, we would have let me say now, as a frame of reference permanent, uniform system in which a representative there.
for all that I shall say hereafter, that I rights and duties are clearly defined. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Would not it be oppose this treaty in its present form, This should do much to eliminate some wise to specify the responsibility for and that I intend to support the reservaof the existing causes of friction, and making the appointment-for instance, tion sponsored by the Senator from Ohio help build good will among the 14 NATO simply by stating that the United States [Mr. BRICKER]. countries.
representative shall be appointed by the Certain features of this treaty, Mr. Second. They will insure the mobility commanding officer?
President, were familiar to me long beof NATO forces in Europe. It is per Mr. WILEY. As I suggested, it might fore the treaty itself had been negotifectly obvious that no satisfactory sys- be decided to have someone from the ated. Representatives of the Department tem of collective defense can be devel- diplomatic group, instead of someone of state and of the Department of Deoped unless adequate arrangements are from the military group, make the fense came to me more than 2 years ago, made for armed forces to cross national appointment.
to discuss with me certain proposals frontiers without administrative com Mr. SALTONSTALL. However, if the which were then under discussion for inplications and crippling delays.
responsibility for making the appoint- clusion in this treaty. I do not know why Third. By introducing an orderly sys ment is not specified, it might be that they came to me, except that they sought tem of rights, responsibilities, and pro- no one would take the responsibility, and my approval of the particular proposals cedures with respect to the stationing thus the appointment would not be made. which they presented to me at that time. of foreign forces in NATO countries, they That is the point I have in mind.
I do not know why they wanted my apwill reduce considerably the paper work As the matter now stands, under sec proval of those proposals, unless it was and the administrative detail which now tions 2 and 3, the commanding officer has because they had some feeling that if I fall on American commanders in Europe, certain definite responsibilities.
approved, and would publicly state my Fourth. As a receiving state, the Mr. WILEY. I shall give the matter approval, it might facilitate either the United States will give up no rights which consideration, and I shall consult with negotiation of the treaty-a possibility we do not acquire as a sending state. the other members of the committee. I which I find it hard to believe—or might Moreover, in view of the relatively large have no objection to the suggestion the
evenutally facilitate ratification of the number of American forces abroad, the Senator from Massachusetts has made.
treaty after it had been negotiated. advantages accruing to us as a sending My only thought is that this is an
Certainly, those who came to me knew state far outweigh the disadvantages to arrangement between 14 nations, and we
as well as I did that I was not a member which we might be subject as a receiving have a great many troops abroad; and
of the Committee on Foreign Relations. state.
in one area it might be beneficial to have However, the particular points which Finally, Mr. President, not only will the our representative appointed by our civil
they presented to me did not deal with treaties improve the position of our authorities, whereas in another area it
authorities, whereas in another area it matters primarily of foreign relations, troops in Europe, but they will also might be desirable to have our repre
but dealt with matters of law and jurisstrengthen the fabric of NATO coopera- sentative appointed by our military prudence; with questions of jurisdiction tion. They will demonstrate once more authorities.
for the punishment of offenses by Amerithe determination of the NATO nations Mr. SALTONSTALL. I agree en
can nationals in foreign nations. I was to move forward together in the desper tirely. I am simply trying to have the
at that time chairman of the Committee ately important task of building our provision made suficiently specific, so on the Judiciary, and it may be that joint defenses.
that the responsibility for making the those who came to me were honestly I sincerely hope, Mr. President, that appointment will be clear, rather than and in good faith seeking my advice with the Senate will approve these treaties to have the situation be such that, be respect to the provisions in question. At
any event, they came to me, and laid tion over members of a force or civilian com and farther down in the list, there is tacit those provisions before me, and sought ponent and their dependents with respect to
recognition of the fact that frequently, offenses, including offenses relating to the my approval of them. I made a careful
under the laws of a foreign nation, no security of that state, punishable by its law study of the proposals which they but not by the law of the sending state.
public trial is permitted; for the last of brought to me, and concluded that I
the enumerated rights is to have a reprecould not approve them. I told those For the moment, Mr. President, let us sentative of his own Government preswho had come to me that I could not set aside the clause with regard to secu ent at his trial "when the rules of the approve the proposals, and I told them rity offenses, and note that the provision court permit.” That makes it perfectly why: Briefly, because the proposals, in I have quoted is absolute with respect to clear, Mr. President, that it is contemmy opinion, were violative of the rights offenses punishable by its law,” that is, plated that in some instances, at least, of American nationals. The matter was by the law of the receiving state, “but the rules of the court in the foreign dropped at that point. I was assured not by the law of the sending state.” nation will not even permit a representthat my views would be taken into con This means, Mr. President, that under ative of our Government to be present sideration and that there would be an this treaty every act which is an offense when one of our boys is tried; and the effort to redraft the particular proposals by one of the laws of one of the countries treaty specifically provides that when in question. Whether any such effort party to the treaty, even though such act the rules of the foreign court do not perwas made, I do not know. The matter is not any offense at all under the laws mit that, we are not going to insist upon next came to my attention after the of the United States, will be punishable it. We are just going to let our boy go treaty had been negotiated and had strictly in accordance with the foreign to trial without anyone from home to been submitted to the Senate for ratifi- law, after a trial in a foreign court.
appear even as an observer. cation. I then found, upon examination Now, let me refer back to the clause
There is nothing in this list of enumof the treaty, that some of the proposalswith regard to "offenses relating to the erated rights, Mr. President, which would in the nature of provisions, which had security” of the foreign state. Such of- protect the right to be tried in the jurbeen submitted to me 2 years ago, had fenses are defined to include
isdiction where the offense was commitin fact found their way into the treaty, (i) Treason against the state;
ted. There is nothing to protect the in substantially the same form in which (ii) Sabotage, espionage, or violation of privilege against self-incrimination. We I had felt constrained to disapprove any law relating to official secrets of that think so much of that privilege in this them when they were first submitted to state, or secrets relating to the national de
country, that we permit subversives, fense of that state. me.
Communists, and even spies and murI desire to assure my colleagues that That means, Mr. President, that if a derers, to claim their right not to testhere is no thought in my mind that foreign state has a law making it a secu tify against themselves; but we are dothese matters should have been sub- rity offense to make a public statement ing nothing in this treaty to preserve mitted to me, or that, having been critical of the government of that coun that right for American boys who may submitted to me, there should have been try, any American boy drafted into our be brought to trial in a foreign country any changes made merely because I dis- armed services and ordered to that coun- for some offense against the laws of that approved. I am speaking on this subject try would be punishable under the laws country. today not because there are certain pro- of that country, after a trial in the courts There is nothing in this list of rights, visions in this treaty which were sub of that country, if he should be caught Mr. President, to protect against cruel mitted to me long ago, and which I dis- making a statement derogatory to the and unusual punishments. approved; but because there are pro- government of that country.
There is nothing in this list of rights, visions in this treaty which I consider Mr. President, I do not mean for a Mr. President, which will guarantee the clearly violative of the rights of Ameri- moment to imply that I favor loose talk right to appeal a decision, or to have any can nationals. I should oppose these by members of our Armed Forces, in the review of a decision in any other way. provisions just as strongly today if they nature of criticism of our allies within There is nothing in this list of rights, had never been submitted to me at any whose boundaries they may be sta- Mr. President, to protect an American time previously. Those whose rights tioned; but, Mr. President, I think the soldier against a foreign law which conwill be violated, by these treaty pro constitutional guaranties should follow cerns the establishment or the exercise of visions, are primarily the young men of our boys in uniform wherever they are religion. There is nothing to protect an this Nation who have been or will be sent under the American flag, even in American soldier against a foreign law drafted into the Armed Forces, and the territory of a friendly country, and which abridges freedom of speech or ordered abroad. Under this treaty, I oppose this treaty because it would freedom of the press. There is nothing these men will be denied the protection deny them those constitutional guaran to protect an American soldier against a of such traditional American constitu- ties.
foreign law which abridges the right of tional safeguards as public trial, the There is a provision in this treaty, free assembly and petition. There is privilege against self-incrimination, and designed to guarantee certain rights to nothing in this treaty to protect an the right to have imposed upon them no an American national who is prosecuted American soldier against unreasonable cruel and unusual punishments.
under the jurisdiction of a foreign coun searches and seizures. There is nothing This treaty provides, Mr. President, in try. If you read this list of "guaran in this treaty to protect an American article VII, that whenever units of our teed rights" rapidly, Mr. President, it soldier against double jeopardy, where Armed Forces are in a foreign country, looks like a pretty good list. But as soon that may be permitted under the law of a to which the provisions of this treaty are as you start to analyze it, it becomes ap foreign country. There is nothing in applicable, even though our Armed parent that some of the most important this treaty which preserves the right Forces are in that country with the con guarantees under our own Bill of Rights of trial by jury for an American soldier sent of its Government, and for the ac. have been omitted from this list.
prosecuted under the law of a foreign complishment of its adequate defense, For instance, it is provided-and the nation. nevertheless our boys in uniform shall list to which I refer is in paragraph 9 There is nothing in this treaty which be subject to the criminal jurisdiction of of article VII—that
protects an American soldier against the that country, and to punishment under
Whenever a member of a force or civilian requirement for excessive bail, under its laws, after trial in accordance with
component or a dependent is prosecuted un some foreign law; or which would prothe laws which are in force there.
der the jurisdiction of a receiving state tect an American soldier against excesThere are some exceptions to this gen
sive fines. All of those rights, Mr. Presieral provision; and there are some provi, boys is prosecuted under the laws of a
And that means whenever one of our
dent, are rights enumerated and prosions with respect to which country shall boys is prosecuted under the laws of a
tected in the first 10 amendments of our have the primary right to exercise ju- foreign country where he happens to be
Constitution; but every one of them is risdiction when there is concurrent justationed
being waived, under the terms of this risdiction in a particular case. But, Mr. he shall be entitled to a prompt and speedy
treaty, with respect to American soldiers President, there is one provision of this trial.
who may find themselves charged with article which is absolute. Subsection But, Mr. President, there is nothing an offense under the laws of a foreign 2 (b) of article VII provides:
there which guarantees him a public country. The authorities of the receiving state shall trial, which is one of the basic guaran Mr. President, it might be well to point have the right to exercise exclusive jurisdic- ties of our own system of jurisprudence; out that there are many possibilities,
under the laws of foreign countries, for misleading for that reason. The provi- ing to his independent sovereign station, convictions of offenses which carry in sion giving "the primary right to exer
though not expressly stipulated, are reserved some cases extreme penalties. For in cise jurisdiction" to our own military
by implication, and will be extended to him.
This perfect equality and absolute indestance, in France a person convicted of authorities in the case of “offenses aris
pendence of sovereigns, and this common manslaughter-not murder, but man ing out of any act or omission done in
interest impelling them to mutual interslaughter-can be put to death or sen the performance of official duty” is
course, and an interchange of good offices tenced to imprisonment at hard labor found in paragraph 3 of article VII, and with each other, have given rise to a class of for life. It would not be too difficult to applies only to cases where the right to cases in which every sovereign is understood imagine a conviction for manslaughter, exercise jurisdiction is concurrent; that
to waive the exercise of a part of that comunder French law, on the basis of cir- is, where there is jurisdiction both in
plete exclusive territorial jurisdiction, which cumstances which in the United States the foreign nation and in the United
has been stated to be the attribute of every
nation. would not give rise to a conviction even States. In the classes of cases which I
First. One of these is admitted to be the for involuntary homicide. Furthermore, have already discussed, in which there
exemption of the person of the sovereign it must be remember that under French is no concurrent jurisdiction, but in
from arrest or detention within a foreign law-and, in fact, under the laws of other which the authorities of the foreign territory. If he enters that territory, with European nations—while it is technically state have absolute jurisdiction, this the knowledge and license of its sovereign, true that there is a presumption of inno- question of offenses arising out of any
that license, although ccrtaining no stipulacence, this is only a technicality, for act or omission done in the performance
tion exempting his person from arrest, is there is no requirement that guilt must of official duty does not apply at all.
universally understood to imply such stipu
lation. Why has the whole civilized world be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In The legal adviser of the Department of concurred in this construction? The answer this country that is the requirement; State should have known that, whether cannot be mistaken. A foreign sovereign is every judge must instruct the jury in a he did or not.
not understood as intending to subject himcriminal case that, in order to convict, Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, self to a jurisdiction incompatible with his the jury must be satisfied beyond a rea will the Senator from Nevada yield?
dignity, and the dignity of his nation, and sonable doubt that the defendant is Mr. MCCARRAN. I yield.
it is to avoid this subjection, that the license
has been obtained. The character to whom guilty. But in France and some other Mr. HENDRICKSON. A few moments
it is given, and the object for which it is European countries it is only necessary ago the distinguished Senator from Ne
granted equally require that it should be to establish guilt by a preponderance vada referred to the testimony of the
construed to impart full security to the perof the evidence. It need not be conclu- legal adviser of the Department of State. son who has obtained it. This security, howsively shown that a man is guilty. It is Was the Senator referring to the testi ever, need not be expressed; it is implied only necessary to show that he could be
mony of Mr. Phleger, at page 25 of the from the circumstances of the case. guilty, and then if the court believes that hearings? he probably committed the crime Mr. MCCARRAN. I have not the
Third. A third case in which a sovereign is charged against him, there can be a page in mind, but I take it that was the
understood to cede a portion of his territorial conviction, even though there is a show
jurisdiction is, where he allows the troops place. ing of clear possibility that someone else
of a foreign prince to pass through his doMr. HENDRICKSON. But it was the
minions. In such case, without any express might just as well have committed the testimony of Mr. Phleger?
declaration waiving jurisdiction over the crime.
Mr. MCCARRAN. I think so.
army to which this right of passage has been In France it would be possible for a Mr. HENDRICKSON. I thank the granted, the sovereign who should attempt man to be convicted of rape and sen Senator from Nevada.
to exercise it, would certainly be considered tenced to hard labor for 20 years on the Mr. MCCARRAN. However that may
as violating his faith. By exercising it, the basis of conduct which might be held be, Mr. President, the greatest fault
purpose for which the free passage was only adultery, at worst, in a court of the which I find with the testimony of the
granted would be defeated, and a portion of
the military force of a foreign independent United States. In France a man can be legal adviser of the Department of State nation would be diverted from those national sentenced to 5 years in prison for petty is that he made the following statement objects and duties to which it was applicable, larceny.
before the Senate Committee on Foreign and would be withdrawn from the control In Portugal a man can be sentenced Relations which I quote from page 49 of the sovereign whose power and whose to a term of from 2 to 8 years in a penal of the printed hearings, on April 7 and 8,
safety might greatly depend on retaining the colony for the theft of property valued 1953:
exclusive command and disposition of this at $175. If the theft is termed robbery
force. The grant of a free passage, therefore, Individuals wearing our uniform and part
implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over the that is, if it is from the persona simi of our military force do not have sovereign
troops, during their passage, and permits lar sentence to the penal colony can be immunity, and there is no doctrine which
the foreign general to use that discipline, and given if the value of the property taken says that a nation which has on its soil rep to inflict those punishments which the gove exceeds $35.
resentatives of a foreign nation must give ernment of his army may require. Mr. President, I have been dealing with
immunity to those persons. Immunity is
restricted to those which the receiving nathe question of what this treaty does and
Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will tion chooses in the handling of its diplo
the Senator from Nevada yield? what it does not do. I desire now to deal
matic affairs to give immunity to, such as Mr. MCCARRAN. I yield. briefly with what I consider the indeAmbassadors, and so forth.
Mr. KNOWLAND. I am certain the fensible fact that this treaty appears to ignore settled international law; and
Mr. President, that statement is abso
distinguished Senator from Nevada recthat, in fact, representatives of the De
lutely contrary to international law as ognizes there is a great difference in the partment of State who testified before it has been declared uniformly by the
case of free passage of troops through a
country. The troops would be in the the Committee on Foreign Relations with Supreme Court of the United States, as
country either as invaders or by permisregard to this treaty explicitly misstated the legal adviser of the Department of the law to the committee. State should well know.
sion, for some reason such as occurred The legal adviser of the Department
John Marshall, in the famous Ex
in, I think, the Coolidge administration,
when troops of the National Government of State came before the Committee on change case, which will be found in 7
of the Republic of Mexico were perForeign Relations, and was questioned Cranch 116, at pages 137 and 139 said:
mitted to pass through American terriabout this treaty. He made a number This full and absolute territorial jurisdic
tory in order to reach Lower California, of misstatements. For instance, he tion being alike the attribute of every sovstated that ereign, and being incapable of conferring
to quell a rebellion. In that instance, extraterritorial power, would not seem to
the troops were in passage, in military The only area in which the foreign coun
contemplate foreign sovereigns, nor their formation, under the control of their try will have jurisdiction criminally of an sovereign rights, as its objects. One sov commanders. The situation with reoffense committed by a member of our force
ereign being in no respect amenable to anis when he is not engaged in official duty.
spect to NATO, in Europe, is quite difother; and being bound by obligations of the
ferent. There it is not a question of an Mr. President, that statement may highest character not to degrade the dignity
organized unit of American forces passhave been the result of a misunderstandof his nation, by placing himself or its sov
ing from France through Belgium into ereign rights within the jurisdiction of aning by the legal adviser of the Depart- other, can be supposed to enter a foreign
Germany. It is an unprecedented sitment of State of the true effect of the territory only under an express license, or in
uation, occurring not in war time, but in treaty; but it is no less inaccurate and the confidence that the immunities belong peace time. The troops are not in