Page images
PDF
EPUB

transit; they are stationed in fixed installations, under jurisdiction of the United States, so far as their official duties are concerned. The agreement applies only to cases where an individual has committed a crime against the country concerned, outside his official duties.

Mr. MCCARRAN. The Senator's remarks emphasize the language of Justice Marshall, because they bring the expression of Justice Marshall squarely into this picture. Those troops are there by permission of the sovereign of the foreign country. They cannot be there otherwise. He having relinquished his sovereignty to that extent, the law of the land whence they come is the law that should govern.

In the case of Coleman v. Tennessee (97 U. S. 509, p. 515), the Supreme Court of the United States said:

It is well settled that a foreign army permitted to march through a friendly country, or to be stationed in it, by permission of its government or sovereign, is exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place. The sovereign is understood, said this Court in the celebrated case of the Exchange (7 Cr. 139), to cede a portion of his territorial jurisdiction when he allows the troops of a foreign prince to pass through his dominions: In such case, without any express declaration waiving jurisdiction over the army to which this right of passage has been granted, the sovereign who should attempt to exercise it would certainly be considered as violating his faith

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARRAN. In a moment

by exercising it, the purpose for which the free passage was granted would be defeated, and a portion of the military force of a foreign independent nation would be diverted from those national objects and duties to which it was applicable, and would be withdrawn from the control of the sovereign

Let the Senator from California listen to this:

get from point A to point B. That is an entirely different situation. They are there under their commanders. They are in military formation. Obviously a civil official would not attempt to pick a tank or truck out of the line because it had been exceeding the speed limit when it was in a military formation, or perhaps a division. in transit through a country.

But we do not have such a situation in NATO. The troops may, of course, move from time to time; but here we have a considerable body of troops stationed in foreign countries for a considerable period of time, not under war conditions. The very terms of the treaty make it clear that in the event of war the provisions no longer apply when the countries ask that the treaty no longer be in force and effect.

So we have an unprecedented situation. Even during wartime, except in those countries where we went in as a military conqueror or occupying power, we obtained an agreement, as in the case of Great Britain, where a number of us served overseas in World War II. We had specific agreements with the British Government at that time relating to the United States forces which were there.

Mr. MCCARRAN. The same principle applies to troops passing through a country and troops stationed in a country. They are there by consent of the sovereign, and when he consents he relinquishes a part of his sovereignty.

Will the Senator from California say that the youth of this land, six divisions of whom are now in Europe, should relinquish the constitutional privilege for which they are giving their lives? Is that the idea?

Mr. KNOWLAND. No. If the Senator will yield further, we are dealing with an important treaty. I think it is essential that the facts be brought out. Certainly the NATO is a mutual defense organization. It is the policy of the Government of the United States that it be mutual. If it is to be mutual, we certainly cannot ask from others what we will not ourselves give. I submit to the distinguished Senator that if a member or members of a group of French, British, or Italian Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will soldiers stationed in this country viothe Senator yield?

whose power and whose safety might greatly depend on retaining the exclusive command and disposition of this force. The grant of a free passage, therefore, implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over the troops during their passage

Mr. MCCARRAN. I will yield as soon as I conclude this quotation. I do not like to break into the middle of a quotation. This is from the Supreme Court of the United States

and permits the foreign general to use that discipline and to inflict those punishments which the government of his army may require."

That is a repetition of the language of Mr. Justice Marshall, appearing in the Tennessee case.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARRAN. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I respectfully say to the Senator from Nevada that I think there is an entirely different situation as between the free passage of troops through a country and the situation which we have in the NATO countries. There is not involved the question of the passage of an organized division or army

lated a civil law of this country, not in the course of duty-for example, if they should commit burglary, murder, or some other crime-they would be subject to other crime-they would be subject to the laws of the United States. Does the distinguished Senator hold that they should be completely immune from the civil laws and the State laws of the United States, when they are not on duty, when the crime which they commit has nothing to do with their duty? Does the Senator hold that they should be completely snatched out from under the jurisdiction of a State of the Union, or of the laws of the United States? I do not think the distinguished Senator can so contend.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Evidently the Senator from California has not read the treaty.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I certainly have. Mr. MCCARRAN. If he had he would not have propounded that question to It is evident that he has not read

or corps through a particular state to the treaty.

Mr. President, I wish to digress for a moment from my text to say that no boy in uniform going across the water should go there without having the Constitution follow him. The flag follows him. His law should follow him. The laws to which he will come back should follow him. The laws for which he is fighting should follow him and protect him in any country where he may be located.

In the case of Dow v. Johnson (100 U. S. 158, p. 165), the Court said:

As was observed in the recent case of Coleman v. Tenncзsee, it is well settled that a foreign army, permitted to march through a friendly country

Will the Senator from California listen to this language of the Supreme Court?— or to be stationed in it by authority of its sovereign or government, is exempt from its civil and criminal jurisdiction. The law was so stated in the celebrated case of The Exchange, reported in the 7th of Cranch.

Again the Supreme Court goes back to the language of Mr. Justice Marshall. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARRAN. I yield.

Mr. LONG. It is my understanding that the law in some of the Arab nations requires that any person found guilty of simple theft shall have his hand cut off. Is there any possibility that one of our young men might be subjected to such a law?

Mr. McCARRAN. Under the provisions of this treaty, there is the possibility that one of our young men might be subjected to any law in any country and to any procedure in any country.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

If one

Mr. MCCARRAN. I yield. Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. of our servicemen should be found guilty of an offense, he would be incarcerated in the foreign country, and there held at the pleasure of the foreign sovereign. Is that not correct?

Mr. MCCARRAN. Yes; and in all probability held incommunicado. Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. Away from his family and away from his friends.

Mr. MCCARRAN. The Senator is correct. That is the law, Mr. President. This treaty, therefore, is founded either upon bad faith or bad legal advice in the Department of State, which appears ignorant of the rule of international law laid down by Chief Justice Marshall and a host of other authorities, that troops of a friendly nation passing through, or stationed within another friendly country are immune from the local laws of the latter country and subject only to their own country's laws administered by their own superiors.

Mr. President, it has been argued that this treaty is a case of granting and getting reciprocal rights. It is true, of course, that the provisions to which we by this treaty would give assent, with respect to our own soldiers, would also be made applicable to the soldiers of foreign countries, quartered in this country. But, Mr. President, would it not be much better to let some twelve thousand foreign troops, now in this country, remain subject only to their own military juris

diction, than to subject seven hundred and fifty thousand or more American soldiers in Europe to local European law which does not accord them American constitutional safeguards and American judicial review?

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland and Mr. SALTONSTALL addressed the Chair. Mr. MCCARRAN. I yield first to the Senator from Masachusetts.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I have been listening with attention to the Senator from Nevada. He has put a question: Would it not be better to have the 750,000 men in the foreign countries remain subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? The Senator has been quoting from Chief Justice Marshall in the case of the Exchange, with reference to troops marching through a foreign dominion. The decision, as I read it, is based upon the following sentence:

All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation, within its own territories, must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.

- Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will Europe, and all of our soldiers in Japan.
the Senator yield?
We are ignoring basic principles of in-
Mr. MCCARRAN. I yield first to the ternational law in order to grant numer-
Senator from Maryland.

Mr. BUTLER of Maryland. Mr. President, I should like to call the Senator's attention to page 5 of the report, under paragraph (e), which reads: "to have legal representation of his own choice for his defense, or to have free or assisted legal representation under the conditions prevailing for the time being in the receiving State."

Mr. President, I should like to ask the American people: Do you want to send your sons to a foreign country on such a shabby guaranty as to legal representation in a trial for a serious crime?

Mr. MCCARRAN. If the Senator will read further, he will find that it does not even extend so far as the Senator thinks it does.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I yield.

Mr. MCCARRAN.
Mr. FERGUSON. Does not the Mar-
shall decision say in effect that if the
Chief Justice Marshall quoted three troops are invited into a foreign country

exceptions.

there is an implied understanding that the jurisdiction of the sending nation is to be retained, but that it is only an

One of the exceptions is when one sovereign, in the old days, would go into the implication in case there is no agreement

land of another king.

The second exception is when foreign ministries are established.

The third exception is when troops are passing through another dominion.

It is clear that those are exceptions to the rule that the relinquishment of any powers of jurisdiction of the courts must be traced to the consent of the nation itself.

The other opinion from which the distinguished Senator from Nevada read is the case of Coleman against Tennessee. The sentence reads:

It is well settled that a foreign army permitted to march through a friendly country or to be stationed in it by permission of its government or sovereign is exempt from civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place.

Mr. President, the purpose of the treaties, as I understand, is to get such consent. At the present time there is no consent. That is the difficulty which the treaties are trying to overcome.

Mr. MCCARRAN. There is no consent. What are we doing there? Mr. SALTONSTALL. There is no consent with respect to the jurisdiction of the courts. The French, the Belgians, the English, and we, respectively, have jurisdiction over the courts. What we are trying to do by ratification of the treaties is to give consent in regard to how civil and criminal actions shall be

[blocks in formation]

allowing them to enter the country? Mr. MCCARRAN. No; I do not think

So.

Mr. FERGUSON. Does the Senator believe that the word "implied" means that it absolutely cannot be varied by agreement?

Mr. MCCARRAN. Chief Justice Marshall said so. The Dow case so holds. The Tennessee case so holds. All three cases so hold. The question is focused in the Dow case, where it is stated specifically.

Mr. FERGUSON. I do not understand that it is an absolute understanding which cannot be changed by agreement.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, if the Senate ratifies this treaty, it should do so with full knowledge of what the result will be for American soldiers in both hemispheres. I say both hemispheres, Mr. President, because while this treaty will not automatically apply to American troops in Japan, the fact remains that negotiations are under way on an executive agreement covering this question of rights of members of our Armed Forces in Japan. It is the intention of the State Department, I have been informed-and I believe, reliably informed-if this treaty is ratified, to simply negotiate an executive agreement with Japan stating that the same rights shall apply with respect to our troops in Japan as would apply under this treaty in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization nation. So that what we do here probably will also affect the rights of our soldiers in the Pacific as well as the rights

of our soldiers in the Atlantic theater.

Mr. President, what I have said has not been carefully prepared, and I know it has not been thorough nor scholarly. But I have tried to state the facts. We are, by this treaty, proposed now for ratification, waiving many of the most important constitutional safeguards with regard to all of our soldiers in North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries of

ous foreign nations jurisdiction over our soldiers, who are in those countries on missions concerned with the defense of those countries. Mr. President, I regard this as wrong, and I shall vote against ratification of this treaty unless the Bricker reservation is agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Maurer, its reading clerk, announced that the House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5451) to amend the wheat-marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, and for other purposes.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the enrolled bill (H. R. 5451) to amend the wheat-marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, and for other purposes, and it was signed by the President pro tempore. STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT OF

PARTIES TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the agreement, Executive T (82d Cong., 2d sess.), an agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the status of their forces, signed at London on June 19, 1951.

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, some time ago I filed a reservation, which will be called up at the time the resolution of ratification comes before the Senate. The reservation appears in the RECORD. At the very beginning I wish to state that I have no opposition to the remainder of the treaties, except to the section to which I have suggested the reservation.

The treaty in question is Executive T, 82d Congress, 2d session, submitted by the President of the United States under date of June 16, 1952. date of June 16, 1952. The reservation

applies particularly to article VII, beginning on page 7, continuing on page 8, and concluding at the middle of page 9. Particularly, it is a reservation in regard to the rights of United States soldiers and civilian components of the Armed Forces stationed in foreign countries, to be tried under the code of military justice, and not to be submitted to the courts and the jurisdiction of the foreign coun

tries in which they happen to be located.

On May 7, 1953, I discussed on the floor of the Senate the criminal jurisdiction provisions, especially article VII, to which I have referred, of the NATO Status of Forces Treaty. At that time I submitted the reservation to the treaty. The proposed reservation would preserve the criminal jurisdiction of United States military service courts over United States troops stationed in other NATO countries.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield at this point?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. AIKEN in the chair). Does the Senator from Ohio yield to the Senator from Wisconsin?

Mr. BRICKER. I yield.

Mr. WILEY. Suppose the reservation were adopted. In the judgment of the distinguished Senator from Ohio, would it require renegotiation of the treaty?

Mr. BRICKER. If the other countries accepted the reservation, it would not.

Mr. WILEY. Does the Senator from Ohio mean if the other 13 countries accepted the reservation?

Mr. BRICKER. Yes. They would would have to accept it, or it would not be binding on either us or them.

Mr. WILEY. I think the answer is that if they did not accept the reservation, there would be no treaty. Is that correct?

Mr. BRICKER. It would be far better to have no treaty, than to have American boys turned over to foreign courts over which we have no jurisdiction.

Mr. WILEY. Of course, we would not do that. Suppose, however, there is no treaty; suppose we carry on as we now are. How are our troops abroad treated now?

Mr. BRICKER. I do not know.

Mr. WILEY. I can tell the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. BRICKER. Yes; the chairman of the committee may have access to the classified executive agreements, SOcalled, which have been kept from the other Members of the Senate. That is one thing I am complaining about at the present time.

A moment ago the chairman of the committee said to the Senate that we are trying to remedy a bad situation which will be worse if the treaty is not ratified. Let me ask who entered into the executive agreements. they? Who has authority to deliver our troops to foreign courts without the consent of the United States?

What are

Mr. WILEY. I shall be glad to answer the question. Our troops are stationed in 13 countries. These countries have not surrendered their jurisdiction. If a Member of the Senate went to one of those countries and, while there, committed a crime, he would be subject to the courts of that country, even though he was a United States Senator. The mere fact that these young men are in uniform makes no difference. If while not engaged in their official duties, they commit crimes, the jurisdiction of the country in which they are stationed fastens upon them. That is what has happened.

The 14 countries in this case have gotten together and have concluded that there should be uniformity of treatment. So they agreed to the Status of Forces Agreement, which is before the Senate at this time. If we ratify it, together with the reservation submitted by the Senator from Ohio, if the other countries do not agree to the reservation, there will be no treaty. In that event the status quo will continue, and under it every country exercises its own jurisdic

tion, without any general rules, as laid down in these treaties.

Mr. BRICKER. Not only do the socalled executive agreements-which in the record of the hearings are claimed to be classified-violate 150 years of international law, as interpreted by our courts and as observed in our relations with other countries, but they likewise violate the Code of Military Justice which was passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield further to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. POTTER in the chair). Does the Senator from Ohio yield to the Senator from Wisconsin?

Mr. BRICKER. I yield for a question. I wish to finish my speech.

Mr. WILEY. Does the Senator from Ohio realize that the treaties were negotiated by the past administration, and that the present administration asks that the treaties be approved?

Mr. BRICKER. shows on the record.

Certainly. That

Mr. President, on June 24, 1953, I appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to explain further the purpose and effect of my proposed reservation. On both occasions, I emphasized that nothing in Senate Joint Resolution 1, which I hope will be before the Senate before very long, would prevent the making of a treaty such as the NATO Status of Forces Treaty. The proposed constitutional amendment would not

prevent the making of all undesirable treaties.

In the debate on this treaty, we must not lose sight of one fundamental question: Insofar as our servicemen abroad are concerned, shall we insist on trial of Americans, by Americans, and for Americans?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD, as a part of my remarks, a broadcast by Willis J. Ballinger, under date of July 6, 1953, in regard to the pending matter.

There being no objection, the broadcast was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THIS IS YOUR AMERICA Hello, fellow Americans. Tonight I want to tell American mothers about a matter which I know will make their blood boil, and justly so. For some 12 years now American mothers have lived in agonies of fear. In World War II and the present Korean war these mothers have been subjected to a round the clock strain of fearing that their sons would be killed, fearing that they would be maimed or crippled, or fearing that they would come home having to fight a long battle to readjust nervous systems and lick John Barleycorn. Yes; for some 12 years American mothers have had a rough time of it. But now they have a new fear to worry about. Do you know that for some time now our State Department, through secret agreements, has permitted foreign nations to take over the trial of American soldiers charged with breaches of the civil or criminal laws of those nations? Today there are American soldiers serving in some 40 nations. Those American boys are not where they are because of any desire on their part. Most of them have been drafted and ordered to serve in these 40 nations. They are there to help in defending their soil from Russian aggres

sion. They are there serving the interests of those foreign nations. Yet if Johnny Jones or Sam Smith gets into trouble with a girl, goes on a bender and punches someone on the nose, or commits other offenses, he is, by the secret connivance of our own State Department, deprived of a trial by American authorities, and subjected to the trial procedures of foreign nations, many of whom have judicial systems that do not provide for the kind of humane and fair trial that our judicial procedures do. Take the Middle East, a part of the earth we are desperately wooing so as to keep oil and manpower out of the hands of the Kremlin. In some Middle East countries the punishment for theft is to cut off the hand of the offender. Now no one wants an American soldier to commit theft, nor should such an offense be condoned. But if an American soldier in a foreign country does steal, he should be tried before American military authorities where he will be guaranteed a trial in which he is presumed innocent until proven guilty, a trial where he will be held guilty only when there is no reasonable doubt as to his guilt, a trial where he will not be denied the right to competent counsel or the right to summon his witnesses, a trial in which he shall have the right of appeal and shall be protected against cruel and inhuman punishment. Theft is bad, but we don't believe in cutting off an offender's hand. In some foreign courts the accused has no right of appeal, no right to summon his witnesses, no right to a dozen fundamental safeguards that we have for insuring a fair trial. How would you like your son to be tried before a Communist judge in Marseilles, a judge who has it in Or how would you like

for all Americans?

your son to be tried before a Japanese judge when Japan is seething right at the present moment with violent anti-Americanism, an

anti-Americanism that is rampant in other foreign nations also? How, even if there were fair judicial procedures, could he be expected to get a fair trial?

Our State Department started this shocking business by secret executive understandings with NATO nations, and then came up on Capitol Hill to get the whole thing approved by Congress in the form of a treaty which would empower our State Department to have full authority to turn American soldiers over to foreign courts. And a Senate committee has actually reported out favorably that treaty. It was at this point that Senator BRICKER, of Ohio, challenged the treaty. He asked the Defense Department to give him the facts on American servicemen punished in foreign courts. The Department said it could not do so. Then letters began pouring in on BRICKER from all parts of the world, not only from servicemen, but from their wives, from American chaplains, and even from American judges in Germany. Some of these letters have been released by the Senator, after giving them a careful inspection. Here are some of the things that are happening to our servicemen who have already been turned over to foreign courts: A wife of an American soldier stationed in Turkey says that her soldier husband was picked up by Turkish authorities. His Army friends hired two Turkish lawyers to defend him. But at the trial no witnesses were called on her husband's behalf, though the Turkish witnesses contradicted their original statements. This woman's husband was sentenced to 10 months in a vermin-infested Turkish prison with a low class of Turkish criminals. While in prison her husband met an American warrant officer serving a 2-year sentence. This poor fellow is allowed no visitors except the chaplain once a week and an official Turkish doctor. Worse yet, this poor fellow, BRICKER was told, has tuberculosis and doesn't belong in a prison at all.

The wife of an American soldier stationed in Morocco wrote that there French authorities discriminate against Americans both individually and collectively in every possible manner, wrote that it was a matter of record that French courts invariably assess maximum fines and punishments against Americans. An American Legion Post-yes, an American Legion Post-in French Morocco wrote of Kenneth Griffith, a shipservice man, second class, that was sentenced to 10 months in prison. But when he appealed his case the sentence was raised to 16 months.

Two American judges in Germany complained of German judicial procedures. One judge said that under German law there was no adequate rule of reasonable doubt, a basic fundamental in American criminal jurisprudence. That hearsay evidence is admitted to the discretion of the trial judge. In America no one can be convicted on hearsay evidence. That release on bail can be, and in the majority of cases, is denied. In America, except for serious charges like murder, it is a normal right. The other American judge in Germany expressed the opinion on the conviction of an American soldier that under American law he would have gone free, but under German law he had to be sentenced.

These are only a few cases. I shall report more in the future, because in your commentator's opinion here is one of the most abject surrenders of American rights on record, that our boys abroad, stationed there to protect the soil of foreign nations, shall be deprived of their American birthright, the right to a fair, humane, and impartial trial, and all because, as I shall show you in a minute, because the internationalists insist that it shall be done.

When the treaty proposing that Congress approve of turning our soldiers stationed in foreign nations over to foreign courts was referred to a Senate committee, two State Department officials appeared in its behalf. One of these was Gen. Bedell Smith, the Under Secretary of State. He is being mentioned as the successor to Secretary of State Dulles. The other was Herman Phleger, legal adviser of the State Department. Phleger told the Senate committee that American military personnel in foreign nations could not claim any diplomatic immunity, that they were governed by the civil and criminal laws of such nations. Senator BRICKER says that Phleger was dead wrong, and that his statement to the committee revealed his total lack of experience in the field of international law. The Ohio Senator pointed out that the correct rule first laid down by Chief Justice John Marshall and by many later authorities is that troops of a friendly nation stationed within the territory of another are not subject to the laws of the other country, but are subject only to their own country's law and regulations for the government of the armed services. So here we have the highest legal officer of our State Department advising a Senate committee to surrender the birthright of every American citizen, the right to be tried by his own countrymen for any crimes committed, though from John Marshall on down an American soldier does not forfeit that birthright just because he dons a uniform. I can tell you that Herman Phleger is building up a lot of ill will on Capitol Hill. He is either regarded as incompetent as a lawyer or an internationalist willing to go to any lengths to batter down American sovereignty. And he will hear from this accumulating ill will on Capitol Hill sooner or later, and it may cost him his job.

Now for Gen. Bedell Smith's defense of a treaty that would hand over American youths to the mercy of foreign courts, American youths that are stationed on the soil of foreign nations to defend that soil and who are there involuntarily, because American politicians are hellbent on keeping us in

volved in every war that Europe can bring to pass, and she has brought to pass some 278 wars in the past 500 years, according to 1 scholarly count. General Smith argued that to turn American soldiers over to foreign courts would diminish the administrative burden on troop commanders. Think of that: American soldiers should lose their birthright to an American trial just because troop commanders would have lighter duties. Incredible, but he said it. Then Smith really set sail on his un-American course, argued that failure to give foreign courts jurisdiction over American soldiers would jeopardize the maintenance of friendly foreign relations. That, of course, was Dean Acheson's perennial argument when he was Secretary of State, don't disturb good neighborly relations, and he did everything the world wanted us to do. Senator BRICKER pointed out that if foreign nations could not find the manpower for their defense out of a population greater than our own, if they could not pay the full cost of maintaining their own forces, if they cannot exact from their forces the same military service we demand of ours there would be little likelihood of them abandoning the cause of a mutual defense merely because we insisted on permitting the trial of Americans by Americans. Finally, General Smith employed a truly amazing argument. He said that if the treaty was not ratified as written, the treaty giving foreigners the right to try American citizens, that Americans would be turned over to local foreign authorities for trial with even less protection than that provided in the treaty. Senator BRICKER said he had never heard a more brazen challenge to the authority of Congress, that General Smith was in effect commanding the Senate to lie down and to roll over, and that if it didn't our State Department would, through secret agreements, make the going tougher yet for Americans tried by foreign courts, a power which Senator BRICKER says the Executive does not have as only Congress can make rules for the regulation of the land, naval, and air forces of the United States.

New let me serve you up the final straw in this whole ugly matter. Under one treaty submitted by our State Department, Congress is asked to turn over Americans to foreign courts for trial when they commit any offenses against the civilian populations of foreign nations. But under another treaty also submitted by our State Department our Congress is asked to confer diplomatic immunity on all NATO personnel that may come to the United States. All of this personnel, it is asked, shall enjoy varying degrees from personal arrest or detention by American courts. Much of this personnel receive high salaries and many are exempt from income taxation. Yet they are to be immune from arrest or detention by our courts while American soldiers abroad, from generals down to privates, are to be turned over to foreign courts if they commit any offenses against the civilian populations of foreign nations.

As I tell you this, I have almost to pinch myself to believe it is true, that the internationalists have become so brazen and demanding on America that the sons of American mothers who may be sent across the seas to defend the soil of foreign peoples shall give up their American birthright which guarantees to them a trial by their fellow countrymen if they commit any offenses against civil government, a trial that must be conducted under judicial safeguards that stem from our Bill of Rights and which insure that the trial shall be fair and humane. If this doesn't make you sick of internationalism, nothing will. And don't forget that this latest surrender of American sovereignty is being proposed by our State Department. Let Senator BRICKER know how you feel about this shameful betrayal of Americanism, and let your Senators know

too, because Senator BRICKER has a chance to beat on the floor of the Senate the State Department request that we turn American soldiers over to foreign courts.

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, in order that we may understand the real import of this proposal, I should like to refer to a few letters which I have received at my office since my previous presentation and since the reservation was submitted. I desire to call some of these letters to the attention of my colleagues.

The first one to which I shall refer comes from a United States judge in Western Germany. Western Germany. He wrote as follows:

I read with interest of your bill to secure the legal rights of United States soldiers and civilians stationed in European countries. You are quite right about it and I am writing you because I thought perhaps I might be of help. *

At any rate I have had to become familiar with the civil law theory. It differs from ours in five important particulars: (1) They have an examining magistrate, "juge d'instruction," with quasi-inquisitorial powers. (2) No adequate rule of reasonable doubt exists. (3) Hearsay evidence is admitted at the discretion of the trial judge. (4) Their jurors are only assessors sitting with judges and in some cases being in a minority. (5) Release on bail can be and in the majority of cases is denied. As an example: An American citizen, one Bowen, was held recently in jail for 6 months by the German courts for a currency violation. He was only released because I issued a public statement which forced the High Commissioner to act. Subsequently the charges were dismissed.

Case No. 2: This letter comes from a resident of my home State of Ohio and reads as follows:

I have a sister who is married to a United States naval commander, and they are living in Yokohama. Recently, I received a letter from her in which she expressed such appreciation of your efforts in the introduction of the reservation to the 14-nation pactthat I thought you might like to know it. *

It is good to know that someone is looking out for us. Knowing what we do, none of us want to come under Japanese police jurisdiction. They haven't forgotten the licking we gave them. With the ill feeling toward us, it is not right to put us under the Jap police.

Case No. 3: This comes from a United States Army officer in Formosa. I read:

During the years 1946-50 I * * did all in my power to prevent the acceptance by the Armed Forces of the drafts which contained the jurisdiction articles. *

In 1946 a * * * paper on jurisdiction was prepared by a working group of which I was a member. In it the basic policy of the United States on jurisdictional problems was to be stated. In 1949, after 3 years of rather fruitless bickering between the Armed Forces and State a watered-down policy was finally produced, but it has, as far as I know, never been implemented by the State Department which has always been quite hostile to the exercise of jurisdiction by the United States Armed Forces in foreign countries.

Case No. 4: This comes from a civilian employee of the United States Air Force in Western Germany. I read:

I wish to applaud your stand opposing the treaty which would cause American civilians and soldiers to be tried in foreign civil courts and under foreign laws. This would certainly be an unfair and unjust way of handling the matter. Many foreign nations

have laws that bear so semblance whatever to the American laws on the same subject. *

I was brought to trial in the HICOG court because of [a traffic] death, under the terms of the German law. Even the prosecuting attorney admitted that under American law I was not at fault. I received a proper trial and was found guilty of "simple negligence," whatever that is, and fined. Yet the judge himself, who was an American, stated in his opinion, that under German law he had no choice but to find me guilty even though under American law I would not be guilty. He further stated that he did not know why he was not allowed to try me under American law. *

*

This is a very bad situation for me, since if the decision of the lower court is not reversed, I will be branded for life with the stigma of a criminal.

to deprive the military forces of our country, serving in foreign lands for the protection of those same lands, to deprive him of his constitutional rights, when, in fact, we

particular country, would he be brought within its jurisdiction.

Mr. BRICKER. I may say to the Sen

grant those same rights to enemies resident ator, in response to his question, that the record shows that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON] asked Mr.

within our own borders.

Case No. 8: This is from a resident of Phleger, who was the legal expert from Cincinnati, Ohio, who says:

I spent 31 years of my life and money to help bring about an equitable court-martial system for all serving in our Armed Forces.

* Congress should take immediate action to forbid the further turning over of our service personnel to foreign nations for trial by backward and even barbaric nations and then pass the Bricker amendment so that the people who are overwhelmingly in favor of it can enact it into our Constitution.

the State Department, "Who would determine whether a crime was committed in the course of duty?" To which Mr. Phleger replied, "The agreement provides that this matter shall be determined by arbitration, by an eminent jurist of the receiving country, who is appointed jointly by the receiving and the sending countries." So that it would be up to the jurist of the receiving coun

Case No. 9: This comes from a retired try to determine whether the individual

Case No. 5: This comes from an Army brigadier general, who says:

officer in the Far East. I read:

Bravo for your strong stand against allowing foreign governments to have criminal jurisdiction over American troops stationed abroad. It would indeed be a sad travesty to deprive American troops overseas of the protection of the Government and Constitution many have given their lives to defend.

Case No. 6: This is from the wife of an American soldier serving in France. I read:

After all, our husbands and fathers are not serving overseas by their choice, but by orders, and with this bill will be left to the

mercy of a foreign court. I am a foreign

war bride and have seen how other courts

operate. Our soldiers could be very easily rooked into a crime by maybe a communistic or anti-American group and then be tried by a communistic or anti-American-inclined judge. Our soldiers could be ganged up on and then get a trial like Vogeler or Oatis. I think anybody should think twice before voting for such a bill.

Case No. 7: This comes from the legislative chairman of a Reserve officers' association. In passing, I may state at this point that none of the service organizations were represented before the Committee on Foreign Relations. I do not know whether they were invited, but there was no testimony from the soldiers, the sailors, or the marines, or from the veterans' service organizations in regard to this matter.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BRICKER. I yield to the Senator I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. In connection with what the Senator from Ohio has just said, I may say I have statements from all the services, which I intend to place in the RECORD at the proper time; or I should be glad to read them at this time. I presume the Senator would like to finish his statement.

Mr. BRICKER. I should like to finish, if the Senator will permit me to do so. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I merely wanted to say that we have statements from all of the services.

Mr. BRICKER. But there was noth

May I urge your utmost opposition to proposed treaty permitting trial by foreign courts of American military personnel. * * It is illogical and unreasonable and can only represent another effort to place the rights and lives of American citizens under foreign control. Service personnel have no choice in their foreign assignments but do have an inalienable right to the protection of our Constitution. Is this to be denied them

by the Congress of the United States?

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BRICKER. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. In the letter which

the distinguished Senator from Ohio read immediately preceding the last one, the Senator's correspondent apparently mentioned that it would be a terrible thing to turn American soldiers over to is a great deal of misunderstanding relabarbaric nations for trial. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding relative to the treaties. The fact is that they

would apply only to the NATO countries. Certainly France, Great Britain, Belgium, and Italy cannot be considered to be backward or barbaric countries, as I think the Senator will agree.

Mr. BRICKER. Far from it; and the Senator from Ohio certainly does not consider them as such. However, I do consider that their laws are alien to ours, and their legal procedure is entirely different.

Mr. KNOWLAND. That is correct.

Mr. BRICKER. Their protection to the individual is not comparable or commensurate with the protection afforded our citizens in this country.

Mr. KNOWLAND. That is correct. But each of those countries has a system of justice which each of them considers to be a civilized system of justice.

Mr. BRICKER. Each has a system of justice adequate to meet its needs, but not adequate to meet our needs.

Mr. KNOWLAND. But their systems of justice, of course, would not apply to our troops acting in line of duty. For example, a sentry, acting in line of duty, who might kill a citizen of one of those countries possibly because the citizen

ing in the RECORD. I think I stated the did not obey a command to halt, would

fact in that regard.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Yes. Mr. BRICKER. In connection with case No. 7, I had said that this comes from the legislative chairman of a Reserve officers' association. I read:

It is hard to believe that anyone who calls himself an American would desire, by treaty,

not come under the jurisdiction of the laws of that country. That is clearly spelled out. In case he is on duty, or following out his orders, or if he is driving a truck while on duty, he does not come under the jurisdiction of the foreign country. Only when acting outside the line of duty, he violates a law of the

was acting in the course of his duty at the time of the commission of a crime, or of an alleged crime.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield? Mr. BRICKER. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I am prompted to raise the question I am about to ask by the colloquies which have taken place between the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from California. I am very much concerned about the so-called "justice" our soldiers may get in foreign countries. Some of those countries have very fine systems of justice, but we must remember-and I merely want to bring it to the attention of the Senate, because I do not think we can afford to overlook it that we for a long time occupied many of the countries in question, and troops of occupation, as I happen to know, having been one of them, are not particularly popular. They grow more

unpopular as the years pass. I have great concern about having our troops tried by foreign courts in the countries where we have troops of occupation, for the reason that the prejudice which may exist is only natural and instinctive. That phase of the matter gives me great concern.

Mr. BRICKER. I appreciate the suggestion of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. I know of his personal interest, because there are members of his family who are in the Armed Forces at the present time. What the Senator says is true with respect to every American father and mother who has a son in the foreign service.

Let me say, also, to the distinguished Senator from California that I do not see how we can apply this provision to the NATO countries alone. We have already assured Japan that we will give her the same kind of treatment. Likewise, the Near East and the Middle East must be treated in the same way. We hardly dare say that those countries have a system of justice upon which we can rely, or that in the other countries-and there are 40 of them where our soldiers are located-American ctiizens would get

adequate justice. I do not see how we anything other than to apply the principle across the board in all countries where our soldiers are located.

can differentiate between them or do

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield further? Mr. BRICKER. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. The Committee on Foreign Relations made it very clear

« PreviousContinue »