[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 13 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S847-S850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SENATE RESOLUTION 179--RELATING TO THE INDICTMENT AND PROSECUTION OF 
    SADDAM HUSSEIN FOR WAR CRIMES AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

  Mr. SPECTER submitted the following resolutions; which was referred 
to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                              S. Res. 179

       Whereas, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 
     was convened to try individuals for crimes against 
     international law during World War II;
       Whereas, the Nuremberg tribunal provision which held that 
     ``crimes against international law are committed by men, not 
     by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who 
     commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be 
     enforced'' is as valid today as it was in 1946;
       Whereas, on August 2, 1990 and without provocation, Iraq 
     initiated a war of aggression against the sovereign state of 
     Kuwait;

[[Page S848]]

       Whereas, the Charter of the United Nations imposes on its 
     members the obligations to ``refrain in their international 
     relations from the threat or use of force against the 
     territorial integrity or political independence of any 
     state'';
       Whereas, the leaders of the Government of Iraq, a country 
     which is a member of the United Nations, did violate this 
     provision of the United Nations Charter;
       Whereas the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of 
     Civilian Persons in Times of War (the Fourth Geneva 
     Convention) imposes certain obligations upon a belligerent 
     State, occupying another country by force of arms, in order 
     to protect the civilian population of the occupied territory 
     from some of the ravages of the conflict;
       Whereas, both Iraq and Kuwait are parties to the Fourth 
     Geneva Convention;
       Whereas, the public testimony of witnesses and victims has 
     indicated that Iraqi officials violated Article 27 of the 
     Fourth Geneva Convention by their inhumane treatment and acts 
     of violence against the Kuwaiti civilian population;
       Whereas, the public testimony of witnesses and victims has 
     indicated that Iraqi officials violated Articles 31 and 32 of 
     the Fourth Geneva Convention by subjecting Kuwaiti civilians 
     to physical coercion, suffering and extermination in order to 
     obtain information;
       Whereas, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, from 
     January 18, 1991 to February 25, 1991, Iraq did fire 39 
     missiles on Israel in 18 separate attacks with the intent of 
     making it a party to war and with the intent of killing or 
     injuring innocent civilians, killing two persons directly, 
     killing 12 people indirectly (through heart attacks, improper 
     use of gas masks, choking), and injuring more than 200 
     persons;
       Whereas, Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states 
     that persons committing ``grave breaches'' are to be 
     apprehended and subjected to trial;
       Whereas, on several occasions, the United Nations Security 
     Council has found Iraq's treatment of Kuwaiti civilians to be 
     in violation of international law;
       Whereas, in Resolution 665, adopted on August 25, 1990, the 
     United Nations Security Council deplored ``the loss of 
     innocent life stemming from the Iraq invasion of Kuwait'';
       Whereas, in Resolution 670, adopted by the United Nations 
     Security Council on September 25, 1990, it condemned further 
     ``the treatment by Iraqi forces on Kuwait nationals and 
     reaffirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied to 
     Kuwait'';
       Whereas, in Resolution 674, the United Nations Security 
     Council demanded that Iraq cease mistreating and oppressing 
     Kuwaiti nationals in violation of the Convention and reminded 
     Iraq that it would be liable for any damage or injury 
     suffered by Kuwaiti nationals due to Iraq's invasion and 
     illegal occupation;
       Whereas, Iraq is a party to the Prisoners of War Convention 
     and there is evidence and testimony that during the Persian 
     Gulf War, Iraq violated articles of the Convention by its 
     physical and psychological abuse of military and civilian 
     POW's including members of the international press;
       Whereas, Iraq has committed deliberate and calculated 
     crimes of environmental terrorism, inflicting grave risk to 
     the health and well-being of innocent civilians in the region 
     by its willful ignition of 732 Kuwaiti oil wells in January 
     and February, 1991;
       Whereas, President Clinton found ``compelling evidence'' 
     that the Iraqi Intelligence Service directed and pursued an 
     operation to assassinate former President George Bush in 
     April 1993 when he visited Kuwait;
       Whereas, Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials have 
     systematically attempted to destroy the Kurdish population in 
     Iraq through the use of chemical weapons against civilian 
     Kurds, campaigns in 1987-88 which resulted in the 
     disappearance of more than 182,000 persons and the 
     destruction of more than 4,000 villages, the placement of 
     more than 10 million landmines in Iraqi Kurdistan, and ethnic 
     cleansing in the city of Kirkuk;
       Whereas, the Republic of Iraq is a signatory to 
     international agreements including the Universal Declaration 
     on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and 
     Political Rights, the Convention on the Prevention and 
     Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the POW Convention, 
     and is obligated to comply with these international 
     agreements;
       Whereas, Section 8 of Resolution 687 of the United Nations 
     Security Council, adopted on April 3, 1991, requires Iraq to 
     ``unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or 
     rendering harmless, under international supervision of all 
     chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and 
     all related subsystems and components and all research, 
     development, support, and manufacturing facilities'';
       Whereas, Saddam Hussein and the Republic of Iraq have 
     persistently and flagrantly violated the terms of Resolution 
     687 with respect to elimination of weapons of mass 
     destruction and inspections by international supervisors;
       Whereas, there is good reason to believe that Iraq 
     continues to have stockpiles of chemical and biological 
     munitions, missiles capable of transporting such agents, and 
     the capacity to produce such weapons of mass destruction, 
     putting the international community at risk;
       Whereas, on February 22, 1993, the United Nations Security 
     Council adopted Resolution 808 establishing an international 
     tribunal to try individuals accused of violations of 
     international law in the former Yugoslavia;
       Whereas, on November 8, 1994, the United Nations Security 
     Council adopted Resolution 955 establishing an international 
     tribunal to try individuals accused of the commission of 
     violations of international law in Rwanda;
       Whereas, more than 70 individuals have faced indictments 
     handed down by the International Criminal Tribunal for the 
     Former Yugoslavia in the Hague for war crimes and crimes 
     against humanity in the former Yugoslavia, leading in the 
     first trial to the sentencing of a Serb jailer to 20 years 
     in prison;
       Whereas, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has 
     indicted 31 individuals, with three trials occurring at 
     present and 27 individuals in custody;
       Whereas, a failure to try and punish leaders and other 
     persons for crimes against international law establishes a 
     dangerous precedent and negatively impacts the value of 
     deterrence to future illegal acts;
       Whereas, on February 17, 1998, the President of the United 
     States outlined his policy on engaging in a military action 
     against Iraq and stated that his purpose is ``to seriously 
     diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass 
     destruction program'' and further stated that if a United 
     States military operation does not prevent Saddam Hussein 
     from rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction, future 
     military strikes will be necessary;
       Whereas, current plans are grossly inadequate because it is 
     insufficient to ``seriously diminish'' the threat posed by 
     Saddam Hussein to the international community through the use 
     of weapons of mass destruction;
       Whereas, there is a need for a long-term approach to 
     removing Saddam Hussein from his position as President of 
     Iraq; Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the President should--
       (1) call for the creation of a commission under the 
     auspices of the United Nations to establish an international 
     record of the criminal culpability of Saddam Hussein and 
     other Iraqi officials; and
       (2) call for the United Nations to form an international 
     criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, 
     and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who 
     are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and 
     other violations of international law; and
       (3) devise a long-term plan, in consultation with allies of 
     the United States, for the removal of Saddam Hussein from his 
     position as President of Iraq, so that he can be prosecuted 
     fully for war crimes and other violations of international 
     law.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now offer a resolution that seeks to 
deal with the international crisis caused by Saddam Hussein's amassing 
of weapons of mass destruction. There are reports as of this morning 
that Secretary General Kofi Annan has solved the problem after 
discussions with Saddam Hussein. A diplomatic solution is always 
preferable to a military solution, even though Saddam Hussein has 
carried the world to the brink of war. Before we will know whether or 
not Secretary General Kofi Annan has succeeded, we will have to read 
the fine print.
  In the event that the Secretary General's efforts to end the crisis 
are unsuccessful, I submit that it is a constitutional imperative that 
Congress consider, debate, deliberate, and vote on a resolution on how 
to deal with this threat before the President takes unilateral action 
with air and missile strikes.
  Air and missile strikes constitute acts of war. Under the U.S. 
Constitution, only the Congress has the authority to involve our Nation 
in war. In his constitutional capacity as Commander in Chief, the 
President may act in emergencies, but there is now time for 
deliberative action by the Congress.
  During the week of February 9, when this issue was the talk of the 
caucuses and the cloakrooms, Congress spoke loudly by not speaking at 
all because there was no agreement on what should be done. On February 
16, I wrote the President urging that no military action be taken until 
Congress returned from the recess today, February 23. With the prospect 
of unilateral Presidential action, if Secretary General Annan is 
unsuccessful, I believe it is our duty in both the Senate and the House 
to take a position on this obviously critical issue of war or peace 
before the President takes unilateral action with a military strike.
  My resolution is an alternative to the approach outlined by the 
President on February 17. Without deciding whether I would vote to 
support the President's plan, I am submitting this alternative because 
I think it is a preferable course of action and, perhaps even more 
importantly, to stimulate debate in the Congress which could produce an 
even better course of U.S. action. The issues that now confront our 
Nation are complex, controversial, and could produce unintended 
consequences. I do not contend that my

[[Page S849]]

resolution provides all the answers, or even necessarily the best 
answer, but it could lead to the least of the available undesirable 
alternatives, and that is what I think we face, Mr. President--a 
question of which is the least of the undesirable alternatives.
  At the outset, let there be no doubt that it is my view that Saddam 
Hussein's amassing weapons of mass destruction is intolerable and must 
be stopped. If the United States takes action, there must be national 
unity behind our fighting forces, but that doesn't mean giving the 
President a blank check in advance by delegating to the executive the 
Congress' constitutional duties.
  Again, without committing myself on how I will vote if the 
President's plan is submitted to Congress in a resolution, I do wish to 
express my deep reservations and concerns for the following reasons:
  First, the President's plan does not reach the core issue of removing 
Saddam Hussein as Iraq's leader or in eliminating his weapons of mass 
destruction. The maximum result, as articulated by the President in his 
own words, is ``to seriously diminish the threat posed by weapons of 
mass destruction.'' But there is the understanding or concession in 
that statement that there would only be a serious diminution, not an 
elimination, of weapons of mass destruction. The President then noted 
that if such weapons are rebuilt, there would be another strike. Such a 
series of strikes, which could be indefinite for all we know, are 
hardly the answer.
  Saddam Hussein's continuous flouting of his specific agreements and 
U.S. mandates since 1991 requires removing him from office as the only 
adequate answer.
  My second concern is that U.S. air and missile strikes, aided only by 
Great Britain, could materially hurt our position as the world leader, 
or at least as the leader of the free world. We are, after all, seeking 
to enforce the U.N. position on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass 
destruction and that Iraq must comply with those U.N. resolutions and 
yield to U.N. inspections.
  When we arrogate unto ourselves, with only Great Britain's 
concurrence, the decision to undertake air and missile strikes, on this 
state of the record, we are likely to be viewed by the world as 
arrogant, which is the root meaning of arrogating unto ourselves that 
ultimate decision.
  In my foreign travels, I have found enormous respect and admiration 
for the United States around the world. People everywhere admire and 
really envy our freedom, our democratic values, our standard of living, 
and our power. But, in a January trip to Europe, the Mideast and North 
Africa, I heard virtually unanimous objections to the proposed U.S. air 
and missile strikes on Iraq as an abuse of power and U.S. arrogance. 
The key part of that arrogance involves projected Iraqi civilian 
casualties and our insistence on acting as we see fit, contrasted with 
the views of the other nations, almost uniformly with the exception of 
Great Britain.
  Third, air and missile strikes may cause devastating unintended 
consequences. Our experience has demonstrated that we may expect 
retaliation from terrorists. The bombing of Libya in 1986 produced the 
bombing of Pan Am 103. Our so-called covert proposals against Iran most 
probably produced the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers in June of 
1996.
  On the issue of unintended consequences, who can be sure what will 
happen if we detonate Iraq's biological and chemical weapons of mass 
destruction and those substances enter the atmosphere? In March 1991, 
allied forces detonated Iraq's chemical weapons at Kamasia. Those 
substances became airborne and may have been a significant contributing 
cause to Gulf War syndrome, an issue now under intensive investigation 
by the Veterans Affairs Committee, which I chair.
  The resolution, which I am submitting today, strikes at the core of 
the problem: removing Saddam Hussein as Iraq's leader by prosecuting 
him as an international war criminal; and, if he is not taken into 
custody as a war criminal, by then implementing a long-term plan for 
his removal as Iraq's President.
  My basic proposal to try Saddam Hussein as an international war 
criminal was advanced on March 5, 1991, at the conclusion of the Gulf 
War. On that day I introduced a Senate resolution which articulated the 
applicable principles of international law, and then concluded with 
this clause.

       Resolve . . . , that it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     President should confer with Kuwait and other member nations 
     of the coalition of the United Nations to establish an 
     international criminal court or an international military 
     tribunal to try and punish all individuals involved in the 
     planning or execution of the above-referenced crimes 
     including Saddam Hussein.

  Had we pursued that course of action at that time we would very 
likely--almost certainly, in fact--be in a different position today.
  Since my resolution was offered, and this is an ongoing effort which 
I have made, along with Congressman Jim Leach in the House, and Senator 
Christopher Dodd here in the Senate, a War Crimes Tribunal has been 
established by U.N. Security Council Resolution 808 on February 22, 
1993, establishing an international tribunal to try individuals accused 
of international war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, and Resolution 
955 adopted on November 8, 1994, to establish a similar war crimes 
tribunal for Rwanda. By extending the jurisdiction to Iraq, the War 
Crimes Tribunal could prosecute Saddam Hussein.

  There is an abundance of evidence which would warrant the conviction 
of Saddam Hussein and the imposition of the death penalty. While the 
U.N. resolutions on the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda do not provide for 
the death penalty, the United Nations may well be persuaded that Saddam 
Hussein's conduct warrants the death penalty. I believe the evidence 
speaks loudly to that effect. Beyond his war of aggression against 
Kuwait and his missile attacks killing U.S. personnel in Saudi Arabia 
and Israelis in Tel Aviv, there is powerful evidence of Saddam 
Hussein's systematic action to destroy the population of civilian Kurds 
in Iraq through the use of chemical weapons in 1997-1998, with more 
than 182,000 missing persons and the destruction of more than 4,000 
villages, including the placement of more than 10 million land mines in 
Iraq's Kurdistan and ethnic cleansing in the city of Kurkuk.
  Those international crimes certainly warrant the death penalty by all 
existing standards. With an international judicial determination that 
the death penalty should be imposed on Saddam Hussein, we would then 
have the high moral ground to carry out that verdict.
  The removal of Saddam Hussein as Iraq's President does pose questions 
as to who would take over and what would happen to Iraq's ability to 
counterbalance Iran in that region. It is hard to imagine an 
international situation worse than the one currently posed by Saddam 
Hussein, and it is hard to imagine a new Iraqi leader worse than Saddam 
Hussein. It may well be that a covert action or covert actions might 
succeed in deposing Saddam Hussein. That was the subject of an op-ed 
piece in the New York Times yesterday by former CIA Director John 
Deutch. The Voice of America could be intensified giving encouragement 
to his many enemies in Iraq. An alternative government could be 
established with those dissident forces. And, a no-fly zone could be 
established over all of Iraq. A naval blockade could further tighten 
the noose and perhaps bring Saddam Hussein to his knees. These and 
other proposals could lead to his removal without targeting him.
  As a generalization, our national policy is sound, not to kill a 
foreign leader for political purposes. But it is important to note that 
that prohibition is mandated only by a Presidential Executive order. It 
does not have the force of law of congressional enactment.
  Let me now pursue a series of questions relating to that policy.
  First, should that policy be applied to Saddam Hussein after he 
attempted to assassinate former President George Bush?
  Second, should that policy be applied to Saddam Hussein, considering 
his atrocious record of war crimes, or at least after he is convicted 
and sentenced to death?
  Three, would targeting Saddam Hussein constitute a lesser use of 
force and a more justifiable use of force than the President's 
contemplated air and missile strikes?
  Fourth, is it time to reexamine that policy as it applies to the 
likes of Saddam Hussein?

[[Page S850]]

  Fifth, is it sensible to tie our own hands for self-defense by such a 
Presidential Executive order when Saddam Hussein amasses weapons of 
mass destruction which threaten the United States and the whole world 
with horrible consequences?
  Sixth, if we are justified in preemptive air and missile strikes, 
which will inevitably kill Iraqi civilians, why are we not justified in 
preemptive actions against Saddam Hussein who is a mass murderer and a 
certified international war criminal?
  Mr. President, it is a rapidly changing world scene. It is time to 
consider those questions.
  I have no doubt about two propositions. First, a trial of Saddam 
Hussein as an international war criminal would be preeminently just. 
Second, solving the international threat posed by Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction mandates removing Saddam Hussein as Iraq's leader. 
Perhaps Saddam Hussein could be replaced by the people of Iraq with 
additional U.N. sanctions, a stronger Voice of America, and nonlethal 
covert action. If not, then we may have to change our answers to those 
six questions, just as Saddam Hussein has changed the world with his 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the 
President, dated February 16, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                Committee on Veterans' Affairs

                                Washington, DC, February 16, 1998.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I strongly urge you not to take 
     military action against Iraq until Congress has an 
     opportunity to consider a resolution to authorize the use of 
     force.
       Bomber and missile strikes constitute acts of war. Only 
     Congress has the Constitutional prerogative to authorize war. 
     The Congress spoke loudly last week by not speaking at all. 
     It is not too long to wait until next week for Congress to 
     consider and vote on this issue.
       Our national experience in Vietnam is a relatively recent 
     reminder that public and Congressional support are 
     indispensable to successful military involvement. I am glad 
     to note you plan to address the nation tomorrow night. I held 
     five town meetings last Monday and Friday, and can tell you 
     that my constituents are very uneasy about air and missile 
     strikes. There are concerns about inflicting casualties on 
     innocent Iraqis, about potential terrorist reprisals, and the 
     possibilities of expanding the conflict.
       There is general agreement that Saddam Hussein is an 
     intolerable menace and cannot be alloweded to threaten the 
     world with weapons of mass destruction. But are there near-
     term alternatives such as a blockade to tighten the noose on 
     his oil exports? Or can our allies be persuaded to tighten 
     economic sanctions if they will not join us on the use of 
     force?
       I compliment Secretary Cohen and Secretary Albright, but 
     their visits have not produced the coalition which was formed 
     for the successful prosecution of the 1991 Gulf War. Have you 
     considered personal meetings with the leaders of France, 
     Russia, China, Germany, Egypt, etc?
       There has been unanimity in our Congressional discussions 
     to support the men and women of our military forces. But that 
     unanimity does not extend to giving the President a blank 
     check when the Constitution calls for independent 
     Congressional action to decide whether to involve the United 
     States in war.
       There is yet time to pursue alternatives. Diplomacy and 
     other sanctions short of war should be given every chance to 
     work.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________