[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18031-18034]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    AN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to share with my 
colleagues my expressions of gratitude to our President, President 
Bush, and his team as they have conducted the affairs of our state over 
these last number of days since the tragedy of September 11. As has 
been said over and over again, both in this Chamber and elsewhere, they 
have done, I think, a superlative job. They have done so with the 
complete, total cooperation of the distinguished majority leader, 
Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader in the House, Richard Gephardt, 
along with Speaker Hastert and, of course, the minority leader, Senator 
Lott, and others.
  The past days have been a wonderful expression of the kind of unity 
and support that the country expected, and, I think, deserved. We are 
on the right track, in my view. None of us knows, as the President said 
so eloquently just a few feet from here in the other Chamber almost a 
week ago, if we can say with any certainty what course this response of 
ours will take or how long it will take--but we know the outcome. And 
the outcome for certain is that democracy will trump terrorists. It may 
take us weeks or months--even years--but I stand with those who say 
that in the final analysis, maybe long after

[[Page 18032]]

those of us who are Members of this Chamber today are gone from our 
service here, we will prevail. And to those who share our values and 
commitment to the eradication of international terrorism, we stand with 
them.
  So it is with that as a backdrop, in a way, that I rise to speak this 
afternoon, because I was so disheartened to be in my office a little 
while ago to hear the proposal of an amendment or two that would be 
offered next week to the Department of Defense authorization bill.
  I listened just about 2 hours ago to my President speak to the 
employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, along with George Tenet, 
the Director. The President's words were once again eloquent, and 
certainly captured my feelings, my sense of gratitude to the men and 
women who work in our intelligence-gathering agencies for the 
tremendous job they do, under tremendous pressures, with tremendously 
high expectations.
  The President, once again, reminded his audience there, as he has the 
American audience, and the audience of this world, that the ultimate 
outcome of this effort we are now undertaking will absolutely, without 
any equivocation, depend upon international cooperation.
  The idea, somehow, that the United States, with all of our strength--
economically, militarily--will be able unilaterally to seek out, find, 
and destroy international terrorism is a myth.
  I know there are those who suggest we may be left with no one else 
but ourselves to deal with this. That may be the case. I doubt it, but 
it may be the case. But the idea that somehow we are going to be able 
to, on our own, go after terrorism, in what the President has described 
as at least 60 other nations that harbor these groups, is totally a 
myth. What is going to be absolutely essential, if we are going to 
succeed--and I have no doubt we will--in dealing with this problem, for 
however long it takes, will be cooperation by our allies, by friends, 
by even some who may not be our friends today but who share the common 
goal of eradicating the scourge of terrorism.
  That is going to require a herculean effort, on behalf of our people, 
by very bright, sophisticated leaders. I happen to think we have those 
leaders. I have great confidence in General Colin Powell, the Secretary 
of State. We have not always agreed over the years on various matters, 
but he is a patriot, a person who understands the kind of world in 
which we live.
  I think Don Rumsfeld demonstrated, beyond any question of a doubt, 
his courage and patriotism on September 11, as he stayed in the bunker 
of the Pentagon during the assault on that institution.
  I have no doubt that Condoleezza Rice too will serve our country 
well--I continue down the list. I think these are not just good people, 
they are bright people. They are competent people who can do a good job 
to go out and develop and build those relationships.
  Whether this problem is solved diplomatically, militarily, or by a 
combination of the two, it is going to require international 
cooperation.
  Mr. President, why do I focus on this? Because I hear that we are 
about to vote and consider an amendment to the Department of Defense 
authorization bill that would absolutely prohibit the United States 
from being involved in developing a court of international justice, an 
international criminal court.
  I cannot believe that at this hour this great body of the U.S. Senate 
is about to go on record, at the very moment we are asking the world to 
join us in apprehending the thugs and criminals who took 6,000 lives in 
New York and several hundred here in Washington, that this Chamber, 
this body, this Government, at this hour, would say we will have 
nothing to do with the establishment of an international criminal 
court. So I come to the Chamber to express my outrage that we might 
consider such a proposal. I do not object to the notion that, as 
presently crafted, the treaty of the Rome statute, which would 
establish the court, is flawed. In fact, if, for some reason, 
miraculously the proposal were brought to this Senate Chamber this 
afternoon, and I were asked to vote on it as is, I would vote against 
it because it is a flawed agreement. But that is not to say we should 
not stay at the table to try to work it out so that it becomes a viable 
product which we can support and gather behind.
  So when I hear, on the one hand, how we need to develop international 
cooperation to go after these people, and we turn around and walk away 
from an institution which could make a significant contribution to 
dealing with this problem, I find it stunning. My fervent hope would be 
if, for whatever reason, this matter, as it is presently structured, 
comes up for a vote, that we would vote against it.
  I do not know what vehicles may be available to me, but I am going to 
strenuously object to the idea we would consider such a proposal. God 
knows that the horrific acts we witnessed 2 weeks ago suggest that an 
international forum for bringing to justice those who commit terrorist 
acts or acts against humanity is now more needed than ever.
  Let me step back a little bit in history, if I can. It was the United 
States, at the end of World War II, under our leadership, that created 
the U.N. system. With all of its warts, with all of its shortcomings, 
with its mounds of bureaucracy that infuriate from time to time, I do 
not know of any sensible person who believes that the world would be a 
safer or better place in the absence of that building on the East River 
in New York, where the world can gather to resolve, or attempt to 
resolve, some of the most difficult disputes and problems we face. It 
has not solved all of them by any stretch--and I can't prove a 
negative; I don't know how many were avoided because of its existence--
but I happen to believe that most people--reasonable people--believe 
that the establishment of a U.N. system has been a worthwhile endeavor. 
It has made the last 50 years, with all of its various problems around 
the globe, a safer 50 years than it would have been had that 
institution not existed.
  What a great irony it is that the very people who understood the 
value of having a U.N. system--people such as General George Marshall, 
people such as Harry Truman, people who came after in terms of the 
wisdom of our foreign policy, the John Foster Dulles giants, who said 
we really do need to establish these forums to try to act as a buffer, 
as a place where some of these efforts can be resolved without using 
the historic means of resolution; and that is armed confrontation--how 
ironic, indeed, that this great Nation, which fought tooth and nail to 
establish the U.N. system, the genocide convention is now shirking its 
international duty.
  In fact, you will forgive me if I indulge in a little personal 
observation. As some of my colleagues here are aware, I was a 1-year-
old child in 1945 when my father left my mother and five of us to go to 
a place called Nuremberg where for the next year and a half he was an 
executive trial counsel at the first Nuremberg trials.
  I grew up as a child, after my father returned, hearing about what 
that tribunal had tried to accomplish, what it had been able to do, and 
how my father in many ways regretted there had not been in the 1930s 
such a forum in existence where we might have been able to bring a thug 
like Adolf Hitler to justice. He would often say the existence of a 
criminal tribunal that could take the Hitlers and Milosevics to task 
might just have avoided the problems that later emerged.
  It is stunning to me, as I have said already, that at this very 
moment where we have watched the most significant and historic attack 
on innocent civilians in our Nation's history, and where we are calling 
with one voice for international cooperation to help find not only 
those responsible but to develop a system that would minimize these 
events from occurring again, that we might take a step away from the 
establishment of a forum that would be a place where those who are 
responsible could be brought to a bar of justice.
  We saw the difficulty that occurred when we finally were able to 
determine who was responsible for the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 
103, and we

[[Page 18033]]

know how hard it was to find a forum where those people could be tried. 
It ultimately took a Scottish court and significant negotiations to 
bring those criminals to justice. Had we had an International Criminal 
Court as we do today in the Hague for other such matters, we might have 
had a forum where that matter could have been resolved without going 
through the difficulties we saw.
  One of the arguments that has been raised is that we don't want young 
men and women in uniform, who are going out today to the far corners of 
the world to deal with this issue, to be apprehended and tried before 
some kangaroo court. I do not want that either. But whether we are a 
part of drafting this agreement or not, it may get established--in 
fact, it is likely to--without our participation. And our young men and 
women in uniform are going to be subjected to that jurisdiction whether 
we like it or not.
  The fact that we are not a signatory to the court doesn't mean that 
somehow our servicemen and women are exempt from its jurisdiction. All 
it means is that when we retreat from helping craft this court our 
ability to structure it in a way that would minimize the threat of 
innocent men and women in uniform being brought before it is gone. The 
message we are sending right now is that we are going to walk away from 
this process and leave our young men and women subjected to the 
potential vagaries of such a court because we do not want to be 
involved in the discussions surrounding its creation.
  This amendment is called, ironically, the American Servicemen's 
Protection Act. It is anything but. The establishment of this amendment 
places our men and women in uniform in greater jeopardy than they would 
be if we were to participate in trying to develop the structures of 
this court to minimize problems.
  We are simply sticking a finger, at the very hour we ought to be 
doing otherwise, in the eyes of our friends. Clearly, war criminals and 
terrorists must be thrilled at the notion that an international bar of 
justice continues to be blocked by their arch enemy, the United States 
of America.
  I am prepared to take whatever steps I can in the next few days to 
see to it that this amendment is defeated. It was in this very Chamber 
on the night of September 10 that I stood and objected to the Craig 
amendment, which eliminated all funding for us to get involved in 
establishment of this court. I was urged not to ask my colleagues for a 
recorded vote. I didn't. I regret so now.
  Within less than 24 hours of that night, we saw an international act 
of terrorism take the lives of many of our fellow citizens. I am not 
suggesting the adoption or the defeat of that amendment would have 
changed the course of history, but how ironic that on the eve of the 
September 11th attack, this body went on record as saying we are not 
even going to finance a commission of the United States to go in and 
try and improve the Rome treaty, to try to make it more workable and 
more acceptable to the United States.
  That amendment was adopted as part of the State-Justice-Commerce 
appropriations bill. The question now is whether or not we are going to 
take the language under this so-called American Servicemen's Protection 
Act and incorporate it as part of the Department of Defense 
authorization bill.
  I am disheartened because I understand that the administration, 
despite the fact they had expressed some opposition to such an approach 
only a few days ago, has now decided to give their endorsement to this 
proposal in exchange for which apparently the Republican leadership in 
the House are going to release the U.N. arrearages. That is the 
tradeoff apparently.
  To their credit, the administration has negotiated some waiver 
authority in these proposals. But the overall message we are sending to 
the international community is a terrible one, in my view. On the one 
hand, the Secretary has called on everyone to stand with us, while on 
the other hand, we are once again suggesting that we can go it alone. 
It is contradictory, to say the very least.
  It is just like the approach we have taken on too many other issues. 
I won't go into all of them here. But if we are going to be asking the 
world to cooperate, we have to send a better message on some of these 
other issues. I favor increased security measures here at home as well 
as additional authorities for law enforcement. I will take a back seat 
to no one in our common determination to improve the quality of safety 
in this country. But as all of my colleagues, I believe it ought to be 
done thoughtfully so that we don't wake up one day and find that our 
Nation as we know it exists no longer.
  I don't want my country to become a gated community internationally. 
I don't want to have to go through all sorts of walls and metal 
detectors to get in to visit some friends. I want my country to still 
be a free and open place. I want us to be engaged in the world. You 
can't be a gated community in the international sense and also be a 
major player globally and economically. You certainly are not going to 
be successful in going after terrorists if you decide we are going to 
become a gated community and retreat from international agreements. 
Then the terrorists victory is vastly in excess of what it was on 
September 11.
  That day they destroyed buildings and took lives and we will never 
forget their actions. But if beyond that they are also able to do 
things to cause us to walk away from international agreements and 
create that gated community here at home, then their victory is far 
beyond the terrible success they had only a few short days ago.
  I hope my colleagues over the weekend will give some thought to this 
amendment. Don't be deceived by the title. It is anything but 
protecting our service men and women.
  Finally, it seems to me that it is time to be honest with ourselves 
about why international terrorism has become such a growing threat. We 
need only look into the oppressed faces of citizens of some of the 
governments we, frankly, have supported despite their less than 
acceptable treatment of their own citizenry over the years. The 
children, teenagers, of many of these countries grow up hating their 
leaders and, frankly, our own country for keeping them in power, 
supporting them as they stay in power. These young people become foot 
soldiers who are all too readily persuaded by the likes of the Osama 
bin Ladens of this world that violence is the answer to their 
grievances. And I would hope, as we analyze what we need to do at home 
to protect our security and how we can play a more constructive role 
internationally and build those coalitions that are essential for our 
long-term success in overcoming this threat, that we also take time to 
stand up to some of these regimes and be on the side of humanity 
everywhere.
  Our Founding Fathers did not only talk about those in the United 
States when they talked about inalienable rights; they wisely wrote 
about all people, not only those who lived within the borders of the 
then-Thirteen Colonies of what would constitute the United States. They 
spoke to the aspirations and hopes of other people as well.
  We are that legacy, if you will. We are the generations that will 
come after to perpetuate those very values. This is a vastly different 
world than those who founded this country faced. Today, we are talking 
about billions of people around the globe, and about a nation whose 
power is vastly in excess of what is was 220 years ago. If we are going 
to live up to the ideals incorporated in the Declaration of 
Independence and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, then we need 
to understand and hear those voices out there who cry out for some 
leadership, cry out for advocates. We ought to step back and look and 
see whether or not our short-term policy needs are satisfying the long-
term security needs of the Nation.
  We must also come to grips with the Muslim faith. That doesn't mean 
trying to keep secular governments in place in countries where the will 
of the people is otherwise. It means beginning to understand the 
underlying premises of that faith, and by conveying our respect. It 
means a commitment by our

[[Page 18034]]

Government to spend resources so that we understand them better.
  That is what President Kennedy was trying to do when he created the 
Peace Corps 40 years ago. The Peace Corps is a wonderful organization. 
I was proud to have been a member of the Peace Corps some 35 years ago. 
However, it has not been as active, in my view, as it could have been, 
particularly in Muslim countries where we might have been better served 
by having hundreds of thousands of young Americans working in those 
poor communities.
  It is not an easy task for the Peace Corps to go everywhere, but the 
focus should be on those areas where the need is the greatest like 
Afghanistan and Pakistan and Indonesia. Taking the time to recruit the 
people with the language skills and ability and knowledge of these 
cultures could do an awful lot to change some of the anti-American 
attitudes we see, in my view. We should be getting started now so that 
in the aftermath of the military actions we are going to take, 
particularly in some of the Muslim countries, we will be ready to show 
a different face of our country, one that isn't simply militarily 
strong, but one that also incorporates justice and humanity and respect 
for religious faiths, in accordance with the true principles deeply 
imbedded in our own value systems that call for the exercise of freedom 
in our own Nation.
  It is time to take a hard look at our path. Yes, we need to act in 
the coming days to address the immediate threats, as I mentioned 
already--the challenges confronting our Nation in the international 
community that stem from the tragedy at the World Trade Center and our 
Pentagon. But we have to take a longer and harder look at those actions 
at home and abroad that will make not only ourselves safer, but the 
world safer for our citizens and the citizens of this globe.
  History will judge how we act, not only in the short term, protecting 
our shores, which is our primary responsibility, but also the kind of 
framework we establish and the kind of reaching out that will be 
necessary. So when the history of our generation is written on how we 
responded to this great crisis at home, historians will write about a 
great nation that did not close its doors and create a gated community, 
but truly reached out to the international community and respected the 
rights of all human beings and made an effort to understand the 
grievances that built up in the ranks of these madmen terrorists that 
allowed them to carry out their savage attacks as they did on the World 
Trade Center and the Pentagon. That is a complicated task.
  The world is looking to us. We are the greatest power on the face of 
the Earth--economically, politically, and militarily. They are looking 
to see how we respond to this. If next week we adopt amendments here 
that walk away from international criminal courts, and we just go in 
militarily and don't understand what is behind some of these reactions 
we are seeing in these places, then I think history will judge us 
harshly. So our first responsibility is to protect our citizens--not 
just the generation we presently represent, but the generations we also 
represent who are yet unborn whose very fate may be determined by the 
actions we take in the coming days.
  I have no doubt that President George Walker Bush and his team are 
not only competent but are dedicated and have the ability to lead us. 
They have a Congress and a nation that wants to follow them.
  I only urge that they act wisely and not cut deals and make 
arrangements for short-term success that could do our Nation some very 
long-term harm.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________