[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 28015]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 28015]]

           TERRORIST BOMBINGS CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 19, 2001

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, while I support the ratification and 
implementation of the International Conventions for the Suppression of 
Terrorist Bombings and the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism in 
H.R. 3275, I cannot support the overall bill. I am concerned that bill 
includes controversial language that will jeopardize future enforcement 
of these Conventions.
  I believe that the provision in title I that authorizes the 
imposition of the death penalty for the offenses set forth in section 
102.2 is superfluous and unnecessary. Our experience with other 
nations, as it pertains to the U.S. death penalty, should guide our 
actions on the floor today. Courts in Canada and France have refused to 
extradite criminals to the United States, citing our continued 
insistence on the imposition of the death penalty. A South African 
Constitutional Court ruled that a suspect on trial in Manhattan in 
connection with the bombing of the American Embassy in Tanzania should 
not have been turned over to United States authorities without 
assurances that he would not face the death penalty.
  At a time when we are seeking the cooperation of nations to bring 
international criminals to justice, it makes no sense to authorize this 
death penalty provision, which may, in fact, impede the extradition of 
criminals to U.S. jurisdiction. The administration acknowledges that 
capital punishment is not required to implement the Conventions. Yet, 
even while admitting that the provision is unnecessary to implement the 
Convention, the administration justifies the inclusion of this new 
death penalty provision by claiming that it simply tracks current law.
  This justification is without merit. Under U.S. law, the death 
penalty is justified for its deterrent effect. Surely in this case 
there is no punitive or deterrent basis for the death penalty. In this 
instance, those that the Conventions target are willing to commit 
suicide for their criminal causes. In this instance, it cannot be 
argued in good faith that fear of the death penalty will prevent 
terrorists from carrying out acts of terrorism.

                          ____________________