[Senate Executive Report 107-2]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                               Exec. Rpt.
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                      107-2

======================================================================



 
                       ANTI-TERRORISM CONVENTIONS

                                _______
                                

               November 27, 2001.--Ordered to be printed.

                                _______
                                

           Mr. Biden from the Committee on Foreign Relations
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

              [To accompany Treaty Docs. 106-6 and 106-49]

    The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred 
the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist 
Bombings (Treaty Doc. 106-6) and the International Convention 
for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (Treaty Doc. 
106-49), having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
with reservations, understandings, and conditions as indicated 
in the resolutions of advice and consent, and recommends that 
the Senate give its advice and consent to the ratification 
thereof as set forth in this report and the accompanying 
resolutions of advice and consent to ratification.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose..........................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Summary of Key Provisions of the Conventions.....................2
 IV. Implementing Legislation.........................................4
  V. Entry Into Force and Denunciation................................5
 VI. Committee Action.................................................5
VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments............................5
VIII.Text of Resolutions of Advice and Consent to Ratification........7

 IX. Appendix--Hearing on International Convention for the Suppression 
     of Terrorist Bombings [Treaty Doc. 106-6]; and International 
     Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 
     [Treaty Doc. 106-49], October 23, 2001..........................11

                               I. Purpose

    These two anti-terrorism conventions address two specific 
aspects of terrorist conduct: terrorist bombings and the 
financing of terrorism. Their objective is to require the 
United States and other States Parties to criminalize such 
activities and to cooperate with each other in extraditing or 
prosecuting those suspected of such activities.

                             II. Background

    The Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 
was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 
15, 1997; signed on behalf of the United States on January 12, 
1998; and sent to the Senate for its advice and consent on 
September 8, 1999. It has been ratified by more than the 
requisite 22 states and entered into force on May 23, 2001. To 
date, 58 states have signed the Convention; 45 are parties to 
it. The Convention is the result of an initiative by the United 
States following such incidents as the 1996 bombing attack on 
U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia and bombing attacks by 
HAMAS in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
    The Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of 
Terrorism was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 
1999; signed by the United States on January 10, 2000; and 
transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent on October 
12, 2000. It has not yet been ratified by the requisite 22 
states and, as a consequence, it is not in force. To date, 119 
nations have signed the Convention; 14 nations have ratified 
it. The Convention is the result of a French-led initiative by 
the Group of Eight (G-8) that had substantial U.S. input and 
support.
    There is no one international treaty which addresses all 
aspects of terrorism. Rather, over the last three decades the 
international system has devised a series of multilateral 
treaties focused on specific aspects of terrorist activity. For 
example, there are international treaties addressing such acts 
as hostage taking, hijacking of aircraft, and violence against 
ships.1 The United States is a party to these and 
other treaties. The conventions pending before the Senate are 
intended to supplement the existing panoply of treaties 
concerning terrorism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, TIAS 
11081; Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of 
Aircraft, 22 UST 1641, TIAS 7192; Convention for the Suppression of 
Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, S. Treaty Doc. 
101-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These conventions generally apply a criminal law model to 
the designated offenses, that is, they require the Parties to 
the agreement to criminalize certain acts and to either submit 
the case for prosecution or extradite alleged offenders to a 
country that has jurisdiction to prosecute. The two conventions 
before the Senate take the same approach.

           III. Summary of Key Provisions of the Conventions

    A detailed article-by-article discussion of the two 
conventions may be found in the Letters of Submittal from the 
Secretary of State to the President, which are reprinted in 
full in the respective Senate Treaty Documents. A summary of 
the key provisions of the two conventions, many of which are 
similar or identical, is set forth below.

1. Definition of covered offenses

    Bombing Convention. Defines covered offenses as (1) the 
unlawful and intentional delivery, placement, discharge, or 
detonation of an explosive or other lethal device in a place of 
public use, a government facility, a public transportation 
system, or an infrastructure facility, with the intent to cause 
death or serious bodily injury or extensive destruction that 
likely will result in major economic loss; (2) an attempt to 
commit such an offense; and (3) organizing, directing, 
participating as an accomplice, or otherwise contributing to 
such an offense. (Article 2)
    Financing Convention. Defines covered offenses as (1) the 
provision or collection of funds ``by any means, directly or 
indirectly,'' with the knowledge that they will be used to 
carry out (a) a terrorist act within the scope of the treaties 
listed in the annex, including the Convention for the 
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, or pertinent treaties that 
are subsequently concluded, or (b) any other act intended to 
cause harm to a civilian, or any other person not taking an 
active part in an armed conflict with the intent of 
intimidating a population or compelling a government or 
international organization to do or to abstain from doing any 
act; (2) an attempt to commit such an offense; and (3) 
organizing, directing, participating as an accomplice, or 
otherwise contributing to the commission of such an offense. 
(Articles 2 and 23)

2. International nexus

    Bombing Convention. Excludes from the coverage of the 
Convention an offense described in Article 2 committed within a 
single state where both the victim and the offender are 
nationals of that state and the alleged offender is found in 
the territory of that state. (Article 3)
    Financing Convention. Excludes from the coverage of the 
Convention an offense committed within a single state where the 
alleged offender is a national of that state and is present in 
the territory of that state, and no other state has the basis 
for exercise of jurisdiction under the convention. (Article 3)

3. Criminalization

    Bombing Convention. Requires each State Party to establish 
the offenses set forth in Article 2 as criminal offenses under 
its domestic laws and to impose ``appropriate penalties which 
take into account the grave nature of those offences.'' 
(Article 4)
    Financing Convention. Requires each State Party to 
establish the offenses set forth in Article 2 as criminal 
offenses under its domestic laws, to impose ``appropriate 
penalties which take into account the grave nature of those 
offences,'' and to ensure that a legal entity organized under 
its laws may be held liable--criminally, civilly, or 
administratively--when a person responsible for its management 
or control has committed a covered offense. (Articles 4 and 5)

4. Jurisdiction

    Bombing Convention. Requires each State Party to establish 
its jurisdiction over these offenses when an offense is 
committed (1) in its territory, (2) on board a vessel flying 
its flag or an aircraft registered under its laws, or (3) by 
one of its nationals, and when an alleged offender is present 
in its territory and is not extradited.
    Also permits each State Party to establish its jurisdiction 
over these offenses if the offense is committed (1) against one 
of its nationals, (2) against one of its facilities abroad, (3) 
by a stateless person habitually resident in that State, (4) in 
an attempt to coerce that State to do or abstain from doing any 
act, or (5) on board an aircraft operated by its government. 
(Article 6)
    Financing Convention. Requires each State Party to 
establish its jurisdiction over these offenses when an offense 
is committed (1) in its territory, (2) on board a vessel flying 
its flag or an aircraft registered under its laws, or (3) by 
one of its nationals, and when an alleged offender is present 
in its territory and is not extradited. (Article 7)
    Also permits each State Party to establish its jurisdiction 
over these offenses when an offense is directed toward or leads 
to the commission of a terrorist act (1) in its territory, (2) 
against one of its nationals, (3) against one of its facilities 
abroad, (4) in an attempt to coerce that State to do or abstain 
from doing any act, or when the offense is committed, (5) by a 
stateless person habitually resident in that State, or (6) on 
board an aircraft operated by its government. (Article 7)

5. Investigation and mutual legal assistance

    Bombing Convention. Requires each State Party to 
investigate whenever it receives information that an alleged 
offender is present in its territory and to ``take the 
appropriate measures'' to ensure that person's presence ``for 
the purpose of prosecution or extradition.'' Also requires 
States Parties to assist one another in any investigation, 
including, if necessary, by transferring for purposes of giving 
testimony a person already serving a sentence. (Articles 7, 10, 
and 13)
    Financing Convention. Requires each State Party to 
investigate whenever it receives information that an alleged 
offender is present in its territory and to ``take the 
appropriate measures'' to ensure that person's presence ``for 
the purpose of prosecution or extradition.'' Also requires 
States Parties to assist one another in any investigation, 
including, if necessary, by transferring for purposes of giving 
testimony a person already serving a sentence, and provides 
that they may not refuse a request for mutual legal assistance 
on the ground of bank secrecy. (Articles 9, 12 and 16)

6. Prosecution or extradition

    Bombing Convention. Requires each State Party either to 
extradite an alleged offender to another State that has 
jurisdiction or to prosecute, and to inform other interested 
States of both the findings of its investigation and of its 
decision whether to submit the case for prosecution or 
extradite. (Articles 7 and 8)
    Financing Convention. Requires each State Party either to 
extradite an alleged offender to another State that has 
jurisdiction or to prosecute, and to inform other interested 
States of both the findings of its investigation and of its 
decision whether to submit the case for prosecution or 
extradite. (Article 9 and 10)

                      IV. Implementing Legislation

    In submitting the Conventions, the Executive Branch 
indicated that implementing legislation will be necessary in 
order for the United States to fulfill its obligations under 
the Conventions. The President submitted the proposed 
legislation to the Senate on October 25, 2001. The legislation 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

                  V. Entry Into Force and Denunciation

    The provisions on entry into force and denunciation in the 
two conventions are identical. Each enters into force thirty 
days following the date of the deposit of the twenty-second 
instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. 
For each State ratifying a convention which has already entered 
into force, the convention shall enter into force for that 
party on the thirtieth day after deposit of the instrument of 
ratification.
    As stated above, the Convention on the Suppression of 
Terrorist Bombings has entered into force; the Convention on 
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism has not. Thus, if 
the United States ratifies the former convention, it will take 
effect thirty days after it deposits the instrument of 
ratification. If the United States ratifies the latter 
convention in the near future, it will take effect thirty days 
after twenty-two nations have ratified or approved it.
    Any party may denounce the conventions by written 
notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 
The denunciations take effect one year following the date on 
which the notification is received by the Secretary-General.

                          VI. Committee Action

    The Committee held a public hearing on the conventions on 
October 23, 2001, taking testimony from representatives of the 
Departments of State and Justice (a transcript and the 
questions and answers for the record may be found in the 
appendix to this report). On November 14, 2001, the Committee 
considered the conventions and ordered them favorably reported 
by voice vote, with the recommendation that the Senate give its 
advice and consent to ratification of the conventions, subject 
to the reservations, understandings, and conditions in the 
resolutions of advice and consent to ratification.

               VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments

    The Committee recommends that the Senate advise and consent 
to the ratification of the International Convention for the 
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International 
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. 
The Committee believes that they will fill gaps in 
international law by requiring nations to criminalize the acts 
of terrorist bombing and financing of terrorism, and to 
cooperate with each other in the prosecution of those suspected 
of such crimes. In the wake of the barbaric terrorist attacks 
on the United States on September 11, the United States is 
engaged in a campaign against terrorism on many fronts. These 
conventions will provide important tools on the legal and 
financial fronts.
    The Committee believes the Convention on the Suppression of 
Financing of Terrorism is particularly important, because it 
will provide a means of attack on the financial bases of the 
international terrorist networks. The Convention is not yet in 
effect, and to date 14 of the required 22 nations have ratified 
it. The Committee urges the Executive Branch to engage in 
active diplomacy to persuade other signatories to ratify the 
Convention at the earliest possible date.
    In presenting the conventions to the Senate, the Clinton 
Administration proposed several reservations, understandings, 
and declarations. During the Committee hearing, the Executive 
Branch witnesses affirmed that the Bush Administration 
supported these proposals made by the prior Administration. 
With two exceptions, the Committee has included in the 
resolutions of advice and consent to ratification the proposals 
made by the Executive Branch, with minor modifications made 
only for style or sake of clarity. The two exceptions are as 
follows.
    First, the Committee has not included the proposed 
declaration regarding the Convention on the Suppression of 
Financing of Terrorism Article 2(2) (relating to the Convention 
on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings). Article 2(2) permits 
a State Party to declare, when depositing its instrument of 
ratification, that it is not a party to a treaty listed in the 
annex. The Executive Branch proposed such a declaration with 
regard to the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist 
Bombings, in that the United States is not yet a party to that 
Convention. Inasmuch as the Committee recommends approval of 
both the Convention on Suppression of Financing of Terrorism 
and the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings at 
this time, this proposed declaration is unnecessary.
    Second, the Committee has modified one of the proposed 
understandings regarding Article 19 of the Convention on the 
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. The Executive Branch 
proposed an understanding related to the second part of Article 
19(2) which restated the pertinent text of the article almost 
verbatim. The Committee believes it unnecessary, and unwise as 
a matter of practice, to restate in an understanding the text 
of the proposed treaty. Instead, the Committee has proposed, in 
understanding (3), a broader statement regarding the 
application of Article 19(2) and a related definition set forth 
in Article 1(4). The Committee believes this proposed 
understanding provides clarity about the understanding of the 
United States of the scope of the Convention with regard to the 
official activities of military forces, as well as civilians 
supervising such forces, and civilians acting in support of 
those forces who are in the formal command structure. As the 
text of Article 19 implies, and as the Secretary of State's 
letter of submittal indicates, the official activities of State 
military forces are already comprehensively governed by other 
bodies of international law, such as the laws of war and the 
international law of state responsibility.
    The Committee has added three conditions to the 
resolutions.
    The first condition sets forth important principles of 
treaty interpretation, which the Senate has reaffirmed on 
numerous occasions in the recent past. The condition has been 
altered slightly from the text used in the 106th Congress, but 
the intent is the same. The condition reaffirms condition (8) 
of the ``CFE Flank Document,'' which the Senate approved in 
1997. That condition relates to, and includes, the language of 
condition (1) of the INF Treaty, approved by the Senate in 
1988. The Committee explained the background to, and rationale 
for, the original condition in its report on the INF Treaty, 
see S. Exec. Rept. No. 15, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., at 87-108 
(1988), and gave further elaboration on the meaning of the 
condition in its report on the CFE Flank Document. See S. Exec. 
Rept. No. 1, 105th Cong., 1st Sess., at 22-24 (1997). In brief, 
the condition is designed to set forth elemental principles of 
treaty interpretation under our constitutional system. These 
principles apply whether the Senate chooses to say so during 
consideration of a treaty.
    The other two conditions have been approved by the Senate 
several times in recent years in consideration of law 
enforcement treaties. Condition (2) bars the extradition of any 
person by the United States under these conventions to the 
International Criminal Court unless the United States becomes a 
party to the Court pursuant to the treaty power of the 
Constitution. Condition (3) relates to the supremacy of the 
U.S. Constitution.

    VIII. Text of Resolutions of Advice and Consent to Ratification

  Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein),

SECTION 1. ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
                    CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST 
                    BOMBINGS, SUBJECT TO A RESERVATION, UNDERSTANDINGS, 
                    AND CONDITIONS.

  The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the 
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist 
Bombings, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 
December 15, 1997, and signed on behalf of the United States of 
America on January 12, 1998 (Treaty Document 106-6; in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Convention''), subject to the 
reservation in section 2, the understandings in section 3, and 
the conditions in section 4.

SEC. 2. RESERVATION.

  The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the reservation, which shall be included in the 
United States instrument of ratification of the Convention, 
that--
          (a) pursuant to Article 20(2) of the Convention, the 
        United States of America declares that it does not 
        consider itself bound by Article 20(1) of the 
        Convention; and
          (b) the United States of America reserves the right 
        specifically to agree in a particular case to follow 
        the procedure in Article 20(1) of the Convention or any 
        other procedure for arbitration.

SEC. 3. UNDERSTANDINGS.

  The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following understandings, which shall be 
included in the United States instrument of ratification of the 
Convention:
          (1) Exclusion from coverage of term ``armed 
        conflict''.--The United States of America understands 
        that the term ``armed conflict'' in Article 19(2) of 
        the Convention does not include internal disturbances 
        and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts 
        of violence, and other acts of a similar nature.
          (2) Meaning of term ``international humanitarian 
        law''.--The United States of America understands that 
        the term ``international humanitarian law'' in Article 
        19 of the Convention has the same substantive meaning 
        as the law of war.
          (3) Exclusion from coverage of activities by military 
        forces.--The United States understands that, under 
        Article 19 and Article 1(4), the Convention does not 
        apply to--
                  (A) the military forces of a state in the 
                exercise of their official duties;
                  (B) civilians who direct or organize the 
                official activities of military forces of a 
                state; or
                  (C) civilians acting in support of the 
                official activities of the military forces of a 
                state, if the civilians are under the formal 
                command, control, and responsibility of those 
                forces.

SEC. 4. CONDITIONS.

  The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following conditions:
          (1) Treaty interpretation.--The Senate reaffirms 
        condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty 
        on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) of 
        November 19, 1990 (adopted at Vienna on May 31, 1996), 
        approved by the Senate on May 14, 1997 (relating to 
        condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988).
          (2) Prohibition on extradition to the international 
        criminal court.--The United States shall not transfer 
        any person, or consent to the transfer of any person 
        extradited by the United States, to the International 
        Criminal Court established by the Statute adopted in 
        Rome, Italy, on July 17, 1998, unless the Rome Statute 
        has entered into force for the United States, by and 
        with the advice and consent of the Senate, as required 
        by Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States 
        Constitution.
          (3) Supremacy of the constitution.--Nothing in the 
        Convention requires or authorizes the enactment of 
        legislation or the taking of any other action by the 
        United States that is prohibited by the Constitution of 
        the United States as interpreted by the United States.

    Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein),

SECTION 1. ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
                    CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF 
                    TERRORISM, SUBJECT TO A RESERVATION, 
                    UNDERSTANDINGS, AND CONDITIONS.

  The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the 
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing 
of Terrorism, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 
December 9, 1999, and signed on behalf of the United States of 
America on January 10, 2000 (Treaty Document 106-49; in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Convention''), subject to the 
reservation in section 2, the understandings in section 3, and 
the conditions in section 4.

SEC. 2. RESERVATION.

  The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the reservation, which shall be included in the 
United States instrument of ratification of the Convention, 
that--
          (a) pursuant to Article 24(2) of the Convention, the 
        United States of America declares that it does not 
        consider itself bound by Article 24(1) of the 
        Convention; and
          (b) the United States of America reserves the right 
        specifically to agree in a particular case to follow 
        the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 24(1) of 
        the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration.

SEC. 3. UNDERSTANDINGS.

  The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following understandings, which shall be 
included in the United States instrument of ratification of the 
Convention:
          (1) Exclusion of legitimate activities against lawful 
        targets.--The United States of America understands that 
        nothing in the Convention precludes any State Party to 
        the Convention from conducting any legitimate activity 
        against any lawful target in accordance with the law of 
        armed conflict.
          (2) Meaning of the term ``armed conflict''.--The 
        United States of America understands that the term 
        ``armed conflict'' in Article 2(1)(b) of the Convention 
        does not include internal disturbances and tensions, 
        such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, 
        and other acts of a similar nature.

SEC. 4. CONDITIONS.

  The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following conditions:
          (1) Treaty interpretation.--The Senate reaffirms 
        condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty 
        on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) of 
        November 19, 1990 (adopted at Vienna on May 31, 1996), 
        approved by the Senate on May 14, 1997 (relating to 
        condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988).
          (2) Prohibition on extradition to the international 
        criminal court.--The United States shall not transfer 
        any person, or consent to the transfer of any person 
        extradited by the United States, to the International 
        Criminal Court established by the Statute adopted in 
        Rome, Italy, on July 17, 1998 unless the Rome Statute 
        has entered into force for the United States, by and 
        with the advice and consent of the Senate, as required 
        by Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States 
        Constitution.
          (3) Supremacy of the constitution.--Nothing in the 
        Convention requires or authorizes the enactment of 
        legislation or the taking of any other action by the 
        United States that is prohibited by the Constitution of 
        the United States as interpreted by the United States.
                              IX. Appendix

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST BOMBINGS 
  [TREATY DOC. 106-6]; AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION 
  OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM [TREATY DOC. 106-49]

                              ----------                              


                            C O N T E N T S

                                                                    Page

Chertoff, Hon. Michael, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal 
    Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC...............    24
    Prepared statement............................................    25
Kellman, Barry, professor and director, International Weapons 
    Control Center, DePaul University College of Law, Chicago, 
    Illinois, statement submitted for the record..................    43
Taft, Hon. William H., IV, Legal Adviser, Department of State, 
    Washington, DC................................................    18
    Prepared statement............................................    21
Taylor, Hon. Francis X., Coordinator for Counterterrorism, 
    Department of State, Washington, DC...........................    14
    Prepared statement............................................    16

Responses from the Department of State to additional questions for 
    the record....................................................    45

                    ____________________________________________________

                       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2001

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. in 
room S-116, the Capitol, Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Biden, Sarbanes, Kerry, Wellstone, Boxer, 
Helms, Lugar, Chafee, Allen, and Brownback.
    The Chairman. The hearing will come to order.
    I apologize to everyone for the warmth in here.
    Everyone is welcome to take off their jackets if they want. 
Obviously, I have. We appreciate the witnesses taking the time 
to come up today. I will have a brief opening statement and 
turn to Senator Helms and then we will get under way.
    Today the Foreign Relations Committee considers two 
multilateral treaties: the International Convention on the 
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International 
Convention on the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism. After 
the barbaric attacks on the United States on September 11, the 
United States and the international community have fully 
awakened to the threat that terrorism poses to the civilized 
world. The world is coming together like never before to 
support a broad campaign, led by the United States, against 
this threat. The President and Congress have joined to support 
a campaign that will be waged on many fronts--diplomatically, 
financially, militarily, and law enforcement.
    The two Conventions we consider today will provide 
important tools on the legal and financial fronts. The 
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist 
Bombings, conceived by the United States in the wake of the 
bombing attack on U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia in 
1996, requires parties to criminalize the act of terrorist 
bombing aimed at public or governmental facilities or public 
transportation or infrastructure facilities. The International 
Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism 
requires nations to criminalize the act of collecting or 
providing funds with the intention that they will be used to 
support acts of international terrorism.
    We must make every effort to deprive the terrorists 
networks of their financial bases. I caution that we should not 
overstate the importance of these treaties. They are unlikely 
to provide immediate assistance in the anti-terrorism effort. 
Indeed, one of them is not yet in force. Rather, they are 
weapons for the long term. They give the President and the 
Secretary of State additional tools to hold all nations to 
international standards, standards which we will expect them to 
embrace and to enforce.
    Although the treaties were submitted by President Clinton, 
they are fully endorsed by President Bush. The United States 
will, I hope, do its part in approving them and do it swiftly 
in the coming weeks.
    Let me now turn to Senator Helms for any comments he may 
have.
    Senator Helms. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In 1941--and I may be one of the few people in this room 
who remembers this--the accepted and effective policy of the 
United States was to identify and, if and when necessary, 
destroy forces resorting to violence against the American 
people. That is how and why the United States and our allies 
won World War II. That type of resolve will soon help us defeat 
this new enemy, global terrorism.
    On September 12, I mentioned that I will do everything in 
my power to encourage and supplement the revival of the policy 
that once protected innocent Americans, and that is why I asked 
the distinguished chairman to schedule this meeting. So members 
of the committee, the question for us today is simple: Will 
these United Nations treaties today help us find and, when 
necessary, defeat the new enemy? Overall, I think the answer is 
yes. A worldwide effort is needed to stop the conduct covered 
by these treaties, and if the United Nations can help put that 
worldwide effort together, then the United States obviously 
should not withhold our support.
    The Bush administration has expressed great interest in 
these two treaties, but the treaties are not without their 
flaws and I feel that I must acknowledge that. Neither of them 
removes barriers to extradition of terrorist murderers. Neither 
of these treaties addresses the obvious fact that many nations 
have not even specified that terrorism is a crime, let alone 
the financing of terrorism or terrorist bombing itself.
    So I am supporting these treaties, but I will ensure in the 
resolution of ratification that the treaties do not establish 
links to the so-called International Criminal Court established 
by the Rome Statute, and that they will not impede U.S. law 
enforcement or our national security efforts.
    Mr. Chairman, I will end on a note of caution with regard 
to U.N. efforts to negotiate further international terrorism 
treaties and agreements. Incredibly, there are significant 
disagreements within the United Nations as to what constitutes 
terrorism. This should cause all of us to pause and consider 
whether the more than 180 countries comprising the United 
Nations may be incapable of ever agreeing on a suitable 
definition.
    We should not waste time negotiating a lowest common 
denominator in terms of a definition of terrorism for the sake 
of universal agreement, because such an effort would instead 
undermine the President's campaign to eliminate the global 
terrorists organizations.
    I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    It is usually not the practice for opening statements for 
everyone, but I see my colleagues that are gathered here. Do 
any of you have any comment you would like to make at the 
outset of this?
    Senator Allen. We just want to learn.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Today we are pleased to hear from three distinguished 
public servants. Ambassador Francis Taylor is the State 
Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism. Prior to joining 
the State Department, Ambassador Taylor served in the United 
States Air Force for three decades, rising to the rank of 
brigadier general. General, it is a delight to have you here.
    Ambassador Will Taft, not unknown to this committee and 
always a welcome witness, is the State Department's Legal 
Adviser. Ambassador Taft has served in many important legal and 
policy positions in the Federal Government over the past three 
decades, including Ambassador to NATO and Deputy Secretary of 
Defense.
    Michael--I have got to put my glasses on here--Michael 
Chertoff--is that correct?
    Mr. Chertoff. Correct.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Is the Assistant Attorney 
General for the Criminal Division, Department of Justice. Mr. 
Chertoff previously served as a partner in Latham and Watkins 
in New Jersey and was United States Attorney for New Jersey in 
the early 1990's.
    We are pleased to have all of you here and, General Taylor, 
I invite you to begin.

     STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS X. TAYLOR, COORDINATOR FOR 
     COUNTERTERRORISM, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Foreign 
Relations Committee. I want to thank you for scheduling this 
hearing so quickly on the two pending counterterrorism 
treaties. I have a more detailed statement. With your 
permission, I would like to submit that for the record and I 
will summarize my comments here.
    The Chairman. Without objection, it will be entered in the 
record.
    Mr. Taylor. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 
and stress the importance of these treaties on two levels: one, 
their role in law enforcement efforts against terrorists; and 
two, their place in the multilateral counterterrorism strategy 
we are implementing in concert with our traditional NATO, EU, 
G-7, and other key foreign governments.
    I want to begin by expressing the condolences of the 
Department to the families of the thousands of Americans and 
citizens of over 80 countries who were killed, injured, or 
terrorized by these cruel acts of terror on the 11th of 
September. I want to express my admiration and appreciation for 
the courageous airline passengers and the thousands of law 
enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency service, and 
medical personnel, and many others who were involved as they 
responded magnificently to save lives and to avert an even 
greater tragedy.
    Mr. Chairman, the horrific events of September 11 have 
reinforced the need for a far-reaching, coordinated approach to 
deal with the threat of international terrorism. Military 
activities and the television footage may attract the most 
attention, but the military operations are but a part of our 
campaign against terrorism. The nature of terrorism has been 
evolving and so have the efforts of terrorists to conceal their 
activities. Therefore, we must use a variety of tools, such as 
diplomacy, foreign assistance, multilateral law enforcement, 
intelligence cooperation, as well as military action where 
appropriate.
    These tools, however, must be constantly refined and 
coordinated in order to expose terrorists networks, supporters, 
whenever and wherever possible, to detect and disrupt their 
activities.
    These two treaties before you are key elements in this 
broad framework of international counterterrorism structure for 
the 21st century. The treaties are part of a comprehensive 
framework of agreements that obligate nations to criminalize 
terrorist conduct. The terrorist bombing and similar attacks 
have been a particular scourge in recent years. The United 
States has unfortunately been a frequent victim.
    In addition to the tragic events of September 11, the 1993 
World Trade Center attack, the 1996 attack on the U.S. barracks 
at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 attack on our 
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 2000 attack on 
the USS Cole triggered both international condemnation and 
multinational cooperation in bringing the perpetrators to 
justice.
    The earlier attacks against the United States and other 
targets prompted the development of the Terrorist Bombings 
Convention. The Convention for the Suppression of Financing of 
Terrorism is a part of the effort to starve terrorist groups of 
their lifeblood, their financial support. The Convention 
criminalizes financial support for the terrorist activities of 
groups such as al-Qaida. It supplements our existing network of 
laws, executive orders, U.N. Security Council resolutions, and 
other international efforts to deprive terrorists of the assets 
they need to pursue their deadly work.
    Ratification of the two Conventions before the Senate is 
important to our overall counterterrorism strategy and the 
President's campaign against terrorism that has taken shape 
since the attacks on the United States on the 11th of 
September. We are urging countries to ratify and implement all 
12 of the International Terrorism Conventions if they have not 
done so already.
    Our latest count is that 58 countries have signed and 29 
countries have become parties to the Terrorist Bombings 
Convention and 58 countries have signed and 4 have become 
parties to the Terrorism Financing Convention. Our government 
will be better positioned to provide leadership in this regard 
once the United States itself ratifies the two Conventions 
before the committee today.
    We are also encouraging countries all over the world to re-
examine their own laws and strengthen and implement 
multilateral and bilateral law enforcement, financial, trade, 
and political sanctions against those that finance and 
otherwise support terrorists. For example, we and like-minded 
countries obtained passage on September 28 of U.N. Security 
Council Resolution 1373, which requires all U.N. member states 
to take steps against financing of terrorist acts and to freeze 
all terrorist-linked assets.
    Terrorist groups largely raise funds through contributions 
via charitable groups, through front companies, and through 
criminal activities. The funding also is essential for groups 
that operate schools, medical clinics, and other facilities in 
order to develop broader support and help attract terrorist 
recruits. Some groups, such as Hamas, assure potential suicide 
bombers that their families will later receive financial 
support.
    It is important that people throughout the world understand 
that contributions to organizations that have ties to terrorist 
groups, even if the organization conducts some charitable 
activities, also contribute to the cold-blooded murder 
committed by terrorists.
    Mr. Chairman, the international conventions and the broader 
counterterrorism effort of which they are part underscore the 
point that acts of terrorism--terrorist bombings, hijackings of 
aircraft, taking of hostages--are crimes regardless of the 
motivation. These acts are not acceptable in the civilized 
world. They should not be rationalized nor glamorized. They 
should be punished. Approval of these two Convention before you 
today will help ensure that the perpetrators of these heinous 
acts are brought to justice.
    There is no single solution to the problem of international 
terrorism. We are certain, however, that these legal 
instruments before the committee will strengthen our ability to 
fight international terrorism. They are powerful new tools that 
will complement those already in use domestically and 
internationally. Given the serious threat we face, early 
ratification is clearly needed.
    We very much appreciate the committee's decision to 
consider these important treaties and recommend that they 
receive advice and consent to ratification at the earliest 
date.
    If I may, sir, I would like to turn to Mr. Taft, the State 
Department Legal Adviser, who will provide additional comments 
about the Conventions.
    [The prepared statement of Ambassador Taylor follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Ambassador Francis X. Taylor

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for scheduling 
in such a timely manner this hearing on the two pending 
counterterrorism treaties, the International Convention for the 
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for 
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
    I appreciate the opportunity to testify, as I would like to stress 
the importance of these treaties on two levels: their role in the law 
enforcement efforts against terrorists and their place in the 
multilateral counterterrorism strategy we are now implementing in 
concert with our traditional NATO, EU and G-7 partners, and other key 
foreign governments. With me today is the Department's Legal Adviser, 
William H. Taft, IV. Following my statement, Mr. Taft will provide 
additional background on the Conventions.
    I want to begin by expressing condolences to the families of the 
thousands of Americans and citizens of 80 countries who, exactly six 
weeks ago, were killed, injured or terrorized by these cruel acts 
against humanity. I also want to express my admiration and appreciation 
for the courageous airline passengers and the thousands of law 
enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency service and medical 
personnel and many others who responded so magnificently to save lives 
and avert an even greater tragedy.
    Mr. Chairman, the horrific events of September 11 have reinforced 
the need for a far reaching, coordinated approach to deal with the 
threat of international terrorism. Although military activities attract 
the most attention, they are a small part of the campaign. Because of 
the evolving nature of terrorism and the efforts of terrorists to 
conceal their activities, we must use a variety of tools such as 
diplomacy, foreign assistance, multilateral law enforcement 
cooperation, as well as military actions as appropriate. We will 
continue to refine and use these tools in a coordinated manner to 
expose terrorists' networks and supporters, wherever and whenever 
possible to detect and disrupt their activities.
                            role of treaties
    The two treaties before you, and the other 10 major 
counterterrorism conventions, to which the United States is a party, 
are key elements in this broad framework of the international 
counterterrorism structure for the 21st century.
    These treaties are a major component of our international strategy 
to develop a comprehensive framework of agreements that obligate 
nations to criminalize terrorist conduct, to assist one another in the 
investigation and prosecution of these crimes, and to extradite alleged 
offenders to another country with jurisdiction or submit the case for 
prosecution.
    The Terrorist Bombings Convention, which is already in force for 
many other countries, is part of the web of 12 treaties already in 
place designed to track down and punish those who perpetrate these 
heinous violent acts that threaten civilized society.
    Terrorist bombings and similar attacks have been a particular 
scourge in recent years. The United States has unfortunately been a 
frequent victim. In addition to the tragic events of September 11, the 
1993 World Trade Center attack, the 1996 attacks on the U.S. Khobar 
Towers facility in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 attacks on our embassies in 
Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, 
triggered both international condemnation and multinational cooperation 
in bringing perpetrators to justice. The earlier attacks against U.S. 
and other targets prompted the development of the Terrorist Bombing 
Convention.
                   the terrorism financing convention
    The Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 
also was developed against a background of our experience with 
terrorism. It is part of the effort to starve terrorist groups of their 
lifeblood, financial support.
    The Convention criminalizes financial support for the terrorist 
activities of groups such as al-Qaida and requires parties to the 
Convention to cooperate in investigations and prosecutions of such 
financing. It will thereby supplement our existing network of laws, 
executive orders, UN Security Council resolutions and other 
international efforts to deprive terrorists of the assets they need to 
pursue their deadly work.
    Ratification of the two Conventions before the Senate is important 
to our overall counterterrorism strategy and the President's Campaign 
against Terrorism that has taken shape since the attacks on the United 
States on September 11.
    A key part of our diplomatic effort in the campaign is urging 
countries to ratify and implement all 12 of the major international 
terrorism conventions if they have not done so already. Our latest 
information from the United Nations is that 58 countries have signed 
and 29 have become parties to the Terrorist Bombings Convention and 58 
countries have signed and four have become parties to the Terrorism 
Financing Convention. The Bombings Convention has been in force among 
other countries since May 2001, and the Financing Convention will enter 
into force once 22 countries deposit their instruments of ratification.
    Our government will be better positioned to provide leadership in 
this regard once the United States itself ratifies these two 
Conventions before the Committee today. Every day since September 11, 
we see reporting of new interest and actions by other counties on the 
treaties.
    We also are encouraging countries all over the world to reexamine 
their own laws and strengthen them and implement bilateral law 
enforcement, financial, trade, and political sanctions against those 
that finance or otherwise support terrorists. Great Britain and Greece, 
for example, passed tighter counterterrorism laws even before the 
September 11 attacks. Other countries are considering doing the same. 
These efforts have been very encouraging.
                              other steps
    In the multilateral arena, early ratification of the pending 
treaties will also demonstrate the importance both branches of 
government attach to the collective international steps against 
terrorism.
    We are working hard, both with our major western and G-7 allies as 
well with the broader world community, to support coordinated and 
multilateral efforts. For example, with other countries, we obtained 
passage on September 28 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, which 
requires all UN Member States to prevent and suppress the financing of 
terrorist acts and to freeze all terrorist-linked assets. Even prior to 
the passage of UNSCR 1373 we have seen rapid, favorable responses to 
our bilateral calls to implement UNSCR 1333 of December 2000, which, 
among other things, requires Member States to freeze bin Laden/al-Qaida 
assets.
    We also propose to utilize the money laundering expertise of 
existing entities such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and 
the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units and the anti-organized 
crime capabilities of the Lyons Group. The G-7 Financial Ministers also 
agreed to counterterrorism cooperation at their meeting in Washington 
earlier this month.
    At the same time, the U.S. has been taking important unilateral 
terrorist financing initiatives. President Bush's Executive Order 
published on September 24 froze the assets here of 27 terrorist groups 
and their supporters associated with al-Qaida. On October 12, 39 more 
groups and individuals were added to the Executive Order's annex. The 
Administration, meanwhile, has established an interagency task force to 
work on these and related financial matters.
    Earlier key steps aimed at curbing terrorism fund raising include 
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, 
which you, Mr. Chairman, wearing your Judiciary Committee hat, helped 
steer through Congress. This important law makes it a criminal offense 
for persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to knowingly contribute funds 
or other material support to any groups that the Secretary of State 
designates as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). On October 5, the 
Secretary redesignated 26 FTO's whose two-year designations were due to 
expire on October 8. The State Department's Antiterrorism Assistance 
(ATA) program, developed a new course to help train foreign officials 
in the practical aspects of spotting and curbing terrorism money flows.
    These above steps were prompted by the emergence in recent years of 
groups that do not depend on state support, but largely raise funds 
themselves, through contributions via charitable groups, through front 
companies, and through criminal activities. These funds are important 
to the terrorist groups in many ways, and not only for directly 
financing terrorist attacks. The funding also is essential for groups 
that operate schools, medical clinics and other facilities in order to 
develop broader support and help attract recruits. Some groups such as 
HAMAS assure potential suicide bombers that their families will later 
receive financial support.
    It is important that people throughout the world understand that 
contributions to organizations that have ties to terrorist groups--even 
if the organizations conduct some charitable activities--also 
contribute to the cold-blooded murder committed by terrorists. I would 
like to quote from Section 301 of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. 
``(F)oreign terrorist organizations that engage in terrorist activity 
are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such 
an organization facilitates that conduct.''
                           early ratification
    Mr. Chairman, the international conventions and the broader 
counterterrorism efforts of which they are a part, underscore the point 
that acts of terrorism--terrorist bombings, hijacking of aircraft, 
taking of hostages--are crimes whatever the motivation. These acts are 
not acceptable to the civilized world. They should not be rationalized 
or glamorized. They should be punished. Approval of the two Conventions 
before you today will help ensure that perpetrators of these heinous 
acts are brought to justice.
    There is no single solution to the problem of international 
terrorism. We are certain, however, that these legal instruments before 
the Committee will strengthen our ability to fight international 
terrorism. They add powerful new tools that will complement those 
already in use domestically and internationally. Given the serious 
threat we face, early ratification is clearly needed.
    We very much appreciate the Committee's decision to consider these 
important treaties, and recommend that they receive advice and consent 
to ratification at an early date. If I may, I will now turn to Mr. 
Taft, the State Department's Legal Adviser, who will provide additional 
information about these two Conventions.

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Taft.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. TAFT IV, LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT 
                    OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Taft. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to 
appear before you, Senator Helms and the other members of the 
committee to testify in support with Ambassador Taylor of 
Senate advice and consent to ratification of the International 
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the 
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing 
of Terrorism. I have a prepared statement which, if you agree, 
I would like to submit for the record and I will summarize.
    The Chairman. Without objection, it will be placed in the 
record.
    Mr. Taft. As Ambassador Taylor described in his testimony, 
the United States is advancing a broad counterterrorism 
strategy that includes several significant multilateral 
initiatives. These Conventions on which my office and 
Ambassador Taylor's office have worked closely together are 
very important components of that counterterrorism strategy.
    These two instruments follow the general models of prior 
terrorism Conventions that the Senate has considered and 
approved in the past and to which the United States is already 
a party. The U.N. General Assembly adopted the International 
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, commonly 
called the Terrorist Bombings Convention, on the 15th of 
December, 1997. The United States signed it on January 12, 
1998, which was the first day that it was open for signature. 
The Convention entered into force in May 2001 when the required 
number of parties had ratified it.
    The United States initiated the negotiation of this 
Convention in July 1996 in the aftermath of the June 1996 
bombing attack on U.S. military personnel at the Khobar Towers 
in Dahran, Saudi Arabia, in which 17 U.S. Air Force personnel 
were killed. The Convention fills an important gap in 
international law by expanding the legal framework for 
international cooperation in the investigation, prosecution and 
extradition of persons who engage in such bombings and similar 
attacks.
    More specifically, the Convention will create a regime of 
universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of 
explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against 
various defined public places with the intent to kill or cause 
serious bodily injury or with the intent to cause extensive 
destruction of the public place.
    An explosive or lethal device is defined broadly in the 
Convention, so that in addition to criminalizing the unlawful 
use of bombs and similar explosive devices, the Convention 
addresses, for example, the intentional and unlawful release of 
chemical and biological devices.
    Like earlier Conventions, the new Convention requires 
parties to criminalize under their domestic laws the offenses 
set forth in the Convention if they have an international 
nexus, to extradite or submit for prosecution persons accused 
of committing or aiding in the commission of such offenses, 
again if they have an international nexus, and to provide one 
another assistance in connection with investigations or 
criminal or extradition proceedings relating to those offenses.
    We recommend that ratification of the Convention be subject 
to two proposed understandings and one proposed reservation, 
which would be deposited by the United States along with its 
instrument of ratification. The two understandings relate to 
the exemptions from coverage in article 19 of the Convention 
for armed forces during an armed conflict and for military 
forces of states at any time.
    The first understanding will provide the definitions that 
the United States will employ for the terms ``armed conflict'' 
and ``international humanitarian law,'' which are two phrases 
used in article 19 that are not defined in the Convention. So 
we think it is a proper caution to define them in our 
understanding.
    With this understanding, the United States would make 
clear: first, that, consistent with the law of armed conflict, 
isolated acts of violence, for example by insurgent groups, 
that include the elements of the offenses set forth in the 
Convention would be encompassed in the scope of the Convention 
despite the armed conflict exemption; and second, that for 
purposes of this Convention the phrase ``international 
humanitarian law'' has the same substantive meaning as the 
``law of war.''
    The second understanding will constitute a statement by the 
United States noting that the Convention does not apply to the 
activities of military forces of states. While such an 
exclusion might be thought to be implicit in the context of the 
Convention, The Convention's negotiators thought it best to 
articulate the exclusion in article 19 in light of the 
relatively broad nature of the conduct that is described in 
article 2, where it is describing the offenses, and the fact 
that this conduct overlaps with common and accepted activities 
of state military forces.
    We recommend that the United States include an 
understanding to this effect in its instrument of ratification.
    In the reservation, the United States will exercise its 
right not to be bound by the binding dispute settlement 
provisions of article 21, which is our customary reservation in 
our treatment of conventions and which is explicitly provided 
for in this Convention if we want to take that reservation.
    Now, turning to the International Convention for the 
Suppression of Financing of Terrorism, the U.N. General 
Assembly adopted this Convention, which is commonly known as 
the Terrorism Financing Convention, on December 9, 1999. The 
United States signed the Convention on the first day that it 
was open for signature, January 10, 2000. The Convention will 
enter in force once 22 states deposit their instruments of 
ratification. As Ambassador Taylor indicated, just four have 
deposited their instruments as of this time.
    France initiated the negotiation of this Convention in the 
fall of 1998, with strong support and input from the United 
States as part of the G-8 initiative to combat terrorist 
financing. The Convention fills another important gap in 
international law in the same way as the Terrorist Bombings 
Convention, by expanding the legal framework for international 
cooperation in the investigation, prosecution, and extradition 
of persons who engage in financing terrorism.
    The Convention provides for states parties to exercise 
criminal jurisdiction over the unlawful and willful provision 
or collection of funds with the intention that they be used or 
in the knowledge that they are to be used in order to carry out 
certain terrorist acts which are set forth in the Convention. 
It requires parties to criminalize, under their domestic laws, 
the offenses that are set forth in the Convention if they have 
an international nexus, to extradite or submit for prosecution 
persons accused of committing or aiding in the commission of 
those offenses, again if there is an international nexus, and 
to provide assistance to one another in connection with 
investigations or criminal or extradition proceedings regarding 
such offenses.
    The Terrorism Financing Convention is aimed specifically at 
cutting off the resources that fuel international terrorism. 
Once in force, it will obligate the states parties to it to 
criminalize conduct relating to the raising of money and other 
assets that support terrorist activities.
    As stated in article 2, a person commits an offense under 
this Convention if that person ``by any means, directly or 
indirectly, unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds 
with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge 
that they are to be used to carry out terrorist acts.''
    The first category of terrorist acts consists of any act 
that constitutes an offense within the scope of one of the nine 
counterterrorism conventions previously adopted and listed in 
the Convention. The second category includes any other acts 
intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian 
or to any other person, for example to an off-duty military 
officer or enlisted man, not taking an active part in 
hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the act has 
a terrorist purpose.
    An act has a terrorist purpose under the Convention when by 
its nature or context it is intended to intimidate the 
population or to compel a government or international 
organization to do something or to not do something. The 
offense includes attempts, accomplices, and anyone who 
organizes or directs or contributes to the commission of an 
offense.
    We recommend that ratification of the Terrorism Financing 
Convention be subject to a proposed understanding and a 
proposed reservation. If for any reason the United States has 
not become a party to the Terrorism Bombings Convention before 
or simultaneously with the ratification of the Terrorism 
Financing Convention, we also recommend a declaration.
    The understanding addresses two issues: First, it makes 
clear the understanding of the United States that nothing in 
the Convention precludes states parties from conducting 
legitimate activities against all lawful targets in accordance 
with the law of armed conflict. Second, it provides the 
definition the United States will employ for the term ``armed 
conflict'' as it is used in article 2.1(b), but that term is 
not defined in the Convention. This is similar to the point 
that we were reflecting in our understanding on the Terrorist 
Bombings Convention.
    In the reservation the United States shall exercise its 
right under article 24.2 not to be bound by the binding dispute 
settlement resolutions of article 24.1, just as in the other 
convention.
    The possible declaration would exercise the right of the 
United States not to have the Terrorism Financing Convention's 
scope encompass the financing of offenses under the Terrorist 
Bombings Convention until we become a party to that Convention, 
just to tie the two together.
    As noted in the transmittal of these Conventions to the 
Senate, implementing legislation will be required before the 
United States can become a party. This legislation is being 
prepared and will be transmitted to the Congress as soon as 
possible.
    Mr. Chairman, I reiterate Ambassador Taylor's 
recommendation that these important treaties receive the advice 
and consent of the Senate to ratification at an early date. I 
will be happy to take questions that any of the members of the 
committee or you may have, and Assistant Attorney General 
Chertoff I think has a statement as well.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Taft follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. William H. Taft IV

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear 
before you today, following Ambassador Taylor, as the second State 
Department witness in support of Senate advice and consent to 
ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of 
Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression 
of the Financing of Terrorism.
    Sadly, nothing can replace the lives that were lost as a result of 
the dreadful events that occurred on September 11. However, instruments 
that make our work with other countries more effective can assist in 
preventing such tragedies in the future.
    As Ambassador Taylor described in his testimony, the United States 
is advancing a broad counterterrorism strategy that includes several 
significant multilateral initiatives. These Conventions, on which my 
office and Ambassador Taylor's office have worked closely together, are 
very important components of that counterterrorism strategy.
    These two instruments follow the general models of prior terrorism 
conventions that the Senate has considered and approved in the past and 
to which the United States is already a party, such as the 1970 
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the 
1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety 
of Civil Aviation, the 1979 Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, 
and the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against 
the Safety of Maritime Navigation.
   international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings
    The UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention for 
the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, commonly called the ``Terrorist 
Bombings Convention,'' on December 15, 1997. The United States signed 
the Convention on January 12, 1998, the first day it was open for 
signature. The Convention entered into force in May 2001.
    The United States initiated the negotiation of the Terrorist 
Bombings Convention in July 1996 in the aftermath of the June 1996 
bombing attack on U.S. military personnel at the Khobar Towers in 
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in which seventeen U.S. Air Force personnel were 
killed. That attack followed other terrorist attacks in 1995-96 
including poison gas attacks in Tokyo's subways; bombing attacks by 
HAMAS in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and a bombing attack by the IRA in 
Manchester, England. The Convention fills an important gap in 
international law by expanding the legal framework for international 
cooperation in the investigation, prosecution and extradition of 
persons who engage in such bombings and similar attacks.
    More specifically, the Convention will create a regime for the 
exercise of criminal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use 
of explosives and other lethal devices in, into or against various 
defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily 
injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public 
place. An explosive or other lethal device is defined broadly in 
Article 1 as ``(a) an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is 
designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury 
or substantial material damage; or (b) a weapon or device that is 
designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury 
or substantial material damage through the release, dissemination or 
impact of toxic chemicals, biological agents or toxins or similar 
substances or radiation or radioactive material.'' Thus, in addition to 
criminalizing the unlawful use of bombs and similar explosive devices, 
the Convention addresses, for example, the intentional and unlawful 
release of chemical and biological devices.
    Like earlier similar conventions, the new Convention requires 
Parties to criminalize under their domestic laws the offenses set forth 
in the Convention, if they have an international nexus; to extradite or 
submit for prosecution persons accused of committing or aiding in the 
commission of such offenses, if they have an international nexus; and 
to provide one another assistance in connection with investigations or 
criminal or extradition proceedings in relation to such offenses.
    We recommend that ratification of the Convention be subject to two 
proposed understandings and one proposed reservation, which would be 
deposited by the United States along with its instrument of 
ratification of the Convention. The two understandings relate to the 
exemptions from coverage in Article 19 of the Convention for armed 
forces during an armed conflict and for military forces of states at 
any time. The first Understanding will provide the definitions the 
United States will employ for the terms ``armed conflict'' and 
``international humanitarian law,'' two phrases used in Article 19 that 
are not defined in the Convention. With this Understanding, the United 
States would make clear, first, that, consistent with the law of armed 
conflict, isolated acts of violence, for example by insurgent groups, 
that include the elements of the offenses set forth in the Convention 
would be encompassed in the scope of the Convention despite the 
Convention's ``armed conflict'' exemption and, second, that for 
purposes of this Convention the phrase ``international humanitarian 
law'' has the same substantive meaning as the law of war. The second 
Understanding will constitute a statement by the United States noting 
that the Convention does not apply to the activities of military forces 
of states. While such an exclusion might be thought to be implicit in 
the context of the Convention, the Convention's negotiators thought it 
best to articulate the exclusion in Article 19 in light of the 
relatively broad nature of the conduct described in Article 2 and the 
fact that this conduct overlaps with common and accepted activities of 
State military forces. We recommend that the United States include an 
Understanding to this effect in its instrument of ratification. In the 
Reservation, the United States will exercise its right not to be bound 
by the binding dispute settlement provisions of Article 20(1).
   international convention for the suppression of the financing of 
                               terrorism
    The UN General Assembly adopted a new counterterrorism convention 
entitled the International Convention for the Suppression of the 
Financing of Terrorism, commonly known as the ``Terrorism Financing 
Convention,'' on December 9, 1999. The United States signed the 
Convention on January 10, 2000, the first day it was open for 
signature. The Convention will enter into force once twenty-two states 
deposit their instruments of ratification.
    France initiated the negotiation of this convention in the Fall of 
1998, with strong support and input from the United States, as part of 
the Group of Eight Industrialized Nations initiative to combat 
terrorist financing. The Convention fills an important gap in 
international law by expanding the legal framework for international 
cooperation in the investigation, prosecution and extradition of 
persons who engage in financing terrorism.
    The Convention provides for States Parties to exercise criminal 
jurisdiction over the unlawful and willful provision or collection of 
funds with the intention that they be used or in the knowledge that 
they are to be used in order to carry out certain terrorist acts set 
forth in the Convention. This new Convention requires Parties to 
criminalize under their domestic laws the offenses set forth in the 
Convention, if they have an international nexus; to extradite or submit 
for prosecution persons accused of committing or aiding in the 
commission of such offenses, if they have an international nexus; and 
to provide one another assistance in connection with investigations or 
criminal or extradition proceedings in relation to such offenses.
    The Terrorism Financing Convention is aimed specifically at cutting 
off the resources that fuel international terrorism. Once in force, the 
Convention will obligate States to criminalize conduct related to the 
raising of money and other assets to support terrorist activities.
    As stated in Article 2, a person commits an offense ``if that 
person, by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, 
provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used 
or in the knowledge that they are to be used'' to carry out terrorist 
acts. The first category of terrorist acts consists of any act that 
constitutes an offense within the scope of one of the nine counter-
terrorism conventions previously adopted and listed in the Annex. The 
second category includes any other act intended to cause death or 
serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person (e.g., off-
duty military personnel) not taking an active part in hostilities in a 
situation of armed conflict, when the act has a terrorist purpose. An 
act has a terrorist purpose when, by its nature or context, it is 
intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or 
international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. The 
offense includes ``attempts,'' ``accomplices,'' and anyone who 
``organizes or directs,'' or ``contributes'' to the commission of an 
offense.
    We recommend that ratification of the Terrorism Financing 
Convention be subject to a proposed Understanding and a proposed 
Reservation. If for any reason the U.S. has not become a party to the 
Terrorist Bombings Convention before or simultaneously with the 
ratification of the Terrorism Financing Convention, we also recommend a 
Declaration. The Understanding addresses two issues. First, it makes 
clear the understanding of the United States that nothing in the 
Convention precludes States Parties from conducting legitimate 
activities against all lawful targets in accordance with the law of 
armed conflict. Second, it provides the definition the United States 
will employ for the term ``armed conflict'' which is used in Article 
2.1(b), but is not defined in the Convention. The Understanding 
achieves essentially the same objectives as the two proposed 
Understandings regarding the Terrorist Bombings Convention. In the 
Reservation, the United States will exercise its right under Article 
24.2 not to be bound by the binding dispute settlement provisions of 
Article 24.1. The possible Declaration would exercise the right of the 
United States under Article 2.2(a) not to have the Terrorism Financing 
Convention's scope encompass the financing of offenses under the 
Terrorist Bombings Convention until the United States becomes a Party 
to the Terrorist Bombings Convention.
    As noted in the transmittal of these Conventions to the Senate, 
implementing legislation will be required before the United States can 
become a party. That legislation is being prepared and will be 
transmitted to the Congress as soon as possible.
    Mr. Chairman, I reiterate Ambassador Taylor's recommendation that 
these important treaties receive advice and consent to ratification at 
an early date. I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee 
may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Chertoff.

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 
  CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ACCOMPANIED BY: MARY 
  ELLEN WARLOW, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Chertoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
committee. I am going to be brief and, with the permission of 
the chairman, I would request that my fuller remarks be made 
part of the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection, they will be.
    Mr. Chertoff. I am pleased to appear before the committee 
and to join my colleagues at the Department of State in urging 
that the Senate provide its advice and consent to these two 
important anti-terrorism treaties. As the events of September 
11th have illustrated gruesomely and dramatically, we are now 
confronted with a battle against international terrorism. 
Unfolding in our investigation is a complex web of terrorist 
cells here, in Europe, and elsewhere in the world, supported by 
flows of money around the globe.
    In sum, we see a terrorist network that is international in 
all respects: in its membership, its financing, its logistics 
its intelligence and training, and in its leadership.
    This episode also demonstrates the critical importance of 
international cooperation in law enforcement, and in this case 
I am happy to report that in general we are seeing 
unprecedented levels of cooperation from our law enforcement 
partners overseas.
    The Department of Justice strongly supports these treaties 
for a very practical reason: They will strengthen our capacity 
to secure cooperation in our investigations and prosecutions, 
whether in providing the foundation for the return of fugitives 
or in creating international obligations to furnish evidence.
    The Bombings Convention reaches the most horrific of 
terrorist acts, bombings and uses of weapons of mass 
destruction in public places and against infrastructure and 
transportation systems. The Financing Convention recognizes 
that providing money and materiel to terrorists is in itself a 
serious crime and one that all nations must address. Those who 
knowingly fund organizations which wreak murder and mayhem must 
be held accountable and we must have the tools to disrupt and 
block terrorist funding that so easily moves around the globe.
    The bombing and financing conventions will significantly 
strengthen the network of anti-terrorism treaties built over 
the last 30 years. The United States has used these instruments 
and used them successfully in concrete cases, sometimes as part 
of an arsenal of formal legal tools and sometimes as important 
diplomatic and political leverage, but always with the same 
aim--getting the evidence and bringing terrorists to justice.
    For these reasons, the Department of Justice joins the 
Department of State in strongly supporting prompt approval by 
the Senate of these two new anti-terrorism treaties. I would be 
happy to respond to any questions the committee may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Chertoff follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Chertoff

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here 
today to endorse the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate to the 
ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of 
Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression 
of the Financing of Terrorism. In the view of the Department of 
Justice, both instruments are critical to the efforts of the United 
States to prevent, deter and combat terrorist acts. As the 
investigation of the tragic events of September 11th has so graphically 
demonstrated, it is imperative to effectively penetrate and thwart the 
global reach and network of terrorist activity. These Conventions serve 
our vital law enforcement and national security interests by 
establishing important mechanisms to secure the cooperation of our 
international partners in the fight against terrorism.
    Both the Convention on Terrorist Bombings and Convention on 
Terrorism Financing have unique features representing important 
advances on the international front to address the complex and 
difficult issue of terrorism. As a general matter, these instruments 
serve to strengthen the international norm against terrorism and 
reinforce the international community's intolerance for, and 
condemnation of, terrorist acts and their financing. Each Convention 
explicitly recognizes that there is no justification, no rationale that 
will excuse the commission of terrorist acts or the financing or 
support of such acts.
    A primary objective of both Conventions is to close the 
jurisdictional net around offenders by effectively denying them safe 
haven. Both Conventions require that States Parties establish 
jurisdiction over persons found in their territory who have engaged in 
the prohibited activities, where those activities have an international 
nexus, and either to extradite the offender to a State that has 
jurisdiction or, if they do not do so, to submit the case for 
prosecution, regardless of whether the State Party otherwise has any 
connection to the offense or offender.
    Such ``extradite or prosecute'' provisions are historically 
reserved for acts universally condemned. These provisions represent the 
core obligation of States Parties to the Terrorist Bombings and 
Terrorism Financing Conventions. In establishing such regimes, the 
Conventions seek to bring to justice those who commit terrorist 
bombings or finance or provide support for terrorist acts, wherever 
they are found.
    From a law enforcement perspective, the nature and breadth of the 
offenses covered by these instruments are of particular note. 
Importantly, the offenses, as well as the jurisdictional and the 
extradite or prosecute obligations of these instruments, encompass not 
only those who commit the prohibited acts, but those who attempt or 
conspire to commit such acts, or participate as accomplices in those 
acts.
    In addition, the type of offenses addressed by these Conventions 
are core terrorism offenses. The Terrorism Financing Convention 
addresses a common element of every terrorist act--financing and other 
support. The Terrorist Bombings Convention addresses the most utilized 
form of terrorism, the bombing of public places, state or government 
facilities, public transportation systems or infrastructure facilities, 
with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury. The United 
States and its citizens have repeatedly been victims of such attacks, 
most recently, of course, in the horrific attacks of September 11th, 
where the hijacked planes were employed as explosive and incendiary 
devices against places utilized by members of the government and the 
public and with the intent to cause death. As such, events such as the 
September 11th attacks fall within the coverage of the Terrorist 
Bombings Convention, as would the 1998 bombings of our embassies in 
Tanzania and Kenya. Although the domestic regimes of most States, 
including the United States, have long-established penal provisions to 
address attacks by conventional means, the Terrorist Bombings 
Convention breaks important ground in forging an international 
framework for cooperation in preventing, detecting and bringing to 
justice those who plan or participate in such bombings.
    Moreover, the framework of cooperation established by the Terrorist 
Bombings Convention applies to a wide range of terrorist offenses. Any 
person commits an offense within the meaning of the Convention if that 
person delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other 
lethal device in, into or against government facilities or public 
places. The public places covered by the Convention are defined broadly 
and include public transportation systems and infrastructure 
facilities.
    The Terrorist Bombings Convention also fills important gaps in the 
existing international regime relating to non-conventional weapons. The 
Convention encompasses attacks committed with biological weapons, and 
hence supplements the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; the 
instrument also covers attacks in public places when chemical weapons 
are utilized, and thus supplements the regime established by the 1997 
Chemical Weapons Convention. Finally, the Terrorist Bombings Convention 
addresses radiological devices, as well as nuclear devices, and thereby 
effectively supplements the 1987 Convention on the Physical Protection 
of Nuclear Materials. In light of increasing information and 
intelligence relating to terrorist interest in the development of non-
conventional weapons of mass destruction, the coverage of the Terrorist 
Bombings Convention as it pertains to biological, chemical and 
radiological weapons is particularly important.
    The nature of the offenses covered by the Terrorism Financing 
Convention also bears special mention. The Department of Justice has 
committed significant efforts to combating the financing and support of 
terrorist acts. We have worked within the law enforcement community 
domestically, as well as within such international fora as the Group of 
Eight, the Financial Action Task Force, the Organization of American 
States and others, to establish investigative and financial mechanisms 
to aid in the detection and rooting out of financial crime, including 
improvements to bank regulations and record-retention that will 
facilitate international efforts to eliminate terrorist financing and 
support. We are gratified that, through the Terrorism Financing 
Convention, the international community at large recognizes the vital 
importance of choking the financial lifeline of terrorists. This 
instrument also embodies the important recognition that the financiers 
of terrorist acts, including those who provide assets of any kind, are 
as reprehensible as those who commit the terrorist acts themselves, and 
treats them as seriously.
    The Terrorist Financing Convention requires States Parties to 
implement penal legislation to address terrorist financing and other 
support. Such domestic laws do not currently exist in many countries. 
The definition of the offenses covered by Article 2 is formulated 
expansively to capture both the direct and indirect collection and 
provision of financing and other support. The offenses include 
financing that is provided in full or in part for terrorist acts. In 
addition, the Convention includes a broad definition relating to the 
meaning of financing and embraces ``assets of every kind, whether 
tangible or intangible'' and ``legal documents or instruments in any 
form.'' Considering the many ways to provide financial support to 
terrorists, and the misuse of charitable institutions in particular in 
such financing, these provisions have particular importance.
    The offense provision of the Terrorism Financing Convention applies 
to the financing of terrorist acts addressed through existing terrorism 
treaties, arguably covered previously by the accessory provisions in at 
least some of those instruments, but now explicitly addressed in this 
new instrument. In addition, the offense provision covers the financing 
of any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a 
civilian, or to a military member outside of active participation in 
hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the circumstances 
indicate that the act was undertaken for a terrorist purpose. In this 
way, the Terrorism Financing Convention broadly addresses the financing 
of acts of terrorism.
    There are provisions common to both Conventions that represent 
advances in establishing international cooperative measures in the 
terrorism area. For example, the Terrorist Bombings Convention is the 
first terrorism treaty expressly to preclude States Parties or 
individuals from resisting an extradition or mutual legal assistance 
request by claiming that the offense was connected with a political 
offence or inspired by political motives. Considering the political 
rationales that are often claimed as the motivation for terrorist acts, 
this provision represents an important recognition on the part of the 
international community that no justification exists for such heinous 
acts as the bombing of public places. This important provision is 
carried through in the Terrorism Financing Convention.
    Both instruments include additional provisions designed to enhance 
the extradition regime applicable to these offenses. These provisions 
effectively amend existing extradition treaties to add as extraditable 
offenses the terrorist bombing and financing offenses covered by the 
Conventions. They also require States to undertake to include those 
offenses as extraditable offenses in every extradition treaty 
subsequently concluded by them. In addition, if a State Party's 
domestic law allows, it may extradite for the covered offenses even 
where a bilateral treaty is not in place with the State seeking 
extradition. These are just a few of the provisions included in these 
Conventions that serve to establish an effective international 
framework of cooperation to counter terrorist acts and their financing.
    The Terrorism Financing Convention also includes several unique and 
important provisions designed to address the complexities inherent in 
investigations and prosecutions relating to terrorist financing. 
Article 5, for example, addresses corporate liability. It requires 
States Parties to take necessary measures to enable a legal entity 
located in its territory or organized under its laws to be held liable 
(through criminal, civil or administrative measures) when a person 
responsible for the management or control of that legal entity has, in 
that capacity, committed the offense of terrorism financing. This 
provision recognizes that corporate entities, particularly financial 
and charitable institutions, are often knowingly exploited to finance 
or aid in the financing of terrorist groups.
    Article 13 is intended to break down barriers encountered in the 
past when States have shielded individuals or information on the 
grounds that the offense was fiscal in nature. Article 13 precludes 
States Parties from invoking such a claim to resist a request for 
extradition or mutual legal assistance.
    Article 12, paragraph 2, is an equally vital provision aimed at 
enhancing the ability to obtain information from other States Parties 
necessary to the effective investigation and prosecution of terrorist 
financing. As we have seen most recently in the wake of the September 
11 attacks, the trail of terrorist financing, particularly in this 
technological age, quickly crosses State borders and often winds and 
twists, sometimes electronically, through several national systems. 
Historically, some States have hid behind the cloak of bank secrecy in 
refusing to yield information relating to terrorist financing. This 
provision precludes States Parties from invoking bank secrecy to refuse 
a request for mutual legal assistance. As such, it is an extremely 
useful provision in the investigation of terrorist financing offenses.
    Article 18 seeks to address a systemic problem inherent in 
detecting and tracing transactions involved in supporting terrorist 
acts or groups. These tasks are currently immeasurably more difficult, 
because many States do not have domestic financial regulations in place 
which alert law enforcement authorities to suspicious financial 
transactions and trends. Even if such States were otherwise willing to 
cooperate in the effort to stop such financial flows into and through 
their financial institutions, they do not always have the 
infrastructure in place to meaningfully provide such cooperation.
    Article 18 seeks to push States to adopt such measures and 
infrastructure. That Article encourages States Parties, among other 
things, to implement measures to identify customers of financial 
institutions, to prohibit the opening of accounts by unidentified or 
unidentifiable holders or beneficiaries, and to identify and report to 
competent authorities unusual or suspicious transactions or financial 
patterns. Other helpful measures in this Article relate to cooperation 
among States Parties in financial investigations in the rapid exchange 
of relevant information. Combined, the provisions precluding claims of 
fiscal offense and bank secrecy, and the affirmative obligations 
relating to cooperation generally and the expeditious sharing of 
financial information in particular, are all designed to bring down 
existing barriers to effectively detecting, preventing and 
investigating terrorist financing.
    The Terrorist Bombings Convention and Terrorism Financing 
Convention are critical instruments in our efforts to effectively 
detect, prevent and bring to justice those who commit and support 
terrorist acts. The Department of Justice strongly recommends that 
these Conventions receive the Senate's advice and consent to 
ratification.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would 
be happy to respond to any questions that you may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, General and colleagues. 
We appreciate your testimony. It is straight and to the point.
    The staff has asked me to inform my colleagues here that, 
for the information of the members, tomorrow there will be 
another hearing in this room at 10:30 a.m. We will hear several 
African ambassadorial nominees. That hearing will be presided 
over by Senator Feingold.
    Also, the committee will have a coffee meeting for British 
Foreign Minister Jack Straw tomorrow at 4:15 in this room. We 
are trying to work out and trying to work it with everyone's 
schedules, a meeting with Shimon Peres, who is in town. We were 
going to--to make a long story short, the President has 
contacted the ranking member, myself, and others I suspect, as 
well as Shimon Peres, to set up meetings with each of us and 
him separately, which has knocked off our whole schedule.
    So we are trying very hard to see if we can rearrange a 
coffee, a meeting with Peres here in this room. We are looking 
at 5:15, but that is not settled. We will just keep you all 
informed.
    Senator Brownback. Is that 5:15 tomorrow?
    The Chairman. No, 5:15 today.
    Senator Brownback. Is that on, Joe?
    The Chairman. That is not on yet. In other words, we are 
juggling schedules because the President has asked Peres to 
change his schedule slightly and has called some of the 
committee members down as well today, which messed the whole 
arrangement up. We are trying to reconfigure the schedule. I 
just wanted everybody to know.
    Senator Allen. So in effect it is off?
    The Chairman. No. It is off at the--we were going to have 
it at 2 o'clock. He, Shimon Peres, cannot do it at 2 o'clock. 
He was able to do it at 3:30, but the President asked me and 
the ranking member to come down to the White House at 3:30, so 
we could not do it at 3:30. Now we are shooting for 5:15 today. 
We are waiting to hear back from Mr. Peres to determine whether 
he is able to do it at 5:15. If he is able to, we will notify 
all the members.
    I just wanted to give you a little alert. I probably 
confused you more than I helped you, and I apologize.
    Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, could you repeat the times for 
tomorrow?
    The Chairman. The times for tomorrow are 10:30 for the 
African ambassadorial hearings and for the British Foreign 
Minister, 4:15 in this room.
    Senator Lugar. Tomorrow?
    The Chairman. Tomorrow. Both those are tomorrow. The only 
other thing that may occur today is Shimon Peres if we can work 
it out, and we are looking at 5:15 right now.
    Let me get a couple of housekeeping things out of the way 
if I may, General. When the Clinton administration submitted 
these Conventions, it recommended that the Senate approve a 
handful of reservations and understandings. I think Will has 
spoken to those. I want to make sure we are talking about one 
and the same reservations. What you testified to, Will, related 
to the reservations and understandings in the resolution of 
ratification. Are they one and the same with the ones that the 
Clinton administration had put forward?
    Mr. Taft. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they are the same 
understandings and the same reservation and declaration.
    The Chairman. I just do not want to------
    Mr. Taft. They were in the letter in the submission to the 
Senate.
    The Chairman. Yes, I was quite sure that was the case, but 
I just do not want to------
    Mr. Taft. Yes, they relate to the exact same subject.
    The Chairman. The exact same subject.
    Now, another quick housekeeping question. A few years ago, 
a State Department witness sat where you all are sitting and 
urged us to adopt a particular reservation which applied to the 
Defense Department in the treaty, and after the hearing we 
learned that the Defense Department no longer supported that 
reservation and the State Department had not bothered to check 
with the Defense Department.
    So again, I do not want to be assuming anything. Has your 
testimony and the position you have taken, the three of you, on 
the proposed reservations and understandings been coordinated 
with other affected government agencies, including the 
Department of Defense?
    Mr. Taft. Yes, Mr. Chairman, my testimony related to that 
has been cleared. It is the administration's position.
    The Chairman. Knowing you, I was sure. I apologize for 
being so protective, but I wanted to make sure.
    Mr. Taft. I think it is important.
    The Chairman. Now, Ambassador Taft, last month the U.N. 
Security Council approved Resolution 1373, a broad-ranging 
resolution, that, among other things, required nations to 
suppress financing of terrorism by criminalizing the provision 
of funds to terrorists and by freezing any funds of terrorists. 
The language of that resolution is similar to the language in 
the Financing Convention.
    The Council acted under its chapter VII powers, thereby 
making the resolution binding on states under international 
law. What is the legal relationship between the Financing 
Convention and the Security Council resolution that was passed? 
Does the Security Council resolution impose the same 
obligations as the Convention, if you know?
    Mr. Taft. Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is considerable overlap 
in the subject matter addressed by the U.N. Security Council 
resolution and the Financing Convention. The terms of the 
resolution are rather more general and not defined as precisely 
as we find them in the Convention, and the duties of the states 
specifically are not exactly lined up. But the subject matter 
is the financing of terrorist activities and of course, as you 
noted and very importantly, the U.N. Security Council 
resolution is binding, because taken under chapter 7, on member 
states and the Convention of course is only binding as between 
the parties to it.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    General, Mr. Ambassador--once a general, always a general.
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. General, there are two Conventions before us. 
One has the requisite number of states that have ratified and 
the other, on financing, has only four. Is there a reason to 
the best of your knowledge why the Financing Convention has 
gone more slowly, unrelated to us, in terms of the number of 
states that have ratified?
    Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is a 
specific reason that we know of, except that perhaps it has not 
had the emphasis that it has needed. It has been or will be a 
centerpiece of our bilateral and multilateral diplomatic 
strategy in encouraging our partners around the world to speed 
up the implementation. Indeed, since September 11 we have had 
significant movement on getting it signed and ratified.
    Mr. Taft. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think it also started 
later, about a year later.
    The Chairman. About a year later. Thank you.
    Mr. Chertoff, I understand that the administration is still 
developing legislation which is necessary to implement the 
treaties; is that correct?
    Mr. Chertoff. That is correct.
    The Chairman. And the United States already criminalizes 
some of this behavior, but I understand that additional 
legislation is needed. The legislation as I understand it would 
amend the Federal Criminal Code, that is Title 18, and it means 
it would probably not go through this committee, but would go 
through the Judiciary Committee, on which I sit.
    Can you give us, if you are able, a snapshot of what this 
legislation will entail, the nature of it?
    Mr. Chertoff. I think I can give you a snapshot, maybe not 
a full picture. But this is obviously still being considered 
and developed and I hope shortly that we will be able to submit 
something.
    I do not think it makes huge changes. What it is designed 
to do is fill gaps in the existing law that would enable us to 
prosecute instances in which, for example, people bomb public 
places where there is an international nexus even if we did not 
have what we currently use as our jurisdictional basis, which 
is for example the presence of American employees abroad or 
things of that sort.
    It might be the case, for example, that civilians killed 
overseas in a bombing can be reached through the legislation we 
would be proposing under this treaty, whereas we might not be 
able to reach those deaths directly under existing law. So I do 
not think it is a dramatic change, but it will fill some gaps 
we have currently that deal with our prosecution of these 
cases.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether you intend to go beyond 
what is required in the treaty and submit a larger portfolio of 
changes in the criminal code? Do you have any idea?
    Mr. Chertoff. I do not think this implementing legislation 
is designed to go beyond what we need to do for this.
    The Chairman. My unsolicited advice would be as honed as 
you can get it to work with this, so we do not generate a whole 
new--although I suspect like you, have been pushing since 1994 
for some other changes in Title 18. But my unsolicited advice 
would be to keep it as close to this as you can and move it as 
quick as you can, if you could.
    I yield to my colleague from North Carolina.
    Senator Helms. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I proceed, let me recommend to the chairman and the 
other members that we consider having this whole proceeding 
printed so that every Senator will have a copy of what was said 
here and what is proposed and the reservations and so forth. 
Otherwise, we are going to be answering technical questions 
that cannot be done easily on the Senate floor.
    The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a good idea. I 
would recommend that. If I had known that I would have been 
more careful of how I have spoken so far. But I think that is a 
very good idea.
    Senator Helms. The Senator can amend his remarks if he 
wants to.
    Mr. Chertoff, you referred in your statement to the misuse 
of charitable institutions to finance terrorism. Now, will the 
Financing Convention provide new authority to the United States 
law enforcement agencies to stop such activities in the United 
States?
    Mr. Chertoff. Senator, I believe it will, because it will 
require members of the Convention to make sure that their own 
laws address financing of terrorist acts as defined either with 
reference to other conventions or with reference to acts that 
result in the death or serious injury to individuals based on 
terrorist motives.
    We currently, obviously, have laws that we can use in this 
country. What we need to do, given the global way in which 
terrorist financing operates, is make sure that other countries 
have comparable laws and that we can mesh them with ours and 
that we can get extraditions. So I think it is going to be an 
indispensable tool.
    Senator Helms. Mr. Taft, we have had a Taft in the Senate 
since I have been here. Are you in that Taft family?
    Mr. Taft. That was my uncle.
    Senator Helms. Your uncle?
    Mr. Taft. Yes.
    Senator Helms. Well, it is good to have a Taft with us 
again.
    The Chairman. There are a lot of Tafts.
    Senator Helms. If the Rome Statute to create a so-called 
International Criminal Court enters into force, will that court 
assert jurisdiction over the offenses created by these two 
treaties?
    Mr. Taft Mr. Chairman, I think that the answer to that is 
no. The jurisdiction of that court does not include terrorist 
acts. It is limited to, as I understand it, to war crimes, to 
genocide, and to crimes against humanity. The terrorist acts 
are criminal offenses, but as I understand it not subject to 
the jurisdiction of that court in theory. Of course, that court 
is not with us at this moment and it does not apply to anything 
until it comes into existence.
    The Chairman. As long as this man is with us, I do not 
think that will be----
    Senator Helms. If you have any further thoughts about that, 
would you let me know, please, sir.
    Mr. Taft. I will do that, sir.
    Senator Helms. Will the United States--how to put it--end 
up competing with the court for jurisdiction over terrorists 
trying to avoid the death penalty or life imprisonment in the 
United States?
    Mr. Taft. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, there will be a 
competition with the court because, as I mentioned, the 
terrorist activities are not actually subject to the court's 
jurisdiction. They would be subject to our jurisdiction and in 
fact to universal jurisdiction under these treaties, and we 
will have our own penalties in place for these offenses under 
our criminal law passed pursuant to the treaties.
    Senator Helms. If you have any further thoughts on that, I 
wish you would let me know, because it is a matter of some 
importance to a lot of us, certainly to me.
    Are there negotiations under way now to outlaw forms of 
terrorism not covered by existing multilateral anti-terrorism 
conventions?
    Mr. Taft. Mr. Chairman, there are in fact negotiations 
under way in New York, at this time on a general terrorism 
convention. They are not concluded or expected to conclude 
immediately. I have noted the remarks that you made about the 
difficulties of defining terrorism, and these are vexing those 
negotiations. We are concerned about them, and we are 
participating in them, but I do not know when they will reach a 
conclusion.
    Senator Helms. That is another one if you have further 
thoughts I wish you would let me know before the debate begins 
on this.
    Mr. Taft. I think the session discussing those will 
conclude next week, or maybe it is even the end of this week, 
and perhaps I will be able to let you know how it goes.
    Senator Helms. OK. Well, one of the examples that comes to 
mind: Is sending lethal substances through the mail outlawed by 
an international agreement with appropriate penalties? I 
address that to each of you. Is sending lethal substances 
through the mail, is that outlawed by any international 
agreement with appropriate penalties that you know of?
    Mr. Taft. I am not aware of any, of an international 
agreement on that, but I believe that we have our own laws.
    Mr. Chertoff. I do think that the Terrorist Bombings 
Convention we are talking about as I understand it would cover 
devices that are used to disseminate bacteriological entities. 
Now, I do not know whether that requires an explosion of some 
kind as opposed to I think what is on everybody's mind now, 
which is opening a letter. I cannot speak to the other 
international agreements, but I am sure it is something that is 
now present in everybody's mind.
    Senator Helms. You nodded. Are you telling him he did good?
    Ms. Warlow. He did very good.
    Mr. Chertoff. That is always good to hear.
    Senator Helms. I know these are technical questions.
    Senator Allen. That is a very important question, though.
    Senator Helms. Excuse me?
    Senator Allen. That is a very important question.
    Senator Helms. These treaties do not remove barriers to 
extradition such as nationality, do they? Any one of you.
    Mr. Taft. There is a requirement to extradite in certain 
cases, but not if the country which is asked to extradite 
submits the matter for prosecution in its own courts. That is 
the basis on which an extradition would be declined.
    Mr. Chertoff. Let me add. My understanding is, although it 
piggybacks on existing extradition treaties, it does remove the 
political defense to extradition in these cases, which it will 
be self-evident that when you are dealing with terrorism if you 
have a political defense it eviscerates the ability to 
extradite.
    Of course, it continues to allow us to use what we might 
call informal means to acquire people for prosecution.
    The Chairman. What does that mean, if I may ask?
    Mr. Chertoff. Occasionally we get a deportation or other 
kinds of assistance in getting people.
    The Chairman. That is what I thought.
    Senator Helms. One final question. Given the awful thing 
that happened in New York on September 11, will foreign states 
continue to use nationality or sentencing issues as excuses to 
deny the United States their extradition requests?
    Mr. Taft. I believe that under the Convention those who 
become parties to these Conventions will be obliged to 
extradite people under the terms where they have violated them 
unless, as I say, they prosecute them, submit them for 
prosecution in their own courts.
    Senator Helms. Especially extradition requests related to 
the attack, is that right?
    Mr. Taft. That would be, yes.
    Senator Helms. I do not want to delay things. I have three 
or four more questions. Going ahead.
    The Chairman. One more scheduling issue the staff just gave 
me. On Thursday of this week, at 2 p.m. Secretary Powell will 
be testifying. If the Dirksen Building has re-opened by then, 
it will be in the large hearing room. But if not, we will have 
the hearing in this room. That is 2 o'clock on Thursday.
    I yield to Senator Sarbanes, but before I do I would like 
to just say that this Financing Convention that we are about to 
ratify is important and good work, but I want to compliment the 
Senator from Maryland for his work dealing with a related 
issue, that he put through the terrorism bill--the bill that is 
before the House now, that I understand he has worked out an 
agreement on, on dealing with the same issue in terms of the 
banking industry as well. So I just want to thank him for his 
work there.
    Senator Sarbanes. Well, I appreciate that very much. We had 
a great deal of help from the Assistant Attorney General in 
that regard.
    Have you recommended to the Congress language on the 
resolutions, reservations, and understandings?
    Mr. Taft. Yes, Senator. The language is actually included 
in the transmittal package that sent the treaties up.
    Senator Sarbanes. Are we ready to go on that? Does the 
language need any modification?
    Mr. Taft. Not modification from us, but we will be glad to 
work with the committee on any modifications it would make.
    Senator Sarbanes. That is a very diplomatic answer.
    How far along on the implementing language are you?
    Mr. Chertoff. I cannot give you a specific prediction. I 
hope it is close. I know that there are some tweaks that are 
being worked out in terms of language. But I would hope within 
a matter of a few weeks we can get this ready, a couple weeks.
    Senator Sarbanes. Is moving the Conventions related to the 
implementing language?
    Mr. Chertoff. My understanding is--and I am going to defer 
to the Legal Adviser on this, but my understanding is that we 
need the implementing legislation ultimately in order to make 
this effective.
    Mr. Taft. Yes. We would not ratify the treaty until after 
the implementing legislation has been passed. You may give 
advice and consent if you wish before then.
    The Chairman. It is not ratified until the President signs 
it.
    Senator Sarbanes. All right. I understand that the 
Convention on the Financing of Terrorism was sent to us about a 
year ago; is that right?
    Mr. Taft. October 2000.
    Senator Sarbanes. It has not yet been ratified by the 
requisite number of states, correct?
    Mr. Taft. That is right, Senator Sarbanes. I think four 
states have ratified and 22 are required.
    Senator Sarbanes. Who has ratified it?
    Mr. Taft. I do know that. Sri Lanka, the U.K., Uzbekistan, 
and Botswana.
    Senator Sarbanes. Not the French. It was a French-led 
initiative, as I understand it.
    Mr. Taft. France has not yet ratified. They signed on the 
10th of January, the first day that it was open for signature, 
as did we.
    Senator Sarbanes. Is there a push to get these 
ratifications?
    Mr. Taft. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Taylor. Across the world, it is one of our major 
foreign policy bilateral issues with all of our countries 
around the world to get this moving very quickly. We have seen 
very positive results coming back from that effort.
    Senator Sarbanes. Obviously our ratification would give a 
boost to that effort.
    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
    Senator Sarbanes. It would certainly support our efforts to 
get others to ratify this convention.
    I do not have anything else.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Senator Lugar.
    Senator Lugar. General, what has been the effect of all of 
the treaties with regard to terrorism thus far? Have we been 
able to determine if these treaties have made any difference or 
is the thought that essentially we are trying to piece together 
a network of treaties that might be helpful in the future?
    Mr. Taylor. I think they have been useful to us and I think 
these two will add to that web of treaties that we will need in 
our campaign to ask countries to join us in fighting terrorism. 
So I think they are very, very important ingredients in that, 
in addition to the other things that we are doing in terms of 
law enforcement, intelligence cooperation, and those things 
that are ongoing. So I would tell you, Senator Lugar, that we 
believe they are very essential to our campaign, will serve us 
well in the future, and as these get implemented will add more 
tools to our tool kit that we will need to take on these 
individuals.
    Senator Lugar. But they are prospective treaties. In other 
words, people have not yet been prosecuted, convicted, or 
incarcerated under these treaties?
    Mr. Taylor. Sir, I am not--if I could take that question, I 
will get back to you on whether any one has ever been used in 
the past.
    [The informations can be found in additional questions for 
the record on page 51.]
    Senator Lugar. My impression is that the answer is probably 
negative, although I would be delighted to find out it is 
affirmative.
    The second part of this is, following on Senator Helms' 
logic, you were talking in terms, Mr. Taft, about a general 
treaty, which is a good idea because even with the list that 
the staff has given us of I think eight or nine treaties to 
date plus these two, people keep thinking of other forms of 
terrorism. In fact, we are not inventive enough to think of 
ahead of time all the treaties that might cover whatever else 
somebody might do. So that the need for the general treaty 
would seem to be of the essence.
    What is the resistance to this, or is it simply the 
definitional problem that has been discussed?
    Mr. Taylor. I think the definitional problem is one issue 
and the scope of the Convention. When you have that number of 
countries negotiating, they have their interests. But certainly 
it is our hope to get a more comprehensive convention that 
would allow us to include what we know and anticipate our 
adversaries will do using terrorism.
    Mr. Taft. I would say that this is desirable if we can do 
it. The pattern of developing a convention to deal with the 
last terrorist event is a very sad one and that is why we have 
nine or ten of these. I think each one of them, one of the ones 
today, is a reaction, not an anticipation. So the hope is that 
we would do better, have a broader framework.
    But there is a very significant controversy about the 
definition of terrorism and how it interacts with national 
liberation movements, so-called, and with the activities of 
armed forces. We have some points that we absolutely have to 
have straight on that and we are not going to go with a 
convention that does not address them.
    Senator Lugar. Let me ask your view on the current 
situation, that is Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants in al-
Qaida. It has become popular to ask: In the event that Osama 
bin Laden should be caught today, should he be tried in the 
United States or where should he be tried if not the United 
States? Who has jurisdiction under all of these treaties?
    My response has been the United States is at war and we are 
defending ourselves and that that takes precedence since bin 
Laden has been indicted in the 1993 World Trade attack. But 
then you read very thoughtful comments by attorneys who say 
what if you got your wish, what problems would surface in 
presenting evidence in our courts that might reveal sources and 
methods of intelligence while we are still prosecuting a war 
against terrorists.
    I am trying to get to the practical effects of these 
treaties. Even after you construct a web of treaties that show 
our general intent, our cooperation with the world, we are at 
war, at war with terrorists, and in the event we capture them 
and bring them here for trial, what are the problems of 
prosecution presented by these treaties, or what conflicts may 
arise with our laws.
    Mr. Taylor. I am going to defer to the prosecutor.
    Mr. Chertoff. That is obviously, Senator, a very 
complicated and important question. I think what I can say--and 
clearly people are thinking about this from a practical as well 
as a legal standpoint. I think what I can say is that I do not 
know that these remedies are mutually exclusive. There are a 
wide range of options that we have.
    Certainly when we deal with the issue of a terrorist who is 
apprehended in a third party country, let us say France, we 
have to have some legal mechanism to deal with that. Now, it 
might turn out that that person ultimately would be tried in 
France for crimes in France or tried in another country. I 
think what we are hoping to do is have the broadest range of 
tools that we can use in the tool kit. But deciding which tool 
to use is a complicated issue with a lot of practical 
ramifications.
    Senator Lugar. On that one, does it make a difference if 
you capture him in Afghanistan as opposed to France, to which 
he might have fled?
    Mr. Chertoff. I think it makes a difference whether--I 
think the way I put the question is it makes a difference 
whether we capture him or some third party captures him. I 
think that raises a different set of concerns.
    Senator Lugar. If we capture him in France he is ours, the 
French notwithstanding?
    Mr. Chertoff. I cannot envision the situation where we 
would be capturing people in France. But I think, for example, 
if we captured someone in the field, that is a different legal 
issue.
    Senator Lugar. But I raise that because at some point Osama 
bin Laden may flee after his cover in Afghanistan is gone and 
land in another country. Now, what is relevant, the laws of 
that particular place? If he winds up in Somalia as opposed to 
France, does that make a difference?
    Mr. Chertoff. Well, this is a huge question because there 
are a lot of variables. It clearly makes a difference to where 
somebody flees. It makes a difference whether it is a country 
that we have friendly relations with, that is party to all 
these agreements. It makes a difference whether we have the 
ability to get access, physical access to the person, either 
through formal means or informal means.
    I do not know that--one thing lawyers always learn is not 
to speculate far in advance of the event. But I do agree that--
and we are clearly looking at these issues and developing a 
menu of options.
    The Chairman. My guess is France would send him with love, 
but Somalia might not.
    Senator Lugar. Just one more question. Why have not the 
treaties come up before now? Is it simply because of the war 
effort and you took a look around the cupboard and said, we 
have not done very much on these items? Do you have any thought 
about that?
    Mr. Taylor. Well, Senator, I think that they have--at least 
the Bombings Convention has been up for some time, the 
Financing Convention not as long. But I think we need to get 
the implementing legislation ready.
    Senator Lugar. It is partly our fault. One of them has been 
here and the administration now asks the committee to act.
    Mr. Taylor. I think it is the right time to do it now.
    Senator Lugar. Thank you.
    The Chairman. If I can help clarify that. We had contact, I 
had contact with the cooperation of the chairman, with the 
State Department asking them what were their priorities on 
treaties that they would want us to move on and suggesting this 
may be one of them because, although it was here before, we did 
not have the opportunity to move on it. Now we have. It was a 
mutual initiative. We asked and they said this is the top of 
the list, and that is how it came about.
    Senator Lugar. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Kerry.
    Senator Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning. Thanks for being here. These two Conventions 
are here to supplement the ten or so conventions that are 
already in effect with respect to aircraft, civil aviation, 
hostages, and so forth. I wonder, can you tell the committee 
sort of how effective and successful the implementation of 
those ten conventions has been?
    Mr. Taylor. Sir, as I mentioned earlier to an earlier 
question, I will take that to go back and find out who has 
actually been prosecuted under one of the conventions that we 
have had. But what it does provide for us is truly a spider web 
of capability to use in the international arena, to ask 
countries to assist us in our investigations and, more 
importantly, as we get to the 1998-1999 campaign, more 
effectively assist us.
    Senator Kerry. It depends, however, entirely on the laws 
that are specifically passed by each country or state.
    Mr. Taylor. Indeed, yes, sir.
    Senator Kerry. And those laws are not required necessarily 
to conform precisely to our laws with respect to intent or 
other criminal components. They simply have to pass a law, 
correct?
    Mr. Taft. On the question of the precise laws that people 
enact pursuant to the Conventions, there are provisions that 
must be included in each Convention.
    Senator Kerry. Right, excuses, jurisdiction, optional, et 
cetera.
    Mr. Taft. And the definition of the offense, and so forth.
    Senator Kerry. But is there a requirement about the precise 
language to adopt or the procedures within each of those?
    Mr. Taft. No. There are details and variations that would 
be left, as long as they conform to the language in the treaty 
to each state.
    Senator Kerry. If it conforms in that regard, is that 
sufficient to eliminate haggling and sort of the kind of, well, 
we interpret it this way, you interpret it that way, issues 
that arise so frequently? Will there be a conformity that is 
adequate?
    Mr. Taft. I should think so. We will never be able to 
anticipate all the friction and misunderstandings, but would 
certainly be a lot better off than we are now.
    Senator Kerry. Well, the financing component of this has 
not yet been ratified by the requisite 22 states. How many 
states have ratified?
    Mr. Taft. Just four.
    Senator Kerry. And only those four--but 58 have signed it.
    Mr. Taft. Right.
    Senator Kerry. Do we know where we stand--which four have 
signed it, have ratified it?
    Mr. Taft. Let us see. Sri Lanka, Botswana, Uzbekistan, and 
the U.K.
    Senator Kerry. So we are a long way from any kind of--this 
is the same sort of resistance we have met in Senator Sarbanes' 
efforts to try to get us down the money-laundering road here 
recently.
    Mr. Taylor. Actually, sir--go ahead.
    Mr. Taft. I do not think that this is really unusual in the 
time that has been taken. There is a necessity before 
ratification can be deposited to enact implementing 
legislation, as we ourselves have. The Convention was open for 
signature on the 10th of January 2000 and I think that it is 
perhaps not a credit to the international community, but taking 
2 years to get up to the number would not be unusual at all. 
These are matters that the countries take seriously and of 
course they should.
    Senator Kerry. Have any of the countries that have been 
involved in the Islamic charities to the degree that those 
charities have been specifically known to have been involved in 
transferring funds to terrorist activities, have any of those 
nations signed?
    Has Saudi Arabia signed?
    Mr. Taylor. That is the one I was looking for. No, sir, 
Saudi Arabia has not signed, Sudan has signed.
    Senator Kerry. Would any changes have to be made in our 
money-laundering laws to be in conformity with this?
    Mr. Taft. I believe there are some changes that we have 
included in the implementing, the draft implementing 
legislation.
    Senator Kerry. Has our staff, I wonder, have we------
    Mr. Taft. We have not submitted it yet.
    Senator Kerry. You have not submitted it. Has there been a 
cross-tab of that relative to the legislation we have just 
passed in the Senate and the House?
    Mr. Chertoff. I cannot tell you. I know we are in the 
process of finalizing a package of implementing legislation. I 
do not know that anyone--I presume, but I cannot say as a fact, 
that someone has specifically looked to see whether there is 
something in the implementing legislation that is also carried 
in the money-laundering piece. I suspect not because I think 
the financing piece is a little more narrowly focused than the 
money-laundering legislation.
    Senator Kerry. But I understand we are required--what I 
want to make certain is that there are no requirements here 
that are going to put us out of compliance conceivably and-or 
that are going to diminish what we are doing.
    Mr. Chertoff. The answer is no. We will have to probably 
adjust and fill in some gaps in our law, but it will not 
prevent us.
    Senator Kerry. What has happened is I think the money-
laundering piece is new enough here that it probably has not 
been fully vetted in this context.
    Senator Sarbanes. No, no, no, I do not want to do that.
    Senator Kerry. No, I am not talking about opening it up.
    Senator Sarbanes. I do not want to do that. The money-
laundering piece has been settled.
    Senator Kerry. That is what I am saying.
    Senator Sarbanes. It just needs enactment.
    Senator Kerry. Senator Sarbanes, that is exactly what I am 
saying. What I am saying is, whatever they are coming in with I 
want to make sure is in conformity with what we have just 
passed.
    Mr. Chertoff. What I can say is this. There is nothing, as 
I understand it, about the implementing legislation or the 
treaty that in any way, shape, or form restricts the full scope 
of what is being contemplated.
    Senator Kerry. That is just what I want to make sure.
    Mr. Chertoff. I think in general, as I understand the 
treaty, it is a minimum. Everybody has got to be up to that 
level. It does not forbid countries, including our own, from 
going beyond, and I think in fact we are probably already 
beyond the treaty requirements in some respects.
    Senator Kerry. Thank you. I do not have any further 
questions.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Senator Chafee.
    Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, gentlemen. What is the timetable we are looking 
for on this implementing legislation?
    Mr. Taft. Senator Chafee, the implementing legislation is 
in draft form. It will be submitted as soon as possible. As I 
mentioned, you can consider these treaties and give your advice 
and consent at any time, but they would not be ratified until 
the implementing legislation is actually enacted. I think that 
we should be able to get that legislation up here soon enough 
so that you will have it in connection with your consideration 
of the treaty itself, which is probably the best way to do it.
    Senator Chafee. What does that mean, a couple weeks?
    Mr. Taft. Yes, that would be reasonable.
    Senator Chafee. And did you say we have a copy of your 
proposed reservations and understandings?
    Mr. Taft. Yes, you do. They were in the original 
transmittal packages when the treaties came up.
    Senator Chafee. I see, and that mostly has to do with the 
definition of armed conflict?
    Mr. Taft. That is right. They both do. We need to make a 
distinction between the acts of terrorists and acts that occur 
in a conflict that armed forces normally conduct. Those are not 
terrorist acts. They are the acts of state military forces, and 
we want to be sure they are not covered as terrorist acts, and 
likewise, on the contrary, that the terrorist acts are included 
even though they might look like the acts of an armed force, 
but if they are committed by terrorists, isolated acts and so 
forth, then they are covered.
    Senator Chafee. Is there some unanimity on that on the 
various countries as to a definition of armed conflict, or is 
that difficult to define?
    Mr. Taft. It is not defined in the treaty, which is why we 
have put in our understanding what the definition of armed 
conflict is. I would say that that is not controversial. In the 
course of the negotiations this was accepted, so I think our 
understanding is a case of having a belt and suspenders, but a 
proper one.
    Senator Chafee. How hard would it be just to spell it out 
in outline right here, and we can go into the details if we 
have it in the submittal? But where do you make that 
delineation?
    Mr. Taft. The law of armed conflict would apply in a case 
where there are hostilities between regular armed forces, the 
military forces of the state. Terrorist acts are conducted by 
irregular groups, not recognized armed forces that conduct 
themselves in accordance with the law of war. So they are the 
ones that are subject to terrorism laws and conventions, not to 
the law of armed conflict.
    Senator Chafee. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The distinguished Senator from California.
    Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Some of the questions I had have been covered, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. I beg your pardon?
    Senator Boxer. I said, some of the questions I had have 
been covered, Mr. Chairman, but I do have two quick questions 
if I might. One of them, on September 28 we put forward a 
resolution at the U.N. and it deals with Security Council 
Resolution 1373 and it requires all U.N. member states to 
prevent the financing of terrorist acts and to freeze all 
terrorist-linked assets. So we have that and that passed.
    What is the legal relationship with that Security Council 
resolution and the U.N. Convention on Suppression of Terrorism? 
How do those mesh?
    The Chairman. Senator, they have already spoken to that for 
the record.
    Senator Boxer. They have? Then it is not necessary to 
answer.
    The Chairman. But you might give the Senator a short answer 
on that.
    Senator Boxer. No, that is OK. I will get briefed on it 
afterwards. I have another question. Tell me if this one was 
spoken to.
    The Chairman. I apologize for that, but the general has to 
leave at 11:40.
    Senator Boxer. Yes, that is fine. I can get the answer 
later.
    I have this other question. Tell me if this was covered. 
There are a number of conventions that we are a party to and 
other countries are parties to that deal with terrorism, such 
as Convention for the Suppression of the Unlawful Seizure of 
Aircraft. Has anyone raised that yet today?
    Mr. Taft. No.
    Senator Boxer. OK. Another one is the Convention for the 
Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil 
Aviation. That is another one, and there is at least ten of 
these conventions, Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, 
Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence in Airports. It goes 
on. I will not take the committee's time.
    I hope you could you get back to me and perhaps other 
members of the committee who might be interested in the 
following question. It seems to me if a lot of countries of the 
world are party to these conventions dealing with unlawful 
seizure of aircraft, unlawful acts against the safety of civil 
aviation, and they are not cooperating with us now, we may have 
some action against them. Off the top of your head without 
having a chance to review this, do you know how many countries 
are not a party to these other conventions?
    Mr. Taft. I do not know the answer to that, but I think 
Ambassador Taylor could tell you that we have gotten a lot of 
cooperation from a lot of countries at this time. Perhaps we 
should provide information for the record.
    Senator Boxer. Well, a lot of cooperation from a lot of 
countries is really good. My specific question is: are there 
any countries who are party to these conventions dealing with 
unlawful seizure of aircraft, unlawful acts against the safety 
of civil aviation, who are not cooperating with us in terms of 
this investment on the World Trade Center bombing?
    Mr. Taylor. I think the more general answer to your 
question is we have gotten excellent cooperation from across 
the world from all countries that we have asked for 
cooperation, with the exception of Iraq that has been defiant. 
I can give you, Senator, or for the staff a matrix of all 
countries that have passed or ratified each of these 
conventions.
    Senator Boxer. I would like that. Now, has Iraq, do you 
know, ratified those?
    Mr. Taylor. They have signed two and passed--they have 
signed three and passed three of the 12.
    Senator Boxer. OK. But you do not know about unlawful 
seizure of aircraft or unlawful acts against the safety of 
civil aviation?
    The reason I am asking this question, Mr. Chairman, is if 
Iraq is a party to those conventions and they are not 
cooperating, we may have some very interesting avenues open to 
us on the international stage.
    So would you get back to me specifically on that? Also, I 
really appreciate knowing who signed onto all of these 
conventions, because clearly we have been able to get a broad 
omnibus convention against terrorism and these two important 
treaties that we are looking at today just fit into the pattern 
of taking each thing, each little issue one at a time, which is 
fine. But I think if we could find out if Iraq was involved in 
those and they are not cooperating, I think that is some good 
information.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Taylor. Senator, if I may, one of our major diplomatic 
goals in this campaign is to get all nations to ratify all 
treaties. Both bilateral and multilaterally, we are working 
that, and we have seen excellent results since the 11th of 
September from nations around the world to do that. But 
specifically on Iraq, I will get back to you with the answer to 
that question.
    [The information can be found in additional questions for 
the record on page 53.]
    Senator Boxer. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Allen.
    Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. General Taylor, do you have to leave, because 
Senator Allen will direct his question to you.
    Mr. Taylor. I am OK, thank you.
    Senator Allen. Ambassador-general, I incorporate by 
reference all the questions and comments as far as 
reservations, particularly protecting military personnel and 
our interests in that regard.
    Since September 11, how many countries have at least 
started moving, as we are, to either sign or to actually ratify 
either of these Conventions?
    Mr. Taylor. I cannot give you a specific number, Senator. I 
can only tell you that in our bilateral working with more than 
100 countries we have seen tremendous movement. I would have to 
go back and compile each one individually, but certainly the 
U.N. Conventions are a key part of our overall international 
strategy and many countries have in a sense leaned forward to 
move this through their legislatures to passage. Again, I can 
get more information for you on that.
    [The information can be found in additional questions for 
the record on page 52.]
    Senator Allen. Let me ask two followups, then. Now, as a 
practical matter how would these treaties affect our efforts to 
intercept financing of terrorist organizations. If certain 
countries--and I do not need to be mentioning the names of the 
countries or islands--that are fairly well known as places for 
havens for people to have banking transactions which are not 
very transparent, in the event, let us say you have the United 
States and France and Germany and Japan and Korea, they all 
sign onto it, but there are certain countries that are in 
Europe or certain island states, so to speak, if they do not do 
it, what practical impact is this going to have on our trying 
to thwart the financing of terrorist organizations?
    Mr. Taylor. Well, certainly it presents a challenge, 
because it presents a seam that we need to close. Through our 
bilateral relations with those countries, we intend to put 
great pressure on them not to have that sanctuary that would 
allow people to use that country as another conduit that is not 
available to the world.
    My sense is we will be very successful in pressuring those 
countries, to do that. At least that is our goal.
    Senator Allen. Now, the final question, Mr. Chairman. These 
treaties or conventions about bombings and financing, we are 
all focused on what happened to the United States. Now, to the 
extent that the rest of the world is signing onto these and 
hopefully ratifying them with various reservations, as we will 
have, what would be the impact on, say, what could be defined 
as a terrorist bombing in Israel or Ireland or Spain or 
Colombia?
    Many movements that are motivated by independence or self-
determination end up being wars. In Quebec, theirs is being 
done in a very civil process. In this country our secessions 
have not been civil, but they were at least legislative 
approaches being taken and then the battle. But when you think 
of some of the activities and bombings in Israel and Ireland, 
in Spain, Colombia and other countries, how would this 
definition of terrorist bombings affect some of those 
activities in those countries?
    Mr. Taft. Most of those bombings would be covered, the ones 
that I am familiar with. Obviously, we would have to look at 
each particular one, and the authorities, the Israelis or the 
authorities in Northern Ireland or whatever, would look at 
them. The principal benefit of the Convention would then be 
that, at least among the parties to it, there would be enhanced 
cooperation in law enforcement in the investigation and 
provision of evidence and in extradition.
    Senator Allen. Would that affect also the financing? This 
follows up on Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry's questions on 
the financing organizations for some of these other areas.
    Mr. Taft. The same is true of the Financing Convention. It 
has all of those cooperation in law enforcement features.
    Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the three 
gentlemen for your testimony.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, do you have any other questions?
    Senator Helms. No.
    The Chairman. With your permission, I have a few questions 
to submit for the record. There is no urgency in responding as 
long as they are in before we get the implementing legislation.
    Unless anyone has any further questions for our witnesses, 
we thank you very, very much, and we hope that we can move 
expeditiously on this, and we thank you very much for your 
consideration. Thanks.
    [Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m, the committee was recessed 
subject to the call of the Chair.]

             Additional Statement Submitted for the Record

                              ----------                              


Prepared Statement of Prof. Barry Kellman, Director, International 
  Weapons Control Center, DePaul University College of Law, Chicago, 
  Illinois

    The two conventions currently under consideration re-affirm that 
terrorism is a threat not only to the United States but to the entire 
civilized world. Accordingly, the effort to defeat terrorism must be 
multilateral to have any chance of success. These conventions more 
accurately define conduct that contributes to and constitutes 
terrorism, and they impose rigorous legal assistance and cooperation 
obligations on States Parties. Moreover, these two conventions 
symbolize the coalescence of international efforts to fight terrorism.
    The following brief comments do not address the broad and manifold 
policy justifications for their ratification. Instead, these comments 
highlight a few provisions that, perhaps, have not received sufficient 
attention. These comments also suggest reasons why, despite their 
positive attributes and the need for their ratification, these 
conventions fall far short of establishing the foundation for the 
international effort that is necessary to defeat terrorism.
      convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism
    This Convention reaches into the vital core of terrorist 
operations: its necessary financial infrastructure. The Convention is 
tightly drafted, and it should be ratified.
    Special note should be taken of:

   Article 12, para. 2--``States Parties may not refuse a 
        request for mutual legal assistance on the ground of bank 
        secrecy.''

    This provision is extremely important because the primary 
impediment to tracing financial support for terrorism is the assertion 
of bank secrecy. This provision not only prohibits that assertion, it 
means that a refusal of a request for assistance on these grounds is a 
breach of the Convention. Moreover, it suggests that the assertion of 
bank secrecy is a step toward establishing that the State Party in 
question is implicitly a supporter of terrorist activity.

   Article 18, para. 4--``States Parties may exchange 
        information through Interpol.''

    Article 18 sets forth obligatory ``practicable measures'' to 
prevent terrorist financing, including modalities of legal cooperation. 
The somewhat buried reference to Interpol in para. 4 is perhaps the 
most important of these measures. To combat terrorist financing (and 
terrorism generally), there is a need not only for legal cooperation 
among States but also for the direct involvement of international 
institutions, beginning with Interpol, that can centralize operations 
and monitor compliance. This provision is unique among anti-terrorism 
conventions in explicitly calling upon States Parties to use Interpol 
to perform necessary functions.
    However, it should be noted that Interpol is an under-staffed, 
under-financed organization. If Interpol is to have the law enforcement 
and anti-terrorist financing role that is truly effective, a treaty 
provision is inadequate by itself. Accordingly, this provision should 
be a spur to increase Interpol's capabilities.

   The Annex: No reference to the Biological or Chemical 
        Weapons Conventions

    Under Article 2, para. 1(a), prohibited offenses are defined (in 
part) as providing or collecting funds in order to carry out an offence 
within the scope of the treaties listed in the annex. However, the 
annex does not include either the BWC nor the CWC which prohibit the 
use or possession of prohibited weapons by persons as well as by 
States. This is an inexplicable oversight and should be remedied.
          convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings
    This Convention criminalizes behavior that is, at least arguably, 
already illegal. It serves to clarify the illegal status of terrorist 
bombings, to deprive perpetrators of any claim to the ``political 
offense'' exception, and to specify legal assistance and cooperation 
obligations. In comparison to the Financing Convention, it is less 
tightly drafted and has a few problems. Nevertheless, it should be 
ratified.

   Article 1, para. 3(b)--`` `Explosive or other lethal device' 
        means: A weapon or device that is designed, or has the 
        capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or 
        substantial material damage through the release, dissemination 
        or impact of toxic chemicals, biological agents or toxins . . 
        .'' (emphasis added)

    This definition is very problematic for the Department of Defense 
which is developing biological agents that can cause substantial 
material damage without harming humans, animals, or plants. Indeed, 
microbes are currently used to consume oil spills; the DOD's efforts 
are based on similar principles.

   Article 2, para. 1--``Any person commits an offence within 
        the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and 
        intentionally . . .'' (emphasis added) The word ``unlawfully'' 
        either has no meaning and is superfluous in the paragraph, or 
        it means that it is not an offence if the person acts 
        ``lawfully'', i.e. pursuant to the authority of a legitimate 
        State government. Hypothetically, if an authorized Iraqi agent 
        detonates an explosive in Manhattan, it is not clear the 
        Convention would apply to that activity. This Convention should 
        not leave doubt on that issue.

   Article 15--``States Parties shall cooperate . . .''

    This Article is noteworthy for what it does not say. In contrast to 
the Financing Terrorism Convention, there is no mention of Interpol or 
any other reference to making use of an international law enforcement 
institution (the IAEA, OPCW, to name a few) in order ``to prevent and 
counter preparations'' (para. (a)). Yet, it defies reality to expect 
that many nations, especially those nations where terrorists tend to 
operate, will be able to prevent preparations for terrorist bombings on 
their own.
                            general comments
    Despite all the good reasons to ratify these two conventions, they 
are inadequate to achieve the objective of security against 
international terror violence.
    A more comprehensive international effort against terrorism should 
overcome two problems which these treaties do not address: (1) the need 
to prohibit development of illegal capabilities without having to wait 
for those capabilities to actually be used; and (2) the need to 
strengthen the direct law enforcement system in addition to the 
indirect law enforcement system.
Prohibiting Development of Terrorist Capabilities
    The effects of modern terrorism are too cataclysmic to delay law 
enforcement until the deed is done. The purpose of criminalization, 
therefore, is to facilitate pre-use interdiction of terrorist 
capabilities. The bad news here is that there is no primary prohibition 
against acquisition of violent capabilities, including chemical or 
biological or nuclear weapons, by sub-national groups (SNGs). Thus, 
international law enforcement capabilities are marginalized, at least 
until those capabilities become catastrophic.
    A more effective international agreement should criminalize 
preparations toward development of dangerous capabilities, including 
construction of relevant production facilities as well as assistance to 
other groups that develop those capabilities. The prohibition should 
extend to all SNGs universally, without regard to whether the State 
with jurisdiction over that group has joined a relevant treaty, and all 
States Parties should extend adjudicative jurisdiction (under either 
the universal theory or the passive personality theory) to anyone, 
irrespective of nationality. Moreover, prohibited conduct should be 
defined according to criteria that is not based on the actor's intent.
    Because relevant capabilities are typically dual-use--they could be 
employed for legitimate purposes--there should be multilateral 
regulatory obligations that enable legitimate activities to escape 
suspicion through a licensing system. Accordingly, receiving, 
supplying, or smuggling weapons precursors, critical materials, or 
critical equipment would be illegal unless that activity is declared 
and subject to appropriate national and international regulation. If 
those activities are kept secret and unregulated, the presumption must 
be that the objective (of the receiver, supplier, or smuggler) is 
criminal. Stated simply: as to terrorism capabilities, SNG acquisition 
or possession without compliance with relevant regulatory obligations 
should be an international crime.
Need for Direct Law Enforcement Through International Institutions
    More important is the need to develop the direct law enforcement 
system. International criminal law enforcement is, for the most part, 
an indirect system based on the idea that States must enforce, under 
national law, international legal prohibitions. The indirect 
enforcement system depends on national criminal justice systems to 
investigate, apprehend, prosecute, and adjudicate accused persons 
within their jurisdictions and to punish those found guilty. It also 
depends on the cooperation of States to extradite and to provide legal 
assistance to other States investigating cases or seeking to apprehend 
persons accused or found guilty of international crimes.
    The problem with the indirect law enforcement system is that many 
of the nations of greatest concern lack capabilities to undertake their 
responsibilities. Therefore, prohibitions against development of 
terrorist capabilities should be supported, not only by legal 
assistance and cooperation obligations, but by enhancing the direct law 
enforcement capabilities of relevant international institutions, 
notably policing institutions and those which oversee the international 
traffic in goods.
    As already mentioned, Interpol (and Europol) should be strengthened 
both in terms of legal authority as well as technical and financial 
capabilities. The World Customs Organization, the World Health 
Organization, and various UN agencies should, along with the OPCW and 
IAEA, be integrated into an anti-terrorism network capable of obtaining 
and analyzing information and of investigating suspicious activities. 
Regional organizations, especially in regions where terrorism has 
concentrated, should also be included in this network.
Upcoming Opportunities
    The most important near-term opportunity for the international 
community to develop mechanisms that can make a positive contribution 
to defeating terrorism is the Review Conference for the Biological 
Weapons Convention. Unfortunately, biological weapons have become a 
weapon of choice for terrorists. Yet, the BWC is entirely inadequate to 
counter this horrifying threat. Efforts to produce a verification 
Protocol ended by producing a system that would have put significant 
burdens on legitimate enterprise without markedly improving 
capabilities to prevent, detect, or interdict bioterrorism.
    The Administration's rejection of that Protocol earlier this year, 
although justified on the merits, has been viewed as yet another 
example of American unilateralism. It is incumbent, therefore, that 
U.S. representatives to the upcoming Review Conference offer meaningful 
anti-terrorism and international law enforcement proposals. This forum 
and whatever final document it produces could have a far more decisive 
impact on the campaign to defeat terrorism than either of the two 
conventions currently under consideration.
                              ----------                              


            Responses to Additional Questions for the Record


    Responses From the Department of State to Additional Questions 
               Submitted for the Record by Senator Biden

               i. questions with regard to both treaties
A. Authoritative Nature of Executive Branch Testimony
    Question. When Executive Branch witnesses testify on the treaties 
before the Senate, can the Committee assume that the testimony is 
contributing to the ``shared understanding'' between the Executive and 
the Senate as to the meaning of the treaties and the way the United 
States will interpret it?

    Answer. Yes. Testimony by Executive Branch witnesses on treaties 
before the Senate is intended to contribute to the ``shared 
understanding'' between the Executive and the Senate on the meaning of 
the treaties and the way such treaties will be interpreted by the 
United States.

    Question. Does the Executive Branch believe that it is necessary 
for the Committee to question Executive Branch witnesses with respect 
to each clause of the treaties in order to firmly establish the 
``shared understanding'' of the meaning of the treaties?

    Answer. No. It is not necessary for the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee to question Executive Branch witnesses with respect to each 
clause of treaties pending before the Committee in order to establish 
the ``shared understanding'' of the meaning of the treaties. For 
purposes of U.S. law, the formal transmittal documents submitted by the 
President, the accompanying report of the Department of State, the 
testimony of Executive Branch witnesses and responses to the 
Committee's questions contribute to the ``shared understanding'' of the 
meaning of such treaties with respect to the issues covered therein.

    Question. In order for the Senate to establish its expectation--and 
to establish law--that the Executive Branch will interpret the treaties 
as they have been presented to the Senate (including in the formal 
submittal and in testimony), do you regard it as necessary for the 
Senate to take each provision of the treaties which it regards as 
significant, to commit the interpretation to writing, and to convert 
that interpretation into a formal condition of Senate consent? Or can 
the Senate act on the assumption that it can rely on the Executive 
Branch and act in accord with its presentation of the treaties to the 
Senate without going through such a ritual?

    Answer. In order for the Senate to establish its expectation with 
respect to Executive Branch interpretation of treaties, it would be 
unnecessary and impractical for the Senate to take each significant 
provision of the treaties, commit the interpretation to writing, and 
attach that interpretation as a formal condition of Senate consent. For 
purposes of U.S. law, the formal transmittal documents submitted by the 
President, the accompanying report of the Department of State, the 
testimony of Executive Branch witnesses and responses to the 
Committee's questions provide the context for interpreting such 
treaties with respect to the issues covered therein.

    Question. Does the Executive Branch regard it as necessary for the 
Senate to examine the entire negotiating record of the treaties in 
order to establish that there is nothing in that record inconsistent 
with the terms in the text of the treaties and the Executive Branch 
interpretation of those terms?

    Answer. No. The Senate does not need to examine the entire 
negotiating record of such treaties in order to establish that the 
record is consistent with the treaty text and the Executive Branch's 
interpretation of the treaty terms. The Executive Branch takes into 
account relevant points in the negotiating record when it presents a 
treaty to the Senate.

    Question. To summarize, if the text of the treaties and the 
Executive Branch's presentations of the treaties' meaning are clear and 
mutually consistent, then can we expect the Executive Branch to act in 
accordance with that interpretation, even if the Senate does not 
explicitly state in the resolution of advice and consent to 
ratification that it is relying upon the Executive Branch to do so?

    Answer. Yes. If the treaty text and the Executive Branch's 
presentation of its meaning are clear and mutually consistent, the 
Committee can expect the Executive Branch to act in accordance with 
that interpretation with respect to the issues covered therein.

B. General Questions
    Question. The Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 
has entered into force, but the Convention on the Suppression of 
Financing Terrorism has not yet entered into force.
     Does the Administration intend to engage in active diplomacy to 
encourage states to sign and ratify these treaties? Have any diplomatic 
measures been undertaken in this regard?

    Answer. The Administration is engaging in active international 
diplomacy to encourage states to become parties to the treaties before 
the Committee, as well as the ten previous counterterrorism treaties 
that have been agreed upon at the United Nations and its specialized 
agencies. We have made such efforts both in bilateral diplomatic 
contacts with other parties and as a part of the Group of Eight 
Industrialized countries, which for many years has made adherence to 
the counterterrorism conventions a very high diplomatic priority. As of 
October 31, 2001, 58 countries had signed the Terrorist Bombings 
Convention and 29 had ratified. As of the same date, 69 countries had 
signed the Terrorism Financing Convention and 5 had ratified. We 
believe that U.S. ratification of these two conventions will bolster 
our efforts to encourage other countries to become party to these 
Conventions if they have not already done so.

    Question. Article 23 of Convention on the Suppression of Financing 
Terrorism provides a means for amending the annex of the Convention. 
Neither Convention provides a means for amending the text of the 
treaties.
    Does the Executive Branch intend to submit any amendments, 
including amendments to the annex of the Convention of the Suppression 
of Financing Terrorism, to the Senate for advice and consent to 
ratification?

    Answer. Consistent with the October 3, 2000, Letter of Submittal 
accompaning the Terrorism Financing Convention, if a new 
counterterrorism treaty enters into force for the United States, after 
the Senate has given its advice and consent, and that treaty has been 
added to the Annex through the amendment process set out in Article 23, 
then the United States expects to deposit an instrument of acceptance 
of the amendment adding that treaty to the Annex. Such an instrument of 
Acceptance would not require future advice and consent because the 
Senate would already have approved the treaty in question. Any other 
amendment to the Terrorism Financing Convention or its Annex, or to the 
Terrorist Bombings Convention, would be submitted to the Senate for its 
advice and consent.

    Question. Article 9 of the Convention on the Suppression of 
Terrorist Bombings and Article 11 of the Convention on the Suppression 
of Terrorist Financing provide that State Parties may, in cases where 
it receives a request for extradition from another State Party with 
which it has no extradition treaty, consider the conventions as a legal 
basis for extradition in respect of the offenses in the respective 
conventions.
    Is it the intention of the Executive Branch to consider the 
conventions as a legal basis or bases for extradition in cases where 
the United States has no extradition treaty with the other State Party?

    Answer. The United States would not use these Conventions as an 
independent legal basis for extradition from the United States in cases 
where the United States has no extradition treaty with another State 
Party seeking extradition. We will continue our practice of extraditing 
persons under the authority of bilateral extradition treaties, in 
conjunction with multilateral counterterrorism conventions, as 
applicable.

    Question. Both Conventions, in the key articles defining offenses 
under the Conventions, include in the definition the concept of a 
person acting ``unlawfully''. That is, Article 2 of the Convention of 
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism provides that any person 
commits an offense under the Convention if that person ``by any means, 
directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects 
funds. . . .'' Similarly, Article 2 of the Convention on the 
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings provides that any person commits an 
offense if that person ``unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, 
discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device. . . .''
    The letter of submittal provided by the Secretary of State to the 
President in connection with the Conventions does not provide any 
analysis of the meaning of the term ``unlawfully.'' One possible 
reading of this term is that the Conventions do not cover activity 
authorized by governments. That is, under this construction of the 
term, if a foreign government authorized an activity described, then it 
would be ``lawful'' and not covered by the Conventions. I presume that 
is not the intention.
    Am I correct in my understanding that the term ``unlawfully'' is 
not meant to exempt state-sponsored terrorism? What then, is the 
meaning of the term?

    Answer. The word ``unlawfully'' in Article 2 of each of these 
Conventions is not meant to exempt state-sponsored terrorism. It is a 
term used in many international conventions, including the prior 
counterterrorism conventions, to make clear that States are not 
required to criminalize conduct which under common principles of 
criminal law is not considered unlawful (e.g., properly authorized use 
of force by its own police forces or conduct permitted as self-
defense), even if those actions are otherwise described in the offense.

    Question. Both Conventions contain exclusions for military 
activity. Article 19 of the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist 
Bombings states that ``activities of armed forces during an armed 
conflict, as those terms are understood under international 
humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by 
this Convention.'' The Convention on the Suppression of the Financing 
of Terrorism addresses the issue in a different manner. Article 2(1)(b) 
defines a category of acts which are illegal under the Convention, and 
excludes from the definition persons ``taking an active part in the 
hostilities in a situation of armed conflict.'' With regard to both 
Conventions, the Executive Branch has recommended that the Senate 
approve an understanding which would state that the term ``armed 
conflict'' does not include ``internal disturbances and tensions, such 
as riots, isolated or sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a 
similar nature.''
    Does the definition of ``armed conflict'' include subnational 
groups?
    In the current military action in Afghanistan, we are presumably 
providing financial support to the Northern Alliance and to other anti-
Taliban groups. Am I right in understanding that the Financing 
Convention would not bar that kind of financial support by the United 
States--because the situation is an ``armed conflict''?

    Answer. Article 2 of the Terrorism Financing Convention states in 
relevant part that ``[a]ny person commits an offence within the meaning 
of the Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, 
unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention 
that they should be used or in the knowledge that that they are to be 
used, in full or in part, in order to carry out: [a]n act which 
constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the 
treaties listed in the annex; or [an] act intended to cause death or 
serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking 
an active part in the hostilities in a situation or armed conflict,'' 
when such act is accompanied by a ``terrorist purpose,'' as set forth 
in the Convention. (``Armed conflict'' can include conflicts where sub-
national groups are combatants.) U.S. Government assistance mentioned 
in the question would not be covered by the Convention, since the 
groups identified in the question are not engaged in these activities.

    Question. Does the Executive Branch regard it as necessary for the 
Senate to include a condition in the resolutions of advice and consent 
regarding the International Criminal Court?

    Answer. It is not necessary for the Senate to include a condition 
in the resolutions of advice and consent regarding the International 
Criminal Court. The ICC will not be a party to these Conventions, and 
our assistance to other parties to the Conventions would be for their 
proceedings, not those of the ICC. Should we deem it necessary, the 
United States could limit or condition its assistance to other parties 
to ensure that U.S. assistance is not subsequently transferred to the 
International Criminal Court.

    Question. The treaties state that the texts of Arabic, Chinese, 
English, French, Russian and Spanish are equally authentic. Are there 
any material ambiguities in the translations? If so, what are they?

    Answer. To our knowledge there are no material ambiguities among 
the various authentic language texts.
 ii. questions with regard to international convention for suppression 
                         of financing terrorism

    Question. On September 28, 2001, the UN Security Council approved 
Resolution 1373. Among other things, the resolution requires all States 
to ``prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts,'' (para. 
1(a)) and to ``[c]riminalize the wilful provision or collection, by any 
means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their 
territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the 
knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist 
acts.'' (para. 1(b)). The language in paragraph 1(b) is similar to 
Article 2(1) of the Convention.
    What is the relationship between the Convention and the provisions 
of Resolution 1373 as they relate to the suppression of financing of 
terrorism? Are the legal obligations on states to suppress the 
financing of terrorism under Resolution 1373 and under the Convention 
(for states that ratify the Convention) identical? If they differ, how 
do they differ? If they differ, will the implementing legislation need 
to also address obligations under Resolution 1373?
    The United States sponsored Resolution 1373. Was it drafted by the 
United States? Was Resolution 1373 drafted in coordination with the 
U.S. government departments which were involved in the negotiation of 
the Convention?

    Answer. The Convention and UNSCR 1373 complement one another and 
improve our overall ability to combat the financing of terrorism. 
Resolution 1373 imposes on all U.N. Member States broad obligations to 
take steps immediately to combat the financing of terrorism. The 
resolution requires Member States, inter alia, to prevent and suppress 
the financing of terrorist acts, to criminalize the willful provision 
or collection of funds with the intent or knowledge that the funds will 
be used to carry out terrorist acts, to freeze the funds and other 
financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or 
attempt to commit, such acts or are affiliated with such persons, and 
to prohibit their nationals or others within their territories from 
making any funds, financial assets or economic resources or financial 
or other related services available for the benefit of those who commit 
or attempt to commit terrorist acts. The resolution also requires 
Member States to refrain from providing support to terrorists and 
terrorist groups, and to deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, 
support or commit terrorist acts.
    The Financing Convention will provide the specificity and 
international legal mechanisms that are needed to combat terrorist 
financing. The Convention defines with more specificity than UNSCR 1373 
what conduct must be criminalized under domestic law and, provided 
there is an international nexus, requires States Parties to establish 
jurisdiction when the offense is committed in its territory, on board 
its ships or aircraft, or by its nationals. (The Convention allows 
States Parties to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in certain other 
prescribed circumstances.) Although UNSCR 1373 requires Member States 
to ensure that persons who finance terrorism are brought to justice, 
the Convention requires parties to extradite alleged offenders or 
submit them for prosecution and amends existing extradition treaties by 
incorporating the Convention's offenses as extraditable offenses under 
such treaties.
    Once the Financing Convention is in force, we anticipate that these 
instruments will complement and support each other. UNSCR 1373 will 
provide a basis for challenging any States that have not become party 
to the Convention to refrain from providing support to terrorists and 
to take steps to prevent terrorist financing in their territories. In 
addition, the committee established by the resolution will monitor 
implementation and promote and facilitate international cooperation in 
combating terrorist financing. Finally, the Convention, once it enters 
into force, will establish specific mechanisms for detecting, 
investigating and prosecuting individuals who finance terrorist acts.
    UNSCR 1373 can be fully implemented under existing law and the 
implementing legislation for the two conventions need not address the 
United States' obligations under Resolution 1373.
    The initial draft of the Security Council resolution was prepared 
by the United States. The final text was the product of negotiations 
among the members of the Security Council. Yes, Resolution 1373 was 
drafted in coordination with the U.S. government departments that were 
involved in the negotiation of the Convention, including State, Justice 
and Treasury.

    Question. Article 2(1)(b) requires states to criminalize acts 
``intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to 
any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a 
situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its 
nature or context, is to intimidate a population. . . .''
    Does the negotiating history reflect an understanding of the term 
``population'' as used in this Article?

    Answer. The negotiating history does not provide any guidance 
concerning the meaning of the term ``population.'' The Administration 
interprets ``population'' as used in Article 2(1)(b) to mean ``civilian 
population.'' This interpretation is consistent with U.S. law, for 
example 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2331(1)(B)(i) (``to intimidate or coerce a 
civilian population''), as well as the law of armed conflict.

    Question. In Article 1(1), does the term ``funds'' include non-
financial assets such as personal or real property?

    Answer. Yes. As defined in Article 1(1) of the treaty, the term 
``funds'' includes ``assets of every kind, whether tangible or 
intangible, movable or immovable . . . .'' As noted in the State 
Department's report in the transmittal package (p. VI), all delegations 
understood the definition to include ``property.'' The Administration's 
proposed implementing legislation defines ``funds'' as ``assets of 
every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, 
however acquired, and legal documents or instruments in any form, 
including electronic or digital, evidencing title to, or interest in, 
such assets, including but not limited to, coin, currency, bank 
credits, travelers checks, bank checks, money orders, shares, 
securities, bonds, drafts, and letters of credit.'' (Section 202, 
adding new section 2339C(e)(1) to title 18)

    Question. Does the term ``State'' (as used in Article 1(2)) include 
political subdivisions of a State?

    Answer. Yes, the term ``State'' (as used in Article 1(2)) includes 
political subdivisions of a State.

    Question. What is the meaning of the term ``fiscal offense'' as 
used in Article 13?

    Answer. Some countries refuse international cooperation in cases 
involving crimes that they consider ``fiscal offenses.'' There is no 
generally accepted definition of what constitutes a ``fiscal offense,'' 
and indeed, several countries, including the United States, do not use 
this concept to limit international assistance in criminal matters. In 
our experience, when the concept is used, it will generally encompass 
tax offenses, but a given country might extend it to other crimes such 
as banking or currency controls, money laundering crimes, customs 
offenses, or financial regulatory offenses. Thus, because the term is 
not clearly defined, and could potentially include a broad range of 
offenses involving financial flows and financial instruments, a 
particular country might apply it to the very offenses which are the 
subject of the Convention. Accordingly, Article 13 prohibits a State 
from using a ``fiscal offense'' exception to international cooperation 
which might exist in its law, irrespective of how expansively the term 
might be defined in its law, to circumvent its obligations under the 
Convention. A similar provision was included in the 1988 UN Drug 
Convention, to assure that a ``fiscal offense'' exception did not 
defeat its provisions regarding money laundering.

    Question. On page VIII of the Senate print of the Convention 
(T.Doc. 106-49) there is discussion of Paragraph 5 of Article 2. There 
appears to be an erroneous internal reference in this section. The 
erroneous sentence reads ``These ancillary offenses in paragraph 3 are 
more comprehensive than those included in the earlier counterterrorism 
conventions to which the United States is a party--"
    Is not the reference in italics to ``paragraph 3'' an error? Should 
it not be a reference to ``paragraph 5?"

    Answer. The reference to paragraph 3 is incorrect. The proper 
reference should be to paragraph 5.

iii. questions with regard to international convention for suppression 
                         of terrorist bombings
    Question. The Executive Branch proposes an understanding regarding 
Article 19 which reads:
    The United States of America understand that, pursuant to Article 
19, the Convention does not apply in any respect to the activities 
undertaken by military forces of States in the exercise of their 
official duties.
    Article 19 of the Convention reads in pertinent part that ``the 
activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of 
their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of 
international law, are not governed by this Convention.'' The proposed 
understanding and the language of Article 19 are virtually identical in 
their operative words.
    a. Why is this understanding necessary?
    b. What is meant by the phrase ``inasmuch as they are governed by 
other rules of international law.'' To which rules of international law 
does this phrase refer?
    c. Was there negotiating history on this point which was agreed to 
by the other participants in the negotiations?

    Answer. The exclusion of the official activities of military forces 
of states from the scope of this Convention was an important 
negotiating objective that was achieved by the United States during the 
development of this Convention and is a key to the Convention's success 
internationally. We recommend that an Understanding be included in the 
U.S. instrument of ratification in order to underscore the importance 
of this provision in the interpretation of the Convention. In addition, 
we recommend the Understanding because of the way Article 19(2) 
combines in its text two different exceptions to the Convention's 
coverage for ``armed forces'' (which are only excepted during ``armed 
conflict,'' as those terms are understood under international 
humanitarian law, which are governed by that law) and for ``military 
forces of a state'' (which are excepted under all circumstances in the 
exercise of their official duties). Because these different concepts 
are combined in a lengthy single sentence with numerous clauses, and 
because of our strong interest in noting our understanding of the 
wording, we believe it is helpful to note in an Understanding that the 
exception for military forces of a state is absolute.
    The reference in Article 19(2) to ``other rules of international 
law'' includes the international instruments relating to the law of war 
(including the 1949 Geneva Conventions) and the international law of 
state responsibility. There is no formal negotiating history on this 
subject, but these bodies of law were referred to by the negotiators as 
the justification and explanation of the ``military forces of a state'' 
exception in that article.
                                 ______
                                 

    Responses From the Department of State to Additional Questions 
               Submitted for the Record by Senator Helms

                        charitable organizations
    Question. Will the financing convention provide new authority to 
U.S. law enforcement agencies to stop the financing of terrorism by 
charitable organizations in the United States?

    Answer. The administration has developed and transmitted to the 
Congress draft implementing legislation for the Terrorism Financing 
Convention that would create a new legal basis for U.S. law enforcement 
authorities to investigate and prosecute the financing of terrorism. In 
addition, the Convention itself will provide a legal basis for the 
United States to seek assistance from other countries in our 
investigations and prosecutions of those believed to have engaged in 
the financing of terrorism.
                            other priorities
    Question. Have events since September 11th indicated other 
international law enforcement priorities that could be addressed by 
treaties already pending on the Foreign Relations Committee calendar, 
or which are being negotiated now? What are these priorities?

    Answer. The Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 
and the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 
are the two completed law enforcement conventions of greatest general 
concern relating to the efforts to address international terrorism. 
Several additional important multilateral law enforcement instruments 
are likely to be before the Committee in the near future. In December 
2000, the United States signed the UN Convention Against Transnational 
Organized Crime and two accompanying protocols. The United States and 
other countries recently completed the negotiations of the Council of 
Europe Cyber-Crime Convention. Finally, the Committee has pending 
before it the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit 
Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, 
and other Related Materials.
    Apart from these multilateral conventions, the United States has 
signed or is in the final stages of negotiating approximately eight 
bilateral extradition or mutual legal assistance treaties and will be 
submitting those to the Committee for its consideration in the near 
future.
                 additional anti-terrorism conventions
    Question. Are there negotiations underway now to outlaw forms of 
terrorism not covered by existing multilateral anti-terrorism 
conventions? For example, is sending lethal substances through the mail 
outlawed by an international agreement with appropriate penalties? Can 
you provide details or a timetable?


    Answer. Negotiations are underway at the United Nations General 
Assembly Sixth Committee on a new comprehensive convention on 
international terrorism. Also, pending before the Sixth Committee is a 
draft nuclear terrorism convention. Those negotiations are not yet 
completed and we are not yet in a position to assess whether we will 
recommend that the United States become a party to the new instruments.
    With respect to the delivery of lethal substances, Article 2(1) of 
the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings provides:
    ``Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this 
Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, 
places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, 
into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, 
a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility:
    ``(a) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or
    ``(b) With the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a 
place, facility or system, where such destruction results in or is 
likely to result in major economic loss.''
    Under Article 1(3), an ``explosive or other lethal device'' means:
    ``(a) An explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, 
or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or 
substantial material damage; or
    ``(b) A weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, 
to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage 
through the release, dissemination or impact of toxic chemicals, 
biological agents or toxins or similar substances or radiation or 
radioactive material.''
    Thus, the Terrorist Bombings Convention would cover the act of 
sending a lethal substance through the mail with the intent to cause 
death or serious bodily injury, provided the offense has an 
international nexus as required in Article 3 of the Convention (e.g., a 
foreign perpetrator).
                                 ______
                                 

    Response From the Department of State to an Additional Question 
               Submitted for the Record by Senator Lugar

    Question. What has been the effect of all of the treaties with 
regard to terrorism thus far? Have people been prosecuted, convicted, 
incarcerated under these treaties, the whole collection?

    Answer. The following are examples of prosecutions undertaken by 
the United States under U.S. law implementing the prior 
counterterrorism conventions:
Montreal Convention (Aircraft Sabotage)
    United States v. Yousef, 1999 WL 714103 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (defendant 
convicted of conspiring to bomb U.S. passenger airlines in violation of 
18 U.S.C. Sec.  32, the implementing statute of the Montreal 
Convention) [For list of charges, see United States v. Yousef, 925 F. 
Supp. 1063 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)]
    United States v. Rashed, 234 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (ongoing 
prosecution of defendant under Montreal Convention for placing a bomb 
on a passenger flight)
    United States v. Munoz-Mosquera, unreported case, E.D.N.Y. 1995, 
aff'd in part and vacated and modified in part in unpublished opinion 
referred to at 101 F.3d 683, 1996 WL 281591 (2d Cir. 1996) (member of 
Medellin drug cartel convicted of offenses relating to the November 
1989 bombing of an Avianca aircraft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec.  
32).
Hague Convention (Hijacking)
    United States v. Rezaq, 134 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (affirming 
defendant's conviction for aircraft piracy in violation of 49 U.S.C. 
Sec.  46501, the implementing legislation of the Hague Convention)
    United States v. Mena, 933 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1991) (same) [This 
case provisionally upheld the conviction; the conviction was affirmed 
fully in 946 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1991)]
    United States v. Pablo-Lugones, 725 F.2d 624 (11th Cir. 1984) 
(affirming defendant's conviction for aircraft piracy in violation of 
49 U.S.C. Sec.  46501) [then 49 U.S.C. App. 1472]
    United States v. Castaneda-Reyes, 703 F.2d 522 (11th Cir. 1983) 
(same)
    United States v. Dixon, 592 F.2d 329 (6th Cir. 1979) (same)
    United States v. Busic, 592 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1978) (same)
Hostages Convention
    United States v. Lue, 134 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 1998) (affirming 
hostage-taking conviction/plea under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1203, the 
implementing legislation for the Hostages Convention)
    United States v. Lin, 101 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (affirming 
hostage-taking conviction under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1203)
    United States v. Lopez-Flores, 63 F.3d 1468 (9th Cir. 1995) (same)
    United States v. Carrion-Caliz, 944 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1991) (same)
    United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (same; also 
hijacking)
Internationally Protected Persons Convention
    United States v. Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman, et al., S.D.N.Y. 
(prosecution against ten defendants for conspiracy to bomb the U.N., 
the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, and 
various U.S. government buildings and military installations, as well 
as conspiracy to murder Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the latter 
offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1116 and 1117; all 
defendants convicted on all counts; unreported trial court decision 
posttrial, aff'd in part, remanded in part, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999), 
cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1094 (2000))
    United States v. Usama Bin Laden, et al., S.D.N.Y. (prosecution 
against four defendants in custody for the bombings of U.S. embassies 
in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and for conspiracy to 
kill U.S. military personnel serving in Somalia and Saudi Arabia; 
numerous other defendants remain fugitives; in June 2001, all four 
defendants convicted of, among other charges, conspiracy to kill 
internationally protected persons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  
1116 and 1117; no reported post-trial decision or appeal)
    United States v. Shirosaki, unreported case, D.D.C. 1998, aff'd 
without opinion, 194 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 
1081 (2000) (member of Japanese Red Army convicted of attempted murder 
of internationally protected persons in connection with May 1986 mortar 
attack on U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
Sec.  1116, one of the implementing statutes for the Internationally 
Protected Persons Convention)
    United States v. Vasquez, 867 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1989) (affirming 
conviction for threatening Pope in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec.  112, 
one of the implementing statutes for the Internationally Protected 
Persons Convention)
    United States v. Gan, 636 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1980) (affirming 
defendants' convictions under 18 U.S.C. Sec.  112(a))
                                 ______
                                 

    Response From the Department of State to an Additional Question 
               Submitted for the Record by Senator Allen

    Question. Since September 11, how many countries have at least 
started moving to sign or to ratify either of these Conventions?

    Answer. The following countries have either signed or deposited 
instruments of ratification with respect to either the International 
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings or the 
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of 
Terrorism since September 11, 2001:
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
Ratifications deposited:

          Belarus--October 1, 2001
          Costa Rica--September 20, 2001
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
Signed:

          Australia--October 15, 2001
          Austria--September 24, 2001
          Azerbaijan--October 4, 2001
          Bahamas--October 2, 2001
          Belgium--September 27, 2001
          Colombia--October 30, 2001
          Cuba--October 19, 2001
          Denmark--September 25, 2001
          Guatemala--October 23, 2001
          Iceland--October 1, 2001
          Indonesia--September 24, 2001
          Ireland--October 15, 2001
          Jordan--September 24, 2001
          Liechtenstein--October 2, 2001
          Luxembourg--September 20, 2001
          Madagascar--October 1, 2001
          Morocco--October 12, 2001
          Nicaragua--October 17, 2001
          Norway--October 1, 2001
          Paraguay--October 12, 2001
          Poland--October 4, 2001
          Republic of Korea--October 9, 2001
          Sweden--October 15, 2001
          Tajikistan--November 6, 2001
          Tunisia--November 2, 2001
          Turkey--September 27, 2001
          Uruguay--October 25, 2001
          Ratifications deposited:
          Azerbaijan--October 26, 2001
    (Information available as of November 8, 2001)
                                 ______
                                 

    Response From the Department of State to an Additional Question 
               Submitted for the Record by Senator Boxer

    Question. What countries have signed or are parties to the 
antiterrorism Conventions?

    Answer. Please see attached chart indicating those countries that 
have signed each counterterrorism convention and those that have become 
parties, as of November 8, 2001.


                                                                                                   INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM CONVENTIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                          1988      1988 Protocol
                                                                                                                      Protocol for     for the
                                                                                              1991          1988           the       Suppression                               1973 Convention      1971
                                                                  1999                     Convention    Convention    Suppression   of Unlawful                     1979           on the        Montreal     1970 Hague    1963 Tokyo
                                                               Convention       1998         on the        on the      of Unlawful     Acts of         1979       Convention    Prevention and   Convention    Convention    Convention
                                                                for the      Convention     Making of    Suppression  Acts Against   Violence at    Convention      on the      Punishment of      for the       for the     on Offenses
                                                              Suppression      for the       Plastic     of Unlawful   the Safety      Airports     Against the    Physical     Crimes Against   Suppression   Suppression   and Certain
                                                                 of the      Suppression   Explosives   Acts Against    of Fixed       Serving       Taking of    Protection   Internationally   of Unlawful   of Unlawful   Other Acts
                                                              Financing of  of Terrorist     for the     the Safety     Platforms   International    Hostages     of Nuclear      Protected     Acts Against   Seizure of   Committed on
                                                             Terrorism \1\  Bombings \2\   Purpose of    of Maritime   Located on      Aviation                    Material        Persons       the Safety     Aircraft        Board
                                                                                            Detection    Navagation        the          Civil                                                     of Civil                    Aircraft
                                                                                                                       Continental     Aviation                                                   Aviation
                                                                                                                          Shelf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan................................................                                         S                                                                                                     P             P             P
Albania....................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Algeria....................................................             S             S             P             P                            P             P                             P              P             P             P
Andorra....................................................
Angola.....................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Antigua & Barbuda..........................................                                                                                                  P             P               P              P             P             P
Argentina..................................................             S             S             P             P             S              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Armenia....................................................                                                                                                                P               P
Australia..................................................             S                                         P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Austria....................................................             S             P             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Azerbaijan.................................................             P             P             P                                          P             P                             P              P             P
Bahamas....................................................             S                                         S             S                            P                             P              P             P             P
Bahrain....................................................                                         P                                          P                                                          P             P             P
Bangladesh.................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Barbados...................................................                                                       P             P                            P                             P              P             P             P
Belarus....................................................                           P             S             S             S              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Belgium....................................................             S             S             S             S             S              P             P             P                              P             P             P
Belize.....................................................                                         S                                          P                                                          P             P             P
Benin......................................................                                                                                                                                                                           P
Bhutan.....................................................                                                                                                  P                             P              P             P             P
Bolivia....................................................                                         S                                                        S                                            P             P             P
Bosnia-Herzegovina.........................................                                                                                    P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Botswana...................................................             P             P             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Brazil.....................................................                           S             P             S             S              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Brunei.....................................................                                                       S             S              P             P                             P              P             P             P
Bulgaria...................................................             S                           P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Burkina Faso...............................................                                                                                    P                                                          P             P             P
Burma......................................................                                                                                    P                                                          P             P             P
Burundi....................................................                           S                                                                                                    P              P             S             P
Cambodia...................................................                                                                                    P                                                          P             P             P
Cameroon...................................................                                         P                                          S             P                             P              P             P             P
Canada.....................................................             S             S             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Cape Verde.................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Central African Republic...................................                                                                                    P                                                          P             P             P
Chad.......................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Chile......................................................             S                           P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
China......................................................                                       \3\             P             P            \3\       \3\ \4\             P             \3\        \3\ \4\           \4\       \3\ \4\
Colombia...................................................             S                           S                                                                                      P              P             P             P
Comoros....................................................             S             S                                                                                                                   P             P             P
Congo (ROC,................................................                                                                                    S                                                                        P             P
  Brazzaville).............................................
Congo (DROC,...............................................                                                                                    S             S                             P              P             P             P
  Kinshasa)................................................
Costa Rica.................................................             S             P             S             S             S              S                                           P              P             P             P
Cote d'Ivoire..............................................                           S             S                                          S             P                                            P             P             P
Croatia....................................................                                                                                    P                           P               P              P             P             P
Cuba.......................................................             S                                                                                                  P               P                                          P
Cyprus.....................................................             S             P                           P             P                            P             P               P              P             P             P
Czech Republic.............................................             S             P             P             S             S              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Denmark....................................................             S             P             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Djibouti...................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Dominica...................................................                                                       P                                          P
Dominican Republic.........................................                                                                                                  S             S               P              P             P             P
Ecuador....................................................             S                                         P             S              S             P             P               P              P             P             P
Egypt......................................................             S             S             P             P             P              P             P                             P              P             P             P
El Salvador................................................                                         P             P             P              P             P                             P              P             P             P
Equatorial Guinea..........................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Eritrea....................................................                                         P
Estonia....................................................             S             S             P                                          P                           P               P              P             P             P
Ethiopia...................................................                                                                                    P                                                          P             P             P
Fiji.......................................................                                                                                    P                                                          P             P             P
Finland....................................................             S             S             S             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
France.....................................................             S             P             P             P             P              P             P             P                              P             P             P
Gabon......................................................             S                           S                                          S             S                             P              P             P             P
Gambia.....................................................                                         P             P                            P                                                          P             P             P
Georgia....................................................             S                           P                                          P                                                          P             P             P
Germany....................................................             S             S             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Ghana......................................................                                         P                                          P             P                             P              P             P             P
Greece.....................................................             S             S             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Grenada....................................................                                                                                                  P                                            P             P             P
Guatemala..................................................             S                           P                                          P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Guinea.....................................................                           P             S                                          P                                                          P             P             P
Guinea-Bissau..............................................                                         S                                                                                                     P             P
Guyana.....................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Haiti......................................................                                                                                                  P             S               P              P             P             P
Holy See...................................................                                                                                                                                                                           S
Honduras...................................................                                         S                                                        P                                            P             P             P
Hungary....................................................                           S             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Iceland....................................................             S             S                                                        P             P                             P              P             P             P
India......................................................             S             P             P             P             P              P             P                             P              P             P             P
Indonesia..................................................             S                                                                      S                           P                              P             P             P
Iran.......................................................                                                                                                                                P              P             P             P
Iraq.......................................................                                                       S             S              P             S                             P              P             P             P
Ireland....................................................             S             S                                                        P                           P                              P             P             P
Israel.....................................................             S             S             S             S             S              P             S             S               P              P             P             P
Italy......................................................             S             S                           P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Jamaica....................................................                                                                                    S             S                             P              P             P             P
Japan......................................................             S             S             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Jordan.....................................................             S                           P             S             S              P             P                             P              P             P             P
Kazakhstan.................................................                                         P                                          P             P                             P              P             P             P
Kenya......................................................                                                                                    P             P                                            P             P             P
Kiribati...................................................
Korea (DPRK)...............................................                                                                                    P                                           P              P             P             P
Korea (ROK)................................................             S             S             S                                          P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Kuwait.....................................................                                         P                                          P             P                             P              P             P             P
Kyrgyzstan.................................................                           P             P                                          P                                                          P             P             P
Laos.......................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Latvia.....................................................                                         P                                          P                                           P              P             P             P
Lebanon....................................................                                         P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Lesotho....................................................             S                                                                                    P                                            P             P             P
Liberia....................................................                                                       P             P              S             S                             P              P             P             S
Libya......................................................                           P                                                        P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Liechtenstein..............................................             S                                                                      P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Lithuania..................................................                           S             P                                          P             P             P                              P             P             P
Luxembourg.................................................             S             S                                                        S             P             P                              P             P             P
Macedonia,.................................................             S             S             P                                          P             P             P               P              P             P             P
  FYROM....................................................
Madagascar.................................................             S             S             S                                          P                                                          P             P             P
Malawi.....................................................                                                                                    S             P                             P              P             P             P
Malaysia...................................................                                                                                    S                                                          P             P             P
Maldives...................................................                           P             P                                          P                                           P              P             P             P
Mali.......................................................                                         P                                          P             P                                            P             P             P
Malta......................................................             S                           P                                          P                                                          P             P             P
Marshall Islands...........................................                                                       P             P              P                                                          P             P             P
Mauritania.................................................                                                                                                  P                             P              P             P             P
Mauritius..................................................                                         S                                          P             P                             P              P             P             P
Mexico.....................................................             S                           P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Micronesia,................................................
   FSO.....................................................
Moldova....................................................                                         P                                          P                           P               P              P             P             P
Monaco.....................................................                           P             P                                          P             P             P                              P             P             P
Mongolia...................................................                           P             P                                          P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Morocco....................................................             S                           P             S             S              S                           S                              P             P             P
Mozambique.................................................
Namibia....................................................
Nauru......................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Nepal......................................................                           S                                                                      P                             P              P             P             P
Netherlands................................................             S             S             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
New Zealand................................................             S                                         P             P              P                           P               P              P             P             P
Nicaragua..................................................             S                           S                                                                                      P              P             P             P
Niger......................................................                                                                                    S                           S               P              P             P             P
Nigeria....................................................             S                                         S             S                                                                         P             P             P
Norway.....................................................             S             P             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Oman.......................................................                                                       P             P              P             P                             P              P             P             P
Pakistan...................................................                                         S             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Palau......................................................                                                                                    P                                                          P             P             P
Panama.....................................................                           P             P                                          P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Papua New Guinea...........................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Paraguay...................................................             S                                                                                                  P               P              P             P             P
Peru.......................................................             S                           P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Philippines................................................                           S                           S             S              S             P             P               P              P             P             P
Poland.....................................................             S             S                           P             P              S             P             P               P              P             P             P
Portugal...................................................             S             S                           P             P              S             P             P               P              P             P             P
Qatar......................................................                                         P                                                                                      P              P             P             P
Romania....................................................             S             S             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Russian Federation.........................................             S             P             S             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Rwanda.....................................................                                                                                                                                P              P             P             P
Saint Kitts and Nevis......................................                                                                                                  P
Saint Lucia................................................                                                                                    P                                                          P             P             P
Saint Vincent..............................................                                                                                    P             P                             P              P             P             P
  and the Gr...............................................
Samoa......................................................                                         P                                          P                                                          P             P             P
San Marino.................................................             S
Sao Tome...................................................
  and Principe.............................................
Saudi Arabia...............................................                                         P             S             S              P             P                                            P             P             P
Senegal....................................................                                         S                                          S             P                                            P             P             P
Seychelles.................................................                                                       P             P                                                          P              P             P             P
Sierra Leone...............................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Singapore..................................................                                                                                    P                                                          P             P             P
Slovak Republic............................................             S             P             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Slovenia...................................................                           S             P                                          P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Solomon Islands............................................                                                                                                                                               P
Somalia....................................................
South Africa...............................................                           S             P                                          P                           S                              P             P             P
Spain......................................................             S             P             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Sri Lanka..................................................             P             P             P             P                            P             P                             P              P             P             P
Sudan......................................................             S             P             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Suriname...................................................                                                                                                  P                                            P             P             P
Swaziland..................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Sweden.....................................................             S             P             S             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Switzerland................................................             S                           P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Syria......................................................                                                                                                                                P              P             P             P
Taiwan\5\..................................................
Tajikistan.................................................             S                                                                      P                           P               P              P             P             P
Tanzania...................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
Thailand...................................................                                                                                    P                                                          P             P             P
Togo.......................................................                           S             S                                          P             P                             P              P             P             P
Tonga......................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P
Trinidad & Tobago..........................................                           P             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Tunisia....................................................             S                           P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Turkey.....................................................             S             S             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Turkmenistan...............................................                           P                           P             P              P             P                             P              P             P             P
Tuvalu.....................................................
Uganda.....................................................                           S                                                        P             S                                            P             P             P
Ukraine....................................................             S                           P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
United Arab Emirates.......................................                                         P                                          P                                                          P             P             P
United Kingdom.............................................             P             P             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
United States of America...................................             S             S             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Uruguay....................................................             S             S             P             P             P              P                                           P              P             P             P
Uzbekistan.................................................             P             P             P             P             P              P             P             P               P              P             P             P
Vanuatu....................................................                                                       P             P                                                                         P             P             P
Venezuela..................................................                           S                                                        S             P                                            P             P             P
Vietnam....................................................                                                                                    P                                                          P             P             P
Yemen......................................................                           P                           P             P                                                          P              P             P             P
Yugoslavia.................................................                                                                                                  P             P               P              P             P             P
  (FRY)....................................................
Zambia.....................................................                                         P                                                                                                     P             P             P
Zimbabwe...................................................                                                                                                                                               P             P             P
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not in force. P reflects a Party once in force.
\2\ Not in force for U.S.
\3\ Applicable to Hong Kong.
\4\ Applicable to Macau.
\5\ Taiwan committed to implement all anti-terrorism UN conventions.

                                  
