[Page: S14224]
参议院继续的考虑bill.
Specter先生。Mr. President, there is one other document I wish to add to the记录。我要求一致同意这张表，该表显示了1968年至1989年4月的恐怖行为的数量记录，显示全世界恐怖主义，丧生，受伤的人数以及美国公民的人数丧生和受伤。
没有异议，桌子被命令在记录，as follows:
TOTAL CASUALTIES FROM INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM1
-----------------------------------------------------
Year Worldwide Americans
Killed Wounded Killed Wounded
-----------------------------------------------------
1989 (to Apr. 1) 59 106 0 5
1988 658 1,131 192 40
1987 612 2,293 7 47
1986 604 1,717 12 100
1985 825 1,217 38 157
1984 312 967 11 31
1983 637 1,267 271 115
1982 128 755 8 11
1981 168 804 7 40
1980 507 1,062 9 17
1979 697 542 15 21
1978 435 629 9 21
1977 230 404 4 7
1976 409 806 7 32
1975 266 516 18 78
1974 311 879 42 17
1973 121 199 23 2
1972 151 390 23 33
1971 36 225 4 23
1970 127 209 6 14
1969 56 190 3 3
1968 34 207 5 10
Total 7,383 16,515 714 824
-----------------------------------------------------
Specter先生。Mr. President, how much time is remaining allocable to each side.
主持人。The Senator from Pennsylvania has 14- 1/2 minutes. The Senator from Michigan has 15 minutes.
Specter先生。I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, let me express regret that we have not used all of the time. We had expected others to come to the floor to discuss this issue. There has not been a yielding back of time because Senators had expected that we would not vote until 4 hours from 11 o'clock, which was why the 3 o'clock time was established. So that accounts for why we have had the quorum calls here this afternoon.
Mr. President, I wish to comment on a few of the issues raised regarding this issue, before coming down really to the central aspect of the matter now before the Senate, which succinctly stated is, should there be a death penalty, or is it sufficient to provide for a mandatory penalty for life imprisonment?
The arguments have been advanced that the death penalty applies disproportionately to the poor. I believe that does not really apply in the situation of terrorism.
There has been argument advanced that there may be errors, and you cannot go back on a situation where somebody has been executed. I suggest, Mr. President, that given the procedure now at hand, that the likelihood of error is very, very minimal. When it comes to terrorism, given our procedures, and finally the terrorists, sometimes photographs like in the Stethem case, identifying Hamadei, that we are dealing with a phase of capital punishment on terrorism where errors are very remote.
One assertion was made that the death penalty advances a simple solution to a complex problem. There is no representation made here that there is any real effort or expectation of a solution, but this is an important arsenal in the weapon against terrorism, just another weapon.
A consideration was raised as to whether second-degree murder would call for the death penalty, and that is not realistic or possible, where terrorism is involved, Mr. President. As a matter of statutory construction of the two reasons, first, the murder statute defines murder in the first degree as willful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing. SenatorBiden我就此事进行了讨论。
Terrorism by its very definition is a premeditated, willful, calculated act. So that under the definition of murder under title 18 U.S. Code,
section 1111, there is no aspect of terrorism where you can have second-degree murder. That is made more emphatic under the provisions of the terrorism bill itself, which has a special limitation on prosecutions in section E, which says that it will apply only where there has been the determination that the conduct of the terrorist was to coerce, intimidate, or retaliate against the Government or a civilian population.
That is the definition of terrorism, and that has to be premeditation, to coerce, intimidate or retaliate. So that first-degree murder is all that is comprehended, obviously, when you deal with the question of terrorism. Mr. President, now we come to the nub of the case, and that is, whether there ought to be the opportunity for the death penalty. The bill before us today provides that it is up to a jury to provide the death penalty, it is not mandated, or you fall short with a mandatory life sentence.
One of the opponents said that the death penalty is soft on terrorism, and another said that mandatory life is tougher. Anybody who believes that, ought to vote for the Levin-Hatfield amendment and ought to vote against the Specter bill.
根据定义，死刑是最严厉的罚款。让它不要误会。如果Levin-Hatfield修正案寻求加强恐怖主义的惩罚，那么他们有足够的纬度在过去的几个月或几年中的任何时候提出。但是这项修正案是由参议员提供的Levinand SenatorHatfieldin order to defeat the death penalty provision. That is it, pure and simple. The issue is whether you are going to have the possibility of a death penalty or not. When we talk about extradiction, it is a red herring. The United States of America can always waive extradiction.
Mr. President, the most succinct definition of why you call for the death penalty was that from Justice Stewart, which is worth repeating:
[页：S14225]
The decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the death penalty.
The only adequate response may be the death penalty. I ask my colleagues and the people in the gallery, and I ask America watching on C-SPAN II, whether that penalty ought to be possible for the perpetrators of the Pan Am 103 terrorist act, where 259 innocent passengers were blown out of the sky.
I ask my colleagues whether the death penalty ought to be present for the perpetrators at the Rome airport, where 15 people were killed and 73 wounded in an airport lobby by a machinegun and grenade attack.
I ask whether the death penalty ought to be available where Pan Am 73 at Karachi, where terrorists held passengers for 17 hours, and gunmen indiscriminately exploded grenades and fired machineguns wounding 100 people and killing 21 people.
I ask whether the death penalty ought to be a possibility when Leon Klinghoffer, in a wheelchair, was shot and pushed into the Mediterranean.
If anybody says life imprisonment is tougher, let them vote for SenatorLevin's amendment. For anybody who wants the death penalty to be an option, to be imposed by an American jury, I say vote for this bill and make the death penalty a possibility to deter terrorism.
How much time do I have left, Mr. President?
主持人。The Senator has 6 minutes, 45 seconds.
Specter先生。I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
主持人。Who seeks recognition?
莱文先生向主席讲话。
主持人。The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the substitute which SenatorHatfieldand I have offered is a stronger and tougher approach than that of SenatorSpecterfor two reasons. First, our approach provides for a certainty of life imprisonment. No release, no parole. If you murder an American in the course of a terrorist act, you are going away, and we are throwing away the key.
Under SenatorSpecter他的方法是，他为法律提供了四个选择。是的，其中之一是死刑，但这是四种选择之一。他还选择了几年的监禁或缓刑，甚至选择在恐怖行为过程中针对美国人谋杀的罚款。
So just as my friend from Pennsylvania asks our colleagues questions, so I would frame the question this way: Do any of us really believe that a few years in prison is an adequate response to the Klinghoffer murder or to the Pan Am terrorist acts? Will any of us accept that as adequate? That is permitted under SenatorSpecter's approach. It is not permitted under the Hatfield-Levin approach.
So ours is tougher, because we mandate life behind bars with no possibility of parole for murdering an American in the course of a terrorist act. If you want to allow a few years in prison for the terrorist who killed Leon Klinghoffer, then you vote for the Specter approach, because that is allowed under the Specter approach. As a matter of fact, a fine would still be permitted as the sole punishment under the law if SenatorSpecter's bill is adopted.
我发现完全不一致,相信strongest approach to terrorist acts is to have a mandatory sentence, not to have four options which is the Specter approach, all the way from a fine, to a few years in prison, to life in prison, to capital punishment--four options without any certainty that someone will spend at least the rest of his life in prison. There is no certainty of that under the Specter approach. Either go with the four-option uncertainty of the Senator from Pennsylvania or the certainty under SenatorHatfield's and my approach, that if you commit a murder against an American, you are going away for life, and we are throwing away the key. That is tougher than a four-option uncertainty which is provided by the underlying bill.
我们的方法是toughe还有另一个原因r and that is that the key to getting your hands on terrorists is to extradite them. And if you have even the possibility of a death penalty, we are not going to be able to extradite terrorists.
We put in theRecorda list of the countries which will not allow for extradition, if capital punishment is a possibility under American law.
Those countries include Colombia. We are not going to be able to extradite people who commit murder in the course of a terrorist act if they are Colombian nationals, if the act of murder in the course of a terrorist act is subject to capital punishment. We are going to defeat our very purpose.
我们的目的是掌握这些恐怖分子，并使他们通过美国司法系统，这是他们最担心的东西。我同意我的来自宾夕法尼亚州的朋友，就这个问题说，恐怖分子和毒品主角最大的恐惧是美国的正义制度和引渡到美国面对音乐的事情。如果有死刑的选择，他们将不必面对音乐，因为如果他们面对死刑的可能性，他们就不会引发。
Those countries, as I say, include Colombia which will not extradite. They include other Central and South American countries--Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, Paraguay, and a whole host of other countries throughout the world.
While I commend my friend from Pennsylvania for raising an issue which is important, that being the current inadequacy of our law against terrorism and our efforts to get our hands on persons who commit murders of Americans in the course of a terrorist act, I believe that our approach is a far stronger, a far tougher approach to handling those terrorists than is the approach that has been offered in the underlying bill by our friend from Pennsylvania.
On the extradition issue, I read here just a portion of an article written by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post. The article is dated January 1987:
[页：S14226]
上周，德国警察在法兰克福机场逮捕了一名男子，他的行李里携带液体炸药。原来，他是穆罕默德·阿里·哈马迪（Mohammed Ali Hamadei），这是1985年劫持TWA喷气式客机和谋杀乘客的四名男子之一。值得称赞的是，德国人拒绝引渡哈马迪，直到美国同意不寻求死刑。纳粹时代将近42年，是德国人指导我们死刑的道德。
如果有罪的话，哈马迪似乎是处决的理想候选人。TWA乘客，海军潜水员罗伯特·D·斯特瑟姆（Robert D.现在有其他证据表明，哈马迪打算更加杀人。在只有22岁的时候，他是一个被忽视的人。
Then Richard Cohen goes on to say the following:
恐怖分子法院死亡。他们不会为自己的生活投入太多溢价，更不用说他人的生活了。他们中的一些人愿意牺牲自己来进一步发展自己的事业。
He then describes the Marine barracks in Beirut.
本文的重点是我将从佛罗里达州的一位前美国检察官那里读到一篇文章的重点。除非我们放弃死刑的可能性，否则我们将无法引渡这些恐怖行为的肇事者。这种选择的存在将使我们更难引渡我们试图通过美国正义体系进行的恐怖分子。
Mr. President, I would like to read a letter from Richard Gregorie who was chief assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida dated August 5, 1988. Here is what he wrote me:
大部分的欧洲国家和南部和分ral America will not extradite a defendant if that defendant faces the death penalty. In fact, in recent cases involving terrorism, the United States has had to agree to withdraw the death penalty in order to get defendants extradited to the United States. Colombia has abrogated its extradition treaty with the United States and no Colombians are being extradited at this time. In order to get the cooperation of countries in Europe and South and Central America, the United States must extend its diplomatic efforts. Passing legislation which provides for the death penalty would be useless in that they very defendants who might be subject to those penalties would not be extradited from their safe havens abroad.
This is the key point:
Further the existence of the death penalty may provide an excuse to countries in Central and South America and Europe to refuse to cooperate in sending drug kingpins to the United States for trial.
It is my position that it should be the priority of both the State Department and the Justice Department that drug kingpins be indicted and brought to the United States for trial. I am opposed to any legislation which may interfere with that priority. It is for that reason that I have testified that capital punishment for drug kingpins would not be productive legislation.
That is precisely the same reasoning that applies here, which is that if we have the option of capital punishment, we are going to provide the excuse to countries not to extradite the very terrorists that we are trying to get into our criminal justice system.
In summary, we have got two options to correct a weak law relative to terrorists. One is the underlying bill of SenatorSpecter这给了四个选择 - 从多年来到多年的罚款，判处无期徒刑。这是一种四项选择，涉及的所有不确定性。
The other approach is mandatory life in prison without parole, no options. If you are convicted of murder--and those are key words because obviously you could be convicted for something less or plead guilty to something less--of an American citizen during the course of a terrorist act, your going away and you are never going to see `daylight' again, in the words of SenatorBiden.That is strength. That is certainty. That is toughness, compared to the uncertainty which will exist if we adopt the underlying bill.
另一点，这是我们方法中的关键点，我们避免了幽灵法案的问题，那就是，死刑的选择的存在将使引渡人民，许多国家，许多国家，许多国家，包括我们目前正在引渡人们的关键国家，如果我们的法律中存在死刑方案，则不会将恐怖分子引渡到美国。
So for both of those principal reasons I would urge that the better, tougher, stronger, clearer option that faces us to correct the current flaws in our statutes relative to the treatment of people who commit murders during the course of a terrorist act, the better approach and stronger approach is the Hatfield-Levin substitute.
I yield the floor.
主持人。谁产生时间？
Specter先生。总统先生剩下多少时间？
主持人。The Senator from Pennsylvania has 6 minutes 39 seconds. The Senator from Michigan has 3 minutes 35 seconds.
Specter先生。总统先生，关于引渡的论点的重复，如果我可能会说是红鲱鱼。
我很高兴密歇根州的杰出参议员引用了理查德·科恩专栏，因为理查德·科恩（Richard Cohen）回答参议员Levin'sargument. Richard Cohen says in the article quoted that Germany was correct in refusing to extradite Hamadei until the United States assured that there would not be any use of the death penalty. That is the conclusive answer to that extradition argument.
In many situations, Mr. President, the United States acquires custody through our own efforts without the extradition. For example, Fawaz Yunis, the terrorist seized in the Mediterranean, was brought back to the United States for trial, and sentenced and convicted in a court in Washington, DC. We almost secured the terrorist in theAchille Laurocase when U.S. Navy fighter planes forced down the Egyptian airliner. We almost gained custody of Abu Abbas until the Italian authorities insisted on primacy. So we had the opportunity to gain custody in many situations without extradition.
当与密歇根州的杰出参议员说，幽灵方法有四种选择，这是不正确的。我的法案提供了一项关于现有法律的修正案，以提供死刑的机会。
With all due respect, Mr. President, it is disingenuous to say that the Levin substitute was brought to toughen up the terrorist bill. The Levin substitute has been advanced here in an effort to derail the death penalty. Ample time existed if there were really an effort to tighten up the penalties for terrorism, and it was not attempted.
The crystal argument, Mr. President, in a candid way was offered by SenatorHatfieldearlier this afternoon when he said, `Even if capital punishment were to deter and were universally accepted, the death penalty is wrong.'
The opposition to the death penalty provision comes from that conclusion and not as a motivation to offer the substitute bill, Mr. President.
When we talk about the kinds of offenses which are an affront to humanity, they could not be more clearly categorized than the kinds of atrocities committed against American citizens which warrant the death penalty.
总统先生，我屈服于地板，问剩下多少时间？
主持人。来自宾夕法尼亚州的参议员有3分33秒。来自密歇根州的参议员有3分35秒。
谁产生时间？
米切尔先生。总统先生，杰出的参议员与宾夕法尼亚州是否会为我屈服于我的一致协议吗？
Specter先生。Yes, of course, I am delighted to yield.
END