U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–110 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–148 

FULFILLING OUR TREATY OBLIGATIONS AND 

PROTECTING AMERICANS ABROAD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 27, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–37 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 147 

WITNESSES 

Bellinger, John B., III, Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP, and Adjunct Senior 

Fellow in International and National Security Law, Council on Foreign 

Relations, Washington, DC ................................................................................. 19 

Gillis, Clare, Freelance Journalist, New Haven, Connecticut ............................. 21 

Kennedy, Patrick F., Under Secretary for Management, U.S. Department 

of State, Washington, DC .................................................................................... 5 

Rivkin, David B., Jr., Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP, Washington, DC ............. 23 

Swartz, Bruce C., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC ..................................................................................... 7 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Patrick F. Kennedy to questions submitted by Senators Leahy 

and Klobuchar and attachments ......................................................................... 32 

Responses of David B. Rivkin, Jr., to questions submitted by Senators Klobuchar, Grassley and Leahy ................................................................................ 93 

Responses of Bruce C. Swartz to questions submitted by Senator Grassley ...... 95 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Civil Liberties Union; Amnesty International USA; Human Rights 

Defense Center; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; Justice Now; 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; National Association 

of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Safe Streets Arts Foundation; Advocates 

for Human Rights and Constitution Project, July 27, 2011, joint letter ......... 103 

Assist News Service, February 10, 2008, article ................................................... 105 

Bellinger, John B., III, Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP, and Adjunct Senior 

Fellow in International and National Security Law, Council on Foreign 

Relations, Washington, DC, statement .............................................................. 108 

Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Secretary of State, Washington, DC, July 27, 2011, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 120 

Gillis, Clare, Freelance Journalist, New Haven, Connecticut, statement .......... 123 

Graham, Hon. Lindsey O., a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina, 

April 23, 2008, letter ............................................................................................ 125 

Holder, Eric H., Jr., Attorney General and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary 

of State, Washington, DC, June 28, 2011, joint letter ...................................... 127 

Kennedy, Patrick F., Under Secretary for Management, U.S. Department 

of State, Washington, DC, statement and attachment ..................................... 130 

Panetta, Leon, Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC, August 31, 2011, letter .......................................................................................................................... 149 

Pruitt, E. Scott, Oklahoma Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 

August 3, 2011, letter .......................................................................................... 152 

Rivkin, David B., Jr., Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 154 

Strange, Luther, Attorney General, Montgomery, Alabama, August 1, 2011, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 166 

Swartz, Bruce C., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, statement .................................................................. 168 

(1) 

FULFILLING OUR TREATY OBLIGATIONS AND 

PROTECTING AMERICANS ABROAD 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Franken, Blumenthal, Grassley, and 

Graham. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. Today we are going to hear testimony about legislation I introduced last month, legislation with 

the support of the Department of Justice, the Department of State, 

and the Department of Homeland Security, to help bring the 

United States into compliance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This is a treaty made 

under the authority of the United States. Of course, a treaty that 

we enter into carries the force of law in our country. 

In an important way, we began our opening statements for this 

hearing a week ago when Senator Grassley raised the issue at an 

earlier hearing last Wednesday. We agreed on an important principle then—that treaties ratified by the United States are the law 

of the land and, like any law, must be honored. Senator Grassley 

appropriately made reference to the Supremacy Clause contained 

in Article VI of the Constitution that provides for the Constitution, 

Federal laws, and treaties to be treated as ‘‘the supreme Law of the 

Land.’’ That is central to this hearing. 

If we can remain focused on that shared principle, I am confident 

we can find a solution to the problem that continues to plague us. 

As you know, President Bush tried to get us to comply with our 

legal obligations, unsuccessfully. I supported President George W. 

Bush in that regard. 

Each year, thousands of Americans—including from every State 

represented by this Committee—are arrested overseas while they 

study, travel, work, and serve in the military. Like many other 

Senators, I have gotten those calls at 2 o’clock in the morning or 

3 o’clock in the morning from an anxious family member saying 

their husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, or sister have been arrested in—naming the country—‘‘What can we do? ’’ Well, I tell 

them their well-being often depends on the ability of United States 

2 

consular officials to meet with them, monitor their treatment, help 

them obtain legal assistance, and connect them to family back 

home. 

In those countries, we remind the people that we are all signatories to this Vienna treaty, and so our consular members have to be 

able to speak to them. I am worried about what has happened a 

few times in our country that some of these countries are going to 

say, ‘‘Wait a minute. You want us to follow that, but you do not 

follow it.’’ 

We know that access is protected by the treaty ratified in 1969 

after a bipartisan vote in the Senate. This treaty has been supported by every President, Republican or Democratic, ever since. 

The treaty is not ‘‘foreign law.’’ It is American law and has been 

for more than 40 years. And the United States joined the treaty 

and made it our law. Why? Because it protects our citizens. 

The value of that treaty has never been questioned. But as with 

any treaty, with any law, it is only effective when enforced. And 

right now, in too many cases, the United States is not being faithful to this law. That failure puts Americans in other countries at 

risk, and those other countries are able to say, ‘‘Well, you do not 

follow the law, so we are not going to follow the law, and your 

American that we are holding in jail is now in trouble.’’ 

This should not be a partisan issue. President George W. Bush 

tried to fix the problem through an Executive memorandum, but 

the Supreme Court rejected that approach. In a decision by Chief 

Justice Roberts, the Court agreed that reciprocal observance of the 

treaty was a ‘‘plainly compelling’’ American interest, but ruled that 

the solution had to be implemented by Congress and not the President. The legislation I introduced follows the approach taken by 

President Bush but does it—as Chief Justice Roberts insisted—and 

I disagree with his conclusion in that, but I am doing it as he has 

insisted—by way of implementing legislation. 

Now, I recognize that solving this problem requires us to deal 

with cases involving heinous crimes. In no way do I want to minimize the seriousness of these offenses or the importance of seeing 

justice done for the victims of these crimes. I am a former prosecutor. I prosecuted a lot of these heinous type crimes, and I feel 

as strongly about that as anyone. The bill is not about letting dangerous criminals go free. Criminals must be held accountable for 

their actions. 

What the legislation does is offer a very narrowly crafted solution 

that will have the least impact possible on those cases and our 

courts while maximizing protections for United States citizens. In 

order to bring the United States into compliance with its legal obligations, the bill merely provides the Federal courts with the opportunity to determine if the denial of consular access resulted in an 

unfair conviction or sentence in a limited number of cases. 

Now, some have suggested that the bill is an attack on the death 

penalty or an effort to further delay the habeas corpus review process. Of course, neither claim is true. That is not what is intended. 

The bill provides one-time review for a limited group of cases. It 

has no effect on habeas review for anyone else. It is not going to 

clog our courts; it is not going to delay future cases. In fact, moving 

forward, the bill seeks to eliminate the need for future habeas 

3 

claims regarding consular notification by ensuring that these issues 

are dealt with before trial. 

So imagine the case, as I said before, of an American sentenced 

to death in a foreign country without any notification to the U.S. 

Government, not having the access that he is supposed to have. 

Every one of us—Republicans and Democrats alike—would be outraged. There are currently foreign nationals on death row in the 

United States, some of whom were never told of their right to contact their consulate, and their consulate was never informed of 

their arrest, trial, conviction, or sentence. That is not in compliance 

with our treaty and, thus, not in compliance with our law. 

I have heard from retired members of the U.S. military urging 

passage of the bill to protect service men and women and their 

families overseas. I have heard from former diplomats of both political parties who know that compliance with the treaty is critical for 

America’s national security and commercial interests. 

In conclusion, the bill is about three things only. It is about protecting Americans when they work, travel, and serve in the military in foreign countries. It is about fulfilling our obligations and 

upholding the rule of law. And it is about removing a significant 

impediment to full and complete cooperation with our international 

allies on national security and law enforcement efforts that keep 

Americans safe. We have to bring the U.S. into compliance with 

our legal obligations. We cannot continue to ignore the treaty and 

at the same time expect other countries to honor the treaty. 

Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes, let me preface my remarks with a couple 

points based upon what you just said. 

No. 1, you will see from my statement that I read your bill a little bit differently than you do, and maybe that can be clarified 

through this hearing or through private discussions you and I 

might have. But I see it a little bit differently than you do. 

The second thing, I would say you do accurately reflect the 15- 

second discussion we had on the Supremacy Clause. But when you 

get into this issue, I think it is a little broader than what just our 

15-second statement would be, and I will make some comment on 

that. 

The United States fulfills its treaty obligations under the Vienna 

Convention, and we do protect Americans abroad. I appreciate the 

fine work of the men and women of the State Department who provide consular assistance to arrested citizens. And Secretary Clinton 

called me last night, and we had a very good discussion, and she 

told me about 9,500 Americans being helped abroad on this, and 

how even 24 or 25 Iowans were helped on this, and she saw this 

as a very important piece of legislation, and I said I would be glad 

to continue discussion with her. 

The Supremacy Clause requires adherence to treaties, not to rulings of international judicial bodies, and treaties that conflict with 

emphasis upon later enacted statutes lose applicability to the extent of any conflict. That is the case here. Most importantly, the 

Supremacy Clause requires adherence to the Constitution. 

4 

The real subjects of this hearing are the retroactive ability of foreign murderers on death row to have another chance to delay the 

imposition of their sentences and the weakening of the sovereignty 

of the Nation and of our 50 States. 

This bill is also about the death penalty. There is no reason to 

believe that any American would lose consular access if the International Court of Justice Avena decision were not enforced. None 

has done so since the 2004 ruling. But there is no doubt that the 

conviction and death sentences of scores of foreign murderers 

would face another round of judicial review if the bill is passed. 

Due to the broadest language in the bill—and the bill contains this 

language: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, those habeas petitions will not be governed by the 1996 amendments that 

we made in the habeas laws.’’ 

There is every reason to expect that judges will use those habeas 

petitions to retroactively delay and sometimes block the imposition 

of lawful death sentences against clearly guilty killers. It is the 

families of the victims of those murderers who will be harmed if 

S. 1194 passes the way it is written now. This hearing is not balanced with four witnesses in favor of the bill and only one in opposition. Since we were allowed only one witness, we requested that 

a family member of a victim be allowed to testify perhaps as a joint 

witness, and we were refused. 

The administration says that our noncompliance with the International Court of Justice is causing Americans not to receive consular notification, but the case of Ms. Gillis, the witness before us 

today, does not provide that at all. Her Libyan captors thought she 

was Spanish, so they did not deny her consular rights because of 

U.S. action. The more likely explanation of her denial of consular 

rights was that NATO was bombing Libya and the Qaddafi regime’s general intentional failure to obey international norms. 

The administration’s claim that this bill is needed to protect the 

rule of law is satire of that concept. Two consecutive administrations have now done everything but comply with the rule of law in 

this area. President Bush unconstitutionally ordered a State to 

order foreign killers to challenge their death sentences in light of 

the International Court of Justice ruling. President Obama’s Justice Department, with the State Department, filed a brief that argued that one of the individuals subject to the ICJ ruling should 

be granted a stay of execution. It relied on the International Court 

of Justice ruling which has no force under American law, policy 

considerations of the type we are going to hear today, and the 

unpassed bill—with emphasis upon ‘‘unpassed bill’’—that is the 

subject of this hearing. 

The rule of law depends on following only the law, but the administration’s brief advocated—and, sadly, four Justices agreed— 

that a bill that has not satisfied the constitutional requirements for 

enactment into law should be given consideration in the law. Those 

Justices and everyone else should be on notice that this bill, in fact, 

will not pass. Like the Bush administration’s disregard for federalism, the Obama administration’s flouting of the separation of 

powers has real consequences for the rights of American citizens. 

The State and Justice Departments should start adhering to the 

5 

American Constitution if they really value our credibility in recommending that foreign countries follow the rule of law. 

The administration also violates constitutional norms in this bill. 

The Tenth Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from 

commandeering State and local officials to perform federally mandated functions. Section 3 of the bill would do exactly that. The 

Constitution itself thus dashes any hopes that the question of adherence to the VCCR can be settled by this law once and for all, 

as the administration hopes. 

Throughout our history our foreign relations have been complicated by our Federal system. That is the price that we pay for 

having a limited Government that divides power among branches 

and between the Federal Government and the States for the purpose of protecting liberty. 

Professor Tribe, who is well thought of by many colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle, wrote recently that sometimes the Constitution ‘‘directs us back to the political drawing board.’’ This appears 

to be one of those times. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Our first witness is Patrick Kennedy. He is a career member of 

the U.S. Foreign Service, nearly 40 years of experience. He currently serves as the Under Secretary of State for Management. He 

was confirmed to that position by the Senate. As Under Secretary, 

he is responsible for a wide range of issues at the Department, including security and consular affairs. In addition to his other roles, 

in 2005 he headed the transition team for the then newly established Office of the Director of National Intelligence. He also served 

as a U.S. Representative to the U.N. for management and reform 

with the rank of Ambassador. He has a bachelor of science in foreign service from Georgetown University. 

On a personal note, he was recently in St. Albans, Vermont, 

where he was extremely well received in helping us with some of 

our important State Department efforts up there. I am told by the 

mayor of St. Albans and everybody else, Ambassador Kennedy, you 

are welcome back anytime. 

Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK F. KENNEDY, UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member 

Grassley, distinguished members of the Committee, I am pleased 

to testify on the proposed Consular Notification Compliance Act. 

Secretary Clinton vigorously supports this bill and has submitted 

a statement that is appended to my written testimony. Three important reasons compel swift enactment of this legislation: protection of Americans detained abroad, preserving our vital foreign policy interests, and safeguarding our reputation as a country that respects the rule of law. 

First, your constituents are among the 4.5 million Americans 

who live abroad, and those Americans who took 60 million trips 

abroad this past year, and the 103 million Americans who hold 

passports—all of whom depend upon consular protections to ensure 

6 

their safe passage through foreign countries. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations—a binding U.S. treaty—mandates three 

simple rules: ask, notify, and allow access. Arresting authorities 

must ask detained foreign nationals if they want their country’s 

consulate notified; if requested, must notify the consulate; and 

must allow access where the consulate seeks it. We strive to comply with these obligations not from altruism but from keen self-interest. We depend on other countries’ mutual respect for these 

rules to secure safe travel for the millions of Americans who live, 

work, study, vacation, and serve in our armed forces abroad. 

In 2010 alone, U.S. consular officers assisted more than 3,500 

Americans detained by foreign governments. When in foreign custody, a consular officer is often the best and sometimes only resource a U.S. citizen has to navigate a confusing foreign legal system or, worse yet, one that does not respect due process or fundamental rights. In many countries, a defendant has no protection 

from government searches and seizures, no guarantees against 

cruel and unusual punishment, and no right to a lawyer. But when 

Americans are detained, the Vienna Convention can ensure that 

they can ask for a U.S. consular officer who can then visit the citizen, assist in finding a local lawyer, facilitate communications 

back home, provide food and medicine, and rigorously protest any 

mistreatment. Thousands of Americans from all 50 States benefit 

from these services annually, but gross numbers are only a part of 

the story. 

A U.S. servicemember was detained in an African airport with a 

small souvenir that contained ivory. Local authorities charged him 

with trafficking, which carried a mandatory decades-long sentence. 

U.S. consular officers promptly visited, helped him understand his 

legal options, and obtained a lawyer who worked with police to pursue the souvenir sellers. As a result, the court accepted a plea 

agreement, and the servicemember was released. 

A minor U.S. citizen was arrested and jailed with adult inmates. 

Because her parents could not afford a lawyer, she entered a plea. 

Once informed of her arrest, U.S. consular officers visited and 

closely monitored the case. Their intervention led to foreign authorities arranging for legal representation, and the minor was 

granted bail. And these are just two of many examples. 

In short, Senators, if we fail to honor our consular obligations at 

home, American citizens, including your constituents, pay the price 

overseas. 

Second, this legislation is essential to our foreign relations, as 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Swartz will explain. Our ongoing failure to respect the Vienna Convention has placed great 

strains on U.S. relations with Mexico and could jeopardize our collaboration in many vital areas, especially border security and law 

enforcement. 

Many other essential partners, including the United Kingdom, 

Brazil, Spain, and Switzerland, have repeatedly urged us to comply 

with our obligations. Failure to do so impairs our ability to advance 

U.S. interests across a wide range of law enforcement, security, 

economic, and other issues. 

Third, this legislation is essential to our leading position as a Nation that respects the rule of law. In this increasingly interVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Dec 08, 2011 Jkt 071110 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71110.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
7 

dependent world, the United States simply cannot afford to have 

our partners at the negotiating table or countries that we ask to 

fulfill their obligations question our commitment to the rule of law. 

When we do not comply with our obligations, we lose credibility in 

insisting that other countries respect theirs. 

This narrowly and carefully crafted legislation facilitates compliance with our consular notification and access obligations while respecting our interest in normal law enforcement operations and 

criminal proceedings. We need this legislation urgently to protect 

Americans abroad, to preserve vital bilateral relationships, and to 

maintain our reputation as a Nation that keeps its word. If the 

United States is to ensure the strongest possible protections for our 

citizens overseas, your support is needed to ensure that the Vienna 

Convention safety net continues to protect your constituents and 

all American citizens. 

On behalf of Secretary Clinton, I thank you for your consideration of this vital legislation, and I would be happy to answer your 

questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. I know in my conversations with the Secretary she is very, very concerned about what 

happens to Americans abroad if we do not fulfill our treaty obligations here in the U.S. She feels very strongly about that, as have 

past Secretaries of State. 

Our next witness is Bruce Swartz. He is Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice, serves as the Department’s consular for international affairs. He supervises the Department’s Office of International Affairs and Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training. He also oversees 

the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program. Prior to joining the Department, he was a partner at Shea 

Gardener. He has undergraduate and law degrees from Yale, a 

Henry Fellow at Trinity College at Cambridge University. No 

stranger to this Committee. 

Mr. Swartz, please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE C. SWARTZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SWARTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Grassley, distinguished members of the 

Committee, there are three points I would like to emphasize this 

morning. 

First, we are here today because of an undisputed and unfulfilled 

treaty obligation of the United States. Forty years ago, President 

Nixon transmitted to the Senate the Vienna Convention and its optional protocol. The Senate gave unanimous advice and consent to 

that convention and its protocol, and thereafter they became part, 

as the Chairman noted, of the law of the land, the supreme law of 

the land under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. 

Three years ago, in the Supreme Court decision authored by 

Chief Justice Roberts in the Medellin v. Texas case, the Supreme 

Court held that these treaties gave rise to an undisputed interVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Dec 08, 2011 Jkt 071110 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71110.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
8 

national law obligation—the unfulfilled obligation that brings us 

here this morning. 

My second point is that the legislation before the Committee 

today fulfills that obligation and does so in exactly the manner suggested by the Supreme Court in the Medellin case. 

Mr. Chairman, as you have noted, Senator Grassley, as you have 

noted, President George W. Bush also sought to fulfill this obligation of the United States, recognizing its importance. In the 

Medellin case, the Supreme Court struck down his attempt to do 

so by Executive memorandum, but indicated that it is up to Congress to fulfill that obligation. That is what this legislation does. 

It does so in a carefully crafted manner, and it does so in a constitutional manner. And, Senator Grassley I would be very glad to 

discuss at greater length why the Department of Justice believes 

this is constitutional. 

It fulfills our obligations, but it also balances against that the 

need for finality and the need for justice for the victims and families of these heinous crimes. 

My third point is that this legislation is critical not only to the 

protection of our citizens abroad, as Under Secretary has suggested, but also to the national security, counterterrorism, and law 

enforcement interests of the United States. Indeed, in the Medellin 

case, Chief Justice Roberts noted that the considerations for fulfilling this obligation were plainly compelling. In an era of 

globalized terrorism and crime, it is essential that we are able to 

have partnerships with our overseas law enforcement counterparts 

if we are going to be able to protect U.S. citizens. 

Thanks to the work of the Senate, we have in place the framework of a treaty regime that allows that kind of cooperation. We 

now have extradition treaties with over 120 countries and territories, and we have mutual legal assistance agreements for criminal assistance with approximately 80 countries. We have as well a 

number of important multilateral law enforcement conventions. 

In order to protect our citizens from terrorism and transnational 

crime, every day we ask other countries to live up to these treaties 

and to give us the reciprocal assistance for what we do for them. 

But as has been noted, some of our most important relationships 

are put at risk by our noncompliance here, most obviously with regard to Mexico, a country in which we have had unprecedented cooperation over the past decade, and a country that has taken extraordinary steps to meet our law enforcement priorities, including 

the recent investigation of an ICE agent murdered in Mexico. But 

at the same time, we have not met one of Mexico’s key priorities— 

that is, enforcement, fulfillment of our treaty obligation. Indeed, 

during this time period two Mexican nationals have been executed. 

But I want to emphasize this is not just about Mexico. As has 

been noted, many of our other closest law enforcement partners 

also have nationals on death row, including the United Kingdom, 

Spain, France, and others—the very countries we rely upon to protect our citizens against terrorism and transnational crime. 

And, finally, this is not simply about that relationship, but also 

about the broader compliance with the rule of law. When the 

United States does not comply with a rule of law, that has direct 

impact upon our law enforcement relationships. Indeed, as the SuVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Dec 08, 2011 Jkt 071110 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71110.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
9 

preme Court noticed in Medellin, that is a compelling interest. 

Courts overseas look to see whether we comply with the rule of law 

before they extradite foreign nationals. We train our counterparts 

overseas in the rule of law, and when we do not comply with the 

rule of law, those who oppose the United States take advantage of 

it in their propaganda and in their public statements. 

For all of these reasons, then, we urge speedy passage of this legislation, and we appreciate the Committee having taken up this 

vital work. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swartz appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Swartz. Again, I 

would say I know I have been on the phone with the State Department Operations Center at 2, 3, 4 o’clock in the morning to talk 

about Americans, Vermonters, being held overseas. And I have also 

talked in some instances all the way to the head of state of some 

other countries, and I have heard more than once, ‘‘Well, we know 

the treatment you are asking for your U.S. citizen. What treatment 

will a citizen of my country get in your country? ’’ 

Let me ask this of both of you. You spent your careers advocating 

on the part of American interests and U.S. citizens. Some have said 

the failure of the United States to satisfy its treaty obligations has 

no real consequences. Secretary Kennedy, do you want to tell me 

whether you would agree with that? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not. I have served in the 

Foreign Service for 38 years, and I happen to be married to a Foreign Service officer who just retired who for 35 years was a United 

States consul at a variety of posts in both First and Second World 

Countries. Our ability to insist, to demand access by our consular 

officers to American citizens in distress is a critical element. Otherwise we cannot advocate for them, we cannot have access to them. 

If I had 15 minutes to respond, I could list example after example 

of American citizens who were detained, that because we were able 

to demand access to them, and continued to have access to them, 

we were able to address severe needs and requirements. So this 

will have consequences. 

I am not going to say that a country is going to excise us from 

their partnership with us under the Vienna convention. But what 

I am going to say, is that this depends on each Nation at the very 

top, at the very leadership, pushing down through their entire 

chain to the lowliest constable on the beat that American citizens 

must be treated according to the precepts of the Vienna Convention, and I think it is very important that we continue that. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Swartz, you deal with law enforcement all 

over the world. Do you agree with what Mr. Kennedy said? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. For the past 10 years, 

I have been responsible for our international relations at the Department of Justice in the criminal justice and counterterrorism 

context, and I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important it 

is for the United States to be able to say that it is meeting its treaty obligations when we ask other countries to do the same. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, you have heard some have said that this 

legislation raises constitutional questions regarding congressional 

10 

authority, regarding the application of the Tenth Amendment and 

so on. The Department of Justice has reviewed this legislation. We 

have a letter that supports it. Do you believe it raises any constitutional concerns? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, we do not. As you say, this has been 

carefully reviewed by the Department of Justice, including the Office of Legal Counsel. And if I may, the legislation in the first instance is exactly what was invited by Chief Justice Roberts in his 

opinion for the Court in the Medellin case. So those who would suggest that it is unconstitutional I think first must confront that the 

Court suggested that the way to meet our legal obligation was precisely through legislation of this nature. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, what about the concern this would flood 

the courts with new habeas claims or create a free-standing right 

of foreign nationals accused of murder to sue in Federal court? Has 

the Department looked at this, its effect on death penalty and habeas corpus and so forth? 

Mr. SWARTZ. We have, Mr. Chairman. As prosecutors ourselves, 

of course, the last thing that we would seek to do is to make it easier for those who have committed crimes, these kinds of horrific 

crimes, to escape punishment. That is not the intent of this legislation. It will not flood the courts. It deals with an extremely small 

and limited group of cases and the retrospective aspect of it to fulfill our treaty obligation. And as to the prospective aspect of it, in 

fact, what it will do, we believe, is eliminate the future litigation 

of this nature by ensuring that consular notification is given, and 

it has a number of techniques to assure that, but none that extend 

beyond the responsibilities already present under the Vienna Convention. 

Chairman LEAHY. My last question would be first to you, Mr. 

Swartz. Do you see this would be any burden on law enforcement? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, we do not. In fact, this is what law 

enforcement has been doing for 40 years. This legislation is designed to reinforce the practice, the practice that was adopted as 

standard operating procedure by police officers and officers around 

the country at the State, local, and Federal levels after the Vienna 

Convention came into place. It provides additional backstops, but, 

again, nothing not already contemplated by our obligations under 

the Vienna Convention. It will not make it more difficult. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Kennedy, does it complicate our immigration enforcement? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir, I do not believe so. We have engaged at 

the State Department, with the cooperation of the Department of 

Justice, in an extensive educational campaign, distributing informational material to State and local and municipal law enforcement officers, including mailing out 1 million copies of a very, very 

small card that clearly explains to the officer on the beat exactly 

what he or she should do to uphold our obligations under the Vienna Convention. It is very simple, it is very straightforward, and 

I do not believe it will in any way compromise our law enforcement 

efforts, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. And you know I am going to ask you for a copy 

of that afterward. 

11 

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to make it available to every member of the Committee, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As we were visiting before the meeting started, I said I was skeptical, and my questions will probably reflect that skepticism. But, 

first of all, let me state a fact before I ask my first question, and 

that is: In regard to the Department of Justice under the Bush administration, they clearly thought that he could issue his Executive 

order constitutionally, and, quite obviously, they were wrong. 

Mr. Swartz, the Justice Department filed an amicus curiae brief 

in the Leal case in the Supreme Court. The State Department’s 

legal adviser was on that brief as well. The brief argued that Mr. 

Leal Garcia should receive a stay of execution based upon three 

points: the International Court of Justice ruling, which has no affect in American domestic law; policy reasons of the type that we 

are speaking about here on this bill; and the administration’s 

strong support for the bill that is the subject of this hearing. An 

unpassed bill has no legal authority. Congress has the sole power 

to legislate. Congress has not legislated in this area. And a bill that 

has been introduced only in one House and is not passed, whether 

or not strongly supported by the administration, has no legal effect. 

Last week, in your briefing for the Committee staff, you said that 

the administration’s Leal brief showed ‘‘respect for the congressional process.’’ How does asking the Court to rule in reliance on 

an unpassed bill show ‘‘respect for the congressional process’’ ? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Senator Grassley, let me begin by saying first that 

we regret that our action in this regard may have been interpreted 

as anything other than respect for Congress because, as I said in 

the staff briefing, that is precisely what it was intended to achieve. 

In the Medellin case, as the Senator knows, the Supreme Court 

pointed out that the administration had not made any statement 

about legislation that had been introduced at that point and its 

possible effect on the execution of Mr. Medellin. In this context, 

Senator, the decision was made because this legislation was before 

Congress, in order to permit Congress to act and to prevent what 

otherwise would have been the irrevocable harm that once Mr. Leal 

was executed, nothing this Congress did could redeem that fact or 

change that fact, the decision was made that it was appropriate to 

seek a stay. And in this regard, Senator, I would also note that this 

is not different really from what has been done in other contexts. 

As we pointed out in our brief to Supreme Court, in the amicus 

brief, the Supreme Court had stayed—Chief Justice Kennedy 

stayed, for instance, in the Mt. Soledad case a matter pending a 

possible change in law. The Supreme Court routinely stays matters 

pending its decisions where there may be a possible change of law. 

And, of course, the Supreme Court in a number of instances has 

stayed its mandate, as in, for instance, the Buckley v. Valeo case 

in order to give Congress a chance to act. 

So the intention was precisely to allow Congress to act in light 

of the Supreme Court having invited Congress to do so in the 

Medellin decision. But, Senator, I would be glad also to supplement 

that, if you would like, in a written answer. 

12 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes, I would, but I still think it gets back to 

something very basic, and that is that a bill that has not passed 

is not the law under the Constitution, and only Congress can enact 

such legislation. And I do not think it shows respect for the congressional process for citing that the Court ought to base their decision based on something that Congress has not passed, because 

cases in controversy are brought under law or under the Constitution. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. I have another question. Could either of you 

cite an instance in which an American citizen has been denied consular access because a foreign government was unhappy about our 

failure to follow the Avena ruling? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator, the Avena ruling, as I said, is a relatively 

recent ruling, and as I noted in response to the Chairman’s question, the process is moving all the time. We have millions of American citizens traveling. It is imperative, in order to keep the safety 

net, to keep the consular access, that foreign governments at the 

highest levels continue to drill down through all the layers of their 

law enforcement and judicial systems to keep saying for example, 

that we, the government of Xanadu, continue to support this. This 

will be something that I believe will dissipate. When the United 

States fails to provide consular access to nationals of any country, 

the impetus for that country to continue to support the Vienna 

Convention dissipates, and we will have American citizens in tragic 

circumstances who are not able to avail themselves of our consular 

assistance. 

Mr. SWARTZ. Senator, if I might add? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Go ahead. First of all, I interpret that his answer to my question is no, there is not an example that he can give 

me. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. SWARTZ. Senator, in the criminal justice context, this is not 

simply a hypothetical. You have before you the statement of the 

Ambassador of Mexico to the United States, who has noted the 

great strain that this has placed on our relationship. We have 

heard from other countries in the law enforcement context whose 

nationals are on death row, including the United Kingdom. And I 

can assure you, having dealt with this issue for the entire period 

of the Avena decision, that other countries ask us why they should 

take and make a priority our cases, our concerns, if we are not 

going to respond to their priorities. And this is a priority for a 

number of our key law enforcement partners. 

So this is not a hypothetical concern about whether it will affect 

our relationships. It does affect our relationships. And it affects 

them in ways that we cannot always control, because even if it is 

the executive that may be willing in another country to cooperate 

with us, courts are influenced by this as well. Courts overseas look 

to see whether we comply with the rule of law. 

Senator GRASSLEY. We have got to move on to another question, 

but let me just say this: If Mexico is so upset with our noncompliance with this International Court ruling, how do you explain your 

statement that our cooperation with Mexico is at an all-time high. 

And you did state that. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. I am done. 

13 

Mr. SWARTZ. Senator, I did state that, and, in fact that is the 

case. But it is also the case at the same time that when we continue to try and build upon that relationship, this is an obstacle. 

We can do more, and we should be doing more with Mexico. But 

when we are not responsive to their concerns, that has effects, and 

it has effects on the public in Mexico, and that affects things as 

well. It affects witnesses willing to cooperate in our matters. It affects the Mexican Congress, and it affects the Mexican Congress’ 

approach toward their executive dealing with us on law enforcement matters. 

Chairman LEAHY. You know, it is interesting. We have talked 

about the most recent action of the Supreme Court. I recall during 

Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation hearing, he was asked about 

the rule of five, that is, where four Justices have voted for a stay, 

it has been customary that the Chief or somebody else would make 

the fifth one. And he spoke, and I realize under oath, but that he 

thought that—basically, he thought that was a pretty good rule. I 

am sorry that his opinion after he had been confirmed seemed to 

have change from when he was seeking confirmation. 

I will yield to Senator Franken, and we will then go to Senator 

Graham. Senator Blumenthal has offered to take the Chair. As you 

know, there are a lot of discussions on a different subject going on 

here on the Hill, and I am going to be going back and forth on that. 

But I appreciate the testimony, and I would say—and I wanted 

Senator Grassley to hear this—we had an interparliamentary 

group meeting here in Washington this weekend, and we had a 

number of parliamentarians from that country raise the question 

about are we going to play by the same rules that everybody else 

is expected to play by. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Swartz and Mr. Kennedy, I wanted to follow up on the last 

part of your discussion with the Ranking Member and talk about 

our relationship with Mexico. We obviously share a long border 

with Mexico, and I understand it is the most frequently crossed 

international border in the world. We work closely with Mexican 

law enforcement to make sure the border is properly policed, and 

we rely on good will with Mexican authorities to prevent violence 

and drug trafficking across the border. 

This question goes to either of you. Can you discuss in practical 

terms how our relationship with Mexico is hurt by our noncompliance with the Vienna Convention? And how will this potentially 

impact our ability to prevent and solve cross-border crimes? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Senator, thank you. I will begin and then turn to 

the Under Secretary. 

As you suggest, this noncompliance has practical consequences. 

When we go to a foreign country, Mexico, for instance, and ask 

them to investigate a crime, we do it both under a treat basis, if 

a treaty exists, but also on an informal basis, on a basis of reciprocity. And that reciprocity is key to our law enforcement relationships. 

To take one recent example, as I mentioned in my opening statement, there was the tragic murder of an ICE agent in Mexico earlier this year. We asked Mexico to make that a priority in terms 

14 

of working with us to investigate that crime, and they did. They 

recognized that as a priority for us. But at the same time, Mexican 

officials asked me and asked the Attorney General and asked others—I know they have asked Congress—why it is we are unwilling 

to meet our obligations and make a priority what they seek to accomplish in this context. 

That has consequences. It has consequences because, as the 

Mexican ambassador has pointed out in his letter, which has been 

part of the record in the Medellin case, his letter to Secretary Clinton, that causes pressure from the Mexican public; it causes pressure from the Mexican Congress who ask why should their law enforcement agents make our cases a priority if we are unwilling to 

make theirs a priority. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could add, Senator, Mexico has two statutes 

in their code that say that if a foreign national is detained, they 

must have access to their consul. On the other hand, the Mexicans 

also have a Federal system like we do, and so it is imperative that 

we at the national level demonstrate the kind of leadership of insisting that all elements of our Government—Federal, State, and 

local—adhere to the consular notification requirement so the Mexican Government and other governments as well will continue to 

drill down through all the levels of their system to ensure that everyone is notified that this is their obligation to ensure U.S. consular access. And I could give you numerous examples of American 

citizens who have suffered, sometimes physically, sometimes by 

other means, because a nation failed to provide consular access to 

the United States in a timely fashion. 

Senator FRANKEN. We have, as I understand it, more Americans 

incarcerated in Mexico than in any other country. Almost 1,000 

citizens were incarcerated just last year. Does our failure to provide consular notification to Mexican nationals threaten the safety 

of these Americans in your opinion? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think it does, Senator. There are two parts to 

consular notification and consular access. The first is when an individual is initially detained, during the initial encounter with local 

law enforcement. The second is if the individual is convicted of a 

crime because there is the right of continual consular access. And 

we have had cases like this; for example, in Mexico, for an individual, an American citizen who was thought by one gang to be a 

member of a rival gang, we were able to intervene because we were 

aware of it and had consular access, and we were able to get that 

individual moved from one prison to another so that the individual 

would not become the victim of prison violence. And I think in 

doing that we literally saved that individual’s life. 

Senator FRANKEN. That is the positive side. Is there a potential 

downside? I see that my time is up, so I will submit any questions 

I am not able to ask. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

15 

I would like to introduce into the record a letter I received from 

Secretary Clinton about this matter. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Without objection. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator GRAHAM. She indicated that last year 3,500 Americans 

were detained abroad and that we had 9,500 consular visits. One 

thing I would like both of you to provide, if you could, could you 

call the Department of Defense and see how many American 

servicemembers have been detained in foreign countries and we 

were able to provide consular access over the last 5 years? A lot 

of times it is through the Status of Forces Agreement. During my 

time as a judge advocate, particularly overseas, I had many cases 

in Turkey where people would be detained for various crimes, 

American military personnel, and we jealously guarded our right to 

go into that prison and, you know, consult with our servicemember 

and make sure they were being well treated. And I do not want to 

do anything to ever jeopardize that in the future. 

Now, whether or not this bill is the right answer, I do not know, 

and I look forward to hearing from Senator Cornyn, Senator Grassley, and others, but I would hope to come up with a bipartisan solution. Just to make sure I understand the requirement here, our 

Supreme Court has said that the memo from President Bush is not 

enough, that the Congress actually needs to enact the terms of the 

treat. Is that correct? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Senator Graham, that is correct. It is up to Congress, the Court made clear in Medellin, to implement the obligation under the Vienna Convention. 

Senator GRAHAM. So I just hope that this Committee, made up 

of very smart folks, can find a way to honor that obligation, because I just want to be on the record as indicating the need. Not 

only were there 3,500 people detained abroad last year that we provided assistance to, from my time in the military there is a real 

need to protect our servicemembers. The CIA case involving the 

gentleman that was detained in Pakistan is a classic example of a 

situation where we were very appreciative of having access to an 

American citizen detained in a foreign country, which was a political football for the government in question. 

So I just do believe that the Vienna Convention, it was a smart 

thing to have entered into over 40 years ago, and we need to make 

sure it is viable today. So I would like to introduce the Secretary 

of State’s letter to me talking about the need for this legislation in 

terms of real-world events. We have had a CIA agent that was in 

foreign custody. We have had several cases. In South Carolina the 

most notable was a Pastor Miles of Conway, South Carolina, who 

did mission trips to Russia. He was going all over Russia to try to 

establish Christian churches, and in 2008 he was detained and sentenced to 3 years in jail because he had 20 rounds of hunting rifle 

ammunition in his bag. And he was going to deliver this ammunition as a gift to a fellow pastor in Russia who enjoyed hunting. And 

this was a major problem in South Carolina and for the country, 

and I just appreciated all the help that we received from the State 

Department, and we did have access to Pastor Miles. He was visited regularly by our consular embassy office in Moscow, and I 

would like to introduce in the record letters I wrote to the Russian 

16 

Government and media articles. And I would just say to both of 

you, in that case it was a godsend to be able to go to the family 

in South Carolina and say, ‘‘We have legal avenues. I promise you 

that we are going to make sure that your loved one is well taken 

care of and that we will exercise all of our rights to make sure he 

is being well taken care of.’’ 

If we do not pass this legislation, is there anything on the horizon near in real terms or are there any cases out there that you 

particularly worry about going badly for us? 

Mr. SWARTZ. Senator Graham, if I may, I will turn to Under Secretary Kennedy with regard to the Department of Defense’s support for this legislation for the reasons that you have mentioned. 

With regard to cases going badly for us, I think there are really 

two categories. The first would be further executions of individuals 

covered by the Avena judgment, those to whom the Court in 

Medellin held to have a treaty obligation. We understand that 

there are possible executions scheduled, if not this year perhaps 

early in 2012, and that will again create a crisis in our relationship 

with the countries involved. And I stress again this is not simply 

Mexico. The United Kingdom has a national who is on death row 

and subject to the same provisions. 

The second category would be cases in which we are asking other 

countries to assist us, and while not wanting to go into particulars, 

we do ask really every day that countries take particular steps to 

make our cases a priority. And I can state from personal experience 

that is very difficult when the country in question responds by saying, ‘‘Well, will you be able to meet your obligations in this and 

other regards? ’’ 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could add, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. Very briefly. 

Mr. KENNEDY. We will certainly get additional information from 

the Department of Defense, but you are entirely correct. DOD directives specifically instruct facility and base commanders to notify 

the United States embassy or consulate and to make sure that we 

also are ready to intervene, which we do regularly. 

If I might, in a tragic example, recently there was a veteran who 

ran afoul of the law overseas, suffering from mental illness. He was 

put into prison. He was deteriorating quickly. Because of our excellent relationships, we were notified of that case. We were able to 

work with the prison, and we were able to get him the psychiatric 

help he needed and have him moved into the appropriate place in 

the foreign prison system. This is exactly what I refer to as ‘‘the 

safety net’’ of the good relationships we have with countries that 

get us the consular notification so we are able to assist American 

citizens in real distress. 

Senator GRAHAM. I know my time has expired, but I would like 

to—I think there are some concerns about this legislation. Senator 

Cornyn is a very smart guy, and I would like to work with him to 

see if we can find some bipartisan solution and come up with a legislative proposal that will bring us all together. I again ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the documents I just mentioned. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Without objection. 

17 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you all. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Graham. 

I have just a couple of questions in conclusion with this panel to 

just pursue the line of questioning that Senator Graham raised 

with regard to the Department of Defense. My understanding is 

that DOD supports this legislation. 

Mr. KENNEDY. They do, Senator, and their own DOD directive— 

DOD Directive 5525.1—instructs base commanders, facilities commanders, to work with the American embassies and consulates to 

ensure that their servicemen and -women overseas receive the consular protection and consular access that they need. And we do 

that all the time. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. In fact, the largest group of United States 

citizens serving abroad or living abroad are military personnel or 

military contractors or individuals, citizens of the United States 

somehow serving in the capacity of the Department of Defense. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. It is the largest single group, absolutely. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. They may not be the ones who most commonly need this kind of service, but they are the largest group that 

potentially may make use of it. 

Mr. KENNEDY. That is right, and our consular officers assist DOD 

personnel. I gave the example of the veteran. I gave an earlier example of another U.S. servicemember who was arrested at a foreign airport for just carrying a small amount of ivory. He was facing a multi-decade prison sentence. The United States consul intervened. We were able to get him a local attorney, and he walked out 

of there and was able to return to his unit. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you, Secretary Kennedy, because for literally decades as a State Attorney General and now as 

a U.S. Senator, I received calls from parents of young people in exactly this situation. Obviously ‘‘concerned’’ would be to understate 

their emotional reaction to the news that one of their children or 

one of their relatives has been detained abroad. 

What would you advise that parent to do in that situation? 

Mr. KENNEDY. If they believe that their son or daughter has been 

detained, they should immediately contact the nearest American 

embassy or consulate. If the parents happen to be in the United 

States, we have a hotline that is answered 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week, 365 days a year. We have teams of officers from our Bureau of Consular Affairs who will immediately begin working on 

this case, and contact the relevant embassy or consulate where the 

child is believed to be. We will then contact the local police authorities, and we will get in, and we will get to that child as fast as we 

can. So what they need to do is tell us. 

But it is absolutely important for consular notification—and that 

is why we think this legislation is so important. In the time while 

the parent is trying to figure out, well, did Sally not call just because she is having a good time or is Sally in trouble, if we get 

what we need under the Vienna Convention from foreign nations 

and give them that same reciprocal right, as soon as that child is 

detained by foreign law enforcement, they are obligated to notify 

18 

the American consulate, and then the American consul will begin 

to act immediately to assist that child. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So the great advantage of this legislation 

is it supports a system that in effect provides that notification 

abroad that should be reassuring to countless parents and relatives 

and loved ones who are worried that that child or loved one is out 

there alone and isolated and the consulate can come to his or her 

aid. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely. Senator, 103 million Americans have 

passports, and there were 60 million foreign trips last year, and 

that is a lot of Americans and a lot of potential for encounters with 

local law enforcement. This legislation would confirm and put into 

place a system in which we can say to every nation in the world 

that we honor our commitments under the Vienna Convention, and 

you must honor yours by giving us immediate notification when an 

American citizen is detained. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And we are going to hear in the next 

panel from Clare Gillis, who was detained by the Libyan Government abroad. Is it your opinion that this legislation would have 

supported and aided the process by which she was eventually 

freed—obviously not through a United States consul. It was 

through the Turkish and Hungarian governments, but the principle 

that applies here also would apply there. 

Mr. KENNEDY. The principle is absolutely correct, Senator. And 

if I might add, though, it is because of our relationships under the 

Vienna Convention. When the United States withdrew its diplomatic and consular personnel from Libya, we appointed what is 

called a protecting power, and the consular officers of that Nation 

assume and can invoke the rights under the Vienna Convention, so 

they can go in and say, ‘‘I am acting on behalf of the American consul according to law, and you must give me the same access to detained American citizens as if I was the United States consul.’’ 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. My time has expired, and I 

have some additional questions that I would like to submit in writing, particularly focusing on, General Swartz, the upcoming death 

penalty cases that may involve executions in the very near future 

so that we have some sense of the immediacy of this issue that 

may arise again, and also the numbers of cases that might be affected, even if they are not death cases, the range of cases that 

might be affected in our State courts, if it is possible to provide 

that kind of information. 

Mr. SWARTZ. We will be glad to provide that information, Senator. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. Thank you to both 

of you. Your testimony has been excellent and very, very helpful to 

the Committee, and we appreciate your good work on this issue 

and on so many others. So thank you for being here today. 

We are going to go to the next panel, take a couple of minutes 

so that they can come forward, if you would, and we will proceed. 

[Pause.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Good morning again. I am very pleased to 

introduce our next panel, a very distinguished panel, and I will go 

19 

through the introductions for all three, and then we can proceed 

your right to left, my left to right. 

Our first witness on the next panel will be John Bellinger. He 

is a partner in the international and national security practice of 

Arnold & Porter. He advises governments and domestic and foreign 

companies on a range of international law, United States national 

security issues. Prior to his work at Arnold & Porter, Mr. Bellinger 

served as legal adviser for the Department of State under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from 2005 to 2009. While he was 

at the State Department, he directed almost 200 staff lawyers who 

advised the Secretary, Ambassadors, and others at the Department 

on legal matters relating to foreign policy. Prior to joining the Department of State, he was also senior associate counsel at the 

White House under President George W. Bush, where he served as 

legal adviser to the National Security Council. Mr. Bellinger received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University, his law 

degree from Harvard Law School, and a master’s degree in foreign 

affairs from the University of Virginia. 

I am particularly pleased to welcome Clare Gillis, who is a freelance journalist who was captured by pro-Qaddafi forces in Libya 

this past April. She is a native of New Haven, Connecticut, and 

holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Ms. Gillis was working for 

The Atlantic and USA Today when she was taken prisoner along 

with another American journalist and a Spanish journalist and 

held for nearly a month and a half. During her captivity Ms. Gillis 

was subjected to multiple interrogations and forced to stand trial 

with no legal representation. Through the efforts of the Department of State, working in conjunction with Turkish and Hungarian 

diplomats who represented the United States’ interests in Libya, 

Ms. Gillis was finally released on May 18th. We welcome you today 

from Connecticut and are very glad you are here. 

David Rivkin is a partner in the office of Baker Hostetler and cochairs the firms appellate and major motions practice. He is also 

co-chairman of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the 

Foundation for Defense of Democracy and a contributing editor to 

the National Review. Before returning to the private sector in 

1993, Mr. Rivkin worked in both the Reagan and George H.W. 

Bush administrations in the White House Counsel’s Office and the 

Department of Justice. Mr. Rivkin received his undergraduate degree and master’s degree from Georgetown University and his law 

degree from Columbia University Law School. 

Again, thank you and welcome to all three of you, and we will 

begin with Mr. Bellinger. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. BELLINGER III, PARTNER, ARNOLD & 

PORTER LLP, AND ADJUNCT SENIOR FELLOW IN INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY LAW, COUNCIL ON 

FOREIGN RELATIONS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BELLINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Grassley. It is a privilege to be back before the Committee today. 

I was deeply involved in the issues that are the subject of today’s 

hearing while I was serving as the legal adviser for the State Department and previously at the National Security Council during 

the Bush administration. 

20 

I would like to review this morning why the Bush administration, which has never been accused of an overabundance of enthusiasm for international courts, nevertheless decided to work so 

hard to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Avena case. 

The administration did so not because of any lofty commitment 

to international tribunals or international law, but because Avena 

is a binding legal obligation and complying with it is important to 

protect Americans who travel in other countries. 

When I moved from the White House to the State Department 

with Secretary Rice in January 2005, the first international legal 

challenge that we confronted was how to comply with the Avena 

decision. We recognized that the 51 Mexican nationals covered by 

the decision had been convicted of horrific murders and that the 

families of the victims had waited for many years for closure. 

Moreover, the U.S. disagreed with the ICJ’s decision, which had 

interpreted the Vienna Convention in ways that we had not anticipated when the U.S. joined the treaty. Nevertheless, once the ruling was issued, it was absolutely clear to the Bush administration 

that as a matter of treaty law the U.S. was required to comply with 

it. 

Under Article 94 of the U.N. Charter, which was approved by the 

Senate in 1945, ‘‘Each member of the United Nations undertakes 

to comply with the decision of the ICJ in any case in which it is 

a party.’’ With the consent of the Senate, the United States had 

given our binding legal obligation to other countries that we would 

comply with the rulings of the ICJ. 

Now, contrary to some public perceptions that it was not committed to our international law obligations, the Bush administration took this obligation very seriously. In particular, Secretary 

Rice believed that it was vitally important for the U.S. to make 

every effort to vindicate the right of consular notice required by the 

Vienna Convention in order to ensure that Americans who are detained in foreign countries are notified of their rights. 

President Bush decided that the most effective way to comply 

with the Avena decision would be to issue an order directing State 

courts to review the Mexican cases. This decision could not have 

been very easy for the President, especially since 15 of the Mexicans had committed murders in his home State of Texas. The 

President was a former Governor of Texas, a staunch believer in 

States’ rights, and a supporter of the death penalty. Most Texans 

opposed giving any further appeals to Mexicans who had been convicted of rape and murder. 

In March 2008, the Supreme Court ruled against the President, 

holding that neither the Avena decision standing alone nor the 

President’s February 2005 order constituted directly enforceable 

Federal law. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the Avena decision is a binding international law obligation. Chief Justice Roberts specifically stated, ‘‘No one disputes 

that the Avena decision constitutes an international law obligation 

on the part of the United States.’’ Moreover, the Court acknowledged that the United States has a ‘‘plainly compelling’’ interest in 

ensuring the reciprocal observance of the Vienna Convention. 

21 

Today I support passage of Senate bill 1194, which would enable 

the U.S. to comply with the Avena decision. As a Nation committed 

to the rule of law, our Government must take its international law 

obligations seriously. Under Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties made shall be the supreme law of the land. 

I understand that there are many principles that others claim to 

constitute customary international law that the U.S. does not accept. But the Avena decision does not fall into that category. The 

U.S. has a clear treaty-based legal obligation to comply with the 

Avena decision even if we do not agree with it. The Senate accepted 

this obligation when it gave its advice and consent to the U.N. 

Charter. 

Complying with the Avena decision is especially important because it involves the vital right of consular notification required by 

the Vienna Convention. This right is not a favor that we give to 

foreigners because we believe in world government. This right is 

vital for Americans who travel to foreign countries for business or 

pleasure and who may be arrested or detained, sometimes on 

trumped-up charges. 

Mr. Chairman, if a constituent of any Member of Congress is detained in a foreign country, whether it is Mexico or Libya, I am 

sure that member would want that constituent to be told of his 

right to have a State Department official notified; and if a foreign 

country fails to provide notice, Congress will expect the State Department to complain vigorously to the foreign government for violating its treaty obligations. 

It makes it extremely difficult for the State Department to insist 

that other countries honor their treaty obligations to us if we do 

not comply with our treaty obligations to them. 

In closing, to comply with the clear international legal obligation 

and ensure reciprocal observance of the Vienna Convention, an interest that our Supreme Court found plainly compelling, I urge this 

Committee to approve and the Senate and Congress to pass the 

Consular Notification Compliance Act. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bellinger appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Bellinger. 

And we will turn now to Ms. Gillis. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CLARE GILLIS, FREELANCE JOURNALIST, 

NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 

Ms. GILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to testify in 

support of this legislation today—and Ranking Member Grassley. 

Senator Grassley, I do need to clarify something that you said 

earlier about my case, that I was taken to be a Spanish citizen. 

This was true for about 1 minute during one of my interrogations, 

but we promptly figured it out, and for the rest of the 61⁄2 weeks 

they knew that I was an American. So if you want to ask me a 

question about that later, I will be happy to continue clarifying if 

you need it. 

I was working as a freelance journalist in eastern Libya, reporting for The Atlantic and USA Today, among other publications, 

when I learned what it was like to be a prisoner. On April 5, 2011, 

22 

I was with three other journalists at the front line when we came 

under fire from Qaddafi’s troops. One of our party, the South African Anton Hammerl, received what we believe were fatal wounds, 

and the rest of us were captured. The soldiers punched us and hit 

us with the butts of their rifles; they tied our hands behind our 

backs and threw us in the back of their pickup truck. We were 

blindfolded and interrogated several times. One of my sessions 

lasted for 6 hours. We went before prosecutors and judges with 

only a translator to assist us. Our requests for a lawyer were not 

honored. Our captivity lasted ultimately for 44 days, when we were 

finally freed, with the stipulation that if we were to be caught 

again by Qaddafi’s forces, we would have to spend a year in prison. 

As we lay awake at night, we listened to NATO planes and the 

bombs they dropped, occasionally even feeling the building that we 

were staying in shake with their impact. We knew that we were 

being detained in a military facility and worried that the bombs 

could even be targeting our building. We wondered if anyone knew 

where we were or even that we were alive. Our guilt at what we 

were putting our families through back home is indescribable and 

was tempered only by fear. We did not know if the Libyans were 

even acknowledging publicly that they were holding us. And essentially since we had witnessed the murder of a civilian, we thought 

we might just be at the mercy of our captors. 

We also wondered quite frequently who could possibly secure our 

release. We were two U.S. citizens and one Spanish. The U.S. embassy in Tripoli closed up shop on February 25th, actually the day 

that I crossed over the border from Egypt in order to enter the 

rebel-controlled eastern part of the country. Based on the example 

of the New York Times team which had been captured in circumstances very similar to ours a month earlier, and whose release 

was eventually secured by the Turkish embassy, who was acting as 

the protecting power for U.S. citizens in Libya at that time, it 

seemed that the Turkish embassy would be the ones to step in. 

Indeed, when I was finally allowed a phone call, after being held 

for 16 days—and this is something that the State Department 

worked very, very hard to get me to get access to the phone—my 

mother asked me if the Turks had visited me. I had had no idea 

that they were even trying to visit me. We had no communication 

with anybody during this time. We were simply held in a cell. And 

it was tremendously reassuring to hear my mother tell me that the 

State Department was putting great efforts into my case even 

though it was no longer possible for them to be on the ground in 

Libya. 

I also learned that our media outlets were working more than 

full-time to publicize our case, and this was especially gratifying 

because as a freelancer, I had assumed I would be more or less on 

my own. When we were eventually transferred to a private guesthouse and had access to television, we watched with dismay as the 

news was broadcast that the Turkish Embassy in Tripoli had also 

closed. We wondered: Who is looking after our case now? 

After 35 days we received a surprise visit: the Hungarian ambassador and consul to Libya and the Spanish deputy Ambassador 

came to see us. Upon the departure of the Turks, the U.S. State 

Department enlisted the Hungarians as the protective power for 

23 

U.S. citizens in Libya. Within several days, they managed to secure 

access to visit us. 

Consular access is vital for people in our situation. They were 

able to get a sense of what we looked like, how we acted, if we were 

being treated well; and we certainly hoped, though we could not 

know for sure, that they would be able to inform NATO pilots of 

our location so that we would not suffer friendly fire. 

When we went before the judge and got our formal release, we 

still had no permission to be in the country. The charges we were 

being held on were illegal entry since we had entered through the 

rebel-controlled eastern border and did not have Tripoli-issued 

visas, and that we were reporting without permission from Tripoli. 

And the big problem was we still had to get out. It is about a 2- 

hour drive between Tripoli and the Tunisian border, and we did not 

know who would take over security for us. 

The Hungarians managed to get our passports back from the 

Libyans, and they drove us through the dozen or so checkpoints to 

the Tunisian border. There they waited with us for 31⁄2 hours as 

border officials struggled with paperwork to let us pass. Without 

consular access, I do not know when we would have been released 

or who would have negotiated the delicate process of actually getting us to that border. 

If the U.S. continues to ignore its obligations under the Vienna 

Convention on Consular Relations, that makes it easier for foreign 

governments to ignore their obligations to imprisoned American 

citizens abroad. If we expect other nations to take our concern for 

human rights seriously, we should honor the terms of a treaty we 

have already signed. 

Qaddafi’s Libya honored its obligations to me under the Vienna 

Convention, and I think and I hope that we can at least do as well 

as they did. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gillis appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much, Ms. Gillis. 

Mr. Rivkin. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. RIVKIN, JR., PARTNER, BAKER 

HOSTETLER LLP, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. RIVKIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Grassley. 

While I appreciate an opportunity to appear before you today, I am 

unable to support this legislation. 

S. 1194, despite its laudable goal of seeking to enhance the U.S. 

compliance with the Vienna Convention, raises significant constitutional concerns by improperly intruding in the sovereign domain of 

the States. Accordingly, I believe that an entirely different legislative framework that is compliant with the U.S. Constitution is 

needed. 

To begin with, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that we 

heard described in some detail this morning that a failure to enact 

S. 1194 would somehow cause other nations to impair the rights of 

Americans by causing their requests—and I emphasize that we are 

talking about their stated requests—for consular access to go 

unheeded. Indeed, we know that foreign nations by and large honor 

24 

these requests. While there have been some failures, they have not 

been frequent and have been primarily perpetrated by governments 

which, shall we say, do not comply with their international or domestic law obligations. 

These violations are particularly likely to occur, as was the case 

with Ms. Gillis, when the foreign government involved has embarked on a path of confrontation with the United States. And I 

would submit to you that in such an extreme situation, it would 

be utterly unrealistic to expect that the passage of S. 1194, or for 

that matter, if any other legislation in the U.S. Congress would enhance foreign compliance with the Vienna Convention. 

Significantly, there is no indication, public or private, that any 

country intends to reverse or diminish its Vienna Convention compliance policy as a result of having U.S. law stay the way it is in 

place, which provides no judicial remedy for failure to inform a foreign national of his or her consular rights in a situation when it 

was not clear at the outset that the individual involved was a foreign national. 

Frankly speaking, I am concerned, though, that by acting as if 

the status quo is an intolerable affront to other nations, and by 

claiming that a failure to enact S. 1194 is a major breach by the 

United States of its international law obligations, we may actually 

increase the prospects that foreign nations hostile to the United 

States may use this issue as an excuse to stop complying with their 

Vienna Convention obligations as they apply to American citizens. 

Now, more importantly, and quite aside from policy considerations, although I am not prepared to say flatly that S. 1194 is unconstitutional in its entirety, it raises serious constitutional problems that weigh heavily against enactment. In our Federal system, 

the Federal Government is limited to certain enumerated powers, 

while the States retain general police powers. This dual sovereignty is the key feature of our constitutional architecture and 

the key element in protecting individual liberty. It has been recognized as such in centuries of case law. 

The treaty power should not be, and cannot be, an exception to 

these fundamental constitutional principles of dual sovereignty and 

separation of powers. 

Significantly, combating crime and providing punishments lie at 

the very core of the States’ police power and very much at the periphery of the Federal Government’s proper domain. If a statute 

like S. 1194 can be constitutionally enacted and upheld, there 

would be no remaining area—be it education, family law, inheritance, or professional licensing issues—in which the States would 

retain their autonomy, particularly given the range of issues that 

can be addressed by international conventions these days. I certainly can discern no viable judicially enforceable limiting principle 

that would ensure that such an outcome does not occur. 

The bill also presses into service State officials and, through 

them, seeks to carry out Federal obligations. For example, when a 

State arrests a foreign national for a death-eligible offense, a State 

officer would be required to inform the foreign national of his consular rights. 

25 

All of these are worthwhile things, I want to emphasize, but they 

are utterly beyond the power of the Federal Government to accomplish by commandeering State officials. 

This is not just a matter of fundamental principles. These limitations are plain and well described in Supreme Court case law, including such seminal cases as New York v. United States and 

Printz v. United States. In my view, bending these rules and principles of federalism is 

not just a bad policy decision, but would compromise the liberty of 

all Americans. We know that dual sovereignty itself goes to more 

than just protecting State rights. It is a key way of protecting individual liberty, a point made with particular vigor by the Supreme 

Court’s in a unanimous decision styled Bond v. United States during the just completed term. 

With this in mind, I would submit that S. 1194 is unnecessary 

to protect Americans abroad. It upsets the basic principles of federalism and raises serious constitutional concerns. It should be rejected. 

I would be pleased to address any questions you might pose and 

particularly would like to speak about what is it that the Medellin 

decision and the Avena decision really provide for since there were 

some points made in this regard this morning which I find myself 

to be in disagreement. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rivkin appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Rivkin. 

I am going to ask Senator Grassley to ask the first round of 

questions. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman, 

because at about 11:40 I have a phone call I would like to take. 

I am going to ask Mr. Rivkin this. The bill before us would require State and local officials to inform foreign arrestees of their 

right of consular notification, to communicate such requests, and to 

make sure that consular officials obtain access. Although the Vienna Convention currently imposes those duties, it does not actually direct those State and local officials to do so. The State and 

Justice Departments provide assistance and education to State and 

local law enforcement to adhere to those duties. By contrast, the 

bill before us would impose a Federal statutory duty on those officers. 

My first question is: Do you believe that if the bill would codify 

what the Vienna Convention says that it can do so consistent with 

constitutional principles? 

Mr. RIVKIN. Thank you, Senator Grassley. I believe the answer 

is no. Consistent with our dual sovereignty system, the kind of duties imposed on State officials cannot be legislated by the Federal 

Government without violating the Constitution. And with all due 

respect—my utmost respect for Chairman Leahy, it is the Constitution that is the supreme law of the land. I do not think it is open 

to any serious debate that a treaty, or a particular interpretation 

of a treaty or a particular mode of implementing the treaty, to the 

extent that it contradicts the Constitution, is not entitled to any 

obedience by federal or state officials. 

26 

Senator GRASSLEY. I think you just touched on the second question, but let me ask it anyway. How do you reconcile the tensions 

when a treaty requires one thing and the Constitution requires another? 

Mr. RIVKIN. That is an excellent question, and it really addresses 

a broader issue that is often misunderstood. I think we can do a 

number of things, and we do not really have the alleged binary 

choice that I think underlies the policy imperatives reflected in S. 

1194. 

First of all, we would do very well to keep informing our foreign 

partners about the constitutional distinctiveness of the United 

States. In this regard, nothing can be more troubling than signing 

treaties with broad and capacious language. Conventions banning 

hateful speech, for example, as utterly inconsistent with the First 

Amendment, whatever the policy merits may be. Or we sign a treaty like the Vienna Convention, of 1963, which is an excellent convention, but it would have behooved us in the form of a reservation, for example, when the Senate ratified it or consented to ratification in 1969, to remind everybody that there are some things in 

our dual sovereignty system that the Federal Government cannot— 

repeat, cannot—compel State officials to do. It is not too late, as 

a matter of fact, to do that even now. International law recognizes 

even in the context of a treaty that has been in force for a considerable time that each State party can put forward its position construing its obligations. As a matter of fact, that is one distinctive 

feature of international law that the treaty commitments are defined and measured, Senator Grassley, exclusively by the views of 

the State parties. 

Now, that does not dispose of the problem posed by the Avena 

decision, which I think is fundamentally incorrect. And, by the 

way, I hope my good friend and former colleague, John Bellinger, 

would agree with me that the Avena decision was incorrectly decided because, after all, that is what the Bush administration was 

arguing. So we do not have a problem with the Vienna Convention 

properly construed, Senator Grassley. We have a problem only with 

the Avena decision, and even so we have a range of possibilities for 

dealing with this problem. 

One possible way to look at it is to say we are in violation of our 

obligations under Article 94 of the U.N. charter. By the way, we 

heard a number of statements about the Medellin decision this 

morning. To clarify, what Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion says is 

that the Avena decision establishes an international legal obligation. It never says—and it was not a matter before the court—we 

are in violation of it. Now you can obviously say we are technically 

in violation of our obligations under Article 94. Or, if you want to 

be a bit more aggressive, you parse the language of Article 94, it 

says ‘‘undertake to comply.’’ You read the ‘‘undertake to comply’’ 

language in accordance with our constitutional obligations and say 

we are not actually in violation of Article 94. Another way we can 

deal with it, we can certainly withdraw from the Optional Protocol 

of 1964, since we already withdrew from the compulsory jurisdiction, general of ICJ. 

To summarize, there are many ways in which we can reconcile 

our international obligations and our constitutional obligations, but 

27 

I would submit to you that all of the tweaking, all of the adjustments have to occur on the international law side. We cannot possibly tweak and adjust the Constitution without going through the 

process of a constitutional amendment. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think I will yield back my 

time because I have got to go, and thank you for your courtesies, 

and I will submit some questions for answer in writing. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Grassley. 

I am going to ask Mr. Bellinger to respond to Mr. Rivkin in just 

a moment, as he invited Mr. Bellinger to do, but first I have a few 

questions for Ms. Gillis, who is not a lawyer but a very distinguished scholar and journalist and has come here really to relive 

a horrific experience and give us a face and a voice that very powerfully shows the benefit of this proposed law and a benefit not just 

to lawyers and diplomats or even military people, but to ordinary 

citizens and journalists who may be in peril when they are in other 

countries. And the irony here, one of the ironies, is that a government that physically abused you, detained you without access to 

telephones under circumstances that most Americans would find 

absolutely unacceptable, nonetheless followed the requirements of 

law that it give you access to some consular service. And so I wonder if you could tell us, Ms. Gillis, your feelings. You have described the fear as, in fact, indescribable when you were first detained, and you have given us some benefit of the description of 

what you felt, but I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit on 

what it meant to you to be, in effect, incarcerated, detained under 

those circumstances and what it meant also have access to the 

Turkish and then Hungarian officials. 

Ms. GILLIS. Well, essentially we knew that we were in a place 

where there was no rule of law. We knew that, you know, our requests for lawyers were ignored. We asked for phone calls on numerous occasions, and only after 16 days did we get one. And I 

think since the U.S. embassy had pulled out so long ago, we did 

not even know who to ask for. And I think being at the mercy of 

a foreign justice system, which, you know, I would not want to describe the Libyan system as having much to do with justice, and 

certainly the simple fact of everything happening in a foreign language, when I think about other prisoners who come somewhere 

and, you know, I hope they have a translator. But the simple fact 

of not being able to use your native language when you are in these 

circumstances, that you are at the mercy of a foreign system was 

really overwhelming for us. We did not know—we did not have any 

idea if our families knew if we were alive or dead, and when I 

heard from my mother that at least the Turks were trying and 

working very hard to get this access to us, it made a big difference 

in terms of our levels of hopelessness, basically. We did not know 

before then that anyone was looking for us. We did not know if people knew we were alive or that we had been captured or what. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And, in fact, during the initial period of 

your detention you were interrogated for some 6 hours between 1 

and 7 in the morning. 

Ms. GILLIS. Yes. 

28 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And then you were given a piece of paper 

or several pieces of paper in Arabic which you could not understand to sign and were told you had to sign it. 

Ms. GILLIS. Yes, well, I was blindfolded for the 6 hours of the interrogation, and when they took the blindfold off, they said, OK, 

you know, you can go back to your cell, go to sleep, but you have 

to sign these first. And, you know, that is why I would say I 

cracked. I started crying, and I said, you know, I really—how can 

I sign this? I do not know what it says. It could say that I am a 

spy. I could be signing my own death certificate. And I realized— 

you know, he just kept waving the pen, and I realize I do not have 

a choice, and so I signed everything, and I put my green thumbprint on each page. Just to imagine someone else in that situation 

I think—yeah, I would not—I would not want to see someone else 

in that situation without some kind of access to at least speak their 

native language. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And that situation could be recurring for 

citizens around the globe at this moment given the lawlessness of 

many regimes in this world. 

Ms. GILLIS. Absolutely. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And, in fact, particularly for journalists, 

20 of whom have been detained in Libya, 4 of them killed. 

Ms. GILLIS. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. This situation arises even more frequently. 

Ms. GILLIS. Yes. And I would like to mention Matthew VanDyke 

who is, I believe, a native of Baltimore. He is still being held in 

Libya. He has been sighted a few times, but it has not been confirmed. And, you know, we wonder where he is, and we are all 

looking for him. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, thank you, and I again want to 

thank you for your courage, there and here, and giving the entire 

Committee who will review this testimony, and their staffs, the 

benefit of this really firsthand experience with this lawless regime 

but, nonetheless, one that gave you access to the means to be rescued. Thank you. 

Ms. GILLIS. Eventually they did, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Eventually. It took 6 weeks. 

Ms. GILLIS. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But they did eventually. 

Ms. GILLIS. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Bellinger, I wonder if you could please 

respond to some of the points that Mr. Rivkin has made about 

Medellin and Avena. 

Mr. BELLINGER. Certainly, Senator. Thank you. Let me make a 

couple of the points. David Rivkin is a good friend, and we agree 

actually on most points of international law. I think on this one we 

do disagree. Let me just take these one at a time. 

One, there clearly is a legally binding obligation under the U.N. 

Charter to comply with the ruling of the ICJ. There really is no dispute about that. All members of the Supreme Court, all nine, said 

that there is no dispute that we have to comply with the international law obligation. The question is how we implement it. 

29 

The Bush administration believed that the President had the 

power under the Constitution to order compliance. That would be 

the most efficient way to do it rather than to wait a long time for 

Congress to pass legislation. After all, the Senate had agreed to the 

U.N. Charter, which included Article 94, so it seemed reasonable 

to conclude that between the President’s inherent constitutional 

powers and the Senate’s advice and consent to the U.N. Charter 

that he had the power to order compliance. The Supreme Court 

said, no, he could not do it directly, but invited Congress to pass 

legislation. 

So, one, the issue is not now compliance under the Vienna Convention. We have already violated the Vienna Convention. But now 

we have to comply with the ruling of the ICJ under the U.N. Charter even though we disagree with that. 

Second, I have to disagree with the policy point that because 

other countries comply—which they do, even in the case of Libya 

ultimately—because other countries comply with their obligations 

to us that we are off the hook, that we should not have to do it. 

We should lead, not follow. I think it is remarkable that anybody 

could suggest that because other countries in the world generally 

follow their obligations to us, why bother for the U.S. to comply? 

One, that is not what this country is about. And, two, it is very 

short-sighted because there are cases when other countries do not 

comply with us and they do, as you heard this morning, come back 

to us and say, ‘‘Well, why should we comply with our obligation to 

you? You do not comply with your obligations to us.’’ 

A case that Senator Graham mentioned with is apropos was the 

case of Raymond Davis, the CIA agent in Pakistan, where, interestingly, the state regional authorities in Pakistan who had arrested 

him said, ‘‘We do not have to comply with Pakistan’s international 

law obligation to observe immunity. This is a matter of local criminal justice, and we want to keep Raymond Davis,’’ even though 

there was an international law obligation binding on Pakistan. 

Members of Congress were threatening to cutoff aid to Pakistan because the country was not complying with their international law 

obligations to us. 

The principle is exactly the same here. In this case the Federal 

Government can require the States to comply with our international law obligations, which gets to my last point. I do not think 

we are commandeering State rights in this case. Even Texas does 

not dispute that they have an obligation to inform people who are 

arrested of their consular rights. They only dispute now that after 

the individuals who have been tried, prosecuted, convicted, and 

have exhausted all of their appeals, they essentially are saying 

their hands are tied under State law. 

Governor Perry even wrote to Secretary Rice, my boss at the 

time, to say, ‘‘We will offer review and reconsideration in the cases 

where we can continue to do so,’’ and said in a brief to the Supreme 

Court that it would impose minimal burden. So even the States are 

not suggesting that this is an infringement on their affairs to require State law enforcement officials to notify individuals who are 

arrested of their individual rights. And I do not think that this 

bill—although I certainly would be open to certain tweaks to it— 

as a conceptual matter, requires State officials to do anything that 

30 

they are not already doing or trenching on States’ rights in a way 

that is inappropriate. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Rivkin, I do not guarantee the last word, but you certainly 

are entitled to respond. 

Mr. RIVKIN. Very kind of you. First of all, a couple of legalistic 

points that are at least dear to the hearts of lawyers. I never suggested that the Medellin majority decision does not say that Article 

94 is a binding international obligation. What I did say—and I 

have not heard John disagree with me—is that the Medellin decision never found that we are in violation of our obligation under 

Article 94 of the U.N. change. The reason that is important, Senator, is because there were a number of statements made this 

morning that create the impression that somehow we are in default, that we have committed a delict under international law and 

so we are in a bad situation. 

That is not true. In fact, the Bush Administration—and I am 

sure John recalls this—specifically said that Article 94, the language of Article 94, establishes a commitment on the part of U.N. 

members to take future action with no specific indication as to a 

timeline. So as a technical matter, I do not think that even today 

we are in violation of Article 94. We should of course try to implement Avena decision in good faith and in a way that comply with 

the constitution. 

The way that S. 1194 goes about doing this does violate the wellestablished principles of constitutional law. It is one thing to say 

that State officials are obliged to comply with a stayed request for 

consul access. There has not been a single instance I am aware of 

or brought to the attention of this Committee where a foreign national a state official asked for consular access and was not given 

it. The problem arises because in our multi-ethnic society, in our 

multi-ethnic democracy where people speak with foreign accents, it 

is considered to be improper to ask people about their ethnic and 

national origin even if they have been detained. Moreover, unlike 

in Europe or in many other counties we do not have people carrying identification papers. If you are arrested in Switzerland or 

Germany, the government immediately knows who you are. To emphasize, the problem arises because we have people who did not 

ask for consular access, and years later, after they have received 

the highest level of due process, their lawyers discovered that 

maybe they are foreign nationals. The Court in Avena, by the way, 

said that it is not clear that Article 36 that we are talking about 

today, even applies to dual nationals, nor is it even clear it applies 

to individuals, who have permanent residency in the United States. 

So there are all sorts of difficult compliance questions here that 

do not in any way get close to the violation of international law, 

in my opinion. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

I would certainly entertain a brief response from any of the other 

witnesses, or we could take in writing any supplementary comments that you may have. We are going to keep the record open 

for 1 week. 

Did you have anything, Ms. Gillis or Mr. Bellinger, that you 

would like to add? 

31 

Mr. BELLINGER. I would just very briefly state that it is clear 

that when it comes to certain treaty obligations, even if they require States to do certain things, the States are required to comply. 

No one would suggest—and I am sure Texas would not suggest— 

that if a State law enforcement official arrested a foreign diplomat 

and the Federal Government were to require Texas to release that 

diplomat, that under some principle of federalism Texas would not 

be required to do that. This principle is exactly the same here. We 

certainly can require as a matter of Federal Government power to 

comply with our treaty obligations, which are binding on all of the 

States as a general matter of international law, to require State officials to take certain actions, and this bill I think is consistent 

with our obligations under international law, as the Supreme Court 

saw them in the Medellin case. We are now taking up the invitation that Chief Justice Roberts gave to Congress to pass legislation 

that would allow us to comply with our clear international law obligation. 

Thanks very much. 

Ms. GILLIS. Yes, I would just like to add that it seems to me that 

the willingness of the Turkish Ambassadors or the Hungarian ambassadors to take over as protective powers for U.S. citizens in 

Libya has to do with the fact that when they look at us, they want 

to see us respecting our obligations. And the same for the Swedish 

Ambassadors who stepped in for the journalists who were caught 

in North Korea and the Swiss Ambassadors who handled the case 

of the Americans who are currently being detained in Iran. That 

is to say, these countries that we do not maintain diplomatic relations with, the most dangerous, darkest places for American citizens, I think the willingness of other countries to step in and act 

as our protective powers probably has a lot to do with the fact that 

they feel that we obey the rule of law. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And that we are, in fact, a model for the 

rule of law. 

Ms. GILLIS. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Not the lowest common denominator, that 

we embody the principles of due process and fairness, not just that 

we are grudgingly observing them as part of the lowest common denominator. 

Ms. GILLIS. Yes, exactly. We want to think of ourselves as the 

standard bearers in this, and others look to us in this sense. So I 

think it is important to honor that obligation. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Well, again, we will stand adjourned. The record will remain open for 1 week in case anyone 

wants to supplement anything. 

This hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

32 


71110.001
33 


71110.002
34 


71110.003
35 


71110.004
36 


71110.005
37 


71110.006
38 


71110.007
39 


71110.008
40 


71110.009
41 


71110.010
42 


71110.011
43 


71110.012
44 


71110.013
45 


71110.014
46 


71110.015
47 


71110.016
48 


71110.017
49 


71110.018
50 


71110.019
51 


71110.020
52 


71110.021
53 


71110.022
54 


71110.023
55 


71110.024
56 


71110.025
57 


71110.026
58 


71110.027
59 


71110.028
60 


71110.029
61 


71110.030
62 


71110.031
63 


71110.032
64 


71110.033
65 


71110.034
66 


71110.035
67 


71110.036
68 


71110.037
69 


71110.038
70 


71110.039
71 


71110.040
72 


71110.041
73 


71110.042
74 


71110.043
75 


71110.044
76 


71110.045
77 


71110.046
78 


71110.047
79 


71110.048
80 


71110.049
81 


71110.050
82 


71110.051
83 


71110.052
84 


71110.053
85 


71110.054
86 


71110.055
87 


71110.056
88 


71110.057
89 


71110.058
90 


71110.059
91 


71110.060
92 


71110.061
93 


71110.062
94 


71110.063
95 


71110.064
96 


71110.065
97 


71110.066
98 


71110.067
99 


71110.068
100 


71110.069
101 


71110.070
102 


71110.071
103 


71110.072
104 


71110.073
105 


71110.074
106 


71110.075
107 


71110.076
108 


71110.077
109 


71110.078
110 


71110.079
111 


71110.080
112 


71110.081
113 


71110.082
114 


71110.083
115 


71110.084
116 


71110.085
117 


71110.086
118 


71110.087
119 


71110.088
120 


71110.089
121 


71110.090
122 


71110.091
123 


71110.092
124 


71110.093
125 


71110.094
126 


71110.095
127 


71110.096
128 


71110.097
129 


71110.098
130 


71110.099
131 


71110.100
132 


71110.101
133 


71110.102
134 


71110.103
135 


71110.104
136 


71110.105
137 


71110.106
138 


71110.107
139 


71110.108
140 


71110.109
141 


71110.110
142 


71110.111
143 


71110.112
144 


71110.113
145 


71110.114
146 


71110.115
147 


71110.148
148 


71110.149
149 


71110.116
150 


71110.117
151 


71110.118
152 


71110.119
153 


71110.120
154 


71110.121
155 


71110.122
156 


71110.123
157 


71110.124
158 


71110.125
159 


71110.126
160 


71110.127
161 


71110.128
162 


71110.129
163 


71110.130
164 


71110.131
165 


71110.132
166 


71110.133
167 


71110.134
168 


71110.135
169 


71110.136
170 


71110.137
171 


71110.138
172 


71110.139
173 


71110.140
174 


71110.141
175 


71110.142
176 


71110.143
177 


71110.144
178 


71110.145
179 


71110.146
180 

Æ 


71110.147