Obviously the United States would not extradite its agents for carrying out an authorized mission, but our failure to do so

could lead the foreign country to cease extradition cooperation Moreover, our agents would be vulnerable to

with us.

extradition from third countries they visit.

Beyond the risks to our agents, the possibility also exists of suits against the United States in the foreign country's courts for the illegal actions taken in that country. For example, U.S. courts held that Chile was not immune from suit in the United States for its involvement in the assassination of a Chilean, Letelier, in the United States. The United States could also face challenges for such actions in international fora, including the International Court of

Justice.

An unconsented, extraterritorial arrest would inevitably have an adverse impact on our bilateral relations with the country in which we act. Less obviously, such arrests could also greatly reduce law enforcement cooperation with that or other countries. The United States has attached substantial importance over the past decade to improving bilateral and multilateral law enforcement cooperation. For many countries, these agreements reflect the commitment of the United States to confine itself to cooperative measures, rather than unilateral action, in the pursuit of U.S. law enforcement objectives.

16

If the United States disregards these agreed law enforcement norms and mechanisms, and acts unilaterally, we must be

prepared for States to decline to cooperate under these arrangements or to denounce them. Foreign States have reacted adversely to extraterritorial US laws, even when those laws involve enforcement action taken only in the United States. The breadth of our discovery practices and antitrust laws have led some States to pass blocking and secrecy statutes that preclude cooperation with the United States. Their reaction to unconsented extraterritorial arrests could be more extreme.

Finally, we need to consider the fact that our legal position may be seized upon by other nations to engage in irresponsible conduct against our interests. Reciprocity is at the heart of international law; all nations need to take into account the reactions of other nations to conduct which departs from accepted norms.

It is the seriousness of these various policy implications, and our general respect for international law, that has led each witness today to emphasize that no change has been made in United States policy concerning extraterritorial arrests.

- 17

Our policy remains to cooperate with foreign States in

achieving law enforcement objectives. As the White House has emphasized, any deviation from this policy would take place only after full inter-agency consideration of the range of implicated U.S. interests.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. happy to address any questions you might have.

I would be

Mr. EDWARDS. We will now hear from the third member of the panel, Mr. Oliver B. Revell, Associate Deputy Director-Investigations, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Revell, welcome.

STATEMENT OF OLIVER B. REVELL, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR-INVESTIGATIONS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Mr. REVELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to appear before the committee this morning to discuss the FBI extraterritorial jurisdiction and operations abroad. You have expressed an interest in this area and through my prepared remarks, I will present the FBI's mandate in this area. I will also discuss general procedures, and detail some examples of when extraterritorial investigative measures have been utilized in the area of counterterrorism.

As a starting point, let me briefly touch upon the issue of lead agency status relating to counterterrorism investigations. In April 1982, the Reagan administration refined specific responsibilities for coordination of the Federal response to terrorist incidents.

This mandate assigned to the Department of State responsibility for the coordination of counterterrorism abroad. The FBI, through the Department of Justice, was designated the lead agency for investigating acts of terrorism perpetrated within the United States. In addition, the Attorney General has designated the FBI as the responsible agency for investigations abroad, when authorized.

In October 1982, in response to the growing problem of terrorism, then FBI Director William Webster elevated the counterterrorism program within the FBI to a national priority status, bringing it on par with other critically important investigative programs such as foreign counterintelligence and organized crime.

As the primary Federal agency for combating terrorism in the United States, there exists for the FBI a twofold mission: First, and I think most importantly, to prevent terrorist acts before they occur and; second, should they occur, to mount an effective investigative response.

The prevention phase involves acquiring, through legal means, intelligence information relating to terrorist groups and individuals who threaten Americans or U.S. interests, or foreign nationals within the United States.

The response phase involves prompt and effective investigation of criminal acts committed by members of terrorist groups. It is the FBI's view that swift and effective investigation of terrorist acts, culminated by arrests, convictions, and incarcerations, sends a powerful and effective message to terrorists and serves as a deterrent to future acts of terrorism.

As a result of legislation passed in 1984 and in 1986, a new era began for the FBI with expanded involvement in the investigation of international terrorism.

Since 1985, we have been involved in at least 50 separate investigations outside the United States, as a result of U.S. citizens or interests having been targeted by terrorists.

This FBI extraterritorial jurisdiction is derived from a number of U.S. statutes to include the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which created a new section in the U.S. Criminal Code for

hostage-taking, and the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, which established a new statute pertaining to terrorist acts conducted abroad against U.S. nationals.

These laws allow the United States to assert Federal jurisdiction outside of our borders when a U.S. national is either murdered, assaulted, or taken hostage by a terrorist. Internal FBI and Department of Justice oversight, host country concurrence, and coordination with the U.S. Department of State are prerequisites in the implementation of this jurisdiction.

The FBI is aware of the public attention generated by the Department of Justice opinion of June 21, 1989, in its opinion regarding extraterritorial matters.

However, this opinion is a statement of legal authority and does not alter existing FBI policy regarding arrests in foreign countries. FBI policy has been, and will continue to be, that a request for an arrest in a foreign country will be coordinated, approved, and conducted with the appropriate authorities of that country. Any departure from our current policy would have to be directed and coordinated by the Justice Department.

The extraterritorial statutes have afforded the United States a legal mechanism to investigate and, when warranted, to seek the prosecution of terrorists who attack U.S. nationals abroad. Our investigations of extraterritorial matters have met with considerable success. Numerous indictments have been obtained against individuals who have committed such acts. Others have been arrested and tried abroad-many times with our evidence-and yet others are currently the subject of extradition requests.

While time will not permit a complete review of all extraterritorial cases, I have cited several of the more significant investigations in my formal statement.

These include the TWA 847 hijacking and the subsequent arrest and conviction of Mohammad Hammadei; the June 1985 hijacking of the Royal Jordanian airliner and the eventual arrest and conviction here in Washington of Fawaz Younis; the seizure of Pan Am flight 73 in Pakistan and the conviction of the perpetrators by the Pakistani authorities, again using our evidence; the_June 1987 mortar attack and car bomb attack near the U.S. Embassy in Rome, for which the Japanese Red Army is believed responsible; the April 1988 suspected JRA car bomb in Naples and a coincidental arrest of a Japanese Red Army member, Yu Kikumura, in New Jersey, at the same time; the June 1988 assassination of Navy Capt. William Nordeen in Athens; the Pan Am flight 103 tragedy in Scotland in December of last year; the assassination of Colonel Rose in the Philippines; the murder of two American missionaries in La Paz, Bolivia; and the attempted bombing by the same group of former Secretary of State Shultz's motorcade in August 1988.

These cases represent but a sampling of the extraterritorial efforts that we've conducted over the past few years in carrying out the congressional mandate.

To carry out our international liaison responsibilities and to assist in extraterritorial pursuits, the FBI maintains legal attachés in 16 foreign countries. The primary mission of the Legal Attaché Office is to establish and sustain effective liaison with principal law enforcement, intelligence, and security services throughout the