Mr. MAZZOLI. At this point, I will exercise the privilege of having just a few opening statements and will yield to my friends.

First, I would like to welcome to our subcommittee a new Member of Congress, a new member of the full Judiciary Committee, and, of course, a new member of our subcommittee, the Honorable Mike Kopetski of the State of Oregon. Mike, we welcome you and wish you much good fortune and a long political life. Mike, as I mentioned, is from Oregon, the fifth district, is an attorney, has served 4 years in the Oregon State Assembly and, already in the very short time that I've had a chance to work with him has already distinguished himself in this Congress.

There is also on the minority side a new member of the panel, though not a new Member of Congress, so maybe the gentleman would care

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. James is not present with us today, Mr. Chairman, but Craig James is from my home State of Florida and has served, as you stated, on the Judiciary Committee for one other term. He's in his second term of Congress and I think will make an excellent member of the subcommittee, and I look forward to having him with us.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I had a chance to work with Mr. James and he is a very fine member.

As the chairman has said, today's meeting is the first meeting. There will be other hearings as the 102d Congress proceeds concerning this whole question of war crimes trials, the background, the need for them, the wisdom of them, the pros and cons of them. The purpose today is, therefore, not to get into the details of the allegations of atrocities and crimes almost unspeakable in their nature that have been emanating from Kuwait and, to some extent, from Iraq, allegedly committed by Saddam Hussein and his people. Rather, the subcommittee will today examine the existing legal framework for the investigation and prosecution of war crimes and receive information from the panel, which has already been aptly designated by the chairman as one with great wisdom as well as great experience in this field, for any changes and modifications that need to be made to this framework to cover current conditions to the extent that we can look down the road at future situations that might warrant our investigation.

In this connection, as the chairman said, we will look at the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the London Agreement, the Nuremberg Charters, and the other relevant sources of international law and precedent to get a better idea just where we are and what acts constitute crimes of war, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity.

We will also be interested in learning the relative advantages and disadvantages of the various types of tribunals which have been convened and whether or not there should be a permanent tribunal, with an accepted criminal code which will be then applicable to future cases. Without going into what the chairman said, we are more familiar with what happened after World War II but, as some of our witnesses will say, there are precedents before World War II where acts of aggression, acts of war, acts against humanity were sanctioned. It is also evident that nothing similar to this occurred after either the Korean War or the Viet Nam War so

we have had a gap of 40-plus years since there has really been activity in this field.

Before I introduce our panelists, I will indicate to our friends that, unexpectedly, we were called into session at 11 o'clock. Typically, on a Wednesday, we go in at 2 o'clock. It had been my hope to take each individual witness separately as a separate panel but, with your permission and understanding, we'll call you all forth in a moment and let you each speak and then have a general discussion.

I now yield to my friend, the ranking member of the committee, Bill McCollum of Florida.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to say at the opening that it is indeed a pleasure to be the ranking member on a subcommittee with you. We have had the pleasure of working together in the past and it's a real pleasure this time to be in this position. So, I look forward to it.

With regard to international law, which happens to open our subcommittee set of hearings this session of Congress, it seems to me that it is highly appropriate in light of what's happened in the Middle East for us to be having this hearing and to hear from the experts. But it is also intriguing to me since international law has been a part of this subcommittee for a long time and we have had very little to do with it because it is very difficult to have the U.S. House of Representatives engaged in that subject as far as legislation is concerned. The Senate is the one that ratifies the treaties and makes the decisions on much of what might be considered international law by many.

Yet we have a responsibility, too, and there is a whole area of responsibility which this hearing as oversight will give us a chance to get into.

There are those who say that international law is a misnomer or that it is irrelevant or nonexistent. The main reason I think people say that is because there is no enforcement mechanism. It's different from municipal or National or State laws in that regard. It's difficult for us, though, not to recognize the need for the comity that comes among nations that brings about the body that is called international law. That has existed more often in times of crisis when the world is brought together than any other time.

As the chairman has brought out, the last time we really had international tribunals relative to war crimes was many years ago after World War II. Whether or not the same type of procedure would be applicable today or whether another structure could be framed that nations could agree upon for trying war crimes arising out of the Persian Gulf, or future conflicts, would be of great interest to the American public and, certainly, to this subcommittee. So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I would be very much appreciative of what they have to say. Thank you.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you, Bill. Does anyone else have an opening statement?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your calling this hearing today on a subject which I think is of very much interest to so many American citizens. I would like to congratulate you as well for being selected chairman of this subcommittee and, also, to congratulate my colleague, Mr. McCollum, for being the ranking Republican of this subcommittee. I look forward to working with you all and the others members during the 102d Congress.

Mr. Chairman, we sit here this morning as our troops are beginning to return home after protecting the rule of law and the rights of innocent civilians in the Middle East. Those troops went to the Middle East because of the actions of the Iraqi military. We asked them to put their lives in harm's way to do what was right. Today, we are here to continue our Nation's effort to ensure the fulfillment of justice and the rule of law. We are here to see how those responsible for crimes against humanity can be brought to justice. International law is often considered a confusing and murky area of law. How, one might ask, can we even consider the notion of international law when different laws are passed by different countries and countries seldom agree on anything? But international law does not have to be confusing, obscure, or theoretical. Every nation, in all cultures, agrees that murdering innocent people in another country is a crime. Iraq and the United States have specifically agreed that mistreatment of prisoners of war is a crime. Can anyone, anywhere in the world, question whether murdering fathers and brothers in front of their families is a crime? There is no ambiguity. Those actions are violations of international law.

How to best prosecute such crimes, however, is not so clear-cut. We should determine how to bring criminals to justice and how to do so in a way that will deter potential criminals. We need to discuss Congress' role and the role of the United States in prosecuting war crimes. We need to discuss whether to create a permanent forum for prosecution of war crimes. But while we are discussing these questions, we cannot lose sight of the reason we are here. To continue to protect the rule of law, the rights of mankind, and the sovereignty of nations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you. Let me then call forth our panel in the order listed.

First, Prof. and retired Brig. Gen. Telford Taylor. Professor Taylor is very well qualified to speak on our subject having served as the chief prosecutor in 12 of the Nuremberg trials. As an Army officer, Professor Taylor received the Distinguished Service Medal for his service to the Nation. In the past 20 years, the professor has lectured at Harvard University and Cardozo Law School. He is the author of many books, including "Nuremberg and Viet Nam" published in 1970, numerous articles on legal and military subjects, is internationally recognized on the subject of war crimes. Professor Taylor received his undergraduate training at Williams, went on to earn several masters and doctorate degrees including two in law from Harvard.

Professor, you are welcome to come forth and I think that first seat there is yours.

Next with us is Howard Levie, professor emeritus of law at St. Louis University. Professor Levie entered the U.S. Army as a pri

vate, retired as a colonel in the Judge Advocate General's Court, was draftsman of the Korean Armistice Agreement, and served with distinction as the Chief, International Affairs Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army. He was professor of international law at the Naval War College in addition to his other academic training. Among his many publications are titles such as: "Prisoners of War in International Armed Conflict" and "The Code of International Armed Conflict." Professor Levie has undergraduate law degrees from Cornell University and a masters degree in law from George Washington University Law School.

Our next witness is Prof. Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University Law School. He is the author of 24 major books on U.S. criminal law and international criminal law. He has also published over 100 articles in various law journals in the United States and other countries. Professor Bassiouni is active in several scholarly and professional organizations, was elected president of the International Association on Penal Law in 1989 after having served as secretary-general since 1974, so he has a wealth of training. He was also chairman of the international law section of the Illinois State Bar Association for several years.

Professor Bassiouni has served as consultant to the U.S. Departments of State and Justice on various projects dealing with international control of terrorism and with respect to the defense of U.S. hostages in Iran. The professor has earned law degrees from Indiana University, John Marshall Law School and from George Washington University Law School.

So, you two gentlemen are welcome to come forth.

Our final witness is John Norton Moore, Walter L. Brown professor of law at the University of Virginia. He was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate in 1989 as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace. The Institute was established to strengthen a nation's capacity to promote international peace and the peaceful resolution of conflicts among the nations and peoples of the world.

Professor Moore has also served as counselor in international law to the U.S. State Department, is the author of 12 books dealing with international as well as national security issues, and many scholarly articles. Professor Moore received his undergraduate degree from Drew University, and has earned his law degree with distinction from Duke University and has earned a masters degree in law from Illinois School of Law.

Well, it's evident from that very short recital that could have gone on for hours of the distinguished merit of our panelists. I will ask Professor and retired Brigadier General Taylor to begin and speak to the issue as you see it. Your statements, all of those which have been prepared, will be made, at this point, a part of the record. So, you may read them, read from them, or excerpt from them as you wish. In any event, thank you all for coming. General Taylor.

STATEMENT OF TELFORD TAYLOR, RETIRED BRIGADIER GENERAL AND PROFESSOR OF LAW, CARDOZO LAW SCHOOL General TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am well aware of the pressure of time and, therefore, have no intention of reading the written statement which I have put in.

I think you will see from that that my statement has been drawn on a considerably narrower basis than some of the matters that have been spoken of already. I'm very much interested in the idea of having a permanent international criminal court, but that had been thought of and worked on hard as far back as 1951 and it has not traveled forward very rapidly. Maybe I misunderstood but my effort here, in this statement, is really quite closely confined to the situation in the gulf and the possibilities with respect to war crimes trials that have grown out of that. Now, again, I have focused this short statement largely on matters of law and, of course, I think it's quite clear that this is an immediate problem which is highly political as well as highly legal.

On the legal side of it, I have set forth rather briefly what appeared to me to be the portions of the international criminal codes that are applicable here and I don't see any reason to go into them in any detail now.

There are two or three things in the statement which I wish to stress. One of them is that this war, again, when President Bush first announced that he was going to send troops to Saudi Arabia, he based the authorization for that almost entirely on the ideas of aggressive war which were indeed involved in Nuremberg. This problem is not part of what I would call the old codes that go back a long, long way, as my paper indicates.

I should also add that this problem of aggressive war was a very controversial one when it came up at the Nuremberg trials. I'm not going to go over that controversy now, a half century later. The fact is that the courts, both in Nuremberg and Tokyo, upheld the idea of making aggressive war an international crime, and then the later episodes occurred in which that same point of view has prevailed. I think in the interest of time I'm not going to trace those episodes. I've mentioned them in the statement.

The other matter which I mention there is that there has been a lot of talk about Nuremberg and whether the situation here today is in any wise likened to things in it that would be very helpful now. I think that is only in a modest degree the case. As I put it in the statement, in Nuremberg there was no Hitler. We had all of the surviving people that ought be tried in our hands, and it all went, compared to the situation today, very much more smoothly. We had also been able to put together tons of documents which, from the evidentiary standpoint, where 99 percent of the casethat certainly isn't at the moment the same situation today. Although we now have a smaller problem in one sense, it seems to me that the situation is much more complicated and difficult than the one that we confronted at Nuremberg.

Now, I'm not going to spend any more time on what I've written here. Indeed, I'm going to shut down in just 1 minute. I just wanted to close with, maybe I should say an admonition, about the difficulties that are here in deciding and finding out what we're up