The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“TOWARD A BETTER SYSTEM OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E728-E729 on April 23, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
TOWARD A BETTER SYSTEM OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
______
HON. DAVID DREIER
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 23, 1997
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, here in our Nation's Capital, a young woman was killed in a car accident. This tragedy briefly became the subject of national news because the offending driver was a diplomat of the Republic of Georgia, and the driver was allegedly driving drunk. Thus, a horrible situation for the young woman's family became the focal point for an ad hoc rethinking of the issue of diplomatic immunity, and the reasonable expectation of most Americans that diplomats and their families should not be absolved of all personal responsibility for criminal actions.
Diplomatic immunity unquestionably plays an important role in foreign relations between nations. I firmly believe that American diplomats, their staffs and their families must be shielded from abusive prosecution abroad by strict adherence to the international rule of law upon which diplomatic immunity is based. In the United States, the same principles must apply to those associated with diplomatic missions here in Washington, at the United Nations in New York City, and at consulates in California and throughout our country.
While the concept of diplomatic immunity remains an important underpinning of peaceful diplomacy, it is time, with the exponential growth of the diplomatic corps, that we reexamine the procedures and policies implicit in the doctrine of diplomatic immunity. In short, while diplomats cannot be held hostage by foreign governments through criminal prosecution of themselves, their families or their staffs, that does not mean that civilized countries cannot agree to hold their own diplomatic personnel accountable in their own judicial systems.
I recently met with a now-retired New York City detective, a highly decorated veteran of street wars, who attempted to arrest a young man, the son of a diplomat, who is a serial rapist. I recently met with one of that young man's victims, whose life has never fully returned to normal. I recently met with representatives of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Organization for Victim's Assistance, the National Association of Crime Victims Compensation Boards, the National Black Police Association, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and the National Law Enforcement Council.
These officers, victims, and advocates were assembled by constituents of mine in California who are responsible for an important study of cases of diplomatic immunity abuse. In the book by veteran journalist Chuck Ashman and attorney Pamela Terracott, ``Diplomatic Crime'', they document that the majority of criminal acts which trigger the imposition of diplomatic immunity claims are committed not by Ambassadors or senior ministers, but by their lower ranking staff and family members. They point out that there are cases in which those accused are not only excused but remain in their duty post or are quickly reassigned to another
I commend Chuck and Pamela for their dedicated research. I thank victims and police for their determination to shed light on abuses. I appreciate the concern on the part of so many significant police and victims support groups for this issue.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a drunk driver forced the issue of diplomatic immunity back to the front pages earlier this year. In that one case, the government of the accused has waived his immunity and allowed American procedures for justice to move ahead. What is most significant about that decision is how unique it is in the field. In fact, the knee jerk reaction of most nations, including the United States, is to recall those accused of crimes before there is any determinations as to the merits of the charges.
It is my view that the growth in the number of diplomatic personnel, along with media technology that spreads word of crimes across the country in minutes, creates the potential for public outrage that could threaten the entire system of diplomatic immunity sometime in the future. Therefore, I believe that now is the time for Congress to begin an effort to seriously investigate how to improve and protect diplomatic immunity. I recently introduced legislation, H.R. 1236, to get that process underway. I would like to thank Congressman Chris Smith, the chairman of the International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights for incorporating the provisions of H.R. 1236 into H.R. 1253, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, which was reported out of the subcommittee on April 9.
This legislative effort may be of little comfort to the victims of that serial rapist or to the families of those killed by drunken drivers who have not been called to account in any nation, but I believe it is a step in the right direction. The Congress should know when and where these incidents occur. The Congress and the American people should know the disposition of cases involving American officials overseas accused of crimes. I look forward to the Congress moving forward on this issue, to study the reports we are requesting from the State Department, and to take the lead globally in exploring how to balance the needs of diplomacy and the demands of a changing society.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend Chuck Ashman and Pamela Terracott for their dedicated research, and thank the victims and those police who have shown such determination to shed light on abuses.
____________________
