House panel OKs bill for arrests of overseas personnel

The House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee approved a bill Thursday that would make some U.S. citizens and foreign nationals-including military and federal civilian personnel-subject to criminal prosecution in the United States for crimes committed in foreign countries.

The subcommittee approved the bill (H.R. 3380) by voice vote.

Subcommittee Chairman Bill McCollum, R-Fla., said the Senate passed a similar bill (S. 768) last year. The measure is urgently needed, he said, to close loopholes in existing law that allow some to escape prosecution, such as members of the U.S armed forces and their spouses, contractors and others employed by the armed services overseas and foreign nationals employed abroad by the U.S. armed forces.

When members of the military or civilians employed by the military commit crimes overseas, they can be prosecuted by the host country, but often the host nation waives jurisdiction or doesn't act, McCollum said. Armed forces members can also be prosecuted by the United States under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

But there are limitations on U.S. prosecution of the civilians overseas and members of U.S. military may escape prosecution under the Uniform Code because their crime is not discovered or established until after they have left the military and are no longer subject to the Uniform Code, McCollum said.

As a result, many cases of rape, sex abuse, fraud, assault, drug distribution and other crimes go unpunished, he said.

To correct this problem, the bill would make subject to U.S. criminal prosecution:

• Members of the armed forces who commit crimes overseas but were never prosecuted by the host country or the U.S. armed forces, and are now out of the armed forces and no longer subject to the Uniform Code;
• Foreign nationals working for the U.S. military overseas who have committed crimes and have not been prosecuted there. This would normally involve a person of one nationality (a Balkan national, for example) who is working for the U.S. military establishment in another country (say, Japan) and commits a crime in Japan, a staff aide said. A Japanese national working for the U.S. armed forces in Japan would probably be prosecuted by his or her own government.
• Those employed by or accompanying the military overseas, such as a contractor or subcontractor, and their spouses and dependents. However, the dependents must live with the military person or contractors and not be a national or usual resident of the nation involved.

While there was no apparent opposition to the basic bill, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., cited one "loophole" in the bill. He said people should get some legal protection before they are plucked out of a foreign country to face prosecution in the United States since the evidence and witnesses needed to defend themselves may be in the foreign land.

Scott first proposed an amendment allowing a suspect to make an initial appearance in the country involved before a magistrate knowledgeable on federal procedure, before being "uprooted and sent thousands of miles" without knowing the exact legal nature of the charge.

But McCollum, while conceding the point was "well-taken," said that such a remedy was impractical and would force the United States to send a magistrate overseas.

Scott responded, "But under the bill, you can ship them off even before the U.S. attorney decides whether to indict."

But McCollum held his ground and promised to work with Scott to craft a solution before the full Judiciary Committee takes up the measure. Scott then withdrew the amendment.

Scott also proposed an amendment making regulations to implement the bill effective when the bill went into effect. But he withdrew it after McCollum noted, "You can't draft a regulation until the bill is passed."

A McCollum amendment with what were described as minor changes in some bill language was approved by voice vote. The bill was then approved, also by voice vote.