[Senate Hearing 106-259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-259
AN OVERVIEW OF U.S. COUNTERTERRORISM POLICY AND PRESIDENT CLINTON'S
DECISION TO GRANT CLEMENCY TO FALN TERRORISTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE,
PEACE CORPS, NARCOTICS AND TERRORISM
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-361 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
BILL FRIST, Tennessee
Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE,
PEACE CORPS, NARCOTICS AND TERRORISM
PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia, Chairman
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Connor, Joseph, son of Frank Connor, FALN bombing victim......... 10
Prepared statement with attached correspondence.............. 13
Coverdell, Hon. Paul D., letter from Department of Justice
declining an invitation to testify............................. 2
Fossella, Hon. Vito, U.S. Representative from New York........... 6
Gallegos, Gilbert G., national president of the Grand Lodge,
Fraternal Order of Police...................................... 16
Prepared statement with attached correspondence.............. 19
Harrison, John, FALN bombing victim, prepared statement.......... 35
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona......................... 5
Pastorella, Rich, former detective, New York Police Department... 9
Senft, Anthony, former detective, New York Police Department..... 8
(iii)
AN OVERVIEW OF U.S. COUNTERTERRORISM POLICY AND PRESIDENT CLINTON'S
DECISION TO GRANT CLEMENCY TO FALN TERRORISTS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere,
Peace Corps, Narcotics and Terrorism,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:15 a.m., in room SD-419, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Paul Coverdell (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senator Coverdell.
Also present: Senator Kyl.
Senator Coverdell. I am going to call the hearing of the
Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, Narcotics and Terrorism
Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee to order.
We are still waiting for Congressman Fossella, but I
thought I might go ahead and proceed, deal with the opening
statement, which is a little longer than normal.
I want to welcome each of you: Mr. Senft, Mr. Rich
Pastorella, Mr. Joe Connor, and Mr. Gilbert Gallegos. I
appreciate very much your coming. You are going to have to bear
with me for just a moment.
First of all, I want to make it absolutely clear that the
purpose of the hearing from the outset, going back to August
31, was not to challenge the President's authority, which is
clear constitutionally, but to take under advisement and try to
understand, given the unique nature of these actions by the
White House, what that effect would be on the perception of the
world, our law enforcement institutions, and the people in
general with regard to the United States policy on terrorism.
There has been probably too much written about the politics of
the decision. I think the more important and underlying and
fundamental question is, does it confuse the world about what
our policy is?
Now, as late as 9:30 p.m. last night, the witnesses
provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation were preempted
by the White House. In other words, the White House has
instructed that there be no presentations from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and we can only presume, of course,
that that is the fundamental and underlying reason that there
is no official here from the U.S. State Department, the Justice
Department, the White House, and now the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
I have to say to the White House that these actions, which
have been characteristic in the past, have never worked. We are
engaged in a public debate and dialog here, and the fact that
they have decided to build a fortress around the decision will
be of little value in the long run. The House has already
expressed itself on this measure and I think importantly so.
The Senate will do so probably within 4 hours.
I think it would have been appropriate had the
administration, through the State Department or the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, come to clarify their view of how this
relates to fundamental policy relating to terrorism, but they
have chosen not to do so. You have to wonder in the back of
your mind what would cause the White House to preempt and
foreclose any representation of their administration discussing
with the committee that has oversight the policies involved
here. They have, in fact, by these actions in my judgment,
raised more questions and not contributed at all to giving them
an opportunity to explain themselves.
[See correspondence that follows:]
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Office of the Assistant Attorney General,
Washington, DC, September 13, 1999.
The Honorable Paul D. Coverdell,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, Narcotics
and Terrorism,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your invitations, dated
September 7 and September 9, 1999, to representatives of the Department
of Justice (including the Federal Bureau of Investigation) to testify
at your hearing on September 14, 1999, regarding anti-terrorism
policies and the President's recent clemency decision. Although the
Department appreciates your invitation to testify on these important
matters, we have regretfully concluded that we are not in a position to
provide testimony at this time.
As your letter to Director Freeh indicates, the hearing will
``focus on the President's [clemency] decision.'' As you know, under
the Constitution the authority to grant clemency rests solely with the
President. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 1. See United States v.
Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 147 (1871) (``To the executive alone is
intrusted the power of pardon''); see also Public Citizen v. Department
of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 485 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring)
(reaffirming that the pardon power is ``commit[ted] . . . to the
exclusive control of the President''). We wish, of course, to provide
Congress with information to satisfy its oversight needs to the fullest
extent possible. In light of the important constitutional and
institutional interests implicated by your invitation for testimony and
the fact that the hearing may in significant part address the exercise
of an exclusive presidential prerogative, we are carefully reviewing
this matter and consulting with the White House regarding how most
appropriately to proceed.
Until this important issue has been resolved, we are unable to
provide the Department (including FBI) witnesses with the guidance they
need regarding the areas, if any, with respect to which their testimony
would be inappropriate. Accordingly, we cannot authorize their
appearance at tomorrow's hearing. We understand the need to resolve the
issue promptly and we are endeavoring to do so.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss
this matter.
Sincerely,
Jon P. Jennings,
Acting Assistant Attorney General.
Senator Coverdell. So, with that, let me then go to my
formal statement, and then we will come to you, Congressman
Fossella, for your introduction of these panelists that have
given so freely of their time not only here but in other places
as well. I apologize again. This is somewhat longer than normal
but the uniqueness of these circumstances calls for that.
There are few prospects more frightening and repugnant or
more destabilizing to free societies than the use of violence
to wreak terror among innocent civilians.
Yet, as we approach the new millennium, the growing threat
of terrorism is an ever-present reality. The cowardly and
deadly bombings of the two U.S. Embassies just over 1 year ago
were a stark reminder of the global threat of terrorism. Over
the last decade, the U.S. Government has made significant
strides in formulating strategies to counter the threat of
terrorism both at home and abroad. Efforts have focused on ways
to deter terrorist incidents from occurring and then responding
to them, if and when they do occur. At the center of our
strategy to deter terrorism has been a consistently tough
message that the United States will aggressively pursue, bring
to justice, and punish to the full extent of the law those
responsible for perpetrating acts of terror.
That is why President Clinton's recent decision to grant
clemency to 16 FALN terrorists is so disturbing. It sends
exactly the wrong message in my view. It says that the United
States does not punish terrorists to the full extent of the
law. It says to terrorists that they will not be subject to the
swift and severe application of the rule of law. I have called
the hearing today because I believe the President's decision
represents an abrupt departure from longstanding U.S. policy on
terrorism. There is an urgent need for the people's branch of
Government to set the record straight and to clarify the
administration's mixed signals about its tolerance of violence.
There must be a voice in our Government that says to the world
that this divergence from policy is not universally accepted.
Current U.S. terrorism policy is crystal clear: No
concessions to terrorists. In the State Department's annual
publication, Patterns of Global Terrorism 1998, U.S.
counterterrorism policy is clearly set forth: ``First, make no
concessions to terrorists and strike no deals. Second, bring
terrorists to justice for their crimes.''
The policy of being tough on terrorists has been enumerated
over and over again during the past several years by various
administration officials and through several Presidential
decision directives. In June 1995, for example, President
Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 39, hailing it
as the central blueprint for U.S. counterterrorism strategy. At
the core of PDD 39 is the continuation of U.S. policy of no
concessions to terrorists and application of the rule of law to
terrorists as criminals. It also focuses on the need to deter
terrorism. To quote from PDD: ``To deter terrorism, it is
necessary to provide a clear public position that we will
vigorously deal with terrorists. In this regard, we must make
it clear that we will not allow terrorism to succeed and that
the pursuit, arrest, and prosecution of terrorists is of the
highest priority.''
President Clinton again focused on getting tough on
terrorists in a speech before the United Nations General
Assembly in September of last year. He had these words to say:
``Terrorism is a clear and present danger to tolerant and open
societies and innocent people everywhere. The only dividing
line is between those who practice, support, or tolerate terror
and those who understand that it is murder, plain and simple.''
Those are the President's own words.
And in several instances, this administration has moved
beyond rhetoric and taken action to punish terrorism. After
pledging to use all means at our disposal to track down and
punish those responsible for the embassy bombings, the
President ordered missile strikes against Osama bin Laden's
training bases in Afghanistan.
At the core of these policies is the concept that swift and
tough action against terrorists will help deter future
occurrences. Indeed, I believe the credible threat of reprisal
and full punishment under the law remains the best deterrent.
Yet, these policies and our efforts against terrorism were
severely undermined on August 11 when President Clinton decided
to let convicted agents of terror go free. He made his decision
despite longstanding policies of applying the full scope of law
and making no concessions to terrorists. With the stroke of a
pen, our fight against global terrorism suffered an
unmistakable setback.
According to President Clinton, the most compelling
argument for clemency is that ``even though they belonged to an
organization which had espoused violent means, none of them had
done any bodily harm to anyone.'' If we use the President's
logic, do we free Terry Nichols who was far away from the
bombing in Oklahoma City or the blind cleric who plotted the
World Trade Center bombing? Do we stop pursuing Osama bin Laden
since he ordered but did not set off the bombs that claimed
innocent American lives at our embassies? Or in other words, do
we have two classes of terrorists from this point forward:
those engaged in the direct destruction and those who plotted
and planned it? You are somehow lesser if you were not actually
involved with the occurrence.
By using this logic that the 16 individuals are worthy of
clemency because they did not actually kill anyone, is the
administration setting a new standard that only successful
terrorists should be punished?
The bottom line is that 16 individuals were intimately
involved in anti-American terrorist activities targeting our
Government and innocent American citizens. They were active
supporters of terrorism, convicted of crimes that directly
supported the bombers and killers. They were an integral part
of a conspiracy responsible for 130 bombings, 6 deaths, and
dozens of injuries.
Official records from the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago
set forth the FALN history of terror: the actual and planned
bombings, the safe houses where bomb-building techniques were
practiced, the stashes of ammunition and explosives, the actual
conversations between FALN members conspiring to bomb, rob, and
break their comrades out of jail. The records demonstrate no
sign of repentance--and I have to say I still have seen none--
or remorse. Rather, the violent tendencies are confirmed.
During court proceedings in Chicago in 1981, for example, one
of the terrorists shouted at the judge: ``You are lucky we
cannot take you right now. Our people will continue to use
righteous violence. Revolutionary justice can be fierce, mark
my words.'' Another warned the judge to ``watch his back.''
One of my questions to the White House, which we will have
to now form in writing, are any of these individuals involved
with the apprehension or adjudication of these individuals in
any danger today? And if so, what steps is the United States
taking to protect them?
In the words of a U.S. attorney prosecuting the FALN
terrorists, ``the FALN has assaulted the American public
through bombs and bloodshed. That is what this case is about,
pure, unadulterated terror.'' In fact, during the sentencing, a
Federal judge told one of the defendants: ``I am convinced you
are going to continue as long as you can.'' That is terrorist
activity. ``If there was a death penalty, I'd impose the death
penalty on you without any hesitation.''
It is no surprise then that the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons,
the U.S. Attorney's office who prosecuted the terrorists, and
numerous law enforcement organizations have all reportedly
opposed the President's decision. The President should know
that this Senator, many of my colleagues in Congress and, I
dare say, an overwhelming majority of law-abiding American
citizens also oppose the President's decision.
To conclude, it is sadly ironic that just days before he
offered clemency to FALN terrorists, President Clinton issued a
statement commemorating the 1-year anniversary of U.S. Embassy
bombings and the loss of life in those acts of violence and, I
might say, two of my fellow citizens from Georgia. In his
message he said the following: ``Terrorists murdered these men
and women and tore the hearts of those who loved them. We have
intensified the struggle against terrorist violence and
strengthened security to protect our people. We will not rest
until justice is done.''
In light of his most recent action, the President's words
ring hollow. What are we to say today to the victims of the
vicious and cowardly FALN crimes and the victim's loved ones?
The President may have the power to commute the sentences
of the terrorists, but that will not restore sight to Mr.
Pastorella, restore full health to Mr. Senft, or return the
father Joe and Tom Connor missed growing up. Mr. President,
terrorism has a human face we cannot ignore.
I also want to recognize, before we go to you, Congressman
Fossella, Senator Jon Kyl, who is chairman of the subcommittee
on the Intelligence Committee on terrorism and ask if you would
have a statement to make at this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A very brief
statement, and I thank you for the opportunity to sit on this
important subcommittee, even though I am not a member, because
of my interest in the terrorism issue.
The question before this committee is the effect on U.S.
foreign policy generally and terrorism specifically, of course.
The FBI and others have always said that the best antidote to
terrorism is clear, consistent, and firm policy against it,
with emphasis on always tracking down and prosecuting and
incarcerating terrorists. In fact, before the Judiciary
Committee, we have frequently heard testimony from the FBI that
one of the key factors for there not being more terrorism in
the United States, as compared with other places in the world,
is that all terrorists know that any conduct in the United
States will be prosecuted and the people will be held
accountable for it. They put it this way: We will track you
down and we will ensure that you pay the penalty. And because
that happens most of the time, there is less terrorism in the
United States.
The question with the President's action here is exactly
what Chairman Coverdell stated: Does it confuse our policy,
creating ambiguity about our commitment to effectively deal
with terrorists?
I have talked with at least one prominent Puerto Rican, Dr.
Mary Ramirez, who is in the audience here, who has said that
the release of these terrorists has created a very tense
atmosphere in Puerto Rico. People feel threatened. The FALN
supporters have treated the returning terrorists as conquering
heroes. Opponents feel personally threatened by their
aggressive actions. This is the unfortunate consequence of the
President's actions, not the closing of a chapter, but the
opening of a new chapter, perhaps even a new offensive.
The President, of course, has the legal authority to do
what he did, but your committee, Mr. Chairman, has the
authority to set policy, including anti-terrorist policy. And
these hearings are an important step in understanding the
consequences of easing up on terrorists as a prelude to doing
everything else we can do to fight terrorism with the only
effective policy, firmness and resolution.
So, I commend you for holding this hearing and again
express to you personally appreciation for being able to sit on
the dias, at least until 10 o'clock, when I will have to leave.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coverdell. I appreciate very much the Senator being
here and his work in this area which has been so important for
an extended period of time. You are very kind to be present.
Now I am going to turn to you, Congressman Fossella. I
appreciate the work you have been doing on this issue on your
side of the Capitol. We have not really had a chance to know
each other, and I have watched your work with great interest. I
appreciate your coming to introduce these very distinguished
American citizens that are here today.
STATEMENT OF HON. VITO FOSSELLA, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
YORK
Mr. Fossella. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you
for your leadership in the Senate. I know you have been working
on this issue since the President offered clemency, and I
really commend you for your leadership in the Senate.
And, Senator Kyl, I know your schedule is very busy and for
you to take time out is greatly appreciated as well.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for extending to me an
invitation to speak briefly before your subcommittee and
introduce several witnesses. I appreciate the opportunity to
introduce to you and other distinguished members the human
faces, the lives that have forever been changed, who have
suffered at the hands of terrorists.
I would also like to commend your swift and forceful action
on this issue in the Senate.
I believe the clemency offer by the President is a travesty
of justice. Anthony Senft and Richard Pastorella, former New
York City Police Department detectives, were permanently
wounded by FALN terrorists. They can tell you much better than
I what these terrorists have done to their lives. They were
innocent targets of an unrepentant military organization that
promoted the use of violence to win independence for Puerto
Rico. Joseph Connor, who is with us today, can tell you how the
FALN terrorists changed his life for the worse. This young man
was left fatherless when his father, Frank Connor, just
happened to be having lunch in Fraunces Tavern in New York City
when an FALN bomb shook the restaurant, killing his father and
others. It was 1975. He was celebrating his ninth birthday.
Mr. Chairman, these are the faces, the real faces, behind
the FALN tragedies. It is no coincidence, I believe, that there
have been no bombings since these 16 FALN terrorists were
sentenced to prison. It terrifies me that someone else's father
or another police officer could be put in harm's way now that
these terrorists are free.
Last week Congress in a loud voice denounced the
President's offer of clemency and made it clear that his
decision violates longstanding U.S. counterterrorism policy. We
also offered the victims a voice in this process, a voice that
they never had the opportunity to use until right now.
Releasing the FALN terrorists back on our streets as free
men is a complete betrayal of these brave men who are here
today and the rest of the victims who they represent.
I trust you agree that this clemency sends a terrible
message to the world that the U.S. is soft on terrorism and
that FALN terrorists deserve to stay behind bars. It terrifies
me that the possibility even exists that we could see FALN
victims again. I pray that never comes. According to the
promise, we can rest on that promise of convicted terrorists.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I hope history records this act
for what it was. We were coddling with terrorists and we set
them free; that is, this White House did.
There are others in this town who prefer to talk and toe
the line for terrorists. Others like you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Kyl, prefer to be a voice for the victims. History will record
that as well.
Senator Kyl, you suggested that there are people who are
celebrating the conquering heroes, the release of these
terrorists. I think the vast majority of the American people
define hero differently. These men are our heroes and I think
the American people are disgusted with what the President did
by offering clemency, and I hope and pray that their memory is
not in any way compromised by the fact that right now
terrorists are meeting once again. And I pray and I hope that
they never get the opportunity to kill another innocent human
being ever again.
That is my statement, Mr. Chairman. Now it is my pleasure
to introduce Detective Anthony Senft.
Senator Coverdell. Detective, thank you for being here and
for your service to the people of the United States.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY SENFT, FORMER DETECTIVE, NEW YORK POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Mr. Senft. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Senate, good morning. My name is Detective Anthony Senft, and I
thank you for inviting me to address the committee.
I stand before you today not only as an American citizen
but also as a victim of terrorism on American soil, a victim of
terrorism at the hands of the FALN. On December 31, 1982, while
working for the New York City Police Department as a detective
in the bomb squad, I was severely injured by one of five bombs
placed by the FALN while my partner and I attempted to render
it safe.
On that day, I received a lifelong sentence without the
opportunity for parole, time off for good behavior, and no
chance of clemency. My sentence included five reconstructive
operations on my face, the loss of all my sight in one eye, 60
percent hearing loss in both ears, a fractured hip, severe
vertigo, and the hell of post traumatic stress disorder. Since
then I received a blood clot in my lung that has been sitting
in my hip and almost lost my life 2 years ago.
My only solace was the fact that the 16 members of the FALN
were serving prison sentences for crimes committed against
American citizens. Now, 16 years later, American citizens and I
are victims once again as a result of terrorist acts by the
FALN and the pandering of our President.
President Clinton, by this clemency decision, makes a
mockery of our Nation's policy for zero tolerance. He speaks
out of both sides of his mouth as he denounces terrorist
McVeigh for terrorist acts in Oklahoma and says publicly,
immediately following the horrible acts against the children in
that Jewish community center in Los Angeles, that Americans
will not accept terrorism. Yet, he releases 16 terrorists on
that same day.
Was it because of political pressure from special interest
groups? We do not know that.
Clinton's actions tell would-be terrorists around the world
that terrorism against the United States and its people is an
acceptable form of demonstrating their political ideology and
terrorists need not fear the wrath of the American justice
system any longer, for all they need to do, after destroying
American property and lives, is to give a half-hearted, almost
forced apology, and we will all be forgiving them.
Senators, all is not forgiven. Terrorism against the United
States can never be an accepted form of political protest.
President Clinton, by his clemency offer, is releasing 16
terrorists back onto the streets of America to commit more acts
of terrorism against our families, your children, my children,
our grandchildren.
Some of the released convicted terrorists are the same
people who, while doctors were working feverishly to save my
life and while my family members rushed to my bedside, called
New York radio stations to take responsibility for placing all
five bombs. This same terrorist group has proudly taken
responsibility for placing over 130 bombs in the United States
that have killed 6 innocent people and maimed over 100 innocent
victims, and now again they have put fear into Americans across
our land.
If this band of violent terrorists was so remorseful for
their horrific acts, then why did it take over 3\1/2\ weeks for
them to come forward and denounce their terrorism on our soil?
And now do we trust these terrorists?
This committee must ask itself why the President would
grant this clemency against the advice of law enforcement
organizations whose job it is to review and give
recommendations on the appropriateness of clemency. Was it to
gain favor for the Puerto Rican vote in New York City for
Hillary Clinton's senatorial bid? Or was it simply an example
of our President's lack of moral character?
William Morales, the FALN self-professed leader and
convicted terrorist, seeks amnesty from our President. We must
take a strong affirmative stand against any amnesty for William
Morales. Our duty as police officers and elected officials is
to protect our fellow citizens against terrorists like Morales
and the 16 terrorists granted clemency.
I have done my best to protect the lives of fellow New
Yorkers and I have paid the price for that, with absolutely no
regrets. Now I ask this committee and our Senators to take a
stand and enforce our Nation's policy of zero tolerance for
terrorists. Our President has chosen to ignore policies and the
recommendations of the bureaus that oversee clemency requests.
It is time for our Senate and our country to protect American
citizens against terrorists and to punish those convicted of
terrorizing our families and our Nation.
Senators, I thank you for your time and I want to say God
bless America.
Senator Coverdell. Thank you very much, Mr. Senft. Despite
maladies you still suffer, we are very pleased to see you
looking so well and with us here today.
Now I will ask Mr. Rich Pastorella, former detective of the
New York Police Department, if we might hear from you.
STATEMENT OF RICH PASTORELLA, FORMER DETECTIVE, NEW YORK POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Mr. Pastorella. Thank you, Senator Coverdell, for the honor
and privilege of speaking before your subcommittee this
morning.
Unfortunately, I do not have a prepared speech. My speech
comes from my heart as an American citizen who has been
betrayed by his President.
I too, on the day of New Year's Eve 1982, was very
seriously injured in a bombing by the FALN. My partner, Tony
Senft, and I will have to endure the pain and suffering from
that tragic moment for the rest of our lives. On that
particular day, I lost all of the fingers of my right hand. I
lost the sight of both eyes. I lost 70 percent of my hearing. I
had to endure 13 major operations of reconstructive surgery on
my face and my hand. My face was shattered in that blast. I
have 22 titanium screws holding my face together. I have
shrapnel from that device embedded in my stomach, my shoulders,
and my head.
I do feel betrayed this day by the actions of a President
who has forgotten his oath to protect and to serve the
citizenry of America. His release of these 16 terrorists is
subjecting every American citizen, every law-abiding American
citizen, to the same tragic ends that Tony Senft and I have
suffered.
It is incumbent upon you, Senator Coverdell, and your
subcommittee this day to look into this to see that it never
happens again.
Our President, William Jefferson Clinton, has seen fit to
send out throughout the world a terrible message: first, that
the law enforcement community is expendable, and second, that
terrorists throughout this world will not be pursued, as he has
claimed, to the ends of this Earth.
When our embassies were bombed in Africa and we lost
American and African nationals, our Secretary of State,
Madeleine Albright, said that we would never negotiate with
terrorists. We would pursue them to the ends of the Earth. What
hypocrisy. What hypocrisy.
We is the true face of what terrorism is, the damage it can
do.
Shortly, you will hear from a friend of ours, Joe Connor,
whose father died in a bombing at Fraunces Tavern in 1975.
The FALN has, as part of its true manifesto, the violent--
and I underscore the violent--overthrow of the American
Government. How dare our President, knowing this, release them
back into the streets of America once again. I hope and I pray
that this organization never raises its ugly head again.
As I said at the outset, I am privileged as an American to
speak here before this body. I hope and I pray also that the
souls who have lost their lives at the Alfred P. Murrow
building in Oklahoma City, and those at the World Trade Center
in New York City, and those at our embassies around the world
are not forgotten. There is no commutation from this. We will
never be free. Never.
I thank you again for allowing me this privilege, and I
hope that a true, strong message is sent to our President on
what the real face of terrorism is. I thank you.
Senator Coverdell. I thank you, Mr. Pastorella, for your
willingness to be here, to speak out, for the statement you
have just given, along with Mr. Senft and of course, we do not
want to forget, for your extended service protecting the
citizens of New York and the United States when you were on
active duty. We appreciate very much the work of all law
enforcement officials and particularly yours and those that
have confronted personal setbacks and injury as a result, as
you have. Thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Connor, we are going to turn to you now, if we might.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH CONNOR, SON OF FRANK CONNOR, FALN BOMBING
VICTIM
Mr. Connor. I want to thank you all for inviting me here,
Mr. Chairman and Congressman, and particularly Tony and Richie
who are true heroes who have made the United States a safer
place to live and I thank them from the bottom of my heart.
I am here on behalf of my family and those families who
were affected by the murderous spree of the FALN, and I am here
on behalf of my dad because I feel that we are doing the right
thing in making sure that this does not happen to any other
family.
I am going to ask up front some questions I want the
committee to investigate and I will explain them as I go along.
But my issues really are why the President disregarded the
recommendation of the FBI, Justice Department, and the Bureau
of Prisons and released the terrorists.
Why the victims and their families were neither given
proper notification of the clemency nor were given a meeting
with Janet Reno, as the pro-clemency advocates had received.
What the impact of granting clemency to these terrorists
is, and in particular, how it will relate to William Morales,
who Richie touched upon before, who is also seeking clemency.
Why the President initiated the clemency process without a
formal request from those terrorists.
And whether Hillary Clinton's bid for the Senate seat has
made an impact in his decision.
Contrary to the claims of those who have supported the
clemency, there is nothing nonviolent about these 16 FALN
members. I point to two specific issues on that.
One is four of them were caught while building bombs when
they were arrested. The fact that they were not able to
detonate them does not make them less violent than if they had.
Is an unsuccessful terrorist less of a threat than a successful
terrorist?
And second, just this past weekend on one of the news shows
on Sunday, one of the terrorists was given the chance to
apologize for what he had done and show remorse. He failed to
do so. As a matter of fact, he claimed that people were killed
as a result of not being prepared or taking the necessary
precautions. My father was at a restaurant eating lunch. Is
that to imply that the terrorists believe we need bomb-sniffing
dogs now when we go to restaurants and it was my dad's fault
that he was murdered?
These are the kind of people that the President has
released on the American public, and it is an outrage.
Further evidence is the bombing stopped after these 16 were
put away.
The FALN killed real people, innocent people, and ruined
the lives of many others.
Friday, January 24, 1975 was a beautiful winter's day. I
will never forget it. I had just turned 9 and my brother had
just turned 11, and it was time for us to celebrate. It was a
Friday night. We had gotten home from school. My mom had heard
on the radio that there had been an explosion downtown where my
dad worked. She knew right away when she called that he had
been there. She just had a feeling. As 9- and 11-year-olds, we
were called in from playing that day, and told that my dad had
been at the bombing. We prayed for hours and hoped and imagined
that we would see him again. Within 5 hours or so, we were told
that he had been killed.
It is impossible to describe how that affects a 9-year-old.
It is devastating.
He was only 33 years old at the time. He was full of life.
I have a picture right here of a happier time.
But this is what happened. These were indiscriminate acts
of violence and murder. As a matter of fact, I have recently
spoken to people who were there that day and they described
seeing someone walk in, plant the bomb behind the table, and
walk out. These people saw that they were going to kill. They
knew that they were going to kill. And my fear is that next
time, when either they or someone strikes, feeling they will
not be prosecuted to the fullest extent, it will not be 4
people, it will be 400 people, or it will be chemicals or a
biological, and it will be 4,000 people. It is a disgrace.
These people took away my father's life. They never allowed
him to see my brother and me play sports in high school or
allowed him to take the pride in seeing us graduate from
college or get married. They took from him the joy of being a
grandfather. They took from my mom the promise of growing old
with him, her first love.
His grandchildren will never know their grandfather. They
look at pictures, even now, and ask who he was. My wife and I
tell them he is in heaven looking down on us. But when they ask
why he was killed, what answer can we give? His life has been
valued lower than some political agenda of the President of the
United States.
My father loved his country deeply and he believed in its
greatness. And this is what he gets in return for that.
Not only was this clemency grant immoral, but it also
violated some legal conventions, such as the Victims Rights and
Restitution Act, where victims are supposed to receive word of
any clemency by a responsible official. We never received any
word of the clemency. As a matter of fact, we read it in the
paper the day after it happened, and if the terrorists in their
arrogance had accepted it right away, we probably would not
have found out about the clemency act until they were out of
jail. And that is outrageous.
The process was also improper. The President was petitioned
on behalf of these terrorists, not by the terrorists
themselves. And he had the petition for 6 years until he
decided to act upon it, basically thrusting the clemency at
them, rather than the other way around. You would hate to think
that this was connected to Hillary's run at the Senate, but I
do not see any other answer to it.
There has also been a disinformation campaign, and it talks
about the likes of Cardinal O'Connor and Jimmy Carter and
Desmond Tutu acting on behalf of the pro-clemency side. First
of all, to set the record straight, I have communicated with
Cardinal O'Connor's office, and he never asked for clemency on
behalf of these people. He asked for the Attorney General to
review their cases. Stop. It is a big difference.
Also, Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter--I have tried to
contact Carter to no avail, but I have never seen anything that
he has written or said about it, nor have I heard anything what
Desmond Tutu has said. And quite frankly, I do not know what
relevance their opinions have on this issue anyway.
But these are the disinformation that has been put forth by
the pro-clemency side and has really been taken up by the White
House. It appears as though, when you deal with the White
House, if you say it enough times, it becomes the truth.
Certainly that is the way they act.
The Department of Prisons, the FBI, and the Justice
Department have all recommended against the clemency. The
Department of Prisons believes that there is a very good chance
that the FALN would take up their criminal behavior again upon
release.
And I have heard--and it is unconfirmed--that the Parole
Board is giving them the opportunity to still meet face to face
on political issues in Puerto Rico, which is astounding and
disgraceful, and I hope it is not true.
I have a copy of a Justice Department letter, which is part
of the handout, which I received last year. In the letter, it
described these 16 as terrorists. The Justice Department's own
letter describes them as terrorists. I suggest the President
read this letter and understand that they have been classified
terrorists from his own people.
Terrorism is one of the major problems that we are going to
face in the next century. We thought that we had eradicated the
threat from the FALN almost 20 years ago. It is sad when we
have made this a real problem or a potential problem again. We
have enough problems that we need to deal with. This was over
and now it is back, and I am sad to say that the world is a
less safe place as a result.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph Connor
My name is Joseph Connor and I appear before the Committee as a
person forever affected by an FALN terrorist act that killed my father,
Frank Connor, at Fraunces Tavern 24 years ago and by the recent
unconscionable and immoral decision by the President to grant clemency
to 16 FALN terrorists.
For the reasons I will explain, I request that the Committee
formally investigate the following aspects of President Clinton's
clemency grant to the FALN terrorists:
Why the President disregarded the recommendations by the
FBI, Justice Department and Bureau of Prisons that the
terrorists not be released?
Why the victims and their families were neither given proper
notification of the clemency nor a meeting with Janet Reno, as
pro clemency supporters were granted?
The impact of granting of clemency to the FALN terrorists
will have on future terrorist acts and whether the possible
clemency request by William Morales should be granted?
Why the President initiated the clemency process without a
formal request from the terrorists themselves?
Whether Hillary Rodham Clinton's political aspirations in
New York State played a role in the clemency grant?
Contrary to the disingenuous claims of those who sought the
terrorists' release, there is nothing nonviolent about these FALN
members and there has been no remorse. Four of them were videotaped
making bombs just prior to their arrests. Just this past weekend, one
of the now released terrorists explained there is no need for him to
feel guilt for the Fraunces bombing. Incredibly and shamelessly, he
argued that the establishment where people were killed did not take
proper precautions to guard against such an attack. My father was
killed while eating lunch in a restaurant! These are the people our
President has released on society.
The bombings only stopped when these terrorists were put in jail!
The FALN killed real people and devastated the lives of many
others. Our family has had to live with the aftermath of their ``non-
violence'' for almost 25 years. It was a beautiful winter's day,
Friday, January 24, 1975, when my family was shattered by the bombing
of Fraunces Tavern in New York City. My father, Frank Connor, was
brutally murdered in the attack; an attack for which the FALN proudly
claimed responsibility. Our mother, Mary, had spent much of the day
preparing a special meal which we planned to have that night to
celebrate my brother's and my recent 11th and 9th birthdays,
respectively. (Mourners ate that meal after my dad's funeral.) Shortly
after coming home from school that day, we learned that our father had
been with clients at Fraunces for lunch. After an agonizing vigil, his
colleagues at Morgan Guaranty Bank delivered the final, devastating
news to my mother, brother, grandmother and me.
My father was only 33 years old when he was killed. The only child
of an elevator operator and a cleaning lady, he was born and raised in
Washington Heights, a working-class section of Manhattan, attended City
College (where, ironically several of the FALN terrorists also
``studied''), graduated from Farleigh Dickinson University, and worked
his way from the ground floor up to a successful career at Morgan. Now
at 95 years of age, my grandmother, like the rest of my family, has
never recovered from his death. Although my mother has remarried and my
brother Tom and I now have families of our own, not a day passes
without feeling the void left in our lives. We miss him deeply. My
father's death has become a part of me; an indescribable, intangible
wound that has been opened and aggravated by this preposterous and
disrespectful clemency grant.
These terrorists took away my father's life; never allowing him to
see his sons play sports in high school, never allowing him the pride
in seeing his boys graduate college, and get married. They took from
him the joy of being a grandfather. They took from my mother the
promise of growing old with her first love.
His grandchildren will never know their grandfather. They look at
pictures and ask who he is. My wife and I tell them he is in Heaven
watching over us. But, when they ask why he was killed, what answer can
we give? His life been valued lower than the political agenda of the
President of the United States. My father loved his country and in
whose greatness he believed. Is this what he gets in return?
Not only was this grant of clemency immoral, but it violated
several legal conventions. Under the Victim's Rights and Restitution
Act of 1990, a ``responsible official'' was to provide victims with the
earliest possible notice of the release from custody of the offender.
The law reads at 42 U.S.C. Section 10607(c)(5): ``After trial a
responsible official shall provide a victim the earliest possible
notice of . . . release from custody of the offender.'' My family read
about the grant in the newspaper! We have never been contacted by Janet
Reno or anyone at the Justice Department or the White House regarding
our views on the clemency. Had we been properly notified, we would have
requested the delivery of our opinion on the issue through a personal
meeting with Janet Reno, as the pro clemency supporters were granted.
God willing, if Ms. Reno had been fully informed, there is a chance,
however small, given her own political nature, that she would have
vehemently objected to the clemency offer from ever having being made
by the President. Because no notice had been provided by the Clinton
Administration, had the terrorists renounced violence and accepted
clemency right away, they may actually have been out ofjail before we
ever learned of the offer.
The process through which this clemency was offered was improper.
Typically, those incarcerated express remorse and request clemency from
the President through a standard process. He then reviews the claims.
In 3,039 out of 3,042 prior cases, clemency was denied by the Clinton
Administration. In this case, the terrorists did not express remorse or
actually request clemency. It was petitioned on their behalf in 1993,
and the request sat on the President's desk for 6 years. Was it a
coincidence that when Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to run for
the Senate in New York State, the President suddenly, and without
notice, took an interest in the clemency request and then granted it?
Perhaps most telling, the clemency request was granted before the FALN
terrorists themselves ever made their own request.
Much has been written about the support given to the clemency
request by luminaries such as Cardinal O'Connor, Desmond Tutu and Jimmy
Carter. This is clearly part of a disinformation campaign. Cardinal
O'Connor never supported clemency, but merely asked the Attorney
General to review the case--a large difference. (I am attaching a
letter from Cardinal O'Connor to me explaining this.) These lies have
been proliferated by White House spokesmen since clemency was offered.
Has anyone heard or read the opinions of Desmond Tutu or Jimmy
Carter? Even if they had supported clemency, on what factual and legal
basis did they do so? And, what is the value of their supposed opinions
on this matter in any event, given that clemency was opposed by the
FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Attorney's Office. History
teaches us from the Iran hostage crisis that Jimmy Carter, whatever his
virtues, is hardly an expert on how to deal with terrorists. In fact,
Bureau of Prisons officials concluded that, if released, these
terrorists might resume their criminal behavior.
As recently as last year, the Criminal Division of the Department
of Justice wrote to our family, describing the arrests and convictions
of these people, referring to them in the Government's own reports as
``terrorists.'' Perhaps the President should read this letter, which I
am also attaching to this written hearing statement.
Terrorism is one of the major problems facing the world as we enter
the new century. While terrorism continues on from many foreign and
domestic sources, the nation thought that the threat from FALN
terrorists had been at least eradicated almost 20 years ago. Thanks to
the President's callous disregard, the threat is now back and the world
is a less safe place as a result. I keep hearing the President
repeating that we have to protect our children. Is unleashing
unrepenting, hardened killers on society the way to do so? It shouldn't
``Take A Village'' to see that trampling on the rights of victims, and
ignoring proven prevention techniques in our criminal justice system
for considering and denying clemency applications, is not the way to
fight terrorism.
[Attachments]
Office of the Cardinal,
1011 First Auenue,
New York, NY, April 13, 1999.
Dear Joseph: I received your letter concerning my support for a
review of the cases of 15 Puerto Rican federal prisoners. I understand
your opposition given the terrible tragedy that your family experienced
in the loss of your father. I believe that this kind of terrorist
action must be condemned, I am sorry for what you have suffered.
My request to Attorney General, Janet Reno was for a review of
these cases. I believe that there are many factors which must be
considered, including the renunciation of violence as a means of
achieving political ends, as I stated in my letter. I also believe,
with you, that an expression of remorse for these crimes, should also
be considered in determining humanitarian release.
I appreciate your sharing your views with me.
Faithfully in Christ,
John Cardinal O'Connor,
Archbishop of New York.
______
U.S. Department of Justice,
Criminal Division,
Washington, DC, January 6, 1998.
Mr. Joseph F. Connor
Dear Mr. Connor: Your letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, in
which you request a greater recognition on the part of the U.S.
Government of the terrorist crimes perpetrated by the FALN in the
1970's, has been forwarded to the Criminal Division for response. We
apologize for our delay in responding.
In your letter, you express your desire that the crimes committed
by William Morales, the alleged leader of the FALN presently residing
in Cuba, and by other members of the FALN be publicly condemned by the
U.S. Government as crimes of terrorism. William Morales was sentenced
in New York to a 29- to 89-year prison term on state charges and up to
10 years in prison on federal charges. However, after escaping from a
New York hospital in 1979, he made his way to Mexico. In 1983, he was
convicted in Mexico for the killing of a police officer and sentenced
to eight years in prison. Mexican authorities released Morales from
prison after he had served five years, rejecting a long-pending U.S.
extradition request on grounds that Morales was a ``political fighter
for the independence of Puerto Rico.'' The United States expressed its
disagreement with this decision, stating that the U.S. Government was
``deeply disturbed that an individual with Morales' record of criminal
behavior . . . [w]ould even be considered for possible political
refugee status.'' Since 1988, the Government of Cuba has apparently
provided safe harbor for Morales.
In addition, numerous members of the FALN were arrested in 1980 for
their involvement in 28 bombings aimed at gaining independence for
Puerto Rico. They were convicted in 1981 on thirteen counts that
included seditious conspiracy, auto theft, illegal use of weapons, and
plotting to kidnap. Three other FALN terrorists were arrested in 1983
for attempting to bomb U.S. military installations, for auto theft, and
for attempted armed robbery. An additional two terrorists were arrested
in 1986 on charges of robbery. Thus, in the case of the crimes
perpetrated by the FALN, including the 1975 Fraunces Tavern bombing,
the United States has pursued its policy of vigorously investigating
and prosecuting those acts of terrorism which significantly impact on
U.S. interests. In accord with this policy, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation remains committed in its investigative efforts to
apprehend William Morales. It is our hope that by aggressively pursuing
and prosecuting terrorists, we will, deter others who might contemplate
committing such crimes.
We extend to you and your family our condolences on the loss of
your father, Frank T. Connor, in 1975. We thank you for sharing your
concerns with us and hope that this matter may one day be resolved.
Sincerely,
Ronnie L. Edelman,
Principal Deputy Chief,
Terrorism and Violent Crime Section.
Senator Coverdell. Thank you, Mr. Connor. We appreciate
very much your being here, and I hope you will take some
comfort from the fact that there are many who feel deeply about
the loss of your father or any other citizen. I think you will
see expressions responding to that in the people's branch of
Government, and I hope that will be of some comfort to you and
your family.
Mr. Connor. Thank you.
Senator Coverdell. The questions that you posed we would
like to receive a copy of. There will be other committees of
jurisdiction dealing with the subject. Some of the questions
you raise deal with the judiciary. So, if we can receive the
questions that you pose, we will endeavor to respond to them
and also pass those questions on to the Judiciary Committee.
Most of them have application there; i.e., proper notification
of victims and/or other officials, which I raised in my opening
statement as to whether or not somebody is at risk here and
were they appropriately notified.
Mr. Connor. I have a written statement I can provide to you
and your staff.
Senator Coverdell. OK, very good. We appreciate that very
much.
Mr. Gallegos, we will now turn to you for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GILBERT G. GALLEGOS, NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE
GRAND LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
Mr. Gallegos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Gilbert
Gallegos. I am the national president of the Fraternal Order of
Police, which is the largest law enforcement organization in
the country, 283,000 members.
I had hoped to appear before you today to urge the
President, along with you, to withdraw his offer of clemency
for these 16 convicted terrorists, who are members of the Armed
Forces of National Liberation. When we talk about liberation,
we talk about liberty, and I challenge them and the President
to really outline how you can use violence for liberation. It
is ironic that these terrorists, or as I really view as simply
criminals, are given the opportunity to have clemency, but yet
the law enforcement profession, the American people have never
been allowed to have a voice. Yet, these criminals, these
terrorists, were allowed to have a voice on their own freedom.
Today we join you, the Senate subcommittee, and all
concerned Americans about trying to determine why this decision
was made in hopes that other murderous criminals will not be
released as long as they have vague promises that they are
going to abjure violence when they leave prison.
What basically we have done, through this action of the
President, is we have opened the door for other inmates across
the spectrum of criminals in this country to be able to
negotiate their own release because that is exactly what
happened in this case. The President of the United States
allowed for negotiations with criminals on how and under what
conditions they were going to be released.
We in the law enforcement profession have been supportive
of Congressman Fossella's efforts in the House, and we
supported Concurrent Resolution 180. It passed last week, and
surprisingly, 43 Members of the House voted against it, which I
do not understand. While we know that this resolution is not
binding on the President and it will not reverse the
President's decision, it is important to make clear to the
President and to the American people where we stand. And I
congratulate the Congress--or at least the House--for the
efforts that they have taken in this matter. Political
considerations should never be a reason to offer clemency to
any criminal or any terrorist, especially when the public
safety is at risk.
We can make no mistake that the FALN is a militant
terrorist organization with violent and separatist goals. And
we will see them again. We have heard the things that they can
do.
The claims from the White House that there was no violence,
that they were not directly involved in the death of anyone or
injuries of these fine officers or anybody else, I think is a
slap in the face to the families of the victims, to these
officers themselves, and to the American people. Anytime that
we release terrorists in this manner it is a slap in the face.
It is a slap in the face to law enforcement because, after
all, we have to deal on the front lines with terrorists and
criminals throughout this country. We know that violence is a
serious problem in this country, and the release, the clemency
has added to that problem.
It is ironic that they were given the opportunity to
negotiate and to talk about and to have a joint conference call
on how they were going to handle this. I do not think other
inmates are given that opportunity. They had to agree to send a
letter requesting commutation, and then they have to abide by
the rules, as are set out by the Parole Commission.
It is really kind of weird again when we really stop to
think about it, but they were given all these opportunities and
still they did not react immediately. Why? Because we know that
they are committed to continuing their violence, and some day I
am afraid that they will be out again to bomb and to terrorize
not only the people of Puerto Rico, but also the people of the
United States.
It was mentioned before about the Secretary of State and
her words about the deadly U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa
where she vowed to wage an all-out war against terrorism. That
was a week before this clemency took place. So, now should our
Secretary of State go out and be saying we are going to wage an
all-out effort to get terrorists to promise to renounce
violence? To put it just very straightforward, how lame can we
as country be that we are going to deal with terrorism in such
a weak manner?
We are sending a message to not only foreign terrorists,
but domestic terrorists, and the wrong message that we are
sending is that one of these days we will forgive you for those
acts of violence that you may commit or conspire to commit.
The President would have us believe that the sentences for
the terrorists were unjustly harsh. Mr. Chairman, I reject that
notion. There was justice in the sentences that they received
by the courts, and I reject any suggestion that we ought to
free those who wage a war of terror to achieve political ends.
This is what puts us at a different path than the President of
the United States, and if I have to differ with the President
or anybody else on this issue, I certainly will.
So, the question that we have before us today--and we will
for many days--is, why was this done?
Mr. Joe Lockhart, who is the Presidential spokesman, said
this was a painstaking decision. Again, how lame can they be?
If you are righteous, you do not have a painstaking decision.
You make the decision based on the facts and on the correct
issues. There should not have been anything painstaking about
this decision. They knew that they were wrong.
So, that is why you have to question whether this was done
for political reasons. There are a lot of theories about that
as to whether this was done for political reasons, as to
whether this was done to enhance the senatorial campaign of the
First Lady. She in fact, as we all know, has retreated from her
original position and advised the President to rescind his act
of clemency, and I applaud her for that. She finally saw the
light and she knew that something was wrong by this clemency
act, but a little bit too late I think. So, perhaps this
decision was all made in the act of a political patronage
approach to how they were going to deal with this issue.
There are other issues out there regarding clemency. Let me
give you an example in how this differs from those that are out
there, those others that are under consideration.
There is a former police officer named Robert Couch who was
formerly from the Covington, Kentucky Police Department. In
1989, he was involved in a high speed chase. Anyway, there was
a confrontation, struggle. The person was arrested. The person
ultimately was convicted. A year and a half later, after three
grand juries, this officer was indicted for civil rights
violations. He was convicted, went through the appeals process,
and currently is serving 63 months in the Federal penitentiary.
Thousands of people, including law enforcement
organizations, across this country have asked the President to
give this officer clemency. His acts did not amount to
terrorism or extreme violence. He used necessary force to make
an arrest, but they made an example out of him. But yet, we can
get it for terrorists, but we cannot get it for a police
officer who acted within the scope of his duty. I think that is
manifest injustice. But on the one hand, the President speaks
out of both sides of his mouth as to what is justice and what
is injustice.
I do not know why the President offered the clemency. It
does not make any sense to me. And I think as you go further
into your deliberations, you will find that it is not going to
make any sense to you because we will never really know the
truth.
I know the decision reached here was wrong, terribly,
terribly wrong. As I would like to say,
[Spanish spoken.]
What I said was some day these people will once again be in
prison because I am certain that they are going to commit other
acts unfortunately for the American people and the Puerto Rican
people. So, I think that their ugly head is going to rise
again, and this country had better be prepared to deal with
that ugly head of violence, terrorism, and criminal activity.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Senator Kyl for
allowing us to speak today because this is an important matter
to law enforcement and to the American people.
I will stand for any questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegos follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gilbert G. Gallegos
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Senate
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, Narcotics and
Terrorism. My name is Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President of the
Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police. The F.O.P. is the nation's
largest organization of law enforcement professionals, representing
more than 283,000 rank-and-file law enforcement officers in every
region of the country.
I had hoped to appear before you today to again urge the President
to withdraw his offer of clemency to the sixteen convicted terrorists
and members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, or FALN to use
its Spanish initials. Sadly, twelve have already accepted that clemency
and are, or will be, at large once again. We should make no mistake--
the President has used his constitutional power to release convicted
terrorists, despite the opposition of Federal law enforcement
officials, despite the objections from the law enforcement community
and despite the pleas of the victims and families of the dead killed in
their wave of bomb attacks.
Today, the F.O.P., instead of renewing its call to withdraw an
offer of clemency for terrorist bombers, now joins this Senate
Subconunittee and all concerned Americans in trying to determine why
this decision was made in the hopes that we can ensure that no more
murderous criminals will be released so long as they make vague
promises to abjure violence when they leave prison.
The F.O.P. strongly supported House Concurrent Resolution 180,
offered by Congressman Vito Fossella (R-NY), which passed the House of
Representatives last week in an overwhelming and bipartisan vote. Only
forty-three members of Congress voted against the resolution for
reasons which are unclear to me and virtually every other law
enforcement officer in our country. While this resolution, or any other
act of Congress cannot reverse the President's offer, it is important
that we make clear to the President the views of the law enforcement
community and the American public. Political considerations should
never compromise the public safety, and, as the safety of the public
has been compromised in this instance, it behooves us to learn why.
Make no mistake, the FALN is a militant terrorist organization with
violent, separatist goals. Between 1974 and 1983, the FALN staged a
series of bombing attacks on United States political and military
targets, mostly in New York City and Chicago. These acts of terrorism
claimed the lives of six people, Mr. Chairman. Scores were wounded and
some, including three New York City police officers, were permanently
maimed by the powerful explosives planted by the FALN.
Let me describe to you a series of bomb attacks which occurred on
the evening of 31 December 1982. At close to 9:30 p.m., a powerful
explosion rocked the building at 26 Federal Plaza. Members of the New
York City bomb squad arrived on the scene minutes later and just as
they began their investigation, a second explosion, the blast of which
could be felt blocks away, occurred at the Brooklyn Federal Courthouse.
And the night was just beginning.
Moments later a third explosion ripped into police headquarters at
One Police Plaza. The blast was so powerful that it blew out the heavy
glass and frame of a revolving door. This bomb, however, did more than
several thousands of dollars worth of structural damage to a government
building. This blast hit Detective Rocco Pascarella, blowing away most
of his left side. Detective Pascarella survived the blast, but he lost
his left leg, his left ear and his left eye.
Detectives Anthony S. Senft and Richard Pastorella of the New York
City Police Department, who had been on the scene to investigate the
aftermath of the earlier blasts now realized that there were more bombs
in the area. The streets were clogged with New Year's Eve revelers,
many of whom did not speak English and did not recognize the plain-
clothes detectives as police. Many of these innocent by-standers had to
be bodily removed from the scene.
With much precious time having elapsed, the two detectives prepared
to disarm one of the bombs. It went off in their faces.
Detective Senft was blown backward eighteen feet into the air. He
found himself blind and deaf with a fractured right hip, his face
riddled with concrete, metal and other debris. Extensive surgery
eventually allowed Detective Senft to recover some of the sight in his
left eye and some of the hearing in his left ear.
Detective Pastorella was not so lucky. The explosion tossed him
twenty-five feet, blew off all the fingers on his right hand and left
him blind in both eyes. He has had thirteen major operations and twenty
titanium screws inserted just to hold his face together.
While most people watched the ball drop in Times Square or on their
television sets, these three officers were fighting for their lives in
emergency surgery.
It is true that none of the sixteen terrorists offered clemency by
President Clinton were convicted of placing any of the bombs that
ripped through New York City on that tragic New Year's Eve. Yet the
claims of this White House that none of them were involved in violence,
nor directly involved in any deaths or injuries is not only false and
self-serving, but a slap in the face to the families of the six dead
and the scores of wounded and maimed victims. Law enforcement officials
worked hard to get these terrorists behind bars, not to extract a
promise from them to swear off their evil ways and send them on their
way. It might be remembered that the wave of violence and murder which
ruled Chicago ended when Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, just
as the wave of bombing attacks in the United States ended when these
sixteen were imprisoned. Should Al Capone also have been granted
clemency because he was ``not directly involved'' with any deaths?
Let me review for the record the names and crimes of these sixteen
terrorists and then allow you to judge for yourselves whether or not
these individuals were ``not involved'' with the violent acts of the
group they formed.
Elizam Escobar, convicted on 18 February 1981 of seditious
conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), interference with interstate
commerce by threats or violence (18 U.S.C. 1951), possession of
an unregistered firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)), carrying firearms
during the commission of seditious conspiracy and interference
with interstate commerce by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(b)),
interstate transportation of firearms with the intent to commit
seditious conspiracy and interference with interstate commerce
by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)) and interstate transportation of
a stolen vehicle (18 U.S.C. 2312);
Escobar was sentenced to sixty years, and has been released. The
President commuted his total effective sentence to less than twenty-
five years.
Ricardo Jimenez, convicted on 18 February 1981 of seditious
conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), interference with interstate
commerce by threats or violence (18 U.S.C. 1951), possession of
an unregistered firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)), carrying firearms
during the commission of seditious conspiracy and interference
with interstate commerce by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(b)),
interstate transportation of firearms with the intent to commit
seditious conspiracy and interference with interstate commerce
by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)) and interstate transportation of
a stolen vehicle (18 U.S.C. 2312);
Jimenez was sentenced to ninety years, and has been released. The
President commuted his total effective sentence to twenty-five years.
Adolfo Maltos, convicted on 18 February 1981 of seditious
conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), interference with interstate
commerce by threats or violence (18 U.S.C. 1951), possession of
an unregistered firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)), carrying firearms
during the commission of seditious conspiracy and interference
with interstate commerce by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(b)),
interstate transportation of firearms with the intent to commit
seditious conspiracy and interference with interstate commerce
by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)) and interstate transportation of
a stolen vehicle (18 U.S.C. 2312);
Maltos was sentenced to seventy years, and has been released. The
President commuted his total effective sentence to less than twenty-
five years.
Dylcia Noemi Pagan, convicted on 18 Febraury 1981 of
seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), interference with
interstate commerce by threats or violence (18 U.S.C. 1951),
possession of an unregistered firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)),
carrying firearms during the commission of seditious conspiracy
and interference with interstate commerce by violence (18
U.S.C. 924(b)), interstate transportation of firearms with the
intent to commit seditious conspiracy and interference with
interstate commerce by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)) and
interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle (18 U.S.C. 2312);
Pagan was sentenced to fifty-five years, and has been released. The
President commuted her total effective sentence to twenty-six years.
Alicia Rodriguez, convicted on 18 February 1981 of seditious
conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), interference with interstate
commerce by threats or violence (18 U.S.C. 1951), possession of
an unregistered firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)), carrying firearms
during the commission of seditious conspiracy and interference
with interstate commerce by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(b)),
interstate transportation of firearms with the intent to commit
seditious conspiracy and interference with interstate commerce
by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)) and interstate transportation of
a stolen vehicle (18 U.S.C. 2312);
Alicia Rodriguez was sentenced to fifty-five years, and has been
released. The President commuted her total effective sentence to four
years.
Ida Luz Rodriguez, convicted on 18 February 1981 of
seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), interference with
interstate commerce by threats or violence (18 U.S.C. 1951),
possession of an unregistered firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)),
carrying firearms during the commission of seditious conspiracy
and interference with interstate commerce by violence (18
U.S.C. 924(b)), interstate transportation of firearms with the
intent to commit seditious conspiracy and interference with
interstate commerce by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)) and
interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle (18 U.S.C. 2312);
Ida Luz Rodriguez was sentenced to seventy-five years, and has been
released. The President commuted her total effective sentence to
twenty-three years.
Luis Rosa, convicted on 18 February 1981 of seditious
conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), interference with interstate
commerce by threats or violence (18 U.S.C. 1951), possession of
an unregistered firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)), carrying firearms
during the commission of seditious conspiracy and interference
with interstate commerce by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(b)),
interstate transportation of firearms with the intent to commit
seditious conspiracy and interference with interstate commerce
by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)), and interstate transportation
of a stolen vehicle (18 U.S.C. 2312);
Rosa was sentenced to seventy-five years, and has been released. The
President commuted his total effective sentence to less than five
years.
Carmen Valentin, convicted on 18 February 1981 of seditious
conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), interference with interstate
commerce by threats or violence (18 U.S.C. 1951), possession of
an unregistered firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)), carrying firearms
during the commission of seditious conspiracy and interference
with interstate commerce by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(b)),
interstate transportation of firearms with the intent to commit
seditious conspiracy and interference with interstate commerce
by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)), and interstate transportation
of a stolen vehicle (18 U.S.C. 2312);
Valentin was sentenced to ninety years, and has been released. The
President commuted her total effective sentence to less than twenty-
five years.
Alberto Rodriguez, convicted on 4 October 1985 of seditious
conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), conspiracy to make destructive
devices (18 U.S.C. 371 and 26 U.S.C. 5861(f), possession of an
unregistered firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)), possession of a
firearm without a serial number (26 U.S.C. 5861(I)), and
conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery (18
U.S.C. 1951);
Alberto Rodriguez was sentenced to thirty-five years, and has been
released. The President commuted his total effective sentence to
twenty-six years.
Alejandrina Torres, convicted on 4 October 1985 of seditious
conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), possession of an unregistered
firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)), conspiracy to make destructive
devices (18 U.S.C. 371 and 26 U.S.C. 5861(f), unlawful storage
of explosives (18 U.S.C. 842(j)), and interstate transportation
of a stolen vehicle (18 U.S.C. 2312);
Torres was sentenced to thirty-five years, and has been released. The
President commuted her total effective sentence to twenty-six years.
Edwin Cortes, convicted on 4 October 1985 of seditious
conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), possession of an unregistered
firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)), conspiracy to make destructive
devices (18 U.S.C. 371 and 26 U.S.C. 5861(f), unlawful storage
of explosives (18 U.S.C. 842(j)), interstate transportation of
a stolen vehicle (18 U.S.C. 2312), possession of a firearm
without a serial number (26 U.S.C. 5861(i)) and conspiracy to
obstruct interstate commerce by robbery (18 U.S.C. 1951);
Cortes was sentenced to thirty-five years, and has been released. The
President has commuted his total effective sentence to twenty-six
years.
Juan Enrique Segarra-Palmer, was convicted on 15 June 1989
of robbery of bank funds (18 U.S.C. 2113(a)), transportation of
stolen money in interstate and foreign commerce (18 U.S.C.
2314), conspiracy to interfere in interstate commerce by
robbery (18 U.S.C. 1951), intereference with interstate
commerce by robbery (18 U.S.C. 1951), and conspiracy to rob
Federally insured bank funds, commit a theft from an interstate
shipment, and transport stolen money in interstate and foreign
commerce (18 U.S.C. 371);
Segarra-Palmer was sentenced to fifty-five years and a $500,000 fine.
He has been released and the unpaid balance of his fine waived. The
President commuted his total effective sentence to less than thirty
years.
Roberto Maldonado-Rivera, was convicted on 9 June 1989 of
conspiracy to rob Federally insured bank funds, commit a theft
from an interstate shipment, and transport stolen money in
interstate and foreign commerce (18 U.S.C. 371); and
Maldonado-Rivera was sentenced to five years in prison and a $100,000
fine. The President has waived the unpaid balance of this fine.
Norman Ramirez-Talavera, was convicted on 9 June 1989 of
conspiracy to rob Federally insured bank funds, commit a theft
from an interstate shipment, and transport stolen money in
interstate and foreign commerce (18 U.S.C. 371).
Ramirez-Talavera was sentenced to five years in prison and a $50,000
fine. The President has waived the unpaid balance of this fine.
Oscar Lopez-Rivera, was convicted on 11 August 1981 of
seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 2384), interference with
interstate commerce by threats or violence (18 U.S.C. 1951),
possession of an unregistered firearm (18 U.S.C. 5861(d)),
carrying firearms during the commission of seditious conspiracy
and interference with interstate commerce by violence (18
U.S.C. 924(b)), interstate transportation of firearms with the
intent to commit seditious conspiracy and interference with
interstate commerce by violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)) and
interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle (18 U.S.C. 2312);
Oscar Lopez-Rivera, was convicted a second time, on 26
February 1988 of conspiracy to escape, to transport explosives
with intent to kill and injure people, and to destroy
government buildings and property (18 U.S.C. 371 and
1952(a)(3)), aiding and abetting travel in interstate commerce
to carry on arson (18 U.S.C. 2 and 1952(a)(3), and using a
telephone to carry on arson (18 U.S.C. 1952(a)(3));
Lopez-Rivera was sentenced to fifty-five years and fifteen years,
respectively. He has rejected the offer of clemency, which would
commute his total effective sentence from seventy to forty-four years.
Antonio Camacho-Negron, was convicted on 9 June 1989 of
foreign transportation of stolen money (18 U.S.C. 2314), and
conspiracy to rob Federally insured bank funds, commit a theft
from an interstate shipment, and transport stolen money in
interstate and foreign commerce (18 U.S.C. 371);
Camacho-Negron was sentenced to fifteen years and a $100,000 fine. He
was released on parole after serving some time, but returned to prison
in February 1998 for again becoming active in the FALN. He has rejected
the President's offer of clemency, which would have remitted the unpaid
balance of his fine.
As I mention here, the last two did not accept the President's
offer. While we can all be grateful that there are two less terrorists
on the streets than the President wanted, the very fact that they were
given the opportuniry to reject such an offer is a slap in the face to
law enforcement officers everywhere.
President Clinton offered these terorrists clemency on 12 August
and attached certain conditions to their release. First, each must
submit a signed written statement requesting the commutation of the
sentence. They must agree to abide by all conditions of release imposed
by law or the Parole Commission, and renounce the use or threatened use
of violence for any purpose.
Let us examine for a moment, the crimes for which these terrorists
were convicted, because, as the President reminds us, none of the above
were convicted of killing or injuring anyone. The first and most
serious crime is seditious conspiracy. At one time, sedition was a
hanging offense.
Other offenses for which these violent would-be revolutionaries
were convicted include a variety of firearms and explosive offenses.
This Administration cannot seem to decide what message to send--it has
continually pushed for new gun control laws, has utterly failed to
enforce the ones on the books and now, it seems, it is willing to grant
clemency even to those offenders it does manage to lock up. In my
opinion, the more we examine this case the less sense it makes.
A week prior to the offer of clemency for these terrorist,
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, speaking on the anniversay of
the deadly U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, vowed to wage an all-out
war against terrorism. Did that policy change in just a week? Should
our Secretary of State have instead promised to wage an all-out effort
to get terrorists to promise to renounce violence?
What message are we sending to terrorists--domestic and foreign,
and what message are we sending to those violating our gun laws?
Buford O. Furrow, Jr., the man who shot and wounded five at a
Jewish Community Center was in violation of numerous firearms laws. Yet
this has not stopped the Administration or others from pointing to this
tragedy to score political points in favor of additional gun control.
Mr. Furrow is a racist who committed this heinous act as, in his
words, ``a wake-up call to America to kill Jews.'' His repugnant crimes
include many of the same crimes for which the FALN terrorists were
convicted--felony possession of a firearm and carjacking to name a few.
Will Mr. Furrow be granted clemency next? How were his crimes any
different than that of the FALN terrorists? Like Mr. Furrow, they chose
specific targets--government buildings and government employees. The
1975 bombing of Fraunces Tavern was aimed at businessmen, whom they
called ``imperalistic capitalists,'' whose companies did business with
Puerto Rico. These, too, are crimes of hate--a ``wake-up call'' in a
war of nerves between the Federal government and these violent Puerto
Rican separatists. The Administration is pushing hate crimes
legislation with one hand, and setting free criminals guilty of similar
crimes with the other.
Consider the text of S. 1406, a bill introduced by Chairman Hatch
to combat hate crimes:
SEC. 249. INTERSTATE TRAVEL TO COMMIT HATE CRIMES
(a) In General.--A person, whether or not acting under color of
law, who--(1) travels across a State line or enters or leaves Indian
country in order, by force or threat of force, to willfully injure,
intimidate, or interfere with, or by force or threat of force to
attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with, any person because of
the person's race, color, religion, or national origin; and
(2) by force or threat of force, willfully injures, intimidates,
or interferes with, or by force or threat of force attempts to
willfully injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of
the person's race, color, religion, or national origin, shall be
subject to a penalty under subsection (b).
(b) Penalties.--A person described in subsection (a) who is
subject to a penalty under this subsection--
(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 1 year, or both;
(2) if bodily injury results or if the violation includes
the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous
weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; or
(3) if death results or if the violation includes
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or
an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to
kill--
(A) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for
any term of years or for life, or both; or
(B) may be sentenced to death.
These terrorist chose their targets on the basis of national
origin. They used firearms and explosives to kill Americans, whom they
falsely perceived to be keeping Puerto Rico in colonial bondage. Does
the Administration want to punish hate crimes, or release the
practioners of hate crimes? If Senator Hatch's legislation were law,
they could have been sentenced to death.
The Administration strongly supports S. 622, which also would have
resulted in life sentences for these terrorists:
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTS OF VIOLENCE
Section 245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law,
willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of
fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily
injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color,
religion, or national origin of any person--
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or
fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or
for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or
both if--
(i) death results from the acts committed
in violation of this paragraph; or
(ii) the acts committed in violation of
this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt
to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an
attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or
an attempt to kill.
Under Senator Kennedy's legislation, these terrorists, who targeted
Americans could have been sentenced to life. Instead, all have been
released by the President after serving only a fraction of their
sentences.
The President would have us believe that the sentences for the FALN
bombers were unusually harsh. The President also noted that human
rights leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu urged that these criminals
had served enough time for their violent crimes. I might remark at this
time that Archbishop Tutu also advocates the release of Mumia Abu-
Jamal, a convicted cop-killer who murdered Philadelphia Police Officer
Daniel Faulkner in 1981. He was convicted in 1982, and had Post-
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) hearings in 1995, 1996 and 1997. On each
of those three occasions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the
conviction and the death sentence. Will he be offered clemency next?
Why is it, Mr. Chairman that these so-called ``human rights'' activists
are so selective about who is entitled to these rights? What about
Danny Faulkner and his widow Maureen? What about Tom and Joe Connor,
whose father was killed by the FALN? What about Detectives Pascarella,
Senft and Pastorella? Do they not have rights in the view of these
advocates? I reject, Mr. Chairman, that there was any injustice in the
sentences of these sixteen terrorists and I reject any suggestion that
we ought to free those who aim to wage a war of terror to achieve
political ends. If this puts me at odds with President Clinton and
others, then so be it.
It should also be remembered that President Carter pardoned three
Puerto Rican nationalists who were convicted in a 1954 shooting attack
on the U.S. House of Representatives that wounded five law makers. Two
Congressional pages who were on the floor at the time of the attack
were later elected to Congress--the late Bill Emerson (R-MO) and
Representative Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA). A fourth nationalist,
convicted of the murder of a Federal law enforcement officer, attempted
assassination of President Harry S Truman and assault with the attempt
to kill in 1950, was also pardoned by President Carter in 1979. We
disagreed with President Carter's decision then, as we disagree with
President Clinton's now--nationalists whose love of country can only be
expressed by shooting sprees, assassination plots and bombing attacks
are nothing more than terrorists.
At the time of the President's offer of clemency, Congress was out
of session. I, along with nearly four thousand members of the Fraternal
Order of Police representing law enforcement officers from every region
of the country, were at our 54th Biennial Conference. This
Administration seems to have a penchant for making bad decisions when
they know media coverage will be scarce.
In any case, in part because of the efforts of the Fraternal Order
of Police, the story, once confined to single paragraph Associated
Press news bulletins, grew. By the next week, the offer was front page
headlines, with news and political commentators speculating that the
offer was a calculated attempt to appeal to the 1.3 million voters of
Puerto Rican descent in the State of New York, where the First Lady may
run for a Senate seat. In my own letter to the President on 18 August,
I urged him not to play politics with terrorists and admonished him
that releasing violent criminals was no way to gain votes or appeal to
racial pride.
Whether or not the offer of clemency was indeed made with the aim
of helping the First Lady's potential campaign for the Senate, I cannot
say. I can say that I do not understand what possible motive the
President could have--releasing terrorist to gain votes for his wife
makes no more sense to me than does the claim that it was an attempt to
appease ``human rights'' advocates.
By 25 August, the offer of clemency was a national story, prompting
the White House to issue a statement: ``There is absolutely no
connection between the President's decision here and [the First Lady's]
possible campaign.'' Ten days later, the First Lady publically urged
the President to rescind his offer. Of course, the terrorist accepted
the offer three days later on 8 September.
Thus, we are still left with the question--why?
We also must factor into our consideration the clemency process,
described by Presidential spokesperson Joe Lockhart as ``painstaking.''
Be that as it may, according to published reports, the clemency offer
was opposed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the former
prosecutors who brought the cases against these terrorists. The most
noteworthy news reports, however, revolve around the position of the
Bureau of Prisons, an agency which only very rarely participates in
pardon or clemency debates. In this case, they did take a position and
recommended strongly against the offer. The reports of the tape
recordings on which these bombers discussed a return to their terrorist
activities may or may not exist. It is BOP policy to tape record all
phone conversations which are not protected by attorney-client
priviledge, but while the tapes are reviewed, they are not necessarily
retained. The truth is, we may never get to hear the tapes.
White House sources have stated that former White House Counsel
Charles F.C. Ruff recommended that the clemency be granted. Other news
reports reveal that clemency for these terrorist was the top priority
of Jeffery Farrow, co-chairman of the President's Interagency Group on
Puerto Rico. Mr. Farrow has recently been included in a Congressional
probe of potential illegal activities at the Interior Department.
My question is what was so painstaking about the process? That it
took Mr. Farrow from November 1997 to obtain the terrorists' release or
the political and public safety ramifications of ingoring the
recommendation of Federal law enforcement agencies?
The President has the power to grant clemency and to grant pardons,
both are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. There is no
Constitutional requirement that the motive be pure or the decision be
sound. Former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft, writing
for the Supreme Court in Ex parte Grossman, 267, U.S. 87 (1925), noted,
``Our Constitution confers this discretion on the highest officer in
the nation in confidence that he will not abuse it.'' I submit to you,
Mr. Chairman, that my confidence has been sorely shaken. One can only
hope that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols are not also on the
President's list of people to pardon before his term ends. Perhaps
McVeigh and Nichols were a bit more ``successful'' by a terrorist's
standards, but there is very little difference in the nature of the
crimes committed.
What about William Morales? He is the husband of one of the
terrorists released last week by the President and is the self-
professed leader of the FALN, described as the ``bombing mastermind''
behind the group's wave of attacks. In 1979, he was caught and
sentenced to 89 years in prison. He served only three months before
escaping to Cuba where he now lives in relative luxury along with
numerous other violent criminals who have fled this country.
Ironically, he is actively applying for amnesty and has asked President
Clinton to grant him the freedom to return to the country he once
terrorized. This is a man who once expressed that the people left dead
as a result of their bombing attacks were ``casualties of war.'' Should
he, too, be granted amnesty for his crimes as long as he promises to
never, ever bomb anyone again?
Who else, then, is on the President's list for pardons and
clemency? The President has exercised this power on only three previous
occasions. Once to pardon a perjurer, another time to pardon a person
convicted of a marijuana drug offense. The offer of clemency to
unrepentent terrorists, though, certainly seems out of place.
Just for the sake of comparison, the President has granted clemency
to sixteen terrorist bombers, but not Officer Robert Couch. Officer
Robert Couch, formerly of the Covington, Kentucky Police Department,
was engaged in a high-speed pursuit in August of 1989. The driver, who
admitted to being suicidal, stopped his vehicle and assaulted the
officers who had pursued him. After a fight, the driver was charged
with, among other things, assault on a police officer, and found guilty
of attempted assault.
A year and a half later, after three grand juries, Officer Couch
was indicted for violating the civil rights of the driver and
obstruction ofjustice. Mr. Chairman, no person--and that includes the
driver--made complaints of any kind. Despite the indictment, Officer
Couch was granted a bond of recognizance and continued to function as a
police officer in Covington.
Officer Couch was convicted, but permitted to remain free
throughout the appeals process. The ``obstruction of justice''
conviction was overturned by the Sixth Circuit, but denied the officer
a new trial. Following the exhaustion of all legal means, Officer
Robert Couch was sentenced to 63 months in prison.
Mr. Chairman, I do not underestimate the situation at all when I
say that this is the very definition of manifest injustice. If there is
anyone who ought to be extended an offer of Presidential clemency it is
Officer Robert Couch. He is an honorable man and a good law enforcement
officer. I cannot understand why the President is pardoning terrorists
when the Fraternal Order of Police and thousand of others have written
in to support clemency for Officer Couch. The power of the President to
grant clemency and issue pardons is supposed to correct injustices, not
commit them.
I do not know why the President offered clemency to sixteen Puerto
Rican terrorists. I believe that even if I did know why, it would not
make any sense to me. Perhaps it was a political maneuver which
backfired, or perhaps it was a genuine effort to appease ``human
rights'' activists. I do know, however, that the decision was reached
and for whatever reason it was decided, it was wrong. Terribly,
terribly wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other members of this
distinguished Subcommittee for inviting me here this morning to offer
the views of the Fraternal Order of Police on this matter. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have for me.
______
Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police,
Albuquerque, New Mexico,
August 18, 1999.
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am writing this letter on behalf of the more
than 283,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police to express our
vehement opposition to your offer of clemency to sixteen convicted
felons involved with a wave of terrorist bomb attacks on U.S. soil from
1974-83. I would also like to express my own personal confusion and
anger at your decision.
Your offer of clemency would immediately release eleven convicted
felons who conspired as members of the FALN to plant and explode bombs
at U.S. political and military targets. The remaining five would have
their criminal fines waived and only two would serve any additional
time. These attacks killed six people, wounded dozens and maimed three
New York City police officers: Detective Anthony S. Senft lost an eye
and a finger, Detective Richard Pastorella was blinded and Officer
Rocco Pascarella lost his leg.
Your claim that none of these people were invoived in any deaths is
patently false. As members of the terrorist organization that was
planting these bombs, all of them are accessories to the killings as a
result of the bomb attacks. Two of the persons to whom you have offered
clemency were convicted of a $7.5 million armored truck robbery, which
undoubtedly financed the FALN's 130 bomb attacks.
These are not Puerto Rican patriots, these are convicted felons who
are guilty of waging a war of terror against Americans on American soil
to accomplish their political objectives. Why are you rewarding their
efforts?
I can only assume you are again pandering for some political
purpose. This time, Mr. President, it must stop before it begins.
The ``human rights advocates'' who are so concerned about the
plight of these killers have never shed a tear for the victims. These
``human rights advocates'' are the same people and organizations who
maintain that the United States routinely abuses the rights of its
citizens and who issue reports stating that our state and local police
officers are nothing more than racist thugs who enjoy brutalizing
minorities. These ``human rights advocates'' are the same people and
organizations who clamor for the release for Mumia Abu-Jamal, a
convicted cop-killer, and raise money for his defense.
I do not know, Mr. President, how they decide which rights to
advocate and which to ignore, but it seems that murderers and
terrorists are more entitled to them than victims. Do not offer
clemency to sixteen convicted felons to placate ``human rights
advocates.''
I would also strongly urge you to reject any inclination or polling
data that indicates this will generate sympathy for you or for a
Democratic presidential candidate among Hispanic-Americans. As an
Hispanic-American myself, I can assure you that releasing violent
convicted felons before they have served their full sentences and to
waive tens of thousands of dollars in criminal fines, is no way to
appeal to racial pride.
I sincerely hope, Mr. President, that this ill-conceived notion is
consigned to the pile reserved for horrendously bad ideas. Many of the
best accomplishments of your presidency stemmed from your commitment to
law enforcement and to police officers.
This aberration would surely eclipse all we have done to date to
keep America safe. Police officers around the country, including me,
have stood side by side with you in fighting violent crime and
supporting your community policing initiatives. Caving into these
advocates is a slap in the face.
I look forward to hearing from you about this matter.
Sincerely,
Gilbert G. Gallegos,
National President.
Senator Coverdell. Thank you, Mr. Gallegos. I appreciate it
very much.
As I indicated to Mr. Connor, there will be another
hearing. I think it is scheduled for tomorrow where the
Judiciary Committee will also be reviewing mainly the process
issue; whereas, we have been very focused on the policy.
As I mentioned on the floor last week, I think it is very
important. Well, I quoted a New York Times editorial that was a
tortured attempt to exonerate or to support the President's
decision, but even the editorial struggled with the mixed
signal that is being sent. Then the editorial talked about the
President being all too silent on the subject, which of course
has been reinforced here today by the refusal of the
administration to make itself accountable to the Congress or to
take the opportunity to explain its own view of these
circumstances.
Mr. Fossella, I hope that you will join us in an inquiry.
It raised itself here in several of the comments, but I
mentioned it prior to the testimony here. Who has been notified
of this? I do not know where the judge is that had this
exchange about a death penalty and being told, a United States
Federal judge, that if we could assassinate you, we would do
so. I do not know how many people are in harm's way here, and I
think it is important that we discover that and determine what
has been done to assure their safety.
Let me ask you this, principally the law enforcement
officers. Congressman, you might want to respond to it as well.
Senator Sessions last week in his presentation--he is a former
district attorney and prosecutor--spent most of his time on the
work of people like yourselves, law enforcement officers. He
made the case that this signal--I have tended to focus on it in
the context of what it says to the terrorist community or
people that are contemplating engagement in this type of
activity, but he focused on it principally from its effect on
law enforcement itself, people who are spending every day and
every night on the street, that thin line between a person's
safety and a harmful act.
I would like the law enforcement officers to comment on
their view of this as it would relate to the morale of active
duty officers engaged in these activities right now. What does
it say to them? The question is, does it say I should not put
myself in harm's way? Let us begin with you, Detective Senft.
Mr. Senft. Well, Senator, it demoralizes your whole concept
of being a law enforcement officer. Virtually police officers
throughout the United States go out there and think that they
can do some sort of good for their community, and when these
things happen and they strike you, it has a rippling effect
throughout the whole United States. And we are there to do the
right thing, contrary to what anybody thinks.
I will speak for New York City. We have 40,200 police
officers in the city of New York. That is a lot of police
officers. My understanding is we are the 18th largest army in
the world. Obviously we have some good. We have mostly good
police officers and we have very few that are bad. But we have
our bad, like any other occupation.
This destroys the heart and soul of every police officer
that is out there doing what he has to do. It is in vain.
I just want to reflect on one point. I do not mean to go
off the subject, but 2\1/2\ years ago, my wife and I wrote the
President concerning this clemency offer.
Senator Coverdell. Two and a half years ago.
Mr. Senft. Two and a half years ago we wrote Janet Reno one
letter, our President two letters, and since this is going on
for the last 4 weeks, we have sent two more letters with
absolutely no response.
Senator Coverdell. Were any of the letters responded to?
Mr. Senft. None of them, Senator, not one response.
Senator Coverdell. What caused you to write the letter 2
years ago?
Mr. Senft. Well, I was aware of the clemency. I had seen on
one of the TV or history channels that William Morales was
looking for amnesty to come back into the States to visit his
mother. I say, stay where you are in Cuba with Joanne Chezama.
So, he is looking to come back into the country.
We have said we should start writing some letters and find
out from our President and from Janet Reno what is actually
going on, and we could not get any response. Nothing at all.
Senator Coverdell. So, you wrote the President----
Mr. Senft. Yes.
Senator Coverdell [continuing]. And the Attorney General.
Mr. Senft. That is correct.
Senator Coverdell. And you raised questions about what
might be happening, and there was no response whatsoever.
Mr. Senft. No response. Since this has been going on for
the last 4 weeks, we wrote an additional two letters.
Now, about 2\1/2\ weeks ago, I was on a local TV channel
with an activist for the FALN and her name was Alice Cordova.
And she was a nice lady. She had her opinion and she can have
her opinion because this is America. I think I read it
somewhere that this was America. I have been embarrassed the
last 4 months to be an American because of what is going on.
She told me, she said to me, Detective Senft, why did you
not get involved in this 2\1/2\ years ago or 3 years ago? I
said, we did. She said, well, we had a sit-down meeting with
Janet Reno. I said, ma'am, I could not even get a letter
answered from Janet Reno or from my President. And I am an
American. When my children leave my house--and I have four
sons--they leave with an American flag. Well, I was embarrassed
that day to be an American, that I cannot get even a letter
from my President.
Now, I do not expect him to handwrite it, obviously. We
know that, but there is an awful lot of people surrounding our
President that could possibly just send us a note and say,
look, the decision has been made. We are sorry that you are
concerned. I am sorry you were injured. I am sorry your life
has been totally changed, but our decision has been made. I
would have respected him for that decision, not that I agree
with it, but I would respect the fact that he has that power to
make that decision. It is ironic that these things are
happening, that you cannot even get an answer from your own
country.
Senator Coverdell. I am surprised. That is very, very
informative that neither the Attorney General's office nor the
White House would answer a letter from any citizen. It is hard
to believe, and I believe it.
Mr. Senft. I have written to Presidents before and I have
got very prompt answers.
Senator Coverdell. But on this subject, no answer.
Mr. Senft. Not on this subject at all, no, sir.
Senator Coverdell. It is quite amazing.
Mr. Pastorella, do you have a comment to make?
Mr. Pastorella. I do. I want to thank publicly Congressman
Fossella's office and Congressman Fossella more directly for
sending a telegram to the President on our behalf asking that
we at least be given the privilege of giving a victim's impact
statement to him. As I understand it, no response to that
either.
Senator Coverdell. Is that the case, Congressman?
Mr. Fossella. That is correct.
Mr. Pastorella. The fact that our President has taken this
stand on the freeing of these FALN terrorists strikes at the
very heart of every law enforcement officer, at our confidence
that we will be backed up by our Government for the actions
that we perform on behalf of our citizenry. It is a disgrace
that this has been perpetrated upon us. I cannot understand. I
cannot fathom in my mind what would prompt our President to do
this to us. We stand in the breach between chaos and civility.
He certainly knows well that this organization, the FALN,
uses and prefers to use the bomb which is indiscriminate and is
a weapon of mass destruction and the bullet and the gun to make
their point, when in this beautiful, great country of ours, the
first amendment is there for us to express ourselves, as we are
here this day, in total freedom. We can express ourselves as
long as it does not impinge on the rights of others. And that
is what we are exercising here today.
Senator Coverdell. I thank you, Mr. Pastorella.
Mr. Gallegos, you raised your hand a moment ago. I was just
coming down the table.
Mr. Gallegos. Mr. Chairman, I too wrote to the President
about this matter and have not received an answer to my letter.
This was shortly after the first small bits of news were coming
out regarding the clemency.
I have written to the President. I have been President of
the FOP now for 4 years, and I have written to him on numerous
occasions and have always received answers to my letters. To
this one I have not received an answer.
And to another letter that I sent early on in the summer.
This is regarding relations with Cuba, which brings up the
issue of Mr. Morales, who is a wanted criminal and sanctioned
to be in Cuba. I wrote to the President regarding other people
who are in Cuba, Joanne Chezamar, who was involved in killing
of a police officer several years ago and escaped from prison.
There are three people that were escapees from New Mexico where
they were involved in killing a State police officer and are
now in Cuba. Now the administration wants to move toward
normalizing relations with Cuba, which is a harbor for
terrorists and criminals from the United States.
I think more importantly what this does is it kind of
reinforces our notion that there is a common bond starting to
emerge here where people that are criminals or violent
terrorists, that they are some day going to be welcomed back
into the United States and everything is all right. And that is
what is emerging from this behavior by the President and this
clemency action of the President.
It is very disconcerting to law enforcement because, as has
been said, we are the front line between violence and safety
for the American public, and when we have stood with the
President of the United States--and I have personally stood
with the President of the United States on several occasions--
on the 100,000 police officer initiative, which I think is well
worth the effort and I thank the Congress for the fact that
they funded that program. On other law enforcement issues, we
have stood shoulder to shoulder with the President, but with
this action, all the good that has been done has been wiped
away because of the total disregard for not only the victims of
these criminals, but also for the good senses of law
enforcement as to how we feel about clemency for terrorists and
criminals. So, I think it has pretty much negated all the good
that has been done by law enforcement over the last almost 8
years.
Senator Coverdell. I appreciate your comment.
Mr. Connor, it looked to me like you were perusing your
papers there and you have your own comment about this.
Mr. Connor. Yes, I have actually two things that I just
want to touch on. One of them is regarding Mr. Morales and the
communication between us and the Department of Justice. I
actually did receive a letter back from the Department of
Justice on this issue. I have been following up since 1990 or
thereabouts on the status of Morales and the 16 in prison and
have had regular communication with various parts of the
Government.
In a January 6, 1998 letter I received, where I had asked
that there be more recognition by the U.S. Government of the
FALN, the fact that they were a terrorist organization--that
was the point of my letter--and why, when we talk about
terrorism, the FALN had kind of been forgotten. The Islamic
side of it got the headlines, if you will.
And in this letter, I am just going to quote something
here. For your information, Morales' hands were blown off and
part of his face when he was building a bomb in New York City
in 1979. He escaped from prison. I do not know how a guy with
no hands escapes from prison, but he did. In any event, he was
found in Mexico where he was arrested for killing a police
officer in Mexico. In 1988 he was extradited to Cuba upon his
request.
This is a quote from a letter from the Justice Department.
It says, ``Mexican authorities released Morales from prison
after he had served 5 years, rejecting a long-pending U.S.
extradition request on the grounds that Morales was `a
political fighter for the independence of Puerto Rico.' The
United States expressed its disagreement with this decision''--
it sounds familiar--``stating that the U.S. Government was
deeply disturbed that an individual with Morales' record of
criminal behavior would even be considered for possible
political refugee status. Since 1988 the Government of Cuba has
apparently provided safe harbor for Morales.''
The Mexicans did what we have done and we condemn them for
it.
The other thing I just wanted to bring up is the Victims
Act, and I just want to quote that too, if I might, while I am
on a roll here. Under the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of
1990, a responsible official was to provide victims with the
earliest possible notice of the release from custody of the
offender. The law reads--and it goes into the section of it,
but in quotes, ``after trial, a responsible official shall
provide a victim with the earliest possible notice of release
from custody of the offender.'' That never happened. I do not
know if it happened with you guys, but it certainly did not
happen with me.
So, I think these are interesting to say the least. Thank
you.
Senator Coverdell. Congressman, Mr. Pastorella was holding
his hand up. I do not know if he sought recognition.
Mr. Pastorella. I do.
Senator Coverdell. If somebody would move that mike for him
please.
Mr. Pastorella. I do, if I may. I also have something to
say about Mr. Morales enjoying his freedom in Havana. At the
time, in 1978, he was in a Queens apartment using it as a safe
house to build his bombs when a bomb exploded in his hands,
ripping off both hands and part of his face. At the time of his
arrest, he had in his possession over 350 pounds of incendiary
chemicals, pipe bombs in various stages of manufacture, timing
devices, blasting caps, 66 sticks of dynamite that had been
deteriorated, making it highly sensitive. He had four weapons,
two carbines, a sawed-off shotgun, over 1,000 rounds of
ammunition in his possession.
He ultimately was sent to Bellevue Hospital prison ward.
Allegedly a guard was bribed. He had only one finger on each
hand left and he was alleged to have climbed out of a window
after cutting the wires and the bars on that window in the
hospital room that he was in, climbing down over 40 feet on
bandages.
He ultimately was freed, went to Mexico, and there he
planned the bombing in 1982. How do I know this? It was in an
Associated Press release by Roberto Santiago, a reporter, who
had a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Morales in Havana in August
1993, and that is where this information was garnered.
I fear that, as part of the normalization process between
the United States and Havana, Cuba is set into motion, that Mr.
Morales will be a bargaining chip in that process. He was freed
from his cell in Mexico after he was arrested when his personal
bodyguard, a Mr. Contreras, was killed in a shoot-out with the
Mexican police where a Mexican police officer was killed, and a
Mr. Raul Gomez Tretto, the Justice Minister of Havana,
engineered and worked out the process where he could be
released into their custody, and has since, while in Cuba,
received a masters degree in international relations in 1992
and is currently working on his doctoral thesis in
international relations, which I contend in the mind of Mr.
Morales is the shaking of your hand with a smile on his face
while with his left hand he puts a stick of dynamite in your
back pocket.
That is the kind of person we are dealing with here. This
is the mind set of the FALN. This is the savage beast that we
are confronted with now on the streets of America.
Senator Coverdell. I appreciate your comment.
Congressman Fossella?
Mr. Fossella. Yes, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I did not get
the opportunity earlier to thank Mr. Gallegos for all his
efforts. He has been very supportive and does a great job, I
think, representing the police officers across the country.
You asked the question of what it does to the morale and
what signal it sends. In my view, it emboldens the guilty. It
emboldens terrorism and it invites terrorism.
Many of my neighbors on Staten Island--I am very proud to
represent a community that has a lot of law enforcement
officials, retired and active. They feel betrayed by this act.
Any innocent American walking out the door in the morning, the
last thing they think about is going to a restaurant, for
example, like Mr. Connor's father did, and dying because of
beasts or terrorists. But a law enforcement official leaves the
spouse always with the fear that that phone call may come, that
they never return. This happened a few times in Staten Island
over the last year. But they have a higher calling. They have a
higher purpose because they feel that the system or their
government or their people's representatives like you will
never let them down.
Well, we have done that for the last 15 years or so while
these people have served in prison. As you heard Detective
Senft, there was some solace knowing that. That is gone now.
You mentioned Mr. Morales, the second point, about feeling
sorry for these individuals because they were not near the bomb
scene, despite the fact that there are videotapes of them
making bombs. Mr. Morales, in 1993 a newspaper article
mentioned two important things in my mind.
One is he said that this FALN group had a collective
leadership, that he was proud that he was not just the master
mind, but it was a collective leadership, which leads one to
believe that these people were intimately involved in all those
bombings.
And second these individuals, these heroes here, were
casualties of war, that they were not innocent victims, that
they did not prepare properly, but merely casualties of war.
They have not changed that ideology. They have not changed
their attitude.
When I talked about earlier emboldening the guilty, they
are proclaiming right now in Puerto Rico and in Chicago where
they have been released, that they will continue their cause.
They are meeting. They have met in the last 24 hours, several
of them.
Senator Coverdell. Is that not a violation of the agreement
they entered into with the President?
Mr. Fossella. That is a question I hope that the Senate
takes up and I know the House will. The signals that have been
sent over the last several weeks, if you recall, Senator, one
of the reasons why they were rejecting the offer of clemency
was because they feared that they would not be able to meet
with one another and that was holding up the clemency offer and
the acceptance. Now we are told that they are meeting.
Again, what is going on here, what is the story, what are
the issues? That is why Mrs. Clinton changed her mind because
she said the silence for 3 weeks spoke volumes. Well, I think
the silence of this administration speaks volumes for not
having someone here today to explain to you, the Senate, the
American people, and especially these victims what went on
here.
So, we hope to undertake and get some responses to these
questions, but it has been nothing but a free-for-all the last
several weeks.
Senator Coverdell. I think I know what the response would
be, but I still want to air it a little bit. The point I have
had the most difficulty with is the White House's attempt to
distinguish between categories of activism. Under this theory,
as I have said, bin Laden would be in a different category than
the emissaries of his organization that actually planted the
bombs at the embassies in Kenya and Nairobi. But the White
House, as best I can judge, has made this a center point of the
argument with regard to clemency that they did not actually
plant the bombs directly. Of course, as Senator Sessions
pointed out on the floor, one of the reasons is they were
apprehended before they could do so, and they actually had
equipment and weapons in their vehicles.
But I would be curious as to any comment any of you would
have with regard to this kind of distinction that occurs
between a plotter, planner, and instigator vis-a-vis somebody
who actually pulls a weapon or sets the weapon down. That
distinction is very difficult for me to make. I mentioned this
New York Times editorial. It is kind of a tortured attempt to
create some distinctions here. But do any of you have a comment
with regard to that distinction?
Mr. Gallegos. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coverdell. Yes, Mr. Gallegos.
Mr. Gallegos. In American jurisprudence, as we all know,
the driver of a getaway vehicle is as guilty as the people that
go in and rob a bank. What this does is it does set up the
different avenues of defense to say, well, I was only the
driver or I only made a phone call. It throws up all kinds of
legal challenges that may come on down the road in other cases.
I think it really sends a terrible message out there that now
you can challenge all these by degree.
I do not think that the White House thought this through,
and I do not think that they really thought about the
conspiracy ideas and that they in fact could be part of a
criminal act. That is what these people were convicted for, for
taking part in criminal acts. It is very disturbing that the
messages are sent out.
So, I think that it really puts the whole legal system and
the criminal element in a tailspin.
Senator Coverdell. Mr. Connor.
Mr. Connor. In assassinations, if I remember my history
right, John Wilkes Booth--well, his conspirators were executed
for being just that, conspirators. No one said they pulled the
trigger and shot Mr. Lincoln, but they were involved. They gave
safe harbor to Booth and plotted with him. This is a very
similar situation.
First of all, I do not know that they did not place the
bomb. For all I know, they did. But they were certainly part of
this small organization. It was not 1,000 members. It was a
small group and they were intimately familiar with the goings
on. As Congressman Fossella points out, they were a collective
leadership, and I do not know how you can separate those who
conspired versus the actual people who committed the
atrocities.
And the other point is Puerto Rico has had the ability to
vote on independence. So, what were they actually trying to
accomplish by this? They knew that they did not have the vote
for independence, and that was the only way to get it. So, what
were they doing? The only answer is they were trying to change
America, not Puerto Rico. They were trying to change the way
the American system works and the American Government, which I
believe is sedition, and that is what they were convicted of.
They have claimed that the seditious conspiracy is a
political charge, but in their case that was the only thing
that they really were trying to do. It was a perfectly
legitimate charge. They were brought up on real charges and had
a real trial.
They did not even recognize the United States' ability to
try them, so they chose not to testify, which they are using
now on their behalf. They did not testify, so therefore they
should be released. That just does not wash. It is like going
to an exam unprepared and saying, well, if I had gone to your
class for the last 6 weeks, I would have done great. There is
no correlation there. They had a conscious decision and they
turned it down.
Senator Coverdell. Congressman Fossella.
Mr. Fossella. Yes, just briefly, Mr. Chairman, echoing what
these gentlemen said, but also I find this whole thing bizarre,
that the Justice Department admits in a letter to Mr. Connor
these people are terrorists, and yet now they are saying, well,
they really were not at the scene.
But I am sure you and any law enforcement agency or any
American with an ounce of common sense would recognize that, to
coin a phrase, it takes a village to pull off these terrorist
activities, especially after they even admit that they were
part of this organization.
I think what we do is we start allowing those who call
themselves freedom fighters or call themselves political
prisoners--let us say, for the sake of argument, Cobb County in
Georgia decides to secede from Georgia. A band of individuals
get together and say they want to secede, so they start
planting bombs around Cobb County and other parts of the State
capital because they do not get their way. They call themselves
freedom fighters. They are convicted and sentenced to jail.
Does anybody with reason think that they should be set free,
that they are legitimate freedom fighters? No. They seek to
replace the rule of law because they do not get their way by
planting bombs and killing people. It is not unlike every other
terrorist organization around the world or in his country.
As you mention now, I think, so well, if in 15 years the
then-President steps forward and says Terry Nichols was nowhere
near the bomb scene in Oklahoma City, he should be set free, I
think you would experience outrage across this country you
never would have seen before. But you will not see that day.
So, for those who want to classify or characterize
terrorists in their own sort of way, I think they have the
wrong idea of what America is all about.
Senator Coverdell. Gentlemen, I want to thank each of you
for again your service to your country. Mr. Connor, you are not
a police officer, but you obviously have developed an affinity
for them, and you have worked long on their side and on behalf
of your family on this for a long time. I thank you for that.
You are one of the eyes and ears and vigil of America. And,
Congressman Fossella, for your distinguished work on the
matter.
We will embrace the questions that were raised here. We
will be working on them as a committee. We will also turn them
over to the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee
as well, as this ongoing effort to try to understand what is
happening here.
But, as I said in the beginning, my main objective right
now is to try to make certain or diminish the confusion that
this decision may have caused. If the people's branch of
Government can be very straightforward and forceful here, I
hope it is of comfort to the law enforcement community, to the
victims, Mr. Connor and others, and to the world that there is
a very large majority of the United States that is still wedded
to the theory, no concession, no negotiation, no deals, do not
do it, or there will be swift and harsh punishment.
I thank each of you for making yourselves available, for
your service to your country.
And with that, I will adjourn this meeting. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Senft. Thank you.
Mr. Pastorella. Thank you.
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegos. Thank you.
Mr. Fossella. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The following statement was submitted for inclusion in the
record:]
Prepared Statement of John Harrison, FALN Bombing Victim
My name is John Harrison. I would like to thank the Committee for
the opportunity to make a statement regarding the recent offer of
clemency for and subsequent release from prison of certain members of
the FALN. On January 24, 1975, I was having lunch at Fraunces Tavern in
New York City. That experience is burned in my memory, as it is in the
minds of other victims of various FALN bombings, some of whose
experiences are similarly being related in statements to you.
The bomb consisted of multiple sticks of dynamite inside a satchel
placed in a back room of the restaurant which was filled with innocent
people. There was an enormous explosion. I remained conscious at the
time and remember vividly the ceiling collapsing, my luncheon companion
literally flying over the table in front of me, and I remember doing
what felt like a back flip as the chair flew up in the air and came
crashing to the ground. I could not walk and remember crawling across
the floor to the light I could see through the blown out windows,
hearing the screams of terror and pleas for help of those seriously
wounded at the time. I saw first hand what dynamite does to human
flesh. I will spare this Committee the details of that vision, but
would only suggest that one only need think of the recent photographs
of the horrors at Kosovo, and the mindless slaughter of human beings
there to have a feeling for what it was like at Fraunces Tavern in
1975.
Four people were killed in the bombing. My own injuries healed over
time and pale in comparison to the loss suffered by the Connor family
and the three other families who lost loved ones. I came to this
hearing today to make absolutely sure that the members of this
Committee understand from first-hand witnesses the horror of atrocities
like this committed by the FALN. The FALN claimed responsibility for
this bombing and were implicated in over 100 other bombings around the
country.
Proponents of clemency have rightfully stated that none of the
terrorists were specifically accused of the Fraunces Tavern bombing.
Most of the terrorists were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy as well
as various firearms and explosives violations. Some of those recently
released from prison were arrested in Evanston, Illinois inside a van
loaded with arms during an attempted robbery of an armored truck that
was scheduled to make a pick up at Northwestern University. Luckily the
police intervened prior to the actual robbery taking place. Later, one
of those convicted agreed to cooperate with the government and provided
information regarding the FALN's underground operations. This informant
outlined in the various publicly-available court documents, which I am
sure the Committee already has, how FALN members were taught to
manufacture bombs, how to transform a pocket watch into a sophisticated
timing device for setting off explosives, and how members were schooled
in the art of writing communiques so that terrorists could take
``credit'' for the destruction for which they were responsible. Another
group of the terrorists just released included those involved in
organizing an escape plan for certain members of the FALN from prison.
These arrangements included the purchase of weaponry and C-4
explosives. Again, all of this information is available and I hope and
pray was taken into account prior to the clemency offer. It is just
hard for me to understand if these facts were taken into account, how a
clemency offer could possibly be justified.
Seditious Conspiracy is a serious matter. I should emphasize that I
am not an attorney, but my reading has suggested that it means a
conspiracy to levy war or to oppose U.S. authority by force. There is
no question that these individuals were guilty and convicted of this
crime, plus were convicted of various other arms violations. It is
useful to note that the terrorists, in the course of the legal
proceedings, took the position that they were being held as prisoners
of war and that the U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction in the
matter. The evidence against them was conclusive and included, among
other things, audio tapes and video tapes of various of the terrorists
in the course of their activities including a videotape segment of the
terrorists in ``safe houses'' handling bomb-making materials and
cleaning weapons. Court documents pointed out that the recovered
bombing paraphernalia and timing mechanisms bore the unmistakable FALN
``signature''.
Law enforcement professionals risked their own lives to disable
this paraphernalia and to take the steps necessary, all in accordance
with approved legal procedures, to bring these terrorists to justice.
If ever there was an example of Seditious Conspiracy, this is it.
Now I ask you, would it have been better for the law enforcement
professionals to have simply waited until these same materials were
used to kill a few more people and then have arrested the individuals
and tried them for murder? I think not. Rather than waiting for more
needless slaughter, the law enforcement people stepped in and arrested
these individuals and proceeded with the charges of Seditious
Conspiracy and other charges.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee, it is my sincere hope going
forward we can provide the proper motivation for law enforcement
professionals to identify, prosecute and incarcerate terrorists prior
to their murdering people. I prefer it that way. Those who stand back
and say, ``well, these people weren't guilty of the Fraunces Tavern
bombing'' and ``did not kill anybody'' should bother to read the court
documents. What matters is that they were convicted of Seditious
Conspiracy and appropriately sentenced.
You will hear from other officers who have been permanently maimed
as a result of the FALN's activities. We do not know if any of the
individuals in prison were directly responsible for placing one
particular bomb versus another. Are we to tell these officers who are
permanently scarred as a result of their actions to protect all of us,
``don't bother next time, just let them kill some more people so we can
try them for murder?''
I was not around when the Seditious Conspiracy statute was
formulated. Somehow I doubt any of you were either. However, it seems
to me that it operates to enable us as a society to help prevent the
kind of needless slaughter of individuals which the FALN viewed as a
necessary part of their program.
Tom Stoppard in a recent description of a play by Max Frisch called
``The Fire Raisers'' described the play: ``The play is set in a
household of a family. Someone is burning down buildings in the town. A
sinister lodger insinuates himself in the household. He is joined by a
second stranger. They both live upstairs. Periodically, they leave the
house and return. Each time, a building burns down. The household,
particularly the Father of the household, resists drawing the unwelcome
conclusion, even after the two lodgers are found to be stockpiling cans
of gasoline in the attic. Finally, the sinister lodger comes downstairs
and asks for a box of matches. The Father gives him the matches, and
explains defensively, `well, if they were the fire raisers, they would
have their own matches, wouldn't they?' Then the house goes up in
flames.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New York Review of Books, September 23, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ladies and Gentlemen, as we approach the year 2000, I would submit
that one of the major challenges we will have as a society in the next
century is dealing with forms of terrorism we can now only begin to
imagine. Sending a signal at this time that we are weak on terrorists
or sending a signal to our law enforcement people that they can spend
years of their lives to bring terrorists to justice and then have the
result be the premature release of the same terrorists back on the
streets is indeed handing these terrorists the matches.
So what am I asking? I am asking that the Committee ensure that the
appropriate legislation is in place and being enforced to help prevent
these atrocities from happening going forward. I am asking that the
Committee seek copies of the reports which I am told exist from each of
the various law enforcement agencies and other parties, including the
Bureau of Prisons, which in turn, were summarized in a document for
review by the President. It is my understanding that this document
summarizing these various reports has not been made public. Why not? If
clemency is justified in this circumstance, surely the justification
would be included in the reports mentioned above. Alternatively,
perhaps, the President would care to enlighten us as to why
specifically he took this action. Nobody questions his right under the
law to do so. I am questioning his judgement in doing so, and my guess
is the majority of the American people are asking the same question.
I would like to emphasize that I have no opinion one way or the
other relative to the political situation in Puerto Rico. In fact I
would strongly support an open and candid discussion of the governance
issues in Puerto Rico or anywhere else. Open and candid discussions are
what this country is all about. It wouldn't surprise me, for example,
if any one of the States could count up 2% or 3% of their population in
support of independence from the Union--in fact I will wager that on
every April 15 that number probably soars to 30%. The question here is
not about Puerto Rico, the question is about terrorism and how we deal
with it.
Finally, I would specifically like to thank the various
professionals with the FBI, local Police Departments, the members of
the prosecutors' offices and members of the juries involved in these
cases. They labored for years under difficult circumstances. I would
like to thank them on behalf of the individuals who survived the
massacre at Fraunces Tavern in 1975, and particularly, I would like to
thank them on behalf of the four individuals who died and are therefore
unable to be here to speak. They did not receive clemency. These
innocent victims did not receive a reduced sentence.