[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT'S INADEQUATE
RESPONSE TO HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS IN
BOLIVIA: THE CASE OF AMERICAN JACOB OSREICHER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
AND HUMAN RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 6, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-153
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-635 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey--
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California deceased 3/6/12 deg.
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
RON PAUL, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JOE WILSON, South Carolina RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
CONNIE MACK, Florida ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID RIVERA, Florida CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
ROBERT TURNER, New York
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey--
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York deceased 3/6/12 deg.
ROBERT TURNER, New York RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Ms. Miriam Ungar, wife of Jacob Ostreicher....................... 13
Ms. Chaya Gitty Weinberger, daughter of Jacob Ostreicher......... 25
Mr. Steve Moore, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigations
(retired)...................................................... 35
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Letter from Members of Congress to General Freddy Barsatti
Tudela dated May 29, 2012.................................... 5
Prepared statement............................................. 7
Ms. Miriam Ungar: Prepared statement............................. 17
Ms. Chaya Gitty Weinberger: Prepared statement................... 28
Mr. Steve Moore: Prepared statement.............................. 40
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 60
Hearing minutes.................................................. 61
The Honorable Karen Bass: Material submitted for the record...... 62
THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT'S INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO HUMAN RIGHTS
CONCERNS IN BOLIVIA: THE CASE OF AMERICAN JACOB OSREICHER
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
and Human Rights,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock
a.m., in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.
Christopher H. Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order, and I want
to wish everybody a good morning. Thank you for joining us for
this extremely important and timely hearing to examine the
situation of Mr. Jacob Ostreicher, who has been imprisoned for
over 1 year in Bolivia, and the involvement of the State
Department in this case.
Normally this subcommittee focuses on human rights issues
in the context of whether foreign governments are respecting
the rights of their own people. But today we are undertaking
the sobering task of defending the human rights of one of our
own fellow citizens. Mr. Ostreicher and his wife, Miriam Ungar,
who is here with us today to testify on behalf of him, are from
New York. His daughter, Chaya Weinberger, will also be
testifying, and she is from New Jersey and a resident of my
congressional district. She lives in Lakewood.
They are part of a large family and a close-knit Orthodox
Jewish community. It was actually Rabbi Aaron Kotler, the chief
executive officer of Beth Medrash Govoha, the yeshiva, who
first brought Mr. Ostreicher's plight to my attention about 3
weeks ago. Human rights abuses that are happening to Mr.
Ostreicher in Bolivia are being felt deeply and personally here
in our own country.
Our distinguished witnesses will provide compelling
testimony on the facts of Mr. Ostreicher's case and the abuses
that he has suffered and continues to suffer. And we will also
examine whether Mr. Ostreicher has been receiving the
assistance that he should receive as a United States citizen
abroad, with the purpose of ascertaining what should be done
going forward. We will also do everything we can to correct the
ongoing extreme injustice being perpetrated against Mr.
Ostreicher and secure his freedom as quickly as possible.
But this responsibility rests primarily with the U.S.
Department of State. Our Embassy and consular affairs personnel
are in-country, have direct and regular contact with host
government officials, and have access to local information that
is of critical importance to the safety and security of our
citizens.
For this reason, after having studied the information
provided by Mr. Ostreicher's family and Bolivian attorney as
well as the various media reports, and knowing of his extremely
precarious physical and mental health, I was deeply disturbed
by our State Department's report to this subcommittee on May
22nd that, ``Embassy La Paz will continue to remain in close
contact with Mr. Ostreicher and his family and will carefully
monitor the progress of his case.''
According to the State Department's Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices for 2011, ``principal human rights
problems'' reported for Bolivia were ``arbitrary or unlawful
deprivation of life, arbitrary arrest or detention, and denial
of a public, fair trial.'' The executive summary goes on to
list other human rights problems including harsh prison
sentences and conditions, official corruption, and a lack of
government transparency. The report further specifically
references political and judicial corruption, a problem with
violence among prisoners, pretrial detainees being held with
convicted prisoners, and inadequate medical care in the
prisons.
When one has heard the testimony that will be presented at
this hearing, which shows that all of these human rights abuses
and more are implicated in this case, an overriding question
is, ``Where is the State Department?'' When we are dealing with
a country that has such serious human rights abuses, how can
the State Department perceive its role as one of merely
monitoring the case instead of advocating?
Unfortunately, I am finding this baffling lack of
responsiveness, one might even call it indifference, on the
part of Embassy and consular personnel to be a disturbing
pattern. It is certainly true that the State Department and our
Foreign Service has many dedicated, talented and experienced
personnel who are deeply committed to the service of our
country, and who even risk their lives in the performance of
that service. I have and will continue to highly commend them
and give them my unqualified support.
But within the past few years I have assisted constituents
and residents of New Jersey facing grave crises with family
members in Georgia, Brazil and now in Bolivia, who have turned
to me when they were unable to obtain help from the State
Department or local Embassy and Consular Affairs officials. In
a world of increasing travel and international commerce,
American citizens expect, and have a right to expect, American
officials who represent them in any country to respond to their
needs, most particularly in situations that threaten their
safety, their security, and their lives. Being in close contact
and ``monitoring'' does not begin to fulfill this expectation
in a case that involves grave human rights abuses in a country
such as Bolivia.
These past 3 days, the Organization of American States held
its 42nd General Assembly in Cochabamba, Bolivia, with a focus
on food security. I sent a letter to the Assistant Secretary
for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta Jacobson, who headed
the U.S. delegation, asking her to publicly and assertively
raise Mr. Ostreicher's case at this event. Not only was it held
in the country where a U.S. citizen is being denied his
fundamental rights, but a topic of that event goes to the heart
of the beneficial enterprise that Mr. Ostreicher was
undertaking at the time of his arrest, substantially increasing
rice production to the country and providing hundreds of new,
well-paying jobs for its people.
Unfortunately, Ms. Jacobson did not publicly mention Mr.
Ostreicher during her time in Bolivia. The State Department
informed congressional offices that she raised his case
privately with the Foreign Minister who was present at the
General Assembly. When he responded that it is not in his area
of competence, she simply followed up with the request that he
reach out to the Justice Minister about the case. Does anyone
really think that this exchange will have any meaningful
results?
The OAS General Assembly afforded an ideal opportunity for
Ms. Jacobson to laud Mr. Ostreicher's successful efforts to
increase rice production and provide local employment
opportunities as a prime example of why governments need to
address internal corruption and promote private, foreign
enterprise. Bolivian President Evo Morales was asked during the
media interview on May 31 about the extent to which he could
guarantee the safety of foreign investments in Bolivia. He
responded, ``all of the firms that invest in Bolivia and comply
with agreed conditions will be respected.'' Are you kidding?
Ms. Jacobson should have emphasized that unless and until
so-called agreed conditions do not include submission to
corrupt practices, and successful businessmen like Mr.
Ostreicher are no longer victimized by the Bolivian Government
and judicial processes, foreign investors will not direct their
resources to Bolivia, and the country will not solve its food
security and other governance issues. But even more
importantly, Ms. Jacobson had the responsibility to advocate
for Mr. Ostreicher's freedom, simply because there is no
evidence that has been submitted that any crime has been
committed and his continued imprisonment is a human rights
violation.
I would have welcomed, as would other members of this
panel, the opportunity to hear from Ms. Jacobson, or another
knowledgeable State Department official, at this hearing as to
their efforts on Mr. Ostreicher's behalf. They declined. The
U.S. State Department declined to come here today. But we are
privileged to have the distinguished witnesses who did agree to
join us today to examine this important case.
Before we hear from them, I would like to give my
colleagues on this subcommittee and some invited guests who are
here today an opportunity to make opening comments, and without
objection, after all of our subcommittee have been recognized,
again I will recognize some of my distinguished colleagues from
New York who have joined us today.
I would like to now yield to our ranking member, Ms. Bass,
for opening comments you might have.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me begin again by
thanking you for holding this important hearing regarding Mr.
Ostreicher. Allow me to express my deepest concern for Mr.
Ostreicher and his family, who have endured a great deal since
his June 2011 detention.
As we are all aware, as of this Monday, Mr. Ostreicher has
been held in detention for more than a year. And while he has
only been preliminarily charged, what is clear is that his case
continues to languish. There is also great concern over his
physical and mental health which has become increasingly dire
over the last several weeks.
It is reported that three different judges have been
assigned to Mr. Ostreicher's case over the past year, and that
there has been little, if any, meaningful progress toward
opportunities to clear his name. The Congressional Research
Service reports that nongovernmental groups suggest that more
than 80 percent of prisoners in Bolivian prisons are awaiting
sentencing. While the Bolivian justice system allows for up to
18 months before an individual is charged, it is my
understanding that this is far from the norm and many cases far
exceed this time frame. I hope the Bolivian justice system will
move toward a fair, transparent and speedy trial.
Mrs. Ungar, I understand that your husband has grown
increasingly frustrated with this process and at present has
cut off ties with our people on the ground. I encourage you and
your husband to keep channels of communication open so that our
diplomatic efforts lead to a speedy and fair end to this very
serious situation. Let me be clear. We have not forgotten your
husband.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to submit
for the record, a joint House-Senate letter by our fellow
colleagues.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Ms. Bass. This letter calls upon the Bolivian Government to
provide the opportunity for Mr. Ostreicher to post bail and to
afford him due process under Bolivian international law
standards. I quote from the letter, signed by my colleagues
from New York, Representatives Nadler and Velazquez and
Senators Schumer and Gillebrand:
``As you may be aware, Mr. Ostreicher's detention is
related to accusations of illegal profiting and
association with criminal organizations. We understand
that Mr. Ostreicher was preliminarily charged on June
4, 2011, and initially detained in a temporary holding
facility at the Santa Cruz offices of the Federal
counternarcotics police. In accordance with the June 4
judicial decision, Mr. Ostreicher was transferred to
the Palmasola prison in Santa Cruz. It is our
understanding that the United States Department of
State has been in direct communication with the
Bolivian Government regarding Mr. Ostreicher's case,
and we are appreciative of this continued dialogue.
While we remain appreciative of the access the
Government of Bolivia has provided American State
Department officials, it is evident Mr. Ostreicher's
health has deteriorated over time and that bail in
anticipation of a speedy trial is warranted in this
case.''
Mr. Ostreicher's case appears fraught with inconsistencies,
lack of transparency and other very concerning twists that have
not permitted defense against various allegations. As my
colleagues in the House and Senate have clearly called for, it
is my sincere hope that the Bolivian Government moves
expeditiously to set bail for Mr. Ostreicher, permits
additional visits by private medical officials, and that a fair
and speedy trial is initiated.
Due process is enshrined in several human rights treaties
and covenants. In one such instrument, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which came into force
in 1976, and for which Bolivia is a party, reads as follows:
``Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge
shall be brought promptly before a judge or other
officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power
and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time
or to release. It shall not be the general rule that
persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody,
but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for
trial at any other stage of the judicial proceedings
and should occasion arise for execution of the
judgment.''
Under this specific circumstance and context, Bolivia
should live up to its obligation under international law. It is
my hope that as Mr. Ostreicher prepares for what I understand
is a hearing on June 11, that these matters will be fully
addressed and he will be set free to rejoin his family and put
this ordeal behind him.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from
today's witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bass follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass. And now we will
turn to Mr. Turner, gentleman from New York.
Mr. Turner. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, thank you
for calling this hearing today. In my short time serving in the
House, Chairman Smith, I have seen you as a model for advocacy
on behalf of political justice around the world, and today is
another good example. I would also like to thank Jacob's wife
and daughter for testifying today. I can't imagine your
anguish, and I applaud your courage. I also want to thank
former FBI agent, Stephen Moore, who has had a distinguished
career with the FBI both domestically and in some of the
world's most dangerous places.
Here is what we know. Jacob Ostreicher, husband, father and
grandfather, has been unlawfully imprisoned in Bolivia for
nearly a year without being charged. He lives in a prison town
where the guards monitor the exterior but internally there is
no supervision, a condition which puts Jacob in fear for his
life daily. He needs medical attention and has been repeatedly
denied it. What we don't know is why he was denied his freedom
by the same judge who had previously cleared him of any
wrongdoing. What we don't know is what is being done by the
State Department to resolve the issue and ensure Jacob's safe
return to the United States and his family. What we don't know
is what is meant by private discussions by the State
Department. While these private discussions take place, Mr.
Ostreicher remains in prison in subhuman conditions and without
just cause.
According to the State Department's 2010 human rights
report on Bolivia, I quote, ``The principle human rights
violations reported were killings and torture by security
forces, harsh prison conditions, allegations of arbitrary
arrests and detention, and ineffective, overburdened and
corrupt judiciary.'' Does the State Department not believe its
own report? Does it not think it is real? One would think that
this quoted sentence, which appears at the very beginning of
the report, this would be cause for alarm when an American is
in prison for 1 day, let alone 1 year.
So I ask, when will the State Department reunite Jacob with
his wife, his five children, his 11 grandchildren? This is not
rhetorical. His family deserves a response, and I will work
with the chairman and my colleagues together to get the answers
they deserve.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Turner. I would like to
now yield, and thank him for joining us on the panel, Mr.
Nadler.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Bass. I appreciate your holding this hearing today and allowing
me to participate, though I am not a member of this committee.
I am here today out of great concern for my constituent,
Jacob Ostreicher. Like me, Mr. Ostreicher's family, friends and
his community in Brooklyn are very concerned about his
situation. As you know, in June of last year, Mr. Ostreicher
was arrested in Bolivia on allegations of money laundering and
associating with criminal organizations. More than a year
later, he is still being held in a Bolivian jail with no formal
charges having been filed against him despite his insistence
that he is innocent. Mr. Ostreicher is being held in a private
cell in the Palmasola prison, a facility that is notoriously
violent, according to reports. He has been active in advocating
for his cause through the news media, and several media reports
regarding his situation have been released this year.
On May 25, Mr. Ostreicher was given the threat of a
disciplinary penalty by prison authorities for reports that
were released about the condition of the prison and media
stories about his case that fostered ``discontent among the
prison population,'' as the penalty document puts it. The
penalty could result in his movement to a more dangerous part
of the prison for 15 days, and it potentially could be used
against him in an upcoming hearing. This penalty has not yet
been carried out and Mr. Ostreicher's lawyer is appealing it.
The Bolivian authorities must know that the carrying out of
this penalty would not be acceptable.
Since he was first imprisoned I have been in frequent
contact with the State Department about the status of Mr.
Ostreicher's case and his condition. The State Department has
communicated with the Bolivian Government regarding his
situation and to express the frustration of Mr. Ostreicher and
our Government regarding his treatment. That work must continue
until we see positive results. Last month, after meeting Mr.
Ostreicher's wife, Miriam, I wrote a letter to Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton asking for help communicating to the
Bolivian Government the necessity of giving Mr. Ostreicher a
reasonable opportunity to post bail and access to a swift
trial. I have also written a letter with my colleagues in the
House and Senate to the Bolivian Government asking for the
same.
Bolivian law has its own standards that allow a prisoner to
be held for 18 months on preliminary charges in a pretrial
phase, if they think there is reasonable basis to believe that
a crime was committed. However, holding someone for this long
without a fair trial, or at the very least the opportunity for
bail, violates basic standards of fairness and human rights.
Mr. Ostreicher is entitled to a fair trial. He is entitled to
see the evidence against him, to have the opportunity to
present evidence in his own behalf and to have that case heard
promptly and impartially. Our job will not be done until he has
been accorded the full measure of the simple justice to which
he and we are all entitled.
I especially am concerned about the frequent postponement
of hearings in this case. Out of 15 judicial hearings scheduled
for Mr. Ostreicher, only three have actually taken place. In
addition, after a judge ordered Mr. Ostreicher freed on bail in
September, the judge later reversed his position just before
being promoted to another judicial position. Mr. Ostreicher has
not been given another opportunity to post bail. A hearing
regarding Mr. Ostreicher's eligibility for bail is currently
scheduled for next week, June 11th.
I am here today in part to make sure the Bolivian
Government is aware that our Government at a high level is
calling for due process of law and a swift and fair trial for
Mr. Ostreicher, and is keeping a very close watch on what is
happening. Right now Mr. Ostreicher is on a hunger strike to
protest his imprisonment. As a result, he is physically weak
and his family is concerned about his health. His health and
safety must continue to be monitored. We need everyone, Members
of Congress, officials in the executive branch in the State
Department and other interested parties to keep their eyes on
that prize and keep up the pressure on the Bolivian Government.
It is important for everyone to remember our goal, making
sure Mr. Ostreicher is provided fair treatment and basic due
process. They must be made to understand that we will not stand
by and simply accept the treatment that he has received to
date. Pressure must be applied to the Bolivian Government and
its justice system to get this man and his family out of the
terrible limbo they are in by ordering a speedy trial and a
fair opportunity to be free on bail during this process. I hope
this hearing will serve to do just that, to keep the pressure
on the Bolivian Government and demonstrate how important Mr.
Ostreicher and his situation are to important U.S. Government
officials.
Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Bass, again I want to
thank you both for holding this hearing and allowing me to take
part. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. I would like to now
yield, with such time as you may consume, to Ms. Velazquez.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, for
holding this important hearing and for allowing me to
participate.
Mr. Chairman, Jacob Ostreicher's case is a stark reminder
of the importance of due process in our legal system. The right
to a fair and speedy trial is a fundamental principle in
American society. Our founders recognized that without this
cornerstone of American law, the government could arrest and
hold citizens indefinitely. It has now been 370 days since
Jacob was originally arrested. Yet, he has not been charged.
The prosecution has not even presented any evidence of his
guilt. While, initially, Jacob was to be released on bail, that
decision was revoked. The judges in the case have been removed
and currently no judge is presiding.
Meanwhile, Jacob remains locked up at Palmasola prison in
Santa Cruz, Bolivia. That notorious facility was designed to
hold 1,000 prisoners, but is currently home to 3,500 people.
Unlike U.S. facilities, this prison is essentially run by the
prisoners. Guards provide food and make sure prisoners do not
escape, but do nothing to maintain order within the prison's
walls. Reports suggest that gangs control life inside the
prison. At least once a month there is a suicide reported, and
critics suggest many of these deaths may actually be murders.
Jacob has undertaken a hunger strike to protest his unjust
treatment, and there are now very real health concerns about
his continued detention.
While Jacob's case presents important issues about how the
United States protects its citizens abroad, we sometimes forget
the human dimension to these cases. We should keep in mind
Jacob is not only a businessman. He is also a Brooklyn native
and a pillar in our local community. He is a devoted husband
and the father of five children. He and his wife are blessed
with 11 grandchildren. Today, I suspect we will hear testimony
from his family, not only about the legal status of Jacob's
case, but also about the type of man he is and what his family
has endured throughout this ordeal.
Equally important, it is critical that we understand what
the State Department is doing on behalf of the Ostreichers.
Today, it is my hope that Jacob's family can share with us
their experience of working with the State Department. I want
to know what steps the State Department has taken that have
already been effective and, more importantly, what more can be
done to ensure Jacob sees justice.
How the United States protects the rights of its citizens
who are unjustly detained abroad goes to the core of our values
as a nation. The way we respond to nations that ignore
fundamental legal and human rights reflects on all of us. It is
my hope that this hearing will bring additional attention to
Jacob's case and illuminate what additional steps our
Government can take in pursuing justice on his behalf.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Velazquez, for your statement and
for being here.
I would like to now invite to the witness table our three
distinguished witnesses for this afternoon. And again I would
note, the U.S. Department of State was invited. We will invite
them again at any time they would like to come and give a
presentation and accounting as to their advocacy or the lack
thereof, but they have been invited and they failed to show.
Beginning first with Ms. Miriam Ungar who is the wife of
Mr. Jacob Ostreicher, as we will learn from her testimony she
has visited Mr. Ostreicher in Bolivia numerous times both prior
to and after his arrest. She has gone from having a normal,
happy life as a resident of Brooklyn, New York, to being a lead
advocate for her husband in prison almost 4,000 miles away in a
country with a different language, culture, and an
incomprehensible disregard for fundamental human rights and
legal due process. She is serving to help her husband maintain
his physical well being and mental sanity in horrendous prison
conditions, including assisting him to follow his observances
as an Orthodox Jew. Ms. Ungar, your courage and your fidelity
to your husband during this extraordinarily difficult ordeal
are to be highly commended and we absolutely praise you for
that, and it is truly a privilege to have you testify before
the subcommittee today.
We will then hear from Chaya Weinberger, another courageous
family member who is joining us this morning. Chaya Weinberger
is the daughter of Mr. Ostreicher, of course, and that is why
she is here. Ms. Weinberger is married and the mother of five
small, beautiful children whose picture we will see during the
course of her testimony. She is a resident of Lakewood, New
Jersey, and I have had the honor of representing her.
Ms. Weinberger has also visited her father in the notorious
Palmasola prison in Bolivia, and has attended several of his
hearings. In addition to the pain of her father's unjust
incarceration and the frustration with repeatedly postponed
court hearings, Ms. Weinberger has the additional burden of
trying to hide from her children the reason for their
grandfather's extended absence. It was not easy for Ms.
Weinberger to agree to testify at this hearing, but we are
deeply appreciative for her willingness to do so on her
father's behalf.
We will then hear from Mr. Steve Moore, who served as a
special FBI agent and supervisory special agent for 25 years,
retiring in 2008. Mr. Moore led the investigations of many
high-profile crimes in Los Angeles including the first ever
conviction for an anthrax threat, and the Buford Furrow
shooting murder spree at a Jewish community center. He spent
several years on SWAT, was trained as a sniper and served as
the undercover agent on a critical espionage investigation.
Mr. Moore was the case agent for the Los Angeles 9/11
investigation, and later chosen to supervise all al-Qaeda
investigations for Los Angeles FBI. In 2003, Mr. Moore stood up
the FBI squad in charge of responding to acts of terrorism
against the U.S. in Asia and Pakistan including the bombings of
the U.S. Consulate in Karachi and the JW Marriott Hotel in
Jakarta. He established a liaison and worked closely with the
CIA and U.S. State Department in several countries, conducting
investigations out of at least six U.S. Embassies. Mr. Moore
also served as a term assistant legal attache at the U.S.
Embassy in Nassau, Bahamas, during the summer of 2004.
In his retirement, Mr. Moore has voluntarily undertaken to
use the skills and considerable extensive experience he has
acquired as an FBI special agent to help exonerate Americans
wrongly incarcerated abroad including Amanda Knox, who was
convicted in 2009, in Italy, of murdering her roommate. In this
capacity he went to Bolivia in early April 2012, to visit Mr.
Ostreicher and to investigate his case.
So again, thank you, all three, and thank you, Mr. Moore,
for your service to our country, which has been extraordinary.
Ms. Miriam Ungar, if you could begin.
STATEMENT OF MS. MIRIAM UNGAR, WIFE OF JACOB OSTREICHER
Ms. Ungar. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. My name is Miriam Ungar and I am the wife of Jacob
Ostreicher. Some members may think as a wife I may not be
objective in the case of my husband. Although I live in agony
every day wondering if Jacob will live to the next, I will not
share my opinion on any issues that I present to you today,
rather, I will just state the facts.
I have witnessed these facts myself. I was in Bolivia from
June 12, 2011 until October 23. I was in Bolivia several times
prior to Jacob's arrest and have been back several times since.
I am here to tell you that my husband has been incarcerated on
unsubstantiated accusations for more than 12 months. He has yet
to be formally charged and has proven his innocence in a court
of law. Every day that he remains in prison his human rights
are being violated.
Jacob went to Bolivia in December 2010 to take over
management of a rice company. The first harvest under Jacob's
management produced 50 million pounds of rice. This high volume
was never previously produced in Bolivia by one company, and it
was only 10 percent of the projected amount the company would
produce in the next 3 years.
The Government proceeded to investigate the properties of
the company and realized that one of the properties was
previously owned by a man who lived in Bolivia for the past 15
years. This man was wanted in Brazil in the 1990s, but did not
have a criminal record in Bolivia. Jacob had nothing to do with
this man and was not aware of his prior history. This was the
excuse the prosecutors used to gain access to all the assets of
the company and to then arrest Jacob on June 3, 2011.
At Jacob's arraignment, prosecutors alleged that Jacob was
part of a criminal organization based on claims that the
company's main investor, Andre Zolty, was wanted in
Switzerland. Since Jacob had power of attorney from Andre Zolty
for purposes of making decisions on behalf of the business, the
prosecutor claimed this was proof of criminal organization. The
prosecutor also alleged that the money invested was illegally
obtained and resulted in illicit gains. The prosecutors knew
this was not true. They had seen documentation previously
proving that all the money invested in the business was cleared
through the Central Bank of Bolivia.
The judge did not request proof of any of these allegations
and ordered Jacob to be sent to Palmasola prison, one of
Bolivia's most notorious prisons. The judge's order constituted
an illegal act because according to Bolivian law sufficient
evidence must be submitted to a judge at the arraignment before
an arrest can be made. Before being sent to Palmasola, Jacob
was thrown into a holding cell and was kept there for 5 days.
After getting all the documents necessary to prove Jacob's
innocence, I traveled to Bolivia to present the documents to
the attorney we hired to defend Jacob. At first we were unable
to get a hearing scheduled because the judges were all going on
vacation for the month of July. In August, we were told we
couldn't get a hearing scheduled because the transcript of the
June 4 arraignment was not completed. Finally, a hearing was
scheduled, not one but many. I will list them for you.
September 9, September 14, September 23. This one actually
commenced.
At this hearing, our lawyer presented documentation to
prove that Jacob was not a flight risk. Bolivian law states
that in order to be released on bail prior to trial, a prisoner
should present proof of a family, a business and a domicile. In
addition, the attorney presented documentation proving that the
money invested in Bolivia was legally obtained. The money was
sent from bank to bank, no cash. The lawyer also presented the
origin of the money that was sent to Bolivia. Certified copies
of all transfers were submitted to the court. The attorney also
presented a letter from the Swiss Federal police that stated
Andre Zolty was not under investigation in Switzerland. The
attorney claimed that by submitting these documents and proving
Jacob's innocence, the case would be dismissed.
Based on all the evidence submitted, the judge ordered
Jacob's release on bail, and due to paperwork and procedural
reasons Jacob had to stay in prison until they were completed.
Six days later the judge revoked his decision, an unprecedented
move in Bolivia. We appealed the judge's annulment. The appeal
was finally heard on December 9, after a couple of more
postponements. The appellate court ordered the judge to explain
within 48 hours why he revoked his decision of release.
The scheduled hearings for this explanation were December
14, it was postponed, December 22, it was postponed. Finally,
on January 4, 2012, 4 weeks after the appellate court ordered a
hearing, the judge gave a reason for the revocation of his
decision, and I quote him, ``I overstepped my boundaries by
commenting on the evidence submitted.'' A few weeks later this
judge was promoted to the appellate court. This meant we had to
start over, file for a hearing again and submit the same
documents all over again. More hearings were scheduled and
postponed. January 16, suspended. January 25, suspended.
February 24, suspended. March 12, hearing proceeds but is
recessed for 1 week. March 21, suspended. March 29, suspended.
April 2, the judge recuses himself from the case. May 15,
hearing is suspended again. Our next hearing is now scheduled
for June 11.
All of the excuses for the postponements were illegal. At
every scheduled hearing we were required to notify the Minister
of Government. At first, the Minister of Government didn't want
to accept the notifications. This was the excuse they used to
postpone some of the hearings. After we forcefully notified the
Minister of Government of the scheduled hearings, they would
postpone them with the excuse that they wanted to attend but
were unable to. This is illegal under Bolivian law. A lift of
detention hearing must proceed even if the notified parties are
not present.
While all of these hearings were being postponed, on
December 21, 2011, all 50 million pounds of rice in the
facilities disappeared. It took several hundreds of trailer
loads close to 3 weeks to remove this amount of rice from the
storage facilities. Amazingly, no one in Bolivia knows where
the rice is. Our lawyer requested an investigation. Arrest
warrants were issued on January 9, 2012, for three people
involved in this heist, one of whom was a government employee.
To date, these people have not been found. No one in Bolivia is
talking about the disappearance of 50 million pounds of rice
worth more than $18 million. Three people guilty of theft,
known by the government, cannot be found, yet Jacob, an
innocent man, languishes in prison. Coincidentally, the 3-year
ban on rice exports was lifted in March.
The ride to the courtroom by bus is 1 hour, and the bus is
packed full and extremely hot. Once the inmates arrive in the
courtroom they are stuffed into a holding cell in the
subbasement of a courthouse and kept waiting for hours in
extreme heat and without fresh air. The prisoners are kept in a
cell until they are called to the courtroom. Jacob would always
come into the courtroom drenched in sweat, his lips would be
caked and dry. There were times when Jacob begged the lawyer to
make arrangements so he wouldn't have to attend his own
hearings. But this was not possible, as a prisoner must always
be present. We were never told in advance that the hearing
would be suspended. He went through this distress every single
time.
It is horrific that Jacob has been in a prison for more
than a year despite the fact that he has proven and a judge has
recognized his innocence in a court of law. Worse yet, flying
in the face of presumption of innocence, the prosecution has
not proven their allegations at any of these hearings.
Moreover, just last week Jacob received a notification. A
penalty was imposed on Jacob because he spoke to local media in
Bolivia and the United States. He received a 15-day penalty.
Penalties usually means the prisoners are moved to
Chonchocorito, a prison where the worst criminals are sent,
where death is a regular occurrence.
The devastation this has wrought on our parents, our
children and our grandchildren is indescribable. How do you
explain to children that their grandfather is in a prison but
he didn't do anything wrong? How is Jacob supposed to go on
living knowing he has done nothing wrong and his freedom has
been stolen from him? Jacob has been on a hunger strike since
April 15. He has lost 60 pounds. He is frail and weak,
emaciated and dejected. Our attorney filed a request to the
judge to transfer him to a hospital, but the judge is refusing
to sign this request. Does our Government want to walk an
innocent American citizen out of this prison or do they prefer
to carry them out?
In summary, Mr. Chairman, Jacob's human rights have been
violated with every postponement, every denial and every minute
he remains in that prison. Our Government has failed to protect
its citizen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear
before you today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ungar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Ms. Ungar, thank you so very much for your
testimony and for the fervor and the passion that you bring as
well as the very, very carefully articulated information. I
think that is very helpful, and hopefully both the State
Department and the officials in Bolivia are listening because
this is the beginning not the end of this committee, this
subcommittee's intervention. Had I, and I am sure others, known
about this earlier we would have been on top of this. So thank
you so much. Jacob would be very proud of the testimony you
have provided.
Ms. Ungar. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. I would like to now ask Ms. Weinberger if she
would proceed.
STATEMENT OF MS. CHAYA GITTY WEINBERGER, DAUGHTER OF JACOB
OSTREICHER
Ms. Weinberger. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Smith,
and the other members of the subcommittee for scheduling this
hearing. A hearing like this has been long overdue, and I am
very thankful that my father's case is finally getting the
attention it deserves.
My name is Chaya Weinberger, and although I find it very
difficult to speak about such a personal matter, I do so for my
father, Jacob Ostreicher, who is an upstanding American citizen
begging his country to intervene on his behalf. He, together
with all those who love him and want him home are waiting. We
are waiting to see the demonstration of liberty on which our
country is based upon. We are anticipating seeing justice
emerge. We are hoping that our country won't let us down. That
the U.S. Government will do more than monitor the case, as the
American Embassy in La Paz, Bolivia, has been telling us for
the past 12 months. Monitoring is not enough. The situation has
gone from bad to worse and we have not seen the State
Department respond effectively.
My father is an innocent man. He has over 1,000 documents
attesting to that. The Bolivians have not charged him with any
crime, for there is no crime to charge him with. When his first
hearing was scheduled many family members traveled to Bolivia
to attend the hearing. They came from England, Canada, and the
United States. The courtroom was filled to capacity with loved
ones. The shock and devastation when the judge decided to
postpone the hearing was evident on our faces. We were outraged
that we would have to return home without actually attending
the hearing. Several other family members traveled to Bolivia
for the next scheduled hearing. That hearing was postponed as
well. I had a hard time controlling my emotions and burst into
uncontrollable tears. My father tried to console me but wasn't
successful. I would have to travel back home because I left
five little children, and I was distraught that I had to leave
my father behind. This scenario repeated itself when I returned
for a third time in March to attend yet another scheduled
hearing.
In the meantime, my father is still sitting in the
Palmasola prison, where he is clinging onto his sanity. He is
on the verge of collapse both mentally and physically. On my
third visit to the prison, he had changed so drastically that I
could hardly recognize the gaunt skeleton of a man that faintly
resembled my father, who had always been so strong. During the
span of 5 weeks, between my second and third visit, he had
weakened so drastically and was so agitated that he could not
longer focus on reading more than one paragraph at a time. He
stared uncomprehending when I asked him a question, and
appeared totally confused. I was very alarmed when I saw him
shaking with his head and his eyes taking on a hazy, vacant
look. I have not seen him since his hunger strike, which he
began on April 15, and I cannot bear to imagine his present
condition.
My father's lawyers have been urging the judge to sign an
order that would grant him permission to be admitted into a
hospital. The judge refuses to sign the order. The U.S. State
Department and the U.S. Embassy tell us that my father first
needs to be seen by the prison doctor. But there is no licensed
doctor in prison. The doctor is a prisoner as the other
prisoners are the guards and cooks. I am extremely anxious that
my father's medical needs be taken care of; his situation is
life threatening.
My father's lawyers tell us that they do not understand why
no one in the U.S. Government is taking any drastic steps to
secure his release. We do not understand it either. How can my
father be allowed to suffer one more day in that misery? The
American people are watching you now. They want to see how safe
they really are. When innocent Americans are jailed abroad,
will their country fight for her citizens, or will she abandon
them in their time of need?
Chairman Smith and members of the subcommittee, we are
tired. We are exhausted from months of appealing to various
Members of Congress and other U.S. Government officials with no
response. It has been a frustrating, painful year and we are at
the end of our strength. We beg of you, Congress, and the U.S.
State Department, to act now. Soon it may be too late. The only
one who can get my father out of this nightmare is the U.S.
Government, with the help of the Almighty.
There are many people heartbroken about my father's
condition. He is not just my father. He is also a beloved
husband, grandfather, uncle, brother and very devoted son and
grandson. His many friends whom he has always helped are deeply
concerned about his welfare and have him at the forefront of
their hearts and minds. His entire extended family, who have
missed him terribly throughout the year and especially during
the recent holidays, ask about him constantly.
When will he be coming home? That is the question that my
father's 97-year-old grandmother, who has unfortunately found
out about his terrible situation, asks every day amid tears.
His predicament weighs heavily on her heart, affecting her
health. At this late stage in her life when she should be
experiencing the joy of family and children, she is instead
spending her days weeping for her imprisoned grandson.
My dear grandmother who is with us today, is a Holocaust
survivor, and is completely devastated about her son's dire
situation. She suffers in silence every day, for she cannot
share her heartache with her elderly husband since he has a
heart condition, and hearing that his son is in jail in faraway
Bolivia for a crime he did not commit would destroy him. When
he constantly asks about my father, we are compelled to lie,
telling him that only passport difficulties are preventing him
from coming home. My grandmother prays every day that her son
come home before he finds out.
My children are hurt. They assume that their grandfather is
away on an extended business trip and believe that they are not
as important to him as his business. They cannot be more wrong,
but I cannot assuage their feelings by telling them the real
reason their grandfather is away. They are traumatized enough.
My 7-year-old niece told her mother that she already forgot
what her grandfather looks like. Not only can we not tell the
children about their grandfather's situation, but I cannot tell
my father what the children are thinking. It would be so
painful for him to hear that they are hurt and he could do
nothing to help them.
We need him home. Every day that he is gone brings a new
agony, a new question from our children as to his whereabouts.
The grandchildren hear their parents conversing in hushed,
scared voices, and they are confused. They are confused and
hurting. Kids in school ask them many questions about their
grandfather and they remain silent. They don't know what to say
and neither do we.
Who can find words to explain this madness? Who can tell
little children that their grandfather is being held hostage in
a third world country for no reason at all? I cannot. And so I
appeal to you, the Government of the country I have always
loved, Let me tell my children and the world a different story,
one that will show them the greatness of their homeland, an
advocator of liberty. Let me tell them a story that has a happy
ending. Let me tell them that their grandfather is finally
coming home.
I would again like to thank the subcommittee for arranging
this hearing especially Chairman Chris Smith, for being the
first elected official to have his office meet with me as soon
as he found out about this travesty of justice. Our community,
family and friends will never forget that he brought my
father's case to the forefront, and we will be forever
grateful. Thank you for giving us hope.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weinberger follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Ms. Weinberger, thank you very much for your
very eloquent and passionate testimony as well. Thank you so
much.
Mr. Moore?
STATEMENT OF MR. STEVE MOORE, SPECIAL AGENT, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS (RETIRED)
Mr. Moore. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, I sincerely
appreciate your efforts on this matter and for your interest in
my observations on this. I am not being paid to be here today.
I am not in any way, shape or form, an employee of the
Ostreicher family. I don't do this for a living. I believe that
accepting money for what I am doing would very likely devalue
my opinion in some peoples' eyes. I have no motive here except
that I seem to have found myself in retirement with a skill set
and experiences which can help people, and I would like to do
that.
I would like to take a few moments and peel off the polite
diplomatic veneer of what is going on in Bolivia right now. It
is so easy to say, well, this is a country going through their
own judicial procedure, and therefore we have to allow this to
go through. But in reality, there is no judicial procedure
going on here. This is a state-sponsored kidnaping. In my
position, the only stock I have in trade is my credibility. I
was involved in the Amanda Knox case, and after her exoneration
I got a lot of requests to become involved in cases. The first
time I am wrong about a case is the last time I am of any value
to anybody who is in Jacob's situation. It is crucial to me
that I don't make a mistake.
I asked the family to give me all the documentation they
had, all the court documents. I went to Bolivia. I spent 3 days
with Jacob. I talked to members of the former Government of
Bolivia, who were conveniently in prison. I talked to attorneys
who represented the prisoners. I talked to prisoners, one of
which asked me to smuggle out a video of him making a payment
to a judge, and I tried. It was the unanimous, the unanimous
point of every single person that there is no judicial
procedure to occur.
These hearings that they talk about are happening for one
reason and one reason only, there is no evidence. So if you
have a hearing you are going to be exposed for having no
evidence. I have looked at this case from every possible
direction, every angle, and I admit to you that because it is
such a complicated case, an initial look at it, a quick brief
on a one-pager can make it look like, well, there could be
smoke. There could be fire. I did 25 years in the FBI. I never
lost a conviction when we brought somebody into court. There is
no evidence that a crime occurred. First they are going to have
to prove that a crime occurred, and then they are going to have
to prove that this innocent man from New York had something to
do with it.
This is as I say, simply a state-sponsored kidnaping. They
are playing six degrees of separation with Jacob. I am sure you
are familiar with how that works. If you took all the people I
was acquainted with and everyone they were acquainted with, you
could quickly get me to the President. With Jacob, they found
that he had hired somebody who happened to know somebody who
the Bolivians are saying was a drug dealer. Imagine that,
somebody in Bolivia being a drug dealer.
One thing you should know about this prison is that there
are no big-time drug dealers in it. You know why? Because they
can afford to buy their way out. One prisoner I was talking to
said it is a very democratic system because if you don't have
money they don't charge you as much to get out. Jacob has a lot
of money in their eyes. I interviewed an attorney, who was
there to represent one of his clients, while I was at
Palmasola. He told me that Jacob has four things going against
him. Number one, he is an American. Number two, he is White.
Number three, he is a Jew. And number four, he has money. This
is an attorney. I asked him what Jacob should do and he said,
pay as quickly as possible.
The State Department has heroically raised the issue over
and over with the Government. Had I, when I was working
kidnaping, raised the issue with the kidnappers, the family
would not have been satisfied. The State Department has not
held a single meeting for the purpose of discussing Jacob.
Whenever they have discussed Jacob with the Bolivian Government
it has been at a regularly scheduled meeting. They have never
mentioned his name in public, not once.
I need to tell you that I worked at an Embassy for a short
time. I worked out of Embassies on at least six different
bombing cases, Jakarta, Karachi, Islamabad. The people of the
State Department are by and large good people, many of them are
brave. I can remember after the car bombing at the Embassy at
Karachi, I worked with a regional security officer in Karachi
and I couldn't help but notice that he still had scars and
stitches in his face from the glass, and he was at the Embassy
helping people get out of the country. They are good, good
people, but they have a problem with their system.
The system is such that there is a disincentive for anybody
in State to help an American. It works like this. Your annual
performance appraisals and your general career track are
determined by how cordial your relationship is with the host
government. There is no box to check saying, have you gotten
any Americans out of jail? All the boxes are about what you
have done to get along with that country. They actually go and
interview the people that you interact with in the host
country. What do you think your performance appraisal is going
to go if you anger that government, if you accuse them of
things that they are doing? Your performance appraisal is going
to tank and your next assignment is not going to be in Italy,
which you had hoped, it is going to be in Sierra Leone. There
is no incentive to help an American. There is a strong
disincentive.
I speak to you as somebody who spent 20 years in the
Federal Government doing what I thought were important things.
Doesn't matter how important the thing is. There was a saying
in the Bureau that some people used, I am not proud of it, but
``big cases, big problems; small cases, small problems; no
cases, no problems.'' In the Federal system, at least in the
bureaucratic part of the Federal system, you are not rewarded
for great deeds as much as you are penalized for mistakes and
problems. The only sane career strategy is to avoid problems.
The more great things you try to achieve, the more risk you
have of stubbing your toe and ending up in Dakar and not Rome.
In a written statement to Congress last year, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton declared, ``The State Department has no
greater responsibility than the protection of U.S. citizens
overseas, particularly when Americans find themselves in the
custody of a foreign government facing an unfamiliar and at
times unfair legal system.'' The State Department has no
greater responsibility than protecting U.S. citizens overseas
when they find themselves in a foreign government facing
unfamiliar and at times unfair legal system.
If you were to ask my son today what his number one
priority in life is he would say, I need to get classes set up
for next semester. I need to get my car fixed. If I were to
tell you by what I observe what his big priorities are, it
would be working on that car and fixing his computer. Classes
might not have much to do with it.
If you were to look at the State Department today, I would
hazard to guess that protecting Americans in the custody of
foreign governments from an unfamiliar and at times unfair
legal system is not in their top 100. There is a reason for
that. Protecting Americans who are unfairly charged contradicts
and complicates and makes more difficult their actual, their de
facto number one, two and every number through 100 priorities.
I find no joy in saying these things. I admire the people in
the State Department. I do not think they are evil people or
uncaring people. But the fact is clear that the bureaucracy
that they have established is not designed to help Americans
and provides a disincentive.
When I was in the Bahamas as a legal attache, one of the
first things that I was told was that my responsibility as the
law enforcement representative of that Embassy was to maintain
cordial relationships with the Bahamian police, with the
Bermudan police. I covered from Bermuda to Grenada. My job was
to stay friendly with these people. Fortunately, I never had to
deal with an American unjustly incarcerated; usually they were
nice enough to earn their way into jail. Usually it was people
who had missed their boat and woke up after a bender in a
Bahamian jail, or people who had gone too far away from the
beach in search of prostitution or drugs, only to be set upon
by gangs who were looking for Americans who are looking for
prostitution or drugs. But it was clear that there was not an
incentive for me to go to bat for Americans.
I think that it is crucial that we examine what is behind
State Department actions. I was in Palmasola prison with Jacob
for 3 days. I wanted to be there longer, but on the third day I
was threatened and shaken down for money from the people that I
was having to pay to protect me. As you have heard, Palmasola
prison is basically a--here is Palmasola right now. That is the
main drag in Palmasola. That is about the nicest section of
town right there.
[Photograph.]
Mr. Moore. The prisoners run the asylum. The guards do not
come in except to conduct rollcalls, but if you pay you don't
have to go to rollcall so it is a pointless exercise. Raw
sewage runs through the street. There are stores throughout the
place where you can buy meat, food, hardware, paint. This is
all brought in by the guards because they take bribes.
That by the way is the cocaine area. It looks a lot like
the garbage dump because they are colocated.
[Photograph.]
Mr. Moore. There is a storefront there where you can buy
cocaine. A dose of cocaine costs roughly half of what a Coca-
Cola costs in the prison. Water costs a little bit less than
cocaine. The food you eat is a daily bucket of gruel that is
brought in, cooked by the prisoners at the kitchen area which
is conveniently located with another dump so they don't have to
throw the waste far away. But most people don't eat that
because they can pay to have food brought in.
The prison is run not so much by an elected group as it is
a cartel who has won power through killing other prisoners.
There are roughly 20 suicides every year, and people have
become very creative with their suicides, stabbing themselves
in the back repeatedly at times. Internal discipline is handled
by a group of people known as the Disciplina Interna. These are
a group of thugs that are hired by the main group of leadership
in the prison. They wear special shirts, and for convenience
they are all lifers so that they have no outside motivation for
betraying the people that they work for which guarantees that
they are almost all murderers, serial murderers or serial
rapists. I have the photographs that I have because I paid a
serial rapist to take because he had paid a guard to get a
camera into the prison. I was paying a gentleman, who had only
murdered one person, to be my security, and he saw me
interviewing members of the previous government and other
members who he believed were innocent prisoners, and realized
that I was not there as I had said, as Jacob's brother-in-law,
and so he started demanding more money for my safety, and I was
unable to return to the prison.
There is prostitution openly in the prison because they
have a women's prison there, and for $1 American money the
women are allowed to come into the prison at night, or I am
sorry, all during the day.
The State Department's lack of assistance for Americans
overseas is not simply the case with Jacob. It has been the
case of every situation I work for. While I do not speak and do
not purport to speak for the Knox family, I watched for 4 years
as the Ambassador and the United States Embassy in Italy
watched essentially a kangaroo trial, and watched as a 20-year-
old American woman was sentenced essentially to life in prison,
and did nothing.
The State Department has claimed, or has hidden, really,
behind the fact that they need to allow the host government's
judicial system to take its course. I agree with that. The vast
majority of Americans who are in prison overseas have earned
their way there. I am not advocating for them. I don't think it
is wrong that Americans are in prison overseas. I arrested
almost all Americans. I have no bias in that direction.
However, the innocent ones have to be looked after. And if you
tell me that you have to wait for the judicial system to go
through the motions, I get it, if you are in England, if you
are in Germany, if you are in Japan. But if you are in Bolivia
where the State Department has already put in writing that
there is hardly a judicial system, I mean the closest thing it
looks like is Al Capone's judicial system. Money has to go up
for things to happen and money buys positions for people. That
the United States Government would hide behind the fact that
this is a legitimate, judicial process is almost offensive.
They are on one hand saying that this is corrupt and horrible,
and on the other hand they are saying, but it is good enough
for us. This encourages the Bolivian Government, because what
you accept you encourage.
There is a law I am sure you are aware of, Title 22 Section
1732 of the United States Code. Whenever it is made known to
the President that any citizen of the United States has been
unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of
any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President
forthwith to demand of that government the reason for such
imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation
of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall
forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the
release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the
President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war
nor otherwise prohibited by law, as he may think necessary or
proper to obtain or effectuate the release, and all of the
facts and proceedings relative thereto as soon as practical,
and that shall be communicated to Congress.
I hereby provide notification to this committee that I am
aware of an American in a prison, in my professional opinion,
who is unjustly deprived of his liberty under the authority of
a foreign government. As a 25-year veteran of the FBI familiar
with the judicial processes overseas and in the United States,
I testify here under oath that the imprisonment of Jacob
Ostreicher appears by any reasonable standard to be wrongful,
and every bit of evidence that I have obtained and reviewed
supports this conclusion. I call upon the President and the
State Department to act responsibly according to Title 22 of
the United States Code. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Moore, thank you so very much, especially, I
think, your point in citing Title 22. We will convey that to
the President and to the Secretary of State in hopes that they
will act.
And let me just ask a few opening questions if I could, and
again thank you for underscoring, and I hope the press takes
note of this as well, that you are doing this pro bono. This is
something that you are absolutely convinced is a gross
miscarriage of justice. That an innocent man is being not only
incarcerated but his very life is in danger, and we need to be
proactive and advocate rather than merely monitor the
situation, again whatever that means.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Smith, I just wanted to add one thing----
Mr. Smith. Yes, please.
Mr. Moore [continuing]. To add to your statement there. The
biggest threat to Mr. Ostreicher right now is not a lingering,
slow death from starvation. It is a quick, unexpected death at
the hands of prisoners.
Mr. Smith. Thank you so much for that sense of extreme
urgency that we need to all be aware of both this side of
Washington, that is to say the Congress, as well as the
executive branch.
Let me ask a few questions if I could, beginning first with
Ms. Ungar. If you could just tell us when the last time you
spoke with your husband, and again just a quick update on his
current state of health. If you could also tell us, with
regards to the Embassy, in your view, you did speak to this in
your testimony, but just to make it very clear, what role that
the Embassy has taken. Has it been an advocacy? A moment ago we
heard from Mr. Moore that not a single meeting has been
undertaken for Jacob. It may have come up in larger venues, but
not a single public word. And I want to know if that is in
country, in Bolivia, as well as in the United States. Has the
State Department uttered a single word?
I think your point, Mr. Moore, about the no greater
responsibility, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated,
and very eloquently stated, those words become meaningless if
they are not applied in a real-world setting of Jacob
Ostreicher.
So if you could, what has been said, and again, where has
the Embassy been?
Ms. Ungar. First, I spoke to Jacob yesterday. He was unable
to carry on a long conversation. He did not have the energy for
that. He is starting to become forgetful. He doesn't remember
the things he has told me. He doesn't remember anything from
the day before. I am very concerned about his health, and it is
deteriorating at a much more rapid rate since he has been on
this hunger strike for almost 7 weeks.
As far as the Embassy is concerned, I don't believe that
they have done anything for Jacob specifically. They have
raised the case and they have said they monitor the case.
Raising the case means if they happen to have a meeting with
the Foreign Minister on another issue, they will happen to
mention Jacob's name. I think that is insufficient and
ineffective and very disappointing and very frustrating. And I
am sure that the State Department does not need me to tell them
what it is that they can do. I am sure that they know what they
can do, and that there are things that our Government can do to
help Jacob, and our goal is to bring him home.
Our goal is not to get him out on bail where he cannot come
home, because the fact remains that he was imprisoned
illegally. Stating that a country has a right to keep him for
18 months is if they have proven with sufficient evidence that
he has done something wrong, and that has not happened. What
they should do is release him and let him come home, and that
is what we want the State Department to do. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I think, Mr. Moore, you made a very
interesting point when you said there is no evidence that even
a crime has occurred, never mind whether or not Jacob
Ostreicher was in any way complicit in a crime, but where is
the crime?
Mr. Moore. They haven't charged a crime. That is
incredible.
Mr. Smith. Let me just ask you with regards to, again Ms.
Ungar, I understand that you, yourself, were threatened with
criminal charges in Bolivia. Could you describe what happened?
Ms. Ungar. Yes, of course. I was notified by a lawyer in
September 2011 that there were charges brought against me,
charges of obstruction of justice, and the reason was that I
had given an interview to CNN via telephone. At the time I fled
the country and I was afraid to go back there. I believe----
Mr. Smith. Wait. For an interview with CNN you were
threatened?
Ms. Ungar. Yes. I was threatened.
Mr. Smith. With prosecution?
Ms. Ungar. Charges were actually started against me for
obstruction of justice, but I left the country before I was
able to be served. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Could you tell us what action the U.S. consular
affairs representative took when your husband's hearing was
postponed? Did they object? Did they advocate for an immediate
resumption of that hearing or what?
Ms. Ungar. No, they have not. They did attend every single
hearing, quietly. They never objected to anything, and they
don't give us any advice and they don't say anything. They are
just monitoring. That is basically all they are doing.
Mr. Smith. Charge d'Affaires John Creamer is in a photo
that I saw and watched on a YouTube on June 3, 2012, and a
Bolivian news article also carried it, and it referenced in his
official capacity dancing in elaborate costume in a parade for
a large street party. I find it extremely offensive that the
head American representative in the country apparently did not
consider it inappropriate to publicly celebrate when an
innocent U.S. citizen is being held in a notorious prison in
the same country. And anyone who has seen the picture, I think
you will find it equally appalling.
Are you aware of the photo, I would say to anybody on the
panel, have you seen it, and what does that say to you?
Ms. Ungar. I am aware of the photo, and I was absolutely
horrified by the message that this conveys to the Bolivian
Government. It is okay to have an American citizen in a prison
even though he is not guilty, and I will even dance with you on
the street in your costume. I was slapped in the face when I
saw that. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask if I could, Mr. Moore, perhaps, or
any of you, where did the $18 million go?
Mr. Moore. Are you talking about the rice?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Moore. That really goes to the crux of the case. Evo
Morales is very interested in proving that socialism is far
superior to capitalism. To that end he has driven the
capitalist airline in the country, AeroSur, out of business by
charging it exorbitant fees for fuel while the company that he
started is flourishing. The president of AeroSur by the way is
now being charged with illicit enrichment, which by the way is
the exact thing that they arrested Jacob for, and he is in
hiding in Spain.
Jacob was going to create more rice in 3 years' time than
the rest of the socialist government could produce in the rest
of the country. Morales was controlling the price of rice this
way, because if Bolivian rice ever got on the foreign market
the price would change drastically and the Bolivians would have
a problem. Jacob was going to destroy that scheme, and so they
had to stop his rice production and that is what they did. It
was just very convenient for them that it could also be a
source of cash. They expected no one to say a word.
Mr. Smith. I see. I think you, Mr. Moore, made a very, very
important point, one that you have never lost a conviction.
That you have throughout your entire career put the bad guys
behind bars, never losing a conviction is, I think, an
extraordinary record, and that includes Americans. You very
carefully vetted this case before you took it and took this
upon yourself, and again you are doing it pro bono.
How would you advise the State Department to separate cases
where there is a truly, a crime has been committed? Do they do
any kind of vetting of the substance of the issue so that an
innocent man does not languish in a prison, now facing possible
death because of their lack of advocacy? Is there any due
diligence being done by U.S. State Department?
Mr. Moore. Well, I do believe somewhere in the State
Department, deep in the hallway, they do probably discuss
whether the person is guilty or innocent. But if they just
simply demanded rigorous compliance with a country's own
judicial system, then they wouldn't have 90 percent of these
problems. For instance, in the Knox case 90 percent of the
evidence was simply falsified. Its admission was against
European law, Italian law. If they had just held their feet to
the fire on that she never would have been convicted in the
first place.
I am not saying that governments can't arrest Americans on
suspicion even if they are wrong. I get that. That is a
fundamental right. But they are wrong in Jacob's case. And if
we held their feet to the fire and said, you must charge this
man, you must give him the right to answer the charges, and if
we held them to reasonable behavior it doesn't matter to us as
much if the person is guilty or innocent because we will force
them to act lawfully. And in those cases where they say they
have acted lawfully and they have essentially done a Stalin and
created their own verdict, then we can intervene. Right now,
Jacob should never have been arrested, but now that he has he
should be immediately released on bail at least. It is
offensive to me to say that because I know he is not guilty.
But if we are not going to demand his release for any,
unconditionally, then at least bail and let him come back here.
Mr. Smith. Has Secretary Clinton called you, Ms. Ungar?
Ms. Ungar. No, she has not.
Mr. Smith. Or anybody from her office?
Ms. Ungar. No. No, they have not.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you one final question, and I have
others but would a trip, a congressional trip, to visit him be
of help and assistance, if I were to put together such a trip?
Mr. Moore. I think it would be extremely helpful for
Jacob's safety. If the Bolivian Government believes that they
could get away with harming him to quiet him, and that if by
harming him this would all stop, they would. If they believe
that the Government and the press are watching closely and if
Jacob stubs his toe we are going to march into Morales' office,
then his safety at least could be enhanced.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I again want to just observe that
your comments, Mr. Moore, about the lack of advocacy and the
fact that that is antithetical in the State Department upward
mobility, if you will, comports absolutely with instances that
I have faced over and over again. I have been in Congress 32
years, and while I always hope for the best, and as you pointed
out so well, they are very bright people, very good people, but
it is not the way to advancement if you ruffle the feathers of
people of the host country. Nowhere have I seen this more
apparent than in the area of international child abduction.
I got involved with the David Goldman case and spent the
better part of a year working on his case. And while the
welfare and whereabouts, and the consular people in Brazil were
extraordinary, empathetic, when it came to the higher levels,
Assistant Secretary, Secretary of State, and even the
President, they were AWOL, for want of a better word. Yes,
there was a concern, maybe an empathy, but there was no real
advocacy whatsoever with Lula, who was then the President of
that country, to get David Goldman, his son, Sean, back to the
United States and, frankly, back to New Jersey. There are in
excess of 2,500 other American children who have been abducted,
and we have done so little at the Department of State. I have a
bill pending called the Sean and David Goldman International
Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act that we are trying to
bring forward to the House to give the President some real
tools, and the Secretary of State, to combat this violation of
Americans' human rights, and frankly, they could be doing so
much of it already, administratively, they don't even need the
bill. But we are trying to give them direction as well as a
prescribed course of action. But this is shocking, but it is
also par for the course. But that has to change and I do think
your testimonies today have been game changers; extraordinary
testimony if ever I have heard it.
I would like to now yield to Ms. Bass for any such time as
she may consume.
Ms. Bass. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I actually want
to follow up on what you just said, in terms of the structural
problems within the State Department, in your testimony. And I
just wanted to ask this question on my behalf but also on my
colleague, Congressman Nadler, who had to leave, is what do you
think can be done? And again, I am specifically talking about
this case, of course, but also you are raising the structural
issue and you have seen this many different times, so do you
have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Moore. I do have some thoughts on that. They are
obviously not vague, or they are obviously not completely
fleshed out. But to give you an analogy, in the FBI we had a
problem at Waco when our tactical teams and our hostage
negotiation teams were acting at loggerheads. They were opposed
to each other essentially. And that seemed to work out well.
And so what we had to do at that point was create a combined
group whose number one goal was resolution of an issue, not
resolution of an issue by a specific means. Now SWAT teams and
hostage negotiators are on the same organization. I believe
that there needs to be, because it is becoming such a big
problem as the Congressman has pointed out, an organization
within State that specifically advocates for Americans in those
situations. Because there is nobody, and it is not in anybody's
interest to do it. If there was a specific organization--it is
kind of like putting internal affairs in the police. Somebody
has to do it. They are not going to be liked, but somebody has
to do that important role.
Ms. Bass. So in this specific case what do you think that
the State Department should do? I mean I know that it is in the
area of advocacy, obviously they should advocate, but
specifically what would you suggest that we recommend them to
do? There is a hearing coming up on June 11, so in the best of
all worlds what would the State Department's intervention be?
Mr. Moore. I am not going to give them specific
instructions because they certainly know what is in their tool
kit. They haven't opened the tool kit yet. I would say the
number one thing they haven't done is put the lightest--what
they have done so far is almost winking at the Bolivian
Government and saying, we are going to make a show of appearing
to object, but really we are friends and we are going to go out
and dance at your festivals. If you look at their Web site all
you see is literally dozens of photographs of Embassy personnel
at functions, at concerts, at community areas, giving books to
libraries. Nowhere is Jacob mentioned in the entire Web site.
Ms. Bass. It is appropriate for the State Department
officials to attend the June 11 hearing? And I would imagine
that they have not attended the previous hearings.
Ms. Ungar. They have attended every hearing.
Ms. Bass. Oh, they have. But they have what?
Ms. Ungar. Nothing.
Ms. Bass. They are monitoring it as you said.
Mr. Smith. Would the gentlelady yield briefly?
Ms. Bass. Yes, sure.
Mr. Smith. Would it be appropriate for us to be at the June
11 hearing?
Mr. Moore. I think it would send a message. I think they
would cancel the hearing.
Ms. Ungar. They may do that anyway.
Mr. Moore. Really it is kind of like asking somebody to
come in and explain where the money is that is missing. They
don't want to come to that meeting. They don't have evidence to
present, so every single hearing is a delaying tactic.
Ms. Bass. So I wanted to also ask you some questions about
the case. And you were making references to the Bolivian
Government and trying to understand why this happened to begin
with, and the missing rice and the missing money, and is the
business continuing to function on its own? Why did his
business partner have nothing, I mean there were no charges. He
wasn't arrested. So in terms of--what was the motive?
Mr. Moore. The business partner didn't go to Bolivia. That
is why he wasn't arrested.
Ms. Bass. I see. Do you believe if he had gone to Bolivia
he would have suffered the same fate?
Mr. Moore. I do.
Ms. Bass. I see. And so what was the government's, what is
behind it? I mean you mentioned the socialist Government of
Bolivia. What do you think, they were trying to nationalize the
farm? I mean what----
Mr. Moore. I am trying to take a complicated subject and
put it down into about 30 seconds. But Evo Morales' big issue
right now is to prove that socialism is far superior to
capitalism.
Ms. Bass. Understand.
Mr. Moore. And so part of what he has been doing is trying
to showcase different things that prove that. The profitability
of a private airline was embarrassing to him so he had to
eliminate it.
Ms. Bass. Has there been a lot of publicity about this
case? In other words, holding him up to the public in Bolivia
as this is a crime?
Mr. Moore. No.
Ms. Bass. So they have not been covering this.
Mr. Moore. It is not in their best interest.
Ms. Bass. Yes. Well, I mean when you mentioned that they
have been looking for examples, I was just wondering if he had
made this an example.
Mr. Moore. This was a preemptive act, and frankly, this is
how it happened. They were fairly unaware and unconcerned at
the beginning because of the production levels that the farm
was coming up with. What they didn't anticipate was these were
just startups and they hadn't completely cultivated all the
land. Jacob, at a certain point, went in and asked somebody to
print bags for 500 million pounds of rice. That sent a
shockwave throughout the agricultural community which got to
the government, and they thought 500 million pounds of rice
will rapidly destabilize our control of the rice market.
Ms. Bass. So were there other rice farmers that were,
Bolivian rice farmers that also objected because they were
concerned that the yield was so much? You know what I mean, in
other words, it was competition?
Mr. Moore. He was taking all the trucks, all the--he had so
much rice that he was using almost all the infrastructure to
process the rice, yes.
Ms. Bass. I see. And Ms. Ungar, did you want to say
something?
Ms. Ungar. I just wanted to clarify that it was 50 million
pounds of rice, and it was----
Mr. Moore. Oh, 50 million pounds. I am sorry.
Ms. Ungar. There isn't one company in Bolivia that is able
to produce that amount of rice.
Ms. Bass. I see. Yes, so the other companies could be
coming into play in terms of this.
Ms. Ungar. I don't believe that it was the other companies.
Those are really small-time companies with very, very small
volume, too small to feed Bolivia.
Ms. Bass. I see. And the final question I wanted to ask you
is, you mentioned that by doing the CNN interview you were,
well, they attempted to file charges. So you have been unable
to go back to Bolivia because of this? Are you under threat of
being arrested if you go back?
Ms. Ungar. Yes, I did actually take the risk of going back
to Bolivia because I couldn't stay away and leave him alone for
such a long period of time. I tried to do it over holidays
where there was celebrations in Bolivia, so by the time that
they realized I was there I was already on my way home. But I
cannot go back there. It is not safe for me to be there.
Ms. Bass. Okay.
Ms. Ungar. And he is there all alone. There is no one there
with him.
Ms. Bass. Right. I am very sorry. Thank you very much. I
yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bass.
Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The plant and
equipment, there was a $20 million investment of international
money mostly came in here as well as the initial rice harvest.
Bolivia has degenerated into some type of kleptocracy. If Jacob
were to be found innocent, would they be obligated to return
the plant, equipment, the rice? Does that now make this even
far more complex and confound our efforts?
Ms. Ungar. Well, the rice is gone so they can't return it.
The equipment has been dismantled and the parts have
disappeared, so there is no equipment.
Mr. Turner. Disappeared.
Ms. Ungar. And the land was confiscated, so there is
nothing left.
Mr. Turner. All right.
Mr. Moore. And they are growing something else on the land.
Mr. Turner. Coca?
Mr. Moore. Probably.
Mr. Turner. So would you say there is a major disincentive
for everyone involved in this to adjudicate this properly and
say he is innocent?
Ms. Ungar. Yes.
Mr. Turner. So if there is any light at the end of this
tunnel it will be a diplomatic hardball and our State and
executive branch are going to have to make uncompromising
demands. So far we haven't seen any willingness to do that, is
that fair?
Mr. Moore. Yes.
Ms. Ungar. Yes, it is.
Mr. Turner. Do you see a path out of this?
Mr. Moore. I think we might have some traction in this
after July. I think the Charge and the Consular Section Chief
are both transferring out, and I am sure they both were trying
to push this away until they went into their next
reincarnation. And the new people will have to deal with it I
would hope.
Mr. Turner. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Ms. Bass, did you have a
question?
Ms. Bass. Yes, just real quickly. You mentioned that they
were growing something else. What are they growing?
Mr. Moore. I talked to Jacob yesterday, and the allegations
among the prisoners are that the Bolivian Government is rapidly
seizing privately owned land and converting it to coca use, and
he believes from what he has heard through the prisoner
grapevine that his land has been converted to coca growing. It
is a better product financially.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Ms. Ungar and
Ms. Weinberger, your willingness to be here today to testify
means an enormous amount to us, clearly to Jacob, and this
horrific human rights abuse that continues is now front and
center where it should be. Your family members, your community
and we as well are grateful for your willingness to participate
today, so thank you very much for being here.
Ms. Ungar. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch. I would like to just go back and talk a bit
about what communication, it is not clear to me what
communication has taken place between the U.S. officials and
the Bolivian Government. Has there been an exchange of
correspondence? Have you been copied on any correspondence?
Ms. Ungar. The Charge has met with the Foreign Minister of
Bolivia several times for other issues, and did raise Jacob's
case. He also met the chief of the Embassy, Kate Flachsbart,
also met with the Attorney General of Bolivia. At all times the
meetings were not about Jacob, but they did raise the case, and
that is all that was done. I don't get any information from the
State Department, and unless I specifically ask, ``Have you
done something, what happened?'' If I don't ask I don't get any
information.
Mr. Deutch. What was the response from the Bolivian
officials?
Ms. Ungar. Every response is the same, we will look into
it.
Mr. Deutch. Let me talk for a moment about the hunger
strike. It is 7 weeks now that Jacob is on a hunger strike. Is
there a response? Has there been a response from the Bolivians
to his deteriorating condition? What has been the response to
that?
Ms. Ungar. No, Bolivians don't care if someone goes on a
hunger strike, but the Americans do.
Mr. Deutch. I would like to point out something, and I
would like to make a request to the chairman. I would like to
point out it is little surprise that in a country whose leader,
Evo Morales, has befriended some of the worst human rights
abusers in the world in the Castros, in Ahmadinejad, that this
kind of horrific situation could take place shouldn't be
shocking, yet of course it is and certainly the direct impact
that it has on you and your family makes it so.
I hope that rather than speculating about what is in the
toolbox of the State Department, I mean I don't know, Mr.
Chairman, whether the State Department was invited to
participate today----
Mr. Smith. Yes, they were. We asked repeatedly that they
come here and testify and they adamantly refused. And they are
welcome. They are welcome anytime.
Mr. Deutch. It seems to me that at the same time that we
continue to press this issue and that we do everything we can
to press this issue with the Bolivians, we do provide oversight
to the State Department. And I would hope that we would have an
opportunity to pursue in some greater detail whether, if it is
appropriate here in open session, if there are tools in the
toolbox that require classified discussions that we reach out
to have those meetings as quickly as possible so that we
understand the steps that can be taken and can encourage the
State Department in the strongest possible terms to utilize
them.
And I think the focus as we go forward clearly has to be on
Jacob in this, again this just horrific situation. There is
time for further discussions about the State Department and
whether or not--Mr. Moore, I am not sure that I agree that
there is a disincentive for professionals at the State
Department to look the other way and not stand up for
Americans. I am sure they would argue. We can have those
discussions in future oversight hearings. Right now I want to
do everything we can to schedule those meetings and to press,
to know that everything that can be done is being done. And in
the meantime, the fact that it is now 7 weeks into a hunger
strike, and you described Jacob's condition, this is an issue
that goes beyond this subcommittee and beyond the discussions
taking place on Capitol Hill. There is a very serious abuse of
human rights here, and the human rights community I hope will
engage in a very profound and serious way as well even as we
continue to do our work here. And again, I appreciate so much
your willingness to be here and to speak up in this very
powerful way.
Ms. Ungar. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch. I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Deutch. Any further questions by
the panels? Just as a conclude and perhaps, Mr. Moore, you
might want to speak to this. I think it was you who said this
that Jacob was seen as being an American, White, Jewish, and
perhaps well off. I have worked for the last 30 years, more
than 30 years, on combating anti-Semitism, and very often it is
very thinly disguised but it is rampant throughout the entire
world, including in the United States. It is getting worse.
Just recently I chaired a hearing on the rising tide of anti-
Semitic activity globally and it is, some pockets of the world
obviously it has gotten demonstrably worse, but it is in South
America without a doubt. And I am wondering if you have
detected any sense of anti-Semitic behavior as to how the
Government of Bolivia has mistreated Jacob?
Mr. Moore. I think you can't discount it. Morales is very,
very desperately trying to improve his relationship with Hugo
Chavez over in Venezuela, and Venezuela recently invited
Ahmadinejad to come visit. So anything he can do which would
push his country toward that direction would help his status
with Chavez.
Mr. Smith. Appreciate it. Ms. Ungar?
Ms. Ungar. I would like to make a comment on that too. At
the arraignment which was on June 4, it was on the Sabbath, it
is on a Saturday, and they wanted to move Jacob from the
holding cell, which was in the FELCCN Building, into the
courtroom, and they had to do that by car, and he begged them,
please, please don't make me go by car. I am a religious Jew. I
observe the Sabbath. And they dragged him and shoved him in the
car saying, we don't care about religion.
Mr. Smith. I appreciate that very much. Is there anything
our distinguished panelists would like to say in closing? You
certainly have covered Jacob's plight extraordinarily well.
Ms. Ungar. I would like to say one more thing. That being
that the 18 months is a violation of international law and a
violation of human rights, it is coming up on June 21. But even
though we get to that point, they will probably find something
new to start investigating and keep him for an additional 18
months. And the reason I am mentioning this, because I have
spoken to some members and the response that I received from
some of the members is, let us wait and see what happens on
Monday, on June 11. I have heard this for the past 12 months.
Every time a hearing was scheduled, okay, let us wait for this
one. Let us wait for this one. I don't want to hear let us wait
for the coming one. We need to do action now. Our time is
limited. Time is of the essence because we may not have who to
bring home shortly. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. And that is the last word, eloquently
stated, thank you. The hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Ungar. Thank you.
[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 11:51 a.m.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\ts\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\a
\
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Karen Bass, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
