Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

Mr. EILBERG. With respect to the Detroit case, you stated your initial review of the file revealed an optimistic attitude about a case on the part of the INS investigators assigned to it, but despite the promising leads uncovered the investigation was terminated at the direction of the Assistant Commissioner for Investigations in Washington.

Can you elaborate on these discoveries?

Mr. DEVITO. Surely. What happened in Detroit, you see here is another reason why the Immigration echo, and also echoed by GAO won't work. While that file was buried in Detroit, the New York FBI conducted an investigation of their own during the 1967-68 ERA. In connection with that investigation they had occasion to review the Immigration file which was then located in Detroit.

They requested the Detroit FBI office to conduct what is known as an auxiliary. That FBI official in Detroit went to the Detroit Immigration office and reviewed the file and indicated that in his report, specifically that the subject's file was reviewed at the Detroit INS office. He set forth a lot of good data, really good data, heavy data, that was certainly worthy of exhausting.

For instance, there was a film, a very damaging film on this individual, I read. Also other names of people that apparently had made distance from the man. That is what I mean by leads. Leads, good FBI leads from within the Latvia emigree group. And also that film that was circulating amongst them.

Mr. EILBERG. You don't know how the circumstances of the disappearance of that film came about?

Mr. DEVITO. You mean how it got from New York to Detroit? I don't know. There was no record of it at the New York office. And there should have been because it was a secret file.

Mr. EILBERG. And there was no investigation made into that matter?

Mr. DEVIto. No, not to my knowledge, no investigation was ever made.

Mr. EiLBERG. Although this question is not directly in point with the specific nature of this hearing, I would like to inquire as to the current attitude of the West German Government on prosecuting Nazi war criminals. We had some testimony yesterday on this matter.

In an article you wrote for the Baltimore Sun last year you stated that the West German Government had shown "little interest" in extraditing Nazi war criminals and that "prospects for more zealous execution of their laws are dim." Would you please elaborate on those statements, and do you feel there is any interest today on the part of the West German Government in prosecuting these individuals, particularly in view of the fact that the Ryan case has dragged on for so long?

Mr. DeVito. The West German judicial system, when it came to Nazi war criminals, has been a joke. It has been the subject of conversations and ridicule throughout the years.

People who will support that feeling are Wiesenthal, who has been criticizing them and head of the International Survivors groups. There have been other journalists. Also, if you look at the record, likewise verifies it. And let's face it, gentlemen, the feeling

[ocr errors]

in West Germany is not anti-Nazi, or not to prosecute Nazis, be cause whether you like it or not, they have survived.

They have, since we handed back the reins of government to West Germany. We have a number, and numbers and numbers of Nazi war criminals in vital areas of the Government and in the various States. We do have it. So that it's no wonder that West Germany is not rather anxious to pursue Nazi war criminals; they want to forget.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. DeVito, during your trip to Russia, you visited Eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union on this question of alleged Nazi war criminals.

From press reports it appears you have received complete cooperation from those governments. Can you tell us the extent of your investigation in those countries?

Mr. DEVITO. Sure. First of all, understand one thing: We know that I am associated with a grand jury probe on a Nazi matter. That has been publicized, which is to say the defense lawyer notified the press, so I am not revealing anything new.

This is going to touch on, if you people think that we have now solved the solution, you are wrong about the precise thing that Immigration is and the State Department are engaged in, you are totally wrong. And I will tell you why.

I have knowledge of a Nazi case whereby the system presently being employed didn't work in this Nazi case. Namely, a report, once the so-called summary and the request had gone to Russia, the Russians supposedly came back and said that this person, this Nazi, was a member of a punitive battalion and they refused to give any further evidence in the matter.

Well, if you understand the Russians and the Poles, this is not them. When we speak about atrocities, we saw in documentaries, in books we are speaking about the places where these atrocities took place. So, when that kickback came back from Russia, the State Department relayed it to Immigration. Immigration was looking for any excuse to close out the case. They closed it out immediately.

Through the Freedom of Information Act they provided the defense counsel those documents, State Department provided them, and this defense counsel, in an erroneous matter, is flashing them before the press media saying, “See, my man is clear, my man is clear", and turns around and sues the U.S. Government, me and others, such as you know.

Now, I was not satisfied with that response from the Russians. I said this is not the Russian Government. I made an effort to contact certain Russian officials. Also the Poles I knew since 1972. We have been going back and forth, but the Russian Government, I didn't know.

It was arranged whereby I met some of their officials, and I requested permission to go over there and, if I go over there would they cooperate and, in short, they said, yes.

Incidentally, Russian officials are well aware of Ms. Holtzman, and Congressman Eilberg, and they hold you both in high esteem, and they are on top of the situation on these hearings and other matters.

So, I did go over there, and I brought back a load of documentation, I got wonderful cooperation from the Russians and the Poles in Warsaw. I brought back a load of damaging documentation. I went there a second time, 2 months later, brought back more. Again excellent cooepration.

I can tell you in all sincerity we have a prima facie case, in my opinion, of not only denaturalization but deportation and prosecution.

Mr. EILBERG. Did you interview eye witnesses behind the Iron Curtain?

Mr. DeVito. No; I did not. I did not interview them. I made an effort in that direction and they told me I would be wasting my time. But the last time I was there I was told if I want to I could go. But I said if there should be a third time for me going over there they would make these witnesses available. I have already forewarned them that in all probability an assistant U.S. attorney will travel over here, will interview these witnesses and determine their value to the ongoing proceedings. And they are aware of that, and they were willing to cooperate.

Yes; they would make these witnesses available to me, even though, mind you, I am a civilian, I have no authority, I am a civilian. I went there on nongovernmental funds.

Mr. EILBERG. I would like to observe at this point for the record, Mr. DeVito, that when our subcommittee visited the Soviet Union in 1975-

Mr. DeVito. Yes, very good, congratulations.

Mr. EILBERG. We, Ms. Holtzman and I and our subcommittee extracted a commitment from Michel Malyarov, the Deputy Procurator of the Soviet Union, that he would allow our investigators to go into the Soviet Union and interview eyewitnesses. He also agreed that those eyewitnesses, would be permitted to come to the United States to testify in appropriate proceedings. That was in 1975.

It has taken up to this week to implement those arrangements. In fact, the members of the special unit are at this time in the Soviet Union interviewing witnesses.

Mr. DEVIto. They have gone, they left.

Mr. Eilberg It has taken over 3 years, since we secured that commitment, for our Government to act on them. It's taken too long.

Mr. DEVITO. Right. Yes; that was a good move on your part.
Mr. EILBERG. Ms. Holtzman?
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DeVito, on the case that you indicate the State Department said there was no information, were you able to find, derogatory information on this individual during your trip?

Mr. DEVIto. Definitely. We got the goods. We have a prima facie case of denaturalization and prosecution.

Now, I am a civilian. I can't do it, obviously. But it's up to the U.S. attorney's office now to move. They have been provided with the ammunition.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. DeVito, one more question.

Did you have any experience during World War II that led you to feel particularly concerned about how our Government was responding to these cases of Nazi war criminals in the United States?

Mr. DEVIto. During World War II?
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Or afterwards.

Mr. DEVITO. After. Well, I have kept abreast of the situation throughout the years. And I was aware of the superficial attitude of the West German judicial authorities concerning pursuit of Nazi war criminals. There was a gentleman by the name of Oscar Karbach of the World Jewish Congress who gave me the key data that I was looking for all of these years.

In response to these criticisms, the West German Government kept increasing their funds for, their judicial funds, especially concerning war criminals, and what they did to advertise this effort, to counter the criticism, they kept sending investigating magistrates abroad, especially in the United States here and there, and this gave off the impression that West Germany was indeed interested in pursuing and keeping up to their promise to pursue them to the end of the Earth, so that survivors would be called into the German Council and elsewhere and statements were taken from them.

These survivors would naturally go back home and say, look at the West German Government officials, they are really interested in doing this and that, but Oscar Karbach told me don't believe it, Mr. DeVito, this is a picture. He, as a matter of fact, in the Ryan case, he asked me what are your plans in the Ryan case, and I said, we are going for a strong deportation case, and we are going for an extradition request through the Polish Government behind the scenes.

He said, do that, he says, don't mind the German effort; he says, it's all a front. Well, it just so happens that in this particular case, thanks to an investigating magistrate by the name of Halbach, Germany did, in fact, go all out. But I say in all sincerity Germany got moving in the case after it was known Poland was interested in her extradition and West Germany really did Ryan a favor by moving Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you.

MAN
No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. DeVito, we are indeed very grateful for your contribution here today, and it is our intention to follow up with the suggestions and leads you have provided us.

Once again, we invite you to be in touch with our subcommittee staff. We know you have only scratched the surface, you cannot do that much in an hour or so, but we would like to pursue the matter and, with your cooperation, we will be better able to exercise oversight over the Immigration Service, which is also our job as well as your interest.

So, thank you once again, for coming.
Mr. DEVITO. Thank you for inviting me. Keep up the good work.
Mr. EILBERG. Thank you, sir.

Our next witness will be Mr. James F. Greene, former Deputy Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

While he is coming up to the witness stand let me say that we have known Mr. Greene for all of our time in the Congress and seldom have we had contact with a person who has greater integrity and greater knowledge. He has on some occasions contributed to our work, and we are delighted to see you again, Jim, and hope you are enjoying your retirement and wish that you were back here helping us with this very serious job.

TESTIMONY OF MR. JAMES F. GREENE, FORMER DEPUTY COM

MISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE Mr. GREENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EILBERG. You may proceed with any statement or summary that you wish, and then we have a number of questions we would like to ask you.

Mr. GREENE. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared or written statement.

I am pleased to be here. I hope I can contribute something to your investigation. It certainly warrants a full disclosure.

I have read the General Accounting Office report. I find no major differences with their findings.

Mr. EiLBERG. Mr. Greene, we have a little problem. I forgot to swear you, so would you please stand up for a moment, please?

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. GREENE. So help me God.

If I may continue, the report, as you are well aware, because this was made to you, indicates that subsequent to 1973, starting in 1973 and up to date, the Immigration Service has put a great deal of emphasis to do those things that probably should have been done many years ago.

Many of those changes were implemented by me. I was Acting Commissioner starting in the latter part of March 1973, and for a period of about 9 months. Then I became Deputy Commissioner.

Since I left I understand further changes have been made. For the period prior to 1973, I have some difficulty recalling the reasons for delays, or inaction.

The General Accounting Office investigators met with me at my home and we spent a number of hours going over the situation. I reported to them as best I could recall those events that transpired that I had something to do with or had some knowledge of.

So, with that very brief statement, I am prepared to answer your questions as best I can.

Mr. Eilberg Do I understand that you have no serious quarrel with the GAO report; is that your testimony?

Mr. GREENE. I think it is a fair report. I think they had a very difficult job. I believe they have accomplished the goal of what they were endeavoring to achieve. So I have no real problem with it.

Mr. EiLBERG. Mr. Greene, as we both know, there were numerous delays in the State Department in responding to your, and I might add my own, requests to have eyewitnesses in foreign countries interviewed. Yours also went unanswered for months, if they were ever answered at all.

Can you comment or speculate on the reasons for this delay? Was there an outright opposition to raising this issue with foreign

« FöregåendeFortsätt »