[D] Military Commision Order No. 1, 2002/03/21 - 2002/05/27 March 21, 2002 !!! WOLFOWITZ INTERVIEW WITH JIM LEHRER, NEWS HOUR JIM LEHRER: And to our Newsmaker interview with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the number two man at the Pentagon. Welcome. PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Good to be here. LEHRER: On the tribunals or commissions announcement today, what kinds of people, what kind of defendants are they designed to prosecute? WOLFOWITZ: These commissions are an instrument of justice in pursuing the war on terrorism, and the president directed Secretary Rumsfeld to set these up, or to prepare the rules for them, I think back in November. We've been working for some four months, and what we announced today are the rules of procedure under which they will work, which I think will ensure a fair trial, but also deal with very special conditions under which some of these trials may have to take place with the use of classified information, the use of information collected from the battlefield. But the only people that would be subjected to these commissions are non-US citizens who were connected to al- Qaeda or other terrorist movements, guilty of serious terrorist crimes against the United States. LEHRER: Now, are there any of the people who are in custody now who meet the criteria for these kinds of trials? WOLFOWITZ: It's too early to say, and I think it's important to emphasize just how long it takes to really get information on these people. As an example, we caught a few years ago, at the turn of the millennium, that man who came across the border from Canada planning to blow up the Los Angeles Airport. Apparently he sat in more or less solitary confinement in Seattle for a year saying nothing and then finally decided to tell the whole story about how he planned to bring this bomb in. The people we have down in Guantanamo, some of them talk a little, some of them don't say anything, some of them lie and give us misinformation. And the information that we're collecting in Afghanistan piece by piece is part of that picture, so it's like putting together a puzzle. And we're still in, I would say, the early stages of collecting information about these folks. LEHRER: But Secretary Rumsfeld, as I understood what Secretary Rumsfeld said today, there is no "a defendant" or no series of defendants waiting to go to trial under these new rules. WOLFOWITZ: No. We published the rules today because we had really reached the end of a fairly exhaustive process. We decided we had figured out something that we believe really meets the standard of fairness, that is proper for the United States, that protects certain key things that normal either civil courts or military courts couldn't do, like the handling of classified information. But we didn't do it because we have somebody imminently ready for a commission. LEHRER: What about those 300 people at Guantanamo? Assuming that all of them are not tried under these new rules of today, what is going to happen to them? WOLFOWITZ: I think it's important to recognize that the people who are in Guantanamo are there because they're enemy combatants seized in a war, a war on terrorism. Most of them probably-- I don't know the exact legal term, but they are not normal combatants in a sense of being in uniform. There's a lot that's very unique about this conflict. Some of them are in fact criminals. They're not only enemy combatants, they're people who are guilty of being involved probably or possibly in serious crimes of terrorism. So we need a procedure for bringing them to justice. We also need to handle them as we would handle a dangerous enemy in the course of a war. And these people are actually much more dangerous than that. You know, in past wars you'd take a prisoner and once he was off the battlefield, he was relatively harmless. These... one of these guys got off the plane in Guantanamo swearing he would kill an American before he left. So they're dangerous people, whether or not they go before a military commission. LEHRER: When will that decision be made? I mean, will these people just be held indefinitely - or is there a process being thought through to dispose of those 300 people one way or another, or is today part of that process? WOLFOWITZ: I think it's important to emphasize no one will go before a military commission without a Presidential decision on that individual case to do so. There's a very intensive process going on today to interrogate these people, to collect information on them, working with law enforcement agencies from the many different countries from which they come. I think we've already had three or four or five countries send their own people down to Guantanamo to help to interview their own citizens. And there will be different dispositions I think for different ones. Some of them may turn out to be completely harmless. Some of them may turn out to be the kind of enemy combatant you would want to hold until the end of the war. Some of them may go back to their own country for some kind of trial, and some of them may go to military commissions. We're still in the sorting out stage. JIM LEHRER: Now, on the military commission - you said -- the President of the United States literally must sign off on anybody who's tried in one of these commissions? WOLFOWITZ: That is the way the Presidential order is written, yes. LEHRER: And then once this... okay, let's go through some of the specifics here. The commission is from three to seven members, right, at any given time? WOLFOWITZ: That's right. LEHRER: And they're U.S. military officers? WOLFOWITZ: They are, all of them with judicial experience. I mean people should bear in mind we have a regular system of military courts that all of our servicemen and women are subjected to if they're accused of a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and it's the same kind of personnel who are on these tribunals, these commissions. LEHRER: Will there be lawyers? WOLFOWITZ: They have judicial and legal background. I imagine most of them will be lawyers. LEHRER: Each defendant has the right to, will be appointed a military defense lawyer, right? WOLFOWITZ: Each defendant will be given a counsel free of charge. It will be a military lawyer, and each defendant will have a right, if he wants to, to hire his own civilian lawyer from a very large number of civilian lawyers that would be available. LEHRER: Presumption of innocence? WOLFOWITZ: Presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, two-thirds majority required for conviction, unanimous verdict required for death penalty, automatic review of every sentence. LEHRER: Call his or her own witnesses? WOLFOWITZ: Right to call witnesses, right to discovery of information, right to revealing the evidence the prosecution is going to bring. I mean I thank you for going through that whole list. I mean -- it gives you some sense, too, I think of how careful this process has been. LEHRER: Now, the decision, they will be open to the public, right? I mean they will be open trials, except if the presiding officer decides on a couple or three reasons he or she can close them right? WOLFOWITZ: Either to protect classified information or to protect the security of the proceedings. But the directive is to be as open as possible. LEHRER: Now, the security of the proceedings, explain what the dangers are there about the security of the proceedings. What does that mean? WOLFOWITZ: It means that we're dealing with people who are -- have made it very clear and -- I shouldn't say necessarily, we presume they're innocent until proven guilty -- if they're there, it's because they're accused of being involved with showing the most murderous kind of intent. One of the judges who was involved in one of the terrorism trials earlier in the '90s still has around-the-clock protection because... LEHRER: It was the first World Trade Center trial, right? WOLFOWITZ: It was. Yes. LEHRER: He's still under protection. WOLFOWITZ: He's still under threat. One of the reasons to have military officers serve on these commissions is we believe they're the kind of people who know how to deal with that kind of threat, who won't be intimidated by it, but it could turn out to be dangerous duty. LEHRER: Some people raise some questions about the classified inromation, the national security. Anyone could close this; say "hey, that's classified, let's close this." Is there going to be anything in the directives that will lean towards openness or lean towards closeness? What can you say about that? WOLFOWITZ: Exact rules of evidence are still being developed, but I think that the fact that the lawyers will be military officers who are cleared to see all the evidence is a great protection. LEHRER: Including the defense lawyer? WOLFOWITZ: The defense lawyers, absolutely. If he hires a civilian defense lawyer, one of the qualifications will be that he can be cleared at least to the secret level. Let me say the other side of the coin. We have, I think, leaned very far in an effort to be fair. It's very important to make it clear too, if anyone goes before this military commission it is going to be because we have every reason to believe they are involved in some of the most terrible crimes every committed against this country. And we cannot rule out the use of classified information. We can't rule out the use of information that may be collected on a battlefield in Afghanistan that doesn't meet our normal police standards of the chain of evidence - of knowing exactly who held it at which point along the way. That's why the President created this special instrument. We're dealing with a special breed of person here in a very unique circumstance in a very unique war. LEHRER: When we say a special breed, just so we understand, are we talking about people like Osama bin Laden and the people around him and Mullah Omar, these people in fact are still alive and in fact are caught, is this particular process, particularly reserved for them, in other words, the top dogs in all of this? WOLFOWITZ: You know, it would be very presumptuous for me to presume how the president's going to decide. I think you can see already from the way we've proceeded, that this is a fairly special instrument that's probably, I assume reserved for special cases. Mr. Moussaoui was submitted to a -- LEHRER: He was supposedly, could have been the 20th hijacker, right? WOLFOWITZ: That's right. The decision was made to put him into a regular civilian court process. And I don't know of the 300 people we have in Guantanamo, or the roughly 300 in Afghanistan, how many of them will turn out to be clearly culpable of very serious crimes. LEHRER: As you said, two-thirds a vote of the commission, of any given commission is required for conviction -- unanimous for death penalty. What are the other possible punishments below the death penalty? WOLFOWITZ: Essentially various forms of incarceration. LEHRER: And that is up -- there's not going to be any rules on that? I mean there're not going to be minimums, maximums; it's going to be up to each individual commission to decide? WOLFOWITZ: I wouldn't rule out that we might set some rules and certainly rules will develop. I mean we're going to operate in a way that common law courts, which is our court system, operate, which is you meet our justice in an equal way. If you start with one set of punishments for one kind of individual, that will probably set a standard for others. But we don't do this on pure theory; we're going to do it on cases. LEHRER: Now, the review process: The trial is over, there's been a conviction, it's automatically reviewed by the secretary of Defense, is that correct? WOLFOWITZ: It's automatically reviewed by a panel of senior judicial officers who are either from the military judicial system or are civilian judges who are called back to active duty. LEHRER: They have the authority to toss it out, reverse it? WOLFOWITZ: They do. And if they rule not guilty... if a decision... excuse me. They have an authority to review a decision, and the review then goes to the secretary for decision. If the commission itself passes a verdict of innocent, that's the final say. LEHRER: There cannot be any retrial? WOLFOWITZ: It cannot be retried. There's no double jeopardy, in other words. LEHRER: And then it eventually goes to the President to sign off on the conviction? Or that's the final review? PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Yes. JIM LEHRER: Now, is there any review beyond that? Can a defendant take it into the -- a defendant cannot take it into the federal court system, is that correct? WOLFOWITZ: We don't believe so. I mean you know, in our system, you can take anything to a court and it's going to be up to the federal court system to decide what their view is. But we believe this is a clear exercise, a clear and correct exercise of the President's war power and certainly in the past cases we've had and this is unique in many ways, it's worse than the past cases we've had, and this is unique, this is worse and in the past cases there has not been a judicial review. LEHRER: Are you satisfied, as an individual and as an official of the United States Government, that this process that was outlined today is in keeping with all of the traditional judicial standards of the United States of America in the way to treat people accused of crimes? WOLFOWITZ: I believe we've done absolutely the best job it's possible to do in setting up these basic rules. Obviously implementation is another major part of the process. You can have the best rules in the world, if you don't implement them faithfully and properly, then that becomes a problem. I don't think it will be. I think we have done, I think, a procedure that truly does meet American standards and American values. (...) * * * March 21, 2002 SECRETARY RUMSFELD INTERVIEW WITH THE SUNDAY TIMES (Interview with the Sunday Times of London and Focus Magazine) Rumsfeld: What can I respond to? Focus: You are unveiling plans about military court commissions. From the European perspective, have you been surprised about the criticism that has developed in Europe on how United States is treating the detainees in Guantanamo Bay? Rumsfeld: Surprised. I guess when you're as old as I am you stop being surprised. People are reacting to something that they didn't know much about and what they heard was inaccurate. I have not been surprised at all that anyone who had any knowledge about how we have been treating detainees in Guantanamo has responded very positively and has been quite complimentary about the way we've handled them and the circumstance that they're in, the fact that their treatment is indeed humane. They are well-fed and well taken care of and getting excellent medical care and being treated in a humane way. All the criticism is based on the shrill hyperventilation of a few people who didn't know what they were talking about, hadn't seen the situation, hadn't taken the time to understand the situation, and I suppose that one has to expect when they see these headlines and statements being made that are inaccurate that they would think gee, that's not the way the United States ought to be doing it. But in fact the United States was not doing it that way. Has not, is not, and will not. I guess a better word than surprised would be disappointed. Times: Among the detainees at the moment in Guantanamo there are I think at the last count five British citizens. Rumsfeld: I can't validate that. Times: Let's say a number of British citizens. In your announcement or in the report of your forthcoming announcement, it suggests that there may be a difference between men considered sort of the hardest of the hard, as the phrase has been used, and just ordinary foot soldiers. Are you in a position to say which category these British -- Rumsfeld: Oh, no. I'm not. Times: Or what's going to be done with them? Rumsfeld: I'm not at all knowledgeable about -- We've got hundreds of people involved in various locations and I don't have knowledge of the results of the discussions and interviews which they've had. They're in varying stages of completion. The first task, of course, was to try to figure out who they are and there's been an enormous amount of lying and changing of stories and aliases. So it's been very difficult to get a grip on exactly who the people are, where they're from, what their nationality is, what their role was, and that's not surprising. If one reads the training manuals for those folks they were taught to lie. They were taught to play to the press by claiming they had been treated brutally. They were taught to dissemble and confuse and they do that in these interviews. So they were well trained. So it's going to take a little time. The arrangements are that they will be first interviewed for intelligence gathering information with the hope that we can stop further terrorist attacks. Second, they will be interviewed for law enforcement purposes. We are having people from the nation that these people claim is their nationality come down to government and meet them and interrogate them and develop whatever information they'd like to develop. Our general position is that we have no desire to hold people. We don't fashion that that is our responsibility. To the extent we can find countries that will come to an understanding with us that they would take individuals and prosecute them under their laws, as opposed to letting them go and turning them back out on the street where they can go kill people, which is not my first choice, and that they would share the intelligence they get from them, and that in the event we get information from other people that relates to those individuals that they would allow us access to them again to be able to question them. We, for example, have one individual that was captured over -- Well, he was in captivity over a year before we even began to figure out who he was. At that point we began to get a great deal of information. At a certain point if they feel that their situation is not what they prefer, they sometimes are willing to talk. So it can be that it would be that long, for example, before the individual would decide to step up and provide useful information. We're trying to knit all this intelligence information together in a way that we and other countries in the coalition are able to prevent terrorist attacks, as was the case in Singapore. Focus: Besides the situations of the detainees, the war is still going on in Afghanistan and yourself have mentioned many times that there still might be pockets of resistance. Rumsfeld: Not might be. There will be. (...) Times: One issue that's (inaudible) in Britain from the families of those being held. Is there, in your plans is there going to be any provision for relatives to visit people who are in detention? Rumsfeld: Oh, I would doubt it. I haven't been addressed that question. But the accommodations down there are very modest. We have to stage in the 25 or 30 countries that have people down there so they can get in. It's a very small base. Security is a very serious problem there. No, I would think that would be highly unlikely. We're busy providing them medical attention and we're busy feeding them, we're busy taking care of their needs, and letting representatives of the countries go down there and interrogate them, and we're in the process of trying to gather intelligence. But it is not a subject that I've addressed. Times: Is that likely to last indefinitely or will it likely change? Rumsfeld: What? Times: Them not being able to see relatives or have visitors. Rumsfeld: I just told you it's not a subject I've addressed. I'm without a (inaudible). If they went back to their countries of origin because we were able to work out the proper arrangements that I described for you, obviously that would be up to those countries. Secretary Clarke: They have had visitors. They've had ICRC, they've had representatives of -- Rumsfeld: The International Committee of the Red Cross has been there and representatives of a lot of the countries have been down there. So they have people see them and doctors see them and chaplains see them. (...) * * * March 28, 2002 DOD NEWS BRIEFING - SECRETARY RUMSFELD AND GEN. MYERS (excerpts) Rumsfeld (introductory remarks): (...) Finally a word about military commissions. There have been some murmurs in the media about detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, and specifically whether if one who is tried by a military commission and, if acquitted, whether they would then be released or whether they would still be detained. Let me explain this. During the course of this war effort, the United States has detained several hundred enemy combatants. As has been the case in previous wars, the country that takes prisoners generally decides that they would prefer them not to go back to the battlefield. They detain those enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict. They do so for the very simple reason, which I would have thought is obvious -- namely to keep them from going right back and in this case killing more Americans and conducting more terrorist acts. Any combatants who have the good fortune of being captured instead of killed during an armed conflict are normally not in a position to challenge their continued detention. To release enemy captives so that they could return to the battlefield would put the lives of more young American servicemen at risk, and in my view would be mindless. Let me explain the issue in detail, since it seems to be troubling some people. Out of the detainees there may be some who committed serious problems and who, if the president were to decide, might be assigned to a military commission to be tried on one or more of those charges. If one were to be acquitted by a commission of, for example, a specific criminal charge, that would not necessarily change the fact that that individual remains an enemy who was captured during an armed conflict, and therefore one who could reasonably be expected to go back to his terrorist ways if released. It might -- the procedures we put in place for the commission to provide full and fair trials. In some cases it might not be possible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual committed a particular crime, and therefore he might be acquitted of that crime. However, it does not change the fact that he is an enemy combatant. He may be guilty of other crimes, but at the minimum he is someone to be kept off the battlefield, from going right back and killing more Americans. Even in a case where an enemy combatant might be acquitted, the United States would be irresponsible not to continue to detain them until the conflict is over. Detaining enemy combatants for the duration of a conflict is universally recognized as responsible and lawful. This is fully consistent with the Geneva Conventions and other war authorities. This is a matter of simple common sense, I would say. The detainees include dangerous terrorists who committed brutal acts and are sworn to go back to do it again. To protect the American people, the United States has every right to hold enemy combatants for the duration. Today the conflict is still going on. Our troops are still fighting in Afghanistan, and we do not as yet see an end. That said, we will continue to treat detainees humanely and consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention. We will proceed with trials. In some cases we will proceed with transfers to another country -- their country of nationality in some cases, and in some cases releases if in fact the additional information proves that they are individuals who could be released without risk to - - that they might conduct additional terrorists acts or go back to the battlefield to oppose what we are doing. I can assure you the United States does not want to keep any of them any longer than we have to. While we will treat them humanely and lawfully, we will do everything we can to protect the American people and our friends and allies from being attacked again. And we have no intention of releasing people who have shown that they are dedicated to killing more Americans. (...) Q: Mr. Secretary, you did provide a slight caveat in saying or suggesting that some of these people who are being held in Guantanamo could be released, if you find -- Rumsfeld: Oh, sure. We have already released any number of people, as you may know. Q: But you have said for months that these are the hardest of the hard core. Are you saying then in effect, with the statement you made earlier, that virtually all of these people will be held until the end of this war? Rumsfeld: No. I liked what I said and the way I said it. The fact is that the first people we brought down were in fact the hardest of the hard core, because we wanted to get them out of the Kandahar and Bagram facilities. Now we have brought down a large portion of the people, and now it is [a] mix, and they vary. They run pretty much across the spectrum. It seems to me that that being the case one can expect that what will happen will be exactly what I said: that some may be transferred to other countries, some may be released, some may be held for the duration, some may be tried in one or more of the various mechanisms that are available -- the United States criminal justice system, military commissions, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Q: So what you are saying though is what was said originally when you talked about this, is that some of these people might continue to be held, even if they are acquitted, but not necessarily all of them? Rumsfeld: Certainly not necessarily all, because not necessarily all will even be there or be tried by us or be acquitted, let alone tried. The -- there will be -- I assume, given my understanding of the make-up of these folks, and I've had a chance to look at some smattering of them -- that there will be a good number that regardless of whether or not they are tried by a commission, or by some other mechanism, or acquitted, that we would not want back on the street for some period of time. Q: Sir? Q: Mr. Secretary? Q: Among those detainees are, if I am not mistaken, at least six who are not in fact captured on the battlefield but were taken in Bosnia. Do you believe that you have -- that the United States -- and I don't think charges were pending against them, and no charges have been brought against them -- do you feel that you have the right essentially to pick up anyone anywhere in the world whom you believe to be a terrorist and hold them indefinitely, without bringing charges against them for as long as you want, regardless of whether they are actually captured, quote, "on the battlefield"? Rumsfeld: No. I'd like to say it my way, and it would be something like this: that I will leave it to the lawyers to answer the question the way you cast it. And I will say this: There is no question but that the United States of America has every right -- as does ever other sovereign nation -- to defend itself. There is no way to defend against terrorism except finding terrorists. And to do that you must go where they are. And that is what we are doing. And they may be in Afghanistan, they may be in Pakistan -- and we have some people who have been turned over to us from countries other than Afghanistan. And we place them where we can. And at the moment we are placing them for the most part, some in the United States as you know, and some in Guantanamo, and there are still some in Bagram, and there are still some that we are looking at that we do not have in custody in Afghanistan, and some we do not yet have in custody from Pakistan, and may or may not decide to take. And I think to try to make a blanket statement like your question suggested would be a poor way for me to approach it. And I can tell you that I think that there is not going to be a single cookie mold that will be pressed down over this aggregation of people. But we do know that we don't want prisoners, we don't want detainees. What we want to do is to defend the American people and our friends and allies and our deployed forces. And to do that, you've simply got to go find people and detain them. Q: Mr. Secretary, you've said that you reserve the right to hold the detainees until the end of the war. You've also said that there won't be a signing ceremony on the Missouri in this war. Rumsfeld: Right. Q: So what exactly is the end of the war? And are we talking about the war on terrorism or the conflict in Afghanistan? Rumsfeld: Well, at the moment, we all know the conflict in Afghanistan is still going on, so we're not past our deadline or our due date. I don't know how to describe it, and I suppose that will be something that the president would make a judgment on, as to when it was over. I think the better way to look at it is not at that group of people in the aggregate, but as I've indicated, individually. And there may be individuals that tomorrow one will come to a conclusion that they're no longer a threat for whatever reason. And as I say, that's already happened; we've released people already. So, I think that the way I would characterize the end of the conflict is when we feel that there are not effective global terrorist networks functioning in the world that these people would be likely to go back to and begin again their terrorist activities. (...) Q: Back to the detainees, if you please. First of all, a clarification, which I hope doesn't count as a question. (Laughter.) Regarding the release that you mentioned, of some of the detainees -- Rumsfeld: Yeah. Q: -- none from Guantanamo, correct? Rumsfeld: I don't care to respond. (Laughter.) Q: Oh, please do. Rumsfeld: I guess the question is, what does that mean, really? If -- we have released that we have retained. We have done it in a variety of locations. That is to say we have gotten some people from other countries, took custody, looked at them, and released them. We have done -- gotten people in Afghanistan, looked at them, and released them. We have had people in other locations, looked at them, and released them. And I don't know that I want to get into a detailed situation where I say it was this place, and then who is that person, and why did you release him, under what circumstances, because it isn't helpful to what we're trying to do. Q: Okay. But if I could argue, probably unsuccessfully -- Rumsfeld: That -- no. Q: -- that I'm asking where, there were 300 detainees in Guantanamo. Are the same 300 detainees still there? Rumsfeld: I doubt it. I'd have to go back and check. I lose track -- correction; I don't try to keep track. I get involved in things early. They then go in train, and I go on and do other things. And when things actually take place thereafter, I don't know. That's as good as I can do. Now comes the question. Q: No. This is what is going to have to -- Rumsfeld: This is the second clarifying? Q: This is going to have to qualify as a follow-up. Rumsfeld: (Laughs.) Q: And that is, are you in a position -- Rumsfeld: Do you get a follow-up to a clarification? (Laughter.) Q: Are you in a position yet whether you can specify whether the military commissions that you discussed will be conducted at Guantanamo? Rumsfeld: I don't know. It seems to me it would be premature to decide that, since no one's been assigned. When someone's been assigned, we'll have the maximum information at that point, and then I'll say, "This person's been assigned. We're going to try this person in this location." If I said something now, and it turned out that the person came in, and it was an inappropriate place -- the location I'd announce -- then you would say I changed my mind and wonder why. And I will not have changed my mind. I just don't need to decide that right now. (...) * * * April 8, 2002 DOD NEWS BRIEFING - SECRETARY RUMSFELD AND GEN. MYERS (...) Q: I wanted to ask about the second American-born Taliban [Yaser Hamdi] sitting in the brig in Norfolk. Rumsfeld: True. Q: Apparently Justice is not interested in prosecuting him, so what will you do with him? Will you just keep him indefinitely in Norfolk, or do you have any plans about him? Rumsfeld: I would not say that Justice is not interested in prosecuting him. I think that's the kind of thing that, as you detain a person and gather more knowledge about that person, and from that person or from other people, then judgments may change and you may make a decision as to how you want to handle somebody. And I think it's a little early to be concluding that any judgment like that would be conclusive. In the meantime, he's a guest of the united States government in the brig in Norfolk. It's where he belongs. Q: As an American citizen, can you -- Rumsfeld: We think he is an American citizen. He probably is a dual citizen. He apparently did -- may have been born in Louisiana, and there appears to be a birth certificate that may relate to him. Q: And can the U.S. military hold him indefinitely, like any other foreign combatant? Rumsfeld: I'm going to let the lawyers worry about all of that. Q: And in your opening remarks, you mentioned Abu Zubaydah. Last week you said one of the primary concerns was keeping him alive, because of the wounds suffered when he was captured. Rumsfeld: He's alive. Q: Can you tell us what kind of shape he's in today? And is he cooperating with U.S. investigators. Rumsfeld: He is alive and he's being treated. Q: Is he cooperating? Is he -- Rumsfeld: I don't know that I want to give a day-to-day report on his -- how enthusiastic he is about his situation. He is not well. He's got several bullet holes in him, that may very likely have been fired by some of the people with him. And how fast he'll recover and when he'll start cooperating, time will tell. Q: You said -- Rumsfeld: I'm not going to be giving daily reports on -- Q: You said the bullet wounds could have been suffered from people who he was aligned with. Does that mean there was some kind of suicide pact, or they tried to kill him so he wouldn't be taken prisoner? What do you mean by that? Rumsfeld: There was gunfire on both sides when they were captured. And it is not clear exactly where the bullets came from. Not that it matters much. Q: But do you mean to imply that perhaps he was to be killed by his own people if it looked like he was going to be taken into custody? Rumsfeld: No. No, I don't think I do mean that. I just mean it's not clear -- I mean exactly what I said. It's not clear where the bullets came from. It could be -- I was thinking of it not as an intentional act but as an unintentional act in a confused gunfight. Q: Well, we assume the worst, so -- (laughter) -- we start from that premise. Rumsfeld: (laughs) Q: Will he be sent to Guantanamo Bay at some point, do you think? Zubaydah? Rumsfeld: Oh, Zubaydah? Q: Yeah. Rumsfeld: I have no idea. Time will tell. He's high enough up that he merits some very special attention. Q: Where is he now? Q: Also, have any Arab countries at this point, because of the Israeli and Palestinian situation, warned about reduced cooperation with the U.S. military? Rumsfeld: Not to my knowledge. (...) Q: If I could go back for a moment to the question of the second American Taliban: I gather from your remarks a moment ago that there's no present plan to transfer him to the Department of Justice. If that's so, why was it necessary to bring him to this country? Are there others from Guantanamo that perhaps have also been brought to this country quietly and were housed in other military facilities? Rumsfeld: You thought that that fellow was brought in quietly? (laughter) You better get a dictionary. Q: (off mike) -- for him that allowed you to do it more quietly, in other words. (laughter) Rumsfeld: Have others been brought in from Gitmo? I can't recall any. Might others be? I suppose others might be. We don't have any plans to bring any others in. Q: And how about the part of the question, since apparently there is no present plan to turn him over to Justice, why did you bring him? Rumsfeld: Well, he has apparently reasonable claim to American citizenship. The others do not. Therefore, I -- bringing him to a more permanent facility here that exists where, if, in fact, he is an American, he can be dealt with under laws that would be appropriate for an American. I don't know. The lawyers think about all those niceties -- Q: Do you have a time line for that? Rumsfeld: Pardon me? Q: Do you have a time line for that, as to how long that'll take? Rumsfeld: How long what will take? Q: How long it'll take to determine whether or not he is -- he can be held here or maybe moved back to -- moved to Guantanamo or -- Rumsfeld: I doubt if he'll be moved back to Guantanamo. I think he'll be held here, and at some point the lawyers will decide what they want to do with him, and they'll either keep him and try to get information from him, or they'll send him back home because he's not interesting, or they'll try him under one of the alternative opportunities we have (under) the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the criminal justice system, or a military commission. Q: And what was the reason for the stopover in Dulles on Friday? Was that just lawyers again? Rumsfeld: I suppose. (laughter) It wasn't to save money on gas, I don't -- (laughter) -- (...) * * * * * * * * *