[E] Hamdi & Padilla, 2002/05/28 - 2003/02/27 May 28, 2002 DOD NEWS BRIEFING - ASD PA CLARKE AND BRIG. GEN. ROSA (...) Clarke: Donna? Q: On another issue, Amnesty International has issued a 300- page report basically repeating some of its earlier criticism that the Bush administration has lost the moral ground on fighting the war on terrorism, because it's ignored human rights, and again points to indefinite detention of detainees and again says that the legal rights of the detainees have been ignored. Do you have any response to the Amnesty International report? Clarke: Not to the report, because I haven't seen it. But in terms of treatment of the detainees, they continue to get excellent care. They continue to get culturally appropriate food. They continue to get excellent medical treatment. They continue to get the right to worship as they want, which is not something I -- at least last time I checked, the Taliban and the al Qaeda wanted others to have. So they continue to get excellent treatment. They are battlefield combatants, and they're being held as such, and they're being held appropriately. Q: And on the detainees, any plans yet to move any of them out? Have you determined that some of those should be moved out of Guantanamo back to their countries? What's the latest on -- Clarke: Nothing to announce from here. But as we've said before, we have no desire or intent to hold large numbers of people for a long time. So to the extent we can work through arrangements with countries of origin for some of these people and it's going to be handled appropriately, then we'll do so. But nothing to announce at this time. Q: Since you haven't done it in a while, could you give us an update on the numbers in Gitmo and in Afghanistan? Clarke: Very roughly. Gitmo recent -- Rosa: I've got them. Clarke: Oh. Go, General Rosa. Rosa: I just happened, Charlie, because I knew you'd ask that question, I just happened to look this morning. Clarke: And I would have guessed wrong. !!! Rosa: In Afghanistan we've got 255, and in Guantanamo, 384. Q: Three eighty-four. Thanks. Staff: One in Norfolk. Rosa: And one in Norfolk. Yes, sir? Q: And about the one in Norfolk, I think a federal judge last week had ordered that the public defender have access to him by today, do you know what the status of that is? Clarke: You should check in with the Justice Department. It's either today or tomorrow, I believe, the United States government will be in court on that one. But send you over to the Justice Department for that. Jim? Q: Yeah, there was another report that the latest raid -- there was a raid last week -- that there was a three-year-old girl who was killed falling down a well, and that the head man of the village died in U.S. custody. Do you know whether those reports are accurate? Is there any concern that maybe these tactics that are being used, the nighttime assaults, that kind thing, are posing unacceptable risk to civilians? Rosa: Before we move on any intelligence, we take all sources of intelligence -- the coalition, the Afghanis that are with us, and we've moved on several compounds, and we've gone in, talked to folks, not even detained them. On others, we've detained folks, never fired. In cases where we go in and folks fire at us, we'll fire back, and in this case, that happened. And unfortunately, there were some folks hurt. We don't have any reports -- and we were trying to confirm them this morning -- on a three-year-old or a hundred- year-old man. We haven't seen anything in our reports that would lead us to believe that that happened. We're not saying it didn't, but we haven't seen anything. Q: And how many people were killed in that raid? Rosa: There was one killed in that raid, I believe, and two wounded. Q: And nobody died in U.S. custody? Rosa: Not that they're reporting. Q: Not that -- Rosa: Not that are in our reports. I haven't -- and I just looked at them this morning, and I haven't -- I didn't see anything like that. Q: Sir, if this building is worried about intelligence reports that China is still supplying missile technology to Pakistan? And also they have a military- to-military strong relations and most of the money Pakistan got from the U.S. is going to China to buy the military equipment for the war against India? Clarke: We wouldn't talk about any intel matters at all. We would say what we've said often, which is proliferation of weapons, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a constant, ongoing concern for us that we raise almost every time we meet with anyone from another country. I mean, I know it's true about the secretary of Defense; I'm sure it's true in many of his meetings the president's had; he raises the issue of proliferation and what a threat that presents to people who just want to live their lives in peace. Brett? Last question. Q: Is the Defense Department digging in its heels on the efforts by John Walker Lindh's defense team to speak to detainees one on one? Where is that standing right now? Clarke: You know, I want to be very careful not to say anything that has an impact on a legal case, which is ongoing. So again, some of these things you really should go to the Justice Department. But I do know one of our main objectives, for obvious reasons, is to prevent future attacks on the American people, on our friends and allies. One of the ways we can do that is to get information out of people. And so one of the things we want to make very sure of is that we not pollute or integrate the process of those interviews or those interrogations with other things, with other people, with other processes. Q: So there is an effort underway to try to prevent that from happening? Clarke: Just say what I just said. Thank you. Q: Thank you. # # # June 10, 2002 DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ AT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PRESS CONFERENCE (Special Department of Justice press conference on the arrest of Abdullah al Mujahir, also known as Jose Padilla. Hosted by Larry Thompson, deputy attorney general. Also participating was Robert Mueller, director, Federal Bureau of Investigation.) Thompson: Good morning. I'm pleased to be here with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and FBI Director Bob Mueller. By now all of you have heard the attorney general's statement regarding the arrest of Abdullah al Mujahir and his transfer to military control. Secretary Wolfowitz has a few brief remarks, and then all three of us will be available for a few questions regarding the attorney general's announcement. I'll turn it over to Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz: Thanks, Larry. Yesterday, at the direction of the president, the Department of Justice transferred control of Jose Padilla, who is a U.S. citizen, to the Department of Defense. As of today, he will be held at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Based on information available to our government, Padilla met with senior al Qaeda members to discuss plans for exploding a radioactive device, a radioactive dispersal device, or what is commonly called a "dirty bomb," in the United States. He researched nuclear weapons and received training in wiring explosives while in Pakistan, and he was instructed to return to the United States to conduct reconnaissance operations for al Qaeda. Under the laws of war, Padilla's activities and his association with al Qaeda make him an enemy combatant. For this reason, Jose Padilla has been turned over to the Department of Defense. Our number one priority is to defend the American people from future attacks. To do that, we must root out those who are planning such attacks. We must find them, and we must stop them. And when we have them in our control, we must be able to question them about plans for future attacks. The FBI's initial detention of Padilla is one important step in this process. It demonstrates the successful sharing of information and close cooperation among U.S. government agencies that will be key to winning the war against terrorism. I would like to commend all of those who worked to bring about this result that makes the American people safer. Q: Mr. Thompson or Secretary Wolfowitz, what is his status then? I thought the administration's rules on military tribunals said they would be only for non- American citizens. Is the whole point of holding him as a military combatant to be able to question him without using the conventional criminal process? Thompson: His status, as the attorney general said in his statement, is as an enemy combatant. He is being attained under the laws of war as an enemy combatant. There's clear Supreme Court and circuit court authority for such a detention. Q: What is the Supreme Court precedent? Thompson: It's a 1942 case ex parte Quirin. And there's a 9th Circuit case, and I forgot the name of it -- it's in re Territo; it's a 1946 case. Beverly? Q: Does he have legal representation at the moment? Thompson: He was being held under the authority of a federal judge, and he had legal representation in connection with that. Yes? Q: Does he now? Does he now? Q: Larry, how far did they get? How far did they get? Did they have -- had they assembled any parts of the weapon in the United States? Or try to acquire any parts of the weapon? Thompson: I'll defer to the director on that question. Mueller: Let me just start off by saying that we have worked closely with the CIA for many months now. And the detention of this individual was a result of the close cooperative work of FBI agents and CIA agents, not only overseas, but also here in the United States. And I would like to thank our counterparts at the CIA for their work on this particular case. As we've emphasized -- and by we, I mean, I think, the intelligence agencies, as well as Department of Defense -- our principal priority is preventing future terrorist attacks. And this instance is an example of prevention. Now, with regard to the specific question as to the extent of the planning, as it states, I think, in the attorney general's statement, there were discussions about this possible plan, and it was in the discussion stage. And it had not gone, as far as we know, much past the discussion stage, but there were substantial discussions undertaken. Q: Director Mueller, how long has the government been tracking this guy? And can you tell us what the origin of that was? Was it based on information from Zubaidah or prior to that? Mueller: Well, let me just say, I cannot get into much of the background of the case because there are sources and methods that would be -- that would be disclosed if we got into much detail at this particular point in time. Q: (Off mike) -- confirm that the attack was planned against the Washington, D.C., area? And also, what's happened to him if he's been arrested? He was detained March 8th. What happened to him in all that time? Thompson: I'll defer to where he might be by Secretary Wolfowitz -- where he -- Q: If that were -- Wolfowitz: We don't know. I mean, as Director Mueller said, this was still in the initial planning stages. It certainly wasn't at the point of having a specific target. He had indicated some knowledge of the Washington, D.C., area, but I want to emphasize again, there was not an actual plan. We stopped this man in the initial planing stages. But it does underscore, I think, the continuing importance of focusing particularly on those people who may be pursuing chemical or biological or radiological or nuclear weapons. This is but one such individual. Q: (Off mike) -- but he's been -- the second part of the question? Staff: Yes, sir. Over -- yes, sir. Q: Thank you, sir. Over several years, there've been a number of interrupted attempts on the black market by al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to buy uranium and other materials to be used for a dirty bomb. And the government said repeatedly that there is a clear evidence that they're trying to buy it. Do we now say that because they were here for a reconnaissance mission, it is our assumption that they have it? Thompson: I would not want to get into the specific details of that question. It may involve sources and methods. This obviously -- and that's very important from a prevention standpoint, to protect our sources and methods. And beyond that, unless Director Mueller has anything to add -- Q: But -- I guess -- from truly -- Q: Yes. Mr. Thompson or Mr. Mueller, you can't talk about this case in detail, but can you tell us about the individual? In prior cases, apparently he was well known to at least local if not federal law enforcement authorities in the Chicago area and had served time. What can you tell us as much as you can about his background and other trouble that he's been in or anything else you can tell us about the individual? Thompson: I don't think we can tell you anymore than what was in the confines of the attorney general's statement. He had some previous experience with law enforcement. But I think beyond that, it would be -- Staff: Last question, folks. Q: Do you believe he has any co-conspirators in the United States or outside the United States, and have you identified them? I assume if you have, you're looking for them. Can you say anything about that? Thompson: We're not going to comment -- we're not going to comment on that. Staff: Thank you. # # # June 21, 2002 GITMO GENERAL RATES FORCE PROTECTION HIGH WITH DETAINEE CARE By Rudi Williams, American Forces Press Service NAVAL STATION GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba--Joint Task Force 160's primary mission is taking care of captured enemy combatants from the war on terrorism, but the outfit's commander emphasizes that the safety and security of his people is as important -- or more so. "We have to make sure our security posture for the entire area is taken care of. We must also observe operations security issues," said Rhode Island Army National Guard Brig. Gen. Rick Baccus, who succeeded Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Michael R. Lehnert as task force commander on March 28. He formerly commanded the 43rd Military Police Brigade in Warwick, R.I. "We have to be about the protection of our own service men and women assigned here," said Baccus, who wears the Army Ranger and Special Forces tabs and the master parachutist and pathfinder badges. Joint Task Force 160, composed of more than 1,700 U.S. service members and civilians, is responsible for receiving and securing detainees in support of the global war on terrorism. "We also support Joint Task Force 170 and have a mission for migrant operations," Baccus noted. "For instance, if there's a surge of Haitians or Cubans looking for asylum, we have to be prepared to react to that." JTF-170 handles interrogation operations for the Department of Defense and ensures coordination among government agencies involved in the interrogation of the suspected terrorists. As to the detainees, Baccus said the task force must ensure they're treated humanely within the spirit of the Geneva Convention. "Humane treatment means we have to provide them clothing, food, shelter and allow them to practice their religious beliefs," the general said. "However, what we don't allow them to do are things like live in groups, use the canteen or work on work details." The Geneva Convention states that those who are guarding and caring for the detainees should live under similar conditions as those incarcerated, he noted. "You wouldn't want detainees living in substandard conditions, which is something we in the United States wouldn't want to happen," he said. "Obviously our soldiers -- the guard force -- who deal with them every day are living in the same area as the detainees at Camp Delta." There are 564 captured enemy combatants in the 612-unit detention facility at Camp Delta. If they keep arriving as they have this month -- 180 so far -- the facility will soon run out of space. If that happens, solving the problem depends on what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld decides to do, Baccus said. The task force moved 300 detainees from Camp X-Ray to Delta on April 28 and 29. At X-Ray, they lived in 8 feet by 8 feet units with open-air, chain-link walls, a concrete floor and a combination wood and metal roof. At Camp Delta, their units measure 8 feet by 6 feet, 8 inches. "We've a much more secure facility to house them in Camp Delta," Baccus said. "There is indoor plumbing, exercise areas are better controlled, and detainees are out of the sun more." Caring for detainees is much easier at Camp Delta, he noted. "For instance, the guards don't have to escort them to the bathroom all the time and those types of things," he said. "That's a great improvement in terms of how the guards have to deal with them on a daily basis." Each of Camp Delta's 612 units has a flush toilet, metal bed frame and a sink with running water. None of that was available at Camp X-Ray, where guards had to escort detainees to portable toilets. "All the service members here recognize the fact that they need to treat the detainees humanely," he pointed out. "Any time anyone lays down their arms, our culture has been to treat them as noncombatant and humanely. "The detainees are accepting their incarceration as a matter of course," he said. Baccus said Joint Task Force 160's accomplishments since the first detainees arrived in January show "a tremendous effort on the part of all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen involved. "We've gone from zero in January to 564 to date," he said. "That certainly says something about the quality of the service men and women who are serving here." # # # June 25, 2002 DOD NEWS BRIEFING - ASD PA CLARKE AND BRIG. GEN. ROSA (...) Q: Just one bookkeeping. Could you give us the latest breakdown of detainees in Gitmo and Afghanistan? Approximate figures? Clarke: Ooh! Approximate ah, he's got it in the left- hand corner. Good job. Rosa: Five hundred and 64 in Guantanamo; 83 in Central Command; one in Charleston; and one in Norfolk. Q: Are the 83 in CENTCOM -- (inaudible) -- in Afghanistan? Rosa: We don't -- we don't break that down. But I think there are. Q: And when are they going to (switch ?) location? (Cross talk.) Clarke: We try to stay away from giving a lot of specifics about where these people are for the obvious reasons. But we got a few questions this morning about people from other countries being in Guantanamo, talking to detainees. It is an absolutely logical and appropriate thing. Lots of officials from different countries have been there to interview and talk to detainees who may be coming from their countries, and they have different reasons. The primary purpose, and we are very eager to work with different countries on this, is to gather information so we can stop these people and their colleagues and pals who are still running around loose from doing more bad things. It is absolutely appropriate and logical that they would be doing that. Q: Can we have a list of the countries that have interviewed nationals at Guantanamo? Clarke: I don't think so. We have not -- we have not talked about the kinds of countries. If they want to say they've been there, and some of them have, that's fine, but we're just not going to give a laundry list of who's been there. We have been working with lots of different countries. It has never been our intent to try to hold on to these people for any longer than we absolutely have to, but our primary purpose of getting information out of these people so we can prevent future attacks is aided and helped by working with these other countries. And that's been proven a few times over. Q: Torie, when the secretary was in Kuwait, he publicly said that he'd invited the Kuwaitis to come and talk to their nationals at Gitmo. Has that happened? And -- Clarke: I think the Kuwaitis had talked about that. And they're -- Q: (Inaudible) -- exception to your rule you just stated that you would not -- Clarke: As a general matter, we don't go around giving laundry lists. If countries want to talk about being there and sending their officials there, that's fine. I think that was the case when we were over there in the region. And I know we have said it is fine for them to come and talk to their people. I don't think, when we were leaving on that trip or finishing up that trip, I don't think a date had been set. But we can check that for you. (...) # # # July 8, 2002 DoD News Briefing - ASD PA Clarke and Lt. Gen. Newbold (Also participating was Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, Director of Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff) Clarke: Good morning, everybody. As most of you know, the joint team of Afghan and American investigators has completed the preliminary investigation into the July 1 raid in Southern Afghanistan. We are now moving quickly to form the team that will conduct the full investigation into the incident and what caused the civilian casualties. Within 24 to 48 hours, the team is scheduled to be in Bagram to begin the investigation. This is a very early sketch, but right now, the U.S. membership on the team will include an Air Force brigadier general as the head of it, Army, Air Force and Navy participation, AC-130 experts and forward-air-control experts. We have asked Chairman Karzai to appoint an Afghan to the board and to oversee Afghan participation on the investigation. The team will take as long as they need to tour the site, interview villagers, pilots, forward air controllers and Special Forces and to as thorough as possible a job on the investigation. There is a lot of ground to cover, but we will work hard to get as many answers as possible. As we have said repeatedly, we go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties and will continue to do so going forward as we prosecute the war on terrorism. (Coughs.) Excuse me. Two points I'd like to cover here very briefly -- one on which we have a great deal of certainty and one on which we don't. And first, we had this region -- the region of the July 1 raid -- under surveillance for several weeks prior to the operation. And the surveillance was conducted by U.S. forces, coalition forces and Afghan forces working together. And second, the issue of the number of civilian casualties and civilians killed is much less clear. We knew they occurred, and we regret every one of them. But we do not have hard and fast numbers from what we have seen thus far. What is not in doubt is our continuing and close cooperation with the Afghan government and the Afghan people. We're working closely in a joint effort to rid the country of the remaining pockets of al Qaeda and Taliban, and we will continue that close cooperation until the job is done. General? Newbold: Thank you, Ms. Clarke. I have just a couple of quick comments. As you would imagine, our operations in Afghanistan continue. We still have a significant and viable mission there. Over the weekend, we found another arms cache. You'll remember that we found several last week of significant size. This weekend, in a small town north of Kandahar, our forces found a cache that included 29 of the shoulder-fired anti-air missiles of various makes, and we're glad to have recovered them, obviously. And I would reinforce the comments that Ms. Clarke made on the loss of life. That's all I have. Clarke: Charlie? Q: Torie, you said that the United States strives to avoid civilian casualties and will do so going forward. Given the fact that these airstrikes may be becoming counterproductive, is there any intent to cut back on the air cover or cut back on the use of air power or airstrikes in Afghanistan now? And in the wake of the killing of the vice president, does the United States and the Pentagon maintain -- maintain - - its opposition to putting U.S. troops in ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)? Clarke: Let me do the first part. I disagree with the premise of your question. If you look at what has happened in Afghanistan since last October -- military operations started on October 7th -- the success, working with the Afghan people, working with the Afghan transitional government, has been extraordinary. The military results have been extraordinary. I don't think anybody in this room this time last year -- I'm sorry -- October, November, this time last year would say that you could have expected these kinds of results -- I mean, the overthrow of the Taliban government, severely disrupting and degrading the ability of the al Qaeda to operate in the country. The results have been extraordinary. And although civilian casualties have occurred, as they always do in military conflicts, they have been quite low. Every one of those casualties is a tragedy -- every single one of them -- and we regret the loss of every life. We regret the injury of every innocent civilian. But overall, the results have been pretty extraordinary. In terms of what we use -- and the general can help me on this one -- in terms of what we use, it depends on the circumstances, depends on what we think is appropriate. As I said, we will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties. This area had been under surveillance for a long time -- several weeks, at the least. And it had been under surveillance by us, by coalition forces and by Afghan forces. So we've gone to extraordinary lengths. We will continue to go to extraordinary lengths. And we'll use the means and the tools and tactics that we think are appropriate at different times. Q: But given the fact that you're dealing with smaller and smaller numbers of al Qaeda and Taliban, and you're often striking them at night from the air, don't incidents like the killing of the Canadian troops and this incident, this recent incident -- isn't that counterproductive? Doesn't that give you such bad publicity that people question whether the U.S. military should still be there? Clarke: Well, I think what matters is the overall results and the fact that we do go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties, and the fact that when these sorts of things do occur, the first thing we do is get together with the Afghan government, get together with Chairman Karzai, and figure out what's the right approach going forward. I think it is extraordinary, in the short period of time, the efforts that have been put forward already. I mean, within 24 or 48 hours, we will have a team, with Afghan participation, on the ground, doing a full investigation into what happened and trying to prevent these sorts of things from happening. Q: So to make a long story short, you don't intend to cut back the air cover or these airstrikes. Clarke: We intend to use whatever tools and tactics we think are appropriate at different times. Newbold: To restate the obvious, of course we conduct airstrikes in response to enemy action, and we also use them to protect our troops. We have to strike a balance between accomplishing the mission and taking prudent steps to ensure that we minimize any unintended effects. But to negate one of our principal tools arbitrarily, of course, would expose Afghan and the U.S. and coalition forces to jeopardy I'm not sure we want to put them in. Clarke: And on your second point, in terms of the assassination, this is a country that has been in turmoil and at conflict and at war for some 30 years. It's a country trying to come out of that, with our assistance, and trying to move toward some long- term stability. But there are going to be problems. There are still places that are quite dangerous, as evidence of that happening. Chairman Karzai is starting his own investigation. He has said if he wants it or feels he needs it, he will reach out and ask for assistance on that investigation. I'm sure if asked, we would provide it. What we are about, one of our main missions, is to try to help the country achieve long-term stability and security. We are helping in many different ways, including the formation and the training of the Afghan national army. The last time we were in Afghanistan and secretary Rumsfeld met with Chairman Karzai, in the press briefing afterwards, talking about in the broadest sense achieving this long- term stability and security, it was Chairman Karzai who acknowledged that the best use of the U.S. resources in terms of that objective was to focus on the Afghan national army. You also have others working on the ISAF. You have the Germans working on the police force. So there are a lot of efforts that are all pointed toward that objective, but it's going to take time. And bad things will happen. Q: But this (inaudible) and this administration is still opposed to U.S. troops in ISAF. Is that correct? Clarke: We are supporting the efforts toward long-term stability and security for Afghanistan in many, many different ways, including being the quick-reaction force for the ISAF as is necessary, including providing some intel, medical, logistical support. We're also devoting considerable resources to the standing up of the Afghan national army. We're also working with and encouraging the Turks, who are about to take over. So we're doing a variety of things to help in that regard. Q: But not putting U.S. troops in ISAF? Clarke: We're doing many, many things to contribute to the long-term security of the place. Q: Is the secretary considering, Torie, in view of the comments that have been made over the weekend by prominent members of Congress that more needs to be done to ensure security and long-term stability of the government there, is the secretary considering other ways that that could be done, or responding to those comments? Clarke: Well, what we're going to do is continue what we have done, which is work closely with Chairman Karzai and the transitional government. The best way to achieve what we all want, which is long-term security and stability for the country -- and believe me, that is very much one of our objectives -- is to work with the Afghan people themselves, to work with the Afghan government and work through these issues and do what they think is best for their country. We can help. We can assist. We cannot do it for them. Q: Stick to the same approach is what you're saying? Clarke: Which is very, very close coordination. Q: Over the weekend, though, after meeting with some of the villagers at Kakarak and I believe the other village that was struck by the AC-130 in which civilians were killed, Lieutenant General McNeill told reporters that villagers there wanted some kind of U.S. military presence or security and McNeill said that it would be in, quote, "our best interests," unquote, to do that. Is that being considered, and would not that be an expansion or modification of the U.S. role there, to provide some kind of security force for NGOs and locals? Clarke: (Inaudible.) Newbold: A couple of comments. Valid question. I would point out that -- in fact, I would connect it to the previous question that the long-term stability in Afghanistan will take far more than just military means. And training the Afghan army is a centerpiece of that toward providing security, but certainly there are others as well. As all of you know, Central Command and the forces in Afghanistan on a daily basis conduct humanitarian actions to help the Afghan people. There are -- other organizations do that as well, non- governmental organizations. They will do that as we can provide a safe and secure environment, coalition, U.S. and Afghan forces. It's those kind of operations that we're doing in the area, as a matter of fact, that led to this incident. What General McNeill was referring to is the fact that he envisions providing more forces in there that can provide the kind of stable environment and humanitarian assistance, not only from the U.S. but from allies, to bring benefits and long-term stability to Oruzgon Province. Clarke: Humanitarian assistance, civil assistance, that was -- my understanding of the report from General McNeill is that was a big part of the discussion. This was an area where we had not been. We had not had a presence in terms of humanitarian assistance or the kind of civil affairs work that is going on in lots of other parts of the country, which contributes to long-term security. So, one of the good things that has come out of the last couple of days was this discussion and agreement that a U.S. presence there, specifically with regards to humanitarian/civil affairs support would be very helpful. Q: And has the decision been made to increase the U.S. military presence in that heavily Pashtun, pro-Taliban region? Clarke: I believe a decision has been reached to try to work out ways that the U.S. presence could be there, assisting on the humanitarian and the civil affairs front. Q: Numbers? Clarke: No. Too soon. Q: Two questions. General Newbold, could you explain what you meant when you said those kinds of operations -- it was those kinds of operations that led to this incident? You just said that it was the civil humanitarian. Was there preparatory work being done, and that's why the surveillance team was in there? And Torie, could you explain how, if these villages were under surveillance for several weeks, why people didn't know that a wedding was being planned, why people didn't know that these houses were occupied by, I think, you know, at least a couple of hundred people, which would've maybe -- had they known that, called in a different sort of response -- maybe not sending aircraft over where anti- aircraft artillery is and getting you into that situation? Newbold: As far as my statement, you can characterize one of the methodology -- the operating style that we used there is to assist in providing a stable environment for organizations -- international, Afghan and U.S. -- to move in to assist the local population. That, in itself, creates a more stable environment, interest in the future and moves Afghanistan on the path they're following. That means security precedes humanitarian. And this operation worked on that premise. So security moves in first; humanitarian follows. And what General McNeill was referring to was the fact that, clearly, he intends to move the kind of civil affairs and humanitarian forces down there to do that. Q: And that was the intention prior to the incident? Newbold: It characterized the entire country, in fact -- not just this operation. Q: So this operation in advance of trying to cure this area and then see if we could start moving aid in or -- (inaudible)? Newbold: And as we mentioned here last week, this is -- a portion of this province is known to have significant Taliban sympathies. So that's part of the security operation -- to defuse that. If I could offer, on your second question -- the way this operation was conducted, essentially moving security in and reconnaissance in, in concentric rings closer to the sites that were likely targets or to be put under observation -- as they moved in -- very obvious the amount of fire that was coming from the area -- as I mentioned last week, on the ground, where there were several contacts with forces there -- and against our aircraft, as they operated -- so this took place with increasing intensity. Were they in position close enough to see individuals in that compound from the ground up close enough to know non-combatants? Obviously not, because as everybody here knows and General McNeill pointed out, it is termed an accident for precisely the reason that we struck people we didn't intend to. Clarke: And I'd just add on and say, now, one thing we know, and one thing we hope to know more of. The one thing we know is, as far back as February, I believe, this area has been under surveillance. And it's really important, I think, to underscore it was not just U.S. surveillance. It was coalition forces; it was Afghan forces. It was under surveillance for some time by all three parties. I think as the full investigation gets underway, we'll have more information and more precise information of the tick-tock of what happened leading up to July 1. Q: Okay, and just let me follow up on that. So this area was under surveillance since February. What did you know about it, and what didn't you know about it that made this incident possible? It seems like -- if I told somebody, if I tell my mom, "Well, it was under surveillance, et cetera," her question is going to be, "So why didn't they know?" So why -- what kind of surveillance was it under? And what did you know? Clarke: Well, I -- I'll just repeat myself. What we knew is it's been under surveillance for quite some time by the U.S. and the coalition and the Afghan forces. I think the full investigation will give us more details about what happened in the days leading up to the actual operation. But that we do not have right now. Q: Well, but it was -- Q: (Inaudible) -- of the group that night different than the previous surveillance missions? And was the three to four hundred troops, was that larger than previous surveillance missions? Newbold: As you know, we provide surveillance in very small teams so that they can be inconspicuous and operate clandestinely, because they're at risk when they're in there. They're in such small groups that their best defense is to be unobserved. Therefore, as they develop their observations and intelligence in combination with multiple intelligence means coming into us from Afghans, coalition and our own means, then they bring in additional forces. So that first phase is collection. The second phase is then to move additional forces in. And as you also know, about half of the forces involved were Afghan and coalition and additional (inaudible). Q: Sir, what was their mission as they moved in? Was it to occupy this area? Was it to -- what were they -- what were the three or four hundred troops moving in to do? Newbold: We've already described one, to bring some semblance of stability there to establish a secure environment. An additional one, there was sufficient intelligence to believe that there were some what we would call high-value individuals that might be operating in the area. That's a very important part of our mission, stated from our first action in Afghanistan. Q: Following on the, General, was there intelligence the Mullah Mohammed Omar was in one of those villages? Clarke: We haven't gone into specifics. I doubt we're going to go into specifics about the intel that led this to be such an area of interest. Q: Okay (inaudible). (Laughter.) Secondly -- secondly, if I could follow up, now that the preliminary report is done and there were no anti-aircraft guns found, is it the belief that they were moved, or is there now an analysis that perhaps the plane or planes were not fired on by anti-aircraft guns? Clarke: I'll repeat what General McNeill said. And maybe General Newbold has more. But he says we have a fair amount of evidence from both people on the ground and people who were in the planes of anti-aircraft fire. Beyond that -- and I think he said this as recently as yesterday or the day before -- we didn't have much information. Right now. Newbold: I don't think there's any question that our aircraft and our forces on the ground were fired at. The investigation will determine the detail of what specifically precipitated the strike, and we'll defer to that when it's conducted. Q: Did people on the ground see anti-aircraft guns firing at aircraft? Newbold: Yes. Q: Yes. Clarke: Yes, sir? Q: Has anyone reviewed the video from the AC-130? And does it provide any information that would corroborate any of these initial accounts of the events? Has anyone reviewed that video? Clarke: I haven't seen it. People have seen it. And I think it's being factored into this fuller investigation. (To General Newbold) Is that right? Newbold: There is a video. But I think the investigation will probably study that with people that are experts in things like video from this particular platform. But even then, the video has to be combined with the things they learn on the ground by witness observers, et cetera. Clarke: Yeah. And on that point, just trying to manage expectations on this investigation, we are going to try to provide briefings as we can of what the team finds as it goes along, but I'd just be willing to bet that we're not going to pull up too many small pieces and say this is significant or that is significant. I'd be willing to bet that along the way, we'll probably be able to brief you somewhat on the process, but in terms of content, they'll probably want to put a lot of the pieces together. Q: How long do you expect the investigation to take? Clarke: I don't have a time on it. Just as long as it takes. There's a lot they want to do. There are a lot of people they want to interview. There are a lot of sites they want to visit. So, as long as it takes. Q: Just to be clear, over the weekend General McNeill said that he accepted for now, while the investigation was going on, the Afghan figures of over 40 people killed, over a hundred injured. Do you accept that those casualties took place, and not just that they took place, but that they were the result of the U.S. airstrike? Are you at that point yet? Clarke: We're at the point where there were civilian casualties and civilians killed as a result of this strike. We just don't have hard and fast numbers. Q: I wanted to follow up on the videotape. If, in fact, the videotape supports the crew's claim that they were being fired upon, the crew in the AC-130, doesn't it makes sense for the U.S. military, Pentagon, to release that videotape if it in fact corroborates their claims? Clarke: Again, I'd just like to manage expectations. I mean, my knowledge, AC-130 video has not been released, and largely it is not released because they don't want to show the bad guys the capability. Q: It was released after Panama. Clarke: We've been looking into this, and I've been told that maybe once or twice before, unintentionally some of it was released. And believe me, we are working hard on this. But there are some very serious considerations as to what things might be revealed by showing our capabilities. So, managing expectations. Q: Well, these people already know the planes can shoot them and kill them. I mean, what possibly could this reveal in terms of tactics or capabilities that the people on the ground, who have already been shot at, don't already know, including al Qaeda or Taliban? Clarke: I'm just telling you the reasons given are that it might reveal something by way of capabilities. The precedent is not working with us here, but we've got it under consideration. Q: Torie. Clarke: Jim. Q: With so much -- with so much surveillance, how could they not know that this was an area where at the very least, civilians were mixed in with hostile fighters, at the very least, particularly in light of the fact that in previous raids on compounds, scores of people have been arrested and detained who were later released? So they were - - I mean, there has been a precedent for these kinds of operations on targets where there were civilians present. Clarke: Well, I think we'll know a lot more once the investigation gets underway. I think we will know more about the details and the more of who saw what and when they saw it and what was taken under consideration in the days leading up to July 1. Right now, we do not have that information. I'm just telling you what we know and what we don't know. What we know is, the area was under surveillance for some time by not just U.S. forces but Afghan forces, coalition forces. In the days and hours leading up to the strike, I think we'll know a lot more in the weeks going ahead. Q: But did they know that it was an area where there were civilians mixed in or at least potentially mixed in with hostiles? Clarke: I don't know. I don't know. Bob. Q: Given that you've -- given that the U.S. government is acknowledging that there were civilians killed, for what -- you know, whoever was responsible -- is the government willing to offer compensation to the families of the victims? Clarke: You know, I want to separate out a couple of things. That is something -- my understanding is, compensation in general is something that is under interagency discussion. What we're focused on right now in Afghanistan with this incident is finding out what happened and what went wrong that led to the deaths and the injuries of civilians. So that's what we're focused on right now, and that's all. Q: But it is under consideration? (inaudible) Clarke: No. The whole issue of compensation, wartime, is something that is under some interagency discussion that's in channels beyond mind. Right now, all we're -- Q: (Off mike.) Clarke: Right. Separate out this particular incident, what we're focused on is trying to find out what happened. Q: There was some speculation actually on the ground from some of the villagers that in fact the U.S. military may have been given bad intelligence, perhaps by those who were trying to settle scores in that region. Is that a possibility? Is that -- is it suspected that the U.S. military was operating on bad intelligence? Clarke: I just don't think it's useful to speculate. It's better to do what we say we're doing, which is in very short order, putting together this team to conduct a very full investigation with Afghan participation to try to get to the bottom of what happened. Q: Torie? Q: Going back somewhat to I guess what Jim was asking, although civilian casualties have occurred in the past, and the numbers you said were relatively small. Clarke: Overall. Q: Right. Clarke: And let me repeat. Overall, numbers have been relatively small. Civilian casualties, unfortunately, are always part of military conflicts. And we deeply regret every one of them. Because I just don't want anybody saying that we said or suggested or discounted civilian casualties, because we don't. Q: Right. My question though, having said all of that, you have had some incidents in this general region of Afghanistan in the past, specifically, I guess, in Hazar Qadam. And you had said -- the Pentagon, the government, had said after that that it was going to work with the Afghans and try and develop tactics and procedures to keep these things from happening again. And it did happen again. So, my question is, can you help us understand and identify any change in tactics or procedures that you had made after Hazar Qadam, after some of the initial incidents? And what changes in tactics or procedures you have now made after this incident so that you're not frozen in place, you can do what you feel you need to do, but have some assurance that this is not going to happen again? What changes have you made? Newbold: There are some distinctions between the two operations. I know you're aware of them. This was an operation conducted by Afghan and U.S. forces, coalition reconnaissance elements. It was based on multiple and redundant intelligence. As Ms. Clarke said, it had really begun five months ago and increased in volume and in specificity as we approached the operation. I think those two factors alone mark it as a change in process and procedure. So, this operation, I think, was merited by what we knew at the time. So, the operation, in my view, is unquestioned, the validity of it. What the investigation will determine is a procedure, a specific procedure, and a judgment on firing and some other things. but all designed not only to get at the facts of it, but to reveal what we can about our procedures so we can continue to improve. Because, as was said by General McNeill, there's only one side that has intended civilian casualties, and it's not ours. Q: Can I just follow up? Since this occurred, have you now put in place any additional tactical procedural changes to assure you can continue to operate as you wish to without some incident happening again? Newbold: To be honest, I don't know the answer. Have there been any procedures put in place since the incident? I just don't know the answer to that. Q: Are you telling us -- just to make sure I understood you that basically this -- I guess I wasn't sure I did understand. You made a reference to five months in the works. Can you explain that? Newbold: As Ms. Clarke said, we have known from intelligence of multiple sources that there were viable targets in the area, this locale within Oruzgan province. We monitor and keep track throughout the country of pockets of remaining resistance and for those -- and those who would plan either the overthrow of the interim government or attacks against U.S. and coalition forces. This had begun back in February and continued right up until the operation. Q: I want to make sure I'm clear on something. You've said at the beginning and a couple times throughout that we're much less clear on the number of civilian casualties. I mean, are you saying in so many words that we don't believe the Afghans' account of 48 fatalities or some-odd wounded -- Clarke: I'm not saying that at all. I'm telling you what the fact-finding team or the preliminary investigatory team found and what they saw and what they didn't see. They saw some evidence of deaths. They saw some injured, obviously. But we don't have the hard and fast numbers. I know those are the numbers some -- what the Afghan government are using. That is fine. I think we'll know more as weeks go forward, but I just -- you know, again, it's partially managing expectations going forward. People want every- -- let me finish. People want everything to be neat and buttoned up, and it's just not. Q: Didn't they just ask for -- (off mike)? Q: Can you tell us -- I mean, can you tell us what they did find? I mean, in the U.S. government's estimation, how many bodies did they see? How many graves did they see? What is your rough number of how many people were civilian casualties -- (inaudible) -- U.S. fire? Clarke: The general's got a better brief from the fact- finding team than I do. Newbold: But that's a dangerous path to follow, because just as you cannot conclude that there were no anti- aircraft artillery in the village because there were none three days later, you can't conclude that because the fact- finding team saw specific things related to casualties, that that would limit the number or give a high end to it. I think Ms. Clarke is exactly right. There are enough different views out there that the only prudent thing, I think, is to wait until the investigation gets a chance to do its work. And it might be that we never know the exact number. Q: But it is fair to say, from what I'm hearing here, that we did not find 48 bodies or 48 graves that would line up with the Afghan -- Clarke: The preliminary team was not shown that many graves. But again, any civilian that is hurt, any civilian that is killed is not acceptable, as far as we're concerned. And I think you can see how much we care about this and how concerned we are by the efforts that are being put into these investigations and the speed with which we are undertaking these investigations. Q: And you won't tell us how many graves were seen, observed by U.S. -- Clarke: I don't have those numbers. Q: Torie? Clarke: Martha? Q: You talk about -- maybe General Newbold should answer this. You talk about the fact that you had viable targets in this area, you've had it under surveillance, and yet you don't know the difference between combatants and noncombatants from the surveillance. Then how do you protect those noncombatants when you go after a viable target if you don't even know who's who? Clarke: As I described, this operation worked -- and I'm oversimplifying -- in decreasing concentric circles, operated a distance from this village -- and this village was not the specific locale expected to be the site of conflict, by the way -- but operating throughout an area, trying to better define where there might be targets, might be pockets of resistance, et cetera. As I mentioned, they were taken under fire as they got closer, ground action, observation post, clearly characteristic of an area that didn't want the coalition around. As you remember, that almost all these operations are taking place at night. As I described a little bit earlier, our troops operating during this phase were in very small teams that were outnumbered enormously by anybody that would wish them ill, so their observations are at night, and they are what they see from great distance. You don't want reconnaissance elements being really close to the enemy. So, as they got closer and closer, they were taken under increasing volume of fire. There were known observations over the two weeks in particular about anti- aircraft fire being directed at our aircraft with some frequency. Those forces do not close with a specific site in such a way that they would distinguish the civilians. As you know, the strike wouldn't have taken place if they had. But any time that there are people on the ground trying to kill us, on the ground or in the air or our allies -- Afghans, et cetera -- it almost becomes an obvious follow-on point that we have to defend ourselves. Clarke: Otto? Q: General, you said -- Clarke: Let's go to Otto, and then we'll come back. Q: (inaudible) some talk about anti-aircraft fire. The general well knows that anti-aircraft fire can be anything from a handgun to an AK -- you know, 14.5, 27, 57-mm . What size of guns are they talking about? Some of them are highly portable. Others are not. I mean, the small-arms fire is not really a danger to a pilot if he stays above, you know, 10 or 11K. You know, we got that situation of the guys who bombed the Canadians. They were not endangered until they dropped on their -- what size weapons are you talking about? We had all this observation. Somebody must have some feeling on how big these AA weapons are. Newbold: There's a distinctiveness to what we call AAA, anti-aircraft artillery, versus small-arms fire. The small- arms fire was directed at us on the ground, just a reminder, and in and of itself was -- made it obvious that we were in an area -- a hostile area. But the AAA fire could be up to 24-mm, 12.7-mm. It has a distinctiveness, and our troops on the ground appreciate the difference. Q: Those are not -- you know, a 27-mm is a little bulky weapon. It's harder to move around and hide, you know. But, again, no one has found traces of those once we moved into the area. Newbold: As you know, we found one in that cache the next day about 10 miles away. But as you know, this area is extremely rugged. It is a huge area that we're talking about, this operation -- that's probably important to point out -- filled with caves, and it is not difficult to hide a AAA weapon. Q: Sometimes these weapons are -- in Afghanistan, are mounted on trucks. Is there any evidence of truck- mounted anti-aircraft weapons in -- Newbold: Yes, there have been in the past. I'm not being specific about in this village at that time, but certainly in the past. Clarke: But as part of the investigation going forward -- let me just add this on, and we'll just take one more and wrap this up. The investigatory team working with the Afghans will be talking to a lot of people, people who were on the ground, the people who were in the air, the forward air controllers. They'll be, I'm sure, asking a lot of these same questions. Q: Torie? Clarke: Yeah? Here, and then we'll finish up with Al. Q: A couple of totally unrelated questions, General. I apologize for that. First, you mentioned that in this operation with the concentric circles, that this village, Kakarak, was not the location where you expected to encounter someone or expected to have combat. Can you tell us what the location was? And what did you find when you got there? Because I assume troops have gotten there by now. Newbold: My comment referred more properly to the fact that the entire area of the operation, literally hundreds of square miles, did not have a specific point in mind when it began, but was rather designed to scan the area and find these folks wherever they were, and they were drawn to the area by the fire and by some intelligence we had. And that was the distinction I wanted to make. Q: Okay, and totally unrelated to that, a few months ago, couple of months ago, regarding the Afghan national army, General Franks, I believe, referred to the training of that army as an experiment and gave a figure, which I'm afraid I don't have, but I think about three thousand -- two or three thousand troops that they were going to train, see how it went, and then decide whether to make it any larger. Can you give us an idea of whether that is still the thinking or whether people have made a decision to make that army larger or not to make it larger? Newbold: To make it larger. The number of those ultimately to be trained depend upon the wishes of the Afghan army and the policies of the international community. We are -- we have trained two battalions. We're about to undergo training of a third one. We will have follow-on battalions to the degree that the international community provides funding, ammunition, equipment, et cetera, and the success of that training. But it also depends upon the degree of threat. If the country is relatively benign and passive, you may not need to train a full number, 18 battalions or more. You'll see different figures, depending on who you talk to and when you talk to them. But that's - - that will ultimately determine how many are trained, those factors I gave you. Clarke: Jack ? Q: General, last week, you mentioned that there were some individuals detained in this operation. Can you tell us how many? Were any of them the high-value individuals your intelligence led you to believe? And were any taken in the vicinity -- in the immediate vicinity of the village where the incident took place? Newbold: Yes, there were a number detained in the vicinity of the village. As of right now, they are still in custody and being questioned. As you know, if it's not patently obvious that it's an extremely high-value target that's recognizable to everybody, it takes some time before we find out who they are. And the stories are true about those found in Guantanamo detention center who, only after months of questioning or from information revealed by another source did we discover that they were a key planner or operator of al Qaeda. So the fact that we don't know a week later whether these are high-value or high- priority for us is not an exception. Q: Do you have a rough number that you can give us on the number of detainees? Newbold: As I recall, the number was five. Q: Five. Q: Victoria -- Clarke: Thank you. Q: (Inaudible) -- gone beyond the investigation team? You didn't say -- Clarke: Very roughly, I was hearing 12 to 15, but very roughly. And as we get more information, we will put it out. Q: (Inaudible) -- who the brigadier general is? Clarke: No, we did not have a name as of about an hour ago. Thank you. # # # August 09, 2002 DOD NEWS BRIEFING - SECRETARY RUMSFELD AND GEN. MYERS (...) Q: Mr. Secretary, today the American Bar Association released a report about the Bush administration's treatment of enemy combatants, specifically the U.S. citizens named as enemy combatants, saying that they shouldn't be denied access to counsel, should be given judicial review to challenge the decision. Any response to that? And why -- Rumsfeld: No. That's totally the Department of Justice. All of that is in the Article III of the Constitution category and has nothing to do with the Department of Defense. Q: But they're being held as enemy combatants in defense military -- Rumsfeld: The circumstance that you've described and what the -- I didn't read their statement, but I'm knowledgeable, reasonably knowledgeable about about it -- and the subject they've addressed has nothing to do with the Department of Defense; it has everything to do with the Department of Justice's detainees that are all in the Article III of the Constitution court system and not the military justice system. (...) # # # Oct. 22, 2002 DOD NEWS BRIEFING - SECRETARY RUMSFELD AND GEN. MYERS (...) Q: I understand a small number of Pakistani nationals are going to be released from Guantanamo Bay detention. Why are they being released? And is this the beginning of a larger release of people found to be of no value? Rumsfeld: Well, if you think about the universe of detainees, the ones that have been -- for the most part, they've all been interrogated or are being interrogated, the purpose being not law enforcement, but intelligence-gathering. If at a certain moment that process proceeds and someone concludes that they're very likely not to be of any additional intelligence value, then they're stuck in a different basket, and they're then looked at for law enforcement purposes: Is this somebody that our country or some other country would like to prosecute and deal with in a law enforcement as opposed to an intelligence-gathering manner? If the conclusion there is no, that not only are they not interesting from an intelligence-gathering, they're not interesting from a law enforcement standpoint, the next question is: Are they people who ought to be kept off the street simply because they might be inclined to go back and again engage in activities that would be opposed to the Afghan government or to the United States, or whatever. And if the judgment there is that they're not people who need to be kept off the street for whatever reason -- health or attitude -- then the goal is to not have them. If you don't want them for intelligence, and you don't want them for law enforcement, you don't need to keep them off the street, then let's be rid of them. And so that process goes forward. There's one other way we might move somebody out, and that would be if, for whatever reason, another country, the country that the individual is a national of, was willing to take them for intelligence-gathering, law enforcement, keeping them off the street, or whatever. Q: Is that the case of the Pakistanis, the latter? Rumsfeld: I don't know that I even bothered to look at what the nationality of these folks are. But there are a small number that have now been moved through that process, and are either -- I've said that's fine with me, and there's kind of an interagency process so that the people who look at law enforcement and intelligence all have a chance to chomp on it. But whether it's actually happened yet or not, I don't know. But you're -- it's true that that process is working and that there are some people likely to come out the other end of the chute. Q: Just a small number, that's it? Rumsfeld: At the moment, that's all I've seen, is a relatively small number. Yes, Pam? Q: And the folks that are coming out of the other end of that chute, will they go to the control of another country, or will they be set free? And -- Rumsfeld: They could fit in any of those categories -- it -- Q: You don't know yet; that hasn't been -- Rumsfeld: Well, I do, I've seen -- I don't know what the other countries have decided. I know what we decided; that we were willing to turn them back. And whether the other countries would set them free -- they may have a process they have to go through. Q: You're giving them to a government's control, and then it's up to them, from that point out? Rumsfeld: We certainly would either hand them to a government's control, or we would have talked to the government, and the government have advised us that they did not need to have control, in which case they would be free. Q: And could you give us your understanding of the supposed dozen or 15 people with al Qaeda connections captured at Pankisi Gorge and apparently turned over to U.S. forces? Rumsfeld: I don't have any good current information that would validate that story. Q: It's possible that it didn't happen, then? Rumsfeld: I guess anything's possible. I can't validate it. Q: General Myers? Myers: No, I can't either. Q: Are you looking into it? Is it interesting? (Laughter.) Myers: Well, we'll run it down. It was in a major paper, we'll run it down. But, there's -- we don't have any information to support that. Rumsfeld: Yes? (...) Q: You have talked for a while here about your assessment of the al Qaeda. Given the number of incidents and things you've seen around the world in recent weeks, what's your assessment at this point? Do you think that they have reconstructed some of the links in communications that you thought you disrupted? Are they back in business in a way they weren't before? Is it just more of the same? Your feeling about their ability to order operations around the world, and especially to conduct some operation within the United States. Rumsfeld: They're certainly not back in business the way they were before. They've gone to school on us. They've received a great deal of pressure -- financial pressure, law enforcement pressure, military pressure. They've dispersed from locations where they were. They're still spread across the globe in dozens and dozens of countries, including the United States. There's no question but that they're capable of conducting an operation in the United States, just as they are in many other countries. Are they reconstituted? My guess is that it's going to be constant reconstitution; that is to say, as we put pressure on and close a door here, they'll push and find a door somewhere else. And that has been going on now for better than a year, and I suspect it will go on for better than another year or two. And what we need to do is just to keep that pressure up and keep closing doors and keep scooping up folks and keep closing their bank accounts and making life difficult. Q: Do you think that their very top, most senior leaders are still able to communicate with other al Qaeda or affiliated organizations around the world and order attacks? Or do you feel that you have still got -- or have you ever had their most-senior leadership isolated from communicating? Rumsfeld: Well, you know, if you don't know they're dead or captured, you can't know that you've prevented them from communicating. And we have captured, you know, a couple of handfuls, and we've killed a couple of handfuls, and there are still more than a couple of handfuls of relatively senior people out there that we don't know if they're dead or if they're injured or if they are functioning. We have learned a lot from the folks that we've scooped up, and we are still learning from them. And that is enabling us to keep moving our -- we're behaving differently as well. Just as they've gone to school on us, we've gone to school on them and have learned a good deal about how they operate and what they do. And -- but certainly it would be inaccurate for anyone to express high confidence that the process has proceeded sufficiently that one can say they're not capable of sending signals or conducting attacks, because they clearly are. (...) # # # Oct. 24, 2002 DOD NEWS BRIEFING - SECRETARY RUMSFELD AND GEN. MYERS (...) Q: Mr. Secretary, you spoke on Tuesday a little bit about planning to release some detainees from Guantanamo Bay. I'm wondering if you can update us a little bit on whether that's happened, or be a little more clear about what the plan is -- numbers, and so forth. Rumsfeld: The last I looked, it was less than a handful. Q: How many in a handful? Rumsfeld: One hand has five digits. (Laughter.) Myers: It's less than that. Rumsfeld: It's less than that, maybe something like that. (Holds up four then three fingers.) (Laughs; laughter.) Myers: I think it's kind of like this. (Holds up hand off-camera.) Rumsfeld: Is it? Yeah. (Laughs; laughter.) Myers: Actually, it could be that, but -- Rumsfeld: Has it happened? No, it hasn't happened. It's in process. These things take a little time. But -- Q: And their nationalities? Rumsfeld: Gosh. Not Americans. Q: Multiple nationalities? Rumsfeld: I think there may be two, one or two, but not more nationalities. Yeah? (...) (...) # # # Oct. 28, 2002 - 12:20 p.m. EST DOD NEWS BRIEFING - ASD CLARKE AND REAR ADM. GOVE (Also participating was Navy Rear Adm. David A. Gove, deputy director for global operations, J-3, Joint Staff.) Clarke: Good afternoon, everybody. We are -- we've got lots of things going on this afternoon. Going to try to keep this pretty short. (...) Last Saturday, October 26th, four detainees were released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, back to their native countries. Their release was based on may factors, including law enforcement, intel, medical considerations, as well as whether the individual was perceived to be a threat to the United States. Senior leadership of the Department of Defense, in consultation with other U.S. government officials, determined that these four detainees no longer posed a threat to U.S. security. As part of the transfer process, the International Committee of the Red Cross has conducted independent interviews with the detainees prior to their departure from Guantanamo. And this morning, a number of new detainees arrived, bringing the number to approximately 625. (...) Clarke: Charlie? Q: Torie, I understand that one of the four released was a Pakistani, because they had TV pictures in -- (word inaudible) -- Pakistan. Could you tell us -- could you give us the nationalities of the others? And are you preparing to release more? Clarke: We are definitely planning to prepare more -- to release more. I couldn't tell you exactly when because there are a lot of factors that have to be considered. And, Charlie, we're not talking about nationalities. I'm sure in -- other countries may choose to do so. But for operational security reasons, we're not talking about where they're from or where they're going. Q: Are these people simply being taken somewhere and released, or are they all being turned over to their countries of origin, their home countries? Clarke: Again, for operational security reasons, we're not talking about the transfer and how it comes about. Some of that is at the request of the detainees themselves. Q: So you're not saying whether or not you're simply setting these people free, or turning them over to other countries, who may or may not question them, prosecute them or whatever? Clarke: It is being done in close coordination with their native countries. And beyond that, we're not saying. Bob? Q: You mentioned -- Torie, you mentioned some new arrivals. Could you say how many, and when? Clarke: It brings the number up to approximately 625. And again, we're going to -- we're not saying from where. We're trying to stay with approximate numbers. As we've said all along, we have no desire to hold large numbers of these people for a long period of time. If we can go through all those factors, determine someone doesn't have intel value, doesn't have -- is not a real threat to the United States or our friends or allies, we think there will be a proper handling on the other end, then we'd like to get rid of some of these people. So we're working a lot of those issues with countries, but it takes time. Q: They did come from Afghanistan? Clarke: I'm not saying. Q: And it's been some months, hasn't it, since you've brought any new people in? When was the last time you -- Clarke: I can't remember. We can find out. It's been -- it's been several weeks, at least. And they go through screening processes. We try to take this very deliberately. We try to weigh a lot of factors and determine who's appropriate to send to Guantanamo and who's not. Q: Are these individuals that have been held elsewhere for a period of time, or are they recently captured, the new ones that -- Clarke: I'm sorry? Q: The new individuals that were sent to Guantanamo this morning, have they been held elsewhere for a period of time or are they recently captured? Clarke: Prior to coming to Guantanamo, you mean. I don't know. (...) Clarke: Yes, sir? Q: Torie, you said that we are definitely planning to release more from Guantanamo. Is the government also planning to bring more, now that Camp Delta is operational, there's more room and there are more facilities to handle more detainees being brought there from other places? Clarke: We think it's likely there will be more detainees. I couldn't tell you how many or exactly when. But people who pose a threat to the security of this country, to our friends and allies -- it's very important to have them in a place we can make sure they're not causing trouble. People who are of intel value -- one of the best things that has happened over the last year, for instance, is the information we have been able to glean from detainees, including Guantanamo, to help prevent future attacks. (...) Clarke: And last detainee arrival at Gitmo before this morning was August 5th. (To staff) Does that say 34? Q: Thirty-four detainees? Clarke: Last time around, there were 34 brought in, on August 5th. Q: Why won't you say how many there were this time, then, since you said last time? Clarke: As -- and I think -- I know I've talked about it, I think the secretary has -- we are moving into a mode, if you will, where we are going to try to return more of these detainees back to the native countries. For operational security reasons -- and as I said, for some of them this is a request of the detainees themselves -- we're going to try to limit discussions of exactly who's moving when and where, those sorts of things. I know it creates some confusion for you all, and that's not our intent. But we are -- Q: Okay. But, I mean, to say -- you just told us there were 34 who came in August, and now you're also saying that you won't say how many came in today? Clarke: You're right. And they shouldn't have written that down on the piece of paper so I would read it out loud. (Laughter.) For consistency sake, we're going to say approximately 625 is the number we have at Guantanamo now. Q: Well, why were you willing, a week ago, or four days ago, to say 598, and now you say "approximately" 625? I mean why? Clarke: Because the circumstances are changing. As I said, we are getting into an area we've got different detainees under consideration that we are hopeful we can move out of Guantanamo and back to their host countries. There are a lot of considerations, foremost among them, security. So we are in an area in which we are going to try to stick to approximate numbers. Q: Well, will the Red Cross know confidentially how many people are at the Guantanamo dungeon or -- Clarke: They have a very strong -- watch your language! They have a very strong and consistent presence at Guantanamo, and I'm sure they will have interviews with any and all detainees that may be leaving. (...) Q: Torie, you said that you don't want to be specific on where these latest detainees came from. Having said that, most -- most of the detainees there came from Afghanistan, from the war on terror, from the war in Afghanistan. Clarke: But from many different countries prior to that. Q: But could you at least tell us whether or not these most recent detainees might include people who were captured in the war on terrorism -- for instance, in Asia or Europe -- as opposed to -- Clarke: Oh, you mean picked up in different locations? Q: That's right. As opposed to Afghanistan, might they have been brought from Asia or Europe? Clarke: Right. I don't know. Q: Could you check -- Clarke: We'll look into it. I don't know if we'll be able to tell you that, once we determine it, but we'll look into it. (...) # # # November 08, 2002 DOD NEWS BRIEFING - ASD CLARKE AND REAR ADM. GOVE (...) Q: We haven't really talked about the Yemen strike that much. And I understand it was not a DOD operation, but it does herald a new front in this war on terrorism. It's the first time that the U.S. has used lethal force against an al Qaeda member outside the boundaries of Afghanistan, if I'm correct. Could you discuss, even in the broadest of terms, what the philosophy is in doing that, and perhaps why he wasn't arrested? Because I assume that he would have been an interesting interrogation subject. Clarke: I'm not going to talk about Yemen at all, about that. Q: Okay, then just the philosophy. When can you use lethal force in countries that are governed -- areas, you know, not like Afghanistan or, say, parts of the Horn of Africa. Clarke: There are -- different circumstances that require different actions. And it also depends on who is doing the actions, whether it is this department or someone else. We can talk about Department of Defense, can't talk about others. But there are guidelines and policies, which guide how we approach this. We've made it very, very clear that we will go after the al Qaeda wherever we can. And -- I'm sorry, go ahead. Q: What we saw last week in Yemen, is that something that's within the scope of what DOD can do, what rules govern you-all, or is there -- DOD can't participate in an operation like that because it's not a declared battlefield, like Afghanistan is? I'm trying to understand what constraints are on you guys. Clarke: It makes me nervous to make any comparisons or draw conclusions from that, so I'd rather not do it. Yeah, Mark? Q: Could we just follow up on that? I mean, the Marines are standing up the task force in Djibouti, and so presumably they are looking into activities in that region where they could conduct raids, things like that. I mean, can you talk about the boundaries, legal boundaries there in terms of what they can and can't do, in terms of going into sovereign countries and perhaps capturing or killing al Qaeda members? Clarke: Well, I'll say a couple things. The admiral might want to weigh in on this. But as Chairman Myers said here the other day, and I think General Franks talked about it, that is a real area of interest. We have seen and are aware of a lot of activity in the area, a lot of people of interest, if you will, moving in and out. To what I said before, al Qaeda is in a lot of different places, including that part of the world. So we are working with a lot of different countries around the world, different ways, but we're working with a lot of different countries in trying to figure out the appropriate ways to root out al Qaeda in their backyards. It's having a presence, it's finding ways, via exercises like these, to increase the confidence that we have. And you go back to pre-9/11, we had next to no footprint, very little by way of any kind of relationships with a lot of the countries in that region. One of the best things that has come about as a result of 9/11 is we've established new relationships with a lot of different countries, and the activity that we've been engaged in and shared with them over the last year-plus has done a lot to increase the confidence and the willingness to work together. So it's a continued step in that direction. (To Admiral Gove) I don't know if you wanted to add anything to that on Djibouti. Gove: I would just keep the context of the global war on terrorism in mind. We'll move forces and headquarters staffs as necessary in order to optimize our operations and operational capability in that region and in other regions of the world. And I think we'll just leave it at that. I mean, they are optimizing the force structure in order to get the job done as effectively as possible wherever we take the global war on terrorism. Q: Just a quick follow-up. So if we were to see or hear about Marines or Special Operations Forces acting in countries in that region, we could assume that they were doing so with the consent of that country? Clarke: Repeat the question. Q: If Marines or Special Operations Forces were going to be acting, you know, in regions -- sorry -- in countries in that region, they would be doing so with the consent of that sovereign country? Clarke: I'll repeat one of our most valuable policies, which I know drives people crazy here, which is let countries talk about what goes on in their country. But I think you can take some lessons or take some information by the success of working with some 90 different countries around the world, including some that are in very bad neighborhoods, in the global war on terrorism, to say we have been enormously successful in working with them in a very cooperative fashion. (...) Q: Is the U.S. military prepared to take military action against suspected al Qaeda in countries without prior consent from those countries? Clarke: You get into hypotheticals again, which makes me very nervous. But to repeat what I said before -- and then I'll invoke something the secretary has said -- we have had enormous, enormous success. I know it's hard to lose -- it is easy to lose sight of, and people in this town don't like to focus on the positive. But we've had enormous success with some 90 different countries around the world, working together on various aspects of the global war on terrorism, including working with them in their countries, whether you're talking about Georgia or Yemen, several other places. Enormous success working with Pakistan to try and root out the al Qaeda and the Taliban presence there. So we make every, every effort to work with countries, most of whom are very eager to get rid of the al Qaeda and the Taliban, for instance, in Afghanistan, because the secretary has said before there may be -- without speculating where -- there may be circumstances where we go into an ungoverned area in pursuit of al Qaeda. And I'll just leave it at that. Q: Can you give us an update on the numbers of troops still working in Yemen with the forces there? Clarke: I can't, but I bet we can try to get that for you. Q: You defer to local governments to say where U.S. -- to explain what involvement U.S. forces are having. In an ungoverned area where U.S. forces are taking part, would anyone ever discuss what happened there? Clarke: I think it depends on the circumstances. I mean, it's awfully broad. Q: So I mean, there could be secret U.S. operations in ungoverned areas -- Clarke: There are differences between what the Department of Defense does and what other parts of the United States government do. Q: A question for each of you, on two different topics. Torie, can you offer us, first, any guidance on the detainee photos that have been e-mailed to a number of news organizations; whether they were taken as part of official documentation or you have a sense that they were taken completely, you know, in an unauthorized fashion; anything you can tell us about that? And Admiral Gove, I want to go back to Bob Burns's question, because I think people might really be interested in your view about the chairman's comments, since you're a senior officer on the Joint Staff. Does -- do you think, in fact, as the chairman very specifically said, there is some concern about a potential loss of momentum in the worldwide war on terrorism? Clarke: Sure. Let me do the photos first. Central Command and the Air Force are looking into the circumstances of the photos. So we just don't have any details about that right now. As you all know, we have very, very tight restrictions on any images of the detainees, for security purposes and because we have no interest in potentially holding detainess up for any kind of public ridicule. So we have very tight restrictions on that. As people also know, we take great care to make sure the detainees have absolutely appropriate behavior from when they are taken off the battlefield, in the course of transport, when they are kept at Guantanamo. People also know but should be reminded we have the International Red Cross. We have -- I think it is probably dozens now of coalition representatives have been to Guantanamo to ensure that the treatment of the detainees is absolutely appropriate. # # # Story from: http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/JTFgtmo/index.html See link for "JTF News". January 24, 2002 SCHOOL OF THE GUARD SHARPENS MP SKILLS By Army Spc. Lisa Gordon US Army Spc. Lisa L. Gordon Command Sgt. Maj. John VanNatta, superintendent of Camp Delta, says The School of the Guard will provide the spcialized training the military police stationed at Guantanamo Bay need to do their job safely and effectively. Military police are accustomed to enforcing the law and many of them are also familiar with the procedures for dealing withenemy prisoners of war. However, the MPs stationed at JTF Guantanamo are dealing with detainees categorized as enemy combatants rather than EPWs. This is their first chance to perform the duties of a corrections specialist. In order for the troops to take on the role of corrections specialist, they must expand their knowledge and learn a whole new set of skills pertaining to the many tasks they must complete during their jobs inside "the wire". In other words, the MPs of Guan-tanamo Bay must have sufficient training to ensure that they have all the information and expertise necessary for them to complete their mission. The School of the Guard aims to do just that. The School of the Guard refers to a proposed program in which MPs working in Camp Delta can obtain an additional military occupational specialty as a corrections specialist. The program is still being fine tuned and although the details are not yet finalized, the objective of The School of the Guard is to train, test, and validate Guantanamo Bay's MPs on their knowledge of and proficiency in 64 areas of performance that relate to the correctional MOS. The 64 areas of knowledge encompass approximately 600 individual tasks that MPs may have to deal while working inside Camp Delta. Some of the tasks include: perimeter security, detainee transportation, operational security, cultural diversity training, guard mount and relief procedures, disturbance control, and report writing. The program also provides the MPs with non-lethal training and classes on the principles of the Geneva Convention. Command Sgt. Maj. John VanNatta, superintendent for Camp Delta said he has been coordinating with the school that runs both the military police and correctional courses, both out of Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. in an effort to finalize the particulars of the program. The School of the Guard benefits Guantanamo Bay's mission, The Joint Detention Operations Group, and the careers of individual service members. VanNatta said, "This is everything they'll need to know to operate in a correctional facility in a safe and efficient manner. Some of the tasks, like cultural diversity training, are unique to here because the detainee population is different than they'll encounter anyplace in the continental United States. Therefore, we adjust our training and some of our methods to control and manage the detainees... We're planning to train a better force to go back home, which would be beneficial to Guantanamo Bay. If they're ever redeployed here in the future, they'll come back with those skills. Likewise, they'll have those skills no matter where they're deployed in defense of the country." # # # http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/JTFgtmo/news/0301/10/index.html January 10, 2003 JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO: THEN AND NOW By Army Sgt. Erin P. Viola U.S. service members of the Joint Task Force 160 and Joint Task Force 170 disassemble tents of Freedom Heights, the home to the military police units that were tasked to handle the Camp X-Ray detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, July 31,2002. The first week of January marks the one-year anniversary of U.S. Southern Command Joint Task Force operations at Guantanamo Bay. Many changes for the better have occurred here since the first rotation of troops landed on January 6, 2002 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Several Joint Operation organizational changes occurred during the past year. Joint Task Force-160 stood up in January 2002 to run detainee operations. Joint Task Force 170 stood up in March of 2002 to carry out interrogation operations. Eventually the two task forces were merged into the one streamlined operation we know now as Joint Task Force-Guantanamo. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller took charge of JTF-Guantanamo in November 2002 and will be with the operation for the next two years. DoD Photo by Marine Sgt. Joshua Higgins The U.S. flag is hoisted up by Cpl. Dustin S. Bray, Cpl. D. Austin Quehl, and Cpl. David J. Docimo, Jr., Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 2d Marine Regiment, for the first time Feb. 18 over Freedom Heights, the hilltop "tent city" that houses soldiers and Marines who guard Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. As the detainees were moved from Camp X-Ray to Camp Delta April 2002, troops moved from Freedom Heights to Camp America and Camp Bulkeley. Those who have been here since March 2002 can attest that the quality of life here has improved greatly. For starters, food, shelter and off-duty activities for the troops have evolved significantly over the past year. When the first troops arrived they ate three squares a day, but they were of the Meal Ready-to-Eat kind, and dining facilities were in the open air and under the hot Caribbean sun. Now, troops can get three hearty meals a day at the nicely air-conditioned Seaside Galley in Camp America. "In the beginning, we were serving about 300 MREs a day and now we serve over 4,000 hot meals a day," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. James Bowman, a food service officer who has been here for just about a year. Living conditions for the troops are much better. Freedom Heights, was located just outside the detention facility of Camp X-Ray, and served as the original living quarters that housed the military police, Marines, infantry, and some other service members. The troops lived in tents and used make-shift showers with no hot water. Troops used porta-potties as latrine facilities. But things got better and troops moved into SEAhuts at Camp America and Camp Bulkeley. Hot showers, laundry, and work-out facilities became part of the living community landscape. Soon more living quarters upgrades were added in the form of panel buildings that were erected at Camp America North, just across from Camp America. Later, Kvaerner renovated the family housing facilities of Tierra Kay and many troops moved into those living quarters, freeing up some of the SEAhuts for storage and office space. Kvaerner also made renovations at the Windward Loop housing area. "When I got here, I was expecting to be in the SEAhuts with cots, about 40 of us living in there. But instead they took me to Winward Loop. I was so excited. I got a bed, a washer and dryer, and a kitchen. It was more than I could have hoped for," said Marine Lance Cpl. Virginia Ingham, who has been deployed here since March 2002. DoD Photo by Navy Chief Petty Officer Gabe Puello U.S. Navy Seabees from NMCB 3 sawing wood for Joint Interview Facility, under construction at Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,Jan. 20, 2002. Morale Welfare and Recreation also played a key role in improving the quality of life for the troops of Camp America and Camp Bulkely. MWR SEAhuts were set at both camps where troops have access to the internet so they can keep in touch with their family members via email. They can go to these areas to relax on their off duty time, kick back, watch television, and play board games. Additionally, troops have access to more phone lines and can make three 15- minute morale calls each week. Other great things that have happened this year include the Jimmy Buffett concert that took place in December. It took nine months to coordinate said Bowman, but it was worth it and really increased troop morale. One thing to keep in mind, advises Navy Lt. Cmdr. Phil Emanuel, assistant plans officer, and reservist with U.S. Atlantic Fleet JTF Headquarters Detachment 100, is to stay physically active in your off-duty time. Emanuel has been here since March 2002. "MWR has done a fantastic job as far as keeping individuals busy. There are a lot of opportunities to go to the "O" club or sit down at the Tiki Bar and bend your elbow every night. But I made an effort to do something that was going to benefit me either physically or mentally. So I participated in the sports leagues and did a lot of running on the side. I also ran with the Hash House Harriers," said Emanuel. Since his deployment here, Emanuel has lost 30 pounds. From two commands to one ... from MREs in the hot sun to hot meals in an air- conditioned, state-of-the-art tent structure ... from living in tents and having cold showers to SEAhuts and hot water ... it’s all part of making this operation the best it can be. # # # # # # # # #