--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------- DEPARTMENT OF STATE STATEMENTS -------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


July 23, 2003

Daily Press Briefing -- Richard Boucher

(...)

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: You said yesterday you were having discussions with the Australians
regarding some other detainees at Guantanamo. Any sort of thing you can add to
what the outcome of these discussions were at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a lot of detail on those discussions at this point
because they are interagency. They are principally with the Pentagon, with
Pentagon lawyers. Same with the British discussions. The British Attorney
General was here on Monday. We've had similar discussions with the Australians.
I think the understandings that have been reached with the British apply to
those cases. We're all talking separately about the Australian cases, but I
think there is also the understanding we won't move forward on the Australian
cases until -- until we have finished our discussions and resolved some of these
legal issues with the Australians.

QUESTION: Richard, on this --

MR. BOUCHER: On that subject?

QUESTION: Yes. Is it your understanding that these assurances apply to all
detainees at Guantanamo Bay? And, if not, how do you explain the fact that
allied countries, which happen to be white and Anglo Saxons, seem to be getting
special treatment on this?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I'd point out the countries are white and Anglo Saxon. The
countries are diverse and formed of many people of many races, including British
people, who might be detained in Guantanamo. I am not quite sure that those are
indeed white and Anglo Saxon detainees, but they are British. So I don't think
the implication of some racial divide here is appropriate.

Second of all, these cases are discussed on a specific case-by-case basis. I
think the Pentagon will describe to you the kind of assurances we've been able
to make in these particular cases and we are discussing other particular cases
with other governments.

QUESTION: Well, can I just follow up, then? What's the logic behind discussing
these on a case-by-case basis and why can't you establish general principles for
dealing with all these people?

MR. BOUCHER: I think there have been general principles -- general principles of
military justice, general principles of due process that do apply -- and the
Pentagon has talked about those. In terms of the disposition of an individual
case, that needs to be done on an individual basis. You can't have collective
justice.

(...)

* * *

July 22, 2003

Daily Press Briefing -- Richard Boucher

(...)

QUESTION: Is this the place to ask if the British have asked for a role for
British lawyers in prosecutions in the Guantanamo tribunal?

BOUCHER: I think the place to ask for what the British have asked is the
British.

QUESTION: Of course.

BOUCHER: What I can tell you is we have been talking very closely with the
British Government about the legal issues involved with regard to the prisoners
in Guantanamo. You saw the statement from the White House last Friday about it.
The British Attorney General was in town yesterday and has been talking to a lot
of people around town about the situation there and how the legal issues can be
handled.

We are also having discussions today with the Australian legal experts on a
number of legal topics including the Australians that are detained in
Guantanamo. So we are actively considering all these legal issues and trying to
work with the other governments involved to make sure that their concerns are
satisfied.

Yeah. Elise.

QUESTION: New subject. Are you having talks with any -- or willing to have talks
with any country who has these issues or is it just specific members of the
coalition that are involved in Guantanamo?

BOUCHER: I don't know that others have asked. I assume that with different
countries there may or may not be different legal issues. But I'm sure we'll
talk to anybody that wants to talk to us about them.

Yeah. Sir.

QUESTION: With respect to these Guantanamo prisoners, in most instances aren't
those prisoners not native-born to, for instance, England or Australia, they are
--

BOUCHER: I don't know. And, frankly, the way we handle American citizens is it
doesn't matter. I'm not sure if it matters to others or not, but we don't make
that distinction.

QUESTION: Is it a case that our military trials would be considered more
stringent than theirs? Is that --

BOUCHER: You'll have to ask them what their concerns are.

(...)

* * *

December 16, 2001

INTERVIEW ON NBC'S MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERT

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Washington, DC

10:30 a.m. EST

(...)

Q: I want to show you a photograph of Zacarias Moussaoui. He is the so-called
twentieth hijacker. He never got onboard a plane but has been indicted now. And
yet he will be part of our criminal justice system; he will not be a military
tribunal person. Why?

SECRETARY POWELL: As the President has always said and the Attorney General has
always said, there are many tools available to the United States Government to
bring people to justice. And because the President created the option of using a
military tribunal did not mean that all other ways of bringing someone to
justice were null and void. And so in this instance, the Attorney General and
the US attorneys responsible for this case made a judgment that it was
appropriate to bring him before a court of law, civil court of law as opposed to
a military tribunal. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. The President always
said the tribunal was an option in those unique cases requiring the
particularities, the particular aspects of a military tribunal. So I don't see
anything terribly unusual about what the Attorney General did.

Q: Democratic Joe Lieberman, Democratic Senator, had this to say, and I'll put
it on the screen: If we will not try Zacarias Moussaoui before a military
tribunal, a non- citizen alleged to be a co-conspirator in the attacks that
killed 4,000 Americans, who will we try in a military tribunal?

SECRETARY POWELL: We will try who the President determines needs to be tried
before a military tribunal. Because there are certain circumstances with respect
to sources and methods and with respect to the nature of the charges against
that individual as appropriate and based on the recommendations that the
President will receive from the Attorney General and I'm sure the Secretary of
Defense and others. So it is not a one-size-fits-all, because you are a non-
alien, you suddenly go before your -- or, rather, you're an alien and you
suddenly go before a military tribunal. That is what justice is all about. Look
at the circumstances, look at the case, look at the evidence, look at what we're
trying to accomplish and put it before the right forum.

Q: I want to show you John Walker. This is a man who, at age 20, decided to
fight against the United States of America, to fight for the Taliban. When you
were 20 years old, you were actively considering -- well on your way to a
military career. What is your sense of John Walker?

SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know enough about this young man to make a judgment.
All I know is that in a misguided manner, he went and joined the Taliban. But
once it became clear at the very beginning of this campaign that he was now
going to be fighting against America, his own nation, that was a time for him to
leave this. And so now he is going to have to pay the consequences of his
action.

Q: Is he a traitor?

SECRETARY POWELL: I will let a court decide that. But, certainly, it would --
based on what I have seen so far, his actions would move in that direction. But
I would let a court make a judgment. I think he has shamed himself, he has
shamed his family and now he has to pay the consequences for his action.

Q: He is talking to US officials. Could he help himself by giving information?

SECRETARY POWELL: It depends on what information he might have that would be
useful. But I would encourage him to cooperate in every possible way as he is
being interrogated by US authorities.

(...)

# # #


February 5, 2002

STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT BUSH’S BUDGET REQUEST FOR FY 2003

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC

(...)

I might touch on something you mentioned also, Senator Helms, which is not in my
prepared statement or in my reading statement, and that is the detainees at
Guantanamo Bay and other detainees held in Afghanistan who may be heading toward
Guantanamo Bay. You are quite right, all of us in the administration are united
in the view that they are not deserving of prisoner of war status.

There is a question that we are examining, and it is a difficult question, and
that is the legal application of the Geneva Convention. This is a new kind of
conflict. It is a new world, but at the same time, we want to make sure that
everybody understands we are a nation of law, abiding by our international
obligations. And so we are examining very carefully and have been for a number
of days now, the exact applicability or lack of applicability to the Geneva
Convention to the detainees.

And this is a decision the President will be making in the very near future.
Whether he finds one way or the other on this issue, the reality is that they
will be treated humanely in accordance with the precepts of the convention,
because that's the kind of people we are. We treat people well. We treat people
humanely. And you can be sure that's what is happening with the detainees at
Guantanamo, and all others who are in the custody of the United States Armed
Forces, or other parts of the United States Government.

(...)

# # #


February 8, 2002

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
RICHARD BOUCHER, SPOKESMAN

(...)

Q: Richard, as I presume you're aware, the International Committee for the Red
Cross is the guarantor of the Geneva conventions, and they have taken a pretty
dim view of the President's determination that was announced yesterday.

What do you say to the ICRC, and do you think that they are no longer in a
position to be the neutral guarantor of this treaty?

BOUCHER: Well, what we say to the ICRC is we have talked to the ICRC. We have
seen the Reuters report. Our Ambassador in Geneva spoke directly with ICRC
President Kellenberger today.

Q: That's the only report you've seen? There are others, you know.

BOUCHER: Well, we have seen the reports from various wire services. Kellenberger
has told us that the news reports misconstrued the ICRC's position. So I assume
if that applies to this one report, then that would apply to the reports of
other wires services as well. So you're all wrong, according to Mr.
Kellenberger. (Laughter.)

He further indicated --

Q: Next time I'll keep my mouth shut.

BOUCHER: Yes. (Laughter.) He further indicated the ICRC is still studying the
President's decision and will come to us with their views in due course.

Q: So -- but, the report that I'm referring to; I haven't seen the report that
you referred to. The report that I'm referring to says that -- it quotes a
spokesman as saying

that the ICRC's position is that all people taken captive in an international
conflict are prisoners of war unless decided otherwise by a tribunal. You are
saying that what you have been told is that that is not --

BOUCHER: We understand from the ICRC that those news reports misconstrue the
ICRC's position, and we will await any judgment until we hear from the ICRC on
what their position is.

Q: Richard, regardless of what the ICRC may or may not have said in Geneva, how
do you get round the fairly clear language in the Convention, which does require
a competent tribunal to determine the status of individuals who have fallen into
custody as a result of --

BOUCHER: Well, Jonathan, we don't get around it. But what we do do is we read
the whole sentence. You will see that in those clauses, the Geneva Convention
says that if there is any doubt, then a competent tribunal should be convened to
review these things. We don't think there is any doubt in this situation.

The White House, in their announcements yesterday, I think, made quite clear why
there is no doubt about Taliban people involved. All of these people have been
screened several times before they were taken, and after they were taken to
Guantanamo, and we don't think there is any doubt in these cases.

Q: You mean that your interpretation is that it's only doubt in the hands of the
captors, the capturing party, and not doubt in the minds of anyone else? Is that
your interpretation of it?

BOUCHER: I think it's quite clear that if there is any factual or reasonable
basis for doubt, then of course we would be willing to review this. But at this
point, we're not aware of anything in all these interviews that raises any doubt
about these people.

Q: Now, wait a minute. I mean, the Europeans -- lots of people have doubts. So
there are doubts out there. Are you saying that --

BOUCHER: Well, they have not been involved in the interviews and discussions and
examination of this situation. But as I said, if there is any grounds to review
that, there will be -- we would be willing to review it.

But as far as we are concerned right now, we have examined the facts of the
matter carefully, and we don't think there is any doubt that these people don't
qualify for prisoner- of-war status.

Q: Richard, can I just follow up on that? You said we "would be willing" to
review it. Can you say under what circumstances you would be willing to review
it?

BOUCHER: I don't want to try to speculate on this. But as I said, we think we
have ascertained properly the facts of the situation, both in general terms, as
well as through the discussions that we have had with these people. There was
nothing in that examination of the facts of the situation that raises any doubts
that would lead us to believe that they might qualify, and therefore we believe
firmly that they don't. Now, should something come up that would change that,
I'm sure we would review it.

Q: Aren't you sort of asking to have it both ways? Because on the one hand
you're saying you've ascertained the facts of the situation, and on the other
hand, though, the facts of the situation have been concealed from not only the
press, but a lot of other people who have asked about the identities and
everything else of the prisoners. I mean, can you sort of square the circle? I
mean, how do you expect to convince the international community that you have
made a sound judgment when a lot of the information regarding the people in
Guantanamo has not been released at all?

BOUCHER: Well, because I think all the information, or much of the information,
about who these people are, what they were doing, the danger that they have
posed to the international community, the kinds of activities that they were
involved in, the lack of any criteria that meet the standards of the Geneva
Convention -- remember that the White House went through, I think in the
statement yesterday, some quite specific criteria about wearing insignia,
operating in formed units, carrying your weapons openly, not mixing in, not
hiding yourself among the civilian population. It's quite apparent, I think, to
anybody who examines the situation of the Taliban against these criteria that
these people don't qualify.

Q: Well, I want to ask specifically about that, because that's one paragraph,
but another paragraph, talking of a selected quotation of the Convention, just
says this, "Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power." Nothing there
about uniforms, nothing else. Just that. That's all they --

BOUCHER: What is a regular armed force? It's what is described --

Q: Are you saying they're not regular armed forces?

BOUCHER: It's what is described in the language above. So I think that the
Convention is quite specific in defining who is covered and who is not, and we
think there is no question that these people don't meet that standard.

Q: Richard, if you're certain that there's no doubt, why won't you release the
findings of the Red Cross investigation -- the Red Cross interviewed these
people and made a report to the host government, which is what they do. And this
is supposed to inform you what their view is of what they found. Why don't you
release that?

BOUCHER: I don't know. That question hasn't come up. I'll have to look at it.

Q: I asked about this a couple of weeks ago. I asked you to release the report
of the Red Cross that was made to the United States. And you said that it was --
your reply came back that it's confidential, and that it's made to us, and that
it won't be released. And I'm asking you why won't you release it?

BOUCHER: That's the normal practice. That's the normal practice. Let me see if
it --

Q: (Inaudible) release it. I mean, if they -- it's made to you, and if you want,
you can keep it secret, and if you want, you can release it.

BOUCHER: I'll check on it for you.

(...)

Q: I have one question -- and I'm sorry, it goes back to a subject, but I don't
think you've answered it yet. Who decided, who was the competent tribunal who
decided that these detainees are not prisoners of war?

BOUCHER: Well, we dealt with this subject. Some wire service reporter claimed
that we had to have a competent tribunal. I reminded him that the Convention
itself says, should there be any doubt. And I explained the reasons for which
there is really no doubt.

Q: (Inaudible) haven't completely ruled out having a tribunal? Was that part of
this latest review, or is that still in play?

BOUCHER: We're not constituting a tribunal. What I did say was that should there
be something unknown to us, or something that came along that raised doubts
about this, I'm sure we would review the situation and take appropriate action.
I will leave it at that for the moment.

(...)

# # #


February 14, 2002

BE HEARD: AN MTV GLOBAL DISCUSSION WITH COLIN POWELL

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Washington, DC

(...)

Q: Hi. Given that the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia, while it condemns the Taliban
for the same actions against human rights, do you not think it's hypocritical to
refuse prisoners of war the same rights that the al-Qaida don't have, while
expecting U.S. personnel to be covered under the Geneva conference?

SECRETARY POWELL: At our facility in Guantanamo, where we are keeping the
detainees, all of those detainees, whether they are al-Qaida or Taliban, are
enjoying the benefits of the Geneva Convention. What we have said as a legal
matter, those that were in the Taliban are covered as a matter of law,
international law, by the Geneva Convention, and those that are al-Qaida,
because of their terrorist origins and the terrorist nature of their
organization, they are not covered as a matter of law under the Geneva
Convention, but we are treating them as if they were, because we are a humane
people. We don't abuse people who are in our custody. We have a responsibility
for them.

Now, having said that, both categories, al-Qaida and Taliban, we believe are not
entitled to prisoner-of-war status; we believe they are entitled to be called
unlawful combatants under the terms of the Convention and generally accepted
international law. But the point about all of this is that whatever the legal
arguments, and it can be argued either way, at the end of the day, we will treat
all human beings that we are responsible for in our custody in a way that is
dignified, without abusing them, without humiliating them, and making sure that
they get the health care they need, access to religious activities, good
nutrition, consistent with the Geneva Convention, although there are debates as
to what we are actually required to do under the Convention with respect to
Taliban and al-Qaida.

# # #


July 23, 2002

DAILY STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS BRIEFING

Richard Boucher, Spokesman

(...)

Q: Change of subject, the Middle East? Has the Secretary talked to Prime
Minister Sharon about the missile strike in Gaza? And in the State Department's
view, is this an act of self-defense in terms of the use of American weapons?

BOUCHER: Let me say a couple things. First, we very deeply regret the loss of
life of innocent civilians, including the children who were hurt and killed in
last night's Israeli action. As the White House said earlier today, President
Bush believes that the heavy-handed action in Gaza last night, carried out in a
residential area and resulting in civilian casualties, does not contribute to
peace. We have conveyed this view to the Israeli Government through our Embassy,
through our Ambassador in Israel. And I think it's been stated quite clearly,
both here and at the White House.

Q: How about the use of American weapons?

BOUCHER: As you know, the Arms Export Control Act requires us to do a report if
we believe that US weaponry was not used -- or if there's a substantial
violation of the terms of an agreement governing the use of US-origin defense
articles; that is, if they're not being used for legitimate self-defense or
internal security. As we've said before, we've not made such a report regarding
Israel's actions.

Q: Can we confer from that that you believe that the strike, then, was in
legitimate self-defense?

BOUCHER: As I say, we've not made such a report.

Q: You haven't made such a report, but is there discussion about preparing to do
so?

BOUCHER: All we've ever really answered in response to these questions is to
note that we have not made such a report, and should we do so we'll tell you. At
this point we haven't.

Q: You will?

BOUCHER: Maybe.

(Laughter.)

Q: Is there a review event by event of whether this meets --

BOUCHER: It's an ongoing issue that gets raised from time to time about the use
of US weaponry.

Q: Well, was it raised --

BOUCHER: If there are specific events or allegations or circumstances that lead
people to look more closely, they will. But I've made quite clear, I think, what
our view is of this action. It fits -- as we've said before, we've made
repeatedly clear that we oppose targeted killings. We have repeatedly criticized
the use of heavy weaponry in densely populated areas because of these kind of
dangers of large numbers of innocent civilians being killed.

Q: But you touched on it when you say it doesn't -- or you reminded us that the
White House says this doesn't contribute to peace. But the attack was almost
coincident with four or five, some folks would say, positive developments.
Hamas, for instance, had said it considered calling off attacks if Israel pulled
out. Peres is speaking of pulling out of Hebron and I forgot where else.

Is it the State Department's judgment that this will have a negative impact on
such gestures and maybe cause a reversal?

BOUCHER: I don't think you can make that kind of sweeping judgment at this
point. Certainly we continue to believe that it's important to move forward on
all three tracks on the area of security, on the area of economic and
humanitarian assistance, and on the political track as well.

We had good, productive and useful discussions with an Israeli team that came
yesterday to talk to Secretary Powell and other officials, including Condi Rice.
We have reviewed progress with them on the discussions that the Quartet and the
Arab foreign ministers had last week, and we talked about how to advance on all
these different areas.

So we continue the work to establish a situation which will be safe and secure
for Palestinians and Israelis alike, where economic development and humanitarian
assistance can go through, and where all the people in the region can have a
prospect of a political settlement.

Q: It's a little early to ask, but more specifically have you heard anything
from Palestinians or whoever that this will have an impact on peacemaking?

BOUCHER: I have not. No, not that I've heard of -- not that I know that we've
heard anything particular on that at this point.

Ben.

Q: Two questions. First of all, do you believe that Hamas has some
responsibility for this event by, you know, sending out suicide bombers into
Israel and then essentially hiding within populated areas? Do you believe that
they have some responsibility for this?

BOUCHER: We certainly believe that Hamas has a lot of responsibility for the
violence and the overall climate of violence that's been created by the
terrorist attacks that they have carried out. There's no question in our minds
that Hamas is responsible for many of these attacks. They have claimed --
admitted responsibility to many of them. They have killed many innocents.


It's important, though, I think, to remember that we all need to respond to
these attacks in a way that gets at the problem, and that does contribute to
ending the violence and not in a way that, as the President's -- as the White
House has made clear doesn't really contribute to peace.

Q: And let me just follow up on that. Regardless of the fact that you feel that
Hamas has a lot of responsibility for violence, do you believe that the Israeli
attack is going to end up damaging Israel's international reputation and going
to encourage criticism by critics in Europe and the United Nations and around
the world?

BOUCHER: That's a prediction that you can make; you don't need me to make it.
I'm not -- the basis for our policy is what we believe is in the best interest
of Israel, and what's in the best interest of the cause of peace, and that's why
we're saying this.

Howard.

Q: I have this question of the use of US weapons. I'm not clear; maybe you can
explain it. What is it exactly that triggers a review? Is it just the random
inclination of the State Department that they feel something should be looked
into? Is there a requirement that you review things after a certain time? I
mean, there's been extended Israeli use of American military hardware over the
past few months in a lot of these incursions. At what point is there a critical
mass at which you feel it's necessary to review?

BOUCHER: I think the only thing I can really say it's an object of constant
attention. It's an object of ongoing review, that because it is a legal
responsibility that we have that we take seriously, we do look at these events
as they unfold, and should we determine that the terms and conditions of sale,
that the terms and conditions of the act have been exceeded, then we would make
the report.

But it is -- there's not a regular period. There's not a regular report. There's
a not a particular timetable for this. It's something that we have to keep in
mind because it's part of our legal responsibility.

Q: So the discussion rests with the State Department to decide whether or not it
needs to look at the question?

BOUCHER: The responsibility rests with the State Department to carry out this
law, and we do that diligently every day.

Q: Can I give it another try? (Laughter.)

BOUCHER: Then let's go to him. (Laughter.)

Q: No, you have a US (inaudible) plane hitting a civilian neighborhood, killing
a lot of children. How many of number of Palestinian children has to die -- 25,
30, more, less -- for this to trigger a law or a review?

BOUCHER: No. I mean, that's absolutely not the case. We've been quite clear on
these kind of events. We've been quite clear our opposition to the use of this
kind of force in heavily populated areas. We've been quite concerned about the
loss of civilian life, especially children. I think the United States position
on this has been stated quite clearly.

As far as the legal aspects of this, it's governed by a US law, it's governed by
a US law that we take seriously, that we implement.

Q: But to what extent -- I'm sorry, just a quick follow-up -- to what extent the
political, domestic considerations (inaudible) in the arms of the law in this
case?

BOUCHER: The law is the law, and we implement it fairly.

Q: Richard, I don't think I'm alone in seeing a pattern here; this has happened
before, when -- for example, when Hamas has indicated it might be willing to
stop bombings when things seem to be moving ahead. Then we see Israelis
attacking, assassinating people in Gaza.

Do you see a pattern here, and does this lead you to any conclusions about the
good will of Prime Minister Sharon?

BOUCHER: If you want to ask if there's a pattern, ask the Israelis the reasons
for their actions. We certainly follow these events closely. We express our
concerns and our views when it's appropriate. But I don't have any broad
judgments to make.

Q: Can I just follow up on slightly a different matter? You spoke about the
talks with the Israelis yesterday. Did that meeting lead to any conclusions
about US security plan, and is there any progress on how you might present that
to the Palestinian side?

BOUCHER: Well, as I mentioned yesterday, these talks covered a number of areas,
and as I said, they covered security; they talked about the humanitarian
situation, economics, a need for access and opening up; they covered how to make
progress on the political track. We found our discussions with the Israelis to
be useful and productive, and we expect to have similar discussions with
working-level Palestinian officials as we move forward. But no, I don't have
anything scheduled at this point.

Q:Assuming --

BOUCHER: Let's go down here a second.

Q:I want to go back to the arms control act for just one second. Is it, and I
just want to get -- it's just a wording question. Is there not -- is it not the
case that you would conduct a review and then issue a report if such a review
found that they were not using the weapons for self-defense? Because you keep
saying that you only do a review -- I mean, that -- the review would be the end
of determining whether, you would have determined that they had done something,
had violated the law if a review was produced. So I'm just -- that's the way you
were using it before.

BOUCHER: No, we -- the arms -- let me try to do this more precisely. The Arms
Export Control Act requires that US Government-origin weaponry only be used for
certain agreed purposes, primarily legitimate self-defense and/or internal
security. The act requires that the Department of State submit a report to
Congress if a substantial violation of the terms of an agreement governing the
use of US origin defense articles may have occurred. We have not made such a
report regarding Israel's actions since the current violence began.

As I said, the issue of review -- the issue of ongoing attention is watching the
situation, following it closely to see if a substantial violation of the terms
of an agreement may have occurred. If we determine that that's the case, then
yes, we make a report to the Congress.

Q:Okay. So what you're saying is that there has never been yet a case in which
you have had suspicions, or that you have thought that a violation may have
occurred, including this case last night?

BOUCHER: I don't think I said there's never been a review. I said there's been
an ongoing review. It's a subject we look at. There hasn't been a report.

Q:Okay, there hasn't been a report.

BOUCHER: Hasn't been a report since the current violence began. And "never" is a
long time, but since the current violence now.

Q:But, just, I'm just trying to get this right, because the way you read the law
says that you have to Congress if there may have -- if a violation may have
occurred. Not that there has been. And you're saying that you've never put one
of these things to Congress before, right?

BOUCHER: Not since the current violence began.

Q:Okay. And, well, okay -- so this case -- and this case is no exception?

BOUCHER: At this point that fact remains true today.

Q: I've been monitoring the response from the Middle East for the White House
statement. Many observers find that the use of the word "heavy-handedness"
rather weak to condemn such an attack that has happened in the middle of the
night using a rocket indiscriminately in a populated area in comparison with
other condemnation for similar attacks on civilians in Israel. Would you
understand the concern of observers, who see that the House is not being even-
handed in their condemnation?

BOUCHER: I think the administration in this case has spoken quite clearly. We
have made quite clear that we think this, as you say, this attack was heavy-
handed. This was an attack that killed many innocent people -- a number of
civilian casualties, it was carried out in a residential area. And it doesn't
contribute in any way to the cause of peace, and I think that's a position that
we've taken that we've made quite clear. I suppose everybody -- you know, we say
what we think clearly. I suppose everyone listens with different ears, but I
think we've tried to be as explicit as possible in this situation.

Betsy?

Q:Does an attack like this make it more difficult for this administration to try
and sell to our allies overseas the concept of going after Iraq? Doesn't this
complicate that?

BOUCHER: I don't quite know how to deal with that. That's putting so many things
and assumptions in. The need to deal with Iraq is because Iraq is a threat to
the region. Iraq is a threat to its own people, the Iraqi regime. Iraq is a
threat to the region. The fact that there's violence in one place doesn't make
it any more or less important to stop the violence or deal with a problem
developing in another place. We have made clear, the President's made quite
clear, that Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, its threats to its
own people and its neighbors constitute a danger that we have to deal with. We
have pressed very hard for inspectors to go back to Iraq. We have pressed very
hard for Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. And we've had to consider what
other options might be available.

As you know, the President's not decided on any particular options. So the
assumption that we're selling something to allies about how to go after Iraq is
a little too far down the road as far as where we really are. The assumption
that this attack by Israel undercuts that, I think, is also throwing things
together. The fact is that Iraq is a danger to the people of Iraq and the
region. One way or the other, the international community has to come to grips
with that fact and figure out what to do about it.

Q:Well, can I try and shift my question then? Because the -- using not just this
attack, but the situation that exists in general between Israelis and the
Palestinians and the unsettling effect that this has on the whole region -- I
mean, that fact alone must make it difficult for US diplomats to go in and talk
to our allies.

BOUCHER: We have spoken before about the fact that people in the region do
follow events throughout the region, as they should. We have bilateral
relationships. We have regional relationships. We have cooperation against
threats to the region, like Iraq. We have cooperation with many of the states in
the region in the cause of peace, and peace between Israelis and Palestinians,
and more generally in the region.

So each of these relationships that we have is formed of any number of elements.
Yes, people pay a lot of attention to the Israeli-Palestinian issues, the fact
that there's violence in these areas, and progress or lack thereof towards peace
is -- does affect our relationships. But it's one of many factors. And as I
said, you can't deal with one to the exclusion of the other. Both are problems.
Both are issues. If there are more than one issue in the region, you have to be
able to deal with them all, whether they're bilateral issues or terrorism
generally, getting at the problem of terrorism, or specifics like the Israelis-
Palestinians and Iraq.

(...)

Q: Can I go back to the Gaza thing for just a minute?

BOUCHER: Sure.

Q: This administration has been very supportive of Prime Minister Sharon. The
President has met with him six or seven times. The administration agrees with
his policies on security first, a new Palestinian leadership. You're not
suggesting by your criticism of this act that there's any sort of broader change
of policy towards the Sharon government or reviewing policy?

BOUCHER: Fundamentally, the United States and Israel have a long relationship
based on our support for Israel and its security and its democracy. The
President has made clear in all his statements that Israel has obligations too,
that all the parties have obligations. As we look for Palestinian reforms, we
look for Palestinians to take responsibility for security by reforming their
security services. We also look to Israel to take reciprocal steps, like easing
the closures, handing over tax revenue, facilitating movement of humanitarian
goods and services. These things remain part of the equation.

The President has made clear again and again all parties have responsibilities,
and we look to all parties to carry out their responsibility to create an
environment where we can move forward, where we can move forward to achieve real
security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. I think the statements we're
making today about these actions fit within that context.

(...)

# # #


July 24, 2002

DAILY STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS BRIEFING

Richard Boucher, Spokesman

(...)

Q: Okay. Where should we start? Oh, yes. The Arabs are trying to organize a UN
Security Council discussion on Gaza. Is there any -- can you -- are you in favor
of having a debate on this in the Security Council and would you -- is there any
kind of resolution that you might support on this?

BOUCHER: I saw some press reports, and indeed there's been talk in New York of
having a Security Council session. Obviously, it's within the rights of members
of the council to ask for a session or a discussion and to propose resolutions,
should they wish to do so. We've, I think, made very clear our view of the
heavy-handed Israeli action yesterday in Gaza. We continue to pursue our efforts
to bring peace to the region. We believe it's essential to both sides to do all
they can to stop the violence. We believe it's essential that both sides focus
on how to create an environment in which progress is possible. And both sides
need to remember that only by restoring a political dialogue can the aspirations
of the Palestinian people and the vision of two states living side by side in
peace be realized.


That remains our focus, that remains our effort. If people want to discuss this
in New York, I suppose we'll discuss it with them. But we remain focused on
advancing these plans of actions for reform -- civil reform, security on the
Palestinian side, restoring a political dialogue in tandem with those tracks.
We're consulting closely with the parties, keeping in touch with the Quartet and
the Arab leaders on how best to achieve that. And as we move forward on civil
and security reform, we look for reciprocal steps from the Israelis, like easing
the closures, handing over tax revenues to responsible parties, and facilitating
the movement of humanitarian goods and services. Those are critical to creating
an environment in which progress is possible.

We have underscored those points in our meetings with the Israelis earlier this
week. That was done by Secretary Powell, National Security Advisor Condi Rice,
and Assistant Secretary Burns. And we'll look forward to talking to the
Palestinians about all these areas as we move forward. But as before, I don't
have anything specific that we can announce at this time.

Q: Can I just follow up on that? You certainly don't sound very enthusiastic
about debating it, though you concede that they have a right to do so. Would the
United States take part in such a debate?

BOUCHER: I think we always take parts in these debates because we have an
important role in favor of peace, and we like to talk about that role in favor
of peace, as I just did.

Q: And a related matter is that at least one Palestinian official said that they
were planning to take the Gaza incident to the ICC. Do you -- presumably you
would disapprove of such a move on several counts.

BOUCHER: Well, I did not see that. I haven't had any chance to look into any of
the legalities of what that might imply, or whether that's even possible or what
it might imply. So I just don't know what we would say about that.

Q: In terms of the heavy-handed action that took place in Gaza, is there -- I
noticed there's a rally right at C Street entrance of the State Department right
now asking for any kind of investigation into the fact that American weapons
were used against civilians. A building was targeted at midnight, after
midnight, when a lot of people were sleeping, civilians were sleeping, and there
was bound to be civilian deaths. And there were, and severe injuries as well. Is
there any kind of action or investigation that is taking place?

BOUCHER: I think we discussed this quite extensively yesterday. Thee are
provisions of the Arms Export Control Act that require us to make a report to
Congress any time there might have been a substantial violation of the terms of
sale of such weapons. We've not made a report like this since the current
violence began, but we've made quite clear that we're seriously concerned about
some of the Israeli tactics, some of the Israeli actions, including targeted
killings and actions like this that endanger civilians. So we continue to watch
and monitor Israeli actions very carefully, and we urge Israel to consider
consequences of actions such as these.

Q: You don't feel a report is required at this point?

BOUCHER: All I'd say is that at this point we've not made any reports.

Q: Consider the consequences under US law or just consider the consequences that
you've mentioned before about that it's not going -- in the long run this kind
of thing doesn't help?

BOUCHER: I suppose there are all sorts of potential consequences. The chief
issue that we've tried to address here is whether an action that harms civilians
like this is right, whether it's wise, whether it actually brings anybody closer
to peace.

Q: So are you saying that in your conversations with the Israelis, Ambassador
Kurtzer's post-Gaza missile strike conversations, that he advised the Israelis
there could be consequences under US law?

BOUCHER: I don't know if he specifically did at that meeting. We can try to
check, but I didn't see anything. But I think the Israelis are quite aware of
these provisions because they're in every contract we sign for US weapons.

Q: And can I make one -- back on your answer to Jonathan's first question about
the Security Council debate, you went through a long preamble thing about
supporting peace and your steps and who's, and then you said if people want to
discuss this in New York, I suppose we'll discuss it. But what Jonathan's
question was about the actual Gaza and the debate is about the -- are you -- the
debate, as proposed, is for this specific incident.

When you say if people want to discuss this in New York, are you talking about
what you had mentioned in the preamble about the US effort to bring both sides
together, or are you saying that you are not opposed to a debate about the
incident in Gaza?

BOUCHER: Matt, I think the answer is people will say what they want. Certainly
the proposal for a debate and discussion is about the incident in Gaza. I'm sure
we're prepared to address that, as we have addressed it in public. But we also
think everybody needs to keep in mind the broader goals of peace that I talked
about and the broader steps, the steps that we are taking, to try to resolve
this situation so that violence doesn't occur.

Q: In the past you have been opposed to bringing up specific incidents like
this, using specific incidents like this as a reason to initiate Security
Council debate -- am I correct -- generally in the past?

BOUCHER: I think we have generally not favored trying to deal with these issues
in New York.

Q: But this incident is such that you don't --

BOUCHER: No, I wouldn't draw that conclusion either. I think we have
participated in any number of debates and discussions like this that the Council
has had. We have --

Q: Well, but you haven't always --

BOUCHER: And let me finish. We have often opposed attempts to pass resolutions
on these kinds of issues and to try to somehow resolve them in New York when
they need to be dealt with by the parties on the ground and by people trying to
pursue peace on the ground.

Q: At the UN today, the US is expected to raise objections to a UN protocol on
anti-torture procedures. Do you have any comment on that?

BOUCHER: No, I don't at this point. I'll have to check on it and see what I can
get you.

Q: I have one follow-up, which is that critics of the US stances are saying that
if indeed the US does go ahead with objections that this would be another in a
long line of actions at odds with our allies, pursuing an isolationist course.
Any comment on that?

BOUCHER: No, I have to check on what our position is and why we took it that
way.

(...)

# # #


July 25, 2002

REMARKS WITH FOREIGN MINISTER ABDULLAH ABDULLAH OF THE AFGHAN TRANSITIONAL
AUTHORITY OF AFGHANISTAN AFTER THEIR MEETING

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Washington, DC

(...)

Q: Mr. Secretary, you just referred to the loss of human life in military
actions, unintentional. There were human -- there were lives lost when Israel
executed a terror leader. I wondered if that's -- if that causes second thoughts
about the legality of using F-16 weapons. You're concerned, I understand --
could you speak to --

SECRETARY POWELL: We were concerned about that incident, and we expressed our
concern yesterday, both from the White House and from the State Department. We
are constantly reviewing the manner in which the military equipment that we have
provided to the State of Israel is used. And in this case, in going after one
particular individual in a built-up area, a number of lives were lost, and I
know the Israeli Government is looking into that strike and how it was planned
and how it was directed.

(...)

# # #


November 5, 2002

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING - RICHARD BOUCHER, SPOKESMAN

(...)

Q: On Qatar. What are the implications of the US Government's missile strike
yesterday and --

Q: Qatar? You mean Yemen?

Q: I'm sorry. Yemen. I'm sorry, in Yemen. And I'm sure many Israelis are
wondering what the difference is between this and in targeted killing.  And me,
too.

BOUCHER: As far as the events in Yemen, I have nothing for you on that.

Q: But can you say that you are against targeted killings?

BOUCHER: Our policy on targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context has
not changed --

Q: In other contexts?

BOUCHER: -- and we've discussed that and explained that many times.

Q: And in other contexts?

BOUCHER: I'm not going to speculate.

Q: Well, so you have one rule for one conflict and another rule for another
conflict?

BOUCHER: I would say that -- if you look back at what we have said about
targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context, you will find that the
reasons we have given do not necessarily apply in other circumstances.

Q: If I remember, your opposition, stated opposition at the targeted killings,
has not been confined to instances where civilians were victims. I think,
basically, it was a flat disapproval of targeted killings.

BOUCHER: We have explained our opposition for a number of reasons. Sometimes all
apply and sometimes some apply, but they are particular to those circumstances
and I don't want to talk about any speculation about other events. But I think
we all understand that the situation with regard to Israeli- Palestinian issues
and the prospects of peace and the prospects of negotiation and the prospects of
the need to create an atmosphere for progress -- a lot of different things come
into play there.

Q: And what's special about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that make targeted
killings inadvisable?

BOUCHER: All the things I just cited to your colleague.

Q: I didn't hear those.

BOUCHER: Well, you can look at the transcript.

Sir.

Q: Is there any concern in this building or elsewhere in this town that the
reports that imply, that say that you guys had something to do with this
incident yesterday, may result in attacks against -- new threats against US
facilities, whether these reports are true or --

BOUCHER: Whether they're true or not? I guess what I would say is our missions
in the Gulf, the Middle East, in Yemen in particular, operate at a very high
state of alert, protection, readiness. I'm sure they will continue to do so.

Whenever there are reports of events that could lead to potential security
threats, then the embassies review their security postures, and I'm sure they
will make any appropriate decisions. I would point out they are already at a
very high state of security and therefore I'm not predicting particular steps at
this moment. But I'm sure that any embassies that might consider themselves
affected would get together with their whole country team and look at what they
might do to further improve their security.

Q: I just wondered, yesterday there were officials -- not in this building, but
I think at the Pentagon -- who talked about the incident that happened yesterday
and said that the person, the main person who was killed, was basically a bad
guy and that people shouldn't be sorry to see him go. Do you share that? Can you
--

BOUCHER: I really have nothing to say on any particular incidents yesterday.

Q: Can you confirm that six people were killed in a car by an explosion?

BOUCHER: That wouldn't be for me to confirm. I think the Yemeni authorities have
already confirmed that.

Q: Okay, well, I'm just a little confused about the whole thing because it seems
to me that either, one, you say that you did have something to do with it and
that you're happy about it and you're proud of it, you have the guts to come out
and admit it, rather than -- or you say we had nothing to do with it and --

BOUCHER: How about I say I have nothing to say about it? Which is true.

Q: Richard, can we --

BOUCHER: We have another question back there.

Q: Yeah, one more. The new Foreign Minister of Israel has called for the
expulsion of --

BOUCHER: First of all, you're changing the subject. But second of all, you're
starting your sentence with a premise that I don't think is true. So he was
asking me before if I wanted to comment on the new Foreign Minister of Israel,
and I said I don't think that Israel actually has a new Foreign Minister quite
at this moment. So rather than commenting, let me go back to his question on
this subject.

Q: Can we just go back, actually, on the last topic?

BOUCHER: Yes.

Q: When you draw a distinction between the Israeli-Palestinian context and other
contexts, are you saying that targeted killing might be a legitimate practice in
other contexts?

BOUCHER: I'm not drawing a distinction between anything and anything else; I'm
just saying that if you look carefully, if you look at what we have said about
targeted killings in the question of the Israeli-Palestinian disputes, you will
see, first of all, as I said today, that our position has not changed, and,
second of all, that the factors that we cited for our opposition to targeted
killings were particular to that set of circumstances.

Q: So, in other circumstances, it might be legitimate? That's a natural
corollary of what you're saying.

BOUCHER: Well, I'm not comparing and contrasting; I'm just saying that we've
made our position clear and we stick by it.

Q: So I take it they didn't --

Q: -- tell us about this UAE agreement is?

Q: I'm sorry, I have another one on --

Q: You want to keep on that? Sure.

BOUCHER: We have another one back there, too.

Q: Has the US Embassy in Sanaa taken any unusual measures?

BOUCHER: As I said, they already operate at a very high state of alert. They
will constantly review their security posture. If they take any measures that we
could talk about, we would tell you about them. At this point, I don't have
anything to say.

Mark.

Q: Richard, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the State Department Annual
Human Rights Report have a category of extrajudicial killings, which are widely
viewed among human rights groups as being against international humanitarian
law?

BOUCHER: You can look at the State Department Human Rights Report to see what
categories there are and how they are defined.

Q: And does the United States have a position on extrajudicial killing?

BOUCHER: We have taken positions on various things that have happened around the
world. As far as the events in Yemen, I'm not here to try to take a position on
that.

Q: Is the opposition to targeted killings solely in the Israeli-Palestinian
context, or is it a broader American opposition to extrajudicial killings?

BOUCHER: Extrajudicial -- I can't even say it. Extrajudicial killings -- I think
if you look in the Human Rights Reports you will find how those things are
defined. And certainly it is one of the concerns that we have had in many
countries in terms of human rights violations. But again, I think you can find
the actual definition and the reasons for which the United States is opposed and
the kind of offense we are talking about and not to -- I wouldn't take one
particular definition and try to stretch it over every event, presumed or
confirmed.

Q: Given the importance of what happened yesterday in Yemen, why do you have
absolutely nothing to say about it?

BOUCHER: It is not an event that I am here to talk about. I am sorry but we are
just not in a position to talk about it for a variety of reasons.

Q: Well, can you talk about -- how about talking about the reasons why you're
not in a position to talk about it?

BOUCHER: No. Can't do that, either.

Q: Did the Embassy -- has the Embassy -- the Ambassador -- there were some
reports yesterday saying that these people may have been involved in a plot to
kill the Ambassador there. Are you aware of any -- of any new threat or any
threat to the Ambassador in Yemen?

BOUCHER: I don't have anything on that.

Q: Well, that's a bit different than -- that's not a no. So you say -- we're
supposed to write, "The State Department doesn't have any information on whether
there was a threat against its Ambassador in Yemen," or, "The State Department
doesn't want to talk about any possible threat"?

BOUCHER: You could say the State Department Spokesman didn't have anything to
say when asked the question. And if there is something -- I'll check on it. I
did not check on that specific element this morning and so I don't have a
particular, specific answer to that specific question. If I can get one, I will
give you one.

(...)

# # #


January 2, 2003

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING -- RICHARD BOUCHER, SPOKESMAN

(...)

Q:  Do you have anything on the Syrian arrest of an al-Hayyat journalist?

BOUCHER:  Yeah.  We've been troubled by reports of the arrest of the al-Hayyat
reporter and Lebanese Broadcasting
correspondent, Ibrahim Hamidi in Syria earlier this month on charges of
publishing unfounded news.  Hamidi's
arrest underscores a lack of freedom of press and basic civil liberties in
Syria.  He's -- and we understand he's
a dual citizen of Lebanon and Syria.

We look to Syria, which is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and a member of
the UN Human Rights Commission, to respect the rights of citizens to freedom of
the press, speech and assembly,
and due process.  Our Embassy in Damascus has been following this development
closely and will continue to do so.

Q:  Do you know if anyone from there has raised this, actually, with Syrian
officials?

BOUCHER:  I don't know what direct contacts we might have had on the issue at
this point.

(...)

# # #

May 5, 2003

Daily Press Briefing
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC

(...)

QUESTION: Can I ask about Korea please? There are reports that the government is
preparing to release a couple of dozen prisoners from Guantanamo Bay and I'm
wondering if you can confirm that. And also --

BOUCHER: Our government.

QUESTION: The U.S. Government.

BOUCHER: Yeah, the U.S. Government.

QUESTION: And also whether you can say whether Secretary Powell's letter had
any, any bearing on this?

BOUCHER: Well, let's be clear on the Secretary's communications with
Secretary Rumsfeld. The matter of the prisoners at Guantanamo is something they
have discussed all along, they have discussed frequently, as I think we have
said in our briefings before. Defense has primary responsibility down there. We
all work aspects of this issue for them and there has been a process underway to
reach a final determination on all of the detainees.

So certainly, the Secretary and Secretary Rumsfeld have had numerous exchanges
and conversations about how to make that process work effectively and
efficiently. But that's a process that was decided by the administration so that
each detainee can be processed, can be either prosecuted or continue to be
detained by the United States, or transferred back to his home country for
prosecution or detention, or released if he no longer poses a threat to the
United States and its allies. And every relevant agency engages in this process
to ensure that the overall interests of the United States are represented.

We are moving forward on this process, and have been working with Defense and
other agencies. To date, we have released over two dozen persons who we
determined did no longer pose a threat and I think you are aware of many of
those people went back to Afghanistan.

We are continuing our discussions with other governments regarding appropriate
forums for prosecution, the possibility of transferring their nationals back to
them for some action, and the possibility that some of the detainees can be
released. So this is an ongoing process to reach a final determination on all
the detainees, and it's something we have worked with the Defense Department
very closely on.

QUESTION: So this isn't -- you weren't talking about new releases that either
are happening today and over the next couple of days?

BOUCHER: I am not trying to announce a particular release; I would just say
this is an ongoing process. We are working on it with them. And, yes, it may
result in new releases above and beyond the people who have been released in the
past.

QUESTION: Above and beyond the two dozen?

BOUCHER: It will result in that, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay.

BOUCHER: Because the goal is to reach a final determination on all the
people who are down there.

(...)

# # #

May 28, 2003

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING -- RICHARD BOUCHER, SPOKESMAN

(...)

QUESTION: Richard, talking of making the world safer, Amnesty's annual report
said that the world wasn't any safer and was quite critical of U.S. policies on
many aspects. I wonder if they have prepared any kind of response to their
report?

BOUCHER: Well, let me say a couple of things about the report from Amnesty
International. First of all, they do an enormous amount of work on human rights
around the world, and we take this work very seriously. A substantial report
like this deserves a careful look and careful review, and we'll give it that
kind of careful review.

At the same time, we don't agree with everything in it. I need to make clear
again that the United States remains strongly committed to its longstanding
human rights policies, both at home and abroad. We comply with our international
obligations. We urge all governments to vigorously enforce the human rights and
fundamental freedoms of their citizens.

We have consistently been very proactive in the promotion of human rights. Our
assistance funds around the world support efforts to improve human rights
conditions. And that's true in many, many countries all over the world. That's
true in the Middle East. It's true in Central Asia. It's true in Africa. It's
abundantly clear, with things like the Middle East Partnership Initiative, the
Millennium Challenge Account, that promote rule of law, that promote reform,
that promote civil society in countries around the world.

We have taken reasonable and legal steps to fight terrorism in the United States
and around the world. And I think the Departments of Justice and Homeland
Security are quite prepared to explain our domestic law enforcement efforts. We
reject any criticism, any allegations that are [sic] human rights efforts have
diminished. Amnesty International's particular charges are incorrect. There is
solid, sustained, international cooperation with war on terrorism and the war on
terrorism has not detracted from our strong and steadfast commitment to human
rights and democracy.

Sir.

BOUCHER: BOUCHER, Dr.Garang, and he is here meeting with --

QUESTION: Can we stay on the Amnesty International?

BOUCHER: Okay. We'll stay on this, and we'll come back in a minute.

QUESTION: Thanks. Well, one of the criticisms that Amnesty International is
making is -- is that while in Iraq, human rights are improving for the people, a
lot of conflicts have kind of suffered as a result, such as the Ivory Coast,
because the U.S. was fighting with France over the issue of Iraq, that Ivory
Coast became a hostage to that; on the issue of the Human Rights Commission that
some countries didn't feel they had to support the U.S. resolutions because they
were unhappy with the way the U.S. went about the war in Iraq. Do you think that
some conflicts became hostage to the war in Iraq?

BOUCHER: No, I think those are the kind of particular charges that we
believe are not correct. If you look at the situation the UN Human Rights
Commission, the problems in that Commission go way back -- long before the war
in Iraq, long before September 11th. And some of those in that Commission, who
have joined that Commission, who are not interested in protecting human rights,
will find excuses as they come along to avoid any serious action on human
rights.

We agree with Amnesty that there should have been stronger action on some issues
like Zimbabwe and Sudan, where the resolutions didn't pass. But we worked very
strongly to that end of the Commission, and we think we were able to achieve
quite a lot given the make-up of the Commission. We'll continue to work with the
Commission to try to help it achieve its goals.

The situation is Cote d'Ivoire is another case in point. As I read the Amnesty
press release that actually was critical of the media, saying that international
media attention is focused on Afghanistan and Iraq instead of -- and hasn't paid
attention to places of conflict like Ethiopia and Cote d'Ivoire, nevertheless,
our policy in Cote d'Ivoire has been to very consistently support efforts to
peace.

We have been consistent supporters of the peacekeeping efforts that France and
the Economic Community of West African States have carried out. We have
contributed materially to those efforts, particularly by the Africans; and we
have supported the efforts to try to resolve that conflict peacefully in a way
that respects the human rights and freedoms of all the people of Cote d'Ivoire.
So I just think the criticism is misplaced.

QUESTION: Well, if I could follow up with one more. What officials at Amnesty
are saying is that the U.S. has, in a way, lost its moral authority to beat the
drum on human rights because it's not following human rights when it comes to
the treatment of detainees and prisoners, and that you're setting -- that the
U.S. is setting a model for other countries to follow.

BOUCHER: Well, I'm afraid there is another specific that's not true. The
United States has respected due process. We have respected the international
humanitarian law in terms of the way we have treated people who have been in
detention. And we've continued to maintain a system that respects clear, legal
authority. And as I said, the domestic agencies can give you more information on
that. The point though, I guess, is look what's happening around the world.

Indeed, the United States has brought -- gotten rid of a dictator in Iraq who
was killing people, gassing people, threatening people, torturing people and
raping people. The United States has been a consistent supporter of human rights
around the world, hand-in-hand with the war on terrorism because we've made the
point and supported the point with our efforts and our money that to build
strong, stable and healthy societies that it takes adherence to the rule of law
and respect for human rights. And that's the best way, ultimately, to defend
yourself against terrorism.

QUESTION: Richard, could you address one other specific matter raised in the
report, which is the treatment of the detainees on Guantanamo? In the report, or
in announcing a report, Amnesty said, "by putting these detainees into a legal
black hole, the U.S. administration appears to continue to support a world where
arbitrary, unchallengeable detention without trial or charge becomes
acceptable."

BOUCHER: I'd have to admire the rhetoric, but again, I think we've explained
this and talked about this many times in legal terms and in terms of
international requirements. I have made clear from here, as has the Pentagon and
other agencies that the people who are under detention in Guantanamo are being
treated according to the standards of the Third Geneva Convention and that as
combatants, that they need to be taken off the field as long as the fighting is
going on.

Now how those cases are handled legally is a question that I'm sure our others
in the Department of Justice and elsewhere will be able to talk about at the
appropriate time.

QUESTION: But you don't believe that the detention of such people without
charges or trials may encourage other nations to do the same with people and
therefore undermine human rights?

BOUCHER: I think there's two things. I think, one, is that we are following
international standards of treatment. Second of all, we're following
international standards for the detentions, and third of all, I just don't think
you've seen it around the world.

I think if anything, the United States' involvement with other governments in
the war on terrorism has raised the respect for human rights of the people and
raised the respect for professional conduct of military forces and other things
like that.

QUESTION: Richard, I was under the impression from your initial comment about
the report that you hadn't really read it that carefully and that it deserved a
careful, a careful look. What you said -- you seemed to be pretty specific in
what you're retaining.

BOUCHER: There's a lot in it. These are -- the things that we're talking
about now are, frankly, the things that they highlighted in their two or three
page press release.

QUESTION: Okay. So my question is --

BOUCHER: So we've been able to get a little material on that.

QUESTION: Would you expect, then, that after a careful read you'll come out and
reject even more of what the report has to say? Or is there anything in it that
you agree with?

(Laughter.)

BOUCHER: No. Again --

QUESTION: And not just about the United States --

BOUCHER: Well, again, I think again, I think it's important to remember that
this group does a lot of very important work and we often cite their work in our
statements on human rights. We have produced very detailed and credible reports
on human rights year after year after year. And this year's report, which came
out, what, a month and a half ago, is no exception to that.

Our support for human rights policy in a positive way to create better human
rights conditions around the world, our honest and forthright human rights
reports: all of these things have continued. And they've continued alongside as
part of our policy on terrorism.

So I think maybe it's more with some of the sweeping judgments and some of the
examples used to support those judgments that we have differences. I suspect
that as we go into the details of the report, we will find many things that we
do agree with.

QUESTION: Okay. So it's not a question of you agreeing with everything they say
about other countries except for, perhaps, your close allies like the Brits and
the Australians and that you disagree with that criticism, but you accept and
agree with and, in fact, have cited --

BOUCHER: I've already --

QUESTION: -- as have Amnesty, abuses in pre-war Iraq and Africa. Do you agree?
Can you say? Have you read the -- can you say if you agree with the criticism
that Amnesty levels at other countries?

BOUCHER: In some cases, I'm sure the answer is yes. In some cases the answer
may be no. I've disagreed with some of the characterization of the way they
characterized the situation in Cote d'Ivoire. We -- the other example they cited
was the Philippines, where we don't think the facts are supported -- the facts
would support the kind of conclusions that they've reached.

On the other hand, as I've said, they do very detailed and extensive work on the
human rights situations in many, many countries and that's very important to the
international human rights community, including us.

QUESTION: Do you know -- does the U.S. provide any money to Amnesty? Not that
that would have any --

BOUCHER: The U.S. Government?

QUESTION: Yeah. Is it like, is it considered to be an international organization
like the ICRC?

BOUCHER: I, frankly, don't know --

QUESTION: Okay.

BOUCHER: --whether they --

QUESTION: No? Okay.

BOUCHER: Well, I'm just thinking -- I'm sure there's not any direct
budgetary support. Whether they have NGO contracts in particular places for
particular things, I don't know.

QUESTION: And then just one more very briefly: You were talking about the UN
Commission on Human Rights earlier. I'm presuming you're aware of this move
afoot backed by your friends, or non-friends on the Commission to throw
"Reporters Without Borders" (RSF) out, to remove its observer -- advisory status
for the Commission.

I realize that you guys voted against this, but it appears to have gathered some
steam and may actually come up for another vote. Do you have anything on that?

BOUCHER: I don't have anything new on that. I would have to check.

QUESTION: On the -- on your compliments for Amnesty, and they had several
compliments for you and the State Department's work and the report and the Human
Rights Report, but one of the charges is that while it's a very responsible and
comprehensive document of human rights abuses around the world, that often, U.S.
policy and U.S. public criticism of the countries that you cite -- there's a
disconnect there that -- they use Russia, for example -- that in the report
there's a lot of concern about what's going on in Chechnya and Russian human
rights abuses but will this be an issue taken up with the President at the
upcoming summit? They say that there's a disconnect in terms of what you
document and what you do about it.

BOUCHER: The Human Rights Report forms the basis of policy. It forms the
basis of human rights policy, and we have adopted an approach in this
administration, particularly that says, "These are the problems, how can we help
fix them? How can we either create better conditions in this society or bring
about the pressures that would lead to change?" And that remains an important
part of our policy with regard to every country that's covered in the Human
Rights Report: it is carried out by ambassadors, it's carried out by bureaus,
it's carried out by the Secretary of State and the President.

Chechnya is always the subject of discussion with the Russians. But we've also
looked where we can to work with the Russians to try to bring about a political
process there, and we've welcomed in that regard, for example, the referendum,
which we think offers an opening to starting something like that.

So it's not just a matter of going into meetings and condemning everything and
complaining. It's a matter of saying, "These are the problems, let's see what we
can do about fixing them and making lives better for the people who live there."
And that's the situation with regard to a lot of the approaches we might take on
some of these issues.

Sometimes it's pressure. Sometimes it's looking for a positive development, and
in many cases, we use both.

(...)

# # #
# # #
# # #