========================================================= THE RICE STATEMENT ON TORTURE AND RENDITIONS - 2005.12.05 ========================================================= 1) THE RICE STATEMENT --------------------- US Department of State -- December 5, 2005 REMARKS UPON HER DEPARTURE FOR EUROPE Secretary Condoleezza Rice http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/57602.htm Andrews Air Force Base (7:15 a.m. EST) Good morning. We have received inquiries from the European Union, the Council of Europe, and from several individual countries about media reports concerning U.S. conduct in the war on terror. I am going to respond now to those inquiries, as I depart today for Europe. And this will also essentially form the text of the letter that I will send to Secretary Straw, who wrote on behalf of the European Union as the European Union President. The United States and many other countries are waging a war against terrorism. For our country this war often takes the form of conventional military operations in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Sometimes this is a political struggle, a war of ideas. It is a struggle waged also by our law enforcement agencies. Often we engage the enemy through the cooperation of our intelligence services with their foreign counterparts. We must track down terrorists who seek refuge in areas where governments cannot take effective action, including where the terrorists cannot in practice be reached by the ordinary processes of law. In such places terrorists have planned the killings of thousands of innocents -- in New York City or Nairobi, in Bali or London, in Madrid or Beslan, in Casablanca or Istanbul. Just two weeks ago I also visited a hotel ballroom in Amman, viewing the silent, shattered aftermath of one of those attacks. The United States, and those countries that share the commitment to defend their citizens, will use every lawful weapon to defeat these terrorists. Protecting citizens is the first and oldest duty of any government. Sometimes these efforts are misunderstood. I want to help all of you understand the hard choices involved, and some of the responsibilities that go with them. One of the difficult issues in this new kind of conflict is what to do with captured individuals who we know or believe to be terrorists. The individuals come from many countries and are often captured far from their original homes. Among them are those who are effectively stateless, owing allegiance only to the extremist cause of transnational terrorism. Many are extremely dangerous. And some have information that may save lives, perhaps even thousands of lives. The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice, which were designed for different needs. We have to adapt. Other governments are now also facing this challenge. We consider the captured members of al-Qaida and its affiliates to be unlawful combatants who may be held, in accordance with the law of war, to keep them from killing innocents. We must treat them in accordance with our laws, which reflect the values of the American people. We must question them to gather potentially significant, life-saving, intelligence. We must bring terrorists to justice wherever possible. For decades, the United States and other countries have used "renditions" to transport terrorist suspects from the country where they were captured to their home country or to other countries where they can be questioned, held, or brought to justice. In some situations a terrorist suspect can be extradited according to traditional judicial procedures. But there have long been many other cases where, for some reason, the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option. In those cases the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in a rendition. Such renditions are permissible under international law and are consistent with the responsibilities of those governments to protect their citizens. Rendition is a vital tool in combating transnational terrorism. Its use is not unique to the United States, or to the current administration. Last year, then Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet recalled that our earlier counterterrorism successes included "the rendition of many dozens of terrorists prior to September 11, 2001." -- Ramzi Youssef masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and plotted to blow up airlines over the Pacific Ocean, killing a Japanese airline passenger in a test of one of his bombs. Once tracked down, a rendition brought him to the United States, where he now serves a life sentence. -- One of history’s most infamous terrorists, best known as "Carlos the Jackal," had participated in murders in Europe and the Middle East. He was finally captured in Sudan in 1994. A rendition by the French government brought him to justice in France, where he is now imprisoned. Indeed, the European Commission of Human Rights rejected Carlos’ claim that his rendition from Sudan was unlawful. Renditions take terrorists out of action, and save lives. In conducting such renditions, it is the policy of the United States, and I presume of any other democracies who use this procedure, to comply with its laws and comply with its treaty obligations, including those under the Convention Against Torture. Torture is a term that is defined by law. We rely on our law to govern our operations. The United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture under any circumstances. Moreover, in accordance with the policy of this administration: -- The United States has respected -- and will continue to respect -- the sovereignty of other countries. -- The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture. -- The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured. -- The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured. International law allows a state to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. Detainees may only be held for an extended period if the intelligence or other evidence against them has been carefully evaluated and supports a determination that detention is lawful. The U.S. does not seek to hold anyone for a period beyond what is necessary to evaluate the intelligence or other evidence against them, prevent further acts of terrorism, or hold them for legal proceedings. With respect to detainees, the United States Government complies with its Constitution, its laws, and its treaty obligations. Acts of physical or mental torture are expressly prohibited. The United States Government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees. Torture, and conspiracy to commit torture, are crimes under U.S. law, wherever they may occur in the world. Violations of these and other detention standards have been investigated and punished. There have been cases of unlawful treatment of detainees, such as the abuse of a detainee by an intelligence agency contractor in Afghanistan or the horrible mistreatment of some prisoners at Abu Ghraib that sickened us all and which arose under the different legal framework that applies to armed conflict in Iraq. In such casesthe United States has vigorously investigated, and where appropriate, prosecuted and punished those responsible. Some individuals have already been sentenced to lengthy terms in prison; others have been demoted or reprimanded. As CIA Director Goss recently stated, our intelligence agencies have handled the gathering of intelligence from a very small number of extremely dangerous detainees, including the individuals who planned the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and many other murders and attempted murders. It is the policy of the United States that this questioning is to be conducted within U.S. law and treaty obligations, without using torture. It is also U.S. policy that authorized interrogation will be consistent with U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture, which prohibit cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The intelligence so gathered has stopped terrorist attacks and saved innocent lives -- in Europe as well as in the United States and other countries. The United States has fully respected the sovereignty of other countries that cooperate in these matters. Because this war on terrorism challenges traditional norms and precedents of previous conflicts, our citizens have been discussing and debating the proper legal standards that should apply. President Bush is working with the U.S. Congress to come up with good solutions. I want to emphasize a few key points. -- The United States is a country of laws. My colleagues and I have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We believe in the rule of law. -- The United States Government must protect its citizens. We and our friends around the world have the responsibility to work together in finding practical ways to defend ourselves against ruthless enemies. And these terrorists are some of the most ruthless enemies we face. -- We cannot discuss information that would compromise the success of intelligence, law enforcement, and military operations. We expect that other nations share this view. Some governments choose to cooperate with the United States in intelligence, law enforcement, or military matters. That cooperation is a two-way street. We share intelligence that has helped protect European countries from attack, helping save European lives. It is up to those governments and their citizens to decide if they wish to work with us to prevent terrorist attacks against their own country or other countries, and decide how much sensitive information they can make public. They have a sovereign right to make that choice. Debate in and among democracies is natural and healthy. I hope that that debate also includes a healthy regard for the responsibilities of governments to protect their citizens. Four years after September 11, most of our populations are asking us if we are doing all that we can to protect them. I know what it is like to face an inquiry into whether everything was done that could have been done. So now, before the next attack, we should all consider the hard choices that democratic governments must face. And we can all best meet this danger if we work together. Thank you. 2005/1130 (FINAL) Released on December 5, 2005 * (2) WHITE HOUSE COMMENTS ------------------------ The White House -- December 2, 2005 PRESS BRIEFING BY SCOTT MCCLELLAN [excerpts] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051202-2.html [...] Q: Secretary Rice is going to Europe next week, and one of the places she's going is Romania, where it's alleged that the CIA maintains a secret detention center. Do you think that these -- that it undermines the U.S. campaign for human rights and the advance of democracy, when the United States has these secret prisons where it's alleged that people are treated harshly or even severely? McCLELLAN: Well, you're talking about allegations of so-called secret prisons, and I'm not going to get into talk about national security matters. But what I will talk about is the war on terrorism that we're engaged in. We're sitting here talking about the war on terrorism. We remain a nation at war. And the President's highest responsibility is the safety and security of the American people. And he is going to continue to act in a way to better protect the American people, but he's going to do so consistent with our laws and our values and our international obligations. We made that very clear. And Secretary Rice has indicated that she will be responding to the letter from Foreign Secretary Straw in due course. We are glad to talk about these issues. There are sometimes difficult issues you have to address when it comes to a war like this, because we face a different kind of enemy, an enemy that abides by no laws, that abides by no treaties, and an enemy that wears no uniform, and an enemy that seeks to kill innocent men, women and children throughout the civilized world. We're all engaged in the global war on terrorism. We all have a responsibility to take the fight to the terrorists and defeat them and prevent attacks from happening. All of us in elected office have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect our people. But we also have a responsibility to respect the laws and the values and the treaty obligations that we have agreed to. Q: Is what you've just said -- do you anticipate that that will be her answer to the criticism that she'll face in Europe over these alleged secret -- McCLELLAN: Well, she'll be responding in due course. There's been an interagency input into her response, and that -- Q: What is that? McCLELLAN: What's that? Q: What is that interagency response? McCLELLAN: Well, you'll hear more from her in due course. [...] Q: I wanted to also follow up on Terry's questions about the reports of secret prisons, and the rationale for not saying to the American people whether or not such places exist. Do you feel it somehow gives away something to the enemy to confirm or deny the existence of these places? McCLELLAN: I think the American people understand the importance of us using all available tools to win the war on terrorism and to try to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. But it's important for people to understand, also, that we have laws and values and international obligations that we believe very strongly in, and that we adhere to. And that's why we're talking about those issues. There are some difficult issues that you have to address when you're facing a different kind of enemy in a different kind of war. And those are discussions that we'll continue to have. We're having discussions with members of Congress on some of these issues. We're working together. We all have some shared priorities, and we're talking about issues to help us make sure that we're doing everything within our power to try to disrupt and prevent attacks from happening in the first place, while also acting in a way that is consistent with those laws and those values. Q: But my question has to do with whether or not you confirm the existence, regardless of what's happening there and what techniques are being used, whatever, how does that protect American security by not acknowledging -- McCLELLAN: I'm not getting into confirming or denying anything. I think that when you're talking about -- I mean, some of the reports talk about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammed and Bin al-Shibh. I mean, these are dangerous terrorists that have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. And I think the American people understand the importance of us getting valuable information that can help us to defeat the terrorists and prevent attacks from happening. This is about their safety and security. But in terms of the issues related to this, yes, I think the American people understand the importance -- and this is not talking about any particular issue -- but they do understand the importance of the war on terrorism, of not talking about intelligence, because it could hurt our efforts to prevail. Q: Scott, when you say, "using all available tools," and then you talk about laws, I think it is a little confusing for many of us Americans that all available tools means all available tools, if you won't confirm or deny the prisons overseas -- McCLELLAN: No, I said consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. The President has made it very clear that we do not torture, he would never condone torture or authorize the use of torture. If someone doesn't abide by our laws, they're held accountable, and we have done that. That's the difference between us and others. When it comes to human rights, there is no greater leader than the United States of America, and we show that by holding people accountable when they break the law or they violate human rights. And we show that by supporting the advance of freedom and democracy and supporting those in countries that are having their human rights denied or violated, like North Korea. We show that by liberating people in Afghanistan and Iraq, some 50 million people. And no one has done more when it comes to human rights than the United States of America. Q: It's still not clear -- McCLELLAN: And I think -- and I disagree with you. I think the American people understand. I disagree with your characterization that you think most Americans don't. Q: No, I'm not saying that. I think Americans certainly understand "all available tools," and understand the possibility of prisons overseas. I suppose my question really is, we still don't have a clear definition of what torture is. If we're going to stop imminent attacks -- McCLELLAN: There are already laws on the books about torture that prevent -- that prohibit torture, and it spells out what those laws are and the treaty obligations. And we're parties to those treaties. Q: But, yet, it hasn't been possible to get from you a confirmation when we've been very specific about what specific things might or might not be torture, what they are. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to talk about national security intelligence matters. I'm just not going to get into talking about that. [...] * The White House -- December 5, 2005 PRESS GAGGLE BY SCOTT MCCLELLAN [excerpt] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051205-2.html [...] Q: This morning, Rice talked at Andrews -- I don't know if you know what she said. McCLELLAN: Yes. Q: Okay. McCLELLAN: I'm aware of her statement. Well aware of her statement. Q: She said that -- McCLELLAN: That was something that was part of an interagency process, in responding -- Q: -- that the intelligence agency is getting some information from a small number of dangerous detainees that have prevented terrorist attacks, both in Europe and in the United States. Can you shed any more light on that? Can you give us any more detail on that? McCLELLAN: Well, I think we've talked about some in the past, but I think you can understand why it's important, then -- she talked about this in her remarks -- that we don't get into discussing intelligence matters of that nature. We're engaged in an ongoing war on terrorism. We face a very dangerous and ruthless enemy, as she talked about in her remarks, and we have a responsibility to do everything that is lawful within our power to protect the American people. And there are a lot of sensitive issues surrounding the war on terrorism, and talking about intelligence matters could compromise ongoing operations, and we don't want to do anything like that. Q: Like more than one country in Europe? McCLELLAN: Well, I think I just -- what do you mean by, "more than one country"? Q: She was talking about terrorist attacks being prevented in Europe, so we're talking about more than one country, is it several countries? McCLELLAN: I'm not going to -- if the intelligence community wants to talk further about it, I'll let them. But I think we've talked about some of the plots that have been disrupted in the past. But in terms of talking about specific intelligence that we get from people that have been captured on the battlefield, I think it's best that we don't -- and she talked about that in her statement -- because it could compromise things in the ongoing war on terrorism. And I think the American people understand that. Q: She also said that whatever the United States did, that the European counties had cooperated. By saying that, doesn't that just inflame the rift? McCLELLAN: I think what she said, was she talked about how we have and will continue to respect the sovereignty of other nations. The issue here really to focus on is, what are we doing to protect our citizens. That's the highest responsibility of any government. And that's how we have to look at this. We are engaged in a different kind of war against a different kind of enemy, and we have to be able to adapt in order to face that enemy. And each country has to make their own choices. And she emphasized that in her remarks. But we all should do what we can to work together in order to prevail in this war on terrorism and defeat the terrorists. Q: Sharing the blame with Europe then, it sounds as if she's -- McCLELLAN: Sharing the blame? I'm not sure what you're referring to. We are acting to protect the American people and working with other countries to protect their citizens, as well. This is a global war on terrorism. We have seen terrorists attack throughout the world, and this is an ongoing battle. This is a very dangerous enemy. And we all -- all of us in government, around the world, have a responsibility to do what we can to protect our citizens. [...] * The White House -- December 6, 2005 PRESS BRIEFING BY SCOTT MCCLELLAN [excerpt] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051206-3.html Q: Back in March, the President said, when asked about rendition, "We seek assurances that nobody will be tortured when we render a person back to their home country." Today he said, "We do not render to countries that torture." That sounds like a change. McCLELLAN: No, I think he was referring to what we have previously said, which was, we have an obligation not to render people to countries if we believe they're going to be tortured. And in some instances we seek further assurances to make sure that people won't be tortured. The United States of America is strongly committed to upholding our values and our laws and our treaty obligations, and that's what the President was talking about. Q: So there's no change -- McCLELLAN: No, he's referring to -- Q: -- even though he's said, we don't render to countries that torture? In other words, if you don't get assurances, they won't -- you won't send us -- McCLELLAN: Yes, he's referring to what we previously have said, that we have an obligation not to do so. Q: On the same subject, Scott. When you do -- when renditions do take place, are there procedures in place to make sure that the United States, on a regular basis, monitors the conditions of the prisoners and the way they are interrogated on a daily basis, or so forth? And, if not, are such conditions now being put in place at White House instigation or the instigation of others? McCLELLAN: Well, a couple of things. One, Secretary Rice spoke at length in response to some questions that had been raised by the European Union, in response to a letter -- Q: She didn't address this issue -- McCLELLAN: -- response to a letter from Secretary Snow. And we make sure that we have assurances that people won't be tortured if -- or before we render them to a country. That's something that we place high priority on. Now, this is about protecting our citizens. And all countries have an obligation to work together to do everything we can within the law to ensure the safety and security of our people. This is a global war on terrorism, and we work cooperatively with many nations. And we respect the sovereignty of each nation. And we have and we will continue to do so. It is their choice as to how they want to -- it is their choice in terms of how they want to participate. But in terms of renditions and talking in any specific way about it, I'm just not going to do it. I'm not going to get into talking about these issues because it could compromise things in an ongoing war on terrorism. And we're not going to do that. Q: Scott, one follow-up on that: Why not take them back to U.S. soil if you are concerned that they not be tortured, where you are under clear guidelines both of U.S. law and, of course, the whole torture issues that you raised. Why move them around to foreign countries -- McCLELLAN: A couple of things. Renditions have been in place for a long time. Q: Yes. McCLELLAN: Secretary Rice talked yesterday about the Jackal and others that have been rendered previously and brought to justice, and the importance of rendition as a tool that will -- can help us prevail in the war on terrorism. And she made very clear that we are going to do everything lawful within our means to protect our citizens. And we have to recognize -- Q: Render them back here? McCLELLAN: Hang on, no, hang on, I'm coming to your question. We are in a different kind of war against a different kind of enemy. This is an enemy that has no regard for innocent human life. They don't wear uniforms. They don't report to a particular state or nation. They espouse an ideology that they seek to spread throughout the world. It's a hateful and oppressive ideology. Now, in terms -- you jumped in there a second ago, so I forgot the first part of your question I was coming to. Q: Why not -- why not render them back to the United States where there is -- McCLELLAN: Response to that -- the way I would say -- respond to that is that we make decisions on a case-by-case basis, working with other countries, in terms of where individuals are rendered. Q: What is the purpose of rendition, other than, if it is not, in fact, to subject detainees to a degree of interrogation somewhat more difficult than that which they would be subjected to in the United States? And that being the case, what definition of torture does the United States understand and accept? McCLELLAN: The ones that are defined in our law and our international treaty obligations. We have laws -- Q: If that's the case, then why bother to render anybody? McCLELLAN: We have laws that prohibit torture. We have treaty obligations that we adhere to. And the Convention Against Torture is a treaty obligation that we take seriously and we adhere to. And in that treaty, it -- those treaties and laws, it defines torture. And -- Q: Then what's the purpose of rendition? McCLELLAN: -- so we adhere to our laws and our treaty obligations, and our values. That's very important as we move forward in conducting the war on terrorism. But what this is about is how we conduct the war on terrorism, how we protect our people, our citizens. And each country's highest responsibility is the safety and security of their citizens. And we all must work together to prevail in this different kind of war. And intelligence helps save lives. And we have an obligation when people are picked up on the battlefield -- unlawful enemy combatants -- to do our part to question them and learn information that can help us prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And we work very closely with countries throughout the world to make sure that we are doing all we can to protect our citizens -- but we do so in a lawful way. Q: But if we are committed to international conventions against torture, what, then, is the purpose of rendition? McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not going to get into talking about specific intelligence matters that help prevent attacks from happening and help save lives. As Secretary Rice indicated yesterday, the steps we have taken have helped save lives in America and in European countries. We will continue to work with -- Q: But you seem to be suggesting that -- McCLELLAN: No, you're -- Q: -- there's more to be gained by interrogating these people outside the United States than there is inside. McCLELLAN: It depends. It's a case-by-case basis, Bill, and in some cases they're rendered to their home country of origin. You cited two examples of past renditions yesterday, one individual that was involved in the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; another individual that is one of the most notorious terrorists of all time. Q: But how do we know they weren't tortured? They claim they were. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Q: How do we know they weren't tortured? McCLELLAN: Well, we know that our enemy likes to make claims like that. Q: I want to go back to David's question about whether or not the administration is looking into any new ways of monitoring rendition activities in other countries that -- McCLELLAN: I answered his question and I'm not going to -- Q: You didn't answer that question, Scott. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to talk any further about it. Q: You didn't say anything about whether or not -- you said we receive assurances from other countries. You never did say anything about whether or not we, then, go further and make sure that nothing is occurring. Is the White House -- McCLELLAN: Secretary Rice talked about it yesterday. And I talked about it today. And we're not going to comment further than that when it comes to intelligence matters that are helping us to prevent attacks from happening and helping us to learn important intelligence that saves lives. Q: So there's no monitoring -- so there's no mechanisms, no monitoring after -- McCLELLAN: You're asking me to talk about intelligence matters that I'm just not -- Q: We're not asking you to talk -- we're asking you whether there's a procedure in place -- Q: To make sure -- McCLELLAN: You've had your question, I've responded to it and this what I'm going to say. Q: I had my question; you haven't responded to it. McCLELLAN: Well, I've told you why. I have responded to it and I've told you the reason why. And I think the American people understand the importance of protecting sources and methods and not compromising ongoing efforts in the war on terrorism, and that's why I'm just not going to talk about it further. Q: I'm not asking you about an individual case. We're asking whether there is a procedure in the U.S. government to make sure that the system you tell us will not result in torture, in fact, doesn't. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. One, again, I'm not going to talk further about intelligence matters of this nature. So let me make that clear, again. Q: We're not asking on an intelligence matter. McCLELLAN: No, this is relating to intelligence matters; it absolutely is, David. And because of the nature of the enemy we face and the different kind of war that we're engaged in, these are matters I think the American people can understand that we're not going to talk further about because of the sensitivity and because of the fact that they could compromise our ongoing efforts. We need to prevail in this war on terrorism. We've got to do everything we can within the law to protect our citizens, and we need to work with other countries to help save lives, and that's what we're doing. Q: The question you're currently evading is not about an intelligence matter. McCLELLAN: You've had my response, Bill. Go ahead. Q: Scott -- McCLELLAN: It is relating to intelligence. Go ahead. Q: If the countries to which we are rendering detainees are not torturing, are we to conclude that they have some technique that is, in fact, more successful in gaining intelligence than the United States? McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say anything -- I didn't say anything to suggest that. Q: A separate issue, then, if I may. McCLELLAN: Sure. I would encourage each of you to look closely at what Secretary Rice said yesterday, because she addressed this in detail. * (3) DEPARTMENT OF STATE COMMENTS -------------------------------- US Department of State -- December 2, 2005 DAILY PRESS BRIEFING [excerpts] Sean McCormack, Spokesman http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2005/57596.htm [...] Q: The Foreign Minister of Ireland told us yesterday that the Secretary is going to make a declaration about the secret prison of the CIA and these flights to Europe. Can you confirm that and tell us when? MCCORMACK: They had a general discussion on these news reports of the allegations that we've been talking about for the past several days. As I have said before, the Secretary looks forward to responding to Foreign Secretary Straw's letter. And we're going to do that in as timely a manner as we are able and we'll keep you up to date on that response. Q: It will be a declaration? A statement? MCCORMACK: In terms of what form the response will take, I'll keep you updated on that. Q: Sean -- MCCORMACK: On the same topic? Q: As a follow up to that. I assume from your use of tenses that there has been no response yet? MCCORMACK: That's correct. Q: And secondly, I would ask, does the Secretary intend to address this issue before she leaves for Europe? And in public? MCCORMACK: I think -- well, a couple of things. One, in terms of the formal response to Foreign Secretary Straw's letter in his capacity as EU presidency, we'll keep you updated on the timing of that. I think that at an earlier event today, there were a couple of questions asked of the Secretary whether or not she was going to be speaking with you and your colleagues prior to her departure, she said that she would be speaking to you prior to her departure and she's a woman of her word. She intends to keep that word. Yeah. [...] Q: Sean? MCCORMACK: Yeah. Different topic? Q: Well, I just want to get back to the secret prisons, if I can, just for one second. MCCORMACK: Okay. Q: Have a go? I was just wondering, I know that in terms of the delay in the U.S. actually responding to this, I know that you have said that you have responded to it from the podium and actually I've sort of gone back and done a bit of compendium, you know, just of your statements from the podium and it -- MCCORMACK: That's trouble. Q: What? MCCORMACK: That's trouble. Q: Absolutely. (Laughter.) Okay. It seems at the beginning you said that it was a matter to be addressed by the CIA or the DNI. Afterwards, you couldn't discuss classified issues. As late as November 16th, you didn't notice any strains as a result of reports of these issues. And it was only sort of on November 29th that you said that this is a matter that has to be responded to. My question out of all this is, do you think that whatever the outcome of this, the United States could have been more on top of responding to these concerns and not let them fester and reach the point they have? MCCORMACK: Well, I think the latest response that I gave you was in response to questions about Foreign Secretary Straw writing a letter, which would be a formal written request from the EU. In terms of our response to these news reports and these allegations, we have made every attempt to be -- to give the best possible response that we could. We have talked at length in this room and in other fora about the constraints on our ability to respond directly to these allegations and these news reports. So all we can do is with, as I have said, with the European publics, European parliaments, with the American public, is to try to engage in a discussion about the context in which these allegations and these news reports -- these news reports arise. We will continue to engage in that discussion. We will provide a response to Foreign Secretary Straw's written request for information and I expect that this will be a topic of continuing discussion into the future. Q: Can I just follow-up just on one thing on that? MCCORMACK: Sure. Q: Given the fact that there was a delay of almost four weeks between the break of the report and the time that you actually said that this was allegations that needed to be responded to, do you think that the United States in the future has to be more sensitive to what the Europeans or other allies may consider inappropriate activity in the war on terror that the United States might not consider? MCCORMACK: Well, again, in terms of -- in terms of the news reports, I can't -- I am not able to confirm the substance. Q: I'm not asking (inaudible) MCCORMACK: I think that we are, in our public diplomacy efforts, very sensitive to the concerns of foreign publics. There have been examples where we've not done as good a job as we might have, but we have -- we have certainly tried to learn from those past examples and to try to improve our ability to react rapidly to news reports that are now bouncing around in the 24-hour global news cycle. That is something that the President believes is important, the Secretary believes is important and Under Secretary Hughes believes is important. So it is an effort to which we are devoting extensive resources and extensive effort. I think that we have improved our ability over time to respond to these -- to respond to news reports and inaccuracies in news reports that may appear several time zones away. We are always looking at ways in which we can improve that effort. Q: But I suppose when we have what she has to say, we'll know the answer to my question. But my question is: What is it about this that you feel the allies are due or other countries are due an explanation? MCCORMACK: No, we -- Q: I mean, this is an American operation. America has an interest in trying to defeat terrorism. You sound very apologetic, frankly. I mean, apologetic -- MCCORMACK: But no, I was -- with -- let me be clear. Q: Yeah. MCCORMACK: I was trying to make a general point about our -- Q: I'm sorry, don't misunderstand what I'm saying. MCCORMACK: Right. Q: It sounds a little bit like we have some explaining to do, and I'm just wondering why. MCCORMACK: Well, Barry, I think we have gone over and over this issue over the past three days. I think in terms of my response to these questions about the Secretary's meeting with the German Foreign Minister, with Foreign Secretary Straw's letter, are out there for you to evaluate. There are a lot of words on this. In terms of, I would just, again, differ with this characterization of being apologetic. What I'm trying to do is provide as forthright and timely an explanation as I can on this as well as other matters. And what I was trying to do in response to Peter's question was to give a more general answer in which we look back even further beyond these news reports popping up several weeks ago. Yes. Q: You said that you want to answer because it was a formal written request. Why did you wait for that formal written request which is a rather high level of -- in diplomacy of tension between two countries? And it's with good allies, so why did you wait for such high tension to answer or to -- not even to answer but to consider that you have to answer? MCCORMACK: Well, I think we -- prior to this letter, as Peter just pointed out, we talked about this -- we talked about this issue quite a bit. In terms of formal requests, I'll have to look back at the record. I don't have the exact timeline of when we received formal inquiries from the EU. But this was a public formal request for information and we think it's important to respond to that request. Q: Just one more thing, a follow-up on this. You said that there were cases there where you thought you could have done better. Is this one of them? MCCORMACK: I'm not referring to this case. Q: I know, but I mean do you think that you could have been a bit quicker to get off the mark on this one? MCCORMACK: You know, Peter, I think that, you know, I'm going to let the historians judge how, you know, how we're doing. It's -- I know there's a real temptation to do instant analysis these days, but in terms of the job that we are doing here every day at the Department of State and in this government, I'll let other people make those judgments. I'll let other people make those assessments. We'll let the historians judge. Yeah. Q: New subject? MCCORMACK: Yeah. Q: Can I just follow-up on one more question on that? MCCORMACK: Sure. Q: As Peter said, to begin with, you are saying this hasn't strained or hadn't strained EU relations. I suppose -- we'll, you acknowledge now, do you, that it has strained U.S. relations with the EU? MCCORMACK: No. Look. I have answered this question, I believe it was yesterday or the day before, when we were talking about, well, what is it that -- you know, how much time is this taking up? And my response was, inasmuch as I am standing up here in this briefing over the past several days with you, not talking about our cooperation on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, not talking about our cooperation with NATO in helping to provide a stable atmosphere in Afghanistan, not talking about our cooperation in helping the Iraqi people build a democracy and not talking about our common fight and the struggle against the spread of AIDS and malaria and other diseases. It's taking up quite a bit of time in the public discourse. But in the private meetings, let me tell you that the real work that is getting done is being done and all of those topics that I just went over are the topics that are concerning the policymakers and the discussions between the United States, the EU, as well as other European countries. Q: But this has been the second (inaudible) -- how big an issue do you think this is going to be when she visits Europe? MCCORMACK: She is prepared to discuss this issue, should it come up. I expect that it will. But she also has a long list of policy issues that she's going to be discussing at each of her stops along the way. I talked a little bit about those yesterday. They go all the way from U.S.-European relations to the spread of democracy to fighting the war on terrorism. Q: Okay. MCCORMACK: Yes, sir. [...] Q: McCormack, the following human rights was committed. The New York Times reported yesterday that those UFO flights used by the U.S. Government landed also in Greece. And I'm wondering if Secretary Condoleezza Rice is going to address the use of the Greek airports, too, during the upcoming trip to Europe? MCCORMACK: Use of the Greek airports by UFOs? I don't think she's going to touch that one, Lambros. (Laughter.) Q: I'm saying just -- the (inaudible) flights -- MCCORMACK: I don't have any -- I don't have anything for you on that. [...] Q: On the Balkans. MCCORMACK: Yes. No more UFOs. Q: I'm saying about the secret flights. You understand that anyway MCCORMACK: Okay. Q: Can you answer, those flights? MCCORMACK: I don't -- you asked this question the other day and I have the same response. I don't have anything for you. [...] * US Department of State -- December 5, 2005 DAILY PRESS BRIEFING [excerpts] Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2005/57637.htm ERELI: Greetings, everyone. Welcome to our briefing of the second week of December. No announcements, so we can go straight to your questions. Q: All right. The Secretary of State said this morning that cooperating on terrorism has saved European lives. She didn't elaborate. Could you tell us how many lives were saved, or how are lives saved or can you be a little more specific? This is a rather, you know, strong claim, and we just have nothing to back it up with. ERELI: Given the nature of -- given the nature of intelligence and given the kind of people, organizations, and planning that we're dealing with, I think you'll understand why it's difficult. As the Secretary also said in her statement, to go into a lot of detail about specific acts or specific instances in which we've taken actions against individuals and specific attacks. But I think what's clear is and what the Secretary was -- the point the Secretary was trying to make is that the cooperation we have with our European partners and with our partners throughout the world has resulted in are frustrating the planning and operations and attacks of terrorists, including in Europe, and that this why it is very important for us to understand, number one, what's at stake. Number two, the importance of cooperation and number three, how this is -- as she said, a two-way street. A process and an engagement that serves the interest of the American people and the people elsewhere who are the potential victims of terrorist actions. Q: Strike the word largely, if you choose, is it fair to say then that what she means is the sharing of information has resulted in largely averting a number of potential terror attacks, thereby saving lives. Is that fair? ERELI: I can't say it better than the Secretary said it herself in her (inaudible) statement. Q: She didn't say anything about it. ERELI: She said -- she said that, I refer you to the statement, but she made the point that cooperation has saved lives. Q: (Inaudible) point, yeah. ERELI: And that's really what -- I don't want to -- I think that says it as well as it can be said. Q: One other question, please. No place in the speech or the statement did she say whether the U.S. operates or does not operate secret prison -- prisons to detain terrorist suspects. Does the U.S. operate secret prisons to detain terrorist suspects? ERELI: Again, I'll just refer you back to what the Secretary said. I think I would underscore one point that she made, which is obviously when we're dealing with intelligence, law enforcement and other operations, there is information that we just don't discuss. Yes. Q: (Inaudible) European governments -- it's up to them whether they'd like to cooperate with the United States or not; it's their sovereign right. Has there been any indication that some countries will no longer cooperate? ERELI: I'm not going to speak for other countries. I'll speak for the United States and again reiterate what the Secretary said, which is that we fully respect -- we have and will fully respect the sovereignty of other countries. It is their choice whether they cooperate with us or not and we respect that choice. Q: A follow-up? ERELI: Mm-hmm. Q: Is it fair to say that the statement will reflect what she will say in private to these other leaders or will she be giving more information in private to the -- ERELI: What you heard in public is largely what we'll be saying in private. It's a clear and consistent message and I think it's one that we -- you know, certainly the message of cooperation is one that is not new to our partners and the people with whom the Secretary will be meeting. Yes. Q: Does the State Department keep a log of all U.S. Government agency planes, which pass through -- ERELI: I'm not aware that we did. Q: Could you check and -- or double-check? ERELI: I'd refer you to -- well, I'll see if there's anything I can say on it. I tend to doubt it. Q: Ereli, do you agree that all the members of the November 17 terrorist organization, including its leaders, have been arrested, prosecuted and jailed in Greece with the help, of course, of your former Ambassador to Greece, Tom Miller? ERELI: Let me ask if there's anything more on the first issue before we go to something else. Q: Well, just on a related topic. That's okay. That's related too, I guess. Under the broad heading of terror, I'd like to ask you very simply can the State Department confirm that indeed Rabia has been detained -- killed, I guess? ERELI: No, I'm not in a position to confirm that. On the actions against November 17th in Greece. Q: Yes. ERELI: I can't speak to the specific question that you posed. I don't have the facts before me. What I can say is that we believe that November 17th is a terrorist organization. It has acted against our interests. We believe it is important to combat them systematically and thoroughly, and that we make every effort to support the Government of Greece as it does that. Q: I'm asking this, Ereli, because your Embassy in Athens in these days, as we are speaking, is looking again to find the leader of November 17 terrorist organization. I'm wondering why. ERELI: Because he's the leader of a terrorist organization. Q: But he's been already arrested. You know that very well. ERELI: Well, like I said, frankly, I don't want to speak to the specifics of the report because I'm not fully briefed on the facts. What I can tell you is that as a general matter we encourage and support the Government of Greece as it acts to move against terrorists who are operating on its soil against its interest and those of its allies. Q: One more question. In order to close once and for all this crucial issue, could you please take this question to have an answer from the above? ERELI: Well, if you could rephrase succinctly your question, I'll try to take it. But let's discuss it after the briefing since we've already been on it enough. Q: Do you agree, he has been arrested, yes or not? And -- ERELI: Well, then ask the Greeks if he's been arrested. Why don't you ask the Greeks? I would ask the Greeks if he's been arrested or not. It's up to the Greeks to say whether this guy's been arrested or not, not the United States. Q: We know this, but in the past you've made a lot of statements during the Olympic Games that they have been arrested, they have been prosecuted, they have been jailed, and the matter is closed. But right now, it's coming again to the surface. ERELI: I've said everything that we have to say on the subject. Q: That's why I'm asking can you take this question because -- ERELI: No. I've just given you the answer. Yes, ma'am. Q: Do you have any guidance on Al-Masri, the German national? ERELI: No. What's the question? Q: Do we know if he was imprisoned under CIA auspices? ERELI: I think, again referring to the statement the Secretary made earlier today, speaking about renditions in general, this is a lawful practice under international law. It is a practice that we and other countries have engaged in for some time. It is necessary and appropriate in certain exceptional circumstances, and in those circumstances we act in -- according to international law to help prevent -- to help get information and prevent terrorist attacks. And those parameters, again, are fairly clearly spelled out in the statement. I don't have any particular comment on individual cases, so I think that does it. Yes, Teri. Q: New subject. Q: Can we stay on this? Q: Go ahead, sure. Q: I'm sorry, but on this specific one, I guess the allegations in the papers was that the United States has admitted that there was a wrongful abduction there. I was wondering -- I know you don't generally -- ERELI: Yeah. Again, I don't want -- I'm not from the Statement Department going to speak to specific cases. I will say that we follow certain guidelines. Those guidelines are not to render any suspect to a country where there are -- where we believe he may be tortured, and in cases where there are some questions to get assurances that the person being rendered will not be tortured. And number two, when we do render, we do so fully respecting the sovereignty of the countries involved. But in terms -- but as far as specific cases and specific allegations, I'm not in a position to speak to them. Q: Did you -- Q: Let's follow-up with one more. Q: Sorry. Q: I'm sorry. The Secretary said that the policy of the U.S. was to keep such people or people -- enemy combatants, until the end of hostilities. ERELI: Well, I think it was a little bit more nuanced than that. Q: Okay. If you'll please tell me how much more nuanced, because my question would be how do you know when hostilities are over? ERELI: The law of war allows -- the laws --allows one to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. In the statement you'll see that we detain -- we detain individuals only as long as necessary and that indeed we have released many of the people that have been detained. So there's the legal authority and then under that authority there are different actions you take depending on the circumstances. Q: Okay. No, because my question, just to follow up on this, is that if you are invoking a law based upon a concept called hostilities, well, no hostilities have ever been declared, and I think there's a good number of countries around the world who don't agree that there is a war going on. So I'm wondering how do you define that to work within that operation of that law? ERELI: Again, you're entering an area of legal interpretation that I, frankly, am not equipped to discuss. I think that, again, it's the policy of the United States to act in ways that respect and that are consistent with our domestic law and international law, and that I would argue that there is broad agreement of what law is applicable to the conflict in question. Q: Can I ask you about the torture issue, which she did speak very clearly about? Do American interrogators have some guidelines, either written out or are they trained in advance, what constitutes torture? You know, much as a policeman having to observe the Miranda ruling has to read Fifth Amendment rights to suspects. I think they still do. ERELI: Yeah, yeah. Q: Although the court is changing a little. Is there such a -- what should I say -- boilerplate? ERELI: Well, again, a couple of points to make. Number one, the Secretary very clearly said it is U.S. policy not to practice torture and that officials, or representatives, or those acting on behalf of the U.S. Government are not to practice torture. And that is made clear -- without giving you chapter and verse, that is made clear to all persons concerned. Second of all, I think the Secretary also made the point in her statement that authorized interrogations will be consistent with U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and that in cases where there have been abuses, those individuals have been held responsible. But simply put, I think there is a broad statement of policy that everybody working for the U.S. Government understands and that the responsible departments of the U.S. Government follow through on communicating that policy to their employees in different ways, according to the procedures of those departments. Yeah. Q: A follow-up on this. If the purpose of rendition is not to bring suspects to countries where torture would be permitted or even encouraged, why do -- ERELI: Well -- go ahead. Q: Or the U.S. does not condone it. What is the purpose of rendition to a third country? Why wouldn't you just bring them back to the United States then? How do you choose the country that you're rendering them to if it's not for reasons like this? ERELI: Again, there are legal considerations. It's not always appropriate or there are not always the legal mechanisms by which to bring suspects back to the United States. In other cases, it's not a case that -- where the United States may have jurisdiction; for instance, in the case of Carlos the Jackal which was referred to in the statement. But depending on where the person is from, the country of origin and involvement in acts related to those countries, where he is rendered and where he should be rendered differs. So again, each case is unique, depending on where the person is from, what the circumstances of the arrest with the -- what they're suspected of. So you know, it's something that is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Q: Are the locals doing the questioning? People that discovered democratic principles about a week and a half ago, do they -- are they involved in the questioning? ERELI: Well, again, I'm not going to speak to any specific cases, but I would say that when we are involved in a rendering we receive -- and if we have any questions, we seek and receive before rendering assurances that the person won't be tortured. Q: Countries like -- Q: But I'm asking about suspects left to be questioned by hosts, if that's the right word, governments that might not be as refined as -- ERELI: The disposition of the person rendered, or what happens to a person rendered once they're rendered, is they're subject to the laws of the country to which they're rendered. Q: But doesn't the United States have a responsibility? You say that you ask and get assurances, but these are also countries that you, in many cases, continuously or annually cite for instances of torture. ERELI: Right, which is why it's important that if there are questions we get assurances. Q: Assurances from -- Q: So she is saying the U.S. doesn't practice torture. She's not saying, is she -- or correct me if I'm wrong -- that the U.S. knows other countries to whom the U.S. has relegated suspects do not practice torture? ERELI: The Secretary was very clear. She said the United States has not transported anyone and will not transport anyone to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured. Q: But what would make you think these countries aren't torturing when you annually say that they are? ERELI: Well, I'm not speaking to any one specific country, but I think that is why it's important, if there's any question, to get assurances. And that's something that we do. Q: Wouldn't it give you more assurance to take them to countries that you don't believe torture? ERELI: Again, there are a variety of considerations when deciding where to render somebody. I can't speak to all those considerations. Q: (Inaudible) members of the Bush Administration argued against McCain's proposal to outlaw torture or not to spend federal money on -- ERELI: You know, this is something that, again, as the Secretary indicated in her statement, we are working with Congress to come up with good solutions on. Q: Well, why isn't McCain's solution a good solution, according to many senior members -- ERELI: I'd refer you to a long list of statements on the record about Administration policy on this issue. We recognize Senator McCain's concerns and we are working with him. Q: Can we change the subject? ERELI: Okay. Q: Go ahead. Q: Same? ERELI: Same topic? Q: Will the United States Government do any initiatives about the definition of terror or necessary changes about international law (inaudible). ERELI: No. [...] * US Department of State -- December 7, 2005 DAILY PRESS BRIEFING [excerpts] Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2005/57782.htm [...] Q: Now, can we go to interrogation, the topic of the day? I don't want to dominate the briefing, but I think everybody wants to know if the -- how would you describe the Secretary's remarks today, as an elaboration of existing policy and extension of what you she said at the airport, as a refinement? Pick your word. She covered ground she hadn't covered before and some people think she's signaling some sensitivity and some shift. But, of course, policy never changes. ERELI: Well, I think the Secretary is stating as directly and forthrightly as we can our policy. Q: But when did the policy change? ERELI: I think it's existing -- it's existing policy. Her statement is a statement of policy and it's been the U.S. policy. Q: How long has it been U.S. policy? ERELI: I believe since the Secretary said it. Q: Perfect. Can I follow up? (Laughter.) If this isn't -- if this isn't a new -- if what she said today is not new and that you follow international law, you follow the UN Convention against torture, whether it's in the United States or out of the United States, why is the Administration objecting to the language posed by Senator McCain prohibiting cruel and unusual and degrading punishment against any detainees by U.S. personnel, whether it's in the United States or not? ERELI: You know, I think we've also made clear and the Secretary made clear in her statement on Monday that -- and others have as well -- that we are looking -- the Administration is looking to reach a mutually agreeable solution with the members of Congress on this issue and I would have that to say in response to your question. Q: Is it because it's actually U.S. legislation? I mean, when the U.S. signed the -- or ratified the Convention on Torture, I think it said something to the effect that the United States doesn't feel that the Convention on Torture -- that it's bound by any -- that it's bound it if U.S. legislation, in the United States, is against anything in the Convention; or that U.S. interpretation of anything in the Convention is against the U.S. Constitution. Does the United States feel more bound by its own legislation than it does by any UN conventions or international obligations that it signs and that's why it's hesitant to pass any new legislation on this? ERELI: Well, when you ratify a convention it becomes part of your domestic law. Or maybe I shouldn't say that because there might be some legal sophistications that I'm missing. But I think the best way to understand that -- the best way to answer your question is to, again, look at the statement of record, which is the United States will be bound by -- or will follow U.S. law and international law and its international treaty obligations, which are legal obligations. And that those are the principles that will guide us in our actions on this issue and on other issues. Q: (Inaudible) was so important for the Secretary to clarify this position? ERELI: I think she was responding to questions. Q: But it became obvious that details of the German detainee and other issues, such as Murtha coming out speaking about the war and these situations, it seems to have moved the Secretary several times on this trip to have to deal with this question. ERELI: Mm-hmm. Well, as we've made clear, this is an issue about which there's debate in the United States and around the world. And it's an issue about which there is debate because we're really on unfamiliar ground here for everybody. Unfamiliar ground in the sense that we are engaged in a struggle, engaged in a conflict with a new kind of enemy that doesn't -- that is outside many of the norms and practices, which the world has hither to had to deal with. And in confronting that threat and in dealing with these actors, we have, again, we have found ourselves on uncharted territory. So obviously there's a discussion about what is necessary, what is appropriate and how does that -- how you reconcile that with past practice and existing norms. And the Secretary's responses to your questions, legitimate, important questions are, I think, a sincere attempt to try participate in that debate and participate in that discussion and to present to you and help you work through how the U.S. Government sees the problem, how we are working through the difficult choices that they present and how we're trying to adapt, again, existing norms for past conflicts to new and unprecedented challenges. Q: A follow-up. Do you believe that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has placed Secretary Rice in a very, sort of embarrassing light, where she has to explain the possibility of the military not behaving properly? ERELI: Absolutely not. I think Secretary Rice, President Bush, all -- Secretary Rumsfeld, all the members of this Administration have made it clear that we are engaged in a war. That there are those out there who are trying to kill Americans -- who have killed and who remain bent on killing Americans. And that it is the first duty of any government to act to protect its citizens and that's what all of us in the Administration, I think, keep at the front of our minds every single day. And the point Secretary Rice is making and the point I think that the others are doing -- making is that we are going to do that in ways that are consistent with our laws, our values, our principles and our international obligations. Q: So why should people believe that because we've seen Abu Ghraib, we've seen continuous positions of torture, more pictures, more are forthcoming, more and more the Administration being plummeted and particularly -- ERELI: Pummeled? Q: Pummeled with questions and -- well, even worse, in the press regarding this situation that doesn't seem to change. It only seems to be revealed and the American people may feel that they're being lied to. ERELI: Well, actually, I think they're the same -- the same incidents being recycled and repeated as opposed to new incidents. But I'd have this to say in response, and again, it was -- the Secretary spoke to it, I think, very forcefully on Monday. We have our laws. We have our -- those entrusted by the government to act on behalf of the people, whether they be diplomats or judicial officials or our brave men and women in uniform, have instructions to act consistent with those laws. And the vast, vast majority of them every day do that with honor and dignity. As in any system, there's not a system in the world where they're not going to be failures, of individuals to conform to the laws and instructions and norms that they are entrusted and sworn to uphold. Q: But if they're not norms -- ERELI: And when that happens, as it did in Abu Ghraib, the system is designed to act, to investigate, to find and to punish so that it -- and to take actions so that it doesn't happen again, which was done in Abu Ghraib. So what Abu Ghraib or other instances show is that although we have laws, although we have instructions, although there are clear things that people are supposed to do and not supposed to do, if they're -- when there are abuses and that things do go wrong, there is a way to deal with it. And I think that is an important lesson for anybody observing our system to know that we have laws, we follow them, but when there are problems, we also have transparency and accountability. Q: Why do you think your European allies were so surprised then that you had hidden prisons or there was discussions of these prisons and that Europeans seem to be quite taken back and that she has to explain this? ERELI: Well, again, there are questions about how -- there are questions about and examinations of the threat and how you respond to the threat. That is healthy, that is necessary in a democracy and in open societies and we're speaking about it openly. Q: But I'm talking about your European leaders and allies. They were taken off guard that she had to explain to them. We're not talking about here domestically. We're talking about her as the Secretary of State who is out there doing diplomatic liaison. ERELI: Again, referring back to the Secretary's statement on Monday, I think she addressed this very well in saying that we're engaged in the global war on terror and we have partners that are working with us and that we are engaged in a common endeavor. That includes Europeans who have been victims of the same kind of wanton terrorism that we have: the Spaniards, the British, the Italians. And that we have, I think, had a good and productive partnership in confronting the war on terror in all spheres: economic, political, military, law enforcement and intelligence. But as in the United States, there is a debate in Europe. There are questions asked in Europe, that is as it should be, and we, as friends and partners and allies of the Europeans and others with whom we work in the war on terror, it's important to address those questions. Q: (Inaudible) specifically (inaudible) -- Q: Chancellor Merkel said on Monday that Secretary Rice did apologize for or did say there were mistakes being made in the abduction -- CIA abduction of the German citizen Al-Masri. Later on, it was reported that U.S. officials said that Secretary Rice did never say that. ERELI: Yeah. Q: Did Chancellor Merkel get that wrong? Did the Secretary of State say there were mistakes being made in the case of Al-Masri or not? ERELI: I think what's clear, if you look at the transcript from the press conference yesterday, was that the Secretary made the point, as I said yesterday, that if and when mistakes are made, corrective actions will be taken and that we obviously respect the sovereignty of our friends and work with our friends. The Secretary also, I think, and it's important to underscore this, the Secretary and Chancellor Merkel had an excellent meeting that is very positive, very cordial and very productive and that they agreed on a broad agenda for both Germany and the United States in the bilateral relationship and in the transatlantic relationship. And that with respect to all the issues, including this one, there was a real meeting of the minds and I think I'll just leave it at that, because frankly, I think more has been made of the specific issue that you raise than is necessary -- than is warranted. And it detracts, frankly, from the very positive tone and substance of their meeting. Q: Are we talking about an inference here? If mistakes -- perhaps she said, if mistakes were made, we'll correct them. And could it be that the Germans inferred from that that she is acknowledging a mistake and that you and she and the State Department are saying she was speaking in general terms, if mistakes were made they would be corrected? ERELI: I would simply say that, you know, we and the Germans are very (inaudible) up on this and that it's not an issue of discord or disagreement. Q: Well, I don't think that's true, Adam. ERELI: It is -- I'm telling you. Q: Well, the Germans today are coming out and saying that she did say Al-Masri was a mistake, regardless of what you say up here. In Germany, they're saying -- ERELI: And I'm telling you that we -- they had a good meeting. Q: I believe that. ERELI: We are moving -- Q: What I'm talking about is whether she said it was a mistake. ERELI: I don't have anything more to add to what the Secretary said on this issue publicly yesterday. Q: Not necessarily what the Secretary said, but didn't yesterday, the U.S. Government say Al-Masri is entitled to come to the United States if he wishes? ERELI: I did not see that statement. I would tell you that Masri tried to come to the United States. He was denied entry by the Department of Homeland Security. He returned from where he came. He is required, if he wants to come back to the United States, to apply for a U.S. visa, after having been denied entry and that if he applies, that visa would be adjudicated by a U.S. Consular official. Q: Well, apparently, yesterday, the U.S. Government said that if he wanted to come to the United States, he's free to come, which means that there was a mistake in the first place. Don't you think so? ERELI: I -- Q: (Inaudible) officials on the road apparently told our people on the road that he was welcome to come. Can you not confirm that? ERELI: I would say that if he applies -- my understanding is that if he applies for a visa, we would expect -- we expect to be able to resolve this satisfactorily. Q: Can I just ask you -- just as a point of information just -- it was my understanding, as printed in The Washington Post and all the other commentaries that I've read, that U.S. policy had been that torture restrictions apply to U.S. personnel only on U.S. soil. Is that an accurate characterization? ERELI: I think the accurate characterization is what the Secretary said in Kiev today. Q: (Inaudible) before, maybe in jest, beginning today? ERELI: No. Look, what the Secretary said is existing U.S. policy. I'm not going to do a forensics for you on all the discussions that have taken place on this issue. I think it's clear what the policy is. The Secretary said it and you can take it to the bank. Q: Of course what she said today -- when she speaks, it is policy. We're not asking you for a history of interrogation. It's a very simple question. Until today, were the rules applicable only to interrogation in the United States? And as of today, they may have been expanded abroad or were they -- did they always apply in the U.S. and abroad? That's all. ERELI: Yeah. And frankly, I'm not going to -- I can't describe for you and give you a timeline for all the discussions and consultations leading up -- you know, if you want to look at the public record, look at the public record. But the policy that's stated by the Secretary of State is existing U.S. policy. Q: Are you not aware -- we're not asking for all those discussions. We're asking what was the policy up till today and -- ERELI: The policy of the United States -- Q: -- we understand what the policy is from this day forward. ERELI: -- the policy of the United States was, as was said, repeatedly by the President, that we do not condone torture and we do not tolerate torture. Q: But do we commit torture on -- Q: -- the United Nations Convention -- ERELI: Whoa, whoa, whoa. One at a time. Q: No. On -- but is that distinguishable by territory? That's the question. ERELI: That is a pretty comprehensive statement and I think that what the Secretary said is consistent with what U.S. officials have said previously. Q: But can't you just answer the Q: Has this policy changed? That's what we're trying to find out. Has this policy, from the Secretary's comments -- ERELI: From what? Q: From -- on torture, on -- ERELI: Has it changed from what? Q: Has it changed from before? In other words -- ERELI: I think the U.S. policy has always been that we don't conduct torture. Now -- and we don't condone torture. And as I said before, there has been discussion and debate about how you adapt norms to the situation at hand. That debate has, obviously, covered some of the issues that you're raising. But not having been in all those debates, not having been in all those discussions, I can't tell you at this date, there was this decided at that date; there was that decided, et cetera, et cetera, because it's an ongoing thing. But I can tell you that the policy has always been: (a) that we abide by U.S. law and our international obligations; (b) that includes torture and the convention against torture; and (c) that the formulation as expressed by the Secretary of State today is existing policy. And, finally, that's as much as I can do for you. Q: Sir, I think you answered my question. So in another words, the Convention applied to those suspects who are being held abroad, not in America. ERELI: It applies to -- Q: Applied. ERELI: The Secretary said what the policy is. I'll leave it at that. Q: So other than that -- ERELI: May we have this gentleman. Q: If I just may ask that, under the Convention, practices being used in Guantanamo, for example, such as water boarding, that we all have heard about, is banned. So if you say the U.S. has adopted in the past, even last week, this Convention Against Torture, it would imply that all those practices would have been illegal. ERELI: I'm not going to speak to allegations of specific treatment. I would say that the United States and officials of the United States and employees of the United States are subject to and act according with U.S. law and our agreements under -- our international agreements, including the Convention Against Torture. Q: Adam, just one more. But the UN Convention on Torture doesn't specifically -- without you speaking to any one specific act, the Convention itself doesn't lay out any specific acts. So is there a list that you follow that's kind of an addendum to the Convention on Torture or a list that you have of specific acts that you're prohibited against? ERELI: I don’t know. Yeah. Q: A quick question on this. I know you don't want to get into timelines, but was the Secretary's comments today necessitated to clarify, to restate potential misunderstandings or misstatements that are being made about her comments -- about her statement on Monday, that some people thought a loophole may have applied, may have opened because they were reading into her fully vetted statement on Monday? Is this what necessitated potentially her comments today? ERELI: There's requests for -- this was in response to questions we felt that, you know, that there was a need to answer those questions and that's why the Secretary said what she said. Q: So it is a causal effect then because, I mean, I know it was a question asked -- ERELI: And the answer is -- Q: Is an answer to a direct question on the road. But, obviously, there had been some consideration given to the fact that we needed to get out to clarify something that potentially had been omitted or something that other, let's say, newspapers, were misinterpreting. ERELI: Again, you know, we want to -- as I said before, there is a good and honest and well-intentioned debate, and we want to contribute to that debate and we want to help the American people and those everywhere with an interest in this issue to understand why we do what we do and what principles we're guided by. And I think there's a lot of misunderstanding based on an incomplete -- a lot of misunderstanding based on incomplete consideration of what's out there. So that's what we're -- that's what's behind our attempt to lay it out. Yeah. Q: You said that there's an incomplete consideration of what's out there, but don't you think there's been an incomplete -- at least until this point, I mean -- do you think that because -- that it's an incomplete consideration because it's been an incomplete explanation? ERELI: It's obviously, as I said before, an ongoing process -- an ongoing process of discussion and adaptation. So, you know, it's something that evolves. It's not an issue that's going to be fully answered today, I mean, because there are going to be, again, new developments, new threats, new actions that people will want to understand, people will evaluate in the light of what's been done in the past. And so -- and that's the spirit in which we're coming -- that's the spirit in which we're engaging on this. Q: You said that you're engaged in the struggle with a new kind of enemy outside the norms and practices. But that enemy is not following the regular norms and practices. And you've never been faced with dealing with an enemy of this nature before in -- within the context of your own norms, practices, and obligations. Is there a move in this Administration to reinterpret your obligations to these treaties and international law when faced with an enemy that's not necessarily acting within the bounds of the obligations that you adhere to? ERELI: I think what we're trying to do and what we've been trying to do from the beginning is to both confront and defeat an enemy and to do it consistent with our laws and our -- both domestic and international. And because in the struggle, we're never forgetting that we are a nation of law, that we are governed by the rule of law, and that we are answerable to the law. And I think that is a fundamental principle that guides us in our discussions and assessments of what is necessary and appropriate, bearing -- all the while bearing in mind that it's important to do everything we can to protect the American citizens. Q: But the difference with -- sorry, one more on this -- but the difference with Europe is that they feel that no matter who the enemy is, you need to follow the parameters of international norms and obligations that you've all signed on to. ERELI: I know. We're saying the same thing. Q: No matter who the enemy is. ERELI: We're saying that we've got a new enemy. It poses unprecedented challenges and that we are going to meet those challenges consistent with our laws and international obligations. Q: You said more than that. And you said and we'll have to adapt our norms to meet these -- ERELI: Well, that is -- Q: -- unforeseen -- adapt means to fiddle with. It means to refine. ERELI: Adapt, interpret -- Q: No, I mean, there are people who think the First Amendment ought to be sort of refined every now and then, then there were a few lonely people, like William Douglas and Hugo Black, who thought that the First Amendment meant what it said, okay. Now, if the Convention on Torture means explicitly what it says or if it's something that can be adapted to changing an unforeseen and, you know, awful, terrible enemies, then you -- that's your rationale for changing -- ERELI: I think that any lawyer or legal scholar would tell you that the law is organic and dynamic. Q: No. The First Amendment isn't organic and dynamic. Q: Adam, the question about Masri. There's a report circulating in Germany that the U.S. officials are negotiating with German officials about a packet of compensation for Masri. Can you -- ERELI: Don't know anything about that and I would also note that, you know, this is a matter that is obviously a subject of legal action so -- Q: Okay. Well, okay, then -- ERELI: That constrains what can be said. Q: Okay, as a follow-up question. The Secretary has said that if mistakes were made that the she would -- that the United States would rectify -- ERELI: Take actions to rectify. Q: Okay. Does rectification include people who were wrongly abducted and imprisoned and abused that they should be compensated? ERELI: I don't want to engage in hypotheticals. I think that the point the Secretary made is fairly clear that we believe it's important to correct our mistakes. Q: So you're saying a mistake was made. ERELI: Pardon? Q: You said it is important for us to -- ERELI: Correct our mistakes. Q: -- correct our mistakes. So you're saying that it was a mistake. ERELI: I'm not speaking about any case in specific or specific circumstances. I'm saying, as a -- Q: But (inaudible) -- ERELI: -- general matter. Yeah, and I'm not speaking to specifics. I'm saying is -- Q: You're not answering his question then? ERELI: To the degree that he's asking about a specific case and I'm not talking about specifics, I guess you could say I'm not answering his question, yes. Q: Can I move on? Q: On Merkel? A new one? Q: Yeah. Exactly. Q: One more question on torture? Q: Okay, Jonathan, go ahead. One more. (Laughter.) Q: You said that the Department of Defense has issued a statement about access to prisoners saying that the International Red Cross has access to all prisoners being held on the Department of Defense properties, prisons, whatever. Clearly, Europe wants reassurances about the treatment of all prisoners, not just those being abducted by the Department of Defense but also by the CIA. Can you now give reassurances because the speculation about secret prisons continues, that the International Red Cross has access to all prisoners, not just those being held by the Department of Defense? ERELI: Yeah. Yeah. You know, I'm not prepared to speak to that. I'll leave it at that. Q: But then you know it's just going to, you know, I mean -- why not? It's just -- it's -- that's the reassurance. ERELI: Yeah. Because I think, again, as the Secretary made clear, again, on her statement on Monday, there are certain activities because of their nature, because of the intelligence that we're just not going to talk about and beyond saying that we will act in accordance with the law -- with our international obligations and respecting the sovereignty of our partners. Q: But their reports are confidential. Why wouldn't you let them view what you're doing if it's completely legal? ERELI: I think I've said what I can say on the subject. [...] * # # #