================================================================================ [B] REVISED GENEVA POLICY, 2002/02/07 TO 2002/07/30 ================================================================================ February 7, 2002 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: Can you tell us about the President's decision on the detainees in Guantanamo Bay? FLEISCHER: Ron, at this moment, I have nothing to report on that topic. When we have something to share we will get it out and -- Q: What was the question? FLEISCHER: Mr. Fournier, would you like to ask your question louder? Q: Can you tell us about the President's decision on Guantanamo Bay? FLEISCHER: Were you able to hear that? The question was, will you tell us about the President's decision on Guantanamo Bay. And the answer is that there is nothing to report at this moment. When we have something to report, we will, of course, provide it in its entirety. But there's nothing to report right now. Q: Can you confirm the report that's out there? Q: Can you tell us why the President has decided that the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict, itself, and the Taliban fighters, but not al Qaeda and other terrorists? FLEISCHER: Again, there's nothing to report at this moment. And whenever we have something, you will get it and you will have it in full fashion. Q: Are you denying that he's made a decision on it? FLEISCHER: Again, as you know, John, there are times when decisions are made, but there are some notifications, et cetera. And so, until everything is notified, I'm not going to get into this topic in any great length. But you will have information provided to you in its entirety as soon as all is available. Q: You're not knocking down the story. You're not saying what's out there in the wires right now is incorrect? FLEISCHER: I'm saying that when the White House has something to report to you, we will report it. You will have it in a full fashion. Q: Will the President make an announcement, or will it be on paper? FLEISCHER: Well, the President is going to be having an event tonight. As you know, it is a press pool event, so you are certainly free to ask the President anything on your minds. Q: Is that expected today? FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, Jim? Q: Do you think something today on this matter? FLEISCHER: I hesitate to make predictions as to timing. As soon as all timing is taken care of, it will be released in its entirety. (...) # # # February 7, 2002 Office of the Press Secretary FACT SHEET STATUS OF DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO !!! United States Policy. * The United States is treating and will continue to treat all of the individuals detained at Guantanamo humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. * The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees. * Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status. * Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the Convention. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, however, the Taliban detainees do not qualify as POWs. * Therefore, neither the Taliban nor al-Qaida detainees are entitled to POW status. * Even though the detainees are not entitled to POW privileges, they will be provided many POW privileges as a matter of policy. All detainees at Guantanamo are being provided: * three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws * water * medical care * clothing and shoes * shelter * showers * soap and toilet articles * foam sleeping pads and blankets * towels and washcloths * the opportunity to worship * correspondence materials, and the means to send mail * the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to security screening The detainees will not be subjected to physical or mental abuse or cruel treatment. The International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to be able to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security. Housing. We are building facilities in Guantanamo more appropriate for housing the detainees on a long-term basis. The detainees now at Guantanamo are being housed in temporary open-air shelters until these more long-term facilities can be arranged. Their current shelters are reasonable in light of the serious security risk posed by these detainees and the mild climate of Cuba. POW Privileges the Detainees will not receive. The detainees will receive much of the treatment normally afforded to POWs by the Third Geneva Convention. However, the detainees will not receive some of the specific privileges afforded to POWs, including: * access to a canteen to purchase food, soap, and tobacco * a monthly advance of pay * the ability to have and consult personal financial accounts * the ability to receive scientific equipment, musical instruments, or sports outfits Many detainees at Guantanamo pose a severe security risk to those responsible for guarding them and to each other. Some of these individuals demonstrated how dangerous they are in uprisings at Mazar-e- Sharif and in Pakistan. The United States must take into account the need for security in establishing the conditions for detention at Guantanamo. Background on Geneva Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 is an international treaty designed to protect prisoners of war from inhumane treatment at the hands of their captors in conflicts covered by the Convention. It is among four treaties concluded in the wake of WWII to reduce the human suffering caused by war. These four treaties provide protections for four different classes of people: the military wounded and sick in land conflicts; the military wounded, sick and shipwrecked in conflicts at sea; military persons and civilians accompanying the armed forces in the field who are captured and qualify as prisoners of war; and civilian non-combatants who are interned or otherwise found in the hands of a party (e.g. in a military occupation) during an armed conflict. # # # February 12, 2002 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: Has the CIA in any way overstepped its mandate as an intelligence gathering organization by participating in military operations in Afghanistan? FLEISCHER: Actually, the President believes that the integration immediately of the CIA with the Department of Defense has been one of the reasons we were so successful in winning the war on terrorism up to this point in Afghanistan; that everything that has happened has been a result of a marriage of the CIA and DOD, involving intelligence sharing and operational role that the CIA has played. So it's just the opposite -- the President believes that this is a great part of the transformation and the way that a country like ours, that has a large conventional capacity, can fight and win terrorist-style wars, guerrilla-style wars, because of the strength that the CIA and the DOD have, when combined. Q: Just so I'm understanding this. So the CIA no longer has to maintain its operations to intelligence gathering? It can move into a variety of other operational spheres, as well, including military actions taken against specific targets? FLEISCHER: They will at all times conform with what the law requires, and that is always allowable under the laws. (...) # # # February 13, 2002 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: Has the President been briefed on the February 4th Predator strike in Afghanistan? And is he confident that a military target was hit? FLEISCHER: The President, of course, has been briefed as part of his regular morning meetings. And I think you have heard from the Defense Department directly about that topic, and the President is satisfied fully with what Defense has informed him. Q: More specifically, there was a report this morning that a senior al Qaeda finance official may have been hit, as opposed to innocent civilians. Can you shed any light at all on that? FLEISCHER: I cannot confirm that information. (...) # # # March 14, 2002 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: The President says he will not provide a sanctuary for the al Qaeda. And as you know, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and military leaders at the Pentagon have been saying that one of the missions in the war in Afghanistan is to destroy "the al Qaeda". And yet there are reports coming from Afghanistan that some of the leadership there, some of the Afghan leadership is willing to make deals with the al Qaeda of the Taliban, that if they surrender, they will let them go free. Would the President accept such a deal, if so, and if not, what would he do about it? FLEISCHER: The purpose of the mission is to destroy al Qaeda so they cannot regroup, so it makes it as hard as possible for them in their ongoing efforts to regroup, and then to inflict more harm on either the United States or any of our friends or other allies. So the President's point, which is something that DOD carries out every day, is to create an environment in which they cannot regroup, and that means the notion of letting people go free is not something the United States supports. And it's a fluid situation on the ground in Afghanistan; that is a message that is conveyed, and we continue to work with our friends in Afghanistan to achieve that objective. (...) # # # March 19, 2002 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: I want to ask one another question. This has to do with Zacharias Moussaoui who is going to be -- I don't know if he's going to be asked for the death sentence or not, by the Justice Department, there are some versions that that might be the case. He seems to be the only surviving member of the terrorist group that took over the plane, at least that is the accusation. Would the President back a death penalty request by the Justice Department for Zacharias Moussaoui if he's found guilty of the charges? !!! FLEISCHER: That's not a determination the President makes. The matters of justice, matters of the charges that should be brought in courts of law are matters that the President delegates to the professionals and the Department of Justice to decide. I can share with you that when the President made the determination that Mr. Moussaoui would not be tried in a military tribunal, that he would indeed be tried in a civilian court, he was aware of the possibility that one of the charges could be brought included a death penalty. But this was a decision made by the professionals at the Attorney General's office. The President is not involved in that process. Q: But I would assume with a case of this significance and well-known case, there would be a discussion between the President and the Secretary of Justice before the -- FLEISCHER: No, I just indicated otherwise. Q: Before the session is -- FLEISCHER: I just indicated otherwise. I think that's an important part of protecting justice in America. Those decisions, and this is the way the President leads, get delegated to the professionals who have responsibility for reviewing the facts as they see them that are gathered by the Department of Justice. And decisions about at what level people should be prosecuted should be made by professionals, and not the White House. (...) # # # March 20, 2002 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: Ari, the regulations for the military tribunals are leaking out all over town. Presumably, you're not going to tell us what they are. How deeply involved was the President in this whole process? FLEISCHER: Well, as you know, the President made the fundamental decisions months ago to allow for the creation of military tribunals in an effort to provide justice and to protect what needs to be protected as we fight the war on terrorism. He asked the Department of Defense to write the military tribunal rules and regulations, and the Department of Defense has done so. And this will be something that they will announce when the Department of Defense is ready to announce. The President is very satisfied with the work that DOD has done on this. Q: Did he make any changes, or did he just basically sign off on what Rumsfeld sent over? FLEISCHER: I'll let that all get briefed out when DOD makes this announcement. (...) # # # July 23, 2002 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) FLEISCHER: Campbell. Q: The Israelis today are calling the military strike on Gaza City justified. Prime Minister Sharon called it "one of our biggest successes." Nine children died in the attack, obviously. What's the White House reaction? Has the President spoken with Sharon or conveyed any concerns? FLEISCHER: The President has said repeatedly that Israel needs to be mindful of the consequences of its actions in order to preserve the path to peace in the Middle East. The President views this as a heavy-handed action that is not consistent with dedication to peace in the Middle East. This message has been conveyed to Israel this morning through the embassy in Israel, and that is what the President thinks about this. Q: Does the President plan to call Sharon directly? FLEISCHER: This message has been conveyed to the Prime Minister's Office through the embassy. Included in the conveyance of the message and the President's thoughts about this is the regret of the innocent lives, including the children's lives, that have been lost. Q: But, Ari, Israel's response to that has been it's in a war, as is the United States. And in war, innocent lives are lost. What is the difference from the President's perspective in Israel's action in Gaza, and United States actions against al Qaeda in Afghanistan where innocent lives have also been lost? FLEISCHER: It is inaccurate to compare the two. And the crucial difference here being that in this instance, in Gaza, this was a deliberate attack against a building in which civilians were known to be located. And that does separate it from the activities taken. There are going to losses of innocents in times of war. And I think that that's recognized around the world. What's always important is in pursuit of the military objectives, as the United States does in Afghanistan, to always exercise every restraint to minimize those losses of life. But in this case, what happened in Gaza was a knowing attack against a building in which innocents were found. Q: And so it's the President's position that Israeli commanders did not take sufficient care in avoiding civilian casualties, and even beyond that, targeted the building where there are known civilians. That borders on some transgression on the laws of war, it sounds like. FLEISCHER: Terry, I have given you the President's statement about what he thinks about this. Steve? Q: How will this complicate your efforts to encourage Palestinian reform? FLEISCHER: Well, the President continues to call on all parties to honor their responsibilities, to make certain that the political solutions are found to bring peace to the region. This President has been and will continue to be a big defender of Israel and Israel's right to self-defense. The President will also speak out, as he sees appropriate, as he sees fit, depending on the events. At the end of the day, all parties must continue to remember the responsibility is to pursue a political path, a political process, so that negotiations can be successful, so the Arabs, the Palestinians, and the Israelis can live together, side by side, in peace. Kelly. Q: Ari, what evidence does the administration have that the Israelis knew that civilians would be in that building, and that the attack would result in the loss of innocent civilian lives? FLEISCHER: These were apartment buildings that were targeted. Q: And when the Israeli defense forces said that they are sorry for any harm, but regretfully, this is the result of terror which uses civilians as human shields. If the Hamas leader had civilians there to protect him? FLEISCHER: Kelly, again, this President has been and will continue to be a lead defender of Israel around the world and will speak out about Israel's right to self-defense. This is an instance in which the United States and Israel do not see eye to eye. (...) FLEISCHER: Connie. Q: Ari, returning to the Israeli missile strike, are you making a moral equivalence between the Israeli attack and Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis in settlements and in public places? And was U.S.-supplied equipment used in this strike? FLEISCHER: The President's statement speaks for itself, as I read it. That's what the President thinks about it. He makes no comparisons. He judges it in and of itself. Q: What about U.S.-supplied missiles and equipment? FLEISCHER: The President's statement speaks for itself about the topic. (...) Q: Ari, given what has happened with Israel and the White House's feeling about the action done today -- or yesterday, whenever -- over the period of the night, does the White House have the same feeling that if Osama bin Laden were in a cave or in a house and we could get him, kill him, but perhaps there would be some innocent lives lost in terms of his children, would the White House still be opposed to that? FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to speculate about any type of military action against somebody who we don't know is dead or alive. He may be dead already, he may be alive; we don't know. I'm not going to speculate about any type of action. But suffice it to say, as always, no matter what the target, America's policy that we have military operations that always focus on minimizing the loss of civilian lives. And any time anyone is lost, whether it's as a result of an errant bomb or whether it's a result of any mistake made possible by anybody in American theater of operations, we deeply regret the loss of any innocents. Q: You're not saying that the Israelis should not have gone after the head of the military wing of Hamas? FLEISCHER: The statement speaks for itself. Q: You're not saying that they shouldn't have gone after him? FLEISCHER: The statement speaks for itself. Q: Are you suggesting there is some other way they could have gotten to him that would not have involved -- FLEISCHER: Again, I'm just not going to get into a world of hypotheticals about what could have happened or what might happen in the future. We are dealing with the realities on the ground here in an area where it remains very important for people to remember the consequences of their actions. And those consequences have to always keep in mind the fundamental, overriding importance of finding a political solution to the violence in the region. And that also makes it separate and apart from what's happening in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, there is no political future for Osama bin Laden or for the al Qaeda or for anybody that we're working with over there who are involved in having attacked the United States. Israel is the first to acknowledge that the way to peace in the future does involve contacts with responsible Palestinian officials and Arab leaders. The Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, for example, have stepped up and been very, very constructive and helpful in trying to create that political atmosphere. That is not and will not be the case with what's happening in Afghanistan. (...) FLEISCHER: Bob? Q: Ari, two if I may. One on the Gaza strikes. In the message that the President sent via the embassy today, did he make clear that he did not regard this strike as self-defense? FLEISCHER: I think the message speaks for itself, when the President says that. Q: The message certainly suggests as much, but the President's a pretty clear- speaking fellow, I'm sure he wouldn't want us to misinterpret -- FLEISCHER: Clearly when the President says that this heavy-handed action does not contribute to the path to peace, that's a different measure from Israel's legitimate right to self-defense. (...) Q: Ari, are you concerned that the weapons used in this attack by Israel were U.S. supplied and possibly in violation of the rules of the FMS regime? FLEISCHER: The President has spoken out rather strongly about this, and I leave it at what he said. Thank you. # # # July 24, 2002 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) FLEISCHER: Sarah. Q: Ari, does the President believe that Israel used a 2,000-pound smart bomb against the Hamas leader knowing it would kill civilians in order to derail the peace process? FLEISCHER: The President spoke out about that yesterday, and he meant what he said. And the President did not think that this was an action that contributed to the peace process. And the President feels that very strongly. The President is worried about the implications of those actions on the ability to achieve peace in the region. (...) # # # July 26, 2002 PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER (...) Q: Ari, the President this morning at that homeland security event spoke of the capture of 2,000 terrorists. Has the government now confirmed that all these people in custody are terrorists? FLEISCHER: The President has repeatedly used the number 2,000 or 2,400 to describe the number of people who have been detained. And, yes. Q: So it's confirmed? I mean, certified that all these people who are being held are, indeed, terrorists? FLEISCHER: That's how the President described it before. Q: How does he reach that conclusion? FLEISCHER: (!!!) These are people who don't belong to any organized nation who were fighting with al Qaeda or with the Taliban against the United States. And the reason they were captured is because they were taken in battle. Q: Is any progress being made at Guantanamo on eliciting information from these people, advancing the case? FLEISCHER: Without being able to get into any specific details about intelligence information that's being gleaned, the answer is, yes. It's been a productive part of the war on terror to be able to protect the country as a result of information that's being gleaned. I think you were aware of several things that have been in the press as a result of some of that. (...) Q: Ari, Judicial Watch has been having a hard time serving papers on the Vice President in this Halliburton lawsuit. In fact, they said that they were threatened with arrest when their process server came to the gate. Apparently, the past practice, when serving papers on the President or the Vice President, is that the people at the gate accept service. But the Judicial Watch process server says he was threatened with arrest, and they're now accusing the White House of frustrating the law that says you can't tamper with a process server. Is the White House making any effort to keep these papers from not being served? FLEISCHER: Tom, I don't have any information about this. It's the first I heard about it. You may want to talk to the Vice President's office, I don't know anything about that. # # # # # # # # #