03 October 2001
Transcript: State Department Briefing, October 3, 2001
(Department, Terrorism, Afghanistan, NATO, Middle East, Tunisia, Iraq,
Turkey, Israel/Palestinians, Caribbean, Saudi Arabia, US/UK/Libya,
Cyprus/Greece) (5300)
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.
Following is the transcript:
(begin transcript)
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, D.C., October 3, 2001
INDEX:
DEPARTMENT
Secretary Powell's Meeting with Members of Senate Foreign Relations
Committee/ Authorization for Military Action
TERRORISM
Briefings of Russians & Pakistanis/ US List of Terrorists
AFGHANISTAN
Sharing Information with the Taliban/Links Between al-Qaida and the
Taliban/Richard Haas' Meeting with Former King/ Future
Government/Nature of Contacts with the United Front's Representatives
NATO
General Taylor's Briefings/ List Given to NATO/Article V
MIDDLE EAST
Secretary Rumsfeld's Trip/Secretary Powell's Meeting with Qatari Amir
and Foreign Minister/ al-Jazeerah Broadcasts
TUNISIA
Reports of al-Qaida Bases in Tunisia
IRAQ
Funding of Rebels in Iraq
TURKEY
Secretary Powell's Praise of Turkish Cooperation
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
Recognizing Palestinian State/ Attacks Near Gaza Strip
CARIBBEAN
Missing Crop Duster/ Search and Rescue Operation
SAUDI ARABIA
Concerns About Support of Usama bin Laden
US/UK/LIBYA
Trilateral Meeting in London/ Verdict in Pan Am 103 Trial/ UN Security
Council Obligations
CYPRUS/GREECE
Usama bin Laden's Off-shore Bank Account
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to
be here. I don't have any statements or announcements, and I will be
glad to take your questions, but with a reminder that the Secretary of
State will be coming out with members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee at about 1:30, so anybody that wants to be there can go, and
I'll go with them, because I want to be there.
QUESTION: The briefings that were -- that are being done yesterday and
today, I am interested in specifically if the briefing that was given
to the Russians was in any way less comprehensive than the one given
to your NATO allies?
MR. BOUCHER: It was the same briefing. And General Taylor, as you know
-- not only did the Russians receive the briefing that we did in
capitals, but General Taylor, when he was at NATO, briefed the North
Atlantic Council but also briefed the US-Russia Permanent Joint
Council, so that Russia was a part of that and heard directly from our
counter-terrorism expert on the situation.
QUESTION: In your vast experience in working in this building, has
that ever happened before, that the Russians have been allowed to join
in, in the full -
MR. BOUCHER: In my vast experience and my short memory, I don't know.
I wouldn't be able to say that. But the briefing that Ambassador
Taylor did was an excellent briefing. As you know, the NATO members
said they found it clear, concise and compelling. And the Russians
received the same personal briefing from him.
QUESTION: Deputy Secretary Armitage has gotten into a little bit more
detail about the nature of these briefings, saying it's going to be
focusing on financial issues as well. Can you fill us in about the
kind of information and, if you could, talk about is there any kind of
information that you just wouldn't share at this point, because it
would sacrifice the ongoing investigation?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't go into any more detail than we have on the kind
of information that we are sharing. It does remain classified and it
is important to protect the information, the specifics of the
information so that we don't lose our ability to acquire that
information. In terms of what is being shared, obviously there is a
huge mountain of information that has been collected by us, a great
deal of information has been collected by other governments, and we do
share information with each other. With some, it's very, very
extensive because we have intelligence cooperation. With others, it's
less, so it varies from country to country.
QUESTION: US officials, including yourself and others, have pointedly
avoided using the word "evidence," saying you are not in a court of
law. Is that because the evidence is not at a stage where it could
stand up in a court of law? I mean, are we talking about specific
individuals who you have said, these people were involved in this
attack and they were involved in previous attacks, therefore we know
they have links to al-Qaida because of the previous indictment? Does
it go that far?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I am not in a position to go into any more detail
about the information. But I would say the reason we say we are not in
a court of law is because it is true. We are not in a court of law.
And the preparation of a legal case is a very meticulous and extensive
process that will go forward. You look at the enormous amount of
evidence that was presented in the New York trials for the bombings in
East Africa, and you see that there is a very persuasive and detailed
legal case that can be made after the collection of such information.
At this stage, we are collecting information, we are sharing it with
friends and partners around the world, and we will take what action is
necessary. Should this become a legal case, then legal evidence will
be presented.
QUESTION: Given that NATO, Britain and your other very close allies
have said they are also convinced that bin Laden is guilty, the fact
that the Pakistanis have now turned around and said, well, we haven't
seen any evidence yet, can we conclude from that that they didn't get
the same briefing as NATO?
MR. BOUCHER: I have seen various statements by various unnamed and
named Pakistani officials, so I'd leave it to them to offer their
opinion. Clearly, all the governments involved that have been
collecting information and sharing it with others have reached
conclusions -- many of the governments involved have already reached
conclusions on who is responsible for this action.
We are glad to see our NATO allies have found this evidence quite
compelling. NATO has removed the question mark from the decision on
invoking Article V and has made quite clear that this is an attack
from abroad on the United States.
We would share similar information with other governments and, again,
I'm not going to go into specifics about what kind of information
shared with different governments. But -- except I just did on Russia.
So I'll say the Pakistanis got essentially the same briefing as many
other governments did.
QUESTION: Essentially?
MR. BOUCHER: I have to leave it at that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. BOUCHER: Did I give her a better answer than I'm about to give
you? No. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Richard, are we asking the Pakistanis to share any of this
information with the Taliban?
MR. BOUCHER: As we have said, we are not interested in negotiating
with the Taliban or entering into any kind of negotiation with the
Taliban.
QUESTION: But that doesn't mean we couldn't share information with
them?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I've made our point clear. We don't see that
these demands for information or evidence from the Taliban are
serious.
QUESTION: Richard, does that mean that we believe that the Taliban are
actively collaborating with bin Laden, in spite of the fact -- I mean,
that they ignore the facts that you have presented to the rest of the
world? That they are actively conspiring with bin Laden?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we need any particularly new words to
describe this situation. The links between al-Qaida and the Taliban
are well known, quite evident, and they are already required by a UN
resolution to turn over Usama bin Laden, his leadership and to close
down his networks. That's been the case ever since the resolutions of
a year or more ago.
QUESTION: I don't know if this has come up, but the Secretary is
seeing members of the Foreign Relations Committee. So far as these -
MR. BOUCHER: I mentioned that at the top.
QUESTION: Yes, I know, but the question I'm about to ask. What is the
administration's position on how much authorization, if any, it needs
from the Senate, or from Congress, to take military action?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that would be a White House question, but if I
remember correctly, they have answered that a couple weeks ago. Or at
least 10 days or so ago.
QUESTION: Can you characterize it?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't, because I don't remember exactly what was
said. It's a very -
QUESTION: No, I meant -- all right.
MR. BOUCHER: It is a legal issue that the White House has to deal
with.
QUESTION: But the Secretary is not seeking any sort of endorsement or
approval for military actions today?
MR. BOUCHER: No. This is a discussion with the members of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. We have kept in close touch. We have done
a variety of different kinds of briefings and meetings with people on
the Hill. As you know, he himself was up there last week to talk to
members of the Senate and the House in closed session, and we continue
to meet with them and keep in touch.
QUESTION: Today, NATO said that you guys had actually given them a
list of steps that you would like them to do under Article V. And I
know you are not going to get into what they are. But who delivered
that? Was it someone from -- was it Ambassador Taylor, or was it
someone from the Pentagon, or was it -
MR. BOUCHER: I think it was our ambassador to NATO, who is Nicholas
Burns, a former -- our Nicholas Burns. That's right.
QUESTION: Former spokesman.
MR. BOUCHER: Former spokesman.
QUESTION: Well, would you like to say anything more about that?
MR. BOUCHER: He is an excellent spokesman.
QUESTION: No, not about him -
MR. BOUCHER: Sorry. (Laughter.) What there is to say is pretty much
what you noted and I noted before, that the North Atlantic Council was
briefed by our counter-terrorism experts. They welcomed the
information. As the Secretary General said, they found that it was
compelling. They immediately took action, as NATO does, to say that
this was an attack from abroad, and that Article V of the NATO treaty
did apply, and therefore we would help each other in any way we could.
And then we moved into discussing what NATO can do and what we can do
for each other in this situation. And there are specifics that we put
forward where NATO governments can help each other and get -- help
each other to make sure that we can deal with the situation properly.
When those are decided, if NATO can issue some sort of information on
that, I'm sure they will put it out.
QUESTION: Do they have the option of not going along with some of
them, because generally NATO operates -- well, it always operates on
consensus, right? And the consensus here seems to be that they have
invoked Article V -- the "if" is gone. So the other 18 members don't
really have a choice, if you say this is what we want, do they?
MR. BOUCHER: They have a choice about the specific steps. I mean, we
do operate by consensus. We are obligated to help each other in our
defense, but we can certainly discuss, if it's necessary, the kind of
specific steps we would take together. I think there is frankly
considerable consensus already on the kinds of steps that we could
take.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) is it fair to assume that the various steps that
the United States has asked for are military?
MR. BOUCHER: If I say, "yes," don't read too much into it. By
definition, NATO is a military, defensive alliance. That does not mean
that we have asked people to contribute troops to a particular
operation or that we have decided that if we carry out military
action, it has to be NATO military action. There is a great deal that
NATO does, that we do with each other, to make sure that the basis is
there, should our President decide to take action on behalf of the
United States, a few allies, whatever configuration he might desire to
take action, if he should make such a decision.
QUESTION: Are you talking about joint military planning?
MR. BOUCHER: I am not talking about any specifics. And I am trying to
lead you away from leaping to conclusions about the specifics.
QUESTION: But without getting into what the specifics are, when you
gave specific steps, did you detail each specific step in terms of how
you wanted each step carried out, or was this just a list of steps
that you want taken?
MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to describe the list of steps in any more
detail than I have. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Secretary Rumsfeld has just left to go to the Gulf. Does
State foresee sending anyone over as a special envoy in the near
future?
MR. BOUCHER: We think that Secretary Rumsfeld's trip is important and
he will work a great many issues. And, no, we don't have any
particular plans. We have embassies in all those places. We have
worked closely with the representatives of those governments. And, as
you know, the Secretary of State himself has seen any number of
representatives from that region, including today the Qatari Amir and
Foreign Minister and we have kept in close touch with them all along.
QUESTION: Recent newspapers have quoted State Department sources as
saying that the al-Qaida terrorist network has bases in Tunisia. Can
you comment on this?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know -- I don't think -- we've certainly not said
anything officially. Our information is that there are no particular
bases of al-Qaida in Tunisia. Obviously, we would want to hear from
the Tunisian Government if they were to find anything. But we don't
think there is any particular base operating there at this point.
QUESTION: Can you talk about contacts last week between the US Embassy
in Doha and the Qatar Foreign Minister regarding al-Jazeerah and their
broadcasts since September 11th?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the Amir of Qatar just talked about it. I don't
think I have anything to add to what they said.
QUESTION: Can you talk about what the concerns from this building have
been? I mean, has there been a concern about the balance of guests
that they have had on, or their airing of the bin Laden interviews?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I want to do any commentary on particular
news media from here.
QUESTION: Did you demarche the al-Jazeerah station?
MR. BOUCHER: We -
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I am not going to get into the commentary on any
particular station at this point.
QUESTION: Well, word is that your favorite octogenarian former King is
about to get a visitor from here.
MR. BOUCHER: Richard Haas is going to be seeing him. I don't know --
I'm not sure -- do I have the date? Anyway, I will check and see if I
can get you the date that Richard Haas will be seeing the King. We, as
you know, have met with him before. We keep in touch with all the
various factions, and he is making the trip in that area, and will go
to see him.
QUESTION: Richard, does this mean that you're considering giving him
another portfolio, other than the one that he has in the Northern
Ireland one? Or is he just going to say hello?
MR. BOUCHER: He is head of our policy planning, and he has contacts
with various other foreign ministries and people in that capacity, and
obviously that's an important function right now as this becomes a
major element of our foreign policy. So I wouldn't describe the trip
as primarily directed at seeing the King. But he is seeing the King
when he is in Rome.
QUESTION: So where else is he going?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if I can get you that.
QUESTION: Well, can I ask you another question then? Just based on the
seniority of people who are going to see the King, the last three
visits, I believe, that US officials have had with the King, other
than the congressional delegation on Saturday, have been at the level
of chargé and ambassador, as far as I know. Maybe correct me if I'm
wrong. There hasn't been someone -- a Washington-based diplomat to see
the King in over -- in two years, at least. So can you -
MR. BOUCHER: So what are we to conclude from this? It's in the -
QUESTION: To conclude that -
MR. BOUCHER: That we have kept in regular touch with all members of
the Afghan factions in exile and elsewhere, but that clearly since
September 11th, the issues involving Afghanistan have become even more
important and even more pressing to the United States. If you can make
a headline like that, we'd appreciate it. But, yes, indeed, the issues
involving Afghanistan have become more important and more pressing to
us since September 11th.
QUESTION: Well, would you like to outline what Mr. Haas might be
saying to the King?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd just put it in the context of our previous
discussions, that we've kept in touch with various factions inside
Afghanistan, various leaders and others outside Afghanistan, that we
certainly support the idea of a broad-based government in Afghanistan.
We certainly believe that the Taliban has, in many ways, betrayed the
interests of the Afghan people. But that the future of Afghanistan,
the decision on what kind of government they want to have, is for the
Afghan people to decide, and we have worked with the United Nations,
with other governments, with other groups to try to understand that
and try to work together with people to allow Afghanistan to
eventually have a broad-based government.
QUESTION: Well, can you -- is it fair to say that you're sounding the
King out on ideas for a broad-based government, not necessarily
suggesting or endorsing any one single -
MR. BOUCHER: We'll certainly be interested in his ideas, as we are
interested in the ideas of others.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Richard, there's been a UN envoy that has been
meeting with the King, as well as with others inside Afghanistan. If
the US is -
MR. BOUCHER: And we work very closely with him. We have met with him a
week ago. QUESTION: So why is it necessary for the head of policy
planning to go all the way to Italy to meet with the King?
MR. BOUCHER: I just said he wasn't going all the way to Italy just to
meet with the King. He was in Europe on other discussions. He is going
to meet with the King when he is in Italy; that's part of our
continuing process of consultations. We have worked very, very closely
with the UN envoy. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have our own
contacts as well.
QUESTION: Richard, the discussions of the King puts him in the context
of somebody who could provide some information, being part of the
broad-based view. Does the Administration think he has legitimacy to
be the ruler of Afghanistan again?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm going to answer this question the same way I have for
the last week. And that is, we believe that Afghanistan needs, the
Afghan people deserve, a broad-based government. We believe they
deserve peace and stability. We have been the leading donor of
assistance to the Afghan people. We have done a lot to see that they
get that. But it is not for us to decide the future government of
Afghanistan. And Afghans themselves will have to make that decision,
and we work with the UN and others to try and help that process along.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) asking you whether you would bless him with the
-
MR. BOUCHER: Well, you were. Is he going to be the future leader of
Afghanistan is a fairly straightforward question.
QUESTION: Kings are different. They either have legitimacy to a throne
or they don't. I wondered if a legal judgment has been made in the
administration -
MR. BOUCHER: I am not here to anoint anyone, sorry. I really do think
that is the question you are asking me. I am not about to do that.
QUESTION: Richard, can you say on the King, very briefly, if the
embassy or the State Department has been asked by the first President
Bush -- former President Bush -- to facilitate or arrange a visit with
the King while he is in Rome? I believe he is in Italy now.
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't heard about that. I will try to check and see
if we have anything.
QUESTION: Just the statement that it is not for the United States to
determine the government of Afghanistan, is that a general principle
that would apply to any other government?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes?
MR. BOUCHER: Pretty much. You are about to think of an exception --
(laughter).
QUESTION: Well, I am just saying, we fund the rebels in Iraq, or at
least Congress has.
MR. BOUCHER: We have supported Iraqi opposition groups, that is true.
I don't know if that's an exception or if that's actually -- I would
tend to argue that is consistent with the proposition that I just
said. But as you know, the President has stated very strongly we don't
believe in nation building, we don't think it is our job to choose
other people's leaders, no. To the extent that we can help support
people who have a better cause in mind and are more concerned about
their people than some governments do, I am sure we will continue to
do that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) ask somebody to come from the United States, or
did the State Department ask to visit him?
MR. BOUCHER: I frankly don't know.
QUESTION: Can you take the question?
MR. BOUCHER: I will see if I can find out for you.
QUESTION: Speaking of Afghan groups with other causes in mind, a
spokesman for the United Front laid out a fairly clear battle plan
against the Taliban at a press conference yesterday and basically
said, with United States help, they could easily overcome their forces
in the north of Afghanistan. I know you are not going to talk about
that, but could you at least tell us something about the nature of
this administration's contacts with the United Front's representatives
here in Washington? Who instigates them? Do you seek their advice? Do
you listen to them? Do you take their view of the situation there very
seriously?
MR. BOUCHER: I will have to check on that and see. Again, we have had
contacts with many groups; I am not familiar with each one, how it
works. I will see if I could find you something on the United Front.
QUESTION: You were talking about the Gulf countries. Turkey,
strategically, is usually in that same category generally when it
comes -
MR. BOUCHER: Turkey is a NATO ally, which is a different category, but
anyway -
QUESTION: It's also a NATO ally. I realize. But it is important
strategically because of bases, et cetera.
MR. BOUCHER: Very true.
QUESTION: Can you say something about whether the US is satisfied, as
the Secretary said about the Saudis, with Turkish cooperation?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the Secretary praised Turkish cooperation just a
few days ago when he met with the Turkish Foreign Minister and they
came out to talk to you. So I will leave it at that. Everything
applies. We work closely with Turkey in many ways, including through
NATO.
QUESTION: On a different topic. On the President's conditional nod to
a Palestinian state yesterday, can you give us an idea of how
influential the Secretary was in influencing that, prompting that
statement at this time, and why that statement might have been made at
this time?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think I can go into whatever discussions they
might have had. I would say we all recognize the President leads, the
President decides, and the President spoke yesterday. That is US
policy.
QUESTION: Yesterday, there had been a series of other attacks near
Gaza Strip. And Prime Minister Sharon is demanding now that both Hamas
and Islamic Jihad, if not the Lebanese Hizbollah be added to the US
list of terrorists. Are they on the lists, or are you about to put
them there?
MR. BOUCHER: All three of those organizations have been on the list
for some time, and I believe all three of those organizations have
been subject to specific and particular financial controls for some
time as well.
QUESTION: Richard, what can you say about State Department involvement
in the report today about the 1999 effort to capture bin Laden?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't say anything. As I read the report, it was
supposedly all about intelligence matters, and I don't talk about
those. I didn't even -
QUESTION: The State Department must have facilitated in some way and -
MR. BOUCHER: We don't talk about how we facilitate intelligence
matters, either.
QUESTION: Middle East News Line reported this week that there were
efforts under way right now with Syria to possibly get them off the
terrorism list. Is this totally untrue?
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see the particular report. As we have often
stated in the past, the goal on the terrorism list is not to put
people on, but to take people off. The goal is to get countries to
stop supporting terrorism. The President has made quite clear that
countries have a choice. Nations that continue to support terrorism,
continue to harbor terrorist groups will be considered hostile. So we
do consider it very important that nations make this choice and
fundamentally make the decision not to support terrorism of any kind.
QUESTION: Are there any negotiations though specifically going on
right now about what Damascus can do, such as getting rid of some of
the Palestinian -
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't get into any specific governments. But I think
pretty much all the governments on our terrorism list know what they
have to do. What they have to do in order to stop their cooperation,
support or harbor or get rid of the remnants or vestiges of terrorism
that may still exist.
QUESTION: Has anything changed in the last three weeks or
three-and-a-half weeks on this issue?
MR. BOUCHER: The -
QUESTION: In terms of getting certain countries off the lists?
MR. BOUCHER: I think what you have seen around the world in terms of
support for the effort against terrorism, the commitment for the
effort against terrorism, and the President's quite clear statement of
the decision that they have to make, that those things do in fact
change the situation. So we hope that governments would make the right
choices.
QUESTION: Have you managed to locate your missing crop duster?
MR. BOUCHER: Not yet. The search and rescue operation continues.
QUESTION: And you are still operating under the assumption that this
was just an accident?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, it appears to be. We are doing a search and rescue
along the track. The presumption is that the pilot had to put down
because of bad weather and, frankly, we are still hoping that he is
safe on an island somewhere.
QUESTION: Are you concerned that there may be elements of the Saudi
Arabian Government that support bin Laden?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would speculate in that direction. I have
not seen anything that would lead to that conclusion.
QUESTION: Is there a meeting coming up along with the British about
Libya that you can tell us about?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, there is a tripartite meeting. We have had several
of those before, and we are having another one -- it is either today
or tomorrow. I think it is today. It is today. Ambassador Burns, our
assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs, went out to London. They
are having, with the British -- the United States, the British and the
Libyans are having a trilateral meeting as part of a series of
trilateral discussions that have occurred following the verdict in the
Pan Am 103 trial. We used these meetings to lay out and discuss the
remaining steps that Libya must take to satisfy its UN Security
Council resolution requirements. We are continuing that process which
we believe may continue for some time and possibly in different
venues. We think that following the September 11 attacks, it is more
important than ever for Libya to comply with UN Security Council
obligations.
QUESTION: You haven't gone into specifics with countries, but you have
talked about the level of pleasure that you have at certain countries'
cooperation or offers of assistance. Have there been any offers of
assistance in cooperating from Libya and, if so, are you satisfied
with that?
MR. BOUCHER: I would say that it still remains very important to us
that Libya comply with its existing obligations under UN Security
Council resolutions. And, frankly, that is the focus of our attention
to Libya these days.
QUESTION: How are things on that front?
MR. BOUCHER: They are having a meeting today. As we know, the Libyans
have not yet complied with all the requirements. We think it is even
more important that they do so.
QUESTION: How do the families of the victims' interests or needs or
desires or whatever fit into this meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we have worked very closely with the families all
along. We have alerted them this week. We phoned leaders of the family
groups in order to alert them to the trilateral talks that are taking
place today -- got it, for sure -- between US, British and Libyan
officials. We have tried to work very closely with the families. The
goal, as we all know, is to get Libya to satisfy the UN requirements,
which include paying compensation and admitting its responsibility for
these actions.
QUESTION: When is the last time this committee met?
MR. BOUCHER: Several months ago. I would have to double check. We did
talk about it at the time, but I would have to look back and check for
you.
QUESTION: Was Mr. Burns at that meeting as well?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, he wasn't Assistant Secretary back then, if I
remember correctly. I can't remember when, at the moment.
QUESTION: Is he going on from London to other destinations?
MR. BOUCHER: I think he is coming back here.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) although in principle the subject is terrorism,
they are actually unrelated, though, to your efforts to build a
coalition against terrorism? Or will discussions about how Libya can
play a role in that and be included in these talks, given Qadafi's
offer to -- or expressions of support?
MR. BOUCHER: We have seen the various statements that have been made.
I think all I can really say is that the focus of this meeting, the
reason we are doing this meeting, the reason we are going out there to
talk to them is in this trilateral context. It is about compliance
with the UN resolutions. That is the first issue on the agenda.
QUESTION: Did you get any cooperation from the Greek side of Cyprus
about Usama bin Laden's off-shore bank account?
MR. BOUCHER: I would have to leave it to the Cyprus Government to talk
about how they have handled the issue of bank accounts. Certainly, we
have tried to work very closely with them. I may be able to get
something more for you later. Let me check on that one. Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
