28 January 2002
Transcript: Defense Department Briefing, January 28, 2002
(State of the Union/DoD themes. Geneva Conventions/applicability,
Afghanistan/firefight at Kandahar hospital; Detainees/location and
numbers; identification; treatment; nationalities, US Navy/ship
collision, Hazar Qadam raid/details) (5560)
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke and
Rear Adm. John D. Stufflebeem, deputy director of operations for
current readiness and capabilities on the Joint Staff, briefed at the
Pentagon January 28.
Following is the Pentagon transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of Defense
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke
Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem, Joint Staff
Monday, January 28, 2002 - 11:29 a.m. EST
MS. CLARKE: One housekeeping -- I need to be upstairs at 12 noon, so
when I go dashing out of here and leave the poor admiral to his own
devices, you'll know why. (Coughs.) Excuse me. And if I pass out,
you'll understand why.
I just wanted to do a very, very brief preview of our portion of the
State of the Union tomorrow night. And not to get anywhere near --
even close to being ahead of the president, but in terms of the
Department of Defense, I think you'll hear him talk about three things
that are so important as we go about building the 21st century
military.
And the first is, we're going to do everything possible to recruit and
retain the very, very best people we can. That means the best pay and
the best benefits, the right kind of training, the right kind of
equipment.
Secondly, you're going to see a focus on transforming the military --
an overworked and misunderstood phrase, but it's about figuring out
how to organize ourselves, how to equip ourselves, how to prepare
ourselves for the variety of asymmetrical threats we'll face.
And finally, and very important to us, reforming the way we do
business here in the Pentagon. We have got to do a better job of using
the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, and we will.
So with that brief snapshot, I will turn it over to the admiral.
QUESTION: Just briefly, Torie, could I ask --
MS. CLARKE: Sure.
Q: -- the NSC met this morning --
MS. CLARKE: Right.
Q: -- to discuss the detainees issue at the White House. Do you know
of any --
MS. CLARKE: We -- yeah. I -- I'm sorry. I do not have --
Q: (Off mike.)
MS. CLARKE: No, I don't have a readout of any kind from the meeting
this morning. So I have nothing to give you on that.
Q: Is the status under review? Is there some question as to whether
they should be redesignated as prisoners of war?
MS. CLARKE: I'll tell you everything I know, which is not a whole lot.
I am not a lawyer. I am not an expert on the Geneva Convention. But
two things are very certain. We are in very unconventional times.
We're in a very unconventional war. So every aspect of it, including
the Geneva Convention and how it might be applied, should be looked at
with new eyes and new thoughts as to what we're experiencing right
now.
And the second thing is, one of the few things I do know about the
Geneva Convention is a big part of its intent is to ensure the
appropriate treatment of people and the humane treatment of people.
And I could say with absolute certainly that the detainees who are
under U.S. control are being treated very, very well.
So I would just -- I would just -- I've got to leave it at that,
because I can't add to what has been out there thus far. I'm sure I
would just screw it up. So I think we'll just wait until we can give
you a better readout from the meeting this morning.
Q: But is there an active review under way? Is the administration
reconsidering the designation of the detainees --
MS. CLARKE: I don't know if there was a hard and fast definition of
"designation." I think this has been under review and under
consideration by the lawyers for some time.
Q: Torie, can I ask a quick follow-up on this? I asked the secretary
this the other day, and he didn't get around to answering it. But what
he is saying about unlawful combatants and everything else that goes
with it perhaps is applicable to the al Qaeda. But even though the
Taliban was not an elected government, it was a de facto government, a
government in place. And people fighting for that government, Taliban
troops, often were not given uniforms, because somebody couldn't
afford them or whatever.
Anyway, how do you justify calling the Taliban unlawful combatants
when they belong to a government in power and they were fighting, you
know, a type of war?
MS. CLARKE: Let me try to address it this way, and then I am going to
stop, because I can only get myself in trouble. There are policies and
procedures, considerations you want to take in in determining the
application of the Geneva Convention. Then once you have the
application of the Geneva Convention, the convention itself treats
different people different kinds of ways -- lawful and unlawful
combatants. Those are the kinds of things they're looking at, those
are the kinds of things they're deciding.
With that, I'm going to stop.
Admiral?
Q: A housekeeping question?
MS. CLARKE: Sure.
Q: The numbers of detainees in Afghanistan -- perhaps you could
enlighten us. They seem to have increased by about 20 over the
weekend. If you can tell us how that occurred.
And also, evidently reporters are being pulled out of Gitmo today or
shortly, and won't be there for another week or so. Can you enlighten
us as to why that's occurring? Is there some event taking place this
week that they're not --
MS. CLARKE: That's not my understanding, but we'll look into it. I
mean, we've been trying to rotate the media through there pretty
regularly, and there have been some numbers of them. But --
Q: But that's some extended time. Is there any consideration to
getting them back any earlier?
MS. CLARKE: I don't know what the time frame is, so I'll look into it.
Q: But you will have reporters back in before they resume the flights?
I mean, you wouldn't resume the flights and not have reporters?
MS. CLARKE: I don't know what the circumstances are. This is the first
time I've heard it. So I'll look into what the circumstances are. It
is our desire to facilitate as many media in there as possible and to
facilitate as much access as possible. So we'll look into it.
Q: And the numbers?
MS. CLARKE: He's got it.
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: With that, I'll say good morning to everyone.
Yesterday, Afghan forces, with assistance of U.S. Special Forces,
conducted an operation to secure the Kandahar Hospital from the
control of a group of al Qaeda members who had seized one of the wings
of the hospital. Despite numerous attempts to negotiate their peaceful
surrender, six al Qaeda forces had been holed up in the hospital for
almost two months. Initial reports indicate that all six of those
forces were killed in yesterday's attack. Several of the Afghan forces
were wounded in the confrontation; only one would be considered
serious. There were no U.S. injuries.
To date, to bring you up on the detainee numbers, there are 324
detainees in Afghanistan and 158 detainees in Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. And that brings our total to 482. The additional detainees that
were turned over in Afghanistan were from the Afghans to U.S. control.
And you should expect that the numbers will continue to fluctuate as
the interrogations continue of those that are being detained by the
Afghans.
And with that --
Q: Can you say where they came from, where the Afghans took possession
of them, what part of the country? Anything on why they were taken in
as detainees?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Well, this particular group -- I don't know where
this group came from. There are detainees throughout the country --
every -- north, south, east and west. I mean, there are over 300 being
detained in Herat. There still are hundreds that are still being
detained up in Sherberghan in the North, and so there are initial
interrogations that are going on while they're in custody of the
Afghans. The Afghans are recommending those to the U.S. whom they
think we would be interested in. And so when we have the opportunity
to get our forces moved around, we'll go and do the interrogations of
those, and then we continue the screening process until it becomes
obvious that these are individuals whom we do want to continue to
interrogate or to hold. And then there is enough -- I'm assuming some
process where we and the Afghans agree to turn these over to our
custody, and we've taken those to Kandahar.
Q: Are all of them --
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Where they came from, I don't know.
Q: Are all of the U.S. detainees in Kandahar? Are there still some in
Mazar-e Sharif and Bagram?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: U.S. detainees are in Kandahar and in Bagram right
now.
Q: (Inaudible) -- Victoria?
MS. CLARKE: Yes, sir.
Q: Are you ready to release the list of names of the detainees? And
also -- (inaudible) -- a country really basically fighting or
supporting these what we call terrorists and worst of worst and very
dangerous people, like the secretary and the president called them?
And why we are supporting or -- want to change their status, because
they have killed thousands of people, and they will kill more in the
future? That's what they said. So they should be treated just like --
they should be hanged! (Soft laughter.)
MS. CLARKE: Personal opinion being voiced.
First, as to the names, I don't even know if we have rock-solid
identifications of everyone. One of the things we're working on as we
look at designation and disposition is how you identify these people
and who belongs in which category, if you will.
And two, as I said, not being an expert on the Geneva Convention, but
what we are trying to do here is make sure we're applying the
principles and the policies that we feel very, very good about, and I
think, at the end of the day, after a lot of hard work in
consideration and deliberation, the American people and the people
around the world will see that we are A, treating these people very,
very humanely, and B, adhering to the principles that we care very,
very deeply about.
Q: But when you said "treating them very humanely," but what is their
future? I mean, how are you going to after the interrogation -- how
long [are] you going to keep them? And what is their future? What
[are] you going to do with them? -- number one. Number two, is the
countries where they belong to, have you heard from one of those
countries that are supporting them or to release them?
MS. CLARKE: A, what's going to happen to them are things that are
being decided at much higher levels than mine.
Q: And the countries --
MS. CLARKE: I don't -- I honestly don't know which countries we've
heard from and who we haven't.
Q: Admiral --
Q: What can you tell us on the collision this morning? I understand
that the Greeneville is headed to Diego Garcia. Is she moving on the
surface? Can she submerge? And where is the Ogden going now?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: As I understand it, USS Ogden is staying on station.
They have had a diesel leak in an underwater-line diesel fuel tank.
They're pumping that tank dry. By now I would suspect they probably
have already done that. Divers have been over the side to assess the
damage. They have abilities to effect repairs to just punctures of the
skin. I think that their divers will determine whether or not they
will need any additional work done. The submarine, as I understand it,
is on the surface, and that's just as a precaution.
Q: Admiral, can you please, in as much detail as you're able to at
this point, tell us exactly what happened in that accident?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: We don't know very much. The two ships were getting
together to facilitate the transfer of two crew members of Greeneville
for further transfer back home based upon -- I think there were deaths
in the family. To do that, because it's a submarine and a surface
ship, the surface ship deploys a rigid-hull inflatable boat to go over
to the submarine and pick up these crew members and bring them back.
As I understand it, in the maneuvering to bring the ships into
proximity to start to do this transfer is where -- was where they
bumped, starboard aft side of the USS Ogden to the diving plane or
control plane of the port side of the USS Greeneville. So the two aft
ends touched. No apparent damage to the submarine, but there aren't
qualified divers to make that assessment there. That's all we know so
far.
Q: Was this in the dark or in daylight?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Daylight. It happened, I believe, at 9:25 local in
northern Arabian Sea time, so that would have been daylight.
Q: What was the condition of the sea at the time?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Don't know, Charlie. That will have to come out in
the investigation. I just don't know.
Now, you can appreciate, though, I mean, these two COs, these two
commanding officers would have agreed ahead of time as to how they
would intend the rendezvous and what heading they would be, and the
sea state and winds all play a factor into that, as well as other ship
-- traditional ship-driving expertise. And what went wrong, we don't
know.
Q: (Inaudible) -- some members of the Greeneville crew were crewmen at
the time of the trawler accident?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: No idea. I don't know.
MS. CLARKE: Barbara?
Q: Admiral Stufflebeem or Torie, understanding this is a sensitive
question, can you tell us anything about whether the military has been
asked by Pakistan to get involved in the search for Daniel Pearl, the
Wall Street Journal reporter?
Have you been asked? Is there anything that you could do to assist in
trying to locate him and get him back?
MS. CLARKE: The best I can do is direct your inquiries over to the
Department of State.
Q: Well, has the military been asked by Pakistan, the U.S. military,
Central Command, which is running this operation, to get involved in
this at all?
MS. CLARKE: Not that I'm aware of.
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: And not that I'm aware of either.
Q: Just to follow, can you confirm the --
MS. CLARKE: No. We're going to go over here.
Q: Can you -- can we revisit the raid from last week? That several
reporters have been to the compounds that the U.S. attacked, and there
is a very different story emerging on the ground than was the version
of the story presented by the Defense Department. And first of all, do
you have a clarified version of who it was that the U.S. was attacking
last week? Do you have better clarity on that? Have you talked to the
people who are incarceration (sic)? What would be a reasonable
explanation for finding dead bodies with hands bound with plastic
binders, who are dead? Can you -- can we just revisit that, and what
do you know today that you didn't know last week?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: I don't know anything different than the reports
that I have been briefed on. So let me just briefly go back over that.
Hazar Qadam, as I pronounce it, a series of compounds, two compounds,
where we, the U.S., derived our intelligence over a period of time.
This had the clear indications of being a legitimate military target,
based on the indicators that we had been observing over time. Without
breaking any classification, I would say stolen U.N. vehicles had been
seen moving in and out of this compound. Late at night, groups of
vehicles had been driving in and out. So there were clear indications
that this was some sort of a meetinghouse of people who were doing
something that does not look like a traditional village, and in fact,
had clear indicators of being something that was protected and
guarded, much like compounds we have seen where Taliban and al Qaeda
have gathered before.
Due to the intelligence that was generated by observing this facility,
the commander decided to put a force on the ground to basically go
into this compound and find out who was there, what they may have been
up to, and try to get some detainees.
It was clearly not a case to bring in bombers and drop guided weapons
and just level the place, as has been done in some cases in the past.
And so when the U.S. force was on the ground, when the compound was
initially breached by U.S. special operating forces, those forces were
fired upon. And in defending themselves, there were -- and I don't
have the exact numbers, so -- I think there were 15 or 16 people who
were killed, and the remainder were taken into custody -- 27.
Q: Twenty-seven.
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Those individuals are being interrogated now. I
believe they're in Kandahar, but I'm not sure about that. But they are
in U.S. detention, and they are being interrogated for who they are
and what they were doing.
Now we determined, in the course of this raid, that they had
individuals whom they had in detention. Without knowing all the facts,
because obviously I'm not that close to it, that tells me that there
must have been somebody who had somebody else in their custody. That
explains what we're talking about in terms of those bound and found
dead.
It also was obviously an ammo dump. That's an American -- that's my
term -- an ammo dump. It was not a storehouse of weapons. These were
caches of ammunition. And it was then, after these buildings were
cleared -- i.e., those who were alive were taken into U.S. custody and
removed, and it was then that the AC-130 was called in to get rid of
the ammo.
Q: When the locals -- their version of this is that at the instruction
of the Karzai government, they were collecting ammunition and weapons
from the area and stockpiling it in these compounds. There clearly was
some tension between various factions in this local area about who
would be in control of the ammunition and the weapons. Is that not a
reasonable explanation for why there might be a large cache of
ammunition and weapons?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Well, on the realm of possible, that could be an
explanation for what this was and why it was there. But what it does
not explain are the traditional Taliban and al Qaeda modus operandi of
moving in the groups of vehicles that they do, at the times that they
did, and guarded in the way that it was, nor does it explain why the
U.S. forces were fired upon to the extent that they were.
As the chairman described, this was an intense firefight. Whomever had
weapons used them, and --
Q: Did the Americans arrive on the ground and attempt to communicate
with the people inside, or was it a firefight because a compound was
being attacked or seemingly being attacked by some outside force; the
locals wouldn't know who it was, didn't understand the language? I
mean, there's reasonable explanations for why local people might want
to pull the trigger.
STAFF/Q It was nighttime.
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: It was nighttime? Our U.S. special operating forces,
as they move under, in this case, the cover of darkness, is, one, for
a matter of security; two, for a matter of stealth and surprise. And
they also bring an expertise in speaking the language.
One the surprise -- the element of surprise is up -- i.e., you've
announced yourself by having kicked in a door, for instance -- U.S.
special operating forces are very directive in the language of the
area to say, "This is who we are, this is what we're doing, this is
what we want you to do." Now if the response that comes back is
automatic weapons fire, you defend yourself.
MS. CLARKE: I'd just add one thing to it. Some of the reporting I've
seen on this in the last couple of days seems to be based on talking
to some numbers of locals, and it seems to be [a] very small number of
locals. Not to give the operational report here, but before we do
something, especially something of this category, we will talk to the
locals, more than one or two. We will observe the place, probably for
some time. We will have surveillance of all sorts of kinds. And it's
the combination of information and intel that leads us to take the
kind of action we take.
Q: What have the interrogations revealed about who these people in
custody [are] aligned with? Taliban? Al Qaeda?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Well, it's a fair question, but the truth is, I
don't know. I called and asked this morning of -- the people who are
in control of this. They are still doing the interrogations. They
didn't have anything that they could tell me differently than what
they did a couple of days ago, which -- the indications are that these
appear to be Taliban. Now that's initial indications, and you know, we
don't have the names or who they are. We don't know what they were
doing.
So -- and you recall, on more than one occasion, for those we have
interrogated, when you do it more than once, all of a sudden you may
get a different name. And that may be because we don't understand
nicknames or what name's used in this long string of ones, or are they
changing stories. And so it'll take a little bit of time to develop
this and confirm --
Q: Do any of those in custody support these versions given by some of
the locals that this was a weapons-transfer station, that they were
working on behalf of the newly -- the new Afghanistan government?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Yeah. No. There have been no indications that
support this -- this assertion from other locals.
MS. CLARKE: Tom?
Q: When General Myers first briefed us on this -- (inaudible) -- you
said you thought it was a al Qaeda facility, and then once the
operation went down, found it was Taliban. So, I mean, even that would
suggest that there might've been some misunderstanding about what that
place was. Am I jumping to a conclusion here?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: No, not what it was, but -- I would say that it just
wasn't clear whom exactly we were dealing with. Was it al Qaeda? Was
it Taliban? In the MO -- I keep using term, and I'm probably
mis-applying it, but that's my word -- in looking how we derived the
intelligence and what we saw, this looked like it was an al Qaeda or
Taliban -- not to differentiate -- you can't -- they're
indistinguishable. When these bad guys have been getting together,
this is what it looks like. And oftentimes, the al Qaeda have gotten
together with themselves to regroup, as has been sort of their ilk of
late, but there also, in these previous times, were coordination
between them.
Q: Can I just follow up? There have been a number of these reports of
-- or speculation, I should say, where local groups are suspected of
having fed bad information to the United States in order to further
their own interests against some rival group. Given that background,
what's your level of confidence in the -- at least the human
intelligence that you're getting surrounding these operations?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Well, let me just refer to General Franks's
statement recently. In receiving reports of all kinds, we know there
are times when we're getting bad information. There is no single
report that will stand on its own. We're going to verify everything.
So we'll take all the reports, we'll work with all the local leaders,
and then we'll use other means and methods to verify something before
we take action.
Q: Torie --
Q: Torie, thank you.
Q: Hamid Karzai is in town. Has anyone checked with him whether or not
this compound was under orders from his government? Is there an
intention to do so?
MS. CLARKE: I don't know -- he's -- where he is. I know there's a
meeting over at the White House at about 1:20, 1:30 this afternoon.
And then he'll come over to meet with the secretary later today.
Q: Is there an intention to do so, to get to the bottom of this,
because wouldn't he be the final source on it?
MS. CLARKE: I don't have a specific agenda on the meeting.
Q: Torie --
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Well, I think -- let me just say that I'm not
exactly sure to what degree that there's a compelling need to get to
the bottom of something. The central commander was confident in the
intelligence derived as to what this appeared to be.
He put a direct action group on the ground, which is a much more
prudent way to develop more intelligence rather than just drop bombs
on a facility. It was clearly an uninhabited or a lightly inhabited
area, more rural than certainly village or city, by any means. And
when the Americans showed themselves, they were fired on. So I'm not
sure what else there was to do.
Now, the fact that the local villagers may have made some claims and
assertions, I think that the Karzai government will look into that and
satisfy themselves, and if there's any U.S. participation in that, it
will be invited.
MS. CLARKE: Let's do -- (inaudible)
Q: Admiral, switching to the raid at the Kandahar hospital, there were
six al Qaeda killed. Were they killed by friendly Afghan forces or
were they killed by U.S. Special Forces?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Well, the Afghans led the raid, so they were the
front force that attacked the wing and met headlong with those al
Qaeda members who obviously did not intend to surrender. We assisted
them. We supported them. I think it's fair to say that because it was
Afghan led, that the Afghans properly get the credit for having
brought this to a conclusion. So in terms of how many rounds were
fired, who fired them, and who might have killed whom, that's not
being tracked.
MS. CLARKE: (Alex ?).
Q: Yeah. To go to the issue of the identity of the detainees,
particularly the ones in Cuba, if you're not sure who they are, how
could they have been characterized as the worst of the worst? What did
you know about them that allowed you to make that characterization?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Remember again, this is an extremely -- I'm using a
strong adjective, I'm sorry, and it's a "e" word, too -- this is a
fully vetted process. If this is an individual who previously was
under Afghani control, then there is a level of interrogation and a
level of confidence that is built by those that hold them. They are
then offered to the Americans. If they were captured by the Americans
outright, the same process works into it. It's going to be a series of
interrogations. I think I read this morning that in terms of the
numbers of interrogations, where we have more than 6,000 -- now,
that's not individuals that you've interrogated, that's a relatively
small number compared to the force you're looking for, but you're
repeatedly rescreening and determining different levels whom this
individual is or what this individual has done.
So by the time it gets to a process where Afghanis have screened an
individual, our folks at Bagram and at Kandahar would have screened
them, the process continues till you get to a level of confidence that
this individual was found or picked up in this location, he had
previously been associated with involvement of these people, and these
were the operations that they were known to be associated with.
Since being under detention, some have lied, some have changed their
stories, some have tried to attack our people. It would appear, as you
had seen yesterday, that they are working to organize an organization
down there, probably for no good. They've made death threats against
all Americans, and those including their captors.
So these are not unknowns in the sense that they are bad guys. These
are the worst of the worst, and if let out on the street, they will go
back to the proclivity of trying to kill Americans and others. So that
is well established. The names of who they are -- if you were to go
ask an individual what his name is, he might tell you one and he tells
us something different. We're cataloguing all the names, you know, for
this particular detainee, but --
Q: Has a date been set for the resumption of transfers? And do you
tell the people, when you're moving them, that they're doing to Cuba?
MS. CLARKE: The date has not been sent.
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: And we do not tell them they're going to Cuba.
Q: Torie, going back to the Kandahar raid, could you explain why the
decision was made to raid the hospital at this time? And also, the
last assault began just shortly after they had a prayer -- or noon-day
prayers, Islamic noon-day prayers. Does that cause any concern?
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Well, not to us because, again, this is an
Afghan-led operation. It was, you know, the Kandahar province
commander who has been trying to work a negotiated surrender of these
individuals for better -- almost two months. You recall that initially
there were eight people in this wing, two of whom tried to escape. One
committed suicide, and I don't remember what happened to the eighth
one. Of the six remaining, they had threatened anyone who would hear
them that they'll kill themselves before being taken, and what they
wanted was their medical treatment.
And so here they were holed up, and the Kandahar commander, province
commander, he made the determination that the chances for a negotiated
surrender are over, it is time to forcibly remove them. Those
individuals would determine the outcome of that, so if they wanted to
start shooting and throwing grenades, that would sort of dictate how
it would probably end.
MS. CLARKE: Jeff and then --
Q: Admiral and Torie, there are reports that approximately 100 of the
158 detainees at Guantanamo are Saudi nationals. First of all, can we
confirm that? And secondly, there's also a report that Saudi Arabia
wants to bring some of those detainees back there to receive justice.
Can we confirm that that might be a possibility? And some of the
countries that want to bring them back, have we determined which ones
we feel would be able to administer the type of justice that we seek,
and proper judicial justice, I guess I should say.
MS. CLARKE: I'd say, one, we don't have a breakout by country that we
can share with you.
Two, one of the things we're working on in terms of the disposition of
the detainees is, those countries that we feel would handle them
appropriately, depending on the person and depending on the
circumstances, that probably will happen. We have no desire to hold on
to large numbers of detainees of any kind for any great length of
time. But we want to make sure these people are not back out on the
streets, back out on the roads doing what they have done.
I mean, never forget who these people are. They are part of
organizations that plotted and planned for a long time to kill
thousands and thousands of innocent civilians on September 11th. They
are people who were involved in the Mazar-e Sharif uprising, which
resulted in a lot of deaths, including one of our guys. They are
people who attacked their Pakistani handlers and killed people. And
they're people who, since they have been in detention, have vowed to
kill more.
So, just understanding the kinds of people we're dealing with,
appreciating that we're going through a very thoughtful, deliberative
process to determine their disposition, then you can understand our
concerns and our desires to make sure, as we work with other
countries, what they may do with people from their country.
And with that, I apologize; Admiral, it's all yours.
Q: Admiral?
MS. CLARKE: Are you done, too? Can he go with me?
Q: Thank you.
MS. CLARKE: Thank you.
ADM. STUFFLEBEEM: Thank you.
Q: Are you leaving, too?
(end Pentagon 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
|
|
|
