Military

MR. ERELI: No words of introduction, so let's go over to Mr. Schweid.

QUESTION: The Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo, can you at this early point say what impact it might have on the Administration handling of suspects? And what is the government going to do? I guess you could always wait for another opening on the Supreme Court, but it's still a close court. Any reflections on what the court did and said?

MR. ERELI: I think obviously the President has spoken to this. I don't want to go beyond what he said, which is that we're looking at it and we'll work to find a way forward.

QUESTION: Do you remember the notion of -- you guys put down the idea of transferring these people elsewhere, where for one thing, you thought they might not be any better off or rights might not be protected.

MR. ERELI: I'm not -- frankly, I don't want to speak to the decision. It is a ruling that the competent authorities are examining. I'll let them complete that examination and speak to it when they're prepared to, so I don't want to do that. I can repeat what's already been said about the general policy with regard to detainees. The transfer arrangements I think we all know -- you all know very well that there are provisions to transfer detainees to the country of -- to their countries of origin when we can arrive at arrangements that provide for the both the respect for the humanitarian rights of the prisoners as well as ensure that they do not pose a security risk. There have been, I think, several hundred prisoners transferred on this basis already and we are working to continue those transfers. And I'm not aware that the ruling today affects that in any way.

QUESTION: In fact, even so far as accelerating transfers?

MR. ERELI: I wouldn't -- that -- I wouldn't go that far. I think we are -- we want to transfer as many as we can as quickly as we can, but the constraint really is negotiating effective agreements with countries that receive them.

Yes.

QUESTION: Apparently we're demanding, meaning the West, a definitive answer by Iran by --

QUESTION: Can we stay on this, Joel? Are you changing the subject?

MR. ERELI: Yeah, let's stay on Hamdan if there continues to be interest in Hamdan.

QUESTION: Yeah. With reports that -- referring to what Barry said, that transfers would be sped up, you said you wouldn't put it that way, right? So there's not going to be any acceleration?

MR. ERELI: Well, I don't want to make -- I don't want to draw -- it sounded to me like in the question there was a link being drawn between this decision and speeding up transfers. I don't want to make that link. I don't want -- as I said, I'm not going to speak to this decision because I don't consider either myself or at this point the State Department the competent authority to speak to it because it has to be reviewed by those who are involved. That's not directly us.

On the subject of transfers, I was just trying to restate what our existing practice and policy is, which is to work to effect transfers as expeditiously as possible while respecting the requirements of effective transfers; i.e., ensuring that their humanitarian rights are respected and that there are effective security measures in place to ensure that these -- that these individuals do not pose a threat to the welfare of innocent citizens.

QUESTION: But unrelated to this case then, has there been an acceleration simply because the problem is --

MR. ERELI: This has and continues to be an issue or a process that we want to keep moving forward quickly, expeditiously. I wouldn't say acceleration or slowing up or speeding up. It's something that we have been working for a long time, that we continue to devote a lot of resources to, a lot of effort to, in order to reduce as soon as we can the population of Guantanamo in ways that both, again, are responsible and that respect the concerns of the countries involved and take full account of the threat that the people in Guantanamo present.

QUESTION: I'm sorry I don't have this memorized, but have some of the returned inmates gone back to Jordan, do you know off the top of your head?

MR. ERELI: I would have to check with regard to specific -- transfers specific to Jordan. There have been, obviously, hundreds of transfers effected to date, I think in the area of about 300. Actually, I'll need to check on that number, make sure it's accurate. 310? I'm not sure if that's releases and transfers or just transfers. So anyway, those are released who don't need to be held anymore. Those who are transferred are transferred from the custody of Guantanamo to the custody of the other country. So I think 310 is both releases and transfers. I'm not sure exactly how many of those are transfers.

Whether Jordan -- how many of them went back to Jordan, I'll check and see.

QUESTION: Are you aware of a report that, at least I'm just seeing it in the press today, from the UN investigator on torture that Jordan does systematically torture in its prisons there?

MR. ERELI: I have not seen that report. I will tell you that in order for a transfer to be effected as part of the transfer agreement there has to be reliable assurances and provisions in place to protect the humanitarian rights of the transferees. So in any transfer, whether it be to Jordan or Saudi Arabia or to Yemen or other places, that is part of the agreement and that is a necessary part of the agreement.

QUESTION: But if there's a record from the country -- of the country torturing in prisons, would you consider it reliable and satisfactory if they said but we won't torture this guy because you said we can't?

MR. ERELI: I think the transfer agreements are negotiated to provide every assurance that the humanitarian rights of the prisoners will be respected.

QUESTION: Well, what do you say then about countries that do have a standing record of torture?

MR. ERELI: I say that the transfer agreements are negotiated so that there's every assurance that the humanitarian rights of the transferees will be respected.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Adam, with respect to Iran, the U.S. as well as Russia and EU are demanding a total explicit statement by them by July 5th to renounce any further enrichment. And also that would include even though it's not on the present agenda their -- perhaps their sponsor of terrorism as it affects Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan as well?

MR. ERELI: I'm looking at the chairman's statement from the G-8 foreign ministers meeting which was issued a short while ago and I'd refer you to that statement for the position of the G-8 on the issue you just asked about. They said that they are disappointed in the absence of an official Iranian response to the positive proposal that's presented -- that's been presented. They said that we expect to hear a clear and substantive Iranian response to these proposals at the planned meeting between the High Representative of the European Union Javier Solana and Ali Larijani on the 5th of July and to bring these discussions to a rapid conclusion. So that's, I think, as full and complete an accurate a statement of where we are as you can possibly get.

QUESTION: I didn't see the State Department, but with the actions of the response, has a plan begun there on a UN -- turning to the UN? This was supposed to be a meeting that if you had no response or an inadequate response everybody happily was assembled to consider a tactic strategy for moving ahead against Iran in the United Nations. Has -- I'm not there. Maybe it's answered there. But I wondered if anything is going on in that area.

MR. ERELI: I would refer you to the statement. I'd also refer you to the press conference held by the G-8 foreign ministers following the conclusion of the ministerial. And they made it clear that the time has come for an Iranian response, they're looking forward to that response when they -- when Mr. Solana meets with Mr. Larijani, and that they will get together later, I think July 12th, to confer based on what Mr. Larijani hears when he meets with Mr. -- I'm sorry, what Mr. Solana hears when he meets with Mr. Larijani.

QUESTION: But that's virtually indistinguishable from what you said before this G-8 meeting.

MR. ERELI: What I said before is that they will get together, they will discuss where things are and assess next steps. They've done that and these are the next steps that they've decided on.

QUESTION: So you're willing to wait more than just weeks?

MR. ERELI: Well, I think we --

QUESTION: I mean --

MR. ERELI: And we've said weeks not months.

QUESTION: Well, that's months.

MR. ERELI: We're still in the weeks.

QUESTION: June 5 to July 12th?

QUESTION: May 15th to July 12th?

QUESTION: Oh, May 15th. That's months. That's not weeks. All right, light quibble.

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: Could you bring us up to date on U.S. diplomacy vis-à-vis the Israel-Palestine issue? The Israelis seem to have paused their offensive in Gaza and I was wondering if this is something that the United States has either sought or approves of at the moment.

MR. ERELI: Again, I think the G-8 ministers were also pretty clear about this and we obviously subscribe to the statement there. The Secretary also spoke to it. We've made it clear that this -- the events of the past few days have been provoked by an act of terror. We condemn that act of terror. We are looking to the Palestinians to act effectively to prevent terror. There is, I think, concerted international diplomacy to effect the release of the captured soldier and it's important that Hamas do that immediately.

We have also collectively and for our part, the United States has urged all parties, including Israel, to exercise restraint, to prevent damage to -- harm to innocent civilians, because that remains a primary concern of ours, unlike, frankly, Hamas, which seems to be willing to put innocents in harm's way for their narrow political objectives.

And as we said yesterday, the diplomacy continues. The Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Livni today, to Egyptian Director of Intelligence Omar Suleiman. I think all parties are continuing their contacts and their efforts to bring about the release of the soldier and bring this incident to an end.

QUESTION: It sounds like the U.S. approves of Israel holding its fire and with the aim of giving diplomacy more time, right?

MR. ERELI: The United States is -- again, I'd refer you back to the G-8 statement, where it says we --

QUESTION: But (inaudible) United States from the seven other countries whose views on Israel and the Middle East are not always coincident with the U.S. Government. They take a kind of a different view of Israel and its rights.

MR. ERELI: Well, the G-8 statement represents a consensus view. I think the Secretary -- we have expressed it clearly. This crisis was precipitated by an act of terror. It should be condemned. They should release the guy. Every effort should be made to protect innocents and to not take actions, which escalate the situation and we're all involved in trying to get the guy released so that we can pursue a reasonable path to peace which is negotiations, recognition, renunciation of terror, all with an aim to creating a two-state solution.

QUESTION: Are the arrests -- the kind of actions that the U.S. thinks are proper and restrained?

MR. ERELI: I think the arrests with regard to the arrests, again you'll see in the G-8 statement, that the detention of elected members of the Palestinian Government and legislature raise particular concerns.

Yes.

QUESTION: What is your understanding of the role that Egypt is playing now? We have some reports from the region that Egyptian talks with the Palestinians are intensifying.

MR. ERELI: Yeah. Egypt from the beginning, and this certainly remains the case, is playing a very important role in trying to affect the release of the soldier. They are using, I think, their contacts and expertise with all parties to see if they can't bring to this a peaceful resolution.

QUESTION: And did the Secretary ever put in another call to Prime Minister Abbas -- President Abbas?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: So only -- so three or four days ago, she's spoken to him. Is that -- when you say you're talking to all sides, you mean people below her (inaudible) contacts?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. Our contacts with Abbas are very -- are sustained and I think substantive.

QUESTION: Why does she think it's helpful to call the Israeli Foreign Minister and not the Palestinians?

MR. ERELI: You know, this -- I wouldn't look at it as, you know, who's been called when. The fact is engagement is consistent and substantive. And when, you know, there needs to be a call, there's a call.

QUESTION: You wouldn't question the analysis that by beginning -- staying in constant touch with the Israelis that the Secretary of State tried very hard and apparently succeeded in inducing Israel to hold its fire and let diplomacy run its course. Why then would she be on their case so persistently?

MR. ERELI: Again, I think one -- there's a temptation to draw conclusions when those conclusions aren't necessarily warranted. The fact of the matter is: What's the objective of our diplomacy? The objective of our diplomacy is to resolve this peacefully and to prevent -- help prevent harm coming to innocents and to try to mount an effective response to parties that practice terror. That's the goal of American diplomacy. That's what the Secretary is trying to bring about. To the extent that we can do that, we're playing a positive and an important role. I think you see it in the G-8 statement. You see it in the fact that, to date, we, you know, the damage to innocents has been minimal. Obviously, we'd all like to see this crisis brought to an end in a peaceful way and that's what the Secretary's calls are designed to bring about. That's what, I think -- that's what everybody wants to see. So that's the best way I can explain the actions that we're undertaking and what we're trying to achieve.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Adam, with respect to this, are there any plans after the trip to Moscow to have the Russians intercede perhaps with the Syrians, because we don't have the best of relations with them?

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: And also would the Secretary go on to meet with both the Israelis and Palestinians?

MR. ERELI: I'm not going to predict diplomatic next steps. Obviously, you talk about the Syrians. The Syrians are definitely a party to this. Hamas has offices in Syria. Syria has relationships with elements of Hamas. They have a responsibility to act responsibly to bring this to a peaceful conclusion. The Secretary General, Mr. Annan, has spoken to that. He spoke to it yesterday and called on Syria to fulfill its responsibilities as a member of the UN and act to -- and use its influences, bring its influence to bear to obtain a release for the soldier. We certainly would encourage others with influence with Syria to do the same thing.

QUESTION: What do you think of the Israelis flying over the President's house?

MR. ERELI: I don't really have a comment on it.

QUESTION: You're not worried that that might escalate things even worse?

MR. ERELI: I don't have a comment on it.

QUESTION: Do you have any reaction on the women and children prisoners in Israel?

MR. ERELI: No.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. If the Palestinian factions continue to abduct the Israeli soldier, how would this affect the decision of continuing the aids flow to the Palestinians?

MR. ERELI: I think they are two distinct issues. We have always made clear that our concern is for the -- we've always made clear our concern for the humanitarian welfare of the Palestinian people. I think the tragedy in this instance and in previous actions by the Hamas government is it would appear that by its actions and by its policies Hamas, as a political party and as a movement, puts its narrow partisan interests above and before the interests of the Palestinian people and the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people. We don't do that.

So regardless of whether the -- regardless of how this -- today's issue is resolved, we're going to continue to give support to the Palestinian people. We're not going to abandon the Palestinian people just because they have a political leadership that's irresponsible and out of step with the rest of the world and the civilized norms that others follow. We have a program of support for the Palestinian people that is independent of an elected government that supports and practices terror.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Change of topic, if I may?

QUESTION: Another one?

QUESTION: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you see any daylight between the political leadership of Hamas which is involved in the government there and the Khaled Meshaal so-called faction, military wing, in Syria? Is there -- do you see any -- I mean, do you see these as two separate --

MR. ERELI: I do see where people try to make those distinctions and talk about that nuance. But you know, the fact of the matter is Hamas is Hamas is Hamas, and the leadership of Hamas, whether they're in Gaza or whether they're in Damascus or whether they're in the West Bank, has to be -- has to answer for the actions of their members.

Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. Citing security concerns and the cost of operations, Romania's Prime Minister announced --

MR. ERELI: Are we done with --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. ERELI: Okay, continue.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. Announced a proposition to withdraw the 900 Romanians troops from Iraq at the end of this year. I would like to know if the State Department was notified by any channel about this proposition and what would be your reaction.

MR. ERELI: Yeah, you know, I've seen those reports. Frankly, I think the first point to make is that Romania has been and continues to be a strong ally in the global war on terror. Their soldiers from Romania have fought side by side with American and other coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. That contribution has been significant. We greatly value and appreciate it. Romania has performed -- Romania and Romania's soldiers have performed extremely ably and courageously in these missions.

This latest -- these latest reports from Romania are, frankly, a surprise. We hadn't been informed about them. They're certainly not consistent with what we've heard from senior Romanian leadership and I think we'll be looking for clarification.

QUESTION: What do you mean, senior Romanian leadership? The announcement was made by the Prime Minister.

MR. ERELI: Yeah, it's not what we've heard -- we haven't heard that from other leadership before, so we'll be looking for clarification.

QUESTION: Any update about crossing Libya's name from countries that support terrorism?

MR. ERELI: No update. When a decision is made and the appropriate steps taken, we'll let you know.

QUESTION: Is there a briefing tomorrow?

MR. ERELI: If you'd like one.

QUESTION: No, I just wanted -- I just thought all of us would like to say goodbye and wish you well.

MR. ERELI: I'm not gone yet. I'm not gone yet. We'll brief tomorrow, if only to say goodbye.

QUESTION: Change in subject?

MR. ERELI: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: As you know, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul is coming to Washington next week.

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: And he will be meeting Secretary Rice on Wednesday.

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: What's the agenda? Do you have anything about it?

MR. ERELI: I think you can look forward to a broad discussion of both bilateral and regional issues. Obviously, the strategic relationship between Turkey and the United States is a vital and deep one, so we will be discussing, I think, the full range of concerns, full range of issues, related to that relationship: Iraq, war on terror, Iran, our relations with Europe, NATO issues, Afghanistan. You know, a substantive and meaningful dialogue as befits two important and strategic partners.

Yes.

QUESTION: Adam, the Prime Minister of Serbia paid a visit to Kosovo yesterday and one of the things he said that Kosovo will always remain part of Serbia. Do you find that, you know, terribly helpful given the fact that the status of Kosovo is under international discussion?

MR. ERELI: Yeah, I hadn't seen those comments. I really don't know what they mean. I think our policy is clear that the future status of Kosovo is for the Kosovars to decide.

Yes, thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:05 p.m.)