Pentagon Spokesman's Briefing
DoD News Briefing
Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, DASD PA
Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 1:30 p.m. EDT
Q: Why was the EP-3 on autopilot before the crash happened with the
Chinese fighter jet? And how close did the jet, on the first two
passes, actually come to the EP-3? And did it, in fact, hit the
propeller?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Let me answer your question quite broadly. I will not
get into the details of the specific conditions on the airplane, any
sort of geometry involving the two aircraft in any sort of a
haphazard, piecemeal way. That's not the way to do this.
When we get our aircrew out and have an opportunity to discuss in
great technical detail with them their observations and judgment of
the conditions surrounding the collision, only then will we be able to
come to a comprehensive answer to your question, which is really, how
did this collision occur? And today, we cannot say with any degree of
confidence, as you hear little pieces of this and that starting to
come out on an hourly basis, it seems, from somewhere in the building
-- I have no confidence that that presents a comprehensive picture of
any sort of meaningful detail of the circumstances that surrounded the
collision. We will do this the right way. And the right way is to have
a very methodical talk with the aircrew, those in the best position to
understand and observe first-hand, of course, what happened after they
are released.
Yes.
Q: Well, Craig, General Sealock and others have had an opportunity to
meet with the crewmembers five times now.
ADM. QUIGLEY: Correct.
Q: And most of those now apparently without the Chinese. By your
statement, are you indicating that the room is bugged, that we haven't
had forthright discussions in these meetings?
ADM. QUIGLEY: No.
Q: That we haven't been able to learn anything from them?
ADM. QUIGLEY: No, I think the discussions we have had between General
Sealock and the crew members over the past several days have been very
welcome and very honest. What they don't - what they aren't is a
comprehensive, systematic way to ascertain the circumstances
surrounding the collision. And whatever small details may be discussed
there, for starters, this is not the way to release that, in a
piecemeal way. His discussions are sometimes involving sensitive
personal information amongst the crew members that they wish to convey
to their families and loved ones back home, and sometimes it's
technical information. But what it isn't is comprehensive and
systematic. And I don't think it's helpful to release or discuss any
small pieces of that in isolation. What you need to do is a much more
holistic approach to understanding the circumstances surrounding the
collision.
Q: Can we go back again to exactly what it is?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Sure.
Q: Some of the - a little more detail, you said some it's sensitive
information, and some of it's - can you sort of give us a range of
the subjects they've been discussing?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I think General Sealock and his discussions at his press
conferences have covered that quite thoroughly. And I can go back and
recap, but I would refer you to his own words. Those are the details
that he feels comfortable in releasing, and I will stick with those.
Yes, sir.
Q: Admiral, do you have anything on China's apparent plans to conduct
a nuclear weapons test in Xinjiang?
ADM. QUIGLEY: No, I'm sorry, I don't have anything for you on that.
Whatever information we would have on that would be in intelligence
channels, and I cannot discuss that.
Chris.
Q: Craig, what's the Pentagon's classification of these 24 Americans
now?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Detainees.
Q: And it's not approaching hostages now 10 days into this? Detainees
is the official --
ADM. QUIGLEY: No, I don't think so. I think that's the correct term.
Hostages, to me, says a couple of things that we don't see. You don't
have access to hostages. They are kept from you. And in the case of
our aircrew, we have had several meetings, five now, meetings with the
aircrew over a period of days. We think that's great. And we hope that
that will continue and even be more often. But it's not a situation
you would see with a hostage situation.
You also don't see hostages generally being treated very well, and our
24 aircrew are being treated very well by the Chinese.
So the term that we think is appropriate is "detainees."
Q: And how would you respond to members of Congress who are using the
word "hostage" right now?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Well, I guess I would try to convince them that the word
detainee is more appropriate.
We also - let me throw one other thing in. If a person is detained --
if a military person is detained, that allows us, the Department of
Defense and their parent service, to carry out some financial and
personal items of business that they may wish to want accomplished on
their behalf - and, again, they can relay this through General
Sealock - things like financial details, powers of attorney, military
allotments, things of that sort that have a direct impact on the
individuals. Everybody's circumstance is different, but an individual
may have a real need to convey a change in some sort of a financial
arrangement. Given their desire to do so, by declaring them as
detainees that puts them in a particular legal category, and that
would empower the parent service, then, to take those actions on their
behalf.
Pam.
Q: Would you dispute the term "prisoner?" And does the financial
transactions include an extension of tax filing?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Say that again, I'm sorry?
Q: Prisoner - do you have the same problems with using the word
"prisoner" that you do with hostage?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Yes.
Q: For what reason?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Again, I don't think the terms apply. I think of a
prisoner, I think of somebody behind bars. I think of someone charged
with a crime. Those circumstances are not present.
Q: And are they going to be given an extension to file their taxes?
ADM. QUIGLEY: One of the benefits of being declared a detainee is an
automatic extension of your income tax filing date, should that occur.
We are hopeful that they would be released before that's an issue.
Q: Craig, is the United States aware of any evidence that the Chinese
are dismantling anything from the exterior of the plane?
ADM. QUIGLEY: No. I'm sure you're referring to the image that - Space
Imaging, I believe. It was a commercial imaging firm with a
photographic satellite in orbit yesterday. I've seen the image that
you're referring to, and there is an apparent shading, or something,
it looks like, on the starboard side of the aircraft. I can't explain
the shading but, from a variety of sources, we have no such indication
that there is some sort of disassembly of the airplane taking place at
that part of the plane.
Q: An EP-3 has sort of a hood on top of it, or some people have
described it as sort of canoe in which houses some equipment. The
comparison of the pictures that were from commercially available
satellite imagery raised speculation that it looked like, perhaps,
that hood wasn't on the second picture. Do you have reason to believe
that it - the plane is still intact?
ADM. QUIGLEY: The only thing I can go into, Jamie, is that, from the
sources that we have - a variety of sources - that shading which
kind of looked - kind of looked like you were disassembling the
aircraft from the side, we have no such evidence that that's
occurring.
Toby?
Q: Have you ruled out another EP-3 flight while the crew is being held
on Hainan?
ADM. QUIGLEY: No, we have not.
Q: Will there be another EP-3 flight?
ADM. QUIGLEY: That I cannot acknowledge. We do not discuss the
scheduling of reconnaissance and surveillance flights around the
world.
Tom?
Q: Given the aggressiveness of the Chinese in intercepting these
flights in the last few months, and the expectation that that is
likely to continue barring some kind of understanding, what thought
has been given to perhaps improving security for those pilots, maybe
providing fighter escorts? Or is there anything that could be done to
make those flights more secure?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Well, I have not heard that discussed yet. I don't know
that it will be when the time comes. But these are - the types of
planes that are involved here have very, very long legs. They stay
scrupulously in international airspace by design. And we have not
found it appropriate to provide some sort of armed escort, I think is
probably what you're actually asking, to these reconnaissance and
surveillance flights over time. I know of no pending to change to
that. We'll just have to look at it on a case basis over time. But I
have not heard that discussed yet.
Sir?
Q: The plane obviously did not ditch into water, but can you confirm
that it is normally the standard procedure that if they - in case of
emergency, the plane would normally ditch, as is the standard
procedure or rule, apparently, also in Europe and Israel?
ADM. QUIGLEY: You have - the pilots of all types of planes are
trained to bring their aircraft down in cases of emergency in the
safest way that they can. It is their judgment and their judgment
alone that determines which method that might be. If you are
physically incapable of landing your plane on land at some runway or
airfield facility and you are literally in the middle of the ocean and
water on hundreds of miles or something on either side, you have no
choice, you must bring it down by ditching at that point or
parachuting from the aircraft. But if you have a choice, then you rely
on the judgment of the pilot, the person that is best situated to make
that quick decision to safely bring the plane down and provide the
highest chance of safe landing for the people under his or her
responsibility.
Q: After talking to the pilot, Mr. Osborn, I understand, were you able
to assess why did he choose Hainan instead of, let's say, Vietnam? Is
that because he was forced by the other plane or --
ADM. QUIGLEY: No. I don't know that that's been discussed yet. Just in
general, it's a quick decision that any aircraft commander, any pilot,
has to make, and you assess as best you can and you make a quick
judgment and you hope that you made the right decision. In this case,
since he safely landed the plane, damaged though it was, with no
injury to any of the 24 persons onboard, I'd be hard-pressed to
criticize that decision.
Q: Admiral can you characterize in any way the kind of questioning
that the crew has been subjected to by the Chinese? Have they been
asked about the accident itself, the mishap itself? Have they been
questioned about the technical operations of the aircraft? Could you
talk about that, because we do know that they have been questioned by
the Chinese.
ADM. QUIGLEY: No, I can't. Yeah, I know that they have been
questioned, but I can't characterize the types of questions.
Q: Can you get into the frequency of how - is it every day? How long
is it every day that the Chinese are questioning them?
ADM. QUIGLEY: No, I've not seen that discussed either. It has been
several times, but I don't know how many times or duration or things
of that sort, I don't --
Q: Individuals or in groups --
ADM. QUIGLEY: I don't know that either.
Q: Do you know, does it continue? Has it stopped or --
ADM. QUIGLEY: I don't believe it has stopped, no.
Q: Is there a difference between "interviewing" and "interrogating"?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Oh, very much so. Interviewing - "questioning" is the
term that I would use. The crewmembers have been questioned by the
Chinese authorities. To me, that is a much-less threatening term than
"interrogation." And again, given the circumstances as we understand
them, I think "questioning" is the more appropriate term.
Chris?
Q: Is the Kitty Hawk still in the South China Sea or has it passed out
to the East?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I don't know where she is at this point.
Pam?
Q: When are the weapons to Taiwan decisions going to be announced? And
are they in any way influenced by this ongoing conflict?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Two different issues. The answer is the month of April,
but I don't have a date within this month.
Q: Getting back to the issue of questioning, can you talk about what
the crew's reaction has been? And what is the standard procedure in
these kinds of cases? Is it just name, rank and serial number? What
kind of limitations do the crew have operationally in terms of asking
-- answering questions?
ADM. QUIGLEY: The name, rank, and serial number strictures that you
discuss are those that are in place for a prisoner of war - again, an
inappropriate description, I believe, to describe what we have here.
They're precluded, as any of us are, from discussing classified
information, the details of the capabilities and limitations of their
equipment, any sorts of classified information on the equipment or the
aircraft itself. But beyond that, I can't characterize what sorts of
questions are being answered or - they're being asked, or how they
are answering the questions.
Q: No, but you talked about and you've stressed over and over the need
for a comprehensive investigation and that you do not want to - that
the United States' policy is that it will not comment on what it
believes happened until there's been this rigorous and systematic
debriefing. Do those rules apply also to the Chinese? In other words,
have the crew been instructed or are the crew under instructions
similarly not to answer questions from the Chinese about what took
place on - in the air until there has been a debriefing by their
American commanders?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I know of no such instructions that have been given to
the aircrew. We're relying on their good common sense, training, and
judgment to know what they are comfortable in answering and which
questions they should decline to answer.
Q: So, in other words, there is no prohibition on them answering
questions about what took place in the air?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Not that I'm aware of, no. No, the Chinese have said
that they intend to investigate this accident. How they go about doing
that, beyond questioning the American aircrew, I do not know. But you
can expect that some of their questions to the aircrew would be about
the details involving the accident. I don't know that for sure, but to
me, that would seem likely.
Q: Admiral Quigley --
ADM. QUIGLEY: Yes?
Q: Would any intelligence loss, something going through the hand of
the Chinese, be detrimental to NATO allies also, as Jane's magazine
assumes?
ADM. QUIGLEY: We share a lot of intelligence information with our NATO
allies, and they with us, by design. If the abilities of this
surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft were to somehow be
marginalized by the compromise of its capabilities, that would
probably be felt by our friends and allies around the world, many of
whom we would share some of the information that we would gain through
these means. It's hard to quantify, but I would think that there would
be an impact, yes.
Barbara?
Q: Can you go back to the notion of detainees and place that into a
little military perspective for us? Since the Cold War, essentially,
how unusual or unique is it for military personnel to be classified by
the Pentagon as "detainees"? Has this happened in the past? Can you
point to any examples?
ADM. QUIGLEY: No, I'd have to - I'd have to do a comprehensive search
over decades to give you a good answer to your question.
Q: Well, let me try it this way. Do you feel that this is an
extraordinary circumstance?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I don't know of any other circumstance where a Navy EP-3
has landed on Hainan Island and 24 air crew have been detained by the
Chinese.
Yes.
Q: Admiral, you talked about just now the intelligence-sharing
arrangements we have with friends and allies and how these might be
compromised by the capture of - by the detainment of this aircraft.
We also have intelligence-sharing arrangements with the Chinese having
to do with listening posts in Western China. I'm wondering if you
could talk about whether or not those intelligence-sharing
arrangements have been compromised in any way by this, whether or not
they are continuing, whether or not there has been an impact on that
particular arrangement?
ADM. QUIGLEY: In addition to the agreements that we have with the NATO
allies to share a variety of information, we also have a variety of
bilateral agreements with a lot of nations around the world, none of
which I will discuss.
Yes.
Q: At the State Department today it was announced that Secretary
Powell had asked employees not to attend, I guess, the party for the
incoming Chinese ambassador, indicating that he didn't think it would
be appropriate to send that signal. Has the Pentagon put forward any
other edicts canceling any mil-to-mil contacts or any other meetings
with Chinese officials that are upcoming or in the near future?
ADM. QUIGLEY: No. We have not, but I mean, I think I was asked this
the other day. We simply have no substantive mil-to-mil exchanges
scheduled for the month of April, and then there are none past May
while we do a review of the mil-to-mil programs. So it just
coincidentally does not have a near-term impact.
Q: Craig, if somebody --
ADM. QUIGLEY: Can I interrupt for one second? Somebody asked before on
where the USS Kitty Hawk is located. She is at sea in the South China
Sea.
Q: On a related question to that, I thought there was a session
scheduled for late April, in San Francisco, of this Maritime
Commission?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I don't believe that that was scheduled until later in
the year.
....
Q: Just back to China a moment. I know that you said you're not going
to talk about the precise circumstances of what happened in this
accident, but in the larger sense, I mean, in terms of determining
who's at fault, does it really matter which plane moved to where, or
is this a clear case where the U.S. plane has the right of way?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Well, again, I don't think I can give you a good answer
to that until we understand what the geometry was in this particular
instance, what was the maneuvering details of each aircraft. And we
just don't understand that yet. I mean, it says that maybe, as we have
proposed, there's a need to sit down and discuss the details of
maneuvering parameters in international airspace of this sort, but we
just can't find a good answer to that yet without having a little bit
more understanding of the details of this one.
Q: Immediately after the incident, Admiral Blair indicated that the
U.S. plane had the right of way because it's the responsibility of the
smaller, more maneuverable jets to move out of the way. Are you
backing away or softening that a little bit?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Generally that's true. If you have a - I'll make a
seaborne analogy. If I have a super-tanker in a limited maneuvering
circumstance in a narrow channel or something, and I have small
pleasure craft motorboats that can maneuver quite easily, generally
speaking, the ship that is less able to maneuver is obliged to
maintain its course and speed, and the smaller vessels try very hard
to stay out of its way and not put it in an awkward situation.
Generally speaking, that's true in the air as well. But again, we
don't know the details here, and I think that's important that we know
that before we make a more particular announcement.
Q: Well, generally --
ADM. QUIGLEY: Generally speaking, that is the correct --
Q: Generally speaking, without referring to this specific incident,
because I know you said you weren't going to confirm details, but
generally speaking, can you explain why a plane in this kind of a
mission might be flying on autopilot as opposed to the pilots having
manual control of the plane?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Well, the use of an autopilot is the decision of a pilot
to engage that. Many models of aircraft have autopilots, particularly
those that are on long legs of a flight plan where no particular
maneuvering is required; commercial airliners, cargo carriers, things
of that sort, where you're out over hundreds of miles over open water
or land and you need to maintain a relatively constant heading and
altitude and airspeed; in planes of this type, where you have a long
leg maritime patrol and surveillance airplane, where you stay on a
similar course and speed for an extended period of time. This plane is
equipped with an autopilot for that very reason.
Now whether it was engaged, we'll see.
Q: Admiral, in light of the fact that we're now in our second week of
this incident, that the crew continues to be questioned, that the crew
is not being allowed outdoors, does Secretary Rumsfeld stand by his
expression of gratitude last week over how well the crew is being
treated?
ADM. QUIGLEY: That's still true, John. I mean, by all accounts from --
I've heard from General Sealock that the crew is in very decent
quarters. They are being fed very well. Their personal needs are being
taken care of. They have done laundry. There's an exchange of e-mails,
reading material. English language television stations, I believe --
they have reception in the rooms they're being kept - on the other
hand, we'd like to see them released right away. And - but if - as
long as they are detained, we're appreciative of the fact that the
Chinese are taking good care of them.
Q: What does "exchange of e-mails" mean? Does it mean that they access
to a computer, or that the military attach, just brings them printouts
of --
ADM. QUIGLEY: Yes.
Q: - and then he takes their replies?
ADM. QUIGLEY: The materials, whatever they might be, Chris, whether
it's toiletry items or e-mails, things of - reading material,
magazines, things of that sort, are generally purchased or somehow
gotten by General Sealock. He will then turn those over to the Chinese
officials, and then they turn them over to the 24-crew members. That's
the process that takes place.
So there's no direct access to e-mail as you would think of, as
sitting at a PC or something --
Q: But they will answer back --
ADM. QUIGLEY: - but rather it's a printout, a paper printout, of
e-mails.
Q: Can they answer the e-mails back?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Well, it's not - I don't think it's going back, Pam,
via e-mail. I think it's going back via a different path.
They'll get an e-mail. If there's a question or a comment they wish to
make back to their family member or squadron mate or what have you,
they would pass that again back through the Chinese to General
Sealock. How he's then communicating that answer back, I don't know
the path that is taking. But we're trying to facilitate two-way
conversation here.
Jamie?
Q: Craig, the space imaging satellite photograph of yesterday - it
shows a line of seven vehicles that appear to be trucks parked along
the plane. What do you make of that?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I would agree with your assessment. (Laughter.)
Q: But you don't interpret that as meaning anything particular?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I can't answer your question, Jamie - I'm sorry - what
the motivation would have been to park that many vehicles so closely
together at that particular spot, I don't know.
Q: And in that photograph, a little farther south at the airstrip,
there was a pair of Chinese planes. Any idea what kind of planes those
are? Can you identify them for us?
ADM. QUIGLEY: That I have not seen. That I have not seen.
Q: Okay.
ADM. QUIGLEY: Show me the image when we're done, I'll take a look.
Q: All right.
ADM. QUIGLEY: Pam?
Q: Back on this gratitude thing; don't we expect them to be well
treated? Why are we so grateful for it?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I think we would hope that they would be well treated.
Again, kind of going back to Barbara's question, this a unique
circumstance, and I don't think we have an expectation because there
hasn't been a similar circumstance that preceded it over the years. We
are appreciative of the good treatment that the crew is receiving. We
would also be appreciative of their immediate release.
Q: Are you appreciative of the fact that they're being questioned by
the Chinese?
ADM. QUIGLEY: No. That was not the question, it was how they're being
treated and cared for and the quarters they're staying in and the food
they're eating, and that we're very appreciative.
Q: But the questioning is also part of the way they're being treated,
and I'm wondering how - what the official view from here is regarding
the questioning.
ADM. QUIGLEY: I have not heard an official view. I think it's an odd
question. What we - what we --
Q: I mean, is it proper treatment?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I know of no legal strictures that would stop them from
questioning the crew.
Q: So it's the position of the Pentagon that there is no problem with
the crew being questioned by the Chinese?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Within the parameters that we would expect of them to
comply with their training, and about classified details of the
equipment and the mission, and things of that sort, they need to stay
to areas that they are comfortable in discussing. And they know --
just like any military person does who deals with classified
information, they know where those lines are drawn.
Q: And repeated questioning doesn't raise psychological concerns?
ADM. QUIGLEY: It's not apparent in General Sealock's meetings with
them that have taken place so far, no. He describes their spirits as
very, very high, and good health and well taken care of.
Q: So is the Pentagon encouraging them to cooperate, other than not
providing or divulging classified information?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I don't believe we have provided any instructions to
them one way or the other, John. We expect their training and their
good commonsense and judgment to be the governing factors here.
Q: Have you asked - have you formally asked the Chinese to stop the
regular questioning?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Not that I am aware of. You perhaps would ask the State
Department, but not that I am aware of.
Q: Has the general given them any instructions on how they should or
should not cooperate?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Not that I'm aware of.
Q: They're just on their own, to figure this out by themselves?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Mm-hm.
Pam.
Q: What would you say to the families that might be watching this
briefing that probably don't share the sense of gratitude that the
Pentagon has for how well their families are being treated,
considering that they haven't been in phone contact, they haven't been
in e-mail contact, they've been gone for 10 days, and nobody really
knows if the messages are getting through or getting back or what
they're intended to be. And also, that they haven't been allowed out
and that whenever they walk around, it's under armed guards?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I would have several messages to the families. First and
foremost, the most important message is the one that goes from General
Sealock to the parent service and from the services to the unit to the
families that are getting their direct messages from the parent
squadron there at Whitby Island in Washington. They are in nearly
continuous communication with the families, passing on all the details
they can from every conversation that General Sealock has with them,
as well as his impressions of their spirits, their health, the
conditions under which they're living, and all, I think, are very
encouraging to the families.
That's not as good as having your loved one right there with you, of
course, and are they concerned? Are they anxious? Of course they are.
But the message to the families is, You've got the best efforts of the
United States government underway to try to bring about the soonest
release of their loved ones and get them back home.
Q: And there continues to be a sense here that we need to just
modulate what everybody's saying and let the diplomatic process play
out? Because again, I'm struck by the fact that - I mean, these are
24 of your own - that you're not outraged about this. But everything
that we know officially is very - we're very grateful and we're very
happy that everybody's - What! These are 24 prisoners!
ADM. QUIGLEY: Diplomacy - well, I don't agree with your term.
Q: Twenty-four detainees!
ADM. QUIGLEY: Diplomacy, as the President said yesterday, can be a
slow process, but that is the way ahead. There is not a military
solution to this, it is a diplomatic solution. That process is
underway. It will continue until we get to a successful resolution.
Q: You know, you mentioned early on some discussions or leaks by some
Pentagon officials. Do you have the feeling that there is some
irritation or impatience by some top officers that would like some
more action, and they have to accept the diplomatic solution?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I think that the individuals, that go without being
named, are trying in their own way to help. I'm not sure that their
efforts are actually helpful, but I believe that they believe that
they are. That's the best I can describe.
Q: Admiral?
ADM. QUIGLEY: John?
Q: The President has raised several times the possibility of harm
being done to Sino-U.S. relations the longer this goes on. The
Pentagon has been interested in trying to revive, resuscitate
military-to-military relations with the PLA. The longer this goes on,
is there a chance that those efforts could be harmed; that there's
going to be damage to whatever efforts have been underway to reconnect
the two militaries?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I would make no prediction as to where we'll come down
on that when the review is done. Someone did ask before, I don't
remember who it was - Chris, I think - on whether the MMCA working
group is scheduled to meet.
They are scheduled to meet at the end of April, as we speak at least.
Q: Is there an agenda?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Pardon?
Q: An agenda for that meeting?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Not that I have seen yet.
Q: Is the location San Francisco?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I don't - see if we can find that - San Francisco,
yes.
Q: Is Secretary Rumsfeld speaking directly with General Sealock, or is
that information going to the State Department?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Going to the State Department. I believe there are folks
that receive the messages - the readouts of his conversations here
within the Pentagon as well. I don't believe Secretary Rumsfeld has
spoken to General Sealock directly [Secretary Rumsfeld did have a
telephone conversation with General Sealock this morning].
Q: I have a different subject. Was Secretary Rumsfeld briefed on the
V-22 report? And if so, what was his response to the - the reading of
it was very interesting and sort of damning. It said testing had been
rushed to keep to a schedule. It said that the part in this crash that
broke had not been tested. Has he responded to that or looked at it
yet?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I don't think we're looking for a response from the
Secretary of Defense. This was an accident investigation that was
completed by the Marine Corps and released by the Marine Corps. Its
findings are its findings.
Q: I'm intrigued by the fact that Kitty Hawk is in the South China
Sea. Is there anything to read into that, I mean, during this standoff
in particular?
ADM. QUIGLEY: No, you'll find ships frequently at sea in the South
China Sea.
Q: What is her plan?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I'm not going to get into her plan.
Q: She's not going --
ADM. QUIGLEY: I would not read anything threatening into her movements
in the South China Sea.
Q: She entered it, maybe 24 hours ago, or the last day or two --
ADM. QUIGLEY: I believe she left a port visit, and she has to
eventually leave the port visit and move on to another part of the
ocean to do other business.
Q: So that's what it is, she's moving from one point to another
through the South China Sea? Where is she headed?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I don't know if I have that. I'll see if I can find out.
Q: From where is she coming?
ADM. QUIGLEY: A port visit, I believe, in Thailand.
Q: If - I know you are not the State Department - if there was a
break, would you - do you have the feeling that the Chinese are aware
of the religious importance of Easter for the United States?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Oh, I'm sure they are. I'm sure they are.
Q: And they could --
ADM. QUIGLEY: Well, again, we're hopeful; sooner is better. Today
would be great to arrange for the release.
Thank you all.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
