On US policy on torture and secret prisons
Regional-USA, Politics, 11/10/2005

The US Deprtment Of State spokesman, Adam Ereli, was asked by the press yesterday about the secret prisons the US is holding and the policy of use of torture.

QUESTION: Back to the thorny subject of secret prisons. The Secretary of State again was asked about this and she did her dance of the seven veils. Why can't we have just a straight answer whether these reports are true or false?

ERELI: I guess it's not enough to look back at the daily transcripts of the last week to answer your question. You want it repeated?

QUESTION: They were not answered, is my point.

ERELI: Pardon?

QUESTION: There's no straight answer.

ERELI: The straight answer is I'm not going to comment on intelligence -- reports about intelligence.

QUESTION: Okay, then. What about the fact that she said the President doesn't support torture. Do we take it that the State Department supports John McCain's proposal not to exempt the CIA?

ERELI: There's a statement of Administration policy on that issue that I would refer you to.

QUESTION: Okay.

ERELI: Yes. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On a new subject. Did the Secretary, when she was National Security Advisor, know of the existence of secret CIA prisons?

ERELI: I don't have -- again, I told you I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters.

QUESTION: But -- but did she --

ERELI: I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters.

QUESTION: Okay. Here's a follow-up to that then. The Secretary, when she's going abroad will no doubt, as she always does, try to further the President's freedom agenda.

ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: She will be doing that with a great doubt over her about whether or not she supported a policy --

ERELI: I disagree.

QUESTION: That restricts freedom.

ERELI: I disagree.

QUESTION: You have not done anything to clear up the doubt.

ERELI: I will tell you -- and the Secretary, I think, spoke very eloquently and forcefully to this issue yesterday in talking about the principles, values, and image of the United States throughout the world. And that is one where we state clearly what we believe in. We represent an example for the rest of the world and that example has proved, I think, beneficial to the development of freedom and democracy throughout the world as evidenced, as the Secretary said yesterday, in the changes that swept the Soviet Union in the final years of that system.

I think in looking forward to her upcoming travels, I would expect that the United States and the Secretary will find a very positive and favorable reception in -- certainly in Bahrain, certainly in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to the United States freedom agenda, to the support that the United States has given reformers and democrats and people struggling for their rights and freedoms throughout the region and that what so consumes you here in this briefing will not adversely color our dealings on this trip.

QUESTION: You mentioned Saudi Arabia. The freedom agenda, presumably encompasses such essential freedoms as freedom of religion.

ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: Freedom of speech.

ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: Women's rights.

ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: The State Department had very critical things to say this week about what the Department calls a lack of freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. Do you think she'll get a glowing reception on that issue as well? Yeah, and will she take up with the Saudis, because they're in a period of --

ERELI: The issue of --

QUESTION: A 180-day trial period.

ERELI: This is an issue that will certainly be raised as it always is when we have discussions with the Saudis. This is the value of having kind of a strategic dialogue that the Secretary will be inaugurating on her visit to the Kingdom in that it provides us an opportunity to raise the level of discussion of these issues to a senior level to do it in a sustained way and to work out ways to address these problems. I think that if you look at the policies and actions of King Abdallah -- and we have noted this -- they recognize that this is an issue, they recognize that the challenge is before them and they are looking to ways to respond to these challenges in order to -- not because it's something that we put before them, but first and foremost, because it's in their own interests to do so and it's the impulse for change is coming from within their own societies.

So when you combine that homegrown momentum, along with the role of the United States as a power for, supportive of and encouraging of change and reform, you get progress. Now each country does it in a different way, at a different pace and we are mindful of each country's unique circumstances. But we're going to, as I said in respect to other issues, call it like we see it and not hold back from putting down on the table the issues and challenges that we think are important for all of us to deal with in our collective self-interest.

QUESTION: Follow on that?

ERELI: Sure.

QUESTION: To talk to you again about the message to the world and the principles and values and images to the world that the Secretary talked about yesterday: promotion of freedom and liberty. Saudi Arabia has now twice in the last six weeks been waived by the Administration on some very important findings along these lines.

I think about six weeks ago, they were placed on the top tier on the US Human Trafficking Watch List. The President gave them a waiver allowing more than $4 billion in military sales to go forward uninhibited. They were given a waiver on religious freedom as well. They've been given more time. Kuwait got a waiver on human trafficking, also allowing more than, I think, $2 billion in military sales to go forward.

What's the message to the world then, that freedom and liberty are --

ERELI: You've got to look at the details. I think details are important and you're glossing over them in a, I think, careless way. If you look at the case of Kuwait, if you -- on trafficking in persons, if you look at the case of Saudi Arabia on religious freedom, the way those are based on specific actions that those countries have taken and the waivers are limited in scope and duration. And there's a relationship between the actions they take and the waiver.

So, you know, you've got to be prepared to take -- I'm sorry, you have to be prepared to take yes for an answer. You can't just -- let me finish, just a second -- are you going to let me finish?

QUESTION: Yeah.

ERELI: You can't just say, you've got to do all this right now or we're going to beat you over the head with a stick. You say, these are the goal posts, you need to work with us to find a way to get there and if you move incrementally, we're prepared to move incrementally. But the fact of the matter is the sanctions are still - pending a real progress, the sanctions are still out there. They're still a possibility. But it's: (a) it's not black and white; (b) you've got to take an approach that matches incentives or disincentives in a realistic way. And you, most importantly, you've got to follow these things over time. I mean, it's not just like, okay, today you issue a waiver and the problem's gone and you're not -- you're letting them off the hook. Rather, there's an annual process of -- actually, in some cases, more frequent than annual -- process of review that you establish benchmarks, you establish standards, you hold them to standards and there are actions that you take or don't take based on their actions.

QUESTION: Waivers for both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, according to the President's statements, on both of those instances were based on -- the war on terrorism had nothing to do with the progress that they were making towards ending human trafficking, unlike UAE and, I think, Qatar, which the Secretary herself downgraded the two of them. So they were just given a waiver for a US strategic interest in that case. Is the message to the world that if you're helping us with our strategic interests, we'll look askance on issues of freedom and liberty?

ERELI: No.

Yeah.

QUESTION: You said that they've made -- they've taken action, but that it was because, you know, you do these waivers. Could you see them taking action? What action has Saudi Arabia taken?

ERELI: I'd refer you to our International Religious Freedom Report. I think it says --

QUESTION: Which says that there's --

QUESTION: There's no freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia.

QUESTION: -- an unqualified statement.

ERELI: They have, as Ambassador Hanford pointed out in his briefing to all of you yesterday, I believe, they have taken action against certain religious preachers who incite violence and preach intolerance and hatred and they have worked with us to develop an action plan that shows a willingness to engage and to plan for action.

Now, as I said in response to the other question, that is a limited response and limited scope and therefore, the measures we're taking are limited. But again, you have to be able to take a yes for an answer. In this case, Saudi Arabia is showing -- even though as the report says, there is no freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia -- that they are willing to address this issue, that they're willing to discuss this issue with us, that they are willing to consider actions, as opposed to other countries which refuse to engage and just tell us to go take a hike. So if they're going to talk to you and they're going to be receptive to your entreaties, then you should respond accordingly. And we think the steps we've taken are an appropriate response.

QUESTION: With apologies to Elise because I know she was due a question. On this idea of the message that you're giving to the world, I think it is -- some people would say that it's confusing, that we have this cloud over the possibility of secret prisons and yet you're pushing your freedom agenda. And what you do is you say, well, we've got all these great values and that you won't address the issue. The Secretary always, when she's abroad, talks about freedoms that divide. She says some people are on the wrong side of that divide. Her argument is there are governments that restrict the freedoms of people and those unfortunate people are on the wrong side of freedom's divide.

Those people who are disappeared into secret prisons, are they on the wrong side of freedom's divide?

ERELI: Without speaking to this issue specifically, let me make a couple of points that we've made repeatedly, but I guess it stands -- it could use reiteration.

Number one, we are in a war on terror that this is an issue, when dealing with terrorists, of people who have and will continue, unless stopped, try to kill Americans, innocent civilians, attack our infrastructure and -- in horrific ways, and that it is incumbent upon the leaders of this country, the President, the Secretary and those who are sworn to uphold our Constitution, to use every instrument of national power to defeat this enemy.

So we engage in the war and we will in conducting that war, be true to our values, be true to our principles, be true to our laws and constitutions, and be respectful and mindful of our international obligations. And I think that -- and following on that, the President, the National Security Advisor and the Secretary have all said very clearly, we do not torture and when dealing with the challenges posed by those who respect no rules, we will stay true to our laws and our values and our Constitution.

Yes.

QUESTION: How does holding people in secret, though, keep America any more safe? You've got people in Guantanamo Bay that are being held because you believe it makes America more safe. Why not hold people out in the open and let the investigation -- sorry, let visitations take place by the ICRC? Why does holding --

ERELI: I don't have anything for you on that (inaudible).

QUESTION: But, sir, when you say -- sorry -- you say, you know, no torture of prisoners but people know what happened in Abu Ghraib and I know that wasn't condoned by the Administration in any way.

ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But the fact that those things did happen, make people wonder what would happen if there were secret prisons. So you can't just say that, you've got to show it, too. And how are you going to show it when you're not even going to tell us whether there are secret prisons or not?

ERELI: We -- I think have, as I said before, an unmatched record of accountability and transparency when it comes to conducting our war. Remember -- excuse me. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish.

We are conducting a war. No country conducts a war completely -- no country conducts a war without holding things close to the vest, okay. So I challenge you to tell me any country that doesn't have any classified information. I'm not going to talk about classified information. That's against the law, all right. So let's be clear about that.

Number two, in conducting the war on terror there has been no country, I would submit to you, that has been more forthcoming and more mindful of the need to communicate what it's doing and to act in a way that is responsible and consistent with international norms and obligations.

And specific to the point of Abu Ghraib, sure, abuses happen. That's inevitable in any system. But the point that we made, at the very beginning, when the Abu Ghraib photos came out, was, number one, we were the ones -- it was American servicemen who alerted the authorities to the fact that there was abuse, that there was an intensive and exhaustive process of investigation by members of Congress calling before them the senior levels of the Administration. There was legal proceedings taken. There was recognition that this was abuse, that it was contrary to the laws, that the laws did mean something, that those responsible would be held accountable and they have been accountable. There have been prosecutions and convictions. And so, again, I think our record is strong and enviable.

QUESTION: It was only after the servicemen alerted the press, not the authorities, that the investigations took place. And if you have secret prisons where there isn't any way to get this information out, how can anybody be sure that you would be transparent, that you would launch investigations if abuse was taking place in secret facilities?

ERELI: Again, I think that if you look at what happened after Abu Ghraib, if you look at all the measures that we've -- if you look at all the actions we've taken with Guantanamo, with access to ICRC, with access to the press, with access to delegations from foreign countries, I think our record is one that stands scrutiny and that should be recognized as positive and laudable.

Yep.

QUESTION: Is this a fair evaluation of the US policy on torture: we do not torture detainees but we want to have an exception for the CIA in case it's ever necessary --

ERELI: No, I think there is a clear statement of policy -- is the Administration's statement of policy, which is available to you. I'll endeavor to get you the site. It should be on a website somewhere and you can read it for yourself. It's exhaustive.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Adam, just to follow up real quick on this, we've heard this now for several days running: On the one hand, we don't torture, we stay within the limits of our values and our laws; but on the other hand, these are really bad people and this is a different kind of war. Isn't there kind of -- no offense to my British friend -- an inherent nudge-nudge, wink-wink there in that message that you're sending out? No, we don't torture but these are really bad people? What's the message?

ERELI: I'm not nudging or winking. I'm saying --

QUESTION: Then what are you saying?

ERELI: I'm saying that --

QUESTION: What are you trying to say with that? We've heard that from the White House as well.

QUESTION: And from the Secretary.

QUESTION: Yes, give us an answer is basically what we're asking for.

ERELI: On the nudge-nudge -- well, I guess the point is -- let me put it this way. We're in a -- what people want to do when they're looking at this is try to understand it in terms of past experience. Right? Geneva Conventions governing the laws of war, for example. Well, those were written in a world where you didn't have people flying planes into buildings or you didn't have armed groups trying to develop chemical weapons capabilities and you didn't have armies that weren't under the flag of a national power or that didn't wear uniforms or that didn't -- that crossed borders and lived within societies.

So all we're saying is you've got codes of conduct that are incumbent upon countries that respect the rule of law and believe in certain values and certain principles, and that's what guides us, while at the same time recognizing that a lot of the lessons of history are -- lessons of history are that this is an unprecedented conflict with an unprecedented challenge.

QUESTION: So that --

ERELI: But that does not mitigate in any way the imperative of acting right and respecting our values and our norms and our laws.

QUESTION: Are you saying, then, that while you recognize the Geneva Conventions for certain detainees, and the President and others have said that there is a -- that the Geneva Conventions would apply to detainees at Guantanamo, then that all terror suspects are entitled to the same protections under the Geneva Conventions?

ERELI: You know, I'm not going to give you a legal exegesis of treaties in the context of the war on terror. That has been done much, much better than I could ever do by our officials who have provided testimony on the subject as well as the statement of Administration policy. So I refer you to existing documents on that score.

QUESTION: But you're opening -- I'm sorry, you're opening up the door here, saying --

ERELI: No, I'm not. I'm not opening up -- do not interpret my remarks to be the opening of any door. I'm just trying to explain to you -- in fact, I'm trying to shut the door, actually. (Laughter.) But anyway, I'm just trying to explain, you know, in response to Cam's philosophical question, give a philosophical answer, but not a legal interpretation.

QUESTION: So, philosophically, you're saying that --

ERELI: Philosophically, I'm saying we are dealing with an unprecedented threat and we are trying to deal with it with norms and structures and processes from the past. And that's a challenge.

QUESTION: So, Adam, since you're dealing with structures from the past, would you support -- that the Administration support, then, a new convention, since you're dealing with a new enemy, as every Administration official has said, since you're dealing with new enemy combatants, are you looking for a new international structure then that would be able to deal with this new enemy?

ERELI: No, we are -- again, I'd refer you to the statement of Administration policy, which lays out where we stand on this. And I think the President was very clear in his statement on Monday and that really gives it to you in a capsule form.

QUESTION: I just have to try one more, just following up on Cam. If the US holds -- has these values and they're enduring values, why does it matter what kind of people you're dealing with, because the US values would stand regardless of who they are?

ERELI: Exactly. Good. I agree.

QUESTION: Okay. So why do you feel it necessary to keep saying that these are "really bad" people, we have these values but these are "really bad" people? The US values stand no matter who you're dealing with.

ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: So why are some people in secret prisons and some people not? I'm serious. That was the question. Why are you holding some "really bad" people in secret prisons?

ERELI: I didn't -- that -- the issue that you raised and that you raised and that you're all interested in, that you've been raising for like four days or five days, I'm not going to speak to. I'm going to speak to --

QUESTION: But this is not the values --

ERELI: What I'm going to speak to is our -- are the -- is the policies which guide us and what informs our decisions and how -- why we do what we do. And that -- I'm sorry -- and that I think we've been over and over and over but without answering the one question you want answered, which I can't answer.

QUESTION: Real quick, just a quick follow. You said you can't talk about classified information or respond to the question of secret prisons. If there were no secret prisons, it wouldn't be classified and therefore you could talk about; is that correct?

ERELI: That's too convoluted for me. I can't understand it.

Previous Stories:
  On the US secret detention centers around the world; Amnesty accusation   (11/8/2005)
  State's hughes outlines US public diplomacy vision   (11/5/2005)
  Rice to visit Israel, Palestine   (11/4/2005)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search