CIA Torture Flights Update for Europe Day

international | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis Tuesday May 09, 2006 18:46 by watcher

A “special all-day debate” on European issues is to be held in the Dáil Eireann, on 10th May. But it’s unlikely that CIA torture flights will be mentioned or indeed the fact that (unelected) EU foreign policy chief claims that he knows nothing or has no power to ask countries about the flights. Or the fact that EU governments, including Ireland's, are covering up the truth.

And meanwhile, the US claims that rendition is a well-established procedure that has no connection with torture. It all depends on your definition it seems. "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

Shannon Airport - Never say no to a customer. by painter not talker

EU LEADER AND GOVERNMENTS SEE NO EVIL

1. (Elected) members of the European Parliament now feel that European governments are trying to cover-up illegal CIA rendition flights that took place in Europe.

In addition, the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana has been strongly criticised by members of the EP Committee in Brussels this for saying that he has no information if the allegations on CIA torture flights and secret prisons in Europe are true. The EU foreign policy chief also claimed that under EU treaties he had no competence to seek information from EU member states on the issue. "Surely you have a political obligation as secretary general of the EU Council to investigate these allegations," British Liberal MEP Sarah Ludford told Solana.

Some 13 members of the European Parliament's committee are this week visiting the US as a part of their investigation of alleged illegal activities by the US.

The next report of the EP committee will examine links between the CIA and the EU intelligence services. "What is left is to explain the scope of coordination between the CIA and the EU intelligence services in the fight against terrorism. This will be the center of the second part of our investigation," Claudio Fava, rapporteur of the Committee told journalists.

RECENT IRISH BACKGROUND

The last official line from the Irish government seems to be that rendition flights operated by the Central Intelligence Agency or CIA in Ireland were for legitimate business: "We have CIA flights that land, I'm sure, they're all on totally legitimate business. But, if at times we were able to say what some of these flights are about, all of these flights were about, then it would make an easier position for us and I think it would make public opinion happier on that,” said Bertie Ahern in Washington in March.

US GOES ON SPINNING MISSION

2. Meanwhile, in an amazing example of doublespeak, the US has said that rendition is a well-established procedure that has no connection with torture.

The UN Convention Against Torture requires a report from countries every four years. The US’s turn is now. A UN Committee began a hearing in Geneva last week alleged use of torture by American soldiers. Twenty-five US officials from the justice, state and defense departments are facing the international body to answer questions on abuses by US soldiers and intelligence agents in the fight against terrorism.

The US may be squirming a little and has attempted some public relations manoeuvring on these issues by bringing out John Bellinger, the State Department’s senior legal adviser, in front of journalists.

(And from another Indy Eire post today:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75738
Semantics: What is torture? What is rendition
by anon Tue May 09, 2006 11:30

U.N. Convention Against Torture Observations

Gabor Rona, International Legal Director for Human Rights First, is in Geneva observing the United States’ presentations to the Committee and will also brief the Committee on several issues of concern. He is reporting daily on the events in Geneva as they unfold.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/cat/blog/pos...a.asp

US is before U.N. Committee Against Torture a report will be issued on May 19th.

Bellinger Legal spokesman at the committee on Morning Ireland RTE http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0509/morningireland.html - denies everything, says nothing, boarding planes would be 'inappropiate')

*Spin warning*-> The following is from the transcript of that exchange in Brussels.

Q: I have been following the CIA inquiries in the European Parliament. One of the allegations made by the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan is that the CIA has been effectively subcontracting torture, using the Uzbeks to do this. The argument put forward by the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was that was in line with the Convention on Torture because you’re not instigating the torture yourselves. Is that also the American administration’s reading of the Convention?

Mr. Bellinger: I won’t comment on what Mr. Straw said because I haven’t seen it. We’ve made very clear that, contrary to allegations, we do not outsource torture. We are against torture ourselves. We take our obligation under the Convention Against Torture seriously. We have criminal statutes against torture. The President has made clear that we do not condone torture. We will not transfer people to other countries expecting that they will be tortured.

We have said, as you know, in Secretary Rice’s statement last December, we have defended as a useful tool in fighting terrorism the practice of rendition in certain rare circumstances where an individual would otherwise not be able to be brought to justice or would otherwise be able to escape and avoid capture, that we have defended the practice in terms of transferring a person to another country of his nationality or where the person may be wanted. But in all circumstances we do not transfer the person with the expectation that the person would be tortured or would be mistreated.

Q: The U.S. is evidently in a campaign here, a public relations campaign, as you said earlier in your statement, to alleviate fears in the international community on this. Do you not think it is really time to take into account what the international community is telling you, basically the Europeans - that it’s time to really do something about Guantanamo, which I’m no legal person, but it seems to me it does not abide by international law. That would be a huge step in easing fears and making the situation better. [Inaudible] So what are you going to do?

Mr. Bellinger: We are acutely aware of the concerns that have been raised both in Europe and around the world about Guantanamo. We don’t want to keep Guantanamo open any longer than is necessary. As you know, we have been reducing the numbers. We do not want to be the world’s jailers.

A great difficulty is - what is the alternative? There have been a number of voices recently who have called for the closure of Guantanamo, but none of those who have called for the closure of Guantanamo have suggested an alternative. So we know there are a large number of people in Guantanamo who have trained in al-Qaida training camps, trained in terrorist techniques, in bomb making, in chemical weapons manufacture, and the question is what should be done with those people?

We don’t have many other countries in the world who are stepping up to say this is a problem for the international community. The United States should not have to shoulder this burden alone. So we are happy to take these individuals.

I would dispute your suggestion that it’s a violation of international law. We’re clearly aware of the concerns people have raised. One of the things that I have tried to do because I think the U.S. perhaps has not been sufficiently clear to explain our legal basis and to address the legal concerns that have been raised over the last few years about Guantanamo, to go out and address those concerns.

I think it’s both ironic and telling that critics criticize us for essentially diametrically opposed violations of international law. Half the critics tell us that the people in Guantanamo should be treated as criminals and need to be prosecuted under criminal laws or released. The other half of the people say they should be treated under international humanitarian law or the laws of war and need to be treated as POWs or released. That’s just simply a quick summary. There are hundreds of different statements that people tell us about the way they think the legal framework ought to work, and the fact that there seem to be so many different views reflects, I think, an understandable, uncomfortableness that perhaps we all have about the holding of this category of al-Qaida people. But the fact is the legal framework for holding people like this was simply not a very well developed framework.

So I don’t think it’s a violation of international law. We think we are acting completely consistently with our international obligations. But we do know those questions are out there and that’s one of the reasons that I’ve tried to come out and to address the concerns that people have.

Q: You said that there has been the practice of rendition. Now the Council of Europe has said in a preliminary report that there have been thousands of CIA flights over Europe. Can you confirm that the rendition taking place has been in Europe or above the EU, and could you give any figures?

Mr. Bellinger: Thanks very much for that question. The last time I was in Europe, about two months ago, the suggestion was that there were 400 flights. We’re now up to 1,000 flights. I think the next time I’ll be here it will probably be about 10,000 flights.

These allegations that there have been thousands of flights with the implication that they all have got detainees on them, and worse, detainees bound for mistreatment, is simply absurd. And the suggestion in fact that these flights are in fact leading up to anything that is improper or nefarious is also, I think, a dangerous suggestion.

There have not been thousands of flights. There have been, as we have said, a very few cases of rendition. We have made clear that we are not going to comment on specific details. But the suggestion that there have been large numbers or that this allegedly large number of flights have had detainees on them is simply an absurd allegation.

It’s dangerous in the following way: in that the suggestion that flights themselves, intelligence flights are somehow engaged in illegal activity really undermines the cooperation between the United States and Europe. Many of these flights that have occurred may simply be carrying analysts for intelligence agencies to cooperate with one another, or other officials who are engaged in counter-terrorism cooperation. They may be carrying forensic evidence that will be shared with European partners so that Europeans can look at the evidence that we have collected.

So it’s very dangerous to suggest that these instances of flights like this are somehow always engaged in illegal activity.

Q: To follow up on that. I think the reference was to about a thousand, not thousands. Do you still say that that figure is absurd?

Mr. Bellinger: I don’t have the details on, one, I’m not sure what the latest allegation is. My point is that it seems to be growing. I don’t have the information on exactly how many flights there have been.

What I am suggesting is that the unchallenged allegation or implication that all of these flights have got detainees on them is really just absurd. Someone needs to challenge that. It’s not possible for the United States to prove a negative, but responsible European governments or responsible European officials simply need to say this has gotten out of hand. There is no evidence for the suggestion or implication that however many flights there have been, that they have all got detainees on them or that an intelligence flight is in fact engaged in some sort of improper activity. In fact, just the opposite.

The implication ought to be that if there are flights, no matter how many of them there have been, that this is in fact a manifestation of cooperation amongst our governments.

The best way to prevent terrorist attacks against any of our countries is through effective intelligence cooperation, and intelligence activities really in this global environment can’t be done by one country alone. It can only be done through cooperation.

So the fact that there are two flights or a thousand flights, and I really don’t have the details on how many there have been, I’m making a more general point, really is a sign of cooperation and not of anything that’s improper.

Q: So are you saying that European governments did know about these flights?

Mr. Bellinger: No, I’m not saying that at all. I am saying, you’ll recall Secretary Rice said previously that we have conducted renditions prior to September 11. In those cases the United States brought people back to justice prior to September 11. In cases since September 11, there have been cases where we have transferred an individual to another government of their nationality, or otherwise to face justice, and that in doing that we comply with our international obligations. We assume that other governments are complying with their international obligations. And we respect the sovereignty of the governments involved.

Q: So the flights are continuing? Continuing if and when they’re necessary?

Mr. Bellinger: I wouldn’t necessarily assume that at all. I would note that at least despite a good deal of digging by every journalist in Europe that the last allegation of a rendition was something like three years ago.

Q: And this inquiry, can it affect transatlantic intelligence sharing between the U.S. and EU?

Mr. Bellinger: That’s a good question. I think it can be. That’s really the point that I am trying to make here, is that this furor over renditions and really now just the furor over flights alone and the suggestion that flights alone are somehow improper I think can ultimately and already is undermining intelligence cooperation by suggesting that there should not even be people flying from one country to another or information being shared. This is the way we cooperate with one another. To suggest that the mere fact alone that a flight is somehow improper I think is a dangerous idea.

Q: You are saying those flights were done in cooperation, and so can I, do you suggest that those flights are continuing now without detainees? Or if there is no flights at the moment does that mean there is no cooperation going on?

Mr. Bellinger: The idea about intelligence activities is that one does not confirm or deny them.

I will tell you we looked very closely, at the time of Secretary Rice’s trip in December, at the individual allegations because so many - not only in their breadth but also the individual allegations of a rendition here or a flight there - so many of the individual allegations were incorrect, that the U.S. government thought very seriously about trying to deny the individual allegations because so many of them were wrong. But we ultimately concluded, as I think all governments have concluded, that it’s simply not possible to get into the business of confirming or denying specifics.

The result, unfortunately, has been damage to the reputation of the United States because people have assumed a number of things that are simply not happening. But I cannot comment on the specifics. I simply say that people should not assume that the fact alone of a flight is in fact something improper.

Q: But sir, the problem there is that we take your word for it, but you know just as well as I do precisely that the activities of the CIA and others tend to be secret. So you have a problem here. You can say as much as you want that there are no detainees on these flights and what have you, but it is your word against others. What is a little bit strange in your argument is that you are admitting that there are a whole bunch of flights. You are telling us that we should not assume there are detainees on all these flights, but you cannot exclude it either.

Mr. Bellinger: That’s why it’s a very difficult situation for the United States.

I think that any reasonable person looking at the facts that are actually out there would conclude that these allegations or a suggestion that these flights have all got detainees on them, or really, that any more than an extremely small number from a number of years back have been involved in renditions. I think any reasonable person looking at those facts would conclude that the allegations to the contrary are just simply overblown.

But you’re exactly right. It’s very difficult for us to try to combat these suggestions. That’s why we have asked for responsible voices to simply try to calm things down a little bit. It’s very difficult to try to prove a negative.

People have periodically asked us, well, prove to us what is on every single flight. Come up with a list of every flight, tell us what was involved. Well, I think by my merely stating that, I think you will realize that’s just not possible to do. Intelligence activities by their nature are simply carried out in secret. That’s because you don’t want to tell the al-Qaida people that you may have captured their material or that you are engaged in cooperation. That’s simply something we cannot carry out publicly.

Q: Will you cooperate with the European Parliament’s inquiry into this, will officials actually….?

Mr. Bellinger: Yes, I will meet with them myself, as will other senior officials at the State Department. Of course, we will do it on an unofficial basis. There’s not any official jurisdiction by the committee over the United States, but we recognize that the questions are out there. We are not trying to dodge the questions. We recognize that they’re there. We are limited in what we can say for the reasons that I’ve explained, but we’ll be happy to meet with them when they’re in Washington.

Q: You are saying that renditions serve a useful purpose. Why is there a need to send detainees to Egypt or Syria or Uzbekistan to be interrogated? What is the added value in that?

Mr. Bellinger: Thank you for that question. I’ve certainly regularly heard “what possible reason could there be for a rendition except to send someone off to be tortured.” That’s an unfortunate statement.

One, as I’ve said I think clearly, renditions can be used to bring someone back to justice as the United States has done, as European governments have done, and those have been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. But in other cases let’s assume a country finds a member of al-Qaida who is trying to cross into that country, cross their borders. They picked them up for an immigration violation and they’re prepared to expel them, but they notify other countries such as the United States that they have picked this person up and we find that they’re in fact a national of some third country and that third country says “that is one of our nationals, we are prepared to take that individual back.” They may be wanted in connection with a terrorist act. They may be a suspect as part of a terrorist cell. They say we’re prepared to take that person back but we don’t have an extradition treaty with the first country, and moreover, we don’t have any way ourselves of bringing that person back.

The question then becomes really for the international community, is it better to simply let a person suspected of terrorism who has been picked up somewhere around the world, simply disappear to perhaps commit a terrorist act again? Or in terms of the overall fight against terrorism, is it better to have the person returned to the country of their nationality or to a country in which they’re wanted?

For better or worse the United States is the country that has got the resources to be able to move people from one country to another, but that’s the reason why, why a rendition may be a useful tool in fighting terrorists.

Q: Why can’t the CIA interrogate them itself? If you bring them to Guantanamo Bay, there are not Americans in Guantanamo Bay, so why do you send others to Syria and Uzbekistan?

Mr. Bellinger: To ask the question is to answer it. As you know, we’re not looking to have more people in Guantanamo Bay. And in a number of these cases, they may not have actually committed a crime against the United States. It may be that we find that it is a member of al-Qaida who is wanted in some other country. Another country may have notified us that an individual is wanted in connection with a terrorist act or a part of a terrorist cell. So, no, the United States would not want to bring yet another person to Guantanamo Bay or to bring them into the United States.

Q: But some of the renditions have involved people who are, in the case of Maher Arar, for example, he was a Canadian citizen. He was flown off to Syria. The case of Khalid al Masri, which is still being investigated, he was a German citizen. How can you justify that? If they are wanted, why can’t they be returned to the country where they are naturalized and the country where they are living?

Mr. Bellinger: I can’t comment on all of the specific cases. I think in the Arar case you should check the facts. I think he was simply expelled, actually, for an immigration violation from the United States and --

Q: But he was taken to Syria and tortured.

Mr. Bellinger: That’s what he says. I don’t know what the facts are in that case. He was expelled from the United States. I think a rendition in that context would be a mischaracterization. Q: You said intelligence sharing is very important with your European partners. How come that some of your European partners actually deny that there have been CIA flights? Like NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer, EU Terrorism Coordinator de Vries recently at the European Parliament.

Mr. Bellinger: Well, I don’t know what he has said specifically. Overall, obviously there is cooperation that may involve flights carrying an analyst or forensic information from one country to another. In some cases people may take commercial flights, but in other cases if one has a private airplane, that’s a much more efficient way to carry U.S. or foreign officials or information around than using a commercial aircraft.

Again, my point is the mere fact of an airplane operated by an intelligence service is no different from a military aircraft or a law enforcement aircraft. The suggestion that an intelligence flight is somehow improper is, I think, a wrong suggestion.

Q: But they actually denied that there had been any CIA flights, whereas you admit this.

Mr. Bellinger: I’m not aware of what they’ve said. I have not seen anybody deny that there have been any CIA flights.

Q: Can I go back to the allegations; the latest allegations from the Parliament are that there have been flights with a police mission that have not been declared to international security authorities. Now I don’t know how it works, but in their eyes it seems like a serious breach of rules. Can you clarify how this works? If there’s a CIA-operated plane, what does it have to do to be able to land in any country?

Mr. Bellinger: The laws governing air travel get to be quite complex. But we certainly are complying with our international obligations with respect to flights.

Q: If a plane lands at a military base, an American military base, does it have to be declared?

Mr. Bellinger: I think the facts may be, it may vary from country to country in terms of practice and whether it’s a state flight or a civilian flight. As I said, rules can be quite complex, but we comply with our international obligations and as Secretary Rice has said, we respect the sovereignty of our European partners.

Q: Have you given any specific guarantees to any governments in the EU that rendition hasn’t taken place on their territory?

Mr. Bellinger: We obviously get questions about renditions, both publicly and privately all the time, and we do what we can to answer the questions. We don’t publicly confirm or deny intelligence flights, but we are obviously in regular conversation with European governments.

Q: Can I ask a question on the definition of torture? Because Amnesty says that the American Administration policy is that sleep deprivation, making people stand up for long periods of time, and pouring water over them to simulate drowning sensations, that these are not forms of torture. Is that your viewpoint, the American Administration’s viewpoint?

Mr. Bellinger: Well, two things. One, I’m not going to comment on specific techniques. We’ve made clear that we don’t comment on specific techniques. The definition of torture, though, is something that is defined in both the Torture Convention and in our criminal laws and we abide by those definitions and the definition is conduct that’s intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain. We abide by that definition.

In addition, as you know, we recently had enacted the Detainee Treatment Act, also known as the McCain Amendment, which also prohibits a lesser form of activity which would be anything that would inflict cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Q: But don’t you think, until you give concrete examples that you can just simply say: “well, we don’t agree with torture,” but you never really define what kind of things are acceptable and what aren’t. That’s the big problem. Because, surely, are you almost implicitly admitting you do practice these techniques because you’re refusing to deny that these are torture?

Mr. Bellinger: We have, again, thought hard about trying to address specific allegations and concluded, despite the difficulties that you mentioned, that it’s just simply not appropriate to go confirming, denying, or analyzing specific techniques.

We do expect that in the next several weeks that the Defense Department will be releasing the revised field manual on interrogation techniques. This is the one that’s referred to in the McCain amendment and we expect that that will be out sometime shortly.

Q: What is it not appropriate to comment on specific techniques? I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t that what the law is about, about practice?

Mr. Bellinger: Surely you can understand that if we state precisely what it is that the interrogation techniques are that would be used against members of al-Qaida then they would train against them. And so our military has concluded that it’s just simply not appropriate to provide a road map for the techniques that are being used.

At the same time we also think that it’s not appropriate to confirm or deny and get into the specific business of saying yes, we do this but no, we don’t do that.

Q: If there has been such a fuss about this whole issue. Assuming that your assumption is that most of these flights are not for rendition, wouldn’t it be more sensible just to say, transparently, that X percentage of these 1,000 flights would involve rendition, or only eight or nine cases, and that’s it, because, like it or not, the impression has got about, the statement of Dick Marty of “gangster tactics” by the CIA. Wouldn’t transparency, in this case, be the best course?

Mr. Bellinger: We’ve been trying to do that as best we can. One of our purposes in trying to dampen this really hyperbolic speculation about flights is to say exactly what you’ve just said which is that while we have said that we conduct, have conducted renditions on a periodic basis, the suggestion that there have been large numbers is just simply incorrect, but we just can’t get into the business or providing exact numbers.

Q: You said early some allegations were dangerous. Can you elaborate on what you mean by dangerous?

Mr. Bellinger: By dangerous I mean in order to fight terrorism, which we all know that al-Qaida has conducted and is planning additional attacks against all of our countries; the best way to prevent those attacks is for there to be cooperation amongst all of our countries. No country can do it by itself. It’s important for information to be shared between Europe and the United States and vice versa. And the suggestion that a mere fact of a flight alone, which in fact may simply be bringing people to talk to one another or to share evidence, and to suggest that the mere fact of a flight is improper will certainly dampen that sort of cooperation.

It may be that next time the United States will be reluctant to bring people to Europe or to share information if the suggestion is that any flight is engaged in improper activity, so that’s what I mean by dangerous. Dangerous to the extent that it may undermine public support for the intelligence cooperation that really is necessary to protect all of our societies.

Q: Do you feel like your policies are working? You have referred to concerns Europeans have, and others, regarding Guantanamo Bay, these rendition flights. Are you winning the war against terror? [inaudible]?

Mr. Bellinger: We collect, because we have very good intelligence services, we share an enormous amount of information with Europe. We do not obviously talk about the specific information that we collect and that we share, but certainly information that is collected does, we think, thwart further intelligence attacks.

Are we being successful in addressing these concerns? These are very difficult issues. We understand, as I said, we’re acutely aware of the concerns that have been raised both about Guantanamo and about renditions, and part of what we’re doing is simply trying to answer the questions as best we can. We understand that unless one can provide details that it may not be satisfying, but that’s simply the nature of intelligence activities.

Q: You mentioned earlier the discussion of the status of prisoners at Guantanamo. Can you explain why is it that they are not treated as prisoners of war? And what is their status?

Mr. Bellinger: Their status is, as you know we refer to them as “unlawful combatant” which is not, and this is really quite important and one of the reasons that I try to do roundtables like this. The term “unlawful combatant” is not a term that was invented by the Bush administration. It’s a term that’s been around for 40 or 50 years, widely acknowledged in all of the treatises on the laws of war and about prisoners of war. It refers to individuals who engage in combat but do it in an illegal way. So this is an accepted term.

One problem overall in this whole area is that there are very, very few people who are knowledgeable about international humanitarian law or about the laws of war. Most lawyers and others in our societies have grown up, because none of us have really been at war for 50 years, grown up in a civil or criminal law system, so they’re used to those systems. But in fact the term “unlawful combatant” is one that’s been regularly used in the academic literature.

Why are they not treated as a prisoner of war? Under the Geneva Conventions it’s quite clear. The Geneva Conventions apply, it says in Article 2 of the Convention, between High Contracting Parties to the Convention. The Geneva Convention is essentially a contract amongst states that says if we go to war with one another and we have signed the Convention, we will treat each other in a particular way, assuming that we’ve signed the Convention and that we meet the terms of the Convention.

Al-Qaida, obviously, is not a signatory to the Convention and so it’s not a beneficiary of the Convention because it’s not a High Contracting Party.

Furthermore, the term “prisoner of war” is actually a defined term in the Convention. People accuse us of violations of international law, but actually if one simply reads the terms of the Geneva Convention it says a “prisoner of war” is a member of a national army who carries arms openly, wears a uniform recognizable at a distance, and respects the laws and customs of war.

Al-Qaida, in addition to not being a party to the Geneva Convention, doesn’t fit any of those definitions.

Members of the Afghan army or the Taliban, Afghanistan was a signatory to the Geneva Convention, but they still didn’t fit the definitions of a “prisoner of war”, so they don’t fit the definitions of the treaty.

Q: If they don’t fit the definition, what are the implications for your treatment?

Mr. Bellinger: What are the implications for treatment? Then that they are not entitled to the privileges of being a “prisoner of war”. Those privileges are provided to people whose countries are party to the Convention and who have followed the Convention. What the United States has said, because we are absolutely committed to the Geneva Conventions, we certainly want, we have applied them, for example, in Iraq, which is a more traditional war. We expect our forces, if captured by a Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

So we have said that we will treat the detainees consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention, but there are numerous things in the Convention that say that prisoners of war are entitled to that we think would not be appropriate for members of al-Qaida, such as, normally, as you know I think from watching television, that in a normal prisoner of war camp people are allowed to continue to organize themselves hierarchically, to wear their uniforms, and we think that would not be appropriate for members of al-Qaida.

Q: You mentioned people talking about alternatives to Guantanamo. What alternatives do you see?

Mr. Bellinger: Thank you. It’s a good question.

We really are aware of these concerns. We have been looking for good alternatives. We welcome the assistance of the international community in trying to see this as a common problem.

The United States certainly sees that in detaining individuals who were picked up by coalition forces, who had been trained in al-Qaida training camps, that we are doing not just a service for the United States, but for all countries who might have been subject to attack by these same individuals. So we have not seen other countries volunteering to be helpful, but certainly we could appreciate assistance rather than simply calling for the closure of Guantanamo.

by painter not talker