DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Pace 1/22/2002

Q: Mr. Secretary, two points. Why not call them prisoners of war? And you're indicating that that's just some legal debate, which is up there. Are you not concerned that this could come back and somehow haunt the United States in potential future treatment of American soldiers who are taken in whatever kind of conditions, so that some future entity could say to the U.S., "You didn't abide by the Geneva Convention on this. You didn't call them prisoners of war. Why should we?"

Rumsfeld: Well, first of all, as I've said, we are giving them the treatment that is appropriate under the Geneva Convention. We are. I mean, we simply are doing that. Now I don't -- I think that the legal questions I'm going to leave to the lawyers, as to why they prefer one characterization as opposed to another.

My understanding of the situation is that one of the higher purposes of the Geneva Convention was to distinguish between legitimate combatants and unlawful combatants -- lawful combatants, on the one hand, and unlawful on the other. And the reason for doing that was that they felt that a higher standard should be provided and given to people who, in fact, wore uniforms; who, in fact, were fighting on behalf of a legitimate government; who did carry their weapons openly and who did do those things that men and women in the United States armed forces do as a matter of course -- wear insignia indicating who they are.

The importance of it, if you think about it, is to the extent you blur the distinction between people who are lawful combatants -- that is to say, men and women in uniform -- and innocents, who are civilians, and you try to behave and conduct yourself by not wearing uniforms, by not carrying your weapon openly, by not carrying insignia of that, you're trying to suggest that you want the advantages that accrue to an innocent, a civilian, a noncombatant. And it is -- that was a concept, I'm told, in the Geneva Convention, which is very important.

So, in direct answer to your question, no, I don't think that anyone will confuse U.S. men and women in the armed forces and treat them any differently, because they merit standing.

The second issue, I'm told, that's complicated -- and again, I'm not a lawyer and I don't really spend a lot of time engaging these issues. There are terrific people in the Department of Justice and in the White House and in the General Counsel's Office who worry through these things. But the issue of what is a country and what isn't a country is something that gets debated, and I think most people would agree that the al Qaeda is a terrorist organization; it's not a country. And to give standing under a Geneva Convention to a terrorist organization that's not a country is something that I think some of the lawyers who did not drop out of law school, as I did -- (laughter) -- worry about as a precedent. And I think that's a -- not an unreasonable concern on their part.

So I think the simple, quick, knee-jerk reaction to these things is a dangerous one and one that we ought to be very careful about and think through. And that's what the process is that's going on.

Q: Well, then there is, of course, the issue of when is the U.S. -- and you have said repeatedly that it's an open-ended question at this point -- when the U.S. is going to accuse them of something, charge them with something, specify something, which is the body of law that rules American citizens and in most other situations. Thus far, that has been kept a gray area and is part of the --

Rumsfeld: Well, I don't deny that the criticism runs the gamut across the entire spectrum.

And the fact that people raise those things I think is fine, and it elevates the discussion and people can talk about them.

But the reality is that they have been charged with something. They have been found to be engaging in battle on behalf of the al Qaeda or the Taliban, and have been captured. And we have decided, as a country, that we prefer not to be attacked and lose thousands of lives here in the United States, and that having those people back out on the street to engage in further terrorist attacks is not our first choice. They are being detained so they don't do that. That is what they were about. That is why they were captured, and that is why they're detained.

Go back to any conflict, when there is a conflict and people are engaged in a battle, and some win and some lose, some are dead and some are captured. The ones that are captured are detained; they are kept away from the battle, they're kept away from killing more people. Now, that is not an unreasonable position. I think anyone in uniform would find it a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Rumsfeld: I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I am going to stay here and answer as many detainee questions as need to be answered, and -- so I'll try to work my way through the room. I don't know that I'll know all the answers to all the questions, but if I don't, we'll find them, because it seems to me it's time to tap down some of this hyperbole that we're finding.

Rumsfeld: Oh my goodness! Now look, is he being treated like the other detainees, shackled, hooded, and what have you? Oh! Well, let me say this about that; I will repeat what I said in my opening comments. When people are moved, they are restrained. That is true in prisons across the globe. It is not anything new. It is because in transit, movement from one place to another, is the place where bad things happen. That's what happened in Pakistan when the Pakistani soldiers were killed when the -- the uprising in the bus.

And will any single prisoner be treated humanely? You bet. When they are being moved from place to place, will they be restrained in a way so that they are less likely to be able to kill an American soldier? You bet. Is it inhumane to do that? No. Would it be stupid to do anything else? Yes.

Q: Mr. Secretary, there was a debate yesterday in the British Parliament, I happened to notice --

Q: -- and it -- well, it was interesting. And one of the comments made was that we -- handling of John Walker, a United States citizen, has been different from the handling of the others, and that this demonstrated that the United States would not treat one of its own people the way that it has treated these others. And I would ask your reaction to that.

Rumsfeld: Well, it's amazing the insight that parliamentarians can gain from 5,000 miles away. I don't notice that he was handled any differently or has been in the past or is now. He was wounded, so he was treated. Other -- there are many other people who were wounded, and they've been treated, they are being treated, in Guantanamo Bay -- very well -- excellent medical care. And to -- you know, I just can't imagine why anyone would suggest that he's been treated any differently from anyone else.

Q: Well, will he put in an eight-by-eight cell that has no walls but only a roof?

Rumsfeld: The -- just for the sake of the listening world, Guantanamo Bay's climate is different than Afghanistan. To be in an eight-by-eight cell in beautiful, sunny Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is not a -- inhumane treatment. And it has a roof. They have all of the things that I've described. And how each person is handled depends on where they go.

And Mr. Walker has been turned over to the Department of Justice. He will go where they want him. He will not go to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What kind of a cell he is put into is up to the prison that he is held in during the period that he's being processed through the criminal justice system of the United States. And any suggestion that the United States is providing preferential treatment to people depending on which country they came from, I think, would be false and --

Rumsfeld today was like a magnificent, powerful stag pursued by snarling jackals, which turns and faces the canaille, impales a few on his antlers and effortlessly tosses them away (still yelping "A follow-up, Mr. Secretary! Just a brief follow-up!"), until the others intimidated skulk away glowering at him, until they can regroup for the next onslaught.

I saw pieces of this one, and caught the best part, which they've been replaying on FNC (Cavuto and Smith both). The best part would, of course, be the air-conditioning dialogue.

Rumsfeld: Thelma.

Q: You mentioned earlier that Cuba has a beautiful climate. But as you know, in a few months it's going to be very, very hot down there and there is going to be more complaints about them being held in open conditions like that.

And also, again going back to some of the criticism, the criticism being the open-ended nature, that they are going to be there for an undetermined period, how would you, again, respond to that?

Rumsfeld: I don't know how many times I've been to Guantanamo Bay, but it's a lot, and it frequently was in the summer when I was Navy pilot, and that was back in the days before air-conditioning. And it's just amazing, but people do fine. (laughter) I mean, there are a lot of people in Cuba with no air-conditioning. (laughter) I know that will come as a surprise! But I was in Washington before there was air-conditioning and the windows used to open! It's amazing.

I lived in Columbus, GA as a kid, and we didn't have air-conditioning. It just wasn't a big deal back then - though it *was* pretty cool when we moved from there to Fort Rucker, and did have A/C in our quarters. These liberal America-haters just don't have enough adversity in their lives, so they make stuff up to complain about.

And these are the agitating sonsabi+ches who write and talk their propaganda into the American news stream, all the while piously insisting they are unbiased "Reporters" delivering truth and accuracy. They are a disgrace to this nation, and a disgrace to their "profession". In one hour, that roomful of traitorous, leftwing Blame America First halfwits succeeded admirably in demonstrating for C-Span viewers the media's utter worthlessness, and its subversive threat to the success of America's war on terrorism. God knows how Rumsfeld can resist just shaking his head in disgust and leaving the room. No way could I put up with the sht he regularly goes thru with this bunch.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.