04 January 2002

Transcript of State Department Noon Briefing

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

INDIA/PAKISTAN -- Update on Situation/Diplomatic Efforts

ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY -- General Zinni's Talks With Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat -- Israeli Seizure of Vessel Containing Weapons -- Report of Israeli Detention of Hamas Operatives

SAUDI ARABIA -- Saudi Cooperation on War Against Terrorism -- Release of Saudi Citizens from U.S. Detention

SOMALIA -- War Against Terrorism

YEMEN -- Update on Situation and Cooperation in War Against Terrorism

CUBA -- Travel by U.S. Senators to Cuba/Reported Use of Guantanamo for Prisoners

TERRORISM -- Rewards For Justice Program/Description of Mohammed Atta

Mr. Boucher: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements for you, so I would be glad to take your questions, if there are any.

Question: Yes, sure, well, we're all so keen on India and Pakistan because of the Secretary's interview with the BBC. He cited -- stated --

Mr. Boucher: I hope you're being keen on it because of the obvious importance of the situation to the fate of the world.

Question: That, too. That, too. And when you get the Secretary speaking on a subject, of course that focuses your attention. He spoke of both sides making positive moves.

And I wondered if you could elaborate on that, so far as what India has done. Has it pulled back sufficiently for the U.S.?

Mr. Boucher: I think, without getting into what we know or don't know about particular military movements, you have seen statements from the Indian side, including from Prime Minister Vajpayee and others, that they were looking for a political and diplomatic solution to the crisis, that they preferred that, that they did not wish to engage in military confrontation. At the same time, we know they have mobilized. They have made some statements about not putting troops on the front lines, but rather keeping them in assembly areas. I will leave it to them to talk about their military status in various places.

Obviously, we keep a very close eye on this situation. Our ambassadors in the region have been working very hard on it. The Secretary has been working hard on it, and others as well. As you know, Prime Minister Blair is there. We keep in close touch with the British. So I think it's clear the international community wants to see a peaceful and political resolution of these issues, and of the crisis. And many of us are working hard toward that goal.

Question: Could I ask something that may sound almost ingenuous? But after 50 years, does the U.S. really believe there is a solution to the Kashmir conflict that will satisfy both sides? Isn't that one of these things that will be with us forever? Generation unto generation?

Mr. Boucher: Nothing is with us forever. There is clearly --

Question: The Arab-Israeli conflict is with us forever.

Mr. Boucher: I have worked on crises that you can trace back 2,000 years. But it doesn't mean that France and Germany have to perennially go to war with each other, to put it bluntly. But that's not the question.

The question is sort of where -- how does one address this issue? How does one address this issue? First and foremost, you address it by trying to keep these two countries from entering into armed conflict with each other over this terrible bombing and the attacks that have occurred.

Second of all, you try to get at the sources of violence and the sources of terrorism. Each of these countries has a role in the fight against terrorism, and we have seen them step up to the plate and take steps against the terrorism generally. And we have seen President Musharraf take steps to take actions against militant groups and against the sources of -- the violence expression of political views.

And so he is taking steps against extremism, taking steps against militant groups, and he is committed to dismantling those groups, which threaten the stability of Pakistan, as well as of the neighbors.

And then, third of all, yes, there is a fundamental issue over Kashmir and we have always encouraged the parties to engage in direct dialogue on the subject and to try to resolve the political issues in a political manner.

So I would say the approach we have taken has been on those sort of three different levels. And obviously the level of ending the rush toward confrontation is the first and foremost now, and ending the violent activity of extremist groups is obviously the key to defusing that and getting a political process between the two countries, eventually.

Question: How does the Secretary stand now on the possibility of sending an envoy to the region and what does he think that would accomplish?

Mr. Boucher: I wouldn't couch this in terms of an "envoy" towards the region. We have people out there working it. The Secretary has been working it by phone. We may, indeed, send someone from Washington to continue our activity, to continue working on the situation. I am not sure I would describe that as a special envoy. It may be one of the officials in Washington who is responsible for the crisis.

Question: "Envoy" with a little N is just somebody going over?

Mr. Boucher: It's a little "e" but, yes. (Laughter.)

Question: Little "e". How embarrassing.

Mr. Boucher: You're right. And a little "n," too.

Question: Richard, just to follow up, Indian ambassador (inaudible) thinks that in Washington that the clouds of war are not over yet until Pakistan meets the demand of -- list of 20 demands by India, that those 20 people should be handed over to India. And what -- do you have any comments on that list India presented to Pakistan, because they are not satisfied yet, whatever Musharraf had done before? They are saying whatever he has done so far is under U.S. pressure, not his own will.

Mr. Boucher: I would say a couple of things on that. But first, let me say I don't think I am going to try to address a specific list or a specific action requested by one government or another that doesn't involve us directly. But let me say a couple things.

First of all, we've seen I think clear statements from President Musharraf that he intends to move against extremism. He intends to move against the sources -- those who would engage in violence. This has been a subject of discussion with him since September 11th, a subject that he has discussed, that we discussed with him, for example, during the Secretary's visit in October. Second of all, he has taken concrete action to back up the very firm statements that he has made.

So we have seen action. We expect to continue to see action from him in terms of moving against militant groups, because fundamentally we think he has made the strategic decisions after September 11th to move against terrorism and violence. And, second of all, he has fundamentally made the strategic decision to move Pakistan towards a more moderate course.

That presents opportunities and, obviously, we want to see him pursue that. But the situation is very dangerous. There -- we are not claiming that it is over or that we can all breathe a sigh of relief. It is still a very dangerous situation. And it is still a situation where people need to keep moving forward, need to eliminate the violence and need to look for direct dialogue and other political ways of resolving the issues.

Question: Just to follow, Richard, on the one hand you said that a terrible bombing took place in India. But, on the other hand, you said both countries are to play a role against terrorism. But there is no role to play against terrorism for Pakistan because Pakistan has not been hit by terrorists, never. It is only India, always. So that means the role -- Pakistan is the only one who should play now a role against terrorism.

Mr. Boucher: First of all, that's not true. And second of all, I'll give you the answer I just gave you.

Question: Richard, a couple really quick things. Do you want the envoy, little "e" or bit "E" or however you want to talk about it --

Mr. Boucher: I don't want to talk about it. I think if we're talking about --

Question: Well, let's not talk about that, then. Let's just talk about Taylor, because I understand the question was asked and answered the other day and it was a taken question. It just said that he had delayed his departure. Has that been --

Mr. Boucher: It is going to be later in the month.

Question: Right. Has that -- is there any definite time for --

Mr. Boucher: No, I don't have a new definite time.

Question: The other thing is that you mentioned -- I don't know if this was kind of an aside at the beginning -- you talked about the importance of this to the fate of the world. Does the United States really think that the fate of the world hinges on what's going to happen or what might not happen in South Asia?

Mr. Boucher: I don't -- Matt, the fate of the world depends on a lot of things. I'm sure this is probably one of them, but that was a remark in jest.

Question: Okay, that was a remark in jest. Okay.

The last thing is that the Secretary, you, a lot of people in Washington have said over the past couple days or so that you hoped that Vajpayee and Musharraf find an opportunity to have even a brief word in Kathmandu on this subject. Are you going to regard it as a lost opportunity -- an unfortunate lost opportunity if they do not find the time to exchange a couple words on this?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know. What's Phil going to tell me?

(Pause.)

Mr. Boucher: I would say, first of all, what we have said is that the two countries are both there, that they have officials, they have ministers, they have leaders, and we hope the two countries, two governments, would look for opportunities at this in Kathmandu to ease tensions. We'll have to see what happens.

Certainly the fact that they attend the meeting together, that they greet each other, shake hands, smile, whatever, the fact that they are both publicly saying in and around this meeting that they would like to see a political and diplomatic solution, that's positive. But what more they do to take advantage of the opportunity is up to them, and we'll have to see what happens.

Question: I guess this -- those are --

Mr. Boucher: You're predicting failure, you're asking me to predict failure and we'll wait until it happens.

Question: I'm not asking you to predict failure. Well, you are saying that they have both said that they would like to see a political and diplomatic resolution to this. But those are just words, and as you have called for in many conflicts over a long period of time, you want actions and not words. Isn't a meeting -- isn't even a brief exchange of words on this subject between the two in Kathmandu an action that you would welcome?

Mr. Boucher: I don't quite know what you're getting at. Actions are things like arresting people, closing down groups, taking away guns, stopping violence, stopping deployments, moving back from confrontation. Meetings can help produce those kinds of actions. But we are really focused on the idea of getting results. Certainly, anything they can do at those, in terms of meetings, taking the opportunity of proximity of their delegations to produce further actions on the ground that reduce tension would be welcome.

Question: Yes, but in other places, you always call -- you always talk about how important it is, and how you want to see face-to-face talks continue. And I know I have brought this up before, but you know, the I's and the P's, here it is again, the two sides, you are always saying that you encourage direct contacts between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Are you encouraging it here, and do you think that if they don't, that it would be a missed opportunity?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know where we're going. I have said they should take advantage of the opportunities, they should have direct discussions. I am not going to --

Question: (Inaudible.)

Mr. Boucher: Is anybody as confused as I am?

Question: No.

Mr. Boucher: No? Probably not. I fail to grasp at the cosmic significance of this, and again, that's the fate of the world and the cosmic significance of it. But the issue is, yes, we encourage direct dialogue; yes, we hope they take advantage of the opportunity. How they do that at this particular juncture, at this particular meeting is up to them. And, no, I'm not going to start commenting on their failure to meet when they haven't failed to meet yet. If that is as clear as I can be in answer to all those questions.

Question: Just two quick questions. Who is our man or woman -- or who is the State Department's man or woman in Kathmandu, and can you just go over what kind of meetings they have had?

And two, does the U.S. have a view on an extradition treaty between India and Pakistan, considering that this is -- one of the major concerns on the Indian side is the handing over of certain people?

Mr. Boucher: Extradition between two other governments is something for those two other governments to consider and decide. I'm not going to put myself into it from here. And frankly, I will have to double check on who we have got in Kathmandu right now, and what they're doing. But generally, our embassies, ambassadors, deputies, political officers, when there is a big meeting like this, would be meeting with the participants and the host government and making sure that we follow it as closely as possible.

Question: But the State Department's Global Terrorism Report, and the annual report was nine months ago, and it focused, so far as Pakistan is concerned, on Pakistan hosting, permitting the training of Kashmiri terrorist groups. Now, today, and the last couple of days, Musharraf has been praised for taking all sorts of actions. Have they ceased permitting terrorists to train on Pakistani soil, to shoot Indian soldiers up in Kashmir?

Mr. Boucher: You will have to get specifics of these actions from the Pakistanis. I will see if we have seen anything on closing down training facilities. What we do know is that they have arrested the leaders, they have arrested a lot of the members, and they have closed down offices. So that goes fairly far into making it impossible for these groups to operate.

Question: India has faced terrorism before, but there was this idea that this time that they are in a sense following the U.S. example, and saying we're not going to accept this any longer, and sort of ratcheting up their response. What is the U.S. response to that? Is it along the lines of what you said, well, you don't need to go farther, because the other side is taking action, which is different from the Taliban, for example, that didn't take action against the terrorists that were -- in fact were working with them?

And also, in other cases, where countries would be, say, using the U.S. lead in what they would call working against terrorism, would those three points that you made, would that sort of be a U.S. guideline for responding to terrorism that other countries should follow?

Mr. Boucher: First of all, the three points I made were particular to this situation. I suppose one can digest them into grand theories if one wants to, but I'm not going to do that today.

Second of all, you are positing a discussion with India that is, as far as I know, not taking place. India has said they want to seek a political and diplomatic solution to these problems. We have said we want them to seek a political and diplomatic solution to this problem. Therefore, we are working with India, as well as with Pakistan, to try to find ways to de-escalate, ways to defuse tensions, ways to keep -- move forward towards reduction and an end to the violence, and an eventual dialogue about how to resolve the crisis.

So this sort of -- there's no back-and-forth argument on this subject. There is an issue of how do we do this, how can we work with the parties, how can they work hopefully with each other to defuse tensions, end the activities of violent groups, and we would hope get back to direct discussions about how to resolve the underlying problem.

Question: What would be the difference between the mission of Frank Taylor when he goes later this month, and this other person, when he or she goes to India or Pakistan? What's the difference between the two missions?

Mr. Boucher: I think we will obviously have to look at that. The continuing discussion now of the political situation, the tensions that have arisen goes beyond merely the particular issue of counterterrorism cooperation. Obviously, General Frank Taylor is going to be able to talk about a lot of things, but his particular mission is to enhance the counterterrorism cooperation with each of these governments. But there are also, as we have just been discussing for several minutes, there are also several other issues at stake here, other things that need to be done to try to defuse the tensions and move back to a more normal situation.

Question: Well, Richard, going back to your answer, what is the political and diplomatic solution to the situation?

Mr. Boucher: Again, I've described as much as I can the need to defuse the tension and the violence activities, the activities of violent groups, and get back into a direct discussion. What the underlying resolution of the situation in Kashmir is going to be something that will be worked out by the parties. But certainly, our current interest is in getting back to that kind of track rather than allowing the tensions to further escalate.

Question: One more, finally. I'm sorry. Is the U.S. in favor of India demanding that those 20 terrorists must be handed over to India? Is the U.S. in favor of and pressing Pakistan that those should be handed over to India?

Mr. Boucher: I didn't bite before and I'm not going to bite now.

Question: Different subject?

Mr. Boucher: Please.

Question: Could you -- was there another question?

Mr. Boucher: No, Charlie sort of had first dibs on the new subject but you've got it now.

Question: I think we might have the same subject. On the Middle East, could you talk about Mr. Zinni's talks today and could you also address the issue of the boat and what effect you think that might have on his mission -- the munitions that were seized, rather?

Mr. Boucher: On Zinni's talks, will I get away with reading to you what he has already said? On the discussions that General Zinni has had, he has had talks today with Prime Minister Sharon, with Chairman Arafat. He came out of the meeting with Chairman Arafat to say that he will continue to work towards a lasting and comprehensive peace, no illusions. Announced that they will be holding trilateral meetings again, to begin where they left off with the first part of his mission and then to proceed on the path towards the horizon that was outlined by the Secretary and the President in their speeches.

Again, repeated what we have said before. The mission is to take an assessment on the ground and to restart the process, and that is what he is doing out there.

As far as the issue of the boat, first of all let me make quite clear, we absolutely condemn any attempt by militants to escalate the tensions and the conflict in the region. We have made clear to Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority that they need to continue to combat terror and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. And that remains a key goal of ours and we look for them to continue to do that.

We have -- General Zinni has raised this issue in his meeting with Chairman Arafat today. He expressed, as I said, our strong condemnation of any attempts to escalate the conflict in the region by militant groups or others. He pressed Chairman Arafat to find an explanation of the situation. He also urged Chairman Arafat to take immediate steps to prevent future attempts to bring in additional weaponry or escalate the current conflict. I would say that Chairman Arafat has denied any knowledge of this arms shipment. He offered full cooperation and a full investigation. And I have seen that statement from other Palestinian authorities. So we look forward to finding all the facts.

Question: Could I have a follow up? Can you say whether the U.S. was at all involved in the interception of this ship?

Mr. Boucher: We were not involved in the seizure of the vessel.

Question: They didn't share?

Mr. Boucher: That is not something I could go into.

Question: What was your answer? It was not something you could go into? You did say something?

Mr. Boucher: We did not -- we were not involved in the seizure of this vessel.

Question: I'm sorry. There was an interesting turn of phrase you used. He pressed Chairman Arafat to find an explanation for the incident?

Mr. Boucher: Yes.

Question: Does that mean that the explanation that Arafat gave, that he didn't know anything about it, was -- is not acceptable to you as an explanation? You're still waiting for -- whatever Arafat said to Zinni doesn't count in the U.S. as an explanation?

Mr. Boucher: No, no, no. If you don't know something, you can find out about it. He said he didn't have any knowledge of it. We encouraged him to find out about it and he promised a full investigation.

Question: Your phrasing is -- you didn't say you condemned this attempt to bring weapons to the Gaza Strip. You said: We condemn any attempt to escalate terrorism.

I mean, are you saying that this operation --

Mr. Boucher: I don't think it was necessarily Gaza Strip. But we certainly condemn any attempt to smuggle weapons in because smuggling weapons into this area and providing them to militants or militants getting additional weaponry in this area escalates the conflict.

Question: Okay.

Mr. Boucher: So we just jump to the final result.

Question: What do you think about boarding ships in international waters?

Mr. Boucher: I have no particular comment about that.

Question: I mean, is that -- this is presumably a breach of international law, is it not?

Mr. Boucher: It was an Israeli operation. You can ask them questions about how it was conducted and what its basis was.

Question: Could I just ask you, you said "we" condemned or "he" condemned? In other words, did he himself -- Zinni -- condemn it to Arafat? Or you're saying the position of the U.S. Government is we condemn? Did he say the words "condemn" to Arafat? I don't know if you said "we" or "he." That's all I'm asking.

Mr. Boucher: Zinni said -- he expressed the strong condemnation of the U.S. Government. Zinni represents the U.S. Government, and conveyed that to Chairman Arafat.

Question: Getting back to the meetings he has had, I know that the two he had today were separately with Sharon and Arafat. And then you said he hopes to get back to trilateral meetings to be held again. I assume you mean at the security chief level, as has been in the past?

Mr. Boucher: That's right. The kind of trilateral meetings we have been having.

Question: Is the idea then for the trilateral -- I think I've seen it reported that it's going to be on Sunday? Is the --

Mr. Boucher: I don't have a particular date for you.

Question: All right. And the other thing that has come out of there is that he, himself -- Zinni -- is going to attend that meeting. Is the idea for him to go to this meeting and then come back after with the results or whatever happens to report to the Secretary?

Mr. Boucher: I will have to see what kind of meeting is set up. I don't think I can quite say that at this point. He does intend to come back, and then he said he would return to the region again after that. But exactly when will be decided after consultations with the Secretary.

Question: What does the United States know about or have to say about Iran's role with the boat incident? And what do we know about past -- or can you offer us any insight on what Iran has done in the past in helping extremists?

Mr. Boucher: I don't have anything particular to say about Iran's role in this particular incident at this moment. I think the facts are not in. We will have to see. We will look for investigations. We will look for more facts on this, and we will see.

In terms of Iran's past role, we all know, and you can read in various reports that we put out, about their support for militant groups, for violent groups, for terrorist groups.

Question: With the Palestinian groups?

Mr. Boucher: And we think that needs to be stopped.

Question: But, Richard, with the Palestinian groups in particular, Robin was just saying.

Mr. Boucher: Well, which ones? I mean, are we talking about Hizballah -- we all know --

Question: How active is Iran today in helping Islamic Jihad or Hamas, particularly?

Mr. Boucher: Again, I don't think there is much I can say on that. I'll have to check. When you put the word "today" in it, it gets more difficult for me to talk about --

Question: I mean, recently, in the last few months.

Mr. Boucher: I will have to check and see if there is more that we could say than we have said in previous reports on the subject, including Patterns of Global Terrorism.

Question: (Inaudible.)

Mr. Boucher: She asked about the past.

Question: Yes, I know. But, I mean, a lot has changed in the last -- since this has been put out.

Mr. Boucher: Well, I'm not sure this is one of the things that has changed. This is one of the things we want to change.

Question: In a related issue, there have been a number of reports in the last week from Israel claiming that they have detained or they have found that Hamas operatives have been cooperating recently with Saudi Arabia. Can you shed any light on this? Does this make any sense at all from the U.S. perspective?

I know that there have been a lot of discussions with them about fundraising for al-Qaida or bank accounts with al-Qaida. Is there --

Mr. Boucher: I haven't seen those reports. But I think you would have to ask the Israelis, if they are the ones who are talking about this connection.

Question: Can I just follow up? In the bilateral discussions with the Saudis, has the U.S. also pressed them not to crack down on any bank accounts or charities that may be funding extremists in the Palestinian territories?

Mr. Boucher: We have always made clear that financing of terrorist organizations is an issue for us. We all know that the United States has listed these groups as terrorist organizations. They are subject to our financial restrictions. There are UN resolutions that require people to stop the financing. And I would add to this that Saudi Arabia is taking steps to cut off the financing of terrorist groups and financing for -- well, to cut off the financing for terrorist groups and that they have cooperated with us in that matter.

Question: Are they cutting off financing of al-Qaida or all terrorist groups?

Mr. Boucher: I think you will have to ask them exactly. I have always been in the position of not speaking for other governments and not trying to outline specific requests or specific actions, let other governments speak for themselves in terms of what they are doing. But I think they have spoken about the steps they have taken to cut off the financing of terrorism.

Question: Prince Bandar from Saudi has come out and said or commented on the release of 12 Saudis from U.S. detention. And there has been some indication that the Saudi Government was pressing the U.S. very hard not to hold some of these people that were detained on visa irregularities or other things. Can you say anything about that?

Mr. Boucher: No. I would have to leave that to the Attorney General and Justice Department, who have people in detention to decide when it's appropriate to let them be released.

Question: A demarche would come to this building?

Mr. Boucher: We have always made clear that we were interested in seeing that the Vienna Convention rights were respected. We have had governments come to us and talk about that matter with regard to people who are currently in detention. But we have made equally clear that the Department of Justice and the detaining authorities have to make the decisions about who needs to be kept in detention, and who might have violated our law, and who can be released, deported, or whatever happens.

Question: Is the Saudi Government one of those which has come to you with concerns?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know. I will have to check specifically.

Question: A different subject? Can you address today the question of terrorism in Somalia, and what threat the U.S. sees from there?

Mr. Boucher: I think the first thing you have to remember is there is an enhanced focus worldwide on terrorism and terrorist operations, on al-Qaida cells. We have seen arrests in countries in Europe, in the Middle East and elsewhere. You have seen activities by governments all around the world in various ways against terrorism, and activities involving an enhanced state of vigilance by the United States and other governments, as well as enhanced cooperation in any number of areas.

So we are looking at everything everywhere. The President made clear this was a campaign against terrorism, period. Somalia, of course, given the circumstances that exist there now, is one of the areas we have to keep our eye on. The Secretary has made clear we want to prevent them from being used as a harbor for terrorism.

We know that among the places that al-Qaida has had relationships with in the past is Somalia. They have had cells, I think we have said 50 or 60 around the world. I can't say specifically what they have in Somalia, although our report on the Patterns of Global Terrorism have said that the al-Qaida organization has sent trainers to a number of countries, including Somalia. Secretary Rumsfeld has said that al-Qaida elements have gone in and out of Somalia.

So we are obviously concerned about this, or any other place where al-Qaida has the ability to operate. We have officials in Washington and an official at our Embassy in Nairobi, who talked to various authorities in Somalia. They have impressed upon Somali groups and factions the importance of cooperating in the war against terrorism. We are having similar discussions with nations of the region, as we do around the world, where al-Qaida has had historical links, to ensure that nowhere in this region does it become a haven for terrorists.

Question: Could you also address the situation in Yemen, and say whether you think that that situation has improved over the last nine months, say?

Mr. Boucher: We had a visit about three weeks ago now, from the President of Yemen. Six weeks ago. We had a visit sometime last year, late last year, from the President of Yemen. And we, as you know at that time, talked extensively about the kind of cooperation that we thought we could undertake with Yemen.

We heard from the President of Yemen that he was committed to the fight against terrorism, and we look for them to take steps. Indeed, I think if you follow the news, you have seen that they have engaged in a certain amount of law enforcement activity to try to get terrorists who might be hiding out there. And we look forward to whatever cooperation we can have with Yemen and working with them in this fight against terrorism.

Question: (Inaudible) said that they have been fulfilling their promises that they made here?

Mr. Boucher: I think I can say that they have been doing more, that we have seen actions, that we look forward to further cooperation and actions against terrorism with Yemen, as well as other governments and authorities in the region.

Question: Semi-different subject, and maybe you addressed this yesterday, and I just missed it. Senator Specter and Chaffe were -- or are in Cuba right now. Last night they had an extended dinner with your friend Fidel, at which apparently he said that Cuba didn't have any objections to you guys using Guantamano Bay as a holding point for prisoners from the war on terrorism.

The first question is, do you have anything to say about the trip of the Senators' in general? And, second of all, does it really matter what Castro has to say about what -- would it have made a difference if they had said, no, no, no, we think that -- diplomatically, is there any reason that Cuba would have a veto over how you use Guantanamo Bay?

Mr. Boucher: Not that I am aware of. And as far as the Senators and their travel, no particular comment.

Question: To follow up on Somalia quickly, you mentioned cooperation with regional governments, I think, on the Somali question. Has that come up with other allies in the fight against terrorism, the specific case of Somalia and concerns about Somalia? (Inaudible.)

Mr. Boucher: I said we were talking to other governments in the region about cooperation against terrorism, about cooperation in the region, including the situation in Somalia. We have obviously talked to other partners and people who are fighting terrorism about terrorism all over the world. Many countries are, as we are, concerned domestically but also internationally.

I don't know how to say that Somalia is obviously a place of interest, but there are many places of interest to us all in the world. And this will continue to be one of them.

Question: There is some criticism today about some of the language in some of the Rewards for Justice ads, that Mohammed Atta was incorrectly described in one of the ads as -- something about his airport training and a couple of other matters. And the criticism is that the government should be giving out more specific or at least definitely accurate information. Do you have anything to say on that?

Mr. Boucher: Well, I guess I would say that there is -- I saw one article that is, itself, inaccurate. The article says that we put out ads in Afghanistan and showed a picture of ads that are being directed and were produced and discussed and unveiled for domestic markets. We are not dropping that ad in Afghanistan.

Second of all, I think it's quite clear from the text of the article that we're talking about terrorists in general. We are talking to Americans about what they can look for, what they should be aware of, what they might want to report and how they can report it.

This has been the first time that we have advertised domestically. It is not a wanted poster for Mohammed Atta. It is not a poster that -- it is not an indictment of Mohammed Atta. It uses him as a picture representing the hijackers and describes a composite of what kinds of things that hijackers were doing that people might want to be aware of and report. So it is not the 10 Most Wanted poster for Mohammed Atta. It is a thing about Americans and what to look for and what they might report against terrorism. So I would look at it in that context, because I think that is the context that Americans will see it in.

Question: Richard, is it still your understanding that Mohammed Atta is dead, and therefore there is no reason for there to be a wanted poster out for him?

Mr. Boucher: Yes. But --

Question: I was just trying to address it. It seems like a little hair-splitting is going on.

Mr. Boucher: Well, I don't know where you say it's going on.

Question: Not by you. By the reports.

Mr. Boucher: I don't know why one should read a picture of a man who is no longer with us as some attempt to describe him so that people could find him.

Question: Richard, it has been about 15 or 20 minutes since Phil took a brief time out to hand you a note. Have we come up with the right topic yet and crossed it, or is there some other news that you would like to share with us?

Mr. Boucher: Are you playing Battleship?

Question: Well, that's the whole -- playing 20 Questions, is what we've been doing.

Mr. Boucher: Moving right along.

Question: Back to this ad campaign on terrorism --

Mr. Boucher: This ad campaign?

Question: This sad campaign. Ad campaign. How did they come up with these ads? Through market surveys, focus groups, polling?

Mr. Boucher: As you know, there are two or three ads directed at the American public, and then we are working on the international aspects of this. For the American public, I think we sat down, first of all with the program, wanting to describe the program to Americans. Second of all, talked to various experts and people. I don't know it quite comes to the point of focus groups, market research, polling.

But, yes, we did talk to various experts inside and outside government. We talked to -- let me make sure -- we talked to the Ad Council, or at least advertising firms, and we talked to the people who were -- the Rewards for Justice group that was established to try to help Americans get more involved.

This is, as I said, the first time that we have advertised domestically. And the goal domestically was to tell Americans there are things you can watch for. There are behaviors that you might find suspicious and, if you do, give us a call.

Question: If you don't mind, I would like to do a little hair splitting on Somalia. Are you -- you mentioned the --

Mr. Boucher: Can we stay on the ad campaign for a minute, and then we'll come back to Somalia.

Question: Sorry. Where are these ads running?

Mr. Boucher: We described it at the press conference we did, and I don't remember it all. They have run in domestic newspapers. I think on that day, December 14th, they were actually in a few papers, in the Post and, if I remember, Houston Chronicle or something like that on that day. They have been in other domestic papers.

We are doing radio this time, so they are on the radio as well, and they have been around the country on various radio networks, pretty thoroughly covering the country in various ways.

Question: Are you going to distribute them at all, here?

Mr. Boucher: The posters, copies, web site -- they're on the web site. Just go to the -- CDROMs. Go to it -- what is it -- rewardsforjustice.org web site and you will see it all there, probably a better description than I have just given you of how they are being placed.

Question: You all also are also to be doing --

Mr. Boucher: I'm sorry, rewardsforjustice.net.

Question: Are you also going to be doing some TV ads, Richard?

Mr. Boucher: Not domestically, I don't think. I don't think that has been part of it.

Question: Is there a reason for that?

Mr. Boucher: Let me double check on TV. Somebody said that may be wrong.

Question: When does it expand overseas? It's domestic and then Charlotte Beers said --

Mr. Boucher: We're working on it. Maybe sometime this month -- this month, next month. The effort is under way. But you want to design something a little different for the overseas market. Americans, you want to make them aware of what they can do and why they should do it. And you want to do the same in the overseas market generally, but you want to target more specifically the areas and places and the incentives or inducements that might work better out there.

Question: (Inaudible) countries?

Mr. Boucher: No. We will do the overseas portion when it's ready. All I can say is we are working on the overseas portion.

Question: Speaking of the incentives bit, there still seems to be some misunderstanding about whether or not the Taliban leadership is included in the Rewards for Justice program. There were some people at the Pentagon, led by a Cabinet-level person, saying that there was, in fact, a $10 million reward out there for Mullah Omar that does not appear to be related -- if there is one -- it doesn't appear to be related to the Rewards for Justice program. Can you --

Mr. Boucher: No, I don't have anything new on that. And I guess if there is anything more to say, you can check with the Pentagon.

Question: But are you aware of any other reward program?

Mr. Boucher: This is the basic program for people who provide information on anyone who is engaging in terrorism against the United States.

Question: But that program is listed -- there is that Most Wanted list up on the web site, and things like that.

Mr. Boucher: But there is also, generally -- I mean, if you come up with somebody that we don't know about who is plotting to blow up Americans, we can pay for that information, too, if it leads to prosecution.

Question: That is still up to $25 million?

Mr. Boucher: I have to double check the exact wording. The $25 million is specifically directed at the al-Qaida organization.

Question: Would Mullah Omar be included in that? Is he accused of any terrorist activities?

Mr. Boucher: I don't really have any new answers on that. I don't think I have an answer at this point. We would be glad to have somebody help us get him and then we can talk.

Question: So far nobody has claimed the $25 million?

Mr. Boucher: No. We've gotten something like 24,000 pieces of information since September 11th through this program. And all of it gets turned over to the FBI for them to sift through and look at and see what we can use and what might lead to further arrests and action against terrorism.

We certainly welcome all the information that has come forward. The process of actually getting to a reward means we have to evaluate it, take action and then determine if the credit is due to the person who gave us the information. But certainly anybody that has information that can come forward, we welcome that.

Question: Just quickly on Somalia, you mentioned the Secretary of Defense's remarks, that there are al-Qaida people that go in and out of Somalia. Is the State Department now willing to say that there are al-Qaida people inside Somalia, or is it still just sort of a potential haven?

Mr. Boucher: I will stick with exactly what I said before. That was as precise a definition of the current situation as I can give you. And I am not going to get into any current intelligence or operational issues.

(The briefing concluded at 1:35 p.m. EST.)