STEVENS: Senator Durbin, recognized for four minutes.

DURBIN: I'd like to ask two questions, if I can, briefly. And the first follows up on this whole question of the interrogation techniques. We have, I understand, one soldier who has been captured. Is it a soldier of the last name Maupin (ph), if I'm not mistaken.

MYERS: Right, Maupin (ph).

DURBIN: And we're uncertain of his whereabouts...

MYERS: That's correct.

DURBIN: ... and we certainly hope he's safe. I'd like to ask, Mr. Secretary, wouldn't it help if there was clarity from you and from this administration that we would abide by the Geneva Conventions when it comes to civilian and military detainees unequivocally? Wouldn't that help to put to rest concerns about our interrogation techniques in Guantanamo, in Bagram, in Iraq? And wouldn't it also serve to protect any Americans who become prisoners? As I look at the interrogation rules of engagement which have been issued, there are, frankly, many of those which are violative of the Geneva Convention standard, and these are rules which have been issued by our government. Wouldn't it be good for us, at this moment in time, to clearly and unequivocally state that we will follow the Geneva Convention with civilian and military detainees?

RUMSFELD: Senator, that is a question that's being discussed widely in the press and editorial comment in newspapers. And certainly that's a fair thing. Regrettably, the discussion and the dialogue and the editorials tend to be, in many instances, inaccurate. There is no ambiguity about whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply in Iraq. There never as been any ambiguity. From the outset, Iraq is a country, the United States is a country. The Geneva Conventions apply to parties -- nations. They don't apply to terrorist networks. They do apply to nations. Iraq's a nation. The UnitedStates is a nation. The Geneva Convention's applied. They have applied every single day from the outset. Now, where the confusion comes in -- and it's understandable to some extent -- is this -- and I'm very glad ou raised it because it's something that's concerned me and I've been disappointed to see the lack of research that's taken place on this subject -- the Geneva Conventions apply to conflicts between states, parties to the convention. In the case of Afghanistan, it is a state and therefore the Geneva Convention applied to Afghanistan as a state. It did not apply to the Al Qaida that was using that state, and a judgment was made by the president of the United States very simply that to protect the Geneva Convention and to protect U.S. armed forces, it would be wrong to state that the Taliban were merited the benefits of the Geneva Convention. The reason being that the Geneva Conventions apply to people, and they get the POW status, only if they satisfied certain criteria. Do they operate in a chain of command, do you they uniforms, do they carry arms openly, do they comply with the laws of war? Terrorists don't comply with the laws of war. They go around killing innocent men, women and children.

DURBIN: Mr. Secretary, I...

RUMSFELD: Just a minute. Just a minute, Senator. I'll stay late.

DURBIN: ... want to have a chance to follow up on my...

RUMSFELD: I'll stay. Listen, I'd like a chance to follow up. The situation is that the president not only said it should not apply, the Geneva Conventions, under the law, to the Taliban or the Al Qaida, although it does to Afghanistan and it always has to Iraq, but he said notwithstanding that fact they would be treated as though those conventions applied. Now, that's not a decision we made. That's a decision the president made. It's -- in my view, the conventions are there to protect people who obey the laws of war. To do what you're suggesting simply, regardless of what the convention says, apply the conventions to anybody -- terrorists, Taliban, you name it -- doesn't strengthen the Geneva Conventions; it weakens them.

DURBIN: Let me go specifically to Iraq, and let me talk about the detainees that were held at Abu Ghraib and other prisons. And let me tell you your interrogation rules of engagement, the ones that are published, go far beyond the Geneva Conventions. The things that we allow with C.G.'s approval here -- stress positions, sleep management, dietary manipulation -- all of these things go far beyond a standard which says, There'll be no physical or mental torture nor any other form of coercion or that the people involved will be exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. That's the Geneva Convention. These rules of engagement for interrogation issued by your department are inconsistent with those. And I'm not talking about the terrorists Al Qaida or the Taliban, we're talking about Iraq.

RUMSFELD: General Myers, correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that any instructions that have been issued or anything that's been authorized by the department was checked by the lawyers in your shop, in the department and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and deemed to be consistent with the Geneva Convention.

MYERS: Absolutely. And you could read any one of those -- stress positions -- you could read any of those -- a stress position for an excessive amount of time or that would hurt somebody is not approved. I don't have that with me. I had it for the last hearing. But I think at the bottom it says, in all cases they'll be treated humanely. I don't know if it's on that chart. Is that it at the bottom? What does it say at the bottom?

STEVENS: Well, gentlemen, this is a very interesting conversation...

MYERS: We'll be happy to come brief you on this, but that is not illegal according to the Geneva Convention, the ways they were applied. Every time we have an interrogation, we have an interrogation plan. Those are appropriate and that's what we're told by legal authorities and by anybody that believes in humane behavior.