ShareThis Page
Flight path of terror suspects questioned |

Flight path of terror suspects questioned

The Associated Press
| Sunday, November 20, 2005 12:00 a.m

BUCHAREST — American planes carrying detainees from the U.S. prison for terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may have made refueling stopovers in Romania, the country’s former defense minister suggested in an interview published Saturday.

It was the first time a senior Romanian official who would have had access to information about U.S. military activity in Romania has acknowledged that prisoners may have passed through the country.

In his remarks to the daily Evenimentul Zilei, however, Ioan Mihai Pascu indicated that any such stopovers would not amount to evidence that the CIA was running a secret prison for al-Qaida suspects on Romanian soil, as has been alleged.

He said Romania’s Supreme Defense Council, the country’s top defense body, never received a request from the CIA to operate such a prison in the country. He added, however, that there had been “intense collaboration” between Romanian and American intelligence services, without elaborating.

While Romanian officials have denied the existence of a secret CIA prison, they have been vague about the issue of possible transit of prisoners through Romanian territory. On Nov. 3, Human Rights Watch said it had evidence indicating the CIA transported suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan to Poland and Romania.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.