|
The Visa Express scandal & 17 questions for the government.
Category: News and Politics
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mowbray061402.asp
June 14, 2002, 8:45 a.m.
Open Door for Saudi Terrorists
The Visa Express scandal.
By Joel Mowbray
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a condensed version of a piece that appears in the July 1, 2002, issue of National Review.
Three Saudis who were among the last of the Sept. 11 homicide hijackers to enter this country
didn't visit a U.S. embassy or consulate to get their visas; they went to a travel agent, where they
only submitted a short, two-page form and a photo. The program that made this possible,
Visa Express, is still using travel agents in Saudi Arabia to fill this vital role in United States
border security.
An obvious target for congressional hearings and public outcry, Visa Express allows residents
of Saudi Arabia, including non-Saudi citizens, to apply for non-immigrant visas at private travel
agencies. After submitting the short form and photo to a travel agent, applicants simply wait
to receive a visa in the mail. Sure, the consulates review the applications once received
from the travel agencies, but aside from the question of fraud, our field officers in consulates
lose an opportunity to weed out shady characters who appear fine on paper. Most Saudi
applicants never come into direct contact with a U.S. citizen until stepping off the airplane
onto American soil.
One senior CA official describes the program as "an open-door policy for terrorists."
Three of the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. through Visa Express, even though the program
had only been in place for three months at that point — and that's not the only reason the
program raises alarm. Take a sample month: The U.S. consulate in Jeddah interviewed
only two of 104 applicants, rejecting none. The month in question? The first 30 days after 9/11.
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that enjoys such privileges when it comes to
visas. In some other nations, partial versions of Visa Express are available — but to very few
applicants. Twenty-eight countries — almost all in Western Europe — participate
in Visa Waiver, which permits travel to America without a visa. Saudi Arabia, however,
is the only country with such special visa privileges whose citizens pose a known terrorist risk.
One cannot fully appreciate the severity of this gaping hole in our border security without
examining the "courtesy culture" at Consular Affairs (CA), an agency within the State Department
that oversees embassies, consulates, and visa issuance, which made Visa Express possible.
CA is charged with a unique, and conflicting, pair of goals: to provide public diplomacy on
the front lines and to screen out potential terrorists before they reach our shores. In the past
decade, CA has done a splendid job achieving the former objective, but it has come at the
expense of the latter. "[Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs] Mary Ryan has
chosen diplomacy over law enforcement," complains Nikolai Wenzel, a former consular
officer in Mexico City.
Emblematic of the victory courtesy has claimed over security is an internal 1998 CA cable
titled "Courtesy and Communications Count," which goes to great lengths to highlight
the importance of customer service, with only fleeting references to enforcement issues.
This "courtesy culture" has been intentionally sown by Ryan in her nine years as the head
of CA. She continually stresses the importance of "fundamental fairness" — for foreigners.
The manifestations of CA's mission confusion can be seen in how the U.S. Embassy
in Riyadh explains that Visa Express was not designed to enhance United States homeland
defense, but rather "to help qualified applicants obtain U.S. visas quickly and easily."
During her nearly decade-long tenure as head of CA, Ryan's most notable — and dubious
— achievement is the dramatic decline in the number of visa applicants interviewed.
"It used to be most people were interviewed; now it's about one-fifth," notes Jessica
Vaughan, a former consular officer in Belgium and Trinidad and Tobago. The new policy
followed at most consulates is that an interview is conducted only if an application
is red-flagged, and thus refused, on the first check. An application can be set aside for
follow-up for a number of reasons, such as suspicious reasons listed for travel (an eight-month
vacation for a lower-middle-class Mexican, for example) or the appearance of the applicant's
name in the lookout system, a composite database of 5.7 million people on various watch lists.
Before a refusal can be finalized, however, the applicant must receive an interview.
Otherwise, no interview is required.
Ryan's driving concern for the current interview policy is the system's convenience for
applicants. Ryan explains that the intent of CA's policy is to "permit waiver of the interview when
it is clear that the alien is eligible for the visa and an interview would be an unnecessary
inconvenience."
Even when CA does turn its attention to border security, however, the agency is still stuck in a
pre-9/11 mindset of keeping out people wanting to get a job at a Quickie Mart, not people
who want to blow up buildings.
Standards for getting a visa in any country are eerily similar to those for getting a fancy travel
package — if you have enough money, you can get either. No, that's not an exaggeration
— it's written policy. Applicants are screened primarily by financial factors, not security ones.
Outside of having money, one merely needs to have a clean record, or at least be able to slip
by the lookout system, in order to receive a non-immigrant visa. And unless someone's
name or documents raises a red flag, consulates don't have a shot to screen out an applicant
with an interview.
Despite the atrocities of 9/11, the "courtesy culture" remains firmly entrenched at CA. One
senior CA official says angrily that consulates screening out applicants "act as if the World
Trade Center towers were still standing."
The most disturbing elements, which I discuss in greater length in the magazine, are the
lookout system — transliteration of Arabic names into English is fraught with peril — and
the distinct possibility that Consular Affairs lied to the public after 9/11 to hide the fact
that the only country in the world that enjoys Visa Express had a visa refusal rate far too high
to allow third-party screening.
Consular Affairs lied again this week, although in fairness, the person in question could have
just been clueless. In sworn congressional testimony, Dianne Andruch, Ryan's deputy,
said that Visa Express "has been shut down." Visa Express, however, is still alive and well.
Quick calls to both Saudi Arabia and Consular Affairs in D.C. this week confirmed
that Visa Express is still in operation.
Most current and former consular officers — those with a clear head, at least — agree that
Washington's rush to "do something" won't cure what ails CA. Former consular officer
Wenzel points the finger straight to the top: "We can pass all the laws we want, but nothing's
going to change as long as Mary Ryan is in charge of Consular Affairs."
— Joel Mowbray is a Townhall.com columnist and an NRO contributor.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mowbray061402.asp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
17 questions for the United States government:
1) In dust samples from the World Trade Center chemical traces identical to Thermite have
been found. Why didn't NIST or FEMA in their investigation consider a controlled
demolition hypothesis given this verifiable evidence?
2) Who exactly is the tortured patsy we have been told is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
The government plans to soon charge, convict, and exucute someone in Guantanamo Bay
for being the mastermind of 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was educated in the United States,
received a degree in mechanical engineering form North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University
in 1986, and speaks fluent English. The CIA released a 26 page interrogation from June 2007 where their
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed needs an interpreter yet confesses to a long list of supposed terror attacks
- including being the "mastermind of 9/11" click: -
[PDF] transcript link or • Click here to see the Pentagon's transcript of the interview (pdf). to read this bizarre half interpretation into English.
3) Why wasn't there a word of World Trade Center 7 in The 9/11 Commission Report? pdf search - the
Complete 9/11 Commission Report: PDF
4) Lieutenant General Mahmud Ahmad (head of Pakistani intelligence: ISI) was with Republican Congressman
Porter Goss and Democratic Senator Bob Graham (head of Senate and House intelligence Committee) in
Washington having breakfast when the attacks of September 11, 2001 happened. The general was
reported, out side the United States, to been involved in the transfer of $100,000
to the lead hijacker Mohamed Atta. Why didn't the 9/11 Commission look into the connections between
Pakistan, the ISI, and the hijackers? - *the CIA, Mujahideen,
Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) , and Mossad all developed a close working relationship in the
1980s while assisting Afghanistan in defeating the Soviet Union.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html
In the days following General Ahmad's dismissal, a report published in the Times of India,
revealed the links between Pakistan's Chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad and the
presumed "ring leader" of the WTC attacks Mohamed Atta. The Times of India article
was based on an official intelligence report of the Delhi government that had been
transmitted through official channels to Washington. Quoting an Indian government source
Agence France Press (AFP) confirms in this regard that: "The evidence we [the Government
of India] have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece
of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism."
The revelation of the Times of India article has several implications. The Indian intelligence
report not only points to the links between ISI Chief General Ahmad and terrorist ringleader
Mohamed Atta, it also indicates that other ISI officials might have had contacts with the
terrorists. Moreover, it suggests that the September 11 attacks were not an act of
"individual terrorism" organised by a separate Al Qaeda cell, but rather they were part of
coordinated military-intelligence operation, emanating from Pakistan's ISI.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html
5) Why did the FBI on June 6th of 2006, say that they had "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"? -
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
6) What did the Secretary of Defense: Donald Rumsfeld mean when, on the day before 9/11, he said:
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."?
7) What happend to Osama bin laden?
8) Why did the United States government spend more tax dollars on Bill Clinton's blow-job investigation
than on the murder of thousands?
9) How can we be expected to make decisions on voting, a portion of which should be based
on foreign policy, when the government uses secret missions like "Operation Northwoods", or
false-flag terrorist events- run by forces in and out of our U.S. government, to manipulate our
countries own citizens?
10) What happened to the investigation of Enron, the electricity company who stole billions
from Californians during the "rolling blackouts" of 2000 and 2001? Is it true the majority of
evidence for building a case against Enron was being stored in the New York S.E.C. headquarters, on floors
11, 12 & 13, of World Trade Center 7?
11) Is it true the real motive behind 9/11 was as George H.W. Bush stated to Congress on
September 11, 1990 in calling for "a new world order."
see: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/bushsr.htm -
also, is the economy about to collapse and are there plans in place to create a cashless society where
all transactions must be tracked?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html
Pentagon to Track American
Consumer Purchases
Thursday, November 21, 2002
By Major Garrett
WASHINGTON — A massive database that the government will use to monitor every purchase
made by every American citizen is a necessary tool in the war on terror, the Pentagon said Wednesday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html
12) Why at the World Trade Center were tons of steel, debris, evidence, and the human remains
of thousands shipped off to China to be recycled by the Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp.?
13) Civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts were killed in the Pentagon on 9/11.
Were some of these people investigating the missing 2.3 trillion dollars, that Donald Rumsfeld had
made public the day before?
14) Was there really $1 billion worth of gold and silver being stored below World Trade Center 7?
If so what happened to about $750 million?
15) The Executive Director of The 9/11 Commission was Philip Zilkow, first pick to head the Commission was
Henry Kissinger.
As Executive Director Zilkow had the power to decide what evidence was admitted for the commissions
review and what was not.
Henry Kissinger did business with the Bin Laden family and Philip Zilkow was on the 2000-2001 Bush transition team,
as well as being an individual who helped the White House out with their Iraq war plans.
The "official" government endorsed story of September 11, 2001 is told in The 9/11 Commission Report.
Are we honestly supposed to believe either one of these individuals could lead even a remotely unbiased commission?
With choices like Kissinger & Zilkow do the words 'conflict of interest' even mean anything anymore?
16) Why exactly was there no air defense on September 11, 2001?
 
17) ...This guy is the Presidents brother, Marvin Bush. Besides being a director,
what exactly did he have to do with Securacom*, the company that provided electronic security on 9/11
for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0301/S00032.htm
Security, Secrecy and a Bush Brother
By Margie Burns
A company that provided security at the World Trade Center, Washington D.C.'s Dulles
International Airport and United Airlines between 1995 and 2001 was backed by a private
Kuwaiti-American investment firm whose records were not open to full public disclosure,
with ties to the Bush family.
Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principal in the company from
1993 to 2000, when most of the work on the big projects was done. But White House
responses to 9/11 have not publicly disclosed the company's part in providing security
to any of the named facilities.
Public records indicate that the firm, formerly named Securacom, had Bush on its board
of directors. He was also listed as a significant shareholder. The firm, which is now named
Stratesec, Inc., is located in Sterling, Va., a D.C. suburb, and emphasizes federal clients.............http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0301/S00032.htm
5:46 AM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
awake
,
