State and the Saudis

I hope they get rid of all those Lawrence of Arabia wannabees at State; the arabists have been in control for far too long.

Daily Press Briefing - Richard Boucher, Spokesman - Washington, DC - July 8, 2002

TRANSCRIPT:
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.It's a pleasure to be here. If I can, I'd like to start off by giving you some information on visas. We have noted in a number of articles and newspapers that there persists a certain number of myths about the program that we have in Saudi Arabia, as we have elsewhere, to accept visas through travel agents.
This is a program merely to accept the applications.They don't adjudicate. They don't decide. Only American consular officers decide who gets a visa. But people continue to report on these programs with a number of untruths involved, and I wanted to make clear that certain things about the program -- we've got a fact sheet for you on myths and facts concerning this program that we'll be passing out and have available after the briefing.
As you know, the subject of visa issuance is topical because, as the Homeland Security legislation gets considered, there are also some proposals on the Hill that contradict the administration's proposal and that would transfer the visa issuance to Homeland Security. Whereas, the administration, the President's proposal, would leave the issuance of visas in the hands of the Secretary of State, acting on the rules and regulations that are decided and the authority that rests with Homeland Security.
One of the myths that continues to perpetuate itself is one -- there was one report that 2 percent of the visa applicants were interviewed under this program in Saudi Arabia. In fact, 45 percent of the visa applicants are interviewed. Who are not interviewed are people like infants, people who have come and gone to the United States on business or other things several times, renewals, that sort of thing. Third country applicants are almost always interviewed, and anybody with any suspicions as far as the consular officer is concerned is always interviewed. So 45 percent of those applicants are interviewed.
One of our newspapers in its editorial this morning says that simply by filling out a form and sending a picture, his visa comes in the mail; he's off to the United States without American -- any American ever checking whether, for example, the person is on the terrorist watch list. That's totally untrue, and it contradicts the facts that I think we've given here many times, and we are giving again today.
No visas are issued without a thorough check against the database that we have. And as you all know, working with our other agencies, we have taken steps in recent months since September 11th to vastly improve that check, to vastly improve the database and vastly improve our ability to identify in the advance people who might be coming here for nefarious purposes.
QUESTION: What newspaper is that?
MR. BOUCHER: The Washington Times, actually. Some of the articles were in the National Review before that, that had some of these facts.
So we're going to turn out some fact sheets for you today, and let you discuss and report on this debate or discussion this week, having full knowledge of the facts and not based on some of the untruths that seem to perpetuate themselves.
And with that, I would be glad to take your questions on this or other topics.
QUESTION:To what motive would you ascribe the printing of such articles in publications such as the National Review and The Washington Times?
MR. BOUCHER:I don't know. I don't ascribe motive to printing of articles. You do it all the time, and I don't ascribe any motives to you, so I don't think I will to others. I would have to express the fact that unfortunately when some things appear in print, it's very hard to contradict them, even when they're not true, and that's what we're going to try to do publicly and up front today.

And let's not forget the arabists at NASA who flew a Saudi prince on the space shuttle a number of years ago.

This is the problem with all government and yet politicians just help it grow.
There is no longer in government any accountability or ethics.It is to big and spinning out of control.
No only are the politicians for sale,those down the food chain are getting their share.
Does anyone not notice how America becomes increasingly like the Soviet Union before its collapse?

What about the bribery charges that were made? Supposedly $10,000 was given for visas in some instances, according to press reports. If so, prosecution should be made.

Daily Press Briefing - Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman - Washington, DC - July 10, 2002

TRANSCRIPT:

MR. REEKER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to the State Department. I do apologize for the delay. I myself am just getting back into the swing of things, so it takes a little while to try to get up to speed.

I did want to mention one thing at the top of our briefing, and that is that yesterday our Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Ambassador Mary Ryan, announced her retirement early this fall after 36 years of truly extraordinary and distinguished service, including over nine years as the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs. Ambassador Ryan is the most senior US career diplomat, and as I mentioned, a 36-year veteran of the Foreign Service. Widely respected and admired throughout the government for her professionalism, her personal integrity and devotion to duty, Ambassador Ryan has served her country with great distinction. She will certainly be missed. She has been a terrific colleague, and if I may say so personally, an excellent mentor, and indeed a valued friend.

And so as she said in her own statement, and I quote what she sent to our colleagues in the field, "All of us in our careers will eventually face the decision about when to move on, and for me that time has now arrived."

And so with that, I can move on to your questions. Yes, Barry.

QUESTION: Will there be a successor?

MR. REEKER: Certainly there will be a --

QUESTION: Will the Consular Service stay in this building?

MR. REEKER: That's our expectation, that's the President's expectation, and we will get back to you once we have anything to announce, or the White House has anything to announce about a successor. But at this point, Ambassador Ryan has announced her retirement for sometime early this fall. I don't have an exact date for you. I'm sure that remains to be worked out. She is going to continue on this summer in the spirit of her service. She is chairing promotion panels, an important function here in the Department, particularly for those of us eligible for promotion. So we will wish her --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. REEKER: I don't think she's in charge of my panel.

Eli.

QUESTION: I hate --

QUESTION: Is it about this?

QUESTION: Yes, it is about this.

QUESTION: It's about Mary Ryan?

QUESTION: It's very much about Mary Ryan.

MR. REEKER: Well, you guys work that out, and --

QUESTION: The internet columnist Joel Mowbray reports today that Mary Ryan was asked to leave by Under Secretary of State Grant Green. Is there any truth to this?

MR. REEKER: I don't think that is correct. In fact, when Secretary Powell asked Assistant Secretary Ryan to remain on during the transition -- after all, she had been here for almost eight years under the previous administration -- he expressed his high regard for her and was very pleased when she agreed to stay on. They had always discussed that at a particular time it would be time for Assistant Secretary Ryan to retire. She has now had 36 years of service, and the Secretary determined that this was that time and asked her to retire, and made that decision. And as Ambassador Ryan said in her statement to all of us --

QUESTION: Asked her to retire?

MR. REEKER: Yes.

QUESTION: Was it the Secretary of State, or the Under Secretary?

MR. REEKER: I think through the process, it was the Secretary's decision, in keeping with what he and Assistant Secretary Ryan had talked about when she made the transition and stayed on, as you can tell, for over a year and a half into the new administration, and now will stay on, as I indicated, into the fall.

And so, as I said, she indicated to all of us in her own statement that when it's time to move on, that time has arrived for her, and this is something, as we said -- she'll be missed, she has had an extraordinary career. But now we'll move on and continue to remember her.

QUESTION: But she was asked to resign?

QUESTION: I'm confused.

MR. REEKER: She was not asked to resign; she and the Secretary discussed it, and she was asked to retire. This was the time. They had indicated, they had discussed when she agreed to stay on, at the Secretary's request after the transition of administrations that when the Secretary felt it was the right time, she would retire. And that's what's now taking place.

QUESTION: Does this have anything to do with the various issues that we're hearing about fraud and visa scandals?

MR. REEKER: No. In fact, I spoke with the appropriate authorities on that matter earlier today, and that is not. This was just seen as the time for her to move on.

QUESTION: But you knew -- you still asked them about it, because you thought that there might have been a connection?

MR. REEKER: Because you had asked me -- not you particularly, but some of you had asked me that question.

QUESTION: Is it unusual that someone would be asked to retire before they have a replacement for that person?

MR. REEKER: Oh, I think quite often when people announce their retirements, then you look for who would be -- obviously that's a political appointment, that Assistant Secretary of State, and it's something then that the White House would decide. That's why she's now staying on until the fall, indicating that she'll retire sometime early this fall. But I don't have an exact date for you. As I said, she remains in her duties, and in fact she's doing the promotion panels now.

QUESTION: Phil, not to beat a dead horse, but can you get into a little bit more detail as to why she was asked to retire at this particular time, other than it was the right time?

MR. REEKER: I think it was just the right time. You answered the question. The Secretary, as I indicated, had a talk with Assistant Secretary Ryan at the time of the transition, and because of his very high regard for her, which remains, he asked her if she would stay on into the new administration as his Assistant Secretary so he could make that recommendation to the President. And as the Secretary indicated to me today, they had always discussed, always indicated that when it was time to move on, that's what Assistant Secretary Ryan planned to do. And now that's what she's going to do.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you, you mentioned -- you said she is the most senior US career diplomat?

MR. REEKER: That's right.

QUESTION: I thought that was the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

MR. REEKER: In terms of service. In terms of service, she is a career --

QUESTION: Oh, not seniority-wise.

MR. REEKER: No, she has the rank of Career Ambassador since 1999. I'm glad you mention that, because it gives me an opportunity to note that Ambassador Ryan was the recipient of the Presidential Distinguished Service Award twice, in 1998 and 1992, as well as the Arnold Raphel Award in 1996 and the Award for Outstanding Public Service last year, in 2001. She was promoted to the rank of career minister in 1992 and Career Ambassador in 1999, which is the Foreign Service's equivalent of a four-star general in the senior Foreign Service.

Barry.

QUESTION: I know I asked the question, but now I want it explained, because I didn't realize we were going to get into this. There are reports that the consular office will be moved into the new Homeland Security apparatus.

MR. REEKER: I think I already answered your question, Barry.

QUESTION: That was why I asked --

MR. REEKER: The President has made quite clear, in terms of the legislation that has been sent to the Hill, and our goal is to see the legal authorities, many of which now reside with the Justice Department, for visa issuance shifted to the Department of Homeland Security, while the issuance -- the process of visa issuance remains with the State Department, where the expertise, the experience rests. And that's what the President has proposed, that's what we support, and that's what we plan to continue.

QUESTION: Sorry, but am I interpreting this correctly? Some functions will shift and some will remain? Is that the bottom line?

MR. REEKER: I don't know where that came from.

QUESTION: I thought you said some of the visa -- maybe I misunderstood.

MR. REEKER: I think that we've been all through this many, many times. Ambassador Boucher has briefed on it. It's in the law, in the legislation that has been sent to the Hill.

QUESTION: Well, it's (inaudible) today.

MR. REEKER: Exactly. And that is that legal authorities on the visa issuance, which now rest with the Department of Justice, would shift to the Department of Homeland Security. The issuance of visas, the process, which is done effectively through the State Department, would remain. And that's what the legislation that's proposed suggested.

Yes, Eli.

QUESTION: I just want to ask you one more time, the timing on the request for this Career Ambassador to retire has nothing to do with the fact that two committees in Congress today are going to be voting on legislation about whether the entire consular function should be transferred to the Homeland Security --

MR. REEKER: No, and why should it?

QUESTION: Why should it? Well, these -- Mary Ryan's name has come up in these hearings when they've talked about this, and there are many people in the Congress who have expressed a lot of concern about this woman. And then the day that they're voting on this in these committees, we find out that she's going to be --

MR. REEKER: Well, Eli, you wrote about it yesterday. So obviously --

QUESTION: What?

MR. REEKER: You wrote about it yesterday. So I think the answer is simply no. Assistant Secretary Ryan has served for 36 years in the Foreign Service. She is, as I have pointed out, the most senior, in personal rank, Foreign Service Officer in our service as a Career Ambassador. She has had extraordinary professionalism, extraordinary respect throughout this entire building, through all of our colleagues overseas, and of course will be very much missed. And the Secretary continues to have the very highest regard for Ambassador Ryan. That is why together they have been able to have this relationship, as she transitioned from one administration to the next and remained now for well over a year and a half in that job and will be here until the fall.

QUESTION: I'm not going to ask again.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what you can about the current -- what, Operation Eagle Strike?

MR. REEKER: Sure. Are we ready to move on?

QUESTION: Visa fraud.

MR. REEKER: Did you have something else on that?

QUESTION: Do you think it's wise to have her on the promotion panel, overseeing that, given that if you take a look at some of the track record from the Charles Parrish case, which the Government Reform Committee has expressed serious reservations about when they held hearings three years ago, this was a man who was known in the Chinese public for selling visas, and they even had newspaper ads telling people to go to the "black guy" at the embassy, because he'd sell them a visa.

MR. REEKER: I'm afraid I'm not aware of --

QUESTION: After this, he came back and handled sensitive visa issuance policies for Middle Easterners at Consular Affairs, and Mary Ryan defended this decision, although she claimed ignorance about it to --

MR. REEKER: I'm not aware of any of that situation, so I can't even comment on it. I don't know.

QUESTION: But given that and -- for example, the Washington Times story today; did you read that?

MR. REEKER: I did.

QUESTION: Okay. According to that, the General Accounting Office, that Consular Affairs, and in fact no one in State, at least as of May, had spoken with any of the consular officers who had issued the visas to the September 11th hijackers. Do you think that that is an appropriate protocol to -- as far as handling how visas were issued, all 19 legally, to the September 11th hijackers?

MR. REEKER: The first thing I'd note about the Washington Times story is that I went first to the editorial page, where they have in fact a correction of the erroneous facts of the earlier editorial contained in the July 8th edition of that newspaper, then of course noted that there was an article on the front page that contradicted their own contradiction in terms of some of the facts of visa issuance. And I suppose we should review that once again, because there's clearly still some misperceptions, in spite of Ambassador Boucher's briefings, in spite of the extremely lengthy discussions we have had on the subject here and the fact sheets that we have put out about that.

In fact, contrary to what the newspaper article suggests, everywhere in the world, non-immigrant visa applicants are assumed under our law to be intending immigrants, and thus are ineligible for a visa unless they can demonstrate otherwise. That's the law. So they have to prove their ties to a --

QUESTION: -- consular officers in Saudi Arabia that that was not the practice.

MR. REEKER: I have seen reports of a General Accounting Report that I haven't seen that I don't believe has been reported, and so reports of what someone said to someone else I just can't get into at this point.

But what I can get into are the facts, the facts on that, which include the fact that we've been over many, many times, that an application for a visa is always reviewed by a US citizen consular officer who makes an informed determination as to visa eligibility. This is after the application has been filed and the appropriate fees have been paid. The consular officer may require additional documentation in addition to the visa applications, including the new forms that we have added to the process since September 11th, and/or a personal interview.

Per the law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 214(b), as I noted, every applicant for a visa, regardless of what country they come from, must overcome an assumption that they are intending immigrants. And that's an assumption that the consular officer makes until the applicant proves otherwise to the satisfaction of the American Citizen Consular Officer who's been trained not only in visa law and visa issuance process, but in the culture and the language of the country in which that officer is serving.

If the applicant cannot prove to the satisfaction of consular officers that he or she, the applicant, does not intend to immigrate, the visa application is refused. And indeed, if you go abroad, you will discover that many, many people around the world understand the difficulty, often, in overcoming that assumption and actually qualifying for a visa to the United States.

There are also other categories of ineligibility listed in the act, including for those applicants engaged in criminal acts, terrorism, narco-trafficking, and you can look at the law yourself. I'm sure you're familiar with those specific things.

As we've also pointed out many times, all visa applicants, every single one, are subject to a name check against the Lookout system. And it's impossible, physically impossible, for the visa to be issued without prior clearance through the name check system. Only a US consular officer can authorize the printing of a visa once the applicant has been fully cleared through the name check system. So if the applicant is found not to be ineligible per the law, and he clears, he or she clears the name check system, and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he or she is not an intending immigrant, then a visa can be issued.

And so I would point out some additional facts. I think there's been a lot of talk about Saudi Arabia, where in fact, as all around the world, since the additional supplemental forms were added after September 11th, every male over the age of 16 is required to fill out an additional supplemental form with more information of the target audience that law enforcement and intelligence looks for. Ninety-two percent of those visa applicants are interviewed personally by US citizen Consular Affairs Officers. And our database, since the changes that were put into place that provide us with the information from intelligence sources, the sharing that goes on between FBI and intelligence agencies and the consular database, that database has doubled in names and information since that time.

QUESTION: You had mentioned what the law was. Do you have -- has the State Department conducted any investigations as to the practice in the field as far as is that presumption followed -- people being ineligible unless they can overcome that, that the burden is on them? How is this being practiced in the field?

MR. REEKER: I think it's a subject of regular review. And I can speak from my own experience in the field, knowing that that is certainly the practice and the assumption. It's a unique assumption in the sense that, compared to other aspects of American law, visa law presumes you to be an intending immigrant. In other words, it presumes you to be guilty until you can prove otherwise that you have sufficient strong and binding ties to your homeland that can show that you are visiting the United States for the purposes for which you have applied. And so that's quite a threshold to overcome. And as I said, if you talk to people around the world, they understand, often, the difficulties and the need to provide the appropriate information that shows their ties to their home so that they can overcome that presumption of intending immigration.

QUESTION: Just one other question. If the visa issuance function stays within the State Department, do you plan to -- does the State Department plan to have a higher interview percentage? To interview more visa applicants than is currently the procedure? As Saudi Arabia is headed in that direction now.

MR. REEKER: Well, as I pointed out, in Saudi Arabia the target group to which law enforcement and intelligence looks in terms of screening for security, in particular since last September, now has a 92 percent interview rate. You have to realize that obviously of the target group that is identified by law enforcement and intelligence. So that 92 percent rate is obviously almost everyone. Clearly there are certain officials, diplomats, people well known that don't have to come back, perhaps, for a second interview, but that's 92 percent. And every post makes those determinations based on documentation, based on law enforcement and intelligence needs and obviously that's something we continue to review at every post around the world.

QUESTION: Is there someone in charge of finding colorful phrases like "Operation Eagle Strikes," or "Bear Beats Dog," or "Man Hits Moon?" How do they come about?

MR. REEKER: I think there's a computer program. I'll take that question, Barry, and I will ask. I'll try to find out. Okay.

What we're talking about is, and what Barry's referring to, is the investigation into a visa fraud situation which has been termed "Operation Eagle Strike." And as some of you have reported, that investigation began late last year when the Diplomatic Security Service, part of the State Department, received information concerning allegations of visa fraud involving visas issued at the US Embassy in Doha, Qatar. And the Diplomatic Security Service, working with other US law enforcement and the intelligence community, obviously, immediately launched an investigation into those allegations. And so that's been going on for some time now.

This investigation has been focused on the alleged, illegal issuance of visas to approximately 70 individuals at the US Embassy in Doha. And as resulted, as you've reported, in the nationwide apprehension of those visa recipients, we determined specifically that 71 individuals received visas for which the appropriate written records were not found. These were issued between July 2000 and May 2001 to third-country nationals, that is citizens of countries other than Qatar or the United States, obviously. And we're actively seeking the remaining individuals who have received visas illegally beyond the 31 visa recipients who've been taken into custody during the course of the investigation.

And so the Diplomatic Security Service continues that investigation where they've had absolutely extraordinary cooperation in terms of information-sharing and synergy of resources with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies here. The INS, of course, is clearly involved in this since INS is in charge of letting individuals actually enter the United States. The Department of Justice's Criminal Division is very much involved, and numerous US Attorneys' Offices, especially the US Attorney's Office in the District of Maryland, where I think, today, there was an arraignment of one of the people arrested in this case.

So part of the responsibility in terms of visa issuance is also tracking visa fraud. And the Diplomatic Security Service has that responsibility to track down and punish visa fraud wherever it occurs. We've increased resources devoted to this effort. We're performing checks at all our visa issuing posts to ensure that this type of fraud does not occur elsewhere, and the investigation is ongoing. And we'll continue to try to bring you additional information when we're able to.

Charlie.

QUESTION: You're focused on visa fraud as the impetus for the investigation. Can you talk about any transition of the investigation into terrorism connections and the war on terrorism or into al-Qaida?

MR. REEKER: I don't think I could offer you anything more on that. At this point, it's an ongoing investigation. Clearly that's something that would be kept in mind with law enforcement agencies, including the Diplomatic Security Service as they work together with our colleagues and other agencies on that. But I just can't offer you anything more now since it is an ongoing investigation and there are specific legal cases pending, as you've seen, in our courts already.

QUESTION: Can you give us anything more about the breakdown of the nationalities of the people who received these visas and numbers of people that the US has detained already?

MR. REEKER: At that point, I think I indicated that 31 visa recipients have been taken into custody so far in the course of this investigation. In terms of the nationalities, I just don't have that for you at this point, but they are third-country nationals. As I said, that would be individuals not from Qatar, the country where our embassy is located, where these fraudulent visas were issued.

QUESTION: I just want to check on one thing. When you began your answer, you talked about alleged, illegal visa issuance, and then when you said that you are actively seeking the others who haven't been caught, you said you're actively seeking those who obtained the visas illegally. Has fraud been -- fraud has not yet been proven in this case, then?

MR. REEKER: That would be something that would be proven in a court of law. And those are the charges. I can refer you to the legal filings that have already been made, for instance, in the Court of Maryland where the allegations are made.

QUESTION: Is the State Department operating on the assumption that there was fraud or that there may have been fraud?

MR. REEKER: I think one, in a legal, law enforcement case operates on an allegation and then needs to prove that case in a court of law.

QUESTION: Okay. All right, so then when you say you're actively seeking the others then -- who allegedly obtained their visas illegally?

MR. REEKER: That's right. We believe that there were 71 individuals that received visas for which the appropriate written records were not found. As I said, those were issued sometime between July of 2000 and May of 2001. And so as those 31 have been apprehended and others are sought in the ongoing investigation, the specific legal charges are brought and that's where we would get into the issue of the fraudulent visa issuance.

QUESTION: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understood it, 31 have been detained, 29 are being sought. So why are the other ten -- no the other eleven, sorry -- from the 71 not being looked for?

MR. REEKER: Right now the understanding in the rubric of the investigation is that six of the individuals departed the United States. There are five individuals who were dependents or spouses. And that, then, adds up to the 71: the 31 who have been taken into custody, the 29 actively being sought, 6 that departed the United States and 5 dependents -- spouses or children.

QUESTION: You know that there were 71 given. You also know the names of these people. Is there any way, or have you cross-checked with INS databases to make sure that those people actually did enter the US? And presuming that they did, do you think they're still here?

MR. REEKER: Let me just repeat what I just said in terms of the numbers. And we're obviously working this with INS. The presumption is that 71 visas were used to enter the United States.

QUESTION: So not issued but also used to enter?

MR. REEKER: That's why you would have 31 that have been apprehended, 29 that are being sought, 6 that are thought to have left the country, and 5 spouses and children, who also are being dealt with. That is the 71 breakdown.

QUESTION: Right. I understand that. But why -- are you seeking the 29 only within the US? I'm asking, don't you have an idea based on INS records of when these people entered the country and then also if they left? How can you --

MR. REEKER: Well, the specifics of that would be for INS, but as I said, we do believe that six left. That would indicate that yes, we do know that, and that's why the 29 we're still seeking in the country.

QUESTION: So you're not looking for the six overseas in cooperation with your --

MR. REEKER: It's an ongoing investigation and I just couldn't get into the details at that level of what else is going on for that. That's as much as I can share with you at this point.

QUESTION: There appears to have been some consulate shopping going on, where people were turned down at one US consulate, then went to the next country. Have you issued any sort of an alert for people who have been turned down at other embassies and when they show up in a new embassy?

MR. REEKER: That is something that's always out there. In fact, when a visa is rejected, when an application is rejected, that itself goes into the database so one knows that that is the case and we have a record of that. It doesn't preclude one from applying somewhere else. In fact, you know, that's a decision an individual makes. But that's why third-country nationals, if you're applying in a country other than your own, come up for special review. There may be perfectly legitimate reasons for that, so it doesn't automatically preclude someone. But obviously, if they had been denied a visa beforehand, we would look into the grounds for that denial and that would obviously be taken into consideration in the entire visa process -- the application process and review by the American Consular Officer.

QUESTION: And you said you had a problem with the Washington Times story this morning? Could you go into those details?

MR. REEKER: Again? Well, I think I'll leave it mostly for what I've already said, since I covered much of it, but the basic supposition that visas are issued unless there is a specific reason not to, as described in that newspaper in fact, is reverse of what is true. And that is that everywhere in the world, non-immigrant visa applicants are assumed under law to be intending immigrants and are ineligible for visas unless they can demonstrate otherwise. That's the law. That's what's looked at. That's -- the documentation to overcome that presumption is what's required in your application to the satisfaction of the consular officer.

QUESTION: Phil, I don't think it's the Washington Times was saying that the State Department had this policy. I think they were referring to the practice in the field based on this finding in Congress.

MR. REEKER: And we dispute that.

QUESTION: You dispute the finding of this --

.....[continued].....

MR. REEKER: As I indicated to your colleague, Eli, I've never seen the finding. I'm reading a report of a finding that's contained in a report that I haven't seen. What I'm making clear to you is what the law is, because there still seems to be a lot of confusion about that in lots of reports, and not simply the one that we're referring to here, and we have been trying to make very clear to people, and most people wouldn't be familiar with how visas are issued. Certainly there would be no reason for them to. So we've been trying to educate you all and the public into how that process works. And the most important thing, I think, is to get across the fact that it's not an easy process.

US law, established by the Congress and the Executive of the United States and the regulations to go with it, require a very high level of proof to overcome the assumption that anybody applying for a visa to the United States is, in fact, an intending immigrant.

QUESTION: Can I just -- this is very simple. You are unfamiliar with the GAO report; you're not disputing it? The report of what's in the field, not the law.

MR. REEKER: I've never seen it, Eli.

QUESTION: Okay, so you can't dispute it. So you're just saying you're unfamiliar with it.

QUESTION: Are you disputing the fact that --

MR. REEKER: I think we're just going round and round here, Eli. There's a description of a process that suggests that -- the exact opposite of what is true. And what I'm telling you is what is true, what is the law, what is the practice, and I've given you figures on the percentage, for instance, now, of individuals being interviewed -- for instance, in Saudi Arabia since that particular country has come up.

QUESTION: Mea culpa. Get that one on the record.

QUESTION: If the GAO findings are true, then the practice in the field is in direct contradiction to the law?

MR. REEKER: I don't know that. I can't talk about a hypothetical.

QUESTION: No, but if --

MR. REEKER: I don't do "if" questions. We just don't.

QUESTION: Can you say if any US consular official has been arrested or detained in connection with this case or any Foreign Service National who worked at the Qatar Embassy?

MR. REEKER: Not that I'm aware of, but I'd refer to the other law enforcement officials for any news on that.

QUESTION: So we understand -- on the possible fraud situation through Qatar that a lot of these people were Jordanians and a lot were Pakistanis.

MR. REEKER: And in answer to your colleague's question, I said I wasn't able to confirm nationality other than to say that all of those visas were issued to third-country nationals, that is, people who were not citizens of Qatar.

QUESTION: That wasn't the whole question.

MR. REEKER: Sorry.

QUESTION: No. Never having been through the process or been in these places permanently, I just wondered -- would this be unusual that people from Jordan or from Pakistan would get their visas from Qatar? Because there's a possibility that the grapevine tells you that there's some fraudulent way you can get a visa if you find your way to Qatar.

MR. REEKER: I couldn't comment specifically. I think that was the essence of the earlier question about -- someone suggested the term "visa shopping," and that's why our system is such that anytime you apply for a visa there is a record of that application, and then if it's denied, that goes into the database, which as I indicated, is now twice as big as it was before September 11th. And so there is -- certainly our consular information is there, and now we've added to it this tremendous increased inflow of intelligence and law enforcement information.

In terms of individual countries, there may be places where it would be more common for a third-country national to apply, based on his or her residency --

QUESTION: Or working there?

MR. REEKER: -- or exactly, working -- everybody is free to apply at the consulate or embassy where they wish to, but that would be a factor in your issuance obviously, demonstrating your ties so that you can overcome the presumption of intending immigrant to the United States.

QUESTION: This is a level of detail maybe you don't want to kind of get into, but in Baltimore, the Assistant US Attorney -- the acting assistant whatever -- said that this suspect, let's call him, who has been identified, tried four times for a visa and was rejected four times, and then got the visa, presumably by paying $13,000 or $10,000.

MR. REEKER: That would be the subject of the fraud investigation.

QUESTION: But isn't there something in the mechanism -- you know, with all the computers these days, wouldn't that trip up against somebody? How could you apply four times --

MR. REEKER: That's why the suggestion is that the visa was issued fraudulently, Barry. That's what the investigation is about.

QUESTION: Well, how about the fourth application? Wouldn't he be automatically thrown out?

MR. REEKER: Barry, you're going off into hypotheticals. It's part of an investigation; that's why we're investigating it. We've been on top of this for over a year now -- since last year --

QUESTION: Since November.

MR. REEKER: -- since November. And so that's the process that we're following, and we'll continue to do that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. REEKER: I don't know.

Yes, Joel.

QUESTION: Some months ago, you had a session here in the briefing room explaining the new passports, with some safeguards --

MR. REEKER: Are we changing subjects, Joel?

QUESTION: Well, no, it's the same subject. And it was similar to our currency change, where that particular visa -- or that particular passport, I should say, had some safeguards in it to know it wasn't printed or counterfeit. In this whole investigation, do you have the cooperations of both -- of domestic airlines and foreign airlines, or shipping companies that -- so in other words, let's say an airline steward or one of the people on a ship, for instance, wouldn't be sneaking in people through their -- because they know the airports, they know the systems at the piers; in other words, sneaking them around --

MR. REEKER: Well, I'm not quite sure how that relates to this investigation.

QUESTION: Well, post-September 11th.

MR. REEKER: I'm not quite sure how that relates to this investigation, or relates to the State Department's role in visa issuance. You're talking about an INS issue, in terms of at the port of entry is where again another American official puts information through a name check before that person is actually granted entry into the United States. So the visa issuance, the application and process is one part of that which goes through all of the steps that I described, and the necessary documentation and interview to overcome the presumption of intending immigration, or the other categories of ineligibility. And then, when that individual arrives at our border, at the port of entry, the immigration inspector -- you're all familiar with that individual at the port of entry -- also does the name check when they enter that information.

So that would be something more specific for the INS to answer.

Ben.

QUESTION: Is your rate of declining visa applications, has it increased since September 11th?

MR. REEKER: I don't know. It's not a statistic I have at my fingertips. I would be happy to try to check.

QUESTION: And just one other question. Ever since September 11th, I've asked you and other people here on the podium whether or not you would not agree that the State Department really was at fault in issuing the visas, that your system -- the way it was carried out, that you should take responsibility for allowing these people into the country, and you refuse to take this responsibility; you refuse to admit that the system failed, or that you failed to adequately carry it out. Don't you once again, for the I-don't-know-how-many-time, don't you agree that you failed to protect the United States from these people by issuing them visas?

MR. REEKER: Once again, as you've been told many times here and in other fora, there is a system for reviewing visas, in terms of determining why a person would or would not be eligible for a visa to the United States. That system, to physically issue a visa, includes a name check, a computerized, mechanical name check, which must be done for the visa to be issued. If that name check does not come up with a refusal to issue, then the other factors, in terms of demonstrating the appropriate strong and binding ties to your workplace, to your home, to your family outside of the United States, would be the factors, as well as consular officers' own instinctive abilities to review individuals' cases. It's why trained consular officers have good experience with this. They're trained not only in the process and the law of visa issuance, but they're also familiar with the host country, with the cultural circumstances, with the language to determine whether the individual was or not eligible for a visa.

And now one of the things we've done since then, with additional laws that the Congress has passed, that the President has signed and pushed forward, is added supplemental forms so that we can have more information, made sure that all the appropriate agencies, including intelligence agencies, are talking to one another through those electronic synapses to make sure that we all have the information. And now, as I said, we have double the information, double the number of names in our database to do that. These are the things that have to be done to ensure that we have the security.

QUESTION: Phil, two questions. Are you cooperating with any other governments on this investigation?

My second question is regarding, when you say "fraudulent," is this someone pays $10,000, they get fake papers or deeds to land or bank accounts, and they present them? Or is this something that inside the embassies getting 5,000 --

MR. REEKER: What I would do is refer you to the papers that have been filed in court; that's public information that can describe for you as much as I could give you in terms of allegations and how this fraud was carried out, this alleged illegal issuance of visas.

In terms of other countries, I'm not sure. I don't know to the extent we've been working with any other countries on this matter. It's a matter that's been dealt with, led by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service and the other US law enforcement agencies. So I don't know specifically at this point if we've needed to involve other countries or not. But the rest of the details, I just can't go into because it is an ongoing investigation, and we want to continue carrying it out, continuing being successful in apprehending these people that we allege have illegally issued visas.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MR. REEKER: Anything else on --

QUESTION: I have a visa-related question.

MR. REEKER: Let this gentleman do his visa-related question.

QUESTION: Are there any different INS criteria for different country groups when somebody enters with a --

MR. REEKER: You'd have to ask the INS that. I can't speak for the INS. They handle entry. They handle the port of entry. It's an INS officer who receives the person, him or her with his or her visa to enter the country, applying for permission to enter with a visa. And so INS would have to tell you that.

QUESTION: What does it mean, the "special interest countries"?

MR. REEKER: I don't know.

QUESTION: It means your potential threat countries or something like that?

MR. REEKER: Again, I'm not sure of the reference you're making.

QUESTION: No, it's in the -- from the (inaudible) --

MR. REEKER: Before we have a discussion, I would refer you to the INS for that subject. I think that's a question for them.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, this is related. There's something called Saudi Visa Express; we've talked about this before. Is that program no longer? Is it on its way out?

MR. REEKER: Another area that has been understood. The name of so-called "Visa Express" is something that is no longer in use, because it clearly was being misinterpreted.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. REEKER: This was, as I believe Ambassador Boucher has briefed you, this was a process for application submission; in other words, a clerical function that was performed through travel agencies in Saudi Arabia, and similarly in certain other countries, where the forms and the application, rather than having somebody stand in line or try to enter our embassy, the form is submitted through a travel agent, where it's bundled up and brought, then delivered to the embassy for the same review, the same documentation requirements, the same name check, the same determination for interview, as in any other thing. It's an application submission clerical function, which is something that's done for expediency, which provides the same security in terms of reviewing the applications, calling in individuals to have interviews, but is used to simply clerically bring together, make sure the application for instance is completed.

The travel agent is able to say, you didn't fill out the back side, or you must have a picture, and take care of those things ahead of time, then submit the completed application to the embassy.

QUESTION: Well, Mowbray says that there was a memo from Riyadh last night that pretty much said that this thing is on its way out, that you're not going to -- you're going to stop doing this.

MR. REEKER: Certainly that term is gone. I don't know of any specifics in terms of what their process will be. But the basis of the process, that is the clerical function, is still a sound one. And that's why understanding the actual process of visa issuance, visa application, the presumption that must be overcome in order to qualify for a United States visa is really key and important to the process.

You had one more.

QUESTION: What was the question -- the answer to his question about the program?

MR. REEKER: I don't know.

QUESTION: Is it on its -- it still exists, but it is being phased out?

MR. REEKER: There is no such thing anymore for over a month, I believe, as "Visa Express."

QUESTION: Well, for about -- two weeks ago they changed the name. But anyway, I guess two questions.

With Qatar, visas -- my understanding is that several -- seven or eight of the people who were issued visas had been on the class Lookout system.

MR. REEKER: That's not information that I have.

QUESTION: Okay. But if their name was on the list and --

MR. REEKER: Again, don't start with "if" questions, because I can't answer them on an ongoing investigation that involves law enforcement action and legal proceedings. I just can't get into that.

QUESTION: Fair enough. Okay. That's fine. But just to follow up his question about the responsibility, do you think it's the level of training received by consular officers on interviewing less than a total of five hours, including mock interviews, before they are conducting their own interviews in the field? Do you -- is that the position of the State Department, that that is adequate in the wake of 9/11 to have consular officers at this level of training with respect to interviewing?

MR. REEKER: I don't for a fact know what the exact total is. I know we arranged some briefings and some time out at the training center for some of you to do, I think today, to see consular training in action. Training is a continuous thing that takes place throughout a consular officer's career, and as I said, includes not only detailed knowledge of the law, and things to look for in terms of visa applications and overcoming the necessary presumptions, but also the context in which that officer is working, the familiarity with the local economy, the local surroundings, the language -- that you can look at somebody's visa application and become suspicious when you realize that a person with this educational background from this region of the country is unlikely, in fact, to own this business, and perhaps follow up more on the documentation and paperwork. That's where the experience and the training comes in, is very much a part of the package that the consular officer brings to the process.

QUESTION: But if the interview training itself is wanting, is lacking, then wouldn't that deprive the consular officer of the ability to have the appropriate level of interview follow-through, especially without law enforcement training techniques?

MR. REEKER: Again, you're making a hypothetical "if" supposition question, and I'm not accepting that. What I am saying is that's something that's certainly always seen, and Secretary Powell has been first and foremost in talking about continuous training, always looking for where we can do more and better for our people; it's part of our recruitment effort to recruit good people as part of the Secretary's call for increased budgets so that we can perform these functions, and that's very much something we've talked about here in many different fora, and it's part of an ongoing effort that involves training, that involves information and access and sharing with all of the different tools that the US Government has at its disposal. And indeed, training of an excellent corps of Foreign Service Officers who perform this function, and I can tell you from personal experience, it's not an easy thing. You're dealing with a lot of people and a lot of emotional situations, and you're making -- you're requiring them to overcome a serious requirement for the opportunity to then present yourself at an American border and apply for entry into this country.

QUESTION: Can I have a clarification? You had the name "Saudi Express," or "Visa Express in Saudi Arabia." Are people still being allowed to drop off their applications to a travel agent, fill them out there, get the picture there, et cetera? Is there still the program where -- whatever it's called -- where people can submit their applications at a place other than the embassy?

MR. REEKER: Yes. Because we want to, in many cases, keep people away from standing in groups and lines outside our embassies.

QUESTION: I understand that. So the only thing that's changed as of this point is that the name has been removed?

MR. REEKER: To my knowledge, that's it. I think it's something that's probably always under continuous review, and if there's a better way to do that clerical function, in terms of compiling visa applications and reviewing them, than bringing them to the embassy where the process that I've described now about eight times, takes place --

QUESTION: I wasn't asking for a repeated --

MR. REEKER: I didn't suggest that you did, Teri.

Yes, Matt. Was there anything else on this? Okay. (Laughter.)

Some doctors will only see the report of your M.R.I. slides, your ultrasound examination, etc. While other doctors also wish to see the slides themselves.

"Your papers are in order!" v. "Your papers are not in order!" is the delight of bureaucrats wishing to avoid knowing you.

At the Pearly Gates, you must now fill out a form and your fate will be decided by judging the form(s), not you.

And lastly, Is there a written essay portion?

My suggestion: Take all the employees of the State Department, who are magnificent at doing nothing, and send them over to the E.P.A. Take all the E.P.A. employees, and send them over to the State Department, where they will quite "naturally" butt their noses into anything and everything.

The BBC is covering news that the US press ignores. From the BBC article:


              Hijackers' room-mate 

              The three include Ramsi Al-Shannaq, a
              Jordanian who has admitted being a room-mate
              of two of the hijackers. 

              He was arrested in Baltimore on 24 June and
              charged with illegally obtaining a US visa. 

              At a court hearing in Baltimore on Wednesday,
              Assistant US Attorney Harvey Eisenberg said
              that Al-Shannaq, 27, had been denied visas
              four times before paying $13,000 for an illegal
              one. 

              Mr Eisenberg said Al-Shannaq was part of a
              bribery ring that involved pay-offs of more
              than $13,000 per person. 

              Bail granted 

              However, Magistrate Susan Gauvey ordered
              that Al-Shannaq be released on conditional
              bail, saying that there was no evidence he had
              anything to do with the 11 September attacks.

              Her ruling was upheld on appeal. 

              A US official told AFP that the purpose of
              Operation Eagle Strike was to determine how
              the visas had been obtained and if terrorists
              had used them to plot attacks against the
              United States. 

              Another unnamed US official told the
              Associated Press: "We don't know exactly how
              it was accomplished. 

              "There are a lot of safeguards and checks. But
              we don't have our facts. It is still under
              investigation."

Please only excerpt paid-subscriber only material.

Did I miss this change in policy?

Having been a guest here on your wonderful site for over four years now, I wish to abide by your rules as I always have, AFAIK. I have posted numerous - probably hundreds of - articles from the Wall Street Journal Interactive, a subscriber-only service for which I pay roughly $60 per year.

I figured that I was sharing something that I had paid for with my internet friends here on FR, just as if I had bought a paper at the newsstand and transcribed it myself [As I have done several times with Investor's Business Daily and the Transylvania Times].

Since FR has split into several fora, I never know for sure whether I may have missed some important announcement which may have been posted on another section.

Have I missed the announcement on not posting from "paid subscriber" sites? What are your wishes, please?

I've always thought the Wall Street Journal was OK with what we do here.

I've always thought the Wall Street Journal was OK with what we do here.

If not, they should have been. We give them exposure that they otherwise not have had.

I felt the same about Investor's Business Daily when they stopped posting their wonderful editorials on their website.