|
|
townhall.com Printer-friendly version July 28, 2004
In an epic-sized 567-page report, the 9/11 Commission glossed over one of the
most important aspects of the attack: all 19 of the hijackers entered the United
States on legal visas, even though at least 15 of them didn’t qualify under the
law. And the panel mostly shrugged off the U.S. policy that Saudis were
granted easier access to visas than any other Arab country. The commission’s latest interim report emphasizes, perhaps unintentionally,
the importance of easy visas to the 9/11 plot. The panel revealed that one
of the biggest difficulties faced by al Qaeda was getting Osama bin Laden’s
hand-picked hijackers into the United States—unless they were Saudis. So easy visa access for Saudis cleared a major obstacle: had al Qaeda had
even one more hijacker, the White House or the Capitol might have met a
different fate that day. Three non-Saudis identified by the commission tried and failed to receive
visas, including the would-be fifth pilot, Ramzi bin al Shieb, a Yemeni
national. 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t even bother having
two other Qaeda operatives selected by bin Laden to apply for visas. Why? Because, as an earlier staff statement noted, “It soon became
clear to KSM that the other two operatives, Khallad bin Attash and Abu Bara al
Taizi—both of whom had Yemeni, not Saudi, documentation—would not be able to
obtain U.S. visas.” Afforded only a brief mention—buried in a footnote on page 492—was a
reference to what Mr. Mohammed reportedly told U.S. interrogators last year:
that 15 of the hijackers were Saudis because they had the easiest time getting
visas. The Saudi visa policy was the natural result of the “courtesy culture,” an
effort spearheaded by the former head of Consular Affairs, Mary Ryan, which
started with her appointment in 1993. The goal was simple: make “customer”
service and satisfaction the top priority in visa policy, where the “customer”
was not American national security. Though there is nothing inherently wrong with customer service, Ms. Ryan’s
regime advanced it to the detriment of security. Whereas the law known as
214(b) is very clear that all visa applicants are presumed ineligible until they
prove otherwise, policies implemented by Ms. Ryan—literally—turned the law on
its head. Ms Ryan systematically dismantled the interview requirement, something she
described in a cable as “a very worthy goal.” In fact, by 2001 the only
required interviews at most posts were for refused applicants—in order to give
them an opportunity to overcome an initial denial. Saudi Arabia, though, was at the cutting edge of the “courtesy
culture.” The General Accounting Office, in a report from October 2002,
found that “consular officers in Saudi Arabia issued visas to most Saudi
applicants without interviewing them, requiring them to complete their
applications, or providing supporting documentation.” GAO-compiled
statistics show that pre-9/11 less than 3% of Saudis were interviewed, and less
than 1% were refused. Compare that to neighboring Egypt, which had a 38%
refusal rate in the year before 9/11. Practice in Saudi Arabia allowed the hijackers’ woefully insufficient
applications to be approved, yet this was only referenced in passing. From
the first staff statement: “All 20 of these applications (from the 15 hijackers)
were incomplete in some way, with a data field left blank or not answered
fully.” But then this issue is immediately dismissed as inconsequential:
“Such omissions were common.” In truth, such omissions were only common in Saudi Arabia. What the commission should have explained is that the errors and blank fields
would have been serious enough for all of the applicants to be refused. A
telling example is the U.S. destinations listed on the applications. This
is hardly a trivial tidbit, as it is supposed to be used to determine if the
travel plans are legitimate. The hijackers listed such specific locations
as “California,” “New York,” “Hotel D.C.,” and simply, “Hotel.” Practices have gotten somewhat better in Saudi Arabia since 9/11. The
most egregious program, Visa Express, which allowed Saudis to apply for visas at
travel agents, was shut down in July 2002. Ms. Ryan was pink-slipped on
the same day, though her replacement was her protégé and clone, Maura Harty, who
has done little to effect meaning change. Thanks to two brave U.S. officials, though, not every potential Saudi
hijacker got in. One unnamed consular officer in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia,
made the unusual move of interviewing Saeed al Gamdi. The Qaeda operative,
whose nickname was “Jihad,” was refused by a consular officer who apparently
followed the law instead of Ms. Ryan’s dictates. On August 4, 2001, Qaeda operative and Saudi national Mohamed al Kahtani was
moments away from meeting up with Mohammed Atta. That is, until he ran
into “experienced and dedicated” U.S. Customs inspector named Jose
Melendez-Perez. Perez testified to the commission that he turned back
Kahtani because the Saudi gave him the “creeps.” But since Kahtani didn’t
have a return ticket or hotel reservations, Perez was correctly following the
law. In highlighting these stories—as well as the tales of non-Saudis’ difficulty
in obtaining visas—the commission informed us that easy Saudi access to visas
was key to the plot. Too bad the panel left it to the public to connect
those dots.
©2004 Joel Mowbray Contact Joel Mowbray | Read Mowbray's biography townhall.com
|