Isn’t it awful when you build up a great head of steam on an issue, publish a scathing editorial, and then it turns out your premise was wrong?
That’s the case with this Arab News editorial, appearing in today’s paper…
International travel by air is now something to be endured rather than enjoyed. In principle the enhanced personal security checks and the limitations on what can be taken aboard airliners are there for the protection of all passengers. But the principle runs the serious risk of abuse. The latest US restrictions introduced in the wake of the failed Christmas Day suicide bombing on an Amsterdam to Detroit flight by a Nigerian, seem doomed to be misused.
The 14 “terror-linked” countries whose citizens have been singled out for enhanced security treatment, such as body image scans, include Saudi Arabia. There are also four states which Washington rates as “sponsors of terrorism” — Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. With the exception of Cuba all are Muslim countries.
…
The problem is that it isn’t just Muslim travelers who will be inconvenienced: It’s all travelers coming from or through any of the 14 countries cited as possessing a terrorist potential. It doesn’t matter whether the traveler is a citizen of that country—so in the case of Saudis, it doesn’t matter that they’re Muslim. That means when I next travel from Saudi Arabia, I get special treatment. US diplomats, British diplomats, Korean businessmen… every traveler will get special treatment, according to this TSA press release. Isn’t it wonderful to be special?
Note, it’s not just the newspaper that jumped to conclusions. The paper also quotes various American Muslims who seem, for some reason, particularly quick to find offense. The regulation, as presented, pays no attention to religion. It does factor in countries that currently have problems with terrorism. Saudi Arabia is certainly one of those. Just ask Pr. Mohammed bin Nayef…
To be completely fair, mistakes are going to happen. Officials, American or other, are going to over react and perhaps overreach. That certainly seems to be the case with this Saudi student attempting to go to the US:
UPDATE: The fourteen countries that are the focus of the new regulations are Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Four of them—Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria—are formally considered ‘state sponsors of terrorism’.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
January:06:2010 - 07:13
John,
The link about the American Muslims doesn’t work. Please post it again. Please also give the names of all 14 countries if possible.
Saudis have only themselves to blame for this. If they export terrorist ideology and fund it too they should be glad Saudi Arabia is listed only as a terrorism-linked country, not as a sponsor of terrorism in the US list.
The real issue is whether this kind of security check is going to be effective and that multitudes of passengers who have nothing to do with terrorism are going to be inconvenienced because of the faults of the terrorists.
Yes, their own monsters have turned against them now, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were the ones who created the monsters and are still feeding them.
In the current situation, it looks like the US can’t do anything else, however unpleasant this measure appears. But this is not going to stop the terrorists from their activities. They are resolved to attack, they are willing to sacrifice their lives, they have funding and they have their ideological set up spreading across the world and this is not being controlled as vehemently as these measures are being implemented in airlines.
But you are right, if this terror issue is linked to the violent version of Islam, then non-Muslims should not be placed alongside the Muslims and certailny the US diplomats should not be placed alongside them in this kind of security check.
January:06:2010 - 07:25
John,
Please check your mail.
Thanks
January:06:2010 - 08:58
I can hardly wait for the “special” treatment! I really don’t mind (depending on how “special” it gets). I’ve had my stuff swiped for explosives and been patted down before, and had some extra talking too. What really bugs me is the attitude, sad to say, especially from American security. The most thorough searches I’ve been through were in KSA and the UK- and I have to say the UK are masters at making you feel respected whilst checking and swiping everything. Well, I guess it’s only going to get better.
And Daisy, KSA was not alone in creating Al Qaeda. The US and other countries played and payed their role when they wanted the USSR out of Afghanistan.
January:06:2010 - 09:16
John is correct. I once flew to Madrid from Saudi and stayed for 10 days before heading on to Atlanta. I was pulled from the line and questioned and asked to produce receipts for my hotel stay to corroborate my story. I was flagged because of my country of departure and because I stayed for a number of days in Madrid before heading on a trans-Atlantic flight. I am white. I am a non-Muslim.
Also: that second story quotes three American-Muslim women who live in the KSA. This reporter no doubt spoke to three friends of hers to find the quotes that matched her opinion. It’s hack journalism at its worst. If you compare that to the OP-ED in the Gazette by an actual Saudi, where she says it’s a major imposition but one we should blame on Al-Qaeda not evil, profiling Westerners.
I know this is going to be taken the wrong way, but in this case I think added scrutiny of people from countries that have exported people who attempt to blow up planes mid-flight or use them as missiles is small price to pay. It angers me to hear a somebody pull the religious persecution card. Bollocks. When liberal white Danish Christians start blowing up planes, let’s profile them, too. When the IRA was blowing up stuff, I’m sure Irish people were caught in the fray of scrutiny. That’s just the reality because airline safety is far more important than whether the feelings of people form these countries are hurt because grandma had to remove her shoes at the gate.
Also: There are tons of predominantly Muslim countries that are NOT on that list, including the world’s largest Muslim country of Indonesia.
And finally, every time somebody whines about persecution louder than he or she whines about Al-Qaeda creating this climate of fear and suspicion, they’re part of the problem.
PS: I didn’t hear about 15 Tunisian hijackers on 9/11. I heard that 15 Saudis did it. Blame them for your woes, people.
January:06:2010 - 09:24
I know KSA was not alone in creating Al-Qaeda, the point is KSA is treated more gently than others even if they played a role in its making – partial or otherwise. KSA should be profiled as a terrorism-sponsoring country, not only as a terrorism-linked country. I wish I don’t have to keep on repeating my central argument like this again and again. I think it’s quite easy to understand what I am arguing.
January:06:2010 - 09:24
Daisy: Link is now fixed.
January:06:2010 - 09:53
There is no homogenous category as “American Muslims.” There are different kinds of American Muslims who hold different kinds of views. Considering this link is from Arab News, it looks as if the paper has presented only the views of Saudi-Americans, who are against any criticism of Muslim community (quite expectedly, considering they have a Saudi association) and for whom a privilged treatment to their community matters more than terrorism.
I think the notion of “wounded Muslims” as expressed by Majed and ME elsewhere on this blog has to be discussed seriously, since it creates a sentiment in the Muslim population that the terrorists are only taking revenge for the wrongs done by the US on the Islamic world, thus making the terrorists some kind of heroes in their minds. I personally know Muslims who are not terrorists and will never become terrorists, but who are not really critical of terrorism because of this widespred ideology. The views of the American Muslims given in the link above also reflect this.
There is a serious need to have a dialogue with the Muslims about this, since this notion is widely prevalent in the Muslim population, it makes them sympathetic towards the terrorists and apathetic towards the American measures to counter terrorism. This ideology also works as a potent force to convince the would-be terrorists that they should join the “jehad” because they are really fighting for justice against the injustices done by the US.
There is a need to explain to the Muslim population around the world what the possible flaws are in the above argument.
January:06:2010 - 10:07
Daisy, Other countries that helped support the Afghan insurgency against the Soviets were the US, UK and China. So are you as tough on them for their role in all this? India backed the Soviet side in the conflict. One could also argue that if their had been no Soviet side there would be no anti-Soviet side. Perhaps some countries had legit reason for interfering-perhaps not, but they ALL contributed to the situation, and then didn’t bother to clean up when they left.
January:06:2010 - 10:13
Daisy, I am not familiar with Majed’s writings to have and opinion- but I think it is grossly inaccurate to catagorize “Me” as “making the terrorists into some kind of heroes..”
People can believe that the US is commiting criminal acts in the ME, and that this feeds terrorism, WITHOUT believing or glorifying terrorism in any way.
January:06:2010 - 10:16
You are mixing up Taleban with Al-Qaeda. Yes, later they joined hand together and that has really complicated the problem further. But Al-Qaeda rose post US-attack on Iraq, created and funded by the Saudis and later recruiting locals from Afghanistan, Pakistan and now from different parts of the world. Taleban rose against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. So it’s a complex issue and Saudi Arabia’s role in it should not be denied merely for emotional reasons.
Please read my comment above. They really use this argument as a forceful weapon in support of terrorism that these foreign powers have been meddling with the Islamic world – Soviet and later American forces in Afghanistan and US and its European allies in Iraq, with the support of Saudi Arabia. There is a serious need to understand the power of this rhetoric.
January:06:2010 - 10:26
See Majed’s post on Meaning of Minarets. ME never explicitly said terrorists were heroes, that’s true, but the idea he expressd is the most basic form of the ideology I have discussed above. I have been hearing about this ideology from Muslims since the time of the US attack on Iraq, so am quite familiar with it. Perhaps you are not aware how deeply entrenched this idea is in the psyche of the general Muslim population. The entire anti-terror effort gets devalued in the Muslim world if this idea is not countered.
And there is no point in telling them US attack on Iraq was for oil and Afghanistan is strategically important. It simply conveys the message that these big powers are meddling with the Islamic countries for their own selfish benefits.
That’s why I feel there is a need to seriously engage in this discourse.
January:06:2010 - 10:29
I am not mixing up the Taleban with Al Qaeda. When Osama was fighting with US support he was not Taleban. The Taleban were Afghani. The roots of Al Qaeda are in that conflict whether the term was used or not.
Yes. OF COURSE Terrorist use that argument as an excuse for their actions and to recruit people. That does not mean that everyone who believes that foreign powers have been meddling with disastrous and deadly consequences in the ME, thinks that EXCUSES terrorism. But it certainly feeds it.
You are difficult to reason with. Based on your writings on this and on other threads, you seem to start with your conclusion: that Saudi Arabia as a state supports terrorism- and you mold everything to fit that conclusion. No nuances, no discernment if it interferes with your conclusion. Why do you have such a need to believe this is true? And generally no evidence.
Fine it’s your opinion- I get it- and I’m sure there are many that share it. I don’t think it is very productive though. These are very complicated interwoven issues. Simple black/white opinions don’t help reach any sort of real solutions.
January:06:2010 - 10:33
@#11
You mistake your opinions for facts. I don’t get much of a feeling that you understand the general Muslim psyche at all.
January:06:2010 - 10:37
I can also say to you that you don’t want to hear any criticism of Saudi Arabia – that doesn’t serve any purpose. That’s why I have never said it. In fact I have enough reports in supports to show you but I am waiting to get it confirmed that they are reliable. I don’t give references just to show off.
I am not against Saudi Arabia in principle and wouldn’t be arguing so forcefully if I didn’t think there was logic in it.
January:06:2010 - 10:53
Daisy, Post 14
Ya. You could say that. And it would make as much sense as some of the other things you have said. I have more than once critisized Saudi on this blog and I refer to it as a Patriarchal/Tribal/Mysogynistic state- and I know you have seen those posts. As I said- You mold everything you fit your opinion of how it is.
January:06:2010 - 10:58
Yes, gender-based criticism can be done, there are many others who also do it. Criticism around terrorism is a different matter. Even the US experts steer clear of it.
January:06:2010 - 11:06
Gender-based criticism, human rights based criticism- so I guess I CAN criticise Saudi? Oh…but now you are changing (molding?!)the argument to- criticize Saudi only on the issue of terrorism? And even the US experts have the same problem? So eveyone is steering clear except those that agree with you? Why? Please why do we all steer clear- and please support your opinions with EVIDENCE.
January:06:2010 - 11:17
I disagree. Al-Qaeda was active long before the US attack on Iraq. The Riyadh and Khobar bombings in 1995; the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa; the USS Cole… these all pre-date Iraq.
If you want to argue that Al-Qaeda was strengthened by Iraq, you have a stronger argument. But that’s like saying that AQAP based in Yemen was strengthened by the Saudi offensive against Al-Qaeda in the Kingdom. Yes, it was, but only because Al-Qaeda has been pushed out of its primary operating area.
January:06:2010 - 11:36
John,
Thanks, that’s valuable information. The problem is that the construction of Al-Qaeda as a result of US attack on Iraq is so popular in the common people’s mind that what you say is known only to experts and to convince the common people about this is very difficult. I do feel there is a need to disseminate proper information in the popular level and also to explain why the American attacks should not be seen as violation of the Muslim world. I don’t know if the US has understood this, but without this rhetoric, you are not going very far in convincing the Muslim population that the American anti-terror efforts are even valid.
I know that you would feel that by know everyone would know the history of the growth of terrorism, but that’s not so.
Please check your mail and respond to me if possible.
January:06:2010 - 11:56
Here’s an excerpt from Wiki, confirming the US involvement of the origins of Al Qaeda.
“The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet war in Afghanistan[30] (December 1979 – February 1989). The United States viewed the conflict in Afghanistan, with the Afghan Marxists and allied Soviet troops on one side and the native Afghan mujahideen on the other, as a blatant case of Soviet expansionism and aggression. The U.S. channelled funds through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the native Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation in a CIA program called Operation Cyclone.[31][32]
January:06:2010 - 12:42
On contentious issues–as is this one–I’d urge great caution in using Wikipedia as a source. Its information reflects the views of the last person to edit it. I’ve had some (unpleasant) experience in trying to edit pieces there, only to see them changed back to erroneous statements within hours of my having changed them. Life is far too short for me to spend it monitoring the latest edits constantly.
Yes, the US certainly played a role in strengthening the mujahideen in Afghanistan to counter the Soviets. No question about that. The US and Saudi Arabia entered a dollar-for-dollar match in funding of disparate groups. Both the US and the KSA channeled much of the support through Pakistan’s ISA, a move controversial at the time and now. The simple fact was that both the US and Saudi Arabia, for their own and separate reasons, saw the Soviet Union as a greater evil than anything else that was on the ground in Afghanistan at that time. Another failure of short-horizon thinking.
The US and Saudi efforts (and the Afghan groups supported) did not generally overlap. The Saudis acknowledge that Bin Laden–and Al-Qaeda–was one of theirs; the US denies that it sent a penny his way. Take official statements however you like, but on this I’m inclined to accept them at face value.
My contention is that Bin Laden made use of the Taleban to push his own program. The commonality of interests between Bin Laden and the Taleban were certainly there on many points, but not on all. The Taleban were not completely pleased with this, but believed that having offered protection to Bin Laden, they could not retract it. The Saudi government, in 1999 and 2000, explicitly requested Bin Laden’s extradition to Saudi Arabia and were refused.
January:06:2010 - 12:54
I agree about Wiki, John. I always tell my kids not to use it as a “real” source- only as a launching pad. It was convenient to use in this case- and clarified my point, but it was lazy work!
January:06:2010 - 14:54
Daisy #5–we get your “central thesis”, we don’t agree. We got it long ago; repetition to the point of perseveration will not change our minds.
Sandy #13–agreed, which is why we fail to change our minds.
Daisy #15–you haven’t ever given any references on any comment on any blog that I have read, and always have a reason why not, or a source you are protecting. It isn’t that hard to find a reference for something, that all can access, even Google scholar.
Re: wiki–great starting place on many but not all topics; poor ending place. The references are often the best part.
January:06:2010 - 15:27
@ John agree agree agree
@Daisy.. you are on my ignore list.
@wikipedia
simply look at the sources. the aQ creation blurb had ref.s
staying on topic, i’m going to copy/paste this comment from
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/01/tsas_travel_tips_for_terrorist.html
it reads:
We are sheep-like idiots, waiting for government to come up with a magic solution to “keep us safe.”
Guess what? There is no such thing as “safe.” You’re all going to die, eventually. The only question is: will you die bravely, or will you die as cowards, after having given up all of your rights and all of your dignity?
You shout for “profiling” as if it were a magic bullet, as if it weren’t a profoundly un-American measure, and, most importantly, as if terrorists hadn’t shown again and again and again that they can recruit people who will defeat any profiling.
You demand more intrusive searches at airports. “Take pictures of me naked, please!” As if this hugely expensive technological measure can’t be trivially defeated by the long-proven tactic of smuggling contraband in body cavities.
Let’s face reality: the determined terrorist will always, always, always succeed. He will always be a step ahead of our security measures, because he is nimble and bureaucracies are not.
The best and only response to the occasional terrorist attack is to give them the finger and go about our business.
The only way a terrorist can truly win is by making us crazily over-react. So far, the terrorists are winning.
January:06:2010 - 16:04
Me–thanks, and Washington Post, agreed–normal security/ policing and then the finger
January:06:2010 - 17:26
some more logic. on the closure of that airport over a guy getting lost going the wrong way.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1498548&cid=30660230
I agree. As a non-American, and a Muslim at that, I am regularly surprised and somewhat amused at the reaction of the US every time an air port security breach happened. I mean, stop and take a step back to look at the whole picture. Here we have the most powerful nation on Earth, with enough nukes to glass every major city on the planet and with aircraft carriers whose jets out number most third world nation’s air forces, being afraid of people getting lost or with their pants on fire. I think al-qaeda or whoever they really are, very quickly realized that they don’t even have to try very hard to send the US into a fear-over reaction-panic infinite loop, hence the “pants on fire” “bomber” (I don’t even think that this term applied to him). By provoking the US to attempt to cover every possibility, eventually all its resources will be stretched thin while at the same time, innocent people will get caught in the net, increasing the noise to signal ratio not to mention animosity towards the US. Go ahead and adopt stricter screening procedures all you want, especially from Israel, that shining beacon of democracy and equality. It will only add to one more reason why people won’t want to go the US. History (China, Japan etc.) has shown what happens to countries when they turn turtle and shut their borders.
January:06:2010 - 19:08
Me–agreed. Importation of Israeli models resulted in the death of the Brazilian fellow mistaken for a bomber after 7/7 in London. The public and the administrations (Bush, and now Obama) are too reactive.
January:06:2010 - 19:49
Yes, there’s a real danger of over-reacting and over-spending in what some call ‘Kabuki security’. And yes, over-reacting can give something of a victory to the attackers.
In trying to avoid the problems (political problems, that is) of profiling, the government goes in for programs and measures that affect all, not just one or two groups disparately. That’s good on some counts, but bad on others.
I don’t think the various security apparatuses should be running the show, but neither do I think that security is something that can be resolved through ensuring that no one is unhappy. A certain amount of smart profiling is probably the solution.
Strict profiling, though, just begs to be circumvented by smart terrorists. A couple of weeks ago, we had the first Nigerian terrorist to make an attempt in the US. Prior to that it had been Arabs and S. Asians, with a few SE Asians thrown in. The rare incidents of native-born, Anglo or Latino terrorist working for Al-Qaeda should have demonstrated the futility of strict profiling on racial grounds. As currently no US-required travel document religious affiliation, that cannot be used as a profiling parameter–and I’m not suggesting that it should! But more questioning of visitors and visa applicants might prove to me at least as useful as new technology.
The attack on Pr. Mohammad, however, is extremely troubling. Bombs concealed within the body of an attacker are not readily discoverable, at least not through current technologies. To find them requires old fashioned cavity searches conducted by hand. No one–inspector or inspectee–relishes that thought. But if a spate of internal bombs starts bringing down airlines, then international travel is going to come to a pretty rapid halt for all but crucial business. Now might be a good time to invest in companies dealing with remote conferencing and live video!
January:06:2010 - 21:55
@28
but at the same time, they are under intense pressure to “do something”. if they don’t, they are accused of being “soft on terror”.
@29
i’m going to argue any kind of typical racial and even behavioral profiling is not going to work…in this (specific) case of finding ONE terrorist among MILLIONS of (let’s assume) ‘profiled’ travelers. those are the odds. the result? just lots of false positives (ie innocents ‘inconvenienced’..to say the least); and a very high chance of a false negative (ie. a terrorist being let through).
this is just statistics (a part of being logical instead of emotional).
so let’s see how “profiling” CAN work: if the ‘profile’ is VERY specific. ie. terrorist has properties a, b, c, d, e, f,…etc. this may be what john is referring to. ONE property can be Arab (that is, assuming one is identifiable as one). b thru etc. is gained by intel. the logical progression of a ‘profile’ is identifying individuals (to certainty) that they are terrorists. how do you gain intel? by playing nice with arabs. is that going to happen? no.
and remember, i’m not even considering a terrorist that does not fit a profile from MuslimDomain A, the arab world that you expended your resources on. if you can whack a mole from domain A, another could pop out from muslimdomain SEA, southeast asia.
January:06:2010 - 22:21
oh i forgot to add to my fourth para.
“…certainty) that they are terrorists.” then you assume that you can identify this terrorist before he gets on a plane, assuming he doesn’t cause damage before he does, assuming he is going to target airports.
January:06:2010 - 22:58
John,
You are right about strict profiling. That’s what I said, we don’t know in what form the terrorists will strike next. You begin body scanning and they may shift to some other method because they know body scanning is going on.
I think US travel documents should begin to ask for religious affiliations/non-affiliations. Personally I don’t like the idea. It should not happen in an ideal world, but this is not an ideal world.
Only problem is the terrorists may disguise themselves as non-Muslims or even atheists.
January:06:2010 - 23:52
The (or at least a counter argument is that the feelings of non-US citizens is far down the list of issues when the concern is saving American lives. I suspect that most citizens of most countries would not strongly object if the citizens of other countries were inconvenienced in order to save fellow citizens’ lives. Non-residents/non-citizens uniformly have fewer rights than legal residents/citizens in every country I can think of.
If racial profiling is simply done by appearance or nationality, then it will fail. If it is done as only part of process of seeking to ascertain the traveler’s bona fides, then it’s not totally useless. That would mean intrusive questioning to a large extent though. Which is more obnoxious: cavity searches, see-all imaging, or questions about your personal life?
No screening process can guarantee 100% success in a world in which terrorists are thinking human beings. To think that they will always stick to prior practices is dumb; to think that they cannot change their mode of operations is even dumber.
The sad fact is that there are people who are willing to kill innocents simply to make a political, religious, or psychological point. Human beings are flawed creatures and no amount of planning can correct that.
In reference to your 4th point, were I a terrorist I certainly can think of targets other than airports that would have calamitous effects. I think any intelligent person could think of them.
January:06:2010 - 23:55
Asking about religion is extremely offensive to American political philosophy and thus would be extremely difficult to implement. Changing things to permit it would be seen (correctly, in my view) as one of those ‘erosion of civil rights’ that are decried in the war against terror and would be opposed by every religious group I can think of.
January:07:2010 - 01:02
I think US travel documents should begin to ask for religious affiliations/non-affiliations.
I don’t object to profiling per se (though I am often a victim of it….seriously, I once got pulled over for having too many books in my carry-on. Thankfully, they were a stack of Dr. Who novels and the TSA guy was a fan so he completely understood). But religion is an easy thing to hide and a misrepresentation is undetectable. It’s like those unanswerable questions on the visa forms–have you committed genocide or do you intend to commit genocide. Gee, I don’t know. Let me think how to answer this question…..
January:07:2010 - 08:46
The purpose of those ‘genocide-type’ questions is that if you lie, you commit a fresh offense for which you can be prosecuted. Sort of like the Al Capone getting jailed for tax evasion rather than murder or hundreds of other possible charges.
I’m not keen on the possibility of people’s being jailed over questions about their religion.
January:07:2010 - 10:43
Yes, I admitted that’s problematic, since terrorists can disguise their religion anyway.
Perhaps a person’s personal history and education should be thoroughly checked before issuing a visa – what kind of social environment the person lived in, the background of parents, in what subjects s/he received education and from what institutions. Some of these details one has to fill up anyway, but perhaps these could be more detailed.
Only problem is that science and technology subjects will also have to be considered along with traditional religious education and that may be detrimental to the pool of science and technology students the US is getting now.
January:07:2010 - 10:44
No matter what measures are taken terrorism will occasionally get through the front lines. While I know a lot of people find profiling offensive and racist I don’t entirely see it that way. Obviously, the vast majority of people will not be involved in terrorism in any way and there will be a lot of innocent people stopped and searched. I think it is unfortunate and i wish we lived in a world where it wasn’t necessary. BUT people are profiled for a reason. As someone said if it were Danes blowing up planes and seeming to be the cause of this sort of extremism we would be profiling them instead. I don’t think it is that the world has an axe to grind against Muslims. It happens that people from that part of the world/religion are the ones causing a lot of the extremism and so they are looked at more closely. My husband is a non Muslim but comes from India. Guess what? He gets profiled on occasion. I think he has a pretty good attitude about it…he feels it is an inconvenience but he would rather be inconvenienced than be dead. He feels in today’s world it is a small price to pay if it can prevent problems. Look at the Japanese Internment Camps…no one would think of profiling the Japanese for terrorism today, but back then due to the fact that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor ALL Japanese including American citizens became potential suspects.I think it was a MAJOR overreaction, but my point is during that time due to the fact that we were at war with the Japanese, they were the ones being profiled.
Having said that, I am not sure profiling is the best filter. There are a lot of home grown terrorists nowadays. There needs to be other ways to ferret out some of these guys(and girls now). Perhaps high tech equipment that can recognize signs of unusual stress before boarding the aircraft…better background checks before issuing a visa…perhaps a combination of strategies can be combined to give a solid “overall” picture.
January:07:2010 - 12:40
ALL OF YOU need to learn statistics!
I don’t remember ANY time when a terrorist was stopped by some security procedure!
The plots that HAVE were stopped by good old fashioned police and intelligence work! ..not by wondering whether the person passing by is a terrorist MILLIONS of times!
January:07:2010 - 13:13
The problem with your assertion is that it’s unprovable, as in ‘proving a negative’. We simply don’t know how many attempts may have been stopped by the presence of enhanced security measures, nor are the relevant agencies very quick to say, ‘Look! We stopped one!!’ unless they have their hand forced by other media.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that we can’t know for sure.
January:07:2010 - 14:50
@39
good point…if you mean that measures taken have stopped otherwise would-be terrorist /plots/ by raising the bar. but still, i’m not sure that’s meaningful given what we’ve talked about the ease in circumventing the system. and even if airports are “100% terrorist safe”, they’ll simply attack the other thousands of targets.
which brings the question, why haven’t they attacked the thousands of other easy targets? i claim it’s because they are not that much of a threat.
January:07:2010 - 15:24
Me #38 and #40 and John #39–excellent points!
Ahmed Ressam was caught trying to cross the Canada US border before 9/11 but his collection of fake documents in a variety of aliases including a fake Canadian passport seemed to have more to do with it ie straightforward border policing than profiling did.
Re: religion on passports, given that most of the Muslims I know can pass for Christian, either French Catholic or Anglo-American Protestant, and that I assume terrorists are smart enough not to put “bin Ladenism” on their fake passport, I don’t see how, except for racial profiling and islamophobia, that would narrow the “suspects”. What about all those Christian Arabs, would anyone believe them, or assume they were Palestinians aka terrorists?
January:07:2010 - 16:10
My future son in law is a Bahraini…has a good job at HSBC…takes care of his mother and siblings after Bahraini father abused and abandoned them. Has never been in trouble and is a decent man. He has been denied a visa to the US twice now.
My best friend is Bahraini. She has been in so much trouble with the govt concerning her newspaper articles…she currentl has a case going on in which she can get 7 years in jail. She has been threatened numerous times and trouble seems to follow her around. She was given a 5 year visa to the states the first time she applied 2 months ago…she had it within a day or so.
The terrorists…as someone stated…have ALL been given a visa which is how they got into the states to create mayhem…obviously there is NO sort of criteria being observed other than the one by which ever embassy official is dealing with the paperwork of the visa applicant.
Its a crapshoot pure and simple.
January:07:2010 - 16:26
I have to protest that it’s not entirely a crapshoot. There are other criteria, beyond terrorism, that come into play with visas. Right now, though, terrorism-related factors are the ones making the news.
Does your future son-in-law perhaps share a name with a bad guy? The best friend’s legal problems are actually a plus for her–she’s a woman, she could be seen as being persecuted for exercising press freedom or at least free speech.
A major factor for visa issuance is the individual’s ties to his/her home country. If there’s not a lot of reason to return home, then the presumption (thank you Congress) is that the intent is to migrate. Doing that through a non-immigrant visa is not smiled upon.
There’s a town in Syria from which, effectively, no one can or will ever get a visa. The reason is that there’s a 30+ year history of visa holders from that city never (never!) coming back to Syria.
January:07:2010 - 16:40
Coolred–interesting contrast in cases, I do think that being a single male arab of a young age is a red flag these days though it shouldn’t be for ones like your future SIL–ie the majority.
John–yes you are talking about the normal visa criteria. Giving evidence of compelling ties to home has been a requirement here for a tourist visa for a very long time. A friend’s father who is a medical specialist with his own clinic in Ghana has to go through huge checks every time he visits his daughters in Canada or the US and prove his financial and family ties to his homeland each time. One SIL came on a 3 month tourist visa with just our guarantee that she would be looked after, and the other was refused twice, because change of government = change of immigration policy and she was single and had a job at the airport perfumery, not enough to guarantee her return to Morocco. Ironically the 1st one had NO job, no engagement, no schooling, nothing to make her return to Morocco except our guarantee she would and she did. The 2nd one came after the hub contacted the Immigration Minister personally, and paid $500 for a Minister’s Visa, ie usually reserved for those with some weird legal problem.
Winnie Mandela was refused entry recently to give a talk, and Nelson Mandela had to spend an inordinate amount of time proving who he was.
So there are various criteria but one can get frustrated with being the honest people and seeing others get through with no checks eg. the “refugees” who jump ship and swim ashore, notably 200 Tamils in 1986, miraculously cleared by the RCMP in 3 hours between Mulroney saying they didn’t need police checks and the press and the opposition suggesting that uh, yes, maybe they did, and him deciding form was the better part of valour.
January:07:2010 - 17:00
I don’t doubt the frustration. It can get worse that just being frustrated, too. Not long after 9/11, when Saudis were under a particularly unforgiving regime of visa approvals, one man died because he couldn’t get a visa to the US for hospital care in time. No friends made on that decision.
But as others have pointed out, security isn’t a matter of diplomacy once you get down to the brass tacks.
January:07:2010 - 20:43
John–agreed, and the down to tacks seems like a particularly apt metaphor. Pointed and unpleasant, rather like second level screening.
January:08:2010 - 01:27
i can generalize our discussion here by saying there is a constant tug between “me/us first” vs “treat others like you would like to be treated”.
i just wish every country simple states where they stand.
i found alot of explanation for our recurring discussions by reading this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule_%28ethics%29
January:08:2010 - 01:42
The purpose of those ‘genocide-type’ questions is that if you lie, you commit a fresh offense for which you can be prosecuted.
John:
I know that. It’s just that I don’t think the kind of person who would commit genocide would be particularly worried about the moral or legal consequences of misrepresenting their intent on a visa form.
January:08:2010 - 02:20
It’s not for the offender’s benefit, it’s to make it easier to toss him in jail, even if the genocidal crime can’t be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
January:08:2010 - 02:26
John,
You are right the US officials do follow some criteria while granting visa. But I feel they should have a more clearly outlined process. Going into the background details of the person is a must. But at present it looks as if it depends upon the discretion of the person examining the form at the time of the interview.
I applied for a short-term non-residence visa two years ago and got a 10 years multiple entry after half a minute’s interview!
My colleague applied for the same visa last year and he was denied for the first time and had to go collecting documents before he was issued the visa in the second interview.
I am single, don’t have any family obligations in India, don’t hold property and don’t have a permanent government job in India.
My colleague is married with children and old parents, he holds unalienable property in India and both he hand his wife have permanent government jobs here.
It’s easy to see who is more likely to keep on staying in the US.
As I said earlier, perhaps it does look as if I don’t look like a terrorist – there is no other reason why I should be treated so generously! I AM really grateful to the US embassy here.
Neither of us is a Muslim and each of us was going to the US only for a few days – in separate trips of course. But you can easily see that in cases of examining terrorist potentials of an applicant, there can be even greater discrepancies with the present system.
January:08:2010 - 03:35
John,
It seemsthe the US intelligence had enough information about this Nigerian but failed to make connections well in time. This means that apart from making careful checks before issuing a visa, the intelligence has to be spruced up. Please see this – http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6065V120100107