| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Fifth Column | |
| State Dept. Back to it Old habits. | |
| 2004-01-27 | |
| A chief witness will be Chief of Consular Affairs Maura Harty, the woman in charge of the State Departmentâs processing of visas. Sheâll undoubtedly be grilled on how several hijackers got visas despite plainly dubious applications. And she may have to explain the program "Visa Express," which let all Saudi residents apply for visas at private Saudi travel agencies - until Congress made State stop it, 10 months after 9/11. But will panel members ask about her plan to once again loosen rules for Saudi visas? Harty only became consular chief in late 2002, but as No. 2 helped devise the policy of giving Saudis preferred visa treatment. And what she has brewing suggests sheâs still eager to please the nation that sent us 15 of the 19 hijackers. Even though the Department of Homeland Security - by Congressâ orders - has final say, State still hopes to lower the bar for approving Saudi visa applicants. If nothing else, the older agency may well outmaneuver the overstretched, infant one. State was always a favorite spot of the old Soviet spies as well. Some things never change. Iâve acquired an internal State Department document that one State official calls a "preview of the case State is making in the near future, to re-open the floodgates for Saudis." Itâs a five-page cable sent in November from the U.S. embassy in Riyadh. Headed "Losses to U.S. Economy from Fewer Saudi Visitors," it makes an impassioned pitch for increasing Saudi travel here. I get the uncomfortable feeling the Soddys have been doing this all along, albeit sans visas. According to my sources at Consular Affairs, the cable was written in large part to reflect the sentiments of Harty and her deputies - who naturally agreed with what they got. The documentâs opening sentence sets the tone: "According to conservative Embassy estimates, the U.S. economy has lost over $2.7 billion since Sept. 11, 2001, as a result of reduced Saudi expenditures on U.S. goods and services." Howâd they get that number? " âBack of the envelopeâ calculations," the cable admits, along with "anecdotal evidence" from such authoritative sources as "one former Commerce department official" and "one tourism industry representative from the Orlando area." I hope their security practices arenât as abysmal as their statistics. With language that the Saudi princesâ PR firms would love, the cable consistently - and solely - emphasizes the economic harm to America. Another State official calls the economic arguments "mere pretext" for making the Saudi royal family happier. Several State officials report discussions to "ease the process" for visas. Our enemies are relentless in their drive to wreck this country, and State seems to have signed off on a process that speeds it up. The cable cites $500 million lost because fewer Saudi students are attending school in America. It makes no mention of the much more than $500 million in damages caused by Saudis who already attended school - flight school, to be exact - here. Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly told U.S. authorities that they chose Saudi operatives because they had the easiest access to visas. (Of course, it surely helped that the kingdom is a breeding ground for radical Islam.) ...try universal center for radical Islam exceedly only by the Iranians. But the greatest concern regarding Saudi visa policy cited in the State cable is the "damage" to the "relationship": "The real damage is not the billions of dollars in lost revenue, but the long-term chilling effect on the U.S.-Saudi relationship that will result from less contact and exchanges." I can live with a chill. The 9/11 Commission needs to ask Harty: What would be so wrong with that?
| |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #13 ...Powell could do something about the problem. He did, ruprecht. He gave her a performance bonus of $10,000 -$15,000 and promoted her to Mary Ryan's position in Consular Affairs . Mary Ryan was the originator of the Visa Express program and Harty's mentor. Joel Mowbray's, October 22, 2002, Perverse Incentive article here. But I don't think that what you had in mind. |
| Posted by: Gasse Katze 2004-1-27 5:45:31 PM |
| #12 If the Saudis are unhappy with our "chilly" relationship, they should consider what would happen if we should decide to "heat" things up by about 4000 degrees. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-1-27 3:45:26 PM |
| #11 Cingold, if the answer is maybe, I'm sure we'll Judicial Watch file soon enough. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-1-27 12:51:00 PM |
| #10 Here's a question for the lawyers in the audience - can a private citizen initiate a Justice Department treason investigation against a government official? Jeff, the answer is (as always) âit depends.â Two main factors would have to be dealt with: 1) standing, and 2) private right of action. The âstandingâ question would be handled by showing that some transaction, occurrence or event related to the target (i.e., the person sought to be sued) resulted in distinct harm to you or your interests. âPrivate right of actionâ is a bit trickier. While any violation of law conceivably supports an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the courts have reined that statue in somewhat (when the violation is based on law and not on a constitutional right) by requiring a âclear statementâ from the legislature authorizing a suit. So . . . either find a constitutional right that has been violated, or a law that clearly states that the legislature intends for suit to be brought if the law is broken. My guess is that whatever suit might be brought would be dismissed because you would not be able to show that your private rights were more greatly harmed than the public rights in general (e.g., taxpayer lawsuits). In other words, the remedy needs to be to put pressure on the respective governmental bodies to get rid of the bad actor. Anyone can file a suit, not many prevail . . . |
| Posted by: cingold 2004-1-27 11:14:59 AM |
| #9 Even with civil service protections Powell could do something about the problem. He could transfer troublemakers to be part of the Canadian Bureau. It's not as if we demand visas from there anyway. Eventually when we might get one State Department flunky for each Canadian citizens. Perhaps they might quit out of boredom, or out of required inspections of the Nanuvit territory during the winter. Even if we're still paying their salaries at least they won't be actively damaging national security. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-27 10:15:23 AM |
| #8 We definately need to remove 'civil service' protection from these clowns so they can be fired. Didn't State give this treasonous bitch a big bonus a few months ago for the 1st visa express program because it 'worked so well'? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-1-27 9:44:30 AM |
| #7 The real damage is not the billions of dollars in lost revenue, but the long-term chilling effect on the U.S.-Saudi relationship We haven't been chilling that relationship enough. Our criticism of that society ought to be a lot more explicit. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-1-27 8:17:55 AM |
| #6 The appropriate response to "Losses to U.S. Economy from Fewer Saudi Visitors" is a picture of the World Trade Center in flames. The only real question about the State Department is if they're traitors on purpose or if they're just too damn stupid. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-1-27 7:01:02 AM |
| #5 all the other foggy bottomers got their saudi 401ks--maura's mommy didn't raise no fool--why isn't powell 86ing the wench/ |
| Posted by: SON OF TOLUI 2004-1-27 12:50:45 AM |
| #4 Oh, and by the way, Badanov...DAMN good inspiration filing this under "Fifth Column"! |
| Posted by: Jeff 2004-1-27 12:25:39 AM |
| #3 Maura's clearly afraid of losing her Saudi "pension". |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2004-1-27 12:24:41 AM |
| #2 All I have to say about Ms. Harty and her continued antics is @#^&@#%!! Here's a question for the lawyers in the audience - can a private citizen initiate a Justice Department treason investigation against a government official? |
| Posted by: Jeff 2004-1-27 12:24:05 AM |
| #1 It makes no mention of the much more than $500 million in damages caused by Saudis who already attended school - flight school, to be exact - here. Nice one. Might be time to fire off a letter to my friendly US Rep and both Senators. The soddis would love to be able to keep sending their problems here instead of keeping them in riyadh. |
| Posted by: 4thInfVet 2004-1-27 12:21:05 AM |