AP - War on Terror. Not enough evidence of terror screening, government says.
This article ties in nicely with a discussion that John Mosby and I have been enjoying in the "another day, another dinar" comments. It makes some of my points for me.
War on Terror
Not enough evidence of terror screening, government says
July 31, 2005
BY LARA JAKES JORDAN
WASHINGTON -- Homeland Security Department officials cannot prove they are adequately screening Saudis for terrorism-related risks when they seek entry into the United States, congressional investigators have found.
A report issued Friday by the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that the department's visa security officers, stationed in Riyadh and Jeddah, do not compile comprehensive evidence of their security checks.
The visa officers in Saudi Arabia ''provided anecdotal evidence of their contributions to the visa process,'' the GAO report found.
However, Homeland Security ''does not maintain comprehensive data on the results of their activities, such as the number of cases for which [visa officers] recommended refusal, and thus is unable to fully demonstrate the program's overall impact on visa operations,'' the report concluded.
The GAO is the investigative arm of Congress.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks were born in Saudi Arabia. Shortly after the attacks, critics charged the State Department with being too lax in issuing visas to Saudi nationals.
As part of creating the Homeland Security Department in 2002, Congress stationed visa security officers in Saudi Arabia for a required review of all visa applications before they could be approved by the State Department. The Homeland Security officials have access to law enforcement and immigration information that diplomatic staff readily lack, and they provide advice and training to consulate employees.
Congress appropriated $10 million for the visa security officer program this year, and Homeland Security has requested $15 million for 2006 to expand it to other U.S. embassies and consulates.
AP
War on Terror
Not enough evidence of terror screening, government says
July 31, 2005
BY LARA JAKES JORDAN
WASHINGTON -- Homeland Security Department officials cannot prove they are adequately screening Saudis for terrorism-related risks when they seek entry into the United States, congressional investigators have found.
A report issued Friday by the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that the department's visa security officers, stationed in Riyadh and Jeddah, do not compile comprehensive evidence of their security checks.
The visa officers in Saudi Arabia ''provided anecdotal evidence of their contributions to the visa process,'' the GAO report found.
However, Homeland Security ''does not maintain comprehensive data on the results of their activities, such as the number of cases for which [visa officers] recommended refusal, and thus is unable to fully demonstrate the program's overall impact on visa operations,'' the report concluded.
The GAO is the investigative arm of Congress.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks were born in Saudi Arabia. Shortly after the attacks, critics charged the State Department with being too lax in issuing visas to Saudi nationals.
As part of creating the Homeland Security Department in 2002, Congress stationed visa security officers in Saudi Arabia for a required review of all visa applications before they could be approved by the State Department. The Homeland Security officials have access to law enforcement and immigration information that diplomatic staff readily lack, and they provide advice and training to consulate employees.
Congress appropriated $10 million for the visa security officer program this year, and Homeland Security has requested $15 million for 2006 to expand it to other U.S. embassies and consulates.
AP
posted by Consul-At-Arms at 12:09 AM
4 Comments:
Consul, I think this article demonstrates more the AP's half-empty view of the GWOT than an accurate assessment of the DHS program. Ms. Jordan pulled out the worst of the GAO report, in typical MSM fashion.
If we look at the actual GAO report, publicly available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05801.pdf, we find a more balanced view of the program:
"According to State Department consular officers, the deputy chief of mission, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials in Saudi Arabia, the VSOs [DHS Visa Security Officers]
in Riyadh and Jeddah strengthen visa security because of their law
enforcement and immigration experience, as well as their ability to access and use information from law enforcement databases not immediately
available, by law, to consular officers."
However, "the requirement to
review all visa applications in Saudi Arabia limits the VSOs’ ability to provide additional training and other services to consular officers, such as assisting with interviews. Moreover, security concerns in Saudi Arabia limit staffing
levels at these posts."
Do we interpret this to mean that the VSOs aren't doing enough, or that we wish they could do even more? We know which way the AP interprets it.
But read on:
"Chiefs of mission at the five
posts chosen for expansion in fiscal year 2005 delayed approving DHS’s requests for the assignment of VSOs until DHS answered specific questions regarding the program’s goals and objectives, staffing requirements, and
plans to coordinate with existing staff and law enforcement and border security programs at post."
Sounds like (stereo)typical FS delaying tactics to me! Someone please tell the CoM's that they're supposed to use these tactics on America's adversaries, not on their fellow public servants.
Let's look at some of GAO's specific criticisms:
"Several issues raise concerns about the role and impact of these officers. These include (1) the use of temporary duty employees, which can limit the impact of the VSOs in Saudi Arabia; (2) the lack of Arabic language proficient officers; (3) the requirement that the officers review all visa
applications, which limits their time to perform other valuable tasks; and (4) the lack of measurable data on the VSOs’ activities, which would demonstrate their impact on the visa process."
Or, in plain English: (1) the VSOs do not stay in country long enough; (2) not enough of them speak Arabic; (3) they are actually doing TOO MUCH work to be strategically effective; and (4) in the midst of all this work, they are not keeping records (which would probably duplicate State's own records).
This is a far cry from "Not enough evidence of terror screening." It sounds more like "Great idea; now let's refine it and make it even better."
But Consul, I'm actually with you on this one. The chief advantages of the VSOs are: (1) their access to NCIC, the no-fly list, and other law enforcement databases; and (2) their cop experience. (1) could be fixed by Patriot-like legislative Chinese-wall demolition to allow consular officers to access these databases. (2) apparently is not that much of an advantage vs. a trained, experienced Next Generation consular officer such as yourself.
My main point is that you lower yourself by allowing the MSM to make your points for you. :)
BTW, congratulations on your retirement from the Reserves. But wouldn't they have allowed you to go into the Standby Reserve (Inactive List) as a key federal employee? This would have effectively 'frozen' your military career, with the option of 'thawing' it at a later time when earning points would be more realistic.
JM
Key government employee? Who, me?
Nah, I work for a living.
IIRC, they're limiting the key gov't employee thing to a one-year exemption anyhow. It has to be renewed annually.
Under the current force-use paradigm, i.e., rolling activations, it is no longer possible to combine a successful civilian career with reserve service.
In my own case, I was mobilized midway through my first overseas FSO tour. That mean that, when the Career Tenuring Board (CTB) met and considered me for tenure my first time out, less than a year after my return from OIF1 and while in language training, I had only a single EER in my personnel file.
It's recommended that you have at least 2, preferably more, EERs in your file in order to be tenured.
I'll get another shot next year. On the other hand, if I remain in the USAR, I can pretty much expect to be activated and deployed sometime during my current overseas assignment, causing me to be curtailed from post a second time. This does not seem very career-enhancing to me in the short or long term. That's simply the way that it is.
Wow! Those draft-dodging SFS punks had better not inflict any negative career repurcussions on you for serving in the GWOT. Did you get AFSA involved? Of course, "draft-dodging SFS punks" describes most of the AFSA board . . . .
Seriously, laws such as the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act should protect you from any adverse personnel actions connected to deployment. It's my understanding that, kind of like a POW, you should get tenured/promoted/etc. as if you were still there at post. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if State weaselled some exception for their people into the law.
Your non-tenuring should have been front-page-bloody-news, Consul. Yet another demonstration of State's inability to work and play well with others.
JM
It's actually not front page news.
The thing is, the OPM policy is that your tenure or probation "clock" is not stopped just because you deploy on military leave. This is intended to prevent you from being disadvantaged compared to your draft-dodging, er, non-serving peers.
In practise, however, it means that you may be less prepared for your tenure review than someone who didn't deploy.
What happens is that when you return from deployment they're supposed to "make you whole." At that point, I had not come up for tenure yet, my first "at bat" for tenure occurred more or less on time some months after my return.
I would note that I was promoted, administratively, to my next higher grade while I was deployed, however. That's the last promotion I can receive as an untenured officer. It was on time, although I didn't receive a dime at the higher pay grade until I returned to the Department about a year later and started getting paid by State again.
Before you begin the revolution on my behalf, I would note that historically only about 20 percent of officers are tenured their first time out these days, IIRC. Most officers receive tenure their second time up. Hopefully I won't have to find out how many get it on the third and final attempt.
Post a Comment
<< Home