Sometimes I find myself in agreement with the direction of US policies. However, the lack of notification and failure to include such stalwart nations as Saudi Arabia (remember the nationality of the hijackers?) exemplified by this directive leaves oh-so-much to be desired...

Deadline Nigh for INS Program
By Ryan Singel 02:00 AM Dec. 16, 2002 PT
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,56859,00.html


Monday marks an important deadline for almost 3,000 men ages 16 and up who are visiting the United States from five countries designated as sponsors of terrorism.

They must register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service's new biometric immigration database or face fines and deportation.

Under the National Security Entry Exit Registration System, launched on the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the government must maintain photographs and fingerprints of all male visitors from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and Sudan. Another 13 countries were added to the list in October with a compliance deadline of Jan. 10.

Participants are digitally photographed and fingerprinted so that investigators can determine whether they fit the profile of suspected terrorists, as well as aliens with criminal records.

So far, 179 individuals have been detained after registering, but none turned out to be terrorists, said Jorge Martinez, a spokesman for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The creation of the INS program is the first step in a process that will include the integration of the system's database with the FBI's data on 40 million criminals.

Congress directed that the databases be merged after a notorious 1999 case wherein the INS deported a wanted serial killer, who later returned and killed four more people. However, a number of significant hurdles, both technical and political, must be cleared before that can happen.

The INS system contains two flat (digitally scanned) fingerprints of each person, whereas the FBI's database stores 10 fingerprints rolled in ink of each person. That makes it difficult to conduct searches across both databases.

In addition it takes around two hours to search the FBI's database, which is too long for the INS purposes.

On the political front, the INS system is under fire from both liberals and conservatives.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has expressed anger that Saudi Arabia was kept off the list of nationalities being monitored, even though 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudi nationals.

A leaked Justice Department directive, first published by WorldNetDaily, indicated both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be added to the list in October. Neither were added, however, and Martinez refused to comment on the document.

Hussein Ibish, spokesman for Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the list is discriminatory because it only includes Muslim countries, along with North Korea.

Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a conservative group, has also criticized the system for its narrow focus on a handful of targeted nations.

Both Ibish and Stein think the INS system should monitor visitors from all countries outside the U.S.

They may soon get their wish. Under the Enhanced Border Security Act of 2002, the government is required to develop an automated information system called Chimera that places machine-readable biometric identifiers in all visas and passports by 2004. The General Accounting Office estimates Chimera will cost between $6 billion and $11.5 billion to build.

However, the same technical issues preventing the INS from integrating its data with the FBI's information are making it difficult to put Chimera into practice, officials said.

To solve this dilemma, the Justice Department is considering a plan to digitally capture the equivalent of 10 rolled prints, which would be a significant step toward a successful integration.

Still, the INS would still need to find a way to check these prints in minutes, not hours.

Even then, as with all biometric systems, fingerprint identification isn't foolproof. A recent Federal Aviation Administration prototype system missed 18 to 36 percent of correct matches in a recent test. It also issued false positives in up to 8 percent of cases.




...and the rest of the juicy detalis from the INS...
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/lawenfor/specialreg/index.htm


Your Portal to Information on Special Registration Procedures for Certain Nonimmigrants

What is Special Registration?
Special Registration Groups and Procedures

Call-in Group 2 (added 11/22/02): Citizens or Nationals of Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen
Who Must Register (Group 2)?
Call-in Group 2: Special Registration Procedures
Call-in Group 1 (added 11/6/02): Citizens or Nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria
Who Must Register?
Call-in Group 1: Special Registration Procedures
Individuals Registered at a U.S. Port of Entry
Who Will Be Registered?
Special Registration Procedures for Individuals Registered at a Port of Entry
Special Registration Laws, Regulations and Instructions
Special Registration-related Law and Regulations
Special Registration-related Documents
Special Registration-related Instructions
WHAT IS SPECIAL REGISTRATION?

Special Registration is a system that will let the government keep track of nonimmigrants that come to the U.S. every year. Some of the approximately 35 million nonimmigrants who enter the U.S. – and some nonimmigrants already in the U.S. -- will be required to register with INS either at a port of entry or a designated INS office in accordance with the special registration procedures. These special procedures also require additional in-person interviews at an INS office and notifications to INS of changes of address, employment, or school. Nonimmigrants who must follow these special procedures will also have to use specially designated ports when they leave the country and report in person to an INS officer at the port on their departure date.

Please note the following:

Another group of countries has been recently identified and its citizens and nationals will be required to follow special registration procedures.


Special Registration of certain individuals from certain countries at U.S. ports of entry continues. Those visitors already in the U.S. who were registered at a port of entry on or after September 11, 2002 are still subject to Special Registration procedures required at their time of entry and during their stay in the U.S.
SPECIAL REGISTRATION GROUPS AND PROCEDURES

CALL-IN GROUP 2 (added 11/22/02): CITIZENS OR NATIONALS OF Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen

Who Must Register (Group 2)?

If you are in this category you must register at a designated INS Office between December 2, 2002 and January 10, 2003.

If you are a male born on or before December 2, 1986, and


If you were inspected by the INS and last admitted to the U.S. as a nonimmigrant on or before September 30, 2002


If you did not apply for asylum on or before November 22, 2002, and


If you will be in the U.S. at least until January 10, 2003.


Special Call-in Registration Procedures for Certain Nonimmigrants: Call-In Group 2

The following document contains details and procedures for Call-In Group 2:

Call-In Group 2: Notice and Special Registration Procedures (12/03/02)

Additional Information of Interest to Special Registration Call-in Group 2:

Questions and Answers (on Special Call-in Registration Procedures)(11/26/02)
List of Designated INS Interviewing Offices for Special Registration
List of Designated Ports of Departure and Exit Information (detailed)
AR-11 SR – to report a Change of Address, Employment, or Educational Institution
CALL-IN GROUP 1 (added 11/6/02): CITIZENS OR NATIONALS OF Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria

Who Must Register?

If you are in this category you must register at a designated INS Office between November 15, 2002 and December 16, 2002.

If you are a male born on or before November 15, 1986, and


If you were inspected by the INS and last admitted to the U.S. as a nonimmigrant on or before September 10, 2002,


If you did not apply for asylum on or before November 6, 2002, and


If you will be in the U.S. at least until December 16, 2002.
Special Call-in Registration Procedures for Certain Nonimmigrants--Call-In Group 1

The following document contains details and procedures for Call-In Group 1:

Call-In Group 1: Notice and Special Registration Procedures (11/26/02)

Call-In Group 1: Notice and Special Registration Procedures (11/26/02)(Arabic)

Call-In Group 1: Notice and Special Registration Procedures (11/26/02) (Farsi)

Additional Information of Interest to Special Registration Call-in Group 1

Questions and Answers (on special call-in registration procedures) (11/26/02)
List of Designated INS Interviewing Offices for Special Registration
List of Designated Ports of Departure and Exit Information (detailed)
AR-11 SR – to report a Change of Address, Employment, or Educational Institution
INDIVIDUALS REGISTERED AT A PORT OF ENTRY

Who Will Be Registered?

Citizens or nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria.


Nonimmigrants who have been designated by the State Department


Any other nonimmigrant identified by INS officers at airports, seaports and land ports of entry in accordance with 8 CFR 264.1(f)(2).
Special Registration Procedures for Individuals Registered at a Port of Entry

If you were registered at a port of entry, please see the following details and procedures:

How to Comply
30 Day and 1Year Interviews
List of Designated INS Interviewing Offices for Special Registration
Change of Address/Employer/School
Departing the United States
Non-Compliance
SPECIAL REGISTRATION LAWS, REGULATIONS and INSTRUCTIONS

Special Registration-related Law and Regulations (in reverse chronological order)

FR Notice 11/22/02 Registration of Certain Nonimmigrant Aliens from Designated Countries
FR Notice 11/6/02 Registration of Certain Nonimmigrant Aliens from Designated Countries (Special call-in registration for certain temporary residents already in the U.S.)
FR Notice 9/30/02 (Designation of special registration ports-of-departure)
FR Final Rule 8/12/02
FR Proposed Rule 6/13/02
Text of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. 107-56) 10/26/01
Special Registration-related Documents (in reverse chronological order)

INS Reminds Certain Temporary Foreign Visitors of Eighteen Countries of Registration Requirement 12/6/02
INS Reminds Certain Temporary Foreign Visitors of Eighteen Countries of Registration Requirement (Arabic Version) 12/6/02
INS Reminds Certain Temporary Foreign Visitors of Eighteen Countries of Registration Requirement (Farsi Version) 12/6/02
Call-In Notice and Procedures for Special Registration Group 1 (11/26/02) (Arabic)
Call-In Group 1: Notice and Special Registration Procedures (11/26/02) (Farsi)
Call-In Notice and Procedures for Special Registration Group 2 (11/26/02)
Call-In Notice for Procedures for Special Registration Group 1 (11/26/02)
Questions and Answers (on Special Call-in Registration Procedures) (11/26/02)
Special Registration Procedures 9/11/02 (Short Version)
Special Registration Procedures 9/11/02 (Short Version) (Spanish)
Special Registration Procedures 9/11/02 (Short Version) (French)
Special Registration Procedures 9/11/02 (Short Version) (Arabic)
List of Designated INS Interviewing Offices for Special Registration (updated 11/26/02)
List of Designated Ports of Departure and Exit Information (detailed) (updated 11/26/02)
Attorney General Ashcroft Announces Implementation of the First Phase of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (Department of Justice) 8/12/02
Attorney General Announces National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (Department of Justice Issued Prepared Remarks) 6/5/02
National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (Department of Justice Fact Sheet) 6/5/02
Special Registration-related Instructions

AR-11 SR – to report a Change of Address, Employment, or Educational Institution
To view and print Special Registration Procedures for All Call-In Groups
To view and print Special Registration Procedures for Individuals Registered at a Port of Entry



...hmmmmmm. Any thoughts on this one?

more chicanery from our non-interventionist government...

NY Times
December 16, 2002
Pentagon Debates Propaganda Push in Allied Nations
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT


ASHINGTON, Dec. 15 — The Defense Department is considering issuing a secret directive to the American military to conduct covert operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policy makers in friendly and neutral countries, senior Pentagon and administration officials say.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has not yet decided on the proposal, which has ignited a fierce battle throughout the Bush administration over whether the military should carry out secret propaganda missions in friendly nations like Germany, where many of the Sept. 11 hijackers congregated, or Pakistan, still considered a haven for Al Qaeda's militants.

Such a program, for example, could include efforts to discredit and undermine the influence of mosques and religious schools that have become breeding grounds for Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism across the Middle East, Asia and Europe. It might even include setting up schools with secret American financing to teach a moderate Islamic position laced with sympathetic depictions of how the religion is practiced in America, officials said.

Many administration officials agree that the government's broad strategy to counter terrorism must include vigorous and creative propaganda to change the negative view of America held in many countries.

The fight, one Pentagon official said, is over "the strategic communications for our nation, the message we want to send for long-term influence, and how we do it."

As a military officer put it: "We have the assets and the capabilities and the training to go into friendly and neutral nations to influence public opinion. We could do it and get away with it. That doesn't mean we should."

It is not the first time that the debate over how the United States should marshal its forces to win the hearts and minds of the world has raised difficult and potentially embarrassing questions at the Pentagon. A nonclandestine parallel effort at the State Department, which refers to its role as public diplomacy, has not met with so much resistance.

In February, Mr. Rumsfeld had to disband the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, ending a short-lived plan to provide news items, and possibly false ones, to foreign journalists to influence public sentiment abroad. Senior Pentagon officials say Mr. Rumsfeld is deeply frustrated that the United States government has no coherent plan for molding public opinion worldwide in favor of America in its global campaign against terrorism and militancy.

Many administration officials agree that there is a role for the military in carrying out what it calls information operations against adversaries, especially before and during war, as well as routine public relations work in friendly nations like Colombia, the Philippines or Bosnia, whose governments have welcomed American troops.

In hostile countries like Iraq, such missions are permitted under policy and typically would include broadcasting from airborne radio stations or dropping leaflets like those the military has printed to undermine morale among Iraqi soldiers. In future wars, they might include technical attacks to disable computer networks, both military and civilian.

But the idea of ordering the military to take psychological aim at allies has divided the Pentagon — with civilians and uniformed officers on both sides of the debate.

Some are troubled by suggestions that the military might pay journalists to write stories favorable to American policies or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of American policies.

The current battlefield for these issues involves amendments to a classified Department of Defense directive, titled "3600.1: Information Operations," which would enshrine an overarching Pentagon policy for years to come.

Current policy holds that aggressive information tactics are "to affect adversary decision makers" — not those of friendly or even neutral nations. But proposed revisions to the directive, as quoted by senior officials, would not make adversaries the only targets for carrying out military information operations — abbreviated as "I.O." in the document, which is written in the dense jargon typical of military doctrine.

"In peacetime, I.O. supports national objectives primarily by influencing foreign perceptions and decision-making," the proposal states. "In crises short of hostilities, I.O. can be used as a flexible deterrent option to communicate national interest and demonstrate resolve. In conflict, I.O. can be applied to achieve physical and psychological results in support of military objectives."

Although the defense secretary is among those pushing to come up with a bolder strategy for getting out the American message, he has not yet decided whether the military should take on those responsibilities, the officials said.

There is little dispute over such battlefield tactics as destroying an enemy's radio and television stations. All is considered fair in that kind of war.

But several senior military officers, some of whom have recently left service, expressed dismay at the concept of assigning the military to wage covert propaganda campaigns in friendly or neutral countries. "Running ops against your allies doesn't work very well," Adm. Dennis C. Blair, a retired commander of American forces in the Pacific, advised Pentagon officials as they began re-examining the classified directive over the summer. "I've seen it tried a few times, and it generally is not very effective."

Those in favor of assigning the military an expanded role argue that no other department is stepping up to the task of countering propaganda from terrorists, who hold no taboo against deception.

They also contend that the Pentagon has the best technological tools for the job, especially in the areas of satellite communications and computer warfare, and that the American military has important interests to protect in some countries, including those where ties with the government are stronger than the affections of the population.

For example, as anti-American sentiment has risen this year in South Korea, intensified recently by the deaths of two schoolgirls who were crushed by an American armored vehicle, some Pentagon officials were prompted to consider ways of influencing Korean public opinion outside of traditional public affairs or community outreach programs, one military official said. No detailed plan has yet emerged.

Those who oppose the military's taking on the job of managing perceptions of America in allied states say it more naturally falls to diplomats and civilians, or even uniformed public affairs specialists. They say that secret operations, if deemed warranted by the president, should be carried out by American intelligence agencies.

In addition, they say, the Pentagon's job of explaining itself through public affairs officers could be tainted by any link to covert information missions. "These allied nations would absolutely object to having the American military attempt to secretly affect communications to their populations," said one State Department official with a long career in overseas public affairs.

Even so, this official conceded: "The State Department can't do it. We're not arranged to do it, and we don't have the money. And U.S.I.A. is broken." He was referring to the United States Information Agency, which was absorbed into the State Department.

One effort to reshape the nation's ability to get its message out was a proposal by Representative Henry J. Hyde, an Illinois Republican who is chairman of the House International Relations Committee. Mr. Hyde is pushing for $255 million to bolster the State Department's public diplomacy effort and reorganize international broadcasting activities.

"If we are to be successful in our broader foreign policy goals," Mr. Hyde said in a statement, "America's effort to engage the peoples of the world must assume a more prominent place in the planning and execution of our foreign policy."

Those pesky Iranian citizens want a better future than is provided by the current idealogues. How dare they! Only "WE" know what's best for other countries, and damn them all to hell for trying to effect change on their regime!!! Now here's a little J. Lo...


washingtonpost.com
Casey Kasem or Freedom?


By Jackson Diehl

Monday, December 16, 2002; Page A25



After an Iranian court sentenced the reformist academic Hashem Aghajari to death last month, the largest and most sustained student demonstrations in years erupted in Tehran. As they grew, day after day, U.S.-operated Radio Azadi, or "Radio Freedom," was their favorite medium. Every day, student leaders would call by cell phone from the roiling campuses to the radio's headquarters in Prague and narrate the latest developments live. Each night the radio would broadcast a roundtable discussion, patching together students and journalists in Tehran with exiled opposition leaders to discuss where the reform movement was going. So instrumental to the rebellion-in-the-making did the radio become that pro-regime counter-demonstrators recently held up a placard reading "Who does Radio Azadi talk to?" -- a taunt taken by the station's staff as a badge of honor.

The protest movement, now five weeks old, rolls on, spreading from students to workers and from Tehran to other cities. Some see parallels to the popular movements that overthrew the Communist regimes of Europe in 1989 -- with a big dose of help from U.S.-sponsored Radio Free Europe. In this case, however, the tottering dictatorship has gotten a big break: Two weeks ago, Radio Freedom abruptly disappeared from the air. Iranians were no longer able to hear firsthand reports of the protests or the nightly think tanks about their country's future. Instead, after two weeks of virtual silence, the broadcasts are being replaced this week with tunes from Jennifer Lopez, Whitney Houston and other soft-rockers.

How did the mullahs pull off this well-timed lobotomy? They didn't: The U.S. government, in the form of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, did it. In an act that mixes Hollywood arrogance with astounding ignorance of Iranian reality, the board has silenced the most effective opposition radio station in Iran at a time of unprecedented ferment. In its place, at three times the expense, the United States now will supply Iran's revolutionary students with a diet of pop music -- on the theory that this better advances U.S. interests.

Even the name of the station has been sanitized. Instead of "Freedom" -- regarded as too political by the programmers -- the radio will be called "Farda," meaning "tomorrow." Never mind that "freedom" is what thousands of young Iranians have been risking their lives to shout every day on the streets. "The assumption of the people who did this back in Washington is that Iranian young people, like young people in most places, don't want to hear news," says Stephen Fairbanks, the ousted director of Radio Freedom. But this is not most places -- this is Iran, where young people are leading a rebellion against a dictatorship that has stifled opposition media. The student leaders who used to phone in, Fairbanks says, now tell him that "they are losing their voice."

The "people back in Washington" Fairbanks referred to are led by Norman Pattiz, a Los Angeles-based commercial radio mogul and generous Democratic contributor who was rewarded by President Clinton with an appointment to the broadcasting board. As the chairman of the board's Middle East committee, Pattiz initially focused on the Voice of America's Arabic service, which he deemed out of touch in a region where there is growing popular hostility to the United States. His solution was to replace what he called the "old-style propaganda" of VOA with Radio Sawa, a pop-music station that debuted last March. Sawa broadcasts five minutes of news twice each hour, along with Whitney, Britney and a few Arabic balladeers.

The jury on Sawa is still out. The good news is that the station seems to have captured a fairly large audience in countries such as like Jordan and Dubai, where American culture is popular even if American policy is not. But Pattiz and his Washington-based program consultant, Bert Kleinman -- a former producer of Casey Kasem's hit countdown -- have yet to prove that they can sustain the audience while "layering in" more news. In fact, they have yet to deliver on promises to Congress that the news programming will be significantly increased.

Their argument that young Arabs in cities such as Amman and Beirut are more likely to be captured by American music than by canned documentaries is not unreasonable. What's inexplicable is the extension of that logic to mullah-ruled Iran. Yes, Jordan's young population, governed by a pro-American dynasty, is angry at the United States; but in Iran, where an anti-American dictatorship is clinging to power through sheer brutality, the United States and its policies are wildly popular, especially among young people.

So was America's radio station, until recently. "This is not the Cold War era, where oppressed people were under the thumb of tyrants, and they would stand with one foot in a bathtub holding a wire hanger to hear what we would say," Pattiz smugly told the Boston Globe. Maybe not in Egypt, but that's exactly what was happening in Iran -- until Washington pulled the plug. "We made extraordinary inroads," says Fairbanks. "Everyone started to see us as a forum. Each day there were students who would report live to us from their mobile phones. It's a measure of how bold they have become that they would do that."

"Or did."

...from the numerous Japanese-Americans (and other Asians ALSO) who endured the internment camps during WWII?

...update

http://www.americas.org/news/nir/20021213_registration_expanded_again.asp

http://www.hio.harvard.edu/travel/exspecialregistration.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/17/145104.shtml

The Japanese American population is probably not outraged by the INS doing its job (detaining visa violators and people who are in this country illegally). I imagine they are outraged that hundreds of these law-breakers are in Orange and Los Angeles counties alone. Think how many are here illegally nationwide! What is the INS doing with all the tax money it gets, since it seems not to have done any enforcement for many years?

The Japanese American population probably are smart enough to see the difference between picking up Americans based on race and looking for illegal aliens while leaving Americans of the same race alone. The Japanese American WWII anaology doesn't fly here.

Any way you slice it, they all got here somehow. This country was "infested" with immigrants, and even native Americans are descendants of peoples indigenous to other continents.
The only apt description, since none of them (Muslims and Arabs are primarily the people involved in the recent INS roundup - be they political dissidents, children or family of, etc.) "washed up" on American soil, is that there has been, or more correctly continues to be, a complete breakdown of the facilities which monitor and determine our border policies. This is not a problem which "appeared" only in the last 8 years (sorry, Clinton bashers), but has been pervasive for at least the last generation. If not two. Note the dramatic population increase since the late 60's/early 70's.
I am not in favor, as some would argue, of completely shutting down the border. But there needs to be more "sensible" approaches our government takes in regards to WHO and HOW MANY people are allowed to gain entry into this country. There needs to be open discourse on the subject in the national mainstream.
I do know that using September 11, 2001 as a pretext for this is ludicrous, as our government failed to initially include the nationality most of the hijackers are attributed. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall much being siad abou those hijackers being here on expired or invalid visas. Which begs the question of how they obtained entry...

The whole illegal immigration issue has nothing to do with the merits of migration AT ALL. That is merely smoke to cloud the issue. It has everything to do with the orderly and just application of whatever laws is established to facilitate migration.

In this particular case the govt is trying to at least get a handle on the portion of the 'guest' population that comes from notorious terriorist states.

The registration is by country of CITIZENSHIP. The only common thread is these people's homecountry's sponsoring of terrorism. It is not targeted at Moslems at all. North Korea it may interest some posters is not a moslem nation. Many so-called moslem nations are not on this list - Indonesia, Albania, etc. The various posts here state themselves that none-moslems are being registered - I think the quote is "even Iranian Jews".

Of course this alone will not keep terrorists out of the country. But no ONE THING will. There has to be a lot of conneted actions taking place. While I believe all or most of the 9/11 killers entered the country legally, several of them remained in the country illegally. Keeping visitors who are citizens of terrorist homelands to the time and tasks they requested visas for is a sensible task.

There is inconvience of course for those who didn't follow the law but that should have been expected. These laws are no secret and each visitor to the US promised to follow them in any case.

It doesn't sound like the processing was too onorous in any case. The INS is releasing most of the minor cases without bail in fact. People who don't have paperwork should understand that it takes a while to find and verify identiy. These should be grateful that they are being released. Few countries outside the West would do that (look at India, China, SEA and Mexico for example).

Many of those who were detained did file the proper paperwork.
The INS lost it or was taking its sweet time filing it.
At best, this is a case of beurocratic ineptitude directly affecting peoples liberty.
FYI, the Japanese American community has been very vigilant regarding the post 9/11 detentions.
(http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2002/01/14475.php)
And while it would be foolish to speak for an entire community, especially one that I am not a member of, this linked event shows that the JA community is not taking the post 9/11 security events lightly.