T5 B55 CIA-State Docs Re Blind Sheikh 2 of 3 Fdr- Entire Contents- Memo- 4 Withdrawal Notices 170

8/14/2019 T5 B55 CIA-State Docs Re Blind Sheikh 2 of 3 Fdr- Entire Contents- Memo- 4 Withdrawal Notices 170

1/10

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

Series: Team 5 FilesFolder: CIA/State Documents re : Blind S heikh (2 of 3)Date: 04/30/1993Pages: 9Description: Memorandum from DC I to IG re: Report re : Blind Sheikh

Reason fo r withdrawal: classification review pending

Box: 00004 Folder: 0009 Tab: 1 Doc. ID: 31194420Box 55Withdrawn by: K.M., 01/07/2009 (Originally withdrawn 09/08/2008)


2/10

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

RG: 148 Expos i t ion , An niversary , and M emorial Com miss ionsSERIES: 9 /11 Comm iss ion Team 5, FRC Box 23

N N D PROJECT NUM BER: 51095 FOIA CASE NUM BER: 30383WITHDRAWAL D A T E : 09/08/2008

BOX: 00004 FOLDER: 0009 TAB: 2 D OC ID : 31194421COPIES: 1 P A G E S :

A C C E S S RESTRICTEDT he item ident i f ied below has been withdrawn from this file:

FOLDE R TITLE: CIA /State docum ents re Bl ind Sheikh 2 of 3D O C U M E N T D A T E : 02 /11 /2004 D O C U M E N T T Y P E: M e m o r a n d u mFROM: StateTO: MarcusS U B J E C T : . ..Reques ts No s . 1, 3, and 4

This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s):9/11 Class if ied Inform ation

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE


3/10

United States Department of StateWashington, D.C. 20520

To : CA - Mary A. RyanThrough: CA/VO - John H.From : CA/VO/L - Cornelius D.Subj :Issuance of Nonimmigrant Visas to Sheikh Abdel RahmanRef : OIG memorandum of July 7, 1993

For possible use in responding to the request set forth inthe memorandum under reference, I offer the following comments.Before going into a technical analysis, I believe I shouldexplain the state of affairs as I understand it. After receipt ofthe memorandum under reference, I discussed this matter with Mr.Brennan and Ms. Brown of OIG and reviewed documents dating between

1982 and November 199.0 assembled by the OIG team during itsinvestigation to date. _ As Mr. Brennan explained the matter to me,

Being unable to review the actual file, the investigatorsthereafter interviewed a number of officers who had been stationedin Cairo during the pertinent periods and obtained theirrecollections of the nature and substance of the information whichwas contained in the file during its existence. [ ~ ~

9/11 Closed by Statute

_ T. I was unable to review the records of thoseinterviews since, according to Mr. Brennan, they have not as yetbeen transcribed.As a result, insofar as the Sheikh'son terrorist grounds in 1990 is concerned,definitive judgment. I

possibleI cannot ineligibilitymake a9/11 Closed Statute


4/10

-2-

d by Statute

JAccordingly,permissible to grant thepermit his temporary entrydecision whetherdiscretionary.

although it would have been legallysheikh a waiver of ineligibility tonotwithstanding the ineligibility,or not to do so would have bee n enti rely the

Obviously, it is not possible to know with certainty how thatdiscretion would have been exe rcise d, but it was long-standingDepartment policy that wa ive rs would not routinely be obtained foraliens ineligible for past terrorist activity. Thus, someonewould have had to m a k e a convi ncing case for the propriety ofobtaining a waiver for the Sheikh in order for the necessaryrecommendation to be mad e to the Immigration and NaturalizationService.

If, on the other hand, the Cairo file had reflected a historyof extremist statements, ad vocat ing the overth row of government swhich failed to function acco rd ing to Islamic law and theoverthrow or assassination of the rulers of such government, butnot a history of terrorist acts or actions in f u r t h e r a n c e ofterrorism, the situation would have been quite differe nt. It ishere tha t section 901 comes int o the equ ation.

Section 901 must be seen in its context. Beginning in about1983 various groups opposed 'to Reagan Administration policiesvis-a-vis Central America and Cuba and with respect to nuclear_disarmament began to charge that the Administration was deprivingAmerican citizens of their First Amendment right to hear the viewsof aliens who sought to enter to participate in public debates onthese issues and whose views were a n t i t h e t i c a l to those of theAdministration. These charges were pursu ed in variou s ways in


5/10

-3-

the media, in the courts and t h r o u g h the legislative process. Asthe 1980s wore on, the charges became e ver more expansive andpositions on the mat te r became more polarized. Ult imat ely ,opponents of the Admin istr atio n came to characterize sections212(a)(27), (28), and (29) as the "ideological exclusions" and toinsist upon th eir out righ t repeal.

Now, o ut ri gh t repeal of all thre e sections would have hadcatastrophic consequences. The problem the Admini strat ion facedat the time, however, was th at att empt s to exp lain th at fact andto describe what the consequences would be were dismissed aspolitical subterfuges designed to thwart reform of an unjustsystem, making it possible for the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n to continue itsnefarious practices. The atmosphere which all of this producedwithin the De partm ent is difficult to ima gine at t his remove, butthere was substantial apprehension about any politically sensitivevisa refusal. Secretary Shultz was personally ve ry concerned, ashe made clear to the n Assistant Secret ary Joan Clark.

The legi slat ive process began in 1984 or 1985 with theintroduction by Cong. Frank (D-Mass) of a bill to revise section212(a) of the Act. Hearings were held on that bill, but it wasnot enacted in th at Congress, nor in the n e x t . Mr. Frank againintroduced it in the 100th Congress, but again it appearedunlikely to be enacted. It was at this point, t hat otherlike-minded mem be rs proposed and had enact ed sectio n 901.

Initially, section 901 was l i m i t e d to a fifteen month periodbeginning on January 1, 1988. The report of the conferees on P.L.100-204 makes it clear t hat the time limit was in anticipation ofthe enactment of permane nt revisions to sections 212(a)(27), (28),and (29) of the Act . In the e v e n t , the completion of tha trevision process was delayed un ti l late 1990. As a result,section 901 was, first , ext en ded for a two-year period and, later,made permanent. In the process, it was also modified to applyonly to nonimmigrant aliens. (Init ially, it had applied to allaliens, immigrant or nonimmigrant.) Section 901 was repealed bythe Immigration Act of 1990, as of June 1, 1991, the effectivedate of the permanent revisions of section 212(a).

Upon the enact ment of section 901, the Adm inis tra tio n tookthe position that sect ion 901 did not repe al or suspend theapplication of any provision of the Act , specifically sections212(a)(27), (28), or (29). It conceded that an alien could not bedenied admission un de r those sections for reasons specified insection 901, but assert ed th at aliens could be denied under thosesections for reasons o th er th an the prohibited ones.


6/10

-4-

With specific respect to sections 212(a)(28)(C) and (F), theAdministration took the position that it continued to be legallypermissible to make findings of ineligibility under those sectionsin respect of nonimmigrants, but that, where the finding ofineligibility was based upon mere memb ersh ip or affiliation orupon statem ents whic h would bring the alien withi n the purview ofeither section, section 901 manda ted that a waiver ofineligibili ty be recommended and granted to per mit temporary entrynotwithstanding the ineligibility.

Almost immediately thereafter, yet anoth er controversy aroseover the Administration's position. Proponents of section 901asserted that its nactment suspended the operation of thosesection^ elimin a ting the need for waivers of i neligibility, andaccused the Administration of bad faith in its f ail ure to actaccordingly. This contro versy became particularly acute after thefinal amendment of section 901 which m a d e it permanent.

In this connecti on, I am enclosing for your inform ation acopy of a May 23, 1990 lett er to the Secretary from Messrs Frank,Morrison, Edwards, Schumer, Berman and Kastenmeier. All six werethen members of the House Ju dic iar y Committ ee; four of themmembe rs of the Subcom mitt ee on Imm ig ra ti on . I am also enclosing adocumen t pr epar ed for the use of Cong. Frank by the CongressionalResearch Se rvi ce on this subject. 1 hast en to say that theAdministration did not agree with the interpretation espoused ineither document, but I think they are of interest'in terms of theclimate which existed at the time of the Sheikh's May 1990 visaapplication.

In connection with section 901 and its impact on thissubject, Mr. Brennan expressed the view to me that Congress didnot intend to cover people like the Sheikh, but rather intendedsection 901 to apply only to Communist Party members. While thatcould, of course, be the case, the documents available to me donot support that opinion. The conferees stated "For example, suchexclusions, restrictions, or deporta1cTTs""would "hot be appropriateif based on an alien's criticism of the United States or U.S.policies; an alien's at te mp t to influence lawf ully the outcome oflegislation before the Congress; or an alien's mere membership ina Communist, anarchist or oth er org ani zat ion proscribed undercurrent law."

In addition, the Congress expressly denied the benefits ofsection 901 to aliens who were members, officers, officials,


7/10

9/11 Closed bv Statute

-5- \V.\s or spokesmen of the PLO. The PLO

designated as a terror ist org an iz ati on in 1974 and the Congressclearly understood that section 901 would a,pply,to its members andthose who made statements in its support unless they made specialprovision with respect there to. I believe that,t he fact that theCongress made special provision for a name^ terrorist organizationand its mem ber s strongly sugg ests that it knew that memb ershi p interrorist organiz ations generally would be wit hin the purv iew ofsection 901.

Finally, the successor provision to section 212(a)(28)(F ) section 212(a)(3)(B) -- is very carefully written to cbnfine,itself to terr ori st act ivi ty and actions in furthe ranc e thereof.

am enclosing a copy of that document for your information aswell.| 1| [ it was shared on an informal basis with a member ofCong. Frank's staff and of the staff of the House JudiciarySubcommittee on Im mi gra ti on. Both expressed agreement with itsterms. I do not know wh et he r either Mr. Frank or actual membersof the Subc ommi ttee saw the dra ft.I turn back now to the Sheikh's May 1990 visa application,inlig ht of the foreg oing and the possibility that the Cairo filewould have shown nothing m or e than extr emist, terrorist .statements, b u t n o t a c t i v i t y . / ~ "

The attorney at Justice's office of Immi gration Litigationwho handled all the lit ig at io n on forei gn policy refusalsexpressed the view then, and continues to hold it, that allowingthe prohib ition against denials because of sta tem ent s, beliefs, or


8/10

-7-

year .visasonce itU.S.

Cairo also reported that ic r o u tin e ly issued nonimmig^to Musl im clerics see kin g to prea ch at mosques in the U.At was satisfied that all expenses were being covered byinterested party.

r o u tin e ly issued non imm igra ntp r e a c h at mosques in the U.S.nses were being covered by the

Thus, by the time the Sheikh applied in May 1990 he hadtravelled temporarily to the United States at least once andperhaps twice and had not violated, so far as we know, the termsand conditions of his admission.|While we now k.now that the Sheikh applied for adjustment ofstatus several months after a r r i v i n g her$ there is nothing.toindicate that the consular officer at Kha rtou m could have hadreason to suspect that he would do so. In fact, we have no way ofknowing at what point the Sheikh made the decision to seekperman ent residenc e. He could have had that in mi nd in May 1990or even before then. He could have de cided to do so after arrivalhere, for reasons which arose after entr y. We know nothing ofthat aspect of the matter and will likely never learn anythingmeaningful about it. Thus, the most that c an possibly be said isthe broad generalization that a consular officer c an doubt thenonimmigrant bona fides of any applicant, depending upon what is

said by the applicant during the i n t e r v i e w and his demeanor.encl: (1) Letter of May 20, 1990(2) CRS Memorandum of May 9, 1990(3) 91 State 178327(4) L/CA FAX of October 9, 1991(5) Memorandum of October 18, 1991

Drafted: CA/VO/L:CDScullyIIIreds7/15/93 WDS3501D X31184 Clearance: CA/VO-JHAda


9/10

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

RG: 148 Exposi t ion , Ann iversary , and Mem oria l Comm issionsSERIES: 9 /11 Com mission Team 5, FRC B ox 23

N N D PRO JECT NU M BER: 5109 5 FO IA CA SE NU M BE R: 30383W ITH DRA W A L DA TE: 09 /08 /2008

B O X : 00004 F O L D E R : 0009 T A B : 4 DO C ID : 3119 4423COPIES: 1 P A G E S : 89

T he i tem ident i f ied below has been w i thd raw n from this file:FOLDER TITLE: CIA /Sta te docum ents re Bl ind Sheikh 2 o f 3D O C U M E N T D A T E :FROM: StateTO:

SUB JECT: Report of Au dit

DO CU MENT TY PE: Repor t

This documen t has been w i thd raw n for the fo l low ing reason(s):9/11 Class i f ied Inform ation

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE


10/10

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

RG: 148 Expos i t ion , Anniversary , and Memorial Commiss ionsSERIES: 9 /11 Com miss ion Team 5 , FRC Box 23

N N D PROJECT NUM BER : 5109 5 FOIA CASE NU M BER : 30383WITHDRAWAL DATE: 09/08 /2008

B O X : 00004 FOL DER : 0009 TAB: 5 DOC ID: 31194424COPIES: 1 P A G E S : 5

T he i tem ident i f ied below has been withdrawn from this file:FOLDER TITLE: CIA/State documents re Bl ind Sheikh 2 of 3D O C U M E N T D A T E : 0 3 /11 /2 0 0 4 DOCUMENT TYPE: Le t te rFROM: CIATO: MarcusSUBJECT: Reques t for docu me nts made by Susan Ginsburg at an in terview at the CIA HQ on 23February 2004

Th is docum ent has been wi th d rawn for the fo l lowing reason(s):9 /11 Class i f ied Informat ion

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

T5 B55 CIA-State Docs Re Blind Sheikh 2 of 3 Fdr- Entire Contents- Memo- 4 Withdrawal Notices 170

Documents

Transcript of T5 B55 CIA-State Docs Re Blind Sheikh 2 of 3 Fdr- Entire Contents- Memo- 4 Withdrawal Notices 170