INS workers indicted by grand jury for shredding documents to eliminate backlog. Will this mean that "special registrants" will be given the benefit of the doubt, too?

INS TALKS TOUGH. In defending their detention of Pakistani journalist and Brookings Scholar Ejaz Haider on Tuesday, the INS has used some pretty ominous words. Here's a quote from the end of the Washington Post article today:

Justice Department spokesman Jorge Martinez challenged Haider's account and said the journalist was aware of the program's requirements because he had written articles critical of it.

Martinez said Haider spent three hours at an INS detention center in Alexandria while national security and background checks were done. He was released and told to register the next day, which he did. "You can see the discretion INS officers showed by permitting him to register without suffering any penalties," Martinez said. [Emphasis added]

First of all, as Politics in the Zeros notes, this quote from Martinez seems to indicate that there was at least some payback going on here. I couldn't find any of the articles that Martinez refers to above; what I did find was a sarcastic article in the Friday Times (need reg.), for which Haider is a news editor, lampooning U.S. views of the outside world in general. The article is linked as "10 Things Not to Tell the INS when You go To Register," (but the title on the page reads, "Top Ten Ways to Tell Your Country Needs Sensitivity Lessons" -- not so subtle humor at work, obviously) and it contains such gems as:

7. Your President refers to the leader of Korea as a “weird little dude”

6. Bomb civilians and say you are “smoking ‘em out of their holes”

5. Say you are on a Crusade before attacking another country

I won't give away the whole list, but you get the idea already. This is hardly an article critical of the INS registration policy itself, however; and it's not written by Haider. I couldn't find any article critical of the INS "special registration" policy written by Haider, even searching the Daily Times website where Haider is also an editor and contributor.

So, there are two major things wrong with this situation already: (1) Jorge Martinez and the INS are seeking to cast doubt on Haider's credibility by focusing on articles that he supposedly wrote but that are pretty hard to find. Where are these articles? I'd like to see them. And (2) the INS has been paying attention to what Haider said about the INS special registration program, and then mentioning their knowledge of his writings in the context of a justification for his detention. Talk about the appearance of impropriety!

Not that the INS shouldn't be a little upset by Haider's portrayal of the events. Read the Daily Times article on his detention here. Haider apparently had problems with an INS official at the airport, upon arrival, and sees his Tuesday detention as related to that earlier incident. Perhaps it's not surprising that the INS is reading stories that are critical of their policies -- in fact, I hope they are reading the stories, for they are legion. But to single out people who are under your surveillance as being critical of the detentions program is inexcusable.

To these problems, add a third: Martinez intimates that INS agents actually did Haider a favor on Tuesday by exercising their "discretion" and not meting out further "penalties." What does Martinez mean? That Haider could have been deported on the spot? Jailed while his case was pending further review? These are scary words from Martinez. They seem to mean: "we didn't have to be nice to him, after all." Put those words together with the fact that Martinez knew what Haider was writing about the INS, and you've got a pretty frightening situation.

UPDATE: a Lexis-Nexis search turned up no critical articles by Haider, but it did turn up a UPI wire report from today with accusations from INS officials that Haider deliberately refused to register in order to protest the policy. The wire report quotes Martinez as saying that Haider himself told an INS official at Dulles, on Oct. 22, that he was a vocal and published critic of the registration program.

Parts of the wire report are confusing. Haider claims that he checked with the INS to see if he needed to return for an interview and was told that citizens from Pakistan didn't need to do so. Further, according to the article, Pakistan wasn't put on the list of countries whose nationals needed to register until December 18, two months after he first arrived. The article seems to indicate that Haider was detained for not following a policy that wasn't in place when he arrived at Dulles. But Martinez is quoted as saying that Haider still should have registered and should have known about it.

The wire report also answers my earlier question about what "penalties" the INS could have meted out to him: deportation proceedings.

The idea that Haider would not register out of protest seems forced to me. It certainly would be nice to know more about the details of this case.

MORE ON KASURI'S VISIT: The Times of India again describes Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri's visit to Washington as less than successful. But today, ToI softens its tone on this story. Today the headline reads: "Bush Employs Carrot and Stick Approach with Pak." This article notes, at the end, that Pakistan is getting $1 billion in debt forgiveness and $50 million in military aid, including a shipment of F-16's. It's hard for me to see how these goodies add up to a "fruitless and possibly disasterous visit.," even if Kasuri was asking for more.

A DAY LATE. . .and, for other reasons, a dollar (or more) short. Had to pass this on, though, from The Rittenhouse Review. Folks who really like Ashcroft needn't follow the link.

US-PAKISTAN RELATIONS? Indian and Pakistani papers often differ dramatically in their coverage of events. Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri's recent trip to the U.S. is an excellent example of the difference.

The Times of India calls Kasuri's visit "fruitless and possibly disasterous." According to ToI, Kasuri was upbraided by Powell, in public, for not doing enough to de-escalate tensions with India, for not preventing cross-border incursions of Kashmiri separatists, and for helping North Korea in its quest for nuclear weapons technology. The ToI also notes with some Schadenfreude that INS officials detained prominent Pakistani journalist, friend of Kasuri, and visiting Brookings scholar Ejaz Haider during Kasuri's trip. The Washington Post also picks up on this story, here. This detention was particularly humiliating for Kasuri, ToI intimates, because he had asked for the U.S. to take Pakistan off the INS "special registration" list. Kasuri's request was denied.

Dawn's coverage of the trip, however, was upbeat. Dawn's account of the Kasuri - Cheney discussions has not a whiff of a false note. And regarding the INS detentions, Dawn declares "Pakistan Assured of Non-Discrimination." Sure, if that means, "Pakistanis will be treated just like people from Iran."

For more stories about the INS special detention program, read the Houston Chronicle's account of fears among local Indonesian immigrants here, Mark Blix's Atlanta Journal-Constitution article on Farhad Nabipour's deportation here, and NPR's story on Pakistani families fleeing to Canada here. I recently had a few blogs on this issue but Blogger's archives of my site are screwy right now.

THE BIG STORY today in the German papers is the Wall Street Journal letter from eight European countries who declare their differences with the French and the Germans with respect to possible war with Iraq. The eight countries apparently didn't even send the letter to Berlin and Paris ahead of time. Read Oxblog's coverage, with links, here.

Berliner Zeitung says that the "Iraq conflict divides Europe," and commentary in the paper (Schellenberger and Dahms, "The End of Symbolic Unity") notes that the intiative for the letter seems to have come from Spain. Schellenberger and Dahms claim that the developments show that Germany is in danger of "total isolation": "An EU-official is quoted as saying that Germany broke a basic rule of diplomacy, namely: Exclude no options." Another Berliner Zeitung editorial from Uwe Vorkoetter notes that Blair and Schroeder are to blame for the open split in Europe, even though the WSJ letter basically announced the obvious. But the paper saves its harshest words for Schroeder: in attempting to make foreign policy on the campaign trail, and in not offering a real alternative to American policy, Schroeder has made himself diplomatically irrelevant. The other papers echo this critcism (except for taz, see below), and most note that the opposition CDU/CSU have picked up on it as well..

The Sueddeutsche Zeitung prints the letter, and Christian Werneke's commentary echoes Vorkoetter's critique of Schroeder's foreign-policy-on-the-hustings approach, but criticizes all the European leaders for being unable to find a common ground between "cheap populism and dear duty to the alliance with America," especially given opinion polls that seem to show European reluctance toward a "high-tech war" with Iraq.

taz says "New Europe Makes Schroeder and Chirac Look Old," but then seems to blame the (evil) WSJ for the whole affair.

Berlin's Tagesspiegel reprints the text from the Handelsblatt. The Tagesspiegel notes Schroeder's attempts to put a good face on the division ("Germany Does Not See Itself As Isolated"), but at the end of a piece on the fallout from the letter ("Foreign Friends") also quotes a CDU politician who expects that other European countries will join the original eight by this weekend.

No one seems to think that this foreign policy meltdown will get Schroeder to change his tune (except, perhaps, the ever-cynical taz).

German language reactions to SOTU:

Switzerland's Neue Zuercher Zeitung has the headline: Bush's Announcement of New Proof is Welcomed Worldwide (it sounds better in German, trust me!). The article then goes on to play up the positive responses of even the usually skeptical French and Germans to the possibility of better proof that Iraq is hiding WMD's. And the NZZ's editorial ("No Declaration of War, Yet") is pretty straightforward: Bush is still building his case against Iraq and used the speech to continue this process; he also proved himself to be a good tactician in domestic politics by proposing a range of programs from tax relief through help for AIDS sufferers in Africa. All in all, the NZZ does a good job at providing a balanced overview of both the speech and the international reaction to it.

Bernd Pickert's commentary in Germany's die tageszeitung, on the other hand, reads the speech as a sign of Bush's "long-awaited" defeat. "The eagerly anticipated speech appeared, in many parts, to be the speech of a loser." Pickert mentions little of substance from the speech itself; according to him, Bush simply repeated a bunch of worn-out phrases, "as if repetition could, at some point, produce persuasiveness." Pickert spends more time discussing the increased confidence of the Democrats, as evidenced by the aggressive stance in the reply by Gary Locke. Pickert's conclusion: "A government that took power in controversial circumstances but that is nonetheless pushing an ultra-right agenda and ruining the country for the profit of a few, is now seeing the difficulties it deserves."

The Berliner Zeitung's article, titled "In the Name of the Nation of Brotherly Love," is sarcastic but manages to cover all the bases. The Sueddeutsche Zeitung's commentary from Wolfgang Koydl, Bush's Mission, reads the foreign policy part of the speech as disappointing. Koydl is, however, willing to admit that a U.S. occupation of Iraq could bring stability to the region if we stick around long enough and if we actually fulfill our promises to engage in democratic constitution-building. But Koydl is ultimately worried that an American triumph here would expose European weakness in foreign policy.

The Frankfurter Rundschau's account of the speech, by Dietmar Ostermann, is also called "Bush's Mission." Ostermann calls the speech "only average, and perhaps Bush's worst speech in a long while." He dismisses most of the domestic programs that Bush proposed; as far as Ostermann is concerned, even though the domestic audience is the usual addressee for SOTU's, Bush didn't really get "to the point" until the last part of the speech. The "point," of course, is Iraq. Ostermann argues that Bush pushed the domestic programs in order to soften up the public for war against Iraq. But even though HE found the speech uninteresting, he argues that the American public will still rally behind the flag no matter what the state of international opinion.

My impression: the Germans were bored listening to Bush's domestic proposals, and were mostly unimpressed by his case against Iraq. The folks at the NZZ have the longest attention span and are most on target.

According to the latest polls, Germany's ruling SPD is likely to lose big this Sunday in regional elections in Hessen and Lower Saxony. Berlin's Der Tagesspiegel reports that the opposition CDU may obtain absolute majorities in both states. A recent article from Deutsche Welle, in English, provides a good analysis of the SPD's woes. The Tagesspiegel article notes that the Greens are hoping to gain some seats by attacking the U.S. on Iraq, but polls don't give indication that this strategy has resonated with voters.

As I explained earlier, regardless of what you think about the war issue and Schroeder's use of it in his campaign last fall, it's probably a good thing for voters to resist the nationalization of regional elections. Of course, if, like Oxblog, you don't like Schroeder's stance, you can look forward to enjoying some Schadenfreude this weekend.

Cool editorial in the Japan Times. Brad Glosserman discusses "realism" in foreign policy and the question of engagement with China. The setting for his article: a day spent surfing on a Hawaii beach. I can almost FEEL the Pacific waves. . .

Check out Amiland (also on my blogroll). The site is a useful attempt to provide a view, in English, of how the mainstream German press reports on the U.S. The author is particularly interested in distortions, bad translations, and German moralisms masquerading as objective reporting.

The word "Amiland" is slang for the U.S.: "Ami" is short for "American," and "-land" is, well, "land." I never sensed any particular meaning for the word itself -- it's an informal word that can be used in a derisive fashion, but it also can be used with affection.

Link from Andrew Sullivan (I think) by way of John Gould.

TURKMENISTAN is Central Asia's North Korea, according to Fariz Ismailzade in an article in the latest Caci Analyst. The NYTimes had an article yesterday on Stalinist show trials in the country. Turkmen President Saparmurad Niyazov has also made appearances in the "news of the weird" categories over the past year: for example, his official moniker is now "first and eternal President of Turkmenistan." But human rights violations in the country are serious. On its very short list of friends, Niyazov apparently has a cautious Iran and a wavering Turkey.

Apologies to anyone who tried to view Samchar.com through the link from my site. Don't go there: it's been hacked, and now feeds you into the netherworld of adult site popup ads. What a fun world we live in, no?

BIG, FAT, SLOW-MOVING TARGET. Well, figuratively, at least. Today's comic relief comes from an article in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, which skewers the recent men's fashion show in Paris. The paper calls the show a "fashion mistake that we have carefully documented in pictures." "No one would dare go outside with these clothes on. Not even to sweep the street." Click on the picture to go to the gallery. My favorite comments:

Picture #6: "Here's a question, for fun: Would you wear this outfit to a job interview? If so, for which job? Circus clown? Pie baker? Horse butcher?"

Picture #11: "If the ship's piano isn't making a sound, and the flare pistol has fallen in the toilet, please slip into this brushed wool pullover. Approved for use as a signal flag in case of imminent sinking. But please be careful to avoid nearby mothers who may offer you a baby bottle. . . ."

Check out www.heidiandsteve.us. Heidi and Steve are super cool artists in Boston. Heidi is also my super cool sister. The fun intro on the opening page is an indication of the sense of humor that informs much of their work. Keep it up, folks!

Can't find links to old NYTimes front pages, so today the link in yesterday's blog shows you footballers not foot soldiers (sorry!). Still, I think that the picture from the front page of the Sunday NYTimes helps to dramatize the personal tragedies of individuals living in Iraq. Now, off to perform my professorial duties. . .

If you haven't seen the photo on the front page of the print edition of today's NYTimes, take a look at it here. This link should work for today, at least.

The picture shows the man who leaped into a U.N. vehicle and asked for help. He was turned over to the Iraqi police.

I am heartbroken by this picture. The terror on this man's face is haunting.

As the Edmonton sun reports here, Rumsfeld may have ticked off many in "old Europe" with his dismissive comments about French and German opposition to U.S. policy toward Iraq. But according to an online article by Richard Herzinger for Die Zeit, Rumsfeld's attack was "impertinent, but not false."

Herzinger argues that it is now incumbent on the Germans and French to attempt to address precisely the questions that the U.S. is attempting to address with its bellicose approach to Iraq: preventing the spread of WMD's in the region, and solving the problem of peace in the middle east without a radical rearrangement of the political structures in the entire region. Herzinger argues that the U.S. policy, which he dubs "democratic imperialism," is an attempt to solve these two problems -- problems for which European leaders "don't even have the beginning of a strategic approach."

Herzinger also calls to mind the uncomfortable fact that Rumsfeld is not bluffing when he counts on the support of countries in Eastern Europe. Looking to their recent past, they are likely to remember with pain Western European accomodation with communist conquest, especially now as Chirac and Schroeder fall over themselves to approach a Putin not loath to pursue war as an instrument of policy.

The French and Germans themselves will need to know if they should heed Herzinger's advice to view Rumsfeld's comments as brusque but troublingly accurate. On this side of the Atlantic, it seems to me that Herzinger's piece is on the money, as long as it is read a) in conjunction with Thomas Friedman's excellent commentary in today's NYTimes concerning the fundamental uncertainty that shrouds the future of potential post-war Iraq, and b) in conjunction with the Times's editorial cautioning against a unilateral race to war.

One thing is clear. We should greet neoconservative optimism concerning a postwar Iraq, for example, as naive silliness. I am shocked at how easily normally sensible people can throw around comparisons to midcentury Germany and Japan -- especially given our obvious inability to hold our attention on Afghanistan long enough to make sure that we devote enough resources to our last effort at forceful "regime change." And recall: this administration is headed by the man who used "nation building" as a sneer word during the 2000 campaign. I don't care how fundamental a change 9/11 supposedly worked on Bush's view of the world: old habits die hard.