I think we can all agree Artan is very unlikely to be doing anything terrorism related while working the World Cup (or likely at any other time in the rest of his llfe too). But I wanted to point out the fallacy here that preventing somebody with ties to terrorism is just about preventing that person from committing an act of terrorism. ITs also about preventing them from gaining any knowledge or advantage that could be used in the future. No, I don't think Artan is here scouting locations for an attack or anything, but that's also the type of thing CBP are looking for.
I mean, I feel like it's also about punishing people for their affiliations or prior activities and not rewarding them with entry into your country. Of course, that idea or philosophy clashes directly with the idea that an international sporting event should be about welcoming all-comers, no matter what. Which I get. Regardless of the merits of the decision on Artan, I understand the two competing philosophies or approaches here. But yes, those who reflexively come down on the "he should be admitted no matter what" side do appear to be incapable of understanding the other side and jump to the extreme position of "so you think he's a terrorist" positioning.
As someone who is deeply familiar with (and not a fan of) the federal terrorism watch list, I have a good idea of what's going on. Based on public comments, Artan - like over a million of other innocent people - was placed on the expanded selectee list. That means his listing was not affiliated with any terrorist organization. Instead, he was deemed an "associate" of someone else who was on the selectee list (that is, someone who is "affiliated" with a terrorist organization). One gets on the selectee list pretty easily. For instance, if the government finds the phone of someone who they have strong reason to believe might be a terrorist, everyone who is on the contacts of that person is going to be placed on the selectee list, along with any member of those people's immediate family (unless those family members are Americans). Note that getting placed on the list does not mean that there is any reasonable belief that you have committed or will be committing a crime - indeed, because list placement leads to predictable results, people who actually are under investigation for criminal activity are usually not put on the list (for fear of letting that person know they are under investigation). From there, any person who has contact or communication with someone on the selectee list may be put on the expanded selectee list. This could happen through, for instance, being at the same mosque, or communication whose existence (not content) is uncovered by mass surveillance. That's what happened to Artan. As you could probably predict from such a random scenario, there are no instances of someone on the terrorist watch list committing an act of organized terrorism (and few, If any, of them committing any acts of terrorism at all; The only two I'm aware of are the pulse nightclub shooter had been removed from the terrorism watch list, and some mentally unwell person on the terrorist watch list attacked a cop in New York). And there are literally over a million people who are on the Federal terrorism watch list, about 1% of whom are US citizens or permanent residents (and again, not suspected of or accused of any crime). Is it possible that Artan is a terrorist? I suppose it's possible that anybody's a terrorist. But the odds are not really any greater than for you or me. Edit: I don't think you can take politics out of this discussion, but to at least take partisan politics out of this discussion a little, this is how the terrorism watch list has consistently operated under Democratic and Republican administrations.
Response to a few comments upthread, The Democratic congressman probably was given his terrorism watchlist status (and maybe when he was placed on the federal terrorism watchlist, that is, so he could be convinced it wasn't by Trump), But he was unlikely given access to the underlying derogatory information, which in turn is unlikely to be anything significant, because there's not actually a million substantial dossiers out there. On the diplomatic passport, one can speculate for a number of reasons, but somalia is on the Muslim ban list, obstensibly because of lack of passport control, and that probably is reason enough.
I mean, we frequently let leaders and other high ranking officials of Iran and other “hostile” countries into the United States for purposes to attending the United Nations and other events of an international character. You cannot convince me that Artan posed any more of a risk than that. We just decided not to make an exception for him
Thanks for sharing your perspectives on this. Apologies if I've missed this, but what about the fact that the US issued him a visa a week before he traveled? I understand that a visa does not guarantee entry, but shouldn't the watchlist have been checked before his long journey?
The other thing to consider is that Artan is a ~35 year old man who grew up in a Somalia that's been in some level of civil wat for pretty much all of those 35 years. And even as civil unrest and failed governments go in this world Somalia has been high on the list of true crisis areas. Obviously I have no idea what his life was like, but in that scenario it seems like the odds of him knowing somebody who was involved with one of the many factions that have been deemed terrorist organizations of the years seems high enough that if I found out that was the case I would not be surprised. And that's just knowing somebody, I'm not trying to state Artan was involved at all. But "knowing somebody" is all the U.S. government would need to make your life difficult.
That’s part of what makes me think this is kind of BS. If we had serious information about him, he probably wouldn’t have gotten a visa. Seems like we kept him out because he rubbed some random CBP officer the wrong way
This is normal. The Visa application process (issued by state) doesn't necessarily check against the federal terrorism watch list. Or State Department may have looked at the underlying derogatory information and decided to ignore it. But cbp (which is part of DHS) Will check all people coming into the country. Agents don't initially have access to the underlying information until a specialist arrives. And at that point they might have dug their heels or made a different determination than state did. The whole thing is a lot more chaotic than you think it would be. A lot of that goes to the fact that Congress never specifically authorized the federal terrorist watch list and the terrorist launch list was not created by formal notice and comment rulemaking. It's extremely quasi-legal and informal; Even the guidelines are confidential, although prior versions have been leaked online. So it's not super unusual for a visa to be issued only for a person to be turned back at the border.
One other thing to note - the Federal terrorism watch list is confidential (tho I have reviewed a leaked copy). Despite that, we share it with dozens of countries, including countries known to engage in state-sponsored torture, such a Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Numerous people, including US citizens, have been tortured by foreign countries because of their inclusion on the federal terrorism watchlist. And some of those people, when they sued the federal government over it, were simply removed from the terrorist watchlist in order to moot the case. Again, this is not a Democratic or Republican thing, this has been going on under both Democrats and Republicans since George W. Bush. We really don't get angry enough at what our government does to our people.
One thing that we should be careful not to overlook, is that as soccer people for whom the World Cup is the ultimate event, our instincts are to err on the side of inclusion. A security person instincts and job are to err on the side of exclusion. If they incorrectly exclude, it results in unfairness to one person or a small group, and some bad PR. If they incorrectly include somebody, it may result in....?
On this pyre History has sacrificed the civil rights of uncountable numbers of people. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
It's pretty well established law that civil rights at the border are not the same as civil rights in the country…
The legal technicalities of the border doctrines (which I am extremely well familiar with, don't worry) have nothing to do with the morality of the restrictions of rights, including the fundamental right of freedom of movement. You'll have noticed in my entire description of the federal terrorism watch list and it's uselessness, I have never once declared that Artan has any legal claims in federal court against the federal government. That doesn't mean that what is happening to him is fair or that we as Americans should be indifferent to it.
Has any referee for an international sporting event ever caused any serious harm while in the host country? Like we have to acknowledge what we are talking about. This is not just some random guy off the street. The calculation of supposed risk should be taking that into account
World Cup Dallas did bid for the Referee Base Camp. Dallas was the training camp for the Centenario and the last Gold Cup (I think?) and regularly hosts camps for PRO. The powers that be are very familiar with DFW. It makes total logical sense for the referees to be based in DFW mainly because it's centrally located in geographical sense to ALL World Cup sites and American Airlines, the World Cup airline partner, is based in DFW and the main airport for them is DFW. One rather important factor in not selecting DFW for the referee base camp is most likely the summer heat. A bid to host the VAR group was also submitted and the VAR/AVAR group did select DFW as it's base of operations. So a referee in a match in Toronto or LA or Guadalajara is communicating with a VAR in DFW every game. I also know that they ARE NOT using the MLS VAR location that is housed in DFW, which is also an odd decision since the infrastructure is there and ready to go and proved to work (important!). Why the VARs and the Referees are based in two different places is a mystery, but CONCACAF HQ being based in Miami probably had something to do with it.
FIFA has a significant corporate office in Miami that includes legal and compliance HQ. Along with their new office in Paris, this is part of their diversification so that everything isn't in Zurich. As tournament operations are being managed from Miami I think placing the referee headquarters there makes sense. From a logistics standpoint it makes less sense but decisions are made for many reasons
I mean, not for anything but referees are also going to have a bit more fun being in Miami than they will in Dallas. The logistics aren't great for travel, but MIA is an AA hub, too. As far as the VOR goes for Dallas, the specifications for what FIFA wants/needs versus what PRO uses will be different. Even just from the cosmetics. I have no idea where the FIFA VOR is and how hard it was to mock up, but I imagine someone determined it was easier or less hassle than deconstructing the PRO one and then reconstructing it a day after the tournament ends. FIFA wants its stuff to be its stuff.
Dallas funded a $15MM "International Broadcast Centre" (out of their own money, not paid for by FIFA) which, among other things, is the location of the VAR Room. FIFA Press Release here: you will not be shocked to learn that it does not mention the funding source or that, according to The Athletic's Adam Crafton, it will be torn down after the World Cup (gift link).
Yea, I was coming on here to say this. I didn't want to dox the VAR room, but I've been in the IBC and know what hotel the VAR referees are staying in. The IBC is basically a giant hotel meeting room type place with a setup up that will remind some of a convention with a vendor hall. It's no pipe-and-drape exactly where you can walk from vendor booth to vendor booth and sample different products, but it's a similar concept. One side of it is the commentating booth area. Every game is being broadcast in English and Spanish or French from this location. On the other side are the VAR booths. I had imagined it being more extravagant until I realized there aren't going to be too many conflicts. Games are far enough apart in kickoff time alot of booths aren't really needed. I've heard the PRO VAR room has around 20 or so rooms since MLS can play up to 15 games at the same time.