Meeting Representatives of CEPRHI (Comité Ecuménico de Personal Religioso de Habla Inglesa) with the Consul General of the United States Embassy in Nicaragua, Luís Espada Platel.

May 24, 2005

Present:
Nan McCurdy, United Methodist Church Missionary
Lillian Hall, Quaker
Becca Mohally Renk, Quaker
Jennifer Tee, Presbyterian
Jim Felps, Unaffiliated
Doug Orbaker, Presbyterian Church Missionary
Steve Herrick, Presbyterian Church Missionary
Grant Gallup, Priest of the Episcopalian Church
Maggie Fisher, Sister of Charity

Nan began by explaining that our group represents more than 120 US citizens living in Nicaragua from 20 different Catholic orders and Protestant denominations. Many members have been here for more than 20 years, but one member has been living in Nicaragua for more than 50 years.

As introduction, Nan stated our concern for the situation of Dora María Tellez and showed Mr. Platel the letter from Ms. Tellez authorizing him to discuss her case with our group.

Although the following looks like a word-for-word transcription of the meeting, it is not all-inclusive by any means.

Nan: We are concerned and alarmed that Dora Maria Tellez has been denied a visa. She should be teaching at Harvard right now, during spring semester. Many people consider her to be a hero. She is an analyst, a historian an extremely intelligent woman whom all of us know. Our concern is that the denial of her visa was based on the Terrorism Act 21283B because she is quite fearful for her life. She has gone to CENIDH to seek legal protection because being accused of terrorism by the United States government puts her life in danger here.

Mr. Platel: I will gladly address the case with her permission, we never discuss anyone’s case without their permission. These are sensitive materials – not classified, but sensitive – because this is a serious case.

First of all, I’d like to say that I understand your concerns. You are not the only ones to have approached the US Embassy, there has been congressional interest in this case too.

I want to be clear that this decision was made in Washington. In these cases, we must get Washington’s approval. Dora María Tellez is recognized as a heroine – do you know why she is recognized as a heroine? Are you familiar with the events of 1978? (General nods from the group assembled) It is a fact that a group took hostages in the National Palace – I’ve seen reports of between 500 and 2,000 people – and Ms. Tellez was one of the leaders of that group. There was even one person killed there.

US immigration law considers that participation in a terrorist act makes that person ineligible to hold a visa and enter the United States. The State Department concluded that she was ineligible to carry a visa, and that was the reason for the denial.

Doug: But she has received visas since 1978.

Mr. Platel: That is a fact, but that does not set a precedent. This decision was made based on the same acts of 1978.

Grant: This is a return to McCarthyism.

Mr. Platel: I don’t think we need to enter into that, this is a civilized discussion, I am happy to receive you here and discuss this. Those accusations are frankly uncalled for. Yes, it is a fact that she had a visa before.

Doug: So there is a precedent.

Mr. Platel: Being granted a visa for the United States does not guarantee another visa. There was a specific finding after she had been issued visas that she was ineligible.

Grant: So there is no new information or accusation.

Mr. Platel: No. It was the same act of 1978. This case has received a lot of interest in the press. The press has said that the US government has said she is a terrorist. That is not true. All the US government has said is that in 1978 she was involved in a terrorist act. It is not saying she is a terrorist. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist.

Grant: Once a terrorist, always a terrorist?

Mr. Platel: According to the law, yes. All we are doing is applying the law to the facts. Some people interpret the facts one way, the US government interprets them another way.

(Here he gets into the law, which I certainly don’t have verbatim. What I have is Section A. Reasonable grounds to believe that wants to enter the US to violate the law

Section B: Any alien who has engaged in terrorist activity is a terrorist/ is ineligible to receive a visa to travel to the U.S.

Section B was applied to her.

Doug: May I ask when this law dates to? Has it been since September 11th?

Mr. Platel: This particular law is from 1952, it has been amended since, but this is not a recent amendment. The law defines a terrorist act as any act unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed or which would be unlawful if it were committed in the United States. Examples of terrorist acts include hijacking or sabotaging, seizing or detaining and threatening to kill in order to (cause? cajole??) any third person, including members of government for the purpose of persuading the government to comply with (demands made…?)

This is what happened in 1978, there is no doubt about that – and the State Department has said this Act applies to her.

Doug: Is there any differentiation between terrorism against a brutal 45-year dictatorship, as was the case with Dora Maria´s situation, –vs- those committing the same acts against a democratically elected government?

Mr. Platel: No.

Doug: It seems like for a government that is so engaged in promoting democracy around the world that this is an important distinction.

Mr. Platel: Sir, the law was written by congress, we just follow it.

Nan: It would be interesting to know if Eden Pastora’s visa has been revoked.

Mr. Platel: You don’t have a letter from him.

Nan: I’ll get one (laughter) It would be interesting to know since he was also a leader at the National Palace in 1978, in fact he was the number one operative and Dora Maria the number two person involved.

Mr. Platel: You don’t have authorization, and this would be mixing apples and oranges.

Lillian: Dora María has been to the US many times, and she is one of the more moderate political voices here. I think that’s why we respect her, she is one of the anti-caudillo voices. No one denies what happened in 1978, but for the past 27 years in her trips to the US she has gone and come back and as far as I know has followed all US laws.

Mr. Platel: Her current behavior is not disputed.

Grant: Yes, but it is being selectively interpreted. We were proud of her at one time and of Eden Pastora for participating in a democratic revolt. But we are not now proud of our government to deny her a visa. We are here to register with you so that you can convey to our employees in the State Department that we protest this treatment of so valiant a person that the US was once proud of but is now afraid of.

Mr. Platel: I wouldn’t say that the US government is afraid of her.

Grant: But terrorism is about fear, and the US is afraid of her.

Mr. Platel: What we have told her and what we will tell anyone authorized is that she committed a terrorist act.

Lillian: Yes, but it must have been a surprise to her. What seems to be reality is that if you go to the US and come back, pretty much you’re a shoe-in for a visa.

Mr. Platel: A visa is no more than permission to board a flight and appear at a port of entry. This way the airline is blameless for anything and they are authorized to transport. The person applies for admission at the port of entry. A visa is not a guarantee of whether they can come in or not. They may have a 10-year visa and the officer at the port of entry can decide not to allow entry. A US visa is no guarantee. A valid visa can be revoked.

Lillian: But I assume they have a computer screen and the name pops up. It’s not just the guy at the port of entry, it’s somebody higher up.

Mr. Platel: We have some discretion under the law. We exercise judgment, that’s what they pay us for.

Steve: The decision was made in Washington, but not all decisions are made there, why this time, what’s the difference?

Mr. Platel: Depending on the section of law. When someone applies that may be ineligible, we have to get a security advisory opinion. We send the information to the State Department and they make a decision based on our information. She applied here, and in the course of the application – she applied here at the window with one of the vice consuls – during the course of the application he realized there was a problem and didn’t issue a visa until we developed the information, Washington received the request, took the information and took several months to make a decision. She was in contact with us several times. When the decision came, she was brought in and given the letter. I corresponded with her but didn’t talk to her personally.

Jim: Does she have any recourse, is there any appeal?

Mr. Platel: She can apply, she is welcome to apply again. If she were to apply again, we would have to send that to the State Department again. She can also apply for a waiver which gets sent to Homeland Security and they say whether to waive it or not. We have done that in the past, but it is a very limited visa, movements are restricted and we are required to be supplied with flight numbers, etc.

Jen: Was she automatically advised of this waiver option?

Mr. Platel: No. She can apply for a visa through the same process and its sent to the State Department. Then she applies for a waiver, we process it here and send it to Homeland Security.

Nan: Could we talk to anyone on her behalf?

Mr. Platel: It couldn’t hurt.

Grant: Where might be the most influential place to write or meet? The State Department, Homeland Security? Congress?

Mr. Platel: I’m not in a position to give you advice. There has been congressional interest on this and similar cases. But then we send Congress a letter saying why we refused. The Department of Homeland Security makes the waiver decision. You choose what to do, what you want to do. Maybe all of the above if you want to support her case.

Maggie: An analysis of her recent writings and speaking indicates that she strongly advocates true democracy in Nicaragua. Looking at her life now is certainly something that people would consider in granting her a waiver.

Mr. Platel: She has a lot of support, she is well-known. The State Department is just applying the law. I can understand that you strongly disagree. I can understand that you strongly disagree with that because I can see the reasons. But it is a matter of opinion. I respect that. But the decision was made by the State Department based on law and regulations and is legal.

Doug: I wonder if it would be possible to get your opinion. Do you believe that the US is safer for the denial of her visa?

Mr. Platel: When I open my mouth here, it is the US government talking. I have an opinion, of course, because I am a thinking person, but it is irrelevant here.

Nan: Can you send our letter on to the State Department.

Mr. Platel: Yes.

Nan: This is an arbitrary application of the law. It is very clear to us that it is applied arbitrarily, not just in Nicaragua, but all over the world. I’m sure there are members of the Israeli government or the current Iraqi government who have participated in acts of terrorism and are not denied visas – or Eden Pastora.

Mr. Platel: I wouldn’t be so sure that he has a visa.

Nan: Our concern is seeing our government apply a policy that seems to be that if you behave well and agree with the US then you’re fine. But if you criticize Bolaños or the US government we will deny your visa. It used to be that if you did that, you were called a communist, but being called a terrorist, that’s heavy-duty stuff. It seems more that if you are protesting the US government, then you have more of a chance of being denied. Anyone who protests against the U.S. government or criticizes it´s policies runs the risk of being denied a visa. We wanted to register this with you because if we let this go, it allows the government to go down this road.

Doug: The inability to distinguish between an act of war against a brutal dictatorship and against a lawfully elected government is something that anyone can do. For a government that’s engaged around the world in democracy, not being able to have that distinction is very concerning.

Steve: The fact that has been made in previous cases and not now indicates that it is a political decision.

Mr. Platel: Let me see if I can give you an analogy. The IRS audits very few people’s income taxes every year. When they go after someone, that person can say “Why me? Why not the other 95% too?” The US is not going to chase down all the others.

Jen: So why now?

Mr. Platel: Someone may evade taxes for twenty years and then one day they go after them.

Steve: So essentially she’s getting caught now for something she did 27 years ago.

Doug: It seems that its being applied now because the decisions were made here before, but this time somebody kicked it upstairs.

Mr. Platel: Of course it caught the attention here for it to be denied. At a port of entry, a planeload of people come in, and there are not enough resources to screen them all. It’s the same here, she got pulled off the line and pulled into second because of suspicions and information. Of course someone focused on it. We have databases, something comes up on the screen and we have to make a decision whether or not to look into it.

Lillian: I would assume that all Sandinistas, including Daniel Ortega and members of the National Assembly would pop up on the screen.

Nan: And ex-Contra who are also in the National Assembly.

Jim: When you look at the Minutemen in our country, they were seen as terrorists by the English government. That gives a new interpretation of the National Palace happenings.

Jennifer: I think that the opportunity to go to Harvard is a real opportunity for people to learn…Dora María going to Harvard gives students there an opportunity to examine the history and examine her discourse and decide for themselves and my concern is this limitation in what students are able to hear. It’s an opportunity to hear from someone who was there, who is known for her history, her writings, and she is an excellent resource for those students. This puts a real limitation on things that can be taught in universities, which I find disappointing and horrifying.

(based on notes taken by Becca and Jen)