The Terror Finance Blog

The Saudi Spell

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

As if Saudis flying civilian airplanes into buildings in New York and Washington, DC, were not enough, the Bush Administration is now supporting the development of “ civilian nuclear power” in Saudi Arabia.

In a feeble attempt to deflect criticism, the Administration published its agreement with the Saudis to “Improve Peace And Stability In The Region Through Nuclear Cooperation,” detailing the kingdom’s commitments to participate” in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).”

This agreement, according to the While House press release (May 16), is to “ensure a smooth supply of [Saudi} energy to the world.” Judging by previous Saudi compliance with and adherence to agreements with the U.S. (like stopping funds to terrorist organizations such as Hamas), expect a Saudi nuclear weapon as fast as their trillions of petrodollars (your money) can buy.

Instead of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear facilities, the U.S. now openly contributes to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. What remains to be seen is who will use its nuclear weapons against the U.S. or Israel first, the Saudis, or Iran?

See the agreement below:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
(Jerusalem)
___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 16, 2008


Strengthening Diplomatic Ties With Saudi Arabia
United States And Saudi Arabia Improve Peace And Stability In The Region Through Nuclear Cooperation

Today, President Bush met with King Abdallah to commemorate the 75th anniversary of formal diplomatic relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Since 1933, these two nations have enjoyed formal relations. In 1945, during the waning months of World War II, King Abdallah's father ˆ King Abd al-Aziz ˆ met with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt aboard the U.S.S. Quincy in the Red Sea, and the two leaders chose to deepen the strategic relationship between the two countries. The President's visit today builds on this tradition of friendship and close cooperation.

Ø It is in the spirit of that meeting that the United States and Saudi Arabia have completed four critical agreements to strengthen the protection of energy resources, enhance peaceful nuclear cooperation, broaden the fight against global terrorism, and bolster nonproliferation. These agreements further cement the longstanding U.S.-Saudi friendship and close cooperation to help bring peace and stability to the region and its people.

The United States And Saudi Arabia Will Work Together To Further Our Relationship

The Saudis bear a special responsibility for protecting key energy facilities of global importance and the world benefits from their abundant energy supplies. Our global economy depends greatly on Saudi Arabian energy. The U.S. has a keen interest in helping the Saudis protect their energy infrastructure against terrorism, as demonstrated by the unsuccessful terrorist attack against the Kingdom's Abqaiq Plants in February 2006. To this end, the United States and Saudi Arabia have agreed to cooperate in safeguarding the Kingdom's energy resources by protecting key infrastructure, enhancing Saudi border security, and meeting Saudi Arabia's expanding energy needs in an environmentally responsible manner.

1. Saudi Arabia will join the 70 partner nations of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. As a partner in this multilateral initiative, Saudi Arabia will:
· Enhance its accountability and physical protection of nuclear systems
· Advance its capability to search for and confiscate unlawfully held nuclear material
· Improve its ability to detect nuclear material to prevent illicit trafficking
· Enhance its means to secure civilian nuclear facilities
· Deny safe havens and economic resources to terrorists
· Create legal frameworks to enforce criminal liability for terrorists
· Improve its response and mitigation capabilities in the event of a terrorist attack
· Promote information sharing to suppress acts of nuclear terrorism

2. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will also join more than 85 states participating in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The PSI is a response to the growing challenge posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery vehicles, and related materials worldwide. PSI participants will now include Saudi Arabia and all states that border it.

3. The U.S. will help the Saudis develop both human and infrastructure resources in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency guidance and standards.
In order to ensure a smooth supply of energy to the world, Saudi Arabia must be able to effectively safeguard its borders and coasts, and ensure consistent supplies of water and power to its citizens.
Under the Critical Infrastructure Protection agreement, the two nations have agreed to establish a Joint Commission on Infrastructure and Border Protection to facilitate training, the exchange of experts and specialized knowledge, and other support services as needed.
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia will also conclude a security agreement that will allow for broadened cooperation between the Saudi Ministry of Interior and the U.S. Government.


4. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia will sign a Memorandum of Understanding in the area of peaceful civil nuclear energy cooperation. This agreement will pave the way for Saudi Arabia's access to safe, reliable fuel sources for energy reactors and demonstrate Saudi leadership as a positive non-proliferation model for the region.
The United States will assist the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to develop civilian nuclear power for use in medicine, industry, and power generation.
The Government of the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will establish a comprehensive framework for cooperation in the development of environmentally sustainable, safe, and secure civilian nuclear energy through a series of complementary agreements.
# # #

Conference on Libel Tourism Highlights Importance of Speech, Freedom Part III

By Aaron Eitan Meyer

Report on the conference "Free Speech in an Age of Jihad: Libel Tourism, “Hate Speech,” and Political Freedom":

The third and final panel of the conference was entitled “What is to be Done? Legislative Opportunities and Pitfalls” and was moderated by Jay Nordlinger, Senior Editor of the National Review, who gave a very brief introduction. Unsurprisingly, the potentially expansive topic took something of a divided nature, with a measure of contentiousness thrown in.

Andrew C. McCarthy, Director for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’ Center for Law & Counterterrorism, gave the opening presentation, beginning by noting the fact that there has been some judicial usurpation of what were traditionally political powers, citing the recent Medellin decision, where Chief Justice Roberts reiterated that foreign policy is properly the province of the political branches of government. However, the thrust of his presentation was on the crucial importance that the American concept of free speech, and a ‘marketplace of ideas’ plays in the battle against Jihadism.

As Mr. McCarthy put it, Jihadists seek to quell freedom of speech by narrowing the list of acceptable attitudes and avenues of inquiry, thus setting up any potential discussion firmly on their ground. The War of Ideas, in other words, would begin with a significant handicap on the part of Western Society once our traditional notion of free and wide-ranging discussion is undermined from the start.

Mr. McCarthy then mentioned the case of Dow Jones v. Jameel, wherein the Law Lords of Britain in fact brought British defamation laws somewhat closer to U.S. standards, but hastened that the Alms for Jihad fiasco was a year after that decision, raising the question as to how much the Jameel decision actually accomplished.

He then turned to the issue of Khalid bin Mahfouz, citing Richard Clark, who told the government in 2003 that bin Mafouz was funneling $3 million to Osama bin Laden. Mr. McCarthy pointed out that when Dr. Ehrenfeld’s book came out, bin Mahfouz fought hardest to avoid U.S.courts, even though it was only those courts who could have given him a meaningful chance to refute Dr. Ehrenfeld and actually collect a judgment.

Mr. McCarthy briefly discussed California’s anti-SLAPP statutes. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, predatory suits against individuals and groups for exercising their First Amendment rights. From there, he moved to the possibility of enacting legislation that would force Libel Tourists to sue in the United States, where it would be free (by virtue of our wide discovery laws), and would allow people targeted, such as Dr. Ehrenfeld, to analyze the documents of the Libel Tourist – effectively turning the tables.

The key, Mr. McCarthy went on, is to arm Americans to stave off attacks. To that end, we still need a federal statute to protect against Libel Tourism, going further than the New York statute, and perhaps including double or treble damages if the defendant can prove that the suit was brought as part of a scheme to disrupt the research of an academic. By enacting a national law, the U.S. marketplace of ideas would be revitalized, to better serve as a bulwark against Jihadism.

The Honorable Robert H. Bork spoke next, preemptively registering his disagreement with a recent article by another panelist, John J. Walsh, stating that Mr. Walsh’s article “misses the point,” in that it appears to posit that the First Amendment’s protections stop at our shores.

Judge Bork mentioned that he doesn’t care for the term ‘Marketplace of Ideas,’ calling it one of Justice Holmes’ better rhetorical moments, but alas, not one of his better analytical ones. He went further by explaining that the term seems to imply some form of moral equivalence between speech here and in countries such as Iran, and cautioning that “we’re in a struggle, not a debating society.”

Looking past the immediate benefits of proposed legislation, Judge Bork provided a cautionary admonition that even the non-enforcement of foreign libel judgments would only go so far for publishers, who would still be liable in those foreign countries. Moving on, he said that while legislation is certainly worth doing, perhaps it is not enough. He would use the likes of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, saying that “one of the best ways of getting rid of a bad law is by enforcing it.”

Turning fully to the ultimate issue, Judge Bork stressed that we need a stronger understanding that we’re in a war, and one that could result in the submission of the West. After all, he continued, civilizations are fragile if you hit in the right place, “and our defenses so far have been feeble.”

Mr. McCarthy interjected that the term ‘Marketplace of Ideas’ wasn’t his favorite phrase either, but that we “need to make policy fully aware of all essential facts.”

Daniel Kornstein, of Kornstein Veisz Wexler & Pollard, LLC, sought-after attorney in libel tourism cases, and counsel for Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld in her case against Khalid bin Mahfouz, spoke next. He stressed that the problem is old/new, and is at its core, “abuse of litigation.” After reminiscing briefly about his experiences as a student of then-Professor Bork at Yale Law, he stated that the real-world effect of fighting libel tourist suits is less important than the symbolic effect, that the key is “keeping the banner aloft.”

Ultimately, Mr. Kornstein said, there will be a need for an international treaty to deal with the matter, and that large companies often have assets worldwide, so that non-enforcement of foreign judgments is an impossibility.

The next speaker was John J. Walsh, of Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, a trial lawyer, and self-described ‘spoilsport,’ as issue was taken with his November 20 article in the New York Law Journal, entitled “The Myth of Libel Tourism.” Stressing his orientation as a trial lawyer, Mr. Walsh began by stating that he had many questions based on evidentiary concerns, though he said that he “holds no brief” for Khalid bin Mahfouz.

In a somewhat self-contradictory presentation, he then turned to a sentence in Dr. Ehrenfeld’s revised and expanded edition of Funding Evil, where Dr. Ehrenfeld said that she would challenge bin Mahfouz in England, and then changed course. Mr. Walsh mentioned that perhaps the change of course was due to the chance of a larger victory, but stated that there’s got to be a reason why nobody else has taken bin Mahfouz on. As he put it, “English law is not as monstrous as you’ve been led to believe here.”

Essentially, the hub of Mr. Walsh’s objection to the Libel Tourism Act was that he saw it as ‘unnecessary’ since enforcement can only be done through a judicial proceeding. He mentioned that Dr. Ehrenfeld defaulted in the British court, something “which has legal consequences.” Mr. Walsh believed that bin Mahfouz’ strategy is a legal one, and that people have been fighting to protect reputation since the dawning of civilization.

Mr. Walsh also noted that there is a globalization issue as well, and that it is not the business of the state of  New York to decide this matter, but properly the business of the nation’s political branches. He ended by stating that we need comity, and cannot afford to be insular.

Mr. Kornstein rose to refute Mr. Walsh, noting that Judge Eady, the British jurist responsible for over 20 of bin Mahfouz’ libel judgments, is the Chief Judge of that Court, and so picks which libel cases he hears.

Perhaps not catching the subtext of Mr. Kornstein’s comment about Judge Eady, Mr. Walsh again questioned, rhetorically, why nobody has challenged bin Mahfouz in British courts. As he put it, the test for enforcement of foreign libel judgments shouldn’t be comparative law, but the evidence actually brought – not the relative burden of proof. What Mr. Walsh sidestepped was the fact that the burden of proof is an essential part of the law of evidence, directly impacting what evidence can be and is brought before the court.

In closing, Judge Bork spoke once more, reiterating that “we have a crisis of confidence,” that we are very comfortable, and that “people, a lot of people, don’t want to think” of unpleasantness.

Mr. McCarthy stressed again that we cannot afford to have legal strictures of other countries imposed upon us – echoing a jurisprudential doctrine since the days of the venerable Chief Justice John Marshall.

Mr. Kornstein closed his comments by keying into the chilling effect of allowing foreign laws to trump First Amendment rights, and asking what [else] could be the greatest harm?

One question that was posed from the audience centered on the gossamer jurisdiction being asserted by British and other courts in libel tourism cases. As the questioner continued, our own due process incorporates the minimum threshold set forth in the International Shoe decision, only after which jurisdiction can be conferred.

Despite the acrimony surrounding Mr. Walsh’s view on the subject, the third panel provided a significant perspective on the nature and reach of potential legislation in combating Libel Tourism, and indeed, Islamist Lawfare as a strategy. Though no simple resolution or comprehensive plan could be presented in a single panel, the totality of the discussion framed many of the potential benefits and pitfalls that would accompany various types of legislation enacted to counteract the problem. While a conclusive answer was outside the scope of the conference, it served to inform the audience not only of the forces arrayed against the West, but also pointed to several avenues to counteract the tactics and strategy of Islamist Lawfare, and that the ultimate response lies not in new doctrines, but stems from the core of fundamentally American values. And as such, though we may be too complacent, we are scarcely unarmed in what may very rightly be termed the current battle of civilizations.

A Secular Market Nightmare

By Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine | May 9, 2008

The global sub-prime mortgage mess would have been “unthinkable in the Islamic capital markets sector,” Malaysian Islamic finance scholar Mohammed Mahmud Awan told Arab News on April 24; Islamic law, or “shari’a principles” would prohibit selling “a debt against a debt,” Awan said at a Bahrain university globalization conference. Trading trillions of dollars in debt without assets backing them caused the crisis, Awan claimed, adding that the “Islamic finance model…would have easily prevented the current economic crisis.”

Others disagree. All “Islamic finance today is interest based,” notes Rice University Islamic economics, finance and management chairman Mahmoud el-Gamal in the Financial Times. Islamic banking, merely “shari’a arbitrage,” is “first and foremost about religious identity,” el-Gamal says.

Indeed, Islamic finance debt instruments are no better than Western mortgage securities, and probably worse. Islamic sukuk al-ijara (shari’a bonds) are merely reverse-engineered structured finance instruments. Many grave secular risks accompany the growing foothold of shari’a finance in the West.

Despite claims of their superior safety by International Center for Education in Islamic Finance professor Awan, Islamic financial institutions manufacture “special purpose entities” (SPEs)—which coincidentally helped destroy Enron. Islamic financial engineers merely renamed the prickly SPEs “special-purpose vehicles (SPVs)”—legal devices to “restructure interest-bearing debt, collecting interest [as] rent or [a] price mark-up,” el-Gamal observes.

Here’s how they work: sukuk bond issuers sell real estate or assets to SPVs, which then capitalize their investment by selling share certificates. In turn, the SPVs then lease back the assets they purchased to the sukuk issuers, collecting principal plus interest, which they pass on to sukuk investors as “rent.” When the sukuk matures, the SPVs sell or return the property to the sukuk issuers. Supposedly safe “alternative” Islamic finance instruments that claim to avoid usury, in short, use Western structured finance tools—“some of the most complex ever created.”

Repeat. Using Western securitization technology, shari’a finance banks now transform liquid, traceable cash flows from interest-bearing debt—that is, real interest-bearing assets—into illiquid assets.

“Junk” synonymous with high yields

Shari’a finance is an “invented tradition” empowering Islamic radicals, writes USC King Faisal Professor of Islamic Thought, Timur Kuran, in Islam and Mammon: “Neither classical nor medieval Islamic civilization featured banks in the modern sense, let alone ‘Islamic banks’.” Thus, the Muslim Brotherhood (forefathers of current political Islam) heavily used modern Western securitization technology to advance MB founder Hassan al-Banna’s shari’a banking invention.

The messy sub-prime mortgage market—which some astute observers consider a mere extension of opaque Enron-era mark-to-fairly-tale accounting—could end tame compared to the 20th century-hatched shari’a banking boondoggle: The latter has far fewer regulatory or monitoring protections against abuses than the mortgage market. Even staunch Islamic banking purveyors admit: The industry’s “documentation is not standardized,” its “inter-creditor agreements can be complex,” it frequently employs “off-balance sheet financing,” it’s preferred by “certain corporate (sic) and individuals” — and “Shari’a regulations can override commercial decisions.”

Western markets are now dangerously in “panic mode.” And as frequent experience demonstrates, the bigger the financial innovation, the greater the “unforeseen consequences”—i.e. market declines. In the 1987 equity market crash, “portfolio insurance” played a key role; in 1994, mortgage-backed bonds wiped out $1 trillion in value—then roughly 10% of the U.S. bond market. They whacked huge pension funds, municipalities and institutional investors—and beached a few hedge funds like dead whales.

Secular market risks of shari’a finance show in above-market sukuk interest rates—oops—rents. Despite Western central banks’ historic 2007 rate cuts to limit losses feared equal to the 1986 to 1995 savings and loan crisis, a sukuk index with a mere 3.8 year duration on Nov. 30, 2007 sported 6.2% “coupon.” In mid January 2008, intermediate Treasury yields were 2.89%—and the Lehman Brothers intermediate U.S. corporate bond index yielded just 5.25%. Only long-term U.S. corporate debt then paid above 6.5%.

Among other Islamic market hazards are doubts on surety of payments for the scheduled life of the sukuk loans—and whether, on maturity, investors will recover 100% of their principal. Then there are the dubious underlying “profit and loss sharing” Islamic finance philosophy. And possible back taxes, interest or penalties, were the Internal Revenue Service to rule sukuk enterprises “uneconomic,” as it did innumerable similarly-structured 1980s tax-shelter schemes.

Moody’s Investors Service (like other financial rating agencies) now profits by formally assessing Islamic financial instruments. Yet the industry has several major risks, a 16-page Moody’s analysis reported in January 2008. These include its range of asset classes, “weak position of investment account holders,” “importance of the Shari’ah supervisory board,” rate-of-return-risks, new operation risks, short track record—and foundations in third world countries where transparency, corporate governance and risk management basically don’t exist.

Ideological pitfall: Once Islamic, always Islamic

Moody’s missed the biggest risk of all, however—the ideological risks of shari’a, or Islamic law— despite a significant precedent. Citibank Islamic financiers launched its Saudi American Bank subsidiary in Jeddah and opened a Riyadh branch in 1955 and 1966 respectively—apparently without due diligence on operating under shari’a. But in 1980, Citibank learned about the risk of sudden confiscation when the Saudis abruptly seized SAB by royal decree, denied Citi all future profits, and ordered the bank to train Saudis staffers—essentially because the bank was insufficiently Muslim. Evidently, it was a case where “shari’a regulations can override commercial decisions.”

Shari’a banking is not governed by secular finance law alone. And it cannot be severed from the complete body of Islamic law—statutes initiated by Mohammed and developed by caliphs, scholars and jurists over 1,400 years.

These laws grant the Islamic ummah (Muslim nation) supremacy over all others—and give them all land and property to hold in trust for Allah. Under shari’a, land or property once conquered or acquired by Muslims cannot generally revert to its original owners.

Possessions confiscated from non-believers “is a way of exacting revenge,” writes 11th century jurist Abul Hasan al Mawardi. As Qur’an 57:2 argues, “To Him belongs all dominions of the heavens and earth.” Echoes Qur’an 59:7: “That which Allah giveth as spoil [war booty] unto his Messenger…it is for Allah and His Messenger and for the near of kin.…”

Al-Mawardi (d. 1058) holds that Allah authorized the 2nd Islamic Caliph, Umar Ibn Khattab, to confiscate property in three ways—by fulfilling a trust to Islam, by force, or by ruling under Allah’s law—and that it is just to take anything from nonbelievers thereby. (The Laws of Islamic Governance, 1996 Ta-Ha edition, pp. 207-251)

Consider, moreover, modern Muslim Brotherhood applications of classical shari’a law. They claim all territories ever controlled by Islam. Islam will soon reconquer Rome, “the capital of the Catholics, or Crusader capital,” just like Constantinople, Hamas “legislator” Yunis Al-Astal preached on Al-Aqsa TV on April 11, 2008.

Similarly, Islamic laws are key to shari’a finance, MB “economic reforms,” and the MB central plan, “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy.” Swiss police discovered the so-called Project, penned by Qaradawi, in MB chief financial officer Yusef Nada’s Lugano villa in November 2001.

The 12-point handbook rests on shari’a interpretations of MB founder Hassan al-Banna, who in 1928 envisioned a caliphate (Islamic empire) to impose shari’a law globally. To establish the universal Islamic state, the plan orders Muslims to conduct “gradual, parallel work to control local power centers …[with] institutional work as means to this end” and create “special Islamic economic, social and other institutions,” as well as “necessary economic institutions” to fund spreading fundamentalist Islam.

Far from benefiting investors, as Islamic finance “scholar” Nizam Yaquby claimed last October, shari’a doctrine advocates a supremacist ideology, commanding Muslims to wage jihad warfare until they subdue all “infidels” and “unbelievers” into accepting universal Muslim rule.

“Holy War is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or force,” argues 14th century Tunisian jurist Ibn Khaldun in The Muqaddimah. Unlike other faiths, he argues, Islam is obligated “to gain power over other nations.” (trans. Franz Rosenthal, abridged, Princeton Univ. Press, 9th printing, 1989, p. 183).

The MB invented shari’a banking and finance in the 20th century to implement classical financial jihad (jihad bi al-mal) and the Islamic statutes requiring it. Al Banna designed the political, economic and financial foundations that give 21st century Muslims tools to fulfill this classical form of jihad, mandated by and central to the Qur’an.

“True believers are those who strive with their wealth and their lives,” states Qur’an 49:15. “Strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives,” reiterates Qur’an 61:10-11. “Financial jihad is more important than self-sacrificing,” (suicide bombing) instructs Saudi MB cleric Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi. Their sacrifices for Islam necessitates collecting money for mujahadeen, commands Qaradawi.

MB links to Saudi Arabia

Arabian King Saud bin Abdel Aziz welcomed Muslim Brotherhood exiles from Egypt in 1954, 1961 and 1964. He funded the MB’s Islamic University of Medina in 1961 to spread fundamentalist Islam, particularly to foreign students. Later, Saud and his heirs subscribed to the Brotherhood’s bottom line: constructing a cornerstone global financial joint venture — to fund charitable foundations.

The vast resulting web of “relief” organizations include the Muslim World League, Rabitta al-Alam al-Islami, and the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) — all implicated in funding al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks, Hamas, and a vast array of other MB terrorist groups. As Qaradawi told BBC Panorama on July 30, 2006, donations constitute “jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money.”

In 1969, the Saudis used MB guidelines to found the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In March 2008, President George W. Bush subserviently appointed Pakistani-born OIC “special envoy” Sada Cumber. Identifying with Texas “communities of the Muslim Umma” as much as the U.S., Cumber professes to bring to the OIC official U.S. resources to “tackle” Muslim world problems of “education, culture, the status of women, … science and technology, … [and] civil society…,” rather than present U.S. views there, as expected of diplomats.

More than solving problems, however, the OIC wants to “promote Islamic banking worldwide,” as with the 1973 founding of the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), which since 1975 approved over $50 billion in funding to Muslim nations. In 2001 alone, the IDB also transferred nearly $540 million from Saudi and Gulf royal telethons to fund suicide bombers and the Palestinian Authority war on Israel.

Universal Islamic banking—“a jihad worth supporting”

The MB and IDB Islamic banking architects also now control two central Islamic finance standard-setting agencies—the 1990-founded Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI), and “de facto Islamic central bank,” or Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB). Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed christened the latter in November 2002 “to absorb the 11 September shock and reinforce the stability of Islamic finance,” and support “a jihad worth pursuing to abolish … slavery” to the West, namely, a “universal Islamic banking system.”

AAOIFI members include the Saudi Dallah al Baraka Group, al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation, and Kuwait Finance House—all implicated in funding al Qaeda and other MB offspring, according to Richard Clarke, the former national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection, and counter-terrorism. Sudan and Iran—both on the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions list—are members too. Iran is also a U.S. State Department-designated terror-sponsoring nation.

IFSB members include the central banks of Iran, Sudan, and Syria (all designated state terrorism sponsors) and the Palestinian Monetary Authority (PMA), since its inception, widely documented to fund terrorism.

U.S. laws theoretically prohibit dealing with terrorists, their associates or enablers. Yet AAOIFI and its shari’a board advise many Western banks, Moody’s and Dow Jones. Moreover, terror-supporting Pakistani cleric Muhammad Taqi Usmani heads AAOIFI religious advisers. In September 2007, he ordered British followers to remain “peaceful” only until they are “strong enough for jihad” and to “establish the supremacy of Islam.” Such radicals adorn shari’a boards advising U.S. banks.

Religious banks obviously cannot prevent financial crisis.
Therefore, U.S. government and IRS regulators, bankers and investors should insist on keeping the best, safest and fairest secular markets in the world strictly unIslamic.

Proposal for Federal Free Speech Protection Act

By Ilan Weinglass

Following the recent signing of the Libel Terrorism Protection Act by New York Governor David Patterson, the U.S. House and Senate are realizing the importance of passing similar nationwide legislation.  Terror Finance Blog readers will recall that this is the result of a multi-year battle led by Blog contributor Rachel Ehrenfeld. 

Why this legislation was not passed years ago is a mystery to me.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs, not to mention thousands of man-hours would have been saved, and we would have been able to read quite a few books that were never published.  On the downside, my copy of Alms for Jihad would not be worth $600.

At this stage, what is needed is for a U.S. publisher to test the law in court by publishing a book banned in the U.K., as it is important to establish a precedent to remove the "chilling effect" of British libel law in the U.S.

The Senate Judiciary Committee press release is as follows:

Specter, Lieberman, King Introduce Free Speech Protection Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 7, 2008)—U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and U.S. Representative Peter King (R-NY), Ranking Member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, today announced the introduction of the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008.  This bill would protect American journalists from libel suits brought in foreign courts that do not have the same protections for free speech that are found in the U.S. constitution.  It mirrors H.R. 5814, legislation recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative King. 

“Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression of ideas, opinions, and research, and freedom of exchange of information are all essential to the functioning of a democracy, and the fight against terrorism,” Senator Specter said. “There is a real danger that American writers and researchers will be afraid to address the crucial subject of terror funding and other important matters without these protections.”

“Discovering the truth requires full and open debate, which is not possible when courts are used to chill inquiry and research,” Senator Lieberman said.  “The freedom of American journalists should not be threatened by foreign courts that do not adhere to America’s principles of free speech.”

“Our journalists provide us with insight on issues that affect all Americans, such as war and terrorism,” Rep. King said. “We cannot allow their voices to be silenced by those who prefer to keep secret the inner details of these issues. American authors and journalists should be able to practice their first amendment right without the fear of a lawsuit.”

This legislation creates a federal cause of action and federal jurisdiction so that federal courts may determine whether there has been defamation under United States law when a U.S. journalist, speaker, or academic is sued in a foreign court for speech or publication in the United States.  The bill authorizes a court to issue an order barring enforcement of a foreign judgment and to award damages. 

The impetus for this legislation is litigation involving Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a U.S. citizen and Director of the American Center for Democracy. Dr. Ehrenfeld’s 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, which was published solely in the United States by a U. S. publisher, alleged that a Saudi Arabian subject and his family financially supported Al Qaeda in the years preceding the attacks of September 11.  He sued Ehrenfeld for libel in England, although only 23 books were sold there.

The United Kingdom has become a popular venue for defamation plaintiffs from around the world, because under English law it is not necessary for a libel plaintiff to prove falsity or actual malice as is required in the United States. The U.S. journalists or publications who are named as defendants in these suits must deal with the expense, inconvenience and distress of being sued in foreign courts, even though their conduct is protected by the First Amendment in the United States

Aaron Eitan Meyer joins the TF Blog as Legal Correspondent

By Ilan Weinglass

I am pleased to announce that Aaron Eitan Meyer is joining the Terror Finance Blog as our Legal Correspondent.

Aaron is currently completing his Juris Doctor degree at Touro College's Jacob D. Fuschsberg Law Center, having previously studied Middle East Politics and History in the New School University’s Liberal Arts program. He is also currently a legal intern at the Legal Project of the Middle East Forum.  Previously, he was a research assistant to Professor Anne Bayefsky of Tauro College and the Hudson Insititute. Mr. Meyer is currently at work on a book about Orde Charles Wingate.

We look forward to reading Aaron's writings on the legal aspects of terror finance.

Comprehensive Survey of U.S. Efforts Against Threat Financing

By Ilan Weinglass

I am posting the monograph "Disrupting Threat Finances" by Major Wesley J.L. Anderson, of the U.S. Army.  The report is a very good survey of U.S. efforts against terror finance, and will serve as a very good resource for those trying to study the issue.  It also contains a very useful bibliography.

Download DisruptingThreatFinances.pdf

Avi Jorisch joins the Terror Finance Blog

By Ilan Weinglass

I am pleased to announce that Avi Jorisch is joining the Terror Finance blog as a contributing expert.  He is the founder of Palisades West Incorporated, a strategic consulting firm that specializes in issues relating to terrorism and radical Islam.  Mr. Jorisch is also the Executive Director of the Illicit Finance Group,™ an organization dedicated to assisting countries, agencies and financial institutions combat money laundering and terrorism finance.  In addition, he is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an Adjunct Scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Previously, Mr. Jorisch served as a Policy Advisor at the Treasury Department’s office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.  In that capacity, he served as the head of the U.S. delegation to the Financial Action Taskforce’s Typologies Working Group.  Prior to joining the US Government, Mr. Jorisch was the Executive Director of the Coalition Against Terrorist Media, an organization comprised of Muslim, Christian, Jewish and secular organizations concerned about the role terrorist organizations play in funding various media outlets.  He is the author of a Washington Institute monograph entitled, Beacon of Hatred: Inside Hizballah's al-Manar Television (2004). As the Institute's Soref fellow from 2001 to 2003, he specialized in Arab and Islamic politics. Mr. Jorisch has also served as an Arab media and terrorism consultant for the Department of Defense.

Mr. Jorisch holds a bachelor's degree in history from Binghamton University and a master's degree in Islamic history from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 2000 and 2001, he studied Arabic and Islamic Philosophy through the Center for Arabic Studies Abroad program at the American University in Cairo. He also earned a certificate in Arabic after participating in an intensive summer program at al-Azhar University, the preeminent institution of Sunni Islamic learning.

Mr. Jorisch has traveled extensively in the Middle East, including Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and Morocco. He has written at length about Hizballah and related terrorism issues, with articles appearing in prominent publications such as the Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Jerusalem Post, and Middle East Quarterly.  Mr. Jorisch has also been interviewed by more than 50 media outlets including CNN, ABC News, Fox News, the New York Times and numerous Arabic publications, to comment on terrorism-related matters, including al-Manar and its role in inciting terrorism throughout the world.

We welcome Avi to the TF Blog and look forward to reading his posts.

Conference on Libel Tourism Highlights Importance of Speech, Freedom Part II

I'm posting the following on behalf of Aaron Eitan Meyer, from the conference "Free Speech in an Age of Jihad: Libel Tourism, “Hate Speech,” and Political Freedom."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Conference on Libel Tourism Highlights Importance of Speech, Freedom Part II:

Aaron Eitan Meyer

       Entitled Suppressing Discussion on Islam, the second panel of the conference brought the issue from the specific practice of libel tourism to the effect of attempts to chill speech relating to Islam, and broader concerns. After a brief introduction by the panel’s moderator, Clifford D. May, President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the panel began with a presentation by Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch.

       Mr. Spencer began by noting the existence of the doctrine of ‘conversion or death’ in Islam – on the context of Jihad - and then paused. Looking up at the audience, he stated, “I just committed hate speech.” As he went on to explain, the net effect of entities like Canada’s Human Rights Commissions and predatory defamation law suits and the like is that the proposition has already been set forth that questioning the motives of Jihadists constitutes ‘hate speech.’ In fact, he said, “’Islamophobia’ is really ‘Islamorealism.’” Turning to the problem as it faces the United States, Mr. Spencer explained that, to Americans, having a religious ideology is intimidating on some levels, leading to a subtle acquiescence on our part to assertions that we have no right to even attempt to analyze the religious/ideological motivations of the Jihadists.

       Breaking with some of the other panelists to a degree, Mr. Spencer went on to state that the use of terms such as Islamism, Islamofascism and the like actually obfuscate the central issue of the battle, being the nature of Islam itself in this context. Turning back to the double standard at play when discussing Islam and others, he spoke about the controversial Dutch film Fitna, and the Organization of Islamic Conferences’ response to and preoccupation with it. Specifically, he pointed out that Geert Wilders, the filmmaker, didn’t actually say or invent anything in the Qur’an or Hadith, but has instead been skewered for daring to report on them.

       Building on the last point, Mr. May made the telling statement that it’s neither ironic nor funny that Islamists threaten those who criticize Islamic violence. Rather, that reflects fundamental condescension by Islam, asking rhetorically, how dare we ‘lesser infidels’ criticize our ‘betters?’

       The next speaker was the noted author Ibn Warraq, who most recently published Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. In a brief, wry manner, Mr. Warraq mentioned the firestorm he himself had been subjected to in the wake of his first book, Why I’m Not a Muslim in 1995, and joked that a fatwa “is sort of a Nobel Prize” for Muslims who criticize radical Islam. He would later note that on March 28th of this year, the United Nations “killed Freedom of Expression” by forcing the UN Special Rapporteur on the matter to report on ‘abuses’ of freedom of expression. Notably, however, the amendment was opposed by 40 Non-Governmental Organizations, including 21 Islamic NGOs.

       Steve Emerson, Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, was the next panelist to speak. He noted a recent Jordanian advertisement that identified nine critics of Islam as ‘apostates’ and ‘wanted.’ He then turned to domestic matters, stating unequivocally regarding the Council on American-Islamic Affairs that, “CAIR is a front for Hamas” and further, that the “New York Times has been a sort of appendage to Hamas.”

       Mr. Emerson’s criticism was not limited to private entities. He mentioned that the uncooperative FBI had called him “an enemy of the FBI” – but was willing to give interviews to Al-Jazeera. He went on to discuss a history of FBI pandering to groups like CAIR and even Hamas, despite knowing that they are actively demonized by those very groups. The overall theme of his presentation was the disproportionate influence and motives of groups courted by the FBI and others, and warning against pandering to them.

       Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President of The Center for Security Policy then spoke on his experiences regarding his film Islam versus the Islamists. CBS decided that his film was ‘unfair’ to the Islamists, and attempted to marginalize the film. However, over 70% of its affiliates picked it up, and Fox News publicized it, running two 90 minute specials consisting of excerpts from the film and extra footage.

       Mr. Gaffney then mentioned the case of Steven Coughlin, who’d been purged from the Department of Defense at the instigation of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and further cautioned against the spread of the practice of Shar’ia Compliance Officers – a trend in American banking corporations. He also commented that prosecution of those who aid terrorists may be aided by provisions of the Smith Act and statutes derived therefrom.

       Claudia Rosett, Journalist in Residence at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, noted her own difficulties in obtaining a copy of the effectively banned book Alms for Jihad, and then turned to the complicity on the part of the United Nations in allowing terrorism to flourish. Ms. Rosett specifically addressed the fact that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon responded to Fitna and the attacks against it by blaming Wilders – without a word of condemnation for those who made threats against him. Ms. Rosett also mentioned a federal case that was scheduled for April 11th in the Southern District of New York on whether disclosure is applicable in order to show Osama bin Laden’s finances.

       The keynote luncheon address was given by Mark Steyn, whose most recent book is America Alone. The subject of his rousing speech was “The Dimming of Liberty: Legal Jihad and the Criminalization of Resistance.” Mr. Steyn spoke passionately of the need for actual freedom of speech, and stressed that the being a true believer in the right to free speech is really only shown when the speech at issue is objectionable. It’s easy to defend speech that one agrees with, but the actual freedom of the speech is only directly at issue when that speech goes against one’s beliefs.

       While it is impossible to adequately express the impact of Mr. Steyn’s speech in a few sentences, his emphasis of the crucial importance of free speech in contrast to the theories that lead to the creation of ‘Human Rights’ Commissions is readily discernable. He stressed the broadness of powers allocated to the HRCs, powers not granted to other Canadian agencies, including law enforcement agencies, and simply unthinkable to Americans. In particular, he mentioned the lack of evidentiary rules governing the Commissions, and their virtually unlimited power to search anywhere and seize anything once a complaint had been filed.

       After hearing him speak, it was no wonder to any in the audience why he is a priority target by Canadian Islamists who seek to quell criticism of their ideology. In stressing the crucial importance of a natural right to freedom of speech, Mr. Steyn succinctly presented the fundamental basis for a response to the tactics and strategy employed to date by Islamist groups, thus providing a perfect segue to the third panel on legislative options.

Wachovia Corp's links to Malaysian controlled MBF Bank Tonga should also be scrutinised

Wachovia Corp (WB.N: Quote, Profile, Research) is being investigated by federal prosecutors as part of a probe into alleged laundering of drug proceeds by Mexican and Colombian money-transfer companies, The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday, 28 April 2008.
(http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2628333820080427)

Wachovia's correspondent banking arrangement with MBF Bank Tonga, which is majority owned by MBF Holdings Bhd of Malaysia should be of equal if not greater concern( see http://www.chips.org/uid/uid_display.php?UidNum=401217 for evidence of correspondent relationship)

The reason :Apart from its branches in Tonga, MBF Bank has 2 branches overseas; one in Rangoon, Burma,(see www.myanmars.net/yellowpages/yangon-bank.htm) and the other, in Pyongyang, North Korea.

The Pyongyang branch came to public attention in 1995 when BBC Monitoring reported the following:
INDUSTRY SOURCE" SAYS MASTERCARD, VISA CARDS USED IN NORTH.

Text of report by the South Korean news agency Yonhap

Seoul, 3rd June: International credit cards have been in use in the North Korean capital city of Pyongyang since 1991, industry sources said Saturday [3rd June].

Foreigners visiting North Korea are able to pay for goods and services at hotels and department stores in Pyongyang using their credit cards instead of cash, officials of Seoul branch offices of Mastercard and Visa card companies said.

An official of Mastercard's Seoul office said, "Mastercard has been in use in Pyongyang since 1991 when MBF Bank, headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, opened its branch in Pyongyang."
(Source:7 June 1995
BBC Monitoring Service: Asia-Pacific
English)

Conference on Libel Tourism Highlights Importance of Speech, Freedom

I am posting this on behalf of Aaron Eitan Meyer, who attended the conference entitled "Free Speech in an Age of Jihad: Libel Tourism, “Hate Speech,” and Political Freedom."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Conference on Libel Tourism Highlights Importance of Speech, Freedom

By Aaron Eitan Meyer

On Thursday, April 10th the Foundation for The Defense of Democracies and The New Criterion jointly presented a conference entitled “Free Speech in an Age of Jihad: Libel Tourism, “Hate Speech,” and Political Freedom.” The program consisted of three panels, one on libel tourism, a second on the suppression of discussion on Islam, and a final panel on the potential for legislative action and the dangers that may accompany such legislation. Due to the prohibitive length of a single article on the entire conference, this is the first of a multipart series.

Opening remarks were made by Roger Kimball, editor of The New Criterion. After noting that the aggressive emphasis American society has placed on ‘multiculturalism’ and its corollary, cultural relativism have contributed greatly to the current conflict, he presented the foundation upon which the entire conference would be built – the importance of Western Civilization and recognizing said importance.

The dangers to the West from ‘soft Jihad’ or “Shariah Creep,” as Mr. Kimball alternatively put it, can perhaps most readily be felt in the form of lawsuits brought by Islamists in order to silence critics. He concluded with the key question that would be reiterated time and again throughout the conference – do we as a society have the fortitude to stand by our values?

The first panel began with a presentation on the phenomenon of libel tourism by Stanley Kurtz of The Ethics and Public Policy Center. After touching upon the “odious” Canadian (so-called) Human Rights Commissions and their utility as vehicles for Islamist suppression of criticism, Mr. Kurtz turned to the matter of the book Alms for Jihad.

Alms for Jihad documented the use of so-called charities in funding Jihad, much as its name suggests. In retaliation, Khalid bin Mahfouz, mentioned in the work, threatened to sue Cambridge University Press for libel. In response to the mere threat of a lawsuit, on August 10th, 2007, Cambridge Press agreed to destroy all unsold copies of the book, after which all copies listed for sale on major websites such as Amazon.com and Alibris.com were removed. In an even more chilling move, Cambridge then took the step of asking libraries to remove copies of the book from their shelves. On August 14th, 2007, the Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association responded, urging libraries to deny the publisher’s request, and thereby avoiding what could be termed a fireless Auto Da Fé.

Mr. Kurtz then turned to the case more familiar to the audience, being the high-profile case of Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz. As readers of this site scarcely need introduction to that series of affairs, it will not be summed up yet again here. However, Mr. Kurtz did first mention the fact that in the British courts favored by Mahfouz, many of the libel cases were heard by David Eady, who as chief judge had the luxury of assigning himself to them.

In a conference full of descriptive expressions, Mr. Kurtz tellingly explained that “libel chill” has descended. Moving to the imminent future, he said that the combination of globalization and the internet will either resolve in countless disputing defamation standards or will end up in a general unified norm – which will be tilted either toward liberty or away from it.
Concluding his presentation, Mr. Kurtz highlighted three points. First, that even though a national ‘Rachel’s Law’ defending American citizens against foreign predatory defamation suits won’t bring back Cambridge University Press as a viable source for academics, such a law would make a dramatic difference. Second, that Canada’s Human Rights Commissions need to be overhauled. And third, that Britain’s libel laws need to be dramatically altered, wryly noting that holding an international conference on libel tourism in London would be a huge step forward as well.

After the initial presentation, Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy and noted target of libel terrorism spoke. Stating unequivocally that libel tourism is a long-standing problem in England, Dr. Ehrenfeld commented that in the Alms for Jihad affair, the authors of the book weren’t even named in the communication – and weren’t even themselves threatened with a lawsuit.

Turning to the broader battle of which libel tourism is a tactic, Dr. Ehrenfeld noted that Ibn Talal recently gave $9 million to Cambridge University to form a new Center for Islamic Studies, though that sum was less than Ibn Talal’s previous donations of $20 million to establish similar institutes elsewhere. She then reiterated that Mahfouz is not acting for himself, but for the Saudi government, citing Prince Turki, who had said exactly that. Finally, Dr. Ehrenfeld noted that Judge Eady had granted Mahfouz some 20 of his libel suit victories, and closed by highly recommending Daniel Kornstein, her attorney and a panelist at the conference himself, as an excellent attorney to defend against libel suits.

Following Dr. Ehrenfeld was Brooke Goldstein, Director of the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project. Ms. Goldstein began by firmly placing libel tourism within the broader confines of what may be termed ‘Islamist Lawfare’ or ‘Legal Jihad, noting how the lawful ‘soft power’ adjunct to terrorism is used. Giving more detail to the breadth of the issue, Ms. Goldstein explained that the lawsuits range from defamation to allegations of workplace harassment. In connection with the latter type of action, she mentioned the current Taft matter, involving the New York Police Department and a complaint filed by a John Doe plaintiff claiming to be the victim of workplace harassment due to a voluntarily subscribed-to mailing list of articles by the defendant.

Ms. Goldstein brought some historical perspective into play as well, explaining that the notion of a sheikh suing to suppress speech about him goes back to a 1937 Alabama case, where a Saudi Sheikh sued a local Birmingham paper for reporting his proposed desire for a ‘chief wife’ to add to his growing harem. While the Alabama Court of Appeals ruled the case libel per se, the sheikh eventually lost for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

In keeping with her expertise in the legal nature of Lawfare, Ms. Goldstein noted that the website anti-cair.net.org is still up despite a CAIR lawsuit brought against it. The reason for this lies in the fact that CAIR refused to comply with the defendant’s motion for discovery of some of CAIR’s documents. She then called attention to the fact that several of these entities seem to have reason to not want their files available through the discovery process.

The final panelist was Ezra Levant, founder of EzraLevant.com and public target of the infamous Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Commissions. A Canadian blogger, Mr. Levant explained the Commissions as an example of Canada’s being “an experimental lab for a lot of bad ideas” including Sharia divorce and Sharia banking – ideas that he cautioned may well end up in the United States.

Mr. Levant explained that there are 14 Human Rights Commissions in Canada, with expansive powers, including powers of entry and evidence-gathering that include seizure without a warrant – powers that even the Canadian police do not possess. He also noted that in Canada, the loser of a suit pays all fees – except in matters before the HRCs. Among other such disparities are the fact that the Complaint filed against him cited Qur’anic law extensively, but not Canadian law. Even more alarming was the fact that the Canadian HRCs could convict on a preemptive basis, stating that something is ‘likely’ to occur. He concluded with the by-then clear statement that the HRCs are problematic both substantively and procedurally.

In total, the opening panel well-presented the description in its title, exposing The Face of Libel Tourism, and placing it in the context of a larger battle being fought in courts – and out of courts – around the world. Though, as Dr. Ehrenfeld pointed out, had the United States simply designated Saudi Arabia and its elite as terrorist sponsors many, if not all, of these suits would not have arisen in the first place, the phenomenon of libel tourism has come into existence, and must be met head-on.

Matt Levitt on Al Qaeda Finances

Matt Levitt of the Washington Institute has written an excellent survey of recent developments in Al Qaeda finances.  I recommend reading the whole thing, which concludes:

What remains to be seen is whether the al-Qa`ida senior leadership’s lack of funds degrades the core group’s power to control activities and direct operations. Without the power of the purse, would local terrorist cells still need the al-Qa`ida core as much as that core would need these cells? Part of what drew the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat in Algeria into the al-Qa`ida fold, according to intelligence analysts, was the financial dividend of such a relationship. Should this trend continue, it could lead to the further degeneration of the al-Qa`ida core and the devolution of al-Qa`ida’s organized global insurgency into a more localized—and controllable—terrorist threat. Toward that end, and in light of recent successes disrupting and deterring al-Qa`ida’s finances, constricting the terrorist operating environment—with an eye toward al-Qa`ida’s financial streams in particular—should remain a strategic priority.

The article is posted here. The Washington Institute's Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence is a great resource as well.

The Clintons, Bosmal, and the Al-Qaeda linked TWRA

The following is from the website of the Bosnian-Malaysian JV, Bosmal:

9.5.2006

Hilary Clinton supports Clark-Bosmal plan


The US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed her support for Clark-Bosmal plan for construction of Corridor 5C Highway across BiH, during her meeting with Edin Šabanović, executive director of "Bosmal" d.o.o. in New York.

Hillary Clinton, wife of former US President Bill Clinton is the only First Lady elected to the Senate as representative of the State of New York. During his visit to the US, Senator Clinton invited Edin Šabanović to a private dinner, together with small group of New York businessmen.

 

At the dinner, Senator Clinton also evoked many memories that she and her husband, former US President Bill Clinton, have of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 

 

http://www.bosmal.com/en/?lg=en&nav_ID=5&ID=207

 

 

The www.bosmal.com   website is registered in the name of one Mevludin Sinanagic, who is,  according to an   Internet  registery's  document,  owner of the website, and from  the company Bosmal D.O.O.

The same person appears to be the person in charge or at least the contact person for the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA) , in Visoko, Bosnia Herzegovina.(www.bbs.bund.de/visoko/kontaktadressen.htm)

According to a Washington Post story published in 1996 (archived at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/bosvote/front.htm):

….…… The story of the Third World Relief Agency, reconstructed from documents and interviews with police, banking officials and intelligence sources, makes clear how much the Bosnian government depended on outside aid to obtain and pay for desperately needed weapons. It also shows how the embargo drove the Muslim government into alliances with some of the world's most radical states, as well as terrorist movements ……..militants in the terrorist underworld are also believed to have used the relief agency to get money to the Bosnian government, including the wealthy Saudi Arabian emigre Osama Binladen, a suspected sponsor of militant Islamic groups around the Middle East….. Investigators say the agency also had ties to Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a radical Egyptian cleric who was convicted of planning several terrorist bombings in New York and is linked to the group that carried out the World Trade Center bombing in February 1993. …….. A senior Western diplomat in the region said the Clinton administration knew about the Third World Relief Agency and its activities beginning in 1993. Still, the United States took no action to stop its fund-raising or arms purchases, in large part because of the administration's sympathy for the Muslim government and ambivalence about maintaining the arms embargo.

See also:

http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2006/09/a_report_with_p.html

http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2006/11/jamal_barzinji_.html

http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2007/09/malaysias-bank-.html

A Private Action: The 'Other' Domestic Battle Against Terrorism

I am posting the following on behalf of Aaron Eitan Meyer:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On February third, the New York Post reported that the widow of an American, Yechezkel “Chezi” Goldberg had filed a lawsuit in federal court for the Eastern District of New York, holding banking giant UBS liable for the Hamas terrorist attack that resulted in the murder of her husband.1 The core of the suit was the fact that UBS "...provided services to ASP [Association de Secours Palestinien] knowing money went to Hamas."2 As the article went on to note, several other lawsuits have been filed in the Eastern District of New York, all alleging financial support to Hamas.

It would be easy, perhaps, to think of the case as a 'standard' tort case, where the Court will have to decide whether the banks had a duty of care to ensure that money funneled through them did not go to terrorist organizations, and in turn, whether the banks breached that duty of care. Since the case was brought in the Second Circuit, perhaps liability will be determined if "...whether the burden on the defendant of adopting adequate precautions is less than the probability of harm from the defendant's unmodified conduct multiplied by the gravity of the injury that might result from the defendant's unmodified conduct."  United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169, 173 (2d Cir.1947).

While there is certainly room within the logic of the preceding citation for a Court to find, properly, in favor of Chezi Goldberg's family, the broader issue is far larger than that - and the Court must be made aware of this crucial fact.

Terrorism is only remotely a 'successful' tactic when used against democracies. In fact, terrorism as a strategy is tailor-made to strike at the citizens of a democratic state, be it America, Israel, or any other Western democracy which has had the misfortune to be targeted. Indeed, Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Prime Minister and expert on terrorism has categorized terrorists as fundamentally anti-democratic and totalitarian.3

We stand in marked contrast to those goals. For the American citizen, a civil wrong is remedied using the court system - not politically motivated violence. And it is in that principle that cases such as that of the Goldbergs are not merely private tort actions, but fundamental expressions of how terrorism is antithetical to the entirety of American history, culture and law.

In fact, it is when the direct victims of terrorism emerge to demand accountability through our justice system that the American ideal shines through more strongly than any number of government actions could ever hope to. In fact, for the Goldbergs to demand accountability by banks that allowed money to pass to a known foreign terrorist entity is both an important stand by the victims of terror as citizens, and indeed an invaluable corollary to the aims of the government as well.

The success of even a single action such as this one would have widespread ramifications, leading to significant changes in standard bank practices – a deterrent effect that could never be underestimated. And, of course, forcing banks to alter existing permissive practices would cause a weak spot in the chain of terrorist financing.

Domestically, there may be said to be essentially three types of organizations in the chain of terror financing, and for terrorism to be effectively combated domestically, each of the three must be held accountable for its role.

First, naturally, are the terrorist organizations themselves, wherever they have managed to establish a direct foothold here.

Second are the so-called 'charities' that exist in large part to funnel money to the terrorist organizations. They seek to evade complicity in the results of their actions by claiming various extenuating factors, notably the notion that money gathered was for a terrorist organization's 'humanitarian' activities.

Third are the entities prominent in the Goldberg case. They are the banks, the financial institutions that serve as the conduits for the money raised. Unlike the first two groups, they are not motivated by ideology or sympathy with the aims of the terrorists, but rather wish to continue their business so as to maximize profitability.

So, the question must turn to the responsibility of the banks. Do they, in fact, have a duty of care to the people of the United States independent of contracts signed with individuals? A useful comparison may be the case of Braun v. Soldier of Fortune, Inc., 968 F.2d 1110 (11th Cir. 1992). In that case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Georgia law, affirmed a lower court's ruling that a magazine which had published a personal service advertisement that led to the hiring of an assassin was liable to the deceased and his family.

In its analysis, the Court held that the negligence on the part of the magazine in publishing the ad reached the level of maliciousness required for punitive damages to be brought. Citing a Georgia State Supreme Court case4 the Court in Braun found that "Georgia courts recognize a "general duty one owes to all the world not to subject them to an unreasonable risk of harm."5"

To be sure, the banks named as defendants in the Goldberg action are not in the same position as Soldier of Fortune. And yet, when stripped to its bare essentials, there is an eerie similarity that arises. In Braun, the magazine failed to act responsibly by running an advertisement that resulted in the hiring of an assassin. In Goldberg, the banks allegedly permitted money to pass through them en route to Hamas, whose operatives murdered Chezi Goldberg in horrific fashion. If the allegations are proven, Goldberg could well prove simpler than Braun, in that First Amendment rights aren't at issue when the subject of the suit is pure financial transactions, rather than publication of advertising in a magazine.

What must be stressed is the fact that, while the alleged conduct of the defendants had nothing to do ideologically with the resulting murder, that fact cannot serve to negate their complicity. Negligence, after all, is defined as "...any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm..."6

When the Goldberg case is tried before the Eastern District of New York, and when it is inevitably appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, two points must be made and reiterated to the Court.

First, that the issue is alleged negligence on the part of the banks, who owe a duty of care to each of us that is no less than we owe to each other. The rights of corporations are no less tied into duty than are those of private citizens. As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis pointed out long ago, these rights are intrinsically tied into correlating duties that we owe. Moreover, "Even a recognition that every right has a correlative duty will not meet the needs of democracy. Duty must be accepted as the dominant conception in life."7 Corporations have legal duties, established by statute - but above all, they have a duty laid upon them by society to act in accordance with their responsibilities every bit as much as any individual has. While judges should never attempt to dictate public policy, they are in fact entrusted with ensuring that the same public policy laid out in the laws of the nation is being carried out. Nor can the lack of intent on the part of the banks shield them from accountability.

Second, the Court must be made fully aware that in the battle between the democracies of the world and terrorism, the private actions of those already directly affected are both an invaluable aid and an indispensable facet of the democratic system. It is not only morally satisfying to see the direct victims of terrorism be able to take legal action against it, but that legal action forms an essential complement to the government's own actions against terrorism, be those actions of a military or criminal justice fashion. Even were the government to find the banks in the Goldberg case to be in violation of statutory restrictions, the resulting penalties would pale in comparison to a public multi-million dollar judgment handed down against them. Such a ruling would simultaneously affirm a core principle of the Anglo-American law, that a victim of a civil wrong may recover for it from those who injured him, and serve to affirm the public policy that seeks to combat terrorism both domestically and abroad.

Even without considering all of the preceding, the case of Chezi Goldberg is particularly fitting to bear the standard for American citizens using the means in our system of government to combat the evils of terrorism, and the reason for this is not merely that he was a remarkable and caring man who devoted his life to helping children.

"When an attack happens, in the heat of the moment, we frantically check to see if someone we know has been hurt or killed. And then, if we find out that "our friends and family are safe," we sigh a deep sigh of relief, grunt and grumble about the latest tragic event and then, we continue with our robotic motions and go on with our lives. We have not lost our minds, my friends. We have lost our hearts. And that is why we keep on losing our lives."8

These words were written by Chezi Goldberg himself in 2001, in the wake of atrocious terrorist attacks on pedestrians in Jerusalem's Ben Yehuda Street. By identifying his case as emblematic of the totality of America's struggle with terrorism - the government and the people directly - we fulfill our responsibility as citizens, even as we follow the dictates of both our minds and our hearts.

1 "Bomb Kin Sue Bank Giant" New York Post, Sunday, Febrary 3, 2008  http://www.nypost.com/seven/02032008/news/worldnews/bomb_kin_sue_bank_giant_719683.htm
2 Id
3 Netanyahu, Benjamin Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat the International Terrorist Network 2001 Edition, Farrar, Straus & Giroux at 9-10
4 Bradley Center, Inc. v. Wessner, 250 Ga. 199, 296 S.E.2d 693 (1982)
5 Braun citing Bradley Center at 695.
6 Black's Law Dictionary, Second Pocket Edition, West Group 2001 at 470
7 Gutman, Solomon ed. The Works of Justice Brandeis Henry Schuman 1953 at 111
8 Goldberg, Yechezkel Chezi "Because, if you don't cry, who will?" Jewish World Review Dec. 3, 2001 http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1201/crying.php3

European Funding of NGOs Exposed as Exacerbating Middle East Conflict

I have previously written about the Funding for Peace Coalition website (note the new address!).  Their latest submission to a UK parliamentary inquiry once again documents the way international funding of the Palestinians lacks transparency or adequate controls –resulting in its diversion to corruption and violence.  At the end of the day, it is used to support war crimes, including the murder of Israeli civilians and the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields. And your money is used to promote "terrorist insurance" social welfare schemes.  Everyone is guilty – Europe, the US and even Japan give huge sums - both directly and indirectly.

NGO Monitor has just published a highly detailed examination of European Union (EU) funding of political NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The fifty-page report, 'Europe's Hidden Hand', shows that the EU provides tens of millions of Euros from public money to NGOs whose activities often exacerbate the Arab-Israeli conflict, rather than encouraging peace. The report also details the severe lack of transparency and accountability in funding of the NGOs. That is – simply another avenue where international funds promote never ending terrorism. 

I recommend that everyone read at least the Executive Summary, if not the full report of this latest publication. 

The fifty-page report, ‘Europe’s Hidden Hand’, analyzes the process of distributing tens of millions between 2005 and 2007.  While acknowledging good works conducted by some of the NGOs studied, the report highlights exploitation of their reputations, human rights terminology, rhetoric and down-right propaganda to delegitimize Israel and to absolve Palestinians of responsibility for terrorism and the corruption of its leadership. Many of the groups funded participated in the infamous Durban Conference in 2001, and repeatedly refer to Israel as a ‘racist and apartheid state’ and promote boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel.  In total contradiction to the EU’s commitment to the Quartet’s road map, which explicitly calls for the peaceful existence of Israel and Palestine, some of these NGOs promote the concept of the elimination of Israel through a ‘one state solution’.  Disturbingly, these NGOs openly display EU logos on their materials, providing legitimacy to their extremist politics. 

NGO Monitor states that it contacted a number of EU officials. While some were cooperative, they were often unable or unwilling to provide the information necessary to understand funding policies and decision making in this area. Although the EU preaches transparency and accountability, it displays very little of either in funding for NGOs which pursue partisan and political goals.  Despite the tens of millions of Euros provided by taxpayers, no uniform framework or central database exists for obtaining NGO funding information - data is often hidden beneath numerous layers of bureaucracy.  In addition, only vague funding guidelines exist for NGOs, leaving funding decisions at the mercy of the whims and biases of anonymous and unaccountable European Commission officials. 

NGO Monitor’s research concludes with recommendations for improvement, which are particularly valuable in the context of preparations for the 2009 Durban Review Conference, in which NGOs are expected to play an important role; Unless Europe changes its policies for funding NGOs, Europe will again be responsible for providing NGOs with the ability to demonize and delegitimize Israel. NGO Monitor also recommends practical solutions such as a searchable database of NGO recipients and clear guidelines to preclude the funding of NGOs which promote conflict.   

[Based on an initial post at my Letter from Israel blog]