Useful Resources

Search

  • Search with Google

    WWW
    terrorfinance.typepad.com
Blog powered by TypePad

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Bookmark and Share

Searching Laptops at the Border: a Misdirected Controversy

by Aaron Eitan Meyer

Recently, a controversy has arisen regarding the practice of border searches of laptop computers and other such devices, amid vocal complaints about seized laptops that were detained for weeks.

The controversy has led to the introduction of a bill in the House of Representatives, by Zoe Lofgren (D - Ca), entitled the “Electronic Device Privacy Act of 2008.”1 The bill itself is a rather muddled affair, with its purpose give as being "To preclude searches of laptop computers and similar devices based on the power as  sovereign to search at the border or upon entry to the United States."2 In a nutshell, the proposed bill would not affect searches based on "other lawful authority," but only those  searches predicated on the authority of the United States as a sovereign nation with control over its borders.

Setting aside for the moment several serious Constitutional questions about a bill that seeks to strip the federal government  of a basic power of sovereignty, the issue was not entirely clarified by the response of Jayson Ahern, Deputy  Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.3

As summed up efficiently by Douglas N. Jacobson,4  Deputy Commissioner Ahern's arguments may be distilled into three points: 1) that creating a differentiation between computers and other physical objects would hamper CBP's work; 2) that the policy is not a new one; and 3) that less than 1% of travelers are subject to these searches.5

Unfortunately, it appears that both sides are missing the real issue. In his closing paragraph, Deputy Commissioner Ahern states that "One of the lessons 9/11 taught us was that we must adapt to 21st century risks and anticipate rather  than react to new threats."6

Therein lies the rub. The fact is that the internet has made it eminently possible for virtually anyone to transfer information  directly from computer to computer without needing to transport an actual electronic device anywhere. The availability of  myriad means to do so, from Google Documents, which essentially saves documents online in a virtual hard drive, to darknets and other such closed networks, means that potential terrorists simply do not need to transport laptops brimming with information with them.

Put another way, it would be the technologically non-savvy terrorists who would still be foolish enough to rely on physical  transportation of critical information. In other words, those terrorists who would be discovered by these means would be those operating on a 20th century model - and would decidely not properly constitute a 21st century risk. Relying on measures geared to detect, as Deputy Commissioner Ahern put it, "terrorists and criminals [who] increasingly use laptops and other electronic media to transport illicit materials..."7 would become, very shortly, a dangerous reliance on outmoded threat assessment.

However, Rep. Lofgren's proposed bill doesn't amount to anything productive either, as it fails entirely to address the emerging nature of terrorist threats. Instead, it appears to be almost a knee-jerk reaction to a practice she does not agree with.

The real issue here is what these searches can actually accomplish, not whether a sovereign right should be affected - or if that right is really at issue to begin with. If the present purpose is to prevent terrorists operating on a relatively unsophisticated technological level, then the searches might be worth continuing. However, if the real goal is to adequately respond to truly 21st century risks, then adhering to this practice - long-standing and previously effective as it may be - would fail to accomplish its purpose.

The real issue isn't whether CBP can or can't legally continue with these laptop and electronic device searches and seizures, but whether the practice is worth it.




1. H.R. 6588 Introduced on July 23, 2008 http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h6588_ih.xml
2. Id
3. "Laptop Inspections Legal, Rare, Essential" http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/admissability/labtop_inspect.xml
4. "CBP Responds to Laptop Computer Search Controversy" http://tradelawnews.com;
http://www.djacobsonlaw.com/2008/08/cbp-responds-to-laptop.html
5. Id
6. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/admissability/labtop_inspect.xml
7. Id

UNICEF's Curious Moral Blindness

By Ilan Weinglass

One has to wonder what the decision-making processes are are UNICEF.  As has been reported elsewhere, in June the United Nations Children's Fund, made two important financial decisions.  The first was to refuse donations from Lev Leviev, the Russian-Israeli billionare, due to his support of construction projects in the West Bank.  The second was to sign a memorandum of understanding with the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), to deliver charity services in Saudi Arabia. 

Two branches of the IIRO, though not the Saudi branch, have been designated as terrorist entities by the Treasury Department.  IIRO's Phillipine and Indonesian branches were designated for "facilitating fundraising for al Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups" with the Phillipine branch described as "a source of funding for the al Qaida-affiliated ASG [Abu Sayyaf Group]."  Indeed, according to Treasury, this branch was "founded sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s by Muhammad Jamal Khalifah, who is Usama bin Laden's brother-in-law and has been identified as a senior al Qaida member."  Further, and perhaps more sinister, the head of IIRO in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province "provided donor funds directly to al Qaida and is identified as a major fundraiser for the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI)."  Both the Phillipine and Indonesian branches are also listed by the U.N. itself for al Qaeda links.

In other words, at a minimum, the Saudi branch of IIRO is very closely linked to a virtual al Qaeda franchise, according to both U.S. and U.N. data. Further, a leading Saudi IIRO figure provided funds to al Qaeda and the same terrorist groups that the two designated IIRO branches funded.  Indeed, the fact that a branch is documented to have such serious terrorist associations puts the burden of proof on IIRO to exonorate itself - UNICEF should presume IIRO's Saudi Arabia headquarters are guilty until proven innocent. Willful blindness is about the most charitable characterization of the fact the U.N. is partnering with it.  A worthy question for further research is: what other criminal- or terrorist-linked groups is UNICEF partnering with?

UNICEF's partnership with the IIRO is thrown into sharper light given its refusal to cooperate with Leviev, since he is carrying out construction in a West Bank settlement.  Whatever one's feelings about West Bank settlements, it is very curious that UNICEF has discovered that in the case of al Qaeda, money is completely non-fungible, and three clear datapoints of support for al Qaeda can be defined out of existence.  Indeed, such links would probably be criminal violations of KYC requirements for any commercial bank. Yet in the case of israel, any vague hint of a connection to settlement construction suddenly sends up a red flag.  If Lev Leviev had only donated to a radical Islamist group, UNICEF might be gladly taking his money.

Saudis offer better protection to "subjects" arrested abroad

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

The benevolent Saudi King  Abdullah decided it's time to better protect his "subjects" abroad (http://www.gulfinthemedia.com/index.php?id=419022&news_type=Top〈=en), ordering Saudi embassies worldwide to provide bail and legal advise to Saudis detained abroad.

Arab News reported that King ordered diplomatic missions to appoint lawyers to defend Saudi citizens who are arrested on any charges during their stay abroad and will pay bail for  them under new regulations approved by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah, Al-Madinah newspaper reported yesterday.

"The daily said starting next year, the budget of the Foreign Ministry would  include provisions under the title, "Expenses of catering to the judicial requirements of Saudi citizens abroad."

It said the amount of money required would be decided by the Foreign and  Finance ministries and the allocation would be used to pay the fees of  lawyers, bail and other costs until the citizen is released and sent home.

The Saudi missions will follow up with the legal entities in countries concerned to make sure that the citizens receive a fair trial before they are either acquitted or convicted, the new regulations stipulate.

According to these regulations, the citizen will pay back the money spent on  him abroad after returning to the Kingdom if he was arrested for negligence  or for deliberate mistakes. He will also have to pay any financial  settlements related to the alleged crime.

The diplomatic missions will send comprehensive reports about any such cases  to the Foreign Ministry. They will also continue to provide citizens with legal counseling and help them choose qualified lawyers for civil contracts, personal affairs and correspondence with foreign governments.

The Foreign Ministry is being requested to contract an experienced American  law firm with strong ties to other legal entities in order to assist with legal cases involving Saudi citizens in the United States."

This new development would surely help keep more Saudis charged with terrorism or other serious crime in the name of Jihad, to keep mum when arrested.

Karadzic,Holbrooke,and the TWRA's Bosmal

by Ganesh Sahathevan
The recently arrested Serbian leader Radovan Karadzic has told the UN tribunal in The Hague that the United States in 1996 had offered him immunity from war crimes charges. Karadzic claimed that he had struck a deal with U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to disappear from public life in exchange for a U.S. promise not to pursue the charges against him. State Department spokesman Sean McCormick has said Holbrooke never made an agreement to give Karadzic protection from arrest or prosecution. Holbrooke, who brokered the peace deal that ended the Bosnian conflict called Karadzic's charge untrue.
(http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-01-voa32.cfm)


I have previously written about the Clintons and the Malaysian-Bosnian joint-venture, Bosmal. I have also shown that Bosmal is linked to the TWRA. ( see www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2008/04/the-clintons-bo.html)
On the Bosmal website from which much of that information was obtained, there is also evidence of support for Bosmal from Holbrooke:

Richard Holbrooke, the creator of the Dayton peace agreement and presently vice-president of the New York-based bank “Perseus”, expressed his support to Bosmal in its efforts to secure financial means required for construction of the Corridor 5C highway through Bosnia and Herzegovina……. Richard Holbrooke promised to send a letter of support to Bosmal, in which he will emphasize the importance and significance of the project, and suggest to American financial institutions to seriously consider the possibilities for their financial participation in the project.
(http://www.bosmal.com/en/?lg=en&nav_ID=5&ID=139)

A copy of that letter can be sighted at http://www.bosmal.com/images/news/large/RichardHolbrooke.jpg.

When queried by this writer about his relationship with Bosmal,and Bosmal’s links to the TWRA, Holbrooke said:

I know nothing of their "link" to other groups. I, of course, strongly support the U.S.
Government's stand against terrorism. As you may recall, we wrote
strong authority into the Dayton Peace Agreement to take action
against any foreign elements or terrorists as we saw fit, and in fact
raided and apprehended terrorist cells.

There are not connections between Perseus and Bosmal --neither
financial nor any sort of affiliation.

My letter was part of my long-standing support for better road
networks in the Balkans. I have long believed, and often stated that
such road and rail links (as well as air links) would contribute to
economic development, which in turn would lead to greater inter-ethnic
cooperation.

Holbrooke’s letter to Bosmal was written in 2004.

By 2003 a story titled “Sabanovic Brothers and Bosmal” from the Slobodna Bosna magazine or newspaper was translated and reproduced on the NATO website http://www.nato.int/sfor/media/2003/ms030725t.htm. The story detailed the business dealings of the Sabanovic brothers, Erin and Nijaz, and their involvement with the TWRA.Given that the TWRA's activities had been a matter of public record since 1996, one can assume that the 2003 story was simply publication of material that would have been already available to those involved in the Dayton Peace Accord negotiations.

These connections may have been ignored for this reason:
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
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/bosvote/front.htm)

Holbrooke and the Clinton Administration may not have promised Karadzic immunity or anything else for that matter, but Holbrooke, the Clintons, and US general Wesley Clark "former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and a key architect of the Dayton Peace Accords." ( http://www.bosmal.com/en/?lg=en&nav_ID=5&ID=172 ) appear all to have had dealings with Karadzic’s opponents in the aftermath of the Bosnian conflict.

These dealings raise the suspicion that Karadzic may well be telling the truth about a deal for immunity. Put in another way, these dealings with the TWRA’s Bosmal causes one to consider if these are , or were meant to be, coincident to the offer of immunity that Karadzic alleges.

Support Free Speech in the U.S.

By Ilan Weinglass

As many readers may know, The Free Speech Protection Act, is currently being considered by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.  The Act is essentially a federal version of New York State's "Libel Terrorism Protection Act," aka "Rachel's Law," designed to protect U.S. authors from superfluous, though legally enforceable, lawsuits in foreign jurisdictions.   For those wishing to make a difference, a sample letter for a Congressman or Senator may be found here.

It is vitally important that this law pass, as Khalid bin Mahfouz and others have been using the rather absurd British libel laws to chill research into Saudi funding of terrorism and extremism.

Generosity is good, Zakat is bad

This important essay was first published by Henrik R. Clausen and reprinted here with his permission.
EuropeNews Essay May 25 2008


Zakat, one of the "Five Pillars of Islam", is a religious tax introduced for the benefit of the poor and needy, as well as for the advancement of Islam itself, is often quoted as one of the best elements of Islam. This essay sets out to examine the gap between the stated intention and reality.

Historically, Zakat being one of the five 'pillars' of Islam, is the holy tax introduced by Muhammad. A bit of background information seems in order.

It is not without precedent, as Muhammads fifth generation ancestor Qusayy had formalized the religious rituals at the Kaa'ba, including a tax (rifada) on wealthy pilgrims that would enable the poorer pilgrims to afford the costs of the pilgrimage.

Depending on one's view of pre-Islamic paganism, one could consider this tax 'holy', or just a tool of the Meccan traders to increase the income from the wealthier pilgrims. As Islam has now replaced paganism, this is mainly of academic interest. It is worth noting, though, that the scope of this tax was closely tied to the Kaa'ba and the Hajj/Umra pilgrimages.

Zakat isn't, and that's important. Zakat is payable to Islamic rulers anywhere, who will then dispose over the resources. Hajj and Umra remain as important in Islam as they were in paganism, of course, and still have a marginal connection to the Zakat.

The purpose of Zakat
The intended purposes of Zakat are, as listed by SunniPath):

* The foremost and primary purpose is to distribute the wealth of the community among the poor ..."

The emphasis on the community is an Islamic classic, and it makes sense. For if individuals with talent for trade and business were to have too much economical power, they, not the Islamic leaders, would direct the community. Unfortunately (will be elaborated below), this is not good for productivity in society. The Soviet Union also emphasized the community over the individual, leading to extensive irresponsibility and neglect. And, as in the Soviet Union, Islamic countries have not become affluent by this approach.

* Removing the love of wealth from one's heart, a spiritual disease that could be detrimental to one's Iman. Thus, it is a form of Tazkiya (self-purification)."

Now, it might seem weird that any religion would request to remove any kind of love from one's heart, but this indeed is the case here. It's a bit contradictory, for what is actually the problem of loving wealth? It is clearly assumed that there is some problem, but the nature of the problem is unclear. Is it inherently bad to have a nice house, good clothes, healthy food and money to spare with friends and family?

But we do get a clue with the reference to Iman (faith). People who have their material needs fulfilled and confidence that this will be the case later as well, are less likely to bother with religion. Material wealth does diminish religiousness, as we can see in the West, and that in turn diminishes the power base of religious leaders.

Continue reading this excellent article here

Anwar Ibrahim's friends: Connections to the case of British mercenary Simon Mann?

by Ganesh Sahathevan
I have previously written about the links between terrorist or jihadist organisations and friends and associates of Anwar Ibrahim who have put their names to an open letter protesting the most recent charges of sodomy against him (See http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2008/07/anwar-ibrahim-a.html).

One of the petitioners who has put his name to that letter is Prof. Dr. H.R.H. Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal; Chairman of the Board of the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Jordan( see http://www.islamicamagazine.com/general/Open-Letter-Concerning-Anwar-Ibrahim.html).

His wife Princess Ghida Talal, a former press secretary to the late King Hussein of Jordan, has been recently reported to be interested in the case of British mercenary Simon Mann, who has been sentenced to 34 years in prison by a court in Equatorial Guinea for leading an attempted coup against the government of Teodoro Obiang Nguemo (see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23989897-2703,00.html).

Princess Ghida’s interest in the case is reported to be as follows:
For the past few weeks, three wealthy Lebanese women, with their driver and bodyguard, have been in residence. Journalists covering the Mann trial last week believed they were on business.
But the Guardian can reveal that one of the women was Princess Ghida Talal, a former press secretary to the late King Hussein of Jordan. She is married to Prince Talal bin Muhammad, a national security adviser to Hussein and now a special adviser to King Abdullah.
The 44-year-old is a well-known figure on the international charity social scene. But she was in Malabo because her brother, Mohamed Salaam, 40, was a defendant in Mann's trial.
The other two women were his other sister, Dalia, and his mother, Rajaa.
Sources close to the family say the princess has been allowed personally to plead for clemency with the president, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, through the offices of the King of Morocco, who provides Obiang with his special bodyguard.
Ghida and Mohamed's father, Hany, is a friend and business partner of Ely Calil, alleged to be the main backer of the coup. He has denied the allegation.
Both men have had controversial dealings in the African oil business, and both had a commercial interest in tapping into the new wealth of Equatorial Guinea when oil was discovered in the late 90s.
They are equally well-connected. While Calil hobnobs with Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Archer, Hany gives money to Georgetown University and presents to President Carter.
Last year, (Mohamed) took an 18% stake in the new National Bank through a Philippine company.
He was made honorary consul to the Philippines and even won the approval of President Obiang, who gave him a lucrative contract to report on any subversive activities he came across. That was his downfall.
Mohamed admitted he had known Calil through his father since he was a boy.
Mann handed him a 10-page proposal for a fisheries protection project, which Mohammed took back to show the fisheries minister. But he didn't tell the president.
During the trial, Mohamed, who suffers from a bipolar disorder, claimed he had no idea that the project was, in fact, connected to the coup. Mann's advance party of mercenaries, led by the South African arms dealer Nick du Toit, had set up a fishing business in Malabo as a front activity.
It would appear that, when Mann was extradited to Malabo from Zimbabwe in February, he told the authorities about Mohamed's peripheral role. That led to Mohamed's arrest in March.
Mohamed's father, meanwhile, continues to do business from London, where he lives with diplomatic protection as the energy counsellor at the embassy of the west African state of Gabon.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/08/equatorialguinea3)
The above report is of interest for the links it exposes between the various parties named. Also, there is again here evidence of an interest in the Philippines, a predominantly Catholic country, from wealthy members of the Middle Eastern ruling elite. As reported:
Last year, (Mohamed) took an 18% stake in the new National Bank through a Philippine company.
He was made honorary consul to the Philippines and even won the approval of President Obiang…….

Coming back to HRH Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, it is interesting to note that a man with all of the above in his background is also national security advisor, and leader of the group of 138 Muslim leaders seeking peaceful, inter-faith dialogue with
the Vatican:

Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, the president of the Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Jordan, has indicated that he would like to meet with Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) early in the new year. The Jordanian prince has been the most prominent figure associated the "Common Word" initiative, in which 138 Islamic leaders signed a public statement, issued in October, calling for broader dialogue between Christians and Muslims. More recently the Common Word participants joined in a Christmas greeting to the world's Christians, renewing their call for dialogue and cooperation.
(http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55626)

Australian banks as conduits for HAMAS financiers

By Ganesh Sahethevan

The organisation Human Appeal International (HAI) has been banned by the Israel Ministry of Defence who say that it is a HAMAS affiliate that is used to finance HAMAS activities. See http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2008/Defense+Minister+signs+order+banning+Hamas-affiliated+charitable+organizations+7-Jul-2008.htm

HAI's involvement in the financing of terrorism has been reported previously in Australia-for collection of reports see http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2006/08/human_appealter.html

HAI uses an account at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to collect funds:

Human Appeal International Australia bank details:
• Bank: Commonwealth Bank of Australia
• BSB: 062-191
• Account Number for General Donations: 0090-3948
https://www.humanappeal.org.au/Donations.aspx

Another organisation banned by the Ministry of Defence for the same reason is Muslim Aid.
Muslim Aid's involvement in the financing of terrorism has also been reported previously in Australia-for collection of reports see http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2008/06/sdgt-interpal-1.html .
Their work with the SDGT Interpal was recently reported in Australia and is believed to be the subject of investigation by the Australian Federal Police. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23955630-601,00.html

Muslim Aid uses ANZ Bank to collect funds:

Muslim Aid Australia bank details:
Bank: ANZ Bank
BSB: 012-313
Account no: 495 300 039
(http://www.muslimaid.org.au/contactus.aspx)

The ANZ's correspondent in Lebanon is the Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL (LCB).
(http://www.lebcanbank.com/network2.asp?categoryID=4)


LCB is being "sued in the U.S. and Canada for allegedly helping Hezbollah kill Israeli citizens by providing financial services to the extremist”. group"(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aZi7YZ3sq32k&pid=20601082)

Both banks were queried by this writer about the continued supply of banking facilities to HAI and Muslim Aid in light of their being banned in Israel, and given the various reports about their involvement in the financing of terrorist groups.
The CBA has responded to say that it is “ unable to comment specifically on its relationship with any of its customers for confidentiality reasons.”
The ANZ has refused to say anything.

Anwar Ibrahim's most recent arrest throws light on the man and his friends

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Much has already been said on this blog about Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim, the International Institute of Islamic Thought of which he is a founder and director, and their role in the financing of jihadist and Islamist organisations known to be involved in acts of terrorism.( See http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2007/02/yassin_alkadia_.html)

The events following the most recent complaint and his subsequent arrest in Malaysia for sodomy throws some further light on the part he plays in the financing of jihadism, Islamism and the consequent acts of terrorism. Some of these events are as follows:

a) A who' who of the Islamic world have signed a petition citing The Quran essentially demanding that the charges against Anwar Ibrahim be dropped. These include Yusuf Islam (or "Dr"Yusuf Islam as seems to be addressed these days), founder of Muslim Aid. Muslim Aid and its links to terrorist financing have been extensively reported here-see http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2008/06/sdgt-interpal-1.html

Another is Grand Mufti of Bosnia, Mustafa Ceric, who is reported to be amongst those in charge of the Third World Relief Agency, a known conduit for the financing of terrorism-http://www.nato.int/sfor/media/2003/ms030725t.htm

From Indonesia is Prof. Dr. Din Syamsuddin ,President, Central Board of Muhammadiyah, Indonesia, who has openly supported Ustaz Abu Bakar Bashir the leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah, the South-East Asian arm of the Al-Qaeda.

See www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2368802)

One name that is absent, at least for the time being, is that of Sheik Yusuf Al-Qardawi, for whom Anwar has great admiration. Qaradawi is also a board member of the IIIT. (see http://www.qldmuslims.org.au/modules/news/article.php?storyid=269 AND http://www.qldmuslims.org.au/modules/news/article.php?storyid=269)

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently signed an order declaring 36 funds around the world, members of the "Union of Good" organization, to be banned associations in Israel since they are part of Hamas's fundraising network, and both support and assist it. Qaradawi is said to be founder and chairman of the "Union of Good."

-see http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2008/Defense+Minister+signs+order+banning+Hamas-affiliated+charitable+organizations+7-Jul-2008.htm and http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475632364&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

b) Anwar Ibrahim has lodged a report at the Federal Territory (Malaysia) Religious Department against his accuser, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan saying the 23-year-old former aide has falsely accused him of fornication.

He made the report under Section 41 Qazaf (false accusation) of the Federal Territory Syariah Criminal Offence Act 1997.

Under Section 42, if someone accuses another person of fornication "without providing four male witness or the iqrar (oath) of the person who is accused" the accuser has committed an offence in which he (the accuser) can be fined up to RM5,000 or jailed up to three years or both.

http://thestar.com.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/2008/7/9/nation/20080709112956.asp&sec=nation

The requirement for four male witness or the iqrar (oath) of the person who is accused appears to make irrelevant evidence usually admissible in a civil court including , DNA, medical reports and CCTV recordings.

Anwar has since refused to have DNA samples extracted from himself, even if this were to be done by an independent non-Malaysian expert: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/7/18/nation/21856305&sec=nation

Yet, many Westerners believe Anwar to be a liberal who would prefer the rule of civil law rather than Sharia. This belief is often relied on to argue against any evidence of his involvement in the financing of terrorism , or at the very least, structures that lead to acts of terrorism.

Will Hizballah's Victory be Short-Lived?

By Ilan Weinglass

It is hard to doubt that Hizballah acheived an unequivocal victory yesterday. The original purpose, indeed the operation name, of Hizballah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, was "Freedom for Samir Al-Quntar and his brothers."  In other words, Hizballah completely acheived it war aims.

Despite this victory, Matthew Levitt points out a significant development that could be very ominous for Hizballah in the future.   The House of Commons approved the Home Office's banning of Hizballah's military wing (as distinct from the already-banned terrorist wing), which "would make it a crime to belong to or encourage support for Hizbullah's military wing."

As Levitt explains in Hizballah's Military Wing Under Pressure Despite Political Gains:

Yesterday, Britain's parliament approved a Home Office order issued earlier this month, banning Hizballah's military wing, al-Muqawam al-Islamiyya or Islamic Resistance. Hizballah's terrorist wing, often called the Islamic Jihad Organization (IJO) or, as in Britain, the External Services Organization (ESO), was banned in 2001. Condemning "Hizballah's violence and support for terrorism," the ban outlaws raising funds, encouraging support for, or belonging to, Hizballah's military wing.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown informed members of parliament that the decision to act now was based "on the sole grounds of new evidence of [Hizballah] involvement in terrorism in Iraq and the occupied Palestinian territories." According to reports in the British press, these include "planning to kidnap British security workers in Iraq," echoing the charges of two Iraqi parliamentarians claiming that Hizballah planned and oversaw the kidnapping of five Britons -- still missing -- from the Iraqi Finance Ministry in May 2007.

Two other sources of pressure are as follows:

The U.S. government has also taken action against Hizballah since its forced takeover of Beirut. The U.S. Department of Treasury designated two Hizballah operatives in Venezuela, highlighting the scope of the organization's global footprint.

...The pressure against Hizballah, however, is not just coming from governments. In the United States and Canada, two civil lawsuits were filed this month against Lebanese banks for providing Hizballah with financial services needed to carry out military and terrorist operations.

Levitt concludes:

Further exposing Hizballah's global footprint, and the violent and illicit activities in which its operatives are engaged, could help roll back the group's successes at home. According to Nasrallah, a European designation of Hizballah would "destroy" the organization since "the sources of our funding will dry up and the sources of moral, political, and material support will be destroyed." This week, Hizballah celebrates. But its party may be short-lived, especially if European leaders followed Britain's lead and held the group accountable for its militant and terrorist activities [My emphasis].

These are certainly positive steps.  I find it hard to share Levitt's optimism, however.  Most significantly, the ban does not apply to Hizballah's political/social wing, which means it will have very limited impact, as money is fungible. Regarding the lawsuits, I cannot say much about them for legal reasons.  However, a glance at the public record shows that similar lawsuits have taken a long time to produce significant results. 

So the noose is indeed tightening around Hizballah, but only slightly.  If other European countries follow Britain's lead then the noose will indeed get tighter, especially given Hassan Nasrallah's 2005 statement on Al-Manar that a Europe-wide designation would effectively starve Hizballah. But even though we're technically closer, such an event is nowhere on the horizon, while Hizballah racks up a stunning political victory and is probably as strong as it has ever been.

Alex Alexiev on Saudi Charities

By Ilan Weinglass

Alex Alexiev of the Center for Security Policy has an interview in FrontPage Magazine about the role of Saudi charities in supporting terrorism.  Some of his remarks are not really new, but the interview serves as a good primer into a very serious problem.  Alexiev also lists some facts and allegations about the Saudis, 9/11, and the 9/11 commission that I was not aware of previously.  Here is an extended excerpt from Saudi “Charities” and the War Against  America:

FP: The U.S. government recently designated the infamous Saudi Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation as a terror financier. Tell us about Al Haramain.

Alexiev: Well, there is a lot to tell and a lot has been written about it already in the counterterrorism blog and elsewhere for those who want more detailed information. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission had a separate case study dedicated to it, but here it is in a nutshell:

The Al -Haramain Islamic Foundation (AHIF) is one of the three largest Saudi front organizations active in the support of terrorism going back many years, and has been involved in the funding of Al Qaeda, the bombing of the American embassies in Africa and all manner of jihadist activities in Pakistan, the Balkans, Chechnia, Kashmir and elsewhere. But it will be a mistake to think of it simply as a terrorism enabler. It is even more important as a key player in funding and promoting the hateful Wahhabi/Salafi creed and the seditious shariah doctrine worldwide including in the United States.

Here are just a few figures that will give you a sense of the magnitude of these efforts. Before we moved against it, it had 50 offices around the world and operated out of Saudi embassies in another 40 countries. An official Saudi source claimed in December 2000 that it had built 1100 mosques and Islamic centers, employed 3000 proselytizers and published 13 million Islamic books.

And the most important thing about it is that contrary to countless Saudi denials, AHIF is a Saudi state-sponsored, funded and run organization. In other words, whatever it did was Saudi state policy. This is a reality that our government refuses to acknowledge even when it tries to do something about it, as, for instance, when it designated as terrorist two offices of AHIF in March of 2002, even as it labeled it misleadingly as “private, charitable and educational.”

It is important to document this briefly, because the Saudis continue to lie blatantly about their sponsorship of this and other subversive ‘charities.’ The reason AHIF operated out of Saudi embassies in many countries, as mentioned, is because it is directly subordinated to the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, which maintains sizable sections in most of these embassies. Indeed, the minister of Islamic affairs is always the chairman of AHIF’s highest organ, the Administrative Council, ex-officio. This is admitted even by Al-Haramain officials, such as the top guy in the closed AHIF office in Ashland, Oregon, Al-Buthe, who called the Islamic Affairs Ministry the “patron” of AHIF.

It is also the case that Al-Haramain and the other key Saudi fronts derive most of their funding directly from state coffers. For example, in November of 2002, nearly eight months after the kingdom allegedly agreed to close down two branches of AHIF in conjunction with the U.S., a Saudi newspaper reported on a fundraising meeting for Al-Haramain and others in the presence of then-Crown Prince Abdullah and other Saudi bigwigs, at which it was reported that the Saudi government covers 80% of the charities’ total expenditures, as well as 80% of the cost of building their headquarters.

By the way, Jamie, if you know how their ‘private’ fund raising is organized, you’d realize that it’s private in name only. Here is how it’s done. A powerful member of the House of Saud sets up and chairs a fund raiser at which moneyed interests are invited and urges the assembled to support the noble efforts of whatever ‘charity’ is involved and writes a fat check himself. It is an invitation that few can afford not to follow in a country where the economic well-being of the elite depends on whether or not they’re in the good graces of the royal family.

FP: Are there any other Saudi organizations that deserve to be designated?

Alexiev: Of course, I have followed about a dozen myself and there are hundreds of others I know very little about. All told, Saudi sources speak of anywhere between 240 and 265 Islamic charities active in the Kingdom and outside of it.

The largest and most active in terrorism funding and spreading hate against us, apart from Al-Haramain, are the Muslim World League (MWL) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). A fourth large and active terror enabler, called the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) is actually a department of MWL and should not be considered a separate organization.

Just like AHIF, all of them are both documented supporters of terrorist activities and Saudi state-sponsored entities that should have been designated and closed down years ago. The MWL, for instance, through a subsidiary in Pakistan called the Rabita Trust, played an indispensible role in the founding of Al Qaeda. The fact that we have allowed these outfits to engage in open subversion against us with complete impugnity is a graphic example of our failure to even acknowledge who our real enemies are in this war.

FP: What do you think of the U.S. move on Al Haramain? Why so late and why unilaterally? What does this mean for the war on terror?

Alexiev: Well, moving to close down Al-Haramain is, of course, a positive step, but in my view it’s also a case of too little too late and serves to demonstrate the abysmal failure of this administration to fess up to the fact that our ‘strategic ally’ Saudi Arabia is a sworn enemy of the United States. Let’s not forget that we’re nearing the 7th anniversary of 9/11and it has been more than six years after our first timid effort to curtail the subversive activities of AHIF in March of 2002. During all this time we did nothing except very meekly try to talk the Saudis into cooperation. The modus operandi of this administration vis a vis the Saudis seems to be “speak softly and carry no stick.”

Yet, it was clear very early on that they had no intention to do anything but play us for a sucker. Not only did they refuse to do anything, but they actually told us off repeatedly in fairly direct and insulting terms. For instance, in September 2002, Aqeel al-Aqeel, the chairman of Al-Haramain and a man who’s alleged to have personally smuggled millions of dollars to terrorist groups, boasted in the Saudi press that “America has tried to establish a link between terrorism and Saudi charitable societies and failed,” while an official Saudi media organ claimed that the charges leveled against Saudi charities like Al-Haramain by the U.S. Treasury were “politically motivated and orchestrated by Christian neo-conservatives and their Zionist allies.”

The reason this long overdue step was finally unilaterally is probably due to the fact that the evidence of Al-Haramain’s misdeeds is and has been for a long time incontrovertible. It could also be the case that the USG people involved became worried that when the evidence eventually sees the light of day after the Bush Administration is gone, as it inevitable will, it will look like they were either extraordinarily incompetent or else went to extraordinary lengths to protect the Saudis. Either way, there is no doubt that questions will be asked.

FP: Does this mean that Washington is finally taking a tougher stance toward Riyadh?

Alexiev: I wish I could believe that, but frankly I can’t. There is just too much evidence that vested interests in Washington were keen on shielding the Saudis from having to account for their misdeeds.

FP: Can you give us some examples of how the Bush administration has shielded the Saudis? Some critics have alleged that even the findings of the 9/11 commission were politically interfered with to whitewash Saudi involvement. Any truth to that?

Alexiev: I firmly believe that the 9/11 Commission did a pitiful job of explaining to the American people what actually happened and its greatest failure by far was its conclusion that the Saudis had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and 9/11. If you look at what the Saudis do when accused of enabling terrorism, as for example in an ongoing lawsuit against them in Philladelphia, they invariably use this 9/11 Commission finding as their key defense. Yet, anybody that is half-way familiar with how Al-Qaeda came into being and with the involvement of Saudi charities like the ones discussed above and key players like Wael Julaidan, Adil Batterji and the Golden Chain characters would have to consider such a conclusion as bordering on outright disinformation. Especially because some of the USG information available to the commission and footnoted in the report, like the USG Evidentiary Proffer in the Enaam Arnout/Benevolence International case, simply precludes such a conclusion.

Now, I’m not the first to suspect political interference with the 9/11 Report and former democratic Senator Graham, who was a co-chair of the Congressional Joint-Inquiry Commission, among others, is on record with direct accusations against the Bush Administration along these lines. In the meantime, new information has come to light that makes such suspicions ever more justified. A while ago, a Czech translator, of all people, was able to get the FBI timeline on which the 9/11 Commission report was based released through the Freedom of Information Act. In a direct contradiction to the 9/11 Report, the timeline claims that the two Saudi highjackers, Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, were picked up in L.A. by a suspected Saudi agent named Omar al-Bayoumi and stayed with him in San Diego from the moment they arrived. This directly contradicts the 9/11 report which claims that they spent two weeks in L.A. and eventually bumped into Bayoumi by sheer chance. If the former is the truth, as the FBI Timeline and all available evidence confirms, the highjackers had a well organized Saudi-run support system waiting for them the minute they came to America. By the way, telephone logs show that during the time he hosted the terrorists, Bayoumi made hundreds of calls to the Saudi embassy in D.C. and Saudi consulates in California. What do you think they discussed; the weather in San Diego?

There is yet another more than curious tidbit that ties into this. The minute Bayoumi started taking care of the eventual suicide pilots, his monthly retainer from a company in Saudi Arabia for which he did no work, more than doubled and he also started receiving money indirectly from the wife of the illustrious Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar. The fact that the 9/11 Report did not dwell on this speaks for itself. This is the kind of stuff that makes people believe in conspiracies.

FP: You have written and testified to Congress that you consider Saudi Arabia to be the main state sponsor and financial enabler of radical Sunni Islam, while the U.S. government considers it a "strategic ally." Can you provide some evidence to back up your claim?

Alexiev: This is a fairly time-consuming exercise but let me just say this. Since 1973, Saudi Arabia has spent no less than $100 billion trying to undermine the West by promoting radical Islamism and hatred against our values and way of life. It has succeeded in dominating most of the Muslim establishment in Europe and America and imposing its hateful views on a large section of the Muslim population and dominating most of what passes as the Muslim establishment in this country. Most of our officials are clueless of this state of affairs, even in places like the Pentagon and Homeland Security, to say nothing of the FBI, and, more often than not, get their advice on matters Muslim from radical Islamist organizations like CAIR, ISNA, MAS, MSA etc. In fact, it has now gotten to the point where the FBI is asking CAIR, an organization which has a number of its high officials in jail for terrorist activities, to provide Islamic sensitivity training to their agents. The malignant political correctness and multicultural inanities that rule the land nowadays certainly have something to do with it, but the Bush Administration must share much of the responsibility for this dismal state of affairs.

Congress Should Protect Free Speech and those Exposing Terror Financiers

Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) argued in a WSJ the need for national legislation to protect free speech and those who expose sponsor of terrorism. "Our Constitution is one of our greatest assets in the fight against terrorism. A free-flowing marketplace of ideas, protected by the First Amendment, enables the ideals of democracy to defeat the totalitarian vision of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

That free marketplace faces a threat. Individuals with alleged connections to terrorist activity are filing libel suits and winning judgments in foreign courts against American researchers who publish on these matters. These suits intimidate and even silence writers and publishers.

Under American law, a libel plaintiff must prove that defamatory material is false. In England, the burden is reversed. Disputed statements are presumed to be false unless proven otherwise. And the loser in the case must pay the winner's legal fees.

Consequently, English courts have become a popular destination for libel suits against American authors. In 2003, U.S. scholar Rachel Ehrenfeld asserted in her book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It," that Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz helped fund Osama bin Laden. The book was published in the U.S. by a U.S. company. But 23 copies were bought online by English residents, so English courts permitted the Saudi to file a libel suit there.

Ms. Ehrenfeld did not appear in court, so Mr. Bin Mahfouz won a $250,000 default judgment against her. He has filed or threatened to file at least 30 other suits in England.

Fear of a similar lawsuit forced Random House U.K. in 2004 to cancel publication of "House of Bush, House of Saud," a best seller in the U.S. that was written by an American author. In 2007, the threat of a lawsuit compelled Cambridge University Press to apologize and destroy all available copies of "Alms for Jihad," a book on terrorism funding by American authors. The publisher even sent letters to libraries demanding that they destroy their copies, though some refused to do so.

To counter this lawsuit trend, we have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, a Senate companion to a House bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.). This legislation builds on New York State's "Libel Terrorism Protection Act," signed into law by Gov. David Paterson on May 1.

Our bill bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment. If a jury finds that the foreign suit is part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights, it may award treble damages.

First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams argues that "the values of free speech and individual reputation are both significant, and it is not surprising that different nations would place different emphasis on each." We agree. But it is not in our interest to permit the balance struck in America to be upset or circumvented by foreign courts. Our legislation would not shield those who recklessly or maliciously print false information. It would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards. No more. No less.

We have seen this type of libel suit before. The 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan established that journalists must be free to report on newsworthy events unless they recklessly or maliciously publish falsehoods. At that time, opponents of civil rights were filing libel suits to silence news organizations that exposed state officials' refusal to enforce federal civil rights laws.

Now we are engaged in another great struggle -- this time against Islamist terror -- and again the enemies of freedom seek to silence free speech. Our legislation will help ensure that they do not succeed."

The Free Speech Act is now before the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate. Since free speech is a bipartisan issue, and no budget is involved, one hopes Congress adopts the Free Speech Act ASAP.

Palestinians Must Pay for their Crimes

By Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen

Palestinian Prime Minister, former IMF official Salam Fayyad, has the Chutzpa to claim the PA shouldn't pay U.S. judgments to families of victims, because this may have an adverse effect on potential contributions by international donors....

The Palestinian Authority (PA) recently asked U.S. federal courts to reopen cases it lost after refusing to defend itself against terror-funding charges.

Judgments would come from U.S. and international aid, the PA argues.

In both cases, Palestinian terrorists murdered American citizens. In New York, Aharon Ellis' widow sued the PA for the lethal 2002 shooting of her husband and the father of their six children, during an Al Aqsa Martyr Brigade attack of a Bat Mitzvah, in Israel. The court awarded Leslye Knox $193 million, including interest, but the PA refuses to pay.

A Rhode Island case centers on the June 1996 double murders of U.S. citizens Yaron Ungar and his pregnant wife Efrat, both 25. Three Palestinian terrorists shot them to death in Beit Shemesh, west of Jerusalem. The PA was ordered to pay their families $116 million, which the PA also refuses to do.

Neither award was "by default," as the PA now argues. Several law firms represented the defendants in New York making hundreds of procedural motions and appealing twice, all while the PA refused to answer to the charges. However, they never denied their guilt.

In Rhode Island, the Palestinians' law firms, including that of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, claimed sovereign immunity. The court nixed that claim and in August 2005 , froze PA assets in the U.S., including over $1.3 billion in the Palestinian Investment Fund, and $30 million in the Palestinian Monetary Authority.

Meanwhile, the PA's 2005 and 2006 appeals didn't sway the U.S. State Department to intervene. The Supreme Court's decision not to review that case renders the judgment "final and enforceable in United States courts," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who proposed the PA explore "out of court solutions ... to avoid enforcement actions" and financial hardship.

The PA's desire to use the U.S. government to prevent the victims from collecting rightful and lawful awards was denied in March 2008. "The United States supports just compensation for victims of terrorism from those responsible for their losses," said Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Carl Nichols, though he noted the "potentially significant impact that these cases may have on the financial and political viability of the defendants." The PA seems to bank on that concern.

PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad wants the cases reopened not to challenge its guilt. If PA funds were seized to satisfy outstanding judgments, Mr. Fayyad argues in U.S. federal courts, "Donors may hesitate to contribute funds to the Palestinians." Further, Mr. Fayyad pleads PA poverty. Relying on five-year-old financial statements. He claims the PA has only $800 million, although he admits that this does not include PA pension funds or the Palestinian Investment Fund - not to mention $22 million paid annually to Suha Arafat since her husband's 2004 death, or hidden PA assets probably up exponentially since they were estimated at $10 billion in 1993.

From 1994 to early 2007, the PA received between $14 billion and $20 billion from Europe and the United States, the Funding for Peace Coalition (FPC) reported to the British parliament.

Despite purported PA poverty and Fatah-Hamas disagreements, the PA announced on January 15, 2008 its intentions to give Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization since 1995, "40 percent" ($3.1 billion) of the $7.4 billion pledged in December 2007 by international donors. Evidently, the donors did not take this statement seriously, and from January to June 2008, gave the PA $920 million in direct budgetary aid.

Fifteen months ago, Fayyad told London's Daily Telegraph: "No one can give donors the assurance" that funds reach designated destinations. "Where is all the transparency; It's gone." Controlling Palestinian finances, he concluded, "is virtually impossible." World Bank and other reports document PA financial chaos and corruption, too. Yet, none of this has turned the donors money spigot off.

Clearly, the Palestinians are in no danger of losing funding from their international donors. Now, that a Fatah and Hamas power-sharing government is around the corner, the donors will surely go out of their way to reward the new government with even larger sums. The Palestinians, in a time-honored fashion, will use these donor's funds against Israel and its citizens, as they have done since 1994.

As for Fayyad's appeals, they are irrelevant in U.S. federal courts. The PA never denied its role in the murders, failed to defend itself, and lost in court fair and square, not "by default." It's time justice be done and the courts force the PA to pay every dime they owe the victims' families.

Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center for Democracy. Alyssa A. Lappen is a senior fellow at the ACD.

More Title VI Dollars for our Enemies

By Ilan Weinglass

Much has been written elsewhere about the misuse of Title VI funding.  For those not in the know, Title VI of the Higher Education Act is a controversial program for funding studies of foreign cultures and languages, including the Middle East.  A frequent charge against Title VI is that it provides U.S. taxpayer funds for anti-U.S. or anti-Israel propaganda.  Jonathan Schanzer of the Jewish Policy Forum points out yet another extremely anti-Israel organization that receives Title VI funds:

The Bethesda, Maryland-based Palestinian American Research Center (PARC), a registered nonprofit, receives controversial Title VI funding from the U.S. State Department and Department of Education for "Palestinian studies." Yet, the organization perpetuates the failures of Middle Eastern studies in America - namely, the admixture of polemics and academia.

...According to PARC's tax returns, the organization has raised more than $550,000 since 2002. It received at least $47,000 in U.S. government funds in 2006.

...[O]ne article penned by a grant recipient named Lori Allen (now a lecturer at University of Cambridge in the U.K.) was a lengthy apologia for Palestinian suicide bombing. Despite some effort to maintain objectivity, Allen explained how Palestinians were expressing "resistance to occupation and sacrificing for that struggle," and how, after the "outbreak of the intifada, Israel has stepped up attacks on civilians . . . stifling Palestinians' hopes for a better future."

...U.S. taxpayers should know that PARC is part of the U.S. Department of Education's system of overseas research centers authorized under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Under the aegis of the U.S. government, PARC continues to give out grants of $3,000 to $8,000 for activism in the name of academia. Yet a preliminary review of the organization suggests that this is money poorly spent.

This is not the latest case of U.S. taxpayers bankrolling Palestinian radicalism.  Joel Mowbray, among others, have shown that USAID funds have made their way to Hamas-linked entities in the West Bank and Gaza.   It's quite disturbing that this is happening with another federal program, on U.S. soil.

The case of PARC also raises the issue of sub-grants by recipients of U.S. funds. Frequently there are pro-forma vetting procedures in place that are either implemented too late or simply fail.  A case in point is a USAID audit of its aid to several Palestinian organizations, including Islamic University in Gaza and Al Quds University in Jerusalem. The report admitted that "[s]ubawardees were not always vetted," and procedures were updated to address this.  However, the competency of the vetting process itself is thrown into question by a another statement:

USAID/West Bank and Gaza arranged to have Al Quds Universiry vetted seven times (most recently in December 2006) and Islamic University in Gaza vetted eight times (most recently in February 2006).  None of these vetting requests resulted in derogatory information.

It boggles the mind that a university founded by Ahmed Yassin (the founder of Hamas) can be vetted eight times and get a clean bill of health.  This episode says more about the U.S. Government's vetting standards regarding terrorist links than about the vetting target itself.  This should be a cautionary lesson when examining Title VI funding - a lesson the PARC case shows we are not learning.

Europe Still Doesn't Get It

By Ilan Weinglass

In a development worthy of a longer post, the U.K. Home Office has classified the military wing of Hizballah as a terrorist organization.  This is certainly a positive move, but a deeply flawed one reflecting a conceptual blind spot on the U.K.'s part.

Most significantly, "Home Office minister Tony McNulty said the ban does not apply to the political, social or humanitarian activities of Hezbollah."  The U.K. still clings to the notion that there is a meaningful difference between the political/humanitarian branch of a terrorist group and its actual terrorist activities.  This dichotomy has been shown to be dangerously false and misguided, by Matthew Levitt among others. A detailed examination of the facts, in the case of Hamas, can be found in Levitt's book Hamas, with relevant excerpts here.  The TF Blog's Avi Jorisch has explored the role of Hizballah's TV station, Al Manar, in supporting terrorism in his book Beacon of Hatred.  If a television station does not count as "political, social or humanitarian" and therefore exempt from this ban, I don't know what does.

Further, it is worth looking further at the language used by the Home Office:

"Hizballah's military wing is providing active support to militants in Iraq who are responsible for attacks both on coalition forces and on Iraqi civilians, including providing training in the use of deadly roadside bombs," he said.

"Hizballah's military wing also provides support to Palestinian terrorist groups in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

"It is because of this support for terrorism in Iraq and Occupied Palestinian Territories that the Government has taken this action."

There were no words about Hizballah actually carrying out terror attacks against Israel, such as launching a missile barrage against Israeli civilians in 2006. This is a curious omission for a group whose flag features a hand holding a Kalashnikov over the words "The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon." 

Hizballah's support to Palestinian groups is also noted as a reason for the ban.  But this support has been going on for years - why did the U.K. just acknowledge it now?  And if providing support to terror groups is criteria for being listed, why the blind spot in noting the actual terror acts performed by Hizballah?

So this is a very limited positive development. I fear that regarding terrorist groups such as Hizballah,  our progress will be like approaching a mathematical limit - we know what the necessary results are, but the closer we approach, the slower we get and we will never get to where we need to be.   



 

Financial Jihad = Shari'a Finance = The Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW)

By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen

[From Armed Groups: Studies in National Security, Counterterrorism, and Counterinsurgency; Edited by Jeffrey Norwitz; U.S. Naval War College, June 2008, chapter 28.]

The United States and the West cannot win the war against radical Islam merely with the most sophisticated military strategies. Winning requires understanding the role of shari'a and the Muslim Brotherhood in developing a global ideological and political movement supported by a parallel "Islamic" financial system to exploit and undermine Western economies and markets. This movement is the foundation and the major funding source for the political, economic, and military initiatives of the global Islamic movement.1

Shari'a finance is a new weapon in the arsenal of what might be termed fifth-generation warfare (5GW).2 The perpetrators include both states and organizations, advancing a global totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion. The end goal is to impose that ideology worldwide, making the Islamic "nation," or ummah, supreme.3

Rising oil prices and the West's dependency on Middle East oil, combined with willful blindness and political correctness, provide a surge of petrodollars, making financial and economic jihad so much easier to carry out. Moreover, according to shari'a, Muslims hold all property in trust for Allah.4 Therefore, under the shari'a, all current and historic Muslim acquisitions everywhere, including the United States, belong to the ummah, in trust for Allah.

Shari'a is the crucial source and ultimate authority dictating the actions of practicing individuals and radical Muslim states and movements alike. Failing to understand the political use of shari'a hampers the U.S. ability to mount effective policies, plans, and strategies to successfully counter this fast-growing totalitarian threat.

This ignorance is illustrated by the statements of Massachusetts representative Barney Frank and Utah senator Bob Bennett. Responding to opponents of Bourse Dubai's then-proposed acquisition of 20 percent of NASDAQ in September 2007, Frank quipped, “In the ports deal, the concern was smuggling something or someone dangerous. . . . What are we talking about here”--smuggling someone onto a stock exchange? 5 Similarly, Bennett said, “Dubai is making a purchase on the open market of an asset that's for sale. What's wrong with that?”

Although Senator Bennett is correct---buying portions or all of NASDAQ is legal, and NASDAQ regulations could not be changed without Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approval---Bourse Dubai's shari'a influence in the heart of the U.S. markets and economy should have been of grave concern.

Shari'a is the set of Islamic laws established by Muslim jurists, based on the Qur'an and deeds of the prophet Muhammad, as recorded beginning more than 1,200 years ago. Its end goal, for all time, is establishing a world ruled entirely by Islam and the harsh shari'a laws. These laws govern every aspect of daily life and prohibit individual, political, and religious freedoms.

FINANCIAL JIHAD

Funding the jihad, i.e., financial jihad, or Al Jihad bi-al-Mal, is mandated by many verses in the Qur'an, such as chapter 61, verses 10.11: “you . . . should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives,” and chapter 49, verse 15: “The [true] believers are only those who . . . strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah.” This has been reiterated throughout Islamic history and in recent times. “Financial Jihad [is] . . . more important . . . than self-sacrificing,” according to Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) spiritual leader Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi.6

Qatar-based Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most prominent Sunni scholars in the world today, reiterated the legal justification for “financial jihad [Al-Jihad bi-al-Mal]” in a lecture he gave on 4 May 2002 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to him, “collecting money for the mujahideen (jihad fighters . . . ) was not a donation or a gift but a duty necessitated by the sacrifices they made for the Muslim nation.” 7

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The origins of the modern financial jihad infrastructure, including all Islamic economic and financial regulatory organizations like the 1991-Bahrain-registered and -based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI), date back to the 1920s and were an invention of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. He designed political, economic, and financial foundations to enable Muslims to fulfill a key form of jihad mandated by the Qur'an---financial jihad.8

He viewed finance as a critical weapon to undermine the infidels---and “work towards establishing an Islamic rule on earth.” 9 He was first to understand that to achieve world domination, Muslims needed an independent Islamic financial system to parallel and later supersede the Western economy. Al-Banna's contemporaries and successors (such as the late Sayed Qutb and current Yusuf al-Qaradawi) set his theories and practices into motion, developing shari'a-based terminology and mechanisms to advance the financial jihad--- “Islamic economics,” finance, and banking.10

Early 1930s MB attempts to establish Islamic banking in India failed. Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser shut down the second attempt, in 1964, after only one year, later arresting and expelling the Muslim Brotherhood for attempts to kill him.11

But Saudi Arabia welcomed this new wave of Egyptian dissidents, as did King Saud bin Abdel Aziz earlier waves in 1954 and 1961.12 Their ideas so appealed to him and his clerics that in 1961, Saud funded the MB's establishment of the Islamic University in Medina to proselytize its fundamentalist Islamic ideology, especially to foreign students.13 In 1962, the MB convinced the king to launch a global financial joint venture, which became the cornerstone and engine to spread Islam worldwide. This venture created charitable foundations, which the MB oversees and from which most Islamic terrorist groups benefit.14

The first were the Muslim World League (MWL) and Rabitta al-Alam al-Islami, uniting Islamic radicals from 22 nations and spinning a web of many other charities with hundreds of offices worldwide.15 In 1978, the kingdom backed another MB initiative, the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), which, with all these "charities," is implicated for funding al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks, Hamas, and others.16 These "charities" are used to advance the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi political agenda, namely empowering the ummah and imposing worldwide shari'a. “I don't like this word 'donations',”. al-Qaradawi told BBC Panorama on 30 July 2006. “I like to call it Jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money.”17

In 1969, the Saudis convened Arab and Muslim states to unify the “struggle for Islam,” and have ever since been the Organization of the Islamic Conference's (OIC's) major sponsor. The 56 OIC members include Iran, Sudan, and Syria. The Jidda-based, “pending the liberation of Jerusalem,” OIC's charter mandates and coordinates “support [of] the struggle of the Palestinian people, . . . recovering their rights and liberating their occupied territories.” 18 The OIC charter includes all the MB principles. Its first international undertaking in 1973 was to establish the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) “in accordance with the principles of the shariah,”19 as prescribed by the MB---and to launch the fast-growing petrodollar-based Islamic financing market. The IDB, more a development than commercial bank, was established largely “to promote Islamic banking worldwide.” 20 “[A]n Islamic organization must serve God... and ultimately sustain ...the growth and advancement of the Islamic way of life,” writes Nasser M. Suleiman in “Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking.”21

And the IDB has done just that. Between 1975 to 2005, the IDB approved over $50 billion in funding to Muslim countries,22 ostensibly to develop their economic and educational infrastructures, but effected little regional economic impact. Its educational efforts, however, paid huge yields---via the rapid and significant spread of radical Islam worldwide. Moreover, in 2001 alone, the IDB transferred $538 million23 raised publicly by Saudi and Gulf royal telethons to support the Palestinian intifada and families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IDB has also channeled UN funds to Hamas, as documented by bank records discovered in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet, the IDB received UN observer status in 2007.24

According to a 1991 U.S. Library of Congress report on Sudan, the IDB also supported Faisal Islamic Bank, established in 1977 under Sudan's Faisal Islamic Bank Act by Saudi prince Muhammad ibn Faisal Al Saud and managed by local Muslim Brotherhood members and their party, the National Islamic Front. Soon other political groups and parties formed their own Islamic banks. Together, Sudanese Islamic banks then acquired 20 percent of the country's deposits “providing the financial basis to turn Sudan into an Islamic state in 1983, and promoting the Islamic governmental policies to date.”25 Sudan Islamized its banking in 1989. However, Pakistan was the first country to officially Islamize its banking practices, in 1979.

Rising oil revenues encouraged MB leaders to formalize al-Banna's vision. In 1977 and 1982, they convened in Lugano, Switzerland, to chart a master plan to co-opt Western economic “foundations, capitalism and democracy” in a treatise entitled “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy,” also known as The Project. MB spiritual leader al-Qaradawi wrote the explicit document, dated 1 December 1982.26 The 12-point strategy includes diktats to establish the Islamic state and gradual, parallel work to control local power centers . . . using institutional work as means to this end. This requires “special Islamic economic, social and other institutions,” and “the necessary economic institutions to provide financial support” to spread fundamentalist Islam.27

Consequently, the IDB founded the AAOIFI in 1990. AAOIFI members include the Saudi Dallah al Baraka Group, al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation, and Kuwait Finance House28---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.29 The 18 AAOIFI members also include Iran and Sudan, both on the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions list; Iran is a U.S. State Department-designated terror-sponsoring state, too. UAE banks wired most of the funding for the 9/11 attacks.30

In addition, the “de facto Islamic Central Bank,” the Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB),31 was established in 2002 in Kuala Lumpur “to absorb the 11 September shock and reinforce the stability of Islamic finance.” Chairing the organizers' meeting, then Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamed Mahathir stated, “A universal Islamic banking system is a jihad worth pursuing to abolish this slavery [to the West].” IFSB members include the central banks of Iran, Sudan, and Syria (all designated state sponsors of terrorism) and the Palestinian Monetary Authority (PMA), which is widely documented since its inception to be a terror funder.32

According to Dallah al Baraka Group and Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICCI) president Saleh Kamel,33 more than 400 Islamic financial institutions34 currently operate in 75 countries.35 They now hold more than $800 billion in assets 36 growing 15 percent annually. HSBC, UBS, J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Lloyds TSB, and BNP Paribas are but a few that offer Islamic banking and shari'a-based products to their Western clients---and promote them as “ethical investments.”

Billionaire Sheikh Saleh Abdullah Kamel and his family, like other wealthy Saudis, have built their terror-funding-affiliated $3.5 billion Dallah al Baraka Group to service the shari'a.37 Its business, finance, and media sectors incorporate agriculture, communication, health care, real estate, tourism, trade, transportation, and finance companies---including 10 banks and many leasing and finance firms, Arab Radio & Television and Arab Digital Distribution, and the International Information & Trading Service Co., producing the Top 1000 Saudi Companies Directory, among other publications.

Rapidly rising oil prices fill the coffers of Islamic banks, fuel the expansion of shari'a economics and financial jihad---and threaten the United States and the entire non-Muslim world, in real time. Indeed, shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden called on Muslims “to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy through all possible means. . . . Look for the key pillars of the U.S. economy. Strike the key pillars of the enemy again and again and they will fall as one.” 38

The NASDAQ acquisition, purchases of over 52 percent of the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and 47.6 percent of OMX (Nordic exchange), and vigorous expansion of shari'a finance all steadily implement al-Banna.s plan to spread and ultimately impose shari'a worldwide.

Bourse Dubai in December 2006 loudly proclaimed its new conversion to “shari'a compliance and accounting practices.”39 Yet, responding to a specific inquiry on the Islamic nature of Bourse Dubai from the Partnership for New York City on 22 October 2007, Bourse Dubai denied being an Islamic exchange.40 Still unaware of the implications of importing shari'a finance, however, hoards of Westerners eagerly attend such pricey events as the October 2007 Islamic Finance Summit in New York,41 which focused on the “innovations in shari'a compliant finance.” According to an eyewitness, when one participant timidly inquired, “What is shari'a law?” a leading Islamic scholar responded from the podium: “It's good for you.”

Lost on the attendees was the inescapable fact that shari'a calls for the supremacy of Islam, thus negating the U.S. Constitution.42

ZAKAT

Zakat, we are told, is to help the needy. But as Janine A. Clark's excellent 2004 study shows, zakat is used to support the middle class, to strengthen its loyalty to the rulers, and to back their radical ideology'43

Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi decrees, “Declaring holy war . . . is an Islamic duty, and fighting . . . is the Way of Allah for which Zakat must be spent.” In his 1999 publication, Fiqh az-Zakat, al-Qaradawi adds, “The most important form of jihad today is serious, purposefully organized work to rebuild Islamic society and state and to implement the Islamic way of life in the political, cultural and economic domains. This is certainly most deserving of Zakat.” 44 And as previously demonstrated time and again, Muslim jihadist-terror organizations are indeed prominent zakat recipients.

The use of charities to fund jihad, however, is not limited to radical Sunnis. On Jerusalem Day, 5 October 2007, Al-Manar TV broadcasted Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's cantankerous speech giving religious, moral, and political justification in support of “the armed Palestinian resistance” and calling for financial support to the Palestinian terrorist organizations. Nasrallah “gave Khomeini's fatwa [45] . . . allowing charity funds . . . and the tax of 1/5 (khums)[46] to be transferred to the Palestinian terrorist organizations . . . to pay for their campaign.”47

The definition of zakat in The Encyclopedia of Islam includes in “category 7” of eligible recipients “volunteers engaged in jihad,” for whom the zakat covers “living expenses and the expenses of their military service (animals, weapons).” 48

Millard Burr and Robert Collins's compelling study Alms for Jihad documents that when zakat, which is obligatory to all Muslims, is given “in the path of Allah,” it is given to fund jihad. There are seven broad categories of eligible recipients: the poor, converts, wayfarers, those in bondage or in debt, those committed to Allah for the spread and triumph of Islam, newcomers whose faith is weak, and new converts to Islam “whose hearts have been [recently] reconciled [to truth].” Moreover, zakat may be used to support those who administer it.49


In a 2006 federal case, alleged al Qaeda supporters Emadeddin Z. Muntasser and Muhammed Mubayyid were charged with soliciting and spending “funds to support and promote the mujahideen and jihad, including the distribution of pro-jihad publications,” through their now-defunct "charity" and front organization, Care International. The Boston-based organization published, among other things, the English version of al Qaeda cofounder and key Muslim Brotherhood leader Abdullah Azzam's “Join the Caravan.”

It states, “The individually obligatory nature of jihad remains in effect until the lands are purified from the pollution of the disbelievers.”50 They collected more than $1.3 million in contributions. In their defense, Muntasser and Mubayyid claimed to merely have exercised their religious freedom and obligation to give zakat as part of their constitutionally protected freedoms. Their motion for dismissal (which the court denied) cited chapter 9, verse 60, of the Qur'an, describing “those entitled to receive zakat.”

Incredibly, the suspects' attorneys also argued that such charitable giving, to support jihad and mujahideen, is rightfully tax exempt under the U.S. constitutional protection of religious freedom.51 Court records show Care International deposited checks “with handwritten notes such as 'for jihad only,' 'Bosnia Jihad fund,' and 'Chechen Muslim Fighters'.” The U.S. Constitution provides protections for religious freedom, but most certainly was never intended to protect religiously sanctioned or encouraged war in or against America.

The First Amendment bars Congress from enacting laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” However, the Constitution offers no protection to any group or religion supporting “holy war” against the United States or its citizens.

STATE ZAKAT AGENCIES

Saudi Arabia

In 2007, Saudi Arabia collected $18 billion in zakat52 ---which includes the 20 percent flat corporation tax from foreign companies. The Saudis claim that the money collected develops their infrastructure. However, two-thirds of Saudi men are unemployed and the infrastructure is crumbling.53

Illustrating how funds are used, Saudi Arabia's secretary-general of the official Muslim World League Koran Memorization Commission stated on Iqra TV, on 29 August 2005, “The Prophet said: 'He who equips a fighter...it is as if he himself fought.' You lie in your bed, safe in your own home, and donate money and Allah credits you with the rewards of a fighter. What is this? A privilege.”54

Since the 1970s, the Saudi government has spent more than $100 billion 55 to build thousands of mosques, Islamic centers, and Islamic studies programs in universities worldwide to advance the ummah's power and undermine Western economic, political, cultural, educational, and legal structures and replace them with the shari'a.56 In the last 13 years alone, the Saudis gave at least $459 million to British universities for Islamic study centers, according to Professor Anthony Glees, of Brunel University.57

The worldwide Muslim riots following the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark's largest daily, Jyllands-Posten, began only after Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark; after Sheikh Osama Khayyat, imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, praised on national Saudi television the Saudi government for its action; and after Sheikh Ali Al-Hudaify, imam of the Prophet's Mosque in Medina, called “upon governments, organizations and scholars in the Islamic world to extend support for

campaigns protesting the sacrilegious attacks on the Prophet.”58 Saudi-controlled OIC initiated