The Terror Finance Blog

Incorrect Intent: the Unavailing yet Undying Material Support Defense

2012-01-06T20:14:16-08:00

On September 13, 1994 the United States enacted section 2339A to Title 18 of the United States Code, which criminalized the provision of material support intended to commit acts of terrorism. Two years later, Congress revised 2339A and enacted 2339B, which criminalized the provision of material support to organizations that engage in terrorism and/or are designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations [FTOs], rather than to specific acts of terrorism.

In criminal law, the question of what intent (or scienter) a defendant must possess is a critical one, and where the material support statutes are concerned, determining the requisite intent engendered several revisions to the statutes and high profile cases.

The Justice Department’s Criminal Resource Manual states that 2339A “requires only that the supplier of the material support have knowledge of its intended use” but “does not require that the supplier also have whatever specific intent the perpetrator of the actual terrorist act must have to commit one of the specified offenses.”

Nor does 2339B require a specific intent to further the terroristic goals of a designated organization. As the Supreme Court held in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, “foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.” More to the point, the Supreme Court pointed out that “Congress plainly spoke to the necessary mental state for a violation of §2339B, and it chose knowledge about the organization’s connection to terrorism, not specific intent to further the organization’s terrorist activity.”

Yet the unavailing ‘specific intent’ defense somehow lives on even with a reasonably recent (June 21, 2010) Supreme Court ruling to the contrary. On September 21, 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on this issue, among others, in United States v. Al Kassar.

The case involved three defendants, Monzer al Kassar, Luis Felipe Moreno Godoy, and Tareq Mousa al Ghazi, who had all been convicted “for conspiring to kill U.S. officers, to acquire and export anti-aircraft missiles, and to knowingly provide material support to a terrorist organization. Al Kassar and Godoy were also convicted of conspiring to kill U.S. citizens and of money laundering.” Al Kassar was sentenced to 30 years in prison, while Godoy and al Ghazi were each sentenced to 25 years.

The convictions stemmed from a sting operation conducted by the Drug Enforcement Agency in which Al Kassar was told that DEA agents were members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) - a designated foreign terrorist organization - seeking to purchase arms. The DEA release that followed Al Kassar’s extradition to the US for trial in 2008 specified that he “agreed to sell to the FARC millions of dollars worth of weapons, including thousands of machine guns, millions of rounds of ammunition, rocket-propelled grenade launchers ("RPGs"), and surface-to-air missile systems ("SAMs").”

The government demonstrated at trial that, “in the presence of Godoy and al Ghazi, al Kassar provided the DEA with schematics of SAMs and explained how the missiles could be used to shoot down American helicopters;” al Ghazi also admitted to agents that “he knew that FARC was a terrorist organization, which planned to use the weapons to kill Americans.”

Despite the damning evidence, the defendants’ appeal of the material support charge basically asked the Court to ignore precedent and narrowly construe the statute to apply only in cases where “the defendant … intend[s] that his aid support the terrorist aims of the organization.”

The Court responded that the statute’s intent requirement is twofold, namely “that the aid be intentional and that the defendant know the organization he is aiding is a terrorist organization or engages in acts of terrorism.” However, regarding the defendants’ specific intent demand, the Court stated that “[t]his argument is foreclosed by Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.”

There will probably always be individuals and organizations with deep-seated ideological objections to the material support statutes’ scienter requirement. For attorneys attempting to successfully defend against a material support charge or conviction, however, trying to write in a specific intent requirement continues to be a fool’s errand.

Their Oil Is Thicker than Our Blood*

2011-12-14T16:16:20-08:00

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

* First published in "Saudi Arabia & the Global Islamic Terrorist Network", Chapter 10, pp-123-151, PalgraveMacMillan, November 2011.

The December 12, 2011 Iran’s Intelligence Minister Haydar Moslehi met with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Nayef in Riyadh. Two days later, at the OPEC meeting in Vienna, the Iranians reveled that the Saudis agreed not “to replace Iranian crude if Iran faces any sanctions."

Accommodating their supposedly biggest enemy - the radical Shiite regime in Iran - while betraying their self-proclaimed ally - the United States, is a long held Saudi strategy. Support of radical Islamic regimes and groups helped keep the House of Saud in command.

“Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) , and other terrorist groups, including Hamas,” read a cable dated December 30, 2009, from United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, This was one of the cables published by Wikileaks in late November 2010.[1]

Another leaked cable, sent from the US Embassy in Riyadh in February 2010, stated that the Saudi interior ministry “remains almost completely dependent on the CIA to provide analytic support and direction for its counterterrorism operations.”[2]

The leaked cables only stated the obvious. Yet the obvious starkly contrasts with the more optimistic story on Saudi counterterrorism efforts, as publicly told by successive American administrations.

Overview: Saudi Arabia— as an Ally in the War on Terrorist Financing

For decades US officials publicly heaped praise on Saudi counterterrorism efforts, while the Saudis continued to fund terrorism.

In a 2003 interview, then-Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said that the American government had expressed its appreciation to the Saudi government for its actions in support of the global war on terrorism.[3] In 2005, during her confirmation hearing to the position of Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice commented that the United States previously “didn’t understand, really, the structure of terrorist financing very well.

We didn’t understand the role of non-governmental organizations that sounded like they were for good purposes but were, in fact, carrying out or funding terrorist activities. Others didn’t understand that, in the Muslim world, like the Saudis. And we have made, I think, great strides in doing that.”[4]

In 2007 US President George Bush certified the Saudi cooperation “with efforts to combat international terrorism.”[5] The Obama Administration followed suit. In July 2009, on a visit to Saudi Arabia, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner lauded the Saudi government for having “taken important steps to combat financing for terrorist groups” and “to deter and disrupt those who support violent extremism.”[6]

However, some dared to disagree. In September 2007, US Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey told ABC News, “If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia.”[7]

While Mrs. Clinton’s leaked memo did not directly accuse the Saudi government of supporting radical Muslim groups, it noted, “Riyadh has taken only limited action” to interrupt money transfers to Taliban- and LeT-affiliated groups that have been carrying out attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.[8]

Americans started targeting Saudi Arabian terrorist financing after the 9/11 attacks, when it was established that 15 of the 19 plane hijackers were Saudi9 and that Saudis had provided substantial financial support for the worst terrorist attack in American history.[9] The Kingdom was persuaded to cooperate on some counterterrorism efforts only in 2003, and a combined task force was established. After the terrorist attack in Khobar, which the Saudis attributed to a local al-Qaeda cell in May 2004, new legislation and harsh domestic anti-terrorist financing measures were put in place.[10]

Saudi Arabia criminalized money laundering and terrorist financing in 2003 and enforces it to prevent domestic terrorism. It also banned some Saudi-based charitable organizations[11] from transferring money internationally until additional regulations could ensure that the transferred funds would not be funneled to terrorist groups.[12] According to the new banking regulations, all international transaction over $15,000[13] need the approval of the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) [14]- the Kingdom’s central bank. In addition, new regulations were enacted to control cash courier. As part of their US-coordinated counterterrorism strategy, the Saudi authorities also agreed to publicly condemn terrorism.[15]

Since 2005, the Saudi king, government officials, and the Saudi grand mufti have publicly condemned violence and extremism, promoted international cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and extolled the virtues of moderation.[16] However, the Saudis directed their counterterrorism campaign mostly to squelch domestic opposition.

The Saudis created its Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) in 2003,[17] and despite its legendary lack of transparency it was welcomed into the international Egmont Group (an international informal organization of FIUs)[18] The Saudis participate in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF),[19] and is the leading country of the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council, with Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)), which participates in MENAFATF, which is an associate member of FATAF.[20]

In 2007 Saudi Arabia became a signatory to the United Nation’s’ International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.[21] Still, a September 2007 Congressional Research (CRS) Report addressed “Saudi laxity in acting against terrorist groups”[22] and in the Act implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the 110^th US Congress noted that “Saudi Arabia has an uneven record in the fight against terrorism, especially with respect to terrorist financing.”[23] According to the 2009 State Department International Narcotics Control Strategy Report on money laundering, Saudi Arabia “continues to be a significant jurisdictional source for terrorist financing worldwide.”[24] Indeed, as Mrs. Clinton’s leaked cable pointed out, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and other jihadist groups continue to “raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan.”[25]

In April 2010 the top council of Saudi clerics issued a fatwa (Islamic religious ruling) declaring terrorist financing a violation of Islamic law, and General David H. Petraeus, then Commander of the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) was quick to praise the issuing council for its “courageous decision” to issue the fatwa against terrorist-financing.[26]

While the Saudis’ new counterterrorist financing and new financial monitoring regulations looked good on paper, Mrs. Clinton’s leaked cable noted that “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”[27] Her cable also stated it an “ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.”[28] Although the new cash courier regulation implementation continues to be inconsistent, the more Saudis, including terrorism financiers, seem to increase their use of hawala, a system of monetary transfers through anonymous intermediaries that leaves no paper trail.

A 2009 General Accounting Office (GAO) report on Saudi efforts to stop terror financing noted that Saudi donors are the major funders of radical Muslim organizations. The report further stated that Saudi financial institutions demonstrated a continued unwillingness to freely share information with Western authorities.[29] Clearly, when it comes to Saudi international counterterrorism measures, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Indeed, little has changed since Under Secretary Levey stated before Congress in July 2006, “On terrorist financing …there has been a real lag between what [the Saudis] say they were going to do and what they do.”[30]

As mentioned earlier, the Saudi royal family fears domestic terrorist groups, especially the Yemen-based branches of the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) group. Most of AQAP members are Saudi whose aim is to topple the royal family. The March 2011 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on Saudi Arabia details the Kingdom’s progress on its domestic al-Qaeda terrorists cells, [31] confirming the 2009 GAO’s finding that “U.S. and Saudi officials report progress on countering terrorism and its financing within Saudi Arabia.” However, the GAO report noted that there was hardly any efforts to prevent “funding for terrorism and violent extremism outside of Saudi Arabia” (Emphasis added).[32] Again, little has changed since Under Secretary Levey testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 2008 that Saudi Arabia is “serious about fighting Al Qaeda in the kingdom…[but] the seriousness of purpose with respect to the money going out of the kingdom is not as high.”[33]

In 2010 the Saudis dismantled 19 AQAP cells in the Kingdom. The operation included the seizure of 2.24 million riyals (over $600K) and the detention of 149 cell members—including 25 from other Arab, African, and South Asian countries.[34] The arrests foiled at least ten attacks by AQAP on government and military targets, and officials, according to the Saudis. [35] In June 2010 after exposing a 60-person fundraising cell for AQAP, the Saudis announced that they were reviewing their terrorism strategy.[36]

With self-preservation in mind, the Saudi intelligence services tipped off the American, British, and German governments of AQAP planned terror attacks in late 2010. In October after the burqa ban was enforced in France, the Saudis warned of a possible al-Qaeda attack on the country.[37] In November the Saudis scored political points and public recognition for revealing that AQAP had planted explosives on European cargo planes bound for the United States.[38]

However, the State Department’s leaked cables confirmed the GAO’s 2009 conclusion that the Saudis showed “progress on countering terrorism and its financing within Saudi Arabia, but noted challenges, particularly in preventing alleged funding for terrorism and violent extremism outside of Saudi Arabia.”[39]

Ongoing Saudi Support for Terrorism by Direct Means

The angry form of Islamism and Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia today is the soil in which anti-Western and anti-American terrorism grows.[40]

—Former CIA director R. James Woolsey

Saudi efforts to bring Wahhabi Islam to global dominance began in earnest in 1962, with the establishment of the first international Saudi charity, the Muslim World League (MWL). Influenced by exiled Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, then-Crown Prince Faisal bin Abdul Aziz used the growing oil revenues to fund MWL, which in turn established many other Islamic charities and nonprofits that helped create the global jihadist movement we are facing today.

According to a report submitted to the president of the UN Security Council in December 2002, “One must question the real ability and willingness of the [Saudi] Kingdom to exercise any control over the use of religious money in and outside the country.”[41] In the year 2000 alone, Saudi citizens’ contributions to various Islamist groups amounted to $500 million. Most of the money went to cover expenses such as salaries, pensions, and “terrorcare” services that included hospitals and schools—especially (religious teachers) and madrasas.

Saudi Arabia is a theocracy dominated by Wahhabi power figures that (despite Saudi protestations to the contrary) control both governmental and non-governmental sectors of the country. The government/ruling family makes or breaks the wealth of all its subjects. Moreover, successive Saudi kings have created ”charitable” organizations to fund the worldwide spread of Wahhabbism and have on occasion organized several national campaigns encouraging citizens to support Sunni terror organizations outside the country.[42] Thus it would be wrong to distinguish between contributions to radical Sunni organizations by the ruling family, the Saudi government, and wealthy Saudi subjects.

Afghanistan’s financial intelligence unit FinTraca reported in May 2010 that Saudi contributors have funneled over $1.5 billion to Afghanistan through Pakistan since 2006. Most of the money has entered Afghanistan through Pakistani tribal areas, especially through North Waziristan, which is known as “al-Qaeda’s heartland.” Mohammed Mustafa Massoudi, the director general of US-trained Afghan intelligence in Kabul, said, “We can trace it back as far as an entry point in Waziristan” the uncontrolled tribal border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then went on, “Why would anyone want to put such money into Waziristan? [for] Only one reason: terrorism.”[43] The likely destination of the money was thought to be the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Since 2006, these groups have killed at least 1,525 American soldiers in Afghanistan and maimed thousands more.[44] As former Under Secretary Levey declared in his April 2008 testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, “Saudi Arabia today remains the location from which more money is going to terror groups and the Taliban—Sunni terror groups and the Taliban—than from any other place in the world.”[45]

The Saudis also support Pakistan’s Laskhar-e Taiba (LET), a terrorist group most known in the West for perpetrating the Mumbai attacks in 2008, which killed over 200 people and injured over 300 more.[46] Pakistani police reported in 2009 that the Saudi al-Haramain Foundation—a charitable organization designated as a terrorist sponsor by both the US and Saudi governments[47]—gave $15 million to jihadists, including those responsible for suicide attacks in Pakistan and the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.[48]

The Saudi-based International Islamic Relief Organization’s (IIRO) Philippines branch, which was run until his death in 2007 by Muhammad Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law until his death in 2007, was designated a terrorist sponsor by the US Treasury in August 2006 “for facilitating fundraising for al Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups.”[49]

This apparently did not stop Saudi support for the al-Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf Group. A Wikileaks-released cable from the US Embassy in Riyadh described the US Government’s concerns with the IIRO’s continuing Saudi funding of al-Qaeda-affiliated group in the Philippines.[50] Dated February 24, 2007, and classified as “secret,” the cable detailed a February 6, 2007 private meeting between US assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Francis Fragos Townsend and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal. Townsend asked the foreign minister to stop the “involvement of the Saudi ambassador to the Philippines Muhammad Amin Waly in terrorism facilitation,” noting “his intervention to get two members of IIRO out of prison.” Prince Saud declared a belief that Waly’s actions “may have involved bad judgment rather than intentional support for terrorism” and Waly remained in his position until October 2009.[51]

Despite evidence of IIRO funding to radical Muslim groups the world over, the US Government has refrained from designating the IIRO in its entirety as a terrorist organization. As a result, the IIRO obtained membership in the United Nations’ Department of Public Information (DPI) in August 2010. This membership provides the IIRO the perfect cover from which to expand its reach.[52]

Saudi funding to the US-designated Muslim Brotherhood Palestinian branch, the terrorist organization Hamas, has never stopped.[53] In March 2007 Israel notified the US that Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh transferred a $1 million contribution he received in Saudi Arabia to Hamas’ “armed wing,” the Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades.[54] On December 16, 2009, while Hamas was shelling Israeli civilians from the Gaza Strip, Haniyeh told Al-Jazeera that he passed $1 million in funding from a Saudi donor to Hamas’ “armed wing.”[55]

In January 20, 2009, even before Israel concluded Operation Cast Lead,[56] its defensive operations to stop terrorist attacks from the Gaza Strip, Saudi Arabia pledged $1 billion for the reconstruction of Gaza.[57]

As documented in my book Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed—and How to Stop It, several Saudi financial institutions openly funded terrorist groups throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. In September 2000, Saudi Arabia conducted two telethons for the specified purpose of raising funds for the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, including members of Hamas and the al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades.[58] Saudi Arabia also created the Saudi Committee for the Support of the al-Quds Uprising, based in Riyadh and run by interior minister Prince Nayef. This committee “reported the transfer of $55.7 million mostly to the families of suicide bombers and to the families of imprisoned or injured Palestinian militants.” Records found in the offices of the Tulkarm Charity Committee detail the payments to 102 Hamas terrorists who were killed in “martyr operation[s].”[59] In 2002 the Saudi Arabian International Islamic Relief Organization donated $280,000 to Palestinian organizations that the US has linked to Hamas.[60]

Non-Compliance with Counterterrorism Treaty Obligations

In 2007 Saudi Arabia ratified the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The treaty requires that signatories cooperate “with one another in conducting inquiries,” including those on “the movement of funds relating to the commission of [terrorist financing].”[61]

Yet in January 2010, the Al Rajhi Bank, the largest Islamic bank in the Gulf Cooperation Council and the third largest commercial bank in Saudi Arabia, refused to comply with a subpoena issued in the terror financing trial of US operative of the Saudi based international al-Haramain Foundation (AHF), Dr. Peter Seda.[62] The evidence provided by the prosecution showed that a Saudi bank branch accepted $151,000 in traveler’s checks deposited in March 2000 in the name of the AFH.[63] The US Treasury Department designated the AHF in 2008 as sponsors of terrorism, stating: "Today's action targets the entirety of the AHF organization, including its headquarters in Saudi Arabia. Evidence demonstrates that the AHF organization was involved in providing financial and logistical support to the al Qaida network and other terrorist organizations designated by the United States and the United Nations.” [64]The Saudis claim they have shut it down. But in 2009 the GAO reported it as still active.[65]

After the bank converted the dollars into Saudi riyals, the money was smuggled out of Saudi Arabia, possibly to Chechen mujahedeen (Muslims engaged in jihad (holy-war) against the infields).[66]

In addition to refusing to cooperate with an ongoing criminal investigation in the United States, Al Rajhi took the unorthodox step of suing to dismiss the administrative subpoena it received from the US Attorney’s office for the District of Oregon in July 2009. The bank is insisting that the office had no authority to issue the subpoena, that providing the records would violate Saudi law, and that the information was not requested using “appropriate diplomatic channels.”[67]

The Saudis blatant violation of the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism did not stop the conviction of AHF’s US operative. However, the US Government did not openly challenge the Saudi government and no known sanctions have been taken against the bank.

Saudis Funding of and Fighting in the Iraqi Insurgency

Saudis have had a major hand in providing funds and fighters to the Iraqi insurgency. In February 2009, Abu Ahmed, one of the founders of the Iraqi insurgency who now works with American forces, revealed to Newsweek that he had been bankrolled by Saudi donations.[68] In 2006, it was reported that millions of Saudi riyals, often collected in the form of zakat (compulsory charity), were smuggled to Iraq to pay for missiles and other weapons.[69] The Associated Press revealed that in 2006, one Sunni cleric alone had received $25 million from Saudi Arabia, which he used to purchased arms.[70]

Through 2008, Saudis consistently comprised the largest proportion of foreign forces warring against Americans in Iraq. In 2005 NBC reported that 55 percent of foreign fighters in Iraq were Saudi;[71] in 2007 the New York Times revealed that at 41 percent representation, Saudis still accounted for “the largest number of fighters listed on the records by far.”[72] As of 2008, when foreign fighters started to flee Iraq, Saudis still comprised a significant chunk of anti-American forces.[73]

In November 2010, the Iraqi insurgency had reemerged in a series of attacks that killed more than 100 people and injured over 200.[74] It remains to be seen how many Saudi nationals will continue to participate in Iraqi Sunni insurgency attacks. The Wikileaks cable that singled out the Saudis as the primary backers of Sunni terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, indicates that Saudi support continues to play a vital role in the Iraqi insurgency.[75]

Saudi Terrorist Financing at the Grassroots

The foregoing facts show that Saudi counterterrorism efforts are lackluster at best. Saudi financial support continues as one of the major bloodlines of international terrorism, and Saudi nationals are active within the deadliest terrorist groups.

But Saudi support for terrorism extends much beyond direct deposits to openly radical elements. Direct financing of terrorist activities is but one of several means to further their agenda.

The Saudi aim at spreading Wahhabi Islam globally. To advance their goal they are said to have invested well over $1 trillion thus far. The money has gone toward the establishment of Saudi cultural and political influence in the West. Generous funds went to build mosques, to nonprofit Islamic organizations engaged in dawah (proselytization for Islam), to create a well-developed network of charitable organizations that provide financial aid to prisoners (including non-Muslims) in Western jails, as well as to fund academic chairs in Middle East Studies in universities around the world, and to lavishly fund student-exchange programs, to mention but a few.

In 2002 the Saudi government English weekly Ain-al-Yaqeen bragged that the royal family and the Saudi Kingdom have spent billions of dollars “to spread Islam to every corner of the earth.”[76] According to Ain-al-Yaqeen, the Islamic Center in Brussels, Belgium, received a total of more than $5 million; the Islamic Center in Geneva, Switzerland, receives annual support of close to $7 million; and the biggest Islamic Center in Europe, which the Saudis built in Madrid, Spain, received close to $8 million in total. The Saudi Kingdom’s efforts, under the leadership of King Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz, has been astronomical, amounting to many billions of Saudi Riyals.[77] “According to official Saudi information, Saudi funds have been used to build and maintain over 1,500 mosques, 202 colleges, 210 Islamic Centers wholly or partly financed by Saudi Arabia, and almost 2,000 schools for educating Muslim children in non-Islamic countries in Europe, North and South America, Australia and Asia.”[78]

Saudi Arabia has “fully or partially financed Islamic Centers in Los Angeles; San Francisco; Fresno; Chicago; New York; Washington; Tucson; Raleigh, N.C. and Toledo, Ohio as well as in Austria, Great Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, [and] Turkey.”[79] The Saudis also continue an aggressive global campaign to promote Islamic fundamentalism by generously funding initiatives for Islamic outreach and indoctrination to Wahhabi fundamentalism in Asia, the former Soviet republics and Africa.[80] They face growing competition from Iran, which is also engaged in an effort to proselytize the locals in these same areas to the radical Shiite version of Islam.[81]

From 1973 to the end of 2002, the Saudi Kingdom’s spending to promote Wahhabism worldwide (lately particularly in the West and especially in the US) was estimated by Reza F. Safa, the author of Inside Islam, at $87 billion.[82] As we shall see, Saudi investments continue at full throttle.

Mosques

Saudi spending on religious and educational institutions in the United States and Europe went into high gear after the 9/11 attacks on the US.

Europe, the cradle of Western civilization, is home to more than 6,000 mosques,[83] many of which propagate radical Sunni views. For instance, a 2007 Times investigation revealed that the Deoband Islamic movement controlled almost half of the United Kingdom’s mosques and 17 of its 26 Islamic seminaries at the time.[84] Tablighi Jamaat (TJ), an offshoot of the radical Sunni Pakistan-based Deoband Islamic movement, has chapters in 120 countries.[85] The Saudis are major funders of this group.[86]

Ostensibly a peaceful missionary movement, Tablighi Jamaat is connected to the London Underground Bombings, an attempted bombing in Spain, and several attacks in the United States.[87] It serves as a recruiting ground for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups[88] and also as a funder of terrorist groups such as the Pakistan-based Harakat ul-Mujahideen (HUM, a.k.a. Jamiat ul-Ansur),[89] which was designated by the US as a terrorist organization in 1999 and had ties to the abduction and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in January–February 2002.[90] It also funds Harakut ul-Jihad-I Islami (HUJI), which operates in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and India and was designated a terrorist organization in August 2010 by the US Department of State.[91]

By the end of 2008, the Saudis had poured over $700 billion into the Balkans. Conscious of the radicalizing influences of mosques and Islamic cultural centers, some European countries have taken a stand against Saudi-financed Islamic projects.[92] The IIRO has been identified as one of the most active organizations in the Saudi Balkan effort.[93]

In March 2010 the Sunday Times reported that the Saudis are transferring hundreds of millions of dollars to the Balkans to spread Wahhabism by funding a series of mosques, community centers, and charities.[94] Some are currently under investigation for terrorist ties. Also in 2010, the Norwegian government blocked the construction of a Saudi-financed mosque in Oslo and halted the construction of the planned mosque in Tromsoe in the Arctic Circle after a Saudi businessman pledged approximately 2.5 million Euros to the project.[95] In 2007 Tablighi Jamaat’s plans to build Europe’s biggest mosque near the site of the 2012 Olympics in London stalled after a public outcry[96]—an online petition against the construction drew over 255,000 signatures from the United Kingdom.[97] The plans to build the 12,000-person complex were finally aborted in January 2010 after the UK branch of the Pakistani Tablighi Jamaat failed to submit the required paperwork.[98]

The United States, where freedom of religion is protected by the Constitution, self-preservation instincts have been slow to develop. In his 2003 testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, Stephen Schwartz, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, estimated that approximately 80 percent of the 1,200 American mosques at that time received Saudi funding and were under Wahhabi control.[99] In August 2010 the Washington Post estimated that the US had more than 2,000 mosques, but it did not provide information on Saudi direct and indirect funding.[100]

In New York City, news of the prospective construction of a mosque a few hundred yards from Ground Zero, has stoked months of tension and dispute.[101] One of the leading figures promoting the controversial Islamic Cultural Center is Imam Abdul Faisal Rauf, a self proclaimed moderate Muslim, who has a number of suspicious connections to Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the United States, Malaysia, the Gulf, and Saudi Arabia.[102] Rauf heads the American Society for Muslim Advancement and is a board member of the Malaysia-based Cordoba Initiative.[103]

One of Rauf’s partners in the Cordoba Initiative, Jamal Barzinji, was among the founding members of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT),[104] the Muslim Brotherhood’s forefront think-tank in the US, which “had been demonstrated by the Justice Department to be an unindicted coconspirator” in the Hamas front, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terror financing trial.[105] Barzinji, who leads IIIT, is considered “closely associated” with terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.[106] He is also a trustee of the Saudi-funded North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which was named an unindicted coconspirator in the HLF terror financing case as well.[107] NAIT holds the deed to the terror-linked Dar al-Hijra Mosque,[108] whose development Barzinji authorized.[109]

Rauf has drawn Saudi support in the past. Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s Kingdom Foundation who owns many shares in American businesses, lavishly funds Muslim Brotherhood offshoots in the US,[110] such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA),[111] also donated $300,000 to Rauf’s American Society for Muslim Advancement.[112] Ironically, Talal has gone on record as opposing the construction of Cordoba House so close to Ground Zero. Nevertheless, Rauf has insisted that the project proceed and,[113] in an effort to smooth public sensibilities, Cordoba House is now being referred to instead as the Park51 Islamic Center.[114]

The Ground Zero mosque controversy is hardly the only debate raging on mosque construction in the United States. Many other mosques are planned for the United States, and some already exist.[115]

The state of Tennessee may soon hold three large Islamic complexes in the cities of Murfeesboro,[116] Antioch,[117] and Memphis. While Staten Island, in New York, recently scrapped unpopular plans for a mosque,[118] Brooklyn, New York, will soon be home to an Islamic Cultural Center.[119] Atlanta, Georgia, opened a $10 million mosque complex—the largest mosque in the state—in 2008.[120]

The Boston neighborhood of Roxbury, in Massachusetts, welcomed a $22 million, 60,000-foot Islamic Cultural Center with known radical ties in 2009.[121] Saudi financing is confirmed in the case of the Roxbury mosque,[122] which is run by the Muslim American Society,[123] another important Saudi-financed Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States.[124]

Other multimillion - dollar structures are constructed in or slated for construction in Sheboygan, Wisconsin;[125] Temecula Valley, California;[126] and Florence, Kentucky.[127] The sources of funding for these mosques are not known. But given the Saudis’ active role in Islamic promotion worldwide, and their special interest in influencing the US, it is likely that Saudi money is playing a major role in most of these mosque constructions.

Schools

Saudi money heavily influences academic institutions in the United States. Saudi donations to American universities have been going on for decades. Lately, however, the Saudis have signed agreements, worth at least $25 million each, with several major universities to help with the development of academic curriculums for the new King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in the Kingdom.[128] Such agreements were signed in 2008 with the University of Texas at Austin; the University of California, Berkeley; and Stanford University.[129] In September 2010 the Kingdom’s General Investment Authority (Sagia) signed the Georgia Institute of Technology to build a center to provide applied science degrees to students in Saudi Arabia.[130]

In the meantime, the Saudi government sponsors foreign study programs for approximately 60,000 Saudi nationals worldwide.[131] Since 9/11, the number of Saudis studying in the United States has spiked markedly, from 3,000 to over 30,000.[132] Of all Middle Eastern countries, Saudi Arabia sponsors the highest number of students in the United States.

In addition to fostering institutional partnerships, Saudis have donated millions of dollars to American schools, buying sway over the way Islam and Middle Eastern Studies are taught in the US. Saudi tentacles are even more deeply sunk into British universities. A 2008 report by Britain’s Centre for Social Cohesion shows that Saudi Arabian and Muslim organizations have poured over $460 million into British universities including Oxford, Cambridge, and the London School of Economics.[133] Oxford alone received over $39 million from the late Saudi King Fahd for its Centre for Islamic Studies.[134]

Billions of dollars worth of investments in Western campuses have reaped the Saudis’ massive dividends, rewriting the Middle East narrative in curricula of universities around the world and intimidating critical assessment of Islam and Muslims. Britain’s University and College Union has repeatedly tried to launch an academic boycott of Israel while Middle East studies–related activities at premier universities in the UK and the US are often fiercely anti-Israel.[135]

The radicalization of the young, wealthy and lonely Nigerian student Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab happened in the Islamic Society at University College London, which he attended, and in the London mosque he frequented, which was funded by the Saudi MWL. Abdulmutallab, better known as the 2009 failed Christmas underwear bomber, travelled to Yemen and was later recruited to al-Qaeda.[136] Further investigation by Britain’s counter-extremism think tank Quilliam Foundation revealed that members of the Islamic Society at London’s City University, a Wahhabi hotbed, are urging violence and preaching fundamentalist Islam.[137] Another UK survey showed that 60 percent of active members in Britain’s universities’ Islamic societies agree that killing in the name of religion can be justified, and that nearly the same number supports the imposition of a global caliphate.[138]

Recommendations

As with other contagious diseases, to successfully fight the spread of virulent Islamic radicalism, one must identify the origins of the outbreak (Saudi Arabia), as well as the contributing factors to its spread (Saudi oil revenues).

While Western cultures place a premium on coexistence, negotiation, compromise, and multiculturalism, Islam does not. Sharia—law—requires the subjugation or destruction of all non-Muslims. Its adherents value only the sharia, and join the jihad for its global domination, to create the ummah (Islamic nation). Exposing sharia and its radical proponents, be they states, organizations, or individuals, is crucial to our ability to protect ourselves and to take the necessary measures to curtail the spread of radical Islam.

Successive US Administrations have demonstrated willful blindness and recklessness vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia’s cultivation of Islamic radicalism and terrorism financing activities. The United States still trusts the Saudis to self-report on the progress of their counterterrorist financing efforts. When it comes to Saudi investments or contributions in the United States, the American government does not disclose information, making it difficult to discover the true extent of the Saudi financial, political, educational and social influence in America.

CAIR, ISNA, and other Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood organs enjoy ties to the American political establishment and are often portrayed in the media as religiously moderate and socially positive advocacy organizations. Legitimizing radicals as if they are moderates fosters the spread of terrorism throughout the world, including the new phenomenon of “homegrown” terrorism in the United States.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Virginia-born psychiatrist, massacred 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009.[139] Eyebrows were raised when Pennsylvania native and Muslim convert Colleen LaRose, a.k.a. “Jihad Jane,” pled guilty in 2011 for plotting to murder Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks because he had lampooned the prophet Muhammad in one of his cartoons.[140] In upstate New York, the “Lackawanna Six” were local Yemeni-Americans who had attended al-Qaeda terrorist training camps in Kandahar prior to September 2001; they pled guilty to supporting terrorism in Buffalo two years later in a case that received little public attention.[141]

FoxNews reported in March 2011 that data compiled by the Department of Justice indicated “there has been a class-one terrorism case with a direct link between U.S. citizens … and foreign terrorist groups on average every two weeks since January 2009.”[142]

The mosques, Islamist NGOs and advancing homegrown terror starkly symbolize the depth of Saudi penetration into American civic life. Yet, because the US is so dependent on Saudi oil, little has been done to stop this penetration, and it is unlikely to be addressed anytime in the foreseeable future. The media, public and Congress should demand full transparency from the government and full disclosure of Saudi investments in and contributions to the US.

I. The US must impede the growth of the Saudis’ radicalizing influence on American education, business and politics. An important step towards achieving this most difficult task should be the ban of contributions to American educational institutions, nonprofits – including religious and charitable organizations from countries that prohibit religious freedom.

The 2010 annual report of the US Department of State on International Religious Freedom,[143] and the 2011 annual report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom,[144] designated countries that have “engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom” as Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs).[145] The list includes Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Pakistan, Egypt, Eritrea, Afghanistan, China, to name a few.[146] There is an additional Watch List of countries where the government engages in serious violations of or that tolerate violations of religious freedom.

While Saudi Arabia is the only country on the CPC list that enjoys “indefinite waiver of Presidential actions under section 407(a)(2) of IRFA,” it is also the largest contributor to US educational institutions, charities and non-governmental institutions (NGOs).[147] Direct and indirect large contributions are also sent by the United Arab Emirates, Iran and Kuwait.

The influence of Saudi and Gulf largesse on the radicalization of their American recipients has been widely documented, but no attempts have been made to stem the flow of the money that advances the agendas of regimes, which openly oppose the fundamental democratic freedoms provided by the US Constitution. Moreover, such contributions fund the development of subversive elements that use our First Amendment rights to undermine those rights.

The US would not be the first to ban such contributions. In November 2010, when the Norwegian government halted construction of that Arctic Circle mosque due to the Saudi pledge, the foreign ministry spokeswoman explained, “It would be paradoxical and unnatural to approve financing coming from a country where religious freedom does not exist.”[148]

Following in Norway's footsteps, the US Congress should pass a bill that would require the disclosure of all contributions in cash and in kind to US charities, NGOs, educational and religious institutions from countries listed by the State Department as prohibiting religious freedoms or severely discriminating against religions other than the official religion. To deter Americans from receiving and/or soliciting such contributions, the US Justice Department should impose large fines and publish the violators’ names. This would be an important step towards curbing Islamic radicalization and influence.

II. The proposed Justice Against Terrorism Act (JASTA), an important bill to deter terrorism and provide justice for victims, was first introduced in December 2009 by Senators Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY). The bill proposed removing the existing prohibition against suing foreign states or foreign officials civilly for damages related to acts of terrorism. JASTA would “expand the liability of foreign states for tortuous acts committed against U.S. citizens during a terrorist act and allow civil actions against a foreign state” and its officials, as well as “impose liability on any person who aids and abets an act of international terrorism, provides material support or resources to terrorist organizations, or conspires with terrorists.”[149]. Increasing the courts’ jurisdictional reach would allow plaintiffs to sue for appropriate damages and help deter individual or corporate entities from transacting with terrorist groups.[150] This critical bill never became a law, and, as of this writing, has yet to be reintroduced in Congress.

III. Saudi and Gulf terror financiers use libel laws and suits, mostly, but not only, in the UK, to silence investigations into their funding of radical Muslim organizations. After the 9/11 attacks, this tactic of lawfare known as libel tourism successfully chilled freedom of speech in the US and the world over.[151] By pressing frivolous and extortionate libel suits in British courts, one Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahfouz, alone managed to muzzle over 45 major media outlets and authors, including many Americans.[152]

The threat of libel tourism to American authors and publishers ended in the summer of 2010. This was accomplished under costly and difficult personal efforts. The unwavering support from the Board of Directors of the American Center for Democracy, which I head—in particular, R. James Woolsey, Michael Mukasey, and Nicholas Rostow—and my brilliant, patient and generous attorney, Daniel Kornstein, made my struggle more tolerable. And the perceptive Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with their dedicated staff, and many other supporters, made the passage of the SPEECH Act possible.

Rather than caving in after being threatened with a libel suit in London in 2005, I sued in New York, to block the enforcement of the English default judgment in the United States and then engaged in a multiyear campaign to pass remedial legislation at both the state and federal levels. New York, Illinois, Florida, California, Utah, Tennessee, Maryland and Louisiana all passed laws to protect against the enforcement of libel tourist suits. These, along with the federal SPEECH Act which became law in August 2010, provide protection to all American authors and publishers in print and on the Internet from frivolous libel suits abroad.[153] No longer intimidated by the threat of foreign libel judgments, American investigative researchers are now free to take advantage of the uniquely strong protections for freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

IV. To curtail the frivolous libel suits in the US, by Saudi-linked organizations such as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) file against their critics, Federal Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) legislation is under consideration in Congress.[154] Together with the SPEECH Act, the anti-SLAPP legislation will deter frivolous libel suits within and outside the US and help secure the free speech rights Americans need to protect their freedom of expression.

V. But the battle does not stop there. In addition to following the Saudi money trail, Americans should be encouraged to openly criticize and pressure their own government’s obfuscation of Saudi Arabia’s role as the world’s primary sponsor of radical Islam and Islamic terrorism. As the Wikileaks cable on Saudi Arabia shows, this cover-up rises to the highest levels of government—American presidents, their Cabinet members, government officials, and diplomats continue to publicly praise Saudi Arabia while fully aware of its role as the primary global terrorism funder.[155]

VI. Cutting off the money lifeline to terrorists requires effective and evenhanded enforcement of counterterrorism and finance regulations. Instead, the US Government uses a selective process that allows activities of known terrorism fronts to continue. While authorities have arrested several members or affiliates of the primary Islamist organizations, the organizations remain open.

The terror ties of CAIR—a documented Muslim Brotherhood front—have long been laid bare in numerous court cases, the most recent of which is the aforementioned 2009 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) case.[156] That case exposed HLF as a Hamas fundraising front, declared ISNA “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes in the United States,”[157] and implicated both ISNA and CAIR as unindicted co-conspirators of HLF.[158] At least 15 CAIR officials have been identified in terror investigations, including CAIR founder, Ghassan Elashi.[159]

As the primary endorser of chaplains of the Muslim faith assigned to federal prisons, ISNA hand-picked imams to preach to inmates until the Bureau of Prisons discovered ISNA’s true agenda during the course of an investigation into the spread of radical Islam in American prisons and suspended the organization.[160] CAIR and ISNA should be shut down.

The US Treasury should freeze the assets of such groups and similar seemingly nonprofit organizations that are, in actuality, tools for spreading fundamentalist Islam through cultural influence and the sponsorship of terrorism. Such organizations include a host of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated entities, such as the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), the Muslim World League (MWL), and the Muslim Student Association (MSA). [161]

Congress should also demand an explanation of why the government allowed the reopening of an office of a terrorism front—the Florida office of the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), designated as a terrorist organization by the US Department of the Treasury. Another disturbing example was described in the September 2010 testimony of attorney Eric Lewis before the House Committee on Financial Services regarding the possible laundering of up to $1 trillion(!) through the United States by “the Money Exchange,” a Saudi-based remittance company.[162]

Spearheaded by Maan al-Sanea, the chair of Saad Group and a major stakeholder in HSBC Bank, the Money Exchange operated internationally through a series of shell companies and correspondent banks, funneling billions of dollars annually through American bank accounts. The nature of the business and its transactional volume should have triggered close monitoring by US banks. Yet Lewis’s testimony reveals an utter lack of due diligence on the part of US financial institutions and the resulting silence on the part of the press and the American government.[163]

Such silences, if unchallenged, will jeopardize the national security of the US and lead to the suppression the freedom and democracy that are unique to America. Saudi and other radical-Islam promoting regimes’ direct and indirect involvement in and support of terrorism must be fully exposed and addressed if we are to maintain our security protect our liberty.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the Director of the New York–based American Center for Democracy (ACD)[164] and the Economic Warfare Institute(EWI)[165] She has authored hundreds of articles and several books on terrorist financing and political corruption.

NOTES

[1] Paul Handley, “US Cables: Saudi ‘Critical’ Finance Base for Qaeda, Taliban,” Middle East Online, December 5, 2010. http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=42881 See original at Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton, “Terrorist Finance: Action Request for Senior Level Engagement on Terrorism Finance” (Secret State Department Cable 131801), December 30, 2009, http://wikileaks.ch.nyud.net/cable/2009/12/09STATE131801.html.

[2] Ibid.

[3] “Excerpt From An Interview With Secretary of State Colin Powell, July 30, 2003,” in “Congressional 9/11 Report Missing Pages: Saudis Ask for Full Disclosure,” The SUSRIS Project – Saudi-US Relations Information Service, July 31, 2003, http://www.susris.com/2003/07/31/congressional-911-report-missing-pages-saudis-ask-for-full-disclosure/.

[4]“Transcript – Confirmation Hearing of Condoleeza Rice,” New York Times, January 18, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/politics/18TEXT-RICE.html?pagewanted=print.

[5] Agence France Presse, “Bush certifies Saudi Arabia as 'war on terror' ally,” The Daily Star, October 20, 2007, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=86104.

[6] United States Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner's Speech at Jeddah Chamber of Commerce: The State of the Global Economy and the Relationship between the United States and the Gulf Region,” press release, July 14, 2009, http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg211.aspx.

[7] Brian Ross, “U.S.: Saudis Still Filling Al Qaeda's Coffers,” ABC News: The Blotter, September 11, 2007, http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/us-saudis-still.html.

[8] Handley, “US Cables: Saudi ‘Critical’ Finance Base for Qaeda, Taliban.” http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=42881.

[9] Associated Press, “Official: 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi,” USA Today, February 6, 2002, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm.

[10] CNN, “Saudis blame al Qaeda for attack,” May 30, 2004, http://articles.cnn.com/2004-05-30/world/saudi.shooting_1_apicorp-saudi-officials-qaeda?_s=PM:WORLD

[11] David G. Savage, “Saudi Arabia-based charities still funding terrorists, GAO says,” Los Angeles Times, September 30, 2009, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/30/nation/na-terror-funding30.

[12] Congressional Research Service, Saudi Arabia: Terrorist Financing Issues (RL32499, September 14, 2007), by Christopher M. Blanchard and Alfred B. Prados, CRS-23, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32499_20070914.pdf.

[13] Abeer Allam,. “Terrorism funding remains a concern,.” Financial Times,. April 19, 2010,. <http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1c0ed36a-4bca-11df-a217-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=f39ffd26-4bb2-11da-997b-0000779e2340,s01=2.html#axzz1Sa2n8lpS>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c0ed36a-4bca-11df-a217-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss.

[14] Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, http://www.sama.gov.sa/sites/samaen/AboutSAMA/Pages/SAMAFunction.aspx

[15] United States General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism – U.S. Agencies Report Progress Countering Terrorism and Its Financing in Saudi Arabia, but Continued Focus on Counter Terrorism Financing Efforts Needed (GAO-09-883, September 24, 2009), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09883.pdf.

[16] Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials and Religious Scholars Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation, May 2008. http://www.saudiembassy.net/files/PDF/Reports/2008Reports/Extremism_Report_May08.pdf.http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBsQFjAB&url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.saudiembassy.net%252Ffiles%252FPDF%252FReports%252F2008Reports%252FExtremism_Report_May08.pdf&rct=j&q=saudi%20king%20condemn%20terrorism%202008&ei=hzXtTPiKA4KC8gbFoMCjAQ&usg=AFQjCNGa7e5JiyDInub6Tx7Pmr8g_-urhw&sig2=22lkFeXxmhSQ0zUhiWIWXw&cad=rja.

[17] “Saudi Arabia,” IBA Anti-Money Laundering Forum, last updated February 17, 2009, http://www.anti-moneylaundering.org/middleeast/Saudi_Arabia.aspx.

[18] “List of Members,” The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, http://www.egmontgroup.org/about/list-of-members.

[19] “Mutual Evaluation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” Financial Action Task Force (FATF), June 25, 2010, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/document/62/0,3343,en_32250379_32236963_45537790_1_1_1_1,00.html.http://www.fatf-gafi.org/document/62/0,3343,en_32250379_32236963_45537790_1_1_1_1,00.html.

[20] FATAT Watch, “MENAFATF members,” http://www.fatfwatch.com/categories/MENAFATF-members

[21] United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 54/109, “International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism,” December 9, 1999, http://www.un.org/law/cod/finterr.htm.

[22] Saudi Arabia: Terrorist Financing Issues, September 2007 CRS Report.

[23] “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,” Public Law 110–53, 121 Stat. 266, August 3, 2007, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ053.110.

[24] United States Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, “2009 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report,” February 27, 2009, http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2009/vol2/116545.htm.

[25] Handley, “US Cables: Saudi ‘Critical’ Finance Base for Qaeda, Taliban.”

[26] Donna Miles, “Petraeus Lauds Saudi Fatwa Condemning Terrorism Financing,” United States Department of Defense, May 22, 2010, http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59298.

[27] Clinton, Secret State Department Cable 131801.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Combating Terrorism, September 2009 GAO Report.

[30] The Terror Finance Tracking Program: Hearing Before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (H.R. HTG, 109–105), 109^th Congress (July 11, 2006), http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/109-105.pdf

[31] Congressional Research Service, Saudi Arabia:Background and U.S. Relations (RL33533, March 10, 2011), by Christopher M. Blanchard, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33533.pdf.

[32] Combating Terrorism, September 2009 GAO Report.

[33] Anti-Terrorism Financing: Progress Made And Challenges Ahead: Hearing Before the Senate Finance Committee (S. HRG. 110–1034), 110^th Congress (April 1, 2008) (statement of Hon. Stuart A. Levey, Under Secretary, Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, United States Department of the Treasury), http://finance.senate.gov/library/hearings/download/?id=8bec1f8c-3611-40f1-a9fa-f92abc282439.

[34] “Saudis trumpet al-Qaeda arrests,” BBC News, November 26, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11848806.

[35] Massoud A. Derhally and Zainab Fattah, “Saudi Arabia Says Al-Qaeda Arrests Prevented Attacks,”Bloomberg BusinessWeek, November 26, 2010, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-26/saudi-arabia-says-al-qaeda-arrests-prevented-attacks.html.

[36] Richard Spencer, “Saudi Arabian mother becomes the First Lady of al-Qaeda,” Daily Telegraph, June 25, 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/7854994/Saudi-Arabian-mother-becomes-the-First-Lady-of-al-Qaeda.html.

[37] “France: Saudis warn of new al-Qaeda threat,” BBC News, October 17, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11562598 and Associated Press, “France's burka ban ruled constitutional,” CBC News, October 7, 2010, http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2010/10/07/france-burka-ban007.html.

[38] Eric Schmitt and Scott Shane, “Saudis Warned U.S. of Attack Before Parcel Bomb Plot,” New York Times, November 5, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/world/middleeast/06terror.html.

[39] Combating Terrorism, September 2009 GAO Report (emphasis added).

[40]R. James Woolsey, “World War IV,” speech, National War College, November 16, 2002, http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/woolsey.html.

[41] Rachel Ehrenfeld, “The Saudi Connection,” National Review Online, June 1, 2004, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/210867/saudi-connection/rachel-ehrenfeld.

[42] Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, “Dollars For Terror,” FrontPageMagazine.com, August 12, 2004, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11833.

[43] Anthony Loyd, “Terror link alleged as Saudi millions flow into Afghanistan war zone,” Times (London), May 31, 2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7140745.ece.

[44] iCasualties – Operation Enduring Freedom website, http://icasualties.org/oef.

[45] Testimony of Under Secretary Levey at the Hearing Before the Senate Finance Committee.

[46] Jayshree Bajoria, “Backgrounder: Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure) (aka Lashkar e-Tayyiba, Lashkar e-Toiba; Lashkar-i-Taiba),” Council on Foreign Relations, last updated January 14, 2010, http://www.cfr.org/publication/17882/lashkaretaiba_army_of_the_pure_aka_lashkar_etayyiba_lashkar_etoiba_lashkaritaiba.html.

[47] United States Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Designates Al Haramain Islamic Foundation,” press release, June 19, 2008, http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1043.aspx.

[48] James M. Dorsey, “Saudis fail to halt terrorism funding despite minor gains,” ed. Rob Mudge, Deutsche Welle, December 20, 2009, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5019025,00.html.

[49] United States Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Takes Additional Measures to Combat Iranian WMD Proliferation Iranian Nuclear & Missile Firms Targeted,” press release, August 3, 2006, http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp45.aspx.

[50] Joyce Pangco Pañares, “Saudi envoy in Manila linked to terror group,” Manila Standard Today, December 7, 2010, http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNews.htm?f=2010/december/7/news2.isx&d=2010/december/7.

[51] “APHSCT Townsend February 6 Meeting with Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal” (Secret Embassy Riyadh Cable 367), February 24, 2007, http://wikileaks.org/cable/2007/02/07RIYADH367.html.

[52] Muhammad Ibrahim, “IIRO-Saudi Arabia gains membership in UN body,” Arab News, August 1, 2010, http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article93533.ece.

[53] “Terrorist Organizations,” Osen LLC, http://www.osen.us/index.php?id=57.

[54] Adam Entous, “Haniyeh gave Saudi cash to Hamas armed wing: Israel,” Reuters, April 1, 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL0144310420070401.

[55] Ismail Haniyeh, interview by Zeina Awad, Talk to Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera English, December 16, 2009, http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/talktojazeera/2009/12/2009121715913988277.html.

[56] “Operation Cast Lead,” Global Security.org, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/operation-cast-lead.htm.

[57] Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, “Saudis Pledge to Cover Over Half of PA War Costs,” Arutz Sheva, January 20, 2009, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129526.

[58] Rachel Ehrenfeld, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed—and How to Stop It (Chicago: Bonus Books, 2005), 108-109, http://books.google.com/books?id=jc2VW8GUqAwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.

[59] “Israeli Report Details Saudi Funding for Palestinian Militants,” WorldTribune.com, July 4, 2002, http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2002/me_saudis_07_04.html.

[60] Attachment to Letter from Mustapha Dib to Yasser Arafat, January 9, 2001, Captured Document E5, translated in “Arafat: Where Did the Saudi Aid Money Go? (Transferred to the Hamas...),” Appendix E of Large Sums of Money Transferred by Saudi Arabia to the Palestinians are Used for Financing Terror Organizations (particularly the Hamas) and Terrorist Activities (including Suicide Attacks inside Israel), (Israel Defense Forces Document TR2-350-02), May 6, 2002, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/bu/saudi/sa_mappe.htm.

[61] UN General Assembly, “International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.”

[62] “Saudi Bank Refuses to Cooperate in U.S. Investigation into Terrorist Financiers,” For The Record—The IPT Blog, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, January 26, 2010, http://www.investigativeproject.org/blog/2010/01/saudi-bank-refuses-to-cooperate-in-us.

[63] Stephen I. Landman, “Day Four in United States v. Seda,” For The Record—The IPT Blog, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, September 3, 2010, http://www.investigativeproject.org/blog/2010/09/day-four-in-united-states-v-seda.

[64] On Agust 1, 2011, Treasury’s website stated: “the page you are looking for may have been removed.” see

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp1043.htm

[65] Combating Terrorism, September 2009 GAO Report.

[66] Landman, “Day Four in United States v. Seda.”

[67] Jordan Weissmann, “Saudi Bank Asks Court to Stop Patriot Act Subpoena,” The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes, January 20, 2010, http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/01/saudi-bank-asks-court-to-stop-patriot-act-subpoena-.html.

[68] Scott Johnson, “Portrait of a Shadow,” Newsweek, February 14, 2009, http://www.newsweek.com/2009/02/13/portrait-of-a-shadow.html.

[69] Associated Press, “Saudi Citizens Funding Iraq Insurgents,” CBS News, February 11, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/world/main2240138.shtml.

[70] Salah Nasrawi, “Saudis Reportedly Funding Iraqi Sunnis,” Washington Post, December 8, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701070_pf.html.

[71] Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit, “Who are the foreign fighters in Iraq?,” NBC News Investigates on NBC Nightly News, June 20, 2005, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/ns/nightly_news-nbc_news_investigates.

[72] Richard A. Oppel Jr., “Foreign Fighters in Iraq Are Tied to Allies of U.S.,” New York Times, November 22, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/world/middleeast/22fighters.html.

[73] Jim Michaels, “Foreign fighters leaving Iraq, military says,” USA Today, March 21, 2008, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-20-fighters_N.htm.

[74] Babak Dehghanpisheh, “Iraq Bombings Could Herald New Deadly Phase,” Newsweek, November 3, 2010, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/02/iraqi-insurgents-making-deadly-comeback.html.

[75] Clinton, Secret State Department Cable 131801.

[76] “The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd Ibn Abdul Aziz Directs the Distribution of Hundreds of Thousands Quran to the Pilgrims. Huge Saudi Efforts in the Field of Establishing Islamic Centers, Mosques and Academies All Over the World. Tunisian, Arab and Muslim Newspapers Lauds the Kingdom's Services to the Pilgrims.,” Ain-Al-Yaqeen, March 1, 2002, http://www.ainalyaqeen.com/issues/20020301/feat3en.htm.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Mark Silverberg, “The Wahhabi Invasion of America,” February 27, 2003, http://www.marksilverberg.com/article/WahhabisminAmerica/68/1/print/.

[79] Ibid.

[80] Stephen Schwartz, “Defeating Wahabbism,” Islam Daily, August 4, 2004, http://www.islamdaily.org/en/wahabism/1637.defeating-wahabbism.htm.

[81] Congressional Research Service, Islam in Africa (RS22873, May 9, 2008), by Hussein D. Hassan, CRS-4-5, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22873.pdf.

[82] Paul Sperry, “U.S.-Saudi oil imports fund American mosques,” WorldNetDaily, April 22, 2002, http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=13621.

[83] Soeren Kern, “Europe's Mosque Wars,” Pundicity.com, August 18, 2010, http://kern.pundicity.com/7847/europe-mosque-wars.

[84] Andrew Norfolk, “Hardline takeover of British mosques,” Times (London), September 7, 2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece.

[85] Dr. Joseph Lumbard and Dr. Aref Ali Nayed, eds., The 500 Most Influential Muslims 2010 (The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre, 2010), 58, http://www.rissc.jo/docs/new/Muslim500-2010-Third-Edition-001.pdf.

[86] Alex Alexiev, “Tablighi Jamaat: Jihad's Stealthy Legions,” Middle East Quarterly 12, no. 1 (Winter 2005): 3-11, http://www.meforum.org/686/tablighi-jamaat-jihads-stealthy-legions.

[87] Fred Burton and Scott Stewart, “Tablighi Jamaat: An Indirect Line to Terrorism,” STRATFOR, January 23, 2008, http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/tablighi_jamaat_indirect_line_terrorism.

[88] Susan Sachs, “A Muslim Missionary Group Draws New Scrutiny in U.S.,” New York Times, July 14, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/14/us/a-muslim-missionary-group-draws-new-scrutiny-in-us.html.

[89]. Alexiev, “Tablighi Jamaat: Jihad's Stealthy Legions” and “Listing of terrorist organizations: Jamiat ul-Ansar,” Australian National Security, last modified November 29, 2010, http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/nationalsecurity.nsf/Page/What_Governments_are_doing_Listing_of_Terrorism_Organisations_Jamiat_ul-Ansar.

[90] “Harakat ul-Mujahedin (HUM),” Global Security.org, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hua.htm.

[91] United States Department of State, “Designations of Harakat-ul Jihad Islami (HUJI) and its Leader Mohammad Ilyas Kashmiri,” press release, August 6, 2010, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/08/145779.htm.

[92] Sean O’Neill, “Lessons in hate found at leading mosques,” Times (London), October 30, 2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2767252.ece.

[93] Dan Bilefsky, “Islamic Revival Tests Bosnia’s Secular Cast,” New York Times, December 26, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27islam.html?_r=2&hp.

[94] Bojan Pancevski, “Saudis fund Balkan Muslims spreading hate of the West,” Sunday Times (London), March 28, 2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7140745.ece.

[95] Agence France Presse, “Arctic mosque plan on ice over Saudi funding,” Khaleej Times, November 8, 2010, http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayarticle.asp?xfile=data/international/2010/November/international_November431.xml&section=international&col=.

[96] Fiona Hamilton and Ruth Gledhill, “Islamic sect’s plan to build mega-mosque next to Olympics site collapses,” Times (London), January 18, 2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6991808.ece.

[97] “No 10 site in mosque petition row,” BBC News, July 17, 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6902367.stm.

[98] Agence France Presse, “London mosque near Olympics site aborted,” Al Arabiya News, January 18, 2010, http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/01/18/97716.html.

[99] Stephen Schwartz, “Wahhabism & Islam in The U.S.,” National Review, June 30, 2003, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/207366/wahhabism-islam-u-s/stephen-schwartz.

[100] Edward E. Curtis IV, “Five myths about mosques in America,” Washington Post, August 29, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605510.html.

[101] Dave Evans, “Frustration, anger grows over proposed mosque,” WABC-TV: Eyewitness News, August 18, 2010, http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7615993; “Protesters rally against, for planned Islamic center in New York,” CNN, August 22, 2010, http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-22/us/new.york.mosque.protests_1_ground-zero-islamic-center-protesters-rally?_s=PM:US.

[102] Alyssa A. Lappen, “The Ground Zero Mosque Developer: Muslim Brotherhood Roots, Radical Dreams,” Pajamas Media, May 14, 2010, http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams and “GZM Imam's Malaysia Connections,” IPT News—The Investigative Project on Terrorism, September 24, 2010, http://www.investigativeproject.org/2198/gzm-imams-malaysia-connections.

[103] “American Society for Muslim Advancement: Financial Statements For the year ended June 30, 2009,” http://www.asmasociety.org/about/asma_audit_2009.pdf.

[104] “Ground Zero mosque modeled after notorious 9/11 mosque?,” WorldNetDaily, August 22, 2010, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=194617.

[105] http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/US_v_HLF_Unindicted_Coconspirators.pdf.

[106] Andrew C. McCarthy, “International Institute of Islamic Thought and the Muslim Brotherhood,” National Review, July 24, 2010, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/233574/international-institute-islamic-thought-and-muslim-brotherhood-andy-mccarthy.

[107] Paul Sperry, “Sami’s Guardian Angel,” FrontPageMagazine.com, December 9, 2005, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6315.

[108] “Dar al-Hijrah Mosque,” The Investigative Project on Terrorism, http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/417.

[109] Sperry, “Sami’s Guardian Angel.”

[110] “Mosque's Saudi Patron,” Investors Business Daily—IBD Editorials, August 26, 2010, http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/545180/201008261900/Mosques-Saudi-Patron.aspx.

[111] “ISNA Uses Saudi Money For Fellowship Program,” The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, September 27, 2009, http://globalmbreport.com/?p=1631.

[112] John Cook, “News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner,” The Upshot (blog), Yahoo! News, August 20, 2010, http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner.

[113]. David B. Caruso, “Imam unmoved by Saudi criticism of NYC mosque,” Boston Globe, October 29, 2010, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/10/29/imam_unmoved_by_saudi_criticism_of_nyc_mosque/.

[114] Dan Amira, “Ground Zero Mosque Gets Less Muslim-Invasion-Sounding Name,” New York Magazine, July 14, 2010, http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/07/ground_zero_mosque_gets_lets_m.html.

[115] Erick Stakelbeck, “Mega Mosque Plans Target America's Heartland,” CBN News, August 22, 2010, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/August/Mega-Mosque-Plans-Target-Americas-Heartland/?WT.mc_id=EmbedNewsPlayer.

[116] Lucas L. Johnson II, “Order to halt Murfreesboro mosque denied,” Knoxville News Sentinel, November 18, 2010, http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/nov/18/order-to-halt-murfreesboro-mosque-denied.

[117] Diane Macedo, “Plans to Build Massive Islamic Centers Raise Concerns in Tennessee,” FoxNews.com, August 9, 2010, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/09/plans-build-tennessee-islamic-centers.

[118] Paul Vitello, “Heated Opposition to a Proposed Mosque,” New York Times, June 10, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/nyregion/11mosque.html.

[119] Ned Berke, “Sheepshead Bay Mosque Receives Permits To Build,” Sheepshead Bites (blog), August 20, 2010, http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2010/11/sheepshead-bay-mosque-receives-permits-to-build.

[120] “Atlanta's Largest Mosque Opens,” CBN News, August 19, 2008, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2008/August/Atlantas-Largest-Mosque-Opens-.

[121] “Boston Mosque: the Rise of Radical Islam,” CBN News, November 16, 2004, http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/041116a.aspx, posted by “missyme,” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281227/posts.

[122] Jeff Jacoby, “The Boston mosque's Saudi connection,” Boston Globe, January 10, 2007, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/10/the_boston_mosques_saudi_connection/.

[123] Michael Paulson, “Formal opening of Roxbury mosque, two days of events set for this month,” Boston Globe, June 14, 2009, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/06/14/roxbury_mosque_to_open_formally_this_month/.

[124] “The Massachusetts Mega Mosque: A Success for the Muslim Brotherhood, Failure from Media & Government,” PJTV.com video, 14:00, June 8, 2010, http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=111&load=3725.

[125] Jake Miller, “Rural Sheboygan County residents shook up by possibility of Muslim mosque in their community,” WITI-TV FOX6 News, March 8, 2010, http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-100308-mosque-controversy,0,3267768.story.

[126] Phil Willon, “Planned Temecula Valley mosque draws opposition,” Los Angeles Times, July 18, 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/18/local/la-me-mosque-20100718.

[127] Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.). Organization, “Kentucky: Mosque Protest Efforts in Florence,” REALCourage.org, August 16, 2010, http://www.realcourage.org/2010/08/kentucky-mosque-protests-efforts-in-florence.

[128] Andrew England, “Saudi Arabia’s billion-dollar education boost,” Financial Times, September 22, 2009, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a452fa42-a794-11de-b0ee-00144feabdc0.html.

[129] Tamar Lewin, “U.S. Universities Join Saudis in Partnerships,” New York Times, March 6, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/education/06partner.html.

[130] Abeer Allam, “Saudi Arabia takes westward academic turn,” Financial Times, September 27, 2010, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9cc61d76-ca44-11df-87b8-00144feab49a.html#axzz16nhJCvim.

[131] Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Washington, DC, “Saudi Students in U.S. Graduate from Scholarship Program,” press release, July 7, 2009, http://www.saudiembassy.net/press-releases/press07070901.aspx.

[132] James B. Smith, “US-Saudi Educational Partnerships Flourish,” Saudi Gazette, November 29, 2010, http://www.gulfinthemedia.com/index.php?m=opinions&id=544906&lim=&lang=en&tblpost=2010_11&PHPSESSID=8.

[133] Robin Simcox for the Centre for Social Cohesion, A Degree of Influence: the funding of strategically important subjects in UK universities, (Wallington: SS Media Limited, March 2009), http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1238334646_1.pdf and Rachel Rogosnitzky, “News And Views From Europe,” The Jewish Press, April 30, 2008, http://www.thejewishpress.com/printArticle.cfm?contentid=31497.

[134] Duncan Robinson, “The shame of Britain’s universities,” The Staggers (blog), New Statesman, March 9, 2011, http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/03/university-saudi-british.

[135] Danna Harman, “Israeli diplomat flees British anti-Israel demonstrators,” Haaretz, April 29, 2010, http://www.haaretz.com/news/israeli-diplomat-flees-british-anti-israel-demonstrators-1.287423 and Cinnamon Stillwell, “Target Israel,” FrontPageMagazine.com, June 15, 2010, http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/15/target-israel-2.

[136] Mark Hosenball, “The Radicalization of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,” Newsweek, January 1, 2010, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/01/the-radicalization-of-umar-farouk-abdulmutallab.html.

[137] “Quilliam Launches Training and Consultancy Services in North America,” Quilliam Foundation, http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/711.

[138] John Thorne and Hannah Stuart for the Centre for Social Cohesion, Islam on Campus: A survey of UK student opinions (Trowbridge: Cromwell Press, July 2008), http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1231525079_1.pdf.

[139] Peter Slevin, “Rampage kills 12, wounds 31,” Washington Post, November 6, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110503467.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR.

[140] Ed Pilkington, “'Jihad Jane' pleads guilty to murder attempt on Swedish cartoonist,” Guardian, February 2, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/02/jihad-jane-pleads-guilty-cartoonist-murder.

[141] Roya Aziz and Monica Lam, “Profiles: The Lackawanna Cell,” Frontline, October 16, 2003, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sleeper/inside/profiles.html.

[142] “Special Report's Contrasting Previews Of The King And Durbin Hearings On American Muslims,” Media Matters for America, March 29, 2011, http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/201103290039.

[143] United States Department of State, “2010 Report on International Religious Freedom,” November 17, 2010, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/index.htm.

[144] United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, “Annual Report 2011,” May 2011,

http://www.uscirf.gov/images/book%20with%20cover%20for%20web.pdf.

[145] “Frequently Asked Questions: IRF Report and Countries of Particular Concern,” United States Department of State, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/irf/c13003.htm.

[146] United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, “USCIRF Identifies World's Worst Religious Freedom Violators: Egypt Cited for First Time,” news release, April 28, 2011, http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3595.

[147] USCIRF Annual Report 2011.

[148] AFP, “Arctic mosque plan on ice over Saudi funding.”

[149] Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, S. 2930, 111^th Congress (2009-2010), http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-2930&tab=summary

[150] Evaluating The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, S. 2930: Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, 111^th Congress (July 14, 2010) (Testimony of Lee S. Wolosky, Partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP), http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/07-14-10%20Wolosky%20Testimony.pdf.

[151] Rachel Ehrenfeld, “Free Speech In A Non-Free World,” Big Peace, April 5, 2001, http://bigpeace.com/rehrenfeld/2011/04/05/free-speech-in-a-non-free-world-2 and United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 2200A (XXI), “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” December 16, 1966, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm.

[152] Bin Mahfouz Information, http://www.binmahfouz.info/en_index.html.

[153] Copies of the state and federal legislation referred to herein may be found at “Legislation,” American Center for Democracy, http://acdemocracy.org/legislation-free-speech.cfm.

[154] “The Anti-SLAPP Resource Center,” First Amendment Project, http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourcecenter.html.

[155] Clinton, Secret State Department Cable 131801.

[156] “Backgrounder: The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development,” Anti-Defamation League, May 28, 2009, http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/backgrounder_holyland.htm.

[157] Aaron Klein, “Obama religion adviser linked to unindicted co-conspirator,” WorldNetDaily, July 26, 2010, http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=184189.

[158] “DOJ: CAIR's Unindicted Co-Conspirator Status Legit,” IPT News—The Investigative Project on Terrorism, March 12, 2010, http://www.investigativeproject.org/1854/doj-cairs-unindicted-co-conspirator-status-legit and McCarthy, “International Institute of Islamic Thought and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

[159] “Why does Fox News promote terror-tied, FBI-shunned group?,” WorldNetDaily, January 11, 2010, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121694 and Art Moore, “CAIR leader convicted on terror charges,” WorldNetDaily, April 14, 2005,http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=29850.

[160] United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, “A Review of the Bureau of Prisons' Selection of Muslim Religious Services Providers,” April 2004, http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0404/index.htm#34.

[161] Islamic Extremism in Europe: Hearing Before the House International Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats (H.R. HRG. 109–34), 109^th Congress (April 27, 2005), http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa20917.000/hfa20917_0.HTM and “The Muslim Students Association and the Jihad Network,” FrontPageMagazine.com, May 08, 2008, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30339.

[162] A Review of Current and Evolving Trends in Terrorism Financing: Hearing Before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (H.R. HRG. 111–161), 111^th Congress (September 28, 2010) (testimony of Eric L. Lewis, Esq.), http://financialservices.house.gov/Media/file/hearings/111/Printed%20Hearings/111-161.pdf.

[163] Ibid.

[164] American Center for Democracy, http://ACDemocracy.org.

[165] Economic Warfare Institute, http://ACDemocracy.org/Economic-Warfare-Institute.cfm.

It's Not Alec Baldwin the FAA Should Worry About, But MANPADs

2011-12-09T15:09:30-08:00

Rachel Ehrenfeld

This article was first published in the CSM on December 9, 2011

If terrorists get hold of some of Qaddafi's 20,000 shoulder-fired missiles and manage to bring down an airliner in the United States, the economic repercussions would be huge. Antimissile systems exist, but so far US airlines have balked at the expense.

Are air passengers in the United States at risk from shoulder-fired missiles stolen from Libya?

The Obama administration has assured Americans that most of Muammar Qaddafi's cache of 20,000 shoulder-fired missiles (man-portable air defense systems or MANPADs) is still in Libya. However, House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers is not so sure.

In a CNN interview Nov. 14, the Michigan Republican expressed doubt that “very undisciplined” Libyan troops “will be able to secure the weapons sites” until the country is stable. That same day, one of al Qaeda’s North African commanders confirmed that his terrorist group (Al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb) had obtained weapons looted during the bloody fight for control of Libya. Mr. Rogers’s concern was underscored by NATO’s military committee chairman, Adm. Giampaolo di Paola (now Italy’s new defense minister), who said Libyan MANPADs could be scattered “from Kenya to Kunduz [Afghanistan].”

How many of Libya’s shoulder fired missiles have been stolen is unknown. However, if only a single missile – 4 to 5 feet long, weighing between 32 and 42 pounds – found its way from the Middle East or Africa to Asia, Europe, or the United States (smuggled in through, say, a tunnel from Mexico) and brought down a passenger aircraft, the economic impact would be huge. Some estimates put the direct costs of just one downed US passenger plane at $1 billion.

These days, when the US economy is struggling already, the downing of a passenger plane by a MANPAD would lead not only to the grounding of the entire nation's passenger fleet, but to the devastation of the air-travel dependent US economy. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for example, it took four years before US passenger traffic returned to pre-9/11 levels.

As if the threat from missing Libyan MANPADS were not enough, there are additional concerns. Spreading destabilization in the Middle East and Africa, Iran’s growing reach in Latin America, the US withdrawal from Iraq, rising violence in Afghanistan, and worsening relations with Pakistan, are enabling easier movement of stolen missiles, increasing the dangers to commercial carriers.

And this time, US airline executives would not be able to claim that they were unaware of the threat; this time they would be held responsible. And so should the US government.

If the security and protection of American commercial-air passengers were a real government priority, effective counter-MANPAD systems would have been developed and deployed long ago. This need was acknowledged repeatedly following 9/11, and millions of American taxpayer dollars have been allocated to develop counter-MANPAD systems for protecting civilian passenger and cargo aircraft. And yet, the US civilian fleet, with more than 7,000 aircraft, remains vulnerable to the missiles, whose 10,000-foot range could hit them during takeoffs and landings.

The airlines have balked at the cost and weight of currently available American systems for what they strangely view as a limited threat. They rely mostly on a 2005 RAND study, which concluded that the then available protection systems were not cost effective.

Since then, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been working on a lightweight, laser-based system, called Excalibur, which would protect a variety of airborne platforms, from low-lying aircraft to unmanned, remotely piloted drones In its fiscal 2012 budget, the Defense Department requests $21.4 million to support the missile-countermeasures program. But with deep budget cuts a veritable certainty, Excalibur development could be delayed – or terminated completely.

However, there are alternatives. At least one well-tested, lightweight system is already available – the Multi Spectral Infrared Countermeasure system (MUSIC or C-Music for commercial applications). This missile-defense system was developed and tested by ELOP, a unit of Israel’s Elbit Systems Ltd., and was selected, for example, for Brazil’s Embraer KC-390 transport-tanker, and by the Israeli government for all aircraft comprising the country’s commercial air fleet, including El Al’s.

Measuring about 9 feet long, the system’s hardware can be installed on an aircraft’s exterior or inside the fuselage. It “has no moving parts outside the aircraft,” says ELOP’s vice president, Dan Slasky. The C-Music version has a smaller cross-section, significantly decreasing drag, and weighs approximately 25 percent less than current systems on the market. The 418-pound exterior-mounted version is housed in a sealed pod that can be transferred to another aircraft in about 40 minutes. It also is compatible with power and space limitations of smaller transports, such as the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320, as well as military utility helicopters.

A variant that mounts inside an aircraft fuselage weighs less than 350 pounds, and is linked to low-profile sensors embedded in the exterior skin.

Protection is needed now, and viable heat-seeking missile countermeasures are readily available. Instead of jeopardizing the safety of US passengers and crews, and unnecessarily increasing risks to the US economy, the federal government should move speedily to develop and install antimissile systems that will keep American civilians safe in the sky.

– Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of New York-based American Center for Democracy and its Economic Warfare Institute, is author of "Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Funded – and How To Stop It."

OBAMA - Failing to Deal, Dealing to Fail

2011-11-12T17:42:11-08:00

By Rachel Ehrenfeld* & K.D.M. Jensen**

The past few days have seen yet another round in the "last straw" dithering about Iran. This time the huffing seems heavier. The IAEA has suddenly woken up and finds that Stuxnet wasn't much of a setback to the Iranian nuclear program, and it is finally prepared to recognize Ahmadinejad’s weaponization effort.

This IAEA report followed on the heels of a highly detailed U.S. account of a Quds Force plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Lo and behold, has Obama found the last bit of his inner Bush, denouncing Iran and putting the military option back on the table. Hillary Clinton's turned neocon and called for regime change (not exactly right away, but the next time the Iranian people give us a chance).

What do we have here? All wind and no rain. This Administration seems content to do nothing but threaten--no action, despite the inability to deny Iranian nuclear intentions any longer and the enormity of the assassination provocation. A recent pledge of a coming and forceful U.S.-led effort to take sanctions against the Iranian Central bank, the principal conduit for Iranian oil sales, was soon withdrawn for the flimsy excuse that "oil prices will go up if we do that.” Duh. So, why threaten it in the first place?

Meanwhile, the pundits do what they usually do on the Iran issue: "bomb," "bomb a little now to avoid a lot later," "too late to bomb," "too early to bomb," "too dangerous, too costly, too much uncertainty to bomb," "let Israel do it, "don't let Israel do it." Also, there's "maybe we can finally get the Russians and Chinese to stop supporting the Iranian regime" (this despite the fact that the Russians said right away that they doubt the accuracy of the IAEA report, plus the implausibility of China giving up Iranian oil). Most scandalously, there's "the assassination plot means nothing: it was amateurish and isn't how the Iranians would do things like that.”

The inflation of the Administration’s rhetoric at the expense of action has not deterred Iran in the slightest in the past. The U.S. lack of leadership seems to have been welcomed by our ostensible allies, who appear quite happy to be only secondary targets of the Islamic Republic. The failure to respond appropriately to the Quds Force assassination plot bears serious consequences. When a DEA agent foils a plot on American soil and the link to the Quds Force is clear, policymakers can no longer backtrack and wax dubious about the extent of Iranian terrorism on at least three continents. They can no longer ignore it.

Iran's Venezuela connections were startlingly revealed in Washington more than two years ago by Manhattan’s legendary District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau. In addition to serving as a conduit for military equipment from Belarus, Syria, and other countries to Iran, Venezuela seems to have built missile emplacements at its main air force base on Margarita Island. Eyewitness accounts and Google Earth images have confirmed the presence of ballistic installations there. If true, the Venezuelan-Iranian friendship missiles could easily threaten the Panama Canal, the Gulf of Mexico and--with a Shahab-3 missile--Miami!

Recent events confirm that we have allowed the Iranian regime to move beyond brazen. If Ahmadinejad, the mullahs, and the Revolutionary Guards feel free to do as they wish anywhere, anytime, it's not because they're mad or under the spell of the Twelfth Imam. It’s because we allow them.

And, by the way, providing the small United Arab Emirates Air Force (UAEAF) with 4,900 bunker-buster bombs will not contribute to the stability of the region. The UAE has a long history as the gateway to Iran.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of NY based American Center for Democracy and its Economic Warfare Institute. She's author of the 2011 updated “Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It.”

K.D. M. Jensen is Associate Director of ACD's Economic Warfare Institute.

Investing terror free

2011-09-26T12:44:20-07:00

I am posting this on behalf of Avi Jorisch. Originally published by United Press International:

-----------------------------------------------------------

Investing terror free

by Mark Langerman and Avi Jorisch

WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 - Most people have no idea that many of the companies they do business on a daily basis also do business with terrorists or those who support terrorism.

Unwitting investors also are unaware that their money is invested in the stocks and bonds of companies that indirectly fund terrorism, nuclear proliferation and genocide.

A decade after the September 11 attacks, terror-free investing is an innovative way to fight back against the enemies of liberal democracies. Terror-free investing, in concert with measures such as global sanctions, can have a measurable policy impact.

Terror-free investing is based on the idea that publicly traded companies should be accountable for their business dealings with our nation's adversaries, specifically, state sponsors of terrorism. Information available to all institutional investors indicate that, as of March 31, there were approximately 625 publically traded companies around the globe operating in Iran, Syria, North Korea and Sudan.

It is time for investors to start calling on these companies to pull out of those countries.

The terror-free investment strategy is based on two broad principles: First, encourage public firms to freeze their activities in countries that aid and abet terrorism or are trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Second, damage the economies of state sponsors of terrorism, which are highly dependent on foreign public firms for their economic survival, ultimately forcing these governments to change their behavior.

This model is very similar to the successful South African divestment campaign of the 1980s, which contributed to the eventual downfall of the apartheid regime, showing that investor activism can make a huge impact.

For years, the debate has focused on which countries to involve and where to draw the bright line. In fact, many state governments in the United States have tended to set their own policy by divesting from companies that do business in the energy sector of Iran. But that model is far too narrow to effectively combat the threats faced by liberal Western democracies worldwide.

Those who advocate terror-free investing believe it is time to think bigger than just Iran and include rogue regimes such as Syria, Sudan and North Korea.

Terror-free investing marks an evolution from divestment to pre-screened, sophisticated investment options that are available to just about everyone in the market.

As the terror-free investing movement grows, public companies are excluded from pools of responsible investor capital. The companies that continue to do business with state sponsors of terror will increasingly lose access to billions of dollars capital and face growing public scrutiny, providing a significant disincentive for them to maintain their business ties with these regimes.

But what does this mean for the everyday investor? Historically, investing terror-free has had little impact on returns and can actually lower portfolio risk. This means that you can get an equivalent return on your investments while ensuring your funds aren't supporting rogue regimes and sponsors of terrorism.

The war on terror takes many forms, including diplomatic, military and economic efforts. Those of us lucky enough to live in free societies have the ability to take financial steps to support this war.

It is time to change our operating paradigm and prevent funds from reaching terrorists and their state sponsors. At the very minimum, international lawmakers, and members of the U.S. Congress in particular, should consider passing legislation that bars public pension funds from being invested in companies that support these states.

We need to strenuously apply every tool in our possession to ensure we choke off the supply of funds to countries that threaten us.

(Mark Langerman is chief executive officer of Empowerment Financial Group. Avi Jorisch, a former U.S. Treasury official, is president of the Red Cell Intelligence Group and the author of "Tainted Money: Are We Losing the War on Money Laundering and Terrorism Finance?")

Don't reward the Palestinians' 'lawfare' & Disinformation campaign with statehood

2011-09-24T08:01:06-07:00

By Rory Lancman and Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

Thursday, September 22nd 2011, 9:34 AM

The United Nations' potential blessing of a Palestinian state in an end run around direct negotiations with Israel will add a dangerous new dimension to the Palestinians' decades-long campaign of conventional and unconventional war against the Jewish state - the commencement of a full-blown "lawfare" campaign against Israel and its allies.

UN-sanctioned lawfare against Israel is nothing new. In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICC), at the instigation of the UN General Assembly, declared that the security fence Israel erected to block Palestinian terrorists from infiltrating from the West Bank - a fence which helped dramatically reduce the number of suicide bombers penetrating Israel - is illegal, even though many countries, including the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, have erected fences on their border. Did we mention that Israel is the only UN member state barred from serving on the International Court?

In 2010, the European Court of Justice aided the economic warfare campaign against Israel by ruling that products made by a Jewish-owned company based in the Jewish community of Mishor Adumim in the West Bank didn't qualify for the same customs duties exemption allowed to Palestinian companies in the West Bank and all companies within Israel's 1967 borders.

Turkey, determined not to be left behind, responded to last month's UN report vindicating Israel in the infamous flotilla incident with the usual downgrading of diplomatic and military ties and threats of economic sanctions, but Turkey's foreign minister also announced what he called "Plan B" - a strategy to sue Israel directly and to assist others in suing Israeli soldiers and leaders in jurisdictions across the world.

Here in the United States, we are already combating a variety of lawfare stratagems. In New York, for instance, those who "see something" and "say something" are now protected from frivolous lawsuits by the "Freedom to Report Terrorism Act," and journalists and authors who report on terrorism are protected from baseless, expensive and intimidating overseas libel lawsuits by the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" (inspired by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, one of the authors of this article, who was sued for libel in London after exposing a Saudi businessman as a financier of terrorism). Congress followed suit, passing the SPEECH Act.

But granting Palestinian statehood (even if via "observer status") would turn existing lawfare tactics into the equivalent of nuclear-armed smart bombs aimed at both Israel and the U.S., and grant Palestinian institutions a nearly impenetrable bunker against being held accountable to terror victims.

For example, once the Palestinians obtain the authority to bring a case directly against Israel in the ICC, it is a foregone conclusion that the court will declare Israel's maritime "fence" around Gaza - instituted to prevent Hamas from acquiring materiel to launch rockets into Israeli cities - illegal.

Perhaps nowhere will the privileges of statehood more likely be abused than in the International Criminal Court. Israel, like the United States, withdrew from that court to protect its citizens from political prosecutions. Understanding that the key to the courthouse door is rooted in statehood, the Palestinian Authority in 2009 purported to accept the ICC's jurisdiction - a right granted only to states - over "the territory of Palestine," and in turn have the same powers of court member states.

This dubious maneuver has so far failed, but a UN declaration of statehood will instantly give the Palestinians full membership in the ICC, and the power to refer for ICC prosecution every Israeli soldier in the West Bank and Gaza operating to thwart missile attacks and suicide bombings, and every Israeli civilian (and many Americans, as well) living outside the outdated 1967 borders. Individual Israelis will become global fugitives, and the ICC will become yet another hostile international forum in which Israel's very legitimacy - its right to be free from attack and to affirmatively act in self-defense - must constantly be defended.

UN statehood will also block American victims of Palestinian terror from obtaining justice in American courts, by giving Palestinian institutions involved in terrorism a blanket of sovereign immunity reserved only for states.

Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and their partners in the international movement to delegitimize Israel are already waging a sustained military, economic, diplomatic, political and jurisprudential war against Israel and, where they can, the United States. The UN shouldn't add more firepower to their lawfare campaign.

Lancman is an assemblyman from Queens and an advisory board member of the Lawfare Project. Ehrenfeld is the director of the American Center for Democracy

Obama's UN Pitch

2011-09-24T07:34:58-07:00

by Rachel Ehrenfeld Sep 22nd 2011

Gone are the days when American presidents addressed the United Nations’ General Assembly as the leaders of the free world. President Obama used the international stage to reinforce his foreign policy doctrine, officially relinquishing America’s role as the arbiter of global peace and security.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Obama showered praises on the UN’s role in “the pursuit of peace in an imperfect world.” Instead of demanding that this corrupt international organization institutes reform, he credited the anti-American, anti-Israeli body for advancing human rights and prosperity in the world.

Obama’s speech further weakened the last minute feeble US attempt to stop the status upgrade of the PLO at the UN. Moreover, he demonstrated his bias by equally blaming Israel and the Palestinians for the lack of progress in negotiating peace.

While stating that peace cannot be dictated from outside and only Israel and the Palestinians can “reach an agreement on the issues that divide them,” he pointed out that the basis for those negotiations is the plan he proposed last May. However, Obama’s plan called to stop all Israeli development in the West Bank, thus reinforcing the Palestinians’ refusal to and the Arab/Muslim world denial of Israeli and Jewish presence there, and in Jerusalem – which was established as the capital of Israel by King David (1010 and 970 BCE).

Obama’s address sounded like a campaign speech for the position of the Secretary General. Facing rapidly sinking approval rating at home, this Nobel Peace Prize Laureate seems the natural candidate for the job.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of NY based American Center for Democracy and its Economic Warfare Institute. She is the author of “Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It.”

Anarchy in Egypt: Whose Embassy is Next?

2011-09-12T06:28:47-07:00

September 12, 2011

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

The leading role played by the Muslim Brotherhood in the street and in the Egyptian political system can no longer be denied. The mass demonstrations that continued after the fall of Mubarak’s regime weakened of the military leadership’s power, and led to attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, and escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jonathan Dahoah Halevi, a fellow at the American Center for Democracy, and a former advisor for policy planning at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, saw the writing on the wall in August when Muslim Brotherhood-led anti-Israeli demonstrations -- fueled by Hamas attacks on Israel from Gaza -- went uninterrupted by the regime.

The ground was ripe in Egypt. The Brotherhood, Hamas’ parent organization, defined the Egyptian revolution as a necessary first step towards the” liberation” of all of Palestine. The Brotherhood successfully seized the opportunity to use the revolution, especially Mubarak’s overthrow and prosecution to motivate the masses, sending them to the streets. Indeed, the Brotherhood’s organizational capability exceeds that of all the other political parties in Egypt combined.

On August 19 and 20, the Brotherhood directed hundreds of thousands to protest in many cities in Egypt, including outside the Israeli Embassy in Cairo and the Israeli Consulate in Alexandria. The protesters tried to force their way into the embassy, and some were able to lower the flag of Israel.

The preaching during the month of Ramadan combined with Hamas attacks on Israel in August which led to the IDF retaliation which eliminated the terrorists cell, also killing an Egyptian officer and four members of the Egyptian security forces, were used by the Brotherhood to further incited the masses to daily demonstrations, demanding to cancel the Camp David accords, close the embassies in Cairo and Tel Aviv, and take military action against Israel.

This strategy helps the Brotherhood to strengthen their political power and to pressure the military to promote “democratization” in line with the organization’s agenda, to advance Shari’a law, avoid significant constitutional changes, hold the general and presidential elections as soon as possible, and to alter the relations with Israel.

Back in August, Halevi warned that an “escalation in the protests could lead to more attempts to break into the embassy in Cairo and the consulate in Alexandria, even a takeover,” as happened with the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Halevi further explained: “Israel’s Foreign Ministry faces a complex dilemma on this issue. Evacuating the Israeli diplomats out of fear for their safety would be a great victory for the Egyptian opposition and would signal the end of the peace with Egypt… Preserving the last thread in the diplomatic relations with Egypt would compromise the safety of the embassy staff and the Consulate General of Israel in Egypt. Recent events and the assessment of the risks require the Foreign Ministry’s to be prepared for the possibility of an emergency and immediate evacuation of Israeli diplomats until the internal situation in Egypt is stabilized and the regime is able to effectively control the country.”

While the military leadership declared it will take all necessary steps to enforce security, they are clearly reluctant to use force and risking casualties to protect the Israelis. The Egyptian daily al-Ahram reported that official sources in Cairo urged days before the mob stormed the Israeli Embassy, that Jerusalem returns the Israeli Ambassador for "a long leave of absence," and requested that the diplomatic staff keep a "lower profile." Indeed, the uninterrupted mob attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, which culminated last weekend with the ransacking of the embassy and the emergency evacuation of most Israeli diplomatic staff and their families, should worry all foreign missions.

These events demonstrated the failure of Egypt’s ruling army council to enforce order and guarantee the protection of all foreign all missions. Thus violating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961).

This is not the first time that foreign missions came under attack in the Arab/Muslim world. The mass anti-Western demonstrations and attacks on foreign embassies following the publication of the Muhammad cartoons were sanctioned by the Arab/Muslim governments. However, the so-called Arab Spring that was hijacked by the Brotherhood and its affiliates destabilized Arab regimes and created anarchy.

Following protests from Israel and the US, Egypt’s ruling military council issued a statement saying this was an ''attack on Egypt's image,” deployed security forces around the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, and recognized Egypt's ''total commitment to respecting international conventions, including the protection of all (diplomatic) missions''.

Still, the unabated incitement against Israel, America and the West begs a genuine concern about the military’s ability and willingness to control the masses.

----

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is Director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy and its Economic Warfare Institute, and author of "Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It." This article was first published in Family Security Matters

Victor Comras: The UN Must Re-Invigorate Its Response to International Terrorism

2011-09-10T06:26:22-07:00

I'm posting this article on behalf of Victor Comras:

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

The UN Must Re-Invigorate Its Response to International Terrorism

by Victor D. Comras

Some 80 heads of state and foreign ministers gathered in New York City on September 11, 2001 for the opening of 56^th session of the U.N. General Assembly. The meeting was to focus on the Secretary General’s first Millennium Report, and terrorism was not among the key agenda items. Fear and horror filled the Assembly chamber that morning as the occupants felt the trembling and then heard the news that two hijacked aircraft had just crashed into the World Trade Center. They quickly fled the U.N. building fearing it might also be attacked. The next day, they filed back into the General Assembly chamber with amended priorities, speeches and agendas. They pledged themselves to work together urgently to respond to terrorism’s “deadly menace” to international peace and security.

Now, 10 years later, as we take stock of the steps taken to quell international terrorism, we remain all too cognizant that international terrorism continues unabated, and that we still cannot let down our guard even for a second. While the United Nations and the international community-at-large have made great strides in dealing with terrorism, and have put in place many of the key pillars and structures for combating terrorism, the ability to implement these mandates remains seriously uneven. Far too many countries still, today, lack the political will and/or the resources to carry them out effectively. And, several still openly support groups that they know regularly employ terrorist tactics.

Many of the same delegates that were present for the 2001 General Assembly session are now planning to attend a special U.N. Counter-Terrorism Cooperation Symposium called by Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon for September 19th. They will, undoubtedly, use the occasion to note the progress achieved, and to highlight the numerous counter-terrorism conventions, resolutions and measures the U.N. has adopted to outlaw terrorism and terrorism financing. Many will also seek to attribute continuing terrorist activities to a “collective failure” to address its so-called root causes. But, the focus at this important session should go well beyond the documents adopted and the oft-proclaimed “apologetic liturgies” for terrorism. They must now urgently focus increased attention on the steps necessary to re-invigorate and improve compliance with the United Nation’s established counter-terrorism norms, and to hold accountable those that fail to do so. Improving counter-terrorism compliance and accountability must now become one of the United Nation’s highest priorities

According to a U.S. National Counter-Terrorism Center report, there were more than 11,500 terrorist incidents last year, resulting in more than 13,000 deaths, 30,000 wounded and 6,000 hostages. And, the pace of terrorist attacks continues to grow. While many of these terrorist attacks have been concentrated in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, terrorist incidents have also been reported in more than 70 other countries. And the consequences of these attacks continue to cause staggering casualties, security implications and costs worldwide.

There are a number of steps that can and should be taken to re-invigorate the United Nation’s role in combating terrorism. Many of these steps have already been presented in various expert reports commissioned by the Security Council itself. But, the organization’s inertia and legacy from the past continue to inhibit their adoption. I have sought to focus attention on these issues in my recent book Flawed Diplomacy: The United Nations & the War on Terrorism, and to propose steps that, I believe, are essential to a successful U.N. counter-terrorism program. I believe this U.N. effort must also be founded on the following principles:

Clarity: At the top of the U.N. list of unfulfilled counter-terrorism tasks is the continuing lack of a consensus definition of terrorism. This lack of consensus severely limits the United Nation’s ability to monitor compliance with its counter-terrorism measures or to hold countries accountable for failing to implement and enforce them. So far, only al Qaeda and the Taliban, and those groups identified and listed as associated with them, have been designated by the United Nations as terrorist organizations. Beyond those Al Qaeda and Taliban individuals and entities so far listed as terrorists (and that list is also far from complete), the consensus on terrorism breaks down. This allows countries to determine for themselves which groups they choose to deem terrorists, and which they will support as so-called “liberation movements.” They remain thus able, with impunity, to continence, or themselves to provide support and material assistance to those terrorist groups whose aspirations they may share.

Several years ago a High-Level Panel of U.N. counter-terrorism experts convened by Secretary General Kofi Annan recommended that the General Assembly move quickly to adopt a straight forward definition of terrorism – a definition that would encompass:

“any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

Unfortunately, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and many of its member countries, continue today to insist on adding a further clause that would undermine the definition by exempting so-called “national liberation movements” from its application.

Commitment: Combating terrorism and terrorism financing takes much more than conventions, resolutions, laws or regulations. It requires a dogged determination to implement these measures and to actively go after those that engage in, or support, terrorism. That requires the political will to act against those who commit or support terrorist acts even if there is popular support for their ultimate goals. U.N. programs should, therefore, be directed at encouraging and ensuring the political will necessary on the part of all countries to deal with terrorists. This entails establishing effective monitoring and oversight, clear incentives for compliance and serious consequences for non-compliance.

Capacity: Commitment must obviously be accompanied by capacity. The United Nations Counter Terrorism Committee and its Executive Directorate have carved out several programs directed at assisting countries with the resources and technical capabilities they need to combat terrorism effectively. These are among the most important programs the United Nations has adopted. But, the resources devoted to these programs remains quite modest, and program follow-up, evaluation and oversight is seriously lacking.

Cooperation and Information Sharing: Much of the heavy work involved in combating terrorism and terrorism financing remains in the hands of national regulatory, intelligence, investigative and enforcement agencies. The United States, Europe and a handful of other countries maintain sophisticated channels for sharing counter-terrorism information and intelligence. A way must also be found to assure that vital information and intelligence flows quickly to and from other potentially effected countries. The U.N. can encourage the exchange of such intelligence and investigative information by sponsoring appropriate forums to facilitate direct contact between concerned national agencies and their personnel. This might best be done by establishing new functional arrangements, outside the United Nations, that can better handle sensitive intelligence and investigative information and provide direct support for broader judicial cooperation.

Accountability is key: This means effective oversight and reporting on what is actually being done by countries to implement the U.N. resolutions and measures against terrorism. The Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committees already have a mandate to report to the Security Council on instances where it notes lack of compliance on the part of member states. Yet, they remain reluctant to do so, in part because of the diplomatic delicacy of raising such a highly charged political issue to the level of Security Council. It is time for the United Nations to establish a team of qualified objective observers, freed from the current diplomatic shackles imposed by the Security Council and its Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanction Committees. They should be appointed for fixed terms and empowered to report directly to the Security Council on the actions that countries are actually taking or not taking to carry out their counter-terrorism responsibilities.

Consequences: Finally, there must be consequences for non-compliance. Let’s start with “naming and shaming,” and letting international public opinion play a role in encouraging compliance. And if that doesn’t do the trick, then further Security Council consideration and action might be appropriate.

Let us hope that the 10-year anniversary of the tragic events of 9/11 marks a moment of serious reflection in the halls of the United Nations and leads to a serious re-invigoration of the pledges made 10 years ago to eliminate terrorism as a scourge to international peace and security.

Avi Jorisch on How to Deal with Iran

2011-08-07T12:40:44-07:00

To Punish Iran, Seize Its Embassy

by Avi Jorisch

Originally published in the New York Times
August 2, 2011

LAST week, the Treasury Department accused the Iranian government of aiding Al Qaeda and blacklisted six Qaeda operatives for funneling money through Iran. Although Treasury's announcement, coupled with existing sanctions, has put some pressure on Tehran, much more can be done. Indeed, the White House should take action in its own backyard.

In February, the Obama administration embarked on a real estate project that directly impacts Iran's interests in the United States. The State Department began refurbishing Iran's Washington embassy on Massachusetts Avenue, 31 years after the last Iranian diplomat set foot in it. While the government has thus far respected and protected Iran's property rights and permitted Iranian officials an unparalleled level of freedom, Washington should now seize outright all Iranian assets in the United States and bar as many Iranian officials as possible from our soil.

Tehran remains the legal owner of several buildings in Washington, although the United States government has taken them over. The State Department has become the legal guardian of the embassy and three residences, renting them out and using the proceeds to maintain them.

In November 1979, Iranians took over the American Embassy in Tehran, leading to a 444-day hostage crisis. For decades, the building has served as a school for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a group Washington labels a terrorist organization, and to this day, Iran does not recognize Washington as the property's legal owner.

Likewise, the contrast between the freedom of movement Iranian officials enjoy in the United States and the restrictions on American officials' travel to Iran is stark. Iran has a diplomatic mission at the United Nations and a fully staffed interests section housed in the Pakistani embassy in Washington; Iranian officials come to Washington to attend International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings; and Iranian officials receive visas to attend engagements of prominent international organizations in the United States. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has come to New York several times during his presidency to attend United Nations meetings, from which he cannot be barred. And each time, American taxpayers have been left to foot the bill for his large security detail.

No American president has traveled to Tehran since 1977 and American government officials rarely travel there in an official capacity. If American officials were welcome in Tehran they would need significant security coverage and the Iranian government could not be counted on to provide or pay for it.

As the United States implements robust sanctions against Iran around the globe, we must also take action within our own borders. The government should seize all of Iran's properties in the United States and rent the space to liberal Iranian opposition groups. This would send a clear signal to Iran's government and its citizens that America supports reformers who seek a democratic future in Iran.

Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president can respond to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to America's economy, foreign policy or national security. The act also allows him to confiscate the property of any entity he deems to be engaged in hostilities against the United States, and to use those assets to serve American interests. Iran clearly meets this test. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran and its terrorist agents have had a policy of attacking American interests around the globe.

The United States has taken such actions before. In 2003, Washington confiscated valuable Iraqi government property and eventually put $1.7 billion toward the postwar reconstruction effort there. More recently, the Obama administration seized Libyan assets held at American banks and is seeking a way to send that money to Libyan rebels.

American policy makers must make it clear that the United States is serious about forcing Iran to change its behavior. Tehran has yet to develop a nuclear weapon, but sanctions have only delayed its efforts, not quashed its ambitions. Seizing Iran's assets and barring its officials from the United States would send a strong message that Washington aims to stop Iran's nuclear program by any peaceful means necessary.

New Security Council Approach to Taliban Sanctions: Premature and Perhaps Flawed

2011-06-28T12:13:21-07:00

I am posting this article on behalf of Victor Comras:

New Security Council Approach to Taliban Sanctions: Premature and Perhaps Flawed

by Victor Comras

June 27, 2011

For the first time since 1999 the UN Security Council has decided to define separate, but essentially similar sanctions regimes for the Taliban and for al Qaeda and its associated groups and entities. UN Security Council Resolutions 1988 and 1989, adopted June 17, 2011, call for the maintenance of separate sanctions committees and designation lists for these two terrorist groups. The rationale for this belated sanctions bifurcation is the hope that, with Osama Bin Laden gone, it might be possible to convince key members of the Taliban to break their links with the Taliban’s militants and with Al Qaeda, and to reach some sort of accommodation with the current rulers in Kabul. And the Afghan government itself has asked the Security Council to “support national reconciliation by removing Afghan names from the UN sanctions lists for those who respect the conditions for reconciliation.” But, for many terrorism and Afghanistan experts this appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

We all know that the structural changes contained in the two new resolutions are motivated by a strong desire on the part of the United States and its NATO allies, as they draw down their forces, to foster a dialogue between key Taliban leaders and the Karzai government. Apparently, some kind of dialogue between the Karzai government and mid level Taliban representatives has already been going on for some time. But, these talks have certainly not given any indication that broad defection from the Taliban’s militant wing can or should be anticipated.

These days it’s easy to be skeptical about almost anything, so I should be forgiven for so quickly expressing skepticism that the UN Security Council has done a good thing. At best, little or nothing has changed. The consolidated designation list maintained up to now by the Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee already had separate sections for the Al Qaeda designees and the Taliban designees. The same asset freeze, arms embargo and travel ban measures previously imposed will, at least for the moment, remain applicable to those on both lists. The same diplomats will sit on both sanctions committees charged with maintaining both lists. And both Committees will be supported by the same Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Team. While the names of the committees may now be slightly different it is still far from clear that any of the dynamics will change. And, to be frank, that might be the best case scenario!

The most important change enacted in these resolutions is in the procedures for taking names off from the designation lists, with the Afghan government now being given a key role when it comes to delisting from the Taliban list. Resolution 1988 directs the Security Council’s newly established Taliban Sanctions Committee to “give due regard to requests for removal of individuals that meet the reconciliation conditions agreed to by the Government of Afghanistan and the international community, which include the renunciation of violence, no links to international terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaida, or any cell, affiliate, splinter group, or derivative thereof, and respect for the Afghan Constitution, including the rights of women and persons belonging to minorities.” (emphasis added). Is it realistic to expect that very many of the Taliban’s leaders, so committed till now to an extreme Islamist ideology, are likely to meet such criteria and qualify?

I don’t think we yet have any clear notion as to how the Taliban delisting process will actually work out. The criteria used for delisting is quite subjective, and relies more on personal commitments than substance. And, a change in the delisting procedure is, for the most part, irrelevant to most of the Taliban, and certainly to its rank and file. The UN’s Taliban designation list only has some 137 names, while the Taliban membership is estimated to be somewhere in the 30,000 range. Most of the names on the Taliban designation list were, in actuality, drawn from the 2002 Taliban government rolls so the list contains very few new mid-level Taliban leaders or rank and file. And for the ex-Taliban government officials that are on the list, resolution 1988 indicates that requests for their delisting should, if possible, include a communication from the Government of Afghanistan confirming that the individual is “not an active supporter of, or participant in, acts that threaten the peace, stability and security of Afghanistan.” And, once off list, what’s to prevent their recidivism. If they transgress it might prove quite difficult and time consuming to put them back on. I’m also concerned by the central role the Afghan government has been given in this delisting process. Afghan government corruption is already a notorious problem, and payoffs, or the lack thereof, may well play a role in deciding who gets, or does not get, off the designation list.

Reading between the lines, I fear that we have begun drawing too sharp a distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Both groups adhere to the same radical Islamist/jihadist ideology, both lack tolerance for deviate Islamic theology or for other religions. Both seek to impose their theology by force on others, both have the same hatred for the democratic values we so cherish, and both share the same funding, recruitment, indoctrination, training and logistical resources. They are sister organizations and should be treated as such.

What really concerns me is the possible suggestion that by differentiating Al Qaeda and the Taliban we may be moving away from defining the Taliban, itself, as a terrorist organization. Personally, I think it would be a grave mistake to suggest that they are insurgents rather than terrorists, or to think that, unlike al Qaeda, their activities or aspirations are only local to Afghanistan. Recent history belies such a suggestion, least we overlook the Taliban’s terrorist reach and activities into Pakistan and northward into Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Nor should we forget the massacres of UN aid workers or at Mazar-i-Sharif.

While we must certainly explore a dialogue option with the Taliban, I think it premature to adopt the approach that is outlined in Resolution 1988.

Please take a look at my new book Flawed Diplomacy: The United Nations and the War on Terrorism (Potomac Books 2011) for a more detailed look at the UN’s role in combating terrorism

Why Sanctions Against Iran Aren't Working

2011-06-27T12:11:36-07:00

I'm posting this on behalf of Avi Jorisch:

Why Sanctions Against Iran Aren't Working

by Avi Jorisch

Originally published in Al Arabiya
June 23, 2011

It's been nearly a year since the United States and its allies strengthened economic sanctions against Iran in an effort to force the Islamic Republic to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Thus far, these measures have yielded positive results. Yet problems remain.

Many banks around the world continue to do business with Iranian financial institutions that are complicit in supporting terrorist groups and spreading nuclear weapons. And branches of these designated banks continue to operate throughout some of the world's financial capitals. Sanctions are a legitimately effective way to peacefully force Iran's hand. But unless the international community cracks down on designated Iranian banks, the sanctions regime—however promising it may seem—will ultimately fail.

The reason that sanctions can work is simple: Iran needs money. Without hard currency, the country will find it far more difficult to support terrorist groups, incite violence, and develop nuclear weapons. Accordingly, the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States have taken steps to isolate Iranian banks that are suspected of funding such activities via the international financial system.

The United States in particular has cracked down hard. Thanks to recent legislation, all international banks operating in the states must choose between the American financial market and its Iranian counterpart. Banks that choose to do business with sanctioned Iranian institutions face serious punishment: The Justice Department can close down any branches they maintain on American soil or force a sale of all their US assets, among other things. Since 2006, the US has blacklisted 20 Iranian banks.

Elsewhere around the world, more than 80 financial institutions—including Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank—have reportedly completely cut off or significantly reduced their relationship with the Islamic Republic. More specifically, major international financial institutions that once provided credit lines to Iran's commodities industry have reportedly stopped. In particular, Iran is finding it increasingly difficult to get banks to process oil and gas payments, which represent about 80 percent of the Islamic Republic's export revenue.

Unfortunately, many banks continue to do business with Tehran's illicit financial industry, and this undermines the sanctions effort. Many of Iran's designated banks, including those named by the United Nations and the European Union, have a number of branches in countries such as China, Russia, Italy, South Korea, France, Iraq, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, among others. Indeed, some of America's closest allies have publicly claimed their support for sanctions, while at the same time, allowed the Iranian regime free access to hard currency and the international financial sector.

Quietly, European policymakers have said that designated branches can continue to operate in their jurisdictions as long as the transactions relate to contracts signed prior to the UN designation. No new business is allowed, not even "getting new phone lines." Yet in practice, this loophole allows Iranian banks to maintain their business licenses in Europe, and continue to operate as they did before. In other words, as long as Iran signed a contract with a European company the day before UN sanctions were enacted, European officials are willing to look the other way.

Going forward, these policymakers need to close the loopholes that enable the branches of designated Iranian banks to provide illicit actors the means to conduct their activities, maintain their infrastructure and carry out their operations. Iran has yet to develop a nuclear weapon, but experts agree that sanctions have thus far only delayed their efforts, not subsumed their ambitions. Nuclear proliferation is one of the most serious public policy challenges we will face in the foreseeable future. Sanctions can still work, but the clock is ticking.

Grounding Iranian Crude to a Halt

2011-06-13T11:33:44-07:00

I am posting this on behalf of Avi Jorisch:

Grounding Iranian Crude to a Halt

by Avi Jorisch
Al Arabiya
June 9, 2011

Originally posted at: http://www.avijorisch.com/9746/grounding-iranian-crude-to-a-halt

Through the Comprehensive Iran Sanction Accountability and Divestment Act (CISADA), passed in 2010, the United States Congress has taken strong measures to check Iran's ability to abuse the international banking sector and the refined energy space.

Despite this act, however, Iran is using its vast crude oil reserves to skirt financial sanctions and gain access to huge sums of hard currency. Nevertheless, there are additional methods that members of Congress should consider deploying to curb Iran's access to much-needed funds.

Iran holds the third-largest known oil reserves in the world and the second-largest natural gas reserves. According to Oil and Gas Journal, as of January 2010, Iran had roughly 10 percent of the world's total oil reserves, with approximately 40 oil fields—27 onshore and 13 offshore—that hold mid-grade-quality crude similar to that found in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait.

In 2008, Iran exported approximately $73 billion worth of oil, which represented half of its government revenue. Crude oil and its derivatives accounted for nearly 80 percent of the country's total exports. Until now, international sanctions efforts have focused on refined petroleum and gas products.

Major oil companies are finally turning their backs on this energy giant. In addition, measures like CISADA have significantly curbed international investment in Iran's energy infrastructure.

But CISADA does not cover crude oil and the Islamic Republic is still able to export this commodity to the tune of billions of dollars annually. The top four importers of Iranian crude are Japan, China, India and South Korea. Depriving Iran of the ability to sell this commodity in the international market or significantly curtailing this ability would likely show the ruling Mullahtocracy that the writing is on the wall.

The policy community has floated a variety of suggestions as to how the international community might curtail Iran's ability to sell its crude. The most popular recommendation is to "mark" each country's crude, but this type of effort is costly, lengthy, and not practical.

Marking technology is still in its infancy and furthermore, the international oil market is traditionally fungible—as soon as ships purchase and load crude onto tankers, it is mixed with oil from other countries.

Others have suggested embargoing Iran's crude directly. While definitions in international law vary, most experts concede that such an embargo would approach an act of war, or at least provide Iran with a credible casus belli against the ships of countries involved in the embargo. Moreover, even with wide international support, such a step would dramatically increase the price of oil, and with it the costs of transportation across the globe. Few wish to be responsible for such increases because of their ramifications for the international economy.

What, then, can the US and likeminded allies do to stop Iran from selling its crude, without coming perilously close to declaring war?

US law currently prohibits American companies or entities from purchasing Iranian oil, but because crude oil's origins are murky, law enforcement authorities have been unable to enforce this. Everyone knows that oil tankers bringing their goods to American shores are carrying Iranian oil.

The US government may wish to introduce a law requiring every oil tanker coming to the U.S. to declare that it has not docked in an Iranian port in the last 36 months and is not carrying Iranian oil, and to submit to an inspection to prove this. Failure to comply could result in serious fines and other penalties. Punitive measures might include the temporary seizure of the transporting vessel and "jailing" the boat for a set period, but confiscation of the oil without compensation should certainly be among these measures.

Using simple online tools, any intelligence agency, law enforcement official and even policymakers can track where oil tankers are docked. Some tools are available online for free (e.g., www.marinetraffic.com), while others require a subscription available through a Bloomberg financial terminal. All utilize the Automatic Identification System (AIS) that the International Maritime Organization requires every ship to have onboard to identify and locate other vessels electronically by exchanging data with them. This system prevents ships from colliding with one another, but it would also make it relatively easy to track which tankers are docking in Iranian ports.

Would requiring tankers to declare that they are not carrying Iranian oil and have not docked in an Iranian port really provide measurable policy impact? In short, the answer is yes. Non-Iranian tankers would need to choose between the US market and the Iranian market, and it is a safe bet that most would choose the American market. This would seriously impede Iran's ability to export its oil using non-Iranian tankers, which would leave only Iranian vessels, which are aging and also blacklisted. This, coupled with Iran's limited insurance and reinsurance options, is a significant one-two punch.

Going forward, lawmakers will need to close the crude oil loophole that enable the Iranian government to gain access to massive quantities of funds. Iran has yet to develop a nuclear weapon, but experts agree that sanctions have thus far only delayed their efforts, not crushed their ambitions.

We must strenuously utilize every peaceful tool we have available; going after Iran's crude may very well be the last non-military option left.

Spinning Obama's Peace Plan

2011-06-05T09:58:22-07:00

by Rachel Ehrenfeld June 5th 2011

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s attempted last week to reassure Israel that President Obama’s May 19^th speech was misconstrued; Mr. Obama’s repeated calls for Israel’s return to the 1967 lines grew out of his concern for the Jewish state, claimed the former White House Chief of Staff.

In his June 2nd Washington Post article, Mr. Emanuel echoed the president’s contention that “the hard realities of demography” threaten the survival of the Jewish state. Clearly, both anchored their arguments in the conjured estimates of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. A 2006 World Bank study found a “32% ‘inflation’ in the number of Arab births, ” alleged by the Palestinians.

A more recent comprehensive study on Jewish-Arab Demographic Trends in the Land of Israel, published earlier this year by Yakov Faitelson, found that “ in 2011 there is a 66% Jewish majority … in the combined area of pre-1967 Israel, Judea and Samaria.”

The study demonstrated that

“Despite 120 years of demographic calamity projections, the Jewish
population in the Land of Israel succeeded to grow from a 5% minority to a
60% majority.”
“In 2010, the Jewish fertility rate is 63% higher than Lebanon’s, 53%
higher than Iran’s, 33% higher than Turkey’s and Kuwait’s, 23% higher than
Saudi Arabia’s, slightly higher than Egypt’s and only 7% and 4% lower than
Jordan’s and Syria’s respectively.”
“Israeli Arab fertility rate has collapsed since the 1970s [due to a most
successful integration into the infrastructures of education, employment,
finance, politics, culture, sports, etc.]…It declined to 3.5 births per
woman in 2009.”
“In 1995, there were 2.34 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth. In 2009-10,
there were 3.12 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth.”
“The demographic trends within pre-1967 Israel are identical to those in
Judea and Samaria…but, in a much faster pace. The fertility rate of Judea
and Samaria Arabs dropped from 6.44 births per woman in 1990 to 3.12 births
in 2010…lower than Israeli Arabs and substantially lower than the Jewish
fertility rate in the Jerusalem region.”

As this study clearly documented, “the shifting sands of demography” in the Middle East work in favor of the Jewish state, not against it, as Mr. Emanuel argued.

To be sure, the “uncertainty brought by the Arab Spring,” does not add to the stability of the region. But dividing the Jewish state will do nothing to calm the demands for freedom by millions of oppressed Arabs, reform corrupt regimes, create new jobs, or lead to democracy. Instead, weakening Israel – the only democracy and unwavering ally of the United States in the Middle East – would encourage the highly indoctrinated, well-armed savage Islamic fundamentalist elements in the region to move from political extortion to physical attacks on the Jewish state, as well as other U.S. interests in the region, such as Saudi oil-fields.

Mr. Emanuel warns of the danger to Israel from “unilateral efforts to create a recognized state of Palestine.” But these are hardly “unilateral;” the Palestinians are joined by the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League, most OAS countries, as well as the Administration itself.

The U.S. is pressuring Israel to concede to the Palestinians under the pretext that a peace agreement will be based on “negotiations between the parties.” While the Administration is trying to dictate the Palestinian demands, the leaders of Palestinian Authority (PA) continue their refusal to come to the table. Mr. Obama’s repeated references to Israel’s confinement within the 1967 lines, led Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas yesterday, to agree “in principle” to attend the Paris meeting in July as suggested by French. Abbas accepted the French initiative because it “mirrored US President Barack Obama’s vision [for a Palestinian} state based on 1967 borders” as outlined in his speech in May.

The dangers posed by “technological advances in weaponry,” and likely use of these weapons by Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Egypt, are real. Forcing Israel back to the 1967 borders will limit the shrinking country’s ability to effectively defend itself. Statements such as “No peace can take place … that does not provide Israel with the ability to defend itself” add nothing to Israel’s security.

President Obama wants an independent Palestine to be “a non-militarized state.” It’s a bit late for that. The CIA has been training Palestinian “security” forces for decade. A General Accounting Office study released in May 2010 (GAO-10-505) reported that the United States has already spent more than “$400 million to train, equip, and build facilities for PA security forces.”

The president’s attempt to explain his intention in referencing the 1967 lines “that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967” is unconvincing. Obama is known to choose his words carefully and to mean what he says. However, repeating the “1967 lines” reinforces the notion that these were acceptable and legitimate borders.

The “Arab Spring” did not usher in more freedom and tolerance to the region. Instead, it intensified violence, intolerance and suppression, while the Arab/Muslim regimes continue their decades-long attempts to detract attention from their tyrannical rule by pointing the figure at Israel. The president’s allusion to Israel’s alleged role as a major destabilizing element in the Middle East, lends credence to the Arab/Muslim accusation. The Administration’s shifting attitude towards the uprisings, which contributed to the destabilization of the region, raises serious doubts about the U.S. “commitment to Israel’s security.”

Clearly, both Messrs. Emanuel and Obama overlook the growing worldwide skepticism towards American assurance.

*Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the N.Y. based American Center for Democracy, and author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It.

Follow the Drug Money to Cash-Intensive Enterprises

2011-05-22T11:43:12-07:00

I am posting this on behalf of Avi Jorisch:

Follow the Drug Money to Cash-Intensive Enterprises

by Avi Jorisch
Originally published in the Albuquerque Journal
May 8, 2011

The southwest border of the United States presents significant law enforcement challenges. New Mexico's border, especially, is a hub for smuggling of contraband and cash, both of which are laundered, to a large degree, via businesses that pose a high risk because they are small and operate on a cash basis.

Law enforcement authorities and New Mexico's state government should consider creative steps to curb illicit activity.

A sparsely populated state with limited geographic barriers to illegal cross-border activity, New Mexico presents real topographical challenges in the war on drugs and money laundering.

The three official ports of entry and six additional checkpoints along a 180-mile border of mostly uninhabited desert, coupled with the state's extensive road network, allow criminals and drug traffickers easy access to the state and ultimately to destinations around the country.

New Mexico's territory is regularly violated by smugglers who ship controlled substances by car, aircraft, bus and rail. Drug traffickers transmit a wide variety of drugs over these routes, including cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.

Three interstate highways provide easy access to other parts of the country: I-10 and I-40 provide east/west access from California to the East Coast, while I-25 provides north/south access from Las Cruces to Colorado and Wyoming.

These arterials, along with others, facilitate transfer of drugs into the U.S. and of the proceeds of crime into Latin America. While these illgotten gains are extremely difficult to trace, it is known that money is often laundered through cash-intensive businesses, money service bureaus, banks and legitimate businesses.

It is important to understand that in 2009, businesses with five employees or fewer constituted more than 85 percent of the corporations in the southern half of the state, including Albuquerque, and these "small" businesses generated over $15 billion in annual sales volume.

Money service businesses, sometimes called casas de cambio, are popular in New Mexico. Las Cruces alone has over 200 of these "banking" facilities, and many operate from private residences and offices. Other similar-sized cities average five to 10 such facilities.

Most money service businesses are not registered with state and federal government authorities or FDIC insured. State officials should consider starting a campaign against unregistered money service businesses to get a large bang for their buck.

New Mexico also has 14 Native American casinos that process billions of dollars annually, and the industry is almost entirely unregulated by state and federal authorities.

In 2009, New Mexico's casino/gaming establishment earned more than $454 million in revenue, much of it in cash. While this is not necessarily nefarious, the lack of regulation is a major hole in the financial industry.

Better compliance by casinos and sharing of information with law enforcement can be incentivized, and there are several resources these casinos can avail themselves of, including the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which issues guidance to casinos around the country.

Finally, the transportation sector poses a tremendous risk.

New Mexico's vast road network provides easy access to casinos, banks and money service bureaus. Illicit goods and the proceeds of crime flow easily into and out of the U.S. because of New Mexico's location along the border. In 2009, more than 3,100 transportation companies operated in the southern portion of the state. New Mexico's government should bolster its involvement in and funding of projects like Operation Firewall, a joint Customs and Border Protection/Immigration and Customs enforcement initiative that has netted almost $500 million in smuggled cash.

As Santa Fe considers the most effective way to muster its resources to fight drugs and money laundering, it will be crucial to destroy the infrastructure with which illicit actors launder their money and move their contraband.

Going forward, government policymakers and law enforcement officials will need to employ an effective strategy that hits drug trafficking organizations where it hurts. As the old adage goes, follow the money.

Bin Laden And al Qaeda’s Secrets

2011-05-14T14:52:41-07:00

by Rachel Ehrenfeld May 14th 2011

Talking on the CBS show “60 Minutes,” President Obama noted: “It’s going to take some time for us to exploit the intelligence that we were able to gather on site” during the raid in which Osama bin Laden was killed. This information, according to Mr. Obama, gives the U.S. a chance “to…really deliver a fatal blow [to Al Qaeda], if we follow through aggressively in the months to come.”

The United States intelligence agencies reliance on labor-intensive, time-consuming and inefficient methods to decipher the captured electronic devices and paper documents. The delay has allowed al Qaeda operatives and many of its budding affiliates to relocate, change their identity and communication methods, diminishing the U.S. ability to act upon the intelligence contain in the trove, The window of opportunity to destroy the organization and its global metastasizes, has significantly shrunk.

This event demonstrates the need for a more efficient process to mine the tens of millions of documents – electronic and print – which are seized or intercepted annually in different languages by U.S. intelligence, military, and law enforcement agencies. There is an urgent need to extract information of high intelligence value contained in such documents rapidly and efficiently, and to pass the intelligence on for operational exploitation.

The current Document Exploitation (DOCEX) method, including automated translation and categorization technologies, suffers from several major deficiencies: focus on an inefficient key word spotting techniques, long processing times, and a high rate of false negatives and positives. Moreover, the automated translation tools are still unsuitable for the sophisticated language of neo-classical Arabic used by Islamist terrorists such as al-Qaeda. Similarly, categorization technologies do not meet the challenge of analyzing sophisticated, culturally sensitive nuances. Poorly translated and categorized documents of course cause the loss of crucial actionable and preventative intelligence.

To address such problems, IntuView, an Israeli company, has developed revolutionary software that can process large volumes of digital documents related to Islamic terrorism very quickly. The software instantly assesses any digital document in a supported language (Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, etc.), determines its relevance and risk rating, and provides an intelligence analysis report based, for example, on the content of the document, including classification, date of writing, type of document, author, region, ideological, ethnical and religious affiliation, and a summary of the content, based on a sophisticated “artificial intuition” program. The summary integrates the implicit meaning of religious concepts, verses from religious and ideological texts, and historical allusions. The software integrates the information about entities (individuals, organizations, etc.) mentioned in the documents to create a virtual “identity card” of the person behind that name: possible affiliations, name variants, ethnic origin, gender, family/tribal links, etc., aggregating and matching information found in multiple entries and identifying links (family, tribe) between the entities.

This software implements linguistic programs that look for entities in the texts that could be “ideas”, “actions”, “persons” “groups,” etc. An idea may be composed of statements in different parts of the document, which are revealed only when combined. This “idea” is tagged with a unique meaning (as opposed to words which may have different meanings in different contexts). The user then receives an executive summary in English detailing what the document is about, who wrote it, when it was written, who it is for, who it is directed against, etc.

Allusions from cultural or religiously oriented quotes, such verses from the Qur’an which “mean” in al-Qaeda documents permission for attacks, are extracted. And a sophisticated program aggregates information on individuals mentioned in the documents matching them with the database of the user. If categorization, translation and analysis of 1000 documents take over 200 man-days using normal methods, the same process takes less than 2 hours with this system. Some U.S. military, border control and law enforcement agencies are already using this software, but that process has yet to be fully utilized. The sooner this software can be made available and widely applied, the better for our national security.

A variant dedicated to terrorist financing by legal and illegal entities in now being developed in cooperation with the New York based American Center for Democracy (ACD). The financial intelligence software will help expose and prevent the use of legal and laundered money to penetrate and undermine the U.S. economy, and enhance the intelligence capabilities of the military, law enforcement and business communities.

Bio: Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of the ACD. She is the author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It.

It's Time to Get Serious about the Tri-Border Region

2011-05-12T00:32:43-07:00

I am posting this on behalf of Avi Jorisch:

It's Time to Get Serious about the Tri-Border Region

Originally published in the Buenos Aires Herald
May 8, 2011

By Avi Jorisch

The Tri-Border Area (TBA) along the junction of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay is a hotbed of illegal activity that includes money launderers, arms traffickers, counterfeiters, drug traffickers, and terrorists. In fact, it is one of the most dangerous places in the world. According to a recent U.S. Government study, this area annually generates over $6 billion of illicit money and is nearly devoid of all governmental control.

Given the combination of a porous border and known terrorist activity, the TBA has quietly become a top priority for U.S. policymakers since the September 11 attacks. According to former FBI director Louis Freeh, the area is a "free zone for significant criminal activity, including people who are organized to commit acts of terrorism." Numerous U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies believe that many of the area's approximately 20,000 Muslim and Arab residents give financial support to groups such as Hizballah, Hamas, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda. South American and U.S. officials have concluded that money raised in the TBA is used to finance training camps, propaganda operations, and bomb attacks in South America.

Yet all three TBA governments generally deny the problem, claiming that they have not detected terrorist activity or cells in the region. Counterterrorism officials from other countries disagree, with the U.S. and Israel reportedly going so far as to dispatch CIA and Mossad operatives to the region to neutralize what they believe could be an imminent terrorist threat.

Hizballah is perhaps the most active terrorist group in the TBA, and its role there has been extensively documented. For example, a U.S. congressional report stated that the group "clearly derives a quite substantial amount of income from its various illicit activities in the TBA." The organization reportedly used the TBA to plan and finance two major terrorist attacks in Buenos Aires, the 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy and the 1994 attack on the city's main Jewish community center.

Twice in recent years, the U.S. Treasury Department has taken action against Hizballah in the TBA. In 2006, Adam Szubin, Director of the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) charged that Assad Ahmad Barakat was a "major financial artery to Hizballah in Lebanon." That same year, the Treasury Department designated nine individuals and two businesses in the region for providing financial and logistical support to Hizballah.

What can the three TBA countries and the international community do to reduce illicit activity in the TBA? First, while Brazil and Argentina, after tremendous international pressure, have criminalized financing of terrorism, Paraguay has yet to do so. This represents a significant challenge to counter-terrorism and anti-money-laundering efforts, and the Argentinean government and its allies should stress how important it is for Paraguay to implement this type of reform.

The financial industry should also be marshaled into action. Banks in Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay, in addition to major financial institutions around the world, should carry out enhanced due diligence on all transactions emanating from the TBA. These countries should also force their banks to implement strict controls to prevent abuse of the financial industry. A significant number of financial institutions operate in the zone, and most are complicit to some degree in the illicit activity. For example, Ciudad del Este, in the Paraguayan part of the TBA, reportedly has 55 different banks and foreign exchange houses, despite a population of only 300,000. Since other cities of similar size average 5-10 banking facilities, this appears to indicate that many of those institutions are involved in illicit activity.

The three TBA countries may wish to emulate a successful U.S. law enforcement model known as High Intensity Financial Crime Areas (HIFCAs) and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs). These "areas" were conceived as a means of concentrating law enforcement efforts—investigations, analysis, and prosecution—in regions with significant illicit activity. The creation of such zones has historically proven effective in curbing illicit activity. The U.S. government should offer massive foreign aid to encourage TBA governments to undertake this initiative.

Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay can do much more to confront the threat of illicit financial activity. Implementation of measures to detect and prevent such activity, coupled with a robust ability to enforce financial controls, is vital if the international community is to make serious headway against money laundering and terrorism financing.

Is Iran looking to Africa to secure uranium ore?

2011-05-11T07:02:08-07:00

I'm posting this article on behalf of Avi Jorisch:

Is Iran looking to Africa to secure uranium ore?

by Avi Jorisch
Originally published in United Press International
May 3, 2011

Recently the United States pledged to provide more than $1 billion in aid to Africa before the end of the fiscal year. But another transaction is brewing, between Iran and Zimbabwe, that has received far less interest but could have a far larger impact on U.S. foreign policy.

According to intelligence reports recently leaked by the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran is looking to a number of African countries in an effort to secure uranium, a key mineral in building nuclear weapons.

It has been nearly a year since the United States and its allies strengthened economic sanctions against Iran in an effort to force the Islamic Republic to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Thus far, these measures have yielded mixed results. As Iran continues to expand its nuclear program, it will be seeking countries around the world that can provide it with additional uranium, since it doesn't possess great quantities itself.

Naturally, the poorest and least-regulated countries that have this mineral will serve as the richest targets.

The United States and its allies must make clear to those countries that are considering providing Iran with uranium that doing so would have severe economic and diplomatic consequences.

One of the most effective ways to achieve nuclearization is relatively simple: obtaining ample supplies of enriched uranium. Normally, centrifuges that contain uranium are spun to extract uranium hexafluoride -- also known as uranium ore or yellow cake -- which can be used both as reactor fuel and for arming nuclear missiles. All intelligence seems to suggest that Iran doesn't have significant domestic supplies of uranium. This ultimately means that unless Iran secures foreign supplies, its enrichment efforts will slow down.

Iran has started to scour the Earth in search of countries that possess uranium deposits, searching in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Recently, the Islamic Republic has made a full-court press in Africa in particular and Iranian engineers have reportedly mapped out all the uranium deposits on the continent to assist in assessing which countries are most likely to sell them the coveted mineral.

Iran has reportedly decided that Congo, Nigeria, Senegal and Zimbabwe are the countries with uranium that are most likely to do business with it. Iran appears to have targeted Zimbabwe as its most promising source of uranium.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Harare in April 2010 and, according to the media, he expressed personal interest in Zimbabwe's uranium. Ahmadinejad has followed up with President Robert Mugabe but the talks have stalled over the most effective way of extracting Zimbabwe's uranium without raising undue international attention.

While Zimbabwe has approximately 455,000 tons of uranium at Kanyemba, a site north of Harare, it isn't near existing mining operations. Zimbabwe's government is loath to start uranium mining, which would inevitably lead to additional punishing sanctions against the country. Both the United Nations and United States have a robust sanctions regime against the government of Mugabe, who has been in power for more than 30 years.

In recent months, there have been reports that Iran has secured the mining rights for Zimbabwe's uranium. Zimbabwe's minister of state for presidential affairs, Didymus Mutasa, reportedly signed the agreement in Tehran last year. In return for uranium, Harare is said to have secured oil and cash to help its economy.

While Mugabe has denied these claims, he has stated that Iran can apply for such privileges at any time.

Washington should closely monitor this connection between Iran and Zimbabwe and, if it determines that Iran is beginning to mine or secure uranium deposits from Harare, the U.S. government should engage in a full-court diplomatic press and employ a wide array of existing financial sanctions against companies and institutions that aid in Iran's illicit efforts to obtain yellow cake.

Going forward, policymakers around the world will need to be vigilant in tracking Iran's efforts to secure uranium.

Iran has yet to develop a nuclear weapon, but experts agree that sanctions have thus far only delayed its efforts, not quelled its ambitions. If the Islamic Republic succeeds in securing large quantities of uranium that can ultimately be converted into yellow cake, this would most likely be the nail in the coffin in the West's efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Note to banks: beware of your clients

2011-05-05T13:02:08-07:00

by Avi Jorisch

Originally published in the Korea JoongAng Daily
April 28, 2011

Last week, the United States blacklisted the North Korean Bank of East Land, also known as Dongbang Bank, for facilitating weapons-related transactions and supporting a well-known arms manufacturer. This is the latest in a series of steps taken by the United States in recent years to pursue financial institutions that are operated by rogue regimes, including Iran, Syria, Sudan and Venezuela.

South Korean banks are either wittingly or unknowingly assisting Iran, and to a lesser degree, North Korea, to circumvent international financial sanctions in their attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Given the important regional role South Korea plays and its relationship with the United States, Seoul should take action to prevent abuse of its financial sector.

The United Nations and the United States have taken steps to isolate both North Korean and Iranian entities suspected of facilitating the purchase of illegal goods via the international financial system. The U.N., for example, has blacklisted North Korean Tanchon Commercial Bank and four Iranian banks for their role in proliferating weapons of mass destruction - the Sepah, Melli and Mellat banks, and the First East Export Bank.

The U.S. has taken additional measures and has blacklisted virtually the rest of the North Korean and Iranian banking sector for engaging in money laundering, weapons proliferation, narcotics trafficking and terrorism.

Most banks around the world have exited the North Korean and Iranian financial markets for fear of facilitating illicit activity or facing U.S. government fines. North Korea is finding it difficult to conduct any kind of financial transaction. In 2005, after the U.S. blacklisted Macau's Banco Delta Asia for its connection to North Korea's illicit activity, the world's financial institutions distanced themselves from Pyongyang.

Elsewhere around the world, more than 80 financial institutions, including giants such as Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank, have reportedly completely cut off or significantly reduced their relationship with the Islamic republic. More specifically, major international financial institutions that once provided credit lines to Iran's commodities industry have reportedly stopped. In particular, Iran is finding it increasingly difficult to get banks to process oil and gas payments, which represents about 80 percent of the Islamic republic's export revenue.

Traditionally, South Korea has walked a tightrope in its connection to Iran and North Korea, balancing its own economic interests with a desire to please the West and ultimately choosing to act as a responsible member of the international community. The U.S. and South Korea have long been allies and Seoul has tried to satisfy Washington's policy objectives vis-a-vis rogue regimes.

But now, it appears that South Korea is helping both Tehran and Pyongyang circumvent sanctions. For example, South Korean Hana Bank, which is on a U.S. Treasury Department list of entities facilitating North Korea's illicit activity, is operating openly in Seoul.

South Korea also maintains a healthy economic relationship with Iran, valued at about $10 billion per annum. According to reports, there are 2,000 small and medium-sized South Korean businesses operating in Iran, and 25 mega-corporations. Iran remains South Korea's fourth-largest supplier of crude oil.

According to the international press, South Korean Woori Bank and the Industrial Bank of Korea are clearing South Korean oil payments on behalf of Iran. In order to avoid a trade war, these banks reportedly are not conducting business directly with Iran but are dealing instead with non-Iranian banks in Asia and the UAE who do maintain such a relationship. In Seoul there is also a branch of Bank Mellat, which, as mentioned earlier, is blacklisted by the UN and the U.S.

Those doing business with Iranian banks are on notice. The United States in particular has cracked down hard. All international banks operating in the U.S. must choose between the American financial market and its Iranian counterpart.

South Korean policy makers may wish to consider closing the loopholes that enable certain banks to provide illicit actors with the means to conduct their activities and maintain their infrastructure. Washington is watching closely Iran's march toward becoming a nuclear power and doing everything in its power to stop it from succeeding. While the U.S. greatly values its relationship with South Korea, those facilitating Iran's nuclearization should choose wisely.

CAIR helps Shia Imam Nabi Raza Mir return to US

2011-05-03T05:29:17-07:00

By Lee Kaplan

Federal Judge allows California Imam with suspected links to Hezbollah back into US despite Homeland Security objections.

Nabi Raza Mir (a.k.a. Nabi Raza Abidi) is the Imam of The Shia Association of the Bay Area (SABA) Mosque, an Islamic center located in the heart of the Silicon Valley, in San Jose, California. SABA’s leadership has been known to endorse the anti-American Khomeinist regime in Iran and the activities of the Lebanon-based international terrorist group Hezbollah.

The Northern California mosque’s previous imam, a man named Rafic Labboun, is currently in US prison for credit card fraud that may be linked to fund-raising activities by Hezbollah for money raised in the United States for use abroad as a part of the terrorist group’s activities. Nabi Raza Mir, who has been Labboun’s replacement since 2002, but is not yet a US citizen, left the US temporarily with his family late December, 2010 allegedly to visit his sick mother, but was denied admittance back into the US for his return by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The United States Government did this ostensibly because of his open ties and support of the Khomeini regime in Iran.

So, does Nabi Raza Mir really pose a threat to national security?

It is important to understand where this mullah comes from and the movement he and his relatives spouse from the SABA Islamic Center. Mir’s first permanent residence petition (an I-360 document in U.S. Immigration parlance) was filed by the Shia Association of the Bay Area in 2004 and was repeatedly denied up to as late as December 2006 under the Bush administration. A second I-360 petition to grant him permanent US residence was applied for by SABA back in June of 2007, one year before President Obama took office and was denied in November of that same year. An appeal was filed by SABA and after wending its way through the US courts for three years (Mir was still practicing as the imam and running his business in the Silicon Valley Mosque during this whole time) it was denied in 2011 under the new Obama Administration. If the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Obama Administration also felt he was a security risk, there must have been more to this cleric than meets the eye. In fact, part of this denial was based on new anti-terrorism laws designed to keep individuals with potential terrorism links out of the United States.

Needless to say, Attorney General Eric Holder’s passion for wanting to get the Gitmo detainees released should suggest that if even he also wants Mir kept out of the country there must be a good reason for it. As mentioned, Mir comes from a remote village in India called Alipur that is a Khomeinist stronghold with strong allegiances to the Iranian regime. He has been staying there pending his legal appeals along with his wife, Gulshan Zahera, and their three younger sons who were also named as plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the US government. Judge Jeremy Fogel handed down a stipulation agreed to by Mir’s lawyers and US Attorney Melissa S. Liebman just a few days ago that will allow the Khomeinist mullah and his family to come back to California.

The Shia Association of the Bay Area is also working hard behind the scenes to try to get Rafic Labboun released early from prison. That the Shiite Mosque would seek to import another impassioned Hezbollah activist and supporter of the Iranian regime should be alarming enough, but their attempts to release a convicted man, a criminal, with links to a terrorist organization reveal motives that go against the security of every American. Members of the Mosque even distributed a music video calling for Labboun’s release with an image of an armed Malcolm X in the visuals that is very disturbing.

The original lawsuit seeking to allow Nabi Raza Mir back into the United States was filed by the Mosque with the help of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), according to the Mosque’s website. CAIR has been accused of being a Hamas front by members of Congress and is mainly Sunni Moslem inspired. Sunnis and Shiites, as two different sects of Islam do not normally agree, but have been cooperating together in this case because of their mutual animus toward Israel and against the United States.

The legal case was filed as a writ of mandamus, a specific lawsuit that seeks to have government ministers or officials adhere to strict interpretations of the law to fulfill specific functions. In this case, Nabi Raza Mir and his family, it was alleged, were being prevented from returning to the US based on new anti-terrorism laws that Homeland Security sought to use to keep the imam out of the US as a security threat. However, the lawyers for Mir successfully argued that this clergyman should be subject to laws as they were written at the time Mir applied for residency in the United States. Federal Judge Jeremy Fogel agreed with San Francisco attorneys Christine Brigagliano and Marc Vanderhout, both immigration attorneys from the firm representing SABA Mosque, that such was the case.

It should come as no surprise that Mr. Vanderhout and Ms. Brigagliano, Nabi Raza Mir’s attorneys, are both members, and Vanderhout has even been a past president of, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a radical legal organization some historians have stated was originally started in the 1930’s by Josef Stalin to shield the American communist party from investigations by the US government. The NLG has in the past been described as a subversive organization by authorities within the US government and the organization currently throws its support behind Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and is an integral part of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a communist-anarchist front for the Palestinian revolution. The legal organization is even mentioned in ISM training manuals as a resource to be used to help bring down Israel.

The National Lawyers Guild makes as its purpose to support America’s enemies within US borders, so Vanderhout’s and Brigagliano’s affiliations with the organization should come as no surprise. This makes sense since as one prominent NLG member and Rutgers University School of Law Professor Arthur Kinoy has argued that “the role of the radical lawyer was to facilitate the coming anti-capitalist revolution by weakening the law’s ability to function effectively against law-breaking radicals.” The two attorneys representing Nabi Raza Mir and his family held that Homeland Security’s concerns for the safety of US citizens should not be enforceable based on newer counter terrorism laws because he wasn’t considered a security threat before. Judge Jeremy Fogel apparently agreed.

Sajjad Mir, another individual from the same clan as Nabi Raza Mir, is the Chairman of the Shia Association of the Bay Area and the CEO of a Silicon Valley firm called Hastest Solutions, Inc., with offices located in the same building as the Mosque in an industrial area of San Jose, California. Hastest Solutions tests the viability of products and systems of other companies and has even been involved with high security U.S. military weapons systems produced by the Raytheon Corporation. A similar case involving businesses owned by individuals who support regimes that suborn terrorism having access to sensitive government groups or projects within the US involved the SAAR Foundation prosecutions where supporters of Al Qaeda held religious offices and private businesses also in the same buildings in Northern Virginia. The difference this time, is that while the SAAR Foundation was made up of Sunni Moslems who were supporters of Hamas and Al Qaeda, some who developed relationships in the US government and FBI, the SABA Mosque is open in its support of the Shia Moslems in Iran and of Khomeini’s revolutionary government that declares the United States the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Minor Satan.” Terrorism support entities when ultimately proven and prosecuted in the US usually follow the same patterns of behavior, infiltration, indoctrination and subversion. In the event the US goes to war with Iran, there certainly could be the possibility of some individuals indoctrinated by the SABA Mosque’s leadership joining internal cadres in the US to attack from within. Loyalty to the US is totally absent at SABA Mosque, but allegiance to the regime of Ali Khameini in Iran exists there. Reverend Jeremiah Wright isn’t the only religious leader who refuses to say, “God Bless America.”

According to a news flash on the SABA Mosque’s website newsletter , “Our beloved Leader/Imam Maulana Nabi Raza Mir (Abidi), was unfairly forced to stay in India by US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) while he was visiting his critically ill mother. SABA is filing a case in the district court to order DHS to allow him to return home to be with his family and the community."

Speaking of family, the main allies of Nabi Raza Mir in the SABA Mosque back in Alipur are his relatives with the same physical traits and political points of view. A recent video that appears on You Tube featured one of Mir’s close relatives in Alipur giving an inflammatory speech in support of the Ali Khameini regime in Iran and screaming “Kaybar, Kaybar, Ya Yahud!” an exhortation to exterminate the Jews referring to a historical passage in the Koran where Mohammed wiped out a Jewish community and beheaded its male population. The speaker in the video is Qayeem Abbas who is another imam in Alipur and a family relative of Mir’s. Another Toronto-based imam under the watch of Canadian intelligence and known Hezbollah sympathizer, Zaki Baqri, is also related to Mir. All these men are members of the so-called "Sadat" caste as recognized back in Alipur, which openly seeks to dominate and rule the world and sees it as their right to do so. Both mullahs carry the titles "Syed" (Arabic/Persian/Urdu for “master”) and "Maulana" (Arabic for "our lord") as evidenced the Mosque’s newsletter. In this bizarre system, there are two classes of people: Masters and non-masters. So if these are the masters, what are they teaching the non-masters in their holy mosques to think and do?

The You Tube video, shot in Alipur that is not in English, also ends with Mir’s relations calling for the destruction of America as the Great Satan and “Death to Israel” as the Lesser Satan. It should be noted there are no Jews living in Alipur where this demonstration took place, that the call to exterminate Jews is in following with the Khomeinist regime’s programming from Tehran. Religious leaders from the SABA Mosque have been reported to have made comments disparaging of Christians and Jews at times during sermons and invitations for religious speakers who are known to be virulently anti-Semitic are the norm. Some of these have included Abdul Malik Ali, an imam from Oakland who calls for genocide against Jews on US campuses such as UC Irvine, as well as Abdul Alim Musa, a former Oakland drug lord turned Shiite Imam who converted in prison and who has stated his goal is to instill a Khomeinist regime as found in Iran here in the United States.

Nabi Raza Mir, while practicing as the imam at the SABA Mosque, before leaving for Alipur, also had expressed praise and regret at the passing of Mullah Sayyed Fallalah who was credited with ordering the bombing of the US marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, costing the lives of over 241 US military personnel in what many consider to be the major first terror attack assignment by Hezbollah. At political and religious events in the San Jose area, SABA Mosque leaders have been photographed frequently wearing the paraphernalia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps or of the Basij, both the military wings and enforcers of the dictatorial regime in Iran. Average Americans do not understand the symbolism of Basij scarves or keffiyehs or may think they represent the Palestinian evolution. But many exiled Iranians do know their meaning as identifiers of the secret police back in Iran or Hezbollah.

Dearborn, Michigan, is no longer the only most major center of Hezbollah activity in the United States; Nabi Raza Mir arrived back in the US on April 25th to be hosted at a special reception at the SABA Mosque on Thursday, April 28th as San Jose which now vows for that same distinction.